Return to the Harlan Ellison Home Page
Rick Wyatt <webmaster@harlanellison.com>
I am aware of this board's importance as a gathering place for a mostly positive and eclectic community. I'm proud to have been a part of that.
However, the board has also become a source of stress and insult to Harlan. I am going to have to consider how I can support the community and still have a place Harlan can participate in without dealing with all the garrulousness and pit-fighting.
Until then, and at least through Easter, I'm suspending board posting. I have fought Harlan for a long, long time about keeping this place around but I finally agree with him - something needs to change.
The Art Deco pavilion will remain open until someone violates the spirit of that place, which probably won't take long. Your thoughts on what steps we can take next are welcome there or in e-mail.
To Alex Jay: Gospel's nice, but I can't quite get into it the same way I can "get into" blues. Gopspel blues, I can really dig: ever heard Blind Willie Johnson? And I love "Spirit in the Sky."
Thanks for the heads-up on Anne Frank fanfic. New dimensions of "ghastly" have now been charted.
Re Shatner: Okay, I know our host has had bad dealings with him in the past. But I like the guy-- at a distance. Probably wouldn't like him close-up. I like the fact that he's parlayed a moribund acting career into a mini-industry, and turned himself into a pretty decent comic actor. He has cultivated a familiar, funny, and affection-attracting something that can only be called his Shatner-ness, which is actually distinct from his rep as Captain kirk.
Its high point may have been on _Third Rock_, watching him at Lithgow working together, which may have been surpassed only by John Cleese's appearance on that show. But then there's Ed Norton's line in _Fight Club_: "Shatner. I'd fight William Shatner." (None of this means I'd buy his friggin' record album. I take him in the small doses afforded by random TV watching. Anything more than that, well, that'd be crazy.)
Oh, as for Passover, I attended a modest seder last night. Bitter herbs... yecch. Why couldn't they come up with, "And instead of bitter herbs, to remind us of our time in bondage, we will eat Peanut Chews and Fritos and Mallomars, so we can live well and say FUCK YOU to Pharoah, 'cause _that_ motherfucker's dust in the sand, and he ain't never gonna taste anything as good as a Mallomar."
Frolic Pizzicato, everyone.
The Anti-Christ is Eminem, who calls himself "Rabbit" in that fool movie. String HIM up. It allll makes sense now.... Then again, so does the "Kill Harlan Fans" statement. If I ever see one on the side of the road, I'll tell him to push off, along with the Raven, and The Buddha.
Jesus, bless me and keep me as far away from your followers as possible.
Froylika Pesach to those who celebrate Passover.
Happy Easter to those who celebrate the Mystery of the Resurrection.
Happy Vernal Holidays for those who don't share those particular faiths.
Bern
HARLAN,
Ditto.
Happy Passover to one and all.
Alex Jay - if Christ is the Rabbit, is Bugs Bunny the Antichrist?
Rob - I suspect that the lost minutes of "Lost Horizon" are out there, somewhere - film prints wind up in closets and collections in the four corners of the world every day. Back in '96, a former film projectionist coughed up a near-mint nitrate print of a 1912 silent feature film version of "Richard III" (now in the AFI archives at the Library of Congress). Hell, even copies of episodes of "Doctor Who" that the BBC wiped or otherwise lost have turned up in storage rooms in Australia, Nigeria and Crete (and in at least one case, a car boot sale in Buckinghamshire). I have to believe there's one complete original "Lost Horizon" print stacked in its cans, sitting somewhere in a storage closet, as lost as Shangri-la itself...
Alas, while I may still be a Finder in spirit (if not name), I ain't THAT good... [shuffles feet to kick print of Lon Chaney's "London After Midnight" under bed]
I'd wager there are collectors in the greater Los Angeles area who could fill in the blanks - Ronald Haver's book on the making of 1954's "A Star Is Born" and its restoration in 1983 gives some interesting insight into the Hollywood film collecting underground. They don't surrender their treasures easily.
?????? (Hell of a gap between Archival and Most Recent Postings: I was, and still am only going to respond to lonegungirl and the Shatner comments.)
I haven't enjoyed Shatner since he's put on this persona now that he was in on his... appeal... the whole time.
The last thing I liked him in was 3rd Rock, when, as The Big Giant Head he complained he hated flying on airplanes because the last time he was on one he kept seeing something on the wing.
Then Lithgow's jaw drops: "THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO ME!!!"
I'm watching his "hair" apparent, William Petersen, on CSI. Captain Kirk with a hearing problem. You can tell when he's 'motivated' to bring out the hearing problem, because he'll walk around with this "rain man" gait while he's overacting.
See, now I'm posting like an idiot. But Alex Jay's post really resonates with me. The other thing I neglected to mention is that one reason I think the Psalms work so well as blues is because the point of view of the Psalms is often in the first person. The psalmists express the pain and joy of life as well as the grandeur of G-d in very personal terms. King David has been a lifelong muse for me.
And yeah, improvisation, baby! Make it up as you go along!
"Sing God a simple song,
Laude, lauday (sp?)
Make it up as you go along
Laude, laudei (still doesn't look right)
Sing like you like to sing
God loves all simple things
For God is the simplest of all...." ("Simple Song" from Leonard Bernstein's MASS)
PS, Alex: Best wishes to you on your "mission from God"! I know the Blues Brothers would approve. Let's hope the Rabbi digs it, too! You could change Jewish musical history forever!
I bet the blues sounds cool in Hebrew!
Alex Jay: I have perceived the Psalms as Jewish Blues for several years now. In January, I organized a jazz eucharist for the Episcopal church at Cornell and set the Psalm as a minor blues with a built in antiphon for the people to sing along. It was completely natural and effective.
I know at least one atheist New York Jew who also loves Gospel music. He's a voracious music fan (I know him from jazz circles).
Have you ever seen SAY AMEN, SOMEBODY? I remember seeing it in high school at the art house and I remember overhearing someone say, "That stuff almost makes you want to believe."
RICK: ... unless the "it" to be "done" is the killing of the board, of course.
LYNN: It's funny. I practice Judaism a few holidays out of the year, know virtually all the prayers, and identify myself very strongly as being a Jew.
But I will admit to a deep fondness for gospel music.
(A quick plug--the blues-gospel band The Holmes Brothers are AMAZING. Listening to their songs [their most recent album was produced by Joan Osborne a big fan of both the blues and of gospel, by the by] will get me rocking and fanning myself and singing along. I'm pretty sure even the most ardent Jainist would get up and start stomping to the Jesus music they perform, heedless of any small living things which may be under his feet)
Maybe because of my love for the blues and for sweet soul, and an acknowledgment that gospel is a friving force behind those forms of music, but I do love me some deep soul-felt gospel.
And I set to thinking: Most of the hymns Jews chant in shul are, though five to fifteen hundred years old, just Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the call-and-response chants which could be heard on the cotton farms and sharecropped plantations of a hundred-odd years ago.
So I thought--why not Jewish gospel?
("Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum doesn't count)
Hebrew has enough sibilants and drawn-out vowels to perfectly suit a blues vocal feel. And the racial memories of suffering and persecution are just as hard-wired for us as they were for descendants of the Delta life.
So I tried it out on my admittedly-somewhat-square parents tonight on our non-seder Pesach dinner. I did the Four Questions ("Why is this night different from all other nights ...?"--in Hebrew, Mah-neesh-tah-nah hah-lye-lah ha-zeh; mee-kole ha-lye-lot") to a mostly different tune as an a capella blues.
My mother blinked.
"You know ..." She groped for the words. "... that really sounded GOOD."
So I'm thinking. When I get called to the bimah ("dais"/"altar") for an aliyah (blessing) for my mother's upcoming adult Bat Mitzvah, the cantor knows I have a strong voice and may just ask me to do one of the prayers besides the simple Torah blessing I'll be doing with my sister. I'll ask him if I can do it my way--giving him a demonstration.
I just may succeed in bringing gospel blues to Yentaville ...
(Of course, if they ask me afterward what tune it was I was singing, I won't be able to say--I make stuff up as I go along.)
Jim D.,
"The truth? I'm so fucking disgusted with her transparent and PATHETIC attempt to humiliate Harlan"
Otherwise known as the Tautology of Folie.
BTW, Doug...
(Talk about delayed responses, following up your post about the missing MAG AMBERSONS)
Having seen your post only now...when you know where the lost bits from LOST HORIZON have gone...pul-EEEZE let us know. It would beat the shit out of bad stills plugged in with a soundtrack and I wouldn't have to grate on Harlan's nerves with my whining about it anymore (masterpieces must be whole in their visual poetry not mutilated by neglect!). Just call me the Ahab of archival dereliction.
How angry am I? I wrote the tautology "a cursory glance," that's how angry.
(Have a Happy Easter and a froylika Pesach, everyone.)
When I replied to Barney, I'd only given Diana's post a cursory glance.
Now I've read it. In full.
Rick, let me second Harlan's request. Do it--whatever "it" is--till it can't be done any more.
The truth? I'm so fucking disgusted with her transparent and PATHETIC attempt to humiliate Harlan, I'm seeing purple.
Harlan: your Easter regards make me willing to cop to being a Christian.
"Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus is just alright, oh yeah, Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus is just alright" Oooh, yeah! Great worship songs of the Doobies! Righteous!
I have become a C&E Christian at least where the Episcopalians are concerned. That's when their music is best. I find that I'm much more into Unitarian style of worship because they're not so hung up on what I believe as long as I'm doing something constructive with it.
Chuck: your milk-miracle made me LOL!!!
Miss my kids but had a great night out with the husband tonight. Syracuse is not such a bad little city. I want to write a song for it, but the 'Cuse Muse hasn't been clanging any bells....
Anne Frank fanfic?
Okay, *now* I've heard everything.
L.
I swears t'th'All Mighty, you just can't tell how a day is going to begin n'end in this place.
Harlan,
Well, before Rick DOES it...allow me to wish you and Susan a Happy Passover in return.
And if I need to cover my bases, happy Spike A Kike Day as well (LOL).
My Best, As Always.
Jay,
Like right on, maaaaan. I hear your pain. SULU SUCKS!
CINDY: I'm doing just fine, thanks. Busy, as usual. Sorry to hear your birthday was a rough patch in your week. Glad to see you're back in high spirits, though. And I'm happy that last year's roses are still making memories (I was going to send you a fresh batch, but I misplaced your address -- I'd fire my office manager, but after 43 years, I seem to have grown attached to him). Hey, let me know if there's another email I should contact you at; I was gonna send a note, so you have my address once you finish the "Willie Parmenter" story. Time to hit the hay. Happy Easter to you and yours, and Froeliche Pesach to all the "kosher" people on the board.
--DTS
AND TO EVERYONE ELSE:
A very contented and comfortable Easter wish from Susan and me.
Do not mistake my inability to pass up an opportunity to get off a sizzler, as even the faintest disrespect for Jesus of Nazareth
-- whom I consider a very cool role model, howsomever his philo-
sophy and person have been shanghied through the centuries by
satraps and sycophants, despots and demagogues, hustlers and hypocrites, censors and simpleminds.
Respectfully, Harlan
ALEX JAY: HA!
JIM: I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
"Good Jew ... Bad Jew ... I'm the Jew with the gun."
RICK:
Do it.
Harlan
XERN/BANADU: Yeah, I remembered that right after I hit the "Send" button. "Gee, not only does it offend my delicate gastric system, but it pisses off G_d, as well!" Honestly, though? At this late date, one cheeseburger won't make much of a difference in my relationship with the Unmoved Mover. I'm the quintessential Bad Jew, and I can't even recall the last time I kept kosher for more than a brief period.
BARNEY: Don't know if your last post was, strategically speaking, such a great move--expect to see the complete works of Shakespeare uploaded any minute now--but I admire its gutsiness.
Alex Jay: Oops -- not why the rabbit, but why Christ is the rabbit. Well, it's all because of the contract the Vatican signed with the Trix Corporation in 1912 involving the exchange of wafer production at cost for linkage between rabbits and the redeemer for the duration of the contract, which expires in 2012. I understand Pizza Hut has the inside track on the next deal, due to lingering Vatican doubts about the cultural sensitivity of Lucky the Leprechaun.
Cheers, Jon
Oh and on a lighter note:
Apparently, the Easter Bunny died for our sins in the shadow of Jesus, rose three days later distributing chocolatey goodness in the wake of the also-much-better-than-dead Jesus. He's kind of a booster.
Full moon tonight and the ghost of Holden Caulfield is loose again.
You know, I once went to a science fiction convention and stood a few feet from George "Sulu" Takei while he greeted convention officials and some hotel guests. I nervously introduced myself and thanked him for his work on "Trek" and in reparations for Japanese internment families as well as those really cool episodes of Ba Ba Black Sheep. He shook my hand warmly and thanked me. But he stopped there and turned away. I felt that smile and thanks was so fucking FAKE! Here I was, humble rodent in awe of this thespian's contribution to television and human rights and all he says is "THANKS?!" Not so much as a "I've been waiting for someone like you to say that." or "My life is now complete now that you've given me your gratitude." or "Say, want to come up to my room for some rum and marathon bouncy-bouncy?" That fake BASTARD! So I'll tell you here and now what I told him then: FUCK YOU SULU! FUCK YOU WITH AN ELECTRO-SHOCK DILDO!
So since I have all this extra time on my hands, I go to HelmstationHiraku.com and join in the conversation. I want that pint sized, pasty-faced hurtful pig bastard to know how much he means NOTHING to me. I will spend hundreds of hours insulting those who congregate to discuss things Sulu. I will take them down one at a time. I will PROVE no one cares LESS about this guy than me. They banned me when I freaked out once, so I had to PRETEND to these apostolic fakers that I was like them and kind and genuine...but FUCK SULU! There's one guy there who is so frigging fake. He is nice to everybody. He doesn't even want to stir things up...he's a FAKE just like that crappy SULU! SULU! You wanna know why your backstory was cut from Star Trek IV???? Cuz you're so FAKE! You wanna know why Howard Stern makes fun of you? Cuz you're a FAKER! I... (seven days are up and The Ring claims another victim).
Alex Jay: An explanation for the rabbit of Easter shows up in Neil Gaiman's _American Gods._ Easter, Astarte, rabbits, fertility. The Gaiman version is a lot more interesting than the preceding list fragment, by the way.
Cheers, Jon
Re Barney's comments on Diana.
When I see a post by Diana, I scroll past it.
I do not say this to chastise Barney, or anyone else, with the old "if you don't like it change the channel" argument.
I say it to Diana, because I want her to know that her posts are utterly worthless to me.
As far as I can tell, your only consistent character trait is a continual nurturing of anger over slights, both real and imagined. Beyond that, it's been an untrustworthy slurry.
Diana, I lost any interest in your opinions weeks ago.
Hang around if you want, post volumes over whatever you think has damaged your life, but I'm not going to read anything you write.
In response to Alex Berman, who asked: "Exactly what significance for the Virgin Birth, the Divine Conception, the Unsullied Pregnancy, does the fact that "the Rabbit died" have?"
Silly. It means it's time for an _abortion_.
Yours in Christ, Brian Siano
Oh, and by the way--one more confirmation that Harlan may well be right about the inherent worth of the Internet:
... Anne Frank fanfiction.
http://www.fanfiction.net/list.php?categoryid=1218
ALEX K.: Is it me, or does the expression "Petscans" sound like a voyeur film festival at a furry convention?
In all seriousness, AK, hang in there--and know that should you ever NEED to talk about any problems, you have a home-grown (okay, okay; lab-grown, most of us) support group.
SCOTT: I thought your hockey teams WERE your provincial legislatures ...
HARLAN, CINDY: "Happy" Passover indeed. Not only do I keep kosher these eight days (which I don't, the rest of the year), but there are other restrictions: No grains of any kind. No rice, wheat, malt, corn, soy, rye, barley, lentils; peanuts, beans, or other legumes; nor any derivatives thereof.
(With the sole exception of peanut oil--apparently, some centuries back in our travels, that's all the Jews as a race had, so the strictures were loosened for that one little thing)
But that's not such a big problem, really--I mean, it's noit as if you'll find corn syrup, corn or soybean oil, or hydrolyzed soy protein in much food ... except perhaps for DAMNED NEAR ***EVERY*** FLIPPIN' FOODSTUFF MADE BY OR FOR WESTERNERS!!!
Ahem. Thank you for the Good Yontiff wishes.
CINDY: "The only Christian?" Sorry. There are maybe four Jews around here, two or three atheists, and (possibly) a Muslim or two. The rest are all Christians.
(It always gets my dander up when people of a certain religious bent who make up ninety to ninety-five percent of a given country's population cry discrimination ...)
But yeah--Happy Spike-a-Kike, Spit-a-Yid, Bleed-a-Hebe Day.
A question, though: I admit to being a little perplexed about the whole (originally pagan?) symbology tied into this, the second-holiest of all Christian days. You know, Bonnets, bunnies, eggs--the whole schmeer.
(Say it with me, Hicks fans--"A goldfish left Lincoln Logs in me sock drawer!")
As far as I can tell, for Easter the Bunny replaced the Lamb as symbol of Jesus, the result of the Virgin Birth. So Christ is the Rabbit.
... Exactly what significance for the Virgin Birth, the Divine Conception, the Unsullied Pregnancy, does the fact that "the Rabbit died" have?
BEN: If you think about it, it's a commentary on our body-conscious age: Chocolate, dying for your sins, guilt. Chocolate, guilt, dieting for your sins.
TODD: Limas ain't Kasher L'Pesach.
And yes; I'm in Hell.
Yeah, c'mon, Diana...
That was pretty gratuitous and uncalled-for.
Instead of tossing boiling water in Harlan's face TALK to him about it. It's a lot more mature than coming on like THAT. Remember what we were talking about a ways back? About when the BLOOD boils?
Oh Chuck,
THANK YOU.
You are always so sweet. My birthday was rough but the next day bliss-- and I thank you for asking.
How was your sister's birthday? We seem to be about a year and a day apart. I hope all is well with you, Chuck.
:)
Cindy
HEY Dorman,
What are you doing? I saw your post about the gun and the knife, the boots and bandanna-- LOL!!! Picture a stepford wife with that sort of artillery-- THAT would be terrorism.
My birthday reminded me of the perfect roses you sent me last year that hit on my birthday. Those were the most beautiful roses I have ever seen and I will never forget them.
:)
How you been?
Cindy
BARNEY: Couldn't have put it more eloquently myself. Man, talk about being in _serious_ need of medication and therapy.
--DTS
What better Passover prayer than was just sung by Rabbi Dannelke.
Amen.
Whatya talkin' about, Ben?
You did fine. A touch of smug is GOOD for the soul now and then.
[DAY 115]
*** Diana ***
I don't honestly believe anybody here has felt "safe" or even comfortable since you wandered in here 115 days ago and introduced yourself by announcing we were all losers. The exception being unless we were crippled or mentally handicapped, in which case we might be excused.
In the ensuing weeks and months you alternated between personalities that read either as treacle sweet/insincere or psycho hose-beast with a Baskin-Robbins array of equally unpleasant psychological flavors in-between. While that last remark may seem harsh, it is certainly no less subtle than descriptions of your boy friend and your sex life.
You have spammed this board.
You have posted under pseudonyms to add to the frustration and devisiveness you have so willfully sown.
You have insulted at various times almost every individual who has dared to the post to this board since 12/23/02.
When that doesn't get a rise you insult us as a group.
If we don't rise to that bait you insult Harlan.
I am well and truly sick of this shit. These people are my friends. Harlan and Susan ARE MY FRIENDS.
I would say you have done what you came here to do almost 4 months ago. You've insulted and alienated us as a group and as individuals. You've inflicted your personality on this board on a daily and frequently hourly basis for months on end. You've trash talked Harlan.
By the way, I'm sure he's just reeling from that diatribe. Like it's new. Like he hasn't been putting up with juvenile shit like this since before you were born.
Now do all of us a favor and go the fuck away.
I'm STARTING to feel like Terry Waite. It's DAY 115.
Please let our board go.
Sincerely - Barney Dannelke
[an internet hostage of Diana Graham]
Ben,
I must say at this time you can tell us more about BLACK SUNDAY than I can. I rented the movie about 6 years ago and remember only portions of it. Two things stand out very well: the opening wherein the Inquisition makes nifty application of the nail mask on Babwa; and the English dubbing using the familiar voice of the guy who did Speed Racer in the old cartoon series! Apart from that I recall liking its atmosphere. I don't recall how good the script was; nor can I even recall the time lapse sequence you just described. I probably ought to look at it again; ironically, you've inspired the impulse. I CAN tell you that when this film was released Britain, unable to handle its witchcraft themes, banned it for many years.
So, we need to be careful about what I'm trying to "recommend highly". This was the film Corman imported to the States and it started that cycle I told you about. It's really the collective I wanted to point you through. No matter who was directing, all these films shared a common sense of the Baroque. It was interesting too how you described the actors as mannquins; because these films typically led the central figures out of their normal lives into a world of lurking ghosts, phantoms, and psychopaths. The two that gripped me when I was incredibly young were NIGHTMARE CASTLE and CASTLE OF TERROR (in which Poe himself appears as a character). The obvious low budgets and cliches never got in the way (hey, 8-year-olds buy into anything, anyway): I remember the chilling low-arched, tenebrous crypts which linked the natural and supernatural worlds and a dark path whose way out was unmarked, whatever direction you'd take. If any of this had been shot in color that whole effect would be ruined. That's what these films taught me when I was a kid. Horror is B&W, man.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed BS because it at least gave you an idea of what I was getting at. I saw two films I liked by Bava (this one and the self-effacing BLACK SABBATH with Boris Karloff, which to my regret was in color; pretty to look at but not as creepy and forbidding; in fact, they close it with an intentionally amusing scene) and two I have to say were horrendously, hysterically bad...AND in color (Chuck got his own dose, though I didn't see those titles).
The two I got fixated on were not directed by Bava. But the impact of their imagery drove me to outline a haunted house story, which I'd like to develop one day. I'm anxious to illustrate it on PhotoShop. While these films served as the inspiration the setting is based on an actual location in Connecticut where stands an uninhabited, remote 250-year-old house...standing 4 stories high! A very creepy place. I'm glad Stephen King wasn't there or he'd be juicing ideas from it. The place was totally archetypal. Yeah, I have to get on that.
This is for you: take a look at Barbara Steele's countenance at this link. It says it all.
http://home.earthlink.net/~gershom/steele.html
Ooops, I mucked up that prayer a bit....I think I just thanked God for commanding the Webderland board to do something....regardless, you get the idea.
Shalom. Saronara. Adios. Arrividerci. Ciao.
-TODD
Chuck, I've been looking high and low for Kosher For Pesach fava beans, but alas, I had to settle for some mushy limas.
By the way, I'm not wearing any pants!!!!!!!!!!!!
Baruch atah adonoi elohainu melech ha-olam, asher kiddishanu b'mitvotav Webderland and all, ok most, of it's denizens.
Shalom. -TODD
And Cindy,
Although it is a little early, I do mean Happy Easter. And I do hope you had a great birthday.
Chuck
Picture me in a cell enclosed by bullet-proof glass with airholes in it. My hair is slicked back and there is a light shining under my face. (God knows how)
"Well, Todd, so you think things are getting a little weird around here? Well, what do you expect from a place like this? And, really, isn't the world just one big spherical insane asylum? Now, don't you worry your normal head about us. We'll be discussing movies and comic books heros soon enough. In the meantime, have a nice cup of tea and a happy passover."
"Oh, and by the way. Nice pants."
Chuck
Noooooo-- Diana,
I meant what I wrote-- that he must have been quite impressed to have made such a lovely remark to you.
I thought what he said was extraordinary and ORIGINAL-- we all know that he is nothing if not original. He must have thought you were striking or he would not have said what he did.
As for the simpering, breathless adoring female fan he's generally approached by-- no again, not at ALL. Breathless and adoring-- that would have been ME.
:)
I think if you will consider all things you will realize that it would be quite impossible for him to be overconfident.
I think you were beautiful and his reaction to that was genuine... and if I were you-- I'd take that personally and at face value.
NOW bring back my good Diana.
SHE IS MY FRIEND.
Cindy
I've looked over my previous posting, and I realize that I come off as a smug, snotty, know-it-all movie-maniac-wannabe. In short, AN AVERAGE FILM STUDENT.
I'm somewhat depressed at the moment. I'm taking a break for a few days. See you fellows later.
Happy Spike a Kike Day. When I read that, I laughed so hard I passed milk through my nose. Funny thing - I wasn't drinking milk. Then, a severe-looking nun appeared and pronounced it a miracle.
I guess I'm still getting used to my medication.
Anyway, Froeliche Pesach, to all those who celebrate Passover. I would have said, good yuntiv, but I don't know how to spell it. And Happy Easter to all you Christians out there...um, let me see...oh, I guess that would be YOU, Cindy. Oh, what the hell. Happy Easter to all those who give a hairy rat's butt.
And Cindy, aren't you going to tell us about your birthday? Or is it a tale too ticklish to tell?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to bite the head off a chocolate bunny and figure out how the HELL we managed to put together the egg - symbol of the soul and of rebirth - and a bunny that breaks and enters into millions of homes in order to hide a bunch of hard-boiled, artificially colored eggs. You have to admit, that does sound a bit peculiar. Especially since it's a celebration of the ressurection of someone after a miserable, torturous death. Combined with a bunny.
Where the hell does the BUNNY COME IN, HUH? And why is he rolling eggs under the sofa?
Sounds like a terrorist to me.
Chuck
P.S. Wait a minute. It won't be Easter until Sunday.
Fogeddabouddit.
Did I miss something? What the fuck is going on? Where are these weird-ass postings coming from?
Man, this board has gotten very strange. And very dull...........
Happy Passover and Merry Easter to those reg'lar folks out there! Now leave me be while I go find that friggin' Afikomen.
-TODD
CUE THE MUSIC...(theme music to JAWS)
JUST WHEN YOU WERE BEGINNING TO THINK IT MIGHT BE SAFE TO...whatever.
Cindy~
I luv ya, Cindy. I admmire the hell out of you. I'm as sincere as I can be about that. Don't let any of the more bitter cynical (and just plain nasty) assholes who post around here sometimes convince you different. They'll no doubt try. They're cruel and envious. Not like you at all. Which is WHY I luv ya.
I think you're "top drawer". I really do. :=)
But anyways...
I've been meaning to get back to about your response to me regarding my little Ellison anecdote. I believe you said I must have made quite (QUITE...you used caps) an impression on him?
Well, if by that you meant I gave him the impression (false) that I was the usual simpering, breathless adoring female fan he's generally approached by, and if you meant that I apparently
impressed him as being an easy mark, and a silly little ass, and if by that you meant that he seemed to have had the (mistaken) impression that I'd be likely to be thrilled as hell simply
to have him say that corny ass, entirely UNORIGINAL, ridiculous shit me to the extent that I was (it seems) supposed to just keel over in a mad love-swoon right then and there at the
"thrill" of being the object of his entirely momentary, and utterly fleeting (I know he doesn't remember me) amorous attentions? If that's what you meant by "QUITE" an impression, then, my answer is yes, I suppose I must have made "quite
' an impression indeed.
To respond to the rest of your commentary to my anecdote? No, I didn't think he was "smooth as silk". I thought he was OILY. And the truth is my deepest reaction to this insulting, smug,
overconfident little bastard and his arrogant presumptions towards me was...I got *really* pissed off. I was SERIOUSLY disappointed. I'd wanted to talk to him just to say the usual.
You know; to thank him, to tell him how amazing I find his writing, and so forth, like I said, the usual...I was a little nervous, him being HIM, and all, but I steeled my self, and approached him...
And before I could get two whole words out the SMUG (I'll say it again) SMUG little gopher hit me with his steely blues and this HORSESHIt, bogus LINE. My response to him then, which is
my response to him now, and which is my response to him generally, was (is, will be) GO FUCK YOURSELF HARLAN ELLISON 'CAUSE YOU AIN'T FUCKIN' ME!!! Not then. Not ever. I'm deadly serious. Picture this scenario: Harlan Ellison? Me? Last man, last woman on Earth? Well, maybe the rats and roaches (hopefully) will evolve into something interesting eventually, because even then...with the fate of humankind hanging in the balance, my response would still be...GO FUCK YOURSELF HARLAN ELLISON!!!
No offense.
Diana (Maybe Evil, Maybe Not, But Who Gives A Shit Anyway?)Graham
Jim,
There's a hidden, third whack in my oh-so-efficient torture - it breaks Kosher by mixing meat and cheese - not only will you be in agony on the toilet - G*d'll hate you, too.
Bern
(Smarter Than the Average Goy...)
SCOTT
"I'm just into Easter for the chocolate..."
Damn straight. My parents kept telling me about some poor schmoe dying for my sins or something. Then I was given chocolate. THIS is what traumatizes Christian children, guys.
Dying for sins, chocolate. Chocolate, dying for sins.
Can you understand the confusion here?
ROB,
Well, I managed to locate and watch BLACK SUNDAY, which you strongly recommended.
First, let me say Roger Corman ripped THE HELL off Mario Bava.
Second, Bava sure knows how to operate his camera. If anything, the film has STYLE in SPADES. I thought LEGEND had been the closest in capturing the essence of a Grimm fairy tale. BLACK SUNDAY knocked LEGEND off it's mantle for me in the first five minutes.
Third, the special effects (for their time and budget) were pretty incredible in spots. How the heck did Bava accomplish that aging effect on the witch at the climax? If it was the same technique used on THE WOLF MAN, BLACK SUNDAY puts Lon Chaney Jr. to shame terribly easily.
Fourth, the actors were mannequins. They really were, you know, but Bava seemed to realize this BIG flaw and managed to cover ground with a REEEEEEEEALLY sleek understanding of atmosphere.
Fifth, the name of the doctor who got vampirized / zombified / whatever. I don't know how exactly it was pronounced, but I kept hearing it as 'Dr. Kumbaya'. Kumbaya?
Did this happen to you?
CINDY,
Wait, I'M Christian. Didn't you notice that before?
Ah, well. Happy Easter.
Wonderful idea, Bern. Go feed me a cheeseburger, which has lactose AND red meat--both anathema to my digestive tract--and watch the, er, "fireworks" ensue. Why don't you just strap me to the top of a toilet for a hour, while you're at it?
As for my I-CON post: The truth? Three days ago, I spent an hour-and-a-half writing a WONDERFUL recap of the events in Stony Brook. Man, if I don't say so myself, it was GOOD. I wrote about the Elf Nazis, and how a plush doll drove a certain modern-day Mark Twain to a homicidal rage, and the story of Redneck Chef, and how we almost died en route to the diner . . . Oh boy, it was SWEET. So, I slam this baby out, and decide to print it to check for typos and mistakes. Well, when I clicked on the "Print" icon . . .
*POCK* The whole fucking system crashes. My post? Gone, daddy, gone, and no amount of trawling through temp file caches could bring it back.
So, you're just gonna have to wait, buddy. It's still too damned sore a subject with me to try again.
My favorite Bill Hicks:
"You think Jesus would be really pissed off if he came back and saw Christians all wearing crosses?"
Didja hear the news? Easter's cancelled.
Why?
They found the body.
(Okay, I'll stop . . .)
Bart: "Billy Graham's Bible Blaster?"
Rod: Keep firing; convert the heathens!
[cut to a pixilated video screen. Heathens cross the
street, as a Bible gun shoots the Holy Book at them. When
a heathen gets hit, he turns into a conservatively dressed
man with a halo]
[cut back to the boys]
Bart: Got him!
Rod: No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.
Oh, shit, this proves I need more sleep, or a good drubbing. The first part of my posting makes it look like I am blaming the Jews. I meant, you should not be silent, and Jews over the years have not--to their eteral gratitude.
Phew, almost got killed.
You all know that the best radicals have always been Jews; Jews understand what being silent does to a race. Being radical is just being upfront about how fucked up everything is; and telling the truth at all times is a must, no matter how much trouble it may get one into.
I do wish we would all abandon our personal religious faiths, and hit the Unitarian temple for bread and mayo. Yum.
-----------
I do not favor central government socialism any more than I do top down socialism, which our form of capitalism has become. I favor democratic reforms that will hopefully one day dismantle the free market lie.
-------
This one goes out to all the wishy washy "liberals".
'I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal'
---Phil Ochs
Joseph,
You can't prove that.
Cindy
I've said it here before but saying the Jews killed Jesus is tantamount to saying that the Caucasians killed Kennedy.
You can't BE a Christian unless you love AT LEAST one Jew. This would not escape anyone who is not monumentally stupid.
As the only Christian that I have seen around these parts in quite a spell...
Happy Easter to me.
:)
Cindy
I forgot my wallet today, which not only meant that I had to spend my lunch hour browsing rather than eating, I couldn't buy the McSweeney's I finally found at the campus bookstore.
So I read the story while standing there. Hungry. Giggling.
And in the interests of keeping this as PC as possible, I'd like to extend my gratitude to the Tribes of Israel during this Easter season, for their noble, but failed attempt to quash the Nazarene heresy and spare the world the scourge of Christianity. In short, thank you Jews, for killing Jesus.
It was fairly obvious that first-century Jews recognized that the Naz's words, however well-meaning, would form the basis for yet another small-minded, authoritarian, anti-rational cult that would cause no end of harm to humankind. One may quibble with the tactic chosen, i.e., have Jesus executed by the Roman legal system, but there's no denying that if it had worked, we may be enjoying a better society today.
Sadly, the same visionaries who recognized the coming evils failed to understand how _stupid_ the early Xtians were. Yes, they figured the Apostles might try that "came back from the dead" nonsense, but they hadn't expect so many people to _believe_ it. So the plan backfired, and the world was stuck with an obstacle to progress for two thousand years. But, I'd like to give a "at least you tried, better luck next time" shout-out to the homies.
Ah, the thoughts of Montreal; used to have a marvelous and vibrant Jewish community, until the Parti Quebecquois came in, making their overt attempt to oust the languages and cultures they saw as differing to their agenda of "the nation Quebec".
Froylika Pesach, to my friends here, and to those who remain in my hometown, despite the pressure to leave in order to find more tolerance for themselves and their children in Jewish.
I'm just into Easter for the chocolate...
To the thoughts of all those days and nights I snuck into Parc Jarry, crossing the CPR tracks at Boulevard St. Laurent, to see my Expos play. Coco Laboy, Stoney, Le Grande Orange, Larry Parrish, Rodney Scott, Chris Spiers, Kenny Singleton, The Hawk, The Kid, The Little General, all gone; soon, the team too.
Thomas Wolfe was right...
Scott
Harlan: you made me laugh. Now Good Friday's always gonna carry that un-PC connotation for me. Sort of like the guy who taught me the opening to Ellington's "Things Ain't What They Used to Be" with a pornagraphic lyric back when I was 15. Everytime I hear that song,for the rest of my life, I will hear it as "All the guys in the band eat____" (you figure it out).
To all: Happy Spring Holidays. I'll be in Takoma Park, MD reuniting with my children who are spending the week with my mother-in-law. Easter is a nice time to be in the DC area: lots of flowers and greenery which we haven't quite yet seen in Upstate New York. Will probably do the high-church Episcopal thang on Sunday. That, and eat a good meal.
Froeliche Pesach!
love--
cookie
Dear Mr. Selig,
My city would be a fine location for an Expos homestand. We have a lovely little cramped stadium that only occasionally gets used by a local softball team. I'm sure the owners won't mind if the Expos play at Wrigley for a while.
Yours,
Tom Tunney
Alderman, 44th Ward
Chicago
Cindy,
So it was YOU causing all that trouble at the White Sox game last night!
;)
Joseph
Joseph: Ah, zany fans and a Klassic Koch meltdown, the sort he seemed to have every sixth save opportunity when he was with the Jays. But now I have to wonder, looking at team records, if the Expos will be expected to play 1/4 of their playoff games in Puerto Rico should they make the playoffs. Maybe the Expos could just formally become MLB's team without a single city -- 20 games in Mexico City, 20 games in Montreal, 20 games in Puerto Rico, 20 games in Washington, and one game at a site to be determined by a write-in campaign -- basically, 'Why should your city be home to the Expos for 24 hours?'
Cheers, Jon
Yeah, Jim - You are... (Don't make me come down there and feed you a cheeseburger...)
Bern
ALEX K: "Barney Makes a Coprolith"? Oh, that's GOOD. (And don't worry about the tardiness of your Harlan report. Seems I'm two weeks late with a certain I-CON post, myself . . .)
Not to mention that charming precursor to the "Easter egg roll": the "JEW roll," where one lucky member of the Tribe was placed in a spiked barrel (the spikes facing INWARDS, mind you) at the top of a hill. Fun for the whole village.
(Don't mind me. I just finished a book on the history of antisemitism, so I'm feeling even more downtrodden than usual . . .)
Froylika Pesach Y'all.
:)
I suppose I am safe writing the phrase-- not too much chance of a screw up there with it all spelled out for me. Yesterday I almost caused a riot at a baseball game by pronouncing something incorrectly in Spanish.
I learned it from an 8 year old boy who had a warped but evidently highly effective sense of humor.
Happy Passover to you all nonetheless.
:)
Cindy
Did I get around to wishing you all a sincere Passover? Consider it done. And for those of you who celebrate Easter, should you wish to sound like a luntzmahn and wish "happy Passover" to your Semite brethren, use the phrase "froylika Pesach." Pronounced froy-LICK-uh PAY-sacccccchhhhhh. The less drool and spittle, the better.
And I will not, I promise you, indulge my demented sense of humor by refering to the Christian holiday as "Spike a Kike Day." I will not. I absolutely will not. Because, remember, if we aren't sternly and seriously PC, the terrorists will have won.
Yours in wincing, Harlan
The Museum of Television & Radio announced today that they'll be featuring rare recordings of Lindbergh trial coverage and the recently discovered, only known and complete version of the original Studio One broadcast of "Twelve Angry Men" from May 23 through July 6 in LA and NY:
http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=4&cat=0800&id=03041610020573968
I tell you, the lost bits of "The Magnificent Ambersons" are out there, somewhere...
Brian,
"But, when power is held by a relative few, one starts to see a decline in the overall quality of life."
While you basically summarized my entire argument, I've always felt that the "pursuit of happiness" concept a rather simplistic idealism - as it's been a virtual euphemism for destructive hording and "ME" at the expense of everyone else's interest. Yet, as I pointed out, it is the essence of our miserable nature; hence, the need for a regulatory framework. In the end we're left with few practical options. No oligarchy (as you suggested) would serve the common interest any better.
To Rob and Frank: You're both addressing an issue which I see as a core factor in human happiness. That's the concentration of power.
At the risk of vastly oversimplifying things, I regard this issue to be more important than whether a society is capitalist, socialist, or whatever. Societies can be either of these things, and still vary widely in terms of how widely power is distributed. But, when power is held by a relative few, one starts to see a decline in the overall quality of life.
One of the liberating aspects of capitalism was that it offered people a chance to develop their own methods of commerce, and to acquire a greater degree of power and influence than they could have under monarchies, the Church, or feudalism. (And one of its inhibiting aspects is that capitalism tends toward monopoly, this creating new centralizations of power.)
Scott of the Komms -
You need to put those office hours in bigger, bolder letters for our short-sighted generals.
Jay, Yangs:
Nope, you merely got three of four of our provincial legislatures. And, for the record, we're entirely grateful, except for the fact that you didn't wait for the governments to be in session prior to setting your blazes.
C'mon, Yangs, get it together. We did send you those brochures...
Scott
PAGING CINDY. NOW PAGING CINDY.
WILL CINDY JONES PLEASE EMPTY HER FREAKIN' EMAIL BOX SO THOSE OF US THAT NEED TO SEND HER EMAIL CAN, PLEASE?!
Thank you. That is all.
L.
Rob:
Aww, c'mon. It was just a weenie roast gone badly wrong. I looked up the comments of those involved, and they insist it was the beer...Canadian beer, you see. Ever seen liquored up Maple Leaf fans trying to operate a barbeque?
Xan: Sorry about the snit. I thought wooly mammoth snits became extinct during the last ice age. Share a bus with a coelacanth lately?
Scott
Scott -
Didn't we burn down a few of what you call "Hockey stadiums" in the past few decades? The cultural loss to your people must have been staggering. Our debt to your fine, peaceloving people is great. Soon, we will show you the miracle of something our God calls "gunpowder" - we're sure it will revolutionize the nation.
:)
Scott,
"I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. "
Oh, don't fool yourself, man. You're on our list for that one. We're gonna invade your asses...at a time of our choosing.
Jon Stover,
Yikes, indeed. I wish I could explain why KC games attract suburban yahoos to drink too much and beat up on officials (by the way, see the pics of the attacker? He got his due from the players.)
On the other hand, maybe the baseball gods just got ticked off at how poorly the umpires were calling the game. Note to the umps - the strike zone ends at the side of the plate.
Regards,
Joseph
Damn it, Scott - I was flying along, minding my own business (I'm a Capitalist, after all, must oppress the working class at all hours, day or night...), when your "Canadian" attempt at humor arrived over my wireless broadband connection. I took my eyes off the controls to read the it, and bam!, I ran smack into the largest snit I've ever seen (you could even say it was mammoth). Now, I have to run the plane through the wash again... (my 12 noon tee-time is absolutely not doable, now...) Small snits are never a problem - they get sucked through the engines without notice (actually, I think I have spotted a slight increase in power after ramming through a spliff of snits - they must seal the valves or something...), but the bigger snits splash when you hit 'em and the gunk is harder to get off than bugs guts on a windshield...
In closing, thanks, thanks a lot,
An Angry American Capitalist
BAG O' SCOTT: I am of the firm opinion that Colin Mochrie is the funniest man working in comedy today. One of the few reasons I turn on the television is to catch his brilliance on "Whose Line Is It Anyway."
And he does the best Tyrannosaur impression I've ever seen!
best to all,
Michael
Hey, guys, apropos nothing, but a bit of humour crossed my desk, and thought of you few Americans who seem to have maintained an ability to take a joke about your country without flying into a mammoth snit. This one's for you.
I'll wait for Todd and Barney to leave the room...
"On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America.
We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.
I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.
I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's very nice.
I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we feel your pain.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this.
We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Thank you."
--Colin Mochrie, "This Hour has 22 Minutes"
I'll be in the bomb shelter, sugaring up some snow...
Scott
Could anybody who owns the anthology "Master's Choice" edited by Lawrence Block tell me the exact phrasing of the sentence from Mr. Ellison's introduction to his story where he mentions Ernest Hemingway? (Preferably in e-mail). The Czech translation seems obviously faulty.
Thanks a lot,
Harlan, think nothing of it. When I saw you last Wednesday, I was coming off a round of catscans and petscans, bone biopsies and chalky potions. I was glad to think about something other than illness for a change. Besides, though we first met (omigawd) 36 years ago, the fact is that we've spoken on the phone maybe 20, 25 times, and seen each other in person maybe half as many times. I'm happy you even remember who the hell I am, given the number of people you meet. I surely don't expect you to recall my Cleveland Clinic chart.
The tests took up so much time that day, Robin and I damn near missed getting to the Rock Hall on time. And you were superb, lemme tell ya! Robin used to be terrified of you, you know. The first time she ever saw you was at your appearance at the Superman Expo that Tony Isabella ran, back in 1988. You were in rare form that day. She wanted to hide behind someone (me, probably). For 15 years, she's talked about you in terms of admiration and fear. That all changed last week. Now, she keeps saying, "I want to see Harlan again! Let's go see Harlan again!"
I've told her it's probably a good idea to wait until you're making an appearance somewhere.
Brian, okay, admittedly, it's terrifying. But what's terrifying isn't the initial diagnosis. It's when you think you're cured and then, THEN, three months go by, and a new test says, "I'm baaaaaaack!" That's when the real hammer comes down, when you realize that even if they declare you clean again, that shadow will always loom over you. That's when you realize you'll never again take living for granted.
I'll have to increase the rate I'm selling old stuff on Ebay.
Jim, thanks. You're a mensch--even if you did like "Signs," which has earned a place in film history alongside "Glenn or Glenda" and "Barney Makes a Coprolith."
I'll try to get a report on Harlan's appearance here in Cleveburg later today, folks. Sorry for the delays.
--Alex
Frank,
There was some truth in a number of statements both you and Joseph made. But it is Joseph's line that gets at something really crucial: "Capitalism can be leftist, rightist, upways, downways, whatever; the same as economic systems like socialism and communism".
I'll express my thoughts here quickly. Then, in the end, I'm going to tell you quite succinctly why you're as much a capitalist as I am, whether you want to admit it or not (otherwise, back up your rhetoric and abandon all your property). For the record, I honestly hate admitting it myself; but, given my sense of propriety and privacy, I'd be lying if I didn't.
Conservative policy reaches through ANY political system, when it comes to the economic infrastructure, whether we're talking about a capitilist, communist, or socialist hierarcy. There is no system that will not in some way impinge on individual rights. Whether we scatter about ducking and dodging the varients of free enterprise or live by the dictates of a small group of power-gorging psychotics, we must always pay the piper.
Capitalism has had a horrendous history attached to it. Absolutely. In its sweep of exploitation it cost a great deal in lives, human dignity, and environment. Yet, nothing less can be said about any OTHER socio-economic system devised and implemented. Nothing YOU hold faith in would work any better. Kneel on the prie-dieu and worhip a single idea to your heart's content, it will never reconcile the human proclivity to ABUSE POWER! To put it another way, whatever socio-economic theory you could come up with (and no form of anarchy will achieve a thing) or embrace, I guarantee it would find its course to corruption as all other systems have. The human race certainly has its beacons; I wouldn't hang out at this site if I didn't realize that. But they are vastly outnumbered by the masses. And the sensibility of the masses is generally what shapes those who lead, whether we're talking about a regime or a republic. In the END, Frank, EVERYTHING winds up a "right-wing ideal".
Everyone is conditioned - "brainwashed" if you prefer - by the system they were raised in. Invariably, its engines would be run by those who would gain most by it. And possibly without exception every system sounded sublime when it was on paper as a theory, as the status quo was crumbling. But it would never quite work out as conceived when implemented. If we accept that as a given, then ideally we want to strive for the system that best enables the individual to cope with the prevailing forces.
As much as capitalism can be a turn off, I would prefer to deal with its odds and fight for the necessary checks and balances (without which, indeed, capitalism would be an utter, catastrophic failure, as the 19th and early 20th centuries demonstrated) to a system in which the masses must answer to the dictates of the few. Yes, we are manipulated pitiably here by the few as well. But for all the disgusting aspects about it at least it is a system that allows us more options. My point, then, is no matter what the system, until we've evolved past such material need, you'll always have to contend with these constraints. The question then remains, which system best minimizes the constraints?
Now, in closing: In a post eons ago you predicated something like, "property is a lie". I think that quote is verbatim.
I'm going to tell you why property is a harsh, stark reality. It has nothing to do with the courts, the Bill of Rights, providence, manifesto, or decree.
No, the matter is simpler than that:
If you touch my computer or try and take it away I'll punch your face out.
If you try and steal my car I'll wedge your head under the front right tire and turn it into road kill.
If you try and take my umbrella, my only means to protect my innocent existence from the rain, I'll impale you with it and leave your carcass for the gulls to feed on.
This is the one thing that makes property very real. It has been this real since our species evolved.
a votre sante.
Hey .... you wanna know something rather unique? GOD CAME IN A UFO!
Joseph: So, does Kansas City coming to town have some hitherto unpublicized effect on ChiSox fans? Yikes.
Cheers, Jon
The Human Genome Project is now complete.
Maybe Rick will have to change it to: "Screw SETI, *this* is what the internet was created for"
The Human Genome Project is now complete.
The news agencies barely gave it notice. I mean, how could something as trivial as THIS affect us, right?
This is going to take a little while for me to take in.
Chuck
Frank,
Kindly, don't twist my use of English into Swahili. What I said was:
" As for Chmosky, output does not equal knowledge or understanding or compassion. His hatred for everything capitalistic overshadows his good intentions and turns his writings into a black ball of hatred."
What you said was:
"Joseph, hope you are not saying that leftism is compatible with capitalism? Capitalism is a right wing ideal. Why do you think most of Europe are Social Democratic? Slavery itself was our first research study on the merits of capitalism. Sure, it worked and made America rich, but for what price? We don't actually have a capitalist system anyway, just ask the Libertarians. We have a very large state assistance program for rich corporations. Without state subsidy most big corporations would go bust. Just pop on Clear Channel for a bit and tell me how wonderful the sound of the cash register really is."
Otherwise known as intentionaly confusing the issue. Here'e short lesson in history, economics and politics:
NO ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS INHERENTLY POLITIC.
Capitalism can be leftist, rightist, upways, downways, whatever; the same as economic systems like socialism and communism. To say that capitalism is "a right wing ideal" is falling into the same small-minded trap that many people fell onto and caused wars with in the 20th century. STOP IT. That is how people end up dying - byt stupidity and failure to move on from idealism and small thoughts.
DEB,
They don't? Oh, GOOD.
Eric, even when I am angry I have a smile on my face. But thank you for the apology.
I knew that quote seemed familiar Harlan, good to be rightly schooled on that. I bet Turin thought because it was a short quote, that it didn't matter.
Since I have your ear, Harlan, what are your thoughts on H.L. Mencken? He was a bit of a bigot, but a great writer.
Frank, I came on a little hard. I'm sorry for getting personal. Bad day, but that's just a reason, not an justification. Again, my apologies.
In defense of the indefensible, golf, I might suggest that it's the least of the enviromentalists' worries. Courses eat a lot of water, yes, and way too many pesticides, but what would be there in their place? Not city parks or homeless shelters, that I guarantee you, but more shameless commercial or residential development. Or maybe just parking lots, or another giant cement stadium. I'll take a town with a lot golf courses any day.
Golf is a non-violent, non-polluting sport (electric carts!), and it's QUIET, something that is increasingly precious in these noisy times. I agree that the culture has traditionally been dominated by moneyed old farts, but people like me are CHANGING that. Get on a course these days; you'll be surprised at who you see there. Don't take a cue from the whitebreads who are on the PGA tour...people of all kinds golf.
I am an active environmentalist, a member of several grass-roots organizations and an occasional community eco-volunteer. I am also into golf and old cars, two areas supposedly the bane of the eco-warrior. I say, worry about the real problems, like Monsanto, Exxon and Dow. Corporate power is the ultimate enemy, not the neighborhood 9-hole, or the restored '57 Bel Aire.
When golf courses and pre-catalytic converter Chevys are all we have left to yell about, Nirvana is in our grasp.
Apologies, M. Ellison; the omission of "fifty" is mine, but I do have the quote listed as I'd originally written it in two different volumes. Still, foolish remains foolish.
Curious, sir, if you've the time. Any impression of either the film or novel from your critical eye?
Scott
FRANK CHURCH, et al seriatim:
Kindly do not attribute to a slightly-smarter-than-middling film critic one of the great aphorisms of all time.
Kenneth Turin DID NOT author that quote, he merely used it without attribution. And he didn't even get it right.
ANATOLE FRANCE wrote: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing it is, nonetheless, still a foolish thing."
To give Turin credit for the remark is on a par with crediting authorship of the Bhagavad-Gita to Kahlil Gibran. Tom Clancy and WAR AND PEACE. Adam Sandler and JOE MILLER'S JOKEBOOK.
yr. steadfastly corrective pal, Harlan
Per NPR, the ONLY bldg. the Marines are guarding is the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad, while hospitals are being pillaged, the National Archives has burned with all the invaluable books and documents dating to the early Ottoman days, and the National Museum has been plundered. We're talking artifacts dating to the first human civilization...gone. One of the original Korans...burned. Yet, our government KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that this would happen because similar events happened after the Gulf War I. Does this give anyone else pause?? On to Damascus!!!...oh boy...
Time for another bullshit argument, gang. (What? _Another_?) The AFI's compiled yet another list of Top Things from Movies. This time it's Heroes and Villains. They're doing a TV show hosted by "everybody's favorite mesomorph," Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The AFI website has a list of about 400 nominees. Once again, there are going to be odd quibbles here and there. For example, where do Bonnie and Clyde fit-- heroes or villains? Belle from _Beauty and the Beast_ is listed-- not the Belle from Jean Cocteau's version, but from the Disney version.
And I'm not keen on including real historical figures in such a list. One gets movies where bad people are treated as heroes, like Bonnie and Clyde, or movies where "villainy" just doesn't fit, like Antonio Salieri in _Amadeus_. It seems a bit disrespectful to reduce people like Stephen Biko or Thomas Edision to mere movie "heroes."
So have fun with this topic.
Eric, I doubt you actually read all my postings; I have been quite nice at times, but the world is in such a state of chaos, that being positive most of the time is a chore. My golfing rant was in tune with most environmentalists, who view land space at golf courses as a major water waster. And think of all those trees they end up cutting down? The Japanese alone are turning Hawaii into one big golf course. Remember Eric, anger is a gift.
--------
Joseph, hope you are not saying that leftism is compatible with capitalism? Capitalism is a right wing ideal. Why do you think most of Europe are Social Democratic? Slavery itself was our first research study on the merits of capitalism. Sure, it worked and made America rich, but for what price? We don't actually have a capitalist system anyway, just ask the Libertarians. We have a very large state assistance program for rich corporations. Without state subsidy most big corporations would go bust. Just pop on Clear Channel for a bit and tell me how wonderful the sound of the cash register really is.
-----------------
Rob, if I am Todd, then boil me in vaseline in one of those KFC deep fat cookers. We love the man Ellison and sing his praises to the roof tops like Topel. Todd just was raised in a very propagandistic way; but he isn't to blame--there are many in his rather over-full boat. But he is our friend here. We just like to scrap. Better than war, to be sure.
------------
Todd, imagine if you will, some hoodlums ransack Washington D.C.; they spray graffiti on the Lincoln Memorial; throw molotov cocktails into the President's window; take the Bill Of Rights out of it's case and rip it to shreds and piss on it. You think maybe our police would stop them; maybe even with deadly force? You and I know the first person to aim that spraycan would get shot in the back and dragged into the Potomic to sink. That is what the museum in Baghdad was to Iraqi people--A sacred shrine of their, once, great history.
Don't forget, the main reason our military left Baghdad was to secure the oil fields in Tikrut. They are now even talking about privitizing part of the Iraqi economy. Bush and Co. want to make Iraq safe for exploitation. It is now in our coffers, like a bobble. That's all the war was about Todd--America's control of the world. We are an empire Todd. Now onto Syria. Grumble.
Ben--
Were you talking about the ZOMBIE with Tina Farrow in it? I agree with what you say about italian horror films for the most part. I own ZOMBIE because I thought it was extremely creepy. The acting was pretty bad its true, but that made it even creepier. The effects were guy-wrenching. I would not recommend it to anyone, but I like being ( safely ) scared. This film did that for me. They don't make 'em like that anymore!
Chuck~ You're welcome.
Oh and btw, that amphibian thing? Only temporary...
L.
Some of you may like this. It's a bit patriotic, I guess, and not really in keeping with my own contrarian nature, but I think it's a good statement by a pretty decent man. (And it has nothing to do with golf, boxing, or bad Italian horror movies.)
http://66.165.133.65/politics/quotes/powell.php
It's too bad Powell's talents are being wasted in this administration.
Eric,
Oh, shit mist. A fine product. I must stock up.
Do they have organic?
Ben,
Re: those comedies.
Yes to both. I have Shot In The Dark on tape, along with The Pink Panther Strikes Again (with an opening worthy of the descriptive "classic", wherein Dreyfuss, healthy and confident as ever is about to leave the mental insitution and within 5 minutes of a visit from a visiting, well-intended Closeau is plummeted back into raving madness...at one point crawling on all fours singing 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow').
Remember to examine those early Italian flicks.
No, no, Ben. 1980? Too modern. Way too modern.
I wouldn't even consider looking at a Hammer film made after 1970. Likewise, the only Italian horror films worth anything were made between 1960 and '68. That's all I'm talking about. You should explore some of those. The ones with B. Steele. But disregard any made after those years.
Frank, in response to your quote of Turin:
"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
He didn't get it either, but Turin is not alone. Numerous critics have looked upon Cronenberg's work with distaste, often utilizing his early work with his use of disturbing visual images and daring subject matter to bookend their comments about how David is violent and perverted in his cinematic outlook. They're all incredibly wrong. Cronenberg is always challenging perceptions, examining the manner of existence in a very visceral and confrontational manner.
R. Wilder: You should've gone all out, and did "That Atrocity Exhibition". It might've really gotten into fun interchanges like human sacrifices, or four or five state murder/robbery sprees. Should the opportunity ever avail itself, get the rerelease of the book from Re-Search Press, and subject it to as many good folks as possible. I thought it one hell of an improvement over my Grove Press edition of "Love and Napalm: Export U.S.A." (God, I hated that title). This version even includes the fantastic "The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race".
Todd:
The only thing about this war I've agreed with was the ouster of Hussein. As I watch the chaos and thefts, that queasy feeling of uncertainty about the cause of war, and the looting is part of the reason, but not for the fact of the lawlessness it represents. No, the thefts weren't a surprise, most folks who have suffered under a tyrant do tend to act out in some fashion at the perception of being liberated. It's the inability of the the liberating military to see such actions by the population coming, actions which could've greatly imperiled the soldiers as well as the people themselves that disturbs me. I look upon the chaos as another indicator of a poorly thought out, somewhat disingenuous strategy by the political and military planners of the US and its allies when it came to prosecute this conflict. There was the design for war, but I don't think the US and its allies ever had any real plan for peace.
The war itself, mind, that went surprisingly well, and that small kernel of a military man inside me is glad of it. It is the question of now, and the future of Iraq, that rests in the hands of the US and UN, and based on what I've seen, there appears to have been precious little planning by those who have made assurances to the civilian population into what to do now. Power is still off in most all of the major cities, greatly undermining the ability for the civilians to get and maintain water and food, not to mention the great need for medical facilities. All I've seen so far is a great deal of discussion into who oversees the transition into what all profess to be a much better Iraq, not when the food arrives, when do we get to have water to drink?
Yeah, I've heard the promises made too, but delivery is where I'll examine the good intentions.
Scott, extremely happy that Charest has now removed the spectre of separation from the future of Canada for some time to come. Maybe Quebecquois will finally realize our culture and language aren't threatened, and that remaining in Canada is best for all concerned. Sanity reigns in Quebec again!
Excuse me, I meant "fuck nuts." Obviously there is a key semantic difference.
ROB,
I've actually avoided the majority of Italian horror, as I believe they cross the line from portraying evil and sadism to BEING evil and sadistic. BLACK SUNDAY I haven't yet seen, but I've watched the likes of 1980's Italian horror such as ZOMBIE and DEMONS. Eeeeerrrrggghhhh...my bad. I had to fast-forward through the majority of ZOMBIE. Too many times I kept saying, "Oh please, that's enough."
The scripts were horrible, the actors were terrible, and yet there's something distinctly gut-wrenching about Italian horror...a kind of inevitable, sickening sense of doom and despair. Maybe it's the whole Catholic guilt thing, I don't know...but these movies are HORRIFIC. For all their crappy trappings, they often touch on something truly nightmarish and primal that can be genuinely branded as bona fide HORROR.
Oh yes - the comedy genre. You've seen such masterworks as AIRPLANE! and A SHOT IN THE DARK, I take it?
It has nothing to do with golf. I went off on Frank because I'm tired of him spraying a shit-mist on everything, as he cloaks himself in the "bleeding-heart liberal" guise, which he so evidently is not. Assholery only gets you so far, and Frank's meter is UP, as far as I'm concerned.
And speaking of "nut fucks," sure, golf has its share. So does science fiction fandom and Ellison readership, hallowed pursuits on this board. And by god, so does Webderland, where a quick scan of the past month of posts would warm the cockles of any PH.D. candidate in psychology's heart. There's an easy dissertation or two to be found in our own leavings.
Condi Sez: "It is time to sign on to a different kind of Middle East."
Anyone with a big brain want to explain to me what the fuck this means? Pretty fucking bold statement, if you ask me. Who's got the sign up sheet here, the US? This ain't frigging intramural soccer, you malfunctioning servitor drone!
"Iraqi Freedom"'s nearly over, and we spent all this time looking for WMDs with little effect, now we're saying Syria not only has WMDs, but is hosting Iraqi fugitives (war criminals) and Iraqi WMDs, thus setting the stage for, what, Operation Syrian Liberty?
Of course not. When pressed, Rice said, "The president has made clear every problem in the Middle East cannot be dealt with the same way." In other words, the military can bomb the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but a third might actually bring out some serious terrorist reprisals AND unite the Arab world against us. Kinda like North Korea, there'd be actual casualty numbers the American people can't get distracted from by waving a flag and blaring Lee Greenwood. Not significant casualties directly, mind you. We could roll into Damascus within a week, but then have Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other nations bombing the shit out of Israel and enjoying the warm blanket of Orange/Red Alerts for the next 12 months.
And what "different kind" of region is Rice talking about? A Middle East on American terms? Oh THAT will go over real well with the natives. Its that kind of soundbyte bullshit blurb that pushes the moderate Arabs away from our side of the table and helps give the zealots more reason to hate us and Israel.
What if someone misses the sign up sheet? Can they "phone in" instead of "signing on" or can they "thumbs up" their participation? So long as they give a "high sign" to some esoteric fucking westernized behavior we won't mess with their fascist regimes.
Same old bullshit. Same stupid, hypocritical bullshit. Syria has WMDs. We know this. They've been used to end uprisings. But we CAN'T invade Syria. Iraq, yes. Syria, no. Because the situation doesn't call for it. But what about those millions of Syrians yearning to be free? Why can't we hide behind that crock of shit logic and just bomb them into accepting McDonalds' and Starbucks on every corner?
Shit. Another day, another step closer to Armageddon...head west and you'll be there by nightfall, General
Re: Tyson. Yes, the man whose rape defense was "yeah, she was sayin' no, but she didn get up ta leave, now. She say right under where she s'posed to til we wuz done."*
Hey, I lost the office pool. We're going after Syria instead of Iran (for now anyway). I'm bummed because the office pool entires included "Belgium" "New Jersey" and "that triangle shaped country below Mexico." Thought I was a shoo-in.
BOXING: I would class boxing as a PHYSICAL chess. There is a focus and a stamina (when done right; when it's not just Big Jamoke Slapping Fists With Big Jamoke) there which is impressive, as well as a straegy aspect--but there's little intellectual about it.
I'm thinking about Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (though he at first started with the supposition that there were seven autonomous intellectual capacities we use--linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences--I think he's now up to nine).
With an Ali or a Sugar Ray (either one), we see the Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence at the genius level. Sadly, the same goes for early Mike Tyson, before his fighting style descended into thuggery and brutality.
But LYNN: While I will admit that professional wrestlers are indeed athletes--and I've been friendly with a few--what they are NOT is "COMPETITORS." With the probable exception of the resident Big Fat Guy of any given league, these guys HAVE to be athletic to pull off the stunts they perform. But they're not actually pitting their skills against one another in real competition.
JAY: Your first statement was correct: Tyson IS a "mental champion." In fact, Ol' Champ went mental some time ago.
(Here--a fun exercise: picture this, in Tyson's voice: "Knight takesth pawwwn. Chtheckmate in foo-ah movessth." Try not to laugh.)
FRANK: You know, Tower Records has a recent Chomsky DVD clearance-priced very cheap.
MUSIC RECOMMENDATIONS: Dunno if I've hyped this CD here before, but give a listen to the PROZAK FOR LOVERS samples at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/prozak
You'll recoil in horror, laugh your ass off, or both.
Todd,
Re: your post-war quandary.
You're stating a false premise and therefore drawing the wrong inference. Perhaps for your convenience.
We neither had to "keep him in power at the cost of these relics" nor would we have had to (necessarily) blow anyone's brains out upon raiding the museum (earlier on troops occasionally shot some rounds in the air; civilians moved away. It most likely would have worked at locations like the museum too).
Another false premise is the notion of all lefties being outright against the war. The issue wasn't weather or not Hussein should be dealt with by force, but how to follow through in post war. Weak diplomatic skills and neglecting the crucial questions become evident potholes in the planning. Questions like security and disorder SHOULD have come up before we sent Saddam fleeing. You don't ask the crucial questions after you serve your opponent; you ask them all before jumping in.
In summary, then, the problem lies in abysmal planning for the post war. Is it wise to plan a war and leave a vacuum in its wake? Obviously, security was going to be needed. Who wouldn't have forseen it (other than that ass you voted for)? There were Iraqis pleading with our military leaders to at least provide SOME civil order to protect such things as museums, schools, and so on. But we decided to back down in ALL ways, including, perhaps, the wrong ways. We brought havoc to the country; we knew how to write out the battle. But we didn't know much about writing the denouement.
It seems to me a great deal was put into waging the war but not ending the war. Very little understanding of the people there and their culture was complemented only by a cluelessness about the leadership that would take control of the country.
Todd,
Yeah, I know. I'm ALWAYS right. That is an inherent trait of the left!
Dammit, Rob, you figured it out. In the worst case of fake internet identity since the first man signed into the singles chats pretending to be a woman, I've not only planted Frank Church on this board.
I AM Frank Church!
-TODD
(don't worry, Frank, I'll tell them the truth after a few days: that you and I are the illegitimate twins of Bill Clinton and Ann Coulter).
Eric,
"who through your own unlovely presentation does far more harm to the causes you support than good."
I have mixed reactions to the emotional stuff you just laid on Frank. He is entitled to state his opinions, if that's what one can call them, without having to be asked them. I mean you're not exactly irreproachable when it comes to making occasionally dopey statements here yourself. I've had MY own moments under the full moon too.
BUT...I feel that last line of yours DOES carry some weight. Not with respect to the subject in question. I mean whether you enjoy Golf or not, who gives a fuck? There are more important topics one could seethe about. Either way I don't intend to start a recycled free-for-all on Frank; I don't want that shit at all. Regardless, I raise the point because, on the broader landscape, I don't like Lefties being made out or interpreted as imprudent spouters of weak polemics and idealistic generalizations at the expense of a compelling argument (try hard to consider that Frank!). It's like a subversion. One to delight the fuck out of the Righties. (Hell, that's why the 60's lost out to Nixon; the Right held a firm grip since). I actually suspect at times that Todd himself planted Frank here!
Now on to the next topic.
Say, Cindy:
I remember you celebrated your birthday recently. How did it go? Did you have fun?
My sister Julie celebrated her 44th yesterday. It was great to see her happy. I told her the gang here wished her a happy birthday. Thanks, Lynn.
Chuck
"You in the corner, quit snickering or I'll turn you into a newt."
She turned me into a frog.
I got better.
I've seen two Mario Bava films; BLACK SUNDAY and PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES. I can see how black & white cinematography really helped the first movie. That, and Barbara Steele's spooky performance. One technique of Bava's that can get a little irritating after a while is the use of the dramatic zoom. He really seemed to like that technique, maybe just a little too much. PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES is interesting mostly for the overall look of the film and the fact that the makers of ALIEN cribbed many of the aspects of this picture, especially the giant alien skeletons found in the derelict spacecraft. The movie overall, however, seemed rather flat. There was a static feeling to it, even with the dramatic zooms.
I think Rob's right - Bava was a fine technician, good with atmosphere, but not a great director.
Chuck
The previous posting was brought to you by the King of Typos and the Pauper of Proofreading.
What a mess....but my point stands. I gotta calm down a bit when you guys get me chomskying at the bit!
-TODD
Geez Louise! You Goldang Libs are amazing. Now it's our fault that the expected, post-war, post removal of a torturing, killing dictator, looting a plundering of the people oppressed by such violence is the fault of the U.S.
Did you want the soldiers to shoot the Iraqis as they invaded the museum. What looting do they choose to break out the force for? Yes, please, go right into the palace but oops, get away from the museum or we blow out your brains? Even if the soldiers intervened peacefully they would have been criticized for interrupting the regime-deposing energy of the people who suffered all these years.
Yes, what happened at the museum is a shame....but it's spit in the wind compared to what happened the day Saddam left power. You didn't want the war anyway, so the following will fall on deaf ears: if the question came up before we sent Saddam fleeing, "Should we keep him in power at the cost of these relics?", I don't think any right minded person would say now.
Yep, youse guys can sit on back and wait with anticipation for something to go wrong....just way to point that finger at the U.S. again for fucking up somesuch thing in Iraq as the country now attempts to right itself in the world....enjoy. Monday morning quarterbacking, thy name is Liberalism.
-TODD
BTW, for the boredom alone it's inflicted on me over the years I despise Golf...in the way I despise liver, root canals, and the smell of farts. Always have, always will.
Just seemed like a pertinent point t'make.
I too was thoroughly upset, disgusted, and appalled by the plundering of that museum today. It recalled for me that dismal day several years ago when the Talaban eradicated the world's largest Buddha statues, one towering about 175 feet, dating 1500 years.
Our negligence reflects the detachment I sense in the Bush administration in post-war planning. I was, frankly, all for letting the civilians plunder Hussein's palaces. Seemed absolutely appropriate; the man, after all, had swindled his own country to indulge his excesses. Great wealth at the expense of the masses. All that property rightfully belongs to the Iraqis. But now, as the inevitable byproduct of mob mentality, some of the Iraqis are cutting their own throats - destroying their cultural heritage.
I cannot believe, even now, the treasures that got plundered. They included tablets of cuneiform writing that still had to be translated. Possibly the earliest samples in history of written language. Remnants of the cradle of civilization, for chrissake.
Y'know, there were international mandates designed to protect cultural property during conflict. It was established in the Hague in 1954. The U.S. and Britain didn't ratify them. We can worry about oil fields but we don't seem to give a flyin' fuck about a heritage that belongs not just to a nation but the entire human race.
An absolute debasement. I think it is by far the worst casualty of the war. It's a perfect metaphor for our ability to destroy ourselves given the opporunity.
...now to bigger and better things.
Ben,
I didn't grow up particularly fond of horror as a genre (invariably favoring sf and comedy above all others) but I've become inexplicably drawn to it more and more in recent years.
You are, as you've stressed, well-grounded in the Hammer shop of horrors. Throughout the same period Italy was having ITS horror renaissance in film too. Mario Bava, as you undoubedly know, ushered in the trend that put great, careful emphasis on atmosphere. I happen to think Bava is overrated as a director myself (in an article I once read, some lunatics tried to compare him to Fellini; incredibly pathetic. He was a good visualist because effects work and editing were his background. Yet he had many overt weaknesses; he was a good craftsman but hardly an artist). Nevertheless, he and others made gorgeous use of bw photography and they were a brilliant success in exploiting the international market. BLACK SUNDAY just about started it all, making the actress Barbara Steele into an international cult figure.
When I was a kid some of these Italian flicks were all over the tv airwaves. All of them with Steele. Because of unique multi-language dubbing methods, English translations were perfectly synched. So, the tracks weren't an embarrassing distraction for the viewer. As a result, a couple of these scared the shit out of me when I was around maybe 7 or 8 (believing that ghosts really existed definitely added to the effect). But it wasn't things jumping out of the dark that scared me or critters chawin' out yer throat, even though many of these films were filled with such campy poorly scripted cliches; it was the creepy atmosphere punctuated with moments of intense violence. Sharing a bit of Val Lewton, it was the kind of "subtly" visceral terror that would stick with you long after seeing the movie. It was like an irrisistable aversion sucking you into the claustrophobia of clammy shadows and haunting Freudian symbols.
...and what was largely crucial to this effect was the use of b&w photography. Shadows were SO consuming you would lose all sense of direction in the setting. Thus, b&w was intrinsic to the effect, interestingly making the Italian horror cycle a counterstatement in style to its British competitor.
Sooooooo...d'ya recall seein' any of those?
R. Wilder,
I'd say you chose the right book for your book club.
Frank,
Apologies if I implied - no, I did screw it up, you were merely repeating Mailer's erroneous statement. My apologies for my assumption.
As for Chmosky, output does not equal knowledge or understanding or compassion. His hatred for everything capitalistic overshadows his good intentions and turns his writings into a black ball of hatred.
BUT
We can share one joy in the world, and that is the fun sounds of White Stripes. Accidentally caught them last year opening for Veruca Salt at the Metro and fell in love with their crazy wild garage sounds. They know they're not the greatest band on the planet and they enjoy it. Wacky, goofy, amatuer as hell, and more fun than anything besides a Trail Of Our Dead concert.
Regards,
Joseph
*** Eric ***
Not that Frank can't or shouldn't speak for himself but there is no conflict between despising golf and loving the common man. Golf has always been an aristocratic and exclusive pastime. I suppose it's inclusive in the sense that it doesn't require any physical stamina beyond toning some select muscles on the driving range. Any budding heart attack or stroke victim can book a tee time as long as he can get a membership and afford the green fees and the gear and lord help him, the clothes. But historically it's always been exclusive if you were black, female, Jewish, Latino or even at or below middle-class. Not that we live in a class society. [snort]
- Barney
ps. Not liking Republican neo-cons and golf is a far cry from not liking anything.
>Golf is not only stupid but immoral. It uses way too much land, and water, and is played by mostly elite fuck nut Republicans. <
No-one asked you, Frank. You never have anything nice to say about anything anyway. For someone who professes such a love for the common man, you display a rather astonishing lack of kindness and generosity of spirit in everything you post.
If you think you score points here, with your hagiographic lifts from Chomsky and your own sweeping generalizations on all things cultural, you're wrong. You're just another hostile, unhappy pest, who through your own unlovely presentation does far more harm to the causes you support than good.
You must all see this.
The whole war is worth it just for this.
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/index.html
I dare you not to laugh your ass off.
I read this sad story about how the antiquity museum in Baghdad was destroyed, while our so-called heros just let it happen. All those treasures destroyed. They looted and destroyed their own stuff? Amazing stuff that Indiana Jones would have gasped at. This last bit is pungent, and definetly makes it known why this war was wrong:
""You are American!" a woman shouted at me in English yesterday morning, wrongly assuming I was from the US.
"Go back to your country. Get out of here. You are not wanted here. We hated Saddam and now we are hating Bush because he is destroying our city." It was a mercy she could not visit the Museum of Antiquity to see for herself that the very heritage of her country
- as well as her city - has been destroyed."
---Robert Fisk, from the Independant, London.
My favorite Ballard books:
1)Crash
2)Empire of the Sun
3)Running Wild
4)The Drowned World
5)The Unlimited Dream Company
6)Vermilion Sands
7)Concrete Island
8)Terminal Beach
9)Memories of the Space Age
10)Crystal World
Now, except for a little spilling of the seed in #5, #1 is the only volume that contains any level of perversity.
Frank: I'm genuinely surprised at your disdain for Ballard. He is a truly radical writer with a unique vision.
I love Nature, love being on water, in the woods, camping, hiking or just lying about. But I love walking around my small city, too. Until a few years ago, my downtown used to close down after rush hour, and was completely shut-down over the weekend, save for a handful of bars. I would walk block after block of deserted concrete, empty looking buildings, bare parking lots and ramps, feeling like the last man on earth. Those moments were "Ballardian." Humankind's relationship with technology and environment are examined in Ballard's work in wholly unique ways. If you've only read "Crash" and were put off by the perversity, I suggest you give him another chance. He's worth it.
Yo, Baggo Scotto, check this out:
"The latest film by Canadian director David Cronenberg, "Crash" is not exactly about bondage; an ice-cold, sadomasochistic linkage of sex and pain is more its game. And the result is so far from being involving or compelling, so intentionally disconnected from any kind of recognizable emotion, that by comparison David Lynch's removed "Lost Highway" plays like "Lassie Come Home.""
---Kenneth Turin
Frank: I second your recommendation on White Stripe's "Elephant." Great record! A bit different, but also excellent, is "Summer Sun" by Yo La Tengo, which is much mellower, a wash of melodies, feedback, and indie-pop tunes.
On the Jazz front, there are two progressive groups that have new records out. The Bad Plus is a very different piano trio, with versions of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Heart of Glass" on their debut "These Are The Vistas" on Columbia. Vandermark 5 is a Chicago based outfit whose leader Ken Vandermark was awarded a MacArthur gift. They have a cool new disc out on Atavistic entitled "Airports for Light." Avante-garde jazz based more on melody and composition, rather than free-blowin' dissonance. I'm diggin' em.
Oh, and if Country is your bag, there's a nifty anthology of previously released vinyl singles on CD entitled "Making Singles, Drinking Doubles" from the renegade Bloodshot label. Real Country for real people, with folks like Neko Case, Ryan Adams, Jon Langford, The Sadies, Robbie Fulks and such.
Wilder, are you sure this wasn't a soccer riot?
You must remember all the years that Miller's Tropic Of Cancer created the same ruckus. Except the obvious fact that Miller destroyed Ballard as a writer. I will say that controversy alone is never enough. Except for Eminem it seems. Lol.
I used to work for a large bookstore for just under six years and we had an employee bookclub, with participants taking turns choosing a book. I chose "Crash." Usually we'd meet at a pub once a month and quietly discuss what we'd read. With "Crash," though, the group erupted into combustion. Yelling, screaming, throwing silverware, punching, clawing, our group descended into brute violence. Mild-mannered middle-aged bookworms, normally calm, transformed into writhing red-faced berserkers, spittle flying. Demure young college coeds, devotees of Oates, Lessing and Atwood, grew shrill and freakish. Barrel-chested, thumping Hemingway and Faulkner men trembled in horror. Even the Beat followers howled their outrage. If memory serves, everyone hated me for choosing "Crash."
No, Joseph, I agree that a book can have any kind of charactor, and that sometimes weak charactors overcoming great odds make for the most important statement or ideal. Mailer is full of gas as usual; I just thought it was an odd thing for a writer of his stature to write.
-------
Diana, I highly regard the new White Stripes album, Elephant. It received the coveted FIVE star rating from Rolling Stone. You and your young lad might enjoy it. A mixture of Led Zepellin/Stones rock blues meet post punk pop. Masterful.
Frank, in regards to your question:
Why not ask Dostoyevsky?
BTW, waste a few bucks and find copies of "The Atrocity Exhibition" and "Crash". Read them. Understand what Ballard has to say, then come back and discuss. It's not about wackos jacking off at fender-benders; it's much more.
Going Home, Scott
Frank,
Two points you mentioned, two points dismissed:
1) "Crash" no more celebrates people sexually obsessed with car crashes than "Casablanca" celebrates Vichy collaboraters. I don;t think anyone could successfully, and logically, argue that the film or book celebrate this group of sad little people.
2) Mailer is dead wrong, unless you've massively misquoted him (perhaps the actual quote, please?) Witness Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Carver, Ellison, Boyle, Oates, etc, etc; all creators of great art about little people. Hell, ignore all that and read "Night and the City," and you'll see what I mean in spades.
Regards,
Joseph
Diana wrote;
>>If for some reason you decide to discontinue this internet site, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't keep on saying things that suggest that it would have been my fault that you decided to do so. Assuming that you were addressing me in that last post, that's just what you implied. I think making such an accusation is excessive, outrageous, and unfair. To say the least.<<
I don't.
To say even leaster.
- Barney
Bern, I agree with you, but won't go into it now. You are a smart guy, and a good writer. And I know you do not need any self esteem peptalk from the likes of me. Lol.
Frank; you asked a question at the end of your last post.
My answer: No.
But then again - nobody would mistake me for a great writer, now, would they?
Bern
Well remember that Tyson didn't win his fights because of smarts, but because of just having some really steel hard fists. He may be considered an intellect in some other dimension that considers ear biting to be the best way to ace any SAT test.
------------
Golf is not only stupid but immoral. It uses way too much land, and water, and is played by mostly elite fuck nut Republicans. And I hold golf largely responsible for fucking up Alice Coopers song writing.
I like Carlin's bit on golf, where he says that maybe the golf coarses should be given to homeless people to pitch tents on.
--------------
Dead Ringers is Cronenberg's best film by far; and Crash is real trash. People who get off on car crashed should be bumped into obscurity, not celebrated.
Strangely, ABC's The Practice had a better, and sicker Fetish on one of their shows: One episode had Henry Winkler, of all people, as a man who is accused murder, and later it is found out that he gets off by masterbating while watching woman step on cockroaches; I kid you not. But my one question about this "alternative lifestyle choice" is, does the woman still provide a relevent turn on, even with unshaved legs? And what if the cockroach lives?
----------------
Two Chomsky books in one month! You can tell I am in pinko heaven here. Does that motherfucker ever sleep? You have to admit Joseph--you playa hater you-- that man works his butt off.
---------------
In Norman Mailers new book, The Spooky Art: Thoughts On Writing, he makes the point that to be a great author you must always strive to create charactors who are better, more noble, or stronger than said author. Anyone agree?
LYNN,
'Chess with fists'? How can you think strategically -let alone coherently- while having your face pummeled?
Then again, I haven't seen GIRLFIGHT, so maybe I wouldn't know...
Geez, I leave a topic I think has precious little mileage in it, and find opuses can be written.
Well, the subject can outdistance writing about the flea...
Right, rich, it ain't chess, but its strategy is much more intricate that some are lead to believe. "The Sweet Science" isn't just about the use of brute force, or the issue of stamina, but those who were and are the best were folks of rmearkable intellect, and they had to be. Coming at a southpaw forces a fighter to rethink the entire plan, as jabbing and counterpunching can become quite difficult. Size, reach, movement, jabbing and punching tactics force boxers to re-evaluate their opponent and themselves on a round by round basis at times. And there is clock management, knowing how much you have in the tank, and how to use it.
And, history does respect those who did have the genius for the ring. Ali showed constantly that he was no dummy, except in his decision to say too long in the game. Marciano, Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler were as successful as they were due to their ability to size up opponents, alter tactics as needed, and go for the throat, often doing it with an incredible ease. Conversely, it'll also show Tyson for what he was, being a one-punch thug who won belts from bums, never truly knowing how to box.
No, we're not talking about quantum theory, and you're quite correct in saying "it ain't chess", but it isn't simply the cunning logic of survival, either.
Scott, who honestly believes that George Chuvalo at his best could easily pound Tyson into 200-odd (and I emphase ODD) pounds of pidgeon feed.
that's "mental chumps"...see what I get for writing while feeding the baby?
How could boxing POSSIBLY be like chess when it has mental champions like Tyson among its champions?
Lynn,
Let me see if I can clarify my comments from what seemed to me to be a somewhat light-hearted post on my part. You're reading way too much into my initial post and attributing meanings that just aren't there.
I reiterate: Boxing is not "chess, with fists". In no way shape or form did I make mention that mental stamina is not required in boxing. In no way shape or form did I mention that I "look down" on those that enjoy boxing or wrestling or whatever sport it was said I denigrated. In no way shape or form did I mention that wrestlers were not athletes. In no way shape or form did I "underestimate the level of dedication" these guys (and gals) have.
I reiterate: Boxing is not "chess, with fists".
I am quite aware that boxers and wrestlers are athletes. I am also quite aware that boxing and wrestling (amateur wrestling; professional wrestling has nothing to do with true wrestling and has nothing to do with winning or losing) require mental and physical stamina. I am quite aware that the mental aspect of boxing, as in ALL sports, is far more important than the physical aspect. Despite what we're led to believe from televsion and movies, fights don't last that long because most people 1) don't know how to fight, and 2) can't keep up the pace in a fight. So once the physical threshold has been reached, those that can WILL their way to keep going usually win.
However, despite the ability of someone to throw a punch and despite the ability of someone to dodge a punch or take a blow, boxing is not chess. There is no other strategy involved than knowing how the other guy fights and what your best bet is in countering that other boxer's ability, especially if you have more weaknesses than the other boxer. All sports have strategy involved, but we don't go around saying that "xxx is like chess", or trying to elevate a particular sport to a lofty position to somehow make that sport legitimate when no such effort is needed. Boxing is a sport. Football is a sport. Wrestling, both pro and amateur, is a sport. Golf is a sport. Any activity that requires physical and mental stamina in the pursuit of 'winning' is more than likely a sport. However, to compare one sport to another is apples and oranges and any such comparison should be met with skepticism and a large grain of salt.
I do not say this to denigrate boxing, but only to point out that boxing is not chess.
"Why is it that if physical violence is involved in a sport, the possibility of having a mental component in the sport becomes completely unimaginable?"
I said no such thing and didn't even imply any such thing. Anyone who has been involved in physical violence KNOWS this.
BUT IT AIN'T CHESS.
Figuring out the best way to tackle a landscaping job ain't chess. Figuring out the best way to handle a skidding car ain't chess. Figuring out the best way to spike that volleyball ain't chess.
And the list goes on.
Lynn,
I'd also recommend the documentary "On the Ropes," about three boxers (one of them female) getting ready for the Golden Gloves, and the whole society of amatuer boxing. Fabulous stuff.
Regards,
Joseph
Rich~
Why is it that if physical violence is involved in a sport, the possibility of having a mental component in the sport becomes completely unimaginable?
Do you know how much physical training goes into being able to withstand ten rounds of punishment? Do you know how much focus and timing it takes to be able to keep a speed bag in motion? To learn the balance and physiokinetics it takes to throw a punch? These athletes (yes, even Tyson) have a mental stamina and focus I would KILL for as a writer.
BTW, professional wrestlers are also athletes. Just because you don't enjoy the sport (and perhaps because you look down on those that do), don't underestimate the level of dedication and focus, the amount of drive it takes to be an athlete of that caliber.
L.
Lynn,
"It's chess, with fists."
You're kidding, right? I mean, I'm sure Tyson aced his SATs and Frazier was penning poetry in his spare time and LaMotta was really into the theories behind Relativity, but professional boxing is NOT "chess, with fists".
I'll give you the Olympics and some amateur boxing as having some strategy involved, but professional boxing has as much to do with "chess" as professional wrestling has to do with...well, wrestling.
I personally don't give a left jab one way or the other when it comes to boxing, but let's not get too carried away.
Haven't seen girlfight. I s'pose it's a step up from mud pits and bikinis.
DTS: Arrrggggh! You should be publicly flogged with a large carp for that one...
Scott
Eric~ Ever seen GIRLFIGHT (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0210075)? It might change your mind about how "moronic" boxing is. The mental aspect of that sport is 90% of the game. It's chess, with fists.
Diana~ I don't think Rick was threatening to shut the board down. You know how every once in awhile we can't post until Rick fixes the board? If we post too much, the background app gets twitchy. If we get into flame wars, it has a mental breakdown and has to go into therapy, and it doesn't have health insurance, yadda yadda yadda... So that's what he was talking about. Rick works very hard behind the scenes, pulling the strings and keeping the moving bits from getting fouled up. He doesn't really care about keeping us from each others throats. (Frankly, I think he runs an underground betting parlor based on our little spats, and is making a tidy little sum on the side, but that's just me speculating.)
And I'd love to sign this post, Evil Lynn, but I won't, for obvious reasons. (You in the corner, quit snickering or I'll turn you into a newt.)
L.
Eric:
Well, I'm 39, and can still get some guys together to chase a ball or puck around (You should see my backyard rink on any given Saturday. The kids complain that they can't play because of us grown-ups), getting real exercise. Sorry, but I find it more challenging and exacting to be able to pass, shoot, and give or take a hit while propelling myself on two thin blades of aluminum, or chase down a hard liner to the gap, be it baseball or softball.
Yeah, I'm no spring chicken, but I feel that golf simply is an activity that goes far too slowly for my merit, and doesn't represent enough challenge. Yes, I've played; still have my set of clubs hanging in the garage (only twenty uses. Ebay, here we come!), its nuances overpromoted by those who feel it has worth. Boring and trivial as far as I'm concerned.
Scott
ALL: Stop me if you've heard this one:
A mama mole, a papa mole, and a baby mole were all living in their little mole hole. One day the papa mole sticks his head out of the hole, sniffs the air and says,"Yum! I smell maple syrup!"
Then the mama mole squeezes up next to him, sticks _her_ head out of the hole, sniffs the air, and says "Yum! _I_ smell honey!"
Excited by the thought of all those sweet-tasting treats, the baby mole tries to stick his head out of the hole in order to sniff the air up there. But the baby mole can't get outside of the burrow because the bigger moles are in the way. So he takes a sniff from where he's at and says, "Geez, all I can smell
is....(wait for it)...MOLASSES!
(well _I_ thought it was funny).
--DTS
>It's a stupid, boring recreational activity that is hyped well beyond its merit and interest. Give me baseball, hockey, football, and legitimate boxing any day of the week.<
Don't hold back, Bag, tell us what you really think. Um, golf is stupid, yes, but I can't see baseball, hockey or football being any more brainy. It's all about chasing balls. And boxing: talk about moronic.
One small point: I'm 40, so I'm not as tough or fast as I used to be, and don't have 6 to 10 buddies instantly on tap who can drop their lives to play football, baseball, or hockey. Golf is a nice way to get outside, get a little activity going, and it's a lot less dosed on testosterone and phallic posturing like some of the sports you just named.
As for merit and interest, I can't speak to merit. But take this from the States...golf has far more interest down here than hockey.
Eric:
Re, Bag of Meat: Awwwwwww, didn't know you cared.
Yep, nice for Canada, and I've actually met Weir for a few minutes. Seems a genuinely nice chap, and this is one of those things that the good guys of this world deserve to win. As for the golf, well, I don't give a rat's ass. It's a stupid, boring recreational activity that is hyped well beyond its merit and interest. Give me baseball, hockey, football, and legitimate boxing any day of the week.
I don't remember the comedian who said it, but if you can smoke a pack of cigarettes and drink a six pack of beer, yet maintain a decent level of skill at the activity, then it's not a sport. Golf and sex aren't sports.
Rich: Loved Cronenberg for years. He, Martin Scorcese, and Phil Kaufman have great track records of producing consistantly provocative films, showing their passion for the work of film making, rather than the quest for success and fame.
Scott, who must say goodbye to his beloved Expos. This year is the last year. Really.
Diana,
There were no accusations in Rick's post. He wasn't just addressing you, he was addressing me, PAB, Bern, Doug, etc. and anyone else that reads this board. I don't believe any slight to anyone was intended and I think he just wanted to get the car out of the mud, so to speak. And, if the car is still in the mud, to spin the wheels elsewhere.
Scott,
Thanks for the name of the book of essays on Cronenberg. One of my last essays for that film and video class I took in high school was on Videodrome. I've been hooked on his films ever since.
DTS and Peter,
Actually, I'm going to agree with DTS on this one and say that A Winter Haunting is much, MUCH better than From a Buick 8. Personally, A Winter Haunting is also much better than Bag of Bones (similar themes) and I think it's just a good novel regardless of genre.
Rick~
PAB seems to have assumed you were addressing your last post to the disagreement between her and I.
Since I'm pretty sure I've been being civil recently, I can't imagine why any of what I've posted in the last weeks can have led you to the point of threatening to shut down Webderland, so I didn't assume that you were addressing that matter
If that is the what you were talking about I can't imagine what you think was going on that was so distressing as to have led you to suggest you needed to take drastic measures.
If for some reason you decide to discontinue this internet site, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't keep on saying things that suggest that it would have been my fault that you decided to do so. Assuming that you were addressing me in that last post, that's just what you implied. I think making such an accusation is excessive, outrageous, and unfair. To say the least.
Diana
Ugh. Tried to get some rewriting done on the Great American Novel, and got so bogged down that I'm now convinced that the whole project was a waste of time. Happily, this mood shall pass. But right now... ugh.
Alex: Hang in there. I'd be utterly terrified if I'd heard even a suspicion of cancer. And that's even knowing about the treatments available.
Genuinely Strange TV Moment today. I was watching the last DVD in the box set for the Beatles' _Anthology_. I turned the player off, switched the TV to normal cable... where they were showing the 1970's TV movie of _Helter Skelter_. Did I really need a moment like _that_?
ALEX KRISLOV: I wish you'd said something to me about it when we
exchanged a few moments' pleasantries, that last night I was in Ohio, at the Rock Hall. I'd totally forgotten about the cancer, and was so exhausted and non compos mentis ... well, I would've liked to've at least said something useless. Please excuse my seemingly insensitive silence. You surely know I wish you the best of breaks.
Harlan
Eric and Scott,
Well, when you have to practice your golf swing in twelve foot drifts, you learn accuracy...and how to hit the wedge out of the traps.
But seriously, that was ne crazy Masters. Nice to see some back and forth and "oh my, I can't believe that just happened to him!" Hopefully in the next few years some female members can watch.
Fun exchange with my father yesterday, as he was complaining about a Tiger Woods snapshot they were running. Asked my dad how many green jackets he had. Then ribbed him mnercilessly during the Arnie Palmer and Jack Nicklaus snapshots ("Hey dad, are these two even PLAYING?") Ah, good times.
Regards,
Joseph
Hey, Bag of Meat (you'll always be that to me), a Canuck won the Masters! And a southpaw at that! Congrats to the Great White North...MIke Weir put on a great fight, and held forth even when he had to go into sudden death with Mattiace.
It was a GREAT masters. Tiger had a bad run, but nothing was more tragic than Maggert's quintuple bogey on the 12th in the final day. He plunked it into the drink twice, so the rest of mortals can now not feel so bad. I've been at the driving range the past two days, working on my slice.
Rick:
THANK YOU.
Good night and farewell, and this time I mean it,
PAB
I've forgotten to post this so many times, so I may as well say it now, before I forget again:
ALEX KRISLOV: You have my best wishes in your struggle with cancer. You've always seemed to be a decent and intelligent person (even though you don't like SIGNS, which is a WONDERFUL AND PERCEPTIVE MEDITATION ON FAITH *ahem*), and it just seems cosmically wrong that this should happen to you. So keep strong, lean on your family and friends (that's what they're there for), and don't hesitate to vent here if it helps in any way.
Take care,
Jim
My response to Diana's accusation of lying will be addressed off board. This conversation is over.
PAB
I just went back over the conversation of the past few days. Painful in some ways, but also dharma of sorts (if you dig what I'm sayin').
Two things before I go off to bed early (am rising early to go to NYC for a day of teaching jazz and an evening of listening to it):
ROB: you gave me a compliment and I didn't respond. Sorry to be slow on the uptake, but thanks!
and CHUCK: big shout out. Was thinking of you and hope things continue to improve.
GONE!
I think I speak for most people here (and even if I don't, well, I *should*) when I say I find this whole matter about as appealing as watching a horrible car accident. Without the guilty thrills.
Like Mike Tyson's career, the discussion was over a long time ago and it's now nothing but punches and silliness. Please (without any last words, without any smartass comments about how it was JUST NOW ENDING before I stepped in, without any flippant rejoinders to show us that you weren't taking it all that seriously, it was just a lark, etc.) take it to e-mail.
This board is already a gnat's ass away from going the way of the dodo, or at the very least transmuting considerably. Let's not try to give its teetering frame any more shoves.
PAB~
So. Now you're going to front.
I sent you a sincere apology. You want to play like you never got it, fine. But if you didn't get it it would have been bounced back. It wasn't. If you didn't bother to read it, because you didn't want to know what I had to say, well that's nothing I had any control over.
If you're into holding onto your anger, again, I have no control over that.
If you couldn't accept the apology? I have no control over that either. I make them, when I make them in complete sincerity. And then I let them go. I leave people to accept them or not. Whatever the given individual can deal with.
I apologize, when I apologize, because I see it as being the rght thing to do. But I don't expect to be forgiven. And I don't expect not to. I just do it, when I do it, because it's the right thing to do. That I DO have control over.
I have no trouble with apologizing when I think I've acted wrongly. Ask around. You'll be told it's true.
And why would I have singled you out to slight and overlook?
It makes no sense.
You're making no sense.
I have no idea what else to say to you except:
Bye for now.
Still Not Evil Diana
Diana: To what e-mail do you refer to which I did not reply? I will repeat, for the record: I NEVER RECEIVED AN APOLOGY FROM YOU. The last personal e-mail you sent to me, on 2/7/03, ended with this line:
"Report back to your leaders. Tell them I said to cram it up their collective asses. 'Kay? That's it."
This was received BEFORE you outed the alleged contents my personal e-mails to you on this board, and after that, I e-mailed you and told you that I felt horribly wronged by you and thanked you kindly to leave me alone in the future. YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THAT E-MAIL. That was our last instance of private correspondence.
If you are referring to the spam you sent me as an apology, well, all I can say is, give me a break. I don't read impersonally mass-forwarded chain letters and I certainly don't consider them apologies. I honestly have no idea WHAT was in that e-mail and don't care. It fails to qualify as an attempt at reconciliation.
As to the carpetbagging, it did not happen on my side. It was in your mind. You did, however, refer to my Judeo-Christian philosopy of guilt, repentance and forgiveness, as "evil," you did refer to me as "angry, extreme, and radical," and you did say that my opinions were "judgemental," and you also used the words "hair shirt" and "self-hate" in relation to my views, if not to me. You can see why I would think you were carpetbagging. But at this point I no longer care if you were, nor if you think I was. It's of no concern to me.
I'm glad we had this little talk. It's for the best that I tell you how I feel. Get it out in the open. Me, trying to be honest, not being full of shit, all that. At this point, since I have been taken to task for saying "CONVERSATION OVER," I'll be more subtle and just say that I don't really want to talk to about this here anymore. Feel free to talk to yourself and others about it if you wish; if you want to talk to me about carpetbags or apologies or lacks therein, or to resend some alleged apology that I plainly did not receive, I ask you politely to e-mail me privately. You won't be hearing any more about it FROM ME here on this board, period. I have dealt with enough embarrassment here due to my dealings with you to last me a lifetime and have no wish for more, though honestly, I am currently quite embarrassed to be talking about it here again at all.
In fact, I think I'm going to take a break from this board for a while. I have a lot of school work to do, some writing I want to get on, packing and cleaning for vacation, and a low threshhold for aggravation right now. I will check the Pavilion to see if anyone responds to my question about Fiction Magazine. So, with that, I bid you adieu for now... maybe my imminent 11 day vacation from work and Internet will improve my outlook and restore my joie de vivre.
Here's to hoping, and a Happy Easter or Pesach in advance to those who celebrate it,
PAB
Just saw David Lynch's ERASERHEAD on DVD. In a pitch-black room.
Whooooooooooooo, I'm tripped out...
PAB~
You just did it again. You seem inclined to state as fact what *you percieve* to be another person's feelings or attitudes.
Stating that I "deliberately" hurt someone else when you don't know what my aims or goals were in any given instance. You have no idea if I deliberated or acted on impulse, or *what* was going on in my head at any given time. Yet you state your *assumptions* about these things as truths.
PAB, I didn't, couldn't point out your carpetbagging, until you did it. Nor did I suggest at any time that you suffered from self-hate.
I'm not sure what to say to you about you saying I didn't apologize to you. If the e-mail I sent you, which you never bothered to respond to wasn't enough, I would have no way of knowing it wasn't enough, becuase you didn't bother to answer me. Not that I'd have had anything else to offer you if you had said that it wasn't enough.
I assure there's no flame war, or train collision in the offing. Or at least not one involving me.
Bye for now.
Diana
P.A. BERMAN: There's ALWAYS room for new stories. As long as you have something new to say and some redeeming talent to say it with, you can use the same story a million others have before you and make it all new.
Now write.
If you want to talk about carpetbagging, let's talk about it. After all, Jon and Markos clearly think it would be OK to do so, so why not? This train is going to hit the station whether I try to stop it or not, so fuck it. Here it goes.
Diana, sweetheart darling, you never apologized to me. Never, not once, not even a little bit. It's nice that you apologized to the other people you deliberately hurt, but that's of absolutely no moment to me; in fact, it made me feel deliberately slighted. You in fact apologized to everyone BUT me, which made the lack of contrition more glaring and irksome. Why should I believe you are sorry for what you did to me on this board? As you pointed out, I'm not a mind reader, and you have shown to me no indication of any remorse for your horrible violation of my trust. Until you do, I am in no way compelled to believe anything other than that you feel no qualms about your treatment of me, and my opinion of you remains as it was when you were "The Bad Diana."
And I wasn't bagging on Jon and Markos for supporting you; I was bagging on them for not recognizing my attempt to prevent another flame war on this board, which seems bound to happen no matter what I try to do, since you seem solipsistically(that one's for you, Frank) married to the idea that my stance on apologies and forgiveness are directed at you.
As for my ESP abilities: One does not have to be a mind reader to know the difference between a person who says he is only human because he made an understandable error and someone who is seeking to mitigate blame for a wrongdoing, to make excuses. One need only observe the person's actions subsequent to the pronouncement of humanity. It's clear as hell when someone has a devil-may-care attitude about the wrong committed, and wants there to be no consequences when he screws up. If you're only human, fine, whatever. That's irrelevant, really. What are you going to DO about it? If nothing, then "only human" is a lame cop out.
I teach kids, and when they don't do their work, I often hear excuses from them about being human, and cuttting them some slack. Rarely do I hear, "I didn't do it. I was lazy. I deserve the zero you have to give me." How refreshing that would be for a change. But it's not only kids who abhor consequences; it's pervasive.
I've also seen how people on this board don't care much if Bill Clinton commits adultery or lies under oath. I'm sorry, but those lies do hurt people who are supposed to trust him; not just Hillary, but AMERICA. America's trust was violated by Clinton when he perjured himself and violated his oath as President. I take such promises seriously. Justifying a lie under oath as a cover-up for a lie to a spouse is not sufficient justification; it's adding insult to injury.
PAB
Colleen, Rob S, Alex Jay: Thanks for your help on this. I just recalled that Nikos Kazantzakis also addresses Lazarus, in a tragic bit of irony.
Do you think there's room for another short story on the topic of Lazarus, post-resurrection? My concern was that, unbeknownst to me, it had been done to death.
PAB
PAB~
Wait a minute!!! Just wait a minute...Right off before I read any further I saw you said...
"When you make the choice to hurt another person..."
I believe this discussion started with a question about Slick Willy, and him lieing about cheating, or rather about him doing Ms Monica, or rather him trying to get people to believe he DIDN'T do Ms Monica (everyone knew he cheated generally,this was about him cheating specifically, or rather him trying to get people to believe he didn't cheat THAT time) If you'd said "...make a choice THAT hurt another person, I'd have sailed on. But you didn't. And don't go trying to say that's just semantics. It's not. It's an important difference. I don't think most people of Mr Clinton's ilk are out TO hurt anybody. Folks who carry on like that often DO hurt people. But I don't think that's the REASON they pull stuff like that.
Regarding:
"Being a mensch and being only human are not mutually exclusive, but I must note that most people who shrug their shoulders and say "Hey, I'm only human" don't mean, "Hey, I'm trying my hardest." Usually, they mean, "get off my ass. I screwed up...."
(THE FOLLOWING FEW REMARKS ARE SARCASTIC...)
Okay, so NOW the truth comes out!!! PAB has ESP!!! Do you wear a turban when your psychically delving into the inner depths of people's souls, or what? "MOST people who...say" thus and so,
But you know they ACTUALLY mean something else, and you know what they really mean? You know how they're feeling? Regardless of what they're saying? And you know this, HOW?
Oh right, you've already said you want/need to see people who've wronged you, or you think have wronged you grovel. Otherwise, apparently you're not going to believe they mean their apologies. I get it.
Regarding:
"And finally, to Jon Stover, Markos, and anyone else who has a problem with me trying to end a conversation with Diana that I felt was heading for a major locking of horns: You guys sure have some short fuckin' memories"
Maybe those people have short memories, or maybe just maybe, what's really going on is that they took me at my word when I said I was sorry oh those many weeks ago. Maybe they didn't require groveling to move on.
I don't know how to relate to someone who, when they're apologized to, is inclined to turn around and say, "No you're not sorry. I know what you REALLY feel, what you're REALLY thinking, I heard you SAY you're sorry, but you're not, and even if you are you're NOT sorry enough to suit me anyways" and other things like that.
If someone says they're sorry to me about something, if what they're apologizing for isn't unforgivably heinous, I'll "parole" them, I'll tentatively forgive them. I'll wait and see. I'll have my eye on them, but I'll give them a chance. If they then go back to doing the stuff they did before that caused them to need to apologize to me in the first place , then of course I can always revoke their parole, but my way they at least get a chance to try and mend their evil ways, if they want to.
ANd PAB? That last bit, where you scolded Jon & Marcos for supporting me, and then brought up old news, saying that was why they shouldn't have supported me, and saying that was why you'd done what it was you did that they sided with me about? (you TOLD me the "convo" was over) That was carpetbagging, PAB. Which you said you weren't doing, and that you didn't do, because it's not cool to do that. But you did do it.
But, hey it's okay with me that you did it. After all, you're only human. :=)
Diana
Also, J. Michael Straczynski's recent comic book miniseries MIDNIGHT NATION (twelve issues with artist Gary Frank; now collected in a trade paperback and hardcover) had Lazarus as a supporting character.
To PAB
Kahlil Gibran wrote a short play, I believe, titled "Lazarus and His Beloved".
To P.A. Berman:
Regarding a novel about Lazarus. There is one titled Lazarus, by
Alain Absire. Currently OP. Hope this helps.
Two more things:
One: Has anyone here ever heard of or read a work of fiction or any length that centers around what happens to Lazarus AFTER Jesus resurrects him? If so, please let me know.
Two: As support for my stance on atonement, look as Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Step Program. It's designed to help people deal with the screw-ups that resulted from their addictions, and it involves extensive apologizing. I took a class at Cornell about social stimata and deviance, and AA was cited as one of the few secular organizations that is good at helping people cope with and alleviate guilt and the stigma of addiction. No one points at AA and accuses them of perpetuating self-hatred or of forcing people to wear hair shirts.
What you seem to be forgetting is that, after you have sincerely apologized and done your best to express your sorrow, you're free. The other person doesn't have to forgive you in order for your conscience to be clear, as long as you've been honest, thorough, open, and forthright. Maybe that will help you understand my great advocation of sincere, even extensive, expressions of contrition.
PAB
PAB
First: The tendency to take a statement and warp it out of true persists, I'm bemused to note. cookie said it better than I could-- "only human" is more often used as an excuse for bad behavior and an unwillingness to take responsibility than as a salve for self-hatred. Lynn, Diana, et al, seem to want to ascribe self-hatred to my views, to which of course I strenuously object. Also, if hair shirts are mentioned one more time in reference to my or Bern's views, I'm gonna scream. You've been warned.
When you make the choice to hurt another person, especially if that other person is a person who loves and trusts you, you should feel guilt. Guilt is the natural and healthy response to such behavior. Guilt, if it is healthy, should provide the impetus for a heart-felt apology, which should then lead to open conversation, atonement, and ultimately, forgiveness. Without atonement and forgiveness, the wrong cannot be righted. How this is a Blame and Shame Game or self-flagellation OR involves sackcloth and ashes is beyond me. That's your little straw man, so please plant him in your own cornfield and keep him out of here.
Being a mensch and being only human are not mutually exclusive, but I must note that most people who shrug their shoulders and say "Hey, I'm only human" don't mean, "Hey, I'm trying my hardest." Usually, they mean, "get off my ass. I screwed up, but what did you expect?" I don't like the idea that my humanity can be used as a pass for bad behavior. Quite to the contrary.
Diana, you continue to ignore Bern's point: in THIS society, the oath of marriage accrues the oathtakers with numerous benefits, social, economic, legal. Why else do you think the Clintons stayed so long in a loveless marriage? Because they enjoyed reaping the benefits that marriage confers. IF you wish to partake of these benefits WITHOUT living up to the oath, then there SHOULD be consequences. American society does not give these benefits to gay people in long-term relationships, nor to straight people who are just co-habitating. Therefore, certain behavior should be required of the oathtakers in order to continue receiving those benefits. This is not a radical concept.
And finally, to Jon Stover, Markos, and anyone else who has a problem with me trying to end a conversation with Diana that I felt was heading for a major locking of horns: You guys sure have some short fuckin' memories.
PAB
Joseph:
When I read or see "Crash", I think back to "The Atrocity Exhibition", and what Ballard has to say about how society has become dehumanized to the point where we seem to only truly experience any emotional existence through our cultural representations or our technology. The two Ballard novels truly seem to show how we're only able to make real contact with other persons at pronounced levels of violence or sexuality, and Cronenberg kept that premise quite handedly.
In the Cronenberg film, all the performances were understated, at least in the apartments and offices, especially in the emotionless infidelites engaed in by the film's central characters (recalling the scene where Katherine gives Ballard a hand job while Ballard recuperates in the hospital, as they discuss the coming air crash victims). At the same time, as Ballard (the film's protagonist), Katherine, Dr. Remington and Vaughan seem incredibly detached in their discussion of re-enacting the vehicular deaths of famous persons. The scene where Vaughan, Ballard and Katherine come across a horrific accident, and begin to erotically touch the twisted metal of the battered cars while virtually ignoring the human victims (with one exception: Vaughan uses one of the female victims as one would use a mannequin for one of his photo tableaus) is forever stuck in my mind as one of the great movie moments depicting how emotionally isolated man can become from his fellow man.
Scott
RE: Practices, Mores, Standards, etc.
Whether in matters personal, professional, societal, spiritual, etc., there seems to be an assumption by many that the "guidelines" and paramaters are spoken with the clarity of Tom Skerritt saying, "The rules of engagement are not flexible ... nor am I."
Honestly, more often than not, doesn't it end up sounding like Butch and Harvey "discussing" the rules to a knife fight?
Just an observation.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
SCOTT,
Goopiness. "If that means his ability to show disturbing and somewhat gross images to the audience without seeming concern..."
No, I just meant his films are usually pretty goopy. You know, with lots of goop.
Yeah.
Bern~
You're arguments are entirely clear, and very well thought out. I'm sorry if I came across as suggesting otherwise. But I happen to disagree with some of your conclusions.
Regarding:
"It is utterly irrelevant if any other society, at any other time - did or did not accept any damn behavior at all"
No it's not utterly irrelevant. Just the opposite. That seems to me to be the whole point, and I can't understand how you can even write that it is irrelevant with a straight finger. :=)
Regarding:
"I agree that Judeo/Christian mores represent but a small slice of the potential choices, but that doesn't make it any more "right" or "wrong" than Greek mores, or Na mores, or Aboriginal mores"
I entirely agree with you that the fact that Judeo/Christian mores only represent a small slice of the potential choices isn't what makes the whole shame & blame, hair shirt and self-flagellation, guilt laden, repressive mentality it engender wrong.
What was pointed out to me *first*, at such times as those types of things were being pointed out to me, was the simple fact that other cultures, held views on sexual mores different (at some times & in some places radically different) than the ones presented as _givens_ by Western civilization. The people of these other cultures hold (and have held) their own truths to be just as "self-evident" as we hold ours.
I found myself considering that information. I thought it was very interesting information. I'm still considering that information. What does that all that mean? Does it mean ANYTHING? So what? So other people, at other times, and in other places, see (have seen) things differently?
YOU'RE saying, be all that as it may, all that stuff about other cultures is nice and interesting in the abstract, but here, and now, certain standards, mores, and values, are held as right and good. And so those are the ones we should go by.
I'm saying maybe, maybe not. And sometimes probably not. And in some regards, definately not.
If I give the impression I'm some kind of anarchistic sexual revolutionary, than I'm giviing the wrong impression. I happen to be kind of conventional, actually. But that's ME. See? That's the kind of life-style *I'm* comfortable with. That doesn't make it the only lifestyle that's good, or right or "decent". And I have no interest in foisting or forcing my life style on anyone else. I have no interest in controling other people's life-style choices. I love it that there are other people who have made other choices.
I'm getting a headache, Bern. And I need to go pay attention to some other stuff. It's been interesting arguing with you. Maybe I missed a few ponts I might have wanted to make about all this, but I need to use the bathroom so I can't think right now.
Maybe later, Alligator.
Bye for now.
Diana
Scott,
Re: "Crash." I had to think on the movie for quite a while, but I think I've come to a conclusion about it. The movie explores fetishism, but it does so by using a fetish that almost no one would have or be able to experience. In doing so, it manages to achieve an exploration of fetish that, say, a movie about fetish leather wearers would not - becuase there would invariably be parts of the audience who would be titillated by the idea.And hey, even if the movie doesn't work, you can still be amused that this is the same Ballard who experienced and wrote "Empire of the Sun."
On a completely different note, allow me impose on you all pictures of my newst and incredibly cute nephew, Matthew Thomas:
http://homepage.mac.com/josephfinn/PhotoAlbum10.html
Regards,
Joseph
CINDY:Whoops, almost forgot why I started to post. I tried like the dickens to reach you at the email address you use on this board, but I got "email box full" type errors. If you have another address, let me know. Or, if you still have the address I used to contact you way back when, then please (by all means) send a copy of your finished "Willie Parmenter" short story. I'd love to read it. Best.
Yr. buddy,
DTS
CINDY: Belated Birthday Wishes! I'm sure you don't look a day over 29 (and I'm just footsteps behind you chronologically, so I know you don't feel much older). After reading posts by Harlan (about you) in the Pavillion, and other posts by you (about the war) right here, I may have to invent a device that wipes the memory clean. I keep getting this picture of you all beautiful and perky in a "Stepford Wives" outfit, pointing a magnum at some guy's noggin and blowing it to pieces like "a ripe canteloupe" (ala Clint Eastwood) while saying, "Make my day, darlin'." VERY unnerving. And after I invent that, I'm gonna have to work on a nighttime jockstrap. Something that's not to uncomfortable, but stil holds the equipment close to one's body. After I woke up with a shout last night, my wife explained that she'd been dreaming about pulling the covers over her body when she (in reality) tried to do just that, reaching back behind her to my side of the bed. We both discovered that is impossible for a penis to stretch THAT far. Excuse me while I go back to my tub of ice.
--DTS
Diana - One last time, just to be clear. I have and continue to speak about OUR society, at THIS time. It is utterly irrelevant if any other society, at any other time - did or did not accept any damn behavior at all. Utterly. Irrelevant.
I have shown that all societies DO judge sexuality - they all define taboos - the idea that WE can't or shouldn't is, frankly, unrealistic. I agree that Judeo/Christian mores represent but a small slice of the potential choices, but that doesn't make it any more "right" or "wrong" than Greek mores, or Na mores, or Aboriginal mores - it is one of many possible systems.
This society IS, however, based on Judeo/Christian mores, thus it is completely justified in judging sexual behavior based on them, as the Na are for their society, or the Greeks were for theirs. Since your position (and those on the board who share it) is no more "absolutely right" than mine, only the fact that my position is "defending" the established mainstream mores of THIS PARTICULAR society gives my position an "edge".
You (plural) are trying to change the established order - thus the burden of proof falls on you to show that the new mores you're trying to introduce will benefit society, as a whole, more than the existing ones - I suspect you're going to have a difficult time proving to THIS society that adultery is better than fidelity, however successful the concept might be in other, differently structured societies.
It's wonderful and invigorating to proclaim one is perfectly non-judgmental - but it's also hogwash - and in a society it's also the way to complete anarchy, since every possible human behavior that CAN exist has a precedent which could be called on to abolish any "rule" against it - thus creating a society with no rules at all. There is no aspect of human experience that exists in splendid isolation, everything is interconnected, behaviors have consequences - even sexual behavior - thus there can be no area of human experience immune to the judgment of their society. That THIS society allows something...that THAT society doesn't... is, as I said before, irrelevant - we judge behavior not against some mythic absolute (yours OR mine) - but by the mores embraced by the current society.
Hopefully, this is now clear.
Bern
Ben, concerning Cronenberg:
"I went in half-expecting the typical trademark Cronenberg 'goopiness', (NAKED LUNCH, THE FLY, SHIVERS)"
If that means his ability to show disturbing and somewhat gross images to the audience without seeming concern, well, I've always felt that to be Cronenberg's ability to press into the nature of discussing the transgressive relationship between art and the artist. I must admit, through "Naked Lunch", "Videodrome", "Dead Ringers" and "Crash" (I applaud "The Fly" for not falling into the atypifications of the horror genre; a pity Wes Craven and his ilk wouldn't learn from it), I admired his ability to cross the line into the disturbing and visceral images he would present, almost being seen as enjoying subjecting his audience to the perversities.
Might I suggest you get a copy of "The Artist As Monster" by William Beard, a tremendous collection of essay critiques spanning the breadth of Cronenberg's work (the essay on "Videodrome" is stunning). Then go back, and re-view his work. It might help to clear up the "goopiness".
Scott
TODD,
SPIDER worked for me, and I'm happy to say it had nothing to do with the 'buzz' - mainly because I hadn't heard any of it. I went in half-expecting the typical trademark Cronenberg 'goopiness', (NAKED LUNCH, THE FLY, SHIVERS) but got one of the most INTERNAL movies I've ever seen. Ralph Fiennes' constant mumbling was strangely addictive. I can almost see the action line now.
FULLY POSEABLE SPIDER WITH NEUROTIC MUMBLING ACTION!!!!
Oh, and BTW...ANGER MANAGEMENT. I remember seeing in the trailer the insane argument between Sandler and the stewardess on the airplane, and then Sandler being subsequently assaulted by a man with a miniature cattle prod. Wouldn't Sandler have the rights to SUE the airline after an incident like that? Or did things play out differently in the movie?
Todd,
"Butch and Sundance: The Early Years" was actually a theatrical release, more's the pity.
Dennis
Jon~
P.S. My "weekend" isn't over yet, it's Spring Break, but so far I have no excitng tales to tell, except I got some new plug-ins for my graphics editors yesterday (AutoFX's Dream Suites 1 & 2, their Gel effects plug-in, and their Photo Edges plug-in. Oh and Kai's Power Tools, and Eye Candy. (other people make those)
How are YOU doing? :=)
Bye for now.
Diana
Jon Stover~
Thanks for the support Jon :=)
I'll have "The Youth" check out those songs.
Bye for now.
Diana
Diana: Well, actually the Webderland is a lot less high-schooly than my day-to-day human relations these days -- I'm starting to think that the speech the Wynona Ryder character's parents give to her in _Heathers_ is pretty spot-on. It's all high school. Not really, but sometimes. Or most of the time. Friday was one of those days when all the squabbling devolves down to A) isn't talking to B) because A) had a crush on B) that was never resolved, C) isn't talking to D) because D) doesn't think Sylvia Plath is a major poet and C) thinks D) is full of shit, and E) gets into a fight with F) and G) because E) just delivered a jeremiad on the stupidity of English students and F) and G) are English students who got stuck at ground zero when the conversation switched from end-of-the-week stuff to I've-got-Yosemite-Sam-jammed-up-my-fat-ass-and-I'm-gonna-scream-at-someone-about-it stuff. Meanwhile, J) is trying to deal with H), who just had two uncles die in an 18-hour period of unrelated illnesses. On the other hand, H) did like J)'s impromptu loan of _Angry Candy._ All of which relates to Webderland because J) finds PAB's 'This argument is now over' line -- however well meant, may I add and underline -- weirdly annoying in a non-linear rant inducing way, which has nothing to do with PAB's character or really anything other than someone stating 'This argument is now over' really irritates me on some quantum and possibly sub-quantum level. Why? I'm not sure -- it's possible that that arrangement of words is simply my version of 'Kimota' or 'Abraxas.'
But as comedian in all seriousness, how was your weekend? Also, your kid should try out some Tom Waits -- "A Little Rain" and "Innocent When You Dream" might really work, if his voice is up to it.
Cheers, Jon
Just saw the "Showtime" dvd--boy, if ever there was a movie that deserved to be called a "talent-driven vehicle," that was it. It's sort of sad that they didn't even attempt to provide Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro with any sort of logical plot structure.
Even more sad, I thought that, out of the three of them, William Shatner had the most standout scenes.
Hope everyone enjoyed National Library Week...
Frank, the first time I recall seeing the word "prequel" was some lame made-for-teevee movie called Butch And Sundance: The Early Days. I think this was the late 70's or early 80's....it was probably a pilot for a teevee series.
The word probably cropped up before that, but that was my first time. And if you think THAT was an exciting first time story, wait to you hear about the time that Debbie and I............never mind.
-TODD
Just got back from Cronenberg's SPIDER.....Cronenberg is a favorite, and SPIDER is quite good (thanks to a superbly creepy Fiennes), but I left a tad disappointed because I fell for the buzz: for some reason, this is being touted as a deeply complex work that will be tough for many to decipher.
Nothing tough here......sure, the general moviegoing public is not going to pull the subtelties and not-so-subtelties out of their Big Fat Greek Wedding mushminds, but then the general moviegoing public is not going to this film anyway. The smart crowd, who has been anticipating the opportunity to see this film, will go and will walk away satisfied: but just a teensy eensy bit letdown by the fact that all the talk was of a deep puzzle of a character study. It wasn't a puzzle, but it was still damn good.
Ahhh, for the days of seeing movie without having to hear buzz.
Oh, but we did, just this past Thursday. We got into a screening of the May 30 release of The Italian Job. There will be a few nip and tucks to the editing and a fresh soundtrack by the time this movie is released, but it will in no way improve on what is a very, average, cliche-ridden heist flick. A waste of Edward Norton.....but I did like the fact that I did not know that Norton's character would double-cross his buddies in the first 20 minutes! It's always good to be surprised.
Don't worry, I gave nothing away there. When you see the trailer, you'll see the double-cross in the opening 10 seconds. Gawd, I hate hollywood trailers. Thank goodness the movie sucked. (and yes, this is a remake of a Michael Caine film that never saw.....but I'm told that there is absolutely nothing in common with the original other than the three tiny cars that are used.
Oh, and saw Anger Management too. If this was Adam Sandler and John Goodman, you wouldn't have gotten me in that theater for all the tea in China (because, after all, I hate tea); but it was Jack Nicholson! Jack! Love that Jack! So, yes, the movie is basically shit....but it's shit with Jack Nicholson trying his damndest to raise his devilish eyebrows higher than his hairline and spread that smile wider than his cheeks. No Jack, no Todd and Debbie. Jack = a good time regardless of the lame script.
Ciao. -TODD
Bern~
Regarding:
"Every human society I've ever studied, or had pointed out to me (re: The Na) DOES pass judgment on "acceptable" sexuality (even the vaunted Na)..."
"
What has been pointed out to me by those who were pointing things out to me at one time or another, was just what you have said above.
What was being pointed out to me was how different the mores and "acceptables" were in various different cultures, and how different they've been in different cultures throughout human history.
The was the point of the argument/lecture...that sexual mores are clearly arbitrary. Clearly. The values of the Judeo/Christian cultures around the world, handed down for centuries as immutable holy writ, are actually enscribed on sand.
You might fairly argue that humans seem to look for/want guidelines. They seem to require limits. We invariably set up some kind of legal structure where ever we settle. But the idea that our present value system, or any value system I've heard of so far, when it comes human sexual practices, represents any real standard of moral absolutes, is unsupportable by fact, or history.
Bye for now.
Diana
Harlan Ellison~
I, for one, am glad youse guys are back. This place just isn't as much fun without you.
But...
NO ONE WAS SHOUTING AT YOU GRANDPA!!!!
(It probably seemed loud to you though, 'cause you're so old) :=)
(I'm told happy noises come through sounding kind of tinny and annoying when the hearing starts to go)
Irreverantly Yours,
Not Evil Diana
>Casablanca: The Remake<
With Sean P. Diddy as Victor Lazlo.
But in brighter news, I quite enjoyed watching "The Ring" tonight. I know in the sea of very learned and scholarly minds, this movie has been absorbed into the collective, evaluated and digested, but I have to say it scared the pants off Pam and held my interest throughout.
MUCH fun.
Another seal broken, one step closer to hell...and I don't got nuthin to do with war in the Middle East (if it's true).
From "darkhorizons.com"
Casablanca: The Remake: Someone please tell me this is an April Fools joke that has just been reprinted. Sky News reports that according to The Daily Star, the hot to trot couple of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck have secured a deal to remake the classic 1942 Bogart movie "Casablanca". Affleck will take the romantic lead as Rick, whilst Lopez will play the former lover who had jilted him but comes back into his later life - married to a French resistance leader. One source said "They are overjoyed at the prospect of being in Casablanca together. It is the chance for them to show how much they love each other through their on-screen chemistry". Thanks to 'JV'.
Stop shouting. I can hear you. Yes, we're back. No, I have nothing to say. Not in here, at any rate.
Hoping you are well, I remain,
Harlan
David - First, thank you for the expansion of your statement. (The definition you offered WAS somewhat at odds with the best I had come up with, so the correction was important.)
You make an observation: "[H]uman potential is far more broad than many social mores and political strictures will allow... [snip] ...and [those mores and strictures] are therefore inadequate for many individuals." As a pure statement of fact, I'd agree with you on this. But, you don't stop there. You follow it up with this statement: "We have no problem with people having different tastes with regard to color, size of house, make of automobile, hobbies . . . yet think we have to pass judgment on how they choose to spend their time with other human beings. It's ridiculous."
I think we can safely assume that you would advocate a society that does not pass judgment on how people choose to spend their time with other human beings. I think we can also assume that you find our current society falling short of this advocated ideal.
It might seem to many that this ideal is a particularly enlightened position to take. But, from my perspective it suffers a fatal flaw - it's not realistic. Every human society I've ever studied, or had pointed out to me (re: The Na) DOES pass judgment on "acceptable" sexuality (even the vaunted Na), and when a "taboo" is broken, punishment for the wrongdoer(s) IS meted out. And that is the point I'm trying to make - one can rail against the limits our society places on sexuality - but the basic fact that there are "acceptable" limits, that those limits are "enforced", and that "wrongdoers" are punished, is universal. That some societies are more or less "liberal" about this (or "progressive", I really don't care which term is preferred.) than others is simply a statement of fact as well.
So, in this vast world of "human potential", you and I happen to live in a society that is somewhat more restrictive than others (it's certainly not the worst - as DTS's examples of Arabic punishment will attest). And while it may not be an "inherent value" - you must agree that our society has definitely "applied" a high value to fidelity through both social and economic incentives. (It's not required that you agree with the value placed on fidelity, just the idea that our society "values" fidelity...)
There is a natural tug-of-war at the edges of "acceptable" sexual behavior - as those whose proclivities are just over "the wrong side" of the line (gay unions, as an example) battle to "normalize" their behavior. And the "mainstream" battles back, fearing a slide of "acceptable behavior" into areas that are now considered "seriously" wrong (adult-child sex, for example). Neither side is "right" or "wrong", since we have agreed on the "broad range of human potential" - both are valid positions. Neither side has any "intrinsic" superiority - outside of the fact that one position is the societally defined "mainstream" - thus bears the label of "traditional value".
So now, we come back to the argument - does adultery, as defined by THIS society, warrant punishment? I've already established that ALL human societies DO pass judgment on "acceptable" sexuality - and when we couple this with the fact that OUR society DOES value fidelity - then the inescapable answer is - yes, it does. It's also important to note that since our society is steeped with the idea to "value" fidelity, that when an public oath is made regarding this notion, both partners (and society) can reasonably expect each other to uphold that promise and stay faithful - and to expect some form of "punishment" for failing to.
You and several others are advocating a "relaxation" of the taboo of "adultery" - claiming we shouldn't concern ourselves with private sexuality (a flawed premise, as shown above) - that it's "always occurred", thus making "punishing it" an exercise in hypocrisy (forgetting that there is a large group of people for whom it is NOT hypocrisy, and thus a valid position to take) - and that "punishment" is simply unwarranted for a simple "sexual" choice (forgetting that an oath, a legal promise, was made - and benefits were accrued based on that promise - benefits which were fraudulently obtained if the person knew from the start they wouldn't be faithful - and simply a broken contract if they didn't.)
All of this ignores the very real damage, emotional and psychological, that occurs when one partner unexpectedly "cheats" on the other - yes, the damage is "survivable" - one can emerge "stronger" than before - but should we (society) stand by and allow it to happen? I cannot, and thus, I will always advocate punishing such behavior as it is uncovered. Not seeking it out - but punishing it consistently when it is revealed.
Bern
Noting that HE sometimes reads through the posts here, I just wanted to make a comment that I was too shy to make this last Tuesday at the talk he gave in Akron.
I don't remember the details in the story I read several years ago, but HE was pointing at a fellow who had angered him (I know! Can you believe it?) and he yelled, "There he is! There's the man who tried to assassinate Cesare Chavez!"
When I read that, I wrecked a perfectly good shirt when my morning coffee came out my nose.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Carry on.
OOPS!
David Loftus:
I was aware that you were merely quoting some woman regarding that "virtue is often easy if..." thing. So please don't think I was saying YOU were nasty, and bitter, and cynical!!! I just thought that remark was. Not you. Okay? :=)
Bye again.
Diana
DAvid Loftus~
Regarding:
"On this thread Diana has been a model of fairness and openness, for the most part, but she....suggested that males have advocated "screwing like weasels..."
Thank you for the compliment, that means a lot coming from you. But now YOU be fair. That's not quite what I said.
"...and declared that "not all men are interested in loveless sex." I don't believe a single male has taken either position in this discussion"
That's true, but with all due respect, maybe you're getting just a little Webderland-centric, Mr Loftus. I didn't make my observations and comments based solely on the contents of the posts by men accessing this forum. I've known other men in my life, many many men, most of whom have never posted at this forum, or ever even heard of Harlan Ellison. I've been paying attention to men for years. I find them fascinating. I listen to what they say about themselves, because I'm interested in understanding them. Regarding their sexual inclinations, and views on promiscuity, I beleive the ones who've said that they at least need to care for a woman, at least to some extent in order to want to have sex with her. I also believe the ones who've said they'd even fuck mud in a pinch.
"It is also a value judgment, an opinion, that "men dissociate sex from love."
No, it's not a _value_ judgenment, at least I don't think that's what it is. It's what I've been told, and have no reason to disbelieve. All I can go on is what I've observed, read or been told about this since I'm not a man. As I haven't, knowingly, attached any implied onus to the word "disassociate", and since I believe I've consistently qualified all such comments by saying SOME men, I can't see that I made any value judgements in this regard. No, I was just saying...
Regarding:
"Someone (a woman, mind you) observed that virtue is often little more than lack of opportunity"
What a nasty, cynical, bitter little remark THAT was. And it doesn't make sense anyway. It doesn't qualify as virtue if there's no temptation to try yourself against. And I'm assumiing that in this situation by "virtue" you simply meant not promiiscuous?
And actually the opposite is more likely to be true. A woman for whom manly attention, by many attractive men has been the norm, is much more likely to be fussy, and modest, and particular, and less "Ready-Freddie" over some man, or various men being interested in bedding her. She'd actually be more likely to be cautious, careful, discriminating, and genuinely hard-to-get (not just playing at it) rather than promiscuous.
Bye for now.
Diana
PA: You said in part "I think it's unhealthy, rather, to look in the mirror, say, "I'm only human," and then shirk the responsibility for the wrongs that are yours."
I agree. The problem with "I'm only human" is that it can degenerate into "I'm the only human that matters." I can claim that my indiscretions happened because I was drunk. However, the root of the problem wasn't alcohol, it was selfishness.
And you better believe I groveled for forgiveness. I commited grievous wrongs, not the least of which is that I just didn't CONSIDER how my behavior effected others. It was wrong, wrong, wrong.
But as Oprah oft quotes Maya Angelou: "When I knew better, I did better."
I'm definitely doing better, but only because I realized that I was wrong and admitted it. I repented and now choose a different way of behaving. I'm learning.
Bern asked:
> In the last paragraph of your recent post, you have a sentence that
> begins, "So I disagree that sexual fidelity is an inherent value...".
> (I've run it through my head using the various meanings of 'value',
> but nothing I'm parsing makes sense to me, so clearly I'm doing
> something wrong...
Let's see. I wrote:
> You cannot buy and sell trust, respect, or lovingkindness quite so
> easily as sex. So I disagree that sexual fidelity is an inherent value,
> and "cheating" an unforgivable or deadly crime. It rather depends
> on the specific participants, doesn't it? Maybe Hilary Clinton resents
> Bill's infidelities much less than the fact that he got caught and
> embarrassed her publicly. A lot of people will accept behavior in
> private -- their own and other people's -- as long as it doesn't
> creep out in the open.
Since I see a lot of people manage to live privately with situations they proclaim are unacceptable publicly, that suggests to me that: 1) we don't really know precisely what we are apt to say, do, or accept until we find it staring in our face; and 2) human potential is far more broad than many social mores and political strictures will allow, because they tend to be designed for the norm, perhaps even a lowest common denominator, and are therefore inadequate for many individuals.
We have no problem with people having different tastes with regard to color, size of house, make of automobile, hobbies . . . yet think we have to pass judgment on how they choose to spend their time with other human beings. It's ridiculous.
Have you noticed how many people who become famous, wealthy, or powerful (and therefore gain access to many more potential sex partners) actually avail themselves of a wider range of relationships than the rest of us, and seem to get along fine? Someone (a woman, mind you) observed that virtue is often little more than lack of opportunity.
If you look at human relationships across cultures and time, you will find many variations. Consider the Na, a culture that apparently has had no concept for "father" or "husband," let alone marriage as we know it, for most of its existence:
http://www.david-loftus.com/Books/na.html
Individual couples or households, like that of Diana's parents, have chosen open marriage, or triumvirates, and made it work for them, more or less.
So when I say fidelity does not appear to be an "inherent" value, I mean just that. It's mutable. It is chosen. It works (mostly) when and because people choose it, not because there's anything inherently virtuous or essential about it. That millions of people choose it (and particular societies do all they can to make it preferable and economically feasible) does not make it suitable for everyone. That's all.
By the way, when we get on these sensitive topics, people here have a distressing tendency to read far more into one another's remarks than has actually been said. Or rather, they project their own prejudices onto others instead of confining themselves to what those others actually say.
On this thread Diana has been a model of fairness and openness, for the most part, but she for example, suggested that males have advocated "screwing like weasels," and declared that "not all men are interested in loveless sex." I don't believe a single male has taken either position in this discussion.
It is also a value judgment, an opinion, that "men dissociate sex from love." One could just as easily state that women choose (or better, are trained) to make an unbreakable link between sex and love, and this often causes them much misunderstanding and heartache.
If someone suggests a particular choice or behavior as possible, don't equate that with advocating for himself. Just because I say there are people in this world who choose to be Muslims and are fine with that, it hardly means I want to be one.
Alex Jay Berman noted that some experts have suggested that only the human female is capable of orgasm in the animal kingdom. I've seen that said, too. But my response is, how do they know? And what difference does it make, anyway?
Peter~
Congratulations on being accepted into that graduate program!!!
WAY. TO. GO!!!
Lynn~
"Contrition and accepting one's humanity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There can be a cycle of self-loathing that feeds off of honest contrition, and accepting the fact that we are human and we stumble can negate that cycle"
The "cycle of self-loathing that feeds off of honest contrition" is exactly what accepting your "mere" humanity does help put a stop to. And people who have set their standards bars HIGH are most likely to suffer this cycle.
"Having a higher standard doesn't have to mean berating yourself everytime you don't live up to it"
No but people who have higher standards regarding what they see as acceptable for themselves in terms of ethics, morals and general behavior, tend to do just that when they don't manage to live up to their own expectations.
"And being human doesn't prevent you from being a mensch either'
No, it doesn't. A real mensch = a real man (woman) = entirely human.
Being able to accept that you're "only human" is an act of humilty, and a form of blessing. IMO
Bern?~
"Pearl" ? You stumped the AI with "pearl? That doesn't count though. You used your special (evil) Xanadu powers to stump it with "pearl" You cheated. It was getting close to solving "Cthulu" though.
Regarding Harlan Ellison:
That's what I thought. That's what HE said. No, of course he won't dash in and post as soon as he gets home. He's a busy guy.
Maybe we can get to appear if we say his name five times, while standing in front of a mirror?
Harlan Ellison...
Harlan Ellison...
Harlan Ellison...
Harlan Ellison...
Harlan...
Ah, never mind, forget it, let him sleep. He looks so cute and innocent lieing there. Snoring. Scratching. Muttering to himself. Drooling.
Frank Church~
What?
PAB~
Have you ever been to a John Denver concert?
Scott Reeston~
Ha ha...you said "snout"...Yer so funny~ :=)
Brian~
Table saw? That's embarassing, getting stumped on "table saw". Did it guess some kind of tool?
Cindy~
Yoo hoo, where are you Cindy????
Bye for now.
Diana
Dorman:
I liked _A Winter Haunting_, but the narrator seemed a little off. he spent too much time explaining who he was and why he was narrating the story rather than just getting on and dropping hints every now and again that would explain things to the attentive reader.
I understand that people who haven't read _Summer of Night_ might not get it, but I think that's a minor consideration.
As for _Buick 8_... I thought this was one of King's most mature works to date. It wasn't about the big greasy monster, or even people fighting the big greasy monster, but about how the big greasy monster effects the lives of those involved and ripples outward. It was about dealing with the world, learning, and growing up knowing that there are some things you should do in life, and some things that should be left well enough alone. Short on plot? Hell yeah. But plot isn't everything.
I'm not arguing, just offering my viewpoint. Why _Winter Haunting_ was left out? Simple. Awards people are stupid.
Everyone! I have great news to share.
Yesterday I received a letter from the College of Arts and Humanities at San Jose State University congratulating me on being accepted into the Graduate Program in Creative Writing.
I is goin' inta a MFA progrim.
I'm selling out, going literary, going to wear back turtlenecks and smoke cloves and drink mint juleps, and write nothing but Raymond Carver wannabe crap, and think that the only good fiction is written is about subtext and style rather than text and substance...
Or not. But yeah. I'm going for my MFA.
---Peter
To Frabk Church, re the Randroid garbage: What I'm wondering is, why would this guy ever have __supported_ the war to begin with? If he thinks that the Iraqis deserve to suffer for having tolerated Saddam for so long, well, why would he want Saddam ousted in the first place?
I am amused to his comment that this war is America's "finest hour." I supported the war, as we all know, but I wouldn't call it our "finest hour." Not by a long shot. (What our 'finest hour" _is_, I can't decide, but it ain't this one.)
Of course, the guy could have just been trolling the Randroids.
And if you liked the Imaginary Movie Database, check out www.tvgohome.com. Nathan Barley lives-- unfortunately.
PAB~ Contrition and accepting one's humanity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There can be a cycle of self-loathing that feeds off of honest contrition, and accepting the fact that we are human and we stumble can negate that cycle. Having a higher standard doesn't have to mean berating yourself everytime you don't live up to it. And being human doesn't prevent you from being a mensch either.
L.
Ben, they just need to learn that toast should be toasted and oat meal should be boiled, not vice versa.
Never read the Ayn Rand news group, that's my new motto. Look what creeping dread I stumbled upon:
"Just when America rises to its finest hour in the war to rid the world
of all terrorists, the administration of George W. Bush spoils the
moment by engaging in the basest form of altruism: giving away bags
of rice and beans to the filthy, mystical rabble of Iraq. On the eve
of the destruction of the modern world's worst dictatorship, we should
be celebrating the magnificent air bombing of Baghdad and Basra.
Instead our television screens are filled with the nauseating
spectacle of U.S. Marines serving as waterboys for Saddam's slave
population.
Let the Iraqis starve to death. It is the price they must pay for
allowing the evil Saddam to rule them for a generation. When the
world sees mountains and mountains of skeletal corpses, it will soon
understand what sort of ethical system made that grim vista possible."
This by a thing (not worthy of being called, human) named Michael Bernstein. He says he is a college student. I'd say daddy and mommy got fucked.
Speaking of Brits, they've always seemed to have a better, more internal understanding of what 'horror' really is than the Yanks. I mean, just check out a good Hammer film once in a while. Goddamn.
FRANK,
Horror is -and probably always will be- my favourite cinematic genre. Why? Because it's so WEIRD.
Horror undergoes constant mutation ('evolution' is NOT the right word) every decade or so. The genre runs out of creative ideas, it rots and stagnates...then it receives a MASSIVE KICK IN THE REAR END, and BAM! horror is king of the world again!
Then the morons and the clowns come along, imitate the same idea that rejevunated the horror genre to death, and the genre stagnates again.
Examples: John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, followed by the entire slasher 1980's. Wes Craven's SCREAM, followed by the entire jaded, cynical, 'hip', 'sexy', FASCIST 1990's.
Unlike any other genre, horror is literally a cycle. Wait a while, and someone will actually attempt something...well...DIFFERENT, and Hollywood will screech that it's 'new'! and 'fresh'! while all that was really DONE was simply a concept that already existed was FLIPPED IT RIGHT ON IT'S HEAD.
And when you're done stumping the AI computer, have a chat with John Lennon...
http://www.triumphpc.com/johnlennon/index.shtml
Diana: It's too bad that you think asking humbly for forgiveness, accepting blame, and confessing your wrongs is evil. That does explain the disparity in our views. I think it's unhealthy, rather, to look in the mirror, say, "I'm only human," and then shirk the responsibility for the wrongs that are yours. If you can set aside pride, set aside rationalizations, and admit without reservation mistakes made, and ask the person you hurt to forgive you, you are on the road to being a real adult, IMO.
I also don't think having a probem with "only human" indicates self-hate. What it indicates his higher standards. It is impossible to look at the havoc the human race has wreaked upon this planet and justify it with "well, we're only human!" ONLY!?!? We have such enormous capabilities, enormous potential. Live UP to it, not down to it. Set the bar higher; don't be content with "only human." Try to be a mensch. The world needs fewer humans and more menschen.
PAB
Just found this website:
http://www.solipsistworker.org.uk/ImMDB/
It is basically a parody of the internet movie database. Those Brits, gotta love em. Here's a snippit.
"Where does the word "prequel" come from? I can't remember encountering it before the Star Wars Episode 1 hype, yet I have a niggling suspicion that it's a lot older than that. I imagine it probably comes from the particular annex of sci-fi fandom centred around those interminable fantasy novel series that I used to read when I was twelve or so. When the main characters have saved the nation, then the world, depopulated entire continents, driven whole subspecies of dragons to the brink of extinction, become 36th-level magic-users and bought an inn, the writers seem to be at a bit of a loss as to what to write next. Then, inspiration hits; we can write about their youth! "
-----R Chalmers. B Hague.
Bye for now.
Frank.
The AI: I'd stumped it with "table saw."
Here's a head's up for everyone, including Harlan. In the _Harlan Ellison Hornbook_, installment 38, titled "The Death Wish of a Good Idea," Harlan described the American Film Theater. This was an effort by Ely Landau to present great theater to movies with some kind of subscription-style pricing. Among the films produced in this series were _The Iceman Cometh_, with Lee Marvin and Frederic March, and Ionesco's _Rhinoceros_, starring the magnificent Zero Mostel. According to Harlan's column, the company didn't do very well by the excellent product-- Harlan's column is an account of the frustration they put him through over obtaining critics' screening tickets-- and the noble effort sank.
Well, gang, I was at the DVD store, and what do I see on the shelf? _Rhinoceros_. Yes, the films of the short-lived American Film Theater have been issued on DVD-- and they're even available in a box set. The prices are a tad steep, but one of these days, I'm finally going to see one of the great moments of the American stage-- Mostel turning into a rhinoceros.
One problem is that the horror genre has ran out of steam. Plot ideas are thin to the point that they resemble baby oil on Ann Coulters butt.
Original ideas are few and far between. That is why horror is one of the hardest genres to do. Too bad the genre receives constant denigration from so-called "literary critics."
Steven King is fun to read though; maybe that's it.
Diana, do we all get an invite to your wedding with sir Markos?
---------------
Iraq is kaos. Looting, burning of houses, anarchy in the streets, curfews; Boy, America needs to liberate countries more often. No surprise they are going to let Shell oil run the Iraqi oil supply.
-----------
I just read about torture chambers in Israel. But I'm sure the Palestinians know that libertion is a crust of bread at the back of a dead mans throat. I guess when so-called democracies torture, they just rename it, "severe massage" and that's that.
--------------
Cindy, what do you think of the Dixie Chick stink?
Thomas Edison's version of FRANKENSTEIN has been recovered, and is being restored.
I'm going to let that sink in for now.
That AI is a wimp. I beat it with "particle accelerator", "centrifuge", and "bucky ball" (carbon 60).
And, truffles...
Sad, when a AI's investigative skills are bested by a pig's snout...
Scott
Just noticed that the "final" ballot for the Bram Stoker Awards this year was chisled down to include books like FROM A BUICK 8, but _not_ A WINTER HAUNTING. "Buick" was okay, but would have made a better short story (not enough plot). A WINTER HAUNTING was far better. The yo-yos who vote on these award nominations haven't got a clue.
--DTS
Alex Jay - I was under the impression that Harlan said he'd be back on Thursday. (I didn't expect he'd post right away, so he may pop in any time now...)
All - Stumped the AI twice, with a pearl (my more specialized knowledge of the subject helped confuse it), and Cthulu (though they're running it through a moderator first, so we'll see if the ancient one gets added...)
But, what amused is the list that it was considering at the bottom of the game: "Probable Objects: the devil (178), a devil (176), a gargoyle (164), a demon (156), a harpy (149), a vampire (148), Albert Einstein (146), velociraptor (146), an osprey (144), Godzilla (134)" - THAT made me laugh...
Bern
DIANA: I would assume Harlan's in Cleveland, as he said he would be.
A shame, really; I was wondering if he read the mysteries by the OTHER Harlan currently writing--Harlan Coben, who writes the Myron Bolitar mysteries about a sports agent.
They're quite good--in the Robert Crais, Robert B. Parker vein.
Dearest PAB~
Thanks for sharing your views with me about things.
I was not raised as a Catholic, or as Jew. I was educated as to the basics of these two faiths as well as a number of others, but they weren't given to me as "truth". .
I *was* given to believe as truth that shame and blame and guilt and such notions as groveling for forgiveness, and psychological hair shirts, and emotional self-flagellation, and the whole concept of "sin" in general, but especially when it came to things of a sexual nature, were evil ideas, and the cause of a great part of the madness of Western civilization. I believe this is true.
It may be that this apparent difference in our backgrounds and basic belief systems might make it difficult to communicate objectively on some things.
Regarding:
"Not sure what you're on about with the self-hate thing"
You seem to be having a problem with the concept of "only human" I was explaining part of where I got ahold of it and how I got started using the phrase as a kind of litany. The book I got the concept from was about self acceptance. It offered techniques to help people heal themselves of self hate.
Bye for now.
Diana
SPEAKING OF...
"...Grumpy, cantankerous, curmudgeonally, preemptive...but kind, nonetheless"...
where the hell is Harlan Ellison?
Jon Stover~
Regarding:
"frankly, the sturm-und-drang content around here has been up a bit lately, so I'd only like to ...close with -- for God's sake people, just be kind. Grumpy, cantankerous, curmudgeonally, preemptive...but kind, nonetheless"
Okay.
Bye for now.
Diana
Markos (aka "tarbaby")
It's a pretty hard program to beat! I figured an AI was bound to amuse some of the people who post here, on account of them being Science Fiction buffs. Plus they're a bunch of brainiacs! How could they resist the challenge? :=)
I remember ocassionally seeing a sign somewhere (where?) (some medical building?) (anyway it was in NYC) that has long captured my fancy, "What man's mind can conceive, man can achieve" It looks more and to me like this could be true. I read about AI's and lasers and holograms long before they were a reality, and now here they are. Pretty cool.
Have you posted before today? I don't remember if you did. If not...welcome to Webderland.
Bye for now.
Diana
And Cartoons. Lots of cartoons.
Chuck
Alex Jay: Yes, I am evil. But in a world plagued by worse than thieves and murderers, I sez -- Harp lager is darned tasty!
Also, frankly, the sturm-und-drang content around here has been up a bit lately, so I'd only like to add that I send best wishes and good thoughts to Alex Krixlov (and Chuck, and anyone else who needs them), and close with -- for God's sake people, just be kind. Grumpy, cantankerous, curmudgeonally, preemptive...but kind, nonetheless.
Movies: Now more than ever,
Jon
Diana: My problem with "only human" is when it is used as an excuse for being weak. If used as an expression of humility, that's a different thing. That is not the sense in which it was used by Clinton apologists. It was employed to mitigate responsibility, and that's not kosher.
Not sure what you're on about with the self-hate thing. My feeling: don't be "only human," be really human, be, as the Hebrews say, a mensch. Embody the best about being human and do not use it as a crutch, as a reason for failure. Being human means having free will, a big brain, a will. In those respects, I am human and proud of it. The war-like, promiscuous, gluttonous aspects of being human do not please me and being "only human" in those respects is a statement of defects worth working on.
Forgiveness: If someone hurts me but still wants to be respected by me, he or she should apologize. An apology is not a conversation ender, it's a conversation starter. You acknowledge the hurt you caused, you give the wronged party a chance to express his or her pain, and then forgiveness can happen. If you never apologize, then you have never acknowleged the other person's pain, and so the hurt cannot be mended in a way that allows a continued relationship, IMO.
Perhaps this is a carry over from my Catholic upbringing, but I believe that confession and humble requests for mercy are healthy and healing. It takes a big person to apologize, but those are the only kind of people I like to deal with.
PAB
AI:
--- it got 'puppet' in 19
--- stumped it with 'juggling club' (some peeps have entered bad information in the past, club probably has eyes and probably is a small mammal *snicker*
--- it got 'retainer' in 24
markos (stumping tarbabies since 1901)
Chuck~
Hi Chuck.
I'm glad you had some fun with the 20 Questions site.:=)
I agree, it's a clever program. What was the thing you chose that stumped the AI? (My son stumped it with, "soul" and "hell")
It's set up so it can "learn", by the way, if you told the program what your object was, that information is now in it's database, ready to beat the next person who uses it!
Bye for now.
Diana
Yes Dorman,
And you should be fondued for it.
Cindy
Diana,
I stumped the AI at the site you reccomended. It asked something like 28 questions before it gave up. A very clever program, acutally. It could almost fake a positive in the Turing Test. The AI came close to the answer when it asked if the object was a belt.
I wonder who writes these things?
Alex Krislov,
I was going ask this earlier, but some issues got in the way. You mentioned the cancer. How are you faring with that? If the question or answer doesn't stir bad things up for you, that is.
Chuck
Alex,
My only INTENT was asking you to try and be careful about crossing my posts with others or missing my arguments (as shown, I have to watch it myself), because you did it so often.
I've been on higher horses than THAT. And some of THOSE I never dismounted. If you think there was more to my "intent" you can sort it out yourself.
PAB~
I'm sorry you have a problem with the concept of "only human".
I got ahold of it from reading a really wonderful little book
a number of years ago on techniques for letting go of self-hate. What it said, and what I believe, is that since we're human, nothing we are capable of feeling can be anything but human. Because we are human. This fact doesn't excuse, it explains.
It goes on to talk about the way we may choose to act on our feelings. For example, if you hate someone, really hate them, wish them dead, dieing in some horrid drawn out agonizing way, well you wouldn't be the first human being to have felt that way about another person, and you won't be the last. Of course, If you went ahead and acted on those feelings, by going out and torturing and killing the person you hated, you'd have to deal with the consequences of your evil actions. But the writer argues, and I agree, that simply feeling that hate should have no onus attached, and the fact that you wished them dead is not a fair thing to hate yourself for, and suggests that you let go of any shame and blame towards yourself that you may be carrying around over having felt the way you did.
ADULTERY:
My parents had an open marriage. I think it may have worked for them as well as it did because my mother was one of those rarer types of women who uh, well, let's just say she didn't require much in the way of a commitment (or even an introduction) to be willing to have sex with someone. Both of them carried their liberal inclinations into all their future relationships. Being exposed to this sort of thinking/behavior the way I was, and to the notion that such relationships worked, and were even acceptable, may explain my less than volcanic response to the idea of infidelity.
It may also explain why I'm such a priss and why I'm strictly monogamous. :=)
I thought about what you said about maybe being able to forgive a mate for cheating, but that the relationship would be over.
Actually, I think that would be the same way I'd deal with it. I might let go of being angry at someone for betraying my trust (even if they didn't grovel, or even apologize) (I might) But some aspects of our previous relationship would be over.
Bye for now.
Signed,
Still Not Evil Diana
JON: You're evil, you know. I was just at the beer distributor and the liquor store (conveniently placed next to each other, and didn't buy a thing, though I saw a lot I wanted.
I'm not much of a drinker, but I had a hankering to buy some beer and bourbon (half to cook with; bourbon, vermouth and brandy figure heavily into my cooking--and beer roast or beer butt chicken are quite good).
Then I realized: Passover's starting next Wednesday. It's the only time I keep kosher, and one of the few religious holidays I observe, so ... beer's out. No wheat or grains allowed for eight days. Bourbon's out as well--corn mash, and corn is temporarily verboten. Feh.
(IMPORTANT NUTRITION DIGRESSION: Have you noticed how, in the last twenty years or so, high fructose corn syrup has replaced sugar in most drinks, candies, spaghetti sauces, salad dressings, and other stuff. It's cheaper than sugar by about 20%, you see--but this is a VERY bad trend. You see, as opposed to glucose, fructose is not readily recognized by your bosy as an immediate source of energy, so it's basically metabolized into fat a zillion times faster than sugar.
Also, fructose screws with your natural hormones. When you eat any carbohydrate (which includes sugars), your body releases insulin, which stuffs the carbos into your muscle cells for energy and shunts the remainder into your liver for later use. Basically, insulin keeps your appetite down--it tells your body that you're full and shouls stop fressing. In addition, it stimulates leptin production. Leptin is another hormone which regulates your body fat by telling the body how much to store and by upping your metabolism when necessary to burn off the extra weight.
Here's the problem: Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin. No insulin, no leptin. Your hunger is not abated. You eat more. the fructose turns quickly to fat, and you've eaten more.
Remember the McDonald's obesity case? That was a joke, but I'd be happy to see a similar suit lodged against the big food providers, who in their rush to get bigger profit margins, really DO have something to do with Americans growing more obese. And this isn't something which can easily be put aside with a "well, no one forced you to eat it ..." argument: Go to the supermarket. Look at the labels for soda. Cereal. Ketchup. Pasta sauce. Apple juice. Yogurt. Ice cream. pancake syrup. Look at the few that say "sugar" as compared to the many which say "high fructose corn syrup." There should be an accounting.)
Ah, well--at least I can still cook with wine, vodka, gin, tequila, brandy, rum, and such. Of course, I'm not sure which wines use yeast to ferment, so I might not be able to use anything other than Kosher for Passover wine that week.
Markos: If you'd seen previous catfights featuring Our Miss Diana, you'd know why everyone would want to drop it. DUh. Really. Yes, I dropped a blanket END OF CONVO because I wanted THE CONVO TO END. Why beat around the bush? Honesty is the best policy. At least no one can accuse me of being full of shit.
So can we drop it, or what?
Also, I must reiterate that one can express a personally, deeply held opinion without getting into a personal argument with someone that turns nasty. Yes, yes, it happens all the time.
Diana: Only human again? You're trying to make me ralph, aren't ya? Carpetbagging ain't cool, but I wasn't doing it, so I don't have strong feelings on it one way or another in this particular context.
PAB
This convo is turning into a tarbaby in and of itself. Get it off me!!!
PAB:
"Surely you understand that some things are best handled privately, don't you? Or is it a catfight that you're looking for?"
---No interest in a catfight, thanks anyway. But basically yelling "END OF CONVO" at someone isn't a polite way to wind down a discussion.
"archives"
---wow, hard enuff to keep up with the current flow etc let alone perusing the archives for whatever bad blood might exist there.
"War, monogamy,etc.,sorry, nope these are not personal.
---bah, these are all personal opinions on the matters being discussed here. People often reference examples and feelings from their lives to support/explain a position.
"Diana is a big girl etc..."
--- you dropped the blanket statement, 'I'm sure everyone else on this board will soundly agree with me.' into your post and I didn't agree so I responed, simple as that.
markos (thinking this was much simpler while lurking)
ps the tarbaby reference was someone elses way of describing the pull of this place after I first posted.
pps and hey i'm here dipping yer ponytail into an inkwell (figuratively speaking) perhaps i have a thing for you :P
P.S. Hey PAB? carpetbagging isn't a "bad" thing, anyway. Lots of people do it. It's, uh....only human :=)
DLG
P.S. Hey PAB? carpetbagging isn't a "bad" thing. Lots of people do it. It's, uh....only human :=)
DLG
No, Diana, honey, it's all in
***YOUR***
mind.
My mind is a tabula rasa.
So there :P
G'night to you too,
PAB
PS--"Honey, get your carpetbaggers off my back
You wouldn't even give me time to cover my tracks
You said, 'here's your mirror and your ball and jacks,'
But they're not what I came for, and I think you see that too..."
~Bruce Springsteen (sorry, couldn't get that outta my head)
PPS--I think Markos has a thing for you...
Marcos~
Thanks for the support. :=)
Bye for now.
DIana
PAB~
Hey, PAB? I don't know why you think I accused you of carpetbagging. I gave it as one of a number of reasons I might attempt to end an argument. You wrote that you weren't familiar with the word so I explained what it meant.
It's all in your mind PAB...all in your mind. I'm not mad at you.
Bye for now.
Diana
Markos:
1. I was not trying to bully Diana into not responding. I encouraged her to respond to me IN PRIVATE if she wants to discuss her carpetbags, or wished to make further inquiries about mine. Surely you understand that some things are best handled privately, don't you? Or is it a catfight that you're looking for? If so, sorry to disappoint.
2. If you go back into the archives, you will see that Diana and I in fact do have a history of unpleasantness that, and I think I speak for everyone when I say this, no one wants to see revived. So let's let it drop, shall we?
3. War, monogamy, etc., sorry, nope, those are not personal. Personal only happens when people make ad hominem statements about each other. People can debate very serious, sensitive topics without them becoming personal. It happens here all the time.
4. Diana is a big girl. She doesn't need big strong Markos to stick up for her.
stick that tarbaby somewhere else,
PAB
If you've got a decent beer store at hand, I'd suggest trying St. Peter's English Ale, if only because it comes in the most darling 500 ml bottle. The beer's pretty good too. Wheat beer season's almost here too. And patio season. Ah, patio season.
Cheers, Jon
PAB: In light of this development, this conversation is over. If you want to unload your carpetbags, I encourage you to do it via a private e-mail to me. Public fora are not the place to air personal grievances. REPEAT: CONVO OVER. I'm sure everyone else on this board will soundly agree with me.
--- Sorry, I don't exactly agree with the style in which you handled that. Your 'this converstion is over.' followed by the public forum fu-fu-ra reads to me as an attempt to bully Diana into not responding.
so stuck on the tar-baby,
markos
ps and damn near everything I've read on here to date has been personal to one degree or another ie.. monogamy, war, politics etc etc...
re: animal monogamy: I don't think anyone is trying to draw meaningful comparisons between human fidelity and sexuality and that of animals. Human females, due to the wonderful menstrual cycle, can opt to have sex for pleasure, not just when in heat. This, plus our much-vaunted cerebrums, allows us to make a lot more choices about our mates than other animals can.
However: Swans have a 6% divorce rate?!? They're kicking our asses!
PAB
Diana, re: carpetbagging: You are WAY off and, I might add, rather out of line. Your implication that the adamance of my statements about adultery (or betrayal in general) had ANYTHING to do with you personally is not only absurd, it is incorrect, solipsistic, and demeaning to my argument.
If you knew me, you'd know that the feelings I expressed on this board about adultery and betrayal are lifelong ones, and are the same as those I hold in real life. When I debate, I debate with fervor. I was at no point angry with you or anyone else involved in said debate; I really have no idea where you thought the discussion between you and me about infidelity became "carpetbagging" or, somehow, became about YOU. Bern, Doug, and several other people expressed opinions on this subject just as vociferously and strongly as I did. It's not and neve was about you, Diana.
However, I am now forced to wonder if *you* are carpetbagging. Your implication that the quality and nature of my arguments about adultery had ANYTHING to do with some real or imagined feelings I may have about you say more about your unresolved feelings than they do about mine.
In light of this development, this conversation is over. If you want to unload your carpetbags, I encourage you to do it via a private e-mail to me. Public fora are not the place to air personal grievances. REPEAT: CONVO OVER. I'm sure everyone else on this board will soundly agree with me.
Thanks.
PAB
"The Myth of Monogamy" by David P. Barash and Judith Eve
Barash notes that understanding animal behavior has been revolutionized in the past decade by DNA fingerprinting, which has revealed many species once viewed as paragons of virtue to be philanderers.
Barash writes that numerous recent studies have shown that many animals and birds, such as eagles, geese, beavers and gibbons, previously believed to be faithfully monogamous, aren't.
see also . . .
“Good news and bad news for common loon enthusiasts: genetic monogamy but a high divorce rate (by W. H. Piper, D. C. Evers,
M. W. Meyer, K. B. Tischler & M. Klich) at American Ornithologists Union meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 1997.
Studies of parentage using molecular techniques have revealed that in a large number of socially monogamous bird species, females are often fertilized by extra-pair males (WESTNEAT, D. E 1990. Genetic parentage in the Indigo Bunting: a study using DNA fingerprinting. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27:67-76.)
André A. Dhondt, a Cornell University ornithologist who contributed to Partnerships in Birds, says "the biggest disappointment of the book for a nonornithologist is that swans are not the most faithful of birds." Five percent of whooping swan pairs end in divorce, and as many as 1 in 10 pairs of mute swans split up. (Black, J.M. 1996. Partnerships in Birds. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.)
Mammalian monogamy is characterized by pair bonding and a relative absence of sexual dimorphism in body size. Alloparental behaviour is a characteristic of mammalian cooperative breeding systems. Studies of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, from stock captured in a resource-abundant habitat in Illinois have supported the assumption that this species is a monogamous, cooperative breeder, while other studies of prairie voles from a more resource poor habitat in Kansas have called this assumption into question. (Cooperative breeding and monogamy in prairie voles: Influence of the sire and geographical variation Animal Behaviour; London; May 1998; Roberts, R Lucille; Williams, Jessie R; Wang, Alice K; Carter, C Sue;)
---- So in a nutshell many animals previously considered monogamous aren't and many that still maintain genetic monogamy have a high divorce rate or change partners seasonally.
chiming in, (bing-bong)
markos
ps not that this in any way endorses us humans cheating on our partners.
DAVID: Estrus and heat cycles aside, I'm PRETTY sure that humans are the only animals to experience female orgasm. I know that Desmond Morris (THE NAKED APE) has written this, but I've heard that several anthropologists and psychologists think Morris' work a little too pat.
But is monogamy natural? Animals sure understand the pure concept of sport fucking.
------------
Everyone read Harlan's latest story in the McSweeney book of thrilling stories. The ending is a hoot.
-------------
""You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon'. Need I say more?"
--------Chris Rock.
Jay~
Hey Jay...
What was I waiting for?
I was waiting to see if any of the women Webderlanders would rush in to post a message saying that they thought sex was nice and all, but that like many men, sex wasn't necessarily an expression of deep feelings for them either, and that THEY at least were as capable of screwing like an amoral lust crazed weasel as any man alive...or something to that effect. So far, I'm still waiting. :=)
I asked my son what you asked me about what level of trust he was talking about, he said he didn't know, he said it depends on a lot of things,, it varies, it's a play it by ear kind of thing. It depends on the girl, the situation, and any of a number of different possible circumstances.
Then he ran quickly away because he thought I might be getting ready to use the word "penis" in front of him again. :=)
Bye for now.
Diana
CINDY: regarding love, you wrote:"I do know ONE thing... there can be NO LOVE where there is no respect, and love is not something you FEEL it is something you DO. It is evidenced by BEHAVIOR NOT by physical feelings."
Uh, does this mean I've been lying to all of those chocolate bars I wolf down without restraint? I _feel_ like I love them; on the other hand, I act like I'm in lust. And am I cheating on them when I partake of a chocolate torte now and then?
--DTS
Diana -
Sorry, what is it you're waiting for, again?
In high school, there was a measure to meet before you'd sleep with someone. It spread in the locker room.
1. Do you know her middle name?
2. Would you trust her with your car keys?
3. Will sleeping with her prevent you from better chances down the road with someone else?
This list expanded and varied depending on who you talked to and included items like "Could you trust her to keep her mouth shut?" and "Is she a whore?"
Such morals, such standards. (Here is Mister Pot heckling Mr. Kettle)
So, you have to like them, at least...and trust them. What sort of trust are we talking about? Car Keys? Pin Number? Take her Pill? It's a relative scale. Not to impugn your son's morality, or your parenting, I'm just asking what that measure is.
WELL, I'M WAITING.....
Thanks ***GUYS*** for sharing your thoughts on what love really is, and how sex isn't it, and how it can be a part of it, but that ain't IT. Sarcastically speaking...no man's ever said THAT before!!!!
Like I said, and as it has been said, and as it seems to me to be true from my observations, for many *men*, sex and love are not necessarily the same thing. When it comes to sex, for some men mud is good, sheep are acceptable, and nurses or Ukrainian washer women, or nubile young hitchhikers, or court clerks, (seperately or together) will all do in a pinch.
I realize there are women who can disassociate themselves from the act as well as any man out there, but for many of us, more of us than not, this isn't how we're wired.
Not all men are interested in loveless sex. My son for one has been heard to say that he would need to at least like a girl a good deal, and trust her to some extent, before he'd be interested in having sex with her. (I'd like to say the same is true for my brother, but I could only do that if I were willing to lie)
Bye for now.
Diana
PAB~
Carpetbagging:
An example of carpetbagging would be when you're having an argument with someone you have history with, and you think you're arguing about something in particular, but then the other person brings out some old baggage to throw into the discussion, having little or nothing to do with the initial topic of conversation, because the other person has issues with you from the past that they haven't been able to satisfactorily resolve with you for some reason, or another.
Whenever you get into any kind of an argument with a carpetbagger who has unresolved issues with you their likely to start carpetbagging you sooner or later, unless or until they get the old stuff resolved with you to their satisfaction in some way or another.
Bye for now.
Signed,
Diana(Carpetbagger) Graham
Scott-
"I can just see Rick sitting in his St. Louis Cardinals logoed boxers (pulled up near to over his head), muttering aloud as he tries to maintain his small labour of love:
"Goddammit, you people talk too fucking much! Shutup! Shutup!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP, ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!""
Damn near killed the monitor with sprayed soda, amigo.
David - as cute as it might seem, no. I'm really not seeing what you're trying to say there - and I'd rather get my thinking straight before replying...
Bern
Hulk very confused about things. Sometimes, Hulk like to wander through park, and stare into the open sky. What is the meaning of it all, Hulk wonders. Where does Hulk come from? Puny Banner. Where does Hulk go? Puny Banner. But from where does sky go? Is Puny Banner sky to? And why does everyone try and shoot Hulk, who only is trying to find his place in intricate existential wasteland that is modern life. If Hulk were only given the opportunity, Hulk is sure Hulk would find some measure of pe...
-Look Mommy! It's Shrek!
HULK SMASH!
-Aiee! *splatter*
Damn. Hulk has killed again. Poor Hulk. And Banner said the killing would stop. Oh well. Hulk will let Banner take blame.
Oh, and there is new picture of Hulk at aintitcoolnews.com. See Hulk look melancholic!
SEE HULK LOOK MELANCHOLIC!
ALEX JAY WROTE;
"CINDY: Pardon the facile analysis, but it seems that the effect your unbeknighted ex's cheating had on you is, or was, largely due to self-image issues on your part. You harp on "plain" and "ox" and such--tell me, would the wound have been easier salved had he done his dallies with the most beautiful woman (or man; we're openminded here) on earth?"
You are right!
It had EVERYTHING to do with my self-image-- which had previously been over-inflated. " Harping" on the plain ox is a direct result of my astonishment that THIS had been the woman that he would risk it all for. Had she been gorgeous I probably would have had some insecurity issues but the fact that he would gamble the family on a one night roll with a Ukranian washerwoman shook me to my foundation.
"I hope I'm not dredging up bad feelings here, but I have to say: If you think his cheating was the first time he greatly wronged you--in whatever manner--you're probably wrong."
No-- no bad feelings here now-- I have nothing but apathy for my ex-husband and amusement at his selection in a replacement wife.
r>
"But all's well now; he's consigned to the dustheap of forgotten history, and you are happy and much-beloved now."
I like that statement a lot, Alex Jay.
Yes, all is well.
:)
Cindy
DUCKS are monogamous-- I'm not certain if that's just Mallard ducks or ducks in general.
I do know ONE thing... there can be NO LOVE where there is no respect, and love is not something you FEEL it is something you DO. It is evidenced by BEHAVIOR NOT by physical feelings.
Cindy
Got a posting error notice earlier. I can just see Rick sitting in his St. Louis Cardinals logoed boxers (pulled up near to over his head), muttering aloud as he tries to maintain his small labour of love:
"Goddammit, you people talk too fucking much! Shutup! Shutup!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP, ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!"
Of course, he means it in the best way... ;)
Chuck:
I was going to bitch a bit about all the little snots that try to kiss my ass or threaten me into giving them what they want, but decided on a course of action that would give me back the emotional equilibrium I and all here deserve:
No more kvetching, Scotty, just get the shotgun...that'll fix everything.
Happy to hear a bit of distance, perspective, and the kindness of a number of good folks hereabouts could turn it around for you. There be some decent souls that linger here, even the GOG, or in the erstwhile Mrs. Roddenberry's case, Ma(jel)GOG, who sometimes graces the little group assembled with his endearing truculence.
Lynn: Something I'd read, from the Bermanator:
"...Cool as a witch's tit on a Tuesday in January."
Does it get that way? I'm just kidding...
Now, fidelity. We have the capacity of abstract reason, the capacity to act upon those thoughts to create a course of action. We can consider the possible ramifications of the resultant actions upon the course of other's lives, and all potenital consequences of that which we do. All of this is accepted as fact, so:
How do people sometimes wind up arguing the ability of people to be monogamous in relationships by comparing it to the sexual traits of other species of animals?
I'm one who sees all relationships that are of great value to me as work, requiring maintenance to maintain the bonds that tie me to people. I see sex as a small part of what goes on between myself and Mel, that much more of what we call the love between the two of us being the mutual support and concern we have for one another. If there is something I've learned not to be selfish about, it is how important Mel's and the children's well-being is to me; how much I try to give to them, rather than take for myself. Perhaps it's measuring how much I lost in the past, deciding that the cost of repeating that travesty is simply too high. What makes me happy is how much I find my efforts reciprocated. All in all, it makes for a very positive cycle.
It's not perfect, mind; you put two people together for eighteen and a half years, there's going to be fights and disagreements. I guess the two of us are learning that most of what separates us is trivial; most of what keeps us together is virtually priceless.
An aside to honesty: I do like seeing the little girl naked, too...
Scott
> I think my problem lies with the fact you used "is"
I hope this isn't a subtle Bill Clinton joke, Bern!
David - Ok, I have to admit I'm somewhat befuddled by something you wrote, and I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify the part I'm not getting. In the last paragraph of your recent post, you have a sentence that begins, "So I disagree that sexual fidelity is an inherent value...". (I've run it through my head using the various meanings of 'value', but nothing I'm parsing makes sense to me, so clearly I'm doing something wrong... Just to help, I think my problem lies with the fact you used "is" - I don't know, maybe it's just that it's morning - It just doesn't parse for me...)
Could you explicate further?
Thanks,
Bern
I was wondering whether anyone was going to bring up swans.
Gibbons are also lifers, I've heard. But they're fairly unique among primates. Our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee, as many of you know, is frenetically promiscuous when in heat.
Which is another point: never mind the Pill -- so far as I know, humans are the only mammals who do not experience estrus in the form of a "heat" cycle, which suggests it's a whole new ball game, so to speak.
Which is why I reject any attempt to learn from or justify anything humans do based on examples from the animal kingdom, at least in this area.
I see several threads here in which people offer what I would term superficial readings of the situation.
First, the current celebrations in Iraq are like high school graduation night. People seem to think they've completed something, that they've arrived at adulthood, but it's only a beginning. Soon they'll find out high school was EASY compared to having to make a living, to survive from day to day, to make a marriage work year by year as opposed to the lovely pomp of getting hitched.
Sure, many Iraqis are celebrating their "liberation" like mad, but I guarantee that more and more of them will resent it and the U.S. when the country descends into anarchy, looting, and revenge killings. There are a lot of people in Russia who miss communism now, because at least they knew where things stood and they felt secure, however unhappy and unfulfilled.
Iraq may end up offering another object lesson that perhaps you cannot impose democracy upon a people who are not ready to take it or create it for themselves, no matter how oppressed they may be.
Second, I agree with Alex that sex is not necessarily the highest expression of love, or whatever phraseology was used. Clearly there are a lot of people engaging in sex out there without any love at all. Some are buying and selling it, too. Spousal abusers and their victims often have great sex, tremendous reconciliations, much passion . . . but I wouldn't say they're especially loving (and this is one of the many areas where I strongly disagree with the extremely learned and interesting Camille Paglia, who asserted that victims stay with their batterers -- and don't really want to leave them -- because of the great sex).
You cannot buy and sell trust, respect, or lovingkindness quite so easily as sex. So I disagree that sexual fidelity is an inherent value, and "cheating" an unforgivable or deadly crime. It rather depends on the specific participants, doesn't it? Maybe Hilary Clinton resents Bill's infidelities much less than the fact that he got caught and embarrassed her publicly. A lot of people will accept behavior in private -- their own and other people's -- as long as it doesn't creep out in the open.
I don't believe it's been mentioned recently, but the posterchild of animal fidelity in my neck of the woods was always the swan...
And the extremes of swan behavior are thus:
High Fidelity - "Bewick swans pair up for life and never divorce. The death of one partner, usually leads to the death of the other."
Low Fidelity - "[Whooper Swans] pair off when they are 2 years old. Although most swan pairs are for life, this breed has an unusual 6% divorce rate!"
(quotes pulled from the following source: http://www.sumter-sc.com/meetswan.html)
Bern
P.A. BERMAN: Silly me -- I thought "life" meant the life span of either the male or the female.
--DTS
DTS: Wolves do not mate for life. They are serially monogamous; if the mate dies, the other alpha may take another. The California field mouse, however, will not take another mate. That kind of monogamy is extremely rare, and it seems rodents and not primates have a lock on it.
PAB
P.A. BERMAN: WHoops, that should have been "another species of vole." I gotta stop with these typos.
--DTS
P.A.BERMAN: Actually, I just read a story in "Discover" that mentioned a species of vole which is monagomous, and very nuturing. Also, the wolf -- even though humans have misused it's name -- mates for life as well.
--DTS
ALEX J: “But I can't accept that sex is the ultimate act of love. Sacrifice is harder than sex, and caring, and forgiveness, and persistence.”
Or "-is more significant than-". I agree.
Quote of the day:
"Of course, it's possible to love a human being -- if you don't know them too well." -Charles Bukowski
Heh heh.
PAB
Alex: Do not denigrate rodents with regard to sex. The California field mouse is the only animal known for lifetime monogamy.
http://www.hastingsreserve.org/MouseStory/MouseStory.html
Diana: I have no idea what "carpetbagging" means to you; to me, it means a person who makes a geographical move to gain political or economic advantage. And if your goal was not to make me angry, characterizing me as radical, angry, and extreme was very much the diametrically wrong way to go.
PAB
CINDY: Pardon the facile analysis, but it seems that the effect your unbeknighted ex's cheating had on you is, or was, largely due to self-image issues on your part. You harp on "plain" and "ox" and such--tell me, would the wound have been easier salved had he done his dallies with the most beautiful woman (or man; we're openminded here) on earth?
I hope I'm not dredging up bad feelings here, but I have to say: If you think his cheating was the first time he greatly wronged you--in whatever manner--you're probably wrong.
But all's well now; he's consigned to the dustheap of forgotten history, and you are happy and much-beloved now.
DIANA: Sex is great. A beautiful, enjoyable, infinitely extendible thing, when done right. But I can't accept that sex is the ultimate act of love. Sacrifice is harder than sex, and caring, and forgiveness, and persistence. Sex is something which can be grasped by the lowliest of rodents, and though the joy of love DOES infuse sex with so much more, it can't be seen as the ne plus ultra of Human Life (after all, Love is the pinnacle of life's achievement, so the ultimate of the pinnacle ... you get the picture.
Perhaps, as something so easily corrupted into something vile, sex shot through with affection and caring and joy should be cherished, yes. But not as the end-all and be-all opf that crazy little thing called love.
FORRESTER: Coulda been worse. Coulda been Ivan Lendl or Ilie "Nasty" Nastasi.
CHUCK: Thanks. Glad to know the head's all together. (Not the detachable one, that is.)
BERN: Sorry if you're wondering why people seem to think you have a Batman complex, but I can understand--if you read your, "I do not seek out the "indiscrete" - but I'll damn well punish them if we should catch 'em" statement quickly and gloss over the next sentence in which you put forth that the fittest punishment is public embarassment, then it's not hard to see you as some steel-jawed moralist.
Not that *I* ever misunderstand anyone's posts, of course ...
Oh, and ROB ...
You would do well to climb down, son. Your high horse stands on perilous stiltwork.
Now. Assuming you've read past what you would likely perceive as a slight or threat ...
You asked, "what is your quibble about missing evidence of bio and chemcial weapons in Iraq? Or do you know of proof no one else does?" in response to my "I told you so"-ing. Realizing that you had misconstrued the thrust of my little jape--which was, admittedly, something I left way to open to such misunderstandings--I clarified that I was referring to the LACK of discoveries with regard to WMDs.
Which clarification resulted in your going off like a minister relieved of his virginity after a sixty-year career. For someone who--like myself--seems against the idea of a "pre-emptive war," you seem all too willing to engage in such tactics on a personal level, especially to someone who has damned near NEVER, in over six years of posting here, resorted to invective.
I know it's easier sometimes to attack as a form of defense, but I also have made sure that in my life, I don't do so to someone without a very damned good reason. Hard to do sometimes, but necessary--part of the fine print at the bottom of the social contract.
You may want to reexamine your intent.
PAB~
Or:
When it seems to me that a discussion I'm having with someone has degenerated to the point where I or the other person starts to "carpetbag", rather than sticking to the original subject, or if it seems to me like we've reached a stalemate, where I find myself and the other person are simply rewording, restating, and reiterating their past statements more than anything else, then
I'm going to try ending the argument.
It could be that some of what I said came across as me characterizing you in an excessively negative way. I apologize if I did that.
Bye for now.
Diana
PAB~
Regarding:
"I take exception to:
"I don't want to work you up into making even more and more radical and angry statements"
But I don't want to work you up into maing even more and more radical and angry statements.
BYe for now.
Diana
To Whoever:
This:
http://y.20q.net:8095/btest
is the url to an online AI game of 20 Questions. You're goal is to stump the program. Think of a thing or an object. The AI will ask you questions to try and figure out what the thing you're thinking of is. This AI is hard to stump! I beat it my first time out, but only because my "thing" wasn't in it's date base (archipelago) It was getting close to guessing it though.
Bye for now.
Diana
DTS - No, no - no cross-eyed babies coming out of THIS apartment.
It's a true story, though - until I met my cousin, I was sure I was adopted. Our personalities are very similar. Recently, we've begun finishing each other's sentences and predicting what the other is going to say next. She needed to get out of Jacksonville, NC, and I needed a roommate in Virginia, and here we are.
And her dog, Sammy the Silky Terrier? Best Dog Ever.
Paula,
Hey, I understand. I don't think you're rigid or frigid or a stuffed shirt for voting your gut. I agree, character plays a role and, knowing it during the election, I may not have voted for the guy. But somehow, in the midst of it all, while I'm looking at all the problems we had in the world at the time and seeing how they were being dealt with, I didn't really care if the guy got a hummer in the White House. I decided that the world now knows he's an adulterer. His daughter knows the gruesome details and hears about it everywhere. Imagine the shame of it. Those must the three of the most miserable souls in public life. They're like the Buttafuccos of politics.
I was just hoping the Leader of the Free World wouldn't lose his mind and nuke Belgium to blur our focus on the impeachment.
cookie: I'm glad we cool. I respect you too much to be able to bear the thought that I hurt your feelings.
"the person who publicly embarrassed me was a man"
Sorry about the assumption. Clearly I was projecting.
PAB
who now really must go to sleep, and no rubbing
Diana: People who egregiously breach my trust need only ask humbly for forgiveness (I would do the same if I breached someone else's trust). If you fuck me over and you want to restore our relationship, then yes, you should ask. It is then mine to give or not give. That's in general. If you're man and you cheat on me, then yes, you must grovel. Then, even if I forgive you, the relationship is most likely over. That's just the way it is. As Harry Callahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations." I could not live with such a breach of trust. Bully for you if you could.
I take exception to:
"I don't want to work you up into making even more and more radical and angry statements"
Honey, I'm not worked up. I don't think my statements are radical or angry. They're how I feel, and apparently several other people who post to this board feel quite the same, thanks.
I don't like the human race. That doesn't make me rigid; it makes me a realist. We are fucking up the planet something terrible with little remorse or signs of slowing; we think we're the paragon of animals when all we are, really, is animals. Simultaneously, I have a great and abiding love for most any individual who bothers to give a damn, and I care passionately about just about everyone whose life touches mine. Yeah, it's a paradox. Oh well.
As for our views on monogamy, I'm fine with not agreeing with you (your excessively negative characterizations of me and my views aside). Agreeing with other people has never been a big priority for me.
PAB
PA: cool. BTW: the person who publicly embarrassed me was a man. Which brings us back to whether I'd rather have male or female friends. I'm just happy to have ANY friends at this point, but in general, I tend to get along better with men. Sometimes, I feel like women either resent me or feel superior to me. I'm just not into the same things as alot of the women I meet. Oddly, I get along fairly well with the other female musicians in the area---perhaps because there are so few of us. While there's always competition to get work, there's also camaraderie in having to deal with "the life."
DOUG: Absolutely no one commented on your post -- and I thought it was hilarious! (true or not). ('Course, if it _is_ true, then you've got me beat, hands down, in the incestual experience dept.) My hat is off to you. Family reunions would certainly be interesting.
--DTS
Good way to end the day?
My copy of Edogawa Rampo's "Japanese Tales of Mystery & Imagination" arrived today.
PAB~
Thanks for refering to my arguments as eloquent.
Regarding:
"Diana: I'm sorry, honey, but if you commit an act as despicable as adultery behind the back of a loving and trusting spouse, then YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED"
I'm going to assume you were using the editorial "you" there, because I'm strictly monogamous. I don't really understand how any woman could have several ongoing relationships of a sexual nature at once, whether or not none of them were committed. I can deal with dating more one than one man at time, if I'm not having sex with any of them, but that's about as much as I can handle. And I even find doing THAT a little confusing at times. I've never cheated on any of my boyfriends. Never. Not one. Not once. I think I WOULD be terribly ashamed if I did something like that. Even the thought of doing such a thing makes me feel a little ill.
I think I might qualify as kind of a priss when it comes to such things, actaully.
But that's ME. See?
I don't want to work you up into making even more and more radical and angry statements by continuing to argue with you about the subject of fidelity, but I can't share your rigidity of thinking on this matter. This black & white, either/or mentality is unreasonable, in my opinion. There are just too many possible variables that could be involved in a given situation to be able to fairly and compassionately pass a blanket judgement over the whole subject.
And I think you must have been being hyperbolic when you said people who don't grovel for forgiveness when they've breached your trust are fucked up. ("if you don't want to take the blame, if you don't grovel for forgiveness, then you're fucked up. Period") Right, PAB? Surely you were just exaggerating for dramatic effect? Surely someone expressing their regrets, and then proceeding to demonstrate a change of behavior, would suffice to set you on the road to forgiving a wrong-doer??
Otherwise, you and I will not be having a meeting of the minds on that subject either. Personally, I've come to believe that words are easy, and cheap, as are dramatic gestures, such as crying and groveling. When it comes to apologies, and the changing of hearts and evil ways, I'm definately more of a "Don't TELL me,*show* me. Don't SAY it, DO it" kind of girl.
Regarding:
"Guess what? As a species, I loathe the human race...Sorry, but man delights me not"
I have to disagree with you yet again.
Again, it's too blanket and rigid a judgement/statement of a complicated and variable subject to work for me.
But if it's working for you, have at it. I guess.
Bye for now.
Diana
rich: You consistently crack me up, and for that, on a day like today, you're aces in my book permanently. It's even better now that I've met you and can hear your words in that excellent, deadpan voice of yours. Thanks for the laugh.
Chuck: Glad to hear you're feeling better. Some days, god, I know how Cthulhu the Horrible and his detachable penis would seem like welcome companions. If you don't believe me, visit Binghamton sometime. Keep your chin up, kiddo.
Bern: Cool as a witch's tit on a Tuesday in January.
PAB
PS--Seriously, going to sleep now, perchance to dream... ah, there's the rub (of tissue the wrong way).
Just wanted to pop in and say hello. I'm doing better than last night, which is a great relief. My seratonin level must have been in the sub-basement. I was practically on the floor sobbing. I can get all bent out of shape, but I never quite break. I really appreceate all the kindness from all you here, especially Alex Jay, Cindy, Bern, DTS and Scott. And, say, Scott, if you want to use my garbled and misspelled typings to silence some whiners, then more power to you. Maybe you could read it out loud in your Porky Pig voice. That would really freak them out. Just don't do that while reading it backwards, or it could invoke the spirit of Nyarlathotep the Faceless One and that could be most embarassing. I hope your mood lifts soon.
I also am touched by everyone's offers of help. Not to worry. I'm about twelve hours away from relief. You are all a basket of peaches.
Julie was out last night celebrating with some friends. It sounds like she had a great time. I'm glad that worked out for her. She's been getting phone messages from all across the family, and I think that helped, too.
On to a more in-the-thread-topic: Bill Clinton and his Amazing Wandering Willie.
I'm very much a privacy fanatic, and I really hate the fact that we have to bear witness to the private lives of famous people, including the president. I mean really, really, private. I not only didn't need to know about Slick Willy doing the tubesteak boogie with an intern, but I really didn't have to see the inside of President Reagan's colon during eighties, either. Private should be private.
But, this is the real world, and you'd think our vaunted political leadership would have wised up after Gary Hart said, "Go ahead, follow me, you'll be bored" and surprise, surprise, the press obliged him, catching him in what I would call the world's costliest lap dance.
Clinton should have known better. Oinkin' and boinkin' in the oval office is tantamount to doing it in a department store window. After that, he should have owned up once caught. Grover Cleveland did just that after it was discovered he'd fathered a child outside his marriage. He fessed up and that was that.
I did not feel sorry for Clinton, but I wasn't very worried for him during the impeachment, either. He was in a battle of wits against his opponents in the house and senate, and that meant his enemies were fighting unarmed and buck nekkid.
Never fight buck nekkid with a guy known as Slick Willie.
By the way, it has been discovered that if you combine the interchangable parts from the RepubliClinton and Mecha Streistand action figures, the result looks a lot like the image of Cthulu the Horrible. As a result both figures have been confiscated and destroyed in a Hazmat furnace.
Great. With all these postings on wandering willies I now have a mental picture involving Cthulu and detachable penises. I think I'll go watch some cartoons.
Best to you all,
Chuck
P.S.
I'm going to tell Julie Happy Birthday from all of you.
*** Rick ***
"these days" 3x's in 2 sentences. Feel free to expunge that.
Man I'm tired.
-B.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
*** Alex ***
You're right and I pretty much do that these days. I still ask Harlan to sign the occasional "zebra" these days but for most writers a handshake and a kind word suits just fine these days.
*** Ben ***
Trust me, I wasn't "that" traumatized and hand wringing and closeting my self-esteem have never been my strong suits. I wrote that to accomodate Cindi and I wrote it the way I wrote it specifically to make my point about celebrity. It was 10 minutes almost 20 years ago. I am SO over it.
If there was anything in my post that made it seem as though Walter behaved poorly - I don't think there was - this was certainly not the case. He was pleasant and personable, just distracted.
- Barney
Paula,
"A man whose free will is as friable as you claim in the face of Monica's fat ass should not be trusted to drive a bus, much less run the country."
Man, sometimes the eloquence...I find myself agreeing and disagreeing (at the same time) with you and Bern regarding this subject of adultery, but nuggets of truth like the one above keep me coming back for more.
And, I may be in the minority here, but I think love and sex are sometimes mutually exclusive.
(From a man who would never fuck over his friends. And my wife is one of my best friends. Which is maybe what it comes down to: I love my wife, but I like her, too. So I would never do something to cause her to doubt my feelings for her. So if you're married and you're thinking about the next door neighbor or the pool boy or the lady that gives you back the change at the grocery store, just remember this: Masturbation never hurt anyone; might've rubbed some tissue the wrong way, but no one's feelings got hurt and nobody got divorced over it.)
***BERN***
Cool like the other side of the pillow. (cribbed from ESPN's Stuart Scott)
cookie: I think you make a crucial distinction between being ASHAMED of yourself of and being SHAMED by someone else. I don't feel I have the right to shame anyone, but some people should be ashamed of themselves. If a person does wrong and feels shame on his own and that's a spur to action, then he's fine by me, it's none of my business, and I wish him the best.
But believe me, I know how it feels when someone who is supposed to be a friend outs your private business in a public forum, in an effort to cause you pain and embarrassment. That's a despicable, loathesome thing to do no matter what you may have done, and I'm sorry you suffered it. The person who did it to you should be hoisted by her own petard.
I do have to draw a distinction between your situation and Mr. Clinton's, though, one that I've made before. He's the President of the US of A. His private life is not his own during his tenure, and if he couldn't bear up under the scrutiny, he shoulda stayed home. Normal folk like you and me don't have to swear under oath to tell the truth about our private behavior, nor do we swear to uphold the laws of this country. Our indiscretions are between us, our partners, and whatever gods we like. Thank god for that. I don't know your situation, but you don't sound like a serial scoundrel like Bill, and I'm sorry if you felt like you were being lumped in with him.
Jay: Maybe I'm a Puritan, but I don't want a scumbag for President. I realize JFK and FDR had mistresses, and obviously I don't endorse that, but they kept it out of common knowledge, and that's all I ask. The way Clinton did it, it was like he didn't give a fuck who knew-- threw caution to the wind, and he's surprised he got busted? Sleazy and wrong. Why should I vote for him when I can vote for a monk like Ralph Nader?
PAB
DTS - Ah, the old left turn into humor. Missed the signs and wondered why the hell I was standing in a cornfield after pissing off a guy named "tony" or something...
We cool.
Bermanator - We're cool, too.
Diana - Cool as ice...
Doug - Cool like refrigerated soda...
Rob - We're chillin' like.... don't you swing that thing in my direction, you could put an eye out...
Any and Everybody else - peace out.
Bern
PA: I believe that adulterers should be ashamed, but that they shouldn't BE shamed by people who are not privy to it. That's all. I'm ashamed of many, many things but I refuse to shrivel up and die. I just try to do better. Unfortunately, someone in my circle chose to take my private foolishness somewhat public and that caused more trouble and grief to my family than was necessary. Right around Christmas, too and for no other reason than they wanted to embarrass my ex-lover. I'm ashamed of myself for being stupid and drunk enough to have told this former friend anything about my affair. But I did and now I have to live with the consequences which include loss of friendships and respect. But I don't think I'm worthless or a horrible person at heart. Fortunately, most of my friends and most importantly, my husband chose to ride out this nightmare with me.
This is an uncomfortable topic for me, so I'm jumping off now.
Wow. Spirited discussion.
Cindy - Got the new file. I really love the radio voice. Can I pay you to read Lord of the Rings for me? All three books?
The interlace problem depends on your capture software/hardware. I'd take it to someone who can look at your system and tell you what needs done. I've played stuff like that on a regular television and the interlacing fits the pattern so it looks clear. But that's the difference between exporting to video or monitor.
ANYWAY. Infidelity and Capital Punishment and Rob's penis and Bombing the shit out of dictators. Nice mix.
Not much more to be said about infidelity. As it relates to Clinton, he wasn't the first and we like to pretend we're shocked that the President would dare malign the sacred office with spooge stains. But it seems to me that the Clintons have more of a business relationship masquerading as a marriage, but that's just the impression I get. Monica proves to be about as clueless as any upper-crust insider spawn thrust into a slot opened by a friend of the family. Do I think she's to blame? Hell no. She was an intern, fucked the President and got a great job and stories to tell. Had it not been made public, she could have milked that (pardon the pun) for years! Clinton, himself, is no different than JFK or FDR who had their affairs. It doesn't bother me that the man is a scumbag. That's between him and his god and family. His presidency is a different matter an not worth commenting in the context of his libido.
I admit I've cheated in the distant past. I chalk it up to youthful indiscretion. It didn't involve marriage or children or shame the family, but it was at a time where the emotions involved in "young love" are more potent, in a purified raw state. Where love and betrayal, having little range for comparison, are often regarded as "ultimate" or "greatest" I delivered the "ultimate betrayal" to a girl who I'd dated for six months, didn't particularly like, but really enjoyed banging in my parent's basement. My "fling" was actually finding someone who I connected with but not having the balls to end the existing one first. With the kind of meltdown you only read in the romantic novel mill, it became trauma and drama and I remain a recovering scumbag to this day because of it.
It's also happened TO me, and later in life where a child was a concern. It changes the entire playing field and attitude. It doesn't diminish my regret for the earlier act. After all, it had a profound effect on how this girl approached relationships in the future and may have impacted her ability to trust anyone in that way again. But in both cases, it wasn't about sex or lust, it was about loneliness. It was abbout weakness of character and selfishness.
To be quite blunt, any one of us can deal with lust at home with little or no help from someone else. A choice about infidelity usually has deeper roots than the desire to stick it to someone different than the usual partner. Even in those open ones, the need to share space, time and intimacy comes from a need like any other a human being has. It shows a failure in the greater relationship.
DTS - Actually, I live with my first cousin; her mom and my dad were twins.
Should I take the shovel out of your hand now? :)
Bern: So I guess you and I are only a handful of consonants and righteousness apart. I take that as a compliment. I happen to agree with you about adultery. It nauseates me. Everything that you said, yeah.
DTS: I have no idea what you said. No matter.
Cindy: Of course I agree with you 100% on even a one-time infidelity. I was trying to be flexible for the sake of argument, but like you, I could never forgive even one instance of sexual infidelity. I don't care if that bars me entry from the polyamory circles. You make a promise, you should keep it. I have a VERY low threshhold for betrayal, and I never forget it when someone fucks me over (my dad tells me that's a Jewish thing). I cannot imagine your pain over what your first husband did to you. I'm so sorry you had to go through that, and I'm glad you found a man who treats you like the goddess you are.
However, Cindy dear, saying that you can see why Clinton cheated on Hillary because you don't like her and perceive her to be an unpleasant person... I can't get behind that, sorry. Hate her all you want, she doesn't deserve to be treated in a way that you yourself found so horribly wounding.
Diana: I'm sorry, honey, but if you commit an act as despicable as adultery behind the back of a loving and trusting spouse, then YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. Unhealthy? Hell no. Rather, shame is the only sane and healthy response to commission of a reprehensible breach of trust. If you cheat and you don't feel shame, if you don't want to take the blame, if you don't grovel for forgiveness, then you're fucked up. Period.
Yes, yes. infidelity is "only human." That's supposed to be a relief? God! Guess what? As a species, I loathe the human race. To quote one of literature's most articulate misanthropes, "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! ... And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"
Man delights not me. Sorry. People who use the The I'm Only Human Defense for adultery or any of a host of other vile misdeeds are weak losers who can't bear to be responsible for their own choices. Pathetic, is what it is. Bill Clinton is a scumbag. That's my last word on it, and none of your eloquent defenses is going to change my mind about that.
Now on to Cindy's question: do I prefer men friends to women? 10 years ago, maybe I would have, but now, no. I agree that in casual situations, women are much less fun to deal with, the cattiness, the Queen Bee-ism, the back stabbing. However, I am blessed with an abundance of wonderful, honest, fun-loving, and cool girlfriends. Gimme 3 or 4 good girlfriends (plus a gay guy too)-- we laugh our asses off, we understand each other, and there's no weird tension or crap.
Don't get me wrong, boys. I have several excellent guy friends. I love men in myriad ways, but these days, as Tori Amos said, "I need a big loan from the girl zone." ***HOWEVER***, Rob and his Sherman tank can call me any time...
PAB
Bern,
I know full well you don't needs to hear it from ME...but ah can'ts resist...a merrily reactionary JUDGE DREDD with a good RIGHT cross is very much the image you've evoked for ME. You're stigmatized, baby.
And DTS...
You won't catch me with half a brain again, y'dig?
Frank:"Todd, never forget that America leads the globe in terrorism. We just call it, DEFENSE"
Frankie-boy, I already forgot, other than to copy/paste that silly little comment that your brethren love to spout for shock value. I can only retain my sanity by forgetting that people like you actually believe such bullshit.
Ta ta.
-TODD BIN LADEN - American Terrorist
Hey, BERN: Okay, reply not "replay." And you're not "you." Sheesh I've been typing too long today. I quit. Really (no, really). Adios and adieu to you. No hard feelings, right (or left, depending on your political bent)?
-DTS
BERN: First Rob, now you...I even used the "Roger Rabbit" (TM) signature, "Puuuhlease," and you still replay with a straight face. Don't worry, even though I know you kinda self-righteous, I don't truly think you're minion of the far-right. (Sheesh, when you have to explain sarcasm and silliness, it takes the fun right out of it).
--DTS
Cindy~
I think I understand what you meant. When you married you're husband you made promises to each other about cleaving only unto each other and such.
If he broke his promise to you in that regard you'd figure all bets were off?
I'm big on keeping promises. HUGE. I believe I mentioned this a time or two already?
Bye for now.
Diana
(I swear, if I get one more “Congratulations!!! You’re the B*I*G W*I*N*N*E*R” email...)
Ben/Washu
If HimsElf disapproved of P.A.’s use of initials, and you dread to know what his thoughts on your moniker, just imagine for a moment how he must feel about the various handles _ I’ve _ used!
(Can you guess them all? We are legion for we are many … well, maybe not many … more like several)
(Now what kind of email is this…? No, I don’t need that enlarged … or THAT either! Jeez!)
Cindy
Re: “ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY EMBARRASSING MOMENTS TO SHARE? COME ON I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE SOMETHING THE RECOLLECTION OF WHICH MAKES YOU CRINGE. HONORS FOR THE MOST EMBARRASSING”
You really want to know? Like the time I tripped and knocked over Bjorn Borg? With the long blonde hair and fur coat – it was January ‘79 in Chicago – I thought it was a woman. Nothing like helping world-champion tennis player to his feet with an “I’m so sorry, ma’am” in the air. Why was he hacked off? Was it because I said “ma’am” instead of “miss?”
Skip ahead a few years – being taken out to birthday lunch by my colleagues in the accounting department. Lone male, I and thirty-odd (some very odd) women, from recent college grads to grandmothers. One of the grannies is telling stories of where her children were born – one at home, one in the cab on the way to the hospital, another in a forest preserve while on vacation – as the young women stared wide eyed in disbelief.. I’m looking at the menu and raise my head when I hear the waitress ask “See anything you like?” That was the moment I realized they had taken me to a mid-day … how shall I put this?… “fashion show.” And trying not to laugh at what she was wearing (ask me later).
Three years ago, getting to meet Eddie Izzard after a performance at the Royal George. We’re chatting up, he’s autographing for others, life is cool. As we shook hands, something from his show about whale song and giant mutant cows (“the only ones left in Britain due to mad cow disease”) popped into my head. They meshed together and I asked “Did whales evolve from giant cows or vice-versa?” He’s still shaking my hand, but the knuckles are white – the eyes are wide with terror and he’s leaning back as far as he can towards the cab. Just as my wife clicked the shutter. That moment is immortalized and hangs on the upstairs office wall.
One of the ultimate faux pas of all my existence?
It involves Harlan … and a fax machine…
(to be continued)
Cindy~
I wrote:
"If, instead, you'd found out he'd fallen in love with someone else, but didn't "do it" with her, just loved her, would that have hurt less?"
You responded:
"...I read too many romance novels and so had unintentionally conditioned myself to believe that "sex" was the ultimate expression of "love"
Yeah, it is. At least for us, Cindy. Sex is the ultimate act of love. Absolutley. I think that's true for most women (???) And I don't think that comes from reading romance books either (although I confess I read at least a couple of truck loads full of them myself when I was younger) (I call them, "heaving bosom" novels) No, I think we're just wired that way.
"...if he had "loved" me-- truly, he would not have been able to have sex with an ox"
No, not necessarily. For men it can be different. Very different. Not all men, of course, but many of them, I think it's like Lenny Bruce said, some of them would do it with mud, or a sheep, or with a nurse in an ambulance, even if they'd just had one of their legs cut off in an accident. Sad but true.
But, we've gotta love 'em. God's given us a pretty limited menu. It's either love men, or an alternative too gross for me to even consider. (Required PC disclaimer follows...) Not that that's a bad thing, if that's how someone's bent.
Bye for now.
Diana
DTS - Maybe I missed the left turn somewhere - but where in the hell did you glean the idea that I was acting like some sort of "Judge Dredd" figure? And generally, in what possible way does the does having anydamn opinion at all on whether infidelity should be punished or not have anything to do with democracy, pro or con? I fear your deserved mistrust for Bush and Co. has spilled waaaaay too far into other aspects of your life. Chill, dude - this is just a bulletin board...
You've made several leaps of logic and jumped to one too many conclusions about this particular topic - I'm more-than-ready to retire it, if you want to.
Bern
DTS,
I jumped back to get another gander at your post. One of which i missed entirely. You're utterly right. How pathetically obtuse of me.
OKAY, OKAY: I'm REALLY going this time...but before I leave, I read these two amusing/interesting quotes today that I've gotta share with you guys. The first, on the back of a van, read: "Working class people who vote for republicans are like chickens who love Col. Sanders." AND the second one was found in a new biography of Ben Franklin (out in July) that I started reading today: "Let all men know thee, but no man know thee thoroughly." -- Benjamin Franklin.
--DTS
DIANA WROTE;
"Cindy~
Was it the fact that he had sex with this other woman that hurt? Just him performing "the act" with another woman?"
YES.
"If, instead, you'd found out he'd fallen in love with someone else, but didn't "do it" with her, just loved her, would that have hurt less?"
YES. Because I read too many romance novels and so had unintentionally conditioned myself to believe that "sex" was the ultimate expression of "love" and that if he had "loved" me-- truly, he would not have been able to have sex with an ox.
"Personally, I could get over the first kind of infidelity a lot easier than the second. That second scenario is the real heart breaker."
This is because you are a grown woman with abounding good sense.
"I don't believe something you said. That "payback is a bitch" stuff, meaning you might go off and get to know some other man in the biblical sense just to hurt your husband for cheating on you. "
No-- but if there happened to be another man that I cared deeply for and had been holding down (by force of will) strong emotions-- because I loved my husband and was an honorable sort of woman-- the struggle would be over. Just like that.
"You're full of crap. You wouldn't do that. No more than I would, if I were married. Sex for revenge. You'd hurt yourself at least as much, if not more than, you'd hurt your husband if you did that. Stop talking foolish."
No, NEVER sex for revenge-- but sex for love denied before-- could happen...as you would say in a New York minute-- and I would never regret it.
I think you are wonderful, Diana... do you know that? I really think you are wonderful.
:)
your friend,
Cindy
Diana/Rob: Well, "Detachable Penis" is a King Missile song that starts "I woke up this morning with a bad hangover/ And my penis was missing again./This happens all the time./It's detachable" and goes from there.
Cheers, Jon
DOUG (doug): I begin my posts by putting a persons name in caps so they will know it's addressed to them (and so others can skip over my boring attempts to proselytize them). SOMETIMES I use caps in the middle of a message to lay emphasis on a word. I'm not yellin' at ya. I leave that to your mom, dad or live-in lover.
CINDY: After all of those semi-testosterone laden posts, I can't help but picture you in hiking boots, cut-off jeans, and a camouflage, sleeveless shirt, weilding a pistol in one hand and a big bowie knife in the other (oh, and sporting a bandana atop your head, blonde locks all ruffled and moist with the sweat and effort of having just kicked some dude's butt). So when you send us the link (we're still waiting) to the photo of you on the internet, you might consider that pose.
Have a nice night, all.
--DTS
If people don't like their country, they should overthrow it; what's the problem? Remember, the Iraqi people never asked us to do shit.
-------
Todd, never forget that America leads the globe in terrorism. We just call it, DEFENSE.
BERN: Wow. I'm shocked by your hubris. To believe that YOU have some right to punish a person for breaking his (or her) marital vows (fealty, lovebond, whatever) to another person. I take it back: you DO work for Ashcroft (and Meese, and etc., etc.) simply by attitude and belief. Folks like you (and the aforementioned) are scary to those of us who still believe in democracy. Puuuhlease, _never_ run for public office.
--DTS
Frank,
"And why we crow about saving the people of Iraq, many more this minute are dying in the Congo. Famine around Africa is a downright emergency, and we won't spend a dime on it; especially after the price tag for this war".
All quite true, but it doesn't address the silly parallel you drew earlier OR that it was up to the Iraqis alone to overthrow Hussein. Furthermore, I also designated the war protesters. I have a lot to add, but my keyboard got damaged (almost nothing works)so I'll have to stop there for now.
Ben wrote;
"So, Cindy, you and other women harden yourselves so much against the males who utilize most of their brain power from their penis, you actually don't know how to react to a man who is SOMEWHAT intelligent. Hell, you can't even trust the intelligent ones. Many men use intelligence the same way many women use cunning...as a tool, a means to an end. Nothing more."
No Ben,
I LOVE men! In fact I prefer them about 1000 to one to women. Good WOMEN friends are as rare and valuable as perfect diamonds.. and I have noticed that the sort of women who MAKE good friends understand that MEN truly are God's greatest gift.
The man who WOULDN'T jeopardize the love of a good woman is the sort to marry.
As for the other kind of man-- I love them too!
I wouldn't romantically entangle myself with one like that but they make lovely and entertaining friends. They bring back tales of conquest and stories that fascinate.
Smart women learn to protect themselves rather than set themselves up for heartache. Women who cheat with married men doom themselves to failure.
We should respect each other enough not to mess with another woman's man. That is a cardinal sin and those who do, get what they have coming. If he'll cheat on HER he'll cheat on you too.
Monica got a lot of bang for her blow- she fell in love and had an affair to remember. I think she genuinely believed he would leave Hillary and marry her. Silly and absurd as it is-- a young woman frequently sees things through her heart and not her eyes.To BILL'S credit he never promised her anything-- that by her own admission.
I've said it before; married to Hillary one can't be too hard on Bill for responding to the adoring upward gaze of a flesh and blood woman-- rather than the standard judgemental gape and icy, clutching talons of the spiritually deceased that he was no doubt used to.
He sucked as a President leaving office but would doubtless make a damned fun friend.
Men are so much nicer to deal with--generally speaking-- they say what they think. They don't go about randomly looking for the warm spot between another's shoulder blades. They won't try to compete against you or upstage you... and they appreciate and respond to kindness that most women fail to even notice.
Lynn and Cookie, Paula and Diana, wouldn't you all agree that in general men would be the first choice in a friend?
But as I said a good woman friend is a pearl beyond value and should never lose out to any man.
Cindy
"And where were the pictures from the village of Furat, where 80 men, women and children were rocketed to death? Apart from the Mirror, where were the pictures, and footage, of small children holding up their hands in terror while Bush's thugs forced their families to kneel in the street? Imagine that in a British high street. It is a glimpse of fascism, and we have a right to see it.
"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries."
----John Pilger
Cindy,
Regarding your remark about “… the wrongheaded and amoral thinking that kept us from tying into Germany FOR YEARS while Hitler and his devils visited unspeakable horrors and death on millions of innocent Jews.”
I infer that you think the U.S. should have gone to war with Germany much sooner than it did. If my inference is correct, when do you think we should have started the war?
As it was, we were at war with Germany by December 1941, only four or five months (not years) after the Germans began systematically massacring large numbers of Jews in the wake of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, but it took us some time to finish raising, equipping, training, and transporting our army overseas.
To put an army into the field against Germany sooner than we did would have required (1) an economy strong enough to sustain a huge, virtually permanent standing army, ready to act whenever a foreign crisis erupted, and (2) a willingness on the part of Americans to send large numbers of servicemen into battle just to help citizens of other countries. Neither condition existed during the Great Depression; if both had, by the time German persecution of the Jews intensified enough to call for American action –- say, 1938, with Kristallnacht -- we would have worn ourselves out stopping the Soviets from starving the Ukrainians and stopping the Japanese from killing the Chinese and who knows what else.
To me, the spilled blood and spent treasure required to put a large army into combat represents such a high price that it should be paid only when our national security is at stake. We did not go to war with Japan until she attacked us. We did not go to war with Germany or Italy until they declared war on us. That seems proper to me, not wrongheaded or amoral. Americans of the 1930s should have done more to help those fighting or fleeing from tyrants, and should have been better prepared for the possibility of war, but I don’t blame them for not wanting to get shot to pieces until they had to.
(For the record, I am against the war in Iraq, although now that we’re in it, I don’t have anything informed to say about what we should do about it.)
DTS - please assume, if only for the sake of the laughs it'll immediately generate around here, that I'm not completely stupid. (See, I told you they'd laugh...) I did recognize your references, as sly as they were, to other punishments around the world. Unfortunately, they're not particularly valid, outside of defining your generalized fear of "Punishment Creep - Shaming Today, Caning Tomorrow, Death Next Week!"®. Your repeated references to the horrible things other people do to each other doesn't change the fundamentals of the issue.
A married person makes an oath, in part, to "forsake all others". In return for that solemn promise they are afforded special consideration(s) from society. This is part of the reason that such oaths ARE made publicly, they contain implicit promises to the society at large, as well as to their betrothed. An adulterer is breaking that oath. This is, generally considered, "wrong". "Wrongdoing" is punished in our society - as it is in most. We can argue about the severity of the punishment, but we should really not be disagreeing about the need for it, 'cause if we do, we are sending a seriously inconsistent message to the chilluns, and that will definitely come back to haunt us.
You stated, "So on the one hand, you're saying the 'crime' [snip] is none of our business, but the punishment is. Hmmmmmmm...THAT'S an interesting notion. ", in reference to my statement that we (society) cannot "forgive" the wrongdoer.
I respond - No, not exactly. I AM saying that the only one who can "forgive" is the wronged party - no one else. I cannot forgive Bill on Hillary's behalf. But, as a member of society, I am an "interested party" to the "wrongdoing", because of those aforementioned implicit promises, even if I am not directly affected. It is the same with any "crime" - I needn't be a direct victim to have a stake in the punishment of the offender.
I do not seek out the "indiscrete" - but I'll damn well punish them if we should catch 'em. And in this case, and in my-never-to-be-humble opinion, a fitting punishment is public shame. We _embarrass_ 'em. Boo-hoo if that's too harsh.
Bern
Diana, Jon (who can call me Sir Johnson from now on), et al...
I am beginning to suspect I've backed myself into a corner here. And to think I wanted to become a lawyer once.
DTS ,
Fair enough, but with just one point: I did that to you just once. Alex has done it to me since dinosaurs walked the Earth.
Cindy, we cannot allow any country to assasinate a world leader, because it kicks down a hornet's nest:
Some country will say, "hey, you kill our leader, we kill yours." Don't they, using your logic have the right to go kill Bush as well? To many in the world, Bush is no better than Hussein; or in many ways far worse. Hussein is a sheriff with a tin badge, while Bush has bombs in his hope chest. Love aint just about the biggest dick; but our country does have a hard-on for dominating the world. Kind of kinky, would you say?
Sorry if I made you blush, Texas tundra brush fire. ;-)
-------
Did you all know that Bush was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard for 17 months way back when? He did so to avoid having to go to Vietnam. This pussy doesn't deserve our reverance. At least the anti-war people are willing to endure jail, or a rubber bullet massage.
To the Rob with the panzershreck. I see. Something a bit more portable. Makes sense.
Rob, never ever said I am a pacifist; I am a Chomsky leftie, and we believe in self defense, but violence only under extreme circumstances. And why we crow about saving the people of Iraq, many more this minute are dying in the Congo. Famine around Africa is a downright emergency, and we won't spend a dime on it; especially after the price tag for this war.
I actually like creative violence myself. Beating up Nazi's and right wingers might be fun.
To my doppelganger...
I humbly submit we’re talking Bazooka here, with a 13,856 mn Maximum payload capacity.
Cindy~
Was it the fact that he had sex with this other woman that hurt? Just him performing "the act" with another woman?
If, instead, you'd found out he'd fallen in love with someone else, but didn't "do it" with her, just loved her, would that have hurt less?
Personally, I could get over the first kind of infidelity a lot easier than the second. That second scenario is the real heart breaker.
I don't believe something you said. That "payback is a bitch" stuff, meaning you might go off and get to know some other man in the biblical sense just to hurt your husband for cheating on you. You're full of crap. You wouldn't do that. No more than I would, if I were married. Sex for revenge. You'd hurt yourself at least as much, if not more than, you'd hurt your husband if you did that. Stop talking foolish.
Bye for now.
Your friend,
Diana
To Eric's statement;
"After you finish wiping off all those brains and blood from your hands, do you think you'd really be any better then them? "
I RESPONDED
"Yes".
THEN ERIC WROTE;
"Well, you're dead wrong. As wrong as you can be. But don't feel bad...most of us are wrong 50% of the time. This is one of those times for you."
Eric,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is wrong to assassinate the leader of a foreign country and his henchmen, soaked in the blood of innocents. Even if it would unquestionably result in the cessation of families being rounded up like cattle, viciously brutalized and finally incinerated.
Are you saying that it would be better to turn your head away from the suffering and outrageous abuse of defenseless men, women and children than it would be to kill those responsible and end the carnage?
If you think that is right then we are indeed polar opposites on this issue.
YES- if I had my husband's ability with a firearm AND had a clear shot at each-- all of the monsters you listed AND Saddam would be gone. I would squeeze the trigger and erase their pumpkins without hesitation.
I would also sleep BETTER knowing they were gone-- and I promise you without a smidgen of guilt that I had wrought their demises with my own hands... brains and blood notwithstanding.
truly,
Cindy
CINDY,
Men are naturally stupid. I don't know why we're wired to be stupid - we just are.
So, Cindy, you and other women harden yourselves so much against the males who utilize most of their brain power from their penis, you actually don't know how to react to a man who is SOMEWHAT intelligent. Hell, you can't even trust the intelligent ones. Many men use intelligence the same way many women use cunning...as a tool, a means to an end. Nothing more.
Therels always been a chasm between the genders, but before, it was empty. Now it's being filled with lava. There's a male-female tension growing somewhere deep. It snapped in the 1960's-70's, and in all likelihood, it's going to snap again.
Cindy wrote: "A man who loves his wife will not cheat because he would not hurt her."
Bingo. Amen. Ta-Da. That's it in a nutshell. I know what it feels like and I would never subject the woman I love to that kind of pain.
Re: Rob's (the other Rob. The one without the "S". The one that's not me.) "Joy Dept." being the size of a Sherman tank. Is that the short barreled 75mm or the later 76mm? The 76mm has a higher muzzle velocity and more penetrating power. Inquiring minds want to know. Not that I'm one of them. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
DTS -
No need to shout my name. The website doesn't call out to me when you do.
"Or should they (in the words of Jesus Christ) be forgiven? Now, I'm not talking about what you some of you guys are calling "serial adulterers -- just the average person -- and that's usually who it is -- that fucks up (uh, no pun intended) and has a one-time infidelity. Does that person deserve to be shamed in public (or flogged, etc.)? (that one's directed at you BERN). OR is he or she a horrible person of low character and morals? Or just another flawed human being? (DOUG?) Just curious about your thoughts regarding those questions?"
Should Joe or Jane Average, if they have a one-time fuck-up (no pun intended), be forgiven? That's not for me to say, because unless I'm one of the parties, it doesn't concern me. That's between the fucker-up and the person they broke fidelity with. As far as I'm concerned, that particular business is to be sorted out between husband, wife and (if required) the fuckee-up. Beyond that duet or trio are busybodies who don't need to involve themselves. Where Joe and Jane Average are concerned, there's no apology required to Mrs. Deevers up the street, nor to her sense of moral outrage. Unless she was the schtuper, schtupee or directly schtupped over, she's owed nothing by anyone concerned.
Are Joe or Jane Average of low character and morals if they fuck up? That boils down to your point of view and to which degree your moral compass swings to. Like art, sports teams and Kubrick films, opinions will vary wildly from person to person. Same thing for whether they're flawed human beings. As far as I'm concerned, the two sides of the coin aren't mutually exclusive, either. My specific Jane Average? Tragically flawed. Character and Morals somewhere down the middle - doesn't steal, doesn't kill, doesn't prey on children, good hearted, kind and charitable - and also doesn't tell her husband she fucks around on him, despite her claims that she loves him dearly. And all of that? Merely my opinion, my take on her, rooted in my personal interpretation of morality and humanity and having borne witness first hand to who she was and how she could be. Your take on her might vary. So would every other person on this board. And ultimately nobody's got the definitive statement on her character, her morals, or the depth of her human nature - except for her. She's the one who has to live with the consequences of her actions, the people she hurts, and so on. As I do with mine, as you do with yours. I don't have to be comfortable in her skin, so when all is said and done, my opinion of her - and everyone else's - is so much background noise.
Yes, people are human. They make mistakes. Big mistakes. And they should take responsibility for what they do instead of chalking it up to being weak. Me? We'd been drinking, we'd been dancing, we were kinda worked up, and we let go of the handlebars and let the bike plummet down the hill. Am I human? Hell yeah. Doesn't excuse the fact that I made a conscious decision, knowing she was married, to reciprocate what Jane was putting out. Not in the least. We both knew it was wrong, and we didn't care. She has a pattern of not caring. I'm a polar opposite. And at the time, I loved every minute of it. And I've pretty much disliked that part of myself ever since. I doubt I could look her husband - who I do know - in the eye again. Here's someone who invited me into his home for Thanksgiving one year when I had nowhere to go (prior to Jane's and My 'event'). I'm a fuckheaded schmuck with no defense. In that moment, I only cared about myself and how good I felt, period. That's as wrong as a human being can get. It's not typical of me. But I did it. I wouldn't do it again.
But in my view, there's a difference between entering into a commitment without the suspicion you will stumble or fall when tried, and going into it with the fair certainty that you have, and will always have, a desire to slip around, under or through the commitment you have made. And that's at the heart of what I consider character. Did I intend, when I started hanging around with my Jane Average, for us to wind up where we did? No. And I wouldn't have spent as much time with her as I did if I thought it would. Was I wrong? Hell yes. And when it comes down to it, while I see what I did as a character flaw, do I give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about it? Hardly. Because it happened between Jane and I. We have to live with it. And currently, we do so by not speaking. And we probably won't speak again. And there are hurts involved in that, but I bought the ticket, so I have to throw up on the ride, and I've lost my right to bemoan it. Can open, worms everywhere.
Forgivness? Judgment? Shouldn't come from the masses. Either of them.
As for Clinton - the relationship was a detail. The issue was whether or not he encouraged her to lie to the grand jury in the Paula Jones matter; proving a relationship was a step in building that chain. And I think Clinton played the "sexual relations" game with the media and with prosecutors because it drew attention from that key central matter. Sex sells. Encouraging someone to lie under oath? Small peanuts to the public - they want to know about the sex. I think Clinton played it just right as far as preserving his ass - and I think he was smarter than any five of the people who were trying to get him out. I bet he kicks back some days and marvels about how it all worked out for him. And he laughs. And goes off for his nooner at the Westin.
PAB WROTE:
"I would also make a distinction between one incident of infidelity and serial infidelity. Neither is OK, but confession of the former might be a selfish act, while confession of the latter is necessary if the relationship is to have an integrity or real meaning."
I don't know.
My first husband made a mistake. He got drunk and screwed some local woman who was so plain that I couldn't have described her or recognized her four seconds after studying her face.
He was the only man I had ever been with and the concept that he could do something so profoundly special to ME to some faceless ox was crushing beyond words. I felt like I had something molten living in my lungs. Pain like you can't imagine.
I tried to get over it-- struggled to do just that for about 2 years. The sad fact is that once my trust was pillaged there was none left. I became a rhodium plated bitch. As sweet and as trusting as I had been before was as angry and suspicious as I became.
Before, he could come and go without a battery of questions. After the indiscretion I devolved into some archtypical Spanish inquisitor. When he would leave I would wonder who he was with or doing.
There was no peace-- not for either of us.
Divorce was a blessed event.
He married a real harridan after me and went on to cheat without compunction whenever the opportunity presented itself.
In other words they were made for eachother.
A man who loves his wife will not cheat because he would not hurt her.
My husband now-- had a similar thing happen to him with his first wife. He said he remained faithful to the vow until the divorce was final... no matter that she had moved out and in with another man.
I was completely honest with him. I told him I don't know what I would do if he cheated, but I tend to give as good as I get. Be faithful to me and you won't have to worry about me stepping off the chalk-- come what may...forever.
But--BREAK the vow and the vow is broken. Do me wrong and all bets are off.
He doesn't understand this-- says it's about making a promise and that until the ink is drying on the divorce papers it shouldn't matter what a spouse does you don't break the vow.
I say payback's a bitch. But I don't think I bet on the wrong horse this time.
Cindy
P.A. BERMAN: What I meant to type below was that the parts I wrote about lying still stand. Which something I now need to do. I've been working on this keyboard way too long today. I. Am. Outta here (hate the guy, but I love the line)!
--DTS
PAB~
I'm against the whole "Shame & Blame" mentality when it comes to sex. It's UNHEALTHY. It's sick. It makes people crazy.
I don't think saying "I'm only human" is a cop out. It's a form of blessing. It's accepting yourself. It's saying, to yourself and others, that it's okay to be human.
Applying that thinking to sexual infidelity...
The fact is that humans in many cultures, ours included, for some reason, when it comes to sex, have regularly, historically, and arbitrarily established ideals and standards, which are *abstracts*, that are actually impossible to live up to, and then have proceeded to beat themselves and others up inwardly and outwardly and legally, because they've been unable to live up to these self/societally imposed arbitrary ideals, ideas and abstracts.
I'm big on keeping promises. HUGE, PAB. That's why it's nearly impossible to get me to make one. That's why I'm scared shitless of the institution of monogamous marriage. I think trust is very important in human relationships, if we want them to go well. Knowing someone will keep their word to you, that you can depend on their promise...this creates trust.
In this regard I think it follows that it's very important to know what it is you can actually do, and not instead make promises based on what you wish you could do, or thought maybe you could do, or what you think it would be ideal to be able to do.
Learning your limits. Learning you've made a promise you can't keep...
Maybe the person you ended up breaking your promise to (like if you "cheated" on your spouse) won't be able to forgive you. Maybe they will. Looking at things from my point of view, you get to learn from your mistakes, you can learn to not promise to do THAT, whatever it was again. (Like agreeing to never ever ever ever again have sex with, or love in "that" way anyone else again EVER besides this one and only other person) (ever) (ever)
(ever)
Bye for now.
Diana
CHUCK: Lest I forget, in my verve to argue some points, best wishes to you. Life can be pretty fuckin' hard sometimes. You seem to be dealing with it, though. (If it's just you and your sister at the birthday, I say all the better -- a nice quiet celebration in these too loud times is far nicer).
Adieu,
--DTS
PA BERMAN: Whoops, I accidentally started to redress my post to Bern in my answer to you. Ignore the stuff about "other cultures" -- the lying parts and how we can move from little to big, under the right circumstances (and yes, that can be taken as a double entendre -- when a sexually promiscuous mistake is made under a Republican administration/Attorney general work with me folks). (Sorry about confusing you two, but you're only two letters -- and, perhaps, a handful of righteousness -- apart where this bulletin board is concerned.
Yrs. in good humor (don't go ballistic on me),
DTS
ROB: At Diana's request, I'm showing some compassion. Sorry you have such a big dick (personally, I wear two pairs of the boxer briefs -- it helps control the sucker while allowing some room to "breathe").
--DTS
ROB: You are no longer allowed to pillory Alex for misreading your posts, as you managed to entirely miss the sarcasm in MY post. (Jeeez, how BIG of a club do I need to drag out?)
P.A. BERMAN: See above: there was no "hyperbole" in my post...unless you are unfamiliar with the rest of the world and its various cultures. Humans are doing such things to each other as we speak (Islamic, countries, hint hint). My point (and I'll admit, you at least started to get it) was that lies come in all shapes, forms and sizes. And they tend to come naturally to us humans (I wasn't comparing the severity of one lie to another -- merely trying to point out that once someone eengages in any type of behavior, it's easier, if you're a human with all of our hard-wired flaws, to move onto the next step). Or, one might argue, they are taught from an early age (Santa Claus, etc); but that would exclude quite a few people; and even those groups eventually learn that a little white lie here and there is okay. And since we live like that, if someone screws and commits an infidelity (that good for you BERN?), it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they will lie. And for various reasons (as I pointed in out my "subtle" post): to protect the feelings of his spouse, to protect himself from the embarrassment and shame, etc., etc. For most of us flawed human beings, lying in an instance when fidelity is questioned would be an automatic, knee-jerk response. It's only human (just like the kid who says, "I don't know" when asked "Who did This?!" picture any number of domestic horrors). (Clinton's case was an unusual one -- and I STILL don't know that 95% of the people in the world would be able to get up and admit a marital infidelity on worldwide TV...after all, the act involves something between himself, his lover, and his wife...which brings me to...)
BERN: Who wrote, "forgiveness can only offered by the wronged party in the situation - the rest of us aren't in a position to forgive - it's a moot point. Now, if 'raked over the coals' means shamed into the realization that they crossed a societal boundry and that society doesn't think too well of them, then yeah, rake away." So on the one hand, you're saying the "crime" (yes, ROB, or Virginai, I'm being sarcastic) is none of our business, but the punishment is. Hmmmmmmm...THAT'S an interesting notion. Almost Ashcroftian in it's implications. (You don't, by any chance, work for...nevermind). In any case, as I mentioned to Berman, it's not hyperbole to imagine humans going a stage where they say it's okay to publicly humiliate someone to perhaps a little public caning (that sound familiar to you -- recognize acts committed by other humans, even today?) and from there...who knows? I'm not saying punishment shouldn't be doled out (yikes, sorry about the Republican inference), but perhaps _this_ particular "crime" should best be dealt with amongst those involved -- and the _rest_ of us (you, Meese, and and "Blackjack" Ashcroft included) should keep our noses out of other peoples private affairs (whoops, no pun intended... really...no, really).
--DTS
Chuck:
Not being dismissive to your problems, shit, the mundane pile of work, especially this time of year when the egos of hockey league presidents, team volunteers, and their minions with all their petty bullshit seem to parade through our offices, their sole intensive purpose being to drive us managers up the wall in chivvying us into favouring them with the best times to hold their playoff games. And, as a result, I get to miss out on the company of those folks I like better, including the denizens of these here environs (Yep, surprises me too to hear it said).
I'd like to send each and every one of these pinheads a copy of your post, and say "There, assholes!! Here's a person who is dealing with a real problem, doing it with a far greater level of maturity and self-respect than all of you self aggrandizing shits combined." I know it doesn't heal the wound, but at least you might get some comfort knowing your dealing with troubles could do the good of silencing some whiny little dickhead.
Get the situation with the meds cleaned up, mon ami. Enjoy your sister's brithday. It does get better.
Best, Scott, who generally is in a better mood than this...
>To Eric's statement;
"After you finish wiping off all those brains and blood from your hands, do you think you'd really be any better then them? "
Yes. Cindy<
Well, you're dead wrong. As wrong as you can be. But don't feel bad...most of us are wrong 50% of the time. This is one of those times for you.
Jon Stover~
I'm STILL laughing.
Rob~
I'm suggesting sweat pants for you from now on. Or maybe something in a light cotton, with a drawstring waist.
TO ALL...REGARD ROB"S PENIS:
Jee-ZUS CHRIST! Apparently the man's running around with the equivelant of a sherman tank in his shorts. Show a little compassion!!!
Bye for now.
Diana
Bern~
Regarding:
"Diana: Of course, emotion can overwhelm reason. But, in an average life - those moments are actually relatively rare. Far, far more often we rationalize ourselves into the situation a little bit at a time. We put ourselves into situations which are conducive to "bad choices", and then when it happens we shrug and say "I'm only human...". That is a cop out. That is where I have my problems. If we don't stand up and say "this is wrong", it will NEVER get better. Our job is to struggle toward the ideal, not make excuses why we won't get there. (I will point out the fact that Billy Graham spent his entire adult life making sure he was never in a position to even be accused of adultery, let alone actually commit it, by making sure he was never alone in a room with any female except his wife. Ever.)"
Actually I agree with you on a lot of that, Bern! Moments where one's passion overwhelm their reason are (usually) not an everyday and regular thing. And one can arrange to insure they're even rarer. Actually, Mr Graham's approach is similar to my own method for circumventing my less reasonable inclinations. I tend to try to avoid and/or remove myself from situations and the company of persons I think are likely to be "dangerous". I guess you could say I've learned to lead MYSELF not into temptation.
Along those same lines, I also agree that sometimes people bullshit themselves into getting into situations where they can excuse their less than ideal behavior (which I think is the same as saying they cop out)
Bye for now.
Diana
BARNEY: For god's sake, man, don't feel so crushed. It's a bizarre habit of the subconscious to make us 'common folk' feel ashamed and humiliated after having an awkward exchange with ANY kind of celebrity.
OH, BOO-HOO! I'M NOT WORTHY TO EAT THE DIRT ON HIS/HER SHOES! BOO-HOO-HOO!
Celebrities are not supermen. Far from it. Usually, they tend to be elitist pricks you'd prefer to shotgun in the groin then ask for an autograph. It's not their fault. Society tells you you're special for so long, you start to believe you're SUPER-special.
Walter Koenig is not an elitist prick. I've read enough of his own writings and interviews to know that. But you know what? Somewhere, at some point in his life, when he was fully mature and in full possession of his senses, he did something ASTRONOMICALLY STUPID too! Probably gives your slip-up the grace of a swan in comparison!
I'm sorry, I just - this crap makes my blood boil, because I've suffered from the same POINTLESS shame myself. Don't feel humiliated - you realized your error, you were sorry for it, don't brood on it. Take this from a person who broods as a favourite pastime.
Rob: Given what you've implied about your dick or rod or johnson, I'd suggest investing in a detachable penis. They're all the rage these days.
Enjoying my coffee, Jon
It's astonishing how people can redirect a line of thinking in order to make it look absurd. For instance: Bern is being portrayed as some extremist for thinking (horrors!) that people who violate their wedding vows should be ashamed of themselves. Yes, sorry, they should be. They made one of the most serious and meaningful promises a person can make, of their own free will, and broke it. Guilt is a natural part of the atonement process, because it indicates an understanding that you did wrong. Then you can take steps to make sure it never happens again, and be forgiven. Or, if you're not sorry, get divorced and screw around guilt free.
Now we move onto Doug's situation, and why that is none of my business but Clinton's adultery is. Here's why: Doug is not the president (unfortunately). He did not abuse his power to get tail, he did not lie under oath, he did not swear to uphold the laws of this country and then break them. BIIIIG difference.
DTS, in a post rife with hyperbole, asks if I think lying about someone's baldness is just as wrong as lying under oath. No, it's not, and frankly, I'm not sure what your point is. Surely we are all capable of discerning between a harmless lie about someone's hairstyle and perjury. I would also make a distinction between one incident of infidelity and serial infidelity. Neither is OK, but confession of the former might be a selfish act, while confession of the latter is necessary if the relationship is to have an integrity or real meaning.
Then he asks if I think it's OK that he lied to the media, allegedly to protect his wife's dignity (!!!) Well, I don't think THAT is why he lied to the media; I think it was his own ass he was covering. I would also note that if Clinton had kept it in his pants, he wouldn't have had to lie to anybody. And as wrong as I think it is, if he absolutely had any desire to keep his indiscretions private, he would have chosen his lovers a hell of a lot more carefully. You take one look at Monica Lewinsky and you KNOW she's not gonna keep quiet about it. Duh. The flagrance of his transgressions destroys all sympathy I'd have for the invasion of his privacy.
Rob claims that his dick can rip through his zipper. Wow, I'd go to pay-per-view for that, but really now. REALLY, NOW. If I came on here and said men are pathetic victims of their libidos, that their free will evaporated in a haze of testosterone and lust, then could I not also assert that if men are so incapable of self control, then why is rape illegal?
A man whose free will is as friable as you claim in the face of Monica's fat ass should not be trusted to drive a bus, much less run the country. How would you feel if I used that argument to justify a high school teacher banging a 17 year old student? Well, she's legal! He couldn't control himself! His dick was like The Incredible Hulk! Boys will be boys! Nope, it doesn't wash. Why? Because it's bullshit.
We all have free will. We all have functioning cerebrums capable of making tough decisions. I think a big problem with America is this desire to avoid taking responsibility for our mistakes, or inability to say "this is wrong" and mean it, consistently. It's always society's fault, or your mean daddy's fault, or hormones, or a video game, or an Eminem CD, that made you do it. No, sorry--you break it, you bought it. Take your lumps like a man or woman, not a sniveling child.
This does not mean that adulterers should be pilloried and stoned in the town square. It just means that there shouldn't be excuses made, only apologies.
PAB
DAVID'S STATEMENT
"We expressly sought to assassinate a nation's leader, and that is contrary to international practice, if not law. No matter how bad he was, or how much his people suffered, these are incontrovertible facts to me."
Lead to MY statement which lead to Eric's statement:
"I totally agree with this one. Cindy, killing to stop killing, hmm? We're back to that old "value of human life" argument. You mentioned wasting Hitler. A detail: Hitler didn't kill anyone. He just told other people to, or they worked with his tacit or overt consent. So, on your time travel assassination trip, you're not only going to need to pop Adolf, but also Bormann, and Goering, and Goebbels, and Himmler, and Heydrich, and Eichmann, and several dozen others. Once you've cleaned out Berlin, head east, since you can't forget the camp kommandants...they're not all as charming as Colonel Klink. Oh yeah, be sure to take a side trip down to the Ukraine to take out those guys, like Colonel Blobel, who ran the Einsatzgruppen, the death squads that just used machine guns and trenches before the camps were built. Better get the gunners, too, AND the support staff. Let's not stop at Germans...you'll need to cap all those Polish sonderkommandos, you know, the one's who did the actual firing up of the ovens, in exchange for more calories and a sweater. Hit all the SS, that's about a hundred thousand or so people, and what about...point made?
After you finish wiping off all those brains and blood from your hands, do you think you'd really be any better then them? Maybe you should just kill the whole human race. And if your follow-up is that you'll go far enough back to just take out Hitler, when he was slumming in Vienna, well, what about Stalin, and Ghengis, and Pol Pot, and Mao, and...
You're gonna be busy."
To Eric's statement;
"After you finish wiping off all those brains and blood from your hands, do you think you'd really be any better then them? "
Yes.
Cindy
"We expressly sought to assassinate a nation's leader, and that is contrary to international practice, if not law. No matter how bad he was, or how much his people suffered, these are incontrovertible facts to me."
I totally agree with this one. Cindy, killing to stop killing, hmm? We're back to that old "value of human life" argument. You mentioned wasting Hitler. A detail: Hitler didn't kill anyone. He just told other people to, or they worked with his tacit or overt consent. So, on your time travel assassination trip, you're not only going to need to pop Adolf, but also Bormann, and Goering, and Goebbels, and Himmler, and Heydrich, and Eichmann, and several dozen others. Once you've cleaned out Berlin, head east, since you can't forget the camp kommandants...they're not all as charming as Colonel Klink. Oh yeah, be sure to take a side trip down to the Ukraine to take out those guys, like Colonel Blobel, who ran the Einsatzgruppen, the death squads that just used machine guns and trenches before the camps were built. Better get the gunners, too, AND the support staff. Let's not stop at Germans...you'll need to cap all those Polish sonderkommandos, you know, the one's who did the actual firing up of the ovens, in exchange for more calories and a sweater. Hit all the SS, that's about a hundred thousand or so people, and what about...point made?
After you finish wiping off all those brains and blood from your hands, do you think you'd really be any better then them? Maybe you should just kill the whole human race. And if your follow-up is that you'll go far enough back to just take out Hitler, when he was slumming in Vienna, well, what about Stalin, and Ghengis, and Pol Pot, and Mao, and...
You're gonna be busy.
DTS - I'm going to mostly ignore your first reply as amusing hyperbole - the only point I'll make is that I have repeatedly advocated differing and appropriate levels of punishment for different "wrongdoing" - I've never suggested a one-size-fits-all approach. (But I do have a question based on that first reply - are you suggesting that any punishment at all is the moral equivalent to the death penalty? Or that there is an inevitable slide into "death for all crime" if we consider lesser punishments? 'Cause that's what the hyperbole seems to be suggesting...)
Now, to reply to your second, reasonable post..."Regarding those people who DO get married, promise fealty, etc., and then...an infidelity occurs..." I'll immediately disagree here - the very statement "an infidelity occurs" implies that it is NOT a conscious decision, however misguided or clouded. As I hope I've sufficiently indicated, I don't buy that - even for a moment. I'd prefer "they commit an infideliy".
"(the reason or reasons -- and there can be many -- doesn't matter)." Here we can agree.
"Should that person (those persons) be raked over the coals, told they're horrible human beings, etc.? Or should they (in the words of Jesus Christ) be forgiven?" I'll deal with these in reverse order - forgiveness can only offered by the wronged party in the situation - the rest of us aren't in a position to forgive - it's a moot point. Now, if "raked over the coals" means shamed into the realization that they crossed a societal boundry and that society doesn't think too well of them, then yeah, rake away.
"Now, I'm not talking about what you some of you guys are calling 'serial adulterers' -- just the average person -- and that's usually who it is -- that fucks up (uh, no pun intended) and has a one-time infidelity. Does that person deserve to be shamed in public (or flogged, etc.)? (that one's directed at you BERN)." DESERVE to be shamed? DESERVE? This is the kind of PC crap I rail against most. Of course they "deserve" it - it's not like this would some kind of "secret word of the day" thing that pops up when you least expect it and smacks you out of the blue. It would be the known and hideous consequence of your infidelity being discovered. Do not underestimate the deterrent power of public embarrassment - if it weren't so, why do think people work so damn hard to avoid it through lies and cover-ups? And yes, I do believe in the power of "deterrence" - I watch it work every single day of my life - I'm a father.
"OR is he or she a horrible person of low character and morals? Or just another flawed human being? (DOUG?) Just curious about your thoughts regarding those questions." At that moment yes, they are a horrible person of low morals and character - but it is one moment in a lifetime of moments - and with time that "scarlet letter" will fade. And if they show honest guilt and make changes in the way they behave from that point on, it will fade that much quicker.
Of course, all of this is predicated upon the idea that the "one-time" adulterer was caught. If they weren't, then I have an entirely different course of action for them... Bear the burden alone and in complete silence - never hint or suggest it occured to anyone - ever. And never, ever place yourself into a situation where it COULD happen again. By "coming clean" to your partner, you are deliberately damaging the other party's trust in you and their emotional state as a way to assuage your own guilt, and that is every bit as awful and unforgivable as the original infidelity.
Does that answer your questions?
Onward,
Diana: Of course, emotion can overwhelm reason. But, in an average life - those moments are actually relatively rare. Far, far more often we rationalize ourselves into the situation a little bit at a time. We put ourselves into situations which are conducive to "bad choices", and then when it happens we shrug and say "I'm only human...". That is a cop out. That is where I have my problems. If we don't stand up and say "this is wrong", it will NEVER get better. Our job is to struggle toward the ideal, not make excuses why we won't get there. (I will point out the fact that Billy Graham spent his entire adult life making sure he was never in a position to even be accused of adultery, let alone actually commit it, by making sure he was never alone in a room with any female except his wife. Ever.)
P.S. I'm glad you liked my image - laughter was the goal...
Rob: When you say, "VERY OFTEN THAT IS EXACTLY THE SITUATION.", you are essentially saying "the devil made me do it, don't blame ME", just not in so many words. As I said to Diana, that is a cop out - forgive me if I'm not buying today.
Scott: Sorry, my friend, to startle you like that - next argument you'll be able to disagree with me cleanly, I promise...
Chuck: Don't worry, there is absolutely no need to apologize, and I echo the sentiments of those before me - if you ever need to just talk to someone - my email is there - I'll send you my phone number - any time, day our night... Keep strong.
Bern
Alex,
Re: confusing my posts with others or missing my argument entirely.
I appealed to you to stop doing this to me and, from what it seems, you're selectively ignoring my comments. Either that or you delight in being a fucking spas. KNOCK it off, dammit. If you don't I'm going to drag out a full basket of rotten tomatoes and resort to tossing an endless string of good old-fasioned, base name-calling. CINDY will have to hold me back.
THIS IS A RE-RE-REITERATION SINCE YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING MY POSTS.
Alex,
Re: confusing my posts with others or missing my argument entirely.
I appealed to you to stop doing this to me and, from what it seems, you're selectively ignoring my comments. Either that or you delight in being a fucking spas. KNOCK it off, dammit. If you don't I'm going to drag out a full basket of rotten tomatoes and resort to tossing an endless string of good old-fasioned, base name-calling. CINDY will have to hold me back.
THIS IS A REITERATION SINCE YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING MY POSTS.
Alex,
Re: confusing my posts with others or missing my argument entirely.
I appealed to you to stop doing this to me and, from what it seems, you're selectively ignoring my comments. Either that or you delight in being a fucking spas. KNOCK it off, dammit. If you don't I'm going to drag out a full basket of rotten tomatoes and resort to tossing an endless string of good old-fasioned, base name-calling. CINDY will have to hold me back.
This is a reiteration since you have trouble reading my posts.
"Folks, it's not like a man's penis rips its way past his zipper and pulls him dragging, kicking and screaming..."
VERY OFTEN THAT IS EXACTLY THE SITUATION.
ALEX,
"Every single time they claim to have found WMDs, there's been a mild retraction later on. If the Iraqis had had such a buildup of all these narsty litle weapons, don't you think that we'd have A) found a large cache by now, or B) been attacked with them?
As far as we've seen so far, it's all a smokescreen."
You appear to be confusing my post with someone else's ...yet AGAIN. Would you PLEASE take a look at MY posts on this topic: the above was my very point.
This was my statement: "if they DO have chemical or bio warfare agents why wouldn't the Iraqis have used them by now? Why would they leave them stored in drums at such a desperate stage in the war? And as I anticipated, thus far those canisters are shown to be nothing more than pesticide.
Yeah, the extent to which Bush wanted to make this the legal grounds for war - claiming that our classified information contained absolute proof Hussein had not disarmed - is going to make us look quite foolish and very suspect in the eyes of the international community when future global issues come up.
Sure, it remains to be seen; but right now the picture doesn't make a lot of sense."That was ALWAYS my perspective on the controversy.
I appealed to you to stop doing this to me and, from what it seems, you're selectively ignoring my comments. Either that or you delight in being a fucking spas. KNOCK it off, dammit. If you don't I'm going to drag out a full basket of rotten tomatoes and resort to an endless string of good old-fasioned, base name-calling. CINDY will have to hold me back.
DTS, et al...
"'Course, instead of public humiliation in the newspapers and on TV for adulterers, you could also have a public flogging, which would not only shame the "criminal" ('cause that's what adulterers are)"
...man, what a homage to the Dark Ages. That's a mighty peculiar definition of "criminal" you got there. You even have Scott sliding along with you. As you all could tell I utterly disagree with this position; I mainly take issue with, in the case with the presidency, what should be a matter of national priority. On the broader playing field, in the case with retribution, I believe it's up to the married partner to decide the course - not public scrutiny. If one of you became an adulterer tomorrow I wouldn't consider it any of my goddamn business...however personally disgusted I might be by it.
DAVID LOFTUS WROTE;
"This is all tangential to the main issue, as I see it: We staged a pre-emptive attack on a nation that had not committed any aggression - not in this year or any recent years - and that is immoral.
I rejoice at the joy I saw in the faces of the people of Iraq yesterday when that statue of Saddam toppled. The truth was evident in their faces-- they had lived in abject fear and now they are free.
Eloquence was in their eyes.
You want to speak of immorality? That would be the blind eye that we turned to the plight of those people for so long.
Your statement;
"We expressly sought to assassinate a nation's leader, and that is contrary to international practice, if not law. No matter how bad he was, or how much his people suffered, these are incontrovertible facts to me."
SHOCKED me.
It exemplifies the wrongheaded and amoral thinking that kept us from tying into Germany FOR YEARS while Hitler and his devils visited unspeakable horrors and death on millions of innocent Jews.
Tell me this, David-- would you have considered it to be acceptible if we had gone to Germany when faced with irrefutable proof of what was taking place there?
Would you have sanctioned a state choreographed assassination on Hitler? Or would your lofty ideals have closed down the shop on your common sense then as well?
Cindy
Chuck~
Let us know if you need anything, okay? You know we're here for you, even if you just need to talk at o-god-thirty in the morning.
L.
PS. Tell your sister we said Happy Birthday.
Bern~
Regarding:
"Folks, it's not like a man's penis rips its way past his zipper and pulls him dragging, kicking and screaming..."
I'm trying to quit laughing long enough to answer your post. What an image...I was hoping one of the men who posts in here was going to say..."Speak for yourself, Bern"
Since I'm not a man, I can't really say for sure about what's going on in their minds. But I can say that some men seem to pretty much ACT like that's what going on sometimes. Following me off of buses, and driving into stuff because they're looking at my butt instead where they're going, and all that.
"We are human beings - we have advanced brains ..."
Here, for certain, I can say speak for yourself, Bern.
Anyway, you're wrong. Passion can override one's reason. It does. It must. Sometimes. Or some of the more intelligent of us would never reproduce. I certainly wouldn't have. I think sex is RIDICULOUS. It's funny. It's an absurd thing to do. It's not sensible.
On such occasions as you might find yourself looking back at some past act of passion and asking yourself, "What the HELL was I thinking?" the honest answer is likely to be..."Nothing" You'd stopped thinking, at least for awhile.
There are moments when all you'd like to think you are comes up against what you actually are.
Maybe you've never had any of those moments in your life. Maybe you never will. Alls I can say to all your arguments about logic, and reason, and finer sensibilities, and noble ideals, and sanctified vows, and all that other fine-minded brain stuff is...Speak for yourself, Bern.
Bye for now.
Diana
You are far too credulous, Todd.
> While many on this board continue to anxiously count
> on fingers and toes all the civilian casualties and the
> value of an Iraqi life, have you yet begun to factor in
> the thousands of civilian lives that have now been saved
> due to our intervention?
Impossible to factor. And I prefer to keep an eye open for all the civilian deaths which may result from the chaos that could occur once we've set up a weak, unknown and disrespected leader or coalition government and then lost interest and run off. You realize of course that if it's Chalabi or whatever other exile we've become comfortable talking to - someone who hasn't lived in Iraq for years and years - he will inevitably look like a U.S. puppet to people in country and neighboring Islamic nations. If it's someone from inside Iraq, he'll have to deal with whichever two or more factions he is not familiar with and who will likely not trust him, whether Shii'a, Sunni, or Kurd. It's a potential disaster in the making.
It's easy to go in with guns blazing; what I'm curious to see is whether the U.S. is willing to take responsibility for the power vacuum this war has created. Any idea what's happening in Afghanistan these days? Or Bosnia? (The leader of Serbia was assassinated in early March, just before the war started, by criminal elements.) Or Haiti? Or Panama? Or any of the other places we've "saved" in the last few decades?
I'm not into body counts. What's important is who caused those deaths. It makes a world of difference to me that Americans have done it (I've paid for that, and it's a violation of my and my country's stated values), rather than Saddam.
> Reporter casualties? While doing your math, have you
> compared the number of media casualties in this military
> action against that in the 1991 action....the one where
> everyone cried that the media was kept in the dark? Let's
> see.....tons of media in Iraq DURING A WAR and some
> are killed.
The fact that there are media casualties is not so much an issue as the fact that some of them were killed by Americans. I'm still waiting to hear what sort of punishment we're going to mete out to the U.S. flyboy who shot up a British column in the first week of the war.
> Stop me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are a lot more Iraqi
> civilians dancing in the streets today than there were before
> we begin our move. Is it because they fear us, the way they
> feared Saddamn, and wish to please us by dancing like happy
> marrionettes? Spare me.
Not so fast, Todd. This is a population that is used to performing joyfully for whoever's in charge - that's how you keep your ass covered. Of course there are more dancing in the streets now than before the war; Saddam would have killed them if they demonstrated then.
Some of them probably DO fear us, and not just because the Iraqi news service have been telling them to; after all, we've just been bombing and shooting up the place for the past three weeks. How do they know we have their best interests at heart? (And I agree that we do, but that's not the same thing as saying we're capable of making it happen for them.)
Kurds are dancing in the streets in the north, as well. Wanna take any bets on how likely it is that the U.S. won't sell them down the river to protect our relationship with our good buddies the Turks? For the second or third time?
> Yes, there will be terrorist attacks in the future. There will
> always be terrorist attacks . . . [cut]
And once again, the subject gets diverted from Iraq, which has not been shown to have any connection whatsoever to 9-11, to the big bad event which involved Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our nominal allies. This kind of muddy thinking is one of the things makes us look like total boobs to the rest of the world, as well as bullies.
You are jubilant because you think this war has diminished terrorist attacks now and in the future. I predict that it will increase them; certainly there are more people around the world who actively hate us today than there were in February. Did you hear about the 6,000 Egyptians who are trying to get into Iraq to fight the U.S.? They won't succeed there or now, but some of them may devise their own attacks later, elsewhere.
This is all tangential to the main issue, as I see it: We staged a pre-emptive attack on a nation that had not committed any aggression - not in this year or any recent years - and that is immoral. We expressly sought to assassinate a nation's leader, and that is contrary to international practice, if not law. No matter how bad he was, or how much his people suffered, these are incontrovertible facts to me. And if the people of Iraq turn out to be unable to govern themselves hereafter, then the blood of the chaos to follow (of which the current looting and vigilantism in the streets of Basra and Baghdad may be just a taste) will also be on our hands.
And the additional enemies this war has made for us around the world suggest this was not only an immoral and unethical move, but a tactical error as well. The U.S. may have opened a huge can of worms that we will be munching on for years to come.
Deco fans rejoice! The Victoria and Albert museum's showing a massive exhibition on Art Deco this month... and there are plans to bring it to the States. The NY Times reports that it'll hit the States in San Francisco and Boston over the next two years.
I hope it's as good as the Art Nouveau exhibition I saw at the National Gallery a few years back.
BERN & DOUG: Regarding those people who DO get married, promise fealty, etc., and then...an infidelity occurs (the reason or reasons -- and there can be many -- doesn't matter). Should that person (those persons) be raked over the coals, told they're horrible human beings, etc.? Or should they (in the words of Jesus Christ) be forgiven? Now, I'm not talking about what you some of you guys are calling "serial adulterers -- just the average person -- and that's usually who it is -- that fucks up (uh, no pun intended) and has a one-time infidelity. Does that person deserve to be shamed in public (or flogged, etc.)? (that one's directed at you BERN). OR is he or she a horrible person of low character and morals? Or just another flawed human being? (DOUG?) Just curious about your thoughts regarding those questions.
--DTS
In regards to this whole infidelity business, wedding oaths aside, proper behavior be damned, the bottom line, to my way of thinking, is that if you love your spouse, why would you want to hurt them? Even presupposing that they would never find out, you are doing them a great injustice. Wife #2 was unfaithful to me and I know how it made me feel. It tore me up inside like nothing else ever had before and there is absolutely no way that I would ever want to do that to my present wife.
We've been together for 19 years and that to me is far more precious and important than any dalliance could ever be.
Face it. Clinton had the morals of a stoat.
Thanks Diana...sorry for the gender mistake MS BERMAN...But don't mind me...hell...I am 57 years old...I am entitled to make mistakes in memory....uh....who am I? What am I doing in here?
Hmmm...son of a gun...oh well...maybe next time.
BERN: Regarding your earlier comments "The Convenient Lie"), and the idea that adulterers should be publicly shamed. Interesting idea. That'll certainly teach people not to do such things (and we all know that severe punishment deters criminals -- look at the death penalty -- I hear it even works as a deterrent to those people who commit "act of passion" murders -- yeah, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that folks are no longer losing their tempers, or temporarily losing their sanity, and now actually stop to consider the consequences of their actions). 'Course, instead of public humiliation in the newspapers and on TV for adulterers, you could also have a public flogging, which would not only shame the "criminal" ('cause that's what adulterers are), but it would leave marks to remind him or her not to commit such a crime in the future. Of course, _women_ who do such things should recieve _extra special_ treatment -- you know, perhaps be burned or beheaded (I hear that's the rage in some other countries) by a relative of the husband. Hey! Maybe we could have some guy cut off the fingers or hands of people (children or adults) who shoplift! Or...well, you get my point. I'm right behind ya, Bern. All the way.
P.A. BERMAN: It IS just the perjury that most upset you regarding Clinton, right? I mean, it wasn't the intial lying was it? You know, when he was asked by the media (one too many times)whether or not he "cheated" on his wife or had "relations" with "that woman." I ask, because -- if the lies to the media upset you -- I wonder what you think of other folks who do the same thing. Not just the man (or woman) who lies to a spouse about an extra marital affair (or an affair with another lover, if the two aren't married), in order to spare the person some pain AND (it should be noted, for honesty) themselves the horror of having it all dragged out in the open (the guilt, whether the act is revealed or not, is almost ALWAYS there -- I say almost, cause there are always exceptions to any rule)...I was just wondering if people who lied to keep from hurting or embarassing a spouse or lover (or themselves) were what you found objectionable. Or...what about folks who lie to friends, family and lovers about the way a strand of hair doesn't really cover the male-pattern baldness? Or someone who tells a woman (or man) friend, yes you look great, knowing that the rest of world thinks her/his thighs (hips, belly, etc) are (is) WAY out of proportion with the rest of that body. Or what about those parents who tell their children that Santa (the Easter Bunny, etc) is real, only to later reveal that they were just telling "white lies"?
I honestly (no pun intended) believe that humans couldn't co-exist without lying to each other every day. I'm not saying it's always right -- in fact, most of the time, it isn't -- but, as Eric Hoffer pointed out (I'm paraphrasing 'cause I can't remember or find the quote at the moment), we'd be a society of walking monsters if our faces mirrored our minds.
--DTS
Todd - I enjoyed last night's "South Park" - a little soft in spots, and I don't know how I feel about the non-sequitor (though cameo-rich) 100th episode nod at the very end, but it did what good "South Park" does. I enjoy that they're timely, that they'll be around through 2005, and that Norman Lear is working with Trey and Matt this season.
Bern - My brief encounter with a married friend several years ago (which I may or may not have ever mentioned, but hell, the 1% you don't know about me is in the 1% for a reason) taught me this: under the right circumstances, anyone is capable of anything at any moral level, high or low. That event, for all of its enjoyment, its spark, its energy, its sheer 'holy-shit-what-am-I-DOING?' appeal at the instant it was going on, is a low, low point for me. I was casting myself in the role of Dougie Homewrecker, and that's not who I am. In retrospect, I can see why it happened, I can see the factors of attraction on each side, I can see the psychology, I remember the chemistry, and frankly, it all comes swimming back at odd moments. But ultimately? I have no excuses. All the wrong factors aligned, and two people made choices. Both of them made bad choices. This is ALL there is to it. The rest is set dressing and circumstances and expository, Monday-morning-quarterback bullshit analysis. And believe me, there are days I absolutely hate myself for what I did, even though she (now living in Texas, still with her husband) has said to me, directly, that she doesn't regret a moment of it. She's tried to ease my conscience. It isn't hers to ease, though.
All that dragged into the light, I'm inclined to agree with you. There's been a marked trend towards excusing so-called "bad" behavior with that modern day equivalent of "the devil made me do it": "I'm only human." That everyone has done it/is doing it is utterly irrelevant. How does the fact that presidents before Clinton screwed around have any bearing on him, or his character, or his personal choices? Are we saying he shouldn't opt for the moral high ground because Grover Cleveland didn't? Because John Kennedy didn't? He's an adult. He chooses how to act. With Monica, both he and she made bad choices. They're human? Aren't we all. I'm as human as he is. But I didn't hop the counter at Starbucks this morning and go at it with Liz the barrista (who looks F-I-N-E as a redhead) in the back room, though, did I? 'Being human' and 'being accountable' aren't mutually exclusive.
We've marginalized Character in our society. Low character is abhorred by the masses in people of no apparent note. But people in high places - be it politics, entertainment, business - get excused of a lot of bad decisions that are made, with full cognitive power, simply because of who they are. Joe Shit the Rag Man knocks down an old lady and steals her purse, and he's a dirtbag and a thug that we need to prosecute. CEO of a Fortune 500 firm makes off with $8 million in company funds and destroys the livelihood of 10,000 people so he can have a mansion with a swimming pool, and we shrug and say "that's terrible," while he cuts a deal is walks away with zero accountability.
If you don't believe you can take an oath - from the Boy Scout pledge to the wedding vow to priestly vows to any oath of office - then don't. If you can't keep the faith of those people who look to you for leadership, then don't lead. Last time I checked, nobody holds a Glock up to your head to make you make promises or your subsequent choices. No one forces marriage on you. It's a choice. If you know you can't commit to the person you're marrying at the outset, it's a bad choice. If you do it because society expects you to get married, it's a bad choice. Similarly, if you get up at that podium and swear to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States", but do so not out of a desire to shepherd your country, but because you're jazzed by the power and all the tail you stand to get by being leader of the free world, that's a bad choice, from you right on down to the party that nominated you. (And personally, I would define blowing your load on the intern's dress while you're on the job to be in bad faith where the Office of the President is concerned. And trying to have her bought off with job promises. And then lying about it. And then trying to lawyer your way out of it. Bad choices, all. Coming clean at the outset? We'll never know if that would have been a bad choice or not.)
Yes, all this is very idealistic. But I think we need ideal examples in life. If we don't have some pinnacle to aim for, what's the point of it all?
Alex J - Apropos of nothing, but in the Warren Commission world, I blame Allen Dulles more.
Jeebus, I find it a bit hard to swallow, but, as a married man I find myself in complete agreement with Bern. The vow is "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part?" (well, the one I took anyways; I even remember what I, she and the wedding party wore. Saves on an argument). I can say with honesty that I ain't going anywhere, anytime soon.
Beyond that issue is the question of character that Clinton's infidelity brings in focus. You may look upon me as a fogey, but I couldn't accept the the dalliances even in the face of the booming economy that ran throughout his administration's term in office. Yes, it's a lie, but I find with lies run along the side with a cheating heart. These are the ones you caught; how about all the ones you didn't?
"I...did...not...have...sex...with...that...woman", n'est ce pas?
Well, enough of the soapbox for me. Gotta go figure out how Du-Bull-Ya holds office despite cocaine use, doing his military service defending the Texas border against that terrifying and venal member of the 'Axis of Evil', Oklahoma (the only state that could make ennui a weapon of mass destruction), alcoholism, and can somehow cover his ass with that rictus he calls a smile, dismissing his lack of principles and character with bullshit about "youthful indiscretions".
I've always called Bush fils "RepubliClinton".
Scott
CHUCK!
I feel so BAD!!!
9 DAYS out of ten I would have been up-- I have visits from the sleep sucker as well. Most nights I pad around the silent house and watch old b&w movies.
You can call me ANY TIME-- DAY OR NIGHT.
You are cared for deeply.
Your sister is an ARIES-- (don't roll y'all's eyes-- the fact that the moon influences the tides does not exempt human beings from such forces). She'll get OVER it. WE're the bouncin' backest people on the planet. Give me her number and I will PHONE her on her birthday and wish her a happiest.
You are a sweet, kind and wonderful man-- give me the name and phone number of your supervisor and I'll see if I can't make the fucker squirm a little...he won't even know that I know you.
:)
You are loved, Chuck-- even in the MIDDLE of the night when nobody else seems alive.
I got your back.
Sincerely,
The Snake in the Magnolia Blossoms
;)
aka
Cindy
Cindyanajones,
Cool moniker. Beats the heck out of "Rob S". I knew I should have come in here with one of my other web pseudonyms, but I was shy and reticent. Didn't quite know what to expect. And above all else, I'm a dork. I don't say this in any self deprecating fashion, but rather welcome the distinction.
Must run. Office chores call me.
cookie: you write, "It's wrong, but it DOES happen and it can be survived." I'm sorry if I suggested otherwise - of course it can be survived. But so can robbery and rape and any other number of "bad behaviors" that don't end up with the victim dead - we still punish them - I'm working outward from the "It's wrong" part.
Diana: you write, "That's how I see the traditional judeo/christian institution of marriage. As a promise that humans, by their natures, are often bound to fail to keep. I think the ideal, and the idea of monogamy is somewhat opposed to the reality of some of our most primal imperitives."
Then Rob, you write, "Yeah, I took your [ed. note - cookie's] argument a step further because I'm firmly convinced we guys have, let us say, a FAR more difficult time being rational about sex."
And I laugh, 'cause that is so much freakin' bullshit. Folks, it's not like a man's penis rips its way past his zipper and pulls him dragging, kicking and screaming into a crowded bar to nestle itself deep inside some unsuspecting passing chick. That is complete and utter BULLSHIT masquerading as some kind of "deep psychology" and analysis of "primal instinct". We are human beings - we have advanced brains - we are in complete control of our behavior in this regard. (And yes, I am talking about those people who do not have precluding medical conditions... which is most of us.) I suspect we accept such behavior because we, ourselves, want to "leave our options open" - which on the face of it is pretty damn rude to the person to whom we're declaring our fealty. And the whole argument is kith and kin to "'the devil' made me do it", or "the voices", or "space aliens" - it suggests that somehow, in this narrow band of behavior, we cannot control ourselves, that we are helpless and hapless puppets to extraordinary "outside" influence. (And I love how most, if not all, of you defenders are willing to accept that it's wrong in some fashion, but are equally unwilling to suggest we should punish "wrong" behavior.)
Of course we like sex - as often as we can get it - we're hardwired to enjoy it. But, that "hardwiring" is too often used as excuse for pretty rotten behavior. And the idea that is was ever right to allow it as a "perk" of power and office is no more compelling to me than the old saw that slavery "was once legal". It's bad behavior - and its tacit acceptance leads to wider abuses like our various, recent military disgraces...
I'll close with this amused thought - it's interesting to note that the label "judeo-christian **blank**" is pulled out on this board almost exclusively as a pejorative. It's as though it's some kind of evil philosophical construct only designed to get in the way of the "good stuff" - and that no "real", "modern" code of conduct based on rational principles can share even the barest scintilla of overlap with the "medieval claptrap" of "judeo-christian" philosophy. The horror...
Bern
I am 100% with Bern on this one. When you make a legally binding promise, be it to another in marriage, or an oath in court to tell the truth, or a promise to uphold the laws of the United States, and, THOUGH YOUR OWN FREE WILL choose to violate those legally binding promises in a blatant and public way, then, to use Diana's favorite epithets, you are an ASSHOLE and full of shit.
Though certainly not a fan of hers, I can cut Monica some slack: she was very young, and starstruck, and not too bright The only excuse any of you have come up with for Clinton is that he couldn't control his dick, and I'm sorry, that excuse is both degrading to the male gender and to Clinton himself. I give him full points for functioning free will and a highly developed cerebrum. I have no idea what defect cause him to think his indiscretions wouldn't get out. The difference between him and past adulterer presidents is that THEY had the common sense to keep mistresses who could keep their mouths shut. He was reckless in his sexual choices, which to me indicates either a man with a serious sex addiction problem, or a man so arrogant that he thinks he's above the law. In either case, it's troubling.
Are we so morally jaded that we can dismiss adultery with "boys will be boys"? That excuse has never washed with me in my personal life, so why should Clinton get a pass? But even worse: Can we say that perjury is acceptable if you've already committed adultery because, well, getting caught committing adultery is embarrassing? It bloody should be embarrassing, and lying to cover a lie is not kosher. The honorable man (who wouldn't have committed adultery in the first place) would admit to his actions, perhaps apologize, perhaps not, but accept the situation with dignity so we could talk about more important issues.
DIANA: I was not being *remotely* hyperbolic when I called Clinton a SERIAL ADULTERER.
serial: ADJ: Of, forming, or arranged in a series
adulterer: NOUN: one who commits adultery, or voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse
No hyperbole there, no exaggeration; just straight description. If it stings, that's because the truth often does that. No, it's not judgemental or Puritanical to say that Bill Clinton is a serial adulterer. It's just plain true. Adultery may not matter to you, but it's not wrong that it matters to others. Bern should not be characterized as an uptight Bible thumper for having a problem with it. Character means something to me; lying under oath about lying to your wife is not cool. I vote my conscience, and my conscience said Bill Clinton is a lying asshole, and since I choose to disassociate myself from such people IRL, I certainly couldn't vote for one.
Yes, yes, I agree, he did a lot of good things for this country, and ultimately that matters more than his personal life. What you fail to realize is that public figures fully agree to give up parts of their personal privacy when they sign on for the job. That's the way it is, and in a way, it should be. The content of the character of the man who runs the free world SHOULD be an issue. Clinton himself is to blame for the fact that the world knew about his personal life and that his private choices affected his image and reputation. Those are the consequences of his actions, and any person possessing free will must accept those consequences.
Bottom line: I'd rather have him than El Arbusto any day, which is not saying much (Bush is a proven liar too). But these rationalizations of his misconduct evoke in me a sense of disgust and despair. I cannot help it. I also cannot help but wonder if all the liberals defending Clinton's indiscretions would give Bush the same pass for the same actions. Perhaps so; I also wonder why those conservatives that piled derision on Clinton can so easily ignore Bush's immoral behaviors. At least I'm consistent.
PAB
CLINTON: I have to say, I voted for him twice, and I would do so again, if such were a possibility. Not because I think him a Great Shining Knight, but because I thought him the best choice among the fields (full fields, including the primaries) available to us. And he did pretty much what I expected, coming out with a slight edge to the good.
As for receiving a tonguebath from a grabby intern with a starfucker complex--what of it? It's morally wrong, yup. But it has nothing to do with the way he performed his presidential duties.
(Me, I was surprised; I expected something a little more Guy--something along the lines of, "Lewinsky? Who cares? Hey--did you guys know that I yabboed Miss America?")
(Further, let it be known that I don't lay any blame on Ms. Lewinsky for the dalliances, but I DO blame her for the "I wanna be a CELEBRITY!" behavior she showed post-scandal.)
With regard to the post-Clinton election ... well, I would have preferred Bradley or McCain as the candidates, but I simply didn't feel that Nader was qualified or prepared for the full scope of the job of President--and I didn't feel he'd have any chance of winning, besides.
BEN: I would think that Harlan's accepted television to a far greater degree than the Internet. There's a far greater signal-to-noise ratio, even with the crap purveyed by the networks, and--at its best--it can be raised art. The Internet is not yet at that level, and perhaps may never be. Besides, it would seem that Harlan has a genuine AFFECTION for television, when done right. Else he wouldn't be so angry about the dreck we so often see pixilated there on the screen, and he wouldn't write for it.
FRANK: Sorry, but if you want the title of "Humanitarian of the Board," you'll have to evince more of an actual air of caring, and cut down a bit on the abrasiveness.
But don't worry, we have some lovely parting gifts for all our contestants ...
ROB (sans S): Every single time they claim to have found WMDs, there's been a mild retraction later on. If the Iraqis had had such a buildup of all these narsty litle weapons, don't you think that we'd have A) found a large cache by now, or B) been attacked with them?
As far as we've seen so far, it's all a smokescreen.
Oh, and by the way--did you notice that the opposition leader Chalabi (whom the Pentagon flew in against the objections of the CIA and State Department, as he has something of a dodgy and unstable history) is now bitching that Garner, the newly-named--ahem--"interim transitional civil administrator," isn't doing enough to transitionally civil administrate? Politicians. Gotta love all stripes of 'em.
BARNEY: Do what I do when I meet an author or performer I admire: Just shake hands and thank him or her for the enjoyment you've derived from their work. You'd be surprised at how many are simply DELIGHTED to hear that (at the last PhilCon, Connie Willis, Nalo Hopkinson, and a couple others seemed genuinely gobsmacked by the sentiment) and who decide that you rate conversing at length.
DIANA: As low an opinion of Linda Tripp I may hold, I harbor a MUCH more bilious feeling in the depths of my spleen for Lucianne Goldberg. She was, after all, the orchestratrix of the whole sordid taping-and-publicizing aspect of the scandal. Not for any real sense of moral outrage, mind, but because she stood to make a pretty pile off it.
TODD: You really think our airports are secure? Have you read the reports about the many shortfalls in security which are still extant on the highways and flyways of this nation? It's all duct tape and Cipro, I'm afraid; appearances more than apparent sense.
(Plus the fact that Homeland Security has become a springboard to power grabs like Chicago's Daley bulldozing Meigs Airport's runway in the dark of night, or the National Park Service's hijacking of Independence Hall, or the sudden push to make the Secretary of Homeland Security higher up in the line of sucession than any other Cabinet official, or ... or ... or ...)
ROB (again): How about having a grand mal seizure while on a first date you really had to work to get? I've been there.
COOKIE, BERN: I have dated married women. However, at the time, they were both separated with no chance of reconciliation. But I won't even do THAT anymore. I will not allow myself to be put in the place of being any kind of impediment to an existing marriage or relationship. I cannot understand why someone would follow through on the (eminently understandable) impulse so many of us have and dismiss.
Having said that, I had rather a person in high office held satyricons in his or her office every night than have him or her do the same then dare castigate another officeholder for the same; than have him or her work to illegally influence an election; than have him or her lie to the public about policy; than have him or her take or offer bribes; than have him or her take actions only for political gain.
ROB (again): It's not so much that previous presidents weren't caught; rather, that such things simply weren't spoken of. With the exception of Carter, who kept his lust in his heart, and Truman, about whom no such thing ever was even suggested, I don't know that there's a single President of the last fifty years who hasn't had a Second Lady (or Third, Fourth, Fifth ...). Ford may have kept his shirt-tail clean, but I blame him much more for his work on the Warren Commission, so ...
CHUCK: No apologies necessary; I often feel the same clawings--and that's WITHOUT any attendant medical condition. This is why I long ago decided I would not allow myself to be angry AT someone TO someone.
Get yourself set, straight, and sane, and come on back to us soon.
(And I can rarely ever sleep, so I know that feeling, too.)
Once I get my head back on straight there will be many apologies.
Chuck
I can't sleep. I can't call anyone. It's too late and I don't want to wake them.
i can't sleep.
I can feel the animal inside me. The one that visits me if I don't take my meds. I forgot to check the expiration date on my prescription and it has expired. I'm going to the doctor on friday, and I should be okay after that.
But the animal is crawling around inside me and I can feel it's claws and teeth tearing me up from inside. It is tearing me all up and god it hurts. If you've ever lost someone to the grim reaper, felt the grief and pain and emptiness when you got the news you know what the apin feels like. It's bad. It's bad. I have to let this out and I can't call anyone. I'm supposed to be a pillar of strength on this side of the keyboard. I on =ee rickety pillar right now.
My sister I 'm try ing to help her. I'm trying to celebrate her birthday on sunday, but noboady thought to do anything. It's just not coming together. She's bummed. I'm failing again. I've been propping up friends, family and i can't even help myself.
And the animal won't go to sleep.
I should not have let the prescription slide. Sloppy me. My bad, as they say. But, I did.
Friday I'll see the doc and I can get a calmer brain. I just have to hold out till then. I want to sleep. I want to not worry that my sister wont' hurt herself because nobody's called her for her birthday. I don't want to worry that I'm broke. I just want to sleep.
I will get through this. I will get through this. I just have to make it till Friday. It's just not going to be fun. And, joy, joy, I get to go to my high-stress job where they watch when you come and when you leave, what you do with your internet access - everyminute. Where I have to go FASTERFASTERFASTERFASTER WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING FALLING BEHIND WE ONLY INCREASEd YOUR WORKLOAD BY 1000% AND YOUR'E LATE AGAIN AND YOU NEED TO ALLOCATE YOUR TIME BETTER, YOU DISORGANIZED GRABASSTIC MAGGOT!!!
Happy, happy, joy joy. Never work for a company run by a hypomanic, superagressive sales and marketing guy that chews up sales reps and doesn't bother to spit out the bones.
But I'll make it. And if it's ice cream and cake just me and my sister on Sunday, so be it.
I just want to sleep. I want the animal to go away.
I'll be all right. It's just not gonna be fun.
Going to try to sleep. Had to let it out just a little. Going to sleep.
Keep the faith.
Chuck
Incidentally, Cookie...
Compared to many board junkies here you're relatively infrequent. You have a very nice "voice"; I think it's quite cool when you're around. I wish you posted more often; though God knows, given the devilish addictive pull this place has, you're often being wiser with time than I. (Recall that old Twilight Zone with Everett Sloane as the self-righteous bible thumper who got addicted to the "one-eyed bandit" in a Vegas casino, which, from his pov, followed him everywhere).
Anyway, just doffing my hat.
Cookie~
I have to be honest with you. I'm not entirely "rational" about sex. In fact, if I were capable of always being rational about it I'd never do it. If I CAN say no. I do say no. I'm actually kind of a priss. Very repressed, and stuff.
But sometimes "I cain't say no"
I think sex is friggin' ridiculous. I object to it. It makes no sense. But, oh well.
Bye for now.
Diana
Cookie,
"I never meant to imply that men (or women) could not be rational about sex."
Yeah, I took your argument a step further because I'm firmly convinced we guys have, let us say, a FAR more difficult time being rational about sex. I hope you didn't feel I was distorting your point. I mean maybe I wuz, but I didn't intend that. But then again, maybe...
...there, you see how flighty sex can get us guys?
OK, well...I guess you know your priorities, Bern...
It's a quaint piece of Bible thumping. Yet, why would Clinton keep his dick in his pants when previous Presidents hadn't? THEY weren't caught...because their political enemies didn't have the mind to snoop for sexual misconduct (quite possibly because many of them had mistresses too). I take it you realize in your routing of the wicked, you must include the first President Bush, Eisenhower, Jefferson, FDR, Washington, Grover Cleveland, and, needless to say, Kennedy. "That's how they are" is EXACTLY where it's at, PARTICULARLY among men of power and status. That's the reality. Always has been; always will be.
It's not that any of this was an excuse for Clinton's lack of wisdom when he decided to "orgy out". (He was, after all, being watched closely after Jennifer Flowers had nearly done him in; a near miss that didn't seem to tell him much). It's the issue of national priority and the underhanded reasons the Republicans and Starr turned the country upside down, which you touched on. Imbicilic, simplistic distractions while Bin Laden had time to piece together his plans.
If nothing else, the matter should have been strictly a civil case given the urgency of national issues. Indict the man after he leaves office. But guess what, Bern? I wouldn't even bother with THAT.
My priorities differ from yours vastly.
Xanadu?
You'll never convince me of your point of view. I can't see going into all of the reasons why you can't, but I will say that you and I are starting out from entirely different foundations.
I do agree with one thing you said though. I don't believe in making promises I can't keep.
But if our culture forces people into making "promises"
they're bound to fail to keep?
That's how I see the traditional judeo/christian institution of marriage. As a promise that humans, by their natures, are often bound to fail to keep. I think the ideal, and the idea of monogamy is somewhat opposed to the reality of some of our most primal imperitives.
Cookie's been saying this her own way.
I respect you're point of view, of course. I just don't agree with it.
Bye for now.
Diana
Rob: I never meant to imply that men (or women) could not be rational about sex. That's the ideal. Attraction is powerful shit and sometimes (SOMEtimes) people do stupid things. People does the craziest thingz! Even smart people from whom you'd never expect it.
Bern: I can't address your post because I don't think we share the same view of adultery. It's wrong, but it DOES happen and it can be survived. Shall we start branding big scarlet A's on people again? With Clinton, I felt his personal, private idiot move was used maliciously to derail his political agenda. His idiot move should have remained private. But Monica spilled it to a rat and the rat took it to the mongers and all of a sudden everyone's posturing and pointing fingers.
Like Diana, I have a few non-traditional views about marriage. My husband is aware of and tolerant of them (and because I don't wish to discuss or argue about our choices here, I'll say no more).
Anyway, there was all kinds of stupid going on in the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal. I still say that doesn't negate the general policy and tenor of the Clinton years. In fact, this stupid scandal is yet another reason I despise the Republicans. How they fuckin' gloated and fanned the flames, those sanctimonious pricks...... (sorry to the Repubs on the board, I'm not talking 'bout YOU).:)
This country needs to get over it's fascination with other peoples' sex lives.
I'm sorry, I'll be good now.
For those looking for what should be the final word on whether the citizens of this nations should protest or support the war, I beseech you: Take a gander at this week's new South Park. Catch it on rerun. Be there or be square.
It is wise. It is true.
Though I still cannot stand the "have your cake and eat it too" saying: if I have my cake, I'm damn well going to eat the motherfucker. I don't plan on holding the thing and smelling it all day.
Anyway. South Park. 100th episode. The answer to why we protest AND support the war. Hey, the founding father's said so.
-TODD
I return from the land of neverendingwinter - who the hell ordered an ice storm (1 plus inches of icing, in areas), a wind storm (35-40 mph gusts), and then a snow storm (6-7 inches of the heavy, heart-attack shit) over three consecutive days? Jeezus.
Welcome to the new guys - please sit and stay awhile.
To those who defend Clinton's actions: I have to say I'm actually appalled when people dismiss what he did as something 1)not worthy of discussion, 2)everybody did/does, so what's the big deal, 3)and how does this reflect on his job as president?
One - since when is it not worthy of discussion? The man is a lying cheat. He has repeatedly betrayed both a public oath and a legally binding contract. We SHOULD be discussing that kind of ethical and moral lapse - and I'm not limiting this to a religious level - I'm talking about practical, nuts and bolts, rubber-meets-the-road type morals and ethics. (I AM limiting this discussion to married folk, though - since two unmarried, consenting adults are not breaking any oaths)
I am stunned that anyone would drag out the hoary old chestnut "that's just how they are". No. We each make choices, each and every freaking day. Life is an incredibly complex series of actions and behaviors, which, if we broke the "chain of events" at ANY POINT during the pattern, we wouldn't be screwing around. People are not automatons following a unalterable program. An adulterer is a person making a choice to be a fucking adulterer. (If you think I'm wrong, I offer you the example of our Patron Author - he himself has proclaimed that at one point he was a Grade A Slut - his legend suggests that he had fucked every woman on the Pacific coast and was working his way inland - 'till he met Susan. He has been singularly loyal and faithful to his beautiful wife since that moment. If it's not a choice, how then did he change?)
The problem is that we have decided, as a society, to stop punishing this basic dereliction of character. We surround the shits with people cooing and ahhing over their inability to control themselves and we pat ourselves on the back for not being "judgmental". Screw that. We should publicly shame these people, as loudly and clearly as we can. They have broken one of the very few oaths anybody actually makes nowadays. We already let too much bad (as in immoral or unethical) behavior slide as it is.
Adultery is ALWAYS a BAD THING. Period. End of sentence. There is never a time when that is the best choice in a bad situation - it will inevitably make that already bad situation worse. It is a direct betrayal of your spouse, and it exposes innocent people to unexpected dangers (including, but not limited to the aforementioned spouses, children, and other friends and relatives). There are legal, moral and ethical alternatives to adultery - choose one of them instead. (Including - If you absolutely can't be faithful, don't make the damn promise to begin with.)
Two - everybody does it, so it's no big deal. Well, frankly - it should've been a big deal with them, too. I'm sorry, but I see this tacit "gentlemen's agreement" to overlook certain "indiscretions" as a dereliction of our societal duty to each other to help each other along a higher moral and ethical path. This is how society should work - not as some "good ol' boys" club that spends its time ignoring or covering up bad behavior.
Third and finally - did it affect his performance as President? Absolutely - the cost in time, money and energy to our Republic was staggering. Yes, he was an extraordinarily accomplished politician who managed to continue to move his agenda forward despite the Impeachment. But he could have prevented the whole damn thing if he had kept his dick in his pants and out of the interns. (Trust me, I am more than slightly pissed at Speaker Gingrich for stepping out on the House floor and shaking his finger at the Prez while he was doing the SAME DAMN THING in HIS offices - and I don't think too highly of dear Mayor Rudy for his little "fling", either.) Yes, the Conservatives made the stink - but Clinton was the Prime Mover... This is separate from the fact that if he holds his oath to his wife in so little regard, can we trust such a man to stand behind his oath to us, the American People - which he swore when he entered office? That we had to genuinely consider that fact is a needless drain on our personal time and resources and a sorry tarnishing of a position of trust and honor.
No, I cannot dismiss his behavior, I cannot "accept" it, and I cannot "let it slide". What Clinton did was wrong, and he deserved every consequence he reaped of it. And I suggest that we should, as a society, heap those same consequences on all adulterers - I think we'd all be better off for it.
Bern
Cookie,
Re: Clinton's indiscretion.
Basically you got it right. Guys are cum-pulsive. Sex is not a rational process for us. Any temptress strolling by wakens the burning instinct inherited from our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Our foolhardiness, whatever our status in the world, only occurs to us after the fact. When it comes to sex we guys are the dumbest of Earth's creatures. YOU and all the other ladies here and elsewhere know damn well how easily manipulated we ARE (even as you convince us we're in control). In effect, Clinton did what I would have done. I wouldn't have come straight to a podium to embarrass my wife and daughter. Indeed, Clinton did what many previous presidents had done. It's important to remember, too, that he could've pulled a Nixonian scandal, paying off his staff from some slush fund - or in his case, a slut fund - drawing in more and more people to be implicated. Instead, he strove to minimize the people involved, cutting his losses, while the shameless, asshole, bullshit moralizing, intellectually incapacitated Republicans went on using millions of our tax dollars to snoop and disrupt the country (Dole actually earned a dram of my respect when he denounced their attack) - when they couldn't pin any prior legitimate wrong-doinz' on him.
Face it: when sex RISES on us we're helpless and stupid. We have two heads, but they don't work in tandem. Have SOME sympathy for us, ladies.
My sagacious offering for the eve.
Link of the day:
Please go and listen to these tracks (esp. 'The Geek Wants Out') and then buy the album. Ernie Cline is a god.
http://www.ernestcline.com/airwolf/
Cindy~ Most embarassing moment. Oh puhlease. Living with my mother was a living hell, a constant nonstop barrage of embarassment. I have become innured to putting my foot in it. Some people can still make me blush, but not many. Humiliated, yes. Embarassed, no.
L.
PS. I heard an interview with the former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program on NPR today, and he mentioned that now, with the climate changing in Iraq, the scientists are beginning to cooperate and reveal the locations of WMD. He apologized for already having said too much to previous reporters about caches that have been discovered, but advised them to wait a few days until things calmed down in Baghdad. It was so low key I almost missed it. But there are wmd caches yet to be discovered.
And wasn't that statue tumbling down just a glorious sight?
I should add that my exhortation to stop the con lines is aimed at adults. Kids get a pass...it's a big dreamy world when you're a child, and meeting Darth Vader has a thrill all its own. But once you can vote, move on. I mean, I still have my Farrah poster, but I no longer think I'm going to marry her, which I dearly hoped for when I was 12 (even though I believe she's currently free....)
>That is the lesson here. See a "celebrity"? - just keep walking.<
Barney, funny story, with a great point. I never can stop wondering at the huge lines at those cons, which I occasionally attend to buy old comic books, all of people desperate to get an autograph (an autograph! who the fuck cares?) of someone who is famous. And the reasons they'll give you for this (I love his/her work is the biggie) are not the REAL motivator...the real drive is to somehow be validated, to be noticed, acknowledged, by someone they think is more important than they are because that person is "famous." Even if it's by the guy who played some robot on a 70s movie.
This cult of celebrity is not new, but it's an ever-spreading rash that is now mutating into reality shows where EVERYONE has a shot to be one, at least for a little while, regardless of how ugly, stupid, or obnoxious they might actually be. Before the media stars the pickings were slimmer...one was stuck with royalty, or maybe the richies on the block...you can go all the way back to kissing the feet of Pharoah, it's all the same impulse, and it's intensely pathetic.
So yeah, people, get out of the damn con lines with your posters and paperbacks and carefully-prepared witty comment or adoring flattery. Keep walking indeed.
Cindy,
"ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY EMBARRASSING MOMENTS TO SHARE?"
Being born.
Having an epileptic spas attack during a job interview and calling back a couple days later to see if I got the job.
Grabbing a container of what was supposed to be water, while looking the other way lost in thought...and pouring what turned out to be ammonia chloride into my coffee maker.
Exhibiting independent thought at a Scientology meeting.
Having to take the rap for someone else's fart in an elevator when I was the only one left and a gorgeous girl hops in.
Jumping out of my car (an automatic) in the middle of the street to run over and say something to my girlfriend (she was following me in HER vehicle)...only to realize I left it in gear. As we were talking she abruptly shouted my car was cruising off without me; in a Closeauesque moment, I had to chase the damn thing down before it could reach traffic ahead.
Inadvertently calling one of my ex-girlfriend's good Russian acquaintances "a shit" by the innocent mispronunciation of a Russian word. And it was quite literally intended as a compliment!
Oh, here's one you should like: I was driving on the freeway, flooring the accelerator. I did it a lot in those days. It was an Autumn evening. Roughly 10pm. Fair weather. Traffic light. Winds tending moderate northeast. I heard nothing over my stereo but my car began hydroplaning. The left rear tire had blown. I struggled for control, while trying to fight off the panic. But the vehicle began a 360. For a moment...I actually passed another driver going backward. It was only a moment, but long enough for us to glance at each other as I went by. The face in that car is etched firmly in my mnemonic circuits; a shockingly sedate and resigned expression fixed on me, as if he'd seen people driving backward on the freeway all the time.
Yeah, that was the night I really learned how to drive.
OK, so all the media is screaming that the war is won because Saddam's regime no longer appears to be in charge (hey, if THAT'S the only way to define victory then we won it about a week ago).....we know that's goofy, but for the hell of it let's just put this day as a starting point to my following questions:
While many on this board continue to anxiously count on fingers and toes all the civilian casualties and the value of an Iraqi life, have you yet begun to factor in the thousands of civilian lives that have now been saved due to our intervention?
Reporter casualties? While doing your math, have you compared the number of media casualties in this military action against that in the 1991 action....the one where everyone cried that the media was kept in the dark? Let's see.....tons of media in Iraq DURING A WAR and some are killed. Did anyone guarantee the safety of those who centered themselves amongst the artillery? And how many soldiers were put at risk attempting to protect these reporters? How many were assigned to watch the ass of newsman tripping over himself looking for action, at the possible expense of their own ass?
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are a lot more Iraqi civilians dancing in the streets today than there were before we begin our move. Is it because they fear us, the way they feared Saddamn, and wish to please us by dancing like happy marrionettes? Spare me.
Yes, there will be terrorist attacks in the future. There will always be terrorist attacks; but what happened to all those hits we were about to take the moment the clock ticked down to Operation Iraqi Freedom? Are they saving themselves up for the big one? Like they were doing when they didn't hit us on our first July 4th after 9-11? Like they were doing when they didn't hit us on our first anniversary of 9-11. Could our war on terrorism be doing some good; if at all is it not actually a war on our own complacency that had us sleeping with our bestsellers while our jets were taken with box cutters? (How many box cutter hijackings will succeed today?)
While you wait with glee to shout "Where's the weapons of mass destruction?!" and "Where's the chemical attacks that were going to hit our troops?!" to argue your point that we had no reason to make the move, aren't you A) relieved for our men and women and B) the least bit open to the thought that whether the WMDs ever show in the next few months, if Saddam was left in power it only increases the odds that he would manage to obtain/devolop them.....odds = the longer he reigns, the more minutes in the day he has to work at dealing and planning death.
The war in Iraq is not yet over, but the good stuff that the media enjoys tossing at us has begun. The war on terrorism is not over by far, nor will it ever be. But so far, attention is now being paid....even if it leads to some hysteria, I can at least fly today without worrying that when I doze I will wake up to 4 men in red scarves holding our jet hostage with toothpicks.
Ciao. -TODD
P.s. And Amen to mention of Linda Tripp. She really was the snake 'neath the magnolias in that situation. She was also villanous. Treacherous. Vile. A betrayer of trust. A false friend. Vindictive. Back stabbing. Two-faced. Envious. Cunning. Conniving. Just to mention a few things I can think of to call her. If you want to get hyperbolic about anyone involved in all that stupidity, she'd be a good person to choose. I'd have your back on that.
Bye for now.
Diana
P A Berman~
Hi PAB!
Regarding:
"Think about what you're saying: a girl, barely into her 20s, working as an intern in the office of the most powerful man in the world. What, she was supposed to turn him down?" and "SHE was supposed to be the one who did the right thing?"
I don't have any answers about what she was "supposed to" have done. Honestly. I made no mention of this.
I think calling Ms Lewinsky "that conniving little slut" and a "loose little minx", is kind of harsh, PAB. I'd stick with calling her an asshole, because I think she is one. (Or was one, maybe she's gotten over herself by now. People change)
As you pointed out, she was dealing with the President of the US of A, not some night manager at a 7-11 in New Jersey someplace. She was in love with him? Did she think/fantasize for one second that he was going to do something like leave his wife, and position, and power, and go off with her to run a bookstore in Arizona, or a pig farm in Oklahoma, or something, and maybe raise corn and crab apples with her? Or maybe her fancies were even more grandiose? Probably. I think she overestimated herself. That's what I think. I think she was an ASS.
"Serial adulterer"? Jeez! The man screwed around on his wife. So did my mom's dad, so does my brother, and quite a few of his friends. Just to mention a few examples I can think of immediately. Some men are LIKE THAT. Oh friggin' well. I think calling them "serial adulterers" is a little hyberbolic. Not to mention extremely judgemental.
Women get their egos involved when they take up with a man like say my brother (or Clinton), thinking they're going to be the one who finally tames that maverick, or some equally arrogant and corny shit. Then they get freaked out and deranged when they discover they can't control the situation. Like it ever really had anything to with them in the first place. It didn't. Men like that control themselves. Or they don't. Taking their philandering personally is sure to lead to some pain. Like I've said to more than a few women involved with my brother, "He was like that before you met him, he'll be like that after you're gone. It has nothing to do with YOU. He's just like that" Personally I'd recommend doing what I do when faced with a man like that. (and I know one when I see one) Spot the exits. Then run like hell for the nearest one the minute he blinks. :=)
("I wouldn't have him up my ass if there was room for a sawmill" ~Frank Rose~)
"You can't feign surprise"
I'm not surprised, PAB, just disgusted.
"...or say, "Hey! That's none of your business!,"
I AM saying exactly that.
"...because when you're the Prez, guess what? It IS our business"
No, it's not. Nor should it be. He wasn't running the Oval Office with his dick, PAB. As far as I know he kept it in his shorts when he was conducting president-ly type conferences and stuff. All those papers he signed? He used his hand, and pen, just like most business men do. Personally I had NO INTEREST in his sex life. I thought the whole stink made over the incident was bullshit.
I agree, he used bad judgement in taking up with that asshole Monica Lewinsky, but I would hardly call it "stunningly" bad judgement Just poor judgement.
Why should our President have to be seen as more than human? It's an infantile expectation. I'm comfortable with the idea of an able, but merely human man or woman in the White House.
Again, calling it a "pathetic and sordid affair" seems melodramatic. I think it was stupid. Ordinary. Common. Human.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with that.
Bye for now.
Diana
PA: sex isn't necessarily a rational thing. Even if you think you're being relatively discreet, it can still get out. Clinton was a schmuck for lying, but IMO, he should never have had to answer questions about it at all. The one person I feel no sympathy for is Linda Tripp. What a tattle-tale. If the dirty little secret had been about something that might effect national security, I might have had more sympathy for her.
BTW: I respect your position. I think they're all liars. I just think that this lie shouldn't have been forced by Linda Tripp, Lucy Goldberg, and the media sharks.
P.A. Berman,
Yes. And then slap his face as hard as she could. Shiiiiiiiiiit. Hell, I support Clinton all the way, but he did a stupid thing. He deserved to have his hound dog ass slapped to next sunda; but - it it had nothign to do with him being one fo our best Presidents.
Joseph
Maybe what Diana is saying is that it shouldn't be our business, not that it isn't. That's how I feel, in any event.
See? Everyone automatically assumes I'm a man! What is THAT all about? Even when I come out of the gender bending closet, people still think I've got the stones. Veeeeeeedddddy interesting.
Stan, ditto on your right to say it. Politics get hot around here, but most people don't really mean to draw blood. MOST people...
PAB
Diana: You want the truth? I think it's incredibly wrong that you place the blame for the Lewinsky scandal on Monica's shoulders while making excuses for Clinton. Think about what you're saying: a girl, barely into her 20s, working as an intern in the office of the most powerful man in the world. What, she was supposed to turn him down? And then, she told her girlfriend she fucked the president. My god, the nerve of her! The girl thought she was in love, you do know that, don't you? What did you (or Bill) expect her to do? Think about what you're saying: SHE was supposed to be the one who did the right thing? HE was twice her age; HE was her boss; HE is the Rhodes scholar; HE is the person voted into responsibility to run this country; but Monica, that conniving little slut, she was so irresistible, right? Poor, trusting Willy, lured to his doom by that loose little minx!
Come on now. Clinton is a serial adulterer and everyone knows it; Monica was not his first, only perhaps his most reckless. Let's not cry any big tears over Clinton's dirty laundry being aired to the public. He CHOOSE to be in the hottest spotlight in the world, the White House. He and Hillary may well have an arrangement vis a vis his extramarital sex, and that's their business, but when he took the job, he knew his life was going to be under a microscope, and he knew America's feelings about sexual misbehavior, however hypocritical or Puritanical. You can't feign surprise or say, "Hey! That's none of your business!," because when you're the Prez, guess what? It IS our business. You can rationalize all you want, but during those 4 or 8 years, the President and First Lady are the #1 public servants. That intense scrutiny is the price; if you don't wanna pay, you ought not to play.
That said, I really don't care about the immorality of the hummers, which I consider between him and his wife. And IMO, THAT'S ALL HE HAD TO SAY! But no! When his ass was caught red-handed, he still lied, and so blatantly, so lamely, quibbling over the meaning of the word "is." There was no dignity in that for anyone. If ever there was a moment to just tell the truth and make it seem like the idiotic non-issue it should have been, that was it. He could have made all those Republicans look like the torch-wielding villagers and pseudo-Puritanical hypocrites they were. Instead, he told a transparent lie that humiliated his wife far more than an admission and quick subject change would have.
And really now... If he was so concerned with his wife's dignity, the LEAST he could have done is found himself a quiet, discreet mistress who could keep her mouth shut, like all the other presidents. His stunning bad judgement in this case does not speak well of him, and he got what was coming to him on that score. As Dennis Miller said, if you want to chase after a series of Olive Garden hostesses, what do you expect? It's going to blow back on you eventually.
The whole pathetic, sordid affair embodied to me what I hate about politicians; they never tell the truth when a lie would be "easier." He never even gave people like me the chance to stick up for him, to say, "This is an idiotic non-issue," because by lying, instantly the lies became the issue, not the sex. I have a hell of a lot more problem with a president who tells lies under oath that insult my intelligence than I do with a president who likes a blow job now and then.
PAB
Rob S.
I LIKE you!
Atta way to play ball, buddy.
AAAAAAYYYY BADABADABADABADA SUH-WING-GUUUH.
:)
Yer new pal,
Cindy
Stan~
Just FYI...That's *Ms* Berman. The Bermanator *is* a tough little nut, but she's a girl. :=)
Bye for now.
Diana
Thanks Tony...and Mr. Berman...I am not kvetching...you have your opinion and I have mine...Thank God we have the right to express it. I might not agree with most of you on what you say in here...but I will defend to death, your right to say it. Enough...said...see ya all later
Don't be coy with me, Cindy. I may be cheap, but I'm not easy...or somefink...
I have no convention faux pas, as I've never been to a convention. Last evening was the first time I'd ever seen HE in person and I kept my big yap firmly shut. I was more than happy to sit and listen.
One thing that confused me. Harlan's nephew was there, a man about my age (late 40's) and it was said that he was a wrestler and that his standing was 8th in the world. What is that all about? Was it an inside joke or fact?
COME 'ere, BARNEY!!!!!
Give us a hug-- I LOVED your story. But it didn't TOUCH my trogladyte comment in the "DUMB" category.
Probably wouldn't even have gotten you a bronze. I would have been a shoo in for a Spitz chest FULL of gold for my '81 CMC remarks.
But YOU are a sweetheart for sharing that with us. Don't you feel better now? It wasn't so bad- really... kind of adorable if you ask me. I would be so flattered if I inspired that sort of reaction in another human being... they probably wouldn't be able to wipe the smile off my face for a week.
Thank you for letting us in on your story-- what about that other one--Kurt Busiek? Could we have it as well?
:)
I'll swap you my Ricardo Montalban story if give it up.
:)
Cindy
Diana,
I loved YOUR story as well!
Now THAT was a memory.
He's smooth as water-- no doubt about that. Silky.
You must have made QUITE an impression.
:)
Cindy
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY EMBARRASSING MOMENTS TO SHARE? COME ON I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE SOMETHING THE RECOLLECTION OF WHICH MAKES YOU CRINGE.
HONORS FOR THE MOST EMBARRASSING!
COUGH UP!
TELL ALL.
SPILL IT.
:)
You're among FRIENDS here-- you too Rob S.
:)
Cindy
Long time lurker. Just posting to say I made the trip to Avon Lake, Ohio, today in order to see HE. It's the first time in 4 or 5 years. HE kept the full attention of everyone who was there.
Harlan also seemed to be in great health. He had the energy to do his Brother Theodore impression for the audience.
That's all. Bye.
*** Cindy *** [It's here because I won't have time to put it in the Pavillion tomorrow...]
Cindy writes "So-- I amuse my friends and show once more that Harlan is not a corrosive misanthropist who delights only in laying waste to others. I appreciate stories that are representative of his amazing kindness... and he was nothing if not amazingly kind and patient in my case."
I really was trying [and failing] to compliment you. It's a story that illustrates that Harlan not only has that capacity for empathy but has it in spades and exercises it constantly. People enjoy telling stories where Harlan surgically removes some poor bastards ego with a chainsaw because it's more fun to tell a story about going for the headshot than going for the hug. I'm glad you shared it. I'm just still glad it wasn't me.
Having said that - somewhere in my library there is a cassette tape from 1978 and on that tape you can clearly hear me ask Harlan brilliant questions like whatever happened to The L*ast D*nger*us V*s*ons and "if you hadn't become a science fiction writer what would you have done with your life?"
Helpful hint for beginners - do not ask these questions. No, really.
There are probably others but those 2 just SPRING to mind. In fact, if there were no dates written on these tapes and micro-cassettes archivists could still easily place them in rough chronological order by observing the scaling back of remarks blurted out that were NEVER funny by the jerk holding the recording device.
But you want the Koenig story. Sooooo...
Briefly, this would have been Virginia Beach in the early 1980's. This was the convention I met Susan at as it happens. Walter Koenig was the media guest and this was, I believe sometime between the 2nd [Wrath of Kahn] and third [Search for Spock] Star Trek films. If Trek mythology means nothing to you than neither will this anecdote. Suffice it to say there was a boatload of speculation about Nimoy/Spock's future with the franchise at this point.
It's early Saturday morning and I have had perhaps 3 hours of sleep. This is typical con behavior for me. I sleep before and after cons but hardly at all during. Walter was sitting with his wife and [children? can't recall how many] 2 tables over from us. "Us" was Kathy O'Malley, Ann Moroz, Harlan, Susan, and a couple of other people [Wein and Wolfman? Diane Duane? whoever] and myself. We arrived first and finished before the Koenigs.
Now we are leaving and I'm walking past the Koenigs table. I'm high on Harlan but full of pancakes and sleep deprivation. This is not my best thinking chemistry. What went through my head was THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING CLEVER TO THE UPPER ECHELON OF THE STAR TREK PANTHEON - or something equally stupid. And I actually remember choosing between saying something about Star Trek or saying something about his 1964 appearance in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents one hour adaptation of Harlan's MEMOS FROM PURGATORY - which would have been the smart albeit still intrusive thing to do.
And I opted for Star Trek.
Even worse, the point I tried to make was that if they just gave the Trek audience an undiluted dose of the Spock character they would see what a one dimensional BORING WOODEN character he was and then we could get back to the more interesting characters and, blah blah blah. I swear I got all this out and more while barely pausing at Koenigs table.
To this day I don't know what the fuck I was thinking. The "point" was beyond wrongheaded. While I can barely watch Trek these days I now know enough about story and archetypes to know exactly why the dynamic tension between Spock and all the other characters works so well. But even that's just stupid.
This asenine fannish diatribe was made to the WRONG PERSON at the WRONG TIME. I interrupted an otherwise perfectly mediocre con breakfast with my incoherant rambling. AND Koenig couldn't possibly have cared what I had to say and with GOOD reason.
After Kirk/Spock/McCoy the money and screen time thins out pretty quick in that franchise while the career death lingers.
Why SHOULD he have to listen to that crap at breakfast? Even if I'd had a point there wasn't anything he could have done about it.
And finally, it was made BADLY. I mean, I just fucking BABBLED. It pains me just to type this.
**************************************************************
I have just re-read this. What I want to do is I want to keep justifying and apologizing and making excuses. What I should have done is just kept walking.
That is the lesson here. See a "celebrity"? - just keep walking.
*************************************************************
Later I was in Harlan's room - Harlan will remember this as me just walking into his room uninvited but I recall that we were trading a Cleveland fanzine I had for a copy of the 2nd edition or addendum or whatever of the Swiggart bibliography.
Harlan had been on the phone and it turns out either he was on the phone with Walter or had just spoken to him in the hall. He rings off and turns to me and says "you know Dannelke, Walter thinks your nuts. Not goofy mind you but rather seek pharmacuetical help, two Jacks shy a full deck type crazy. Just what the fuck did you say to him?"
I just hung my head and said "Yeah, that sure could have gone better, eh?"
So there you go.
Happy?
- Barney
Frank,
"They are saying that the war is a success. Strange word. I mean, Hitler thought the invasion of Poland was a success as well; but that kind of success we can do without."
You really like to turn logic on its head just to send everyone into a ROYAL RAGE, don't you? Yeah...get them vessels aburstin'; watch the crowd do their funny little frenzied dances and snarl with disbelief.
Well, I can put a spin on that too: while Hitler rolled through Poland you allegedly humanistic Pacifists would be protesting our involvement to STOP Hitler, doubtlessly arguing it is up to the Jews to overthrow the Nazis or, better yet, the Jews should go on a hunger strike to protest Hitler's policies.
I want you to address this question, and not disregard it: how useless and illogical do you really want to make Pacifists and war protesters appear? Can Pacifists ever be wrong? Or is it an argument in absolutes? It's always important to remember how dreadful war is, and not glorify it, there's no doubt about it. But the situation always has to be weighed. Pacifism can sometimes be, as Spock put it in Harlan's Trek episode, "the right idea at the wrong time".
And right now there seem to be some fairly jubilant Iraqis, many of whom most likely had relatives or someone close executed by the regime.
AIM for where the problems really lie: there was validity in the act of bringing down that regime (the practical "whens" were in question; I don't KNOW if my notion of the right "when" was correct); but Bush's questionable tactics (the great diplomatic cost they'll bear remains to be seen) to set legal grounds for war are compounded by the prospects of involvement of U.S. corporations (historically, leaders of the country would be answerable to those corporations; if they weren't, the corporations often made use of the CIA). The true stumbling block in Iraq itself is who will lead, a complicated matter given the friction between factions there. Will the right checks and balances be able to slowly infuse themselves? Or will the situation gradually lead to another subversive leadership (including Corporate America)?
Alex,
You're your usual equivocal self: what is your quibble about missing evidence of bio and chemcial weapons in Iraq? Or do you know of proof no one else does?
Rob S.
And thanks back.
--tr
Tony,
Thanks much! I was doing Google searches on stuff like "The Seven Who Left" and "Seven Left Alive". I think I even tried "Seven Brides For Seven Bothers" on the off chance that HE was a big Howard Keel fan. Of course I was way off the mark.
As for which of his own books, he didn't comment, although at another point in the talk, he said that "Mind Fields" was his favorite.
Rob S.,
By the way, what title of his own did HE cite as one of the three desert island books?
Thanks.
--tr
Rob S.,
The book is THE SEVEN WHO FLED, by Frederic Prokosch.
--tr
Danke, danke, one and all. Call me "Rich"? Well, if you must, I suppose, but I'd prefer something more demonstrative, like "The Mighty Pah-vah", or say, "The Great Rah-Lu". Bit more pizzazz, ya know.
I have a question for all you Ellisonians out there. Last evening the question was raised, "What three books HE would want to take with him on a desert isle", I believe it was, and he said the collected works of Mark Twain, something of his own and some other book with the word "Seven" in it's title. Something written in the 30's about a band of people in the Gobi desert. I had no pen or paper to take notes and due to various experimentations in the 70's have no short term memory. (What was I talking about...? Oh, yeah.)
Can any of you enlighten me?
I would greatly appreciate it.
Barney wrote;
"I didn't say it wasn't well told or shouldn't have been told - after all, I asked her to tell it. I simply said I wouldn't choose to willingly cast myself in such an unflattering role."
There wasn't any "cast" or "role" to it darklink-- the unflattering position was one I stumbled into in real life. I WAS the dumb kid who said all the wrong things... and yes it IS unflattering. But it's also true. Alas-- would that I had been born Dorothy Parker-- perhaps these things would not have HAPPENED to me... but on the other hand-- I wouldn't trade that day for ANY other day at any other time.
:)
Cindy
New Guy, Harlan does post on here and he is watching. Be afraid. By the way, I am the humanitarian of this room. Gentle as a cat tail floatin on a placid pond.
----------
They are saying that the war is a success. Strange word. I mean, Hitler thought the invasion of Poland was a success as well; but that kind of success we can do without.
Rob S. wrote;
"Been a fan for a millenium or two."
Well then,
Why didn't you SAY so-- COME IN!!! COME IN!!! Sit down, Rob S. and make yourself at home.
If you love him-- we love you.
Tell me-- how do you feel about being called "Rich"?
:)
Cindy
Yeah, yeah, yeah, youse guys don't scare me none. I've been slammed by the best. After all I went to Parochial school and those Franciscans don't bother to spit out the bones when they're through with you.
And as for HE, I merely repeated what he said, I was making a comment. Not a judgement.
So, bite me right back. With gusto.
Seriously, loved the lecture/talk/one-man-show/whatever last night. Been a fan for a millenium or two.
He spoke at a local library branch and other than the uncomfortable chairs, the only problem I had with the venue was that they locked the bathroom doors. A two and a half hour lecture AND THEY LOCKED THE BATHROOMS!!!
Nazi librarians!
I agree with Ellison: the Internet is an intellectual sinkhole. But I use it all the time, to shop, to research, and to rant.
I think the freeway system and automobiles are the scourge of the earth as well, but I'm still on them every day going to work.
P.s. Regarding the new guy. I was just kidding, new guy. Really. Look; I'm smilimng.... :=) See?
DLG
Cindy~
Hi Cindy. How's it going with you today. :=)
Lynn says we can't chomp on the new guy.
Yet.
I can wait.
Bye for now.
Diana (Really; I'm Just Kidding) Graham
I agree with you about Clinton, Diana, and for the same reasons. Lying was a very HUMAN thing under the circumstances. Doesn't make it a good thing, but a lie about sex is different from lies about shady investments and that sort of thing. Clinton and Lewinsky got carried away and it all went badly. I've been in Monica's shoes to an extent. Getting ratted out sucks. I learned the hard way to stay away from secretive shit because what was it Benny Franklin said? The only way to keep a secret between three men is if two of them are dead?
But I agree that it didn't make him a bad president.
I voted for Nader because I got fed up with the Democratic party. Gore didn't distinguish himself from the Republicans and I felt there was TOO much distance between him and Clinton. I desperately want to vote Democratic, but some of the strident voices blaming Nader voters for our current crises really turn me off (I hear it more elsewhere than here). I think the democrats have become too lukewarm for this liberal.
ROB S,
I asked the same question in my first visit here, so now I'll tell you the answer.
Harlan's wife, Susan, bought the computer. He uses it to drop by either here or the Art Deco Dining Pavilion - and nowhere else on the internet. So, Harlan can still say HE doesn't have a computer. But, by chance, his wife does. So everybody's happy. Or a rough equivalent anyway. La la.
In the meantime, Harlan has accepted the internet only as much as he's accepted television. Maybe less.
Lynn~
Hey! I was just *kidding* with Rob S!!!! I swear.
Sorry new guy. Welcome. Don't be afraid. Heh heh...
Lorin~
You're welcome for the help. :=)
P.A. Berman~
I haven't ever had any problem with the fact that Clinton lied about cheating on his wife. I pretty much thought whether he did Ms. Monica or not was none of my friggin' business anyway. And OF COURSE he lied about it. He's a married man who respects his wife enough to at least try to protect her from the realities of his infidelities to some extent. That's a good thing. He'd been very unwise to take up with the likes of Ms Monica. I could go on for pages about how dumb I think it was to mess with HER, and what an asshole I think SHE is. He could have lost his wife, and his job as Prez of the US of A because she couldn't keep from bragging about her escapades to her ugly, evil, envious, girlfriend.
But doing Ms Monica in the Oval Office was something he couldn't resist taking a shot at, obviously.
I KNOW there are many many men who secretely or openly understand Mr Clinton's giving in to the temptation, and would, if they weren't afraid to be honest, admit they'd probably have done something similar if given the chance. Of course they wouldn't have the balls to be open about having such views on the matter because their wives/sisters/mothers/girlfriends/etc would kick their asses if they admitted to the fact that they were, in their manly hearts, cheering and rooting for Slick Willy throughout the whole public furor. But they *were* cheering. Some of them anyway.
I think Mr. Clinton was right to lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny. He was President of the sexually unrealistic U S of A., and was fighting to protect his wife from further public humiliation, and his career from ruin. OF COURSE he lied.
I know many of you will be scandalized and disgusted, and maybe even outraged by what I've said about this. Sorry.
I wouldn't want to give the impression I outright support marital infidelity or anything. I absolutely do not. I support the ideal, the idea of fidelity.
I also support the idea of legalizing polygamy, though.
I think I have a REALISTIC perspective. I genuinely believe that some men are incapable of monogomy. I think it might even be an unnatural state for them. I think getting freaked out, rabid, and sanctimonious about this fact is ridiculous, unrealistic, and unhealthy.
I've already gone on with some froth about what I think about messing around with other women's "stuff". I wouldn't do it. But I don't get crazed when I find out other people have chosen to act differently than I think I would have in the same situation, either. These things happen. And have BEEN happening since ancient times. I can't figure out why it always seems to come as such a shock to discover it's still happening.
It's going to happen.
I don't think Clinton's messing around with Ms Monica, or doing it in The Oval Office, or even his lieing about it, made him a bad President. Or a good one. It just showed that he's only human.
I don't have a problem with that, and I'm sure as hell no one to judge him anyways.
Bye for now.
"Scandalous" Diana
Jay,
I have it down to 19 seconds-- will that work or do you want me to pare it down more?
I have a cut I'm pleased with-- but I aim to suit you here.
Also how do I do what you suggested to synchronize my film?
:)
Cindy
*** Jay ***
HAH!
*** Dorman ***
I didn't say it wasn't well told or shouldn't have been told - after all, I asked her to tell it. I simply said I wouldn't choose to willingly cast myself in such an unflattering role.
And you could so disagree with me more. Give it time. ;-)
- Barney
Sorry, Lynn.
You are quite right. That slipped out... like a snake under blossoms-- LOL!!!!!
:)
Cindy
Rob S. where ARE my manners. Yes-- WELCOME. Pay no nevermind to my earlier suggestion.
:)
Cindy
Hey ladies!
Let's say we not go after the newbie like starving pigs on a fresh corpse, shall we? Mr. E doesn't advertise his presence on the web. Mr. E has been known to spin a yarn or two. Let's not hold the newbie responsible for Mr. E's fast and loose interpretations of reality.
Rob S.! Welcome! Mind the piranhas!
L.
Oh come on, add to it...you know you want to...
http://adventure.shapebyforce.com/sbf/sid=2003040910204117212813320724643835/story/148/
Hey Rob S.
Bite me.
:)
Cindy
Rob S~
If HE doesn't have internet access I'm wondering how it is he manages to read ALL the posts, ALL the time. And how can he post messages to us if he doesn't have internet access? I mean, he occasionally *claims* to be merely human. (I've long suspected this was merely a crafty ploy to put me off guard...But I digress) If he actually said what you say he said, then one way or another HE has lied. Either he has special powers that enable him to access the internet without access, or he does have access to the internet.
But maybe you just misunderstood him?
Or maybe you understood him just FINE Rob S. and are simply looking to start trouble around here?
I've got my eye on you, bub. I'm going to be WATCHING you from now on. I'm warning you.
Signed,
Diana (Hey Rob S. I Was Just Kidding) (Or WAS I?) Graham
Went to a lecture by HE last evening. I find it humorous that there is an official web page for a man who (according to him) hates the internet and doesn't even have internet access.
But, that's irony for ya!
Take care,
Rob
[bitter/on]
BARNEY!
Sure ya can! A foreigner's humanity is directly related to their skill in use of the English language, their political allignment with ours and their desire to enjoy a thick-headed thin-skinned consumerized media-spoiled culture.
[bitter/off]
TONY and DIANA: Thanks a lot for the help. Still haven't dug up specific figures, but I feel like I'm getting closer. There's no huge impending deadline--just a press release I want to get out that includes (or will include) the information. I can always amend it to read "a few hundred first novels published each year" or what-have-you. Of course, now I'm just CURIOUS.
BARNEY: You're right, Winston. Information = baaaad. (Mixing Orwell books there, which I wouldn't do if I wasn't so hopped up on Soma.*)
Over and out, y'all --
Lorin O.
* I know, I know, that's Huxley!
*** Eric ***
Yep, that was sarcasm. And you're reading me correctly.
Of course this is a BIG can of worms and the elitist in me finds your karmic scale argument quite appealing. The problem [for others] is that I would tend to put somebody employed in Marketing [a WTC victim for instance] or weapons procurement [a Pentagon victim for instance] so much lower than the average muslim that it would skew the bell curve way far away from where even moderates would care to assign relatistic values.
Which is why I'm glad I'm not God, or even flying a bomber these days.
- Barney
>we all know you can't equate American lives with the lives of others<
An interesting comment Barney, one that brought me out of a self-imposed lurk (I figured I ranted too much on this board; others might consider that too).
By "equating" lives, you imply that lives have an intrinsic value. And further, equation implies quantification. I'm reading your sarcasm as saying that despite what Americans might like to believe, one American life = one Afghani life.
But does it? Is there a baseline value for an individual human life? Or do we all start equally, and then, depending on our behaviors, lose or gain points? Hitler and Ghandi start out at certain level, then Ghandi gains in value while Hitler loses. If this argument holds, then perhaps many of those 3000+ Afghanis were lacking points on the karmic scale, due to their willingness to kill for terrorist-type governments like the Taliban, while those hapless citizens in the WTC remain in neutral or perhaps more positive ground.
But this whole notion of earning or losing points sounds a little fuzzy, so back to the initial ideas: lives have a value, and all human lives are (relatively) equal in value. You might find it tough to prove the first assertion, and defend the second. Please, have at it.
*** Jay ***
We killed more civilians in Afghanistan in the 1st 60 days of our recent military incursion than died in the WTC/Pentagon strikes. But that's a meaningless statistic because we all know you can't equate American lives with the lives of others.
- Barney
P.A. Berman wrote:
"That, and the feeling that the Democrats have gotten too moderate while the Republicans have stayed right where they are. I got the strong sense that the Democrats feel that they can expect my vote because they are the only game in town for people with left leanings. They know I can't vote Republican, so apparently they can slight my agenda whenever it suits them, knowing I "can't" jump ship. Well, I got tired of being taken for granted and voting for the lesser of the two evils."
That's one of the reasons why I went Green in the last Presidential election-- and even though I don't think Nader would have been the best guy to have in office on 9-11, I would _still_ cast my vote for the guy. Just to piss off the Democrats.
Somewhere in my files, I have a wonderful piece Christopher Hitchens did on lesser-evilism, where he takes that particular logic to its horrible conclusion. By taking the attitude of voting for the "lesser evil," one is effectively telling the candidate, "You can be as evil as you like, just so long as you aren't quite as evil as the other guy." (I recall Hitchens being extremely indignant that liberals were amazingly willing to accept the worst of Clinton, even stuff that'd have them burning a Republican in effigy, so long as he made some gestures to protect abortion rights.) Not exactly a recipe for change, gang.
Amazingly, the only people I've encountered who claim that this is their reasoning are people who _always_ vote Democratic. In other words, this is _not_ how they make up their minds. This is how they rationalize their support for bad candidates.
Oddly enough, last night I was at a community meeting where we got to talk with Philly's perennial Republican candidate for mayor, Sam Katz. The nice thing about Philly Republicans-- well, the ones I've met-- is that they don't seem to be right-wing fanatics or demented religious maniacs. Katz's talk was, well, a politician's talk, with some usual boilerplate where problems would be addressed by building consensus and guaranteed mayoral concern. Decent guy, might make a decent mayor, and if he got elected I wouldn't have any complaints, but I can't say I was inspired to support him beyond wishing him well. (Now, the current mayor and Democratc candidate, John Street, is another kettle of fish entirely.)
You ever notice you never see Dick Cheney and Mr. Shiney in the same place? Cthulhu for President... "Let's Get it Over With"
Cindy - Looking forward to it.
BTW - how many civilians did we kill in this war? Between Afghanistan and Iraq, did we tie the number killed on 9/11? Did we get our eye for an eye?
Be seeing you.
Stan,
Don't sweat the politics. The thing to keep in mind is the fact that the folks here seem to be good people no matter who they vote for.
I'm one of the board Republicans, but I don't jump into the political discussions much because I don't see that we're going to settle anything here. Switched parties in '84 myself and learned a long time ago not to argue much about these things with people I'd like to stay on good terms with. Mostly, I save it for the voting booth.
Most of the people posting here seem to be sharp and engaging even if they are liberals. Even Rob, whose first comment to me was that I was out of my @!$%*!@$% (he used a different and longer string of punctuation marks, and I'm not going to dig through the archives to find the exact quote) mind for preferring The Temple of Gold to Catcher in the Rye (and note: discussion of books, not politics), kind of grows on you after a while.
So relax and enjoy.
--tr
You have to hand it to Cthulhu - if he was President, he wouldn't bullshit around. He'd consume the entire human race during his first week in office, then REALLY get down to business. You don't get no discrimination from Big C.!
Hey Jay,
I'm going to get that audio out to you today-- I got tangled up with back to back baseball yesterday.
Not to worry though, I haven't forgotten you.
:)
yer pal,
Cindy
H.E.'s everywhere...
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=6033
- B.
ps. re. "lesser of two evils". Oh, that was good.
Stan: We talk about creativity, writing, music, and film here, ALL THE TIME. But we also talk about politics and world events. Why? Because we want to. You are the one who was crowing about your party switch, right? So it seems that you feel like YOU can talk politics all you want, but when someone responds in a manner that does not please you, then you take your ball and go home, kvetching all the way? Ah ha, I see how it is.
Diana: It wasn't the hummer that made me change my mind about Clinton. It was the prevarication. If he had said, "Yes, I had a relationship of an intimate nature with Ms. Lewinsky. That is between my wife and me. Kindly redirect your questions to Whitewater," then I would have no problem with him. I wanted to yell at him, "Just tell the truth, since it's out anyway, for a change! Be DIFFERENT from all the other liars!" But alas no, and so, I defected.
That, and the feeling that the Democrats have gotten too moderate while the Republicans have stayed right where they are. I got the strong sense that the Democrats feel that they can expect my vote because they are the only game in town for people with left leanings. They know I can't vote Republican, so apparently they can slight my agenda whenever it suits them, knowing I "can't" jump ship. Well, I got tired of being taken for granted and voting for the lesser of the two evils.
Now, I vote Cthulhu for President. After all, why choose the LESSER of the two evils?
PAB
Cindy, yes, I have cancer, but my gosh,no need to apologize. too. Never apologize for giving a guy space for a zinger. Just enjoy it.
Barney, great talking to you yesterday. I'm going to try to dig out some of those University of California tomes later this week.
See y'all tomorrow, with a report from the rock hall.
--Alex
ROB, RICH, JIM: With regard to the spurious claims of weapons of mass destruction ...
... it would be REALLY declasse for me to say, "I told you so," wouldn't it?
SCOTT: "Imperial Guard"? But yeah--it'd be nice if we knew that Saddam and his spawn truly were sandworm food. Still, we could have just sent in an assassination team to do it, couldn't we? As long as we're running immoral military operations to achieve a good end, let's go whole hog (and eschew the loss of civilian and soldier life while we're at it)!
PETER: Pornographic lyrics. Kills the earworm every time.
(Or at least makes it more palatable)
(You think that's bad? Imagine having a live-in girlfriend who delights in tormenting your pitch-enriched ear with recitations of the off-key "I'm a Cucumber" from "Brak Presents the Brak Album Starring Brak" ... She almost became a "die-in girlfriend".)
Monday's great news was a Pulitzer for Samantha Power's _"A Problem From Hell"_, a sober study of genocide and the U.S. response to it through the 20th century. I met Power when she came to town and I chauffeured her to a talk last April. Sharp, assertive gal. I was afraid her excellent book wasn't going to get the attention it deserved. Now it might.
Nice to hear Rick Atkinson pulled down another Pulitzer, this one for _An Army At Dawn_, about the WW2 North Africa campaign, which I also enjoyed hugely. (See my rave review on Amazon.) Although I'm wondering whether he's a little TOO facile a prose stylist. He's so much fun to read you begin to doubt his abilities as an analyst. Still, I'm currently reading _Crusade_, his book about the 1991 war. Hope he doesn't get killed in Iraq, where he's currently "in-bedded."
I rather liked "Phone Booth." Taut, smart, and not overlong (just 81 minutes). Farrell does a terrific acting job, descending from cocky asshole to abject, groveling, and terrified with ease. I thought that guy was going places ever since I saw him in the so-so "Hart's War."
And yes, "8mm" was a mendacious, manipulative piece of crap, but I really felt Schumacher did an okay job with this one. Good acting all around, and a story that felt young, hip, and fast by a sexagenarian! That's right, screenwriter Larry Cohen is in his sixties -- one of his first jobs was writing episodes of the original 1963 "Fugitive" TV series!
I see the war's going well: killed three journalists yesterday, and I heard a story about an Iraqi civilian who lost his wife, 12-year-old daughter, and 4-year-old son all in the same day.
That and the attempted assassination of a sovereign head of state (wait'll word gets around to everyone else that it's open season on national leaders!), and I'd say we're doing ourselves right proud.
Lorin, re: Novels published in 2002:
Am coming up dry at the moment -- the Statistical Abstract of the US online had book production by category for 1999 & 2000, and the information was drawn from the Bowker Annual. The Bowker Annual for 2003 should cover 2002, but it won't be out until May.
I thought that Publishers Weekly or Library Journal usually reproduced that info for previous year figures in a Feb or March issue, but I could be remembering wrong and I don't have the library stacks handy right now.
Don't know what kind of deadline you're on for the figures, but if your local library doesn't have the Bowker Annual (and plenty don't -- it's pricey), the reference staff *should* be willing to get the info from a library that does have it; large city libraries will usually have a copy and so will some of the universities.
The LJ articles I mentioned earlier are available online -- hit www.libraryjournal.com for the info. If you can't bring them up for some reason, let me know your email address and I'll see if I can have 'em sent to you.
--tr
Like a mountain climber who climbs mountains and everyone asks him..."Why?" I am a writer of stories...ask me why and I will tell you the same thing the climber tells us all...Because it is there!
Oh come on guys and gals! Why does political b.s. permeate on these bulletin boards? So your liberal, democrat, republican, black blue or green party, religious, anti-religious, or better yet from outer space...hey! Now that's a novelty...why don't we discuss things like writing, science fiction, sf movies, reality dvd games and just leave the b.s. to the politicians, religious zealots and environmentalists. I wonder if Harlan gets tired of it all too. For me...I will only comment on creativity and try like hell to be positive....okay?
ALEX?
Is that true? Do you have cancer? GOD leave it to me to step off up to the hip every time I open my mouth.
I'm sorry.
Cindy
Chuck wrote;
"Happy 45th! Now you enter the stage where you attain true beauty. And you say southerners have all the charm."
Why Chuck,
THAT was lovely.
You keep UP that sort of talk and we'll make you an honorary Southern Gentleman.
Oh, but I'm still only 44 until Friday.
:)
Cindy
Well HELL FIRE!
I was next door in the Pavillion and I posted a rather lengthy response to Barney's inquirey. THEN I realized that I had made an error by responding to Dorman AND Barney at the same time when Dorman's question didn't require War and Peace.
Any how the first post went out at 11:55 or thereabouts TEXAS TIME.. and I not considering another time zone posted a second time to explain my error... THINKING that it was now kosher as it was around a quarter after midnight.
It looks like I posted TWICE on Tuesday.
I am sorry Rick! I'll watch that time deal next time and I won't post on Wednesday this time.
God.. I think I'm making it WORSE!!>
:)
Cindy
*** Lorin *** Ashcroft and Rumsfeld have decided you no longer need that information.
Sincerely,
Winston Smith - Ministry of Information / Victory Mansions
Have a double plus nice Hate Week.
Diana wrote;
"Cindy~
You're a pip. You thought of nice things to say about Mr Snarky. He writes pretty. He's brilliant. He's an activist. That's SKILL, Cindy. Nothing but pure skill.
Can you tell me something nice I can say to Todd? I couldn't think of anything."
Okay Diana,
It is true-- the man who neatly incised my jugular IS talented and brilliant. The good in the fellow DOES seem to outweigh his subjective list when it comes to Southern women.
I've been working on focusing on his strong and positive characteristics.. which actually do abound.
I have learned this; There are undiscovered treasures out there-- if one is willing to brush off a spot of sand or a barnacle or two.
As for Todd-- you should say he is honest and true to his own inner voice. The drummer he marches to is not standard but keeps PERFECT cadence with Cindy whose politics you find objectionable but whose apparent affection for you has grown by leaps and bounds and .... well, hell it's tough to dislike someone who genuinely finds you stellar no matter WHOM she voted for or supports in the office of President.
Yes?
You see how far we've come, Diana? I've got your back. Nobody will mess with you SANS repercussions when I'm on the clock.
I think you are very cool.... and I thank RICK for the template that allowed me to be receptive to your charm.
foreign but fixed
yer pal,
Cindy
p.s. The rose in Spanish Harlem... Godamighty that''s PERFECT.
p.p.s. I am terribly sorry about your sister and your dad and I'm sorry that you had to go through that. It's so sad.
p.p.p.s. I remember Freddie Prinze well-- he was hilarious.
FRANKIE ANGEL,
I love you too.. but you gotta leave my peeps alone!
:)
Cindy
First novels:
Lorin,
Check the March 15, 2002 & the Oct. 1 2002 issues of Library Journal. They do a run-down of first novels a couple of times a year, but they list by publishing season. Which means that the Oct. 2002 issue will list the ones scheduled for the Fall-Winter publishing season, which spills into 2003 instead of finishing at Dec. 2002. Come to think of it, you may have to check a late 2001 issue to pick up the first part of 2002.
The two issues mentioned above will list 243 first novels. Again, that includes a few published early 2003 and may be missing a few published early 2002. But it's in the ballpark.
Try your library again for these issues.
Number of novels published last year? Haven't got that yet. I'll get back to you.
--tr
Sigh...
This is the song...la la la la...ELMO'S SONG
la la la la...la la la la....ELMO'S SONG
I wrote the mu-sic....I wrote the woooooooooords
Dat's ELMOS'S SONG...
(repeat, change muppet name as applicable, sing until eyes bleed or child stops laughing)
Of all the songs that get stuck in my head, the most constant is that damn Tootsie Roll jingle...
"The world looks mighty good to me 'cause Tootsie Rolls are all I see. Whatever it is I think I see, becomes a Tootsie Roll to me. Tootsie Rolls are filled with lots of chocolatey chew. Tootsie Roll, I think I'm in love with you. Whatever it is I think I see, becomes a Tootsie Roll to me."
AHHH! Make it stop! Make it stop!!!
Thank you.
---Peter
Lynn~
I had the Oscar Meyer Weiner song stuck in my head for awhile. It was playing in harmony with, The Lion Sleeps Tonight.I like your song lyrics better. Bye for now
DLG
(aka "Good/Bad/Whatever" Diana)
P A Berman~
I was just wondering what lies Slick Willy (aka Bill Clinton) told that you know about that you object to? The one's about Ms Monica? Or what?
Diana
Stan,
something inside me said.."Don't trust Clinton"
I don't trust ANY of those bastards. What does that make me?
Besides paranoid.
"I try to be cynical, but I can't keep up."
--Lily Tomlin
On a lighter note, some sf film news, from that "SciFi" channel:
A four hour miniseries version of THE THING, drawing from the story, WHO GOES THERE?
A production of Kim Stanley Robinson's RED MARS
THE FOREVER WAR
A miniseries version of LeGuin's EARTHSEA TRILOGY and a film adaptation of THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS.
But, then there will also be a miniseries adaptation of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. I guess that balances out all that literary crap. On the other hand, it will star Edward James Olmos. Maybe if they actually had a script that didn't suck....
And, that's all the news I'm in the mood to print.
Chuck
Diana~
"Do you remember a guy that's been,
From such an early song...
I heard a rumor from Ground Control,
Oh no. Don't say it's true.
They got a message from the Action Man,
'I'm happy. Hope you're happy too.'
I loved all I've needed love.
Sordid details following..."
Been stuck in my head for DAYS now. DAYS I tell you.
L.
"Yea, great, they kill Saddam but who do they replace him with? I know the radical muslims aren't just going to allow another secular dictatorship, which America set up the first time out."
*puts on sarcasm hat*
Hoo yeah. God knows the USA had everything to do with Saddam Hussein taking power on 7/16/1979 - and then consolidating his power on that horrific night of 7/22/1979. Sure - I bet there were CIA guys feeding Saddam notes on which names to read out and have guys dragged out.
*removes sarcasm hat*
Really, Frank. We gave plenty of support to Saddam later - but NO ONE has ever credibly claimed that we has anything to do with him replacing President al-Bakr.
Joseph
P.S. Secularism has nothig to do with it. Assholses are assholes, whether they're religous or secular. Removing religion from the equation just removes another club from the arsenal.
Frank~
Dear Mr Church,
Regarding:
"Frank Church
- Tuesday, April 8 2003 13:31:30
Hides behind Diana. Hide me, the man got feelers. Blare Tony Orlando and Dawn and maybe the thought posse will mosey. Blair Witch abject horror stare!!!
It is fun being a bastard. :-)"
Dear Sir,
HEY! Are you making fun of my taste in music Mr Church? Huh, Mr Fancy Pants? Are you?
Well ha. I don't care. I think you're funny. Besides I learned a long time ago that Ricky Nelson knew what he was talking about when he sang, "You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"
(That's right, you guys quote Ellison and What-The-Hell-Was-That-Guy's-Name-Again. I quote Ricky Nelson, and Eminem. I love it!)
Besides, you just don't get it. Those two T.O. & D songs I mentioned in a previous post MEAN something to me. 'Kay? They're of a place, a time, an era. From yesterday, when I was young, and all that. Freddie Prinze Sr was still alive when those songs were new. My little sister, who died in 1986 of AIDS, was still alive then also. So was my father. Mr Orlando was a pallbearer at Freddie's funeral, by the way. My sister didn't "get" Freddie Prinze, but she was THERE with me the day he died, the moment I heard he was dead. She cared that I cared. I know you probably don't know who Freddie was. You for sure don't know who my sister was, or who my father was, or even who *I* was then, I doubt you'd understand even if you did know any of that. But I know who they were. I know who I was then too. Freddie Prinze was brilliant, and funny, a hometown boy who went and got himself famous, and then was gone. Too soon. If you knew my sister you'd understand how INSANE it is that she died the way she did, and how it is that my dad died of a broken heart soon after she did. THAT NYC, the one I first heard those songs in, the one I first discovered Freddie Prinze, Sr in, the city who's air I took into my blood & bones all my life, doesn't exist any longer, just like the Hotel Albert and Mr Waffles are no more, just like my sister and father and Freddie are no more, just like the "me" of my innocence is no more. But when I hear certain old songs, like those two I mentioned, that weren't old songs when those places were still there, and those people were still alive, or young or innocent, I'm holding on to a little bit of something I can't ever get ahold of again, not in any other way.
So you feel free to mock, if you like. It doesn't matter. I can't get mad about it, since I realize there's no way you could have any idea about any of that. You were just being regular, predictable ol' Frank. Ol' Mr Fancy Pants. As usual. :=)
Bye for now.
??? Diana
Stan, you and I have something in common. I too decided that I couldn't vote for Bill Clinton again. It was something about the lying, and the insulting my intelligence. However, I decided to say, fuck the two party duopoly stranglehold on American "democracy," which runs counter to what the Founding Fathers intended. I re-registered, voted Green, and don't plan to vote Republicrat again in a presidential election.
If you wanted to make a real statement by switching parties, well... ya didn't. You just showed that you prefer one type of liar to another.
Ah well,
PAB
Lynn~
Regarding:
"Lynn
SUBJ: Randomness - Tuesday, April 8 2003 9:26:21
Do you remember a guy that's been,
From such an early song...
L."
Yes Lynn, I do.
My Question:
Which Man/Which Tune?
Diana
Well, agreed, the thought of Hussein possibly taking a dirt nap with the two most verminlike of his children does give me a good feeling, but I find the pleasure mixed with the frustration of living through four US administrations either supporting or containing the little psychotic.
I'm not surprised at the lack of WMD (it's about what I'd figured he'd have), I'm stunned at the lack of strategy and preparedness of the Iraqi army. The Imperial Guard had months to build a defensive framework in the large urban centers as the drama in the Security Council played itself out, indeed, many experts (and a fair number of grunts like myself) thought that Baghdad would've been a case in point of brutal house-to-house combat, a down and dirty war. Instead, small pockets of fierce resistance, sprayed amongst massive surrenders and near total combat incompetence was all the Americans and Brits have to face, and the Iraqi military seems to be falling faster than tin soldiers. More US and coalition troops have died in friendly fire incidents than in acutal combat. Dammed strange, but rather relieving.
Here's hoping the weather holds...
Scott
Frank,
"I also notice how no one is sad about the loss of life on both sides."
I don't quite agree with THAT...depending on WHO you mean by "no one". While I COULD be overstressing it a bit, I HAVE seen and heard remorse and regret over the loss of life on both sides.
...possibly because the only sources I use to follow the war are PBS, Koppel, and NPR. Nearly everyone else in the media game are being asshole "reality show" hosts. I direct your attention to my post to Berman below, and an evening with CNN.
Stan~
Heh heh..."something inside me said.."Don't trust Clinton""
(Slick Willy The All American Switch Hitter Strikes Again...)
"something" was inside you? Sounds like it was way too late to worry. You shoulda just laid back and enjoyed it. Heh heh. ;=)
Signed
???? Diana
God I miss that man...
I just had a horrible idea.
What if -in the near or far future- Harlan becomes a massive literary giant that would rank alongside Shakespeare and Hemmingway? (No, seriously!) What would happen to all of the posts we've ever delivered here? Would they be part of the 'Ellison Exhibition' in the Public Museum of Mars?! JESUS H. CHRIST, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or maybe I'm just flattering myself.
Hides behind Diana. Hide me, the man got feelers. Blare Tony Orlando and Dawn and maybe the thought posse will mosey. Blair Witch abject horror stare!!!
It is fun being a bastard. :-)
Stan, ah, pal, "redress of grievences" get it? First Amendment class is over sucker.
We've just been notified by Security that 6 suspected terrorists have been
working out of your office. Five of the six have been apprehended. Bin
Sleepin', Bin Loafin', Bin Bitchin', Bin Lunchin', and Bin Drinkin' have
been taken into custody.
Our agent advised us that they could find no one fitting the description
of the sixth cell member, Bin Workin', at your office. Security is
confident that anyone who looks like he's Bin Workin' will be very easy to
spot.
You are obviously not a suspect at this time.
Yea, great, they kill Saddam but who do they replace him with? I know the radical muslims aren't just going to allow another secular dictatorship, which America set up the first time out. I see constant terrorism, like the car bombings in Israel, and election fraud with America looking the other way. As long as the new dictator obeys American corporate power, then all will go well. As long as the Gap and McDonalds have a foothold in the Iraqi capital all will be well in bushville.
-----------
Pat Robertson said on the Seven Hundred Club last night that the oil in Iraq should only go to American and British petrolium firms, and that the UN should not aid in the remaking of Iraq. I bet Bushie was thinking the same thing.
------------
Cindy, go to your room and read Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins. Learn how real Texans think. Love ya.
--------------
Rob, good point about chemical weapons in Iraq. And do you notice those chemical drums look about twenty years old or more? See, the Iraqi military is so inept it can't find that famed stockpile, and they leave a bunch of ammo heaped in dust in that High School. Odd country, that Iraq. Aint they scary?
I also notice how no one is sad about the loss of life on both sides. Killing and death are becoming merely commonplace now. No wonder the snarks all went to check out Phone Booth.
Joel Shumacker lost me with that piece of swill, 8 Millimeter. Woman hate garbage.
Lorin~
I think the Library of Congress has a record of every book published in the USA, which would include all the first books from 2002, of course. Their url is:
http://www.loc.gov
How to determine if a given book was a first book published is beyond me, but the LOC is an amazing source of information anyway.
Bye for now.
Diana
First novels - no clue. The AAP would be the people for your second query - and it looks as though they're just getting the information in order here with an email contact, although it looks as though the criterion is more cash spent than volume sold:
http://www.publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=136
Quick call for help here. I'm trying to dig up two statistics: 1) the number of FIRST novels published last year; 2) the number of novels published last year. Have looked around the Publisher's Weekly site, the LMP site (sort of...can't access parts of it), have tried Googling and Asking Jeeves and even, optimistically, called the reference desk at my local library.
Anyone out there either have these statistics handy or have ideas of where I can go to hunt them down?
Many thanks,
Lorin O.
....and to follow up your point, Jim...
if they DO have chemical or bio warfare agents why wouldn't the Iraqis have used them by now? Why would they leave them stored in drums at such a desperate stage in the war? And as I anticipated, thus far those canisters are shown to be nothing more than pesticide.
Yeah, the extent to which Bush wanted to make this the legal grounds for war - claiming that our classified information contained absolute proof Hussein had not disarmed - is going to make us look quite foolish and very suspect in the eyes of the international community when future global issues come up.
Sure, it remains to be seen; but right now the picture doesn't make a lot of sense.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2919815.stm
The "Iraq is harboring WMD" argument for war isn't looking so hot these days: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd
And before you lump me in with the anti-war crowd, let me reiterate that the destruction of Saddam's regime is a Good Thing. But if the government's claims of extensive WMD caches turn out to be exaggerations, if not outright lies, then our nation's credibility will be completely shot. (Not that it's in such great shape, anyway.) After all the revelations about the flimsy intelligence used to shore up international opinion for this war (those faked documents from Niger were especially galling), I can't believe even half of what this administration says anymore. Why does Bush have to be such a goddam SNEAK? To use the words of John Lennon, just give me some truth. Of course, the war isn't over yet, and we don't know what the troops will find as they march into Bagdad. Still . . .
Come to think of it - was there a time when someone entirely trusted the United States? Or Great Britain? Or fill-in-the-blank?
Stupid statement. Sorry.
If Saddam truly IS dead (which I'll never entirely believe, since I accept about -10% of what any major government in the world tells me) then things might start looking up - but only temporarily. The long-term effects of this war will be devastating. No one will entirely trust the United States ever again. The alienation factor is now officially somewhere in the stratosphere.
Well...Saddam is dead (at least I hope he is)... you know if that demonstration down in Oakland happened in 1942, a lot of people would have been found floating in the bay. Oh well...I guess it's not politically correct to reflect on the past...but hell...someone once said If we do not learn from past, we are doomed to repeat it...and it looks like humanity has been repeating itself since day one.
Another thing...I am not Republican because I am rich...far from it...I became a Republican because something inside me said.."Don't trust Clinton" back in 92...and I know for sure I was right to change parties.
Brian, your post reminds me of the following sick joke (all expectant parents should skip this one):
A man paces outside a delivery room, waiting for the birth of his daughter. A nurse with a pensive expression walks out, and says, "Mr. Wilson, I'm sorry to tell you there were . . . complications."
"What do you mean?!?" he says, hysterically. "What kind of complications?"
"The mother's fine," the nurse says, walking him into the nursery. "But the baby wasn't born . . . whole." She leads him to an incubator. Inside, lies an infant with no legs.
The father stares down and sighs. "Well, at least she's okay, otherwise." The nurse glances at the chart. "I'm sorry, Mr. Wilson. This is the wrong baby." She leads him to another incubator, this one containing an infant with no limbs at all, just a head and torso.
The father takes a minute to compose himself. "Okay, this is worse, but she's still healthy otherwise. That's something, at least." The nurse glances at the chart. "Oh, you won't believe this. We have the wrong baby again." She leads him to yet another incubator, this one holding an infant with no limbs OR torso, just a head.
The father, who is close to a nervous breakdown at this point, stares at the head for a long time. "Okay, this is even worse. But even if she's only a head, I'll love her and cherish her just the same." The nurse slowly reads the chart, and says, "I'm REALLY sorry. The handwriting is atrocious here, you know. I promise you, this is your baby." And she leads him to a pillow where a single, pale blue eye sits.
The father is, to put it mildly, a shell of a man. After sobbing for several minutes, he says, "Well, at least it can't be any worse. Even if it's just an eye, I'll love it and cherish it like a whole baby."
The nurse squints at the chart. "Um, there's one thing I forgot to tell you."
"What now?" the father wails.
"It's blind."
(Oh, don't give me that look. I know you chuckled.)
Do you remember a guy that's been,
From such an early song...
L.
*** Brian ***
I'll try...
1st iteration - right arm
2nd iteration - facial burns and complete loss of moustache
3rd iteration - both testicles
Seargeant steps outside - PFC says "but we got Saddam last night on the 1st strike." Seargeant says "sure I know that kid, but let's just see how loyal AND stupid these fuckers are, shall we?
I am SO going to hell...
- Barney
To Harlan, in his guise as Writer of Joaks. A co-worker told me the following Humorful Story. But I think it needs work.
"It's in Iraq, and there's been a bomb strike, and they assemble all of Saddam's doubles in a room. They're worried-- is he dead, and they're out of jobs? So a general comes in and says, "I got good news and I got bad news. The good news is that Saddam's alive, so you all have jobs. The bad news is, he's lost an arm."
I know, har har. But this sounded to me like the beginning of a joke. In the next round, Saddam loses a leg, and in the next... well, I dunno.
But there's a decent joke in there, somewhere. It's a seed. Care to work it up?
Porky as Galactus. Hm. "You have b-b-b-b-b-b-betrayed your d-d-d-d-d-duty to me, Silver S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Surfer. F-F-F-F-For that, you sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-shall b-b-b-b-be imprisoned on Earth f-f-f-f-f-f-for all-"
No...no, it's not working.
JAY,
Having Harlan voice 'the Devourer of Worlds' might...uh...lead to some 'interpretation' by certain film scholars, but frankly, WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS?! It'd be worth it just to hear Harlan's liquid-lava voice oozing from Galactus' lips.
But, wait, WAIT! I have it! AL STROBEL! The one-armed man from TWIN PEAKS! Whatcha think?!
Well, I'm no Galactus, but if you ever want a Daffy Duck (the original, more psychotic Daffy; not the whiny caricature of greed made in the '60's and on) I'm your man!
My Porky is fantastic, too...Could you see the Marvel devourer of worlds opening his mouth, then having that classic stutter come out?
Scott, thanking you for the sour parsimmons, buster!
Monte Sparrow and Beaky Buzzard are also in the house...
*** Matthew *** That's a nice chunk of work which I have just now copied to Word and archived. I'll see that Susan gets a copy. She uses something similar [or said she would to make me feel good about myself because of my low self-esteem issues] that I put together using Rick's searchable Ellison database for tracking copyright renewals.
*** Alex *** Must have been a glitch last night on my end. I just posted what I had to say to the board. As far as my contact information it's [610] 437-2094. It's been out there for years with no problems and I'm in the book. Also, Lynne has my info as part of her phone tree.
- Barney
Re Richard Boone. I'd never seen him as Paladin, and wasn't interested in _Hec Ramsey_. But, I recall that he was the voice of Smaug the Dragon in Rankin-Bass's surprisingly good TV version of _The Hobbit_.
Re Vin Diesel. I'm amazed that, in all the coverage I've seen of the guy, I've _never_ seen anyone invoke the name of Lee Marvin. Really. The guy has similar, heavy features, he has the same coal-slide voice, and I've _never_ seen anyone compare him to Marvin. Not saying the guy's Lee Marvin reborn, of course-- I like him, and as long as he doesn't try to be Right Said Fred he could have a good career. But this is like reviewing Christian Slater in _Heathers_ without mentioning Jack Nicholson.
Director Jim Jarmusch also sounds amazingly like Marvin, too.
Sorting through my various old disks and files (as an alternative to actually writing what I ought) I found something I'd been working on a few years ago: a roughly chronological bibliography of Ellison. By no means anywhere complete, 'though there's about 1200 - 1300 entries, it covers up to 1998 when I turned my attention to Tom Disch and points elsewhere. If anyone's interested, I reduced it to the barest html, although it's still very sizeable, and it's at:
http://www.michaelscycles.freeserve.co.uk/ellison1.htm
Cindy,
I won't worry about catching Harlan's cold if he doesn't fret about catching my cancer. Howzat?
Brian, Barney, while I don't agree with Barney's conclusions regarding the article, I do agree that the writer could have been more specific about Harlan's accomplishments. Those of us who have known him for (gaaah) 30-plus years do take that knowledge for granted. For us, the shelvesful of awards are a given. Not so for the average Plain Dealer reader. And this is a pity. Is there any writer from this area who has had comparable accomplishments? Any artist at all? Paul Newman, maybe. He grew up about a mile from here. But, because he's in movies, his is a different kind of fame, drawing fawning.
Barney--you're getting a bounce on my email? That's a first. It's completely non-restricted. You sure you spelled everything right? Alexkrislov@cs.com? If you want to wait until afternoon, you can ring me up at 216 561 8078. (Yes, folks, I know we don't usually leave our phone numbers out here, but because of my gig, my number is widely available on the internet already. Don't worry about it.)
--Alex
Chuck~
Oh, I know those songs! My father loved those songs. He used to play them on the piano, those and, The Streets of Laredo, and some nice song about a woman with black hair. What was the name of it? Annie Laurie? Something like that. Also, The Bolero, and Ebb Tide, and Autumn Leaves, and (my favorite of his favorites) Moonlight In Vermont. And This Land Is Your Land, which was the very first song I learned how to sing. And Red River Valley, for my mom when she visited.
I wonder if my father knew he'd be remebered most of all for the music? My father loved music.
Bye for now.
Diana
P.S. I think Todd hates me. :=(
Michael~
I love you too Not Evil Michael.
Signed,
(Not Really Evil) Diana
Diana,
Okay, how about Stardust, or Begin the Beguine? That's not the usual stuff people sing these here days.
Picture Don Knotts dancing in front of you, doing faux karate moves and saying, "How do ya like that, huh? Didja think of that? Huh? Huh? In yer face, lady! In yer FAAACE!!" After which he trips on his own feet, nearly falls over, then slicks back his hair, sticks his hands in his pockets and tries to walk away casually.
Ben,
I would have suggested Richard Boone or Ted Cassidy, unfortunately they're both dead. Really wreaks havoc on the voice. But, I would have LOVED to hear Boone as Galactus.
We could always go with Michael. Say, Michael, is there any way to sample that voice of yours?
Cindy,
Happy 45th! Now you enter the stage where you attain true beauty. And you say southerners have all the charm.
Chuck
SUSAN (and Harlan): the IHNMAIMS poster arrived today...it's gorgeous. The perfect belated anniversary present for my wife. Unrolling it caused St. Alia-the-Unflappable to clap her hands like a little girl and squeal "Coool!" Many, many thanks.
Ghost of Gene: Yeah, it's all touchy-feely in these parts NOW... but just wait. We all know the flames are just lurking beneath the surface, waiting for someone to whisper "Kubrick!" or "the War!" or somedamnthing that will cause the next explosion. Just wait. Me, I'm more like Cindiana, 'cause I just love all y'all. Even Evil Diana. And hey, Happy Birthday, Cindy! I just turned that 45th corner last February, and y'know, it ain't nothin' 'tall!
And I am heavily committed to getting the part of the Voice of Galactus. As soon as I can figure out how to add a sound clip to my tiny web page (suggestions, webmaster types?), I'll lay down a Galactus voice track that'll raise your hackles in fear!
.............yep, that's me, your Friendly Neighborhood Hackle-Raiser.
best to all,
Michael
with an airborne smooch from the fabulous Alia
Cindy~
You're a pip. You thought of nice things to say about Mr Snarky. He writes pretty. He's brilliant. He's an activist. That's SKILL, Cindy. Nothing but pure skill.
Can you tell me something nice I can say to Todd? I couldn't think of anything.
Under The Boardwalk...yet another of my favorites by The Drifters. Also, On Broadway, Save The Last Dance For Me, and does this sound familiar..."There is a rose in Spanish Harlem...."
Barney, I saw a slightly different point than you did. The reporter was trying to convey the range and volume of Ellison's writing. But he chose a fairly vague phrase to do it. I didn't think he was being lazy (he may very well have asked Harlan how much he'd published, and gotten a weary geez-I-dunno in reply) or malicious, or even undermining his own efforts.
Actually, I thought the piece wasn't bad: frankly, if I'd never heard of Harlan before reading it, I'd love to see what this guy was like, just on the basis of the accomplishments. But if you detected a lack of respect, I believe it comes from the general tone of journalism these days. Frankly, writers and columnists don't want to look _too_ enthusiastic, and they adopt an outside-the-situation tone that has a slightly smug feel about it. (_Slate_ has this in spades.)
But your contradiction was just too _good_ to leave uncommented-upon.
Off tangent final thought -
In the last 2 weeks I've had a chance to read about a dozen fanzines with varying amounts of Ellison content all published between 1952 and 1955. All were published in the Northeast. The damned thing about ALL of them is that they all treat Harlan as though he had been on the scene as long as Bob Bloch or Wilson Tucker. Like he wasn't there ... and then he was completely fucking ubiquitous. Before Dimensions and before or, at best concurrent with the Cleveland Science Fiction Bulletin. No ramping up. Just editors saying "well, you all know who Harlan is by now" and this is like 1954!!! It really is the damndest thing.
- Barney Dannelke
ps. sorry about the abuse of "like".
Hey, Ghost of Gene Roddenberry, I got one thing to say to you:
I like you. You may be easily dismissed here, but in reality, you are often right. This past weekend appears to have been solely dedicated to "I know I sound nasty, but I'm really a pussycat (unless the Ghost of Gene Roddenberry tees me off)" schmaltz. You got that right.
Please, post more than once a month or so. Shake up the board with something weekly, at least. You aren't just an attack of hot air, you have some good gas to ya. You're not a jerk....just an agitator. Keep on agitatin'
A fan.
-TODD
*** Brian *** Put that way... you're right. Y'see, I don't always know where this stuff is coming from. Written by an admirer for a puff piece with space considerations? [fair] OR written by someone who has resented for years that a story got used in two or three Ellison collections over the years and has been waiting to "praise with faint damns" as Chris Morley or Alexander Woolcott or maybe Thurber said? [foul]
It seems paranoid until you read some of the fannish screeds I've read over the years. I'll admit I was covering the bases too zealously on that particular paragraph but I'll stand by my overall point - that with a little more emphasis on the positives the writer might have persuaded some potential fence sitters into the event.
Off to bed - Barney
Alex,
You lucky, lucky man.
You got to hear the interview AND.... AND YOU get to go to the Hall of Fame extravaganza.
I am purely verdent.
Give him a hug from me... you don't care if you catch a cold right?
Alex? Right?
Cindy
Hey Diana,
SNAKE woman? Snake woman? I'm a fucking MAGNOLIA blossom and don't you forget it it!!! God DAMN it.
:)
Actually, I like the nicer me and you alot better. You're quite a kick in the ass and I like you in my corner.
How about Under the Board Walk for your boy's repertoire? I've always liked that one too.
Cindy
p.s. On Friday I will be 45-- so the near memory is a gone goose. I don't really remember WHO it was that called me a snake among the blossoms--but you must admit he has a HELL of a way with a phrase, even if the missile was SERIOUSLY misguided.
Barney Dannelke faulted the following sentence in the Cleveland paper's profile of Harlan:
"It's difficult to get a handle on just how much Ellison has written."
Barney faulted this by saying,
"No, I'm sorry. It isn't. He's written and published a lot. Well over 2,000 individual pieces of fiction and non-fiction. [...] Bullshit. As somebody who has been immersed in his bibliography thanks to my association with Tim Richmond for 5 years I flinch when I see things like this. This line about being unable to grasp his output is clever to the point of being uninformative."
Uh, Barney, I like you and everything, but... how can you say it _isn't_ difficult to get a handle on how much Harlan's written