The Ellison Bulletin Board

Comments Archive - 12/14/96 to 02/10/97

Rick Wyatt <webmaster@harlanellison.com>
- Monday, February 10, 1997 at 20:22:21 (CST)

Hey gang - hard at work on a major update to Webderland, and I've got a couple of Edgeworks posters sent in by a loyal browser. If you'd like one, please e-mail me (don't reply here, I can't keep up with this damned thing anymore!) and I'll send one out to the first couple of replyers. The poster has a shiny gold finish with the names of many of the titles to be included in the series.

keegan
- Monday, February 10, 1997 at 18:09:23 (CST)

Hey, Todd- I always like Elvis Mitchell on NPR. He has a good sense of humor. And I think you're right about Shales. He often comes across as whiny and pseudo-intellectual to me.

Todd Mason <None, again. AOL chews.>
- Monday, February 10, 1997 at 17:18:56 (CST)

Sue--Congratulations...I certainly think you deserve the prize, assuming it's something someone would want...I wondered who would be so widely-respected a composer or, to a slightly lesser extent, astronomer. Aaron Copland and the late Sagan doesn't quite have the same ring, nor Morton Gould and the recently late Clyde Tombaugh (Pluto's first spotter). Philip Glass and David Morrison? Alan Hovanhess and Patrick ---- (the British guy, whom of course I can't think of his name allathesudden)? Oh, well. Hey, can anyone think of any television critics who compare well with Ellison? Michael Arlen (the younger) did some good work in the 1970s, a little later than "The Glass Teat"'s career in the FREEP and two issues of BORING STONE, mostly in the NEW YORKER and collected in THE VIEW FROM HIGHWAY SEVEN or something like that, and Something Like THE WAR IN THE LIVING ROOM, one of which got him the National Book Award. Tom Shales doesn't cut it...like Roger Ebert, he was given a Pulitzer for no readily apparent reason early in his career and has been coasting (maybe I just hold it against Ebert that he allowed Siskel to credit him with the origin of the term "idiot plot", when old skiffy fan Ebert surely remembered that James Blish and Damon Knight used to credit each other with the term some fifteen years before Ebert's career began. Or maybe it's 'cause he lauds so many dull-witted movies w/o much explanation). Also, the highly rotund Shales consistently mocks actors for obesity...an example of the kind of thing that John Simon is always being damned for, when Simon mostly just suggests that if a script calls for an echantress, Barbra Streisand might not fit the bill. Ah, well. Suggestions welcomed. Antisuggestions welcomed, as well...Gary Deeb, in the '80s syndicated by the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES for Absolutely No Apparent Reason (or, at least, why would any paper have taken up the typing of this dunce?) is my candidate for the Rex Reed pathos-in-reviewing title, CRT division.

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@ismi.net>
I WIN! I WIN!, But wasn't I disqualified under the 'One Per' rule?? - Sunday, February 09, 1997 at 11:48:48 (CST)

Thanks for the follow-up on the Name Game *BARNEY*.. Yes, I was the one who submitted the Karensky info - but I also disqualified myself for taking too many turns.. So who is the Legitimate Winner? *I-CON* Well, we're working on it. Got the Piece D'Shitte escort running again.. If the weather is good enough to ride the bikes, it's a definate. Otherwise.. I _hate_ being at the mercy of an inanimate pile of junk.. *COOGAN* FAAANTASTIC!! *TODD* Got to thinking about the correspondence thing.. I'm not sure that it would be so surprising if our Technological World Village made it more likely people from different disciplines interact.. I'm pretty sure my widdle bwain would get very boggled if I could listen in on some of those exchanges.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Barney Dannelke <dannelke01@enter.net>
I could tell you but then I'd, have to kill you. - Sunday, February 09, 1997 at 10:20:00 (CST)

OK. I returned the "items" I didn't use to Q. Just ignore all that near miss in-flight "Air Force" stuff you've been hearing. Don't give it another thought. I do wish that new "pen" had worked better though. Oh well, those SEALs will clean it all up. Where were we... DIEGO: re; meeting Harlan. Now you know - mileage may vary. Nice anecdote. Next topic/ Competition - Sue here can tell you, I don't have a competetive nature. :-) Concerning Nietze - I always thought it was "Whatever doesn't kill me better run like hell." Politically Incorrect [snicker] - remember, Bill Mahr's job description (like Jeapordy) is make-people-feel-smarter-then-they-really-are. Turning that much American history into a 7 minute 4 way sound bite free for all is always going to be either ugly or facile or both. It's a mugs game. I-CON. OK, who's in. My membership is confirmed and hotel accomodations are forthcoming. Don't make me go to the "Bunker" alone. For those who have never had the pleasure of seeing the SUNY campus well...lucky you. Old biz. Whoever posted the Alexander Karensky info in December is the winner and if they will e-mail me their address I'll send out the goods. What's that - the VERY RED phone? Where's my Kevlar briefs...gotta go. signed B. [don't worry, we're from the government, we're here to help.]

suzan <suzanr@inetnow.net>
- Friday, February 07, 1997 at 18:59:24 (CST)

Right on for real music education! Keegan: As a high school teacher, I can tell you your dedication and expectations will serve your students well in later life. I am science teacher, and I find it very interesting that the students who are also in either band or choir tend to be better students. They are usually far more self-disciplined than other students and frequently better able to make inferences from the facts that they have learned. Keep up the good work!

coogan <keegan@lightlink.com>
Correction City, USA - Friday, February 07, 1997 at 00:11:25 (CST)

*Sigh* When will I learn to get it right? Was hanging with the Bloviaters tonight, and learned to my dismay that I handed on faulty info about one Dan D'Imperio. He subbed for Buddy Rich, not Mel Lewis (though he's done that too, I think). Anyway...just being up front because this may be the only jazz education any of y'all get, so I'm tryin' to be honest. What can I say? I think like a singer. BTW: I am "in" the band now after about four years of hanging around, staying out of the way, and being ready when asked to jump in. I have finally earned the credential of a nickname--the absolute seal that you are a member of the "organization". They played an arrangement with my name on it tonight (I actually had some help from my mentor, but I was the one who basically copped the tune and decided how to lay it out for the band. Tune was "Gertrude's Bounce" by Richie Powell--and yeah, I'm *sure* on that info). It's after 1am and I gotta teach at 8 am, but believe me, I'm so high on music right now, that I can't wait to go to school. At least I can hand along the simple stuff. Sorry to blather about my personal life, but I probably won't see the inside of a book for at least another week, and then there's the arranging assignments....... kisses, all--Cookie Coogan.

Todd Mason
- Wednesday, February 05, 1997 at 15:12:38 (CST)

Actually, though I was vague, I meant (as you did) you teaching your kids to read music, Keegan (again, good for you). Sue--mindblowing to think of Kepler and Bach meeting, isn't it? What contemporary correspondent could there be?

keegan
- Tuesday, February 04, 1997 at 13:54:12 (CST)

Oh, and with kids who "refuse" to get into it.....I have my ways! Often, their not even aware that I'm teaching them anything, because I turn it into a game, or I work it so smoothly into learning a song, that they don't think of it as "work". That isn't to say that I don't make 'em work, 'cause I make 'em work hard. It's just that I'm becoming more adept at planning logical sequences for learning. I try to make it as painless as possible. Hell, I try to make it as FUN as possible! What I expect is this:Listening, Concentration, and Effort. Without all three of those things, successful performance is unlikely. How do I get them to buy in? Report card, baby! I *EXPECT* them to join in and I expect them to ACT appropriately. Like I tell 'em, you don't have to *like* the material, but you have to *act* like you do. God knows I've taken gigs where I really don't care for the songs, but my job is to never let the audience know that. I have to give it all I got, no matter what. That isn't to say that I don't care how they fel about the material. They are free to express their dislike in writing or in person during my planning time, but NEVER during rehearsal. During rehearsal, we work and we do our best. Opinions are for discussion at another time. Usually, when kids express distate, I can bring them around in these private and appropriately timed discussions. It works.

keegan
- Tuesday, February 04, 1997 at 13:40:03 (CST)

Hey, all-"RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON!" (to quote that great master, James Brown). When I said I was teaching my kids to read, I actually meant that I'm trying to teach the *schoolkids* to read *music* (though, of course, I'm teaching my own little boys how to read books. I, too, could read before Kindergarten. Learned from the Bible in good ol' Puritanical New England form). Jon was absolutely correct that the basics are not generally well-taught at the elementary level. I am determined to do better than that. And Sue, yeah, I know about Bach and his system of logic. I had to learn to mimic his style of writing. I was resistant at the time because I was in that "Who needs rules?" phase of my youth. Somehow, my theory prof got it through my head that I needed to know the "rules" so that, as a composer, I could break them intelligently. It makes imminent sense because the overtone series is a physical phenomenon upon which the basic implied movement of harmony is based. Everything in music can be eventually reduced to science and math since the tones themselves are vibrations and waves in the air. Rhythm is the organization of events through time. I love to remind folks that music was a science long before anyone considered it an art. The church modes used in Gregorian Chant (from which descended the Western European traditions of classical music) were based on ancient Greek modes that doctors used in the healing "arts". We see a return to this sort of thinking with the rise of music therapy. I think that's pretty hip!

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@ismi.net>
- Tuesday, February 04, 1997 at 12:34:59 (CST)

It was Kepler (the astronomer) who coined the phrase "Music of the Heavens".. And he meant it literally. He worked out his theories on planetary motions at a piano, insisting that the logical relationships and orders of notes in music was a valid analogy for stars. Hard to argue with the man, since he did define the Laws of Planetary Motion still used today. He got the idea for "predicting" as yet undiscovered planets through perterbations in existing orbits through his correspondence with Bach.. Strange collaboration, perhaps.. But Bach suggested to him that there were 'implied' harmonies in music (knew you'd like that one Keegan), and he made the connection to 'implied' planets. It isn't the same as research data, I guess - but it is a good example of the interplay between science and music which produces good music (Bach), and good science (Kepler), using the common element of logical ordering.. Does that help any?? Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Todd Mason
- Tuesday, February 04, 1997 at 11:17:00 (CST)

It is a crime that people take a "fluffy" view of music (and other arts) education, demanding it be dumbed down on the one hand, gesturing for it to be cut altogether as superfluous with the other (if I can be forgiven a severely mixed metaphor!). Even as a lover of music, an impulsive singer and a former trombonist, I still can't sight-read a melody for voice, nor (obviously) read a staff and "hear" the content (though I knew which slide position and embouchure [lip placement] to achieve the note on my instrument--what a rich source of double entendre are brass instruments). Jon, Keegan--Jean Piaget probably did a little work on music and children's development, B F Skinner must be good for something, Maria Montessori? other educational experimenters? Just jackpotting, a good library will help. But surely everyone Should know by now the strong affinity between music and mathematics (and therefore physics and the other sciences, engineering and perhaps other applied scientific crafts)...to say nothing of logic, Sue! Aside from the intrinsic value of music itself, along with the cultural surround you refer to, Keegan. Anything that might expose people to something beyond the top 40 at any given time could be good...there are whole areas of rock music, for goodness sake, that are widely ignored at any given time, meaning that all the less popular forms are largely in shadow. To cite an obvious example, there have been hundreds of good to excellent, and at least a dozen seminal, punk rock bands that flourished during the 1980s that were of course completely ignored by the two "History of Rock" docu tv series released last year (the PBS one and the Time-Life-produced syndicated one), although both actually had hour-long episodes titled "Punk"! Of course, punk ended with the Clash mellowing out ca. 1982 and suddenly reemerged in 1989 with Nirvana. Of course it did. I mean, ROLLING STONE and other corporate, pompous ex-hippie organs didn't review it, did they? (SPIN, among the newsstand magazines, came closest with its endorsement of pseudopunk bands such as Jane's Addiction, but that's not very close.) I am very glad that you are teaching your kids to read at home, Keegan...perhaps only because my early English teachers were so memorably bad that I was very glad I learned to read before school began...to associated reading literature or music with the drudgery of what school too often is is a sad thought. Do you get too many kids who simply refuse to get into it, and how do you reach those kids, if you can?

keegan
- Monday, February 03, 1997 at 22:46:56 (CST)

Jeez, Jon! Good Luck! Get some good info for me. That's what I keep telling 'em (administrators, kids, colleagues, parents; anyone who will listen): music is like a language if not a language in the formal definition of such. Few people seem to get it, but I keep "educating" them about why a *solid* music *education* is a good thing (that's solid meaning grounded in culture and history, as opposed to "fluffy" which is lazy teaching at the "cutsie" whims of those who would infantalize and cheat perfectly intelligent and capable children). The basic symbols and theory are a part of being musically "literate" but it's so much *easier* to fluff over it. My kids aren't literate yet, but I'm working my ass off to make sure that the third graders I have now will be proficient readers by fifth grade. It's better than nothing---which is how much of that sort of instruction they had before. The logic involved in music does impact other areas, I believe. Remember: it's logical *organization* of sound that creates music. Otherwise, it's random noise. Sometimes random works. Most of the time it doesn't. Anyway....like I've said before, music saved my life. The kids in my rural school face difficulty transitioning to the large, area- middle- and high- schools. I can relate to that, because I lived it. Being musically literate at least gave me the tools to hang with *someone* and to be successful at *something". I want to give the kids all the tools I had (which, incidently, I learned in church; not school). Folks tell me that I'm "too hard"; that I "expect too much". They tell me I should just sing fun, little Barney ditties. Well, guess what? I expect a lot, I demand a lot and the kids consequently give me a lot. Like I tell 'em, "Why be good when you could be great?" Music ain't fluff. It's hard work and discipline. Gotta work it before you can play it. AAAAAAAGH! I'm ranting again! AAAAAGH! Forgive me, I just finished translating "Wachet auf Ruft uns die Stimme" and writing in the pronunciations in the I.P.A. I had to call parents tonight, wrote report cards, planned a rehearsal....oy....it goes on and on. Forgive me if I go nuts---I'm hepped up on Bach!

Todd Mason
- Monday, February 03, 1997 at 17:17:20 (CST)

Hello, Jon. Ellison's good friend Robert Bloch had helped elect an airhead Republican Milwaukee mayor, by creating a contentless campaign for the airhead to look good in the middle of. The Socialist Party machine in Milwaukee had thought itself invincible; after the loss at City Hall, the Robert LaFollette, Jr. re-election campaign contacted Bloch and his partner, who urged LaFollette to come back to Wisconsin and do some active campaigning. The Senator, and son of the Progressive Party founder, refused...and lost his seat...to Joseph McCarthy. Bloch doesn't say so in his autobiog (ONCE AROUND THE BLOCH), but I wouldn't be surprised if the horror of this event atop the airhead's win wasn't what pushed Bloch out of professional pr and politics.... On a not altogether unrelated note, I've been researching radio schedules in the 1950s, and was mildly surprised to find WCBS radio giving chunks of time to the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party candidates, presumably for local NYC office (ah, for the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine, eh?).

Jon JC Basten <86627620@cyberstreetcafe.com>
New Franken, WI USA - Monday, February 03, 1997 at 16:54:37 (CST)

It has been a while since I submitted anything, and I am sorry I have not. The discussion on HUAC and other propaganda machines is intriguing. As a resident of Wisconsin, I am not proud to know that Joseph McCarthy is a former Senator, although I believe in educating the students of what he represented and how it can be damaging to our growth as a society. I am recently elated to find that our "wonderful" governor has been defeated in his proposal to take state tax dollars, earmarked for the public schools, and tranfer them to the private and parochial institutions, under the guise of "school choice." The estimate is $55 million, all because he was not endorsed by the state teachers union - it is unbelievable that someone can claim to "serve the people" while serving his ego. Good luck, Keegan, I too, have started a masters program in Curriculum and Instruction. I plan on doing research that will enable elementary and middle school teachers to focus on aspects of the program that will aid the educational development of the student. A major concern of high school music teachers (this I have found from informal conversations) is that the freshmen are not well versed in fundimentals - scales, rhythms etc. I hope to show that when they are emphasized early on, that the student will find success in other academic areas. If anyone stumbles onto any research in cognitive development where music is concerned, let me know. I will take any hand outs! Hve a heck of a day, now.

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@ismi.net>
- Monday, February 03, 1997 at 14:57:13 (CST)

*TODD* Gotta agree with you on the Label thing.. Struck me the same way - ironic that the Lablel "Revisionist" was applied to making NO revisions of an innacurate history.. That's PR for ya.. And you're right on in my book - until there are no more facts to know, revisions, amendments, and re-writes are the order of the day for anyone who gives a crap about the truth and/or understanding. Seems all too often Knowing (as in being an authority/expert/BIG Status for being one-up) is given priority over understanding (as in being able to apply what is known to on-going and new situations in productive ways). My beef was with teaching conclusions without teaching sufficient facts for the conclusions to be reasonably evaluated. Thought rolling over in it's stupor is mummbling.. How is it that Critical Thinking is a biggie on the slogan scene and slapped all over ciricula titles - but Logic doesn't seem to appear as part of that process?? I mean logic as in syllogisms and fallacies, here.. Kids are taught math, which is quantitified logic, and are just supposed to learn the logic part by osmosis, I guess.. Kinda bothers me. If they can 'get' the math, they can learn logic.. So why aren't we teaching it to them? I know, I know - stupid question.. Kids are supposed to be conditioned for society, not made loose cannons with free wills and inquiring minds.. Sure seems that we are at cross-purposes with ourselves in education.. The aforementioned incident happened 7 years ago (my baby is finishing his soph yr in college as we diddle about here). I thought it had Accomplished Something - perhaps a small blow struck for truth.. In the years since, the teacher left, the Superintendant left, the kids all left.. And I have little doubt the replacements have restored Business As Usual.. But then, *I'm* still here! So maybe it is time to 'check up' on them.. *teehee*.. It's something about the Irish in me *loves* to upset applecarts.. I've been accused of being 'petty' in these little undertakings. Makes me wonder what that means. Seems to me, most unjust things come to life only after a sufficient number of supporting 'petty' details are emplaced - and the best thing a nobody like me can do to fight the gross injustices is to take out the little details that support them.. *ALL* for those wondering, the Piece D'Crap escort is once again limping around - so the bikes are garaged, waiting for dry roads.. Makes life less exciting - and a LOT more comfortable! Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Todd Mason
- Monday, February 03, 1997 at 11:36:38 (CST)

"Revisionist history" is a loaded term, though--it's "revisionist" to suggest that the Hippies WEREN'T dirty sex-&-dope-fiends, because the media hype is the more or less Official Story. Revisionism (much denounced by Communists throughout this century!) is often necessary when new facts come to light, or because the debate is not over, as it almost never is, over any given event...and often unpopular or suppressable views have not had their say. Walter Bernstein, one of the Blacklisted scriptwriters of the '50s, has produced a memoir of that time that received pull-quotation praise from even the WASHINGTON POST's reflexively conservative Jonathan Yardley. I've forgotten the title, I fear, but will post later. Good for you, Sue! In Re: dealing with a weasel teacher and/or cirriculum. The problem with history is that the facts are almost always at least partly obscured, and open to dispute. Just because everyone reading this lived through the Gulf War (unless this run of the board stays up for a LONG time!) doesn't mean Any of us know all that went into it..."No blood to reward the friendly oil regimes by attacking the currently most unfriendly one..."

Suzan R. <suzanr@inetnow.net>
Duluth, Georgia - Sunday, February 02, 1997 at 22:27:28 (CST)

Sorry I missed the show. Sounds like it was interesting, at least from the perspective of what people do and do not know. Sue, glad to hear that you were able to present another viewpoint to your daughter's class. Revisionist history is no different than the "editing" of history done by the Nazi's and the former USSR. It is done solely for the promotion of political ideas and serves no purpose for real education. Just wanted to toss in my two cents...

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@ismi.net>
- Friday, January 31, 1997 at 09:06:15 (CST)

Geez! I'm not sure even putting an emoticon before AND after my "HE's feet" comment woulda helped..(rolls eyes to heaven while mumbling) *JASON* that was Humour, boy - an exagerated non-sequitor paralelling a previous statement to imply foolishness - some people call it wit, not paranoia. And yes, *I* am The One who impugned the Magnificent One (that's sarcasm). There is nothing intelligent about his statement. Ends never justify the means. So he's paid to stir up the guests, and go for laughs - that doesn't excuse what he says, or prove his intelligence. Somehow, I can't believe Starr required *any* support - she was loud, opinionated, and interupting to shout down others was no problem for her. Maher had trouble breaking into the shouting match between HE and her to get his "suggestion" on the air.. And what is this ridiculous 'challenge' you make.. No one should have any thoughts or understandings about anything they haven't personally experienced?? (big snort of disbelieving laughter).. Doesn't that mean *you* should get less credence than anyone older and/or more widely travelled?? Is that what you'd like?.. No respect until you're older and more experienced?? (sarcasm there).. If you like Maher, and think he is a genius - fine. I don't. Leave it at that. *KEEGAN* I couldn't agree more with your revulsion for Revisionsist History. I keep running into Media Spins and personal opinions being taught as How It Was. It is especially troubling when the facts are secondary (and often skimpy) to The Concept (which is a debatable conclusion based on values and perspectives that are not taught) in the teaching, so there is little hope for kids to _have_ an informed opinion until they get old enough to go to college.. if they go to college... if they happen to take the right classes with the right professors.. More frightening when one throws in the current political penchant for relying of polls to define policy. Talk about the blind leading the blind! And yes, this is a Real Thing.. Had to go to the Local High School, and set a teacher straight about "All Hippies were druggy, dirty, communist, low-life traitors, who spent all their time screwing each other and spitting on Vets" - which he taught to my daughter's senior Recent American History class as unassailable 'fact', using Media Hype from the period as 'proof'.. Shall we say, she was stunned to hear her parents described that way.. And he was stunned when I appeared the following day in class with the Superintendant (another disgusting bit of human slime former Hippie), so we could present "another" perspective.. *ALL* All this discussion recently keeps putting me in mind of the Intoduction to Edgeworks2 "Stalking the Nightmare" - the one titled "Quiet Lies The Locust Tells".. I'm glad it was titled, since it is more a story itself (and one of the better ones in the book IMHO) than an introduction.. Thoughts anyone? Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Todd Mason
- Friday, January 31, 1997 at 08:50:25 (CST)

Among HUAC's delightful aspects was the fact that if one refused to inform on other people (who were suspect if they knew too many Communists, or attended a single event that had some Communist connection), one could be held in prison for "contempt of Congress." As Walt Kelly (no friend of Communism, and for that matter no radical of any kind, but a non-ignorant liberal) wrote in his POGO comic strip, when one character who was running for Congress warned another character to watch his tongue because "contempt of Congress can occur before election as well," "Yes, in fact that's the best time for it." During HUAC's early-fifties heyday, Kelly came up with his most-quoted phrase, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." His strip was widely dropped for this and other heresy as suggesting Joseph McCarthy was not a noble creature. Many others sufferred much worse fates. They were not inherently heroes for being Communists...but their adversaries in Congress were no heroes for making them victims, either.

Todd Mason
- Friday, January 31, 1997 at 08:20:47 (CST)

Jason, to suggest that the HUAC was trying to do the right thing is to praise them, for they were not trying to do the right thing, unless the right thing was to grandstand at the expense of other people's careers. The very name should tip you off--what's "UnAmerican" about belonging to a legal political party, one which cooperated heavily with the Democratic Party in the '40s and could draw a few percent of the popular vote back during the Depression? Maher need not be an everything expert to display less ignorance than he regularly does (I fear he might well be better informed than 95% of his audience, though I hope and suspect not). As for how much do I know about HUAC and treatment of people under Communist regimes, I might not know as much as Noam Chomsky or Stephen Cohen, but I am not completely without knowledge...and had hurriedly (and not always grammatically) typed some rather general comments about the CP USA only a few bulletins ago here, a few lunch hours ago. And unlike Maher, I don't think my "not having been born then" (I wasn't yet conceived by the time John Kennedy was shot) is any excuse for ignorance.

Jason
- Thursday, January 30, 1997 at 20:11:44 (CST)

Todd I didn't say You did, someone did let's leave it at that. And I don't agree with what he said, but I also think you're putting words in his mouth when you say he praised the HUAC. He said you gotta reserve a little judgement. Or in other words they intended to do the right thing, doesn't that count for something? Bill Maher is supposed to go for the laughs, the show started on comedy central, PI is a comedy show. As for how much he knows, he's not supposed to be the one doing most of the talking. Maher knew Ellison hated Kazam, he probably also knew that Star would be in opposition to HE's position. The topics Maher picks are geared to his panel, not so Maher can show off how knowledgable he is. He covers at least 10 topics a week how can he know them all in depth. Sometimes he'll come from a position where he doesn't have all the information, but I bet he knew more than 95% of the audience did. How much do you know about how the communist regime treated it's subjects, what about the HUAC how much do you know about it? Not just generally, but details to the extent that HE and FF do? If you're going to pick anybody, pick on Star she carried most of the discussion. Jason

Todd Mason
- Thursday, January 30, 1997 at 16:59:35 (CST)

Jason, I certainly didn't call Maher a dolt, but I did strongly imply that his commentary was shallow and ill-informed. He goes for the easy laugh, and rarely seems to have thought too hard about any subject he brings up. Praising HUAC's witchhunt in Hollywood in front of someone who was blacklisted by them (if my memory of Finkel's situation is correct) is well past "pi" or even rude. And, how exactly was blacklisting actors, writers, directors and others in the film/television/radio industry a real blow against International Communism? As opposed to a vicous publicity stunt? And how many forms of government in the 1950s, particularly, were not evil, or at least dominated by those who fostered or at very least tolerated evil?

keegan
- Thursday, January 30, 1997 at 13:57:07 (CST)

I still cannot accept that the way to topple totalitarian government is to act like a totalitarian government. Kind of a "pot calling the kittle..." case. In my opinion, that's what HUAC was doing. Sure, what was going on behind the Iron Curtain was evil, but two wrongs don't make a right. What? Do we exonerate Hitler just because he was personally a nice guy? Sure, I'll reserve judgement, but when "they" come for me (and if you think that sort of stuff *can't* happen again, you're burying your head in the sand) then I'll be screaming and yelling when they take me away. I hope somebody else will be screaming on my behalf, or at least on behalf of the Constitution. Quite frankly, I'm frightened by the curtailing of rights in the name of "safety" or "decency". This "forgetting" or glossing of history does not bode well for future generations. BTW, Todd, I'm taking a grad class in Choral Rehearsal and Vocal Techniques. After my audition on March 22, I should be admitted to matriculation as a masters' student in Music Education. Stick with what works, I say.

Jason
- Thursday, January 30, 1997 at 11:03:08 (CST)

All right, not a lot of time but I want to talk about PI. First off, yes the opening segement was slow, but that's not what I want to talk about, I really have a problem with all you people knocking Bill Maher. He's not stupid, comedians by nature are smart people they almost have to be, especially someone who takes current events and pop culture as their fodder for their material, (as opposed to their personal life) So no Bill Maher is not a dolt. As for what he said, lets keep it straight, he said he wasn't alive back thentwice, once when he was introducing the topic, and personally I think it had more to do with relating to the audience if nothing else. The second time he does it is when he comes to argue on Star's behalf. (And maybe he was arguing on her side partly because Star was outnumbered 3 to 1, not to mention she was up against HE which is like being outnumbered three to one in the first place) He didn't say that the HUAC was justified he said "Anyone who did something to bring it down, gotta reserve a little judgement." Big difference. He also said that empire not communism was evil, which it was, even HE didn't argue that point. What Bill Maher was saying, at least to me was, look I wasn't there, but from what I know, what was happening behind the Iron curtain, was really awful, so maybe the people who were trying to stop it weren't as bad as you think they are. A kind of right idea wrong method statement. Which I think is valid, flawed, but valid. HE's response follows that thread, by attacking Bill's belief that the HAUC was trying to bring down communism. As for the breaks, they make sense. PI has two or three topics a night, and four breaks. Why it looks like there's so many, is because they're bunched together near the end to break up the topics. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bill uses the commercial break to brief his guests on what the next topic will be so that when the lights come back on they're ready to go. As for the ending or lack of one, well look at it this way arguments don't really end do they? Especially not in less than half an hour. And what conclusion do you want to see? Everyone agreeing (unlikely) or everyone agreeing to disagree (boring)? As for one final note *SUE* don't you think it just a little bit paranoid for you to suggest that went to a commercial break because HE put his feet up on a table? Especially since his feet came down only when he leaned in to talk about Kazan not before? Jason

Todd "Prolix" Mason
- Wednesday, January 29, 1997 at 10:35:42 (CST)

Congratulations, Keegan! Grad studies in Voice, Music Theory, Education, or what? Communism, in the sense of Leninism or the Communist Party of the USA and its many offshoots and alliances from about 1920 onward, has an extremely mixed legacy. Some Communists bravely faced oppression, both for being Communists and on behalf of other oppressed groups. The also were were required to tow the Party Line at all times, leading to such delightful flip-flops as the voiding of the Non-Aggression Pact with the Nazis in WW2. They would often lie, often because they were forced to, often because they were told to. They would ostracize others who dared question the Party's goals or the wisdom of the Politburo. It was (and remains) a ridiculously hierarchical organization, devoted to the philosophy that the enemies of socialism are vicious (true), so the only way socialism can survive is if it's focused on the whims, I mean gifted leadership, of poobahs who of course are the kind of all-wise individuals as we in this country have as CEOs and Federal Reserve Board members (horribly wrong). It's "beating the people with the people's stick", as Noam Chomsky enjoys quoting Bakunin criticizing Marx. The Communists (CP USA) have hated not only every offshoot from their group (from the Trotskyists of the Socialist Workers Party through the Maoist groups of sorts such as the Revolutionary Communist Party to even more fringy groups such as the Sparticist League), but also all Socialists and anarchists and anyone else who suggested that socialism did Not mean shooting or imprisoning anyone who thought Stalin (or his less loony successors) a thug. They would get into unions and often would take instructions from their "masters", "comrades", superiors in the Party structure. This does not make them much different than the various other people at the heads of unions who were in the pockets of industrialists, the Mafia, or even the Democratic Party. Btw, last I checked, not only could you not become a US citizen if you admitted to being a Communist, but also if you said you were an anarchist. So much for freedom of thought...and no such provision was made for fascists.

keegan <same>
i'm with the dreamers, the lovers; the seers, - Tuesday, January 28, 1997 at 21:10:38 (CST)

Hi, folks. Been checking in, but am far too busy even to babble. Jazz life is good and I am now a pseudo-grad student. Taped PI last night and just watched it. Yes, it was prickly in the room, but isn't that part of we're watching for? Good, old-fashioned, face-to-face debate. I think it's a shame that a fight cuts to commercial. Still, I was entertained and what's more, it left me talking and thinking with my husband. Have to say I'm with the "Jews" on the Red Scare thing. It *was* a kangaroo court and Kazan *did* sell out his colleagues. The ideal of America, as I was taught, is that we have the right to hold any political viewpoint we want so long as we express our views Civilly and live Peacefully. I don't think that being a Communist (or professing to be one--most people don't know what one really is) a threat to civil rule and domestic peace. The other thing that pissed me off was Maher and Star Parker admitted that they didn't know much about, nor did they live through, the time, yet argued so passionately that careers ruined by innuendo, hearsay, and twisted logic was a small price to pay in protecting our country from what was, on our soil anyway, an unpopular and ultimately impractical ideology. The US didn't kill Communism. It killed itself. I just think they are quick to forgive injustices simply because they weren't commited against them. Kazan's films stand as great art, but what he gave with the left hand, he stole with the right. I dunno. Just how it struck me.

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@ismi.net>
Whew!, I thought I was the only one.. - Tuesday, January 28, 1997 at 14:35:50 (CST)

*TODD* Gotta agree with you. Saw the show. Harlan got off to a slow start..what with Fuyver (sp?) being such a "nice" guy, and an orthodox jew, and such a Good Appologist.. slowed down even more during the incredibly boring "ethnicity" portion of the show.. And no sooner did the discussion _finally_ get rolling on the Eli Kazan/HUAC thing - than it got chopped to bits with frequent Strategic Commercial Breaks, and "bleeps".. Didn't even HAVE an end - just kinda cut off for the Bobby Bland Show.. None of the guests really got to 'make a point', since the show cut to commercial as soon as one seemed likely to be made.. Maher has never been an intellectual light - his 'gift' is to give that illusion to other faintly glowing "brains" (I still think he found the perfect vehicle for his talents when he was in "Amazon Women Of The Avacado Jungle").. And the simple self-awareness that he is ignorant has never been a major obstacle to him expressing decisive opinions - he did say that HUAC was justified because Communism is 'evil'.. Course, that omits the fact that facism, and democracy work the same way when a totalitarian regime takes over the administration of it.. Only proves what a dolt he is.. As for the 'point' about "ratting" - no points. There's a big difference between testifying in a criminal proceeding, where the presumption is innocence, and the case must be proven to the jury and appeals exhausted before a punishment is enforced - and accusing people of treason for exercising their constitutional rights a decade or more since, with no warrants, no evidence, no charges, no laws broken, no injured parties, no impartial jury, no appeals - and an immediate punishment that destroys the ability of accused to work for a living. I'm not even sure how anyone in their right mind could think the two have any more in common than "someone accused".. I found the show boring for the first half - and frustrating for the second half. Sorry I didn't let the VCR go it alone.. But I did like seeing HE park his feet on the table(immediate commercial break), return to feet-free table scenario, and watching HE restrain the natural urge for the balance of the show.. Hey! It's a GOOD thing for recovering heart patients to put their feet up.. The Medico's tell them to.. prevents clots and swelling.. GAaargh.. I think I'll stick to the reading.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Joel W. Tscherne <calvin@apk.net>
Cleveland, OH USA - Tuesday, January 28, 1997 at 13:01:58 (CST)

As someone who enjoys Politically Incorrect I have to say that I thought HE's appearance was pretty much in line with the show. I've seen some shows in which all panel members agreed with everything and that's boring. I think they spent way too much time discussing the whole 'melting pot' topic. I will say that the show made me want to pull out Edgeworks and read some more stuff!

Todd Mason
- Tuesday, January 28, 1997 at 12:29:42 (CST)

I'm pretty sure the fourth panelist was a newspaper columnist, and her name was Starr something. And she did get a few good licks in because Ellison and Perlman allowed the discussion of Kazan at the House Un-American Activities Committee to devolve into "One shouldn't tattle" rather than "One shouldn't cooperate with a harmful farce, which pretends to significantly stem the tide of evil in the world when it's really just denying some relatively defenseless people of their livelihoods, for no genuinely good reason." Starr ---- didn't make this point, but did suggest that if we can't tattle, how can we testify? Oh, well. Maybe next time.

Todd Mason <FoxxBrick@AOL.Com>
- Tuesday, January 28, 1997 at 11:56:22 (CST)

Thanks again, Jason, and thank you, too, Rick (and for hosting us all). As I begin to type, no one else has yet reacted to the PI episode, which was pretty typical of this series. As those who saw it know, Ellison was on with Rhea Perlman (Pearlmann? Perlmann?), she of CHEERS and PEARL; Fyvush Finkel, he of Yiddish theater and PICKET FENCES, and a neoconservative-sounding Afro-American woman, perhaps a newspaper columnist or radio host, whose name I don't recall. Despite getting off a joke that stymied host Bill Maher momentarily, Ellison probably wasn't as effective as he would've hoped. Maher got off on a trip about the supposed injustice that Elia(h?) Kazan (not a good name day for me!) has been denied a life acheivement award by either the LA Film Critics' Circle or the American Film Institute. Ellison was particularly enervated by the notion that Kazan should be forgiven for narking on Communists, supposed Communists and fellow-travelers before HUAC in the early '50s (to save his own career, Ellison was quick to note and even the bumptious Maher didn't deny). Maher kept pointing out that he hadn't been alive during the early witchhunts in Hollywood, but goshdarn it those Commies were evil so rooting them out of the studio and network writing, directing and acting jobs Saved Our Freedom. Actually, Maher typically didn't think hard enough about what he was saying to realize that Commie film-directors or Popular Front radio actors or Progressive Party-voter dancers may not have been the most insidious threat to Our Freedom...compared with Loyalty Oaths, the establishment of a permanent War Economy, or the unleashing of the nascent CIA to join the already amok FBI. Ellison didn't quite get this out, nor did Perlman, nor Finkel, who spent most of his time either trying to be the kind of "character" he played on PICKET FENCES or irritated by Ellison's manner and use of Yiddish terms ("momser" et alles; Ellison's description of ultra-Orthodox Jews as crazy didn't endear him to Orthodox Finkel, either). I'm not sure I remember this correctly, but I think Finkel himself had been blacklisted as one of the Named...perhaps Maher might want to actually read his guests bios before blithely endorsing pathetic attempts at repression that did manage to interrupt and diminish many people's lives...just because they had some sort of connection to an unpopular political movement, one no more threatening to the US Constitution (actually less) than, say, the Christian Coalition today. Finkel dragged out the chestnut about how our laws are based on the Bible (as if pre-Jewish peoples didn't have systems of law that had significant influence on Jewish as well as other subsequent legal codes), and the interruptions of the commercials made sure that nothing was too deep (haven't timed it, but I suspect that the ABC PI has more commercial time than the Comedy Central one...). With Ellison getting silenced a few times for "strong language" (does anyone else find it disturbing that "goddamn" could be said on, say, ALL IN THE FAMILY in the '70s but can't make it past US network censors except on PBS since the rise of the Moral Majority and its fellow-travelers?) and his general enthusiasm on the show, I wonder if he'll be back on...and get a chance to make his case more thoroughly...

Rick Wyatt
- Monday, January 27, 1997 at 22:37:37 (CST)

POLITICALLY INCORRECT will be aired on ABC tonight, my schedule says 11:30pm CST (that's 12:30am eastern). Sorry about the lack of notice on the web page, but Harlan let me know about it when I was on business in Chicago and I didn't get back in time to slap a blurb on the top of Webderland...

Reminder
- Monday, January 27, 1997 at 20:40:56 (CST)

Harlan will be on POLITICALLY INCORRECT tonight, folks! Set your VCRs.

Ray Ferrell <RFerr10426@AOL.com>
Pioche, Nevada U.S.A. - Monday, January 27, 1997 at 16:59:36 (CST)

I read a short story of Harlan Elison's but I can no longer remember the name of the story. It is about a mathematician who is forecasting an earthquake but the computer does not agree with him. I wish to use the story in a science-fiction unit I am developing for use in my English classes. Please help me.

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@ismi.net>
That's Right, A NEW e-mail - and server - Monday, January 27, 1997 at 16:56:23 (CST)

So now you know what I've been doing.. Still have to finish off all the 'change of e-mail' notifications.. I'm not dead yet.. Just seems like it.. It's a hassle - but one we decided was the least of two evils, when the old server tech support guy told me I was getting disconnected because I was trying to log on while I was on the net already (quite a feat with One computer and One modem) - and for _only_ $45 he'd let me bring my computer to his shop and he would 'look' at it, and tell me what was wrong.. The Netscape support guys tells me I'm being diconnected by the server.. Hhhhmmm... New server.. I'll be back.. I promise.. With HE things to chew on.. I hope.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Todd Mason
- Sunday, January 26, 1997 at 13:38:33 (CST)

Thanks, Jason. However remotely, I guess this means that Ellison is working for Disney again (see "The Three Most Important Things in Life" or words to that effect, in STALKING THE NIGHTMARE). Wonder when Ellison will next get on Tom Snyder's LATE LATE SHOW...somehow, I doubt we'll see him on LATE SHOW or TONIGHT anytime soon. Bruce Sterling was once on NIGHTLINE, he noted irrelevantly...wonder if anyone's keeping track of skiffy authors on tube (I was not too long ago given a dub of Ellison being interviewed by an acquaintance of mine name Rich Eiswerth for a northern NY public tv station ca. 1975...Eiswerth and Ellison looked like they could be brothers, and Ellison's pants-legs were flared wide enough to fit many women as a skirt...exigencies of fashion...

Jason
- Saturday, January 25, 1997 at 10:01:55 (CST)

I've been busy and it looks like isn't going to let up for the next while, so I'm just dropping off a bit of news HE will be on politically incorrect on Monday

YO!
USA - Friday, January 24, 1997 at 10:18:49 (CST)

Testing one two three. Is this thing on?

DTS
- Monday, January 20, 1997 at 22:01:32 (CST)

In answer to the questions below: I've got it, and the story is entitled "The Dreams a Nightmare Dreams." You can find it in the Mark Ziesing edition of "Slippage," coming out in a matter of weeks, or in the scaled down trade version published by Houghton Mifflin on June 24th.

Stefan <fascist@vt.edu>
a little left of heaven, - Monday, January 20, 1997 at 12:25:21 (CST)

Has anybody got the Species screensaver? The reason why I'm asking is that I read that HE wrote a story especially for the thing and it's the only place to read it. The MGMUA page was pretty damn ambiguous, too - just that HE wrote it and the title (which now escapes me). Some teaser!

keegan again
- Sunday, January 19, 1997 at 11:21:53 (CST)

And, yes. I know the essay about the singer. It really lifted my spirits. As have all of you here that offer your encouragement and indulge my jazzspeak here. Love you madly! -/:>)

keegan
- Sunday, January 19, 1997 at 11:17:36 (CST)

Hey, Todd! I just got home from "work". A suprise sideman on the gig last night was the bassist, who just also happens to be my children's godfather! He was crashing at the vibes player's house and I was invited to come along. Ended up watching "Bird" on Cinemax till we just couldn't stay awake any more. I'm glad my husband is a mellow and understanding jazz spouse. The "hang" is at least *half* the fun. Gig went well (ya know, I realized that when I'm not complaining about the gig I have, I'm complaining that I don't have any gigs. Guess I'd oughta just stop complainin'!). It was *truly* fun. New club. The owner is the one who's really into the fusion. Funny- the folks in the club reacted much more positively to the swing. By the end of the night, we figured out what the people wanted. Maybe we'll be back. I'd like to do it again. The room was nice. Music? Hmmm...not without mistakes, but pretty good for a bunch of folk who;ve never played together. It was serviceable and the people danced. That's a good sign. I'm looking for a rehearsal next time, though. No, the Voices weren't playing across town (thank god) but what I meant to say is that they were nominated for a grammy. Somehow, I just couldn't get it out. And those Lambert, Hendricks, and Ross records with Basie? Know 'em and love 'em dearly! The Voices do "Farmer's Market" on the Basie-band record. It's a nice tribute. And, man, I think that band may be swingin' harder than ever. Basie, we miss ya, but Long Live KC Swing!!!!

Mason
- Sunday, January 19, 1997 at 08:44:37 (CST)

How was the gig, that is, of course! And did you mean to type that the NY Voices were playing across town? Geez.

Todd Mason <FoxxBrick@AOL.irritate>
Philadelphia, - Sunday, January 19, 1997 at 08:38:37 (CST)

Keegan! You go. And as the Gholy Thext will tell you (I refer to the essay in EDGE IN MY VOICE about the pop singer whose career went on hold for fifteen? years), there are plenty of Second Acts in American Lives. Interesting that the American Voices have recorded with the Frank Foster Basie Memorial band, inasmuch as you might remember that Lambert, Hendricks, & Ross (the original bebop singing group, or at least the one most associated with both fitting lyrics to the improvisational lines of instrumentalists and general post-bop choral work, and devastating when really on) recorded SING A SONG OF BASIE first...SING ALONG WITH BASIE came later (so much for them being essentially bop--these expository lumps inserted for those who might care, but don't know). How was it?

James C. Hess <104656.765@compuserve.com>
- Saturday, January 18, 1997 at 12:19:36 (CST)

Hello, one and all. Just a quick note before I leap back onto the plane and head to...where the Hell was I going again? Yes, I *am* still about. Haven't gotten over to these parts for awhile I know, but can't be helped, really. (I try. I really do.) Anyway, the topics look interesting and I would say more but, can't. So drop me a line if'n youse want. (Hopefully the dump system will be up and working again when and IF you do, and you won't get a wonky message to the effect the box is full. Again.) Until next time...

keegan
- Saturday, January 18, 1997 at 11:02:32 (CST)

Oooops. Neglected to say (in my parenthetical wanderings) that The Voices were nominated for a Grammy Award. I hope they win, 'cause the record is BURNIN'!!!

keegan
- Saturday, January 18, 1997 at 10:55:03 (CST)

Yes, Todd, the gig is tonight (and it is a *real* gig, even if the pay amounts to 'bout as much as music moola). I'm taking a little break from the woodshed to hit the board and find my ass ('cause I've been practicing it off since about 8 am). The problem isn't my voice, it's the material. It's good stuff, but I don't really "know" it. That's what I'm doing--learning tunes and writing charts. I only pray the band can read or that they are sensitive enough to follow the form and feel by ear. Dunno. Never worked with 'em. And on competition here's a bit more personal narrative: I'm working a two-bit gig tonight but I got word last night that The New York Voices (a group established by Ithaca College alumnus Darmon Meader who incidently grew up in Maine. His high-school choir teacher was the man who initially taught *me* jazz). They were nominated for a *killer* cd they made with the Basie band (and Mr. Mason-go find it, man. It cooks hard!). These are people who had the same training and background as me, but managed to organize something wonderful, unique, and tight then found a commercial niche for their music. I don't begrudge them their honors because to do so would be foolish bitterness. They are superlative and recognition is their due. Still, I can't help wondering why them and not me. What am I doing so horribly wrong? I have to *remind* myself that it ain't about the fame, it's about the music. I've made choices (marrying; raising a family, taking a day-gig as a teacher) that don't really lead down the path to Grammyland. Whatever. It hurts (in a small, selfish way) but that's why I sing the blues, baby. Maybe my turn will come someday if I work hard and keep my priorities straight. Oh, why do I feel like Mr. Holland????? P.S. I think the gig will go alright. I'm a pro, and I'm ready. Think of me from 9-1 tonight!

Todd Mason <Foxxbrick@Aol.com>
Philadelphia, Love it or Change it - Saturday, January 18, 1997 at 09:48:56 (CST)

Wow. So much to half-agree with, particularly with you, Sue. But cooperation is very much part of human nature, else we wouldn't be such a group animal. The notion that we exist in a cooperation-free, solely competitive society is nonsense, or else every four-way stop intersection would be an auto graveyard. Socialism, like capitalism, has never been put into practice in a pure sense, and communism, by which I assume you mean Lenin & Co, Steve, has perpetuated misery because it was established in countries full of misery and was designed to alleviate that misery most acutely for members of the Party's ruling Politburo. Steve, the notion that biomedical research could only happen if the researcher hopes to get rich and famous, or if her sister or dog is dying of the disease in question, strikes me as remarkably untrue. One can be famous without being competitive, for what that's worth, but more importantly, people do biomed research most often because it's what fascinates them, ditto most other research. It's much easier to get rich other ways, even for people of somewhat similar mindsets--plastic surgery pays better than cancer cure tests, and so does HMO administration. Among the benefit the researcher sees is the elimination of one more disease or deadly condition from the list that can get us all, including the researcher. Likewise, in the corporatist (conservatism and capitalism compromising) society we live in, competition can lead to more effective cures being suppressed at least temporarily because they might threaten profits from previously-released cures...also, competition-emphasis leads to applied-science researchers keeping data from one another, moreso than simple glory-seeking and turf-protection leads "pure" researchers to keep info from one another, so that various firms (and, increasingly, alarmingly, universities) can have that edge in patent or other sorts of profit. Steve, you dismiss out of hand the notion that a company, forced to clean up its own pollution mess, might do so out of its profits...when, of course, "guvmint" mandates should force "bizness" to do just that, rather than taking the brunt of their previous bad practice out on workers or customers...but the mandates, when created and enforced at all, won't do so because this country, like all countries, is and has always been about aiding the elite in the maintennance of their privilege. A few sops to the rest, unless they can demand more, then they get some slightly tastier sops. Sue--the notion that we are somehow divorced from natural selection just because we manipulate our environment in vast ways is also untrue. Natural selection means solely the current state of affairs has been caused by the interplay of species and their non-living environment. Just because not too many humans are successfully hunted by leopards at this time doesn't mean that we are divorced from the natural world--we are of the natural world, whether we live in a tent in Nepal or a cave on Oahu or in a steel box in Manhattan or a clean room in Las Vegas with Kleenex boxes on our feet. Natural selection has allowed human s to create vast messy habitats, mess over our environs to some extent for ourselves and others, and protect ourselves in some ways (but not yet others) from predation. This just makes us more ambitious beavers. Unlike beavers, we have a clear sense of what we are doing to our environs (or some of us do, others of us are trying to survive the side effects of our vast-habitat-creation, such as the fallout from imperialism)...but like beavers, most of us are too busy trying to simply survive (which in the human case includes getting a handle on what we can do to improve things) to do as much as we'd like to ameliorate our damages and strengthen our improvements. After all that, Keegan--hope the gig goes (went?) well! (This one IS a gig, yes?)

keegan
- Friday, January 17, 1997 at 14:01:38 (CST)

Hey, guys, I appreciate your feedback! I like AHavoc's ideas immensely, but Steve nailed the problems on the head. One thing I really like about the bank idea is that I learned almost *nothing* about banking before I went to college. I had no idea how to handle a checking account or a bank card. I never had a clue until I passed a couple of bad checks. Maybe if the *kids* ran the bank themselves--it could be an especially great learning experience for fifth graders. My school, according to the NY State "report card" does a great job of teaching math (we're weaker in reading and writing). Oh, and about arithmetic: my first public school gig was teaching Chapter I (think "remedial") math and part of that was strengthening deficient addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I found that some kids had little interest in arithmetic until you pointed out how arithmetic could save them from getting ripped off once they started earning money. It's a motivator for some, but I agree that math should be taught in variety of ways. Oh, the other thing I used to tell them was that math facts are truth. Two plus two never equals five, and if it does, suspect a lie. Again, thanks for your feedback. Hey, has anyone run out and picked up VIBE yet? I just finished a big concert so I won't be *running* anywhere soon! P.S.: I'm playing at Interludes on Montgomery Street in Binghamton tomorrow. I ain't promising a great gig, since it's not my normal style (I'll be singing rock and fusion instead of straight ahead jazz). I plan to have fun and do my best. Hope nobody shoots. When given directions I was told that I should drive down Montgomery Street "and just about the time you think you're gonna get jumped, look around 'cause you're there." Gawd, I hope it's not *that* bad! -/:>)

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@htonline.com>
- Friday, January 17, 1997 at 13:50:16 (CST)

Well, sit back, and get comfy - this may be leangthy.. in response to *STEVE* "I cannot agree with you because you are not defining many of your terms -- for example, what do you mean by a cooperation-based sociological structure?" How about the co-operation of scientists and acedemics in to pool knowlege and resources in professional societies? "Why would it work?" Dunno - but it seems to work quite well. Always has. Works for bees and ants, and humans work it best - took it right over the top with language and technology.. Set us apart from the animals, and allowed us to progress without evolving (I use the scientific Darwinian definition of 'evolution') into the planets dominant species. "Why is cooperation better than competition?" Well, it does allow for division of labor, and synergy right off the top.. And it does allow for knowlege and technology to develope in geometric orders of expansion. "None of these have been addressed, in that I haven't seen any base evidence in what you write to support your statements." Oooohhh, take a look around you - see any ecological niches nature evolved?? The computer?? The chair?? The room?? The temperture?? I'd say there's TONS of base evidence to support my statement that Natural Selection no longer applies to Homo Sapiens.. We addapt our environments to us, not the other way around. I'd say by definition, that makes Natural Selection null and void - along with the evolution which results from it. "I have pointed out several things that would be bad about a cooperation-based society, and some good things we get from a competition-based society; what good things would come from a cooperation-based society?" Since co-operation has in fact been incorporated into social structures as the best way to facilitate progress, it is not a question of good/bad results in a black/white division of causation. Can't be done. What can be done, is recognize that co-operation never was subject to Natural Selection, because it never was a basic drive - which makes it less vulnerable to manipulation and re-direction without choice being exercised by each individual participating. "Why is competition something 'base' while cooperation is not?" Because 'base' is an adjective derived from 'basic' which refers to innate qualities - competition is, co-operation isn't. It is does not denote any 'moral' value. "What is meant by 'base'?" ibid "Can we stop Natural Selection, and should we?" Too late. We have. The weak, disabled, sick, old, and even the stupid are thriving without the culling of Natural Selection. "My last comment is that I think it's pretty clear that to stop Natural Selection / Competition more than just curbing it a bit to keep it from destroying us, is an inherently bad thing." I agree - that's the problem I addressed.. what to do with basic drives that no longer serve a natural function. "I think it's clear that the world we live in is a far from perfect place, and that if we stop competition [too much], we stop evolution -- including stopping any possibility of getting rid of the inherent stupidity of the human race. We'd be stuck in the status quo for who knows how long....)" And we ARE, we ARE!! Our ability to change the world around us long ago outstripped our ablility to change ourselves. We continue to pile up knowlege and technology at a duzzying pace - but people haven't changed since they began keeping records of themselves. You are free to think, believe, and live your life as you will. As I said, it won't change my life, and I don't expect to change yours. But please ignore my POV if it doesn't suit you, rather than attempting to 'debunk' it. *KEEGAN* I happen to think your idea is Wonderful. Children need to learn about The Way It Is. Whether or not we approve or agree with the way things are, kids still have to deal with the facts as they stand - and giving them the opportunity to 'play' the learning also gives them the opportunity to 'invent' new rules to play by.. Way To Go!!! Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Ahavoc <sitting@the.dock.on.the.bay>
East Coast of the North American Continent, freezing our gonads off ooo ess ah - Friday, January 17, 1997 at 12:55:17 (CST)

Yes, Steve. That's the drawback I see as well, but if kept on a small scale? Maybe even apart from formal math class? Don't know, it was just a thought. All that really matters is that the kids learn from the idea, and they are learning. Have to run, will check in later...

Steve Pagano <zazu@spectra.net>
- Friday, January 17, 1997 at 12:16:50 (CST)

*keegan* I think your idea is fantastic! It teaches kids a number of good skills, all mentioned before, so I won't just keep repeating others' words. :) *AHavoc* I think it could be interesting to extend the workings of that 'money' sort of idea, but I'm not sure it'd work. I like the idea of trying to encourage kids to do something fun with math (math is my field), but at the same time I'd shy away from the bank idea for the *math* department because way too many kids have the idea that the only thing *to* math is arithmetic and geometry, and the accounting-as-math idea just reinforces that, unfortunately. :( Also, there's the problem with the prototypical 'too many cooks spoil the broth' idea; while keegan doing the money thing alone might be really wonderful (and I certainly think it is), spreading it out to include other departments, other teachers, and potentially a lot more students could very likely damage the results of the program -- it might go from something fun and intimate, to something blase and overregulated. :( This gets a lot into differing styles of teaching, which is another really neat subject, but one I'm not sure is wholly appropriate for this forum. In short, what works for one teacher won't necessarily work for another, simply because of differing personas and styles of teaching -- and also because of differing personalities of the students!

AHavoc <sitting@the.dock.of.the.bay>
on the East Coast of Amurica, Slightly off center.... ooo ess ah - Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 21:01:08 (CST)

And I hit the wrong button before I was finished, so go down to the post below and then come back here. I think you all get the drift. I believe we're talking a need "morality" (God, I hate to use that word), or at least a "value system", and everyone should have their own of course. But it seems that we're seeing a breakdown of any kind of "value system" being handed down to each generation, as was done by Africans, Native Americans, Maori, and countless other societies throughout the ages. I'm not trying to say that anyone should force their "value system" upon another. I'm just saying that their should be a general "value system" we can all agree upon that we can teach our children that can keep the "intent" of what we do at a level that causes the least bit of harm to another. Now you can rip me to shreds.

VIBE MAGAZINE <vibe@vibe.com>
- Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 20:57:59 (CST)

Thought you knew everything there was to know about Star Trek? Read about the way racial awareness and tension has always been in the background of Star Trek's history in the February 1997 issue of Vibe magazine--with exclusive commentary by Nichelle Nichols, Michael Dorn, LeVar Burton, Avery Brooks, HARLAN ELLISON, George Takei, Cirroc Lofton, Robert Beltran, Garrett Wang, Roxann Dawson, and Tim Russ. On sale now!

AHavoc <moopie@tiac.com>
On the edge of the eastern US, Confusion turning into coherence ooo ess ah - Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 20:52:22 (CST)

Keegan, I think that you've developed a great system that teaches more than music, but as you said, responsibility, generosity, and the understanding of being rewarded for work done. I was thinking though, perhaps you should get the math departments involved as well. Perhaps they could set up a "bank" and have accounts so they don't lose their money and they could learn how to keep their own accounts. (To a small degree of course.) This could also be extended into a Social Studies course, (do they teach that anymore?), in understanding how the money system works in the "real" world. But perhaps it's too much to ask a school to incorporate an idea like that and develop it to such an extent. Still, I thought it interesting. Next thought....it's interesting how we went from baby beauty pagents, to personal competition, to communism and capitalism, to sports, ad infinitum. If your going to use "competition" as the impetus for society and social systems in general, couldn't war/domination be the ultimate competition? Hasn't it been used as a great excuse for "Natural Selection"? (Ethnic Cleansing: Bosnia, Rwanda, WWII Germany, South Africa etc.) And there's so many other examples throughout history. I guess my point is, it's not so much that competition is good/bad. I believe it's neutral. It comes down to "intent". And that has nothing to do with competition. That comes down to one's personal beliefs. So if we're talking Baby Beauty Pagents, you've really got the parents competing through their children, and the "intent" is what's screwed up. And if you're talking sports, if the "intent" is to intentionally harm the other player, (and I'm not talking boxing here), then the rules are clear that that player who screws someone up is OUTTA THERE

the never-just-lurking keegan <keegan@lightlink.com>
they say confession is good for the soul, - Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 19:50:47 (CST)

This whole conversation made me wonder about the value of my classroom motivational techniques. See, I *pay* my students to do their work. I figure: “I get paid to be serious about music(and by serious, I don’t mean dour. I mean staying focused and organized to really cook on a piece). Why shouldn’t they?” Anyway, I minted my own funny munny on the office Xerox and a kid gets paid one “C-note” (and there is actually a picture of the treble staff with a big, accented “c” in the third space. It’s surrounded by all that falderal you find around the dead president’s head on greenbacks). The kids collect them and can trade them in for a variety of prizes. It isn't based on ability. Ability is awarded with performance opportunity and public recogniztion. Anyone, even the most kinetic Attention Deficit kid can get moola. You get it for doing your best and playing by the rules. This conversation has left me wondering if my technique might be sacrificing these young, trusting minds to the evil, gaping, maw of THEM. Here is my pro/con list. It looks ever so lovely in Word (from whence I write) but I imagine Goldblum will spit all over it and turn it into a partially -digested, run-on sentence. Any feedback would be appreciated, but if y’all think it’s just-TOO-damned-MUCH-already -keegan, then I apologize. I don’t see any referees........ ***Music Moola**** PRO: Kids can touch and organize it It’s theirs It’s daily reinforcement for following the rules It recognizes effort and cooperation It leads to a variety of rewards It is accessible to all students It can be traded for a positive, token reward It is a chance to interact with each individual student in class each day Many kids enjoy the moola incentive. CON: Some kids don’t buy into the idea and give moola away. That’s cool. I’m all in favor of liberal generosity and generally , the kids who give moola away are well behaved anyway. They give their moola away because they have TONS of it, and the big prize (for collecting 20) is free time in the library during music class. They spend 15 and give the other 5 away just to feel good. These are good kids. They don’t *need* moola. One child tried to trade friendship for moola. We discussed the issue of trying to buy your friends. I pay close attention to this child and try to feed him. He is an intelligent boy with a geeky demeanor and a less than happy home life. He doesn’t have the smoothest personality. Remind you of anyone *you* knew? Some children lose moola and become frustrated when they learn that they can’t just have some more (these children usually learn responsibility quickly. They devse strategies to hang on to their moola). It’s a lot of work for me to keep prizes in stock. It's time I could spend practicing (or, hell!-relaxing!). It places children in an adult paradigm (although it could be argued that the process is sufficiently “gamelike” as to be no more harmful than Monopoly. It’s an acting excercise. I teach them to *act* like professionals. Of course they’re going to “act” badly! They’re kids! It’s my job to TEACH ‘em how to ACT better. Still, perhaps there is a more inclusive and less time-consuming way to teach the values I need to teach. Creative wheels are creaking into action...... Okay, rant over. I don't care if you care. Just don't shoot! -/:>)

Steve again
- Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 16:51:23 (CST)

Short side comment: something keegan mentioned reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. I simply cannot stand to watch a sporting event wherein it's clear that the officiating is questionable. :P Just had to mention it. :) Now back to work....

Steve Pagano <zazu@spectra.net>
- Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 16:49:04 (CST)

*keegan* Yup, I think that you pretty much summed it up. Anything in an extreme is not good. *Sue* I cannot agree with you because you are not defining many of your terms -- for example, what do you mean by a cooperation-based sociological structure? Why would it work? Why is cooperation better than competition? None of these have been addressed, in that I haven't seen any base evidence in what you write to support your statements. *Bill* I assumed you meant that Conservatism meant to get of all restraints to competition, because you never specifically stated you meant less than that, and to me the implication was clear (*shrug*). I also have the problem that you're not giving any real, direct evidence to support your arguments. *In general* What qualities are possessed by cooperation that make it inherently better than competition? Is 'greed' something that can be objectively defined? I have pointed out several things that would be bad about a cooperation-based society, and some good things we get from a competition-based society; what good things would come from a cooperation-based society? Why is competition something 'base' while cooperation is not? What is meant by 'base'? Can we stop Natural Selection, and should we? (My last comment is that I think it's pretty clear that to stop Natural Selection / Competition more than just curbing it a bit to keep it from destroying us, is an inherently bad thing. I think it's clear that the world we live in is a far from perfect place, and that if we stop competition [too much], we stop evolution -- including stopping any possibility of getting rid of the inherent stupidity of the human race. We'd be stuck in the status quo for who knows how long....)

keegan
- Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 15:15:55 (CST)

I think I get it. The problem is greed and ego, not necessarily competition itself. Competition, especially where money is involved, has the potential to feed greed and ego to unhealthy proportion. Remember, the saying ain't "Money is the root of all evil". It's "The *love* of money is the root of all evil". Does that make sense?

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@htonline.com>
Hawg Holler, Where the Interlecturals is.. - Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 14:02:32 (CST)

Interesting.. Still, facts are facts.. Homo Sapiens *are* part of the natural physical world - and as such, come with the standard package of drives.. Competition is one of them. I missed the part where anyone said it could be eliminated. And that is an insupportable proposition any way. What *was* said, is that the original purpose of Competition no longer applies - but the drive persists, and much like sex, is diverted into unnatural and (and therefor unhealthy) activities to butress social/religious/economic/power structures by using it to motivate unrelated activities determined by those structures to best serve their goals (and of course, that's what's best for ALL of us, isn't it??). What *was* suggested, is that we need a new model for those structures that is based on co-operation. That does not eliminate Competition. It does limit it to activities which individuals choose and consent to participate in, with few consequences for those who _do not_ choose to participate. And *KEEGAN* your example is a good one for what I am saying.. In football, the competition is limited by the imposition of a co-operative structure (the Rules, officiating, and enforcement) on those choosing to participate - and because it is limited, it has few consequences for those who _do not_ choose to participate. BTW - I am becoming less interested in football, as the rules and structures are chipped away at to conform to the social norm of unbridled Winning Is Everthing Competition - simply to make the sport a business. I don't like seeing people *trying* to Hurt other people, and especially not when the only justification is money and ego. That's why I don't watch Basketball any more..and never watched Hockey or Boxing.. *ALL* It makes me feel tired and old to read that I can look forward to spending the rest of my life dealing with the mobius strip logic loop of "It works for me, so Everyone should".. Different things work for different folks.. I don't ask anyone to live their lives the same way I live mine. And don't like it when people insist mine is "wrong", because it isn't sufficiently like theirs.. Trust me on this, it doesn't Change My Life if someone is happily doing _their_ thing, and it isn't what I'm doing.. And simply doing my thing is no threat to anyone else. Bikers have a saying in reference to being asked Why We Ride - "If I gotta explain it to ya, ya won't understand" Seems to apply to a lot of things.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Bill Dennis <wjdennis@earthlink.net>
Salt Bake City, UT - Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 11:57:53 (CST)

Hey, thanks for the responses. ZACK, you start your append by saying that you don't agree with me, but then in one of your closing sentences you state, "For any sort of cooperation based system to work, there needs to a change in the general mindset of the human race," which seems to sum up my argument pretty well. What gives? STEVE, I never said to get rid of competition completely (and, no, I'm no talking about the way the "Press" defines conservatism; I know what true conservatism stands for ). Here's a conservative truism: "You get what you subsidize." Well, vase the driving force of your society on the human penchant for fighting and clawing and trying to best the other guy and guess what you get: a society of people who like to fight and claw and defeat their opposition. You end up elevating the basest to the pinnacle. And as far as the government goes, yeah I may want the federal government "off my back," but I don't want it off my side. I want government ON my side, and fighting for me. Read James Madison's words in the Federalist Papers (which conservatives love to reference). He states clearly that the place of the federal government is to protect us from local tyrannies and State-level injustices. Finally, a word regarding the HE quote about hydrogen and stupidity. I've read a lot of HE, as have most of you. And generally, when HE calls something stupidity, it's not necessarily a lack of knowledge he's ranting about. It's more a lack of forethought brought on by an overabundance of greed. --- Oh, I guess there is one more thing. WM, I don't know if your remarks were directed at me, but I wasn't saying that no one could be strong and overcome adversity. I was merely pointing out that the "what doesn't kill me...etc." saying, as a blanket statement, is not always true--any more than "All Cretans are liars" or "White men can't jump." -- Billy D.

keegan
JOKING - Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 22:24:53 (CST)

CAVEAT: Y'all should know that the following post should be taken in light of the fact that I think LIFE is pretty entertaining. That's not to say that I don't take it seriously (harumph, harumph!) but I think life itself is fun--even when I'm miserable and it don't SEEM like fun. Guess that's why I look both ways when I cross the street. I'm a troop-uh, ba-bee! It might be bad tonight, but watch me swing tomorrow! Am I just, as they say in jazz circles, completely "out"? sssssigh. I think I'd better get some sleep. Carpe (yawn!) zzzzzzzzzz's......

keegan
- Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 22:07:45 (CST)

Hey, Sue- You dig football, right? What is it if not a form of competition? Can we agree that fair competition, if not necessary, is a form of entertainment? It can be fun. For competition to be fun, the participants have to be there of their own free will and volition. They need to agree on rules. They need to enforce the rules, and the fairness of that might require a referee. Problems seem to arise when the ref looks the other way and somebody grabs the "little" guy's facemask so you have to find vigilant and honorable refs. The onlookers need to agree to stay out of the way. Everyone has their part to play. In other words, for competition not to become the Twisted Soul-Eating Monster it can become, it must be kept in perspective. Riots at "football" games in Europe? That's a pretty good example of skewed perspective of fans(and the nasty herd mentality of thousands in an arena when the stampede begins.....). Happens at rock concerts too when everyone wants to ge THE best vantage point. There are times to compete and times to cooperate. Seems like sometimes, you have to do one in order to do the other.

Zack <handlen@lamere.net>
- Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 19:27:25 (CST)

After seriously considering both sides, I think I'm gonna have to side with Steve. (Anybody care? Nope? Good, I'll move on.) Bill's ideas, although morally sound, don't really ring true realistically; too often I've seen a few isolated morons ruin things like "Group Projects" for everybody else. Like a team of horses that can only move as fast as the slowest horse, society tends to gravitate torwards the lowest common denominator. HE has said (and here's a quote everybody here has probably heard half a billion times)"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen... and stupidity." Until we as a race can find some way to deal with the problem of rampant idiocy, any sort of system based on the process of cooperation is doomed to fail. Logically, this is sound; morally, it is a terrifying concept. You look at the world around you some days, and you have to wonder just what the hell's going on. We have ways of communicating to each other from across the globe, we have computers that do gazillions of computations a second, and we've had more technological advances in the past fifty years than in the past fifty centuries; (slight exaggeration here, but you get the point:)and yet, we still have humans on this planet, living among us, who preach "Racial Purity" and shoot others because of minor insults. Granted, discovering new technology hardly ever brings with it the nessecary maturity to deal with that techonology in an intelligent fashion. However, if we're so far advanced that putting a man on the moon doesn't even seem that big of a deal anymore, couldn't we devote a little more scientific research to the curing of jerks? (Quoting Bill Watterson here, case you didn't know.) As it now stands, a society based around the concept of "Natural Selection" is the only way of keeping the intelligent, hard-working people, like ourselves :), from sinking into a pit of mediocrity along with all the other losers. For any sort of cooperation based system to work, there needs to a change in the general mindset of the human race. (Wait a sec- did I just change my opinion completely? I'm now in SUPPORT of competition? Weeeelll, not exactly. Further bulletins as events warrant.) What do you, the viewers at home, think?

The WolfMistress <renee.anderson@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Packer Country, Approaching Oblivion...... - Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 17:56:01 (CST)

Speaking for myself, **I** am my only competitor. I am all that is necessary in the way of competition. If I cannot continually make myself better -- a better person, a better technical engineer, a better citizen -- then what's the point? And no one else would be as hard on me as I am. It's how I survive. What didn't kill me **did** make me stronger because I wouldn't *let* it kill me!!! I still won't. Even when I feel like I do today. Just as a side-note: we will have 60 - 80 BELOW ZERO wind chills tonight. The air temp will be around 18 - 20 below. Extreme cold does singularly nasty things to joints afflicted with advanced degenerative arthritis. Don't fling off something you know nothing about. You *will* fight and you will survive because physical life is a *terminal event* and Humans will forstall the culmination of that event for as long as we are able on an individual basis. "The hardest thing to kill is a dying man (person)", Rudyard Kipling.

Steve Pagano <zazu@spectra.net>
- Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 17:11:00 (CST)

Well, actually, Bill D has way too much wrong. The reason socialism didn't work (nor has 'communism'), nor will it ever, is because of the simple fact that human beings, as a species, are generally much more lazy and stupid than we really should be. A society based on constant cooperation rather than competition has many faults that doom it. No, that doesn't mean one is necessarily *philosphically* better than the other, it means that in *practice* a competitive society is better. This is why: first, all it takes to spoil a cooperative society is a small percentage of individuals, whether acting as a group or acting as scattered instances, to decide not to carry their share due to laziness or lack of brain, and just feed off what other people do (this of course does not include the old, young, or infirm, who of course cannot be expected to do as much). At this point, logic of the individual takes over, and the reasoning goes, "Hey, why do I do all the work but only get the same amount of reward?" There is rarely any consideration for the common good, and unless one suggests that some grand miracle can or should occur, there's no justifying expectations that people will change to think more for the community than for themselves. Altruism as a philosophy simply doesn't work (for better discussions of this, I refer you to the works of Ayn Rand). More and more people will leave the working group and join the nonworking group, which of course will doom that society. Second, if there is no expectations of rewards for the individual (philospohical or monetary), then there is no impetus to take risks, and suddenly all progress grinds to a halt. This does not mean I support 'progress' as t is sometimes defined in political statements; I define Progress to include improvements in such things as recycling, land preservation, and the like. If there will be no rewards in taking the initiative *beyond* laws and regulations to discover things that will genuinely improve the way of life for all beings on this planet, then to be perfectly frank things will continue to suck. For example, suppose that there is no financial reward for finding a cure for pancreatic cancer. Who, except possibly someone with a loved one dying (or dead) of that disease, will really try to get the disease cured? Sure, the guvmint can apoint and pay people to research the disease, and so maybe the disease just might be cured someday. But what happens if the cure is found, but the researcher reasons, 'Hey, if I show my work, I won't get any reward for it -- in fact, I'll lose my job!' and he/she burns the results and keeps puttering along at nothing productive for the rest of his/her life. Conversely, suppose the reward for finding the cure is a goodly monetary sum, and probably a good name for yourself. Then everyone and their cousins who has the talent to find the cure will be out there looking for the cure, and when the cure is found, it will reach daylight (in all probability, but the idea that the cure might remain buried begs the question of morals in the scientific community). The only real way to be sure that we're getting the best for our society is to allow competition, to be sure that there are real rewards for success. Lack of competition breeds stangation. It's reasonable to hope for a small community, where each person can be held directly and personally accountable by all the others for not doing his/her share of the work, but o a global scale, or even on the scale of a small city, it's too much to hope for. Much as we want to be better, as smart and determined as those few of us are to uphold better ideals, there are just too many people unwilling to change, or to do their share in the grand scheme of things.... Of course, Bill and others will be quick to point out something, in the above argument for competition, that I've not yet touched on -- big business 'haves' running all us 'have-nots' into the ground. Bill, in his last comment, was right in one respect and wrong in another: first, it's true that if left unchecked, big business will drive the society into the ground, and things like child labor, sweat shops, and the like become a major problem. However, it is not the case that conservatism (as it is really defined, not as the press define it) wants no controls on big business. The idea is for there to be *less* regulations in some ways, to allow for a bettering of the overall economy. The ideal would be for there to be as small a set of rules as possible (the more rules, the more loopholes you get and also the more it costs us [via taxes] to have the guvmint make sure those regulations are carried out), and for those rules to protect the things that are *really* important (like making sure the workers aren't gouged, and getting pollution under control) get followed. When a control is placed on business, and the side effects from the control is worse than the original problem, then the control should be gotten rid of, and if possible replaces with something better. For example, suppose that a certain type of business is putting out too much pollution, and the guvmint says to this type of business, 'Here are some pollution standards; make sure you comply, but you have to pay for all the necessary upgrades'. The business then has a few choices. The first choice, absorbing the costs and thus losing (potentially scads) of profits, certainly won't be done. The other choices are: cut costs by firing workers (raising unemployment and costing us money to give them unemployment and/or welfare pay, so we should have just given the business the money to cover costs in the first place); raise their prices (which they can't do without losing business to Joe Schmoe's company which just fired some workers but kept their prices lower, which will eventually drive the more expensive product under, which causes even more unemployment); or move to some country without those regulations (which also loses us jobs). So it's all too likely that the result of said legislation will result in a loss of jobs, and a consequent expenditure by the government which could easily exceed the cost of helping these businesses adapt the new standards. So what should have been done in the first place was for us to pay the businesses to make the changes. This might not be the best example, but hell, it's been a hellish week.... :) Ok, last comment. About individual competitiveness: some people clearly want/need competitiveness in their daily lives, if not in everything then in a few things, while others seem perfectly content to just deal without the competitive aspects of things. This is perfectly fine. The problem is that all too often each side of that fence is baffled by the other, and are often too quick to disparage the other. It's my opinion that whether you choose to be competitive or not is a lot like choosing to like or dislike such things as sports, opera, chocolate, Impressionistic paintings, or a host of other things. Should I speak disparagingly of someone who is not competitive, just because I am competitive? No. And neither should those of us who are competitive be spoken to disparagingly by those who are not. The only time such a thing should be taken issue with is when someone of one side is trying to force those of the other side to unnecessarily change their ways. For this last example, think more of a game of intramural volleyball. Often, half the team is there just to be with friends, while the other half is out to play competitively. And each half is wholly baffled by the behavior of the other half, especially because each half gets under the other half's skin. People like me should not be so beliggerent in demanding that the others should 'play or get off the court', while those on the other side should not be so condescending in saying 'Chill out, it's only a *game*.'

Sue Luesse
- Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 15:41:27 (CST)

Whistle..stomp,stomp.. HERE! HERE! By Jove, Billy D's *GOT* it!!

keegan
- Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 12:05:49 (CST)

Alright, alright....I'll concede that point Billy D. But I do think that adversity has the potential to forge strong character. I've always said that if my parents had just let me play music, let me take those gigs that I was offered when I was "under their roof"; let me do it without a fight that I probably wouldn't have come to care for it so much. I probably would have become a lawyer or an English teacher......

Bill Dennis <wjdennis@earthlink.net>
Salt Drake City, UT - Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 11:46:34 (CST)

Oh, and KEEGAN, I don't agree that the old "what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger" saying holds all the time. It CAN be true, sure--but certainly diseases like rheumatic fever and polio, which aren't necessarily deadly, leave a person weaker for the remainder of a lifetime. Unless, of course, the phrase should be taken in some philosophical way, like, it leaves you a "stronger person." Don't think even that is true--plus, it makes the metaphor so vague as to be meaningless. -- Billy D. (again)

Bill Dennis <wjdennis@earthlink.net>
Salt Take City, UT - Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 11:37:05 (CST)

Thought I'd add my two pfennig's worth on this subject--WARNING, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON: LONG APPEND APPROACHING. First, we (most of us, anyway) live in a capitalistic society, which by definition is Competition in Extremis. The theory is that competition causes the best to rise to the top and "win out." Further, this "best" comes about only BECAUSE of competition. If there were no competitor to strive against, then we wouldn't have motivation to achieve as much; that's human nature. Does it work? Just look around, and you'd probably have to answer that, yeah, in general the theory holds: better computer chips, better cars, better medicine, etc. etc. etc.. Is it healthy? Depends on whose health you mean. It's certainly healthy for the winner. And most of the time, it's healthy for society, too (take the area of medicine). It's just like Natural Selection, proponents argue. Competition weeds out the weak and lets the strong bring about a better world. My problem with this (and with conservative politics in general) is twofold. First, while competition works to an extent, what I'll call Unrestrained Competition or Pure Capitalism is a bane. It brings us sweatshops and child labor and ghetto slums--and, yes, baby beauty pageants. Adam Smith was a heartless bastard. But my second problem is this: competition and capitalism are based on human shortcomings, the way we are. We say, "Oh look, we've gotten where we are because of millenia of Natural Selection, striving and struggling, biting and fighting. So since it's inbred in us, since we have to compete to be motivated, let's make an economic system based on that. Let's make a society based on that." But to my way of thinking, it should be the other way around. We should be saying, "Yeah, okay, we got here through eons of Natural Selection--the ones who survived were the fiercest, the most competitive. But so what. We've now evolved to the point where we can see that the power of the mind can overcome the forces of nature. We can envision a better way, where people prosper by helping each other, where motivation can come from not putting others down, but by pulling ourselves up. So let's design a system where, over time, we can slowly stop relying on animal competition and replace it with cooperation." My point, friends, is that instead of devising our economy and society on the basest aspects of our human nature and past, we should instead plan them on the brightest hopes of our human compassion and future. Socialism and Communism didn't work, I think, not because they weren't any good, but rather because they tried to impose an economic system on people without first providing a way of letting people change themselves. (No, I'm not saying we should become Socialists; we need to think of a new system altogether.) Hope I've made my points clear enough. I'd be happy to address any counterpoints offered. -- Billy D.

keegan
- Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 09:03:11 (CST)

I have to disagree, Sue. I do not credit competition with creativity, curiosity, and self-discipline. I credit *myself* with those qualities. Competition is merely a way for me showcase those qualities. Is it necessary? No, not really. But again, I *like* fair competition. It's a good way to get attention. That attention often results in offers of work. Will I walk over or chew up other folks in my ambition? Hopefully not. I don't believe that nice guys necessarily wind up last. There's no shame in losing, but there is certainly no shame in winning, either.

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@htonline.com>
bRightOn, MI Yew Essay - Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 07:59:16 (CST)

So I'm reading along about how 'necessary' competition is, and hit a major glitch - call it a non-negotiable with me.. Competition is being credited with the attributes of Creativity, Curiousity, and Self-Discipline - and it is not any of those things. It is a primordal survival instinct naturally applied to preservation of the individual (to preserve the species) - BUT human beings have been removed from that process of Natural Selection for centuries, and have NO natural intra-species competitors. So the instinct has been incorporated in a most UNnatural way into the power structures of human societies, to further human predation on other humans as a way to eliminate rival social/political/religious structures, and maintain pyramid-type internal structures of power/wealth/privelege. The Divide & Conquer method is an old one, and effective. Simply justifying Competition with a fallacious hasty generalization that Achievement, Improvement Creativity, Curiousity, and self-discipline may be found in the near vicinity of Competition, does not "prove" it is 'necessary'. Logically, it is just as likely that the pre-existing presence of desirable abilities and their productive rewards attract Competition. And you don't have to look around too far to see ample evidence of that being the case. I Do Not believe there is such a thing as 'healthy competition' in human society, where co-operation is the synergy which transcends our physical nature (in which we Lose to most of the planets predtors head-to-head). I do believe it is an oxymoron that is packaged and sold in society daily. Watch the comercials on TV.. Win/Lose is the name of the game. And only ONE can be The Winner - for a short time - which guarantees there are nothing but Losers when all is said and done. And who wins is determined by whose standards and judgement??? Officials?? Advertising?? Majority Vote?? I'll stick with Unca Harlan on this one - give me the Truth, straight up.. and to hell with arbitrary judgement in any guise.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

keegan
- Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 17:59:28 (CST)

Todd, thanks for your condolences, but my parents weren't loons. Hypocritical at times, yes, but I think we've all struggled with that from time to time. My parents were young, high-school educated, working-class people who did the best they could. Now that I have my own children, I can appreciate what a difficult job it is to raise children. I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect parent and fear that such a thing would be smothering to the child. My parents made many mistakes and I carried a major chip on my shoulder about it until I decided to let go and forgive. Truth is, what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger. And on competition: I'm with Steve Pagano on this one. I think some folk tend to be more competitive than others. I happen to love competition. It puts fire in my belly. In fact, I'm looking for the guidelines to enter the Thelonius Monk competition which I know would kick me into putting forward my best and possibly be a good way to get some attention. I won't hate myself or quit singing if I don't make the final round, but I welcome to opportunity to show that I can hold my own against the best of the best.

Todd Mason
- Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 17:16:47 (CST)

Hmmm. As the anarchist and biologist Peter Kropotkin was the first to point out at length, cooperation is at least as important among human beings and among all natural creatures as competition ever is. I'm not sure I've ever seen creativity as inherently competitive...in fact, competitiveness often seems to distort creativity. Or the competition comes to dominate the whole enterprise (as can cooperation!). Keegan--sorry to read that your parents were loons...or merely hypocrites?

Zack <Standing@ground.zero>
- Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 16:40:33 (CST)

Well, from a personal level, I agree with AHavoc; only by forcing myself to reach to new heights, to try bigger and better things, can I get any sort of satisfaction in life. Example: Like I've mentioned before, I'm a writer. My primary place of play is in the horror and fantasy genres, but recently (as in the past year or so) I've started trying to challenge myself to do different things. Write awkward sentences, things that seem to stretch out for miles and miles without stopping until you wanna pull over on the side of the road and hurl because English is supposed to be defined, dammit, not just an absurd gibberish of constant verbiage. Try new techniques, like writing a story of entirely dialogue. Or use structures created by other writers. Sure, I'm here entirely for the Joy of it, but part of the Joy comes from seeing myself improve, write better than before. I think, though, that personal satisfaction is different for each individual person. I may like to compete with myself, you make like just enjoy what comes. Hey man, don't knock it till yah've tried it, and all tha jazz. P.s. I wonder what HE would say about all of this...

AHavoc <sitting@the.judges.table>
Hyannis, MA ooo ess aaa - Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 16:03:31 (CST)

I would venture to say that doing something over and over again at the same level could at some point, get boring, no matter how much one "Loves" it. Whereas if one adds the element of self-competition, trying to improve each time one does something, it would add an element of excitement, and would enable one to keep that "joy" of creativity, that moment of achievement, fresh.

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@htonline.com>
Innaminute, as soon as I'm done with the *cool* FUN stuff - Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 09:52:25 (CST)

Hhhhhmmmm... Speaking for myself - Why does competition seem to be the major motivation for achievement/improvement, or at least the primary method?? How's about that little thing called "For The Joy Of It"?? It's how I do ALL my best stuff.. No competition involved. No games, no comparisons made to others or myself. Just being focussed on the activity at hand, and lost in the enjoyment of the *doing* it.. Practise makes perfect regadless of how or why you practise, and improvement is a natural consequence of repeatedly doing.. So why is competition needed?

Steve Pagano <zazu@spectra.net>
Endicott, NY - Monday, January 13, 1997 at 21:59:09 (CST)

Yup, I'd seen that we'd started talking about beauty pageants, and I didn't have a lot to add, nor time to add it, but when you, Zack, said something that hit close to home (your observations about how competition can be bad, and yes, I do agree with you after your extra clarifications), I was prodded into finding some time. :) Ok, now my few cents about beauty pageants. First, I try not to watch them, because they irritate the snot out of me, and like others here I think the things promote an incredibly silly set of values. As the sexist aspect of these things seems pretty well covered by those before me, I just thought I'd go ahead and put out a few of what I think are the more nonsensical qualities that pageant contestants must possess. Judging from what I've seen from various pageants over the past five years or so (yes, tho I don't like them, the wife sometimes watches them), here are the traits a standard beauty pageant winner must possess: 1) really big teeth. 2) Minimal discernable personality. 3) Arch-liberal in certain political issues, arch-conservative in others, with no variations accepted (gotta be a virgin who loves rainforests, and so on). 4) Long hair. Am I forgetting anything? When it comes right down to it, what I find to be attractive in a woman are, in no real order: composure, intelligence, bearing and carriage, sense of humor, healthy looks, and a sense for being well-dressed. Who thinks beauty pageants are about beauty? Certainly not me. Mannequin city.

Zack <Me ? Again?>
- Monday, January 13, 1997 at 20:29:28 (CST)

Before anybody says anything, look at the times on my las message, and the one from Ahavoc. We sent at almost the exact same moment! Isn't that cool?

AHavoc <sitting@the.piano.practicing>
Hyannis, MA ooo ess a - Monday, January 13, 1997 at 20:27:45 (CST)

Steve, I can see your point to a point. And Zack, I agree and disagree with you. The most important competition you can have is the one you have with yourself. It's not something you win or lose, it's the ability to push one self to do better and get better, or at least try. You must never stop trying to learn, or stop trying to better yourself. It's what life is all about. Once you understand this principle, then you realize that it's not that important whether you win or lose to another person, or team, it's when you disappoint yourself because you let yourself down that's important. If you try your hardest and fail, you've still succeeded because of your effort, and you have a right to be proud of yourself. This also enables you to understand what good sportsmanship/manners is all about, and how important an element it is in all situations. Respect for oneself allows respect for others. Love for oneself allows love for others. Sounds simple and easy, right? Well, it sure isn't and may be the hardest self-competition there is.

Zack <handlen@lamere.net>
- Monday, January 13, 1997 at 20:27:42 (CST)

Whoa! Okay, couple of points. First: when I said "There is no such thing as 'healthy competition,'" I was referring to competition against other people. When you're always trying to be better than others, you can tend lead a pretty narrow life, spending too much of your time "keeping up with the Smiths." However, competing against yourself is a whole new matter entirely. That's what drives me to new heights and plateaus (ooh, look my child, an overdone metaphor!), trying to always better what you've done before. And yeah, maybe "Healthy competition" can exist, when it helps further society. However, competition should be seen as a means to an end not an ends to a mean. Now, having completely confused you on my viewpoint, about the beauty pagent thing. I think I speak for most of us here, or at least those of us who've spoken on it, when I say that we were not expressing our horror that the girl was murdered merely because she was a beauty pagent contendant. The murder of anyone, a child, an adult, anyone is a crime so horrible that words cannot be found to express it. We were, instead writing about our disgust, our utter loathing for beauty pagents for youngsters as a whole. I think. (If I'm wrong here, once again, feel free to stick my foot in my mouth.) I don't know about you guys, but beauty pagents in general make me pretty sick. Anyways, gotta go. Uncle Fester is calling!

Steve Pagano <zazu@spectra.net>
Endicott, NY - Monday, January 13, 1997 at 19:04:57 (CST)

I have to disagree, Zack; I think that there *is* such a thing as 'healthy competition'. I must admit, before I go any further, that I myself am very competitive, to a fault in some areas. But the key to my avoiding most trouble is this: I know my faults in this area, and I know how to avoid the troubles they cause, and I can watch myself closely enough to know when the competitiveness gets out of hand. Let me see if I can clarify myself here.... Ok, there are two general 'flavors' of people who play games: those who see the game as a social construct, and those who see it as a chance for competition. Of course, some people fall between these two poles, but by and large most people fall on one side or another, and of course (as many have pointed out) there are many people who are way too far into the competition side. But there is most definitely a non-extreme ground on the competitive side. Let me explain the way I best like to play games: I best like to play against/with people whose skill levels are similar to my own, who play their best all the time and expect the same from their opponents, and most importantly take the greatest satisfaction in a game well played, and put little or no value on a victory not earned with skill and accepted with good sportsmanship, and who accept defeat with good sportsmanship as well. I of course like to win, but I always feel better about a game well-played and lost than a game poorly-played and won. And, more than anything else, it's the level of competition that's most important to me, in that I get the greatest satisfaction in playing against an opponent who is roughly at par with me in skill, and knowing that I am making the other person happy in being a capable (and sportsmanlike) opponent. For example, over the holidays I visited my parents and sibs up north of here, and a few of us got to playing a game called HuggerMugger (like Trivial Pursuit, but with wordplay games instead of trivia). We played only twice because I found I could almost always stay on the Anagrams category (something at which I'm very strong), and in each game I won on turn two (and although I was happy that I was able to perform well, I was not that pleased to be winning -- the game was boring). We realized it was a poorly designed game that played too much into the skills of one player, and so we put it away, and likely won't play it again.... Something that's (at least now) intrinsic to my nature is an absolute need to compete, and if I don't get a chance to compete against *something* every so often I go bats. However, even though an extreme amount of competitiveness can be unhealthy, it's not my job to rid myself of my competitiveness. What *is* my job is to know when my competitiveness makes me less of a person, when it hurts or annoys others, and in these cases to have it within me to suck it up and deal with it.... Finally, about this six-year-old beauty queen/murder victim. 1. The fact that the media insists on telling this story only because this girl is a beauty queen, or at least constantly emphasizing that she was a beauty queen, makes me care *less* about her, and this is *not* a good thing. Do they mean to make me feel worse because this girl was a beauty queen rather than just a plain old person? Spare me. I care because it was an act of unmitigated evil by the perpetrator; the fact that the victim was cute should be wholly irrelevant. 2. When I have kids, if my daughter wants to be in a beauty pageant, or my son wants to go play little league (or hell, even if the boy wants to be a contestant and the the girl wants to play baseball), my wife and I would make our decision on whether or not to let him/her do it according to a) will he/she e happy doing it, or is he/she just doing it because his/her friends are? b) will it be a good (read: healthy and/or enjoyable) experience for him/her? I refuse to let my competitiveness interfere with how my kids will be raised (meaning I refuse to be the assh*le pushy parent). On the other hand, our choices won't be fully determined by the kids' likes and dislikes, of course. For example, we plan on enrolling the kids in some sort of music lessons, but we'll do a better job than my parents did with me (i.e. I have small-muscle control problems in my hands, yet my parents insisted I take a couple years' piano lessons, being taught by unpersonable and unskilled [at teaching] teachers). But this is too long a post already....

keegan <I'm goin' out to hang with the band so this'll be short>
- Monday, January 13, 1997 at 18:23:47 (CST)

Interesting comments about competition. Zack-I was that way when I was 17 and living in my parents' home in Maine. It's called Being Hungry. And as a growing *whatever*, you need to eat. Competition *can* be healthy if the focus remains on personal best and learning. And yes, I think one can take pride in one's accomplishments and accolades, but one can never rest on her laurels. I think you always needs to be a little hungry. Otherwise, you're just sittin' around on yer fat butt. Hey! Maybe I've created a diet here! Bon soir, tout le monde!

Sue Luesse <jaluesse@htonline.com>
Crack in the ass of Nowhere, with the other Nobodies - and having *fun*! - Monday, January 13, 1997 at 17:26:59 (CST)

Yessirree! That's *ME*, and loving it! Like I said before, somewhere down there, the message of Society overtly is to co-operate, work hard, and advance to the rewards and satisfactions.. The fact is compete to be the One that will get All the Rewards using any means; bust your butt sacrificing your family, friends, and self-identity; and when you're an empty shell that whould be a person, with nothing left to be drained of, you can retire with less income to "Enjoy".. And the sub-text whispering between the overt lines is "Do it! Or we'll destroy you"... Course, it's all BS.. No one can *make* you. And there is nothing wrong with Not being Best.. And with no expectations from yourself or others, you are free to be whatever the heck you are, and _Really_ enjoy life, without the distractions.. Works for me. Haven't got the faintest idea 'Who I am' -don't care, either. Other stuff is a lot more interesting and fun.. But I do have to dodge the Hits The Fan stuff with great regularity.. Odd, isn't it, that in a society which stresses that Everyone is Unique and Special - anyone who is gets beaten into conformity.. Unless they dodge the hammer-blows.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Zack <handlen@lamere.net>
- Monday, January 13, 1997 at 17:03:08 (CST)

One of the best oxymorons in the world, I think, is the phrase "healthy competition." There's no such thing. Competition taken in small doses, if not completely beneficial, is not especially harmful, but when it becomes larger, when it takes a central place in your life- that's when warning bells should start going off. Take it from someone who knows. All my life I have been intensely competitive. This may sound odd, because the things I love (reading, writing, singing, acting) are "competitive" by definition. Most, in fact, depend on a solitary or cooperative nature to suceed. However, this ain't the case with me. I need to think I'm as good as, if not better than, everyone else around me at what I do if I'm to have any sort of sense of satisfaction. The only thing I really have confidence in is my ability to write, and if I didn't feel that, I probably wouldn't be here on this comment's board. It's a scary thing, folks, when you judge your own self worth by other's ability. And try as I might, I can't break the circle.

keegan
- Monday, January 13, 1997 at 14:39:00 (CST)

Yes, Todd. Noted and stored. Remind me to tell ya about my brother the high-school basketball player who broke his neck in a pool accident at 20 years of age. He was in the best athletic condition of his life and had worked hard to get there. Then--poof!--gone. At least the discipline helped him in re-hab and his intelligence helped him recreate his life and independence in the face of major challenge. There's much more, but it's only tangental to the topic. Basically, we've begun to talk about competition. We're taught that if we aren't winners, then we're nothing (Sue Luesse, does this sound familiar?). People will compete in just about any area. Even music can be a weapon. I think problems arise when winning, rather than learning, becomes the *sole* focus of competition. Of course, winning is wonderful, and it's sweet when you get that gig, that trophy, that grant, that fellowship, that Grammy Award (though, of course, I'm speculating on that last one). If you don't win though, life goes on. What're ya gonna do? The real *evil* is when adults compete with other adults through *your* life. My parents did make me serve the church and the elderly as a musician, but that's fine. I learned how to pay respect through music. What I hated is when they wanted me to show off my music at home so they could impress *their* friends. They yelled at me when I practiced and then expected me to sit down and play on command. That was about the worst thing my parents ever did to me and as I became a better musician, I *wanted* to play on those requested occasions. They weren't letting me take gigs because of their tight parental reign. It was an opportunity then. But as a teacher, I see parents of kids cause a huge fuss is their child isn't given the lead in the school musical or a solo in the choir concert. It isn't a matter of inquiring politely about the criteria of the teacher's decision. Teachers are usually happy to explain teaching decisions to parents. This is a matter of complaining loudly to the community behind a teacher's back, smearing a teacher's reputation, and usually saying more than a few disparaging and unkind things about the kid who *got* the part. Loyalty to one's child is not at issue, but Civility to a child's teacher certainly is. Anyway, I'm ranting and raving and I'll stop soon. Just want to say that that ICON thing looks great (that's the LI Science-Fiction Convention April 4-6. HE will be there). Their web page is not yet complete so I don't know *exactly* what HE is doing there. I'm hoping to go, at least to meet HE if possible. I was offered a gig on the 4th, though. If that's HE's day, then I'll probably skip it. Gone. -/:>)

Todd Mason
- Monday, January 13, 1997 at 12:57:25 (CST)

Remember, gang, these junior pageants have their similarly sex-stereotypical counterpart in mandatory (whether mandated by parents or other pressures) football for young boys all over this country. Little League baseball has some of the same pathetic sorts of parents lurking about, but they are diluted somewhat by saner parents. Monsters a