WORMS maybe
Silicon Shaman
firelizard curled around his shoulders. Leaning back with a thoughtful
expression he wets a fingertip and draws the following letters in a glowing
script upon the air.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2EA31C74
"I don't know that we're quite there yet. But it seems as if the world in
general is in a mad, lemming-like dash towards this. What with events in the
USA, and here in Europe which seems to being heading at an ever increasing
pace towards a federal superstate. [they're proposing an unelected EU
President now, to go with the unelected USA one I guess.] "
*Friend shaman upset ?* Iridium sends, opalescent eyes whirling slightly red
tinged.
"Not really, it's worrying but I was wondering what the rest of the Patrons
think though. I know I'm probably opening can'o'worms here."
*worms taste good! Spag-geti that wriggles!* "No Iridium, not real worms."
"Anyway, drinks at the bar. Cordials for those that remain polite."
--
Silicon.shaman
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm
Think for yourself !
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
David C Pugh
news:Xns9375ED9D3149j...@207.217.77.22...
> "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> news:b9d2ao$1oh$1...@titan.btinternet.com:
>
> > The Silicon shaman is sitting at his usual table, with Iridium his
> > black firelizard curled around his shoulders. Leaning back with a
> > thoughtful expression he wets a fingertip and draws the following
> > letters in a glowing script upon the air.
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2EA31C74
>
I simply don't have time to read the link and make a thorough
critique -- or a critique of Jerry -- but I have just a couple of responses
to Jerry.
> 3. Scapegoats. Putting terrorists in this class is disingenuous.
> They really do need to be eliminated, if possible, or, at least,
> severely restricted in their activities. They are not comparable to
> "... racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists;
> socialists ..."
Agreed, when terrorists are defined as they were, say, ten years ago.
The "extended definition of terrorism", which we started to see well before
911, is what terrifies me the most.
> 8. Religion + Government. Not here, not yet. The good news is that
> all the various people who would make the US a theocracy hate each
> other as much as they hate the secular humanists. If they ever really
> got a shot at control, they'd implode.
Let's hope! It would be even better if they did their imploding, like,
yesterday.
> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. On whose part? By
> definition, 86% of the population are in or below the normal range of
> intelligence. This has less to do with government and more with human
> nature. Both Hitler's Nazis and Mao's Communists were obsessed with
> the arts and making sure the artists were in step with state policy.
> You don't worry about controlling things you disdain.
Weeell..... You don't think that films like "Air Force One" and
"Independence Day" are the American equivalent of "Socialist Realism"? I
used to enjoy "JAG", mainly 'cos I find Catherine Bell rather scrumptious,
but it's very obviously a Pentagon production, originally designed as damage
limitation after Tailhook.
This is the wormy question of whether almost all art serves some sort of
persuasive or propaganda function. If we take it as a given that all states
sponsor popular arts that support their system, the question is then which
particular values are sponsored by which particular states -- the dignity of
labour, imperial glory, the arts of peace, bloodthirsty militarism or what.
> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. In the US, at least, we are
> mostly obssessed with justice, the rights of the accused and making
> sure the punishment fits the crime. If anything, we err very much on
> the side of leniency. We're only just now getting around to talking
> about victims' rights.
Not how it looks to us Yurrupeans. From where we're sitting, it looks
like you guys are regressing to the wergild or blood-price concept, whereby
the punishment is demanded not by the state but by the kin of the
deceased -- not public order but emotional satisfaction.
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
Dominic
"Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b9d2ao$1oh$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> The Silicon shaman is sitting at his usual table, with Iridium his black
> firelizard curled around his shoulders. Leaning back with a thoughtful
> expression he wets a fingertip and draws the following letters in a
glowing
> script upon the air.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2EA31C74
>
> "I don't know that we're quite there yet. But it seems as if the world in
> general is in a mad, lemming-like dash towards this. What with events in
the
> USA, and here in Europe which seems to being heading at an ever increasing
> pace towards a federal superstate. [they're proposing an unelected EU
> President now, to go with the unelected USA one I guess.] "
>
> *Friend shaman upset ?* Iridium sends, opalescent eyes whirling slightly
red
> tinged.
>
> "Not really, it's worrying but I was wondering what the rest of the
Patrons
> think though. I know I'm probably opening can'o'worms here."
>
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: it is the practice of any federal
government to make use of symbology. It's the fastest way to communicate a
complex idea to a large number of people.
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Somebody's so-called "rights"
are always being stepped on. I think a proper definition of rights is
called for before levelling this accusation.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: true, but not
unique to fascism. Most social and political groups have an identification
of an "other", that which is not "us", from Capitalists and Socialists down
to jocks and nerds. Identification of that other helps tie any group
together, in giving them a common enemy.
Supremacy of the Military: In any military action, military spending has to
be increased, and the military glamorized in order to increase and motivate
the troops, and to see that they are properly supplied. I don't have the
figures, but has funding to local police departments been decreased as a
direct result of increased military spending?
Rampant Sexism: Isn't one of the heroes of the current action a woman?
Controlled Mass Media: I don't think this is a new thing. If you believe
Chomsky, it's just business as usual, maybe a little more obviously.
Obsession with National Security: Ummmm.....I seem to recall American
airplanes flying into national landmarks, including one of the seats of
federal government, killing thousands, in an attack unheard of since Pearl
Harbor. BTW...fear is always a motivator....read Clive Barker's "Dread".
Religion and Government are Intertwined: Again, no news here. "One nation
under god..." and all that.
Corporate Power is Protected: OK, I think this one may have been invented
to suit the current situation. Hasn't it historically been the practice of
fascist governments to nationalize corporations?
Labor Power is Suppressed: Has there been evidence of this? Leaving aside
for the moment what I think of unions in this modern world, has this been
happening?
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Have you seen what is modernly
called "art"? Or read most of what passes for literature? I think that
group has enough disdain for itself...it doesn't need the help.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Overlook police abuses and forego
civil liberties? Again, no news. L.A. anyone?
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Nepotism in government? Corruption in the
ranks of power? I'm shocked!
Fraudulent Elections: Seems to me this was a cause, not a result.
I don't think this is entirely wrong, but I think applying it is a matter of
asking the degree to which these things are practiced. Most of what's here
is common practice for any government in an effort to control the economy
and security of a country. The difference between a beneficient government
and a fascist one is in how far they are willing to go and how obvious they
are willing to be in their execution. And in whether they can be removed by
the population who put them in power in the first place. Seems to me that
GWB is still going to have to campaign for reelection, and hasn't yet
declared himself High King Grand Poobah for Life. When and if he does, I
think you should worry about fascism.
-Dominic
Matthew Russotto
David C Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
>> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. On whose part? By
>> definition, 86% of the population are in or below the normal range of
>> intelligence. This has less to do with government and more with human
>> nature. Both Hitler's Nazis and Mao's Communists were obsessed with
>> the arts and making sure the artists were in step with state policy.
>> You don't worry about controlling things you disdain.
>
> Weeell..... You don't think that films like "Air Force One" and
>"Independence Day" are the American equivalent of "Socialist Realism"? I
>used to enjoy "JAG", mainly 'cos I find Catherine Bell rather scrumptious,
>but it's very obviously a Pentagon production, originally designed as damage
>limitation after Tailhook.
The main problem with this idea is it assumes the government can make
films and shows that would actually be POPULAR -- and that Hollywood
wouldn't do so on its own. Americans have been suckers for feel-good
films like the two you mention for years. Especially when there's
plenty of explosions.
>> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. In the US, at least, we are
>> mostly obssessed with justice, the rights of the accused and making
>> sure the punishment fits the crime. If anything, we err very much on
>> the side of leniency. We're only just now getting around to talking
>> about victims' rights.
>
> Not how it looks to us Yurrupeans. From where we're sitting, it looks
>like you guys are regressing to the wergild or blood-price concept, whereby
>the punishment is demanded not by the state but by the kin of the
>deceased -- not public order but emotional satisfaction.
Public order was never all of it, not here, anyway. If the state
wishes to take away private retribution, it's necessary that they
fulfill all the needs satisfied by it, including the desire for
emotional satisfaction. NOT doing so, or being percieved to not be
doing so, is often what leads to vigilantism.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Lee S. Billings
paladinf...@hotmail.com says...
>Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Somebody's so-called "rights"
>are always being stepped on. I think a proper definition of rights is
>called for before levelling this accusation.
I'll second that.
>Rampant Sexism: Isn't one of the heroes of the current action a woman?
From where I sit, there is *less* sexism in the US than in most of the rest of
the world. Yes, we still have a way to go before we reach the level of sexual
equality in, say, the Honor Harrington universe -- but believe me, things are a
LOT better now than they were 40 years ago.
>Controlled Mass Media: I don't think this is a new thing. If you believe
>Chomsky, it's just business as usual, maybe a little more obviously.
The interesting thing about this, to me, is the continuing insistence that the
media is all controlled by the radical LEFT, in the teeth of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. After all, the people who "control" the mass media
tend to be big-money, big-business types, who are generally not of the liberal
persuasion. I'll buy the "liberal media bias" charge against small, independent
publications -- but saying it about (e.g.) the Hearst Corporation is simply
ludicrous.
>Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Have you seen what is modernly
>called "art"? Or read most of what passes for literature? I think that
>group has enough disdain for itself...it doesn't need the help.
After a similar discussion a year or so ago, David Kifer sent me a fairly
persuasive argument to the effect that what I call "the glorification of
non-intelligence" is pretty much inherent in the background of America. We
completely lack the tradition of the "gentleman scholar", because by the time
we developed a moneyed leisure class at all they had other priorities. Our
"disdain for intellectuals and the arts" goes well beyond the "modern art" and
"modern literature" you yourself disdain; it reaches right down to the level of
secondary school, where people who show intellectual or artistic capabilities
of *any* sort are widely disparaged. As a society, our ideal individual seems
to be not Stephen Hawking or Andrew Lloyd Webber, but Forrest Gump.
>I don't think this is entirely wrong, but I think applying it is a matter of
>asking the degree to which these things are practiced. Most of what's here
>is common practice for any government in an effort to control the economy
>and security of a country. The difference between a beneficient government
>and a fascist one is in how far they are willing to go and how obvious they
>are willing to be in their execution. And in whether they can be removed by
>the population who put them in power in the first place. Seems to me that
>GWB is still going to have to campaign for reelection, and hasn't yet
>declared himself High King Grand Poobah for Life. When and if he does, I
>think you should worry about fascism.
A reasonable point. BOYC?
Celine
--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
David C Pugh
news:bfWcnWZ4erS...@speakeasy.net...
> In article <Prrua.10556$b71.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>,
> David C Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> >
> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. On whose part? By
> >> definition, 86% of the population are in or below the normal range of
> >> intelligence. This has less to do with government and more with human
> >> nature. Both Hitler's Nazis and Mao's Communists were obsessed with
> >> the arts and making sure the artists were in step with state policy.
> >> You don't worry about controlling things you disdain.
> >
> > Weeell..... You don't think that films like "Air Force One" and
> >"Independence Day" are the American equivalent of "Socialist Realism"? I
> >used to enjoy "JAG", mainly 'cos I find Catherine Bell rather
scrumptious,
> >but it's very obviously a Pentagon production, originally designed as
damage
> >limitation after Tailhook.
>
> The main problem with this idea is it assumes the government can make
> films and shows that would actually be POPULAR -- and that Hollywood
> wouldn't do so on its own. Americans have been suckers for feel-good
> films like the two you mention for years. Especially when there's
> plenty of explosions.
Yes, but having the PotUS battle the bad guys in person to that extent,
and even fly missions against alien starships in person like that, was in my
opinion so OTT and politically pathological that it needs some explanation.
Hey, they are mocking Saddam's cult of personality, and we mocked Chairman
Mao for it too, but this didn't taste any different to me. Obviously the
government didn't "make the films", but we should maybe be asking how they
came to be made. Cui bono? as Cicero would have said.
I have a serious question regarding "JAG". The object of the exercise
being as I described it seems self-evident to me -- the earlier episodes
were dominated by gender issues in the Navy and the angle was how the naval
authorities were very keen to address and rectify them. They even kept
mentioning Tailhook by name. Later, as they do in long-running soaps, the
plot lines got a little wild, but it kept coming back to the sexual
harassment issues, mixed with pre-emptive criticism in other current issues
like rules of engagement. Given that the programme is so very much what the
Navy wanted to have people watching, that it is so very pious towards the
Navy, what is the actual mechanism of sponsorship? How does the patron
commission the client? Does the Navy call the producer, does the producer
call the Navy? Who pays?
> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. In the US, at least, we are
> >> mostly obssessed with justice, the rights of the accused and making
> >> sure the punishment fits the crime. If anything, we err very much on
> >> the side of leniency. We're only just now getting around to talking
> >> about victims' rights.
> >
> > Not how it looks to us Yurrupeans. From where we're sitting, it looks
> >like you guys are regressing to the wergild or blood-price concept,
whereby
> >the punishment is demanded not by the state but by the kin of the
> >deceased -- not public order but emotional satisfaction.
>
> Public order was never all of it, not here, anyway. If the state
> wishes to take away private retribution, it's necessary that they
> fulfill all the needs satisfied by it, including the desire for
> emotional satisfaction. NOT doing so, or being percieved to not be
> doing so, is often what leads to vigilantism.
I buy the social contract theory, Matthew, in fact twenty years ago I
wrote a Norwegian newspaper opinion piece that maps your position perfectly.
However, unless I'm misinformed you seem to grant the next of kin of the
deceased a greater role in influencing the sentencing than we do, or at
least than we are seen to do, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. There's a
difference between the legal system doing the job of private vengeance in
order to displace and prevent same, and taking instructions from it, or
being seen taking instructions from it.
A big strike against our side is the treatment of the "Moors Murderers"
in the UK, which has been frighteningly dictated by public opinion, or
rather, whatever the murdochs say is public opinion.
Dominic
"Lee S. Billings" <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9e27k$133$4...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
believe
> >Chomsky, it's just business as usual, maybe a little more obviously.
>
> The interesting thing about this, to me, is the continuing insistence that
the
> media is all controlled by the radical LEFT, in the teeth of overwhelming
> evidence to the contrary. After all, the people who "control" the mass
media
> tend to be big-money, big-business types, who are generally not of the
liberal
> persuasion. I'll buy the "liberal media bias" charge against small,
independent
> publications -- but saying it about (e.g.) the Hearst Corporation is
simply
> ludicrous.
>
publications, there seems to be something available for just about every
taste, fetish, interest, and political leaning, doesn't there? I remember
being pleasantly surprised at finding the Hacker's Journal on the local
racks. I suppose an extension of your point could be that the big money
puts its support behind certain popular publications, and in so doing, gives
them their bias, while independent publisher react to that with a bias of
their own. It's the Paul Tillich's concept of thesis, antithesis, and
eventually, synthesis.
> >Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Have you seen what is modernly
> >called "art"? Or read most of what passes for literature? I think that
> >group has enough disdain for itself...it doesn't need the help.
>
> After a similar discussion a year or so ago, David Kifer sent me a fairly
> persuasive argument to the effect that what I call "the glorification of
> non-intelligence" is pretty much inherent in the background of America. We
> completely lack the tradition of the "gentleman scholar", because by the
time
> we developed a moneyed leisure class at all they had other priorities. Our
> "disdain for intellectuals and the arts" goes well beyond the "modern art"
and
> "modern literature" you yourself disdain; it reaches right down to the
level of
> secondary school, where people who show intellectual or artistic
capabilities
> of *any* sort are widely disparaged. As a society, our ideal individual
seems
> to be not Stephen Hawking or Andrew Lloyd Webber, but Forrest Gump.
>
Actually, I think the average, not necessarily well-read, person probably
has more of a handle on the value of modern art than the so-called
intelligentsia who promote it. In the search for something "new" and
"interesting", all kinds of offerings have been given laurels they do not
deserve. Prime examples that come to mind are The Voice of Fire and Lights
Going on and Off, both of which have received high praise and financial
support, in spite of the fact that they have no apparent intrinsic artistic
value (specificially, no relevant content, no application of artistic
technique, and no apparent meaning), and in the case of the latter, the
artist has publicly admitted it is meaningless. The art community applauds
these things while in the real world, Billy Bob has a point when he
scratches his head and says, "I don't get it".
I strongly agree about the disparagement of those at the upper end of the
bell curve, but I think it applies to the lower end as well. Essentially,
the same response will be applied to anyone who falls outside the norm in
any noticeable way, regardless of whether or not their "variation" is a
beneficial one. See my point about identifying "the other".
> >I don't think this is entirely wrong, but I think applying it is a matter
of
> >asking the degree to which these things are practiced. Most of what's
here
> >is common practice for any government in an effort to control the economy
> >and security of a country. The difference between a beneficient
government
> >and a fascist one is in how far they are willing to go and how obvious
they
> >are willing to be in their execution. And in whether they can be removed
by
> >the population who put them in power in the first place. Seems to me
that
> >GWB is still going to have to campaign for reelection, and hasn't yet
> >declared himself High King Grand Poobah for Life. When and if he does, I
> >think you should worry about fascism.
>
> A reasonable point. BOYC?
>
I'll take that. Right now, a Blessing would be just the thing to help me
finish off this afternoon. Thanks.
-D
David C Pugh
> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. On whose part? By
> >> definition, 86% of the population are in or below the normal
> >> range of intelligence. This has less to do with government and
> >> more with human nature. Both Hitler's Nazis and Mao's Communists
> >> were obsessed with the arts and making sure the artists were in
> >> step with state policy. You don't worry about controlling things
> >> you disdain.
> >
> > Weeell..... You don't think that films like "Air Force One"
> > and "Independence Day" are the American equivalent of "Socialist
> > Realism"? ...
>
> I'd file them under "bread and circuses," except they aren't
> government sponsored in any way. As commercial productions, they
> are simply catering to the public desire for exciting entertainment.
> There are plenty of other films on the market, many with
> anti-government/anti-business themes.
Yes, I was thinking this the other day, so many films premised on Big
Corporation conspiracies against life, the universe and everything. Odd that
this doesn't seem to translate very well into scepticism of the plutocracy
in the polls. Is it just market forces, Hollywood seeing that Joe Public
likes films BOTH about evil plutocracies enslaving us with mind control, AND
presidents single-handedly saving us from evil aliens -- possibly on
successive evenings -- or will future historians think there's a debate
going on here? Because when historians look at past ages, they often assume
that contradictory messages are part of a single debate in the public space;
perhaps they're wrong about that too.
> > ... I used to enjoy "JAG", mainly 'cos I find Catherine Bell
> > rather scrumptious, but it's very obviously a Pentagon production,
> > originally designed as damage limitation after Tailhook.
>
> They have Navy advisors on staff, true, but like all TV and movies,
> the substance of the show is pure fantasy. The hero would have been
> court martialed and dishonorably discharged a dozen times over if he
> tried his antics in the Real(tm) Navy.
A dozen? More like a couple of hundred, I guess :-) Like most series, I
suppose they have different writers. One keeps sending Harm off to look for
his daddy in Siberia, or doing a Bruce Willis, others keep their eye on the
courtroom ball. One assumes that the prosecution of able seamen for
disciplinary infractions is a bit more realistic than stealing MiGs.......
Such misinformation is the
> stock in trade of the entertainment industry, not because of any
> political agenda, but because reality is mostly boring, tedious,
> work-a-day stuff that people already have too much of in their
> lives.
See your point. However, I'm still not happy with this being "merely
entertainment". I can't not see a political message in any art, whether it's
a Byzantine mosaic, a Titian court portrait or JAG. My best cyberfriend is
an art history expert, you should hear her talk. (You know those portraits
of ladies by Bouchard, know what they were? Job applications for the post of
royal mistress.... Art for art's sake, feh.)
> In short, "it's not show art, it's show _business_."
Precisely. Art always has been business. Friend says that lost of
theories of why Renaissance artists did what they did are a waste of paper,
because they did what their patrons told 'em to. The patron was far more
active in designing the work of art than we used to think, she says.
> > This is the wormy question of whether almost all art serves
> > some sort of persuasive or propaganda function. If we take it as a
> > given that all states sponsor popular arts that support their
> > system, the question is then which particular values are sponsored
> > by which particular states -- the dignity of labour, imperial
> > glory, the arts of peace, bloodthirsty militarism or what.
>
> In fact, except for a few monuments and memorials here and there,
> the US government supports very little art and the conservatives are
> constantly trying to eliminate even that.
Yes, but I was talking about the particular popular art we call movies.
Painting is obsolete as a vehicle of state ideology. The movie about the
president has replaced the court portrait of the king in his majesty.
That's not to say the
> arts are suppressed here. We have a thriving artistic community,
> supported almost entirely by private funding, donations and
> purchases -- hence practially zero government influence. Unlike the
> hollow communist rhetoric, our arts really are "of the people."
So, is JAG what the People want to be true of the Navy, or what someone
else wants the People to think about the Navy?
(spliced from other post)
> Yes, but having the PotUS battle the bad guys in person to
> that extent, and even fly missions against alien starships in
> person like that, was in my opinion so OTT and politically
> pathological that it needs some explanation. ...
Why? From our point of view, it's not all that unreasonable. Lots
of people here have pilots' licenses, for example. I'm one of them.
Lots of us have guns, too, (about 45-50% of households). By law
(10-USC-311), we're nearly all members of the militia. What's so
odd about private citizens defending their country and homes against
invaders?
What, like the Iraqi militXXXX terrorists? Oh, sorry, wrong thread ;-)
;-)
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. An American militia
resistance to ETs after the defeat of the standing forces I would buy (not
necessarily that you'd win, though). It's always been a _topos_ of SF,
hasn't it? What I found bizarre about "Independence Day" was the way the
Hero Who Single-Handedly Saves the World is combined with the PotUS. It
reminds me of Comrade Stalin driving back the Nazi hordes, except not even
the Commies had Uncle Joe as the first man into Berlin. Who needs Kim Il
Sung when you have this concept of the Presidency? Feh. Or is it just me
that finds it sinisterly sycophantic?
> ... Hey, they are mocking Saddam's cult of
> personality, and we mocked Chairman Mao for it too, but this
> didn't taste any different to me. ...
Nonsequitur. What do these have to do with citizens defending their
homes and country against invaders?
Nothing, see above. If it had been some farmboy who did the piloting, I
wouldn't have minded so much.
> ... Obviously the government didn't
> "make the films", but we should maybe be asking how they came to
> be made. Cui bono? as Cicero would have said.
As I said upthread, they are made because they are profitable. In
Hollywood, the bottom line is the bottom line. Sometimes the
government cooperates with the loan of equipment and scenery and
sometimes it doesn't. As I recall, the US Navy withdrew all support
for the films "Navy Seals" and "GI Jane" because the films varied so
far from the reality of the program as to be ridiculous.
Interesting. Never saw "Navy Seals". GI Jane, was that the one where
Demi Moore got beat up, or another one? If so, would the reality have been
milder or rougher, or what?
They were
made anyway and did well in the theaters, as are many films with
outright anti-military/anti-government themes.
> I have a serious question regarding "JAG". ... Given that the
> programme is so very much what the Navy wanted to have people
> watching, that it is so very pious towards the Navy, what is the
> actual mechanism of sponsorship? How does the patron commission
> the client? Does the Navy call the producer, does the producer
> call the Navy? Who pays?
The Navy certainly doesn't. TV shows ultimately make money by
attracting commercial advertisers who buy the time between the
show's segments in the hope that some people in the shows' audiences
will also watch their ads. The better the show does in the popular
ratings, the more they can charge for that time, so the ratings
trump nearly all other considerations. JAG is made with the
cooperation of the Navy with respect to locations and stock shots of
military equipment, but it could and would be made without that
cooperation, if there was enough profit in it.
Okay. So how would *you* describe the process whereby a TV series is
made, right after a big Navy sexual harassment scandal, that is (originally)
all about sexual harassment in the Navy, explicitly referring to said
scandal, and the efforts of said Navy to stamp it out? Was there really such
pent-up demand in the public to learn how sexual harassment and other gender
issues (later sexual orientation hassles, moral dilemmas and all sorts of
things) are handled by the judge advocate general (of whom most people had
probably never heard previously) that a programme had to be made to respond
to this consumer demand? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. There simply had
to be some kind of "push" by the Navy. However mediated.
Look, if this was a Fifties Mosfilm about the heroic work of some hunks
and babes of the Political Commissar service of the Red Army to raise the
political consciousness of the workers and peasants defending the
Motherland, many of whom are regrettably crude and untutored in the finer
points of Marxism-Leninism, you wouldn't have any difficulty recognising it
as propaganda, would you? Okay, so it would have been made by a Party
outfit, in the US the process is a lot more complicated. But otherwise......
>> Public order was never all of it, not here, anyway. If the state
>> wishes to take away private retribution, it's necessary that they
>> fulfill all the needs satisfied by it, including the desire for
>> emotional satisfaction. NOT doing so, or being percieved to not
>> be doing so, is often what leads to vigilantism.
>
> I buy the social contract theory, Matthew, in fact twenty
> years ago I wrote a Norwegian newspaper opinion piece that maps
> your position perfectly. However, unless I'm misinformed you seem
> to grant the next of kin of the deceased a greater role in
> influencing the sentencing than we do, or at least than we are
> seen to do, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. There's a
> difference between the legal system doing the job of private
> vengeance in order to displace and prevent same, and taking
> instructions from it, or being seen taking instructions from it.
Again, that is an illusion generated by the popular media. Judges
are not so easily influenced and are hedged around with legal limits
and sentencing guidelines in any case.
Okay.
(spliced)
> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. In the US, at least,
> >> we are mostly obssessed with justice, the rights of the accused
> >> and making sure the punishment fits the crime. If anything, we
> >> err very much on the side of leniency. We're only just now
> >> getting around to talking about victims' rights.
> >
> > Not how it looks to us Yurrupeans. From where we're sitting,
> > it looks like you guys are regressing to the wergild or
> > blood-price concept, whereby the punishment is demanded not by the
> > state but by the kin of the deceased -- not public order but
> > emotional satisfaction.
>
> As one netizen put it, "Learning about the US through the popular
> media is like learning about plumbing by sitting in a cesspool."
Ouch. I stand rebuked :-)
> Of course victims are upset and often vengeful. That has little to
> do with what really goes on in our court system. They are sometimes
> allowed to make a statement during the sentencing phase of a trial
> (_after_ a conviction has been handed down), but sentencing is still
> up to the judge who is often restricted by laws setting upper and
> lower limits on punishments.
>
> Again, you seldom see real court cases on TV, not because they're
> suppressed, but because they're _boring_. Why do you think no one
> wants to serve jury duty? It's _tedious_. The drama and emoting
> you see on TV shows almost never happens in the real world. (My
> father was a court reporter for L.A. County for 35 years. It was a
> very rare day that he had anything interesting to say about his
> work. Mostly it was the same old procedures, day in, day out, even
> on the major cases like the Manson trial.)
Best cyberfriend's husband is a PD, and that's what he says too.
I've witnessed four times in a court, and quite enjoyed myself, also sat
in on subsequent proceedings. Drama and emoting we had --- I caused some of
it :-) But that's another story......
D.J.
Jerry Hollombe <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
] As one netizen put it, "Learning about the US through the popular
] media is like learning about plumbing by sitting in a cesspool."
Yup, and is true for media everywhere. i.e. most nations. Most media
cooks the news about their own nation. To put it in the best light
of course.
What astounded me the most about the news, is that many peope have
the bizzare notion that the Iraqi Minister of Information was
unique.
] Again, you seldom see real court cases on TV, not because they're
] suppressed, but because they're _boring_. Why do you think no one
] wants to serve jury duty? It's _tedious_. The drama and emoting
It certainly is. I was seated four times out of 7 times called. Two
of those times jury duty wasn't need and got cancelled by the court
before we went in, and the one other time I had just come off of
jury duty that week.
D.J.
--
Updated: May 3, 2003 my 1E AD&D game world.
Over 420 maps and pages of info and sf poems
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
drive-in theatres: http://www.drivein-jim.net/
David Harden
: Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: it is the practice of any federal
: government to make use of symbology. It's the fastest way to communicate a
: complex idea to a large number of people.
"The comment wasn't about the use of symbology but about pervasive
symbology. It may be that a federal government is likely to make more
use of national symbols, but I'd want to hear from folx outside the
U.S. and Canada before committing to that."
: Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Somebody's so-called "rights"
: are always being stepped on. I think a proper definition of rights is
: called for before levelling this accusation.
"*That* would require its own separate baitshop."
<snip>
: Obsession with National Security: Ummmm.....I seem to recall American
: airplanes flying into national landmarks, including one of the seats of
: federal government, killing thousands, in an attack unheard of since Pearl
: Harbor. BTW...fear is always a motivator....read Clive Barker's "Dread".
"The Pentagon is not one of the 'seats of federal government'. The
Defense Department is an agency of the government, not one of the
branches of it."
<snip>
: Fraudulent Elections: Seems to me this was a cause, not a result.
"Maybe you guys should send election monitors in 2004."
--
A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
-- Adlai Stevenson
David Harden
: "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
: news:b9d2ao$1oh$1...@titan.btinternet.com:
: > The Silicon shaman is sitting at his usual table, with Iridium his
: > black firelizard curled around his shoulders. Leaning back with a
: > thoughtful expression he wets a fingertip and draws the following
: > letters in a glowing script upon the air.
: >
: > http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2EA31C74
: Well, let's see:
: 1. Use of flags and symbols. Fascists use them, true. So do
: communists, capitalists, and every other form of government you can
: think of. I think it's more a human thing.
"True, symbols are an easy way to define Us as Us and Them as Them.
However, the comment wasn't about use, but about pervasiveness."
: 2. Disdain for human rights. The sheep are with us, always. There
: will always be people who will trade away anything for a promise of
: better security and safety. Very often, they are quite vocal about it.
: It's when they gain a working, voting majority that you have to worry.
"On the other hand, I worry when those who talk like that define open
disagreement with, or criticism of, any of their proposals or goals as
evidence that the critic is one of the sheep and/or is opposed to the
idea of personal freedom. Don't say it doesn't happen, because I've
seen it all too often in here."
: 3. Scapegoats. Putting terrorists in this class is disingenuous.
: They really do need to be eliminated, if possible, or, at least,
: severely restricted in their activities. They are not comparable to
: "... racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists;
: socialists ..."
"IMO, that part the commentary would have been more on-target if
'liberals', 'communists', 'socialists', and 'terrorists' had been in
quotes. For people be scapegoats, it's not required that they _be_ in
any of the despised categories if accusing them of being in one
produces the desired effect. It isn't even required that the
categories used by scapegoaters have much - or any - correspondence to
any categories that exist in reality.
"Dr. Britt's article isn't available online. I'd have to go to the
main library to read it and see how close this commentary comes to
what he actually wrote."
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>> 8. Religion + Government. Not here, not yet. The good news is that
>> all the various people who would make the US a theocracy hate each
>> other as much as they hate the secular humanists. If they ever really
>> got a shot at control, they'd implode.
>
> Let's hope! It would be even better if they did their imploding, like,
>yesterday.
>
Well, you're mostly right - for now. But it seems to be gaining
ground. As in "faith-based initiatives", which is showing a
preference for those functions that can show a religious link, and
while not directly supporting a theocracy, we have vouchers. As I
say, indirectly on that, since the vouchers don't *have to be* used on
prochial schools, just that most private schools *do* have a religious
bent - and should one wish to home-school instead, vouchers cannot be
used for that type of education. And meanwhile the schools that *need*
to get themselves straightened out, the so-called public schools, will
not be able to - I know that *I* certainly wouldn't want to send my
kid to a system that has been so bureaucratically (sp?) bungled which
now has 2 chances of getting itself fixed - slim and none, cuz it's
going to get even less funding than it does now.
--
Carpe Dementem! (grab the wacko)
Wes Struebing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
str...@carpedementem.org
home page: www.carpedementem.org
Mary Kay, Librarian
> Again, that is an illusion generated by the popular media. Judges
> are not so easily influenced and are hedged around with legal limits
> and sentencing guidelines in any case.
Don't for a *second* thing that judges are infallible and immune to the
personality quirks and traits that the rest of us mere mortals are subject
to. Yes, there are guidelines and precedents that have to be followed,
but they're just that - guidelines. Just because the law says a convicted
criminal must serve between (x) and (y) years, doesn't mean that they
can't find a reason to sentence them to (z) term [1].
*Anything* can influence judges and the judgements they pass - from their
mood de jour to their opinion of the lawyers involved in the case. I have
heard of judges who berate assault victims and question their morals
because there is a high school class watching the proceedings that day. I
know judges who won't rein in overzealous cross-examination because they
don't like the witness. I sat across from a judge at a dinner who came
right out and said that he knows whether or not someone is guilty even
before a trial starts, and the only thing left to do is to decide how long
to lock them up.
As for disciplining judges - forget it. They have to commit one hell of
an error to be removed from the bench. At least in Canada, there are
investigations on top of investigations before the Department of Justice
will announce it is investigating the actions of a judge, which means
there's still no guarantee that the judge will be disciplined.
Judges are human - make no mistake of that fact. It was one of the bigger
disappointments of my year at the courthouse to find out that judges
aren't as impartial as they are made out to be.
MK
[1] Where: z ? x or y
David Cox
"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:c4Bua.10760$b71.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. An American militia
> resistance to ETs after the defeat of the standing forces I would buy (not
> necessarily that you'd win, though). It's always been a _topos_ of SF,
> hasn't it? What I found bizarre about "Independence Day" was the way the
> Hero Who Single-Handedly Saves the World is combined with the PotUS. It
> reminds me of Comrade Stalin driving back the Nazi hordes, except not even
> the Commies had Uncle Joe as the first man into Berlin. Who needs Kim Il
> Sung when you have this concept of the Presidency? Feh. Or is it just me
> that finds it sinisterly sycophantic?
>
heroes who saved the world were the characters played by Smith and Goldblum.
Sure the President played a major secondary role, but I wouldn't consider
his role to be as described by you. I think it is just you... ;)
Dave
David Cox
> made, right after a big Navy sexual harassment scandal, that is
(originally)
> all about sexual harassment in the Navy, explicitly referring to said
> scandal, and the efforts of said Navy to stamp it out? Was there really
such
> pent-up demand in the public to learn how sexual harassment and other
gender
> issues (later sexual orientation hassles, moral dilemmas and all sorts of
> things) are handled by the judge advocate general (of whom most people had
> probably never heard previously) that a programme had to be made to
respond
> to this consumer demand? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. There simply had
> to be some kind of "push" by the Navy. However mediated.
>
events. For example: NYPD Blue, the various CSI shows, Law & Justice, the
Practice, and Dragnet all feature storylines "ripped from the headlines"
(I've heard this phrase used in some of the commercials). The Tailhook
scandal was a hot topic and many people were interested in it. Hey, sex
sells - "Tune in and see the true story behind the hallway groping!" Does
the Navy influence the storyline of JAG? I don't know, but there are
explanations that don't require any sinister intent.
Dave
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>"Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9375879A18BC3j...@207.217.77.21...
>> Again, that is an illusion generated by the popular media. Judges
>> are not so easily influenced and are hedged around with legal limits
>> and sentencing guidelines in any case.
>
>personality quirks and traits that the rest of us mere mortals are subject
>to. Yes, there are guidelines and precedents that have to be followed,
>but they're just that - guidelines. Just because the law says a convicted
>criminal must serve between (x) and (y) years, doesn't mean that they
>can't find a reason to sentence them to (z) term [1].
>
>*Anything* can influence judges and the judgements they pass - from their
>mood de jour to their opinion of the lawyers involved in the case. I have
>heard of judges who berate assault victims and question their morals
>because there is a high school class watching the proceedings that day. I
>know judges who won't rein in overzealous cross-examination because they
>don't like the witness. I sat across from a judge at a dinner who came
>right out and said that he knows whether or not someone is guilty even
>before a trial starts, and the only thing left to do is to decide how long
>to lock them up.
Your comment fits right along the lines of everything I've heard over the years
from many friends and acquaintances who are lawyers. There are good judges and
bad judges -- and even the good judges can have a bad day. Please note that
"bad" here is NOT defined as "didn't acquit my client"... unless, for example,
said judge refused to admit legally-gathered evidence which would have argued
for acquittal. The idea that judges -- by the sake of their office or their
experience -- are somehow immune to the fallibility of humanity is, at best,
incredibly naive.
Fedor of Momus
<Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>The Silicon shaman is sitting at his usual table, with Iridium his black
>firelizard curled around his shoulders. Leaning back with a thoughtful
>expression he wets a fingertip and draws the following letters in a glowing
>script upon the air.
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2EA31C74
I quick/read most of it. Mostly very familiar from other such work...
>
>"I don't know that we're quite there yet. But it seems as if the world in
>general is in a mad, lemming-like dash towards this.
Ah, but friend shaman, I must gently point out that your perspective
is chronologically limited, thusly: humans have demonstrated the mad,
lemming-like dash towards many and various targets throughout recorded
history. Do a quick (re)survey of the Christian Crusades, best example
I can offer, though not necessarily the worst.
>What with events in the
>USA, and here in Europe which seems to being heading at an ever increasing
>pace towards a federal superstate.
No sarcasm implied or intended, and with an eye towars the devil's
advocate seat... why is a federal superstate necessarily a bad thing?
>[they're proposing an unelected EU
>President now, to go with the unelected USA one I guess.] "
I hear you, and I offer a similar cynicism. However, I would ask: is
Dubya the first president to take office under this sort of cloud? I
do believe he has been in office long enough for a valid comparison,
thusly: is he in the running for one of the worst presidents in US
history? And, when those already on that list were recognized as bad,
what was their fate(s) and did not the US survive/recover from their
tenures?
>
>*Friend shaman upset ?* Iridium sends, opalescent eyes whirling slightly red
>tinged.
>
>"Not really, it's worrying but I was wondering what the rest of the Patrons
>think though. I know I'm probably opening can'o'worms here."
>
>*worms taste good! Spag-geti that wriggles!* "No Iridium, not real worms."
Fedor smiles at Iridium. "Will you share them with me?"
>
>"Anyway, drinks at the bar. Cordials for those that remain polite."
"Thanks, S.S, I've not yet found a cordial I like, so I'll gladly
accept a God's Blessing."
John Palmer
<jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. In the US, at least, we are
>mostly obssessed with justice, the rights of the accused and making
>sure the punishment fits the crime. If anything, we err very much on
>the side of leniency. We're only just now getting around to talking
>about victims' rights.
I think that this is official policy, but I'm really not sure if
it's how things work out, and I think the idea of making the
punishment fit the crime has meant increasing punishments steadily.
In some cases, this is a good thing, especially for violent crimes...
but right now, we're imprisoning an awful lot of people to be erring
on the side of leniency. (This isn't saying that we're *not*, it just
suggests that we can't take it for granted.)
>All in all, I think Dr. Britt [in the root post of this thread] looked at the world around him and forced
>everything he saw into his model of fascism, ignoring other forms of
>government with the same features. I'm not impressed.
There is one distressing thing that I've seen, and I don't know how
old it is. Do you notice how little polite dissent there seems to be?
How the leader of the opposition isn't the "honorable gentleman"? I
mean, politics are always *ugly* at times, but it seems there's been
an awful lot of ugliness for an awfully long time, over even minor
things.
That was one thing that Dr. Britt pointed out, and I think it's worth
considering... though I don't know how useful it will be to consider
it.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
"Do not try to understand the bunny; that is impossible. Instead, try
to understand the truth... there *IS* no bunny, but there is still a home
to come to."
David C Pugh
news:vbm2um1...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry called me on that too. With the passage of time, my memory got
distorted and yes, I ended up seeing, or anyway recalling, a different film.
:-)
Dominic
"David Harden" <dha...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3ebaf...@news.iglou.com...
> In <b9dg74$i2og6$1...@ID-162141.news.dfncis.de>, Dominic wrote:
>
>
> "The comment wasn't about the use of symbology but about pervasive
> symbology. It may be that a federal government is likely to make more
> use of national symbols, but I'd want to hear from folx outside the
> U.S. and Canada before committing to that."
Swastikas. Chinese propaganda posters. Soviet sickle and hammer. The
Union Jack. The Fleur de lys. etc., etc., etc...
>
> : Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Somebody's so-called
"rights"
> : are always being stepped on. I think a proper definition of rights is
> : called for before levelling this accusation.
>
> "*That* would require its own separate baitshop."
Agreed. Personally, I start from the idea that the only inalienable right
is the right to exist (and the necessary corollaries that follow), but I am
prepared to admit that I may be a bit extreme in that view.
>
> "The Pentagon is not one of the 'seats of federal government'. The
> Defense Department is an agency of the government, not one of the
> branches of it."
A good point. Doesn't change my argument a jot nor a tittle, however.
>
> : Fraudulent Elections: Seems to me this was a cause, not a result.
>
> "Maybe you guys should send election monitors in 2004."
Maybe folks should learn to count. I suppose I should be careful how I
mouth off here....it was a poorly monitored process which may or may not
have led to a bad decision. Certainly Canada has no claim to superiority
when it comes to electoral process....I mean, look at some of the people
we've elected. Still, my point was that the "fraudulent" election did not
happen after this person got into power, as one would expect of a fascist
state (like, say, Hussein getting 100% of the vote), but is the thing which
put him in power in the first place.
-D
Mary Kay, Librarian
> Your comment fits right along the lines of everything I've heard over
the years
> from many friends and acquaintances who are lawyers. There are good
judges and
> bad judges -- and even the good judges can have a bad day. Please note
that
> "bad" here is NOT defined as "didn't acquit my client"... unless, for
example,
> said judge refused to admit legally-gathered evidence which would have
argued
> for acquittal. The idea that judges -- by the sake of their office or
their
> experience -- are somehow immune to the fallibility of humanity is, at
best,
> incredibly naive.
You're correct - that's not to say that there are good judges out there,
but they had all retired when I started :) And then there were the ones
who *should* have retired, but still sat. Up here, there is a stage
between full-time and retirement, when a judge sits for a certain number
of days a year until they hit the mandatory retirement age. There are
some judges who should not be doing this for medical reasons, like poor
hearing, bad eyesight, or other severe health issues, but no one can tell
them they *can't* sit.
MK
Matthew Russotto
David C Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:bfWcnWZ4erS...@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <Prrua.10556$b71.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>,
>> David C Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. On whose part? By
>> >> definition, 86% of the population are in or below the normal range of
>> >> intelligence. This has less to do with government and more with human
>> >> nature. Both Hitler's Nazis and Mao's Communists were obsessed with
>> >> the arts and making sure the artists were in step with state policy.
>> >> You don't worry about controlling things you disdain.
>> >
>> > Weeell..... You don't think that films like "Air Force One" and
>> >"Independence Day" are the American equivalent of "Socialist Realism"? I
>> >used to enjoy "JAG", mainly 'cos I find Catherine Bell rather
>scrumptious,
>> >but it's very obviously a Pentagon production, originally designed as
>damage
>> >limitation after Tailhook.
>>
>> The main problem with this idea is it assumes the government can make
>> films and shows that would actually be POPULAR -- and that Hollywood
>> wouldn't do so on its own. Americans have been suckers for feel-good
>> plenty of explosions.
>
> Yes, but having the PotUS battle the bad guys in person to that extent,
>and even fly missions against alien starships in person like that, was in my
>opinion so OTT and politically pathological that it needs some explanation.
Well, _Air Force One_ just ripped the character of Jack Ryan (and one
of the actors who played him) from the Tom Clancy books and stuck him
in a slightly different setting, IMO.
> I have a serious question regarding "JAG". The object of the exercise
>being as I described it seems self-evident to me -- the earlier episodes
>were dominated by gender issues in the Navy and the angle was how the naval
>authorities were very keen to address and rectify them.
For the content, Hollywood has always been willing to rip things from
yesterday's headlines. The positive spin, though, might well be propaganda.
When a show requires some sort of co-operation from the military
to get made, the co-operation will be contingent on not making them
look bad.
However, it might also be the personal bias of Bellisario, who served
in the Marines.
>> Public order was never all of it, not here, anyway. If the state
>> wishes to take away private retribution, it's necessary that they
>> fulfill all the needs satisfied by it, including the desire for
>> emotional satisfaction. NOT doing so, or being percieved to not be
>> doing so, is often what leads to vigilantism.
>
> I buy the social contract theory, Matthew, in fact twenty years ago I
>wrote a Norwegian newspaper opinion piece that maps your position perfectly.
>However, unless I'm misinformed you seem to grant the next of kin of the
>deceased a greater role in influencing the sentencing than we do, or at
>least than we are seen to do, and I'm not sure that's a good idea.
They can speak to the court during sentencing. But as far as I know
there's no formal role or influence aside from that. At least in PA.
David C Pugh
GENERAL
> > "Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Yes, I was thinking this the other day, so many films premised
> > on Big Corporation conspiracies against life, the universe and
> > everything. Odd that this doesn't seem to translate very well into
> > scepticism of the plutocracy in the polls. ...
>
> It does in some quarters. Our last presidential election was a dead
> heat as far as the popular vote was concerned. The difference
> between the candidates was well within error limits. (We don't
> elect our presidents by pure democracy here, but that's a different
> discussion.)
Yes, and that's the problem. If 50% the country is voting for a
plutocracy that benefits (say) 5% of the population, then 45% of the country
are voting against their own interests. How does that happen? I'm not
Murrican-bashing here, we've had the same thing in the UK, the equivalent of
your "Reagan Democrat" was the "blue-collar Thatcherite"; and some but not
all of the techniques by which They persuade an astonishing number of Us to
vote for Them are similar. These techniques are what interests me, in the
same way that the SARS virus interests public health workers; and I suspect
that certain popular media may have something to do with it.
> > ... Is it just market
> > forces, Hollywood seeing that Joe Public likes films BOTH about
> > evil plutocracies enslaving us with mind control, AND presidents
> > single-handedly saving us from evil aliens -- possibly on
> > successive evenings -- or will future historians think there's a
> > debate going on here? Because when historians look at past ages,
> > they often assume that contradictory messages are part of a single
> > debate in the public space; perhaps they're wrong about that too.
>
> I'll let future historians think what they like. Their
> interpretations and misconceptions don't affect me.
In one sense, clearly not. What has posterity ever done for me, as (I
think) Woody Allen said. But I find that contemplating ways in which future
historians may misinterpret our time is helpful in the discovery of ways in
which present historians may have misinterpreted the past, or present
observers may be misinterpreting the present. For instance, it wouldn't be
hard to go through your garage and misinterpret absolutely every object as
having "cultic significance", which is archaeologist for "I don't know what
this is".
> >> In fact, except for a few monuments and memorials here and there,
> >> the US government supports very little art and the conservatives
> >> are constantly trying to eliminate even that.
> >
> > Yes, but I was talking about the particular popular art we
> > call movies. ...
>
> The same statement applies. Except for a few NEA grants, which
> sponsor anti-establishment rubbish as often as not, the US
> government is not in the commercial or artistic movie making
> business. The vast majority of that comes out of corporations and
> independent studios who sink or swim on the strength of public
> appeal.
I think we have another misunderstanding. I was never claiming, and
would not dream of claiming, that the US Government, or even the big
corporations, make propaganda films in the same way as the Ministries of
Information or Ministries of Culture in communist countries.
What I do maintain is that all art, no exceptions, has a message of some
sort, even if the message is only "I'm having fun here and don't give a cuss
what you think"; and that in the vast majority of cases the message of the
art work has something to do with pushing particular views of politics,
society, religion and so forth. (No, I'm not a French Deconstructionist,
neither am I politically correct, what I am is a history maven.)
If you and I and the other Patrons get together in a RS for a pun-fest
or filk or whatever, that's pure "entertainment"; but when someone is making
a media product for dissemination to millions, there is something going on
that is more than "entertainment". I submit that the whole concept of "the
entertainment industry" is our age's chief technique for disguising this
fact, because the word carries an invisible qualifier "only". I'm not
denying that one aspect is that it is indeed an industry in which people are
trying to make money so as to put bread on the table, and in that sense is
demand-driven -- but it is not the only aspect.
JAG
> > So, is JAG what the People want to be true of the Navy, or
> > what someone else wants the People to think about the Navy?
>
> Both and neither. Some people are probably stupid enough to believe
> what they see on TV and think that's what the Navy's like (not
> anyone who's ever been in the Navy, of course).
And this is a consummation devoutly wished by certain parties?
Some are smart
> enough to know it's all fantasy and watch for pure entertainment's
> sake.
As for instance ogling Catherine Bell ;-) Actually, I enjoy the whole
thing as regards characterisation, acting and most but not all of the plots.
I like Chegwidden and Mick. For me, Harm is the weakest link, I can't
identify with him, not the teeniest weeniest bit. I'm a sort of cross
between Bud and Tiner. ;-)
The writers and producers doubtless have their own agendas,
> as do the Navy advisors. In the end, ratings rule. If they can
> sneak their messages in with the entertainment, that's a plus.
Ah, this is more like it. But the reason I brought up JAG is that there
doesn't seem to be any difference between the agendas of the writers and
producers and the Navy.
> > Okay. So how would *you* describe the process whereby a TV
> > series is made, right after a big Navy sexual harassment scandal,
> > that is (originally) all about sexual harassment in the Navy,
> > explicitly referring to said scandal, and the efforts of said Navy
> > to stamp it out? ...
>
> I don't know. I wasn't there. That incident might have inspired
> the show or it could have been coincidence. Many of our TV shows
> base scripts on real life incidents. JAG might have already been in
> the works and the writers grabbed Tailhook because it was in the
> public consciousness, so was likely to draw a good audience.
No, Tailhook was some years before. What with lead times, it seems about
right for cause and effect.
> > ... Was there really such pent-up demand in the public to
> > learn how sexual harassment and other gender issues (later sexual
> > orientation hassles, moral dilemmas and all sorts of things) are
> > handled by the judge advocate general (of whom most people had
> > probably never heard previously) that a programme had to be made
> > to respond to this consumer demand? ...
>
> The secret of a successful TV show is to _create_ demand. I doubt
> any significant number of people were beating on the studio doors,
> demanding that they do a show about Tailhook, but the same could be
> said about any other entertainment program.
So, lefties could do the same thing in a different direction? I suppose
they have and do, in that many soaps seem to set out to increase public
tolerance of alternative lifestyles. I'm fine with that, but I bet the RRR
isn't.
> > ... There simply had to be some kind of "push" by the Navy.
> > However mediated.
>
> It's possible, but the Navy couldn't force the studio to do
> anything.
Unless we have a scenario where a navy defence contractor sets up the
studio through dummy companies. Don't suppose the Navy itself would want to
be caught doing that, but hey, that's what the revolving door is for.
At most, they could suggest and offer support. Free
> access to military locations and equipment is a strong incentive.
> That stuff is expensive to reproduce. Given an opportunity to take
> those line items out of their budget
Now this amounts to sponsorship, no?
the studio would have tried
> very hard to come up with something, but it had to be something the
> public would watch or they'd go broke anyway.
Oh sure, I think it's a great series. I'm not a natural customer for
promotion of the military but was an addict anyway (they're still doing it
here, but at ungodly hours).
> It's equally possible some writer came up with the idea of JAG and
> the studio took it to the Navy to see if they'd cooperate. The Navy
> likely said they would, provided they got to provide some input on
> the stories and how they were told.
Again, this amounts to a relationship that justifies my classification
of the show as "propaganda". Not saying the sky should fall in consequence,
or the perps should be guillotined in Times Square, just that these things
aren't confined to the commies.
> > Look, if this was a Fifties Mosfilm about the heroic work of
> > some hunks and babes of the Political Commissar service of the
> > Red Army to raise the political consciousness of the workers and
> > peasants defending the Motherland, many of whom are regrettably
> > crude and untutored in the finer points of Marxism-Leninism, you
> > wouldn't have any difficulty recognising it as propaganda, would
> > you? Okay, so it would have been made by a Party outfit, in the US
> > the process is a lot more complicated. But otherwise......
>
> You're assuming a patriotic production wouldn't be made if the
> government didn't push for it.
No, I don't think I'd want to say that...... The defence industry,
perhaps :-)
In fact, all kinds of programs get
> made, with many points of view. If you really want to see
> propaganda in action, skip JAG and watch "West Wing."
We have it here, but since I missed the early days, I decided not to
follow it. Or is it something where you can come in in the middle?
Again, the
> government didn't push for that. The show is often very critical of
> governemt -- especially the current administration since the chief
> writer is politically left of Mao
I'll take that as meaning what a European would call centrist :-)
-- but it presents a very definite
> political point of view and has even been criticized in the press
> for its lack of balance.
Interesting. Did you ever see a British show called "Yes, Minister",
later "Yes, Prime Minister"? That might have been our equivalent, except
that it was a comedy, with brilliantly witty dialogue. Insiders said it was
actually devastatingly accurate as to the way government actually worked, or
more often didn't.
> If you want to sink even lower, go back to the movies and see
> "Bowling for Columbine." It's pure propaganda and insultingly crude
> about it, but doesn't represent any agenda of the current
> administration's that I'm aware of.
Haven't seen it yet, want to, but I know where Michael Moore is coming
from, and I think we'd better agree to differ on that :-)
INDEPENDENCE DAY
> > What, like the Iraqi militXXXX terrorists? Oh, sorry, wrong
> > thread ;-)
>
> The simile is closer than most people would like to think right now.
> I don't characterize the Iraqi militias as terrorists. The didn't
> go to other people's countries and blow up civilian non-combatants.
> They were fighting what they considered to be an invader on their
> own soil. I can't fault them for that, only for their choice of
> leader to support.
Isn't it interesting that we disagree on so much but agree on this? BTW,
I really appreciate the tone of this debate.
> Yes. I just realized that by PotUS you meant the President, not the
> people.
Is that abbreviation ever used for the People, then? Like SPQR.
I have to admit the idea of the president getting into a
> jet and going off to fight the aliens is a little over the top, even
> for fantasy, but it makes for good entertainment.
Well, it blew my ludicrosity meter off the scale, even relative to that
particular movie. Maybe you have to be an American to enjoy it even as
escapist entertainment. Can't see the British C-in-C doing it.... of course,
she's married to an alien herself.
> >... What I found bizarre about "Independence
> > Day" was the way the Hero Who Single-Handedly Saves the World is
> > combined with the PotUS. ...
>
> But it wasn't, remember? The president tried and failed with the
> rest of the military. In the end, the hero who sacrificed himself
> to save the world was a half crazy, drunken crop duster pilot -- the
> lowliest of the low who could still fly a plane. That was a paean
> to the common man, not a glorification of power.
Eh by gum, it looks as if I'm remembering something that didn't happen.
I'm all for paeans to the common man.
> > ... Or is it just me that finds it sinisterly sycophantic?
>
> Possibly because you misremember how the tale ended. It was the
> little guy who won the day, not the president. Americans love an
> underdog.
So do Brits. Maybe you get it from us :-)
BOYC for that correction?
David Cox
"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:kLPua.10937$b71.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
<snip>
> What I do maintain is that all art, no exceptions, has a message of
some
> sort, even if the message is only "I'm having fun here and don't give a
cuss
> what you think"; and that in the vast majority of cases the message of the
> art work has something to do with pushing particular views of politics,
> society, religion and so forth. (No, I'm not a French Deconstructionist,
> neither am I politically correct, what I am is a history maven.)
>
paintings? What statement is being made by the Mona Lisa? I'll agree that
art often pushes a viewpoint, but all art, no exceptions?
Dave
David Cox
"Dominic" <paladinf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9g48f$iibjr$1...@ID-162141.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David Harden" <dha...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:3ebaf...@news.iglou.com...
> > In <b9dg74$i2og6$1...@ID-162141.news.dfncis.de>, Dominic wrote:
> >
> >
> > "The comment wasn't about the use of symbology but about pervasive
> > symbology. It may be that a federal government is likely to make more
> > use of national symbols, but I'd want to hear from folx outside the
> > U.S. and Canada before committing to that."
>
> Swastikas. Chinese propaganda posters. Soviet sickle and hammer. The
> Union Jack. The Fleur de lys. etc., etc., etc...
> >
some sort of meaning to Palestinians. How about the Olympics? I'm thinking
of the opening ceremonies, with each nation's athletes entering behind their
flag, as well as wearing outfits that are suppossed to be representative of
their home country.
Dave
David Harden
: "Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
: news:bfWcnWZ4erS...@speakeasy.net...
: >
: > The main problem with this idea is it assumes the government can make
: > films and shows that would actually be POPULAR -- and that Hollywood
: > wouldn't do so on its own. Americans have been suckers for feel-good
: > films like the two you mention for years. Especially when there's
: > plenty of explosions.
: Yes, but having the PotUS battle the bad guys in person to that extent,
: and even fly missions against alien starships in person like that, was in my
: opinion so OTT and politically pathological that it needs some explanation.
: Hey, they are mocking Saddam's cult of personality, and we mocked Chairman
: Mao for it too, but this didn't taste any different to me. Obviously the
: government didn't "make the films", but we should maybe be asking how they
: came to be made. Cui bono? as Cicero would have said.
"They get made because the studio figures they have a good chance of
being profitable. It's known that there's a market for feel-good,
escapist movies in which lots of stuff explodes. Heck, the half-
serious definition of a Guy Movie is 'one in which Stuff Explodes'.
They'll keep getting made as long as enough people will pay to see
them."
: I have a serious question regarding "JAG". The object of the exercise
: being as I described it seems self-evident to me -- the earlier episodes
: were dominated by gender issues in the Navy and the angle was how the naval
: authorities were very keen to address and rectify them. They even kept
: mentioning Tailhook by name. Later, as they do in long-running soaps, the
: plot lines got a little wild, but it kept coming back to the sexual
: harassment issues, mixed with pre-emptive criticism in other current issues
: like rules of engagement. Given that the programme is so very much what the
: Navy wanted to have people watching, that it is so very pious towards the
: Navy, what is the actual mechanism of sponsorship? How does the patron
: commission the client? Does the Navy call the producer, does the producer
: call the Navy? Who pays?
"The advertisers pay, same as with any other program on the commercial
networks. If the show's in syndication, the people who bought the
syndication rights paid, and hope to recover their money by selling
broadcast rights."
: > >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. In the US, at least, we are
: > >> mostly obssessed with justice, the rights of the accused and making
: > >> sure the punishment fits the crime. If anything, we err very much on
: > >> the side of leniency. We're only just now getting around to talking
: > >> about victims' rights.
: > >
: > > Not how it looks to us Yurrupeans. From where we're sitting, it looks
: > >like you guys are regressing to the wergild or blood-price concept,
: whereby
: > >the punishment is demanded not by the state but by the kin of the
: > >deceased -- not public order but emotional satisfaction.
: >
: > Public order was never all of it, not here, anyway. If the state
: > wishes to take away private retribution, it's necessary that they
: > fulfill all the needs satisfied by it, including the desire for
: > emotional satisfaction. NOT doing so, or being percieved to not be
: > doing so, is often what leads to vigilantism.
: I buy the social contract theory, Matthew, in fact twenty years ago I
: wrote a Norwegian newspaper opinion piece that maps your position perfectly.
: However, unless I'm misinformed you seem to grant the next of kin of the
: deceased a greater role in influencing the sentencing than we do, or at
: least than we are seen to do, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. There's a
: difference between the legal system doing the job of private vengeance in
: order to displace and prevent same, and taking instructions from it, or
: being seen taking instructions from it.
"Depending on jurisdiction, victims or their families may get to say
their piece when sentencing is being considered, but AFAIK (and
remembering that IANAL), the judge is not obliged to take it into
account when setting the sentence."
: A big strike against our side is the treatment of the "Moors Murderers"
: in the UK, which has been frighteningly dictated by public opinion, or
: rather, whatever the murdochs say is public opinion.
: --
: David
: "From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
: bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
--
David C Pugh
I can't read the "codes" in either Monet or the Mona Lisa, neither is my
period, but I bet my friend can, I'm copying this to her.
David C Pugh
> > Yes, but having the PotUS battle the bad guys in person to that
extent,
> >and even fly missions against alien starships in person like that, was in
my
> >opinion so OTT and politically pathological that it needs some
explanation.
>
> Well, _Air Force One_ just ripped the character of Jack Ryan (and one
> of the actors who played him) from the Tom Clancy books and stuck him
> in a slightly different setting, IMO.
If "character" is the right word for any of these action wallahs.....
:-(
> > I have a serious question regarding "JAG". The object of the exercise
> >being as I described it seems self-evident to me -- the earlier episodes
> >were dominated by gender issues in the Navy and the angle was how the
naval authorities were very keen to address and rectify them.
>
> For the content, Hollywood has always been willing to rip things from
> yesterday's headlines. The positive spin, though, might well be
propaganda.
> When a show requires some sort of co-operation from the military
> to get made, the co-operation will be contingent on not making them
> look bad.
>
> However, it might also be the personal bias of Bellisario, who served
> in the Marines.
Aha! Didn't know that.
> >> Public order was never all of it, not here, anyway. If the state
> >> wishes to take away private retribution, it's necessary that they
> >> fulfill all the needs satisfied by it, including the desire for
> >> emotional satisfaction. NOT doing so, or being percieved to not be
> >> doing so, is often what leads to vigilantism.
> >
> > I buy the social contract theory, Matthew, in fact twenty years ago I
> >wrote a Norwegian newspaper opinion piece that maps your position
perfectly.
> >However, unless I'm misinformed you seem to grant the next of kin of the
> >deceased a greater role in influencing the sentencing than we do, or at
> >least than we are seen to do, and I'm not sure that's a good idea.
>
> They can speak to the court during sentencing. But as far as I know
> there's no formal role or influence aside from that. At least in PA.
Jerry thinks I'm the victim of media misrepresentation of the
process.......
John Palmer
Billings) wrote:
>After a similar discussion a year or so ago, David Kifer sent me a fairly
>persuasive argument to the effect that what I call "the glorification of
>non-intelligence" is pretty much inherent in the background of America. We
>completely lack the tradition of the "gentleman scholar", because by the time
>we developed a moneyed leisure class at all they had other priorities. Our
>"disdain for intellectuals and the arts" goes well beyond the "modern art" and
>"modern literature" you yourself disdain; it reaches right down to the level of
>secondary school, where people who show intellectual or artistic capabilities
>of *any* sort are widely disparaged. As a society, our ideal individual seems
>to be not Stephen Hawking or Andrew Lloyd Webber, but Forrest Gump.
Actually, there is a fair bit of American folklore/hero worship
of people with "no book learnin', but plenty (common sense, or
whatever)".
It's not that people worship the stupid; it's that they don't
admire the intelligent unless the intelligence does something
obviously meaningful... hence, the expression "If you're so smart, how
come you ain't rich?"
David Cox
> No doubt. It's probably a good recruitment tool for the Navy, among
> other things.
>
<more snippage>
> >> At most, they could suggest and offer support. Free
> >> access to military locations and equipment is a strong incentive.
> >> That stuff is expensive to reproduce. Given an opportunity to
> >> take those line items out of their budget
> >
> > Now this amounts to sponsorship, no?
>
They supposedly get dozens of film ideas submitted to them yearly. They
evaluate the proposal, and if they feel it supports their mission (they are
funded, I believe, out of the recruiting budget) they will provide
assistance to the filmmaker
(http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2001-05-17-pentagon-helps-hollywood.htm
#more) Regulations require that the government be reimbursed for all
expenses involved - so this isn't supposed to cost the taxpayer's anything.
It started in 1927 with the movie "Wings". The article specifically
mentions that the Pentagon did NOT cooperate on Independance Day.
Dave
David C Pugh
news:fgqnbvcr3aahce4c5...@4ax.com...
There exists a British denigration of intelligence too, but the
interesting thing is that it's not expressed in precisely these terms.
Indeed, we see "If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?" as
quintessentially American in its suggestion that there is only one value for
"obviously meaningful".
On the other hand, I'm not sure this relative sympathy with people who
are not obsessed with becoming rich has *always* been a feature of the
British scene. In the 19th century someone, I think Matthew Arnold but I
might be wrong, started calling the uncultured rich (and bluenoses?)
"Philistines", which is a reference not so much to Gath and Goliath as to
Carthage, a great commercial city with no known art or culture --- other
than infant sacrifice, which may or may not have been a reference to British
boarding schools :-)
And it's a common furrin' misconception that the British aristocracy are
learned. On the whole, they're just rednecks with different accents and more
money. :-)
David C Pugh
> > Yes, and that's the problem. If 50% the country is voting for a
> > plutocracy that benefits (say) 5% of the population, then 45% of
> > the country are voting against their own interests. How does that
> > happen? ...
>
> No one thinks they're voting against their own interests
which is, perhaps, what needs to be explained.
and most of
> our population probably couldn't define "plutocracy" if their lives
> depended on it.
no contest :-)
> > ... I'm not Murrican-bashing here, we've had the same thing in
> > the UK, the equivalent of your "Reagan Democrat" was the
> > "blue-collar Thatcherite"; and some but not all of the techniques
> > by which They persuade an astonishing number of Us to vote for
> > Them are similar. These techniques are what interests me, in the
> > same way that the SARS virus interests public health workers; and
> > I suspect that certain popular media may have something to do with
> > it.
>
> Some people base their votes on other issues than economic policy.
> That is their right.
Sure it is. It's also their right to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Okay, I
vote other issues myself, but the scenario I have in mind here is where
people vote for the hand which they feed and which bites them in return. As
if single mothers, welfare scroungers and wetbacks really impoverish the
ordinary Joe as much as the shenanigans of the robber barons.
> > ... when someone
> > is making a media product for dissemination to millions, there is
> > something going on that is more than "entertainment". I submit
> > that the whole concept of "the entertainment industry" is our
> > age's chief technique for disguising this fact, because the word
> > carries an invisible qualifier "only". I'm not denying that one
> > aspect is that it is indeed an industry in which people are trying
> > to make money so as to put bread on the table, and in that sense
> > is demand-driven -- but it is not the only aspect.
>
> If the government is paying the industry for favorable messages,
> they aren't getting their money's worth (hardly a first /-:). There
> are at least as many shows critical of government as favorable,
> probably many more.
Right. It's not monolithic. Unlike the Soviet Union. I was never
claiming that ALL messages were government, only being unable to credit that
there is no such thing as state propaganda.
> > And this is a consummation devoutly wished by certain parties?
>
> No doubt. It's probably a good recruitment tool for the Navy, among
> other things.
Exactly.
> > Ah, this is more like it. But the reason I brought up JAG is that
> > there doesn't seem to be any difference between the agendas of the
> > writers and producers and the Navy.
>
> Probably true and so what? You're focusing on one TV show out of
> hundreds.
Because someone seemed to be asserting a general rule to which it was a
counter-example, that's why. If you say all swans are white, I don't need to
produce more than one black one. :-)
I think you're granting it much too much influence. If
> it makes a few ignorant/stupid people feel good about our Navy, I
> have no problem with that.
Some of the episodes got too close to justifying the imperial programme
for my taste.
> > So, lefties could do the same thing in a different direction?
>
> And have done so repeatedly. The general bias of our entertainment
> industry (there are exceptions, of course) is far to the left.
If half the population think it biased far to the left, and the other
half think it biased far to the right, maybe the situation is nominal. The
BBC is always being accused of being the tool of the other side, which is
surely a good sign. :-)
Are you including talk radio in the industry here?
> > ...I suppose
> > they have and do, in that many soaps seem to set out to increase
> > public tolerance of alternative lifestyles. I'm fine with that,
> > but I bet the RRR isn't.
>
> I don't watch soaps at all
nor me, but there was a lot of public discussion in the UK how
"Eastenders" was deliberately promoting progressive values -- this was
before the term PC escaped its cage -- and Corrupting Our Youth.
and don't really care of the RRR gets
> their collective nose out of joint. They are an embarrassment and,
> fortunately, less powerful than they like to pretend.
The opposite would be seriously scary.......
> > Unless we have a scenario where a navy defence contractor sets up
> > the studio through dummy companies. Don't suppose the Navy itself
> > would want to be caught doing that, but hey, that's what the
> > revolving door is for.
>
> Now you're starting to sound completely paranoid. Even if it
> happened, something like that couldn't remain secret for long.
Matthew suggests it might be Bellisario who is the driving force.
> >> At most, they could suggest and offer support. Free
> >> access to military locations and equipment is a strong incentive.
> >> That stuff is expensive to reproduce. Given an opportunity to
> >> take those line items out of their budget
> >
> > Now this amounts to sponsorship, no?
>
> Yes, but not critical sponsorship. Ratings still rule and the shows
> have to make money, not just save it.
Okay. To change tack a little, Britain has a navy too, but I can't see
this kind of programme being made by us. Different sensibilities. We've got
"Dad's Army" and "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" instead --- taking the piss. Well,
you had M.A.S.H. too......
Now here's a AMOTQ --- "Could M.A.S.H. (the series) have been made
today"?
> > Again, this amounts to a relationship that justifies my
> > classification of the show as "propaganda". Not saying the sky
> > should fall in consequence, or the perps should be guillotined in
> > Times Square, just that these things aren't confined to the
> > commies.
>
> The "commies" do it as a matter of government policy. At most,
> what's going on here is the Navy, specifically, trying to improve
> its image a bit, not an attempt by the whole government to pretend
> things aren't what they are.
Fair point.
Realistically, there are plenty of
> sources around to tell us what the service is really like, so
> they're not going to fool much of anyone for long.
Well, I don't know anyone in the American navy.... Remember, this show
goes out across the world too. Insofar as it is propaganda, its audience
includes foreigners.
But globalisation is a funny thing. I hear of peoples addicted to
Rambo-type films, even though said films make said peoples into monkeys.
Compartmentalisation, I guess.
> >> You're assuming a patriotic production wouldn't be made if the
> >> government didn't push for it.
> >
> > No, I don't think I'd want to say that...... The defence
> > industry, perhaps :-)
>
> The defense industry pretty much tends to their business. After
> all, it's not easy to keep ripping off the taxpayers with government
> auditors all over them. /-: And, again, there are shows and movies
> made that criticize them as well.
Yes, and JAG can reasonably be regarded as an "apologia pro vita sua" by
the Navy. Not saying they shouldn't do it, see above on where this began.
> You can come in the middle. Except in a general way, it doesn't
> follow a sequential time line. Some stories arc over two or three
> shows, and earlier events and characters do show up in later shows,
> but that's about it. Each show starts with a quick sequence of
> relevant scenes that have gone before. It may take you a few
> viewings to get comfortable with who's who in the large ensemble
> cast.
Okay, I'll give it a try.
> > Interesting. Did you ever see a British show called "Yes,
> > Minister", later "Yes, Prime Minister"? ...
>
> Yes. Loved it. One of England's better comedies.
Glad to hear it. If Britain falls down a crack in the Earth's crust
tomorrow, I'd like us to be remembered for our sense of humour rather than
our military glories. :-)
> > Insiders said it was actually devastatingly accurate as to the way
> > government actually worked, or more often didn't.
>
> Having dealt with various British bureaucracies from time to time, I
> can well believe it. Friends here are a bit incredulous when I
> explain to them that Vogons are modeled on real British bureaucrats
> and that Telephone Sanitizers actually exist.
Oh yes, the opening sequence of Hitchhiker's Guide, about the road
scheme, is *very* deeply felt, you can tell. But I never met a Telephone
Sanitizer!
> We may differ on the issue of guns, but I would hope you'd agree
> that Moore's blatant dishonesty is so far over the top he can't see
> it anymore by any reasonable standard.
Let me see it first.......
> No, but outside of political circles PotUS isn't part of common
> usage, either.
Actually, I learnt it here, but the making of the particles l/c was my
own innovation, from which I shall now cease and desist.
(Sono Porci Questi Romani? (-:{)
He he, I was hoping you'd know that one! ;-)
> If I may get your next. Distilled water for me, in a large glass.
> (@#$%! kidney stones! )-: )
URK!!! Sympathy. Mine's a single malt, thanks.
David C Pugh
My friend comments:
Off hand I'd say his stuff was rather escapist. It was a turning away from
the academy and standard quo. Almost like a Protestant revolt! His own
observations rather than relying on the orthodox approach. Unlike some of
the other artists who did apporach social depictions, Monet sort of spaced
out and just showed the image without much content. But he still showed the
ordinary rather than the extraordinary, the things you'd commonly see, and
that says something there. A train station was as much of interest as a
cathderal, and they were beautiful not because of what they are but because
of how we see them without considering content.
Interestingly enough, he was one of the artists whose family paid his way
out of military service during the Franco-Prussian war and he did not stick
around in Paris where things got tough. One of the reasons, IMHO that
Impressionism IS so popular today is because it makes no real comment on
politics or society. It is a classless art, where people have no higher
rank than each other, but it's also an art that does not challenge, except
in the pleasure of the eye and in the optics of the artist.
Mona Lisa? IMHO wasn't meant to challenge except in terms of the skill and
sophistication of the artist among all others. It was flattering, it showed
a beautiful upper class woman. It was the ultimate expression of a type of
picture that began as a record of the bride (and often of her dowry) of a
wealthy man. It was a standout picture, showed more subtlies, more
observation, fine painting, etc. etc. those things that were valued at the
time and that the wealthy were in constant competition to prove they
understood. It was a status object of their female status object. There
probably is even more to it than that, but that's as good as I can do
without further research!
David Cox
> > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> > news:kLPua.10937$b71.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> > <snip>
>
> > > What I do maintain is that all art, no exceptions, has a message
of
> > some
> > > sort, even if the message is only "I'm having fun here and don't give
a
> > cuss
> > > what you think"; and that in the vast majority of cases the message of
> the
> > > art work has something to do with pushing particular views of
politics,
> > > society, religion and so forth. (No, I'm not a French
Deconstructionist,
> > > neither am I politically correct, what I am is a history maven.)
> > >
still argue that your "all art, no exceptions" statement is a bit over the
top.
Dave
David C Pugh
>
> > > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> > > news:kLPua.10937$b71.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> > > <snip>
> >
> > > > What I do maintain is that all art, no exceptions, has a message
> of some sort, even if the message is only "I'm having fun here and don't
give
> a cuss what you think"; and that in the vast majority of cases the message
of
> > the art work has something to do with pushing particular views of
> politics, society, religion and so forth. (No, I'm not a French
> Deconstructionist, neither am I politically correct, what I am is a
history maven.)
> Neat reply - please thank your friend for their input.
Thanks, will do.
However, I would still argue that your "all art, no exceptions" statement is
a bit over the top.
Such message as the Monet had, she said, could be expressed as an
affirmation of the ordinary. That's arguably a social message, though not
political. Probably as diffuse a message as you're going to get, which makes
it a good example for your position. Perhaps at that level of diffusity my
statement becomes tautologous and uninteresting. It might be more
interesting to look at messages in art which people assume not to have any.
The Mona Lisa, for example, may be saying "Rich people are superior by
virtue of their good taste".
David Cox
> Such message as the Monet had, she said, could be expressed as an
> affirmation of the ordinary. That's arguably a social message, though not
> political. Probably as diffuse a message as you're going to get, which
makes
> it a good example for your position. Perhaps at that level of diffusity my
> statement becomes tautologous and uninteresting. It might be more
> interesting to look at messages in art which people assume not to have
any.
> The Mona Lisa, for example, may be saying "Rich people are superior by
> virtue of their good taste".
>
noodle"? ;)
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>On 8 May 2003 16:56:20 GMT, stard...@mindspring.com (Lee S.
>Billings) wrote:
>
>
>>After a similar discussion a year or so ago, David Kifer sent me a fairly
>>persuasive argument to the effect that what I call "the glorification of
>>non-intelligence" is pretty much inherent in the background of America. We
>>completely lack the tradition of the "gentleman scholar", because by the time
>>we developed a moneyed leisure class at all they had other priorities. Our
>>"disdain for intellectuals and the arts" goes well beyond the "modern art"
>>and "modern literature" you yourself disdain; it reaches right down to the
>>level of secondary school, where people who show intellectual or artistic
>>capabilities of *any* sort are widely disparaged. As a society, our ideal
>>individual seems to be not Stephen Hawking or Andrew Lloyd Webber, but
>>Forrest Gump.
>
> Actually, there is a fair bit of American folklore/hero worship
>of people with "no book learnin', but plenty (common sense, or
>whatever)".
>
> It's not that people worship the stupid; it's that they don't
>admire the intelligent unless the intelligence does something
>obviously meaningful... hence, the expression "If you're so smart, how
>come you ain't rich?"
Um... the inference *I* tend to make from that particular quote is that it's
more along the lines of "You're not as smart as you *think* you are." Which is
not at all the same thing as the worship of the Forrest Gump-like "dumb guy
with a heart of gold"... and its concomitant implication that intelligence
makes people "not nice".
Lee S. Billings
paladinf...@hotmail.com says...
>Still, my point was that the "fraudulent" election did not
>happen after this person got into power, as one would expect of a fascist
>state (like, say, Hussein getting 100% of the vote), but is the thing which
>put him in power in the first place.
It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say "fraudulent",
since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given Bush
the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under the aegis
of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism in
action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue to
doubt the validity of the results.
Lee S. Billings
My opinion has always been than Andy Warhol was saying,"People will buy
ANYTHING if you tell them it's ART, and that if they don't like or understand
it it's their own fault." This may not be a political statement, but it's
certainly a social one.
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>In <Xns9375ED9D3149j...@207.217.77.22>, Jerry Hollombe wrote:
>: "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>: news:b9d2ao$1oh$1...@titan.btinternet.com:
>
>: > The Silicon shaman is sitting at his usual table, with Iridium his
>: > black firelizard curled around his shoulders. Leaning back with a
>: > thoughtful expression he wets a fingertip and draws the following
>: > letters in a glowing script upon the air.
>: >
>: > http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2EA31C74
>
>: Well, let's see:
>
>: 1. Use of flags and symbols. Fascists use them, true. So do
>: communists, capitalists, and every other form of government you can
>: think of. I think it's more a human thing.
>
>"True, symbols are an easy way to define Us as Us and Them as Them.
>However, the comment wasn't about use, but about pervasiveness."
This one, to me was rather iffy. I thought I understood what the guy
was saying, but there have been some good points brought up. What I
can say, is that it seems we're talking not a difference in kind but
more a difference in degree. Yes our flag means something to us (and
I'm not just talking about the USA), I'm proud of the Anderson plaid,
but they aren't made into objects of worship. In a fascist state,
while the symbols themselves are not new, their use and required
reverence of them is "beyond the pale."
>
--
Carpe Dementem! (grab the wacko)
Wes Struebing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
str...@carpedementem.org
home page: www.carpedementem.org
Prophet
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:c4Bua.10760$b71.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> > I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. An American militia
> > resistance to ETs after the defeat of the standing forces I would buy (not
> > necessarily that you'd win, though). It's always been a _topos_ of SF,
> > hasn't it? What I found bizarre about "Independence Day" was the way the
> > Hero Who Single-Handedly Saves the World is combined with the PotUS. It
> > reminds me of Comrade Stalin driving back the Nazi hordes, except not even
> > the Commies had Uncle Joe as the first man into Berlin. Who needs Kim Il
> > Sung when you have this concept of the Presidency? Feh. Or is it just me
> > that finds it sinisterly sycophantic?
> >
> Maybe we saw different versions of that film, but in the one I saw the
> heroes who saved the world were the characters played by Smith and Goldblum.
> Sure the President played a major secondary role, but I wouldn't consider
> his role to be as described by you. I think it is just you... ;)
>
I must agree with David (okay - David Cox) The president's flying of
a fighter in ID4 was not extremely relevant. The Marine played by Smith,
the techie played by Goldblum and the old drunk (who wa that again?)
were the heroes of the day.
Of course, even in the movie, the general balked at the idea of the
president flying into combat. But then, he was a better fighter pilot
than president.
(Actually, aside from the scientific flaws which were countless,
what bothered me most about the movie was the casual was Smith was
abusing his prisoner in clear violation of the Geneva Convention.)
Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
Native American Cultural Association. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
Mein Gedanken Sind Frei!
Prophet
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > What I do maintain is that all art, no exceptions, has a message of
> some
> > sort, even if the message is only "I'm having fun here and don't give a
> cuss
> > what you think"; and that in the vast majority of cases the message of the
> > art work has something to do with pushing particular views of politics,
> > society, religion and so forth. (No, I'm not a French Deconstructionist,
> > neither am I politically correct, what I am is a history maven.)
> >
> So I'm just curious, what viewpoint do you think Monet was pushing in his
> paintings? What statement is being made by the Mona Lisa? I'll agree that
> art often pushes a viewpoint, but all art, no exceptions?
>
"Mrs Giaconda is a loverly lady Mr Giaconda. Yes, I can take a check.
Prophet
> >
> Perhaps Andy Warhol was saying "I really would like a BIG bowl of chicken
> noodle"? ;)
>
No, Warhol was saying, "I'm so cool I can put out any shit and you'll
pay me for it.
McCartney has done the same thing. I refer you to a hit with the
title, "Silly Love Songs."
David C Pugh
He looked as if it would do him good....... But I bet you could also
claim that he was saying quite a lot about the role of art and previous
artists. Shall I run that one past my friend?
David C Pugh
news:Pine.OSF.4.53.030...@alberti.unh.edu...
> > So I'm just curious, what viewpoint do you think Monet was pushing in
his
> > paintings? What statement is being made by the Mona Lisa? I'll agree
that
> > art often pushes a viewpoint, but all art, no exceptions?
> >
> "Mrs Giaconda is a loverly lady Mr Giaconda. Yes, I can take a check."
>
LOL!!! Nicely put :-)
David C Pugh
> >> > Yes, and that's the problem. If 50% the country is voting for a
> >> > plutocracy that benefits (say) 5% of the population, then 45%
> >> > of the country are voting against their own interests. How does
> >> > that happen? ...
> >>
> >> No one thinks they're voting against their own interests
> >
> > which is, perhaps, what needs to be explained.
>
> It's explained at great length by the opposite side. We get flooded
> with campaign literature from all sides before every election.
Not exactly what I meant, but maybe it's time to wind it down, eh?
> >> Some people base their votes on other issues than economic
> >> policy. That is their right.
> >
> > Sure it is. It's also their right to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
> > Okay, I vote other issues myself, but the scenario I have in mind
> > here is where people vote for the hand which they feed and which
> > bites them in return. As if single mothers, welfare scroungers and
> > wetbacks really impoverish the ordinary Joe as much as the
> > shenanigans of the robber barons.
>
> The unfortunate fact is, that's going to happen no matter who they
> vote for. It takes $millions to campaign for any significant
> elective office here. As a consequence, we have the best government
> money can buy. /-:
A friend of mine in NYC says that people misunderstand the American
electoral process: it's not about choosing a government, it's about access
to government. He who finances the winner gets to make policy. You agree?
> >> ... You're focusing on one TV show out of
> >> hundreds.
> >
> > Because someone seemed to be asserting a general rule to which it
> > was a counter-example, that's why. ...
>
> I must have missed that post.
Or I misunderstood it and/or read more into it than was intended?
> > If half the population think it biased far to the left, and
> > the other half think it biased far to the right, maybe the
> > situation is nominal. The BBC is always being accused of being the
> > tool of the other side, which is surely a good sign. :-)
>
> Both biases are present in our media, but the left far outnumbers
> the right in most venues.
I get the feeling that both sides feel themselves a beleaguered
minority. This I've seen in other countries too.
It's also a feature of many ethnic conflicts: for example, the Serbs
were clearly a majority or a plurality in Former Yugoslavia, so that the
other guys felt they were being kicked around, but the Serbs' self-image was
as a remnant of true Christianity besieged by the hordes of Islam and the
Pope. Same deal in Sri Lanka: the Sinhala are an overwhelming majority on
the island, but they feel like a minority because of the vast numbers of
Tamils in India next door.
One is always David, the other guy is always Goliath.
IMHO, the real bias is neither left nor
> right, it's up. The media types think that having a loud voice and
> access to millions of viewers means they must be smarter than all
> those viewers and so must show them the way, even if they have to
> resort to blatant propaganda to do it.
Interesting synthesis!
> > Are you including talk radio in the industry here?
>
> The shock radio phenomenon seems to favor the right at first glance,
> until you tune in to things like National Public Radio (NPR) and
> Pacifica. They make up for most of the right wing ranting all by
> themselves.
I know NPR only second-hand, a colleague is a great fan. By my standards
she's far-right. :-)
> > Matthew suggests it might be Bellisario who is the driving
> > force.
>
> An ex-Marine is hardly a Navy contractor.
I meant that as a contradiction of my suggestion (in case you missed
him), not an example!!!!!
BTW, the Marines are a
> separate service and mostly regard the Navy as transportation.
Then Bellisario's hand is perhaps evident in the very major integrated
role of the Marines in the series.
> > Okay. To change tack a little, Britain has a navy too, but I
> > can't see this kind of programme being made by us. Different
> > sensibilities. We've got "Dad's Army" and "It Ain't Half Hot Mum"
> > instead --- taking the piss. Well, you had M.A.S.H. too......
>
> And "Hogan's Heroes" and "Gomer Pyle, USMC" and "Sergeant Bilko" and
> "Hennesy" and "CPO Sharkey" and a few more whose titles escape me at
> the moment. In fairness, most Brits wouldn't know about any of
> those (and most people here are either too young to remember them or
> have long since forgotten them), but they were all TV comedy series
> spoofing aspects of the military services.
I remember the original Bilko with Phil Silvers, and of course there was
the rather uninspired Steve Martin remake the other day. Heard of HH; never
saw it. The other three never made it across the pond, AFAIK.
> > Now here's a AMOTQ --- "Could M.A.S.H. (the series) have been
> > made today"?
>
> Absolutely. It was based on a successful movie, which was based on
> a novel and, for all it's comedic aspects, was really about heroism
> under fire, combining some of the better aspects of war movies and
> hospital dramas with a gloss of comedy to keep things from getting
> too depressing.
Actually, that's not the way I see it, I wouldn't call the comedy a
gloss, and I consider it as anti-war as it is possible to be. Heroism of
course, but the for-war-movies unconventional heroism of being an unarmed
doctor stitching poor beggars together under fire.
Anyway, what I meant, is would the RRR stand for it, or retaliate for
the portrayal of Frank (a prototype RRR if there ever was one) by
firebombing the studio?
> > But globalisation is a funny thing. I hear of peoples addicted to
> > Rambo-type films, even though said films make said peoples into
> > monkeys. Compartmentalisation, I guess.
>
> They bring a little safely vicarious excitement into otherwise
> mundane lives. Bread and circuses.
Indeed, and I hear a lot of generalisations about the qualities
allegedly unique to and promoted by "American" cinema which are refuted by
the single word "Bombay" (Mumbai). Actually, Bollywood fast is being
overtaken by the Madras (Chennai) movie industry.
> > Glad to hear it. If Britain falls down a crack in the Earth's
> > crust tomorrow, I'd like us to be remembered for our sense of
> > humour rather than our military glories. :-)
>
> Careful. That includes the Carry On films, Benny Hill and Alexi
> Sayles (who is that fat bastard?). (-:
Ouch. Point to you there. We have made some revolting sitcoms other than
the above, one of which blackened our name in the eyes of someone I used to
know. No, I want Monty Python to be our memorial......
> > ... But I never met a Telephone Sanitizer!
>
> I have. Circa 1975 I worked as a messenger and telephone
> switchboard operator for an upmarket travel agency in London. Every
> day, a woman would come into the office with a spray bottle of
> disinfectant, a rag and a weight to put on the phone cradles while
> she wiped down the handsets. That was her job. She never cleaned
> anything else.
Well I never! I wonder if anyone has ever perished from a dirty
telephone, other than the folks in Douglas Adams. I'm all for keeping the
immune system challenged -- and a nice layer of muck that the bacteria can't
get through ;-)
David C Pugh
>
> > Actually, there is a fair bit of American folklore/hero worship
> > of people with "no book learnin', but plenty (common sense, or
> > whatever)".
> >
> > It's not that people worship the stupid; it's that they don't
> > admire the intelligent unless the intelligence does something
> > obviously meaningful... hence, the expression "If you're so smart,
> > how come you ain't rich?"
>
> colloquial US English is the only language in which it is possible to
> insult someone by saying they are intelligent. This includes not only
> the inherent sarcasm in "wise guy" or "smart ass," but also such direct
> terms as "egg head," "big dome," "long hair" (obsoleted by
> changing fashion) and "know it all," among others.
Plus "pointy-headed liberal"
You beat me to it. This is the sort of thing that interests me.
However, wasn't "wise guy" originally a term for a mob member and not
meant sarcastically? He was indeed wise because he had made the wise choice
of becoming a wolf among sheep. The term has since mutated.
As regards Brit English, any use of "smart" to mean intelligent is a
borrowing from USE, the indigenous word means "well-groomed". We use
"clever", and our equivalent is "clever dick". For your "egghead" we have
"know-all", "brain-box", and a more diffuse tendency to accuse anyone
learned of the crime of "intellectual snobbery".
Our schoolchildren have always persecuted "swots" like yours persecute
"nerds" and "dorks". At Oxford, the ideal was the duck -- serene and idle on
the surface, paddling like buggery under the surface: that is, one should
study, but never be seen to be studying. The ideal British academic "wears
his learning lightly", an expression that is surely incomprehensible to
anyone influenced by the German university tradition.
David C Pugh
> It's a little more complex than that. Those who help finance the
> winner get more input on policy. It buys them access to express
> their opinions in person, so those opinions may carry considerable
> weight. The elected are still free to do as they will, though, and
> a concentrated campaign from their less wealthy constituents can
> still sway them on the issues. (The main reason the NRA is so
> powerful is it can ask upwards of 4 million members to write their
> representatives on an issue and they'll do it. One letter isn't a
> lot of pressure by itself, but the cumulative effect of 4 million
> sends a powerful message.)
If there were a four-million-strong lobby of people with the opposite
opinions but equal discipline, could they exert the same pressure?
> > I get the feeling that both sides feel themselves a
> > beleaguered minority. This I've seen in other countries too.
>
> Here, it can be a good thing to be thought of as a minority. As I
> said in another context, Americans love an underdog, so some people
> deliberately try to paint themselves as one. Eventually, some even
> start believing their own propaganda.
Hence the thing of being a "professional victim" of various -isms.
> >> The shock radio phenomenon seems to favor the right at first
> >> glance, until you tune in to things like National Public Radio
> >> (NPR) and Pacifica. They make up for most of the right wing
> >> ranting all by themselves.
> >
> > I know NPR only second-hand, a colleague is a great fan. By my
> > standards she's far-right. :-)
>
> NPR at least tries to make a pretense to even-handedness now and
> then. I stopped listening to Pacifica Radio years ago. They became
> too shrill to tolerate -- literally shrill on some shows. They hurt
> my ears.
Do you really mean literally, as in volume and pitch? Then I'll
certainly steer clear (not that I'd ever heard of it or could get it
anyway). As you probably know, most Brits find most Americans "loud" in the
literal sense, of speaking at a higher volume than we do. (Some commercials
come over to us as "over-excited screaming". It's a style affected by some
Norwegian advertisers, unfortunately.) I have hypersensitive hearing, can't
go to the movies any more without cotton-wool.
> Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem-o.
> >> And "Hogan's Heroes" and "Gomer Pyle, USMC" and "Sergeant Bilko"
> >> and "Hennesy" and "CPO Sharkey" and a few more whose titles
> >> escape me at the moment. In fairness, most Brits wouldn't know
> >> about any of those (and most people here are either too young to
> >> remember them or have long since forgotten them), but they were
> >> all TV comedy series spoofing aspects of the military services.
> >
> > I remember the original Bilko with Phil Silvers, and of course
> > there was the rather uninspired Steve Martin remake the other day.
> > Heard of HH; never saw it. The other three never made it across
> > the pond, AFAIK.
>
> "Hogan's Heroes" was actually the US version of "Porridge." There
> was no way they could make convicts into sympathetic comedy
> characters here, so they were changed into POWs.
Oh!!! I watched "Porridge" a couple of times. Ronnie Barker was the best
character comic of his time. Was HH dominated by a single actor to the same
degree? And who was holding them prisoner?
That reminds me, you ever see "'Allo 'Allo?"
These exports are an interesting phenomenon. In the Eighties, the
Norwegians remade all the Hancock's Half Hour shows, with some minor changes
to fit Norwegian conditions, but often word-perfect. I mean, the HHH shows
were Fifties, but it still worked. However, very few of the viewers were
aware that they were watching something adapted from a thirty-year-old
series from another country.
In the same way, I understand your Archie Bunker series was a
(toned-down) version of our "Till Death Do Us Part".
> 30 years on and Michael Palin still can't go anywhere without people
> reciting whole Python routines at him. I think you're legacy is
> safe there.
Good! :-)
David C Pugh
>
> > "Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9376986762443j...@207.217.77.24...
>
> >> area) colloquial US English is the only language in which it is
> >> possible to insult someone by saying they are intelligent. This
> >> includes not only the inherent sarcasm in "wise guy" or "smart
> >> ass," but also such direct terms as "egg head," "big dome," "long
> >> hair" (obsoleted by changing fashion) and "know it all," among
> >> others.
> >
> > Plus "pointy-headed liberal"
>
> "Pointy headed" to me implies stupidity, as in "pin head."
Oh! I misinterpreted that, then. Thought it was a suggestion of a
separate species, c.f. Coneheads, who were intelligent and therefore wrong.
> > However, wasn't "wise guy" originally a term for a mob member and
> > not meant sarcastically? He was indeed wise because he had made
> > the wise choice of becoming a wolf among sheep. The term has since
> > mutated.
>
> I think that context is the more recent mutation. "Wise guy" as
> sarcasm goes way back in the past century -- possibly before the
> Prohibition Era, when the Mob came into its own. I never heard it
> in the context of Mob membership until the media popularized it as
> such a decade or so ago, but I remember the sarcastic version well
> from cartoons made in the 1930s and 1940s.
Okay, you're in a better position to know.
> > As regards Brit English, any use of "smart" to mean intelligent is
> > a borrowing from USE, the indigenous word means "well-groomed". We
> > use "clever", and our equivalent is "clever dick". For your
> > "egghead" we have "know-all", "brain-box", and a more diffuse
> > tendency to accuse anyone learned of the crime of "intellectual
> > snobbery".
> >
> > Our schoolchildren have always persecuted "swots" like yours
> > persecute "nerds" and "dorks". At Oxford, the ideal was the duck
> > -- serene and idle on the surface, paddling like buggery under the
> > surface: that is, one should study, but never be seen to be
> > studying. The ideal British academic "wears his learning lightly",
> > an expression that is surely incomprehensible to anyone influenced
> > by the German university tradition.
>
> I have encountered a strong anti-intellectual streak in some Brits.
> One of the brightest people I know over there is a Cockney who never
> made it into college. At times, he seems almost ashamed of his
> abilities and generally hides his light under a bushel. I think an
> honest IQ test would probably wreck his self-image.
Yes, I've met those too. I knew a girl at Oxford (Town, not Gown), who
told me of an old boyfriend of hers, who was a Geordie from a proletarian
background. He was very bright, but had to conceal his admission to
university from his mates, who would otherwise mob him to death as a "snob".
I guess he lost them when he finally went up and the secret got out. When he
arrived, of course all the Hooray Henries mocked him for his working-class
accent and manners, so he really did fall down the crack between the worlds.
I don't know, but it seems that this would be a good way to create a very
disaffected and bitter person, a possible revolutionary or terrorist leader.
David C Pugh
My friend speaketh:
Well, I don't know a lot about Andy Warhol, but what I do know is that he
was a commerical artist originally. What he might be saying is that what
commercial artists do is just as interesting as what "fine" artists do and
made you see it by putting a frame around it or repeating it over and over
again.
He loved pop culture, this to him was real cultural, so possibly saying that
in our world products like this, things you see everyday, were icons to us
and therefore worthy of the same interest and adultation as Madonnas or
great leaders were in the past. This would also apply to his electric chair
series and more obviously in his series of celebrities.
In many ways Andy was saying, "look at this! Isn't it interesting?" and
picking out the things that HE thought interesting, using HIS priorities
rather than traditional ones. In a way, it was the primacy of the artist.
Anything the artist did was therefore art, and he was pushing the envelope.
And he liked to be outrageous, going against what the avantgarde was doing,
basically trying to be more avantgarde than thou. And the even bigger goof
in this is that he was doing it not by being more esoteric or intellectual,
but by being what might be considered mundane.
Lee S. Billings
>
>"Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns937712B4EFAA8j...@207.217.77.26...
>
>> It's a little more complex than that. Those who help finance the
>> winner get more input on policy. It buys them access to express
>> their opinions in person, so those opinions may carry considerable
>> weight. The elected are still free to do as they will, though, and
>> a concentrated campaign from their less wealthy constituents can
>> still sway them on the issues. (The main reason the NRA is so
>> powerful is it can ask upwards of 4 million members to write their
>> representatives on an issue and they'll do it. One letter isn't a
>> lot of pressure by itself, but the cumulative effect of 4 million
>> sends a powerful message.)
>
> If there were a four-million-strong lobby of people with the opposite
>opinions but equal discipline, could they exert the same pressure?
Presumably -- but as there isn't such a lobby, the question is rather moot.
Practically speaking, single-issue people will *always* have more power than
those who aren't.
>> "Hogan's Heroes" was actually the US version of "Porridge." There
>> was no way they could make convicts into sympathetic comedy
>> characters here, so they were changed into POWs.
>
> Oh!!! I watched "Porridge" a couple of times. Ronnie Barker was the best
>character comic of his time. Was HH dominated by a single actor to the same
>degree? And who was holding them prisoner?
The Nazis in WWII -- think "Stalag 17" done as comedy. "Hogan's Heroes" was
more of an ensemble show; there was quite a bit of good acting there. Oddly
enough, the most memorable characters were the Germans: Werner Klemperer as the
Commandant, and John Banner as Sgt. Schultz. To this day, proclaiming, "I know
nothing -- nothing!" in a fake German accent will evoke giggles from a
surprising number of people.
Prophet
> "Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
(attribution missing)
> > > Now here's a AMOTQ --- "Could M.A.S.H. (the series) have been
> > > made today"?
> >
> > Absolutely. It was based on a successful movie, which was based on
> > a novel and, for all it's comedic aspects, was really about heroism
> > under fire, combining some of the better aspects of war movies and
> > hospital dramas with a gloss of comedy to keep things from getting
> > too depressing.
>
> Actually, that's not the way I see it, I wouldn't call the comedy a
> gloss, and I consider it as anti-war as it is possible to be. Heroism of
> course, but the for-war-movies unconventional heroism of being an unarmed
> doctor stitching poor beggars together under fire.
>
> Anyway, what I meant, is would the RRR stand for it, or retaliate for
> the portrayal of Frank (a prototype RRR if there ever was one) by
> firebombing the studio?
>
You think they see themselves in a Frank Burns? No, he's always that
misguided guy you knew in high school or something - not yourself.
On a vaguely related note, I recall there was *one* attempt to make
a comedy series about the Viet Nam War. And two fairly successful
drama series' (China Beach and Tour of Duty.) That I recall.
However, back during the actual war, the US Army hired a writer and
an artist to produce a small paperback of cartoons about being in the
military in VietNam. I don't recall the name of the book or of the
writer dude - only the artist - Tony Ranfone.
Does this ring a bell with anyone?
> > > Glad to hear it. If Britain falls down a crack in the Earth's
> > > crust tomorrow, I'd like us to be remembered for our sense of
> > > humour rather than our military glories. :-)
> >
> > Careful. That includes the Carry On films, Benny Hill and Alexi
> > Sayles (who is that fat bastard?). (-:
>
Hey, I liked Benny Hill. I actually prefer his comedy to the Monty
Python material - although I do like Monty Python.
Matthew Russotto
Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say "fraudulent",
>since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given Bush
>the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under the aegis
>of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism in
>action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue to
>doubt the validity of the results.
So what did you want him to do, resign prior to the election?
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
David C Pugh
news:TSednfkec4A...@speakeasy.net...
> In article <b9hadl$bq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say
"fraudulent",
> >since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given
Bush
> >the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under the
aegis
> >of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism
in
> >action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue
to
> >doubt the validity of the results.
>
> So what did you want him to do, resign prior to the election?
>
What's wrong with a Constitutional amendment ruling no close relative of
a sitting governor or SC justice eligible to run for president?
I think the Norwegian Constitution used to have a provision against
Cabinet members who were related -- it doesn't seem to be in there at the
moment.
I also think that rules for lotteries and public competitions always
disbar any relative of the judges and officials from competing.
Jette Goldie
> dha...@shell1.iglou.com (David Harden) wrote in
> news:3ebaf...@news.iglou.com:
>
> > In <Xns9375ED9D3149j...@207.217.77.22>, Jerry
> > Hollombe wrote:
>
> >: 1. Use of flags and symbols. Fascists use them, true. So do
> >: communists, capitalists, and every other form of government you
> >: can think of. I think it's more a human thing.
> >
> > "True, symbols are an easy way to define Us as Us and Them as
> > Them. However, the comment wasn't about use, but about
> > pervasiveness."
>
> didn't have its flags flying everywhere. This is what we used to call
> an "Aunt Fanny" statistic. I.e., it's true not only of fascists, but
> of anyone's Aunt Fanny or, in this case, any country or government.
Welll - in the UK you'll not generally find flags in schools
or in people's gardens. That one <flagpole in front yard>
is always a bit of a wierd thing to see when I visit the US.
Someone in the UK who had a flagpole in their front yard
and a Union Flag flying from it would be looked askance
at - it's the province of nutters, facist-wanna-bes and
elderly retired Colonels with big mustaches and a penchent
for writing to the Times (ok, he usually gets fitted in under
#1 <g>)
And as I work for the civil service I can tell you specifically
that UK government offices do NOT have flags flying outside
as a general rule - flags are only flown on "state occasions"
(Queen's birthday, certain national celebrations, in times of
national mourning, etc)
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>In article <b9hadl$bq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say "fraudulent",
>>since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given Bush
>>the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under the aegis
>>of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism in
>>action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue to
>>doubt the validity of the results.
>
>So what did you want him to do, resign prior to the election?
Allowing an honest count would have been sufficient. This, of course, would
have meant recusing both himself and his minions from the process, which was
never going to happen.
Lee S. Billings
>
>"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:TSednfkec4A...@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <b9hadl$bq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say "fraudulent",
>> >since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given
>> >Bush the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under
>> >the aegis of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of
>> >nepotism in action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people
>> >continue to doubt the validity of the results.
>>
>> So what did you want him to do, resign prior to the election?
>>
>
> What's wrong with a Constitutional amendment ruling no close relative of
>a sitting governor or SC justice eligible to run for president?
Hmmm... that smacks of prior restraint to me. I'd rather approach the problem
from the other side, and have a ruling that no close relative of a Presidential
candidate can either be involved in the vote-counting or appoint those who are.
But that's probably impossible to enforce, so we're back to square one.
Indiana Joe
> >It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say "fraudulent",
> >since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given
> >Bush
> >the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under the
> >aegis
> >of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism in
> >action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue to
> >doubt the validity of the results.
I don't think that the governor of Florida has much influence over
elections. I think Jeb did a reasonably good job of staying uninvolved
(at least in public, I don't know how things were behind the scenes).
The real conflict of interest was with Harris. She was both Florida's
Secretary of the State (in charge of running elections) *and* Shrub's
FL campaign manager. It would be hard to imagine a grosser conflict of
interest.
--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
jr...@cox.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Denny Wheeler
<jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>dha...@shell1.iglou.com (David Harden) wrote in
>news:3ebbd865$1...@news.iglou.com:
>
>> "... Heck,
>> the half- serious definition of a Guy Movie is 'one in which Stuff
>> Explodes'. ...
>
>"Destroy property, take peoples' clothes off, blow stuff up" -- anyone
>recall the reference? (A film starring Alan Alda, but the title
>escapes me.)
and Google was no help. sigh.
--
-denny (curmudgeon)
"I'm full of good answers--sometimes it's the question that's wrong."
Miss Behavin'
Denny Wheeler
Billings) wrote:
>The interesting thing about this, to me, is the continuing insistence that the
>media is all controlled by the radical LEFT, in the teeth of overwhelming
>evidence to the contrary. After all, the people who "control" the mass media
>tend to be big-money, big-business types, who are generally not of the liberal
>persuasion. I'll buy the "liberal media bias" charge against small, independent
>publications -- but saying it about (e.g.) the Hearst Corporation is simply
>ludicrous.
If one is talking about the *corporate* attitude, you're spot on; but
if one speaks of journalists themselves, it's likely that 'liberal
bias' is a valid statement. That of course assumes that it's
"liberal" to protect one's sources, believe in freedom of the press,
etc.
Of course <mild rantish thing here> there are soi-disant 'journalists'
who scream 'freedom of the press' whenever there's something which
stymies them. "The PUBLIC has a right to know <fitb>" is the
rallying-cry. And it ain't so. The public has no right to know many
things. Among them, what I and a partner choose to do in privacy.
(for various values of "I"--including, but not limited to,
politicians, entertainers, athletes, etc.) Another area in which the
'public's right to know' is abused is genuine matters of national
security. Do we have spies in countries which may be enemies? I sure
hope so, and I sure hope the media don't learn anything about them.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
> So, is JAG what the People want to be true of the Navy, or what someone
>else wants the People to think about the Navy?
It's what some network executives think people will watch.
(apply Occam's Razor to commercial TV, using money as the basis of
motivation, and you'll rarely be wrong)
Denny Wheeler
<jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think that context is the more recent mutation. "Wise guy" as
>sarcasm goes way back in the past century -- possibly before the
>Prohibition Era, when the Mob came into its own.
Datapoint: Merriam-Webster online dates its origin as 1896, meaning
being 'smart aleck'
Kevin Ahearn
><jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>dha...@shell1.iglou.com (David Harden) wrote in
>>news:3ebbd865$1...@news.iglou.com:
>>
>>> "... Heck,
>>> the half- serious definition of a Guy Movie is 'one in which Stuff
>>> Explodes'. ...
>>
>>"Destroy property, take peoples' clothes off, blow stuff up" --
>anyone
>>recall the reference? (A film starring Alan Alda, but the title
>>escapes me.)
>
>and Google was no help. sigh.
'Twas from a flick called "Sweet Liberty" that came out in 1986. The phrase
was "Rebellion against authority, destruction of property, people taking their
clothes off."
--Kevin
Yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently
consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth;
and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. --Psalm 37:10-11(KJV)
David C Pugh
news:v7hrbvg7kipkdthv3...@4ax.com...
(...)
> Of course <mild rantish thing here> there are soi-disant 'journalists'
> who scream 'freedom of the press' whenever there's something which
> stymies them. "The PUBLIC has a right to know <fitb>" is the
> rallying-cry. And it ain't so. The public has no right to know many
> things. Among them, what I and a partner choose to do in privacy.
> (for various values of "I"--including, but not limited to,
> politicians, entertainers, athletes, etc.) Another area in which the
> 'public's right to know' is abused is genuine matters of national
> security. Do we have spies in countries which may be enemies? I sure
> hope so, and I sure hope the media don't learn anything about them.
>
From the UK scene, I have learnt that part of the problem is sheer
illiteracy -- a lot of media people seem to genuinely and innocently believe
that "public interest" means "whatever the public is interested in", in the
sense of curious about. You ask them what the public interest is (in, for
example, your sex life), and they quote you viewer circulation figures. It's
not malicious, they simply don't understand the original meaning of the word
"interest". You'll also note that they think that "disinterested" means
"finding something boring".
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
> On a vaguely related note, I recall there was *one* attempt to make
>a comedy series about the Viet Nam War. And two fairly successful
>drama series' (China Beach and Tour of Duty.) That I recall.
> However, back during the actual war, the US Army hired a writer and
>an artist to produce a small paperback of cartoons about being in the
>military in VietNam. I don't recall the name of the book or of the
>writer dude - only the artist - Tony Ranfone.
> Does this ring a bell with anyone?
Well, it sort of did with Google. I got this from one hit on Tony
Ranfone + Vietnam:
Abood, Ken and Ranfone, Tony. How to Live in Vietnam for less than
10cents a day... and other glimpses of the lighter side of war. Tokyo
: Wayward Press, 1968, (c)1967
Denny Wheeler
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
("Hogan's Heroes")
> Was HH dominated by a single actor to the same
>degree? And who was holding them prisoner?
As Celine said, WWII Nazis. She mentioned Klemperer (whose character
was Colonel Klink) and Banner as Sgt. Schulz. The leader of the
prisoners--Hogan, natcherly--was played by Bob Crane.
> In the same way, I understand your Archie Bunker series was a
>(toned-down) version of our "Till Death Do Us Part".
Indeed it was--or so I've read. Never seen any eps of TDDUP.
Is Dave Allen still around? The local PBS station used to show "Dave
Allen At Large" and I had about 12 hours of it on videotape at one
time--I loved his work.
Denny Wheeler
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
(about M*A*S*H)
> Anyway, what I meant, is would the RRR stand for it, or retaliate for
>the portrayal of Frank (a prototype RRR if there ever was one) by
>firebombing the studio?
The RRR wouldn't recognize Frank Burns as being one of them; they'd
just consider him an unrealistically portrayed buffoon.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>> I don't know. I wasn't there. That incident might have inspired
>> the show or it could have been coincidence. Many of our TV shows
>> base scripts on real life incidents. JAG might have already been in
>> the works and the writers grabbed Tailhook because it was in the
>> public consciousness, so was likely to draw a good audience.
>
> No, Tailhook was some years before. What with lead times, it seems about
>right for cause and effect.
But it was still in the public consciousness. Still is, ftm.
>> If you want to sink even lower, go back to the movies and see
>> "Bowling for Columbine." It's pure propaganda and insultingly crude
>> about it, but doesn't represent any agenda of the current
>> administration's that I'm aware of.
>
> Haven't seen it yet, want to, but I know where Michael Moore is coming
>from, and I think we'd better agree to differ on that :-)
Regardless of whether you agree with his attitudes toward gun
rights--I doubt very seriously if you'd agree with his methods. That
'BfC' was classed as a documentary is a total joke. If that's a
documentary, so were the films Leni Riefenstahl made in the 1930s.
>> Yes. I just realized that by PotUS you meant the President, not the
>> people.
>
> Is that abbreviation ever used for the People, then? Like SPQR.
Normally I see it all caps: POTUS. (Tom Clancy uses it frequently in
his fiction)
David C Pugh
> On Fri, 9 May 2003 17:26:52 +0200, "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no>
> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know. I wasn't there. That incident might have inspired
> >> the show or it could have been coincidence. Many of our TV shows
> >> base scripts on real life incidents. JAG might have already been in
> >> the works and the writers grabbed Tailhook because it was in the
> >> public consciousness, so was likely to draw a good audience.
> >
> > No, Tailhook was some years before. What with lead times, it seems
about right for cause and effect.
>
> But it was still in the public consciousness. Still is, ftm.
What I said, I thought. Tailhook preceded JAG, IMHO caused it, and has
continued in public consciousness ever since.
I thought it was at an ungodly hour now, but caught a bit of it last
night -- wanted to see a French film on another channel, though. Anyway, it
seemed very up to date, with the plot turning on whether a trial was
prejudiced by something said by Bush II, with clips thereof. They've done
that before, spliced things so that the characters are seen getting medals
from Bill Clinton.
Interesting development, people used to use fictitious leaders for that,
didn't they, in print and even more on film? I wonder what the various
Prezzes think of being given walk-on parts in this way? Do they have to join
the actors' union? :-) Come to think of it, they used Henry Kissinger once,
not from archive but in person. I would suggest that all this strengthens
its claim to be considered propaganda art.
> >> If you want to sink even lower, go back to the movies and see
> >> "Bowling for Columbine." It's pure propaganda and insultingly crude
> >> about it, but doesn't represent any agenda of the current
> >> administration's that I'm aware of.
> >
> > Haven't seen it yet, want to, but I know where Michael Moore is
coming
> >from, and I think we'd better agree to differ on that :-)
>
> Regardless of whether you agree with his attitudes toward gun
> rights--I doubt very seriously if you'd agree with his methods. That
> 'BfC' was classed as a documentary is a total joke. If that's a
> documentary, so were the films Leni Riefenstahl made in the 1930s.
Uh huh. Okay, I shall see it (when it comes to our telly?) and bear your
and Jerry's strictures in mind.
Perhaps MM would be comfortable calling it a "polemic" instead, but
there's no Oscar category for that, is there? Maybe there should be. Any
nominations for right-wing polemics masquerading as documentaries, folks?
> >> Yes. I just realized that by PotUS you meant the President, not the
> >> people.
> >
> > Is that abbreviation ever used for the People, then? Like SPQR.
>
> Normally I see it all caps: POTUS. (Tom Clancy uses it frequently in
> his fiction)
I certainly didn't learn it from him! I learnt it either here or in my
other group. Also SCOTUS, which as a medievalist I had hitherto associated
only with DUNS ;-)
David C Pugh
> > In the same way, I understand your Archie Bunker series was a
> >(toned-down) version of our "Till Death Do Us Part".
>
> Indeed it was--or so I've read. Never seen any eps of TDDUP.
I have a snippet here. Johnny Speight, its working-class creator, said
it was a reaction to discovering that there existed people elsewhere whose
idea of an argument was something other than repeating the same position at
ever-increasing volume.
"It's yer bleeding 'Arold Wilson, innit?"
I never saw an Archie Bunker, so I can't begin to compare. I don't know
if the title ("All in the Family" wasn't it?) was understood ironically or
not. TDDUP certainly was: Alf Garnett yelled at everyone and everything,
calling his wife mostly "You silly moo", and she just sat there, rather
stonefaced and passive, but every now and then came out with a comment that
pulled the rug out from under him. TDDUP -- and the sooner the better!
> Is Dave Allen still around? The local PBS station used to show "Dave
> Allen At Large" and I had about 12 hours of it on videotape at one
> time--I loved his work.
No idea, since I don't live in the UK. He never made it to Norway -- we
hardly have any Catholics here, so it wouldn't translate.
David C Pugh
> >> NPR at least tries to make a pretense to even-handedness now and
> >> then. I stopped listening to Pacifica Radio years ago. They
> >> became too shrill to tolerate -- literally shrill on some shows.
> >> They hurt my ears.
> >
> > Do you really mean literally, as in volume and pitch? ...
>
> Yes, as of the last time I listened to them, years ago.
Oh dear. I wonder why they did that. In my eyes, anyway, there is no
natural connection between being left-wing/pacifist and a high level of
decibels.
> > That reminds me, you ever see "'Allo 'Allo?"
>
> I've heard of it, but can't recall ever seeing an episode.
Ensemble comedy, rather crude, based on a café-owner, his wife and
waitress caught between the Resistance and the Germans. The interesting
thing is that the British, who appear as crashed airmen subject to a game of
Pass the Parcel, seem to be all "upper-class twits", while the Wehrmacht are
portrayed sympathetically. Most of them just want good food, good drink and
a quiet life. The only real baddie is a Gestapo man in a black leather
jacket and an infatuated female sidekick. The Resistance is, of course, a
sexy chick in a beret. It's all very much in the tradition of the French
farce, and done in deliberately abominable accents, with catchphrases like
the one Celine mentioned from "Hogan's Heroes" ("I shall say this only
once") and an addiction to concatenations of rhyming phrases. IOW, it's
essentially taking the piss out of itself. René the café-owner carries it, a
great comedic talent.
> > In the same way, I understand your Archie Bunker series was a
> > (toned-down) version of our "Till Death Do Us Part".
>
> Yes, and "Sanford and Son" was a copy of "Steptoe and Son."
Oh!! You got that too? Now that has to be one of the best sitcoms we've
ever done. Brilliant writing and acting.
Another good one we had was "Rising Damp", about a dubious landlord and
his bedsit tenants. That one might have transferred nicely to New York or
San Francisco or somewhere.
I find myself unable to watch sitcoms of any kind any more, because I
really cannot abide canned laughter -- it's like I've developed an allergy.
David Harden
: dha...@shell1.iglou.com (David Harden) wrote in
: > In <Xns9375ED9D3149j...@207.217.77.22>, Jerry
: > Hollombe wrote:
: >: 1. Use of flags and symbols. Fascists use them, true. So do
: >: communists, capitalists, and every other form of government you
: >: can think of. I think it's more a human thing.
: >
: > "True, symbols are an easy way to define Us as Us and Them as
: > Them. However, the comment wasn't about use, but about
: > pervasiveness."
: In the course of my world travels, I've yet to enter a country that
: didn't have its flags flying everywhere. This is what we used to call
: an "Aunt Fanny" statistic. I.e., it's true not only of fascists, but
: of anyone's Aunt Fanny or, in this case, any country or government.
"That sounds like it's more to the point of the original comment."
: >: 2. Disdain for human rights. The sheep are with us, always.
: >: There will always be people who will trade away anything for a
: >: promise of better security and safety. Very often, they are
: >: quite vocal about it. It's when they gain a working, voting
: >: majority that you have to worry.
: >
: > "On the other hand, I worry when those who talk like that define
: > open disagreement with, or criticism of, any of their proposals or
: > goals as evidence that the critic is one of the sheep and/or is
: > opposed to the idea of personal freedom. Don't say it doesn't
: > happen, because I've seen it all too often in here."
: Of course. Standard political smear tactic. Under _any_ government.
"I wasn't talking about governments, though the mindset is found in
them as well as out of them. Also, I was thinking less about the
people who use it as a smear tactic knowing it's false, and more about
the people who use it believing it's true."
--
A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
-- Adlai Stevenson
David Harden
: "David Harden" <dha...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
: news:3ebaf...@news.iglou.com...
: > In <b9dg74$i2og6$1...@ID-162141.news.dfncis.de>, Dominic wrote:
: >
: >
: > "The comment wasn't about the use of symbology but about pervasive
: > symbology. It may be that a federal government is likely to make more
: > use of national symbols, but I'd want to hear from folx outside the
: > U.S. and Canada before committing to that."
: Swastikas. Chinese propaganda posters. Soviet sickle and hammer. The
: Union Jack. The Fleur de lys. etc., etc., etc...
"You brought up federal governments, not me. You said, 'it is the
practice of any federal government to make use of symbology.' I put
that in the original comment's context of pervasive symbology.
"What I was thinking is that I'd want to hear from people in places
such as Germany and Australia before committing to a statement about
the use of symbology by federal governments.
"Perhaps I should have been clearer."
: >
: > : Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Somebody's so-called
: > : "rights"
: > : are always being stepped on. I think a proper definition of rights is
: > : called for before levelling this accusation.
: >
: > "*That* would require its own separate baitshop."
: Agreed. Personally, I start from the idea that the only inalienable right
: is the right to exist (and the necessary corollaries that follow), but I am
: prepared to admit that I may be a bit extreme in that view.
"I said that it would require its own baitshop, not that I would take
my business there."
: > "The Pentagon is not one of the 'seats of federal government'. The
: > Defense Department is an agency of the government, not one of the
: > branches of it."
: A good point. Doesn't change my argument a jot nor a tittle, however.
"Wasn't trying to."
: >
: > : Fraudulent Elections: Seems to me this was a cause, not a result.
: >
: > "Maybe you guys should send election monitors in 2004."
: Maybe folks should learn to count. I suppose I should be careful how I
: mouth off here....it was a poorly monitored process which may or may not
: have led to a bad decision. Certainly Canada has no claim to superiority
: when it comes to electoral process....I mean, look at some of the people
: we've elected.
"That has no bearing on whether they were elected in free and fair
elections. I may have been half-joking about sending international
monitors to ensure that the 2004 election is free and fair, but I know
that's no guarantee of getting good officeholders."
: Still, my point was that the "fraudulent" election did not
: happen after this person got into power, as one would expect of a fascist
: state (like, say, Hussein getting 100% of the vote), but is the thing which
: put him in power in the first place.
Prophet
> Well, it sort of did with Google. I got this from one hit on Tony
> Ranfone + Vietnam:
> Abood, Ken and Ranfone, Tony. How to Live in Vietnam for less than
> 10cents a day... and other glimpses of the lighter side of war. Tokyo
> : Wayward Press, 1968, (c)1967
> --
Thank you Denny. May I pay for your next one? (I've gotta get
in the Google habit - it's a neccessary skill in our evolving culture.)
Frank McCoy
>stard...@mindspring.com (Lee S. Billings) wrote in
>news:b9jltd$qlq$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net:
>> In article <TSednfkec4A...@speakeasy.net>,
>> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net says...
>>>In article <b9hadl$bq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>>Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say
>>>>"fraudulent", since there remains the possibility that a fair
>>>>count *would* have given Bush the state and its electoral votes
>>>>anyhow) election took place under the aegis of Bush's brother,
>>>>the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism in action is
>>>>in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue to
>>>>doubt the validity of the results.
>>>
>>>So what did you want him to do, resign prior to the election?
>>
>> Allowing an honest count would have been sufficient. This, of
>> course, would have meant recusing both himself and his minions
>> from the process, which was never going to happen.
>
>As I recall, Jeb pretty much did recuse himself, not that the Governor
>has much to do with the voting process anyway. It was Sarah Harris,
>the Secretary of State, who created the taint of conflict of interest,
>but, off hand, I can't think of anything she did that was specifically
>dishonest or illegal, either.
Dishonest? Only possibly.
Illegal? Certainly not.
Conflict of interest? Most definitely.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
John Palmer
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2003 13:27:38 +0200, "David C Pugh"
><davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
>("Hogan's Heroes")
>> Was HH dominated by a single actor to the same
>>degree? And who was holding them prisoner?
>
>As Celine said, WWII Nazis. She mentioned Klemperer (whose character
>was Colonel Klink) and Banner as Sgt. Schulz. The leader of the
>prisoners--Hogan, natcherly--was played by Bob Crane.
>
>> In the same way, I understand your Archie Bunker series was a
>>(toned-down) version of our "Till Death Do Us Part".
>
>Indeed it was--or so I've read. Never seen any eps of TDDUP.
It's part of the show credits, IIRC... but I think it said it was
based on... a play? Dang memory.... (Then again, The Odd Couple was a
play that turned into a series.)
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
"Do not try to understand the bunny; that is impossible. Instead, try
to understand the truth... there *IS* no bunny, but there is still a home
to come to."
Denny Wheeler
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
> I have a snippet here. Johnny Speight, its working-class creator, said
>it was a reaction to discovering that there existed people elsewhere whose
>idea of an argument was something other than repeating the same position at
>ever-increasing volume.
>
> "It's yer bleeding 'Arold Wilson, innit?"
>
> I never saw an Archie Bunker, so I can't begin to compare. I don't know
>if the title ("All in the Family" wasn't it?) was understood ironically or
>not. TDDUP certainly was: Alf Garnett yelled at everyone and everything,
>calling his wife mostly "You silly moo", and she just sat there, rather
>stonefaced and passive, but every now and then came out with a comment that
>pulled the rug out from under him. TDDUP -- and the sooner the better!
Archie's favorite epithet for Edith (his wife, brilliantly played by
Jean Stapleton) was 'dingbat'--and for his son-in-law, Mike (Rob
Reiner) was 'meathead.'
Silicon Shaman
"Prophet" <m...@cisunix.unh.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.53.030...@alberti.unh.edu...
> On Fri, 9 May 2003, David Cox wrote:
>
> > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > > What I do maintain is that all art, no exceptions, has a message
of
> > some
> > > sort, even if the message is only "I'm having fun here and don't give
a
> > cuss
> > > what you think"; and that in the vast majority of cases the message of
the
> > > art work has something to do with pushing particular views of
politics,
> > > society, religion and so forth. (No, I'm not a French
Deconstructionist,
> > > neither am I politically correct, what I am is a history maven.)
> > >
> > So I'm just curious, what viewpoint do you think Monet was pushing in
his
> > paintings? What statement is being made by the Mona Lisa? I'll agree
that
> > art often pushes a viewpoint, but all art, no exceptions?
> >
> "Mrs Giaconda is a loverly lady Mr Giaconda. Yes, I can take a check.
Funny, but not even remotely right.
Leonardo worked on the Mona Lisa for over thirty years, through 4 changes of
patron [and therefore moves from one city to another.] It's the one painting
of his that travelled everywhere with him. We know from his sketch books
that he actually painted it over 20 times ! Destroying the other previous
copies in frustration [well, some would have us believe that other copies
exist, but that's just a myth.]
Whatever the Mona Lisa was to him, it was a damn sight more than just a
paycheck. It's the *only* painting of his mentioned in his will.
My theory, she was someone he fell in love with. He spent forever trying to
capture the essence of her on canvas, because he couldn't have her in real
life.
Which I suppose explains why it is such a luminous painting, that level of
art is usually only achieved due to great passion.
--
Silicon.shaman's credo.
Not only must you believe in six impossible things before breakfast,
you have to be able to do at least half of them .
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
Silicon Shaman
> "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in
> news:zabva.2014$vM2.18...@news-text.cableinet.net:
>
> > Welll - in the UK you'll not generally find flags in schools
> > or in people's gardens. That one <flagpole in front yard>
> > is always a bit of a wierd thing to see when I visit the US.
> > Someone in the UK who had a flagpole in their front yard
> > and a Union Flag flying from it would be looked askance
> > at - it's the province of nutters, facist-wanna-bes and
> > elderly retired Colonels with big mustaches and a penchent
> > for writing to the Times (ok, he usually gets fitted in under
> > #1 <g>)
> >
> > And as I work for the civil service I can tell you specifically
> > that UK government offices do NOT have flags flying outside
> > as a general rule - flags are only flown on "state occasions"
> > (Queen's birthday, certain national celebrations, in times of
> > national mourning, etc)
>
> eclectic about flag flying. Government buildings will almost always
> have a US flag. State buildings will have the US flag plus the state
> flag. Municipal buildings may have a city flag as well, if one exists.
> We're also quite happy to fly the flags of other nations at fairs and
> theme parks and such. Some upmarket hotels will fly the flags of the
> countries of any foreign visitors.
>
> In the past decade or so, it's become popular with some people to put
> out decorative flags on private homes, sometimes with a seasonal or
> holiday pattern, sometimes just for fun.
Hmm, *contemplating Stars&Stripes with Halloween Jack-O'-Lantern motif*
*shudder*
<ironic>"How very... appropriate."</ironic>
--
Silicon.shaman
Infamous International Meme-Terrorist.
Dedicated to the overthrow of Government by Farce
Silicon Shaman
his can of worms. Hearing Fedor's comments he was moved to reply.
"Well, a federal superstate in of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.
However, I have grave misgivings regarding that amount of power in hands of
any unelected, and ultimatly unaccountable official, be they President or
bureaucrat. I can't help think of the axiom about what power does.
Plus given that the *current* arrangement already seems dangeriously
corrupt and hell-bent on forcing everyone to be equal, by eradicating any
indications of cultural diversity and national identity. Well, it's enough
to make me think the whole idea is flawed from the start.
As for Bush being in the running for one of the worst incumbriants in
office. Well, depends upon your definition of Worst. JFK is generally touted
as a Good President, and yet he is surrounded in scandel etc, even in his
own lifetime people had their doubts.
BTW, does anyone else think that Wil Wheaton [Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG]
looks a lot like Kennedy ? Then when you add in the fact that his mom worked
as campaen manager.... Makes you wonder. "
While the shaman has been talking, Iridium had waddled over to where Mike
was, and looked him in the eye. The end result being that Fedor receives a
side plate of spag-geti that moves, with his God's Blessing.
*Iridium share with friends*
--
Silicon.Shaman
So many cities,
so few comets....
Kevin Ahearn
>looks a lot like Kennedy ? Then when you add in the fact that his mom worked
>as campaen manager.... Makes you wonder. "
Well...Kennedy died in 1963. Think Wil Wheaton's a bit under 40? Yeah, me
too.
Leigh Claffey
> BTW, does anyone else think that Wil Wheaton [Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG]
> looks a lot like Kennedy ? Then when you add in the fact that his mom worked
> as campaen manager.... Makes you wonder. "
No it doesn't. He was born in 1972. I checked IMDB to be certain, but I was pretty sure
he was at least six years younger than I am before I looked.
(Actually surprised he is *only* 6 years younger than me.)
--Leigh
Austin
> Any nominations for right-wing polemics masquerading as
> documentaries, folks?
«The Smirk Administration.»
-fantôme
Linda Scheimann
Austin <use...@halostatue.ca> wrote in message
news:VwNva.851$st.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<linda entering with flavored cherry phosphate............<
Robert Altman's 1980 satire on the campaign
John Ockerbloom
Wesley Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>Well, you're mostly right - for now. But it seems to be gaining
>ground. As in "faith-based initiatives", which is showing a
>preference for those functions that can show a religious link, and
>while not directly supporting a theocracy, we have vouchers. As I
>say, indirectly on that, since the vouchers don't *have to be* used on
>prochial schools, just that most private schools *do* have a religious
>bent - and should one wish to home-school instead, vouchers cannot be
>used for that type of education. And meanwhile the schools that *need*
>to get themselves straightened out, the so-called public schools, will
>not be able to - I know that *I* certainly wouldn't want to send my
>kid to a system that has been so bureaucratically (sp?) bungled which
>now has 2 chances of getting itself fixed - slim and none, cuz it's
>going to get even less funding than it does now.
Well, I for one care little about whether a particular system
survives, except to the extent that it supports or hinders its main
purpose: which in this case should be having well-educated kids.
Personally, I could go for a *fully-funded* voucher system. Every student
would get allocated an amount equal to the per-pupil cost of running a decent
public school system, and the family can spend it at any qualifying
school that they thought best, or for homeschooling if the teacher passes
qualifier tests and the student meets essential testing benchmarks.
Whether or not the school was religious, nonreligious, or antireligious
wouldn't matter, nor would whether the school was government-run or not.
If good public schools thrive in this system, good for them. If bad
public schools fail, parents have the funds to send their kids somewhere
else. (One might need to add a transit subsidy for poorer families if
they can't afford to get their kids to a better, but more distant, school.)
(Yes, 'qualifying' *could* get horribly politicized. But it doesn't
necessarily have to be. It doesn't seem to get that way for colleges
that qualify for receiving students on federal financial aid, for instance.)
What about students needing more special education? Folks who were shown
to need this could get bigger vouchers, usable at any qualified special
education program.
I don't know how likely this would be. It goes against some rather
strong tenets of both parties (Republicans who object to higher taxes,
and Democrats who object to government funds even indirectly getting
to religious institutions). And it appears to seriously annoy at least
one large labor bloc (public school teachers' unions). But I think
that, done right, it could well serve a lot of kids that are badly
served by the current system, while promoting both equity and choice,
two ideas that also have definite appeal to both major parties.
And it does provide a practical way of accomplishing what politicians
in both parties now pay lip service to: leaving "no child behind".
What do other folks think?
John Mark Ockerbloom
Prophet
> "Prophet" <m...@cisunix.unh.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > paintings? What statement is being made by the Mona Lisa? I'll agree
> that
> > > art often pushes a viewpoint, but all art, no exceptions?
> > >
> > "Mrs Giaconda is a loverly lady Mr Giaconda. Yes, I can take a check.
>
> Funny, but not even remotely right.
>
> Leonardo worked on the Mona Lisa for over thirty years, through 4 changes of
> patron [and therefore moves from one city to another.] It's the one painting
> of his that travelled everywhere with him. We know from his sketch books
> that he actually painted it over 20 times ! Destroying the other previous
> copies in frustration [well, some would have us believe that other copies
> exist, but that's just a myth.]
>
> Whatever the Mona Lisa was to him, it was a damn sight more than just a
> paycheck. It's the *only* painting of his mentioned in his will.
>
> My theory, she was someone he fell in love with. He spent forever trying to
> capture the essence of her on canvas, because he couldn't have her in real
> life.
> Which I suppose explains why it is such a luminous painting, that level of
> art is usually only achieved due to great passion.
>
So I stand corrected - not that there's anything wrnog with working for
a paycheck. I don't recall if it was elsewhere in this thread or off in
another that someone mentioned Warhol's painting of soup cans. Now I've
always considered it to be pointless trash (and inferred as much earlier.)
However, thinking about it lately, I see where it could be seen as
a) commentary on our fast-food, can-soup colorless culture and/or
b) a celebration of the work-a-day artists who do the nine-to-five
deal trying to make the ordinary and background parts of our lives
a little more attractive.
Nothing wrong with working for a living.
S**T. I think I *am* growing up. Where will it end?
Prophet
> "Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > An interesting cultural difference. Here in the US, we're pretty
> > eclectic about flag flying. Government buildings will almost always
> > have a US flag. State buildings will have the US flag plus the state
> > flag. Municipal buildings may have a city flag as well, if one exists.
> > We're also quite happy to fly the flags of other nations at fairs and
> > theme parks and such. Some upmarket hotels will fly the flags of the
> > countries of any foreign visitors.
> >
> > In the past decade or so, it's become popular with some people to put
> > out decorative flags on private homes, sometimes with a seasonal or
> > holiday pattern, sometimes just for fun.
>
> Hmm, *contemplating Stars&Stripes with Halloween Jack-O'-Lantern motif*
> *shudder*
> <ironic>"How very... appropriate."</ironic>
>
Sshhh! My wife's addicted to the seasonal/occasional flags and it's
bad enough as it is.
But on the cultural note - at every powwow around here, the first three
songs played are Grand Entry, a Flag Song, and a Veterans' Song. Here
in New England, the Grand Entry is led by flagbearers with a US flag,
usually a Candian flag, tribal flags if any are available, service
flags (army, marines, navy seals, uinit flags,) and pow-mia flag.
Among the Native Americans, respect for soldiers and veterans runs
very high. Patriotism is standard - as is distrust of the government.
Matthew Russotto
Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <TSednfkec4A...@speakeasy.net>, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>says...
>>
>>In article <b9hadl$bq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's worth mentioning here that the questionable (I won't say "fraudulent",
>>>since there remains the possibility that a fair count *would* have given Bush
>>>the state and its electoral votes anyhow) election took place under the aegis
>>>of Bush's brother, the Governor of Florida. This suggestion of nepotism in
>>>action is in fact one of the things which makes so many people continue to
>>>doubt the validity of the results.
>>
>>So what did you want him to do, resign prior to the election?
>
>Allowing an honest count would have been sufficient. This, of course, would
>have meant recusing both himself and his minions from the process, which was
>never going to happen.
He did recuse himself. Had all his "minions" recused themselves,
there'd be no one to run the election. (The Secretary of State should
have recused herself, but for other reasons)
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
David Harden
: "Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:Xns93781C7114C0j...@207.217.77.23...
: >
: > In the past decade or so, it's become popular with some people to put
: > out decorative flags on private homes, sometimes with a seasonal or
: > holiday pattern, sometimes just for fun.
: Hmm, *contemplating Stars&Stripes with Halloween Jack-O'-Lantern motif*
: *shudder*
: <ironic>"How very... appropriate."</ironic>
"No, that's not it. It isn't even close. They're flag-shaped, but
they don't have anything to do with flag flags, if you get what I mean
by that. They're just pieces of cloth with patterns or designs on
them."
David Harden
: news:TI6va.11209$b71.2...@news4.e.nsc.no:
: >> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in
: >> news:w_2va.11157$b71.2...@news4.e.nsc.no:: >> > news:Xns9376986762443j...@207.217.77.24...
: >> > Plus "pointy-headed liberal"
: >>
: >> That's a political insult, not a slam at intelligence per se.
: >> "Pointy headed" to me implies stupidity, as in "pin head."
: >
: > Oh! I misinterpreted that, then. Thought it was a suggestion of a
: > separate species, c.f. Coneheads, who were intelligent and
: > therefore wrong.
: I think the Coneheads humor stemmed mainly from their
: misinterpretations of our popular culture, their alien ways seen
: through our culture and their ridiculous cover story ("We're from
: France").
"'France. We are from France,' said in a monotone."
Dane Anderson
> (Actually, aside from the scientific flaws which were countless,
> what bothered me most about the movie was the casual was Smith was
> abusing his prisoner in clear violation of the Geneva Convention.)
Not at all. Smith had to subdue the prisoner, and then keep him subdued.
It's clear, he used the minimum amount of kicking, and punching
necessary. :)
--
Sometimes my wife wakes up grumpy.
The rest of the time she lets me sleep in.
Dane Anderson.
Indiana Joe
<sp...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Personally, I could go for a *fully-funded* voucher system. Every student
> would get allocated an amount equal to the per-pupil cost of running a decent
> public school system, and the family can spend it at any qualifying
> school that they thought best, or for homeschooling if the teacher passes
> qualifier tests and the student meets essential testing benchmarks.
The problem is that some students are more expensive than others. If
the system bases the size of the voucher on the average cost of a
student, the "average" student will be slightly cheaper but the
"special needs" students will cost more. This gives the private school
an incentive to exclude the more expensive ones.
My ideal voucher system would require schools to admit *any* student
who provides a voucher, regardless of any other factors. Too many
applicants? Figure out a way to fit them all in. Low grades? You can
hold them back but not expel them. The student is learning disabled (or
has other special needs)? Give them a tutor/therapist/whatever they
need.
In other words, private schools would have to deal with all the
problems of being a public school if they want public money.
--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
jr...@cox.net | -- Daniel Burnham
John Palmer
>In article <b9opiv$9mb$1...@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu>, John Ockerbloom
><sp...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I could go for a *fully-funded* voucher system. Every student
>> would get allocated an amount equal to the per-pupil cost of running a decent
>> public school system, and the family can spend it at any qualifying
>> school that they thought best, or for homeschooling if the teacher passes
>> qualifier tests and the student meets essential testing benchmarks.
>
> The problem is that some students are more expensive than others. If
>the system bases the size of the voucher on the average cost of a
>student, the "average" student will be slightly cheaper but the
>"special needs" students will cost more. This gives the private school
>an incentive to exclude the more expensive ones.
>
> My ideal voucher system would require schools to admit *any* student
>who provides a voucher, regardless of any other factors. Too many
>applicants? Figure out a way to fit them all in. Low grades? You can
>hold them back but not expel them.
(First, apologies... there's a personal peeve/rant coming, and it's
not directed at you, Joe)
You know, there's a lot of complaints about not holding a student
back, but there's good research showing that most students do better
when advanced. This isn't too surprising when you consider that, if
the student had a 60%, when needing a 70%, average, s/he only needs
10% of the material from that year to be learned, so between 40 and
90% of the year is wasted.
I don't know if this held true if the student had a, say, 40% average,
or worse, but the idea of "don't hold students back" came from
research, despite the claims of folks who insist that it has something
to do with 'feel good education'.
> In other words, private schools would have to deal with all the
>problems of being a public school if they want public money.
This is one thing I agree with, though... if you gave vouchers for
100% of student costs, you'd need to transfer "student problems" along
with it. However, Cleveland's voucher program was something like 1/2
of the per-student cost... so if you took a student out of the public
schools, the school ended up with more funding. It sounded like a
good idea, from my perspective, though I'll confess that I didn't
research it too much.
Indiana Joe
<jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quoting me]
> >Low grades? You can hold them back but not expel them.
>
> (First, apologies... there's a personal peeve/rant coming, and it's
> not directed at you, Joe)
Appology accepted. The whole promote/hold-back issue is irrelevant to
my argument anyways, as long as the pupil can't be forced into another
school for poor grades.
> > In other words, private schools would have to deal with all the
> >problems of being a public school if they want public money.
>
> This is one thing I agree with, though... if you gave vouchers for
> 100% of student costs, you'd need to transfer "student problems" along
> with it. However, Cleveland's voucher program was something like 1/2
> of the per-student cost... so if you took a student out of the public
> schools, the school ended up with more funding.
The problem that occurs when private tuition is only partially funded
is that the cost of private school becomes an obstacle to some
students. I'm trying to avoid that.
D.J.
"Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
] and a Union Flag flying from it would be looked askance
] at - it's the province of nutters, facist-wanna-bes and
] elderly retired Colonels with big mustaches and a penchent
] for writing to the Times (ok, he usually gets fitted in under
] #1 <g>)
Here its only part of the package in that some of the flag fliers
are nutters, some are nice folks who like flying the flag, and some
are somewhere in between. And some fly it only on special occasions,
like Flag Day or the Fourth of July, Veterans' Day, etc. And some
never fly the flag.
D.J.
--
Updated: May 3, 2003 my 1E AD&D game world.
Over 420 maps and pages of info and sf poems
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
drive-in theatres: http://www.drivein-jim.net/
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>S**T. I think I *am* growing up. Where will it end?
Be careful. That way lies sanity.
Lollee Roberts
> On Fri, 9 May 2003, David Cox wrote:
>
> > >
chicken
> > noodle"? ;)
> >
> No, Warhol was saying, "I'm so cool I can put out any shit and you'll
> pay me for it.
> McCartney has done the same thing. I refer you to a hit with the
> title, "Silly Love Songs."
>
> Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
> Native American Cultural Association.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
> Mein Gedanken Sind Frei!
Hey! I liked that song. It's not on a level with "Hey, Jude" or "Yesterday"
but it had a certain naive charm. (I also thought it was a dandy "teach
Linda how to play keyboards and sing harmony" song.)
--
Lollee
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to
anger." Tolkien, "Fellowship of the Ring"
Prophet
> Prophet wrote:
> > (Actually, aside from the scientific flaws which were countless,
> > what bothered me most about the movie was the casual was Smith was
> > abusing his prisoner in clear violation of the Geneva Convention.)
>
> Not at all. Smith had to subdue the prisoner, and then keep him subdued.
> It's clear, he used the minimum amount of kicking, and punching
> necessary. :)
>
Are you, by chance, an LA cop?
The scene I'm thinking of is while he's dragging the alien across
the desert wrapped in his parachute. He's ranting out loud and
breaks off with, "...and what *is* that smell?" and then starts
kicking the alien - which was motionless and unconcious.
--
Prophet
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:40:08 -0400, Prophet <m...@cisunix.unh.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >S**T. I think I *am* growing up. Where will it end?
>
> Be careful. That way lies sanity.
> --
(Making anti-vampire cross of his forefingers.) "No! Say it
ain't so! Quick, I need silliness. Where's a good silliness
thread?"
--
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>Final note: It's a fantasy! It has nothing to do with reality!
>Don't pick at the plot. It leaves a nasty scar.
>
>--
>Jerry Hollombe, Webmaster
Fantasies should be MORE grounded in reality. Simply because they -are-
fantasy.
That said 'Independence Day' was a horrifying mess through and through. It's as
if they deliberatly attempted to insult every single movie goer as much as
possible.