JMS Usenet Posts - 4/30/2003
Dirk A. Loedding
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I've wondered for a while, why are directors not attatched to TV shows
:for seasons or longer runs?
They often are. X-Files and other shows have resident directors who
direct as many as half or one-third of the episodes, and work with the
outside directors on visual continuity. You can't have one director
doing more than that because you have to prep one episode while
another is shooting, and that means having at least two directors.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:As a long-time fan of B5[1], I wish to contribute back to the
:community in some respect. I wish very much to create a fansite of
:some kind (the exact details are blurry) and was wondering if it were
:permissible to use still images from the episodes for discussion and
:comparison[2].
As far as I know, as long as proper attribution is given (i.e., (c)
1993 Warner Bros) it shouldn't be a problem.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Wow Joe! Until I saw the eariler posts, I didn't know you went to
:SDSU. I also did my undergraduate work there, and remember The Daily
:Aztec quite well. I spent two years in Zura Hall, and one year as an
:RA in Olmeca. So I take it you probably recall the various staples of
:the campus such as Monty's Den, and Square Pan Pizza <grin>? I
:graduated in 1982. B5 and Jeremiah has always bode my deepest respect
:for your writing and heart felt stories, but this just increased that.
Yeah, I hung out in all those places. (I also worked there during two
summers as an orientation counselor, helping new students adjust.) It
was a pretty good college, all things considered.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I just read _Angels in America_ for the first time, and for some reason I
:pictured the Angel as a Vorlon!!
::)
:Do you like his work?
Haven't read it.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:You "ain't just whistling Dixie." The primary reason I voted against
:Gore was that I wanted a vacation from the previous 8 years of
:worrying about my Second Amendment rights.
Too bad they're not being as sancrosanct about the remaining
amendments in the Bill of Rights...
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>What's the current status of the B5/Crusade graphic novel?
It's in need of some spare round tuits....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Subject: Getting a female n00b
Forget the rest, what the heck is a female n00b?
jms
>General comment:
Of course, the whole irony of this discussion, in light of recent
events -- and when the topic turns to guns the whole thing basically
devolves from that point on -- is that the current administration, for
the alleged sake of combatting terrorism, has surveyed libraries to
find out who's been checking out what (16% of the National Librarian's
Association report having been contacted and provided information),
who's taken pilot courses, who's taken scuba courses (with one school
refusing to turn over its records), but not one inquiry into who's
buying what guns, even though guns are more likely to be used in a
terrorist attack than library books or scuba gear.
Not advocating anything here, just pointing out the contradiction....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Why are there no new B5-novels? And why there where never any
:"Crusade"-Books? Why not continue "Crusade" in novels "based on an
:original outline by J.M.S."?
All that's required is for a publisher to make a deal with WB.
jms
>Someone wrote a bunch of very nice stuff on 1/30. Message ID is
>20030129195811...@mb-md.aol.com if you want to hunt it
>down with Google. JMS quotes and answers:
:Thanks, Joe. Looking forward to more of your words.
No, the thanks are entirely mine, for your very kind words.
Thanks again.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:What are the dates of the Morden/Anna trip?
Per the B5 Chronology by Terry Jones:
2256:
"Thursday December 3rd. Before the Icarus departs Station Prime on
it's 6 month scientific and archaeological expedition to the Rim, Anna
Sheridan transmits a full mission inventory to her husband John. The
Icarus departs Station Prime to begin it's journey in hyperspace."
2257
"Sunday January 3rd. The Icarus lands on Z'ha'dum and the survey teams
which include Anna Sheridan, Morden and Justin, begin to explore.
Unknown to those on Earth, some of the survey team are captured by
those Shadows already out of hibernation and given the choice of
serving them or death. Morden is manipulated by the Shadows into
becoming a willing emissary and receives a cranial implant to
facilitate communication between him and the Shadows. Anna doesn't
agree with what they are doing, so she is merged with Shadow
technology along with other team members. The Icarus is set on
automatic and the engines overloaded to blow as it reaches orbit.
"Revelations, In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum, Knives, The Shadow Within and
Z'ha'dum outline what happened to the survey team and the Icarus. The
Passing Of The Techno-mages:Summoning Light reveals Morden has an
implant in his skull.
Probes set up by the Vorlons to monitor Z'ha'dum record the events on
the planet's surface and the information is transmitted to Ambassador
Kosh's ship en route to Babylon 5."
jms
>About the Columbia breaking up on re-entry:
It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. I've been locked in my office
writing all day, and din't hear about this until late.
We become so used to the sight of astronauts climbing skyward on the
shuttle and drifting back to earth that we forget the dangers
involved, that these people are riding controlled explosions going up,
and blasting back at mach six with little or no fuel coming back,
using technology that is nearly twenty years old, and ships that have
taken multiple beatings on lift-off and re-entry for all of those
years.
If the government really wants to show respect for the lives lost,
they should inject some of the money otherwise being spent on bombs
into creating and repairing and refurbishing the remaining shuttles,
or otherwise paying more than lip service to the space program that
has given so much, and so many lives, in return for so precious little
funding from Washington.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers someone who compared "And the Sky Full of
>Stars" to C.S. Lewis' "The Silver Chair"
:Is this a tip of the hat to C.S. Lewis, or just the wild imaginings of
:a hapless Briton who can't see a cigar for what it is?
Since I haven't read that one of Lewis' books, I'd have to say the
latter.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Feb 7: JMS Helping Spiderman: The master of Science Fiction, and one
:hell of a writer, J. Michael Straczynski has reportedly been brought
:in to fix the script for "The Amazing Spiderman". JMS wrote several
:Spiderman comic books for Marvel.
Nope. Not true. First I heard of the rumor was when I had guys on
the net asking if it was true or not.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:It occurs to me that in some ways you're trying to learn to tell your
:stories in the fewest possible words. From writing novels (250-350
:pages), to plays (? pages) through TV episodes and Movies (50-100
:pages) and audio dramas (? pages), you're now writing a fair number of
:comics with only 22 pages, though I know that the scripts are more
:with your panel descriptions. I'm just wondering if this is a
:progression you've been doing deliberately, to find the perfect
:balance of verbal and visual maybe, or just how things happened?
:Maybe your background as a journalist is telling ("specificity is your
:friend")? Or should I start working on getting telepathic so you can
:just p'think your stories this way?
I think (p'think?) it's just the way things have laid out lately. In
truth it's very difficult for me to tell a short story; with me,
everything's a long russian novel. Even with the comics being 22
pages each, they are still part of a larger story or arc, and the RS
and Midnight Nation stories were/are both just plain big for a form
that usually measures arcs in 3-6 issues.
Just long-winded, I guess.
jms
>An interesting question from JMS. All the discussion on the topic has
>died down by now, so there's no need to e-mail JMS any information or
>answers or whatever.
This is just an aside, knowing that we've got any number of folks out
there who can do the math (and/or the biology) on this a lot better
than me (which would be, well,pretty much everybody reading this),
'cause it's something I've noticed lately.
Unlikely as this sounds, I'm one of those people who often seems to
know when the phone is going to ring. Not always, just often enough
so that I'll suddenly look at a phone and think, "It's about to ring,"
and sonuvagun, it does.
Now, I've always just put this down to synchronicity...after all, how
many times would I look at a phone and it doesn't ring, and I don't
think about it? In my head, when I knew it was about to ring, the only
way I can describe it would be kind of vrrr-vrrr-vrrrrTIK sound in my
head.
Well, a few weeks ago, imagine my surprise when I heard that sound
coming from outside my head for a change when I knew the phone was
about to ring. It was coming from the desktop stereo speakers in my
office, where I'd set down my cell phone. (A Motorola v70.) It was
that same exact vrr-vrr-vrrrTIK sound, coming from the speaker, then a
moment later, the cell phone rang.
Out of curiosity, I used the land-line to dial my cell phone later,
and the same sound came from the speakers again, just a couple of
seconds preceding the actual ring. GIve it a try, see for yourself.
It wouldn't happen every time, I discovered, but a lot of the time it
would. I also tried it with a large-ish Nokia cell phone, and the
same thing occured.
Now, somebody out there can probably do the math on the
electromagnetic impulse that could be picked up by a speaker system
from the phone, and I guess what I'm wondering is, can the human
nervous system be sensitive enough to pick up something like that? If
so, it might provide a scientific answer to how some people just know
the phone is about to ring.
Just one of those things you think about when it's nearly 1 a.m. and
you really should be writing....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:With the anniversary of the first airing of The Gathering coming up
:quickly, do you have any special plans to commemorate the day?
Plans hell, I'm still trying to get the number of the bus that hit
me....
jms
>An editorial note:
Just an advisory to those who picked up this issue of Amazing
Spider-Man ...there's a big glitch by way of a missing dialogue
balloon at the most crucial part of the story. (It was a production
glitch late in the game.)
Spoiler space for those who haven't gotten it yet
[trimmed]
On page 18, where MJ and Peter are having their heart-to-heart at
last, on the next-to-last panel, after MJ says "when I went away,"
there was supposed to be the following dialogue in the last panel on
that page.
"...it was because I was so far outside your life, I could never DO
anything to help. I could never be a part of what yo do, and you
could do it so well, that I just...I didn't think you needed me,
Peter. That's all I wanted to know, that's all I wanted to hear, that
you needed me, that you..."
Just a small thing, the justification for the whole arc....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Do you think this will be fixed for the trade collection in which this
:issue will appear?
Oh, yeah....
:By the way, The writing was so good that I didn't even notice there
:was anything missing.
That helps. But it *is* better with it.
Thanks for the reassurance, though.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I hope you don't mind, but I've just put this onto the Marvel Universe
:groups as they were all wondering what I was talking about...
Not a prob.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Quick question though. I thought JMS had told us last year that he
:could not resolve the Peter/MJ separation, that Kevin Smith insisted
:that he be the one to do that. So what changed?
I quote Kevin Smith in an interview given to popcultureshock.com:
**********
"I could be wrong, and maybe folks are just lying all over the place
to Poor, Misinformed me, but I was told JMS had no real concrete plans
for Peter and Mary Jane. He cleared the decks of all the supporting
characters on his Amazing run to concentrate on that first storyline
with the guy who wants to eat Spider-Man - whose name escapes me at
the moment. I realize his intention was to slowly work the supporting
cast back into the book, but I was always led to believe that Mary
Jane wasn't his primary concern. If she is, then Good Lord, he's
welcome to her.
"JMS, if you're out there reading, and you want to handle the Mary
Jane/Peter "We're married, but not really" hot potato, brother: do it
with my blessing. Because the shit-storm that's gonna rise out of that
cluster-**** is gonna be big. Like when the word "Kike" showed up in
the pages of Wolverine-uproar big. Like "The Clone Saga"-uproar big."
***********
I *was* reading, he gave his blessings, so I did it.
And, oddly, I haven't seen more than one or two mildly critical
messages anywere about this. Most everybody seems quite happy to see
them together (and at no time has anyone at Marvel ever told me not to
say they were/are married).
So I"m really at a loss to understand why Kevin felt he didn't have
the wherewithal to make this work. It really hasn't been a problem.
I guess most everybody thinks it was done right, that's all.
So thanks, Kevin. Couldn't have worked out better.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Hey Joe, when are we going to see the Squadron Supreme book?
The first three scripts are in, have been for a while, and we're now
well into pencils on issue two. The book is set to debut July 16th.
It's really pretty spiffy so far.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Do you know yet if your busy schedule will allow you to go to the San
:Diego Comic Con (or any other such event) this year? After all, I'm
:not sure I want to fly out from NYC unless there is hope for a "JMS
:Sighting."
Yeah, I do plan to be there. I'll also be at WonderCon in San
Francisco around the end of April.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>A friend recommended Kevin Smith's movies to me, which I'm plowing
>through (along with the 4-hour "An Evening with Kevin Smith" DVD).
>I'm struck by the similar origins of you both (comics, New Jersey) and
>of course found out you're both writing Spider-Man projects. So my
>question is, how much opportunity have you two had to get to know each
>other? What do you think of his work? What does he think of yours?
>On one of the DVDs filmed at his comics store the B5 figurines were
>arrayed on the shelf in the background, which would suggest some
>passing knowledge of your work.
I've only spoken to Kevin once, at a con, where he was signing. I
came up and introduced myself. He blinked at me for a second, then
said, "Huh. You're taller than I thought you'd be." And that was
about it.
jms
>Warning: There's going to be a lot of political discussion in the
>rest of this issue. I don't have the time to neatly segregate it away
>from the non-political stuff this time around.
>JMS quotes and answers:
:If the bombs start falling in Iraq and some CNN reporter opens a report
:with the words, "And so it begins..." I wouldn't leap to the conclusion
:that an hommage to either Tolkein or Straczynski was intended. <g>
Y'know...three thousand missiles set to hit in 48 hours...they call it
"shock and awe."
Call me old-fashioned, but I liked it better when they called it a
blitzkrieg.
Oh, wait, those were the bad guys. Sorry. Wrong war.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Just speaking for myself, I *like* the stories of carpenters who
:understood what you were doing. Who else would write entire columns
:about the other people who made B5 happen? Can't say I've ever seen
:that before.
I just feel more comfortable talking about that stuff, about the
contributions that the rest made, because for one thing, they tend to
get overlooked because I'm kind of the one whose name is fronted all
the time. They deserve the recognition.
And I just find talking about what I do just...awkward, that's all.
Not fishing for compliments, just saying it 'cause it's true. Because
of a lot of requests, last time I did San Diege Comic Con, I tried
talking about myself what I do for the first half far more than usual,
and I don't think I've ever spent a more difficult half-hour. When we
turned to questions and could throw it to the show overall, I was
substantially happier and more comfortable.
And I *like* telling stories about what other people do, about the
show overall, because it's often a lot more colorful and interesting
than what I could tell on my own behalf. I come in, I write, edit,
cast, write, go home, rinse, repeat.
Blecch.
jms
>On Iraq:
In all the tossing around of facts concerning the Iraq war, there are
some that keep being forgotten. Yes, Saddam is a thug, and his
country would likely (though not provably) be improved by his removal.
That's not contested. But there are any other number of countries
about which the same thing could be said. Now having pointed out that...
1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11.
Not one. The CIA made a point of saying this, even Bush has never
said anything to the contrary. There are far more threads connecting
Saudia Arabia to 9/11 than Iraq, but we are not going after them.
2) The use of gas against his own people, a hideous act by anyone's
measure (and similar acts have been done by other leaders in other
countries against their own people), but after it happened 13 years
ago, Rumsfeld, under Bush Senior, went to Iraq with $1.2 billion
additional aid to support the regime. If it was okay then for our
administration, under one Bush, to have it suddenly being the reason
for this action under the second Bush seems to be rather arbitrary.
3) The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities, in published reports,
has indicated very clearly that Iraq (which has never directly
threatened the US, unlike North Korea) would almost certainly NOT
attack the US unless it were backed into a corner by invasion.
4) Those who compare Iraq with WW2 Germany ignore the basic historical
facts at stake: Europe sat back and did little during the time when
Germany was building the mightiest war machine in human history, tens
of thousands of tanks, planes, cannons, on and on. But Iraq has only
a quarter or so of what was once its military, and as we see now
nightly on the news, their soldiers are poorly equipped and barely
fed. Not one single Iraqi plane has been launched in response to the
invasion. We basically pulverize their cities with absolute impunity.
We'll spend $400 billion this year on the military, Iraq generally
spends about $1.4 billion. So the situations between Germany and Iraq
are simply not comparable at any two contiguous points.
5) If there were WMD present in Iraq, they're certainly taking their
time using them in defense against a force set out to level their
cities and depose their rulers. Which only serves to reinforce the
prospect that such weapons are not there in any useable fashion.
It seems to me that we're attacking Iraq because we know they *don't*
have the weapons to oppose us, and *not* attacking North Korea because
we know they *do* have the weapons that could stop us.
Bush Sr., when asked why he stopped Gulf War I prior to taking down
Saddam and going into Baghdad, said "It would turn the entire Arab
world against us." If that were true then, why is it not true now?
The policy of containment and isolation has worked for these many
years, there was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes
the Adminisration seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to
control a massive oil reserve and re-draw the map of the middle east
in ways that will serve better American interests.
Bottom line...was it worth all this to achieve the goal? Seventy-four
billion dollars, hundreds of lives, the wrath of the huge sections of
the Arab world who now believe we are what people have -- wrongly,
until now -- said we were, a force for colonization and invasion, in
this case into a country that we will have to occupy and run for years
(according to the latest estimates from the administration), causing
destabalization across the whole region?
Was this one man worth all this, when there was so little imminent or
plausible threat?
I think history will say the answer to that question is no.
jms
>Schedule for Jeremiah:
Last I heard, year two is set to debut in the US around the first week
of August. They want to be able to debut their new series Dead Like
Me in June/July or so, let that get its sea-legs, then we come out in
August.
We're currently in the last phase of shooting our two-part season
finale "Interregnum."
jms
>More Iraq stuff:
Something which may shed some light on this discussion...direct from
the Senate floor, a while back....
jms
----------------------
Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd
March 19, 2003
"The Arrogance of Power"
I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and
gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have
marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after
generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie
our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their
sacrifice and their strength.
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent
months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one
of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has
changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is
disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand
obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam
Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new
doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many.
We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on
any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on
terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any
international body. As a result, the world has become a much more
dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security
Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by
lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more
than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image
around the globe.
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation
with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and
circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the
necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda,
with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence
by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely
have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the
brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we
have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts
by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon
their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to
borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many
addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and
grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted
metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and
hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain.
And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will
probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist
our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange
alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many
questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the
cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?
A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty
to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while
scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty
in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which
ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk
undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire
approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon
diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for
diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies
not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will
lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will
somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray
for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and
for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the
United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we
somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.
>JMS quotes and answers:
:As if the Senate is the fount of wisdom and philosophy on this stuff.
Well, they are our elected reps, and they do form the basis for our
government, so I think they have a say in this, don't you? Or do you
think the president should run the whole show and everybody else
should just shut up?
:Joe, you picked the one senator most easily bought by special
:interests.
Checked the White House lately?
:I stopped listening to Byrd years ago.
Too bad, because he's the one constitutional scholar that even the
most conservative Republicans respect.
He was one of the first to speak out about the Lewinsky situation,
however...and in not flattering terms to Clinton.
Have you ever considered knowing a bit more about your subject area?
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
::1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11.
:Granted. The connections made seem to all be on the side of what
:*could* happen.
But don't you understand how blatantly this flies in the face of
everything this coiuntry has stood for, for over two hundred years?
We're striking first, to take out a sovereign nation because it MIGHT
be a threat in the future. Hell, there are DOZENS of countries out
there that *might* be a threat, that have *also* violated or ignored
UN resolutions, do we go around bombing and invading *all* of them?
This is the first time we have pre-emptively invaded a nation like
this. And what kind of precedent are we setting? What's to stop
China now from saying "We think Taiwan is a potential threat to our
interests, so we're going in after them"? Iran's firing up its nuclear
program in violation of prior agreements, so are they next in line?
For as many ups and downs as we've had as a nation, what always
distinguished us in the past was that we tried to take the high
ground, to speak with something at least approximating the voice of
moral authority, leading by example. We have utterly shrugged that
aside with this action.
:As far as Saudi Arabia, I think it's a determined goal of this
:administration to very politely and indirectly obviate them. A
:non-OPEC Iraq with a represenative elected government would be
:something to see. And who can say that they're not "next?"
Okay, so Saudia Arabia is next, then Iran, Syria, North Korea...by you
this is okay?
:There are a few points of continuity in the comparison worth pointing
:out: Saddam and Hitler both ran thier countries and oppressed their
:minorities with frightening brutality. They both started dubious wars
:for reasons of empire building. They were both well organized and
:systematic about their programs of oppression.
We can both name a dozen countries about which the same can be said.
:They both organized networks of informers and institutions to balance
:possible threats against each other rather than against the leader.
Taken a look at what Ashcroft's been up to lately? Project TIPS,
investigations into libraries to see who's been reading what (the
National Library Association reported that nearly 20% of their
librarians had been asked to provide this information to the
government, and had complied.)
:Matter of fact one of the arguments I've heard about preempting Iraq
:the way we're doing it is so that it would never get to be like the
:situation from North Korea
Again, a pre-emptive war is against every democratic principle this
country has fought and bled for, for centuries.
:which in spite of its desperate need for butter, keeps making guns and
:letting the people starve.
And here in the US, $400 billion is being spent on the military just
this year, while social programs that feed and clothe the homeless,
that help malnourished children, are being cut back to make room for
the war machine.
:It is true now. The difference is today the U.S. doesn't really care
:what kind of hate Islamicists (not Muslims, Islamicists) can drum up,
:now that we've decided to come for them all.
And if that isn't the most chilling thing I've read online in quite a
while, I don't know what is.
No, wait, here it is...
:>there was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes the
:>Adminisration seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to control a
:>massive oil reserve and re-draw the map of the middle east in ways
:>that will serve better American interests. Why this is a bad thing
:>is a bit confusing to me.
'Nuff said.
jms
:>This is the first time we have pre-emptively invaded a nation like
:>this. And what kind of precedent are we setting? What's to stop China
:>now from saying "We think Taiwan is a potential threat to our
:>interests, so we're going in after them"? Iran's firing up its
:>nuclear program in violation of prior agreements, so are they next in
:>line?
:Preemptive military action has a number of historical precedents --
:including American ones.
Note that you've just changed the subejct. I was speaking to invading
a nation. Not to generic "military action." Further to the point,
none of your examples, offered below, address this question, none of
them constitute invasions of a sovereign nation.
:In 1962 we instituted a naval blockade of Cuba to prevent Soviet
:weapons technology from reaching the island.
1) Not an invasion. 2) This represented a direct threat against the
US. But despite point 2, it still doesn't address the issue I raised
concerning invading another nation.
:In 1967, Israel struck first at the Arab armies converging on their
:border.
1) I wasn't talking about Israel. I was specifically referring to the
first time in US history that we had pre-emptively invaded somebody.
Stay with the subject, don't pettifog. 2) This was also not an
invasion, so it's further irrelevant to the discussion.
:And in 1981 Israel destroyed Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor at
:Osirak,
See 1 and 2 above.
My point remains. Your comments only help to reinforce it.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:you were far, far more concilatory toward the previous administration:
:> I go back and forth on this whole thing. On the one hand,
:> I think the atrocities against the Albanian population *have*
:> to be answered, and they *have* to be stopped, and the only
:> voice the Serbian leaders seem to listen to is the voice of
:> force. (Though so far that doesn't seem to have happened.)
:Where was the United Nations permission for that pre-emptive 79-day
:bombing campaign?
1) Again, we're talking apples and cumquats, similar but not the same.
First, a bombing is not an outright invasion. Second, there were
people on the ground on both sides pleading for US intervention and
assistance, even in the face of intimidation. But again, and
primarily, it was NOT an invasion of a separate nation for the
purposes of toppling a regime and installing one of our choosing.
Saying it's the same doesn't make it so.
:>And here in the US, $400 billion is being spent on the military
:>just this year, while social programs that feed and clothe the
:>homeless, that help malnourished children, are being cut back to
:>make room for the war machine.
>Hm.... Could you name one (1) such program on which fewer dollars are
>being spent this year than were spent previously? Slightly decreasing
>the exponential on the rate of increase doesn't count.
Where have you *been* lately? There has been pretty widespread
coverage of cuts in Medicaid and Project Head Start, just for
starters. A memo from the Bush administration's health officials to
hospitals about a month ago severly limiting the sorts of patients who
should be treated under medicaid, and another memo from the Veteran's
Administration to providors of VA health services stipulated that
doctors should *not* make patients aware of services not currently
being used by them in order to help reduce costs while the war is on.
The National Governor's Association met recently and said, quite
loudly and clearly, both republicans and democrats alike, that the
monies drained from their books by the needs of this administration
and Homeland Security have resulted in severe cutbacks across the
board in social services, with some even having to cut back on regular
police force allocations. In Illinois, according to a variety of
reports, the entire $2.5 million State of Illinois budget for AIDS
minority outreach was wiped out in cuts directly related to the
Homeland Security/war effort.
Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey has been quite starightforward
in talking about the need to cut back (or as he puts it, "streamline")
social programs, education, health care, social security and housing.
That great bastion of liberalism, the Wall Street Journal, has
published any number of articles about how the administration is
cutting social programs to pay for the war, most recently citing $574
million eliminated from the program to refurbish lower-income housing.
I could go on but it just gets freaking depressing after a while.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:*Really*? So you are about to get that knock on your door for
:speaking out?
On the other hand, we are hearing about more and more cases of people
being arrested for expressing an anti-war sentiment.
Most recent case in point, a father and son who were accosted by
security at a shopping mall in Albany, NY, for wearing t-shirts that
said GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, shirts that, btw, they had *bought* at that
same mall the day before.
When the father refused to remove the t-shirt, he was arrested. There
have been other cases of such arrests.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>Not at all. The US has virtually no allies in this invasion.
:Also not true, though by the "old" way of doing things our allies in
:this sort of look like we've restarted the Warsaw Pact with us in
:Russia's place.
The humorous thing is that the actual numbers present quite another
picture to this so-called "coalition." One recent published report,
which had access to the final figures, noted that only 0.00842% of the
troops are from countries other than US and Britain.
Here's the breakdown other than US and Britain:Albania, is sending a
contingency of 70 troops. Poland, 200 troops and Romania is sending
278. Australia promises 2000 troops. And that's the whole contingent
of "coalition of the willing" troops.
So what about these other countries who keep being cited? How many
troops are they contributing? According to the History News Network,
the figures are: Spain, 0 troops; Turkey, 0; Italy, 0; Denmark, 0;
and Bulgaria, 0.
Puts the matter in kind of a different light, doesn't it?
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:But...are you saying that every country who supports action in Iraq
:has to provide troops...that they are either for us (and submitting
:troops) or they are against us (and not submitting troops)? Ironic.
It's been my experience that when someone says "are you saying
that...?" it's actually the other person taking what you did say,
rephrasing it into something you *didn't* say, for the purposes of
refuting, diminishing or ridiculing it. Oldest debating trick in the
world.
So: no, that's not what I'm saying. Someone asked if anybody had a
count of who was contributing what. I provided said information. End
of story.
The only irony present is the frequent use of "coalition forces" in
press releases without much discussion about what that coalition
actually comprises. Kinda makes it sound bigger and that more nations
are actively involved than there really are. Sort of political resume
padding....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:There was a better way... see all Saddam had to do was comply with the
:United Nations resolutions, but he didnt... This war is on Saddams
:shoulders... he had so many chances to prevent it, but chose not to.
The problem, of course, is that Iraq would have to prove a negative,
which is not possible. You cannot *prove* someone does not have WMD.
If they looked in 95% of every spot in the country, they could aways
say it was in the remaining 5%. Even Rumsfeld said "the absence of
evidence is not the evidence of absence."
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:With that done, we could have adverted war. the actions of Blix,
:France, Germany, Russia and hollywood are the reason we are at war.
That has got to be the biggest load of horseshit I have ever read on
this group.
Do you *honestly* think, for even a second, that Bush would ever have
walked away from this calmly? The administration did everything it
could to hobble the inspectors and interfere with the process, which
all of the inspectors noted repeatedly. They were given bad
information by the CIA and other US intelligence organizations.
But the main thing is..it didn't matter what they were or weren't
gonna find in Iraq. They were going in after Saddam regardless. They
kept shifting reasons as times changed...first it was about terrorism,
then it was about WMD, then it was about regime change, now it's about
Iraqi Freedom, only to find that the Iraqis don't want the US there.
Rumsfeld, hours after 9/11, was asking his aides if there was any way
to pin this on Saddam.
Bush wantedt his war, and he was determined to have it at any cost,
for any reason. That was in the cards months ago. Anybody who thinks
he was gonna just walk away quietly is living in a dream world.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
BTW...there's a very intereasting article that shows just how much the
current administration may have ignored warnings about the situation
over in Iraq at:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5510092.htm
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:So, just out of curiousity, how does it feel to see your
:pronouncements of fictional doom and gloom coming true in such a
:dramatic, world-impacting fashion?
It's a weird bit of synchronicity that has always been the case with
my work when I'm kind of riding the right waves, for lack of a better
term. Riding the synchronicity wave might be a better one. They went
through B5, echoing now, and they continue with Jeremiah.
In our story, we're moving toward a truly massive conflagration, a
major war, and in the course of filming one particular episode, as the
shit hits the fan, one character says, "Let's go kill some of the
enemy and make some noise."
As it happened, by yet another weird coincidence of timing, at the
moment we shot that scene, the bombs started falling in Baghdad.
Some of the cast are becoming increasingly creeped out by this....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:My girlfriend Carol and I watched "Dogma" last night. (If you've seen
:it, I'd be curious to hear any thoughts you have, as this movie is
:pretty much the Catholic Church as SF.) One running discussion we
:have is comparing/contrasting your work to Kevin's, given your common
:background, tastes and interests. She made the observation that
:"Kevin is very self-indulgent," which I guess is true. You have those
:"self-indulgent" moments, as all creators do, but Kevin's largely seem
:to be the core of his art.
I think I pretty much agree with this assessment, though I would,
since I kind of come out better in it and it would be in my interests
to agree (standard disclaimer).
:But if you have a few moments, I'd like to know what you think about
:"Dogma" from the perspective that you're an atheist while Kevin claims
:to believe in God.
I saw it an awfully long time ago, and to be honest it's a bit fuzzy
to me now. I do remember that I enjoyed it, in a dopey kind of way,
and that it was entertaining and made some good points along the way.
It's certainly not for everybody (but really, what is?), but it does
seem to have teeth in all the right places.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Will there be more Babylon 5 and what are your new projects?
To part one of your question, one never knows.
To part two...season 2 of Jeremiah is just about finished in terms of
production, and will go on the air sometime probably early or mid August.
Spidey continues to come out regularly.
My new comic, Supreme Power, also from Marvel, debuts July 16, with
art by Gary Frank.
Now that Jeremiah is done, I'll be turning my attention to finishing
off Rising Stars.
I have a new television series currently in development, we finalized
the contract with the company last week, and we'll see where it goes.
The director of Daredevil has said he wants to make Midnight Nation
his next film, so we're taking meetings over the next few weeks to see
if we can make that happen.
Just finished the commentaries and interviews for the B5 Year 3 DVD
set, and I think it's a bit better than the year 2 commentary I did,
which I think kinda sucked. Year 2 comes out in April.
I'm doing a new audio drama series which I can talk about more later.
We should go into production as soon as I've finished the last of the
scripts over the next week or so.
I know there's some other stuff, but I've just forgotten it. (There
may also be some strong interest in Polaris from another studio.)
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I'll second that one Joe. Getting O'Hare involved would make most fans
:I know very happy indeed. For a guy who was only the lead in one
:season his popularity has endured.
He was asked if he wanted to participate in the DVDs in general, not
just for season one, and declined. WB isn't going to keep bugging him
if he doesn't want to do it.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:How many installments is the column you've written/are writing for
:TVZone, JMS?
Five in total, one per season.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:So which year 3 episodes have you done the commentaries for?
Severed Dreams and Z'ha'dum.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers (about Michael O'Hare):
:Maybe if there's a way of contacting him through his website he could
:then contact whoever originally asked him? I'd love to have him
:participate, too.
The window's closed, unfortunately, in terms of getting anything
filmed for this set. I barely made it under the wire with the
commentaries.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Can you tell us who is doing commentary for Season 3 besides you??
I'm trying to remember which episode they did, if it was Interludes
and Examinations or Ceremonies of Light and Dark, but the three who
did the commentary were (I believe) Bruce, Jerry and Jason.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about the previously-mentioned incident
>involving the "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirts:
:What was the charge? I'm guessing, since I know a bit of the law,
:that they were asked to leave by Security, refused, and then arrested.
No, that's not what happened. They were told that they could stay IF
they removed the t-shirts. They were only told to leave after they
refused to take off the shirts.
And again, I point out that the shirts they were wearing had been
purchased AT THE SAME MALL the day before.
The police arrived, said you can't wear that shirt in here. The
father -- who is not "an idiot" as you claim but a respected attorney
in the area -- said no, that he wsa NOT engaged in a demonstration or
a protest, only wearing a shirt and using his freedom of expression.
They then arrested him.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:...the people getting arrested at protests/rallies are the ones who
:are disturbing the peace...ironically enough...while many others are
:free to protest as long as they like.
The hypocrisy includes "penning" people with anti-Bush signs, while
allowing pro-Bush crowds to throng wherever they like. People with
protest signs are herded into areas where they can't be seen by
cameras or by Bush supporters, in flagrant violation of their rights,
while others -- often far more noisy and intrusive -- are allowed to
assemble wherever they want. This is the first time this kind of
constant penning of dissenting opinions has been done this flagrantly.
And for those who always say "cite your source" on these things, you
can find one at:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/13/Columns/President_seems_unabl.shtml
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:The oil fields are for the people of Iraq. I do and will continue to
:believe this until I am offered proof that this war is because of oil,
:and not because a madman has consistently flouted the will of the
:international community, and President Bush and others were unwilling
:to continue to wait for the UN to stop sitting on its collective thumb
:and do something.
Oil companies in the US are already lining up to get their share of
those resources, according to any number of articles on this. Also,
the "for the people of Iraq" also includes paying for reconstruction.
Who is going to be doing most of that reconstruction? American
companies.
Also, do bear in mind that the UN resolutions do *not* have the power
of law. Any number of countries have routinely failed to obey UN
resolutions, including allies.
:As for not hiring a shooter, they don't do it because of an executive
:order made by President Gerald Ford, which, IIRC, states that the USA
:will not sponsor the assassination of a foreign leader, regardless of
:whether or not we like him or her.
Actually, I seem to recall reading that Bush rescinded this rule very
early on.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I refer you to the site "Free Mike Hawash" at
:http://www.freemikehawash.org/. This man is being held without charge
:in federal prison as a "material witness." A "material witness" for
:what, no one outside of the Justice Department knows,
This is one of the more troubling trends of late. Anybody can, for
any reason, be declared a "material witness" or a person of interest,
and held without access to attorneys, judges, family members or anyone
else, for an indeterminate period of time. This includes US citizens.
We have no idea how many people are being held, or why, or for how
long.
The only hints we *do* get are when people are finally released for
lack of any kind of evidence, which a few were last month, but this
only after being held in captivity for *months*.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:#51 came out last Wednesday. Fantastic! Without giving away any
:spoilers, there is Spidey eating a hot dog, the origin of a new
:villain, more fun with MJ, and gangsters! How *do* you fit som much
:into so small a space?
I try to have fun with it, and that means keeping things moving.
That's the best part of Spidey for me, just the sheer fun of it.
:> My new comic, Supreme Power, also from Marvel, debuts July 16, with
:> art by Gary Frank.
:For those who might be interested, you had better PREORDER this.
:Copies of its predecessor "Squadron Supreme" are selling like crazy at
:comic conventions and the TPB is selling high on ebay. Joe's new
:revamped story with Gary Frank is going to be HUGE.
I'm about to turn in the script for issue 4, and I have to say this is
turning into something quite extraordinary. It couldn't be more
different from Spidey, and to be honest, everything else I've done.
The "voice" is completely different, and it's just a freaking dense
book, just layers on top of layers of subtext, and I feel like I'm
finally using the medium right for maybe the first time, in terms of
using the visuals to comment on/counterpoint the dialogue, and
vice-versa.
As much as I enjoy Spidey, and I enjoy it a *lot*, this is the one
that I have to tear myself away from when I'm writing, because I get
so caught up in it that I can't wait to get back to it again. As I
said, we're four scripts in already and this thing doesn't even come
out until mid-July. We should have 7-8 banked by the time this thing
hits the stands, so it can come out like clockwork.
As I'd noted before, we're keeping a fairly low profile on this until
it's ready to go, but everybody at Marvel is extremely excited about
this one, especially Joe Quesada. They think this is going to be the
one to beat.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Hrm. Does this mean we have to wait for season 4 for Andreas and Peter?
Andreas and (I believe) Peter have thus far declined to be interviewed
or to do a commentary because they would like to be compensated for
their participation, and WB isn't able to do that for any of the cast.
I could probably intervene and push this with them, but I don't think
it's right or fair to get between an actor and a chance to get paid.
I think they *should* get paid for doing this. I think *anyone* who
does a commentary or the like should get paid, but the budget just
isn't there for it, and I don't feel comfortable telling somebody that
it's okay not to get paid for doing a day's work.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>Out of curiosity, about how much time has been required on average, of
>an actor volunteering to provide commentary for the B5 DVD season
>boxed sets?
Commentaries or interviews? The commentaries are all done real-time,
so it's about 45 minutes; the interviews take about one hour per actor
per season.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:An impractical and naive suggestion: I for one would be willing to pay
:an extra dollar or two (retail) per season set to compensate the
:actors and/or producers for their time.
Not workable, and especially not in advance of sales.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Does that mean there is rarely any need for retakes? I'd have thought
:it would take at least 2-3 times the length of the actual episode to
:do a commentary.
No, you allow for a few extra minutes at the end so that you can edit
tightly, but that's about it.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Now, for the potentially-stupid question: do they know that no one
:else is getting paid for interviews/commentary? I'd assume that this
:would be the first point WB would trot out in their wheedling of
:actors for commentary, but one should never assume (especially with
:regard to suits).
Yep, that's pretty generally known. It's really a matter of
conscience, and as such as far as I'm concerned off-limits.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Oh. She's talking about my Photoshopped parody of the Swim Fan movie
:poster, Jan. I know you've seen that one...right? Sigh. I know I'm
:going to regret this, but...
:http://www.fjordstone.com/scifan.html
And another entry goes into the B5 scrapbook....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>I'm being a smart butt here but I hope your now not implying our mall
>security guards have a hidden agenda and some kinda connection with
>the President??
No, of course not...just looking at the overall chilling effect and
the winking/nodding at acts of extremism in defense of public policy.
The t-shirt arrests, the penning of protestors in violation of
previous precedent and established law, the suspension in Missoula,
Montana of a university instructor for having criticized Bush policy
(see link below),
http://ku.wru.umt.edu/pub/incoming/iraq/kpax.com/newspage.html
...a case outside Charleston where a man (a Gulf war vereran, no less)
was badly beaten just for mentioning he opposed the war (thus far no
charges have been filed by the police)...info at:
http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/Other%20News/2003033140
...a case the other day in Baton Rouge LA where talk DJ Richard Condon
(KOOJ) incited people to counter-protest a peaceful demonstration,
using terms like "traitors" and saying that "I think these
son-of-a-buggers deserve a bullet in the head" and that "'it's about
time we nuked Canada's ass.'"
...there are more and more cases of this every day...violence and
threats of violence against people for speaking out, by media figures,
by police, by politicians, and after a while, it has a definite
chilling effect on public discourse. I used to think it was pretty
bad during the Nixon days, but what's going on now makes that look
like amateur night by comparison.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:If these arrests really *were* by the mall security people, I would be
:suing the mall about now.
1) Such a suit is now pending.
2) The security guards were fired by the mall, hoping to avoid
culpability, even though the guards were acting on orders from others.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>So how many people ahve been arrested solely for voicing thier
>opinions, in a public forum. Like this one? JMS and other here like
>yourself seem to be home and not under any constraint. When you and
>JMS cannot criticise the government, even with an offhanded comment,
>let me know. Until then, you have no idea what it is to live in a
>police state. Your statements above show that.
So in other words, one should not seek to criticize the government
until and unless it personally comes to knock on *your* door? That is
*has* happened to others is, in your mind, irrelevant...as long as you
and I are okay, screw everybody else and just shut up, right?
Sorry, I was raised in an America that said we have to watch out for
each *other*, not just ourselves.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Another point that V-man seems to be missing is that the way that
:Nightwatch-like conditions develop is through an escalating process.
:It's better to put a stop to it early before it snowballs.
And, of course, Nightwatch built itself up by preying on people's
fear, warning about outsiders, saying we have to watch each other all
the time for disloyalty or dangerous behavior, offering all this in
the name of safety....
Plus ca change....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>Did Nightwatch use any of those? NO! I saw them arresting merchants
>tht wouldn't support the program, a man that casually expressed an
>opinion to a friend in public and got overheard. Until THIS is going
>on, I will continue to be vocal about comparisons to the current
>administration and Nightwatch.
Speaking as the person who *created* the Nightwatch, and is thus the
ultimate authority on same...I would point out that the Nightwatch did
not start out by arresting people...they worked through indimidation.
The arrests only came later, unwittingly assisted by people who didn't
want to see the organization for what it was when it was still able to
be stopped.
Just for the record.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:If one is an American, and realises that the purpose o the US
:government is the protection of Americans and their property &
:interests, *FIRST*, these aren't nightmares at all.
But of course the administration, which said hitting Baghdad was
essential to protecting American safety, put out the word shortly
before the invasion to say that essentially Americans would be in more
danger for an indeterminate amount of time because of said invasion.
So if the idea was to make us safer...I'd venture to say at some point
the idea no longer applies.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:What's more, the trivial benefit to the US from making more money from
:oil is strongly outweighed by the human cost to the civilians in
:countries where the US military is taking these actions. Surely
:comparatively minor interests such as economic or political interests
:must take second place to the value of human lives, regardless of the
:geographical locations of the different persons involved.
Interestingly enough, the whole scenario takes on a different feel if
you replace Iraq with, say, Poland, or Austria. "Today, United States
Coalition forces began bombing Warsaw...."
Suddenly for a lot of people who find it find to bomb Baghdad, it
sounds kind of uncomfortable when it's a European city.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Of course, now, even if we reject the looseness of Bush's definition
:of 'enemy combatant', Bush attempting to kill Saddam isn't going to
:count as assassination (at least not any attempts that took place
:after the war had begun).
Black-humor aside to this discussion...I was reading Harper's on the
plane the other day, and there was a story about how the Department of
Transportation was requesting the ability to classify all commercial
aircraft passengers as "potential terrorists" in order to facilitate
background checks which would not otherwise be legal.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>I was also raised in an America that said freedom of speech also
>included being able to say someone else's speech was wrong. There is a
>circularness to freedom of speech that is often missed by people on
>opposing sides of the issue. If you are going to say something, I have
>every right to say that what you said is outrageous, if I feel that way.
>So, we should criticize the gov't whenever we feel the need, but we
>should also allow those who would criticize us THEIR free reign as well.
Which is a perfectly valid point, and a fine speech, it just has
nothing to do with what I was saying because I never said anything
otherwise. I was disagreeing with you. At no time did I say you
weren't allowed to say certain things. I said they were *wrong*, but
you are free to be wrong to your vocal heart's content.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I do have a question though, is there any development that would cause
:you to change your mind and support the war in Iraq?
If there were clear, compelling evidence that there was an attack in
the works, or if an attack had been launched against us. So far
neither has been the case.
And here's another thing...we're now in the last phases of the battle.
The military has now searched many of the places where chemical or
other WMD were supposed to be kept, finding nothing.
Those weapons were, at one time, the whole reason for the attack
(before it became more about regime change in the constantly changing
story from the Bush administration).
Neither have these alleged weapons been used.
So we have here a very odd situation.
If those weapons are there, then we have a scenario in which the Iraqi
government, even knowing their days are numbered, have deliberately
chosen not to use those weapons...which puts the allegation of their
intended use into grave doubt.
Or those weapons are not there...which puts the whole justification of
the war in grave doubt.
So which is it?
Look at the war...we were told that Iraq represents a great threat,
comparisons to the great German war machine pre-WW2 were made...but in
fact we have rolled in with pretty fair impunity. We demolish the
opposition, we receive reports of "small arms fire" being used to
protect the palaces, the worst fighting being in Basra, but as one
General said the other day, "We can go and come pretty much however
and whenever we want."
Is this the bogey-man of which we were warned so many times? Poorly
armed and supplied troops using pick-up trucks against tanks? That's
it? That's what we were supposed to be afraid of?
No...back in March 2002, Bush was very clear that we were going in to
take out Saddam, period, as noted at:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html
Iraq has so far not used chemical weapons against us, though we were
told that once we entered Baghdad that would happen... but now we are
ourselves preparing to use banned weapons --
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,931960,00.html
-- it just seems very troubling to me. The motives behind this have
shifted constantly from the beginning.
(And what to make of this article --
http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=US%20arms%20group%20heads%20for
%20Lisbon&edition=697
-- I don't quite know, I leave this one to others to figure out. I
honestly don't know where this fits in.)
The thing about the truth is that it tends to be fairly straightforward.
We blockaded Cuba because we didn't want Russia to send in nuclear
missiles. Clear and straightforward. We didn't say we were blockading
to keep Cuba from exporting terrorism, or to help the people of Cuba.
We said the facts, provided the photos, end of discussion.
First we were going after Iraq for vague and unproven connections to
Bin Laden...then it became about exporting terrorism (even though more
is exported from places like Iran and Syria)...then it became about
WMD (even though they have still not surfaced)...now it's about Iraqi
freedom and regime change.
Our soldiers are fighting well and bravely in the execution of their orders.
It's the thinking and, perhaps, the morality of those giving the
orders at the top that I have reservations about.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Ooh, yes "20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical
:weapons". That's a major threat to the U.S. Of course, that makes it
:all worth while. </sarcasm>
The task, of course, will be proving that they were there before the
ingelligence agencies went in to find them. Any number of countries
are waiting for the equivilant of a "throw-down gun" to be found. A
plant making this stuff is one thing...that would be pretty convincing
stuff. But anything that can be trucked in after the fact would
garner suspicion, I think.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I live in the US - you do not, so how can you possibly know the day to
:day, big and small picture. Tell ya what - I'll ask again! JMS!!! How
:many FBI agents have asked you to stop posting to public forums
:criticism of the government? How many phone calls in the night have
:you gotten threatening dire consequences? Come on! Tell us! Prove me
:wrong!!!! ANYONE in this forum! How much harassment have you gotten,
:from OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES? Speak up!
You're getting tedious. Your point seems to be that if it isn't
happening to me, in specific, then it isn't happening. We just heard
on this newsgroup from someone who has been working with a fellow who
was taken away without charges...does that qualify?
No, it hasn't happened to me yet...but it has been happening
elsewhere. You can't just say "well, it's just news reports," it's
not like seeing freakin' Bigfoot....
Anyway, enough. You again play this as a zero-sum game...if it isn't
happening to one of us here, then it isn't happening, and that logic
is faulty on every conceivable leve.
And you still haven't provided me with the backup to your charge that
people here have been saying Iraq didn't break any of the UN
resolutions. You made the statement, so shouldn't you put your own
statements to the same test you apply to everyone else?
Or is that another zero-sum game?
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Fine. Where did a Bush adminstration offical, likely a soldier, FBI
:agent, or other offical, intimidate ANYONE from speaking out?
First, your sentence and logic is fault from the git-go. You say when
they intimidated anyone FROM speaking up...well, if they didn't speak,
we wouldn't know, now would we? On that score, you can say none, I can
say hundreds, but there's no way to know if no one said anything, yes?
So your question falls apart on the basis of logic.
The matter at hand is intimidation *after* people speak up, which
results in a chilling effect that causes other people to hesitate.
As in the case of the teacher in Missoula, Montana (reported by
Reuters among others) who was suspended from teaching for making
critical comments about the Bush administration, the canning of Peter
Arnett (who admittedly did a dumb thing in WHO he talked to, but WHAT
he said has been said by others elsewhere) because you can be pretty
sure somebody from the administration called on THAT little fracas, an
atmosphere that leads a sheriff not to prosecute four guys who beat a
Brit outside a bar after he criticized Bush, the disc jockey at KOOJ
who recommended violence in response to anti-war protestors....
No, it's not Bush his own self, he's not out there saying "shut up"
(well, not in so many words), it's the atmosphere he and this
administration have gone out of their way to create that leads to this
stuff. So your sentence is also faulty because of the wall put around
Bush, the fact that soldiers are not used on American soil to that end
(at least not yet, though they've said they want to repeal the Posse
Comitatas act that precludes such things...).
You seem to feel this is a zero-sum game, that it's either complete
totalitarianism or total freedom...but the loss of one's freedoms
rarely comes all at once, it's nibbled away slowly, by inches and
degrees, with the assistance of those who refuse to deal with what's
coming and thus make it that much easier for the darkness to fall.
There was a joke about the former Soviet Union that's becoming more
relevant now...it said, "Both America and the Soviet Union have
freedom of speech. Difference is, America has freedom AFTER speech."
It's the freedom *after* speech that is also at issue.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:When I see on CNN that Iraq has launched over 10 el Samoud missiles,
:patently prohibted by the UN agreements with Iraq,
Actually, according to a report in the London Times, the missiles used
were NOT on the list of prohibited weapons, sorry. Which is why
nobody else has pursued this since first raising the spectre of this.
:and then I see somebody here say that Iraq has NOT broken the UN agreements,
As someone who says "cite your source," please show me the message
that states this. From anybvody here. Because *I* sure as hell
haven't seen anybody contest that point.
You made the point of saying people here are being dishonest or
disingenuous. So I'm saying that you're doing the same thing in that
comment that you accuse others of doing.
So: produce the comment you cite here, or withdraw your statement.
Show your work. Google can search everything here.
C'mon...pony up or withdraw the statement.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>There is dissent in every major city of the US over this conflict,
>there are no name takings, there is mass arrest of PEACEFUL
>demonstrators...
Not true. There have been a number of articles published which detail
that the names of people protesting the war, who are detained or
questioned by police, are then passed on to law enforcement,
specifically to those handling airline transportation. The articles
-- and if I have to go dig them up I can -- detail that on several
occasions, people who'd protested and been detained, without being
arrested, were held for questioning at airports and detained, often
missing their flights as a result. (In one case, a group en route to
see their congressman had to reschedule because they were detained for
exactly this reason.)
How you can make these blanket statementa that NOTHING is going on,
when the facts say exactly the opposite, just astonish me.
Unless you actually have no interest in the facts, only in trolling
for arguments, which is starting to sound more and more like the case....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:i have heard nothing of this, but you do realize that if this suit is
:not tossed out of court, it means i can walk right in your door and
:say whatever i like to you?
Not factual.
My house is not a public place to which you would have had access
prior to this.
Apples and cumquats.
jms
>More stuff:
On the topic of intimidation and where things seem to be going...came
across this piece today. Note: it is an editorial, but it does site
specific charges in support of that editorial.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Feditori
al%2F104980296250700.xml
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:What bugs me about JMS and others taht so condemn this war *at it's
:outset* is the fundemental unwillingness to accept the stated calims
:for it's necessity.
Necessity is a subset of verifiability. None of the claims have thus
far been proven. Not here, not in the court of world opinion, not
with a single shred of real evidence. One must have accurate evidence
to determine whether or not something is necessary, you don't decide
it's necessary then back into the proof.
So sorry, that argument doesn't wash.
:This unwillingness is the foundation of their belief system, and it
:seems largely based on partisan politics.
You do not know my belief system, so this is not a reasonable
statement, and the "partisan politics" bit is an old line pulled out
by the right whenever they want to put down somebody who doesn't want
to go along with the Plan. If a republican does something, it seems
to me, the argument is that it's for the good of the country; if you
take issue with that, it's Partisan Politics.
It's just a debating trick to distract one from looking at the
evidence and evaluating it on its own merits. Sorry, but I don't fall
for that one.
:the inability to wait and see,
Don't you think we should have seen the evidence *before* we launched
into this? Do you electrocute someone and *then* hold the trial?
:the sharp, vicious rhetoric,
Subjective. Yours has been far more dismissive, vicious and
condemning than anything else I've seen here.
:much of it unfounded,
I've been careful to provide documentation to most things I've said
here...whereas you, when asked to cite sources, tend to turn to smoke.
You have been caught in any number of outright inaccuries. You just
dodge and weave and change subjects and go for the partisan politics
line.
:this is what many of these opponents of the current regieme villified
:Conservatives for not five years ago.
No, there was not an invasion of another country going on five years
ago, so the two are not comparable. Further, the Whitewater
investigation, after millions of dollars, showed that there was
nothing to the allegegations.
And again, you are changing subject, hoping to use a distraction to
something five years ago to avoid dealing with what's on the table in
front of us right now, and are dealing in a situation that is not
comparable on any two points.
Your poor and painfully obvious debating techniques are showing, as is
your lack of any kind of foundation from which to make them.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:So you are saying that there *isn't* somebody out to get us? That
:being on the lookout for suspicious characters, doing suspicious
:things, is unreasonable in a society that has become so selfish as to
:ignore crimes on the street because it's "none of my business"?
I'm *saying* that through two world wars, against far more lethal and
numerous and well-armed enemies than what we have right now in a few
thousand hobbled members of Al Quaeda and an almost entirely disarmed
and impotent Iraq (as testified by the ongoing war), we managed to
serve the interests of liberty without erasing the reality of liberty
here at home. We did it without shredding the constitution.
THAT'S my point. Get it now?
jms
>Non-war stuff - a link to a very interesting interview:
Not to distract from the war debate, but for those interested in
writing, a long interview is about to come out in Sketch magazine, and
there's also an online link at:
http://www.hypethis.com/interviews/interview_jmichaelstraczynski.html
jms
>Sorry this is late:
Just a word to let any folks who might be interested know that I'll be
a guest at WonderCon in San Francisco the weekend of April 25th.
They've got me on a fair number of panels and a spotlight, plus some
autograph sessions. This is the first San Francisco convention I've
done in many years, and it may be a while before the next one 'cause I
only do one or two a year (WonderCon is run by the xame cool folks who
run San Diego Comic Con).
Info at wondercon.com
Just FYI.
jms
>As is this:
One last item on this...and I'll also post this separately as well...a
lot of folks have noted that this is the tenth anniversary of B5 going
live, so at the convention in SF there will be a limited number of
signed scripts for the Babylon 5 series finale, "Sleeping in Light"
for sale.
This script includes deleted dialogue (lots of it), and at least one
deleted scene, and the alternate ending(s).
Just for those who might be interested....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:By the way - that (s) added to the alternate ending is probably
:peaking everybody's curiosity. How many other possible endings were
:there?
I think I need to clarify this lest the wrong idea be communicated....
It's not an alternate ending in terms of, say, showing Delenn skiing
at the end instead of being on the bench...but when the script was
written, it kind of ended three times...the bench scene was one, then
there was another small scene after that, and one more at the end of
*that*. Not big scenes, just little frissons...one being fairly
funny. It's about 3 pages worth of material, which would've been
about 3-4 minutes of screen time.
Just in the interests of clarity. Among the deleted material is a
very funny scene with the new commander of B5 when he gets the news
about who's about to come on board,a longer version of the talk
between Ivanova and the Ranger who comes with the news (and a bit of
added business at the end of the scene involving her aide), that sort
of thing.
jms
>DVD Stuff:
You can look at clips online from the new season 2 B5 DVD over at:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/babylon5dvd.html
Just FYI.
jms
>Con appearance:
A number of folks have asked in email for more particulars about the
WonderCon appearance. I've finally gotten a schedule, and the details
are:
Friday: autographs 4-5:30 Exhibit Hall Saturday: spotlight 2:30 room
134, autographs 3:30 exhibit hall, panel 5:00 room 131 Sunday: Panel
(w/ R.A. Salvatore) 12:00, autographs 2:00.
(I'm only bringing a fairly limited number of Sleeping in Light
scripts, so they may go pretty fast on Friday and Saturday.)
The panel with RA is on world-building, which should be fun.
More info at www.wondercon.com
This is only the second year that the folks responsible for San Diego
Comic Con have been running WonderCon, and because I've always had a
soft spot in my heart (or head) for that group, I'm giving them all
the advance PR I can. If SDCC is any indication, it should be a fun
convention. (My only other convention appearance this year will be at
SDCC this coming July 18th weekend.)
jms
>Latest on DVD's - posted 4/24:
Season 2 hits the stores on this coming Tuesday, and we're almost
finished with the S3 dvds. We're also in discussions about releasing
Crusade.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about some commentary on the S2 DVD:
:JMS, thanks so much for the story about the pagans and G'Kar's
:declaration of principles.
My pleasure; I have no ax to grind on any of this, and one rarely
hears of pagans nowadays engaging in pogroms.
:If I've never said it before, thanks, Joe, for your completely awesome
:contribution to television, to science fiction, and to my life.
My pleasure.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:"JMS has said he has no plans or real interest in revisiting the B5
:universe,..."
Howzabout, before you have me chase down every dumb, errant,
misrepresentational quote, you ask idiots like this to provide the
reference?
jms
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
| |
| To subscribe to the jms-posts mailing list, go to |
| http://www.yetta.net/mailman/listinfo/jms-posts |
| Archive of JMS Posts at http://america.net/~judge |
| Schedule information at http://america.net/~judge/b5sched.txt |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info <*> Another fine service of ISN, Mars Bureau
submissions to: b5-...@plage.stanford.edu
comments to: b5-info...@plage.stanford.edu