JMS Usenet Posts - 6/10/2003
Dirk A. Loedding
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Now, I know you've previously stated that these bloopers would be
:problematic to release, as it included "material not originally
:intended for broadcast". Now, seeing as some of the bloopers are on
:the DVD, what are the odds of ALL of them being released? I know *I*
:would pay good money for a chance to see them all
Thing is, and this is an important factor, they're not being released
for sale per se, they're included as an added benefit. To release
them on their own would mean selling them as a separate unit, and that
would be problematic in terms of working out royalties and residuals.
Which is why you generally don't see a lot of it on other shows absent
some kind of prior arrangement or understanding.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I was in a comic shop in Burbank recently and a customer who said he
:had worked on Babylon 5 said that in a given scene they shot one take
:for widescreen and a seperate take for fullscreen. Is this true?
Nope.
It is, in fact, in the top ten percent of the top two percentile of
stupid things I've heard in my life. This is someone who a) obviously
doesn't understand how you crop wide for full, and b) was never near
B5.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:When you are writing a scene down, do you visualise it in your mind:
:before, during or after?
I'm a big believer in what Mark Twain once said...you should never
begin writing something until you have finished it to your
satisfaction.
When I start a scene, I don't type a word. I play it through my head
from beginning to end, over and over, until I know exactly what
happens, how I get into it, how I get out of it, and what happens in
between. Once I can see it as a whole, *then* I begin writing.
So if you were to poke your head in my office, if I'm not typing, what
you'd probably see is this: me in my desk chair, halfway reclined,
eyes closed, one hand over my eyes, playing the scene over and over in
my head like a mini-movie, seeing it behind closed eyes.
People without tact assume that I'm sleeping, but I'm not, dammit, I'm
not....
jms
>Nice UPI article:
Well, I'm pleased....
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030430-083409-5383r
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I just have to ask, though, do you agree with the statement
:"Straczynski is from New Jersey, and it shows"? It certainly
:suggested to me that there may be yet another layer to the saga that I
:have yet to appreciate..
I'd never considered that aspect until reading it there -- sometimes
swimming in a fishbowl makes you oblivious to water -- but on
reflection there may be a nugget of truth in that.
Though I grew up all over the country, I've always considered myself
basically a New Jersey street kid, and there's a certain attitude that
goes with that, which I can see reflected in the show...a kind of
in-your-face wanna make something of it? attitude.
Certainly the gritty, industrial, nuts and bolts Jersey factory look
applies to B5.
The main difference I've seen between guys from New York and guys from
Jersey is that guys from New York *start* fights, whereas guys from
Jersey would sooner die than *back down* from a fight.
jms
>Someone wrote how they enjoyed a lot of the dialog in ASM #50:
Thanks...it's fun to write.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:You managed to get Martin Sheen for the River of Souls telemovie. I'm
:wondering how this came about.. Did you send Sheen a script on the
:off-chance that he'd sign on? or did he come to you? How much did he
:know of what he was getting into?
We heard he was available, and was a nominal fan of SF, and sent him
the script. He enjoyed the script, particularly liking what it said
about the soul (he's a strong and vocal catholic), and I think he saw
in it something he wanted to be associated with.
We'd initially approached him about playing the scientist, but when he
got the script he much preferred the soul hunter material, and went
for that, even though it would mean considerable prosthetics work.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about a "long sentence" in a TV Zone article -
>"an entire long paragraph that is *one* single solitary sentence of a
>mammoth 192 words!"
>So, Joe. Is that your record? I'm betting that you know. If not,
>what was your longest in and where can I find it?
...eep.
Don't know, never thought about it, never counted it. It's something
I do once in a while for effect, because there's something nicely
breathless about a run-on sentence, and the goal is to keep it totally
grammatically correct, so it's a challenge to be sure, but I've never
actually gone so far as to do a word count.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>I finally got to hear the commentary about the Pagans using the
>Declaration of Principles during rituals (and at some that I've
>attended, BTW). And I just wanted to mention that one of the local
>groups here REQUIRES their new members to watch the entire series as a
>starting point for discussions about personal responsibility and
>choices and consequenses. B5 is a nice, big rock to throw in the pond.
That's really terrific to hear. The funny thing is that I've been
hearing more and more of this lately, about the philosophy and ideas
behind B5 being used in this way.
In addition to the Pagan groups, I came across a bunch of Technomage
sites that use some of those elements, a Buddhist site that's full of
B5 quotes, and a Southern Baptist site that used a B5 quote (without
attribution) right on its front page.
I hear from so many people these days about this sort of thing...it's
vastly rewarding, I must say.
Funny thing is, on an aspect of the B5 philosophy...a while back, in
order to be able to use it in the show, I wrote down the whole basic
philosophical underpinning, under the heading of the Foundation
(Franklin's group). It's quite long and involved, but I felt that the
only way to use it properly would be to have it as fully fleshd out as
the rest of the B5 universe.
Because so many people seem to respond to it, from time to time over
the years I've considered releasing that material...then I hesitate.
It's one of those things that either I'll release posthumously or
delete altogether.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>Because so many people seem to respond to it, from time to time over
:>the years I've considered releasing that material...then I hesitate.
:>It's one of those things that either I'll release posthumously or
:>delete altogether.
:Is it too late to slide it into the quote book? Sounds like it might
:go well there.
Not feasible since it's basically a small book in length on its own.
:And speaking of which, any news on a publication date?
The final manuscript should be going in this coming week, so figure a
few months thereafter.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I think it's very important that everything you wrote regarding the
:series -- notes, index cards, napkin scribbles, the odd graffiti
:spray-painted on Sun Valley brick walls -- needs not only to be
:preserved but also released for public access at some time.
Not possible. It's gone. Nearly all of it.
My notes: gone once I used them.
Early drafts of scripts: gone. I'd write the script, make my
notations in hand, get the revised one in hand, toss out the one with
my notations and put out the final draft. There are no surviving
scripts from B5 with my handwritten notes or edits on them.
B5 correspondence and memos: unless they're in the hands of other
people: gone.
I have, to all intents and purposes, erased my footprints in the sand.
Only the finished work remains. It was a deliberate decision from day
one. I don't want people poking in to find where "I" am in this,
where my brain was at this point or that point. I ain't the issue.
The story, as told, is the issue.
The only things that remain in my possession are the script books with
the final draft of each script, shooting schedules, and in some cases,
art or prosthetics designs. Some blueprints. The rest I threw out.
The only real document about the making of Babylon 5, from stem to
stern, is the one I wanted to leave behind: this conversation, on
line, with the folks who stayed with us for five plus years.
It's the only thing that really means anything to me.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Joe, one of the problems that Mark Twain scholars have to deal with is
:that a number of his writings weren't published until after his death,
:and were often then bowdlerized to the point that there's still debate
:about his original opinions and intent. (MT is my favorite author...)
Same here. He's always been a seminal influence on my work. I have
pretty much everything he's ever written, absent the five volume set
of his journals that's only available to libraries. "The Man Who
Corrupted Hadleyburg" is still one of my favorite pieces, as is "The
War Prayer," leading to its nod in B5.
His essays, to which you refer, are some of his best work, especially
his takes on Adam, Eve, heaven, hell and the rest.
For anyone looking on: there is one book I tell anyone who wants to be
a writer, to read. Twain's autobiography. It is, quite honestly,
probably the best book, best autobiography, ever written. Funny,
inspiring, moving, sad, and deeply profound. We think of bios from
that time as being dry or irrelevant...TRUST me on this one. It's
anything but. I consider it one of the best books I've ever read.
As for the problem of who really wrote what, and what got changed: we
have one benefit he didn't have: read-only PDF files.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Can someone post WHICH Mark Twain autobiography JMS suggested we get?
:My search showed many printings and many odd titles. Even the basic
:"Mark Twain autobiography" weren't consistant. Prices ranged from
:$1.25 to $50.
A biography is written by a third party; an autobiography is written
by the person himself.
There has only been one autobiography written by Twain.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Not unless he felt like writting more than one autobiography of himself.
Barring reincarnation, I think we're generally limited to one apiece.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:what I want to know and probably the rest of this newsgroup also wants
:to know; have you written an autobiography yourself, are you in
:process writing one or when are you going to write it?
In order of questions: no, no, and either when I'm old enough to have
done enough to merit one, or not at all.
jms
>About Supreme Power:
A paraphrased repost since it seems my first one got lost in the ether....
Just an FYI for those who've been keeping an eye on this one...on
August 6, Supreme Power will hit the stands, with pre-orders being
taken now at comics stores. Up until now, I'd always felt that
Midnight Nation was the best thing I'd ever managed to pull off in
comics. (I enjoy the heck out of writing Spidey, but there's just
something about Midnight Nation that won't let me go.)
Supreme Power may, I finally think, supplant that one.
There's something going in in Supreme Power, a strong emotional core,
that pulls me in every time I sit down to write it. It's got an edge,
it's profoundly sad in places, and weirdly funny in other places. Some
elements are bound to be a bit controversial, but that's part and parcel
of telling this particular story. Emotions are, for me, the whole
point of telling a story, and those who've read and reviewed Midnight
Nation as it slowly revealed itself know what I'm talking about.
Not coincidentally, Gary Frank is doing the art, who also did the art
on Midnight Nation. So that may also be a part of it. The art is
just stunning, especially the way he captures the emotion of the
characters in their eyes.
Given the reactions of some folks who've seen the black and whites
proofs of the first issue, I think this is going to move out pretty
fast, and Marvel for the most part doesn't reprint issues, so if it
ain't ordered in advance, it might not be available until the gather
it together for the trade.
Anyway...I don't want to belabor the point. I don't generally come on
to promote something unless I feel strongly about it, and this one I
*definitely* feel strongly about.
I'm inestimably proud of this book, and I hope you'll check it out.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>Just an FYI for those who've been keeping an eye on this one...on
:>August 6, Supreme Power will hit the stands,
:I'm really looking forwards to this one it's got to be said
Thanks...as it happens, I forgot to include the url to a peek at the
book (in addition to the pieces in this month's Wizard and Diamond
Comics Preview):
http://previews.diamondcomics.com/editorial/splashpage/june_03/04_supremep
ower.html
:Couple of quick bits though... When might we see the last few Rising
:Stars issues? PLEASE!!
That depends entirely on a situation with Top Cow that is in need of
resolution. The delay in writing has not been a delay in writing;
it's been working through some problems with Top Cow for the
last...almost year now. The final issues won't be turned in untnil
those issues are resolved.
:JQ has mentioned that a new Dr Strange series is being "worked on". I
:know you've said you'd love to be part of this. What are the chances
:of you being involved?
100%.
jms
>JMS writes about "Matrix: Reloaded":
Okay, so I saw Reloaded, and was supremely disappointed. The set
pieces were well done, certainly, but they were set pieces, they'd
talk, stop and fight for a while with little at stake and often
seeming quite arbitrary, without the emotional core of what made the
first Matrix such an amazing piece of work. The story moved the
characters around rather than the other way around.
I do have a theory, though, on how the last film is going to resolve
things. Going down....
:.
:.
:.
:.
:.
:.
:.
:.
:.
Having moved closer to the machine as shown by his actions at the end
of the film, Neo is able to infect Agent Smith (who has likewise moved
more toward the human) in the way that Smith is able to infect other
agents...and through this, Neo will be able to spread/replicate
himself throughout the Matrix like a virus until he takes it all over.
At leat it's my theory, for the record.
Either way, I'm desperately hoping that Revolutions is a better film.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Joe, could you please elaborate on this? If your Rising Stars fans
:know the details, perhaps we could apply a little pressure on
:Image/Top Cow to help resolve those issues in your favor.
No, I think that is an inappropriate use of one's readers. Business
situations must and should be resolved by the people involved, you
don't go to the fans, or the readers, to apply leverage in that kind
of dispute. To encourage reneweal? Sure. To get into the middle of
a business situation? No. I think it's unprofessional. Down the
road, if things don't get resolved, yes, then I think some comments
need to be made as a courtesy. If they do get resolved, you say as
little as possible because again that's the polite thing to do.
:Is it correct to infer that these issues are what has also
:indefinately delayed Dream Police, which you have previously stated is
:already written and inked?
No, in that it's been written now for a few years (literally), but only
a few pages have been drawn. The thing is just sort of laying there.
:Speaking for myself, I feel a bit betrayed. When RS started, you
:seemed happy with the deal you had at Top Cow, and there was never a
:hint that this series might not get finished. I realize the problem
:is probably on Top Cow's end, so please don't read this as if I'm
:pointing the finger or placing the blame on you. It's just that I am
:emotionally invested in the series, and to not have resolution to the
:story for whatever reason is simply unfair.
I could not agree with you more. Clearly I have a huge emotional
investment in the story as well and would like to see it finished.
:One more question - do these issues surrounding the Rising Stars comic
:have anything to do with the MGM film that was in the works, which you
:scripted and was in the process of being rewritten?
No comment.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Gary Frank's art is a big draw, loved him on MN and his Avengers work
:too. Having him on this is going to make a sweet deal even sweeter.
:Was his position as penciller anything to do with your previous
:history on Midnight Nation or complete happenstance?
Totally based on MN. When Marvel asked who I'd like, the first and
only choice I gave them was Gary. His people in MN were real people,
and I needed this again in SP.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I know that I personally, having bought every issue of every book you
:have written thus far, feel RELUCTANT (to say the least) to jump into
:a new and *unknown* entity like Supreme Power (as opposed to say, Dr.
:Strange) without Rising Stars being concluded (due to their
:similarities).
Except, of course, that they're not similar in any way, manner, shape
or form. This is an extension of the world that Mark Gruenwald created
long ago, predating RS. Yes, it's a world that has not previously
seen super heroes, but that's just about any fictional universe
before, say, Kal-El lands. The two stories do not touch each other at
any two contiguous points.
:So, IMHO, it's probably more in your interest to get the end of RS out
:then it is for Top Cow. That's the problem with waiting on Top Cow.
If someone is not doing right by you, and they want something from
you, it's in your best interests to get them to do right by you before
you give them what they want. It's about being a professional
business person and living up to agreements. I always honor mine, and
tend to make sure others do the same. If you hire a contractor to
build you a home, and two thirds through reneg or otherwise back off
on the business arrangement, a reasonable person doesn't expect the
contractor to continue working anyway. The logic you employ is the
logic constantly used to screw writers. I don't work that way.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Even better still - you didn't even make us pay $28.95 to read the thing.
So you're saying the bill didn't arrive?
HEY! Pony up the bucks, mister!
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I was wondering if you could tell us what sort of things you will be
:doing at Comic-Con this year. Perhaps a sneak preview of Supreme
:Powers and other interesting items.?
Haven't heard yet from programming, but I imagine there will be a
spotlight, some panels, and yeah, I'd like to talk about Supreme Power
a bit.
Will be offering the last of the Sleeping in Light scripts with
missing material that I had at Wondercon. And that will be the last
time they will be made available at a convention.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I was wondering if the elequent speeches that G'Kar spoke were
:actually written as part of the regular dialogue or if they were added
:in, also, if they were written by JMS solely or with assistance?
I wrote every line of G'Kar's dialogue, inclusive of speeches, in the
episodes that bear my name. In the episodes written by others, it was
either written by them and left alone, or written by them and revised
by me.
jms
=========================================================================
>There is nothing but political stuff beyond this point:
=========================================================================
>JMS quotes from the 5/17 NY Times: (URL is:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/17/international/worldspecial/17IRAQ.html )
Offered from today's New York Times for reference concerning whether
or not we were going into Iraq to establish a permanent base of
operations and colonization. Just the first part is here, the rest
can be found at their website or in hardcopy..
-------------
By Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times
BAGHDAD, Iraq â^À^Ô In an abrupt reversal, the United States and
Britain have indefinitely put off their plan to allow Iraqi opposition
forces to form a national assembly and an interim government by the
end of the month.
Instead, top American and British diplomats leading reconstruction
efforts here told exile leaders in a meeting tonight that allied
officials would remain in charge of Iraq for an indefinite period,
said Iraqis who attended the meeting. It was conducted by L. Paul
Bremer, the new civilian administrator here.
------------------
Meanwhile, no WMD have been found (remember the administration
ridiculing the UN for not being able to find what they maintained was
so plainly evident?), the US has announced that it will be removing
bases from Saudia Arabia and building 4-6 new bases in Iraq, and the
oil industry in Iraq is set to be privatized by the US for "the good
of the Iraqi people" and put under the auspices of a Haliburton
subsidiary.
There have even been reports from those inside what was supposed to be
the new Iraq government (now indefinitely postponed) that the oil
output would be quadrupled, and that Iraq would therefore have to
leave OPEC and its oil limitations, giving one the impression that
part of the objective is to take OPEC apart.
Yes, many Iraq people seemed pleased to give Saddam the heave-ho...not
so happy abour our tendency to shoot first and ask questions
later...but if that were the reason, to free an oppressed people, then
we should be moving on to Somalia and the Sudan and North Korea and on
and on and on.
But that was never the intent.
It was about oil and power and redrawing the map of the middle east,
as noted previously.
The outcome of the war was never really in question.
The outcome of the truth is still under considerable debate.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:To answer this one point, while there is no direct connection to the
:9/11 attacks, there is a link to Al Qaeda. A week into the campaign,
:the man thought to be responsible for the original car bombing of the
:WTC was captured in Iraq. And in Saddam's Iraq, if Saddam hadn't
:wanted hm there, the only way he would have stayed would have been six
:feet under. Think about it.
Okay.
Mmmmm....nope, sorry.
That the guy was there after the fact doesn't prove that Saddam was
involved before the fact. Doesn't even hint at it. It's all ex post
facto reasoning.
Wouldn't stand up in any court in the land.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I may be generalizing a bit but when a poll showed that over 90% of
:News "journalists" voted for Bill Clinton
Cite your source, please.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:For his new book, Feeding the Beast: The White House Versus the Press,
:U.S. News & World Report White House correspondent Kenneth Walsh
:personally polled 28 of his White House colleagues.
There's several problems with this.
First, the sampling is both small and highly anecdotal.
Second, the original note to which I was responding --
:::I may be generalizing a bit but when a poll showed that over 90% of News
:::"journalists"
::;voted for Bill Clinton
::Cite your source, please.
-- did not specify that very small subset which is Washington bureau
chiefs and their immediate subordinates, which seems to be the main
focus of this. It was an across the board statement about ALL
journalists, and that statement is still awaiting corroboration.
Third, the original statement implies that if one voted for a given
person, one is thereafter incapable of reporting accurately or fairly
on said subject.
If that were true, then why is it that Clinton was a constant target
from the media during his last few years in office, whereas Bush has,
for the most part, gotten off easily.
You rarely hear anyone contrasting his landing on the aircraft carrier
with his going AWOL for most of his National Guard service, and the
criticism of the Patriot Act and the lack of WMD evidence is treated
with kid gloves, on and on.
If it were true that the voting habits invalidated objectivity, then
perforce Clinton would not have been pilloried for his actions. He
was. Allegations that later ended up being groundless were reported
with near circus-like ferocity by the media.
Thus it seems that the premise is faulty...and if so, then there's
really no point to the voting record.
Further to the point, where the reporters may or may not vote one way
or another, the people who *control* those publishing and TV companies
are highly conservative. Witness the lack of liberal news
commentators/talk shows and the propensity of conservative ones.
Doesn't matter if the reporter votes one way or the other if the
stories he wants to write never make it past the bullpen. And the
White House has repeatedly played the card of simply not callling on
reporters who ask annoying questions during press conferences, further
pressuring people to use kid-gloves.
So bottom line...it's a dubious statistic, from a tiny sub-set, which
does not have any provable associated bias in past situations, and is
thus for the most part fairly meaningless...nor does it in any way
support the original statment about journalists as a group, which
still seems to have been made in either error or deliberate
distortion.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
::Don't judge that paper on the actions of ONE reporter whose plagiarism
::and lies have only recently come to light.
:In fact, I thought that the straightforward admitting of their error
:in trusting that reporter was laudable.
As opposed, say, to the Bush administration, which ran and hid and
complained when it was pointed out that sections of the report they'd
presented to the UN on WMD in Iraq was plagiarized from a student
paper on the net and in places fabricated wholecloth.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I wouldn't believe anything written by the New York Times, an
:organization that hires confessed liars and plagiarizers and
:"journalists" that make up stories and print them as the "Truth".
Since you maintain that the truth matters, let's look a little more
closely at that rhetorical statement, shall we?
The tense that you use, "an organization that hires confessed liars
and plagiarizers and "journalists" that make up stories," states that
they hired them *knowing* these things.
You didn't say that they hired them and then found *out* that they
were those things...that it "hires" them knowing those facts and with
the intent of putting out false stories (and you use the plural form
to indicate that this is an ongoing and consistent situation).
Care to back that one up, binky?
Because you're stating that as fact, so either you've got the backup
on that, or you're just as bad as the ones you're criticizing.
So what'll it be, sport?
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>Care to back that one up, binky?
:>So what'll it be, sport?
:Namecalling is so unbecoming, in my opinion, especially in a case like
:this one, where the facts can speak for themselves.
So post a few and let 'em speak for themselves, 'cause so far you have
failed to do so. You made a claim that you had to now back off on a
bit, that they ddn't knowingly hire plagiarists, then went on to make
some more wild claims.
How can the facts you defer to so greatly be appreciated for all their
glory when you seem incabable of posting them in respond to a direct
request?
Seems odd, one might almost think you didn't *have* any such facts.
Which would be silly, wouldn't it?
Binky.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:It doesn't get to me except when I am barraged with accusations that
:Republicans/Conservatives want to destroy the environment, starve the
:poor and give all the money to the rich. There are balanced approaches
:to every problem but it seems the media and others prefer to dwell on
:the extreme sides of issues
Okay, so that being the case, please show us evidence as to the
republicans/conservatives
-- helping the environment
-- feeding the poor
-- not giving money to the rich.
If you say it's unfair to portray them in the former light, then the
latter light must be true, yes? So please, fire away, show us the
information to back this up.
Because there's spin and there's spin, and cutting money to, say, an
agency that feeds people is not a matter of spin, it's x dollars this
year vs. y dollars last year. Time after time, Bush has *said* he's
for one "compassionate" cause after another, but when it came time to
allocate money or support, was nowhere to be found...he applauds the
theory but dismantles them behind the scenes by starving them.
So please, you've made the assertion that republicans are being
unfairly tainted with these former allegations, so show me where the
latter are true.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>It was about oil and power and redrawing the map of the middle east,
:>as noted previously.
:I don't think anyone has doubted that. But my own question remains,
:Joe: Why is redrawing the map of the middle east a bad thing?
We have problems here at home, ranging from poverty, to crime, to drug
abuse, to such politica silliness as gerrymandering and political
deadlock and weapon exportation, we've armed half the world and set
the other half of the world against them, helped to create the Taliban
and arm Bin Laden, there are tremendous problems here at home....
So how would you feel if someone came in to redraw the map of the
United States to solve those problems for the good of the world?
We don't own that part of the world. Nor is it within our purview to
use death and destruction to mold people the way we want them to be.
We are meant to be a shining beacon on a hill, to show those who
believe in the possibility of democratic ideals that it *is* possible,
and to support those who make the attempt to change things, as we did
in what was the Soviet Union, in South Africa, in the Phillipines, and
elsewhere.
Changing the middle east to a more peaceful form? Sure. Doing it
uninvited, at gunpoint and with the accompaniment of unprovoked bomb
blasts when our safety was never at risk? No.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>We have problems here at home, ranging from poverty,
:a person living on the street in the USA has more access to food,
:water and shelter then much of the populations of the nations of
:india, china, or mexico, and of much of the continent of africa. and
:those are just the large nations
So you exalt this by pointing to the worst cases, as opposed to
looking to the majority of industrialized nations that offer universal
health care and assistance. So because we're not the worst, we're
okay? Odd reasoning there, but it makes you happy....
:>So how would you feel if someone came in to redraw the map of the
:>United States to solve those problems for the good of the world?
:if they have a large population(over 100 million) and have solved the
:problems of poverty, crime and drug abuse, while not resorting to the
:removal of civil rights, then i wouldn't see much of a problem.
Terrific. If you find such a country, let me know, because at the
moment it ain't on the map I have here at home.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Of course some also studiously ignore the downsides of universal
:health care. The Canadian government is now proudly touting the fact
:that they have brought the waiting time for hip surgery down to less
:than three years. SIx to nine months to get access to an MRI.
Sounds pretty good for that section of the American population who
can't afford it at all, however. If I had the choice between not
getting a new hip because I couldn't pony up the money, because I had
no health insurance, and waiting three years...I'd go for the latter
every time.
You kinda have to put on a different perspective to view that one with
equanimity.
:BTW: How do you feel about Hillary Care and HMOs.
Rephrase that in a less obviously biased fashion and there's a
discussion to be had. To call it "Hillar Care" is to dismiss
something out of hand by ad hominem attack. That's not an entry point
to a conversation, it's the opening salvo in a diatribe.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Yup, that's liberal thinking. Demand that access to everything be a
:right, just so they can feel good about their compassion for others,
:funded by threat of force, regardless of whether it would break the bank.
So here's the question.
How come, when Bush decides to up the defense budget another hundred
billion to $350 billion, and spend another $150-200 billion on the war
in Iraq, nobody on the right stops to say, "Hey, where's this money
gonna come from?" That never seems to be an issue, dropping bombs,
that never seems to be an issue, but feeding, clothing, and helping
the least of its citizens, that somehow has to be justified.
Astonishing.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:show me where it says in the enumerated powers that it has the right
:to take a dollar from me and my kids and give it to able-bodied people
:who would rather take a handout for a living rather than be
:self-reliant?
Show me where it says in the enumerated powers that it has the right
to take a dollar from me and my kids and give it to able-bodied people
on the Haliburton Board of Directors, and Boeing, who have no problem
taking a Government hand-out of billions of dollars.
It seems to me that you're down on support for poor people, but
absolutely okay with welfare for the richest folks.
Okay, at least now I understand it.
Medic...?
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Hardly. The Constitution gives the government the right and duty for
:national defense. It does *not* give the government the right to take
:away funds from one citizen to benefit another.
So defense of the nation does not benefit the citizens?
So paying billions of dollars to contractors doesn't benefit one group
of citizens over another? Is the US Government aware that their
contractors are not citizens? Because if they are, then they are
benefitting from this. Or is it only okay for one citizen to benefit
over another if it's military?
Further, the provisions are not a carte blanche. Do you mean to say
that we have the right to fund national defense limitlessly? To the
point of, say, hampering states, bankrupting resources, lowering the
value of the dollar? Is there not, by your lights, to be *any* kind
of cap on this? They can spend whatever they want?
Funds I pay in taxes are being paid to a Halliburton subsidiary to go
in and rebuild and control the Iraqi oil industry, which will benefit
the Halliburton board of directors to the tune of billions of dollars.
Where, may I ask, do I go to get my money back on that one?
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>I'll summarize this as you just don't trust Hussein to be at all
:>honest, despite the fact that those actually doing the inspections
:>believed that there was 80% to 90% certainty that he had disarmed as
:>required by U.N resolutions.
:The facts demonstrated by the El Samoud Missile (overlooked by said
:inspectors) pretty much shoots this down. The UN teams didn't figure
:out the El Samoud until days before the war.
So one missile justifies one hundred billion dollars in cost and
thousands of lives? And I seem to recall -- and I'm happy to be
corrected -- the missile itself wasn't the issue as that it was able
to go about 5 miles beyond the limit it was supposed to be limited to.
So that by your lights justifies all this? Really? Because I can't
imagine any sane person taking that position.
:>Which is fair enough - since you can't prove a negative,
: But there are positives that have been establsihed.
Yes, there was material documented and supplied, by us, to Iraq a long
time ago. But as noted not long ago in several British newspapers,
including the Times of London, the shelf life of the nerve gas expired
years ago, and the biological agents were never "weaponized," so they
were to all intents and purposes harmless. As one newspaper put it,
the only way you could get hurt by this stuff was if the missile they
were loaded into actually hit you in the head.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
::And the USA does not now, nor will it ever, negotiate with terrorists.
:Unless they're Cuban terrorists, of course, they're welcomed with open
:arms... Or the Taliban, but that took a bit too long...
And look at the contradiction in saying "oh, we went in to liberate
Iraq from a despotic ruler," and we now turn around and, as per --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=
A50216-2001Sep30¬Found=true
-- we're making sweetheart deals with Uzbekistan, *another* despotic
ruler. Not to mention that we've made deals with groups in Afghanistan
and Iraq to come in and help us run the place that have in the past
been on our own terrorist lists. The hypocrisy never seems to end.
jms
>Another link:
BTW, here's another interesting article on the background of the whole
situation; I'll be curious to see where this goes.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0201/ridgeway.php
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Very well. Which counterexample will show that Clinton's administration
:did the same thing or something similar, that is, award a contract to
:a company once led in part by a current government office-holder?
You gonna provide an example, or just throw it out there to muddy the
waters (I think this is called pettifogging) as a debating tactic with
nothing to back it up? We've certainly done our part, we've shown our
work...you gonna just say this or back it up?
And it would have to be on the same scale, to be fair.
So? There's a reason god invented google, y'know, and this is pretty
much it.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I thought Halliburton won a small cleanup contract, nothing more. Am I
:mistaken?
Yep. A Halliburton subsidiary has been given the task of managing and
running Iraq's oil system. Not only were they given this, they got it
in a non-bid situation, it was just handed over to them, no questions
asked (by the administration, at any rate).
:>Where, may I ask, do I go to get my money back on that one?
:I think you'll see it at the pump, is what they're thinking.
Yeah? Doubtful. See, they're saying they'll control the outflow of
oil to help repay the costs of rebuilding Iraq...so that money is
going to be diverted to that source.
You think prices are gonna come down substantially at the pumps?
Not a chance.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Seriously, who else was in the US to do it? This is hardly expertise
:that you get by placing a want ad in the local shopper.
There are quite a few, actually, at least a dozen or so that were
cited when some senators began wondering why the heck they weren't
invited to bid.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:> So paying billions of dollars to contractors doesn't benefit one
:> group of citizens over another? Is the US Government aware that
:> their contractors are not citizens? Because if they are, then they
:> are benefitting from this. Or is it only okay for one citizen to
:> benefit over another if it's military?
:It's hard to believe that you are forgetting that the US Government
:*gets* something in return for the money it pays to contractors.
Sure, and it's all highly over-priced, and vast amounts of it are
questionable, and for systems of dubious value. Further to the point,
does the military have the right to bankrupt the rest of the country
to pay for massive systems like this, and again to my point, and this
time please go back to and address my point, which you keep ignoring
in your replies...you and others keep saying, of social programs,
"Where is the money to pay for this gonna come?" But how come no one
ever seems to ask that of the military spending? It's as if the
military budget just seems to come out of nowhere, no problem, but
when one wants to spend a few million feeding our citizenry, many of
whom are now out of jobs thanks to the Bush administration, that
evokes a hew and cry?
If for just one year, we put a cap on new spending in the military --
just one year -- can you *imagine* the good we could do this country
with even a half or one quarter of that $400 billion per year (my
figure of 350 was not correct, I checked)? The roads that could be
repaired, the housing that could be fixed, which would put people to
work doing real jobs, not on welfare rolls.
When Bush stands up and announces he's going to spend another hundred
billion dollars on the military, I just want someone, *someone* to
stand up and say, "And how are you going to pay for this? Where's the
money going to come from?"
Because the program for now seems to be to take it from the citizens
and give it to the military, in unchecked and unparalled amounts, with
the result of putting the country further and further in debt.
(Bush quietly signed a bill allowing the country to go a trillion
dollars further into debt, did you notice that one? You can find the
reference at
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAWYMS78GD.html
-- and the beat goes on and we get further into debt, this all
beginning with a group of maybe a few thousand members. Is the only
way we can fight a few thousand al quaeda to destroy the country
economically?)
:> Where, may I ask, do I go to get my money back on that one?
:In lower costs of future defense because we don't have Saddam to bug
:us any more.
See, now you're just being dishonest. Do you not follow what the Bush
administration and others are saying? We are not one lick safer than
we were before. There are still attacks going on, and NONE of them
have had anything to with Saddam. How was he "bugging" us? He has
never been tied to 9/11, not by anyone. What we've done has enraged
the Arab world and, from some accounts, led more people to join and
support al quaeda, because now we are doing what they said we were
doing all along, being an imperialist, conquering nation.
You really think defense costs are gonna come down? They just raised
'em, bucky. And now we may be going in after Iran.
Bush and company have not said one word about costs coming down for
the military...if anything, they've talked about expanding further,
re-starting the nuclear weapons program, and so on. So your statement
above is in direct contradiction to what the Republicans you defend
have been saying. Not the media, not the spin doctors, the
Republicans themselves.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:The estimated 2002 defense outlays are 16% of the budget. Down from
:18% in 1995 and roughly the same as 2000. (Source Stat Abstract 2002).
:Massive increases? If so, everything else (including all those people
:out of work) must have been increased by at least as much or the
:military spending would have increased as a percent of budget.
As Mark Twain said, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Them's
one of 'em.
Firstly, the Bush administration runs separate line items. For
instance, the whole budget of the Iraq war was not put on the defense
line, it was a separate allocation. So right there you've got at
least $100 billion, and according to the GAO, could go as high as $150
billion before this is done.
Second, the percentage of the budet approach only works if all other
factors remain constant. But the amount of the budget, and our
deficits, have ballooned to near nosebleed levels, so in that respect
the budget (our universe from which the percentage is extracted) is
much larger; second, there have been cutbacks in other areas to free
up money in this sector.
To put it more simply...if your household budget last year was $100,
and you spent 18%, or $18, on ammo, and the second year the budget was
still $100 and you spent 16% or $16 bucks on ammo, that's a reduction.
If the budget for year two is four hundred dollars, then that 16% is
now $64 dollars.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:When you are rich and powerful, you will ALWAYS have enemies. Which
:means you ALWAYS need to build and maintain your national defense.
:Which means you will ALWAYS spend an incredible amount of money on
:basically nothing. (Kind of like insurance.)
Thing is, of course, this wasn't always the way. The pattern was
this: you build up your military at time of war, then you reduce the
military during times of peace, keeping enough of a force in readiness
so that you're not caught betwixt and between when something starts.
That's supposed to be the peacetime boom, when the defense budget is
reduced and that money is redirected toward the civilian sector in
creating jobs, fixing the infrastructure, building highways and cities
and the like.
Now we're on a nonstop parade of military spending, no matter peace or
war. Which was exactly what Eisenhower (a republican) warned about
decades ago. He was either the one who coined the term
"military-industrial complex," or he came along shortly afterward. He
saw the alliance as a bad one, one of too much reliance at the cost of
taxpayers, and was concerned that it would lead to this.
He was right.
This is what this Republican said in January, 1961:
--------------------------
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known
by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men
of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and
as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk
emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to
this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in
the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more
than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence --
economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every
State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together."
----------------------------
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:It's hard to believe that you are forgetting that the US Government
:*gets* something in return for the money it pays to contractors.
And just for fun, let's take a good look at this for a second, shall we?
On May 24th, two days ago, the Pentagon -- after being lobbied by
Boeing which is looking for some more assignments -- entered into a
deal with Boeing, to wit:
The Pentagon (with taxpayer money) will pay $16 billion to lease 100
used planes from Boeing to modify into refuelling tankers.
They're leasing these planes for $131 million each, with the proviso that
the Government can buy them in a few years for *another* $4 billion.
This, incidentally, is far, FAR more than each plane would cost to buy them.
Even McCain is bugged by this one, saying (per the NY Times) it was a
profligate waste of taxpayer's money, adding: "In all my years in
Congress, I have never seen the security and fiduciary
responsibilities of the federal government quite so nakedly
subordinated to the interests of one defense manufacturer.''
Just for the record, to be filed under caveat emptor.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:No, you don't understand it, you are going hyperbolic. Show me where
:I've said that I support handouts to big companies and rich folks.
Well, since you've never ever mentioned it that I've seen, but you
certainly mention the latter, one cannot help but draw that inference.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Show me one cut in the budget for anything. If a department gets a 5%
:increase instead of a 12 % increase that is not a cut.
Okay. You ask, you get.
From a series of reports I have on hand:
----------------
The Administration's budget for fiscal 2003 proposes a cut of nearly
$600 million or 80 percent in the COPS program, a federal-local
partnership that promotes community policing and funds additional
police officers and new technology. The proposed cut would eliminate
all funding for hiring community-based and school-based police
officers. Similarly, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program,
which helps local police departments pay for hiring, training, and
overtime for officers, as well as equipment purchases, would be merged
with another program and cut by $200 million. And that is on top of
the 25% cut the program suffered last year.
-------------------
Cuts in the Federal Budet for the Federal Center for Mental Health
Services (CMHS) has resulted/is resulting in the closing of three
centers--the National Empowerment Center in Massachusetts, the
National Mental Health Consumers Self-Help Clearinghouse in
Pennsylvania, and the Consumer Organization and Networking Technical
Assistance Center (CONTAC) in West Virginia.
-----------------------
Housing vouchers for low income families -- people who are working
hard but whose basic living utilities and rent consume over half their
below-poverty-line incomes -- have been cut back, eliminating as many
as 137,000 people who may end up homeless as a result.
--------------
The Feds recently required a new smallpox vaccination program for the
states to comply with, but they are not *funding* any of this,
requiring the states to do so. Further, the Bush Bio-Watch program
has begun sending vast amounts of material to various public labs for
testing, but the Federal Government/Homeland Security only allocates
$1 million per city where the testing is being done, a fraction of
what the actual costs will be, and the states are still required to
handle the testing, so the states will have to take that money out of
other resources (which is happening a lot).
I've got another dozen or so on hand...you want 'em all? Or is just
the "one cut" you mentioned sufficient?
:Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to
:STEAL money from one group and give it to another. NOWHERE.
So I guess all this money given to foreign countries, to the military, to
Halliburton, all that's illegal an unconstitutional, is that your point?
:As far as the environment goes the damn environmentalist and their
:lawyers have caused far more damage. There used to be something called
:the superfund cleanup act where the chemical companies and others paid
:taxes into the fund for cleanup of toxic sites. So how did little Bill
:spend the money?. On lawyers to sue the companies that paid into the
:superfund for cleanup and to run around the country finding out who
:dumped one barrel of waste into a pit and suing them. So why have
:there been few or no toxic cleanups, and the answer is government
:bureaucrats who keep their careers going by finding more ways to sue
:companies rather than just cleaning up the toxic sites.
The only thing wrong with this is that it ain't so. If you'd done
your homework, you would have found out that there were a LOT of
superfund cleanup activities and prosecutions done under the prior
administration, and work *was* done on cleanups.
The problem is that lawsuits take time, and when the Bush
administration came in, many cases were just coming to fruition...and
they gutted the provisions and the budget for forcing the companies to
do the cleanups. So they left the investigative aspect intact, and
took out the money, the resources, and the authority to force anybody
to do anything.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>So bottom line...it's a dubious statistic, from a tiny sub-set, which
:>does not have any provable associated bias in past situations, and is
:>thus for the most part fairly meaningless...
:'fraid JMS is right on this one, folks (at least IMO). But the same is
:true for most reported polling, (also IMO). Unless someone can explain
:differently *why* tiny samples of a couple thousand are supposed to
:represent the Whole Country.
You're talking apples and oranges.
First, a correctly done scientific survey has controls in the way that
the questions are asked, so that the do not skew the data one way or
the other; they are often numerically weighted (on a scale of one to
four, how do you feel about a, b or c?), and there is a statistical
range of error depending on the size of the sample universe.
The more people, the smaller the possibility of error; the fewer the
people, the larger the possibility of error.
Asking your buddies down the hall, in an uncontrolled survey, with
lots of variables, isn't a valid survey by any stretch of the
imagination.
jms
b.a. clinical psychology
b.a. sociology
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>So please, you've made the assertion that republicans are being
:>unfairly tainted with these former allegations, so show me where the
:>latter are true
:Here's one fine example, although the challenge will obviously be for
:you to acknowledge it.
:=========
:Senate OKs $15 Billion Bill To Rein In AIDS In Africa
:By JULIET EILPERIN The Washington Post
:Published: May 17, 2003
:
: http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGAKQCG4TFD.html
I read the article, which notes btw that one third of the money is
being targeted to specifically those groups that advocate abstinence,
because the administration hates doing anything that involves condoms.
More specifically, however, 1) you had to go clear the way to Africa
to find this, as salutory as this is, and 2) the whole *discussion*
here has been domestically oriented. We have always sent money
overseas to buy influence, keep allies, that sort of thing.
My point, to keep it to the conversation rather than being distracted,
was domestically oriented, toward the citizenry of this country.
So again I state;
>Okay, so that being the case, please show us evidence as to the
>republicans/conservatives
>
>-- helping the environment
>-- feeding the poor
>-- not giving money to the rich.
>
I'm still waiting.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
How do you manage to shove so many inaccuracies into one message?
>Newspaper reporters are not hired to report facts, they are hired to
>hand in their quota of column inches every day.
Not true, and this one I can personally vouch for. I've been a
journalist, I worked for a variety of local and national newspapers
and magazines including the LA Times, the Herald-Examiner, TIME Inc,
and others. And brother, you'd better be damned sure of your facts
before you turn something in because the editor will grill you on them.
Many reporters don't have to hand in a quota of column inches per day,
that's a columnist's job, not a reporter's job. You get to work on a
given story, and when it's done, you turn it in. If it takes a day, a
few days, a week, longer, it takes the time that it takes. You check
in with your editor from time to time, give him (or her) progress
reports, and keep going until you have enough to print.
>They don't have the time or resources to verify all the information
>they print.
I call bullshit on this one. Any solid reporter *always* does this.
(Yeah, one guy recently faked it, but it wasn't that he didn't have
time, he was a fraud, and the backup notes with sources he provided
were fake, and this came out as the editors began to back check those
source reports. No system can be fool proof if this kind of fakery
goes on.)
You *have* to get at least three sources for any story, the story also
goes through a fact checker at the paper who looks for anything
egregious and makes sure that the source reports are attached, and it
goes on from there. But to say that reporters don't have time or
resources to verify their information is, pardon my bluntness,
sheerest bullshit. It's a lie and a damned lie at that, and I cite
that one from personal experience, over and over and over.
:Special interest groups have gotten quite adept at media manipulation
:by press release.
Yes, they have, and a good reporter knows how to see through that. I
don't know, and have NEVER known ANY reporter to take a press release
at face value. Ever.
:They provide slanted or inaccurate statistics that most reporters
:can't understand and nobody has time to verify, bundled in frequent
:"public information" packets.
Tell me, where do *you* get your facts when you say this? You made
this bald statement, so either you have the facts to back it up, or
you're just making shit up.
Sorry, but most reporters working for major newspapers are university
graduates, and the ones I've known have been pretty damned smart, more
than smart enough to understand what a press release is.
:> But as noted not long ago in several British newspapers, including the
:> Times of London, the shelf life of the nerve gas expired years ago,
:> and the biological agents were never "weaponized," so they were to all
:> intents and purposes harmless. As one newspaper put it, the only way
:> you could get hurt by this stuff was if the missile they were loaded
:> into actually hit you in the head.
:Who do you think made up that whopper? The US Army still has chemical
:agents stored at Hermiston, Oregon from as far back as the Korean War.
:They have surrounded them with detectors and alarm systems. If you
:are along the Columbia River and hear sirens, run like hell upwind and
:you may survive. The lethal shelf life of nerve agents is measured in
:decades.
There are all *kinds* of chemical agents, and some have longer shelf
lives than others. The ones given to Iraq, and the report listed the
names so that if anyone could refute it they were more than able to do
so (none did) had a shelf life of only five years or so; clearly the
ones you cite here are either ones with a longer shelf life, or the
amount is so huge that even the base chemicals would pose a threat.
But that has *nothing* to do with what I posted. The specific
chemical weapons we gave them were expired.
And as far as articles go, here's a doozy...where Wolfwitz admits that
the whole WMD thing was primarily a ruse.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730
Chew on that one.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>Well, the US has imprisonment without trial and without access to
:>legal representation.
:Generally, NO, this is not the case. The US has this ONLY in cases of
:Immigration law.
Flat-out not true. US citizen Jose Padilla (a lowlife but a citizen
nonetheless) has had to fight for access to legal counsel, and
according to reports there are at least two or three other US citizens
being held in similar fashion.
jms
--
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
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+