Please use this thread for any and all conversation during Summer 2002. If it gets beyond Summer 2002 and you can't resist the urge to post here, by all means, scratch that itch.

What do you mean "if"?! I propose that we just keep going, Fall 2002, Winter '02-03, Spring 2003, etc. Itching powder for all!!

Works for me Cass. I'm certainly not going anywhere.

The new fall season starts soon. Chances are some, or most of, us will start watching something that we can talk about.

Beach Boy Stuffs

This is a hangover from the prev thread, I wouldn't dare cross Trust's directions and post on the wrong thread ... hehe.

Cassandra and xed - count yourself lucky to have seen the BB when they cared about their music. The best I can give them is ... OK. Sure, they played through the classics and it sounded like it always does. But on the other hand, I expect a live performance to have some kind of energy - going through the motions doesn't cut it in a live show. The filler band members seemed up to the task of re-creating the music. Staging and sound were great, with a backdrop lake and California Screamin' (rollercoaster which does a loop-de-loop in Mickey's silhouette) and the Sun Wheel ferris wheel in the background. They started 20 minutes late but drew a pretty good crowd, I would estimate around 2,000 or whatever the maximum they can fit in that area. I decided to hang on the fringes and not commit a couple of hours to baking in the standby line. I could see pretty good and didn't mind standing. I'm glad I went, but sometimes memories are better left in the past.

On a brighter note ... Busted Stuff is released today!

argo

Argo, that's too bad. But, that seems to be the same story for a lot of people these days.

I remember the BB as fun, high energy, and always a good time and great music. Well, I was much younger back then, so that may have made a difference. Now, it's more for nostalgia than anything. I just crank up the oldies station when one of theirs or Jan and Dean's songs come along, or when I'm in the mood, put on one of their albums, er, CDs sometimes.

I really did like the Brian Wilson VH1 special a while back (well, when our equivalent picked it up and ran it). That was excellent.

argo- I read lots of complaints about the lines and the hot sun at the DCA concerts on my Disney news group. It was wise of you to stay off to the side. I am glad that I saw them years ago, but there are some "old timers" who are still giving really good concerts. A friend of mine took her family to see Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young when they were in NY and she said that they were terrific.

DC- I started reading "The Fourth Hand" yesterday and thought of you. Did you read it? (like it?) I also, finally, bought McCullough's "John Adams". I have heard so many people rave about that book.

I've course I read it, Cassandra. To do otherwise would be unthinkable

Did I like it? Hard to say. My reaction to it is a bit complex. In the abstract, it's a good book. Well drawn modern sex/gender satire. Funny. Makes good points in an exagerrated, biting way.

But I read a lot of books that I think are good books. I like reading Irving because I usually come away thinking I've just read something extraordinary. They keep me thinking about them long after I've read them.

Not "Fourth Hand". Either I'm missing something or it lacks the depth of his other work. "Irving Lite" is how I've referred to it whenever commenting on it. When you finish, I'd like to know what you think.

I've yet to read the much ballyhooed "John Adams", though I've no doubt it deserves all of its praise.

My non-fiction reading has served more towards current events lately. I'm currently reading Bamford's two books on the National Security Agency. I also got "Germs, Guns and Steel" (I think that title is correct, supposed to be very good--a rethinking of historical cause and effect) as a birthday present (but didn't everyone?).

And I started reading "A New Kind of Science", a new book by a radically minded computer genius at the U of IL (my Native American oppressing alma mater) which makes the modest claim to being as important to science as "Principia Mathematica" was to math. After discussing "Science" with another geeky friend of mine, I've decided to set it aside until I read another book I've long neglected "Godel, Escher and Bach", which makes similar, albeit more modest, claims to revolutionize logic systems, as opposed to all of science.

I'm a laff riot at cocktail parties.

DC- I have "Godel, Escher and Bach"! I started it many years ago, in one of my determined attempts to read something besides books on babies and childrearing! Now that you've reminded me about it I will have to find it, dust it off, and put it somewhere prominant so that I have a chance of starting it again. (finishing it may be another matter) I will let you know what I think of "The Fourth Hand", but it may be awhile. I am one of those "multiple books" readers (a book in every room, just about) as well as being a slow reader, as I like to savor every word and stop to think while I read.
I would be happy to talk to you at a cocktail party-if I were to ever go to one!

Trust- I hope you don't mind me asking you a Buffy question here-it's a ghost town over there. Did Buffy get any Emmy nominations? I was glad to see 24 get nominated, but everytime I see SMG or AH (or any of the Buffy actors for that matter) give an outstanding performance, it makes me crazy that they get no recognition!

Cassandra - I guess Trust is out yachting on the Cape.

Buffy - I looked up the Emmy nominations and found Hair, Makeup, Music were categories where Buffy shows up, nothing in the acting, writing, or directing though. It is frustrating to see such an outstanding show neglected when it comes to recognition.

Here's a link to the complete list of nominations:
http://www.emmys.org/primetime/2002/2002awardsarts.html

Summer concerts - I saw the Temptations Review and they were great. They were a little before my time but I recognized the songs and they had the crowd totally into the music.

Govt - are you back from Oregon? How was the visit?

argo

Hi all! Hey, TN1, I'll be flying eastward to MA on Sunday morning! And when I say morning, I mean 7:30am from LAX to Logan...the two worst international airports in the USA. And on a nonstop with a baby on my lap and an active, excited/bored 6 year old next to me. Argh! Any hints from anyone how to survive 6 to 7 hours with two small children on a plane with other folks?

I will admit I'm also apprehensive since 9/11 about taking long distance flights like this one...esp when we leave Boston...I have awful visions in my head. Brrr, brrr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassandra:
DC- I started reading "The Fourth Hand" yesterday and thought of you. Did you read it? (like it?) I also, finally, bought McCullough's "John Adams". I have heard so many people rave about that book.

---

Hello, Cassandra. I read "The Fourth Hand" and found it easy reading. It was a bit like eating t-bone steak when you're used to Beef Wellington. It's Irving, so it's always consumable, but not up to his usual standards. Still, I recommended/loaned the book to another Irving fan (who LOVES APFPM) because average Irving beats no Irving anyday.

HOWEVER, I'm still mulling over the personality of a man who can't say "no" to women. I'm not sure what that meant, at a deeper level.



[This message has been edited by Walker (edited 07-25-2002).]

I did a *little* catching up on the posts/discussions of the cause of the militant Islamists' hate towards the US and Western Civilization. Very good points were made and I would like to offer the following:

We struggle to understand the core reasons and we argue about these reasons from the perspective of the West, of Christians, of American citizens. But the terrorists do not see the West or the US through the Eyes of Enlightenment or Reason or Tolerance. They still see the outside world - and the US is the prime Outsider - through Middle Age eyes. We can't begin to know what this means if we don't have a good understanding of our own history and how we arrived at the Ages of Enlightenment and Reason and to the (for the most part) tolerance of plurality and multiculturalism that we enjoy in this country. Do we, perhaps, assume that all peoples have these same world-view or humanistic values?

I think it would be beneficial to everyone's perception if we deconstructed the aggressors:

1) Learn more about the varied cultures and histories of the many Islamist nations, the Ottoman Empire, and the (mostly) European interference in creating modern Middle Eastern borders.

2) Learn more about the religion of Islam.

3) Learn about the inherent dangers of fanaticism and enforced fundamentalism.

4) Apply your understanding of fanaticism to your understanding of the teachings of Islam and nationalism.

When we see the world through their eyes, then maybe we can see how they see us. I think we take it for granted that the rest of the world embraces plurality, multi-culturalism and democracy when that is far from the case. We wonder why they don't demand free elections while they wonder why we don't lynch our elected leaders.

Our world perspectives are centuries apart. They haven't, for the most part, experienced the Age of Enlightenment. I believe that, as Enlightenment began to dawn, some people (fanatical fundamentalists), acting out of FEAR, reacted and they blame the US for bringing this God-forsaken enlightenment to them. They FEAR any threat to their backwards (from the Western perspective) way of life. By exposing their people (via satellite TV, music, the internet) to Western ideas, thought, and ideals, we are invading their lands. They want to close their borders and seal-off their people from the Western world. They are fighting the tide and blaming us for its existence.

They aren't fighting over Israel, oppression, or money. They are fighting over IDEAS. This is all about thought control.

[This message has been edited by Walker (edited 07-25-2002).]

Hi, I'm back from The Great American West. Will catch up on your posts later. It's nice to be home, but I can do without having to go back to WORK!

A quiet week in Lake Woebegone is much livelier than the past weeks here. I thought Walker's comments would spark some response and then surely govt's return would bring out the posts. Ah, but alas.

Anyway, I did think Walker's take was right on. Different than previous takes posted here but right on nonetheless. Especially the following:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
We ... argue about these reasons from the perspective of the West, of Christians, of American citizens. ... Do we, perhaps, assume that all peoples have these same world-view or humanistic values? ...

When we see the world through their eyes, then maybe we can see how they see us. I think we take it for granted that the rest of the world embraces plurality, multi-culturalism and democracy when that is far from the case. ...

Our world perspectives are centuries apart.

---

I don't think I've changed my take on things; I was just suggesting that it might be easier to understand what I will globally refer to as "Islamist perspective" if we understood where they are in terms of history and the evolution of thought and civil ideals. I also recognize that that's as broad as talking about "Christian perspective." I do believe you can't understand Western Civilization if you don't also understand the history of the Christian religion; the same would apply to the "Muslim" world.

Last night I listened to an NPR interview of Columbia University Professor Edward Said. He spoke to this very issue. He shared his list of three books essential to understanding modern Islam:
� Classical Arab Islam: The Culture and Heritage of the Golden Age by Tarif Khalidi
� The Cairo Trilogy by Naguib Mahfouz
� The Road to Mecca by Muhammad Asad

I've mentioned this before - a good reading of the history of the Ottoman Empire and it's decline (and the rush by European nations to fill the power vacuum) will give you a broader understanding of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Judith Miller's book "God Has Ninety-Nine Names" is an excellent read on the modern cultures/nations that inhabit this large land mass, and each's government response to the rise in militant/fundamentalist Islam.

A basic understanding of Islam would be helpful, too. I found it very enlightening that the Prophet Mohammed *never* said women should be veiled; that was a CULTURAL construct initiated 3 centuries after his death - an example of bias (misogyny) being grafted onto religion. I say it's helpful because, as with this example, we can then begin to separate bias and bigotry from basic religious beliefs, giving us a greater understanding of what Islam truly is. Another example is found in the fact that Mohammed led raids on neighboring tribe whenever their supplies ran low, giving us a view of God's Prophet as Warrior.

I don't need to persuade anyone to my way of thinking. I merely suggest that your way of thinking might be best served if you had more knowledge.

Well, let's say we do all those things, i.e. "see through their eyes" "learn about Islam" "learn about their cultures and histories" etc. Then what? Does this stop anyone on the road to terrorism? Does it stop people from wanting to wipe Israel from the map? No, it doesn't.

Should the West take a crash course in Islam, then put a big, friendly arm around the East and say, "We understand you, brother" thus, ending the tensions?

Or, how about vice versa? Does Islam "understand" the Judeo-Christian perspective? Where is THEIR duty?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
I don't think I've changed my take on things

---

Sorry. When I said "Different than previous takes posted here" I meant your take was different from those posted by other members, not your own previously posted takes on this topic.

[This message has been edited by pegasus_x (edited 08-01-2002).]

Walker: "I've mentioned this before - a good reading of the history of the Ottoman Empire and it's decline (and the rush by European nations to fill the power vacuum) will give you a broader understanding of the Middle East and Eastern Europe."

Why begin with the latter history of the Ottoman Empire? That was just the tail end of a much broader phenomenon. Bernard Lewis, in his one-volume history of the Middle East, accounts Islamic conquest the greatest mass movement in world history, and the greatest example of imperialism since the fall of Rome. Lewis:

"In the course of the seventh century, Muslim armies advancing from Arabia conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa, all until then part of Christendom.... In the eighth century, from their bases in North Africa, Arab Muslim forces, now joined by Berber converts, conquered Spain and Portugal and invaded France; in the ninth century they conquered Sicily and invaded the Italian mainland. In 846 CE a neval expedition from Sicily even entered the river Tiber, and Arab forces sacked Ostia and Rome."

Lewis then recounts the European response, in the form of the reconquista and the Crusades, the latter of which ended in failure and expulsion. Viewed in proper historical context, the Crusades weren't the exercise in arrogance and hubris that they are now portrayed to be, but a rather unsurprising backlash against, and attempt to decisively end the capabilities of, a group of people who'd spent nearly a half a millenia in unrelenting conquest or attempted conquest of all their neighbors.

Lewis continues:

"In the east, between 1237 and 1240 CE the Tatars of the Golden Horde conquered Russia; in 1252 the Khan of the Golden Horde and his people were converted to Islam. Russia, with much of Eastern Europe, was subject to Muslim rule, and it was not until the late fifteenth century that the Russians finally freed their country from what they called 'the Tatar yoke.' In the meantime, a third wave of Muslim attacks had begun, that of the Ottoman Turks, who conquered Anatolia, captured the ancient Christian city of Constantinople, invaded and colonized the Balkan peninsula, and threatened the very heart of Europe, twice reaching as far as Vienna."

While all that happened in Europe, Muslim armies also invaded black Africa, India, and China, importing slaves from Africa and Europe, and precious metals, goods, and foodstuffs from throughout the empire.

This is an impressive record. Pause and reflect on the temporal length (this empire continues mostly intact until the late 17th century, and in some form right through to the 20th) and geographic breadth. It puts the colonial accomplishments of European nation-states to shame.

Though defeat at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 marked the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the Empire persisted, recovering some of its losses in the eighteenth century before finally collapsing in the early twentieth century. All of the European colonial empires of which we are now so ashamed began later, ended earlier, and retained less of their conquests.

Lewis is clear -- the common thread throughout the thousand-plus years of conquest was not nationalism, but Islam, not Arab ethnicity but Islam. Indeed, the notion of the nation-state as distinct from religion was and remains a peculiarly western notion.

I don't mean to paint the west as innocent, or Christianity as less violent in its past; it may well be that Al Andalus was a better place than the Spain that followed, and nothing comparable to the European pogroms, much less the Shoah, occurred under Ottoman rule. But to suggest that latter-Ottoman and post-Ottoman western imperialism is somehow to blame for the clash between the two civilizations is to ignore over a millenia of history.

[This message has been edited by Deep Cover (edited 08-02-2002).]