oaf had a good idea

[The Eavesdropper Speaks]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> That's what's wrong with America, hypocrisy.
> Anyway, I always thought Rainman would make a great Oasis fan,
> "definitely, definitely maybe, definitely".

You know what's wrong with Britain? The people there that think that "America" is the same thing as Hollywood or Washington D.C. It's not. There are many, many people in America, most of whose experience is not portrayed or accounted for in the media or on television. I'm tired of British people finding fault with "Americans" based on our leaders and the people on our television sets, especially when *your* leaders aren't making any significant strides or inroads against the agendas of our leaders and our television shows have become hopeless crap based on hopeless crap British television shows.

 

[suzanne]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> Why is that in order to win an Oscar, one has to play a retarded or
> disabled person?

heh. that's pretty funny. this guy i work with is trying to come up with a screenplay where a retarded guy saves a bunch of children from being sacrificed by a cult.

> That's what's wrong with America, hypocrisy.
> Anyway, I always thought Rainman would make a great Oasis fan,
> "definitely, definitely maybe, definitely".

> People should understand that there's more to life than work ...

> Don't try to make Indian history your own.
> All Americans had to do with Indian culture, is they tried to destroy it.

that's true, but there are a lot of americans who are the products of intermarriage with Indians, so technically, it is their culture as well. also, the way we've dealt with the indians has shaped culture....

> It's not about that.
> Being English for example, is more than being born in England.
> It's about the history, the hostility towards other nations, the heritage,
> the arts, the queen, the social texture, the economic structure.
> You need all that to produce creativeness.
> Look at Morrissey, being English is what defines his writing, he relies
> on British authors, writes about the complexities of England, its history,
> what he hates and loves about it.

and when did most of those british authors that he loves write? over 100 years ago. its not like he reached for the Canterbury tales and decided to write in old english.

even within itself, culture becomes extinct. just like how the Roman era gave way to the dark ages. lots of americans share that same past. all you're doing is picking up and moving somewhere else....and at a type when monarchy was losing power everywhere in Europe, so naturally, American didn't have a monarch for its leader.

Even Paris' most recognizable syndrome is just over 100 years old.

> American just can't reproduce that. Yet.

says you. this country was not only formed from religious nuts, but also from people who were wanting to make a quick and easy buck.. notably in tobacco. not to mention the american revolution. so even 400 years after the english started arriving, you can see all of this still playing out.

but not every part of america is going to have the same culture, just as every part of england isn't going to be alike. new england has its tribute to colonialism. NY is a melting pot of everything.

> I liked Star Trek The Next Generation, but not the original Star Trek,
> or what came after The Next Generation, like Deep Shit 9.
> I think it's not about aliens at all. I like a movie because of the story,
> whether it has aliens in it or not.
> The story has to have a logical idea or theory behind it, otherwise it
> can become cheesy.

i love the original star trek. i used to stay up late on fridays when i was 10 and watch it in re-runs.

> Just goes to show laziness is in the nature of man and it shows even
> at a very young age.

*sigh*

OK, let me say that a lot of these kids will find Harry Potter cool, so then they go out and buy their own copies of the book and start reading.

it happened in most of my classes that the teacher never got a chance to finish the book before the end of the year, or i want to read it for myself, so i'd go out and buy my own copy of Charlotte's Web or whatever and read it about 10 times.

8 year old kids aren't very sophisticated in book purchasing. especially when they've just graduated from Dr Seuss and all they read is textbooks.

> As I've said before, age is also an important factor.
> Young people are full of ideas and desire to learn and experiment,
> when you pass a certain age, it isn't there anymore.
> Of course, the talent has to be there first and foremost.

why demand that morrissey himself start recruiting hip new kids when he himself has a formula down?

> Yeah, but the ones I like best are the ones with the memorable riffs.
> Even when it's not about the riff, the progression gives it structure.
> I don't like the structures compositions of say Maladjusted (the song)
> as much.
> Is it a coincidence "The More You Ignore Me" was his biggest
> success?

as a guitar player of sorts, there are only so many chords in this universe you can do anything with. considering most of Marr's riffs were built off of the arpeggios of these chords.....

> I don't know why Morrissey hasn't introduced a piano to his live
> performance.

because its a pain in the ass to lug around?

> Seeing his record sales on the front page makes me wonder if they were
> ever
> the sole reason for signing him. Lets face it, he never sold millions.
> I have to believe him when he says he was never offered millions as a
> signing
> bonus. Sanctuary I think understand his position and know what to expect.

Mercury signed him for 4 million quid back in 95. sure that shrinks a bit after taxes and lawyer fees, but even so, he has the position of songwriter which makes him more money than any label will give him.

> I feel it's the right decision. I just hope the reason for this decision
> were
> right as well.

> Five songs make half an album ...

or 5 b-sides.

 

[suzanne]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> You know what's wrong with Britain? The people there that think that
> "America" is the same thing as Hollywood or Washington D.C. It's
> not. There are many, many people in America, most of whose experience is
> not portrayed or accounted for in the media or on television. I'm tired of
> British people finding fault with "Americans" based on our
> leaders and the people on our television sets, especially when *your*
> leaders aren't making any significant strides or inroads against the
> agendas of our leaders and our television shows have become hopeless crap
> based on hopeless crap British television shows.

the picture of america that the media portrays is hardly true. as it becomes more and more obvious, our media outlets within our own country are completely out of step with the average person. they, like the government have set up their entire agenda based on chasing after a few groups for money: the corporations. everything is geared towards them, and not for the person on the street.

 

[The Eavesdropper]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> the picture of america that the media portrays is hardly true. as it
> becomes more and more obvious, our media outlets within our own country
> are completely out of step with the average person. they, like the
> government have set up their entire agenda based on chasing after a few
> groups for money: the corporations. everything is geared towards them, and
> not for the person on the street.

Exactly. And a lot of British people have the same irksome views of Americans, which are based on media images because honestly, how many of the haters have actually even been to America? And how can you get a sense of America from visiting one area of it or even living here for a short period? As someone who's lived here my whole life, I wouldn't claim to have an accurate view of my own country or the many different people who live here because living in Idaho is different from living in Ohio or NYC or Florida. We're too big a country with too many different types of people to be dismissed with ignorant generalizations.

 

[nonesoever]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> heh. that's pretty funny. this guy i work with is trying to come up with a
> screenplay where a retarded guy saves a bunch of children from being
> sacrificed by a cult.

That sounds too ridiculous even for the Oscars
Boy, how much time did it take him to come up with this idea?
five minutes, or is he retarded as well, sorry.

> that's true, but there are a lot of americans who are the products of
> intermarriage with Indians, so technically, it is their culture as well.
> also, the way we've dealt with the indians has shaped culture....

How many Indians were left anyway? The way Americans dealt with the Indians,
sure shaped a culture. A culture where its wrong to be different.

America consists of many minorities, each having its own culture, brought from their countries of origin, but there really isn't anything binding these together.
There isn't an American culture. Well, at least not one you should be proud of.

> and when did most of those british authors that he loves write? over 100
> years ago. its not like he reached for the Canterbury tales and decided to
> write in old english.

Shakespeare is a bit older. Anyway, America is yet to develop such a canon of writers. But I wasn't talking only about that.
Apparently life in America is just not that fertile grounds for bands and writers. It is said these are forms of protest and rebellion. Maybe life in America is just too good. It's a good thing.

> even within itself, culture becomes extinct. just like how the Roman era
> gave way to the dark ages. lots of americans share that same past. all
> you're doing is picking up and moving somewhere else....and at a type when
> monarchy was losing power everywhere in Europe, so naturally, American
> didn't have a monarch for its leader.

In the past it was all about building an empire and rule the world.
England was the last colonial empire, "everything of worth, on earth is there to share". America hasn't had its share of turmoils, I still don't know what the civil war was about. You can say America is about freedom and so forth.
The truth is that it's all about making money.

> Even Paris' most recognizable syndrome is just over 100 years old.

The French problem with producing rock bands, is simply the language barrier, they can't sing in English.

> says you. this country was not only formed from religious nuts, but also
> from people who were wanting to make a quick and easy buck.. notably in
> tobacco. not to mention the american revolution. so even 400 years after
> the english started arriving, you can see all of this still playing out.

I agree many people saw America as an economical opportunity and that's what was (and maybe still is) great about it.
There's no denying America is the world's largest economy.

After slavery was banned, America was based on the concept of shamelessly using immigrants and those immigrants in turn used the newly arrived immigrants.

> but not every part of america is going to have the same culture, just as
> every part of england isn't going to be alike. new england has its tribute
> to colonialism. NY is a melting pot of everything.

NY is more of an international city. There isn't any other city like it in the US.

> i love the original star trek. i used to stay up late on fridays when i
> was 10 and watch it in re-runs.

Well, I couldn't really connect with the 60s style of outer space and
the Next Generation was coming out. The original Star Trek looked like
it was the past, not the future.

> *sigh*

> OK, let me say that a lot of these kids will find Harry Potter cool, so
> then they go out and buy their own copies of the book and start reading.

> it happened in most of my classes that the teacher never got a chance to
> finish the book before the end of the year, or i want to read it for
> myself, so i'd go out and buy my own copy of Charlotte's Web or whatever
> and read it about 10 times.

So that's why it has so many pages ... it's all a marketing tactic.

> 8 year old kids aren't very sophisticated in book purchasing. especially
> when they've just graduated from Dr Seuss and all they read is textbooks.

8 years old kids aren't sophisticated in anything, that's what the advertisers are building on. I remember buying all sorts of stupid stuff as a child.

> why demand that morrissey himself start recruiting hip new kids when he
> himself has a formula down?

A formula for a commercial disaster? Kidding.

> as a guitar player of sorts, there are only so many chords in this
> universe you can do anything with. considering most of Marr's riffs were
> built off of the arpeggios of these chords.....

The fact remains that Marr invented a lot of riffs, no one dreamt of.
It's like when a young and excited physics student comes up with a new theory his professors never could have contemplated.

> because its a pain in the ass to lug around?

There are synthesizers, who will know the difference.

> Mercury signed him for 4 million quid back in 95. sure that shrinks a bit
> after taxes and lawyer fees, but even so, he has the position of
> songwriter which makes him more money than any label will give him.

According to him, he didn't receive that amount.
Well, he could be lying obviously.

> or 5 b-sides.

Let's hope the new stuff is as good.

 

[nonesoever]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> You know what's wrong with Britain? The people there that think that
> "America" is the same thing as Hollywood or Washington D.C. It's
> not. There are many, many people in America, most of whose experience is
> not portrayed or accounted for in the media or on television. I'm tired of
> British people finding fault with "Americans" based on our
> leaders and the people on our television sets, especially when *your*
> leaders aren't making any significant strides or inroads against the
> agendas of our leaders and our television shows have become hopeless crap
> based on hopeless crap British television shows.

I myself am not British, nor am I an American.
I wouldn't want to generalize too much, but you have to admit American relationships are characterized by hypocrisy, which is not seen too often in other countries. In other countries more straightforward and sincere approach is prevalent.

As for British television, the British are known for making quality television.
If anything I would say America has influenced the UK's and Europe's and the entire world's TV and movie industries and not for the better. Importing crap.
The same thing is true for its leaders. More and more of the world's leaders are taking up the American model of a politician. America had Bill Clintion for president for god's sake. Tony Blair is one example of what I'm saying.

TV is in fact a reflection of the population. So are its leaders.
It's true however that the majority of Americans don't vote.
Maybe they don't watch television either.

 

[The Eavesdropper]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> I wouldn't want to generalize too much, but you have to admit American
> relationships are characterized by hypocrisy, which is not seen too often
> in other countries. In other countries more straightforward and sincere
> approach is prevalent.

Are you speaking in a purely political context? By saying "relationships" you seem to be referring to something a bit more personal than politics.

> As for British television, the British are known for making quality
> television.
> If anything I would say America has influenced the UK's and Europe's and
> the entire world's TV and movie industries and not for the better.
> Importing crap.

America has been deluged by any number of ridiculous "reality" tv programs recently that have found their original counterparts in British television. At one point, I would have agreed with you about the quality of British television being a fan in particular of old British sitcoms. Now I'm really not so sure.

> The same thing is true for its leaders. More and more of the world's
> leaders are taking up the American model of a politician. America had Bill
> Clintion for president for god's sake. Tony Blair is one example of what
> I'm saying.

Despite the ridiculous circus regarding Clinton's personal life, Clinton was a quality president. In his eight years in office, his administration created 22 million jobs. This is fact. The boom in the economy was created during in his time in office and reversed the deficit that Reagan and Bush had only worsened during their time in office. America as a country was doing so well that the most that we had to worry about was Clinton lying about receiving a blow-job. That's pretty damn good if you ask me. As compared to now, when the American middle-class is vanishing. People's jobs, savings, and dreams are sinking and disappearing overnight. Don't talk shit about Clinton. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

> TV is in fact a reflection of the population. So are its leaders.
> It's true however that the majority of Americans don't vote.
> Maybe they don't watch television either.

In the wake of an election that was BOUGHT, it doesn't matter whether Americans vote or not. What matters in our country now is whether corporations vote and whether corporations line the pockets of the Bush administration. This administration has its interests solely lodged on corporations and big business. That is hardly a reflection of the American people who are losing their homes and their jobs and are being manipulated with their own fear of terrorist attack by the media and the administration. It's actually a horrific mistake which will hopefully be reversed in the next election by the ouster of George W. Bush.

 

[nonesoever]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> Are you speaking in a purely political context? By saying
> "relationships" you seem to be referring to something a bit more
> personal than politics.

Yeah, I was talking about personal relationship, which also
manifests itself in American politics naturally.

> America has been deluged by any number of ridiculous "reality"
> tv programs recently that have found their original counterparts in
> British television. At one point, I would have agreed with you about the
> quality of British television being a fan in particular of old British
> sitcoms. Now I'm really not so sure.

I honestly think it's the other way round.
The world was Americanized in all aspects of life, not just TV and movies.
I also doubt the concept of reality TV was first introduced by the British.
The same way the British exported "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire", but
the game show concept is American at heart.

> Despite the ridiculous circus regarding Clinton's personal life, Clinton
> was a quality president. In his eight years in office, his administration
> created 22 million jobs. This is fact. The boom in the economy was created
> during in his time in office and reversed the deficit that Reagan and Bush
> had only worsened during their time in office. America as a country was
> doing so well that the most that we had to worry about was Clinton lying
> about receiving a blow-job. That's pretty damn good if you ask me. As
> compared to now, when the American middle-class is vanishing. People's
> jobs, savings, and dreams are sinking and disappearing overnight. Don't
> talk shit about Clinton. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking
> about.

It is a ridiculous notion, that Clinton had anything to do with the booming in the American and the world's economy.
However the prosperity, may very well explain the fact Clinton
was elected and re-elected.
The reason for the surplus in the budget was the prosperity, not any actions taken by the Clinton administration.
It was the Internet bubble and pure luck on Clinton's part.

The US has a national debt that amounts to 6 TRILLION DOLLARS!
Let me assure you, it did not start with the Bush administration.
You are really showing your ignorance here. You should stop right here.

> In the wake of an election that was BOUGHT, it doesn't matter whether
> Americans vote or not. What matters in our country now is whether
> corporations vote and whether corporations line the pockets of the Bush
> administration. This administration has its interests solely lodged on
> corporations and big business. That is hardly a reflection of the American
> people who are losing their homes and their jobs and are being manipulated
> with their own fear of terrorist attack by the media and the
> administration. It's actually a horrific mistake which will hopefully be
> reversed in the next election by the ouster of George W. Bush.

I really couldn't care less about American politics.
I can vouch that no rebound in the economy is forthcoming in light of a change in leadership, nor will terrorism stop because of it. End of discussion.

 

[The Eavesdropper]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> I honestly think it's the other way round.
> The world was Americanized in all aspects of life, not just TV and movies.
> I also doubt the concept of reality TV was first introduced by the
> British.
> The same way the British exported "Who Wants To Be a
> Millionaire", but
> the game show concept is American at heart.

Who's talking about the show's concept? I never said that reality television had its basis in British television. In actual fact, the first reality television show was a documentary from the 1970's called "An American Family." But all those disgusting reality shows you see on channels like TLC are just American versions of British tv shows.

> It is a ridiculous notion, that Clinton had anything to do with the
> booming in the American and the world's economy.

Of course. It's a ridiculous notion that a president directs spending, develops a budget, cuts or raises taxes, etc. and that doing this has any effect on America's--and subsequently, the world's--economy. Oh, my, what could I be thinking?

Next you'll be saying that the billions of dollars Bush spent on weapons and fighting the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the economy tanking even further--it's all because of the dot.com bomb.

> However the prosperity, may very well explain the fact Clinton
> was elected and re-elected.

There are a host of reasons why he was elected and re-elected. Also, a host of reasons why Reagan was elected and re-elected. And why Bush Sr. was elected only once. There is never simply one reason why a president is elected.

> The reason for the surplus in the budget was the prosperity, not any
> actions taken by the Clinton administration.
> It was the Internet bubble and pure luck on Clinton's part.

No, it wasn't. The "internet bubble" as you call it didn't truly begin until around 1997, five years into Clinton's presidency. Clinton raised taxes and made budget cuts to pay down the deficit. Significantly, taxes were scaled so that the rich paid more. Now the balance shifts to the majority of the taxes being paid by the working class who are being laid off to pad the pockets of the corporate millionaires. This is fact. You write of "prosperity" as a random event like a balloon sailing down from the heavens. A host of factors create prosperity, and Bill Clinton was certainly one of those factors.

> The US has a national debt that amounts to 6 TRILLION DOLLARS!

The bulk of which is the result of spending on the "War on Terrorism" and the war in Iraq. Where have you been?

> Let me assure you, it did not start with the Bush administration.

We were in a deficit when Clinton came into office and CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET. Where were you?

Assure all you want. There are plenty of Republicans in this country that will agree with you. But that doesn't make you right.

> You are really showing your ignorance here. You should stop right here.

If I were really showing my ignorance, wouldn't you want me to go on so I could continue to make you look right? As if. A jackhammer blow to the left side of your face couldn't make you look right.

> I really couldn't care less about American politics.

Which is why you don't understand it and have nothing informed to say about it. You write a bunch of ridiculous crap that you obviously believe. I respond to your ridiculous crap with my viewpoints, which are more informed than yours. You realize that you don't know enough about our political system to comment intellgently on it, so you declare that you just don't care about American politics. Then you fold up your tent and leave, but not before declaring that the discussion is over. How old are you, anyway?

> I can vouch that no rebound in the economy is forthcoming in light of a
> change in leadership, nor will terrorism stop because of it. End of
> discussion.

To "vouch" is to substantiate by showing evidence. You haven't done that. If the "discussion" is ended because you won't be responding anymore, that's fine. Just don't think it's over because you're right. Because you're not.

 

[suzanne]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> That sounds too ridiculous even for the Oscars

at least with a movie like Slingblade, it was scaled down to realistic expectations.

but he could borrow from Stephen King. if there is a child or a mentally slow person in any of his books or movies, usually they have supernatural powers that could rise up and kill. otherwise, i wonder what someone who is 45 years old and all they can do is sack groceries for a living is going to accomplish by themselves against an entire band of merciless killers.

> Boy, how much time did it take him to come up with this idea?
> five minutes, or is he retarded as well, sorry.

i prefer to think of him as a person who thinks he is smarter than what he is.

> How many Indians were left anyway? The way Americans dealt with the
> Indians,
> sure shaped a culture. A culture where its wrong to be different.

just like in england where it was wrong to be irish or scottish or pakistani....

> America consists of many minorities, each having its own culture, brought
> from their countries of origin, but there really isn't anything binding
> these together.

just like the upperclass in england playing croquet on the lawn while the lower classes are slaving it out in the mines....

> There isn't an American culture. Well, at least not one you should be
> proud of.

hmm.. just like the cruscades....

its not like americans woke up one day and decided to have slaves on their own. there was a european culture behind it...namely the dutch....which extends back into the Roman empire, and so forth.

as Billy Joel said, "we didn't start the fire"

> Shakespeare is a bit older. Anyway, America is yet to develop such a canon
> of writers. But I wasn't talking only about that.

and has there been another shakespeare in europe since then? just one guy out of thousands of writers is enough for you to put down america?

> Apparently life in America is just not that fertile grounds for bands and
> writers. It is said these are forms of protest and rebellion. Maybe life
> in America is just too good. It's a good thing.

Completely forgetting Elvis, aren't you?

There wouldn't be any sort of rock scene without blues, jazz, and country music...it had to be exported before bands like the Beatles could emerge. Otherwise, they would have still been playing skiffle music in the school yard.

> In the past it was all about building an empire and rule the world.
> England was the last colonial empire, "everything of worth, on earth
> is there to share". America hasn't had its share of turmoils, I still
> don't know what the civil war was about. You can say America is about
> freedom and so forth.
> The truth is that it's all about making money.

it was about social change coming to the fore. that, and the northern states were highly dependant on the south for agriculture.

> The French problem with producing rock bands, is simply the language
> barrier, they can't sing in English.

or maybe their music sucks...

> I agree many people saw America as an economical opportunity and that's
> what was (and maybe still is) great about it.
> There's no denying America is the world's largest economy.

> After slavery was banned, America was based on the concept of shamelessly
> using immigrants and those immigrants in turn used the newly arrived
> immigrants.

sharecroppers as well...which were basically the free blacks taking on a new role that was almost the same as what they were doing before the war...

most new immigrants didn't go to the south. they tended to stay in the north and work in factories.

> NY is more of an international city. There isn't any other city like it in
> the US.

just like there are thousands of other cities that aren't like the rest of them.

> Well, I couldn't really connect with the 60s style of outer space and
> the Next Generation was coming out. The original Star Trek looked like
> it was the past, not the future.

that's when imagination comes in...TNG is also looking very dated these days.

> So that's why it has so many pages ... it's all a marketing tactic.

> 8 years old kids aren't sophisticated in anything, that's what the
> advertisers are building on. I remember buying all sorts of stupid stuff
> as a child.

somewhat, but from what i understand, the publisher didn't really see much hope in Harry Potter turning out this way....

still, books aren't something that are successfully marketed until people already know who they are. they;re not like movies and video games where you can see or know from ads on TV.

the back jacket doesn't really say too much, if you really think about it. "there is this kid who is a wizard that battles the evil creatures lurking in his school..."

i can see why the teachers would have picked this one up to read to their students. they're desperate at this point to do anything that makes the school look like a place of adventure.

as i said, i can't imagine the first kids who read it picking it up and saying, "yay! i've always wanted a 500 page book!" and most parents would have been, "is there something in the 30 page area? i'm really busy and don't have time to read this to my kid."

> A formula for a commercial disaster? Kidding.

> The fact remains that Marr invented a lot of riffs, no one dreamt of.
> It's like when a young and excited physics student comes up with a new
> theory his professors never could have contemplated.

i think he admitted to a lot of borrowing.

> There are synthesizers, who will know the difference.

unless you are missing a guitar player....

> According to him, he didn't receive that amount.
> Well, he could be lying obviously.

i think he actually named a figure much bigger than that.

> Let's hope the new stuff is as good.

 

[nonesoever]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> at least with a movie like Slingblade, it was scaled down to realistic
> expectations.

Don't know this movie.

> but he could borrow from Stephen King. if there is a child or a mentally
> slow person in any of his books or movies, usually they have supernatural
> powers that could rise up and kill. otherwise, i wonder what someone who
> is 45 years old and all they can do is sack groceries for a living is
> going to accomplish by themselves against an entire band of merciless
> killers.

You can be sure the killers won't be expecting him. It's the element of surprise. I don't know how he does it, maybe he just calls the police?

> i prefer to think of him as a person who thinks he is smarter than what he
> is.

I wonder what retarded people think of themselves.

> just like in england where it was wrong to be irish or scottish or
> pakistani....

Exactly, the Americans are known for taking things and refining them to perfection.
Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's very bad.

> just like the upperclass in england playing croquet on the lawn while the
> lower classes are slaving it out in the mines....

Yeah, but again, Americans do it better.

> hmm.. just like the cruscades....

> its not like americans woke up one day and decided to have slaves on their
> own. there was a european culture behind it...namely the dutch....which
> extends back into the Roman empire, and so forth.

Again, everything they took from others, they brought to a new extreme.

> as Billy Joel said, "we didn't start the fire"

I don't know if he meant America, but if you didn't start the fire you
certainly added fuel to it.

> and has there been another shakespeare in europe since then? just one guy
> out of thousands of writers is enough for you to put down america?

Shakespeare is unique.
I'm not putting down America, but I hate it when Americans try to claim they are better at everything and diminish other countries' contributions.

> Completely forgetting Elvis, aren't you?

I'm not sure what exactly was the impact and influence of Elvis.

> There wouldn't be any sort of rock scene without blues, jazz, and country
> music...it had to be exported before bands like the Beatles could emerge.
> Otherwise, they would have still been playing skiffle music in the school
> yard.

Music that the black slaves started playing, because they were exploited,
discriminated against and miserable.

> it was about social change coming to the fore. that, and the northern
> states were highly dependant on the south for agriculture.

Well nothing new here, they had an entire continent, by they wanted more.

> or maybe their music sucks...

That's a misleading generalization.
You wouldn't say that, if you knew French, would you?

> sharecroppers as well...which were basically the free blacks taking on a
> new role that was almost the same as what they were doing before the
> war...

I think all the parties lost this war.

> most new immigrants didn't go to the south. they tended to stay in the
> north and work in factories.

A lot of immigrant at the beginning of the 20th century, were slaves in assembling the US railroad system, or working in mines.
I think now America has cut costs by making China its slave.

> just like there are thousands of other cities that aren't like the rest of
> them.

Most other cities, which are similar in size, are the same.
NYC is just not the same.

> that's when imagination comes in...TNG is also looking very dated these
> days.

Yeah it does, but back then it wasn't.
I guess I would have watched the original, had I been born 5 years earlier.

> somewhat, but from what i understand, the publisher didn't really see much
> hope in Harry Potter turning out this way....

Can you blame him? He's no magician himself.

> still, books aren't something that are successfully marketed until people
> already know who they are. they;re not like movies and video games where
> you can see or know from ads on TV.

I think that books became a redundant medium, when TV and motion picture emerged.

> the back jacket doesn't really say too much, if you really think about it.
> "there is this kid who is a wizard that battles the evil creatures
> lurking in his school..."

I would like to believe, I would have never bought such a book as a child.

> i can see why the teachers would have picked this one up to read to their
> students. they're desperate at this point to do anything that makes the
> school look like a place of adventure.

I haven't read the books, or seen the movies, but usually in books of this
kind, there needs to be a nemesis. Does Harry have one?

> as i said, i can't imagine the first kids who read it picking it up and
> saying, "yay! i've always wanted a 500 page book!" and most
> parents would have been, "is there something in the 30 page area? i'm
> really busy and don't have time to read this to my kid."

I wonder if she couldn't write only 250 page book, without leaving anything
out. It just seems excessive, what is this, an encyclopedia?
Think about the trees, damn it!

> i think he admitted to a lot of borrowing.

How does the old saying go? "The great (writers, etc.) steal"?

> unless you are missing a guitar player....

The Smiths played as a 4 piece, only later did they add Ganon.

> i think he actually named a figure much bigger than that.

Well, maybe he didn't want to sound like he was easily bought.

 

[nonesoever]

Re: Oye Suzanne

> Who's talking about the show's concept? I never said that reality
> television had its basis in British television. In actual fact, the first
> reality television show was a documentary from the 1970's called "An
> American Family." But all those disgusting reality shows you see on
> channels like TLC are just American versions of British tv shows.

You're simply mad the Americanized British do a better job in your own game.
You can't blame them for selling you the monster you've created.

> Of course . It's a ridiculous notion that a president directs spending,
> develops a budget, cuts or raises taxes, etc. and that doing this has any
> effect on America's--and subsequently, the world's--economy. Oh, my, what
> could I be thinking?

You are overestimating the importance and influence of an administration on the economy. There is the tide and then there is the recession, those processes are not dependent on the administration.
The great depression of the 30s came after a tide and no matter how much the administration desperately tried, it couldn't get the economy to move.
World War II, brought the desired change. In fact war is one of the few events that can bring a dramatic change in an economy.

> Next you'll be saying that the billions of dollars Bush spent on weapons
> and fighting the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the economy tanking
> even further--it's all because of the dot.com bomb.

It may very well be, but it doesn't change the fact that the recession has started when Clinton was still in power. He really had no influence on the economy. He was just lucky.
Had the WTC attacks happen while he was in charge, would you blame him in the same way you praise him on the economic front? He had no influence on neither.

> There are a host of reasons why he was elected and re-elected. Also, a
> host of reasons why Reagan was elected and re-elected. And why Bush Sr.
> was elected only once. There is never simply one reason why a president is
> elected.

At times of war, a president is elected on security issues, because that's what concerns the public. At times of peace the economics are on the public's mind,
if things are good they want it to continue and if it isn't they want change.
Of course the personality of the candidate is important, but look at the big picture. If George W. Bush isn't going to be re-elected, it's because of the economics.

> No, it wasn't. The "internet bubble" as you call it didn't truly
> begin until around 1997, five years into Clinton's presidency. Clinton
> raised taxes and made budget cuts to pay down the deficit. Significantly,
> taxes were scaled so that the rich paid more. Now the balance shifts to
> the majority of the taxes being paid by the working class who are being
> laid off to pad the pockets of the corporate millionaires. This is fact.
> You write of "prosperity" as a random event like a balloon
> sailing down from the heavens. A host of factors create prosperity, and
> Bill Clinton was certainly one of those factors.

There was the cellular revolution preceded the Internet revolution, those were the times when the economy started to rebound on the technological wave.
Had Bush senior been re-elected, the same rebound would have occurred.

> The bulk of which is the result of spending on the "War on
> Terrorism" and the war in Iraq. Where have you been?

The war in Iraq was said to cost 75 billion dollars, it's a drop in
the ocean. The national debt is 6,000,000,000,000 dollars !!!
It's getting larger as Americans spend more than they can earn.
While Europe and Japan have a surplus.
Read here to understand what you're talking about:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

> We were in a deficit when Clinton came into office and CLINTON BALANCED
> THE BUDGET. Where were you?

Balancing the deficit only means you are not adding more debt to your
existing one. To minimize the national debt, one has to be in constant surplus.
The US it seems will never return its national debt.

> Assure all you want. There are plenty of Republicans in this country that
> will agree with you. But that doesn't make you right.

> If I were really showing my ignorance, wouldn't you want me to go on so I
> could continue to make you look right? As if. A jackhammer blow to the
> left side of your face couldn't make you look right.

There, there.

> Which is why you don't understand it and have nothing informed to say
> about it. You write a bunch of ridiculous crap that you obviously believe.
> I respond to your ridiculous crap with my viewpoints, which are more
> informed than yours. You realize that you don't know enough about our
> political system to comment intellgently on it, so you declare that you
> just don't care about American politics. Then you fold up your tent and
> leave, but not before declaring that the discussion is over. How old are
> you, anyway?

> To "vouch" is to substantiate by showing evidence. You haven't
> done that. If the "discussion" is ended because you won't be
> responding anymore, that's fine. Just don't think it's over because you're
> right. Because you're not.

To vouch is to state or express confidence something is correct.
Take a look in the dictionary.
I'm being dragged into a debate I don't care to take part in, that's all.
I don't want to teach everyone a lesson in economics.