"And the funniest part of all is, JMS actively supports the party and the
individual politicians who brought you the "Communications Decency Act,"
which would, if it hadn't been hamstrung by a court which had actually
read the Constitution, have resulted in eventual restraint of such modes
of expression......"

That's right, Gharlane. I supported the individuals now residing in the
White House, and still do...because I'm not a one-issue person. Is the
CDA a stupid, invidious, badly written, paranoid, neanderthal, repressive
bill? Absolutely. And I supported the people who were actively against
it, as I was actively against it. I don't have this notion that I must
agree 100% with a politician, or have that politican hew to every single
belief which I hold, in order to support him or her. There can be
respectful (or loud) disagreements on principle on individual points.

The issue is: *on balance*, which side do I tend to support? Both parties
are flawed. Candidates on both sides have eccentricities, failings,
misfired notions. But on balance...you've got Bob Dole, who doesn't have
any notion on the leadership of this country except the vague idea that
he's *earned* his shot, and he's going to have it. It's not about
providing a new vision, it's just about being the one wearing the pointy
hat. He wants the ultimate promotion.

Kemp I find interesting, but saddled with Dole this is a non-starter. And
from where I sit the Republican party has capitulated to the Religious
Right on every issue of substance...people who've said they want to
designate this a Christian nation, drag creationism into the schools
(saying they want balance, but I don't see anybody offering to let folks
teach Darwin from the church pulpit on Saturday nights), who've whipped up
so much hatred against physicians and classes that murdering doctors is
simply an unfortunate consequence....

Are there flaws to the Democratic side? Absolutely. An inability to come
to grips with social programs long in need of serious reform, a
soft-hearted and sometimes soft-headed approach to social organization,
de-emphasis on infrastructure in deference to social programming, too much
concern about words and not enough concern about actions, grass-roots
disorganization....

You say you're a fan of this show. Well, consider this: that if the
government envisioned by Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan and Robert Dole
and Bob Dornan and Alfonse D'Amato (possible spelling error there) ever
took serious hold in this nation, Babylon 5 -- with its sometimes
subversive nature, its open and frank discussions on religion, death,
sexuality, violence, the conflict between belief and medicine -- would be
the first program chucked out the door.

It was under the Reagan years that the Captain Power series -- for all its
flaws, some episodes very good, some less so -- got shot out from under
the producers because of the then-fashionable assault on violent TV by
pressure groups (many of them on the far right), so don't tell me it can't
happen...I was the one on the opposite side of the conference table when
religious-right "consultants" on Satanism advised the network on another
show where I was working on what they had to do to avoid sending
unintentional Satanic messages, which meant leaving out references to
fictional books like the Necronomicon, being unable to use the name
Lovecraft, and being told that the signs of a kid succumbing to Satanism
are "he's curious...he's sometimes depressed...he tries to reject
authority...and he's susceptiple to peer pressure." No, I'm NOT making
that up, that's verbatim.

And these are the same groups bending the Republican party to their own
whims. I've seen their work up-close and personal, and I tell you
frankly, that if they got in charge, this show would be deep-sixed so fast
it'd make your head spin.

The present administration may be muffin-headed at times, may have its
personal pecadillos and quirks...but compared to the mean, venal,
anti-intellectual, anti-artist opposition, the opposition of Jesse Helms
and Pat Buchanan...I'll take it, and be glad of it, and when something as
inherently dopey and destructive as the CDA gets passed, be absolutely
open in complaining about it.

And thank you for dragging my personal politics back into this...and
throwing it in my face. Anything else you'd like to drag up?


jms

"I find your logic slipping a bit. First off to compare what is wanted in
the teachings of the _public_ schools against what is done in the
_private_ church is flawed. What is done with government money is well
within the right of the people to voice their opinion on."

Except, of course, that the churches have *tax exempt* status, on the
theory that they are separate and apart from the State...yet have been
mingling more and more in politics. I'm absolutely deleriously happy if
they want to get into politics, but then drop the tax exempt status. So
given that the church is getting a free ride with our government money, as
you say above, it's well within the right of the people to voice their
opinion on (dangling participle notwithstanding).

Basically...make up your mind. Do you want to be involved with partisan
politics? Do you want to be a part of the State, as many folks now want
to make this a Christian nation? Then start carrying your fair share of
the tax burden. It's not fair to say, "we deserve to interfere with
government," then when the tax man comes around say, "we deserve to be
separate from the government." Choose one.

"While it is very tragic that "doctors" have been killed over this issue,
what I know
as fact makes me understand it a bit."

That you have put "doctors" in quotes, and indicated you can understand
the wanton murder of civilians, tells me you have just struck your colors.
So if you knew a baby was going to grow up to be a doctor, who provided
abortion services, would it be okay to abort *that* baby, or just wait
until they're older and kill 'em then? May as well be efficient, save
college loan money and the like, yes?

And while I see anti-abortion groups lobbying for that aspect, I don't see
many of them offering to adopt crack babies, or babies that are the result
of incest or rape, or funding social services for all the infants that
will be born if they get their way. Pass every law you can think of to
make sure they're born, protect those rights... then toss 'em aside after
their born. Sure, that makes sense. Why didn't I see it before?

"Are the "..." sequences a pause or are you leaving out text? For example
,was the quote "he's curious about death, he's sometimes depressed to the
point of talking about suicide, he tries to reject authority by openly
experimenting with drugs....". All of these would be bad signs."

No, I said I'm quoting verbatim...verbatim means as said, unedited. They
didn't say that a bad sign was that he's curious about death, just that
he's *curious*, that he's sometimes depressed, and that he listens to
heavy metal music (I forgot that one), and that he rejects authority.
Broad-based statements.

The religious right uses fear tactics on a daily basis to get what it
wants. To describe what they've actually done isn't fear tactics, it's
strictly reporting what happened. If you find it scary...well, so do I.





jms

"If you were actively against (the CDA), why weren't you using your public
position to anathematize the California senator who was a major initial
proponent of the CDA? Why didn't you spearhead a movement for her
recall?"

Real simple. I'm very much aware that the nature of my work gives me a
platform, a soapbox...and I tend to look to that famous Greek philosopher,
Peterus Parkerus, who opined, "With great power comes great
responsibility." That platform is accorded me by people who have come to
trust that I have no personal agenda underlying my storytelling, that I'm
slogging my way through to try and find out what the hell the right thing
to do is, and to do it. That trust is hard-won and not lightly to be
exploited.

When and if I should use that soapbox, it has to be something bigger than
the CDA, bigger than something that might be self-serving...rather than
using up that resource on one cause or another that's best dealt with in
other ways. Otherwise, why just that one cause, and not the many others I
feel strongly about? Should I be here with twice-weekly sermonettes about
violence against women, the need for improvements in schools, and a
hundred other issues? This ain't the Let's Hear JMS's Latest Political
Rant Forum (though sometimes it does tend to become the Gharlane's Latest
Political Rant Forum, but that's another topic for another time). I tend
to get into these things (and always with subsequent regret) only when
poked or prodded or otherwise poked in the eye.

There's only one thing I'm currently considering using this limited
platform to address, something that should get support from every side of
the spectrum, and would be a worthy legacy of this show, apart from the
storytelling and the series itself. But I'm still pulling my thoughts
together on this, because if I get into it, it's going to take a lot of
work. So we'll see.

As for the rest of your message...it's more of the usual liberal-baiting
Gharrolousness that reduces everything and everyone involved down to the
most basic stereotypes and eliminates discussion by replacing it with
scarecrow logic, demonizing, and rhetorical dead-catting...so really,
what's the point?


jms