SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
http://www.sff.net/

Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:29:44
============================================================

Article 20204
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:24:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill, did you really think the mano a mano combat on a speedboat at the end was an
improvement over the book?  That pretty much ruined the movie for me.

Bill Dauphin wrote:

> Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
>
> > I also thought "Hunt for Red October" the movie was better than the
> > book. The book was loaded with flat, unfleshed out characters whereas
> > the movie gave them substance (the sub captain as a primary example).
>
> Youch, y'really think so? I guess it just goes to show you that it takes all
> kinds: My opinion was exactly 180 degrees out from yours. I thought Marko Ramius
> was an extremely well-drawn character in the book, and nothing but a cardboard
> cutout as played by Sean Connery (an actor whose work I normally love, BTW).
> Further , I thought Alec Baldwin was a disastrous choice as Jack Ryan -- they
> should have gone straight to Harrison Ford. Finally, the movie turns the
> "caterpillar" drive, which is a perfectly plausible current-technology gadget in
> the book, into a sort of underwater warp-drive, despite the fact that making it
> bizarrely exotic really adds nothing of value to the storyline.
>
> OTOH, my own favorite example of a movie that's better than the book is a
> *different* Clancy work: _Patriot Games_. I found it painful to read (esp. the
> scene in which a wounded Ryan dresses down the Prince of Wales like an errant
> schoolboy), but even as I was gritting my teeth through it, I was thinking
> "This'll make a great movie." Sure enuff....
>
> -JovBill

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20205
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:29:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

_Red Storm Rising_ is the one you're referring to.  Given what you've said, Deb,
I sincerely doubt you'd like his later stuff.  If anything, he introduces *more*
subplots and gee-whiz gadgets.  I initially enjoyed his work, but lately it's
become too bloated for me.  I find that like you I'm skipping entire subplots
because they're not very interesting.

You might check out _Without Remorse_, which gives backstory on "Mr. Clark's"
exploits during the Vietnam war.  Pretty compelling stuff, IMHO.

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> >Youch, y'really think so? I guess it just goes to show you that it takes all
> >kinds: My opinion was exactly 180 degrees out from yours.
>
>   I knew Hunt for Red October was the most controversial of the ones I
> included--especially here where there's lots of Clancy fans. :-)  I'm
> not terribly fond of Clancy's writing. I like his material but his
> books are somewhat torturous for me to wade through. I got through Red
> October by grabbing 100 pages in the middle and turning them without
> reading them. Leon Uris is another author I would compare to Clancy in
> the kind of books they write--big, complex, sweeping in scope--yet
> Uris, after some slow starts, makes them very compelling page-turners
> with very solid, real characters. I never get that from Clancy (but I
> haven't read any recently--last one had something to do with Iceland
> "Red" something or other--maybe his style has developed, he certainly
> has readership).
>
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.dahoudek.com
> http://www.civilwarstlouis.com

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20206
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:22:44 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:31:08 -0400, Eli Hestermann
> <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >In short, further debate is highly unlikely to change anyone's mind.  I
> >wouldn't worry that whoever gets the last word will sway HF opinion to hir
> >side.  Each of you has posted long enough that I think we've formed opinions
> >of you independently of this thread.  I know I have.
>
> <Gulp>  I hope you didn't mean that to be as ominous as it sounded.

Nope.  Sorry 'bout that.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20207
From: Shane Glaseman <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:09:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Logan's Run (was Starship Troopers -- The Movie)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

>   I found "Logan's Run" the movie to be better than the book. The book
> was long, dry and rambling with little focus.

You really felt so? I found the movie, while fun in general, to be
limited in scope as compared to the novel. The characters were
two-dimensional; in the film, Logan's drive to discover where all the
runners were going was simply him "following his orders"; in the novel,
it was a psychological imperative to, paradoxically, discover and
destroy the Sanctuary line, and to uncover that same avenue in order to
save his own life -- in the novel, Logan was a complex, driven, neurotic
(and hence interesting) character; in the movie, he was merely a "good
cop" who, upon discovering the Big Lie, destroyed his civilization (in a
most unlikely fashion). The revelation that ALL the prior runners had
met up with and been "popsicle-ized" by Box was a real cop-out. 

The civilization shown in the film was much less believable than the one
in the novel -- I mean, really, ALL of Humanity in a couple o'
milky-white domes in Virginia? In the novel, the penal colony in
Antarctica, the massive sea-farms ("Molly"), the Thinker in the Black
Hills of the Dakotas -- all of these are reasonable (from an SF point of
view) extensions of our society, all peopled by "people"; individuals
with unique personalities. Further, in the novel, Man still walks the
entire planet; in the movie, they're all in those domes. I could deal
with that a little better if they'd have told me why and how the entire
human population can fit in there. 

William Nolan and George Clayton Johnson were also a bit experimental
with their use of language, which I found interesting, and I didn't find
them "without focus" -- their theme (one of them) was, Those in power
ignore the potent minority at their peril. The novel is also, for my
money, a pretty interesting take on the dangers of extremism, and a
reasonable commentary on Man's tendency to replace one extreme with its
opposite, but just as extreme, extreme. Long? It's a rather short novel,
actually. Dry -- well, that's a matter of individual taste, of course...
but the protagonist is a Man on a Mission; he's driven and
single-minded. I suppose this could lend itself to a certain amount of
dryness. 

There were a number of things the movie did or showed that, while they
had counterparts in the novel, were merely placed in the movie for
effect, and were never examined sociologically (the sex shops, the
creches, the Outside, the Thinker, the Old Man -- that last was handled
horribly in the movie, and the producers/screenwriters/director should
be ashamed of themselves). 

In all, I found the novel to show a drastically different society than
ours, with a different overriding focus (do all you can, enjoy as much
as possible, before you run out of time at 21)(For those who haven't
read the novel, Lastday is at 21, not 30, in the book) -- but still
showing that "people are people"; they still have the same (or similar)
worries and drives and what-have-you. The movie was just "fun" -- it
largely lacked the social commentary that is required of SF.

The two sequels were of lesser quality (perhaps because only one of the
authors continued the story). I hear there's another out there, but
haven't seen it anywhere.

Hmm. Lurkers shouldn't oughta rant that much. Sorry.

Shane Glaseman

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20208
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:48:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd0ef6c.17203901@news.sff.net...

> Note, I'm not saying that it IS pro- or anti-Israel.  I haven't read
> it.  I'm just saying there's no easy way to know what to believe.  And
> for that reason, I'm not sure you're gonna find a single source you
> can trust.  At best, you need to read several.  Just be aware of who
> your sources are, I guess.

This is very true.

In an attempt to find unbiased sources, I have found myself digging through
dozens of sites, all of which seem to be biased one way or the other. It got
so bad that the other night I had nightmares that I was trying to find
pro/anti-Israeli biases in different levels of the video game Half-life,
which was very weird.

As a result, I'm going to try to find some reasonably accurate ones, and let
those interested figure out the biases as they wish.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20209
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:20:02 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd2b90c.4963074@news.sff.net...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:17:06 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >> I thought the Israelis had admitted to negligence.  I do know they
> >> paid reparations.
> >
> >They admitted that it was a mistake and their fault. No negligence was
> >admitted. Negligence is a different matter.
>
> Hmmm, maybe you're right.  Altho it's a bit of a fine line, perhaps
> just legalese?

Well, as I understand it, the Israelis admitted that they shot the ship and
shouldn't have. However, to get negligence, it had to be shown that they
didn't do something they should have that resulted in the incident.
Essentially, they claimed, "Everyone did what they are supposed to do, under
all the rules, but in spite of this, they got wrong answers, and thus we
destroyed the ship."

<snip>
> >As for whether or not some Jews are anti-Semetic, that would depend
> >upon whether you meant practicing or ethnic Jews, and just exactly
> >what was meant by "anti-Semetic".
>
> I'll grant the distinction, but what is "practicing"?

That, too. :)

<snip>

> >It is also possible to believe that the Israeli government is worse
> >than it is without thinking that it has anything to do with them being
> >Jews, or even Israelis. Many people who rant and rave about today's
> >government are very much in favor of the United States, as a country.
>
> Very true.  Still, I have heard too many people rant about Israeli
> offsenses, attributing them to what they consider to be the Jewish
> "character."

True.

>  Heck, even I think there may be something to that--we
> are a contentious lot (given that the stereotypical Jew does not
> define all of us, and there are many Jews who are as meek and
> inoffensive as in any other group, still, I won't deny that we tend to
> be agressive and argumentative--not that that's a bad thing <g>).

Also true, in that there could be something to it without bigotry.
Recognizing that one culture is different than another isn't necessarily
bigotry.

OTOH, it often is. Isn't defining bigotry and prejudice fun?<whee!>

> But you know, as much as those of us who are Jewish and pro-Israel may
> be sometimes guilty of unfairly accusing the anti-Israel types with
> anti-Semitism, there is also the charge against us, sometimes implied,
> sometimes direct, that we have "dual loyalties" or worse, outright
> disloyalty to America.  As someone who considers herself very
> American, very patriotic, this one really gets to me, and may be part
> of the reason for the anger in some of my responses in this thread.

I don't doubt that it is aggravating.

<snip>

>
> If anit-semitism is the cause of making Nazi such an offensive term,
> or to the extent that it is, perhaps we, as Americans, have some
> collective guilt at work for not doing more, earlier, to stop the
> Holocaust.  For not believing the early evidence that it was happening
> (which was true of even some prominent American Jews, and it has been
> the source of not a little guilt within our community--but we're good
> at guilt <g>).  For even sending escaping Jews back to Germany, even
> as most Americans are not aware that ever happened.

I don't think anti-Semitism is the cause of making Nazi offensive. I think
Nazism is what makes the idea of anti-Semitism more offensive. It isn't that
we think of anti-Semitism when we think of Nazis, it is that we think of
Nazis when we think of anti-Semites, and Nazis are a great and terrible
evil.

> That said, I probably do believe that anti-Semitism is much more
> pervasive than you do.  Maybe it's because I've experienced it with my
> kids (and as any mother-lion type, I'm likely to over-react where the
> kids are concerned).  Maybe because I read Jewish periodicals which
> report every incident (well, not every one, but enough to color my
> perceptions).  Maybe it's because I'm aware of my own prejudices, at
> least most of them, much as I try to keep them in check, sometimes
> even to the point of over-compensating.
>
> But I don't think I'm the type who sees an anti-Semite under every
> rock.  And I know there are people who do.

Ah, but I don't think it is rare. I think it is a label that people fear
having attributed to them, reflexively, but not that it is rare.

Actually, I know for a fact that I have no business having an opinion one
way or another. When I was in junior high, and there was only one kid in
school who was black, and he wasn't my friend, so I didn't see racism, and
virtually never even heard of it. With a black wife, I still don't see a
great deal (which is one reason I will never leave Seattle), but it is a
damn sight more obvious than before that it exists.

Similarly, my opportunities for seeing anti-Semitism first hand are pretty
limited. I am something of a recluse, and as a result, don't really know
many people well, and many of those are online. Of the people whom I know
well enough to know their religious beliefs, the only ones who are Jews are
online.

So, unless I deliberately go out looking for Jewish people to spy on,
looking for anti-Semitism directed against them, I can only judge how common
it is by asking others.

<snip>.
> I wouldn't say "easily corrected," because there is a human tendancy
> to believe the theory or evidence you hear first.  But I do believe
> that many people know very little of how very much evidence of the
> Holocaust there is, and thus are easily deceived by the revisionists.
> Those are the ones I called "incredibly ignorant," because the proof
> abounds, from all sectors.

If you like, there is a wonderful FAQ online that debunks the "scientific"
Holocaust deniers in considerable detail. You could always just point
someone to it.

<snip>
> I guess I tend to be very conventional, for the most part, when it
> comes to standard explanations of events.  In the absense of direct
> and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I tend to accept the
> official line.

As do I, usually. I sometimes doubt the official _conclusion_, however,
which is a bit different, though I still mostly go along with it. For
instance, I sometimes find the police record in Seattle a bit suspicious
(100% "good" shootings), but I have yet to declare police cover-up or even
clear bias in any particular case.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20210
From: Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:26:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb  --

     "Red Storm Rising" is one of  Tom Clancy's oldest books, written just
after "Red October".  One I often recommend is "Without Remorse" -- people
eithr love it or hate it -- and many of the latter are Clancy fans who found
it unlike most of his other works.

Charlie



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20211
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:51:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Although it's probably been mentioned here before, I found the Starship
Troopers animated show quite good.  I was on my back for a while waiting for
back surgery, so for a few weeks I'd watch it.  Nice power armor, and Dez
was well done.

Jeff

"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:klmpstoffubmmikf15fvfcjeg0jtteurbb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:20:10 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I caught about 15 minutes on a movie channel and watched in utter
> >horror, kind of the way I watched "Logan's Run" about five years after
> >first seeing it.
> >
> >Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
>
>      Heh.  I think I will do the director's commentary one of these
> days, but I need to be in the proper frame of mind for snickers &
> sneers.  A couple rum & cokes first would probably help.
>
>      Then I'll come here and post the juicy quotes.
>
>
>
> Geo Rule
>
> www.civilwarstlouis.com
> ****
> Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
> the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
> Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
> the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20212
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:32:57 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:20:02 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:

>For
>instance, I sometimes find the police record in Seattle a bit suspicious
>(100% "good" shootings), but I have yet to declare police cover-up or even
>clear bias in any particular case.

Funny, but police investigations of their own wrong-doings is one area
where I tend to be highly sceptical.  Maybe it's just my "liberal"
bias.  But back when I was in college, a number of my friends were
criminology majors (Florida State has a highly ranked criminology
dept, and many in ROTC were crim majors), and I was even engaged to
one, for a short time.  He did his internship in a small central
Florida town and I remember being simply appalled at some of the
stories he told, mostly about the racism involved in the dept, and how
it was just accepted as right and proper by the city government.  Of
course, this same small town was the only place I ever saw a "colored"
bathroom, and I grew up in the South, albeit in the Atlanta suburbs.
I also met some of his "collegues," both there and in a training
course he had to take up in Tallahassee, and mant of them struck me as
no better than the criminals.  I know, that's annecdotal, but I was
young and impressionable. <g> .

Even at that, my first inclination in the first Rodney King trial was
to believe the jury was correct in finding for the police officers.
It wasn't until the WHOLE tape was released, and I saw that there
really was nothing the jury saw to mitigate the wrong-doing on the
part of the police, that I said, wait a minute... something is wrong
here.

Fwiw, I've met many good and honorable police officers since college,
but I'm pretty sure the others are still around too.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20213
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:57:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:46:37 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
>    Why double-install apps?  Maybe I misunderstood your problem  --I
>thot it was game compatibility that forced you back to Win98.  Just
>install those games there and boot to Win98 when you want to play
>them.  No apps double installed anywhere.
>
It was what I *wasn't* saying, sorry, you're correct that's all I
should need to do.  But ...  "I really hate having to boot back and
forth so can't you put the latest IE on there, and then I can't fiddle
with Word to do my cheat code lists so install Office; I'd like to
check IM while I'm playing..........." 

If my wife were a beta-tester for Microsoft she'd either be very rich
or burned out really quickly. ;)

JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20214
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:01:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Eli Hestermann wrote:

> _Red Storm Rising_ is the one you're referring to.

Yup... Clancy's only fiction to date that's not part of the Ryan/Clark universe,
AFAIK.

>  Given what you've said, Deb,
> I sincerely doubt you'd like his later stuff.

I was thinking the same. Deb complains about the character development in _Red
October_, but IMHO, it's Clancy's *best* effort at character development, with the
possible exceptions of Filitov in _Cardinal of the Kremlin_ and Clark in _Without
Remorse_ (though, oddly enough, in the other books Clark comes off more like a
comic-book superhero than a well-rounded character... IMHO, of course).

> If anything, he introduces *more*
> subplots and gee-whiz gadgets.

Not to mention increasingly bizarre, wish-fulfillment type political scenarios.
Here's an odd thing: The day after the WTC attacks I heard Clancy sying on the
radio that the idea of using airliners as weapons was so far out that he'd never
use it in a novel, because nobody would buy it. Of course he DID use exactly that
device in _A Debt of Honor_/_Executive Orders_... it was how Ryan got to be
president, and no doubt the reason Clancy was being interviewed in the first place.
I was flabbergasted that he would feign such surprise.

> I initially enjoyed his work, but lately it's
> become too bloated for me.

There's a great deal of sense in what you sy, but I find that I keep reading his
books, and looking forward to new ones. I stayed up all night reading _The Bear and
the Dragon_, clucking my tongue all the way through at all the things "wrong" with
it, but still unable to put it down. Go figure.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20215
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:56:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bd278e2.0@news.sff.net...
<snip> And for an example of a good book and movie pair in the opposite
> direction, consider "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" and "Blade
> Runner". Both good, interesting, and one based (loosely) upon the
> other, but very very different.
>
> Filksinger
>

Did I forget to mention that category?  I'm thinking that there are other
movie/book not-so-pairs out there.  You came up with a GREAT one.  (for
Rutger Hauer if nothing else)  I may have to watch it again this week.

--
Later,

`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20216
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:08:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Eli Hestermann wrote:

> Bill, did you really think the mano a mano combat on a speedboat at the end was an
> improvement over the book?  That pretty much ruined the movie for me.

Well, it's been a long time since I've either read the book or seen the movie, and
I'm probably overstating my admiration for the latter; I just remember *hating* the
book. In particular, I remember thinking that, like a wide receiver thinking about
the touchdown before he's tucked away the catch, Clancy was thinking movie rights
before he got the thing squared away as a book. A lot of the prose seemed
self-consciously cinematic, so it was no surprise to me that it worked better on
screen than on paper... but I didn't mean to be saying it was a great movie, either.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20217
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:27:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Geo Rule wrote:

> And to disagree further, I thot Baldwin would have been much
> better in Patriot Games.  Harrison Ford was too old --remember it was
> *first* chronologically.

Oh, if the two of them could've swapped movies, that would've been fine with me.
I agree that Baldwin was the right *age* to play Ryan, especially in _Patriot
Games_... I just think Ford was the right *actor*. I'll suspend disbelief wrt
age fairly easily if the reward is a better performance. After all, if Melissa
Joan Hart is *STILL* playing a teenager....

> Prince of Wales?  What Prince of Wales  --it
> was some damn absent-minded Lord or other in the movie, wasn't it?

Don't recall, but you're probably right. That may be one of the reasons I liked
the movie better: In the book, it was *definitely* the PoW, and Ryan essentially
called him a coward and instructed him on his duties to the monarchy, coming off
like a prototypical arrogant, holier-than-thou American in the process. If
they'd put that scene straight into the movie, it might've caused an
international incident! <g>

> Btw, I believe that Clancy is on record as hating Patriot Games
> The Movie. . .

Not surprising... but authors are never objective about things like that.

> I agree with you and
> not my wife on Hunt for Red October, with this caveat  --Sean Connory
> was the right guy, just not written with enough depth.

We even agree on the caveat. When I heard Connery was playing the role, I was
very excited. He's one of my favorite actors, and the character seemed like a
perfect fit. Like you, I blame the creative team for screwing it up so badly.
(To clarify, I thought the movie was fairly good, but disappointing... but I
thought the handling of the Ramius character was *very* disappointing, the
weakest aspect of the film.)

-JovBill

PS on the age thing: I read that they're planning to rewrite Ryan's backstory to
make him younger for the next movie, so he can plausibly be played by Ben
Affleck. (Of course, those plans may be on hold now, since the next movie was
supposed to be _Sum of All Fears_, and terrorists nuking the Super Bowl might
not play to well in post-9/11 America.) The irony is that Ford, even at his
current advanced age, would be perfectly OK to play the later Ryan, but he no
longer wants to.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20218
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:24:23 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> PS on the age thing: I read that they're planning to rewrite Ryan's backstory to
> make him younger for the next movie, so he can plausibly be played by Ben
> Affleck. (Of course, those plans may be on hold now, since the next movie was
> supposed to be _Sum of All Fears_, and terrorists nuking the Super Bowl might
> not play to well in post-9/11 America.) The irony is that Ford, even at his
> current advanced age, would be perfectly OK to play the later Ryan, but he no
> longer wants to.
> 
> 


I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons a film version of The Sum
of All Fears had been delayed was that Harrison Ford objected to the terrorists being
Arabic, and he wanted the terrorists setting off the nuke at the Super Bowl to be
right-wing militia types instead.





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20219
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:40:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:49:11 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:

>I'd be interested to hear some concrete examples of where the film was better
>than the book, novelizations notwithstanding.

The Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite all-time movies.
Stephen King's short story, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank
Redemption" was ok, I guess--to tell the truth, I don't much remember
it.  Maybe because it was "only" a short story (altho a great short
story is a true piece of art).

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20220
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:45:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BD50DDE.1431BC47@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Geo Rule wrote:
>
> > And to disagree further, I thot Baldwin would have been much
> > better in Patriot Games.  Harrison Ford was too old --remember it was
> > *first* chronologically.
>
> Oh, if the two of them could've swapped movies, that would've been fine
with me.
> I agree that Baldwin was the right *age* to play Ryan, especially in
_Patriot
> Games_... I just think Ford was the right *actor*. I'll suspend disbelief
wrt
> age fairly easily if the reward is a better performance. After all, if
Melissa
> Joan Hart is *STILL* playing a teenager....

Hey now! Sabrina is a college student now, so cut MJH some slack.

>
> > Prince of Wales?  What Prince of Wales  --it
> > was some damn absent-minded Lord or other in the movie, wasn't it?
>
> Don't recall, but you're probably right. That may be one of the reasons I
liked
> the movie better: In the book, it was *definitely* the PoW, and Ryan
essentially
> called him a coward and instructed him on his duties to the monarchy,
coming off
> like a prototypical arrogant, holier-than-thou American in the process. If
> they'd put that scene straight into the movie, it might've caused an
> international incident! <g>
>
> > Btw, I believe that Clancy is on record as hating Patriot Games
> > The Movie. . .
>
> Not surprising... but authors are never objective about things like that.

I am reminded of Stephen King  ... who has pretty much resigned himelf to
the fact that the movies will never resemble his books. They are different
animals.

>
> > I agree with you and
> > not my wife on Hunt for Red October, with this caveat  --Sean Connory
> > was the right guy, just not written with enough depth.
>
> We even agree on the caveat. When I heard Connery was playing the role, I
was
> very excited. He's one of my favorite actors, and the character seemed
like a
> perfect fit. Like you, I blame the creative team for screwing it up so
badly.
> (To clarify, I thought the movie was fairly good, but disappointing... but
I
> thought the handling of the Ramius character was *very* disappointing, the
> weakest aspect of the film.)
>
> -JovBill
>
> PS on the age thing: I read that they're planning to rewrite Ryan's
backstory to
> make him younger for the next movie, so he can plausibly be played by Ben
> Affleck. (Of course, those plans may be on hold now, since the next movie
was
> supposed to be _Sum of All Fears_, and terrorists nuking the Super Bowl
might
> not play to well in post-9/11 America.) The irony is that Ford, even at
his
> current advanced age, would be perfectly OK to play the later Ryan, but he
no
> longer wants to.

It was much more fun watching movies about heroes who fight terrorists
before we finally woke up to the fact that the terrorists really are capable
of killing *us*. It seems to me that Hollywood cranked out war movies by the
dozens right after Pearl Harbor and had no problems portraying Nazis and
Japanese as villains. Why so sensitive now?


--
William B. Dennis 2nd
Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
http://peoriatimesobserver.com

People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term
security, deserve neither freedom nor security. -Benjamin Franklin,
statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20221
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:48:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:

> It was much more fun watching movies about heroes who fight terrorists
> before we finally woke up to the fact that the terrorists really are capable
> of killing *us*. It seems to me that Hollywood cranked out war movies by the
> dozens right after Pearl Harbor and had no problems portraying Nazis and
> Japanese as villains. Why so sensitive now?

There's a discussion about this going on over on the Doyle-MacDonald group,
where several people have expressed a desire to write fiction using 9/11 NYC as
the setting.  Elizabeth Moon makes the excellent point that the challenge is to
give it enough depth and perspective that it doesn't come off like blatant
cahing-in.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20222
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:52:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin wrote:

> Eli Hestermann wrote:

> > I initially enjoyed his work, but lately it's
> > become too bloated for me.
>
> There's a great deal of sense in what you sy, but I find that I keep reading his
> books, and looking forward to new ones. I stayed up all night reading _The Bear and
> the Dragon_, clucking my tongue all the way through at all the things "wrong" with
> it, but still unable to put it down. Go figure.

Similar to the problem I was having.  I'd want to read the whole story, but I didn't
want to wade through all the pages.  I finally gave up after _Rainbow Six_.  I'm in a
position to know that the overlap between really good biomedical researchers and
fringe environmental groups is so small that the premise was unbelievable.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20223
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:22:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:45:07 -0500, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
<dwilliam16@home.com> wrote:

>It was much more fun watching movies about heroes who fight terrorists
>before we finally woke up to the fact that the terrorists really are capable
>of killing *us*. It seems to me that Hollywood cranked out war movies by the
>dozens right after Pearl Harbor and had no problems portraying Nazis and
>Japanese as villains. Why so sensitive now?

Because, for better or worse, the people making movies (and for the
the most part, those watching them) really didn't care much whether
they offended Americans of German or Japanese descent.  And, for the
worse I think, our European and Asian allies had no problem
disassociating themselves from the Nazis and Japanese.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20224
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:08:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BD507C5.7FFD3C37@ix.netcom.com...

> Here's an odd thing: The day after the WTC attacks I heard Clancy
sying on the
> radio that the idea of using airliners as weapons was so far out
that he'd never
> use it in a novel, because nobody would buy it. Of course he DID use
exactly that
> device in _A Debt of Honor_/_Executive Orders_... it was how Ryan
got to be
> president, and no doubt the reason Clancy was being interviewed in
the first place.
> I was flabbergasted that he would feign such surprise.

I had heard that what he said was that using _multiple_ airliners as
suicide weapons was too far out, not just using an airliner itself.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20225
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 03:43:18 GMT
Subject: History of Islamic Extremism
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Here's an interesting article on a subject I've never read anything
about.  I can't vouch for the source, but it seems legit.  Anybody
know anything more about the subject or the source?  
http://www.eastwestrecord.com/articles/theNewWahhabMovement.asp

The Hidden Face of Extremism the "New Wahhabi" Movement
By M. Darwish

The September 11 suicidal attacks against the World Trade Center in
New York and the Pentagon in Washington raised new questions not only
for the United States and the countries of the free world, but for
Arab and Islamic countries as well. Moderate and fundamentalist
Islamic movements have been established in Islamic and Arab countries
since the beginning of the 20th century, notably Abu al-Aala
al-Mawdoudy in Pakistan, the Al-Ikhwan al Muslimoun (Muslim
Brotherhood) movement in Egypt, and other extremist Islamic
organizations. Al-Mawdoudy played a major role in awakening Islamic
fundamentalism during the first 30 years of the 20th century. 

However, the defeat of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in  war against Israel
in 1967 was a turning point in the development of religious and
extremist groups. The capture of Al-Haram Mosque at Mecca by Juhayman
al-Qaybi and his supporters, the Ikhwans (Brothers), in Nov. 20, 1979,
marked the beginning of the "new Wahhabism" which called for religious
extremism and violence; what many people call terrorism today.

The main source of religious extremism in the Arab and Islamic world
is the first Wahhabi movement that was founded on the Najd Hill in the
village of Uyayna by Shaykh Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab. 

Born in 1703, Abdul Wahhab was taught the basics of Islam by Imam
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Shaykh Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab established an
alliance with the al-Saud family after he went to the village of
Darhiya , the al-Saud’s first emirate. Mohammed al-Saud, who was
member of the al-Anza tribes in Najd and the Syrian desert, became
prince of Darhiya in 1720. When he allied himself to Shaykh Mohammed
bin Abdul-Wahhab, he acquired two important bases of power:
-Tribalism (the al-Anza tribes)
-Religious power (The support of the Wahhabis)

The history of Wahhabism started with the call of Shaykh Mohammed bin
Abdul Wahhab in 1740. Since its beginning, Wahhabism relied on the
ideas of a Muslim scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah, who called for a return to
"real Islam", ideals taken from the Koran, the Sunna and the Hadith.
(The core of Ibn Taymiyyah’s work was, in turn, based on the teachings
of the scholar Ibn Hanbal.) Abdul Wahhab interpreted this call as a
need to return to the "fundamentals"; Islamic life as it existed in
the first days of Islam in the 8th century BCE. 

The essence of Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrine was based on the fact that real
faith should be coupled with "proper acts"; that "belief alone cannot
be complete unless it is coupled with action." Thus, Shaykh Abdul
Wahhab rejected what he considered as innovations to Islam--calling
upon prophets for intercession, building monuments, visiting tombs,
and smoking. He believed that returning to this spartan interpretation
of Islam would enable Muslims to save themselves from  deteriorating
situation. These are the precepts followed by Osama bin Laden and
extremist Sunni Islamic movements which have appeared and proliferated
in the majority of Islamic and Arab countries. (Fundamentalist Shia
movements differ in  theological interpretation and organizational
approach.)

Wahhabism was founded and spread in the Arabian Peninsula where
isolation, primitive conditions, and tribalism fostered the
development of many Islamic sects. The followers of the four main
Islamic sects were scattered throughout the Hijaz. The Qaramitas were
located in the Qatif area, the Shi’a Imamiya in al-Ihsaa, the
Zeydiyoun in Yemen, and the Shawafi’a in several areas in the region. 

The presence of these sects is documented by the presence of four
shrines, one for each sect, in Mecca. Prayers were led by four imams,
one from each sect, until the 1930’s, when such prayers were canceled
by the al-Saud family and all people began to follow one imam of the
Hanbali doctrine. Followers of Sufi sects, including the Sanousiah,
the Idrissiah, the Qadriah, the Kilaniyah and the Bektashia also lived
in the Hijaz but the al-Saud family gradually suppressed them between
1750 and 1935.

An examination of the history of the Wahhabis, who were closely allied
with the al-Saud family, shows that Wahhabism called for adopting the
jihad (Holy War), fighting any infidelity to the Wahhabi
interpretation of Islam. This was the political basis for  attacks on
al-Ihsaa and Qatar in 1795. They also launched military campaigns,
which were closer to raids than to "jihad," against Iraq between 1801
and 1810. Further attacks targeted the cities of Samawa, Souq
al-Shouyoukh, Basra, Karbala and Najaf. Karbala fell to the Wahhabis
in 1802, but resistance in Najaf prevented the Wahhabis from entering
the town.. 

It is important to note that the Wahhabis had stolen the Prophet’s
relics in Mecca in 1803. Two years later, in keeping with its belief
in Wahhabi doctrine, the al-Saud family prohibited non-Wahhabi
pilgrims from fulfilling the Hajj. Throughout the decade, the al-Sauds
continued a pattern of attempted conquest. Saud al-Saud invaded
Karbala for the second time in 1807, but he could not occupy it. In
the same year, Basra in Iraq was invaded and in 1809, Saud reached
Bousra in southern Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria).

The year 1811 marked the beginning of a new phase in the history of
Wahhabism. The movement was gaining ground, and had become a threat to
existing governments in and around Arabia. When the Ottoman Sultanate
failed to suppress the Wahhabi movement, it urged Mohammed Ali Bath,
the Egyptian Ottoman ruler, to organize military campaigns in order to
crush it. 

The first Egyptian campaign was led by Toson, Mohammed Ali Bath’s son,
who entered Taif and Mecca in 1813. Other Egyptian campaigns took
place later with equal success. The Wahhabis were defeated in Asir,
and a campaign led by Ibrahim Basha in 1816 resulted in the surrender
and total destruction of Darhiya (the capital of Wahhabism and the
al-Saud family). Between 1834 and 1838, the Egyptian Ottoman ruler,
Mohammed Ali Basha, took over the control of Arabia. 
The Wahhabi movement was still very much alive, however, due to the
continuous support of the British (through the emirs of al-Saud
family). The British had a vested interest in the continued
destabilization of the Ottoman Empire, and saw the Wahhabis as a
vehicle to that end. The Empire’s support for the cause lasted for
about half a century. 

During this period (1850-1900), the Ottomans countered by supporting
the al-Rashids , traditional rivals of Wahhabism and the al-Saud
family. 

The Ikhwan movement, a militant extension of Wahhabism, was founded in
1913. Wahhabism flourished in the oases of the Arabian Peninsula where
established villages gave them a permanent base of support and supply.
The radical Ikhwan movement preached and fought the jihad in the harsh
areas of nomads and tribes, where primitive tribal law and desert
warfare was a way of life. 

The Ikhwan shave  mustaches and grow long beards in accordance with
the Sunna which states beards must not be shaved. (This is what we see
today in all fundamentalist movements in Egypt, the Gulf countries,
Lebanon, Palestine and Algeria.) They deny modernity, and believe
telephones, cars, and watches are aspects of satanic sorcery. They
prohibit innocent games for children and refrain from planting flowers
and tending to gardens.

Abdul-Aziz al-Saud, the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
utilized the Ikhwan religious movement as a private army, and a means
to secure the backing of some of Najd’s strongest nomad tribes, such
as Utayba, Matir and Ajman. In 1916, he ordered nomad tribes that were
under his control to join the Ikhwans and embrace Wahhabism. He
integrated the nomad tribes into his power base by settling them in
villages ("Hegiras," so named after the exodus of the Prophet) which
were substantially financed by Great Britain. (Great Britain at this
time saw the Arabian Gulf as the key to the protection of  trade
routes to India, and had not yet realized the full potential of the
area’s oil reserves) Once settled, Abdul Aziz bought the cooperation
of the tribal shaykhs with offers of houses in Riyadh, money, clothes,
and food. 

Between 1913 and 1916, the Ikhwan engaged in two battles against the
Al-Sauds rivals, the al-Rashids, engaging them at Jirab and al-Ihsaa,.
The Ikhwan were defeated in both battles. Under the banner of jihad,
the Ikhwan, supported by British funds and arms, attacked the Hael
area where they finally defeated the al-Rashids. The British backed
the elimination of the al-Rashids because of  military and political
alliance with the Ottoman Sultanate.

The Ikhwan were being used by both Abdul Aziz and the British because
of  reputation as fierce warriors. The danger of the movement was its
equally fierce desire to spread  militant version of Islam throughout
the region, regardless of political boundaries. The Ikhwan attacked
Kuwait in 1921, where they were defeated at the battle of Jihra.
Kuwaiti Shaykh Salem al-Sabbah refused to capitulate to the Ikhwan and
adopt the Wahhabi faith; Great Britain intervened by bombing the
Ikhwan’s strongholds and warning them to pull out of Kuwait, which
they did. In the summer of 1922, the Ikhwan penetrated the Jordanian
territories and got close to Amman. But Jordan drove them back, again
with Great Britain’s military assistance. The British realized the
danger posed by a militant faction gaining a powerful stronghold in
the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in Kuwait, and saw the need to
keep the Ikhwan under tight control, as did Abdul Aziz.

In an attempt to counter balance the Ikhwan’s influence, sometime
after 1920 the concept of "mutawa’a" was established for the purpose
of religious education. The Mutaweh’s most important task was to guide
people to  religious obligations (ta’at), and sought to promote a more
moderate version of Islam. Abdul Aziz was well aware that he could not
continue to gain the continued financial and political support of the
outside world (notably Britain) if the Ikhwan movement gained control.
But the movement flourished as the illiterate, and some say ignorant,
religious men of the Ikhwan gained access to the larger population of
the villages and taught them the rigorous Islam that was preached by
Shaykh Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab.
 
In 1924, another conflict on the Peninsula intensifies. The Hashemite
ruler of Mecca and Medina, Sherif Hussein bin Ali, prohibited the
Ikhwan from the Hajj, claiming he wanted to protect other pilgrims
from  aggressions. In response, Abdul-Rahman al-Saud (the father of
Abdul-Aziz) convened a conference of Wahhabi scholars and the tribal
shaykhs in Riyadh. The al-Sauds needed to oust the Hashemites from
Mecca in order to consolidate  hold over the Kingdom, and have access
to the lucrative income from the pilgrimage. The conference therefore
decided that the Ikhwan being prohibited from the Hajj was a
sufficient reason to declare war. Immediately after, the Ikhwan
attacked Taif, then marched on Mecca on November 16, 1924. 

These two events were a major turning point in the history of the
Ikhwan, who had come out of the Najd Desert to clash with the outside
world. Disagreements began to arise between Abdul-Aziz and the Ikhwan,
mainly after the movement insisted on occupying Jidda by force. 
The Wahhabis, and consequently the Ikhwan, considered that any one not
practicing  militant view of Islam was an infidel; this included
fellow Muslim s who inhabited the Hijaz and Najd, as well as
Christians, Jews, and foreigners. Wahhabis accused Abdul-Aziz of
supporting infidels (the British), and being lenient in religious
issues. 

These political struggles and conflicts of interest between the
puritanical Wahhabis and the al-Saud family in the thirties played a
major role in the birth of militant movements rooted in Wahhabism
which disagreed with Saudi Arabia’s official policy, then and now. 
The dangerous rise of these factions gained definition in 1926 at the
Artawiyah conference, held by the Ikhwan and allied tribes. The
conference criticized the following specific actions of Abdul-Aziz:
-Having friendly relationships with the British (foreign infidels) and
concluding agreements with them. 
-Establishing himself as monarch (Abdul Aziz proclaimed the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia). Islam prohibits monarchy.
-Using perfume and living in palaces.
-Collecting taxes from Muslims.
-Turning a blind eye to the Shia Muslims of al-Ihsaa.
-Allowing the tribes of Iraq and Eastern Jordan to graze   cattle in
Muslim pastures.

Abdul-Aziz responded by convening the Riyadh conference in 1927. The
conference considered the Ikhwan’s resolutions in Artawiyah to be
anti-religious. It also said the Mujahadeen were "khawarej"
(apostates) whose killing and robbing was illegitimate. 
Faisal al-Dawish, one of the Ikhwan’s leaders, then proclaimed a
jihad, which he extended to Iraq. The Ikhwan continued to cross the
borders of Iraq and Jordan until Abdul-Aziz had no choice but to
declare war. 

On March 30, 1929, he engaged in the battle of Sibilla, with the
support of the British. By May the tide of battle had turned against
Abdul Aziz, as the tribes of Ajman, Matir, (Dawish) and Utayba
revolted against the al-Saud family. During this revolution, the
Ikhwan joined the tribes in plundering and pillaging.

In November, the British mediated an end to the conflict, and the
eventual surrender of the Ikhwan. Great Britain understood the value
of Saudi Arabia’s energy resources, and had in Abdul Aziz a pliable
and cash-starved ally. The Ikhwan had no place in this scenario.
Between 1931 and 1934, the majority of the Ikhwan’s leaders died while
in prison or were killed.

In retrospect, we see that Wahhabism established rules of behavior for
the Ikhwan and other fundamentalist organizations. It also taught them
to adopt fanatic, negative and dangerous positions. They refuse to
listen to music, sing, make poetry, listen to poets, or wear elegant
clothes. They do not wear jewelry nor use perfume. They consider
anyone who does not follow these strictures as unbelievers--including
other Muslims. Between 1935 and 1940, the Ikhwan killed three Muslim
consuls in Jidda because they had imitated Western dressing habits and
manners. The consuls were those of Russia, Iran and Java. They also
refused all taxes imposed by the Saudi state in its formative years. 
Though reduced in power, the Ikhwan continued to protest against
Abdul-Aziz , berating him in 1945 to 1950 for having sent his son Saud
to Egypt for medical treatment, branding Egypt the "country of
infidels." They also objected to the historic visit of his son Faisal
to Europe, saying it was "a country of even more infidels." They urged
him to prohibit the tribes of Iraq and Jordan from grazing cattle in
Saudi lands, because such tribes were infidels prohibited from
entering the lands of Muslims. The Ikhwan also urged Abdul Aziz to
refrain from having commercial relations with Iraq and Jordan because
of  infidel status.

Despite the repression of the militant Ikhwan, the Wahhabi’s
experience under the leadership of al-Saud family in Arabia from the
18th century until the present proved it is possible for modern-day
states to be based on religion. We should note that the Islamic state
in Saudi Arabia has always been a mixture of two powers: the Wahhabi
Islam (ulemma) and the tribal (political) authority represented by the
al-Saud family. In this way it differs from the structure of the
Islamic Taliban rule in Afghanistan, or the Shia structure of elected
representatives in Iran.

Just as the ancestral Wahhabis treated the inhabitants of the Arabian
Peninsula, Iraq and Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria) with rigor during
the 18th and 19th centuries, we see this austerity appearing now in
all Islamic environments where "new Wahhabism" is developing. New
Wahhabism preaches hatred toward foreigners (the West), and Jews, and
is closer to the Ikhwan militancy of the past than the more moderate
Wahhabi majority present in Saudi Arabia.

This framework allows us to understand the life of the "new Wahhabi"
communities which are spread in the form of small and steadily
expanding communities. Renouncing worldly pleasures, aspiring to the
life to come, living in austerity, worshipping, abstaining from living
in luxury and self-indulgence are praised values in such communities. 
The new Wahhabism, which is linked to the "Arab Afghans" phenomenon,
is extant in the Arab world--mainly in Egypt, Algeria, Palestine,
Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Gulf countries. In these countries and
elsewhere, new Wahhabis prepare themselves to play a social and
political role both in and outside  communities.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20226
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:13:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Filksinger wrote:

> I had heard that what he said was that using _multiple_ airliners as
> suicide weapons was too far out, not just using an airliner itself.

I didn't hear that, but I may just have missed it. It would certainly put
his comments in a more reasonable perspective... though IMHO it's still a
pretty thin dinstinction to draw.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20227
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:52:24 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd4a8b2.6152044@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> Fwiw, I've met many good and honorable police officers since college,
> but I'm pretty sure the others are still around too.

My mother-in-law went into police academy training. She dropped out before
finishing, because she found the officers racist and generally
untrustworthy. And this is in Seattle, which, until recently, was one of
those places where the cops were generally trusted, unlike, for example, Los
Angeles or New York.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20228
From: Shane Glaseman <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:07:58 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well... okay, considering L.A.'s history, I'll go with that statement. I
was one test away from entering the L.A. Sheriff's Academy, when my
thinking crystallized regarding the predominant attitude of the
increasing number of deputies I was exposed to. It wasn't so much that
they were racist; that's too specific. More, it was there "There's
cops... and everyone else" attitude. The "everyone else" were scumbags,
be they hardened criminals, gang members, shoplifters, chronic
complainers, law-abiding citizens, whatever. If you weren't a cop, you
were the enemy. They would still do the job, many going far above and
beyond the call, but if you were to ask them, it was personal pride in
doing the job, not for any altruistic "I serve the public" reason. 

I too know a number of officers who managed to hold onto the idealism
that directed them toward police work...and I know many who do the job
just as well, but have completely lost the idealism. Given the way
they're treated and viewed by the population at large (and that negative
attitude is due at least as much to our simply "not liking" authority
figures as it is to their "inherent" corruptibility), it's not
surprising that that attitude develops.

And I've never met a cop (and I live in L.A.) who wasn't trustworthy.

Shane


Filksinger wrote:
> 
> "Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3bd4a8b2.6152044@news.sff.net...
> <snip>
> > Fwiw, I've met many good and honorable police officers since college,
> > but I'm pretty sure the others are still around too.
> 
> My mother-in-law went into police academy training. She dropped out before
> finishing, because she found the officers racist and generally
> untrustworthy. And this is in Seattle, which, until recently, was one of
> those places where the cops were generally trusted, unlike, for example, Los
> Angeles or New York.
> 
> Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20229
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:28:42 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Shane Glaseman wrote:

>Given the way
> they're treated and viewed by the population at large (and that negative
> attitude is due at least as much to our simply "not liking" authority
> figures as it is to their "inherent" corruptibility), it's not
> surprising that that attitude develops.
>
> And I've never met a cop (and I live in L.A.) who wasn't trustworthy.


Shane--

    Living in a small town in the deep South, police officers are mostly
considered percieved as  trustworthy by your "average citizen"  (read white,
middle-class, middle-age) around here.  (Except, of course, when it is our
own toes that are stepped on.)  The perception tends to go down as income
and age do, and as skin gets darker.  Or as experience with those on the
"lower rungs" of the socieo-economic ladder increases.

    I find it hard to believe that you have never met a cop who wasn't
trustworthy, if you have much exposure to cops.  I have been around a _lot_
of police officers, personally and professionally, for many years.  Close
family and friends who are cops--as a criminal defense lawyer, I am the
"black sheep" of the family.;-)  There are plenty of good cops out there,
and I know a bunch of them.  But trust me, there are also too many who are a
long way from trustworthy.  There are some who I would not trust when they
said "Good Morning," without looking out the window to check for myself.
Like any other group of people, if the pool is large enough, there will be
some definite "bad apples."

    I am firmly convinced that there are people who want to be a cop simply
in order to don a badge and a gun and strut their authority.  I am not
suggesting that this is the motivation for most police officers, and good
departments try to weed them out before hiring them.  I have even been
involved with one city department's efforts to improve their screening
process for this personality factor.  But some of thm slip through.

    If you would like to read more about untrustworthiness and/or
unreliability in the system--cops, lawyers (prosecution & defense), judges,
experts, & eyewitnesses--see _Actual Innocence_, by Barry Scheck, Peter
Nuefeld, and Jim Dwyer.

--Dee




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20230
From: Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:14:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill--

     I think you mis-quoted him on this one.  What I recall him saying was
that "the idea of using hijacked airliners full of passengers was beyond
believable fiction".

"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BD507C5.7FFD3C37@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Eli Hestermann wrote:
>
> > _Red Storm Rising_ is the one you're referring to.
>
> Yup... Clancy's only fiction to date that's not part of the Ryan/Clark
universe,
> AFAIK.
>
> >  Given what you've said, Deb,
> > I sincerely doubt you'd like his later stuff.
>
> I was thinking the same. Deb complains about the character development in
_Red
> October_, but IMHO, it's Clancy's *best* effort at character development,
with the
> possible exceptions of Filitov in _Cardinal of the Kremlin_ and Clark in
_Without
> Remorse_ (though, oddly enough, in the other books Clark comes off more
like a
> comic-book superhero than a well-rounded character... IMHO, of course).
>
> > If anything, he introduces *more*
> > subplots and gee-whiz gadgets.
>
> Not to mention increasingly bizarre, wish-fulfillment type political
scenarios.
> Here's an odd thing: The day after the WTC attacks I heard Clancy sying on
the
> radio that the idea of using airliners as weapons was so far out that he'd
never
> use it in a novel, because nobody would buy it. Of course he DID use
exactly that
> device in _A Debt of Honor_/_Executive Orders_... it was how Ryan got to
be
> president, and no doubt the reason Clancy was being interviewed in the
first place.
> I was flabbergasted that he would feign such surprise.
>
> > I initially enjoyed his work, but lately it's
> > become too bloated for me.
>
> There's a great deal of sense in what you sy, but I find that I keep
reading his
> books, and looking forward to new ones. I stayed up all night reading _The
Bear and
> the Dragon_, clucking my tongue all the way through at all the things
"wrong" with
> it, but still unable to put it down. Go figure.
>
> -JovBill
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20231
From: Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:21:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BD50DDE.1431BC47@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> > Btw, I believe that Clancy is on record as hating Patriot Games
> > The Movie. . .
>
> Not surprising... but authors are never objective about things like that.
>
>
> -JovBill
>

     Clive Cussler hated the movie version of "Raise the Titanic" so much
that he vowed mever to sell movie rights again.  And he has kept it.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20232
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:23:31 -0500
Subject: cops, good and bad.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Shane Glaseman" <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org> wrote in message
news:3BD71F9E.6E769C0F@aero.org...
> Well... okay, considering L.A.'s history, I'll go with that statement. I
> was one test away from entering the L.A. Sheriff's Academy, when my
> thinking crystallized regarding the predominant attitude of the
> increasing number of deputies I was exposed to. It wasn't so much that
> they were racist; that's too specific. More, it was there "There's
> cops... and everyone else" attitude. The "everyone else" were scumbags,
> be they hardened criminals, gang members, shoplifters, chronic
> complainers, law-abiding citizens, whatever. If you weren't a cop, you
> were the enemy. They would still do the job, many going far above and
> beyond the call, but if you were to ask them, it was personal pride in
> doing the job, not for any altruistic "I serve the public" reason.
>
> I too know a number of officers who managed to hold onto the idealism
> that directed them toward police work...and I know many who do the job
> just as well, but have completely lost the idealism. Given the way
> they're treated and viewed by the population at large (and that negative
> attitude is due at least as much to our simply "not liking" authority
> figures as it is to their "inherent" corruptibility), it's not
> surprising that that attitude develops.

I have two stories about the RIGHT way to run police departments.

A former associate of mine worked for a county sheriff's department and told
this story of a training class at the University of Illinois training
program for would-be cops. They were instructing the students in the correct
way to make a traffic stop. The trainers were going out of the way to throw
curves at the trainees. Sometimes the "motorist" had a come, sometimes they
were just belligerent, sometimes racist, etc. It is all designed to show
them the stresses they will face.

Then it was the turn of this one cadet. He already had been working for a
community and as far as he was concerned, all this was a formality. He had
been on the job for all of six months and there was nothing these old men
could teach him.

When it was his turn, he walked up to the within a few feet of the driver's
door, took a stance, pulled out his gun and went "Bang!" He laughed and
turned around, at which point the training officer told him to pack his
things, he was expelled. Such expulsions are permanent, which pretty much
meant he lost his job and would never be a police officer in Illinois.

One less cowboy we have to worry about.

Case two: I once attended a village board meeting which trustees voted to
close to discuss a personnel matter. As I walked out to wait in the next
room, in walked a serious-faced young police officer.

Only later did I learn what transpired. A citizen had made a complaint. One
night the officer was inside a local biker on routine business. A patron
extended his hand to shake with the officer. The officer refused and an
argument ensued and a formal complaint was made for this, as well as other
incidents.

As the officer explained to trustees, he believed he was under no obligation
to be friendly or even cordial to a person he considered a lowlife. Of the
trustees was a former police officer and in fact still wore a badge as an
investigator for the secretary of state in Illinois. Within a short period
of time this officer found employment elsewhere.

Nothing the cop did was deserving of termination. But the village had one
less cowboy to worry about.

You see, even lowlifes are taxpayers. Experienced cops will tell you it
doesn't pay to make enemies by way of rudeness. For all that cop knew, the
lowlife might have been the one to provide a much-needed tip a year down the
road. Or he might be a witness to a crime.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20233
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:33:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Logan's Run (was Starship Troopers -- The Movie)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Hmm. Lurkers shouldn't oughta rant that much. Sorry.

  Shane--
  You ought to delurk more often. That was an excellent analysis of
the movie vs the book. (And nice to meet you, BTW). You do have me at
a disadvantage as it's been decades since I read the book. I did read
the sequels but have almost no memory of them--that was at a point
where I read pretty much any and all science fiction to come out. 

  A lot comes down to taste, of course. In the case of the Mt.
Rushmore scene you seem to like, that struck me then and now as
standing out as something disconnected from the actual story. It's
like the author had a file of cool scenes and plugged them into the
book just to use the cool scenes, rather than them coming out of any
driving need of the story to have the scenes, and to have them set
there (travelogue, in a way). The movie does the same thing in some
scenes, too, though (it's not a great movie--I just think it's better
than the book). The hologram scene at the end is there because they
could do a hologram scene and had to work it in--first movie to use
the neat new toy ("The Mattrix" had a reason to use the effects it
did, none of the following movies to follow it have yet use it because
it looks neat). 

  The poor movie suffered most from Star Wars coming out the next year
and tromping it every which way in look, style and dynamics. It's such
a clear transition in science fiction film styles--Logan's Run to Star
Wars, with Logan's Run having the look of the old sf movie style and
Star Wars the new. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20234
From: jrfranks@USA.NET (J. Robert Franks)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:43:20 GMT
Subject: Re: History of Islamic Extremism
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 03:43:18 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:

[snip]                         Abdul Wahhab interpreted this call as a
>need to return to the "fundamentals"; Islamic life as it existed in
>the first days of Islam in the 8th century BCE. 
>
shouldn't that be the 8th century CE (or A.D.)?

--
bob
J. Robert Franks
Goldsboro, NC
jrfranks@USA.NET

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20235
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:53:42 GMT
Subject: Re: History of Islamic Extremism
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:43:20 GMT, jrfranks@USA.NET (J. Robert Franks)
wrote:

>shouldn't that be the 8th century CE (or A.D.)?

I'm sure the author must have meant CE.  I didn't notice myself until
after I posted it, having just cut and pasted from the website.

A small mistake, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20236
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:06:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Charles Graft wrote:

> I think you mis-quoted him on this one.

That's a rather unfriendly way of putting it, since "misquoted" typically
carries an implication of deliberate deception. I  can assure you I didn't
misrepresent what I heard... but, as I said when someone else pointed out the
distinction more politely, I believe I did *miss* part of the statement. I
suspect I was in and out of the room while the interview was on; I tend to do
that.

>  What I recall him saying was
> that "the idea of using hijacked airliners full of passengers was beyond
> believable fiction".

I agree that makes the comment make more sense... but I still think the
distinction between 9/11 and the _Debt of Honor_ scenario is very thin: In each
case a commercial airliner was used as a weapon of mass destruction in a
quasi-military strike against the U.S. That the airliner in Clancy's book was
empty of innocent passengers only changes the *size* of the slaughter, not its
moral character... and the pilot's status as a bereaved would-be samurai no
more justifies his act than any of the so-called grievances bin Laden cites
justifies the WTC attacks. My guess (note the word "guess"; I'm not claiming
any direct knowledge here) is that Clancy is horrified at how fundametally
similar the 9/11 attack was to the blueprint he laid out, an is desperately
trying to distance himself from it all.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:29:44
First article in this archive:  20204
Last article in this archive:   20236
Oldest article in this archive: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:24:27 -0400
Newest article in this archive: 21 Nov 2001 02:29:46 GMT