June 2004 posts
Could Angel and his
crew possibly survive the Post-Finale? -- megaslayer, 20:23:35
06/09/04 Wed
In my opinion they have the determination to survive wolfram and
harts army. Angel is still considerably powerful from Hamilton's
blood and Illyria is nearly as powerful, so they both can most
likely to survive. Spike is nearly as strong as Angel is and will
fight. Gunn is most likely to die considering his wounds. They
must of seriously hurt the Wolfram&Hart by destroying the Black
Thorn, if they sent that army. The Black Thorn must of took great
time and planning to organize their level of power on Earth.
Replies:
[> Re: Could Angel and his crew possibly survive the Post-Finale?
-- head_wizard, 20:46:38 06/09/04 Wed
They could have survived, with Angel anything is possible, who
knows a Power that Be could step in and take them away, It can
go anyway, As for hurting Wolfram and Hart it seems that they
did, but what about the other offices on earth? Shouldn't they
still be there to help the Wolf Ram and Hart?
[> [> Re: Could Angel and his crew possibly survive the
Post-Finale? -- Cheryl, 22:31:21 06/09/04 Wed
I think it's likely they survive, possibly even Gunn if he gets
knocked out and pushed aside so he's not in the heat of the battle.
Angel initiated the battle that night so the SP didn't have time
to organize a real battle plan. And since everyone associated
with the Circle is gone, it will take awhile for them to regroup.
And, yes, Angel has the power boost from Hamilton's blood. Illyria's
grief and rage will keep her going. And, Spike is Spike - he loves
the fight and will be a fierce warrior. I'm surprised they went
into this with brute force alone, though, and without any mojo
up their sleeves. So maybe the PTB will intervene somehow, or
some slayers (possibly *the* slayer) will show up, as well. But
since no one knew about the impending battle (or did Angel call
Giles or Buffy - or Andrew - first?), it's not likely they would
show up.
Still, they have a fighting (pun intended) chance. And, besides,
this was supposed to be the original S5 ending anyway, wasn't
it? With a season 6 to follow? Or a movie?
[> [> [> Re: Could Angel and his crew possibly survive
the Post-Finale? -- Rich, 07:08:40 06/10/04 Thu
Slayers frequently dream of impending danger - and an army of
demons in Los Angeles might qualify, especially since both Buffy
& Faith have personal connections to Angel and Spike. Maybe they
already know ?
[> [> [> [> Re: Could Angel and his crew possibly
survive the Post-Finale? -- skeeve, 07:52:16 06/10/04 Thu
Then again, maybe an LA Slayer happened
to notice an army of demons running by.
My recollection is that there was once a prime-time soap
opera in which a season finale left most of the cast in danger.
The episode title was something like "Contract Renewals".
[> [> [> [> Re: Could Angel and his crew possibly
survive the Post-Finale? -- BrianWilly, 14:18:04 06/10/04
Thu
Maybe Willow was able to sense this sudden incredibly massive
outpour of dark energy and would alert the others. Don't know
if she has enough power now to teleport the entire Slayer army
to LA...but hey, makes for good fanfic;).
[> [> [> Not exactly the same -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:37:25 06/10/04 Thu
The last few episodes hadn't been filmed yet when Joss found out
the show was cancelled, so there was time to make some changes.
Think of it like "The Gift" in reverse. The original
plan for the end of Season 5 was to have Tara die, Willow go evil
because of that and Buffy having to kill her, (possibly) Xander
being Glory's host and Giles having to kill him, and all of Sunnydale
being sucked into hell. How the season actually ended was very
close to Joss's original plan, but with some changes made because
he knew it would no longer be the final season. Likewise, I think
the general plot of the Season 5 finale went unchanged, but some
of the specifics were. I suspect the original idea still had the
Fang Gang fighting the vengeful forces of W&H, but not necessarily
using such bleak descriptives (the version we got had Angel saying
they had 9/10 odds of being destroyed in the aftermath, and Gunn
making a "30,000 on the right/30,000 on the left" remark).
Here's my view of what could happen:
Gunn is definitely dead. I think when Illyria said he had ten
minutes left, she meant that would be how long it would take before
his wounds got the better of him. Maybe he can take out two or
three demons in the time he has left, but in the end he dies pretty
quickly. As for the others, I'd give 50/50 odds of at least one
of them getting out alive, provided they make a run for it when
the enemy forces start to slow down. See, I'm personally of the
opinion that the Senior Partners, in their desperation to take
down Angel and Co., will keep bringing in demons from their various
offices (in other cities and in other dimensions) via portals
until they get the job done. If our heroes stay fighting in that
alley until all the demons coming after them are gone, they will
not survive. However, if they survive long enough (the giant and
dragon alone seem like enough to make their survival unlikely),
I think the tide of demons may slow down for a bit before the
next shipment arrives, just long enough for anyone left standing
to escape. How long they'd be able to hide, I don't know; if the
Senior Partners keep coming after them, I think nothing short
of Lindsey-style tatoos could keep them from getting killed. But,
as others have said, there could be PTB interference, maybe the
Senior Partners change their mind, or maybe something else changes
matters.
[> I've never seen anybody remember (5:22 spoilers)
-- KdS, 11:25:33 06/10/04 Thu
That Illyria is at least technically immortal, even if its current
body gets hammered imto splinters. Of course, it's an open question
whether it would decide to head back to the Well for another few
million years, in the hope that the world would improve, or whether
it would go and grab another body.
[> David Fury has revealed the plans for Season 6 (spoilers,
I guess) -- Merle, 19:06:32 06/10/04 Thu
In Dreamwatch. An excerpt was posted to fireflyfans.net:
"If Angel had come back next year, it would have been post-apocalyptic.
I don't mean like Dark Angel with just a bunch of industrial buildings,
I mean Mad Max Road Warrior. Season six would have been hugely
post-apocalyptic, with Angel as the Road Warrior. That was the
idea for the next season, so with that in mind we knew the end
of season five was heading into something huge and global and
monumental. In the finale, they basically start a war and it's
a war that will have huge good and evil implications of almost
Biblical proportions. It would have been very different next year,
and a little more sci-fi, I guess." - David Fury
I wonder if they would have gone the same route with the tv movies
-- has there been any recent news about the likelihood of them
happening?
"A Hole in the World"/"Shells":
The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The Lusty and Leathery
One), 00:28:11 06/10/04 Thu
Ahh, how I love the smell of emotional carnage in the morning!
"A Hole in the World" and "Shells" were perhaps
the finest moments of the series to date. Argue with me if you
will, but you'll be wrong. Let's see just what made these episodes
classics to be treasured deeply by demon families of all generations:
Fashion Statements
The Good
Wesley should always wear a black turtleneck sweater. And a brown
leather coat. And a shotgun to accessorize.
Illyria's leathery fashion statement is bold, it's unusual--I
have to congratulate her. I love the color of her leather. Most
people wouldn't think to put reddish leather with bluish skin
and hair, but I personally love the contrast. The semi-organic
feel of the leathery coating is really quite smashing. I could
nitpick on the footwear, but she's quite correct that stillettos,
lovely as they are for intimidation, are not the thing to fight
in. I believe Glory demonstrated that.
Perhaps it's not a fashion statement per se, but the Conduit choosing
to clothe itself as another Charles Gunn was truly a bravura performance.
The Bad
Oh, where to begin? Angel just gets duller by the day. Gray striped
shirt with charcoal pants under a black trench--tell me something
I don't know.
Fred's mother in that disastrous gray frock. It simply could not
have gotten any worse.
Harmony yet again pinks up the screen, and to add to it, she was
wearing the hair of a Miss America contestant. Lowlight it, honey!
Drogyn looked so dull. Really, dear, if you're going for a LotR-reject
look, you didn't have to pick Aragorn at his most travel-stained.
I did not like Gunn's shirt. Stripes with dots works for practically
no one. Yet that pales beside the worst offender:
The Truly Horrific
Knox out of his lab coat. The pants were horrendous and ill-fitting,
and the shirt was belched up from the same fashion hell that inflicted
the '70s on us.
Lorne
Powder blue jacket over multi-colored print button-down.
Plot in a Nutshell
Angel and Spike have a screaming 40-minute fight, leading to Angel
trying to break up with Spike ("This isn't working . . .
I mean, you and me."). However, they end up flying to England
together and holding hands, and Spike decides he won't let Angel
push him away. Angel, naturally, capitulates, and they continue
to be together.
Oh, and Fred dies and is replaced by Illyria.
Demonic Quibbles and Comments
Ah, the Deeper Well! I remember it fondly from when I interred
my secondary sire there a few millennia back (and made damned
sure he wouldn't be getting out). The Guardian then wasn't nearly
as cute as Drogyn, unfortunately--he was actually a half-breed
Gnalish. But I digress: yes, most of the Old Ones that didn't
skip a dimension are there. The rest are either still gone or
have adapted. Myself, for instance--I periodically choose to install
myself in a human whose brains have been burnt out by something
or other (in this one's case, it's middle-schoolers that did the
job), but I keep an apartment in the fashionable district of the
City of Dis.
I must quibble with the depiction of Fred's death. As one who
has many a time caused an enemy's internal organs to liquefy,
I can tell you that it's far messier than they portrayed. They
start bleeding from every orifice, they might expel partially-disintegrated
organs--very nasty, and it makes a horrid mess on the floor. Advice:
do it at your adversary's home, not yours, or your housekeeping
staff will simply hate you.
Body Count
Fred
Knox
A bunch of guardian demons at the Deeper Well
Highlights
Again, where do I start? Seeing Gunn so chipper, so deeply corrupted,
and so totally unaware of what he'd wrought was a joy in retrospect.
Angel and Spike's screaming argument. They could've lingered on
that as long as they'd wanted.
Fred vomiting blood.
Lorne knocking Eve's overbite back into place and threatening
her with death. I knew he had it in him!
Wesley kneecapping a random W&H lackey. That's my boy! Back to
the Dark Side, Wesley!
Angel and Spike holding hands. Aww!
Alexis Denisof's acting. *Sigh!*
Gunn getting beaten on by the Conduit.
Gunn realizing his little error. Priceless!
Gunn thrashing Knox. The boy deserves it just for the way he dresses.
Fred dead, replaced by Illyria. That's how you make an entrance,
people.
Wesley stabbing Gunn! Yeah!
Wesley popping Knox! And right in the middle of a boring Angelic
speech!
Harmony getting tossed around by Illyria.
Angel getting thrown out a window by Illyria.
Illyria forcefully demonstrating why you don't mess with an Old
One.
Lowlights
Nausea-inducing flashbacks to Fred's Texas homestead. Gleh.
Having to abide those gods-bedamned lab coats. Argh!
Having to abide angsty let's-save-Fred speeches.
Wesley thinking he might have been wrong about killing Knox. No!
Go back the other way, honey--you were doing fine!
Burning Questions
Here's one for the ages: can you truly destroy a soul? It is energy--spiritual
energy, but energy nonetheless, and according to the laws of conservation
of matter and energy, it couldn't have been simply destroyed.
Converted, yes; destroyed, no. So what was it converted into?
Did Angel really want to break up with Spike?
Why does Drogyn hate questions so much?
Did you see how many fingers Spike was holding up?
Can Wesley possibly get any sexier?
Caveman or astronaut?
The Immoral of the Story
Never trust a dweeb.
Overall Rating
The highest I've ever given: 1/2 over a bluish pinata plus a blood
orange on the Non Sequitur Scale. This two-parter deserves it.
Replies:
[> Snappy Answers to Burning Questions -- cjl, 07:55:26
06/10/04 Thu
Blessings upon your house and your split-level brain, O Divinely
Venomous One! To answer your burning (and itching) questions:
1. Did Angel really want to break up with Spike?
No, of course not. Spike and Angel arguing about Cavemen vs. Astronauts
is like an old married couple arguing for two hours about who
left the toilet seat up (or down). If they somehow get out of
that alleyway, they're going to rent a time share on Fire Island
over the summer.
2. Why does Drogyn hate questions so much?
Because everybody keeps asking him, "Hey, weren't you that
guy in Lord of the Rings?"
3. Did you see how many fingers Spike was holding up?
I forget. I think I was waiting for Spike to ask Drogyn about
the load-carrying capacity of a European (or African) swallow.
4. Can Wesley possibly get any sexier?
You're asking the wrong guy. But if we could put him back in bed
with Lilah for some marathon S&M sessions, I wouldn't be too upset.
5. Caveman or astronaut?
Cavemen. The series was cancelled.
[> [> Re: Snappy Answers to Burning Questions --
Honorificus (The Inspired and Inspiring One), 11:51:05 06/10/04
Thu
1. Did Angel really want to break up with Spike?
No, of course not. Spike and Angel arguing about Cavemen vs. Astronauts
is like an old married couple arguing for two hours about who
left the toilet seat up (or down). If they somehow get out of
that alleyway, they're going to rent a time share on Fire Island
over the summer.
My thoughts exactly. I've got one they could sub-lease. Of course,
I might drop in from time to time. Unannounced. At odd hours of
the day and night.
2. Why does Drogyn hate questions so much?
Because everybody keeps asking him, "Hey, weren't you that
guy in Lord of the Rings?"
Poor fellow. There must be many, many corpses buried around the
Deeper Well.
3. Did you see how many fingers Spike was holding up?
I forget. I think I was waiting for Spike to ask Drogyn about
the load-carrying capacity of a European (or African) swallow.
Just FYI, dear, he was giving Drogyn the British two-fingered
salute. Also, have you seen Wisteria's screencap reviews? Clever
woman, she.
4. Can Wesley possibly get any sexier?
You're asking the wrong guy. But if we could put him back in bed
with Lilah for some marathon S&M sessions, I wouldn't be too upset.
I'll have a minion make the popcorn.
5. Caveman or astronaut?
Cavemen. The series was cancelled.
My thoughts exactly, may they rot in a thousand hells.
[> Re: "A Hole in the World"/"Shells":
The Super-Evil Review -- Morph (lurking, just reading...for
5 years), 18:44:21 06/10/04 Thu
Honorificus-I have been reading the board for several years, and
nothing is as enjoyable as your super-evil reviews. To me, they
are better than any "wild-feed" could ever be. Have
you ever thought of archiving all your super-evil reviews, and
maybe, just maybe...doing the entire Buffy/Angel series? Then
publishing the entire thing, so those of us who worship the reviews
could have the book next to our bed as we endlessly watch our
DVS's?
[> [> You show excellent taste, my dear. -- Honorificus
(The Kind-hearted and Coldly-calculatinig One), 19:58:55 06/10/04
Thu
I believe one of the minions of this board does have them archived
somewhere. I can't be bothered to look, of course. Good luck with
that.
Also, you may check my Super-Boring Alter-Ego's pathetic livejournal
in which she records her non-life for other reviews, including
that of *shudder* "Smile Time." The link:
Frighteningly
dull LJ, enlivened only by My presence
[> Marvelous, as usual. -- Vyrus, 10:50:03 06/11/04
Fri
Harmony yet again pinks up the screen, and to add to it, she
was wearing the hair of a Miss America contestant.
Really? Was the scalp still bleeding, or did she have time to
wash it before she put it on?
Knox out of his lab coat. The pants were horrendous and ill-fitting,
and the shirt was belched up from the same fashion hell that inflicted
the '70s on us.
Ah, yes, I've visited that one. Mere seconds after I arrived,
I became so weighted down with gold medallions that I barely got
out alive. The platform shoes didn't facilitate my escape, either.
Oh, and Fred dies and is replaced by Illyria.
Who is looking much better than the last time I saw him, I must
say.
Ah, the Deeper Well! I remember it fondly from when I interred
my secondary sire there a few millennia back (and made damned
sure he wouldn't be getting out).
As I recall, you passed the Guardian a bribe and said, "Put
him somewhere in the middle, won't you?" Clever girl.
Myself, for instance--I periodically choose to install myself
in a human whose brains have been burnt out by something or other
(in this one's case, it's middle-schoolers that did the job),
but I keep an apartment in the fashionable district of the City
of Dis.
I'm always amused when some particularly naughty rap artist arrives
there and asks a strange demon, "Yo, where dis?" The
conversation that follows usually rivals "Who's on First,
What's on Second."
Here's one for the ages: can you truly destroy a soul? It is
energy--spiritual energy, but energy nonetheless, and according
to the laws of conservation of matter and energy, it couldn't
have been simply destroyed. Converted, yes; destroyed, no. So
what was it converted into?
Given that it was FRED'S soul, probably an air freshener.
Caveman or astronaut?
Astronaut. Caveman is gamey and needs to marinate for days before
it's even remotely edible.
[> [> Vyrus! Darling! -- Honorificus (The Scintillatingly
Scandalicious), 11:39:19 06/11/04 Fri
Harmony yet again pinks up the screen, and to add to it, she
was wearing the hair of a Miss America contestant.
Really? Was the scalp still bleeding, or did she have time to
wash it before she put it on?
It certainly should have been bleeding,
considering the amount of teasing and peroxide that went into
it.
Knox out of his lab coat. The pants were horrendous
and ill-fitting, and the shirt was belched up from the same fashion
hell that inflicted the '70s on us.
Ah, yes, I've visited that one. Mere seconds after I arrived,
I became so weighted down with gold medallions that I barely got
out alive. The platform shoes didn't facilitate my escape, either.
I despise that dimension. Last time I got
dumped in there by a rival, I got the full Glam Rock treatment.
I took thoroughly bloody vengeance once I escaped.
Oh, and Fred dies and is replaced by Illyria.
Who is looking much better than the last time I saw him, I must
say.
Indeed. He/she/it was looking a little peaked
back in the Primordeum. The long rest did it good.
Ah, the Deeper Well! I remember it fondly from when
I interred my secondary sire there a few millennia back (and made
damned sure he wouldn't be getting out).
As I recall, you passed the Guardian a bribe and said, "Put
him somewhere in the middle, won't you?" Clever girl.
The one virtue to those pesky Guardians:
they are susceptible to bribery. Not to threats or blackmail,
but bribery. So very glad I had that C-note on me.
Myself, for instance--I periodically choose to install
myself in a human whose brains have been burnt out by something
or other (in this one's case, it's middle-schoolers that did the
job), but I keep an apartment in the fashionable district of the
City of Dis.
I'm always amused when some particularly naughty rap artist arrives
there and asks a strange demon, "Yo, where dis?" The
conversation that follows usually rivals "Who's on First,
What's on Second."
And then the game of Rapper Basketball--I
love that!
Here's one for the ages: can you truly destroy a soul?
It is energy--spiritual energy, but energy nonetheless, and according
to the laws of conservation of matter and energy, it couldn't
have been simply destroyed. Converted, yes; destroyed, no. So
what was it converted into?
Given that it was FRED'S soul, probably an air freshener.
When you're right, you're right.
Caveman or astronaut?
Astronaut. Caveman is gamey and needs to marinate for days before
it's even remotely edible.
My thoughts exactly. I don't know what Angel
and Spike were on about.
Scythe activated slayers
-- Greg White, 07:09:10 06/10/04 Thu
I think that the scythe activated slayers will do lots of good
and protect lots of innocent people.Doing the spell to activate
them was a good idea.
Replies:
[> Re: Scythe activated slayers -- Ames, 07:47:51
06/10/04 Thu
Actually there's no reason to believe that activating all the
Potentials as Slayers was a good idea. It turned out not to be
necessary, since The First Evil was destroyed by Wolfram & Hart's
amulet.
There were said to be "hundreds or perhaps thousands"
of potential Slayers around the world. These are now all activated.
As we saw with Dana in the Angel episode Damage, the personalities
and intentions of these new Slayers are no different than they
were before. Maybe Buffy and the gang can round up some of them
and convert them to the cause, but that's a big job. What are
these Slayers going to be up to in the meantime?
In Joss Whedon's world, everything has consequences, sometimes
unforeseen ones. If you want to see some of the future consequences
of Buffy's actions in Chosen, read Joss's comic book Fray, set
a couple of centuries in the future. Joss says that Fray is canon,
i.e., a true part of the continuing Buffyverse story.
[> [> If the Slayers hadn't been activated... --
BrianWilly, 14:15:01 06/10/04 Thu
...whoever wearing the amulet would have been ripped apart by
the Ubervamps in the Hellmouth within seconds of stepping in there,
long before the amulet had a chance to activate. So yeah...kinda
WAS necessary.
I'm not going to rehash my entire, paragraphs-long stance about
how many Slayers helping each other through life being incalculably
better than one single, lonely, and opressed girl who faces overwhelming
evil every day and had no choice in the matter...suffice to say
that it is.
Dana was the rarity in this situation, not the norm...an extremity
that has since been dealt with. As was Faith. It's not practical
to judge the entire scope of awakened Slayers through their mentalities
or lack thereof.
[> I agree -- Bjerkley, 14:53:59 06/10/04 Thu
And while actions always have consequences, that's not to say
consequences can't be reasonably dealt with.
I've always thought it a non-starter argument that the Slayers
shouldn't have been activated on the basis that there might be
a tiny minority that would deal with it badly. Given the strong
emancipation theme of the Slayers being activated, I'm not keen
on the idea that this should not happen because they can't be
trusted.
[> [> Re: I agree -- Wizard, 15:27:24 06/10/04
Thu
Any arguments that I had about activating all the world's potentials
is that only a fraction of them actually had a choice in the matter.
A very small fraction. The rest, while empowered, were forced
into a war that they had no idea was even being waged. The forces
of evil were not going to take that lying down. The potentials
outside Sunnydale had targets painted on their backs. I'm not
saying that the mass-activation wasn't neccessary. If the only
people in the Hellmouth with power were Buffy, Spike, and Faith,
they would have been slaughtered before the amulet could work.
I'm sure that, given time, Willow would have been able to figure
out a way to only activate the Potentials in Sunnydale, but she
obviously didn't have the time. I wish that we could have gotten
an episode that dealt with W&H trying to eliminate or recruit
some Slayers. It would have made the Scooby distrust of the Fang
Gang more believable, finding that the Gang was working with the
same people who were interested in the Slayers.
[> [> [> Re: I agree -- Bjerkley, 15:33:08
06/10/04 Thu
I understand the choice arguments better, although I think the
only alternatives is to ensure that all Slayers choose to become
one (which opens up a logisitcal nightmare that wouldnt work on
TV too well), or that no girl ever becomes a Slayer again. Because
one girl having no choice is just as bad as 100,000 having no
choice.
Also, the potentials already had painted targets on their backs
whether or not they were activated. The potential getting killed
in the very first scene of season 7 told us that much. At least
this way they get a fighting chance :-)
[> [> [> Re: I agree -- BrianWilly, 16:13:26
06/10/04 Thu
The rest, while empowered, were forced into a war that they
had no idea was even being waged.
Why will they be forced? There are more than enough Slayers now
so that anyone who doesn't want to fight won't have to, as opposed
to before when there was only one and so she had to.
The potentials outside Sunnydale had targets painted on their
backs.
Targets for who, exactly? The only time that Potentials had been
targetted for assassination before they were even called was from
the First and its Bringers...not only do the newly awakened Slayers
now have the power to deal with that threat, that threat doesn't
actually even exist anymore.
I don't understand this concept that all awakened Slayers are
like beacons for the supernatural evil to hunt down. Not only
does Spike mention that going out and actively seeking out Slayers
makes him a rarity in his world as opposed to the norm, as long
as Buffy kept a relatively secret identity her life was pretty
much unthreatened. There was Slayerfest, but that was based on
the premise that neither Buffy and Faith had secret identities
anymore and was openly slaying. So as long as the new Slayers
don't go around with signs around their necks saying "SLAYER
PRIDE! KILL ME NOW!" there's no reason to think that they're
going to become targets. And besides, they now have the power
to deal with these kinds of threats should they exist, not to
mention the camaraderie and numbers to back them up.
[> [> [> [> My logic is thus (Spoilers for Frey
and 'Not Fade Away') -- Wizard, 19:05:17 06/10/04 Thu
As Willow (IIRC) said, they didn't save the world, they changed
it. When they activated all the Potentials, everywhere, they changed
the rules. When there was only one Slayer, the demons could afford
to leave her alone unless she came for them. Besides the prestige,
why risk one's own existence to kill something that is not currently
a threat?
Now, though, there is a worldwide infestation of Slayers. They're
everywhere. And sooner or later, chances are that some demon leader
is going to propose a temporary amnesty amongst demons while they
join forces to eliminate the Slayers. After all, one Slayer is
bad enough. Hundreds, maybe thousands of Slayers? Unbearable.
Intolerable, even. And if large groups of demons agree to temporarily
put aside their differences to hunt, they are going to want to
be thorough and wipe all the Slayers out. They could well have
the numbers to do it, especially with the Slayers that haven't
been found or trained yet.
Of course, this is only a conjecture. It is entirely possible
that such a demon leader won't emerge. But we know that an apocalypse
is coming, one in which the Slayer (or Slayers) finally kick out
the last demons and much of the world's magics. It may start with
the fight that Angel has set off, or it could be that the Slayers
are forced to fight a war against an army of demons which makes
the forces dispatched by the Wolf, the Ram, and the Hart look
like a half-assed street gang. Again, this is all conjecture,
but it is my theory.
[> [> [> Why do you assume ...? -- Ames, 19:14:06
06/10/04 Thu
... that the amulet-assault-team entering the Hellmouth would
have been slaughtered too quickly for the amulet to work if they
hadn't been Slayers?
We know:
a) the amulet came from W&H, and it was clearly a cruise missile
from the Senior Partners directed against the First Evil in their
private vendetta
b) the Senior Partners don't mind if a bunch of the good guys
get slaughtered in the process of taking out the First Evil
c) the amulet activated when it wanted to activate
It was probably waiting for the most opportune moment, when the
good guys had taken enough of a licking and not enough of the
Turok-Han army had escaped yet. If that had happened sooner, the
amulet would have activated sooner.
[> [> [> [> Assuming this is directed to my above
post -- BrianWilly, 22:23:29 06/10/04 Thu
The impression that you give of the amulet is that it's some sort
of sentient, malicious, evil thing. Not only do we not know that,
but it seems to me to be the opposite of what the amulet
actually represented.
We know:
a) the amulet came from W&H, and it was clearly a cruise missile
from the Senior Partners directed against the First Evil in their
private vendetta
b) the Senior Partners don't mind if a bunch of the good guys
get slaughtered in the process of taking out the First Evil
c) the amulet activated when it wanted to activate
However, we also know that
d) the amulet channels pure solar energy by using the soul of
a true Champion as the focus...the end result being that
one particular Hellmouth is destroyed and closed forever.
That to me almost completely dispels all possibility for the amulet
to be anything but a tool intended for the side of good. Sun =
symbol of hope and Sacrifice = Christ imagery. After all, just
because Wolfram & Hart owned it doesn't mean it's automatically
evil or meant for evil. From the metaphorical angle -- and we
all know Joss's penchant for the metaphorical angle -- the amulet
almost certainly represents the spark/soul of goodness inside
a person and its ability to eradicate darkness.
And I don't think we actually know "c)" to be true...that
seems like a bit of an assumption. If you'll recall, Spike gradually
began to feel sizzling energy from the amulet long before it actually
worked its true power. That to me indicates that the amulet doesn't
just activate whenever it wants to, but that it's a timed process.
Maybe it was drawing ambient energy from within the Hellmouth(my
favored theory), or maybe it was sort of a timebomb that begins
counting down from a certain trigger. Certainly it wasn't waiting
for the good guys to croak.
And even besides all these points: Buffy would have been a bigger
fool than anyone had ever taken her to be if she went down into
the Hellmouth with some "thirty-odd pimply faced girls who
don't know the end of a stake" expecting to beat the army
of some hundreds of Turok-han. No one knew what the amulet was
actually supposed to do...it was doubtful that Wolfram & Hart
themselves even knew. Regardless of the fact that this actually
happened, should Buffy have just expected the tiny tricket to
save them all and went down there with no plan of attack at all?
Of course not.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Assuming this is directed
to my above post -- Ames, 10:45:32 06/11/04 Fri
All good arguments also. Don't you just love ambiguity?
All the same, some day I'd like to know more about what's up between
TPTB, W&H, the FE, and Illyria.
CJL's Review of ANGEL Season
Five, Part One (fifth in his annoying occasional series) --
cjl, 07:13:21 06/10/04 Thu
And so it ends--not with a bang, but with a rumble, as Angel and
his crew of do-gooders set their jaws and prepare to roll the
rock up the hill one last time for our viewing pleasure. Joss
went for the Myth of Sisyphus ending, as I'd always suspected.
No reward in the offing, no benediction from the Powers That Be,
no ultimate victory in sight-just the satisfaction of a job well
done and a battle well fought. As someone who punches the clock
every day and tries to make the world a better place through my
tiny contribution to the magazine, I saw it as an optimistic ending.
It was both a final statement about the character of Angel and
a statement of purpose about Joss himself: he knows his time in
the media spotlight is limited, and he intends to battle the forces
of greed and mediocrity as long and as hard as he can. I hope
Angel's last stand will be remembered by talented writers and
producers who are still fighting the ever-increasing banality
of American television within the system, and who can keep the
flame alive until quality scripted programming returns full force.
I light my candle in solidarity.
In the meantime, let's look back on Season Five and the path to
that final battle. As David Boreanaz himself noted, ANGEL S5 was
a great deal like Season One, with a brand new premise, a brand
new set, stand-alone episodes, and an atmosphere of constant experimentation.
But Season Five had two big advantages over Season One: first,
the Mutant Enemy writing staff had enough experience after eight
years of producing television to neatly place the threads of a
season-long plotline within the individual episodes; and second,
many of the key character interactions in Season 5 benefited from
the cumulative power of Joss Whedon's creation. Did the writers
exploit this cumulative power to its full advantage? Did they
do justice to Tim Minear's radical restructuring of Angel's world
in "Home"? Did all our favorite characters get a chance
to shine in the spotlight?
Well--yes and no....
WHAT WORKED:
1. Angel and Spike
Remember when this was the most contested topic of discussion
on the ANGEL boards? Was there room enough for two ensouled vampires
on the same show? Would Spike "take over" the series?
In retrospect, the apprehension and arguments were kind of silly.
ME deliberately structured the Angel/Spike relationship in Season
5 as a love story--not in a "Ho-yay!" sort of way (although
there was that "one time")--but as the love of brothers
who rediscovered each other after a long estrangement. Joss and
crew meticulously dealt with all the issues separating Spike and
Angel over the course of the season, ending with "The Girl
in Question" and the hot button topic (Buffy) that started
all the arguments in the first place. There were times when Spike
and Angel's banter saved an entire episode from falling flat,
and their Season 5 interactions both honored and enriched the
previous seven years of characterization. Some might say that
Spike as an individual got a little short changed in the process
of Angel/Spike bonding, but "Destiny," "Damage"
and the poetry slam in "Not Fade Away" were more than
good enough for me.
2. Ghosts in the Machine
I had a few problems with the Wolfram and Hart plotline (see below),
but the one part ME got right was the soul-deadening aspect of
working inside a corporate monolith. The endless deadlines, the
lack of sleep, the vague pronouncements and ill-defined goals
of the higher-ups, your personal identity swallowed by the collective--all
handled with stark realism, as befitting a writing staff working
within the belly of the beast. Wolfram and Hart was like Spiritual
Death for the Fang Gang, and watching Angel putter forlornly around
his enormous kingdom in episodes like Soul Purpose and You're
Welcome was sublime melancholia.
3. Gunn
After three years of solid, if unspectacular support work and
only occasionally interesting character arcs, ME finally gave
J. August Richards a fat pitch to hit, and JAR knocked the sucker
out of the park. As the representative of the Fang Gang corrupted
by the perks of W&H, Richards made the transition from street
smart demon fighter to corporate shark look smooth. And when Whedon
asked him to bear the guilt of the season's tragedies, Richards
was heart-wrenching. It'll be a long time before I forget Gunn
begging Doctor Sparrow to tear the knowledge out of his brain.
4. Illyria and her Watcher
Wait a minute--you mean Amy Acker can really act? She can play
a character completely different from Fred? Wow. I wish we could
have known about this sooner. While Amy did a fine job portraying
Winifred Burkle, all-around Nice Person, the character simply
didn't seem like much of an acting challenge to the audience at
home. (Also, Joss and crew got a bit "Mary Sue-ish"
with Fred from time to time.) Illyria, on the other hand, was
a neon-lit showcase for Acker, tapping into her vocal training
and background in dance to create a character who didn't look
like Fred, act like Fred, talk like Fred, or even move like Fred.
(Loved the ballet-like training/pummeling sequences between Acker
and Marsters.) As an added bonus, the very concept of Illyria
was tailor-made to inflict maximum grief on Angel and the boys,
and we all got a front-row seat as Wes finally had that nervous
breakdown we've been expecting for years.
Alexis Denisof, who effortlessly sold us British Twit Wesley in
Buffy S3, Doofus Wesley in Angel S1, Leader Wesley in Angel S2
and S3, and Scruffy Wes in Angel S3 and 4, finally brought it
all home with Crazy Wes--and once again proved why he was the
best actor on the series. The scenes between Wes and Illyria in
the Girl in Question and Not Fade Away almost made the painful
three-year courtship and aborted romance between Wes and Fred
worth the effort.
5. Hamilton
Arrogant. Smug. Polished. Articulate. Unashamedly evil. Ruthless
(when necessary). Supremely confident of his power (and that of
his masters). Only villain of the series who literally looked
down at Angel. Nailed Harmony (lucky bastard). And give him props--he
looked fantastic in a suit. I've just given you ten reasons why
Adam Baldwin's Hamilton was a great villain and the perfect liaison
to the Senior Partners. That's about ten more than I'd give Sarah
Thompson's Eve.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
1. Wolfram and Hart
I'm going to acknowledge up front that I might have had unrealistic
expectations about this part of Angel's Season 5 arc. So if anyone
wants to lecture me that I should judge the W&H plotline on what
actually happened during the year, and leave my unfulfilled dreams
at home--I'm not going to disagree with you. That said, I don't
think Mutant Enemy came close to delivering what they promised
with this arc, which only came together for me in the middle of
Power Play. (Episode 21 out of 22, folks.)
My main frustration with the W&H arc stems from the buildup Joss
gave it in the summer of 2003. The central idea of Angel taking
over Evil Inc. was: "If you've worked for Greenpeace for
years, and you get the opportunity to run a division of Shell
Oil, can you do good work within the system, or does the system
inevitably wear you down?" As I said above, ME did a great
job showing how everyday life within the corporate arena can slowly
eat away at your soul. But they never gave the other side of the
debate a fair shot. Angel did a staggering amount of good inside
of Wolfram and Hart, but we never got to see the extent of his
accomplishments. All of Angel (and Gunn's) best work was dismissed
(in terms of narrative) as the stroke of a pen in "Cautionary
Tale." I found this a bit insulting. There are thousands,
hundreds of thousands, of people working inside and around the
borders of corporate America these days, genuinely trying to improve
the lives of their fellow citizens, and it does them a disservice
to dismiss their efforts so casually.
If you want a concrete example of what I'm saying, try this: suppose
the cameras swung around and Angel Season Five was magically transformed
into Mutant Enemy Season Five. An entire season of Joss, Fury,
Bell and DeKnight working within the belly of the beast at the
WB, fighting with mid-level studio executives who don't know their
ass from their elbow, placating temperamental writers, actors
and directors, groaning under unimaginable deadline pressure,
and waiting for the Senior Partners to drop the cancellation bomb.
The catch is: we don't see the fruit of their labors--the twenty-two
episodes of Angel Season 5 and what they mean to the creators
and the fans out there in the dark. After a full year of watching
ME suffer through office backstabbing and Hollywood lunacy, the
audience would say: Why bother? Nothing could be worth this kind
of grief. And, of course, they'd be right. But they'd only have
half the story. [/end rant]
As for what actually did happen in the halls of Wolfram and Hart
in Season 5, I had some problems with that, too. I thought the
reveal of Wolfram and Hart's demonic clientele as the sinister
Circle of the Black Thorn was extraordinarily clever (especially
since I've been clued into the circle/gear/crown of thorns motif
running through S5); but if you look at the season's events closely,
the supposed source of all evil in the world didn't inflict much
damage on Angel and his crew at all. Most of the badness suffered
by the Fang Gang during Season 5 was due to outside agents, the
Gang themselves, or W&H employees pursuing their own agendas explicitly
against the wishes of the Senior Partners.
Think I'm delusional? Examine the evidence. Angel had to deal
with W&H clients (Corben Fries and Magnus Hainsley) in episodes
one and two--and that's about it. From then on, the Gang's "antagonists"
were: John Billingsley's
xenobiologist and the restaurateur with a jones for gourmet werewolf,
Pavayne (OK, gray area there), Sleep Deprived Lorne, Tezcatcatl,
the cyberninjas, Eve and Lindsey, a Harmony wannabe (!), Eve and
Lindsey again, Dana, you-know-who, Lawson, evil puppets, Illyria
and her disciples (Knox and Sparrow), and Buffy (sort of). In
fact, the dreaded Circle of the Black Thorn did so little damage
that the introduction of the Circle as the seasonal Big Bad in
"Power Play" felt like a retcon. (And even though I
know better now, it still feels like a retcon!) I realize that
ME meant for the Circle's influence to be subtle, but maybe their
influence was a bit too subtle (as in "not showing up on
the screen").
As a result, I found Angel's moaning about how Wolfram and Hart
was killing them by degrees forced in places. Cordelia was killed
by Jasmine and Fred was killed by Illyria--two beings with nothing
but contempt for the Wolf, Ram and Hart. (In fact, the Senior
Partners were counting on Angel to defeat or control both Jasmine
and Illyria.) You could say that Angel's presence within Wolfram
and Hart set his crew up for the disastrous events of Season 5,
but hey, this is Angel we're talking about--bad stuff happens
to him and his teammates all the freakin' time. (Illyria's sarcophagus
could have just as easily been delivered to the Hyperion.)
I realize that part of the point of the Circle was that they were
working sub rosa, under Angel's bat radar; but ME could have built
up the menace of the Circle throughout the season without revealing
them prematurely. Looking back, the invasion of the cyberninjas
in "Lineage" was probably the Circle's test for the
'intriguingly unstable' Wesley. Why was this never followed up?
"Soul Purpose" looked like the starting point of two
juicy seasonal subplots--Wes' corruption by the ultimate power
of Wolfram and Hart and Spike as an independent agent--but ME
dropped them both by the end of "You're Welcome." Why
didn't Joss keep Spike on the outside for awhile, using his perspective
to comment on what's happening to the Fang Gang inside of Wolfram
and Hart? Why didn't ME show the corrupting effects of W&H on
all the members of the Gang (not just Gunn)? Maybe if Angel gave
into temptation just a little (or at least seemed to) around the
middle of the season, maybe his 'will to power' act in "Time
Bomb" and "Power Play" would have fooled the audience.
In the end, the Wolfram and Hart plotline worked from episode
to episode, but didn't hang together when you consider the season
as a whole. Much like the plotline involving--
2. Lindsey
Let me see if I've got this straight. Lindsey, who resigned from
Wolfram and Hart in a fit of moral disgust in "Dead End,"
was actually implementing Stage One of a years-long strategy to
take over the L.A. branch and worm his way into the Circle of
the Black Thorn. Working through his W&H double agent, Eve, Lindsey
tried to convince the Senior Partners that they had the wrong
chosen vamp by shipping Spike in from the ruins of Sunnydale,
and setting Blondie Bear up as a new champion. Once Spike was
comfortable in his new role and completely trusting of 'Doyle,'
Lindsey and Eve would knock off Angel, and W&H would recognize
Lindsey as the power behind the power of the all-important Shanshu
vamp. The Senior Partners would appoint Lindsey CEO of the L.A.
branch, and the Circle of the Black Thorn would embrace Lindsey
with open tentacles. He'd then use his new power base to gather
up enough allies to destroy the Circle the way Angel did in "Not
Fade Away." Is that it?
Sorry, not buying it. The plan doesn't make a heck of a lot of
sense. Even if it works to perfection, I don't think the manipulation
of the Shanshu prophecy is going to convince the Circle of the
Black Thorn to let Lindsey join their exclusive evil country club.
So he's drinking buddies with the new vampire of prophecy--so
what? The Circle was an organization with demonic roots hundreds,
perhaps thousands of years old. Vail, the Fell Brethren, Brucker,
Sebassis, Izzy--these were old demons, with enormous power bases.
You had to have serious connections to join this club; heck, I
found it somewhat incredible that they let Angel join. I could
fanwank Angel's membership because Angel was the vampire of prophecy
himself, and he had a considerable reputation for evil as Angelus.
But Lindsey How in the name of all the Hell Dimensions would a
former mid-level attorney and disgruntled W&H employee make the
cut?
[Side note: speaking of "not buying it," could somebody
explain to me why a bright boy like Lindsey would be stupid enough
to call himself 'Doyle' in "Soul Purpose"? After going
through all that trouble to conceal himself, he might
as well have slapped a neon sign on his butt and walked into the
W&H lobby. Did he honestly think Spike wouldn't talk about his
brand new friend with the rest of the cast?]
3. Lorne
If you take the episodes where Lorne had stuff to do, and run
them together in your mind, you realize that Lorne had a fantastic
character arc in Season 5. For the first time in his life, he
was forced to step off his tightrope of impartiality, and take
a stand in the never-ending battle between Good and Evil. What
I liked about the arc was that Lorne couldn't bear the emotional
costs of fighting Angel's fight. His resigned exit in "Not
Fade Away" simply crushed me. So why is Lorne in the "Things
that Didn't Work" column? Well, to get to all this good stuff,
you had to watch Andy Hallett hang around the set for about 15
episodes not doing much of anything at all. I resent ME for not
coming up with interesting material for an actor who spends three
torturous hours every day in a makeup chair. It brings back memories
of Anya in Buffy S7, and that's a mistake I was hoping ME wouldn't
repeat.
4. Wes and Fred
Mishandled all the way up to Fred's death. ME started off with
Wesley pining over Fred a la Season Three, which bored the spit
out of me in both seasons. In "Lineage," they switched
over to Creepy Obsessed Wes, which both bored and squicked me
(and not in that good, Mutant Enemy way). Then, in "Harm's
Way," Craft and Fain decided that Fred had no idea Wesley
was interested her as more than a friend, which confused the living
heck out me. (So the mind wipe erased the Wes/Fred kiss in "Calvary"
but let Wes keep the memory of Lilah's beheading. Man, it sucks
to be Wesley.) Finally, in "You're Welcome," Fred was
inexplicably turned on by Wes' spell-casting abilities, which
led to their kiss in "Smile Time" and her inevitable
doom in the next episode. Why did Fred suddenly change her mind
and warm up to Wes? Who knows? Maybe Wes slipped a little love
spell in there while he was getting rid of Lindsey's tattoos.
Maybe Zeus threw down a thunderbolt. Any explanation would have
been welcome, because we didn't get one on screen. Without the
proper build-up, the Wes/Fred romance felt like a plot device,
not true love; and therefore, the Wes/Fred portions of "A
Hole in the World" DID NOT WORK.
5. Eve
Oh dear god, what a disaster. Eve was the first Joss Whedon character
I would classify as Dead Weight. No chemistry with Angel. No chemistry
with the main cast, not even Marsters, who can spark with anybody.
No chemistry with Christian Kane (which I thought was biologically
impossible for human females); their love scenes made me long
for Angel/Lindsey slash. Not likable, which is OK for a villain,
but: Not clever. Not sexy. Not ruthless. Not intelligent. Not
intimidating. Smug, yet wimpy--a bad combination. The only times
I felt good about Eve on screen was when Cordy was insulting her,
Gunn was strangling her, and Harmony was beating the crap out
of her. Otherwise, I just wanted her off my screen as soon as
possible. To paraphrase Ilona: "Eve? Ptui! We will speak
no more of her!"
To sum up:
CONVICTION - 6.5
JUST REWARDS - 7.5
UNLEASHED - 5.5
HELLBOUND - 7
LIFE OF THE PARTY - 7
THE CAUTIONARY TALE OF NUMERO CINCO - 9
LINEAGE - 7
DESTINY - 8.5
HARM'S WAY - 7
SOUL PURPOSE - 8.5
DAMAGE - 9
YOU'RE WELCOME - 8.5
WHY WE FIGHT - 7
SMILE TIME - 9.5
A HOLE IN THE WORLD - 7.5
SHELLS - 8
UNDERNEATH - 9
ORIGIN - 8.5
TIME BOMB - 8
THE GIRL IN QUESTION - 7
POWER PLAY - 9
NOT FADE AWAY - 9
Coming in Part II: episode-by-episode reviews and final thoughts.
(Now I know how OnM felt with his Endless Review--don't want to
let go too quickly.)
Replies:
[> Re: CJL's Review of ANGEL Season Five, Part One (fifth
in his annoying occasional series) -- Ames, 10:25:08 06/10/04
Thu
Very nicely stated, and I think I would agree with most of it.
AtS 5 took on some big tasks, with a lot of characters to handle,
and it didn't quite hang together - but it was fun to watch. The
underlying motivations and the plot details supporting elements
like Lindsey and the CotBT and the plans of the Senior Partners
were weak. Interesting while they were happening, but afterwards
you can't help but go "huh?".
[> [> Re: CJL's Review of ANGEL Season Five, Part One
(fifth in his annoying occasional series) -- Roy, 11:56:01
06/12/04 Sat
I agree with CJL's review . . . with the exception of his opinion
on Illyria. Yes, we all know that Amy Acker can act. But what
was Illyria's purpose in the season's story arc? After she arrived,
she really didn't do much. I think that Acker was simply wasted,
and I would have been more impressed if ME had simply developed
Fred's character.
[> [> [> Re: CJL's Review of ANGEL Season Five, Part
One (fifth in his annoying occasional series) -- Brian, 14:26:50
06/13/04 Sun
Overall, I agree with the original review (although I didn't mind
Eve so much). However, and this point may have been made elsewhere
(I haven't read all of the posts), but it should be kept in mind
that the cancellation of Angel came at a point when the majority
of episodes of the season had already been completed, which left
ME having to wrap things up quicker than had probably been planned.
Had they known earlier that this would be the last season, the
Ilyria storyline probably would've been scrapped, as it ended
up being pointless since it had no time to develop into anything
(kudos to ME for at least finding a way to tie it in thematically
at the end anyway). And I suspect the Circle of the Black Thorn
was played subtly this season so it could be more dramatically
revealed in Season 6. After all, ME had made all the changes requested
by the WB, the ratings had improved, other shows performing less
well in the ratings had been renewed, ME had every reason to suspect
there would be a Season 6 and were laying groundwork for it. So
a lot of the unsatisfying elements might have ended up having
bigger payoffs had Season 6 been allowed to happen.
[> [> [> Re: Was there a contract for a sixth season?
-- cyp, 19:18:12 06/13/04 Sun
OT,but:Why were they so sure about having a sixth season?
I'm a little confused.
Since the beginning of Ats or Btvs(with the exception of the deal
with UPN),JW said that every season was written with a possible
ending of the serie because they(ME)
didn't know if the show was going to be renewed for the next year.
Why is S5 so different?They acted all surprised and bitter,but
it was the norm since the beggining(and the norm for every show
on TV,the networks can cancel the shows at anytime).Did JW thought
that if he did everything they asked him to do,they would automatically
give the show a sixth season?Was it an unspoken deal (Don't want
to be cynical,but unspoken deal???) or did they have a contract?
The news of the cancellation(february,no?)left a lot of time to
write a season ending(almost three months),why complain about
being tricked if there was no written deal?The WB was fair,they
let Joss enough time to end properly his show,most of the networks
don't behave so ...kindly(Farscape and so many others didn't know
that they were ending before the last shootings),the WB would
have avoided a lot of threatening cards or hate mails with a May-cancellation.It
makes no sense to bring the news of the cancellation so early
unless they had a deal with Whedon.They wanted to show their respect
for the author of the show?IF it's the case,it didn't work very
well:Joss was not pleased at all!
As a Dark Angel fan,I don't remember Cameron doing such a fuss
about the cancellation(he was disappointed,but moved on) or curse
the FOX and JW's Firefly?
There is certainly a valid reason(contract?Talks?) for such a
bitter reaction from JW.It makes no sense to be so angry and insulting
toward the networks if it's an ordinary cancellation.Did Joss
explained in an interview the reason for his bitterness?Where
can I find it?
[> [> [> [> About where they were with filming
when the cancellation hit... -- DorianQ, 00:28:47 06/16/04
Wed
They already had Underneath in the can, Origin was being filmed
and the script for Time Bomb was already approved. Although it
was early for us, Joss only had three episodes to work things
out. I would guess that he reshot the ends of Underneath and Time
Bomb and some other things but that's it. He had one episode to
work through Wes and Illyria's issues and Angel's and Spike's
(TGIQ), and then go for a big finish.
[> Reducing a great post to its structure alone -- Tchaikovsky,
10:48:55 06/10/04 Thu
Y'know I don't want to see this gobbled by the Big Honkin' Politics
thread, but Ihave no time. So for now: (justifications later,
possibly)
-Loved the Myth of Sisyphus reference and entirely agree about
the Internal Workings of ME sans the episode conceit. It would
nice to have ended just one episode on a 'You made a difference
at Wolfram and Hart' line.
Your likes:
1 Agree strongly. 'Destiny' and 'The Girl in Question' were two
of the strongest episodes of the season for me, and the whole
arc fitted together nicely through the season without taking over
the show a la Buffy and Who Was It? in Season Seven
2. Agree. Hence my love for 'Harm's Way'
3. Well, I thought they did well by Gunn in Season Four actually,
('Supersymmetry' and fall-out, 'Players'), but they did fill him
out well this Season.
4. Yes, the Illyria/Wesley plot-line was captivating from start
to finish. That it should start with a canonising of Fred was
my only grumble.
5. Wasn't he good? And I watched 'The Matrix' the other day, and
noticed he was amusingly Hugo Weavingesque.
-Dislikes:
1. Disagree, with the exception of above re The Good Side of working
there. I expected to be bored to tears by the big, shiny setting
after my love of the Hyperion, and they really made it work for
me.
2. Yes, I was pretty much grumpy with the Lindsey plot right from
'Soul Purpose' up to 'Not fade Away' where the ANgel/Lorne/Lindsey
triangle still looks Escherian from where I'm sitting.
3. 'Life of the Party' aside, I liked Lorne this Season, and forgive
the occasional side-lining of him. His 'Goodnight folks' in 5.22
validated all my little meta-theories as well as being as bleak
as 'Reprise'.
4. Agree
5. Completely agree. Wading back to my 'Conviction' review, you'll
find I suggested that she brings something different from Lilah,
and thus isn't totally rubbish. It turned out the one-note I didn't
mind in 'Conviction' was a One-Note Samba. Except without the
rhythm section. Or any underlying chords.
Umm, well this post has more content than I promised, but now
I have no time for dinner before Chorus. You win some, you lose
some...
TCH
[> [> How ME could have improved the W&H plotline
-- cjl, 11:44:52 06/10/04 Thu
Thanks, TCH. Kind of busy myself, so let me reel off a quick word
on Angel as CEO, and how it might have worked better.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think the whole W&H plotline
would have been far more involving if Joss simply reversed Angel's
emotional arc for the season. Instead of feeling sulky and depressed
for the first 11 episodes, Angel would try to take his mind off
Connor and his decision in "Home" by throwing himself
into the corporate-powered dogooder role. Taking my objections
into account, ME would show Angel as a true mover and shaker,
making the lives of the citizens of Los Angeles 1000% times better.
Ah, but there would be hints of doom and gloom underneath all
the heroism. Things would be going a bit TOO smoothly, and Hamilton,
the W&H liaison, would be a bit TOO eager to help out. (Almost
as if W&H wanted to keep Angel distracted. Hmmm...) The cyberninja
raid in Lineage would hint at a secret society working outside/underneath
Angel's notice.
Spike would materialize and he'd be the voice of skepticism to
Angel's rah-rah attitude. Then Cordy would come back, and crystallize
all of Angel's doubts. Fred's death would plunge him into a depression.
We'd receive more small hints about the underlying conspiracy.
And as "Power Play" approached, the audience would wonder
if Angel has completely cracked under the weight of his losses...
[> [> [> Re: How ME could have improved the W&H plotline
-- Pony, 12:21:57 06/10/04 Thu
That would have been a pretty good season, cjl. Ah well.
I agree with a lot of your points about the season - right now
my thoughts on s5 are that it had some really stellar individual
episodes but that the overall arc didn't really hang together.
It's the opposite to me of s4 which I thought was excellent overall
but that besides Home and a few notable exceptions most of the
episodes blurred together.
I know that standalones were meant to be the rule this season
but the first half of the season actually had a fair bit of momentum
going. The problem as I saw it was that ME undercut two of its
big arcs, taking a lot of wind out of the metaphorical sails.
The Angel/Spike rivalry and the way it confused Angel's ideas
of destiny and purpose was pretty much dropped with the reveal
of Lindsey in You're Welcome. The implausibility of Lindsey's
plan you've already gone into, but I thought the dropping of the
plotline also ended Spike's arc for the season and robbed the
very funny A/S banter of any undercurrent beyond Odd Couple shtick.
And while I loved Origin, the lack of fallout from the memory
wipe after that episode puzzled me, especially since hints had
been a'droppin since the premiere about the horror of what Angel
had done to his friends. It would have been interesting if the
scenes of Crazy!Wes in Time Bomb had gone even further and been
seen as a direct result of the return of his memories, so that
Angel would have felt the consequences a bit more heavily than
just seeing how well-adjusted Connor was.
[> [> [> [> But how many of those season long hints
were intentional . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:13:16 06/10/04
Thu
. . . and how many were fans simply reading more into the material
than was intended?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But how many of those season
long hints were intentional . . . -- Bjerkley, 14:26:52
06/11/04 Fri
I would have to go back and check, but what with the double takes
and the 'whats?', I always thought that many of the hints were
not only intentional, but signposted.
[> [> [> [> Re: How ME could have improved the
W&H plotline -- Mike, 14:50:37 06/11/04 Fri
I totally agree too that AtS S5 could've easily went from ep to
ep in the manner you described Cjl and Pony. In terms of perfected
threading of a season, that would've received a standing ovation.
However, with what had happened through the year, I think placing
hidden hints about The Circle's influence in certain places as
you mentioned (cyberninjas, testing Wesley's unstability) is one
way to tie things tighter for S5. Here are a few more possible
hidden hints
of The Circle's presence, which can now be looked into thru
DVD/VHS and syndication:
1. The Circle were meant to be a secret demon society, and
weren't even mentioned till 5.21. Therefore, they managed
to remain pretty secretive till the penultimate ep.
2. The Circle's members' standalone appearances: Sebassis
(Life of the Party), Izzy (You're Welcome), Vail
(Origin), The Fell Brethren (Time Bomb), up till 5.21
and 5.22.
3. There's a world out there we mostly didn't see all season
long b/c Team Angel were drenched in W&H, distracted with
subtle evils from focusing on the real evil; The Circle
functioning smoothly with Team Angel out of the way.
4. Lindsey's revelation of The Apocalypse, which The Circle
have been orchastrating all along, influencing humanity's
evils.
5. Angel has been having his soul killed by degrees all
season long, and getting into The Circle could've been
(pun intended) full circle for Angel's inner death,
power, greed, corruption could've taken complete hold
on him.
With that already said, I really feel what you all are saying
and these hints are probably a better way to take in S5 more smoothly
when watching S5 again in its entirety.
I, too, wish there could've been at least two other eps thruout
S5 with The Circle's mention, its members, perhaps substituting
Harm's Way and Why We Fight.
However, I do think Lindsey's arc was pieced together, complete
by 5.22, full discovery of his return to LA, his motives, psyche,
and a tragic end at that. And I thought
S5 displayed enough heroic accompishments using W&H resources.
Conviction, Unleashed, You're Welcome, and
Smile Time, were such eps that displayed using resources
from an evil side to fight off evil. I think the scale of the
ups and downs of using W&H appeared fine. But really just think
if thruout S5 there could've been quick, random shots of W&H's
Apocalypse affecting humanity away from Team Angel's focus. Those
random shots, i.e. powerful humans ruining other humans, people
killing others, could've been a clever and unsettling tactic in
working us into Lindsey's chilling revelation in Underneath.
There seems to be a number of things that could've been done to
make AtS S5 a unanimous best season of the series.
I just thought a suggestion of reading into hints of certain S5
threads off screen might be what we have to work with. And needless
to say, Tim Minear might have made a difference if he had remained
on Angel. While I thought Wonderfalls had potential, it's such
a letdown that TM left a show to work on a show that itself faced
cancellation.
TM might have been the one to tie up loose threads on AtS S5.
If only, right.
[> [> [> OK, that works nicely -- Tchaikovsky,
14:35:57 06/10/04 Thu
Though my grumpiness at no post-'Home' fall-out would have been
exacerbated, and hence my disappointment with 'Origin' enlarged.
Otherwise, it works except I thought that Boreanaz played the
melancholia of insidious evil better than he could ever play Enthused
Cheerleader CEO.
TCH
[> Thanks, cjl! -- HonorH, 11:45:44 06/10/04 Thu
I'm with you on a lot of things here--most, in fact. I, too, loved
the Illyria arc. Had she not had Acker's face, I'd have thought
she was played by a completely different actress.
One thing I will disagree on is Wes/Fred. IMHO, Fred did what
a lot of women do when confronted by a male friend with deeper
feelings: she shoved that knowledge out of her brain in order
to avoid dealing with it. Then, finally, she realized--yep, I've
got feelings for him, too--and went for it. It actually felt natural
to me.
But then, I'm a girl. Which, btw, brought me to my big frustration:
why kill off all the interesting women? Cordy bit it last year/this
year (hard to say which), Lilah bit it last year, and Fred went
this year. All we were left with was Harmony and the occasional
Eve, who were, frankly, not interesting. Harmony, at least, was
amusing. And I don't count Illyria as a woman because the way
it described itself was so freakin' androgynous.
Speaking of Eve, I thought Hamilton was an apology for her. Even
Lorne made a comment about how he actually liked Hamilton better
than Eve. I'd have loved a full season of Hamilton, and not just
because Adam Baldwin makes good eye candy. Big, beautiful man.
And Gunn--wow, a full character arc, with him interesting from
first to last! That's new and different for him. Furthermore,
like Acker with Illyria, JAR knocked it, as you said, out of the
park. I bought him as Lawyer!Gunn, happy with his new knowledge
and place in the world, I bought him when he was losing it and
desperate to have it back, I bought him tormented by guilt, and
I bought him when he returned to his roots and his moral center.
Good on ya, Joss! If only they could've had him shirtless more.
And Wesley . . . *wibble!*
[> [> RE: Wes/Fred -- cjl, 12:01:29 06/10/04 Thu
You're welcome, H!
"One thing I will disagree on is Wes/Fred. IMHO, Fred did
what a lot of women do when confronted by a male friend with deeper
feelings: she shoved that knowledge out of her brain in order
to avoid dealing with it. Then, finally, she realized--yep, I've
got feelings for him, too--and went for it. It actually felt natural
to me."
Ooh, I'd love to buy into this explanation, H, because it would
make my memories of Wes and Fred in S5 so much more pleasant.
But, as I said in my review, they'd long moved past the point
in their relationship where Fred could conceivably sail her boat
down DeNial. There was all sorts of hotness flying around the
Hyperion in the middle of the Season 4: Fred and Gunn were splittling
up, Gunn was jealous of Wes (and vice versa), Wes wanted Fred
with a fiery passion, Fred all but slipped her tongue down Wes'
throat in "Calvary," and then was squicked by Wes' relationship
with Lilah. Can't go back to "gee, I wonder if he thinks
of me that way?" after that.
You can't use the mind wipe as an excuse either, because the Gang
seemed to remember everything about their interpersonal relationships
except Connor.
If ME had dealt with the emotional fallout of the Angelus arc
as the starting point of the Wes/Fred relationship in Season 5
instead of playing coy with us, I wouldn't be so grouchy. But
they didn't. So I am.
[> [> [> Correction: the first Wes/Fred kiss was in
"Soulless," not "Calvary" -- cjl, 12:11:28
06/10/04 Thu
[> [> [> I figured Fred decided Wes had fully moved
on to Lilah -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:35:09 06/10/04 Thu
Did Fred perhaps see herself as being a Lilah substitute? After
all, that friction all came up just before (or possibly just after,
I'm not sure) Fred discovered Wesley and Lilah had been a couple.
[> [> [> [> Re: I figured Fred decided Wes had
fully moved on to Lilah -- Roy, 15:06:28 06/12/04 Sat
Didn't Wes and Fred finally realized that they were unsuited for
each other in S4's "Players"? I just saw the episode
and the scene featuring their conversation about Connor, Cordelia
and Lilah, seemed to have ended with that impression. Is it possible
that the mindwipe had eradicated memories of that conversation
from both of them . . . and set them on the course for their (in
my opinion) unsuitable and uninspiring romance?
[> Great review -- Bjerkley, 14:51:04 06/10/04 Thu
Usually with these things I often disagree down to the last point,
but found myself agreeing on pretty much everything you mention.
Particularly the brilliance of Amy Acker as Illyria (spinoff now
please), and particularly Lindsey. That was a real problem
- how to completely destroy the worth of a character. At least
the death scene was totally fitting.
I agree with what you say about Wolfram and Hart also, and the
failure of the possibility of working within the belly of the
best for the better. And that in itself surprised me that it would
be all one note. On other boards when those spoilers first surfaced
last summer, I predicted that being at Wolfram and Hart might
actually work for the gang, seeing as that M.E is itself working
within a corporation. Surely someone who has pride in their work
couldn't write it all off as a complete loss? And then they get
cancelled. Well that sure explains that network suit Hamilton
:-)
Another problem I had was Angel, and that's probably what was
disappointing to me. I really enjoyed this season, but part of
that was despite Angel (which makes a massive change as someone
who has been invested in his journey since season 1). But somewhere
along the way, his character got somewhat lost. He seemed to be
having the doubts, the thoughts, the epiphanies that he had had
in seasons past. Very little of what he did felt like progression,
and while I think that ambiguous confusion over his place might
work given the events of season four none of that was explored.
And then in the second to last episode he suddenly is revealed
as this proactive guy determined to ride the beast into hell based
on a plan and suspicions he had been formulating since Fred's
death (just that he had neglected to tell the gang or the audience,
and not too important that he couldn't get all petty about Buffy
a few days before). Frankly, I was a little lost as to what his
character was about by the time the season ended. I;m sure season
six would have explained all.
I did enjoy this season though. A slow start (which was probably
where my problems with the season were most apparent), but some
great individual episodes and some of the greater depths for many
of the characters.
Thanks for the review.
[> Some general thoughts and unprecedented ramblage.
-- BrianWilly, 15:52:41 06/10/04 Thu
The only times I felt good about Eve on screen was when Cordy
was insulting her, Gunn was strangling her, and Harmony was beating
the crap out of her. Otherwise, I just wanted her off my screen
as soon as possible. To paraphrase Ilona: "Eve? Ptui! We
will speak no more of her!"
I laughed my arse off at this...and I like Eve.
The problem with Lindsey I think is that, save for his dislike
of Angel, he was anything but consistent through the season. We
see him in all his malicious Texan smugness doing these things
and we don't ever actually know why he was doing all this
or what he was even doing. We don't know anything until
the end of the season and then we're forced to reconcile
this new plan with his behavior through the season and it just
don't fit right.
There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people working
inside and around the borders of corporate America these days,
genuinely trying to improve the lives of their fellow citizens,
and it does them a disservice to dismiss their efforts so casually.
I was kind of annoyed at this too...people all over the world
change the world in unbelievable ways every day, often for the
better, with the stroke of a pen. But I think Joss was more focusing
on the moral nature of these things than the semblance...he knows
that people can do good things in an office. It's the bad things
and corrupt things that he wanted to explore.
As for what actually did happen in the halls of Wolfram and
Hart in Season 5, I had some problems with that, too. I thought
the reveal of Wolfram and Hart's demonic clientele as the sinister
Circle of the Black Thorn was extraordinarily clever (especially
since I've been clued into the circle/gear/crown of thorns motif
running through S5); but if you look at the season's events closely,
the supposed source of all evil in the world didn't inflict much
damage on Angel and his crew at all. Most of the badness suffered
by the Fang Gang during Season 5 was due to outside agents, the
Gang themselves, or W&H employees pursuing their own agendas explicitly
against the wishes of the Senior Partners.
I do agree that the whole Wolfram & Hart "corruption"
thing was mostly alluded to and what we could derive from
it came in the form of assumptions and fanwank. But I don't think
the point of Wolfram & Hart was to do something to Angel
at all. I mean, if a demon horde wielding edged weaponry and screaming
bloody murder had rushed in on the gang during their first day
at work, they wouldn't have exactly stayed very long...which was
what the Senior Partners wanted.
The whole point was what they weren't doing. Passive aggression,
in every sense. In giving the gang what was promised to them --
the power of Wolfram & Hart -- and living up to their end of the
bargain, the Senior Partners were forcing the gang to live up
to theirs.
I think what people forget a lot of the times is that ultimately,
it doesn't really matter all that much if Wolfram & Hart turn
the gang evil...even though that's probably what they were going
for. The power that Wolfram & Hart utilizes is corrupt
in itself, comes from a corrupt place. Not just "the company
that uses this power is evil," but "the power itself
is evil."
Wolfram & Hart obtain their power through hurting other people.
That's the end-all be-all. With every deceit, every murder, every
cover-up, every extortion, and every other legal/corporate immorality...W&H gets
more "power." This power comes in the form of money
or reputation or legal standing or information or even just plain
old dark magicks. And this is the power that Angel uses while
he remains at W&H. Every time he hops on that spiffy jet or
orders a tactical sweep, he uses it.
He uses it to help people, yes, but what he comes to realize that
his whole presence there is a complete and utter trade-off; power
he uses to help others itself comes from others being hurt. So
matter how much he helps others, as long as he's using
W&H's power, still others are hurt. That's why he feels so
powerless there: he is powerless. And that's the way that
W&H wants to keep it: keep Angel fighting on their terms and distracted
from the fact that he's not actually doing anything against their
entropy of the world. The world keeps getting worse, and even
though Angel's not actually actively promoting this, this steady
state input-output situation of helping and hurting others is
not exactly helping.
Now, this would be a different situation if Angel could indeed
change the beast from within the belly. If Angel could somehow
turn Wolfram & Hart around to getting power from helping
people as opposed to hurting them...well then that's the ultimate
win-win. He gets to help others and get power from helping
others. In fact, this was probably the way that Angel Investigations
used to work back in his office and in the Hyperion...they'd help
some folks, get some money and recognition in return, and use
this money and recognition in turn to help others. And again,
this is the way that the Powers That Be had wanted Angel to work,
if things had gone according to plan(which they obviously didn't).
But here's the catch, and the funny thing is that the catch was
explained almost at the very beginning of the season by
Eve so that they wouldn't waste all season wondering what the
catch was(which they obviously did): They can't change
Wolfram & Hart. Period. That's not part of the rules of the Senior
Partner's bargain. It's not a case of "Well, if we try really
hard maybe we'll do it!" it's a case of "That's
the deal you signed on to. Tough luck, buddy." The Senior
Partners gave Angel the power to run their business, and that
was it. Key word being their business. So it doesn't matter
that Angel's using this power to help the helpless, he can't change
the source of that power(evil) and he can't just go around hacking
at their clients(also evil)...well, not until the season finale,
of course.
So yeah, I think people are just missing the point: Wolfram & Hart
never wanted Angel or the others dead. It was never about physical
destruction, a big alarm going off...it was about entropy. They
wanted to control the gang, engineer them, break them down...and
they did. From the very beginning. The thing that the Senior
Partners themselves didn't realize that even as they forced
Angel to play their game, Angel was in a way forcing them to play
his, and his game was this: He will never break. He will
never be their puppet...um, their pawn. No matter how much their
work their influence on him...it won't happen. Why not? The answer
is that Angel cares too much, and "people who don't care
about anything will never understand the people who do."
Wolfram & Hard didn't understand Angel, and they didn't understand
why Angel wouldn't cave in, and so they underestimated
him. In taking on the Circle of the Black Thorn, Angel was telling
them that the only way they're ever going to defeat him is at
his game, that the only fight they're ever going to get
out of him is the good fight, and the only way he's going down
is to go down fighting...not in some corrupt office with immoral
paperwork. Now being unable to beat Angel at their own battleground
-- not to mention being knocked down a few hundred pegs in losing
their most valuable players -- they were forced to unleash their
hordes of hell and play on his. The way that he wanted
it.
[> [> I think you've put your finger on something essential
about Season 5 -- cjl, 18:56:45 06/10/04 Thu
"But here's the catch, and the funny thing is that the catch
was explained almost at the very beginning of the season by Eve
so that they wouldn't waste all season wondering what the catch
was (which they obviously did): They can't change Wolfram & Hart.
Period. That's not part of the rules of the Senior Partner's bargain.
It's not a case of "Well, if we try really hard maybe we'll
do it!" it's a case of "That's the deal you signed on
to. Tough luck, buddy." The Senior Partners gave Angel the
power to run their business, and that was it."
***************************************************
This is an excellent point, and I missed it in my review. I was
obviously looking for a straightforward, balanced treatment of
the issue throughout the length of the season, a debate as to
whether or not you can change the W&H use of power (power as degradation)
to the PTB use of power (power as liberation/uplift). But Joss
told me right from the beginning there wasn't going to be a debate.
You can't change the system from within--you have to destroy it.
A valid position, I suppose, but is it suitable for a TV drama?
Without the presence of (at least the appearance of) an opposing
position, the result on screen was like watching a televised debate
where both sides had the same opinion. What we had for most of
the season was Angel moping around, trapped by the conditions
of a deal he knew would crush his soul, and not doing anything
to battle back. All the hubbub around him provided a distraction
for the viewer, but it couldn't mask the essentially static nature
of the seasonal arc. Episode by episode it was fine, but cumulatively,
Angel said a lot of "Wolfram and Hart is evil. I'm sad. Life
sucks." To coin a phrase: well, duh.
[> [> [> Re: I think you've put your finger on something
essential about Season 5 -- KdS, 23:51:45 06/10/04 Thu
What we had for most of the season was Angel moping around,
trapped by the conditions of a deal he knew would crush his soul,
and not doing anything to battle back. All the hubbub around him
provided a distraction for the viewer, but it couldn't mask the
essentially static nature of the seasonal arc.
I find it more than a little disturbing that Joss has now produced
three consecutive seasons of television (four if you count Firefly,
which I personally see as being more optimistic) about struggling
to find motivation to carry on doing something that used to give
you satisfaction but now is merely a joyless, soul-destroying
chore.
[> [> [> [> Re: I think you've put your finger
on something essential about Season 5 -- Ann, 04:31:10
06/11/04 Fri
I hope he writes an autobiography that might clear up some of
these mysteries or at least give us a few clues into his psyche
(not that these series have not done this).
[> [> [> [> Re: I think you've put your finger
on something essential about Season 5 -- Bjerkley, 14:31:47
06/11/04 Fri
I find it more than a little disturbing that Joss has now produced
three consecutive seasons of television (four if you count Firefly,
which I personally see as being more optimistic) about struggling
to find motivation to carry on doing something that used to give
you satisfaction but now is merely a joyless, soul-destroying
chore.
I think that's largely a matter of perspective. I think the only
time that was the case was with Buffy in Season 7. I don't think
that Season 6 Buffy, or Angel ever considered it a joyless soul-destroying
chore. Certainly, I would say that Buffy often took refuge in
her Slaying in season six as an escape from her 'normal' life.
And with Angel, I don't think he had problems with doing good,
but the best way to do it - and the last season indicated that
he thought he had made the wrong choice. To me, it was all about
finding your place in the world - not about hating what you do,
but finding the right method to express that.
[> [> Let's compare the old status quo with the new status
quo -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:26:05 06/10/04 Thu
Before "Home", Angel Investigations helped people, got
some money from it, and so could go on to help more people. Meanwhile,
Wolfram & Hart got money and power from hurting people, then used
it to hurt more people.
Post-"Home", AI is gone, W&H gets money and power from
hurting people, but portions of that power (let's say half) go
towards helping people under the new regime. After all, Wolfram
& Hart does get money from helping people, it's just that a lot
of the people they help go on to hurt others (though not all,
Eve indicated in "Conviction" that even the old Wolfram
& Hart had a few clients who weren't evil). Something that must
be taken into account, I feel, is that whenever Angel and Co.
used W&H's resources to help someone, the resources were not
only being put towards doing good, but, under different leadership,
the same resources would have been used towards doing evil. So
one could say that everytime Angel put some of Wolfram & Hart's
power towards doing a good deed, it counted for double. By accepting
the Senior Partners' deal, he was able to both do some good as
well as prevent some evil (since the Partners would likely have
put a new Lilah, Holland, or Linwood in charge if Angel refused).
[> [> [> Re: Let's compare the old status quo with
the new status quo -- I was always horrible at math!, 23:11:39
06/10/04 Thu
Yeah, it's true that Wolfram & Hart itself is actually
hurting less people than it used to, when Angel wasn't running
it. But I guess what I was trying to get across is that no matter
how many people Angel helps...even if it is proportionally
and respectively more than the amount that he helped at Angel
Investigations(which is open to debate, I think)...there will
always be someone that he can't help. And it wouldn't be
because Angel can't be everywhere at once or that he was too late
or that he didn't know or any arbitrary reason like that...Angel
won't be able to help this person because this person's pain is
what keeps Angel's company moving. These imaginary, hypothetical
people are the people that Wolfram & Hart have to, in some
way, inflict their evil over in order to remain the business that
it is(something that Angel can't completely change), and for Angel
to help the many that he does with the power of Wolfram & Hart,
these few would have to be overlooked.
Which is a compromise of the most utilitarian sort. And as Lindsey
says: heroes don't compromise, they don't accept that this is
the cruel way that this cruel world has to be. They find a way
to do their job despite compromise.
It's sort of a weird bargain, isn't it? Regardless of whether
Angel stays at Wolfram & Hart, there's going to be people that
he can't save. The difference is that when he was at the Hyperion,
he never STOPPED trying to save these people despite every
odd. And when he's at Wolfram & Hart, he's forced to stop trying.
[> [> [> [> Er, replace above message subject w/
above name. -- BrianWilly, 23:12:48 06/10/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: Let's compare the old status quo
with the new status quo -- Cyp, 17:47:25 06/11/04 Fri
Sorry,but are you saying that the fact that Angel was at the head
of W&H means that suddenly a good part of the business was about
helping people?
Hum,well,I work in a big firm and,believe me,one part of the firm
doesn't work against the other.It would be suicidal!
And W&H seems to be a BIG firm.How could Angel control everything
happening in the different departments?Audit?
What does he know about business?How can you contol a firm without
any experience?
And how is W&H making money?Helping the orphan and the widow?Do
you really believe that?
Angel & co. had probably big paychecks,no?Blood money which didn't
seem to displease them.And what about the ramifications,the clinic,for
instance where Lindsey got his'evil hand'?Did they stop their
disgusting ways of finding organs?
We don't know for sure,but I won't believe they actively tried
to 'Clean' W&H ,they never talked about that in the show and,it's
almost impossible to do unless you're changing the head of every
departments,the 'bad' employees(almost everybody in that case),cancel
the evil-contracts and so on.The firm would have sunk...
So my theory is that they knew the firm was continuing its evil-work
and they didn't care(a bout of conscience here and there,a little
tantrum,but no big).They were happy to do some good from time
to time and enjoyed their Yuppies status.Corruption,slow slipping
of morality...Regression.In fact,I think giving W&H to Angel was
a giant joke :"Look,kid,you're the CEO,but you don't control
anything(Evil laugh)You and your friends are just big losers.Come
on,save a few lives,think you're the big boss,have fun and,us,adults,we're
going to take care of the Big business".Naîveté,stupidity,from
Angel and his friends or indifference?
Most of the season,they didnt work with or against W&h,they
mostly tried to resolve personnal issues.Angel began to 'wake-up'
after "you're welcome" and AT LAST tried to destroy
the evil 'manipulators'.
[> [> [> [> [> Wolfram & Hart makes its money
by helping people -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:57:27 06/11/04 Fri
It's just that they mostly help corrupt and evil people who go
on to cause a lot more destruction. What Angel and Co. would need
to do is shift the clientelle, gradually drop the old, evil clients
and start picking up some who aren't so bloodthirsty. As for monitoring
what goes on in the various departments, that's what having everyone
singing for Lorne was for (besides, shouldn't he have access to
psychics just like the old Wolfram & Hart did?) Also, it was commented
on early in the season that most of the employees aren't truly
motivated towards evil, they're just opportunists who will do
evil to get ahead. Considering they now have a boss who implements
a zero tolerance policy towards employees (at least demon employees)
found killing people, it becomes in their best interest to do
good, and so most of them stop.
[> [> "Origin" and the ironic turnaround of
Season 5 -- cjl, 06:48:47 06/11/04 Fri
With all this talk about the "dead end" nature of Angel's
deal, and Joss' one-sided views about the use of power, we've
all overlooked one of the central ironies of Season 5: ME completely
flip-flopped on this issue in the one episode where we all thought
Joss' extremist position would have been entirely appropriate.
From the start of the season, we'd been waiting for Connor to
pop back up, and for the mindwipe to be addressed. There was much
foreshadowing and blatant stand-ins for Connor all throughout
Season Five (Junior Fries, Lawson, etc.). We might have grumbled
that ME didn't show the good Angel was doing with the power of
W&H, but we acknowledged (with some sadness) that when the
mindwipe finally came up, Joss could justifiably hammer home his
point: Angel never should have compromised his principles. The
deal he made for Connor's sanity would blow up in his face, and
there would be much pain and suffering to go around.
Funny thing, though--it didn't work out that way. Connor got his
memories back, and he was....fine. Wesley betrayed Angel--again--and
got HIS trauma-inducing memories back, but he was....fine. (OK,
after Fred died, Wes wasn't anywhere close to fine, but you know
what I mean.) For once, Wolfram and Hart's power was apparently
used to do something positive, and in a way that was personally
advantageous to our hero.
So...Angel was smart to take the deal after all?
It's a bit of a head-scratcher, but I understand why they changed
gears so quickly. Angel had to have this work for him, otherwise,
he never would have been confident enough to use his power as
Wolfram and Hart CEO to take down the Circle from the inside.
Still...
[> [> [> I'm trying *real hard* not to think about
the deflation of the memory wipe -- Masq, 10:06:09 06/11/04
Fri
Because it was built up big ("you raped the memories of your
friends who trusted you!") and foreshadowed and all that.
And I wanted Angel to pay, pay, pay for being such a sucky father
that he had to do something so drastic to save his son (when he
never should have neglected Connor to badly that he *could* be
manipulated by Evil!Cordelia and Jasmine and driven over the edge).
And I wanted Angel to face consequences for what he did to his
friend's minds. But Wesley practically thanked him for it. Illyria
didn't much care after Wesley was OK with it (although getting
Fred's memories back has changed her). And Gunn and Lorne still
don't know!
And Connor's utter OK-ness with his own memories is a bug in my
craw. Even if he is the most well-adjusted kid in the world now,
having those memories bouncing around in his head is still worth
a few nightmares, some crankiness, and probably a bit of therapy.
I have ideas about how this might all fit into season 6....
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm trying *real hard* not to think
about the deflation of the memory wipe -- Bjerkley, 14:36:02
06/11/04 Fri
when he never should have neglected Connor to badly that he
*could* be manipulated by Evil!Cordelia and Jasmine and driven
over the edge
Isn't this a little unfair? Given that Season 4 took approximately
a month maximum to play out, Angel's neglect of Connor in terms
of time is negligible. So as far as I can tell, he had contact
with Connor for only a matter of weeks before Connor fell in with
evil-Cordy. I don't think Angel is to blame for Connor's screwed
upness. I can understand why Connor would blame him, but I don't
really think it's fair.
[> [> [> [> i keep wondering what would have happened...
-- anom, 23:18:55 06/16/04 Wed
...if Angel had just broken down in front of Connor in the store.
Connor had just gotten to the root of his issues. One of the last
things he says before Angel comes after him w/the knife is "You
let him get me." I think this is the 1st time Connor identifies
Holtz as the bad guy, the 1st one who lied to him. Holtz brought
him up on lies, making it hard for him to believe in anything.
And Connor finally stops justifying his abuser, as so many abuse
victims do, & practically cries to Angel, you let it happen. You
didn't save me. You knew how dangerous your world is to everyone
around you, & you didn't protect me well enough. You save people
every day, it's your job...& you didn't save me.
This struck me as the moment when Connor could, just possibly,
have been reached. If Angel had cried out himself, something like
"I couldn't stop him! You don't know how I tried, the lengths
I went to trying to get you back, the despair I felt when I couldn't!
Sometimes you can't save people." (A lesson Angel had to
learn in the 1st episode of his series.) "Even the one you
most want to." With Cordelia lying comatose right in front
of him, Connor ought to be able to identify w/this, & certainly
w/the despair (esp. since Minear would have written the lines
a lot better...). A basic principle of how people in support groups
help each other is that having gone through similar experiences,
they know how it feels & make it OK for each other to feel that
way, talk about it, & work through it. Both Connor & Angel have
been resisting experiencing their feelings about their history.
Connor has had a breakdown; I'd say Angel needs one. Not that
this would solve their problems & make things OK between them
by any means; why, they could have spent an entire season working
out their issues (in exciting, dramatic metaphorical ways, of
course).
"And I wanted Angel to pay, pay, pay for being such a sucky
father that he had to do something so drastic to save his son
(when he never should have neglected Connor to badly that he *could*
be manipulated by Evil!Cordelia and Jasmine and driven over the
edge)."
Or that, yeah. But it seemed to me that Connor didn't let him,
& Angel did what he could...well, I dunno. I'd probably have to
watch the whole season again, & part of 3, & I don't have time.
I remember that even after Angel threw Connor out, he kept an
eye on him. Maybe he should have tried to get closer to Connor
when he was spending so much time w/Evil!Pregnant!Cordelia. But
maybe it took the events in Home for Connor to get to the point
where Angel might have been able to get through to him...without
a knife, a spell, or a deal w/the devil.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: i keep wondering what would
have happened... -- Ann, 04:49:52 06/17/04 Thu
This struck me as the moment when Connor could, just possibly,
have been reached. If Angel had cried out himself, something like
"I couldn't stop him! You don't know how I tried, the lengths
I went to trying to get you back, the despair I felt when I couldn't!
Yes, yes Anom. All through season 4 there were moments that Connor
really looks to Angel for saving. He so wants to be saved. Even
in Home, there were moments and Angel (and I love him but) fails.
He failed before he took the agreement with W&H, taking it
wasn't the failing. The failing was leading up to Home, not the
events in Home. Angel doesn't see or hear Connor crying out and
didn't know what to do if he did hear. He waited until everything
was so bad, and then thought calling Connor son would do it. Well
that was the one thing that Connor didn't believe very much. He
still worries and threatens: CONNOR Could be me." who is
about to be blown up. He is throwing the possibility of dying
in his father's face, to see the reaction. He is testing Angel
even at this point.
and
CONNOR
(rage)
I didn't feel anything! (quieter) I can't feel anything. I guess
I
really am your son because I'm dead, too.
ANGEL
You're not dead, Connor. You're just starting your life.
CONNOR
No! You just weren't there before.
He is talking to his dad, the circumstances aren't great
but he is talking. And Angel thinks proving his love is taking
W&H's offer. He still wants his dad's love and asks for it:
ANGEL
I really do love you, Connor.
CONNOR
So what are you going to do about it?
He raises the knife for a killing blow.
ANGEL
Prove it.
The knife descends.
No, IMO proving his love to Connor would be doing as you say Anom
and having done it long before Home. I guess we could debate the
ethics of what Angel did forever as everyone sees it through their
own lens ;-), but he failed long before he reached Home. All of
Angel's inadequacies and weakness' and unfortunate circumstances
come to this point. Talk about torturing characters. Once again,
Angel gets put on the outside, to watch through glass those he
loves.
"Not a word. They all raise their glasses and drink as Angel
watches outside." He has been silenced and put outside."
Angel took the worst offer because he had waited to long to do
the right thing. He brought himself to that choice because for
a zillion reasons he didn't know how to do the right thing for
Connor. The last choice or option left is probably always the
worst.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: i keep wondering what
would have happened... -- anom, 21:08:19 06/17/04 Thu
"Angel doesn't see or hear Connor crying out and didn't know
what to do if he did hear. He waited until everything was so bad,
and then thought calling Connor son would do it."
Angel recognized Faith's cry for help--was she really any less
far gone than Connor? (Well, at least she had human society around
her, & I have the impression she had a good relationship w/her
Watcher, so maybe.) Of course, it's always different w/family--harder,
more complicated. And it's such a human thing to wait till things
get so bad there's not much chance anything you try will help.
Bjerkley does have a point--Angel didn't have that much time to
try to get through to Connor. On the other hand, as Masq points
out, he let his own issues get in the way. But he's a long way
from making the connections that Doyle told him he needed to make.
That's what he really severed w/that knife, as we see in the final
scene you quote.
[> [> [> [> [> My season 4 Angel rant --
Masq (who loves Angel dearly, really), 12:04:58 06/17/04 Thu
* Angel kicked him out in "Deep Down" when the last
thing Connor needed at that vulnerable juncture was "tough
love".
* Angel let his jealousy of Cordelia come between any understanding
they could have come to after that.
* Then Angel let himself be turned into Angelus, who basically
confirmed every fear Connor had as to the "true" identity
of his father and the "truth" that his real mother didn't
love him (both of which were bullshit).
* Angel left Connor to Jasmine when the gang abandoned her in
Sacrifice. Yes, Connor is kind of hard to control when he doesn't
want to cooperate, but Angel could have come up with *something*.
* Angel gave Connor a brand new spanking life with new parents
and new memories instead of doing the hard work of helping his
son the hard way. He could have knocked him out, taken him to
a hospital and worked with him to bring him back to emotional
health. Yes, that would have made for a less interestin season
5, but it's what would have happened in real life.
Angel always struck me as someone who really wanted to be BigChampionMan
instead of a father. The kind of father who values his career
more than his son.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My season 4 Angel rant
-- Ann, 16:12:53 06/17/04 Thu
Yes Masq.
I think Angel feared being a father, feared the really difficult
day-to-day choices that makes a man, or in this case, a vampire,
a father. These are the ones that matter the most and he was not
there for them. I find it fascinating that he wants to fight the
fight, all of them, even when he knew he couldn't win, but can't
do the same for his son. Angel's father wasn't a good father,
very brutal by today's standards, and Angel feared he would become
his father. Therefore, he pulled back, trying but never succeeding
with Connor. Fearing and never moving forward for his son's sake.
I think the storm of his father clouded his judgment regarding
Connor. He knew love so he could deal with Cordy. He knew friendship
so he could deal with AI. However, he didn't know how to be a
father because he didn't know it. He was capable when Connor
was a baby, when his care was maintenance. He had a much harder
time when Connor was an adolescent and Connor tested him. Connor
tested him all the way to the mind swipe. The final and most important
test (IMO) and Angel didn't quite win. Granted, the fates or JW,
or however one would describe it, really stacked the deck against
Angel and Connor. Because Angel saw fear rather than his son,
he couldn't win.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My season 4 Angel rant
-- StarryNightShade, 05:52:36 06/18/04 Fri
Hi Masq,
Well, yes it is your rant and everyone's entitled to a rant every
now and then.
In real life, sometimes being a better parent means giving a child
up to a better home. It's like they say during the safety briefing
on airplanes. Attend to your own air mask before putting one on
your child...the opposite of a parent's normal instincts.
Keeping in mind the alcoholic metaphor that's behind the series,
we have to remember that Angel doesn't have the support group
he once had and he's still got attention of the Senior Partners
and their desire to turn him, which, as I've said elsewhere, is
akin to United Distillers having a special project to ensure a
particular alcholic falls off the wagon.
Having a heart-to-heart talk and a good mutual cry is all well
and good, but sometimes it still just isn't enough.
For example, I had a boss who's was in the later stages of alcoholism.
He was pretty far gone by the time he went for help...so far gone
that they never even attempt to get at so-called core issues that
led to the condition. He needed immediate medical help and stability.
That's what they gave him. Persumably, once he's recovered enough
from the chemical addiction he can begin psycho-analysis.
Whether the writers intended this or not...is open to question.
However, if someone writes about a character, "I want ...
to pay, pay, pay..." it says more about the writer of the
sentence than the character.
But, as I said, everyone's entitled to their rant....and here
endith mine.
SNS
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> i don't think anyone's
saying... -- anom, 10:19:32 06/18/04 Fri
...that in this scenario everything would be fine from then on.
"Having a heart-to-heart talk and a good mutual cry is all
well and good, but sometimes it still just isn't enough."
Of course not. But it would be a start, as I said:
"Not that this would solve their problems & make things OK
between them by any means; why, they could have spent an entire
season working out their issues (in exciting, dramatic metaphorical
ways, of course)."
Just as you say about your former boss, after the immediate problems
had been addressed, the long, hard work of dealing w/the underlying
issues can, & needs to, start. And you do say "he went for
help" of his own accord--Angel had the same choice.
It's hard to say how "far gone" Angel is by the time
of Home. It may be exactly that metaphorical alcoholism that kept
Angel from finding another way to deal w/Connor's breakdown...& that's
the point, & the reason that, to some of us, his decision was
the wrong one.
One he deserves to pay for. "I want Angel to pay, pay, pay..."
may be a dramatic way to put it, but even if an alcoholic (or
other kind of addict) stops drinking & begins to turn his (in
this case) life around, he still needs to deal w/the consequences
of all the things he's done in the past that hurt people, esp.
the people he's closest to. They may not be willing to believe
he's changed, & it can be very painful to face their reactions.
I'm not sure if your point about Angel's not having his support
group applies at the time of Home; certainly it's true by the
end of the series.
And, to end where you began, yes, there are times when it's better
to give a child up for adoption. But it's generally considered
better to keep a family together, & worth making great efforts
to improve the home situation before deciding to remove the child
from the home. In the episode Home, Angel had what may have been
his best chance to pursue that option, & he didn't. Not that I
don't sympathize--it must have really hurt him to give Connor
up voluntarily after having been forced to the year before. Some
people, though, would rather face the pain than the day-by-day
hard work that, come to think of it, Tara described as the "long
and important process" needed to rebuild a relationship after
things have fallen apart. Of course, the results aren't as dramatic
if you go that way, & both series took the other route.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: i don't
think anyone's saying... -- SNS, 10:51:42 06/18/04 Fri
Hi Anom,
Actually my boss didn't entirely go of his own accord...only after
three warnings at work and a threat that he'd lose his well-paid
job otherwise. I was "harmed" by his alcoholism, but
in all the time I knew him he never did deal with a single consequence.
It really was only up to me to deal with how it had affected me.
Life is like that. In my experience, most people prefer not to
deal; and fortunately for them they most often do not have the
"dramatic" consequences of the ATS characters. I imagine
if every parent who lied to a child had that child spirited off
to a hell dimension, we'd all be Conners.
My point is that, it's okay for consequences as long as those
consequences DON'T leave the individual more shattered or twisted
than before. That was the basis of my response to "pay, pay,
pay". I'll accept that it was a dramatisation and the concept
as long as by "pay" what is meant is to understand the
need to deal and not deny.
Sorry if I'm speaking too much from left field as I haven't actually
seen season 4, which will have to await the DVD release. However,
thanks for NOT tearing me up anyway.
Cheers
SNS
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry for the rant on your
rant... -- StarryNightShade, 07:20:50 06/19/04 Sat
....I've looked back at your message and noticed your chosen name
as "Masq (who loves Angel, dearly, really)", which puts
the message in context.
Thank goodness we have such beloved mythic characters that can
shoulder our collective sins, fall and still get up and try to
do better, which is a whole lot better than having to go through
that pain ourselves.
A comment on the BigChampionMan bit - it's a pretty common sin
at the moment. "Work - home life balance" has been a
hot topic for over 10 years, but the statistics tell us it's become
worse over those ten years. We're collectively talking but not
doing. No better example than at my work, which is in National
Defence (Canada)....they've got whole groups studying the issue
and making recommendations. The general for whom I work always
comments on it in divisional "town halls", but the most
recent comment he made was in a private meeting in which he said,
"I don't like long week-ends, they cut into the work week".
Ah well, so much for "walking the talk".
It's not a simple question of choosing a family over work. If
you want to provide for that family within our society you're
going to have walk a fine line in some cases unless you've got
an enlightened employer with a pretty strong competitive advantage.
In short, it's entirely appropriate that Angel should metaphorically
have the same struggle.
Cheers
SNS
[> [> [> Re: "Origin" and the ironic turnaround
of Season 5 -- Rufus, 19:44:54 06/13/04 Sun
I'm not surprised at all. I figured as much by going back through
season five Buffy and the mind games then, I figured that the
writers just may 'fix' Connor with the mindwipe...you know the
one act of Angel choosing to go that direction could have good
as well as bad results. For Connor there was some good which doesn't
mean that it's okay that some characters suffered because of it.
[> Another thought-- -- HonorH, 19:56:17 06/10/04
Thu
As you noted, we didn't get to see the good Angel and his crew
did at W&H. Well, they didn't, either--not really. Think about
it: they used to spend their days and nights directly helping
people. Then, all of a sudden, they're doing everything with signatures
and legal maneuvering. How strange would that be? Rather than
the original mission, which was to make contact and touch lives,
they're suddenly almost totally out of contact with the people
whose lives they change. Might that have been the very point?
[> Fred knew about Wes in harms Way -- tood,
20:27:25 06/12/04 Sat
She never forgot that he ahd a crush on her. You made a mistake.
[> i was gonna wait for part ii... -- anom, 23:30:42
06/12/04 Sat
...but that's gonna be a whole 'nother thread, isn't it? (Now
watch it show up by the time I post this.)
Worth the wait as always, cjl.
"And so it ends--not with a bang, but with a rumble...."
Heh. Love this. But then, I have this tropism for puns (in case
anyone had forgotten). You started w/the bang the show didn't
end with.
"And when Whedon asked him to bear the guilt of the season's
tragedies, Richards was heart-wrenching. It'll be a long time
before I forget Gunn begging Doctor Sparrow to tear the knowledge
out of his brain."
Oh yeah. In this & other scenes, he really made me feel
his misery, & feel for him. Some of those scenes weren't as highly
dramatic, but Richards reached a level of reality that impressed
me, reinforcing the reality that some actions have consequences
that can never be reversed.
"(Also, Joss and crew got a bit "Mary Sue-ish"
with Fred from time to time.)"
No kidding. Especially in this last season. And that's on top
of the "Professor Syndrome" (named for the Gilligan's
Island character who was a scientist & therefore knew all
about every kind of science) they saddled her with almost from
the beginning. She's a quantum physics expert of the highest order!
Barely back from 5 years away from her home dimension & any info
about developments in computer science, she sets up AI's website!
She's a whiz at mechanical stuff! And in W&H's lab, she's
a top-notch chemist & microbiologist, not to mention dissecting
things! Sheesh. Worse than what they did w/Willow (when it comes
to science, anyway). OK. It's out of my system now. But I absolutely
agree about Acker's acting ability.
"The scenes between Wes and Illyria in the Girl in Question
and Not Fade Away almost made the painful three-year courtship
and aborted romance between Wes and Fred worth the effort."
Yyyyeah. Except I kinda would've liked to see more effort. Remember
early in the season, when Wes was often patronizing & Fred let
him know she didn't like it? I'd've liked to see her get it through
to him that this was a problem & the 2 of them work it out. Instead,
in the very episode where she gives him "the signal,"
he responds to her hint that she'd like a ride home by picking
up the phone to have a car brought around for her--like she couldn't
have done that for herself! But now it's OK w/her?
"I've just given you ten reasons why Adam Baldwin's Hamilton
was a great villain and the perfect liaison to the Senior Partners.
That's about ten more than I'd give Sarah Thompson's Eve."
Just...appreciating this. So well said.
"There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people working
inside and around the borders of corporate America these days,
genuinely trying to improve the lives of their fellow citizens,
and it does them a disservice to dismiss their efforts so casually."
Really glad you said this. It's something that ought to be acknowledged
more often.
"Most of the badness suffered by the Fang Gang during Season
5 was due to outside agents, the Gang themselves, or W&H employees
pursuing their own agendas explicitly against the wishes of the
Senior Partners."
Er...yeah. Good point, throughout the rest of that section. Also
the next one, on Lindsey.
"Why did Fred suddenly change her mind and warm up to Wes?
Who knows?...Without the proper build-up, the Wes/Fred romance
felt like a plot device, not true love; and therefore, the Wes/Fred
portions of 'A Hole in the World' DID NOT WORK."
Can I repeat what I said above about wanting to see more effort?
No? Oh...OK.
"The only times I felt good about Eve on screen was when
Cordy was insulting her, Gunn was strangling her, and Harmony
was beating the crap out of her."
Y'know, I did feel a little sympathy for her after Gunn did the
strangling & when she asked if Angel & Spike knew where Lindsey
was. But really, was there an episode she appeared in where you
didn't wonder what the Senior Partners had in mind w/her? Especially
when Harmony was beating her up--she broke after what, 2 punches?
That's when I wondered what ME had in mind w/her. And I'm
still wondering.
"(Now I know how OnM felt with his Endless Review--don't
want to let go too quickly.)"
Exactly. I'm torn between wanting to see Part II & not wanting
it to be over!
[> [> Part II mostly done. Will post as soon as able.
-- cjl, 06:41:23 06/14/04 Mon
But hey, it's tough trying to think of incisive comments about
22 separate episodes. I'm running out of adverbs.
[> [> [> Well Part I was Whedonsequable -- Tchaikovsky,
08:18:48 06/14/04 Mon
So you're obviously doing something right.
TCH
[> [> [> that subject line was in no way intended
to pressure you for part ii -- anom, 10:33:31 06/14/04
Mon
It was meant strictly as an excuse for me, for not responding
sooner. But I have a bunch of adverbs I'm not using, so you can
have 'em if it'll help. (Oops--except for "strictly"
up there. Sorry.) So no, no pressure--not even about...you know.
[> [> [> Re: Part II mostly done. Will post as soon
as able. -- Ann, 11:00:55 06/14/04 Mon
Here are a few:
accidentally
afterwards
almost
always
angrily
annually
anxiously
awkwardly
badly
blindly
boastfully
boldly
bravely
briefly
brightly
busily
calmly
carefully
carelessly
cautiously
cheerfully
clearly
correctly
courageously
crossly
cruelly
daily
defiantly
deliberately
doubtfully
easily
elegantly
enormously
enthusiastically
equally
even
eventually
exactly
faithfully
far
fast
fatally
fiercely
fondly
foolishly
fortunately
frantically
gently
gladly
gracefully
greedily
happily
hastily
honestly
hourly
hungrily
innocently
inquisitively
irritably
joyously
justly
kindly
lazily
less
loosely
loudly
madly
merrily
monthly
more
mortally
mysteriously
nearly
neatly
nervously
never
noisily
not
obediently
obnoxiously
often
only
painfully
perfectly
politely
poorly
powerfully
promptly
punctually
quickly
quietly
rapidly
rarely
really
recklessly
regularly
reluctantly
repeatedly
rightfully
roughly
rudely
sadly
safely
seldom
selfishly
seriously
shakily
sharply
shrilly
shyly
silently
sleepily
slowly
smoothly
softly
solemnly
sometimes
soon
speedily
stealthily
sternly
successfully
suddenly
suspiciously
swiftly
tenderly
tensely
thoughtfully
tightly
tomorrow
too
truthfully
unexpectedly
very
victoriously
violently
vivaciously
warmly
weakly
wearily
well
wildly
yearly
yesterday
lol
[> [> [> [> You forgot 'obstreperously'. Everyone
always forgets 'obstreperously' -- TCH- #1 'obstreperously'
fan, 12:33:46 06/14/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> A logolept you are! -- Ann,
14:07:20 06/14/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> Hee! Adverbs, adverbs, who's got the
adverbs? :) -- Jane, 22:24:55 06/14/04 Mon
[> Re: CJL's Review of ANGEL Season Five, Part One (fifth
in his annoying occasional series) -- Johnny, 10:18:55
06/13/04 Sun
I'd like to say that I agree with half of what you said and disagree
with the rest.
Using your order I'll begin there.
What worked.
1. Spike and Angel. I found Spike to be nothing more than a space
filler for the whole season. He had one connection to Angel and
that was hundreds of years ago. They really only had a connection
via the flashback sequences and that wasn't enough to warrant
Spike coming to Angel in the first place. Secondly, I didn't agree
that they had chemistry and saved episodes with their rather dull
banter. I saw it as forced and contrived and thought most of it
was out of place.
2. Soul in the machine. I thought the whole idea of the Angel
gang going to Wolfram & Hart was a good one at the end of last
year. I just don't think they made good use of Wolfram & Hart
at all. They basically had stand alone stories with no connection
to the firm all year.
As I saw it, they all got along just fine until the end. I think
they all seemed remarkably unchanged after working for the firm
for a year.
3. Gunn. To be honest I thought Gunn was highly underused this
year. As were Wes, Fred and even Lorne. Mostly at the expense
of giving Spike meaningless airtime.
Gunn was non existent in many episodes and had little more to
do than spout off a few lines of lawyer talk and then disappear
into the woodwork.
I know many fans who were disappointed at how Gunn and the others
became secondary players on a show they helped bring to life for
the previous seasons.
4. Illyria. I agree that Amy Acker was amazing as Illyria and
although I think the storyline was ill advised, it did make for
some good drama for a couple episodes, but as much as I enjoyed
Illyria, I think they could have easily had this work out with
Fred returning in some magical fashion at the end of the season.
For those who only think people can act if they yell a lot, well
it's not surprising they are easily impressed when people play
other roles.
Fact is, I think Fred did grow from the first time we saw her
in Pylea to the last year on Angel where she was the head of the
science department and a big part of the team.
She was quirky, but that's how she was written.
5. Hamilton. I loved Hamilton. He was a villain that was similar
to Caleb from Buffy. Certainly more polished and more of a suit
than Caleb, but both were evil, hilarious and were a treat to
watch.
What didn't work.
1. Wolfram & Hart. I agree.
2. Lindsey. I agree. Another ill advised character coming back
for no real reason. Totally out of character with how he left
the show and the storyline they created for him was unbelievable
and poorly executed.
3. Lorne. Well, I believe he was in the same boat as Gunn, Fred
and Wes. Pushed to the back to prop up the Spike love they have.
Lorne was also turned into a third stringer and that was a shame.
More waste of talent for no apparent reason.
4. Wes and Fred. This is not a surprise to anyone who actually
watched the show. Since day one we knew Wes was attracted to Fred
and they had a connection through science, math and history that
bonded them from the start.
I always knew that Gunn/Fred were nothing more than a distraction
and plot twist and the original goal was a Fred/Wes pairing, so
when they finally got together at the end of this year, it was
par for the course and although I'm not into the relationship
aspects of sci fi shows, this one rang true more than almost all
the others.
5. Eve. Well, I realize she was not a favorite of many people,
but I don't think she was near as bad as she's made out to be.
I think better writing would have helped and a clearer understanding
of her point would have been nice, but I didn't think she brought
the show down. They needed a bad guy for the firm and she was
it.
I agree that they should've made her stronger and not such a wuss,
but I think she came across as a bitch, which I believe was the
intention.
I don't think she was meant to hook up with Angel and she sure
wasn't meant to be with Spike, so who cares if she had chemistry
with him. Believe it or not, very few people do anymore.
I thought Fred's line about Spike was the best one of the year.
When Angel asked her if she was falling for Spike's charms, she
basically said she wasn't a stupid little airhead teenager and
I think that said it all.
Eve probably wasn't interested in a 42 year old, guaunt looking
140 pound anorexic man. Can't blame her for that.
I think at the end Eve looked much better, once they got rid of
that horrid hair she had at the start of the season.
She still wasn't the reason season 5 did well, but she isn't the
reason it sucked either.
I will add that I believe the reason Angel wasn't at it's best
this year can be attributed to a few main reasons.
One, Spike returning. As far as I can see, just as many people
are tired of him as are still interested in his character.
Second, I would say the effects of Spike's return hurt all the
the other main characters, with the expection of Angel who still
had the lion's share of airtime.
Third, I think the decision to go back to stand alone episodes
was a good one, I believe they should've slowly introduced us
to the Black Thorne over the course of the season, because the
finale fell flat because there was no real build up to this big
bad that turned out to be the series finale bad guy.
Forth, It was so disappointing that they wasted a whole episode
on the Buffy nonsense. When they should've been working towards
making this bad guy seem intimidating, they spend it with Angel/Spike
chasing a ghost for an hour. Sure, there were some amusing moments
of that episode, but it was out of place in the context of where
the series was at. With no SMG, it was even more pointless. Buffy
is with neither of them and I doubt she's with another evil vamp
either, so that was kind of stupid.
Fifth, one thing I don't think Angel has this year was passion.
Season four was collectively loved or hated. There was very little
in between. The Connor/Cordy story was almost universally panned,
but at least it created some interest, whether it be negative
or not, people had opinions.
This year was kind of flat when it came to feeling things about
it. It was just there. Aside from the hilarity of Smile Time and
the sadness of A Hole in the World, most of the episodes were
rather bland.
I do think the tension level rose after Fred's death and that
was good. I think they could've worked on that from the start.
While it's good to have some lighter moments, you still need some
good drama and conflict to keep the show interesting.
Spike didn't do that. He added no conflict at all. He had no connection
to the other 4 main characters and as I said before, he simply
took up space and had no real purpose.
I also thought the finale was disappointing. I've yet to watch
it again but I do plan to, but my first impressions were not that
great.
I might've had too high of expectations, which happens for finale's,
but I just had no sense of fear for the gang, because I knew next
to nothing about the Circle of the Black Thorne to think they
were going to beat the good guys. Sure they would spout off things
every now and then, but they didn't show me these guys were so
tough.
Wes dying was a surprise, but I know he can easily come back if
there's a movie, so aside from having one last glimpse of Fred,
I saw no point to it.
Having them all go into some huge battle at the end was kind of
a copout. I know they wanted to leave some things open and that's
fine, but I think they could've have handled the ending differently.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the show.
[> Re: CJL's Review of ANGEL Season Five, Part One (fifth
in his annoying occasional series) -- purplegrrl, 16:52:07
06/14/04 Mon
Great analysis. I pretty much agree with everything you said here,
especially the Lindsey and Eve parts.
My take on why Lindsey left W&H originally was because he was
tired of being at their evil beck and call. Not because he wanted
to take over the joint!
Maybe the Eve character was supposed to be a little stand-offish
from the Angel gang. Which made her and Angel doing the horizontal
mambo at Lorne's suggestion all the more funny. But she could
definately have come across as more evil. Heck, when Cordelia
was pregnant with Jasmine *she* was more evil.
And Wesley finally grows a backbone and he *still* can't tell
Fred how he feels until after she's dead. Please. He got to the
point a whole lot quicker with Cordelia in BtVS season 3. And
that was when he was British Twit Wesley.
[> No Lilah! Re: CJL's Review of ANGEL Season Five, Part
One (fifth in his annoying occasional series) -- circelily,
02:49:58 06/15/04 Tue
Problems 1,2, 4 and 5 all have the same root - no Lilah. Lilah
was the missing heart of this season.
Nice write up - I found my head nodding in a "yes, yes, yes"
way.
In answer to DMW: Empire
v Nation Building -- slam dunk, 11:26:52 06/10/04 Thu
dmw said:
The popularity of those bases is mostly in the eyes of the
US, which plays it up in its own press. Most US bases are not
very popular. Most Germans did not want to be the next battleground
between the US and USSR; they wanted to do what Austria did instead.
And of course, US bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arabian
peninsula are extremely popular, right?
From The Telegraph, a UK paper on German dismay over US
troop withdrawals:
The joke keeps getting better. Karl Peter Bruch, a state official
in Rhineland-Palatinate who's lobbying the Americans to change
their minds, put it this way: "We realised that our installations
are in grave danger. And then came the question, what can we do
to make us more attractive?"
-------------------------------------------
America's main "overstretch" lies not in Afghanistan
or the Horn of Africa, but in its historically unprecedented generosity
to its wealthiest allies. "The US picks up the defence tab
for Europe, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, among others,"
I wrote. "If Bush wins a second term, the boys will be coming
home from South Korea and Germany, and maybe Japan, too."
Well, the second term is not quite here. But America has already
quit Saudi Arabia, and plans for South Korea and Germany are well
advanced. When scholars come to write the final chapter in the
history of the European continent, the six-decade US security
guarantee will be seen as, on the whole, a mistake. Not for America,
but the Continentals.
The so-called "free world" was, for most of its members,
a free ride. Absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain
credible armies softens them: they decay, almost inevitably, into
a semi-non-aligned status.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/03/30/do3002.xml
and here is a little PR piece from the German Embassy web site.
Now why would they want positive PR in the US on the presence
of US bases in Germany?
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/bases/bases.html
From BBC on S Korea dismay on US troop withdrawals:
The US wants to remove a third of its 37,000 troops by the
end of next year.
----------------------------------------
"The timing is very inappropriate," said Park Jin of
the conservative Grand National Party.
"We're concerned about a security vacuum at a time when North
Korea is pushing ahead with its development of nuclear weapons."
South Korea's government wants any changes to be phased in over
several years, to give it time to upgrade its own forces.
----------------------------------------
"The United States spends as much $10bn a year on its forces
in Korea, but the Korean Government spends only $15bn on its entire
defence budget," said analyst Bruce Bennett.
----------------------------------------
The changing realities have come as a shock to South Korea, which
had come to rely on a seemingly open-ended commitment for American
troops to be deliberately placed within range of North Korean
guns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3786811.stm
So what "press" are you reading?
The invasion and 19-year occupation of Haiti was certainly
a use of force. How about that of Santo Domingo or most of the
other Central American nations which the US has invaded this century?
Don't be ignorant. The US uses force on a regular basis to establish
or re-establish its dominance.
Is this a joke? US occupation of Haiti? Again what are you reading?
It's like putting the cart before the horse to believe that these
bases the US has are unwanted or imposed on foreign governments.
Who in their right mind would object to spending someone else's
money and soldiers lives instead of their own. Not Germany or
Korea as seen above. Like children who want everything but financial
independence, and complain about parental interference until at
the first sign of trouble they run home for help. US would be
quite happy if Europe (NATO), Germany and S Korea started fending
for themselves like adults.
The "imposition" of American forces and bases around
the world is a myth perpetuated by ungrateful countries and being
debunked by soon to be implemented withdrawals and those countries
cries and complaints.
And where have you been? The US has removed its bases from Saudi
Arabia and we see how well that is going. Count down to implosion...
but why do you think I have anything against the US?
Because you do?
Here is my recommended reading list:
Paul Johnson, Victor Davis Hanson, Robert Kagan, Fouad Ajami.
Start there.
Replies:
[> Good Stuff! Get the kids (U.N.) out of the way and let
the adults (U.S.) do the heavy lifting -- Vegeta, 14:02:07
06/10/04 Thu
[> [> Re: Good Stuff! Get the kids (U.N.) out of the
way and let the adults (U.S.) do the heavy lifting -- Cap,
16:15:53 06/10/04 Thu
Couldn't have said it better myself.
[> [> [> And the arrogance makes it all the more endearing!
-- Pony, 16:57:58 06/10/04 Thu
[> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire v Nation Building --
Bjerkley, 14:33:34 06/10/04 Thu
Now why would they want positive PR in the US on the presence
of US bases in Germany?
Well, as the Telegraph article goes on to say, they want the US
bases in because of the economy, because it provides jobs, provides
money.
As the article states: Even now, the likes of Mr Bruch see
the US military presence in Europe in mainly economic terms -
all those German supermarkets and German restaurants that depend
on American custom
Which is really a very separate issue from wanting American protection
or defence. The loss of the military bases are akin to the loss
of a large manufacturing firm. Nothing to indicate that this is
borne out of a desire for America to play an active role in the
defence of their country.
[I would also not place a whole lot of importance on the fac that
the Telegraph is a UK paper. It is also a right wing, anti-European,
pro-America, pro-strong military paper. It's not known for capturing
the prevailing mood of the country]
You also say It's like putting the cart before the horse to
believe that these bases the US has are unwanted or imposed on
foreign governments
Which again is an interesting and important point. Note the use
of the word 'governments'. You are completely right to say that
these bases are very often not imposed on the governments. However,
sadly, all too often the governments don't exactly reflect the
interests of the people. (Case in point - the majority of the
UK were against the war in Iraq, didn't stop the UK supporting
it as a country though). So to say that because the governments
are happy with it, does not mean that they are not unpopular.
And that's even in the countries where it's a democracy. It's
also important to point out that a military installation in somewhere
like Syria isn't just the concern of Syria alone. It's unpopular
for all the countries surrounding Syria who would like to know
exactly what the plans are.
But I think the main point is that it's quite often more about
money, rather than security. These bases are often allowed to
be built because of economic and political interests, so it follows
to withdraw that input wouldn't make the countries relying on
it too happy.
[> [> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire v Nation Building
-- slam dunk, 16:09:54 06/10/04 Thu
[I would also not place a whole lot of importance on the fac
that the Telegraph is a UK paper. It is also a right wing, anti-European,
pro-America, pro-strong military paper. It's not known for capturing
the prevailing mood of the country]
How convenient to dismiss The Telegraph because you don't like
their politics. I wonder how they stay afloat with no readership.
I like The Telegraph. And I suppose by your standards The Guardian
is great and even-handed? Also the article had quotes and hard
facts. Are you saying it was fabricated? I believe that has been
the province of the left leaning media lately -- NY Times, BBC,
Daily Mirror.
The BBC is hardly a right wing paper. I believe they have been
sarcastically called the "Baghdad Broadcasting Co" for
their anti-American coverage of the Iraq war. They had similiar
things to say about withdrawal of bases. I quoted one on Korea.
Too lazy to look it up now on Germany. But you can.
And your point about economics, so what? The economics was the
thrust of the entire discussion about Empire. I stated the economics
as central to the discussion. So did dmw. The question was precisely
in whose economic interest were the military bases.
But I think the main point is that it's quite often more about
money, rather than security. These bases are often allowed to
be built because of economic and political interests
The bases are built, certainly in the case of Germany and now
S Korea, because these countries are scared silly of their neighbors
and can't or won't spend on their own defense. So that is economics
and security. The fact that with the demise of the Soviets, Germany
is now more concerned with economic fallout just reflects the
changing world situation which the US is recognizing .
Although given what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and Europe's
complete ineptitude and or indifference to the deaths of 100's
of thousands of oil-poor Muslims, and now fear of instability
in parts of Eastern Europe, Europe, Germany and Russia (smiles
here) still want to cadge off the US military largesse and spending.
However, sadly, all too often the governments don't exactly
reflect the interests of the people. (Case in point - the majority
of the UK were against the war in Iraq, didn't stop the UK supporting
it as a country though). So to say that because the governments
are happy with it, does not mean that they are not unpopular.
And that's even in the countries where it's a democracy.
So elect new ones. People who disagree with US (or UK) policy
keep acting like it is being done against the will of the people.
Polls show not so. The Congress and Parliament made up of elected
officials approved these actions. These are not autocracies. Another
left myth, no popular support. Why doesn't the government fall
if the public is so anti.
This reminds me of what started the whole discussion -- the assumption
that everyone thinks like you.
============================================
One more point. You are pretty careless with your own sourcing
since you used CAIR's numbers on incidents of anti-Muslim crimes
in US.
I don't see why Europe are especially bad in this regard. Certainly,
hate crimes against American Muslims has increased by 121& in
the last few years. Racism isn't confined to Europe.
These numbers are biased and highly inflated. Here's why. CAIR
is a Muslim advocacy group who compiled this information in part
by way of self-reporting (internet form) "anti-Muslim incidents,"
not crimes. Some of these incidents include:
a college student's writing in a campus publication that "a
true Muslim is taught to slay infidels" is one of the incidents
mentioned in the report. Other incidents included in the report:
A man flung a Mr. Potato Head at a Muslim woman shopping in Brooklyn;
a woman asked to remove her hijab for a school-identification
photo; reports of anti-Muslim rhetoric that claim Islam promotes
killing, a topic debated in Islamic intellectual circles.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136063/posts
Here is the link to the on-line form: http://www.cair-net.org/ireport/
These numbers have been challenged all over the US media. You
know, the other media.
[> [> [> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire v Nation Building
-- Cap, 16:33:59 06/10/04 Thu
Well put. I love how the certain segments of society use very
convenient sourcing when it suits there needs, but are very quick
to dismiss those who actually shine light on the way they try
to skew the truth to suit their needs.
About the bases specifically:
The thing about some of these military bases is that they were
built as part of agreements to end wars (World War II and the
Korean War). They were built to protect to general citizenry and
yes for profit as well. And more quietly to prevent the spread
of Communism. In my opinion they were very effective in all aspects.
The world needs to be thankful that the United States has been
the worlds policemen for all these years. The United States actually
attempts to play by the rules. And although flawed at times, generally
has the best intersets of the greater good in front of its own
agenda.
Although the United States intentions are widely misinterpeted,
the general good is usually served.
Slam dunk is entirely right about the ineptitude of some of the
European countries do anything to fend for themselves. They will
be the first to cry for help, and then ridicule those who help
them. Truely pathetic. But guess what, when they cry we will be
there... to pick up the mess that they can't/won't/refuse to do
anything about.
[> [> [> [> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire v Nation
Building -- LeeAnn, 18:00:27 06/10/04 Thu
The thing about some of these military bases is that they were
built as part of agreements to end wars
Don't the reasons they were built include 1) keeping these countries
demilitarized and 2) In the long run to keep them militarily helpless
and dependent on the US for protection.
In providing protection for all of Europe the US kept Europe dependent
on it for that protection. That was expensive but to the advantage
of the US.
Aren't the countries where bases are being closed those with leaders
who have been at odds with Bush over Iraq? Are the base closures
and reduction in troop numbers punishment?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire
v Nation Building -- dlgood, 18:28:37 06/10/04 Thu
Don't the reasons they were built include 1) keeping these
countries demilitarized and 2) In the long run to keep them militarily
helpless and dependent on the US for protection.
Is that a bad thing?
Isn't it in US National interest to demilitarize potential rivals,
through a combination of positive diplomatic relations, and imperial
policy - even if we must absorb some financial cost?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Empire and Culture
-- dmw, 19:34:19 06/10/04 Thu
Is that a bad thing?
Isn't it in US National interest to demilitarize potential rivals,
through a combination of positive diplomatic relations, and imperial
policy - even if we must absorb some financial cost?
It is in US interest and it's not completely a bad thing to demilitarize
potential rivals. Empires are designed to benefit their core constituencies,
but that doesn't indicate that they don't provide substantial
benefits to both occupied and client states. Rome brought peace,
culture, and technology everywhere the Empire extended. You wouldn't
have found a large majority of the inhabitants of Roman Britain
desiring independence after a century of Roman Rule any more than
you'd find a large majority of Puerto Ricans today desiring independence
after a century of American rule. Thomas Sowell's Conquests
and Cultures explores related themes in greater detail than
I can go into here.
[> [> [> [> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire v Nation
Building -- Bjerkley, 15:17:12 06/11/04 Fri
Well put. I love how the certain segments of society use very
convenient sourcing when it suits there needs, but are very quick
to dismiss those who actually shine light on the way they try
to skew the truth to suit their needs.
I was hardly guilty of that. Indeed, I was using the same sources
as slam dunk to argue the opposite. Which is the result of several
possible situations. But your comment does raise the possibility
that there's a source for any old prejudice, right or left.
On the issue of bases, much of these threads keeps bringing to
mind Star Wars, and perhaps more relevantly, the NMD. A few years
ago, the US wanted to base part of the NMD from a military base
in the North East Uk. They also wanted a 50 mile exclusion zone
around the base. Geography clearly wasn't a strong point, wiping
out one major city as the plan did. But that's not meant to be
a point one way or the other.
The point from that really is the NMD benefits no one but America.
Yet, if they ever get it to work, it's very likely the military
bases in the UK would be used to set it up. What whinging, helpless
element of the UK inspired that?
The world needs to be thankful that the United States has been
the worlds policemen for all these years.
The ironic thing is that I personally would have very little problem
if this was the role that the US played. But tthat isn't and has
rarely been the case. That would depend on a certain consistency,
honesty and general desire for the greater good of the world (rather
than country) than has so far been displayed.
[> [> [> [> [> Who does a policeman protect?
-- LeeAnn, 18:03:22 06/11/04 Fri
The world needs to be thankful that the United States has been
the worlds policemen for all these years.
The ironic thing is that I personally would have very little problem
if this was the role that the US played. But that isn't and has
rarely been the case.
I think US forces have acted as a world policeman, not defending
people or their rights, but defending the persons and property
of the global plutocracy just as a hundred years ago the police
in the South or inner cities rarely protected blacks from whites
or other blacks but instead concentrated on protecting whites
and their assets. The main goal of US intervention since the end
of WWII has been defending wealth, protecting the holdings and
investments of the most affluent class. In that sense US forces
have been a global police.
[> [> [> Re: In answer to DMW: Empire v Nation Building
-- Bjerkley, 14:05:27 06/11/04 Fri
How convenient to dismiss The Telegraph because you don't like
their politics. I wonder how they stay afloat with no readership.
I like The Telegraph. And I suppose by your standards The Guardian
is great and even-handed
I didn't dismiss The Telegraph. Your implication in putting the
fact that that they were a UK paper in bold seemed to be that
this indicated a lack of bias, or as reflecting some prevaling
mood. And I don't think that's the case. Of course they have a
readership (although certainly not the biggest), but they are
to the right of even the Tories in many affairs. I was just trying
to say that while it was an interesting article, an opinion piece
in The Telegraph is nothing other than one man's opinion. And
I would say the same about a George Monbiot article in The Guardian.
And their respective lack of even-handedness is why I enjoy reading
both papers.
And the BBC seem to be silent on the issue of withdrawal of US
military bases from America...
. The fact that with the demise of the Soviets, Germany is
now more concerned with economic fallout just reflects the changing
world situation which the US is recognizing.
This is my point about economics. What may have been true of Germany
40-50 years ago is no longer true. Economic reasons, rather than
defence (and remember, as losers of the War, exactly how far was
it protection back then?) are the issue. But you used Germany's
desire for US bases to stay for economic reasons as an example
of the US being needed there for defence reasons. That's not true
at all, which you admit in this later post.
Although given what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and Europe's
complete ineptitude and or indifference to the deaths of 100's
of thousands of oil-poor Muslims...Europe, Germany and Russia
(smiles here) still want to cadge off the US military largesse
and spending.
Care to provide evidence of that? Again, you are continually conflating
economic and security reasons when they are very much not the
same thing. I also remember that it was the UN who were involved
in Bosnia, not the US on their own. And I wonder what to make
of the E.U's desire for an army of their own and increased defence
spending if they are so meant to be in hoc to American defence
and needing them to survive. Oh, I forgot, it's the US who aren't
keen on that idea.
So elect new ones. People who disagree with US (or UK) policy
keep acting like it is being done against the will of the people.
Polls show not so. The Congress and Parliament made up of elected
officials approved these actions. These are not autocracies. Another
left myth, no popular support. Why doesn't the government fall
if the public is so anti.
In the case of the UK, which polls are you talking about? I'm
sure you can't be commenting on the government's massive success
in the recent elections and the fact that just 39% of the country
think that the PM is trustworthy. It's also interesting to point
out that in the UK at least, only 35% of the electorate actually
voted for the current government. That's hardly having the backing
of the country. And then when you consider several major issues,
like a war for instance, certainly weren't in the election manifesto,
you have to ask questions about the exact nature of democracy.
Sure we can vote them out. In two years time. A democracy certainly
isn't about having carte blanche over the country until the next
election. And what happens when there isn't a credible alternative
for government? Don't go pretending that governments exist solely
to exercise the will of the people by any means.
This reminds me of what started the whole discussion -- the
assumption that everyone thinks like you.
I certainly don't have that assumption. Most people I know have
many differing views to me. It's only when I read in The Telegraph
all the criticisms of current policy, I realise that more people
think like me than I realise.
______________________________________
Funnily enough, I got the figure about rising hate crime from
the BBC. Which didn't see fit to challenge it.
And to be honest, the examples of this supposed bias and inflation
don't really convince me that the report is faulty.
A man flung a Mr. Potato Head at a Muslim woman shopping in
Brooklyn. So assault is not a crime because.... why exactly?
Because Mr Potato Head's are funny? Doesn't stop it doing some
harm. Of course, the man could have been throwing them at anyone.
A simple accident that it was a Muslim woman. Or alternatively
he was a racist bastard and that attack deserved to be counted
as a hate crime.
And I checked out your link to the free republic site, and this
quote interests me:
Until CAIR follows proper academic standards for its analysis
and distinguishes between true acts of violence and mere political
debate, its findings are not worth considering
Yet in your other post, you quote the EU report saying: The
report says: "In the extreme left-wing scene, anti-Semitic
remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian
and anti-globalization rallies and in newspaper articles using
anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel.
So why is one unacceptable and cause for concern, while the other
is to be disregarded? Hate crimes are hate crimes, and racist
sentiment is racist sentiment wherever the origin.
[> [> [> [> shifting sands -- slam dunk, 17:36:11
06/12/04 Sat
I didn't dismiss The Telegraph.
Oh really. Here's your quote:
I would also not place a whole lot of importance on
the fac that the Telegraph is a UK paper. It is also a right wing,
anti-European, pro-America, pro-strong military paper. It's not
known for capturing the prevailing mood of the country
"not place a whole lot of importance" is dismissive
in most lexicons.
Your implication in putting the fact that that they were a
UK paper in bold seemed to be that this indicated a lack of bias,
or as reflecting some prevaling mood.
My "implication" in highlighting "UK" was
in addressing dmw's point that only US press says bases in Germany
and NK will be missed. My post was addressed to him/her as the
thread is entitled. Further you still have not demonstrated in
any form The Telegraph's bias or unpopularity as you claim.
There is a lot of shifting sands here. You make comments and then
say you did not. dmw addresses my remarks on bases in Germany
and Korea and then when disproved says he/she was referring to
other bases elsewhere.
The Telegraph is nothing other than one man's opinion.
First of all there were facts. Second, how is the "one man's
opinion" different in The Telegraph than in any other opinion
pieces in any other paper? I'll tell you the difference. You as
another "one man" disagree with it.
Care to provide evidence of that?
Well it seems to me I've backed a lot of my points up with evidence.
And you haven't done it once. So why don't you try it.
Again, you are continually conflating economic and security
reasons when they are very much not the same thing.
Oh really? I disagree vehemently. Tell Socialist Europe to spend
more on the military and give up some of their social spending
and you'll understand the conflation better. The US pays for Europe's
socialized medical system for example (I don't mean one for one
of course but since money is fungible...). Just look at the recent
numbers on world military spending which were just released. I
already gave numbers for US contributions vs European to NATO
and the US % contribution to the UN.
Germany is currently using military personnel to staff "volunteer"
positions in hospitals and nursing homes (come to think of it
that is pretty one for one) and is worried how to fill the gaps
in its social welfare system should the soldiers actually have
to do military [Gasp!] duty.
I also remember that it was the UN who were involved in Bosnia,
not the US on their own.
You are wrong. It was the US not the inept and unwilling UN that
stopped the killing. Read up on it.
And I wonder what to make of the E.U's desire for an army of
their own and increased defence spending if they are so meant
to be in hoc to American defence and needing them to survive.
Oh, I forgot, it's the US who aren't keen on that idea.
What exactly are you talking about here? The EU's recent (last
two months) lip service to that effect? It is by far a fait acomplii.
"Desire" is cheap and easy to express. France desires,
for instance, world adherence to the Kyoto Protocals, but it's
violations are legion (see raw sewage littering the French countryside).
And in what alternate universe is the US not "keen"
on that? The US has been begging Europe to pick up more of the
responsibility, financial and humanpower.
you have to ask questions about the exact nature of democracy.
-----------------------------
Sure we can vote them out. In two years time. A democracy certainly
isn't about having carte blanche over the country until the next
election.
So ask them. That sounds healthy to me. If the government is unresponsive
change it. Amend its form if need be. UK by way of Parliamentary
system is arguably more responsive than US because governments
can fall if they lose support, and they can fall any time. Here
we are stuck with the administration barring impeachment which
is for cause. It's easy to claim lack of popular support for the
government, and quite another to prove it in an election. Well
in US we will know in a few months. As for "carte blanche"
your Parliament voted for the war as did our Congress. You may
not agree but others did.
====================================
[i]Funnily enough, I got the figure about rising hate crime from
the BBC. Which didn't see fit to challenge it. [/i]
I don't find anything funny about that. I find it another pathetic
example of BBC bias. They did not bother to cite the sourcing?
Pretty sloppy at best. The figures clearly were from CAIR.
And I checked out your link to the free republic site, and
this quote interests me:
Until CAIR follows proper academic standards for its analysis
and distinguishes between true acts of violence and mere political
debate, its findings are not worth considering
Yet in your other post, you quote the EU report saying: The report
says: "In the extreme left-wing scene, anti-Semitic remarks
were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and
anti-globalization rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic
stereotypes in their criticism of Israel.
So why is one unacceptable and cause for concern, while the other
is to be disregarded? Hate crimes are hate crimes, and racist
sentiment is racist sentiment wherever the origin.
I'm really missing your point here. Are you saying the EU Academic
Study is of equivalent scope, research, authenticity, and neutrality
as the CAIR study? The EU study is based on crime statistics (arsons,
assaults, vandalism, cemetery desecrations, etc). The "remarks"
went to posited causation only and were not included in the actual
crime statistics. The report is in adobe and is 104 pages. It
has input from numerous EU member countries and organizations.
As a result of this study the EU sponsored a conference on anti-Semitism
in April 2004. Here is a link to a report (also adobe) from Human
Rights Watch (NGO) from that conference.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/antisemitism/antisemitism_report_22_april_2004.pdf
Let me just add here that I find ALL racial, ethnic or religious
hate speech and crimes despicable. But speech is not equatable
with crimes. You may be unaware but unlike in Europe, hate speech
is not a crime in the US. It is protected under the First Amendment.
That only addresses the legality. The morality, as I have just
stated, is disgusting. Having said that, I would be terribly upset
and ready to jump on the bandwagon if I believed CAIR's numbers
were correct. Many other studies and reports have disputed them.
Like Pres Bush or not, he and the administration went out of their
way post 9/11 to say it is not Muslims or Islam. It is a specific
group of terrorists.
Would that Europe had done the same and stated that Jews are not
synonymous with Israel and that in any event crimes are not acceptable.
I hope things will change for the better in this regard, so that
even if there are incidents the governments will act to stop them.
There are signs of positive change in France.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027055312.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/opinion_04ea04f8048491f200b0.html
Further the links of anti-Semitism to the left, Muslims and anti-Israel
are made now officially in France. To their credit and hopefully
its eradication.
Article by Foreign Secretary Renaud Muselier in "Le Figaro"
newspaper.
Paris, April 27, 2004
Not to call things by their name, Albert Camus wrote, is to add
to the misery of the world. Anti-Semitism, in France, Europe and
the rest the world, must be called and recognized for what it
is: an offense to the whole of mankind. Regrettably, we are witnessing
insidious attempts to relatavise anti-Semitism by finding reasons
to explain -and gradually justify it- in the social and cultural
context, and in the international diplomatic environment.
I am thinking for example of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
becoming the instrument in the genesis of what is now called the
« new anti-Semitism. » France will not tolerate the
Star of David being juxtaposed with the Nazi swastika in demonstrations
in a shameful distortion of the lessons of history.
-------------------------------
We cannot ignore the fact that the new anti-Semitism is often
the response of alienated young people, who are poorly integrated
economically and culturally, exposed to racist reactions themselves,
who project themselves into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by
adopting a substitute identity. One racism does not excuse the
other. I am aware that we must also fight the racism which befalls
some of our citizens of Maghreb or African origin whom French
society has unfortunately not yet succeeded in fully integrating.
http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2004/museulier_antisemitism_figaro_052704.asp
[> [> [> [> [> Re: shifting sands -- Bjerkley,
18:43:45 06/12/04 Sat
"not place a whole lot of importance" is dismissive
in most lexicons.
This is just semantics. As I have said several times, it was the
importance placed on the fact that they were a UK paper. Now I
can accept that I misunderstood the original point, that it was
a response to the comment that no non-US press supported
it, but that doesn't change the fact that the Telegraph isn't
indicative of all of the UK. Just as I am sure you would be jumping
up and down about a Guardian quote being used in a similar way.
So I;m not shifting my position at all, merely stating you misunderstand
my position. And The Telegrah's bias is well known. Bias not being
necessarily a negative word. The Telegraph is a right wing, anti-Europe,
pro-American relations (but not at the expense of Britain) paper.
And that's only a negative accusation if you happen to disagree
with that view. I also didn't say that The Telegraph was unpopular,
just that I see no evidence that the British public support American
military bases in Europe. Do you?
First of all there were facts. Second, how is the "one
man's opinion" different in The Telegraph than in any other
opinion pieces in any other paper? I'll tell you the difference.
You as another "one man" disagree with it.
Indeed there were, but the article wasn't a news report, but an
opinion piece. That's what they call them in the paper. And my
point wasn't that it wasn't worth anything, just that you could
find an opinion on anything in the press. Unless you're going
to tell me if I quoted a left wing piece from The Guardian, you'd
accept it as a valid point which indicates a general truth.
Tell Socialist Europe to spend more on the military and give
up some of their social spending and you'll understand the conflation
better. The US pays for Europe's socialized medical system for
example
This is very revealing, since you seem to have the strange idea
that i) Europe is socialist, ii) that Europe is a homegenous state
rather than being made up of very different countries and iii)
the US pays for the European medical system. That's assuming that
the US need to spend as much as they do on then military, and
that the US' army is the best in the world, and that the European
healthcare systems are funded due to the lack in defence spending.
Assertions which I notice you don't back up (and given that you
accuse me of not backing up my statements, I would have assumed
you would make extra sure that every comment is backed by a fact).
You also miss my point about economic versus defence. The Germans
need the American military for the jobs they create, not the security
they bring, which is something the article you used as supposed
proof actually said. So there is absolutely no reason why
the Germans would need to replace the American military in terms
of defence. A manufacturing plant would have the same effect.
The EU's recent (last two months) lip service to that effect?
Actually, this has been an issue of debate for several years.
And I will provide you with evidence of that. And are you seriously
suggesting that America would be happy with a military power that
could rival it's own???
UK by way of Parliamentary system is arguably more responsive
than US because governments can fall if they lose support, and
they can fall any time Actually, they can't fall at any time.
Unless there is a government without a majority, which is rare,
governments can only be turned out of office at election time,
which is once every 4-5 years. And, as I said in my post above,
the last government were only elected on around 35% of the votes
of the electorate. Please explain in what sense this can be said
to be a government with the full support of the people.
And yes, our government did vote for war. But they did so not
on the will of the people. As I said, it wasn't in their manifesto,
Parliament weren't aware of the full facts for war and voted on
inaccurate information. If Parliament voted to end elections,
would that be okay because the Goverment were democractically
elected? Of course not, but it's feasibly possible (albeit unlikely,
although the point remains valid). When people elect a government,
they are not at the same time giving it permission to do what
the hell it likes. That is an abuse of power (and given the fact
that in the recent local elections, the current government are
now the third most popular party, I'm hardly alone in thinking
this - those who agree with the government seem to be few indeed).
______________________________
I don't find anything funny about that. I find it another pathetic
example of BBC bias. They did not bother to cite the sourcing?
Pretty sloppy at best. The figures clearly were from CAIR.
I didn't say that the BBC didn't say the figures weren't from
the CAIR. My point was that they didn't contradict the evidence
and claim it was faulty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3681021.stm
I find it ironic that you dismiss the BBC so easily, when many
of your links to back up your arguments are to the BBC.
The "remarks" went to posited causation only and
were not included in the actual crime statistics.
Thank you for explaining that. You selective quoting indicated
that this was enough to constitute rising racism. Which is why
I made the comparison.
And I note you fail to comment on the fact that an actual crime
is used as an example of how the CAIR report exaggerates crime.
Doesn't fill me with confidence of the accuracy of these accusations
against the report.
Would that Europe had done the same and stated that Jews are
not synonymous with Israel and that in any event crimes are not
acceptable. I hope things will change for the better in this regard,
so that even if there are incidents the governments will act to
stop them
Given that the EU report you cite is saying exactly that, I'm
not sure what you're trying to say. And you yourself point out
that hate speech is a crime in Europe, but not America (protected
as it is in the States). Again, I ask which government is failing
to provide protection?
Further the links of anti-Semitism to the left, Muslims and
anti-Israel are made now officially in France
Interestingly, your link doesn't mention the left or Muslims as
being responsible for anti-Semitism. Talk about drawing your own
conclusions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still shifting
-- slam dunk, 08:23:36 06/13/04 Sun
the Telegraph isn't indicative of all of the UK
It is you who are relying on semantics. Who ever used the word
"all." I did not. You used the expression "prevailing
mood" before, which has now become "all." I like
the way the burden of proof keeps rising.
And The Telegrah's bias is well known.
By who? People who disagree with it. This is circular.
I also didn't say that The Telegraph was unpopular
"Not the prevailing view" equals not popular. You really
need to be more careful with your language.
Actually, they can't fall at any time. Unless there is a government
without a majority
Isn't that your claim - that the government is going against the
will, ie the Majority, of the people?
This is very revealing, since you seem to have the strange
idea that i) Europe is socialist, ii) that Europe is a homegenous
state rather than being made up of very different countries and
iii) the US pays for the European medical system.
You seem to believe you have exposed me, but I am quite willing
to stand by those three statements. Europe under the auspices
of the EU is close to homogenous. Isn't that the point of the
EU? It is socialist. And as I've already said, since money is
fungible and the US is assuming much of Europe's costly military
burden, the US is paying for Europe's expansive social welfare
system, in part. I might point out to the Americans reading that
if Europe paid more of its own way, we could afford more social
programs here.
You also miss my point about economic versus defence. The Germans
need the American military for the jobs they create, not the security
they bring, which is something the article you used as supposed
proof actually said. So there is absolutely no reason why the
Germans would need to replace the American military in terms of
defence. A manufacturing plant would have the same effect.
You seem to be conflating the past with the present. It is the
US who is now desirous of withdrawing recognizing that the security
needs have changed.
And are you seriously suggesting that America would be happy
with a military power that could rival it's own???
Since that possibility is so far removed from reality I need not
address it. Straw Man. It is clear that the US is pressing Europe
to beef up their military power and spending for several years
already, and Europe has done very little about it.
Unless you're going to tell me if I quoted a left wing piece
from The Guardian, you'd accept it as a valid point which indicates
a general truth.
I might. I'd have to read it first. It's called an open mind.
==============================
I didn't say that the BBC didn't say the figures weren't from
the CAIR. My point was that they didn't contradict the evidence
and claim it was faulty.
And their lack of contradiction means what - that CAIR is correct?
Their lack of criticism is the problem, not determinative of correctness,
especially considering how much valid room there is to criticize
this report.
The "remarks" went to posited causation only and
were not included in the actual crime statistics.
Thank you for explaining that. You selective quoting indicated
that this was enough to constitute rising racism. Which is why
I made the comparison.
Excuse me? I credit your selective understanding. I gave
a citation open to all for examination. Further for someone who
incorrectly quoted statistics before, and I credited with honest
error, you might try some reciprocal respect.
Given that the EU report you cite is saying exactly that
Huh? Maybe you need to make up your mind. Does the EU = Europe
or not? Also in any event for 2.5 years Europe (and the EU) ignored
it and made believe it wasn't happening.
And you yourself point out that hate speech is a crime in Europe,
but not America (protected as it is in the States). Again, I ask
which government is failing to provide protection?
This is the most important point you have made - the difference
between free speech policies in the US and Europe. I strongly
disagree with Europe's stand on hate speech and do not agree that
such speech should be a crime. And look how far it has gotten
Europe in fighting bigotry. Maybe it is healthier for a society
to allow the speech. Maybe speech is a safe outlet. Of course
Europe's experience of the Holocaust led them to this place, and
this experience was never duplicated in US. This is a very fundamental
difference between the US, which views free speech as nearly sacrosanct,
and Europe, which through the EU and its mandated acceptance of
certain human rights laws, impinges on free speech. I feel the
same way about the French Hijab ban, which by the way is an issue
in Germany too. I am waiting to see what if anything the EU does.
I believe it is illegal under their Human Rights provisions.
Further the links of anti-Semitism to the left, Muslims and
anti-Israel are made now officially in France
Interestingly, your link doesn't mention the left or Muslims as
being responsible for anti-Semitism. Talk about drawing your own
conclusions.
It is your reading your reading skills not my conclusions that
are faulty here. Did you fail to realize that the bolded (by me)
sections refer to Muslim immigrant youth?
We cannot ignore the fact that the new anti-Semitism is often
the response of alienated young people, who are poorly integrated
economically and culturally, exposed to racist reactions themselves,
who project themselves into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by
adopting a substitute identity. One racism does not excuse the
other. I am aware that we must also fight the racism which befalls
some of our citizens of Maghreb or African origin whom
French society has unfortunately not yet succeeded in fully integrating.
And did you fail to realize that the protesters of Israel are
on the left? Thus this statement refers to anti-Semitism originating
from the left, not coming from the right as you claimed earlier:
I am thinking for example of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
becoming the instrument in the genesis of what is now called the
« new anti-Semitism.
Did you even read the Human Rights Watch Report (HRW)? If you
don't want to that's fine but don't come back with comments if
you have not. A cursory reading reveals that the incidents criticized
as being not criminal in the CAIR report, the worst being the
potato, are not of the same severity as the serious assaults in
the HRW report. So please do not attempt to equate them.
Also the report states in no uncertain language on page 41 that
"Europe's immigrant Muslim community" have a "role"
in the violence against Jews. It also discusses at length the
relationship of the anti-Zionist movement to anti-Semitism.
[Just a word about HRW (applies to your remark on the "ironies"
of my quoting BBC for that matter). I don't necessarily like them.
I often don't agree with their positions which are more left than
I am. Thus when they do a report which appears to go against their
normal position I view it as MORE reliable, as in a statement
against interest. Just as I would view a right leaning source
as more reliable should they take the opposite position. It is
an indices of reliability.]
Yes, the reality is unpleasant, and not PC, but it does not excuse
willful looking away. Then one becomes part of the problem. Only
by confronting the facts here, as I am quite happy to see the
French are beginning to, will things change.
Did you see the title of the Human Rights Watch report? Please
take note:
Antisemitism in Europe: Challenging Official Indifference
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still shifting
-- Bjerkley, 10:03:23 06/13/04 Sun
You really need to be more careful with your language
Yes, you're completely right, I do need to be more careful with
my language. But your focus on the odd misplaced word seems to
show you can't really argue against the content, otherwise you
would actually respond to the points I'm making, not reading what
you like into them and ignoring the rest.
I would also say that bias does not have to be a negative word.
The Telegraph themselves would say that they are right wing, largely
anti-European, pro-militarism. So that is their bias. Just as
The Guardian's is left wing, more pro-European, a tendency torwards
anti-globalisation/corporations etc. There's nothing in wrong
in pointing out a bias or admitting to it, since it puts context
to the words.
Isn't that your claim - that the government is going against
the will, ie the Majority, of the people?
No, it's not my claim. The will and the majority are not the same
thing. I was talking about majorities in governments. And there
is a long and tedious explanation about the nature of the English
political system, but briefly, to have a strong government, there
needs to be a large majority (i.e. more MPs). Where there is no
majority in Parliament, it is the only time that the Government
has a chance of falling outside of an election. And due to the
vagaries of our political situation, the number of MPs doesnt
accurately reflect the number of votes cast.
Europe under the auspices of the EU is close to homogenous.
Isn't that the point of the EU? That is the point of the EU,
but that is actually a long way from happening. It's because of
the disparities between the countries and their rivalries that
the EU isn't one homogenous state. The desired (by some) federal
state is a very long way from happening.
It is socialist Just by saying it often enough, doesn't
make it true. Some countries are more socialist in nature than
others, but I certainly would not say that France, Italy, UK,
and others are socialist in any real definition of the word.
I might point out to the Americans reading that if Europe paid
more of its own way, we could afford more social programs here
Going back to the socialist point, a common theme of socialism
is redistribution of wealth and higher taxes. So if Europe were
socialist, surely they wouldnt be relying on American money, since
there would be more than enough revenue for which to pay for services?
It's true that some European countries don't place a great emphasis
on defence spending, but this isn't necessarily a case of being
unable to afford it, but rather than not seeing the need for it.
It is the US who is now desirous of withdrawing recognizing
that the security needs have changed.
Which is my point. The US aren't subbing the Europeans in defence
spending because, as you say, there isn't the need for it.
It is clear that the US is pressing Europe to beef up their
military power and spending for several years already, and Europe
has done very little about it.
Not true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3210418.stm
-----------------------------------------------
It is your reading your reading skills not my conclusions that
are faulty here. Did you fail to realize that the bolded (by me)
sections refer to Muslim immigrant youth? And did you fail to
realize that the protesters of Israel are on the left? Thus this
statement refers to anti-Semitism originating from the left, not
coming from the right as you claimed earlier:
Interesting that you talk about respect when you have criticised
both my reading and writing skills. But yes, I understood what
you were refering to, but I disagreed that the newspaper report
itself was saying that the anti-Semitism was Muslim and left wing
in origin. It doesn't say that - you drew your own conclusions
based on what you believed. And while there were inferences as
to the fact the alienated youths were in part Muslim, it was far
from clear that the left wing were also responsible.
Did you even read the Human Rights Watch Report (HRW) Yes
I did, and interesting reading it was too, with many good points.
Also the report states in no uncertain language on page 41
that "Europe's immigrant Muslim community" have a "role"
in the violence against Jews. It also discusses at length the
relationship of the anti-Zionist movement to anti-Semitism. Indeed
it does, but it also said:
generalizations about antisemitism in Muslim communities runs
the risk of both oversimplifying a complex problem and tarring
the concern over antisemitism with racist overtones.In fighting
racism there is a real need to avoid discriminatory generalizations
that demonize whole communities defined by their religion or ethnicity-not
least to avoid generating the very kind of discrimination that
we define as antisemitism.
It also totally undermines your claim that the left wing are responsible
for increased anti-semitic attacks.
Threats and attacks by organised political movemetns of the
extreme right [are part of the picture of anti-semitism]. Attacks
by racist 'skinheads' continue to be a common feature of antisemitic
violence
Not once does the report attribute blame to the left wing. Indeed,
it actually states that:
The torrent of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate speech coming
through the Internet from Middle East websites is a disturbing
and increasingly important aspect of the problem
of antisemitism in Europe. So too are the websites sponsored by
extreme nationalist and transnational organizations of the extreme
right. These latter send messages of hatred that are antisemitic,
anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant. Dutch organizations tracking
Internet hate speech have pointed out that some of the most virulent
of these sites are hosted in the United States.
Whereas, where some of the left can be said to fail is in relation
to the overall paralysis some goverments seem to have in actually
combatting it. But that's a failure to prevent it (a failure which
should be addressed), but it's right wing groups which are helping
create it. In reading the report, it actually seems to say what
I was saying in my original post - that right wing groups utilise
the current situation in the Middle East for their own racist
purposes. The report itself discusses how anti-Israeli sentiment
is used in such a way.
One last point
I am waiting to see what if anything the EU does. I believe
it is illegal under their Human Rights provisions.
Actually it's not. The EU/EC don't have many provisions relating
to Human Rights, and even then it's only applicable to nationals
of it's member states. It is the European Convention of Human
Rights which may cover the freedom to wear headscarves. They're
two separate bodies, although the EU would recognise the ECHR
and uphold it's findings. The relevant right is probably freedom
of thought, conscience and religion - although there are derogations
to this, so it would depend on a legal argument. And it is the
individual who enforces their rights under the Convention through
the courts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still shifting
-- slam dunk, 18:48:15 06/13/04 Sun
I am waiting to see what if anything the EU does. I believe
it is illegal under their Human Rights provisions.
Actually it's not. The EU/EC don't have many provisions relating
to Human Rights, and even then it's only applicable to nationals
of it's member states. It is the European Convention of Human
Rights which may cover the freedom to wear headscarves. They're
two separate bodies
The European Convention of Human Rights provisions are mandatory
for EU membership. Countries must amend their laws in conformation
of this treaty in order to be member states. Hence the death penalty,
for instance, is outlawed in all EU member countries. France,
a member of the EU, must comply with the provisions. So if the
hijab ban violates the provisions it is illegal under EU law.
OTOH France is often in violation with no consequence due to their
political clout in the EU.
Going back to the socialist point, a common theme of socialism
is redistribution of wealth and higher taxes. So if Europe were
socialist, surely they wouldnt be relying on American money, since
there would be more than enough revenue for which to pay for services?
It's true that some European countries don't place a great emphasis
on defence spending, but this isn't necessarily a case of being
unable to afford it, but rather than not seeing the need for it.
Huh? Why if Europe were Socialist would there be more than enough
revenue? This point makes no sense. Are you actually saying here
that the spending ability of Europe is unlimited? How nice for
them. I have no doubt that many politicians in Europe share your
view hence the poor state of their economies.
Germany has announced sweeping cuts in its military spending
in a move that will infuriate NATO and hamper plans to reshape
the army for modern warfare.
The Defence Minister, Peter Struck, said on Thursday that the
German army, air force and navy had to make drastic cuts in equipment
and slim down their organisational structures to save resources.
The news emerged a day after Mr Struck told parliament that Germany
would reduce its order for A400M Airbuses being developed with
its European partners from 73 to 60, leaving the other countries
to shoulder the surplus costs.
"This is embarrassing in the extreme for Germany," said
a diplomat in Berlin. "The cuts are being made at exactly
the wrong time and will send exactly the wrong message."
Mr Struck admitted that the poorly performing economy and a
huge budget squeeze were to blame for the cuts.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/06/1038950196294.html?oneclick=true
(2002)
This is from a libertarian think tank:
From a military perspective, the case for American withdrawal
from NATO seems to have already been made. A number of commentators,
including George Will and the British historian Paul Johnson,
have pointed out that NATO is an anachronism rendered helpless
by distrust and infighting. But there are also compelling economic
grounds for American withdrawal. Simply, the American security
guarantee perpetuates the continuation of the European welfare
states and thus encourages economic sclerosis across the European
continent. Thus NATO is not only useless, it's harmful.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-03.html
It is clear that the US is pressing Europe to beef up their
military power and spending for several years already, and Europe
has done very little about it.
Not true.
It is according to what I've read:
A Common European Security and Defense Policy has been a dream
of the EU for years. But with 15 already very different nations
expanding to 25, that dream may still be a ways off.
In the Treaty of Helsinki 1999, the European Union agreed to set
up a rapid reaction force - a sort of European army - composed
of 60,000 troops that could deploy within 60 days to sort out
problems within the Union's own backyard. The Union had twice
failed, in Bosnia in the early 1990s and in Yugoslavia in 1999,
to take effective action to stop violence in the Balkan region.
NATO did it for them.
But in the post-9/11 world, some European countries - at the
urging of the United States - are realizing developing an
effective fighting force with modern equipment is the best way
for the Union to establish itself as a credible mediator on the
world stage. Such a force is already taking shape, and is due
to take over policing duties in Bosnia from NATO troops some time
in 2003.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_704208,00.html
The problem is Europe has been talking, not doing and spending
for years.
But the real problem is that only 1.5 percent of Germany's
gross domestic product goes to the military, half the proportion
allotted by the United States. "The German military knows
what has to be done," said Margarita Mathiopoulos, executive
director of the Potsdam Center for Transatlantic Security and
Military Affairs. "But they don't have enough cash to do
it."
With the war in Afghanistan exposing the disparities between the
United States Army and those of the other NATO allies, Europe's
perennial unwillingness to spend more for defense has undermined
its credibility with the United States and damaged NATO as a military
alliance, senior American and European officials say.
----------------------------------------
Devastated by military conflict in the 20th century, Europe
prefers to spend its money on social welfare at home and aid
to poor countries abroad. The European Union provides 56 percent
of the world's aid and 36 percent of the budget of the United
Nations.
---------------------------------------
Lord Robertson complains with some bitterness that Germany is
the only European country that has increased its military spending
at all - $780 million from a special tax to fight terrorism -
since Sept. 11. Yet he remains convinced that, in the end, "the
European allies will do it - they know they have to do it."
The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, also seems to recognize
that the Europeans must pool more power to remain relevant for
America. "We don't have too much America," Mr. Schröder
recently told the newspaper Die Zeit. "We have too little
Europe."
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/milgap.htm (2002)
U.S.-European Capabilities Gap Must Be Narrowed, Burns Says
U.S Ambassador to NATO press conference in Ljubljana
The widening gap in military capabilities between the United States
and the European allies must be narrowed, Ambassador Nicholas
Burns, the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, told journalists
in Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 28.
Burns added that the European allies "need to do more, invest
more money, raise their defense spending -- particularly as a
percentage of gross domestic product -- in order to invest in
the new technologies. If this does not happen, the gap between
the United States and our allies will widen further; and it will
mean that the United States will have to shoulder a greater share
of the responsibility for resolving crises here in Europe and
beyond Europe."
http://usinfo.org/usia/usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/nato/02022804.htm
(2002)
The article you quote does not make your point. Since money is
limited Europe needs to decide how it wants to spend its military
allocation - via a EU based force or via NATO. Some in the US
and in Europe are concerned that an independent European force
will be a wasteful costly redundancy laden with Europe's usual
bureaucratic morass and thus stripping limited funds from NATO.
Also Europe has been talking for years without effective action.
Talk is cheap. And as yet no money has been spent. Finally why
should the US absorb the lion's share of NATO if Europe won't
commit to it?
Are you really of the belief that the US would not like Europe
to share more of the burden of its own defense and contribute
more to other conflicts? That is nonsensical.
This article explains the problem really well and concisely:
That official EDI was to be an auxiliary to NATO not a competitor,
its purpose to provide European forces for less demanding peace-keeping
operations that did not require the participation of American
combat forces. American diplomacy, therefore, did nothing to oppose
EDI, and even welcomed the possibility that it might induce Europe's
political elites to support more military spending, reducing the
burden on the US. The seemingly endless Bosnia peacekeeping force
is a case in point. If EDI would supply additional troops to allow
the US Army to withdraw its 4,600 soldiers, that would suit America
very well because there are many other demands on US forces around
the world
-----------------------------------------
But EDI will provide no additional troops and no added combat
training - joint exercises are mostly ritualistic - while requiring
yet more spending on bureaucracy. For America, this means that
the European forces of NATO will actually be weakened by EDI,
adding to the potential burden on US combat forces. That is not
something even the most polite US diplomat can welcome.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentaries/commentary_text.php4?id=417&lang=1&m=contributor
The will and the majority are not the same thing.
Again a convenient distinction which suits your inability to muster
the lack of popular support you descried . If you have a better
methodology please name it.
I notice that you leave the BBC out in your discussion of bias.
They of course have no bias /sarcasm.
================================
Your quotes from the HRW report are indeed selective and misleadingly
so, albeit laborious, since it is an adobe format and cannot be
cut and pasted. I refuse to duplicate your effort. Whoever is
interested can read the report. The points I made, that the anti-Semitic
incidents often were perpetrated by Muslims and connected to anti-Israel
left rhetoric, are clearly stated as well as discussed in the
report. Hence the repeated coinage and use of the term "the
new anti-Semitism." The old anti-Semitism is still
from the right, and I never contended that it did not exist simply
that it was not the impetus for the recent increase in crimes.
You have grossly misstated the report and I urge anyone interested
to read the section on the New anti-Semitism starting on p. 41.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/antisemitism/antisemitism_report_22_april_2004.pdf
In reading the report, it actually seems to say what I was
saying in my original post - that right wing groups utilise the
current situation in the Middle East for their own racist purposes.
The report itself discusses how anti-Israeli sentiment is used
in such a way.
This is true but not as you mean it. The report explains that
after the fact, the far right extremists use the violence of Muslim
minorities on Jewish minorities to push their own racist agenda
of limiting immigration and fomenting xenophobia. This does not
mean the perpetrator of these attacks are from the right as was
your original contention. The report clearly says perpetrators
are often Muslim. Identifying the perpetrators does not mean one
must allow oneself to be manipulated into the far right's agenda
of curtailing immigration and xenophobia. But failure to identify
and acknowledge that the perpetrators are Muslim ultimately does
a disservice to this group you seem to want to protect. By correctly
identifying the perpetrators and the source one can hope to eradicate
the problem and thus undercut the far right's agenda.
I disagreed that the newspaper report itself was saying that
the anti-Semitism was Muslim and left wing in origin.
This is willful blindness on your part in the face of an unambiguous
statement by the French Foreign Minister and numerous other citations
I have made. The HRW report addresses this phenomenon of willful
blindness as well on the bottom of page 43. Again read the discussion
of the "new anti-Semitism.
Hopefully the European governments will be less blind lest things
escalate further. They appear to be making positive moves in this
direction.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still
shifting -- Bjerkley, 14:14:42 06/15/04 Tue
Wasn't going to respond since been inordinately busy and this
could go on forever without either of us changing our minds, but
a few points I wanted to make.
* The ECHR is distinct from the European Union. While all Member
States need to be members of the ECHR, there are other signatories
to the ECHR who are not part of the EU. But the key aspect is
enforcement. A breach of the ECHR would not be enforced by the
EU - the individual would have to pursue it through the courts
of their Member State, and if that didn't work, take it to the
European Court of Human Rights. The practical effects don't concern
the European Union as an institution. And even then it's no gurantee
as to whether it would be found illegal or not.
* Increased spending due to socialism was a joke really. Still
not sure why you think the European Union are socialist though.
* Don't the articles you quote here rather go against your earlier
point that the Americans are withdrawing due to a lack of need
for them to be there?
* Are you really of the belief that the US would not like Europe
to share more of the burden of its own defense and contribute
more to other conflicts? No, of course not, but then is it
not the US who largely see the need for increased contribution
to other conflicts, or indeed an increaed number of conflicts?
* The will and the majority are not the same thing.
Again a convenient distinction which suits your inability to muster
the lack of popular support you descried . If you have a better
methodology please name it.
Not a convenient distinction at all, just you ignoring my points
again. A Majority in Parliament merely refers to the number of
seats being held by the governing party. However, this does not
always accurately reflect the percentage of votes they received.
One example is the 1951 General Election, in which Labour actually
got a higher percentage of the vote than Conservative, but due
to the way the voting sytem works, the Conservatives had more
seats and so formed the majority. So clearly a majority in Parliament
does not necessarily reflect the popular vote.
As to the will of the people, in the 2001 general elections Labour
received 40% of the vote. The turn out was 59.4% of the electorate.
This means that the present government had the active support
of just 24% of the electorate. Now, I wouldn't go so far and say
that everyone one of the rest were against all the Government,
but you would think that when almost 4 in 5 people didn't vote
for them, the Government would realise that their mandate for
various actions isn't all that strong. But as I say, this is due
to the vagaries of the UK's political system - in much need of
an overhaul.
* notice that you leave the BBC out in your discussion of bias
Indeed I do, since I only thought that it was Fox TV and Governments
that considered the BBC to be biased. Since the BBC has been criticised
by both left and right wing governments, I would take that to
mean they're pretty neutral...
* Actually, adobe can be cut and pasted quite easily. So if you'd
like to point to the exact quotes which support your argument
I'd like to see them.
This does not mean the perpetrator of these attacks are from
the right as was your original contention Not in itself, but
as I have quoted above, threats and attacks continue to come from
far right political movements. So not only are they using this
to propogate policies, but violence too. Unless the neo-Nazis
referred to in the report are the caring, sharing kind.
But failure to identify and acknowledge that the perpetrators
are Muslim ultimately does a disservice to this group you seem
to want to protect True, if this is what you were arguing,
but you were also saying that anti-Semitism was coming from the
left. And no where in the report does it say it at all. Unless
you'd like to point me to the line in which it does. Whereas it
frequently says that the right are responsible also (along with
some sections of Muslims).
I would also note that the phrase 'new anti-semitism' is referred
to with a question mark. The authors seemed fairly uncertain as
to how far criticism of Israel could be said to be anti-semitic.
Really, it was failure by those in power to make separate criticism
and racism that allowed the violence and threats to happen. And
it is your assertation, rather than the report's, that this is
solely, or even predominantly, the left's influence.
In fact, I could find no reference at all to the left. Maybe it's
that pesky wilful blindness of mine. Or maybe it's the fact that
you continually make assertions that aren't backed up in the sources
you cite. I agree that anyone interested should read the report
to make up their own minds.
But an interesting discussion all round, which I now sadly must
leave.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> solid
ground -- slam, 20:27:24 06/16/04 Wed
A breach of the ECHR would not be enforced by the EU
Is there or is there not a mandatory freedom of religion provision
for all EU member countries? That is the question. Bringing in
who "enforces" it just muddies the waters. Congress
makes the laws. The Judiciary interprets and enforces them. Law
making and law enforcement are typically separated.
As to the will of the people, in the 2001 general elections
Labour received 40% of the vote. The turn out was 59.4% of the
electorate. This means that the present government had the active
support of just 24% of the electorate.
So you would like to count the roughly 40% who failed to "actively"
even vote as failing to "actively" (nice little thrown
in qualifier) support the government. How do you suggest garnering
their opinion, door to door? Sorry. No vote. No count. Because
the government must come into being and act even in the face of
their inaction. After that you go back to 1951. That's a ways
back.
Since the BBC has been criticised by both left and right wing
governments, I would take that to mean they're pretty neutral...
Not on the US, Iraq or the Middle East they're not.
This does not mean the perpetrator of these attacks are from
the right as was your original contention Not in itself, but as
I have quoted above, threats and attacks continue to come from
far right political movements. So not only are they using this
to propogate policies, but violence too. Unless the neo-Nazis
referred to in the report are the caring, sharing kind.
Well some progress has been made. You began by saying, what increase
in anti-Semitic attacks? Now you appear to be ready to admit the
increase I first brought to your attention.
You also denied when I stated that Muslims were involved. Now
you appear to acknowledge, by your comment "Not in and of
itself," that the attacks came from Muslims. You assert that
the attacks "continue" to come from the right (a point
I never disputed since I was talking all along about a NEW and
highly active anti-Semitic threat.)
You continue to dispute the role of the far left, anti-Israel
contingent in verbally (lest I be accused of deliberate misstatement)
fomenting the NEW anti-Semitism with their rhetoric. Well I don't
even need a report/study to figure that one out. Have you ever
been to one of these protests? Have you seen ANSWER's placards?
Ever visit the fringe left's web sites? Ever read LeeAnn on this
Board?
The authors seemed fairly uncertain as to how far criticism
of Israel could be said to be anti-semitic.
If you think I am saying criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic,
per se, you are mistaken. But the report acknowledges that there
is a line where criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Precisely
where that line is drawn was an open question of the report and
indeed it can be a difficult line to discern. Further how is assaulting
a French Jew not anti-Semitism? The point is criticism of Israel
became open season on Jews. Jews do not equal Israel. Hating Israel's
policies should not equal hating Jews. That line is clear.
Really, it was failure by those in power to make separate criticism
and racism that allowed the violence and threats to happen. And
it is your assertation, rather than the report's, that this is
solely, or even predominantly, the left's influence.
There is still an important distinction between the increased
acts of violence and their perpetrators, and what is done
to stop the violence after it becomes clear a new problem is occurring.
I spoke originally of official French inaction in the face of
a mounting problem, just as I have noted that they seem to be
addressing the problem now. As a result of their attention and
the EU's I think the incidence may be dropping.
you were also saying that anti-Semitism was coming from the
left. And no where in the report does it say it at all. Unless
you'd like to point me to the line in which it does.
In the EU study the Left was clearly named. In HRW the reference
was to anti-Israel protests. If it is your contention that the
anti-Israel protests come from the Right, not the Left as I have
stated, then I leave you to your fantasy.
Actually, adobe can be cut and pasted quite easily. So if you'd
like to point to the exact quotes which support your argument
I'd like to see them.
I am unable to cut and paste adobe. I thought it could not be
done. I admit my computer skills are not on par with my arguments.
I'll try to get some help.
Thank you for the discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
To cut and paste in Adobe Acrobat Reader -- KdS, 02:27:04
06/17/04 Thu
Whatever version you're using, there should be a button on the
toolbar that looks like a cursor with a capital T. This is the
text select tool. When you click on the button, the cursor will
change from a hand to a text-input cursor, and you can highlight,
cut and paste by normal means.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Thank you for your kindness. Extremely helpful! --
slam dunk, 17:21:43 06/17/04 Thu
[> Mistakes and misunderstandings -- dmw, 15:33:57
06/10/04 Thu
Bjerkely has already said much of what I would have said, so I'll
just add a request to read what I wrote--I said most of the 750
US bases were unpopular. A couple of quotes about Germany and
South Korea, which Bjerkely addressed, does not indicate anything
about the popularity of bases in over a 100 other countries like
Cuba, Okinawa, and various Muslim states, among many others.
The invasion and 19-year occupation of Haiti was certainly
a use of force. How about that of Santo Domingo or most of the
other Central American nations which the US has invaded this
century? Don't be ignorant. The US uses force on a regular basis
to establish or re-establish its dominance.
Is this a joke? US occupation of Haiti? Again what are you reading?
History books, but don't worry, you don't need to read any--just
google for "american occupation haiti" and you'll find
plenty of references. You can find plenty of print articles and
books from there.
It's like putting the cart before the horse to believe that
these bases the US has are unwanted or imposed on foreign governments.
Who in their right mind would object to spending someone else's
money and soldiers lives instead of their own. Not Germany or
Korea as seen above. Like children who want everything but financial
independence, and complain about parental interference until at
the first sign of trouble they run home for help.
You want to revive the myth of the white man^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAmerican's
burden to be a parent to the weaker countries of the world. It
worked well for the Europeans as a justification for empire, and
apparently it works for you too.
Current board
| More June 2004