@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/08/99 -- Vol. 18, No. 15
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
201-447-3652 for details. The Denver Area Science Fiction
Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.
===================================================================
1. National Public Radio dropped the fact that Home Depot has
noticed that more of their customers are women than they had
realized. I have given this some thought.
We are told that men have the upper hand over women in business.
That is true, though to a degree that appears to be constantly
overstated. Take my company. You have to go many levels up above
my head before you reach a level where men predominate over women
by percentage. You have to go up to the levels where people are
allowed to talk about how important diversity is--"providing
leadership" they call it--in lieu of going to diversity training.
In my experience it seems that if you are required to attend a
diversity meeting rather than just to endorse it, you are probably
not at a level your attitude is what is the problem.
But we are told at these meetings that we live in a patriarchal
society where men have more control over how money is spent and
spend more on themselves. I would love to believe this one but to
tell the truth, I really do not. The signs I see around me all
point to women being the ones making most of the purchasing
decisions in our country and they were long before the Women's Lib
Movement took hold. I call as People's Exhibit Number One ANY
department store in any mall or shopping area. Three quarters of
the main entrances will lead to women's clothing and the rest will
probably lead to something gender neutral. The men's department is
generally hidden away in a dark corner probably. Now why is this?
Do you think the word has just not reached Macys which gender
REALLY has money to spend on themselves? Somehow I do not think
that is very likely. This is their business and they know who has
the money and is spending the money on themselves. Their
conclusion sure looks like they think women are the spenders.
Don't stop at just the department store. Go to People's Exhibit
Number Two, a directory of the department store, and count how many
stores cater primarily to women, how many cater primarily to men.
I did and found a two-to-one ratio. Even that was a smaller ratio
than I had expected.
Compare the average beauty parlor and the number of products for
sale against the average men's barbershop. If it is a men's
barbershop there will be two or three bottles of smelly stuff. If
they cater to women there will be rows of mousses and dyes and hair
preparations of all kinds. In my area we have several nail parlors
opening up. Many of the women I see who patronize these parlors
are in low-paying jobs, but they still apparently have more money
to spend on themselves than men in significantly better paying
jobs. Outside of malls and not including barbershops, what
businesses around cater primarily to men? I see none. But I do
see clothing stores for women on the main street of my town. Women
I know make a day of going out and shopping for clothes. Most men
place the excitement of shopping for clothing on about the same
level as going to the dentist.
Now at this point in the discussion I usually hear that men spend
on different sorts of things. They buy big-ticket items for
themselves. The example usually given is cars. And some do buy
big cars. But how many of us have had a Porsche in our driveways,
owned by anyone, in the past twelve months? The men I know buy
cars as family utilities, not as luxury items. The cars get
counted as men's spending even thought it is for the general good
of the family. The same people would not think of counting women's
grocery shopping as being money the woman is spending on herself.
And of course they shouldn't. There are always exceptions, but if
you look around it really seems the real spending power in US is
more with women than men.
So let me then ask, where are the real rewards in this country, in
having the earning power or having the spending power? The focus
has been on earning power and on the basis of that alone people
draw the conclusion that the overall lot of men is so much better
than the lot of women. I cannot speak for others, but if I had the
choice of my current situation or of doubling my spending power but
at the same time having my earning power go to zero (all else being
equal), I know which choice I would make. And who has the spending
power? Go ask Macy's. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. John Jetzt sends us the following:
Your piece about presidential dining evokes the
following.
Some years ago I saw a coffee-table-style book entitled,
"The First Ladies' Cookbook." It was a collection of
alleged favorite recipes, one from each first lady, each
with a picture of the dish. It went back to Martha
Washington, and concluded with whoever was the then
present first lady. Almost all the recipes were for
fancy banquet-type dishes, like Beef Wellington. The
entry for Bess Truman was apt for Truman: Tune Noodle
Casserole: Mix canned tuna, a can of peas, and some
noodles. Serve.
John J.
===================================================================
3. Keith Morrison (keithm@polarnet.ca) posted these to Usenet; they
are reprinted here with his permission:
The Things I Will Do in a First Contact Situation
1. If any member of the contact team disappears for unknown
reasons and then reappears acting in a strange manner, I will
assume an attack and prepare accordingly.
2. I will not assume that because they are more advanced in
matters technological they are therefore more advanced in matters
moral.
3. My troops will be out of sight and instructed to fire only on a
direct order or if they are fired upon.
4. After the disasterous first contact which resulted in much
death, I will not invite them to the capital in order to clear up
the mistake.
5. If the aliens are slaughtering people somewhere else, I will
regard any sudden peaceful overtures to me with appropriate
skepticism.
6. The phrase "peaceful coexistence" when used by an alien can be
translated as "War, Earth Boy" and will be responded to
accordingly.
7. I will pay close attention to the alien's dietary habits, their
reproductive process or any other biological factor that can result
in me being eaten, implanted or dissected.
8. Any pansy who whines about the aliens being "Just
misunderstood" after they've blown up New York will be shot. If
they've just blown up Pittsburg, we'll give them a second chance.
[-Keith Morrsion]
===================================================================
4. THREE KINGS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Set in the day or two following the
Persian Gulf, THREE KINGS begins as a light-
hearted caper film but turns into a grim view
of the realities of the Middle East and
American policy. This is an adult film,
demanding but intelligent. A good film even if
it is not always pleasant. Rating: 8 (0 to
10), high +2 (-4 to +4) Spoiler warning: there
are mild spoilers of the first quarter of the
film in this review.
It is in the hours after the cease-fire in the Persian Gulf War.
Iraq is still in a state of chaos and barbarity even as the war
ebbs from it. We focus on volunteer soldiers, none of whom
actually fought but jubilant over the victory. Nevertheless their
duty continues as captured Iraqi soldiers are being strip-searched
before being interned. One is found carrying a map in a well-
protected place. Sergeant Troy Barlow (played by Mark Wahlberg),
Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin (Ice Cube), and Private Conrad Vig
(Spike Jonze) realize that the map must show where the Iraqis have
hidden gold bullion looted from Kuwait. They decide to make a
little extra-curricular expedition to liberate the gold for their
own purposes. Special Forces Captain Archie Gates (George Clooney)
has been escorting TV journalist Adriana Cruz (Nora Dunn), but when
he gets wind of the treasure map he decides to ditch Cruz and push
his way into the expedition and a share of the gold.
The village where the gold has been stored is a hotbed of Iraqi
rebels who have been promised American support if they would fight
against Saddam. They are overjoyed to find four armed Americans
show up at last to help them defend themselves. However despair
returns to them when Iraqi soldiers show up. The leader of the
soldiers offers the Americans a compromise. The yanks can take the
gold and leave the rebels to the Iraqi army. They even are happy
to help the Americans load "Saddam's gold" onto the American
vehicles in order to be rid of the conquering army and to proceed
with their sadistic duty against the rebels. The Americans are
only too happy with the deal until Gates realizes what his
complicity in the betrayal of Iraqi rebels will mean. He decides
he cannot leave the villagers to their fate. This sets in motion
the most deadly chapter of the war for the four volunteers.
Essentially the plot could have been a Western with just a few
substitutions. However the plot is less important than the
background of THREE KINGS. The film really becomes a serious
political examination of Americans in the war, America's clumsy and
dangerous foreign policy, and just how it affects other cultures.
In it bleak characterization of political policy it stands with
films like THE KILLING FIELDS. In the eyes of this film as the
Iraqi government suppresses and tortures its own people, the
Americans blunder around in quest of low oil prices. Meanwhile
opportunistic news reporters fight for new stories of what is
happening, losing interest once a story has already been covered by
someone else, trying to get ahead in the world of news industry
politics. And even while this is happening people like the Iraqis
struggle to get American style appliances like blenders and
cellular phones in the callous struggle for another culture's idea
of the good life. This is very dark and very angry.
Adding to the deliberate pain of watching the film is the
photography of Thomas Newton Sigel (who filmed THE USUAL SUSPECTS).
He intentionally washes out the color to give a feel of the hot sun
to the Mexican locales standing in for the Iraqi desert.
Occasionally the photography becomes a bit gimmicky, predominantly
in the more violent scenes. David O. Russell directs his own
screenplay to be certain to get each little angry note. The Iraqi
rebels come off the best, but American policy, the Kuwaiti
consumerism, the supposed stupidity of American Southerners, and
the Army bureaucracy, all get their turn under fire.
THREE KINGS may not be a pleasant film to watch, but it is
intelligent and certainly has to be the best film about the Persian
Gulf War yet. I give it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
No animal should ever jump up on the dining room furniture unless absolutely certain that he can
hold his own in the conversation.
-- Fran Lebowitz
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK