Cereal:

I always knew that if I wanted to get involved I'd have to throw something of me into the pot.

Julie, as far as I'm aware, your into-pot-throwing cannot be faulted.

[Edited because I do know English grammar. Really.]

Numfar, do the dance of new Buffy, Angel and Firefly tapes! Just in time for the four-day weekend, now I have a gazillion new episodes to watch. Many thanks Jim and, by extension, Jon.

From what to what, Fiona?

I'm good on Angel through to 4/16. And Buffy 7/17. (And West Wing 4/19 - but I think John H. was the only other watcher of that!?!)

I really liked 7/15. I've lots to say about that one, if/when you get there.

Julie, as far as I'm aware, your into-pot-throwing cannot be faulted.

Ahh that's because you've only been getting the tasty and the garnished. Wait until it's not quite pay day and we're scrabbling 'round at the back of the fridge for a bit of sustenance. Then we'll see just how faulty I can be :)

Dang, I have to run off to Net-less work, but thanks Moonlit and Julie and all for articulating what I and a lot of other people who simply can't keep up with Natter feel. Frankly, I drop in there from time to time but lose interest quickly when a two-hundred post string of cat anecdotes pop up. I feel weird posting something serious there sometimes, and when I do it gets ignored because the people who come in and might want to reply have to wait for 500 posts to do so, and unless they're very disciplined they just don't reply.

I also voted for a War Thread so that people who didn't want to discuss politics wouldn't get upset at seeing posts about it. C'est la vie.

I came here also because, contraty to what some unAmericans might think, the anti-war protests got a LOT of coverage in this country. Europe and Australia seemed to be one big mass of protestors who believed that America had the exact same imperialist designs that their own countries had tried in the last couple of centuries. I wanted to hear a bunch of different viewpoints from people who were friendly and intelligent on why they honestly thought keeping Saddam in power was for the greater good, and now I understand it a lot more. I would do this by kidding around, and while some of my jokes fell as flat as matzoh I think I helped get some good discussions going, after everyone got miffed Margaret-Dumont style at the way I started them. Those lorgnette raps hurt!

I don't know the solution. I just know that having Natter be the sole place to discuss the war simply doesn't work for me. But for people who don't want to see it here, I can certainly understand their point of view too.

I guess all I can ask is for unAmericans to remember that while GWB indeed lost the popular vote, he is the President. You folks don't get to vote for him, so it's not your responsibility or problem. For the zillionth time, I didn't vote for him. But not only does he now have the growing support of the American people re the war, his party handily won control of the House and Senate last year. The margins are narrow but they're there. So, if you seem to be saying that Dubya and the Republicans (a vast and diverse party, BTW--my mayor, Mike Bloomberg is one) are such a bunch evil right-wing freaks, you're implying that everyone who voted for him and/or doesn't think flowers die when he walks by is sort of a dupe. I think that's what I'm picking up on and that's what I get defensive about. Dubya now sees himself as fighting a war against what Tom Friedman calls the forces of chaos--reactionary religious warriors who have proven they'll stop at nothing. In one day he lost more of his citizens than a hundred Omaghs, twenty Bali bombings, and a couple of intifadahs. He sees his prime mission as never, ever letting that happen again. His methods are open to debate here and abroad, of course, but that's how he thinks. He's more widely read and has become more and more serious in office, everybody's noticed the change in him. And the political landscape of Texas is littered with the carcasses of those who made the mistake of thinking that he was just a stupid cowboy.

So, off to work. But thanks for letting me have my say. I'd be interested to know where people think we should discuss the war, or if we shold just forget about it. Maybe the latter would be smart. But I love to hear all the viewpoints.

The thing is, Caroma, hardly anyone starts out with "imperialist designs". In most cases a country (or corporations/individuals in a country) acquire business interests abroad, then take actions to make them safe, then operate them in the most favourable way. At the same time, there's a strong sentiment to help and improve the other countries, which usually involves leading them to your ideaology - muscular christianity for the British Empire, Enightenment capitalist democracy for the US. If (as is often the case) the country doing the acquiring and helping is more powerful, the inhabitants of the other country get arsey. A climate of resentment builds up, and sooner or later someone attacks the "imperial" country. At which point, having only been trying to help, or to do business, the original country realises that the other countries are a nest of vipers, and starts using its wealth and might to make them safe. before you know it, you're deposing governments, running countries, indulging in gunboat diplomacy, and trying to remake the world to your own image. At that point, like it or not, you're an Empire. You can map that onto Rome, Britain or, right now, the USA.

I wanted to hear a bunch of different viewpoints from people who were friendly and intelligent on why they honestly thought keeping Saddam in power was for the greater good, and now I understand it a lot more. You're not as monolithic and you're not all freedom-hating status quo cappucino-sipping beret-wearing innocents as the press would portray you , and it's great to get all these viewpoints. I would do this by kidding around, and while some of my jokes fell as flat as matzoh I think I helped get some good discussions going, after everyone got miffed Margaret-Dumont style at the way I started them. Those lorgnette raps hurt!

Caroma, all I can say (between giggles) is that this joke didn't fall flat at all. I've never COMMed anything and as a recent de-lurker am a bit fearful of doing so, but I hope that the above excerpt makes it into the annals.

And Julie you've gotten into the issue that I've been doing some thinking and writing about over the last 24-48 hours, the issue of community. I'll post some of it a little later.

From what to what, Fiona?

Let's see... last six eps of Firefly (although I have yet to watch the first few); Buffy eps 7.9 through 7.16 and Angel 4.7 through 4.12. So lots of good stuff, and caught up with you Aussies, more or less.

So, can we have an update - where are the Aussies up to? I'm one ahead of Fiona (Yeah, I kazaa'ed).

You folks don't get to vote for him, so it's not your responsibility or problem.

Caroma, I'd disagree that the nature and actions of the man who represents what is arguably the most powerful country on the Earth, isn't my problem. I'd also go as far as to point out that his role in the world is just as much a concern to me as, for example, Saddam Hussein's.

I'm not saying that I think he or his actions are evil (and I'm not saying that I'm not saying that, either :) but I do think that he can be considered to be my "problem". And, depending on how intensely I am affected by that problem, it's valid for me to feel I have a responsibility to speak out or act in the hopes of bringing about change. That change may not be about overthrowing the American President, but if I feel it is warranted, I can be active in trying to change the relationship between my country and his, or my government and his. And in raising my concerns in fora such as this.

So, if you seem to be saying that Dubya and the Republicans (a vast and diverse party, BTW--my mayor, Mike Bloomberg is one) are such a bunch evil right-wing freaks, you're implying that everyone who voted for him and/or doesn't think flowers die when he walks by is sort of a dupe. I think that's what I'm picking up on and that's what I get defensive about.

Perhaps what you are picking up on is a tendency for people to use hyperbole and symbolism when discussing unpopular leadership actions or party policy. That happens. I believe it's a side-affect of being human. And generally considered a good way to blow of steam. It's certainly preferable to, oh, say, marching on parliament with rocks :)

What I think I see here is a group of people that are rational and open-minded and questioning of what they are shown of world events by the media. People's irrational bits may talk about dead flowers, but their logical bits are a fine blend of national and international interests and concerns. (With tiny bits of petty "take that, you bad guy you", and a smidge of parochial defiance at being considered just another American state.) I think that there are statements that they make, and take, lightly. And then there are the one true statements. Those they mean, and will defend against all comers.

If I read ten people talk about their focus on "the greater good", I see ten different definitions of that good. I read fifty people, I see fifty definitions. People certainly don't think, for example, that their choices are limited to mindlessly following the GWB bandwagon now that it's arolling, or supporting keeping Saddam in power.

And the knowledge that the world isn't quite that black and white is generally what allows me to get out of bed in the morning.

And hey, before anyone accuses me of breeching my earlier "I don't talk war" stance, I'm not actually talking war. I'm talking about talking about the war. Whole other vibe :)

the issue of community. I'll post some of it a little later.

moonlit! great! I've had enough of doing study anyway. Which isn't the same as I've done enough studying, but if you don't tell, I won't.

Let's see... last six eps of Firefly (although I have yet to watch the first few);

sigh. Firefly. I haven't seen what you think so far, but towards the end there I was ready to trade BtVS and Angel for more Firefly. I think, at the end of the day, it's Joss that I want more of. And there was a fire and an energy to what he said about, and did with, Firefly that I just don't see in the other shows anymore. I used to say that he had fallen in love again, and well, seeing that? Rubbed off on me.

Buffy eps 7.9 through 7.16 and Angel 4.7 through 4.12. So lots of good stuff, and caught up with you Aussies, more or less.

eeep. I don't remember what's what. They kinda blur for me, as I tend to watch in twos and threes, somewhat like you. Which is good when you get to the cliffhanger and don't have to wait a(t least a) week for resolution. Not so good later on when I'm trying to remember what happened when. Although I will say, generally, this season's Buffy's titles tend to be more linked to the episode. I can usually remember the theme of that forty minutes, and some context for the events.

where are the Aussies up to?

This bunny's a kazaaer too, so I'm less help.

Oh wait, last week's Angel was Long Day's Journey. That's 4/09. The equivalent Buffy is 7/09 - Never Leave Me.

I really started to love Firefly too. I guess because it combined 2 of my favourite genres - jaded McCabe and Mrs Miller - style late westerns and gritty post-cyberpunk space operas - and because it was so gutsy to make a character-based show like that.

Yes, and as of this week, I think Sydney/Brisbane and Melbourne/Adelaide are on the same page.