Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Pray This Does Not Happen On Tuesday 5 November 2013!!!


Recommended Posts

And don't forget, most movies teach us that the best way for a driver of a car to get into the car is from the passenger's side, and then he slides over to the driver's side.

 

Which actually made a lot of sense before bucket seats in the front became universal. The driver didn't have to be standing in traffic to get into his seat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I just heard a few lines of dialogue in PROFESSIONAL SWEETHEART (1933) that seemed like something we wouldn't normally hear in an old movie. I was shocked, SHOCKED!

 

A Jewish radio producer in New York (played by Gregory Ratoff), told several of his music-show assistants that they needed to get a nice well-behaved boyfriend for their young singing star, played by Ginger Rogers, for a publicity campaign. The assistants started throwing out ideas about how to find a good boyfriend, but none of them seemed to work out. Several of the assistants looked over at Franklin Pangborn, a fellow assistant, and he said in a high-pitched effeminate voice, "Oh, oh! Surely you don't mean ME!" One assistant suggested an international playboy, but the producer said, "No, he needs to be a nice young inexperienced guy, one of those kind of..... uh, what do you call them? Ah, a virgin!"

 

Then the producer said he would talk to his wife about a cousin of hers that might be a good choice. But one of his assistants shouted "NO!, He must be an Anglo Saxon! You know.... for the corn belt (the Mid-West radio audiences)."

 

The producer asked where could they find a good Anglo Saxon boy, a handsome young man, and he picked up a phone and called his research assistant and he asked her where he could find the "purest" Anglo Saxons in the country. She said "In the mountainous regions around the Appalachians."

 

The producer said OK, find me one, and she went to a file cabinet and pulled out a bunch of fan mail that was filed according to US geographical areas. They decided on a handsome farm boy from Kentucky who had included a photo of himself inside his fan letter.

 

They brought him to New York and he wound up marrying the girl and took her to his primitive cabin in the hills of Kentucky. She hated that, so they moved back to New York.

 

Anyway, I thought all of that dialogue was funny. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, bench seats.

 

Those were the days when my sweetie would sit right pressed up against me as I drove, with my arm around her, and her lighting my cigarette, sharing it. '65 Ford Fairlane it was.

 

Edited by: darkblue on Nov 14, 2013 2:49 PM - I actually meant to address this to Hibi. Clicked on the wrong reply link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's part of the charm of a lot of movies, they are so disconnected from reality. We can enjoy both the story for itself and for our personal knowledge of how unrealistic it is.

 

In connection with Marty. It's likely a fairly accurate look at the de facto segregation of ethnic neighborhoods at the time. Most of the folks in the movie neighborhood are of Italian heritage, though the two Irish ladies manage to get into the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>That's part of the charm of a lot of movies, they are so disconnected from reality. We can enjoy both the story for itself and for our personal knowledge of how unrealistic it is.

 

Exactly. That's why I brought up the other topic about the North, after reading so many attacks on the South because of GWTW.

 

We don't go to any of these movies to learn "history" or to "feel bad". We go to escape, have fun, and feel good.

 

If we were presented cold hard reality in movies all the time, we would never go to movies. Cold hard reality is on the outside of the theaters, while happy fantasy is on the inside. That's what we pay for. And that's what we need a lot of, to get away from, for a couple of hours, the cold hard reality that is on the outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I attacked the South for the values of the people during the time period (e.g. the belief that slavery was A-OK) and the fact they were willing to be traitors to defend those values. I attacked GWTW because of its unrealistic portrayal of those values.

 

I don't think anyone attacked the South BECAUSE of GWTW. It would be silly to do that since GWTW didn't present reality. Based only on GWTW one could come to the conclusion the South was on the right side.

 

So again, it appears you still don?t understand the POV being presented here by those without blinders on with regards to the values and actions of the South.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A funny thing happened to me in a San Francisco theater, back when I first saw TORA! TORA! TORA! in 1970.

 

It was a big downtown theater, and it was filled up with people. This film received a lot of pre-release publicity, and the newspapers said it was supposed to be accurate, and, as such, it had an American director for the American parts and a Japanese director for the Japanese parts.

 

Everyone in the audience was very quiet as the movie started and progressed, But when the attack finally started on Pearl Harbor in the movie, some guy somewhere in the theater audience started yelling out sarcastic remarks in what sounded like the Japanese language. He was not speaking English, and it didn't quite sound like Chinese.

 

He would shout a sentence at a time, and then several minutes would go by, maybe 5 or 10 minutes in-between shouts.

 

Some people in the audience started laughing. No one seemed to complain, and no one from the theater came in to tell the guy to shut up.

 

I always wonder who he was, and I always wondered if he was there that day at Pearl Harbor, during the attack, and on the Japanese side. Maybe a sailor or an airplane pilot. Although I don't know what he was saying, it sounded as if the guy was trying to correct some of the historical errors in the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. He was lucky he didnt get punched out. I think Kurosawa initially directed the Japanese parts but quit the film early on.. I think the American director finished it and got credit......I forget who it was. Fleischer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

>LOL. He was lucky he didnt get punched out.

 

Well, the thought did occur to me that he might be carrying some kind of concealed Japanese sword. And another funny thing was that nobody yelled at him to SHUT UP. :)

 

If someone started yelling in a foreign language like that in a theater today, the entire theater would probably empy out in one minute flat. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> What is your point? Does the fact that Eisenhower and Patton admired Lee negate the fact that he was a traitor who broke the oath he took to defend the United States and the Constitution when he became a Lieutenant in the United States Army? Am I as an obedient Northerner, even though I am a Westerner, supposed to blindly accept their morality? No doubt Lee and others of his faithless kind, who received his training at taxpayer expense, rationalized his actions by claiming the institution he swore allegiance to broke with him first---as if a gentleman allows the actions of others determine whether he lives up to his word!

 

I think you might want to perform a little research before stating that "No doubt Lee and others of his faithless kind, who received his training at taxpayer expense". The American people were not taxed for his education at the Military Academy at the time of of his attending there. In fact, there was no income tax at all until the early 20th century. The way that the academy collected funds were mostly through private donations and excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Also the United States had tariffs that allowed the collection of most of the receipts the US Government received during most of the 19th and early part of the 20th century.

 

See the following about taxation: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153529/

 

As far as Robert E. Lee being a traitor, he may have sworn an allegiance to the United States, but after painstakingly trying to figure out how he was going to decide what to do, either siding with the US or defecting to the Confederate states, it is clear that he and many other like him were not traitors. In fact they were still US citizens.

 

According to Abraham Lincoln, he contended that even though the southern states had seceded from the union, in fact they really did not do so, and they did not have the legal grounds to do so either, therefore, any and all of the officers and or men who decided to fight against the Union forces were not traitors. The only war crime trial after the war was conducted against the Confedderate commander of Andersonville Prison. He was found guilty and hanged. Other than that, there were no other war crime trials after the war ended, and all of the states that did secede were allowed back into the United States.

 

As far as I am concerned, what we are looking at here is United States history. Lee had been a fully commissioned officer in the US Army for 32 years before deciding to fight for his beloved Virginia. Any civil war can be tough to understand. Historically, many nations have had civil wars. After each conflict there has always been a time to reflect and to reorganize or accept responsibility for the actions of those who decided to secede or fight against the original country. Here the aim was to reconcile. It took a few years, but finally the nation healed itself.

 

Check out the following websites for further info:

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/robert-e-lee%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cseverest-struggle%E2%80%9D?page=4

 

http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/teaching-materials/bonus-materials/american-heroes-general-robert-e-lee/

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the correct term for someone that fights against the elected, legal government of one's country?

 

Interesting that 'sin' taxes started that long ago. I assume that, unlike how politicians justify these taxes today, they weren?t justified based on health reasons (i.e. to reduce consumption). Since men were the only ones who could vote and I assume they consumed the vast majority of those products, I?m surprised they voted for these type of taxes (or politicians that support them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time on the Cross:

 

1. Slavery was not a system irrationally kept in existence by owners who failed to perceive or were indifferent to their best economic interests. The purchase of a slave was generally a highly profitable investment which yielded rates of return that compared favorably with the most outstanding investment opportunities in manufacturing.

 

2. The slave system was not economically moribund on the eve of the Civil War. There is no evidence that economic forces alone would have soon brought slavery to an end without the necessity of a war or other form of political intervention. Quite the contrary; as the Civil War approached, slavery as an economic system was never stronger and the trend was toward even further entrenchment.

 

3. Slaveowners were not becoming pessimistic about the future of their system during the decade that preceded the Civil War. The rise of the secessionist movement coincided with a wave of optimism. On the eve of the Civil War, slaveholders anticipated an era of unprecedented prosperity.

 

4. Slave agriculture was not inefficient compared with free agriculture. Economies of large-scale operation, effective management, and intensive utilization of labor and capital made southern slave agriculture 35 percent more efficient than the northern system of family farming.

 

5. The typical slave field hand was not lazy, inept, and unproductive. On average he was harder-working and more efficient than his white counterpart.

 

6. The course of slavery in the cities does not prove that slavery was incompatible with an industrial system or that slaves were unable to cope with an industrial regimen. Slaves employed in industry compared favorably with free workers in diligence and efficiency. Far from declining, the demand for slaves was actually increasing more rapidly in urban areas than in the countryside.

 

7. The belief that slave-breeding, sexual exploitation, and promiscuity destroyed the black family is a myth. The family was the basic unit of social organization under slavery. It was to the economic interest of planters to encourage the stability of slave families and most of them did so. Most slave sales were either of whole families or of individuals who were at an age when it would have been normal for them to have left the family.

 

8. The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers. This is not to say that they were good by modern standards. It merely emphasizes the hard lot of all workers, free or slave, during the first half of the nineteenth century.

 

9. Slaves were exploited in the sense that part of the income which they produced was expropriated by their owners. However, the rate of expropriation was much lower than has generally been presumed. Over the course of his lifetime, the typical slave field hand received about 90 percent of the income he produced.

 

10. Far from stagnating, the economy of the antebellum South grew quite rapidly. Between 1840 and 1860, per capita income increased more rapidly in the south than in the rest of the nation. By 1860 the south attained a level of per capita income which was high by the standards of the time. Indeed, a country as advanced as Italy did not achieve the same level of per capita income until the eve of World War II.

 

The authors addressed the critics in their reprint of the book in 1989

and stood by most of the findings in the afterword in the book.

 

The authors were pioneers in the use of Cliometrics which is used in

universities today.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/business/robert-w-fogel-nobel-winning-economist-dies-at-86.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Jake in the Heartland

 

Edited by: JakeHolman on Nov 14, 2013 9:01 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

>fxreyman:

>The American people were not taxed for his education at the Military Academy at the time of of his attending there

 

Lee and others of the Southern officers were educated at public expense. It's was the people's money, and the value of the education was the people's property. It does not matter how it was collected.

 

>after painstakingly trying to figure out how he was going to decide what to do, either siding with the US or defecting to the Confederate states, it is clear that he and many other like him were not traitors. In fact they were still US citizens.

 

Only citizens of a nation can be traitors. If you are not a citizen, and take up arms against a nation you are what is known as an enemy. A lot of nice distinctions can be drawn about exact definitions, but that is beside the point. Lee gave his word that he would defend the constitution. All the agonized soul searching that he and the other poor tortured individuals went through is merely so much sophistry used to justify breaking one's word for convenience. When a man gives his word, he sticks to it, period. It is not about who, or what he gives his word to, it is about him and his word. And Lee broke it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Lee and others of the Southern officers were educated at public expense. It's was the people's money, and the value of the education was the people's property. It does not matter how it was collected.

 

Sure it matters how the money was collected. The taxes were not based on income, rather by consumption and every thing I have read indicates that the Military Academy at the time received the vast majority of it's funding from private donations. You are probably not aware, but at that time the typical size of the student population was well under 300 students. So at the time the cost to educate these young men was very low compared to today.

 

> Only citizens of a nation can be traitors. If you are not a citizen, and take up arms against a nation you are what is known as an enemy. A lot of nice distinctions can be drawn about exact definitions, but that is beside the point. Lee gave his word that he would defend the constitution. All the agonized soul searching that he and the other poor tortured individuals went through is merely so much sophistry used to justify breaking one's word for convenience. When a man gives his word, he sticks to it, period. It is not about who, or what he gives his word to, it is about him and his word. And Lee broke it.

 

That is true. But let me ask you something. If he broke his word, then he also was a traitor, correct? Then why were there not any war crimes at the end of the war? If he had broken his promise to defend the United States and then went on to kill Union soldiers by commanding the Confederate forces, then should he not have been imprisoned or at least brought to trial by the Union government?

 

We can sit here all night and debate this issue, but one thing is clear and that is that Abraham Lincoln himself did not believe that Lee or anyone else in the Confederacy were traitors. The true traitors were the elected politicians that led us down that road in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike getting into back-and-forths, so I'll just state I stand by my comments. As for the absence of war crimes trials, it was due to the fact that the concept was non-existent, and it was Lincoln's goal to heal the nation from the wounds of the war by avoiding punitive actions. His view was that prosecuting former Confederates would have served as a continuing source of resentment. His objective of lenient treatment was confounded, of corse, by his assassination. So the harsh policies of Reconstruction subsequently imposed on the South was the direct result of actions--by the South.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> LOL. The good old days (when gear shifts were on the steering wheel)........

 

This has nothing to do with your quote, but sorta relates to the "good old days"...

 

There's a Subaru commercial that goes on about a woman talking about how her daughter went to her first day of school in her Subaru, and became friends with her first "best friend" in her Subaru and all like that.

 

Then the woman says, "You could say that the BACKSEAT of my Subaru is where my daughter GREW UP."

 

Well, YEAH,....I imagine a LOT of daughters grew up in the backseat of SOME car or another...

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...