|
Orange Devil posted:This made me really curious. Could you elaborate on this point? Vigilantism, violating rights to protect from terrorists, maybe even torture apologism (although it does fail badly in the movie), I could see those. But fascism? I really don't see that in The Dark Knight. It's more Boondock Saints than Triumph of Will. Well, like I said, its still a bit of a stretch, and as with the fascism parallels in 300, many of these are common elements in any traditional story about a hero overcoming all the odds through violence. That having been said, I'll lay out my reasoning: Its a movie in which democracy fails, the people need to be lied to for their own good, superhuman individuals are required to protect us, and our enemies cannot be reasoned with and must be destroyed with overwhelming force. The setting is a society riven by crime and sunk into perpetual economic crisis and stagnation (historically fascism always involves a sense of major social crisis). The major difference would be that nothing in the movie can really be seen as advocating a powerful state. Ultimatly its the obsession with Batman and the Joker being in a class of themselves (despite not having actual superpowers or mutations) and the persistent themes of necessary illusions and myths guiding the direction of society (i.e. our District Attorny went nuts, rather than tell people this socially dangerous fact we'll just turn him into a fake martyr!), set against a backdrop of social crisis. Bruce Leroy posted:What's puzzling about the film version of 300 (I haven't read Miller's original graphic novel), is whether Snyder is satirizing this position or not. There are elements that make it seem like the movie is strongly hinting at how awful the Spartans were and how contrary they were to the values most American probably hold, e.g. eugenics in killing the weak (including babies), ostracizing and demeaning anyone who isn't up to their ideals (like the way they treat the Arcandians and the "barbarians" employed by the Persians), etc. but it's certainly possible for people to be obtuse enough to not realize the Spartans aren't "good guys" or at least aren't morally superior to the Persians. If Snyder had made the movie more historically accurate and included the massive numbers of slaves and helots that Sparta relied upon on a day to day basis, then it would have been a clearer satire of jingoism and authoritarianism cloaked in propaganda about "freedom." I think we have to remember that whatever else a director may claim films are ultimatly vehicles for entertainment. The primary purpose of 300 was neither satire nor glorificaiton - it was profit. Incoherent and even incompatible themes can easily be shoehorned into a visual medium like film and rather than diluting the movie's profit making ability they often enhance it by create a fake appearance of depth or by allowing different members of the audience to latch onto different parts of a "message" that is largely projected into the film by the viewers themselves. On all its fundamentals it seems as though Snyder was trying to simply make the best action movie that he could, unlike, say, Paul Verhoven in Starship Troopers, where its very clear that Veerhoven loving hated the book and was going out of his way to mock the source material.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do some of you more economically more knowledgeable guys think of this. WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle. You know I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Prof. Higgs is completely correct here. WWII was in no sense a vindication of the Keynesian economics tradition and, in crucial ways, actually illustrates how the theory falls short of reality. Now before people dogpile me I'll note that I'm not defending Higgs. Digging through his website I find a lot of silly ideas. His explanation for the Great Depression, i.e. that FDR created "regime uncertainty", is utterly ridiculous, and he keeps trying to imply that the World War II economy wasn't a success and only succeeded by default because it was so drat big and impressive. That would certainly be big news to some of my history Profs! But let's look at the crucial paragraphs in that piece, which, despite what some posts in this thread say, are a pretty effective refutaiton of the Keynesian story about WWII: quote:Almost immediately I saw that unemployment had disappeared during the war not because of the beautiful workings of a Keynesian multiplier, but entirely because about 20 percent of the labor force was forced, directly or indirectly, into the armed forces and a comparable number of employees set to work in factories, shipyards, and other facilities turning out war-related “goods” the government purchased only after forcing the public to pay for them sooner (via wartime taxes and inflation) or later (via repayment of wartime borrowing). So his complaints are: 1. 20% of the population forcibly conscripted into a state run command control organization, the military. 2. The "goods" produced were not valued by private markets, making their value artificial. 3. Prices are set by the government, so the state rather than the market is determining resource allocations. In some industries certain types of production are explicitly prohibited. The closest Keynes ever came to advocating for this level of direct, top down control of the economy would be his proposal that the government create some sort of fund for infrastructure. In fact the greatest merit that most people saw in Keyne's system was that it appeared to solve the problems of the boom-and-bust cycle without necessitating direct intervention into the economy. All the state had to do was push a giant red button called 'Aggregate Demand' - something that it could just as easily accomplish by burying banknotes in a mineshaft and then letting the private sector dig them as it could be building factories. Now Keynes made it clear in his writing that he thought it would make sense for the government to stimulate AD by undertaking socially useful projects rather than burying banknotes. But he never suggested that the government should forcibly expropriate massive amounts of wealth through taxation and then use legal coercion to determine where people would work and what they would product, which is essentially what happened during WWII. The Second World War went far beyond anything Keynes ever advocated and is more of a vindication of a social command economy than anything else. Of course Higgs doesn't want to admit that a socialist economy could be successful, so he attempts, rather unconvincingly, to imply that somehow the prosperity of the war real wasn't "real" prosperity. This ignores the incredible rise in living standards that the war made possible and the massive expansion in industrial production that took place. It also ignores that the flatter income distribution created by the war persisted for three decades after wage controls had been removed, leading to the most equitable period in American history. Higgs is a rightwing loon but he's right about WWII not vindicating Keynesianism. The economy was a sort of corporatist-socialist hybrid being run by a mixture of corporate executives and government bureaucrats - the alliance that Eisenhower would later call the 'Military-Industrial Complex'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Just got this e-mail from one of my Senators:Senator Mark Kirk posted:Subject: The best way to avoid conflict with Iran is to enact crippling sanctions now Hammering this screw hasn't worked well, but if we hammer it harder, it will definitely work! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:While Watchmen was very faithful to the comic, Snyder still seemed to miss the point by a country mile. He presented the cast as actual super heroes and not just crazies playing dressup. All the wall punching and bone breaking undermined what's supposed to be one of the most jarring moments in the story, where Ozy actually catches a bullet. Hmm, now that you mention it, portraying the principals a little more unhinged on the whole might have helped. The biggest objection I had to the film was Ozymandias obviously being the villain as soon as he came onscreen when he's supposed to be a paragon of virtue. Also, for maximum effect Tom Cruise would have been perfect for the Ozymandias role. But yeah, pretty faithful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well, like I said, its still a bit of a stretch, and as with the fascism parallels in 300, many of these are common elements in any traditional story about a hero overcoming all the odds through violence. That having been said, I'll lay out my reasoning: Hmm I see where you're coming from but I don't entirely agree. I don't see that democracy failed in The Dark Knight so much as that those who came into power in a certain representative democracy (based on the US model) decided that they needed to violate people's right and lie to them and withhold information etc for their own good. I don't think it follows that this was actually necessary, it's just what they chose to do. There's a parallel here with the US government. If anything it shows that there never was quite as much democracy as those with power would like the people to believe. The enemy that can not be reasoned with and must be destroyed I'll grant you, that's certainly a narrative that fits into justifying fascism. On the other hand, Batman isn't portrayed as unambiguously good either, and if anyone in the movie is a fascist, it'd be him. Which is certainly interesting, in light of him being the biggest capitalist around and his relationship with fascism. So while the movie doesn't really endorse the fascist character in this way, I do have to grant you that it doesn't spend any time even hinting that there might also be another way, and in fact does seem to say this is the only way because we, the audience, are led to believe that the Joker really can not be dealt with in any other way. On the other hand, as you say, the Joker doesn't actually have superpowers. He's just mentally ill. And if we think about it like that, we could conclude for ourselves that overwhelming violence might not be the best way to deal with our dangerous mentally ill. Edit: About the powerful state, doesn't Batman exist because the state isn't powerful enough? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Nov 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
I always interpreted the Dark Knight in the other way, that just like Batman upholds his no killing code even though it means everyone suffers and he has to live a double life, if we as a society want to uphold the rule of law and universal rights we have to suffer the occasional meaningless violence or terror attack. But maybe that's just my leftist bias showing through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Chunk posted:Snyder's adaptations so far have been extremely faithful to the source material. Everything I've seen about his movies being satire has been people applying that after the fact, most often with 300, regardless of any sort of evidence of intent. I'm sorry to single you out but this kind of bullshit is really terrible. Talk about Synder's work -- we don't need to tell little stories about him, or 'oh, obviously Zack saw how stupid his movies were and then claimed they were satire to save face. I don't know what's locked inside Zack's head, or how his attitude towards his works have changed over time. None of us could possibly know any of this, but what we can know is what's in his movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
Oh The Economist, you have become so teeth gratingly poo poo: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-0 The Economist posted:MY LUNCH money is safe. As I so boldly predicted last week, America has swiftly soured on the Occupy Wall Street movement. OWS is now even less loved than the positively ancient tea-party movement. David Weigel plumbs the trends from the last two surveys from Public Policy Polling:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
I wish that every time Zucotti is talked about they would show a picture of it. This is what comes to most people's minds when you say "park"  not this:  I mean, it's a paved in area with some trees. It's not like you could have a picnic there.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I wish that every time Zucotti is talked about they would show a picture of it. The Philadelphia one is a bit similar, but at least they don't call Dilworth Plaza a park. Here are the pictures, the green highlighted area is where the occupiers, last time I checked, are located.  And here's the place without highlights so you can get a clearer idea.  Also as you can see, Philadelphia City hall is massive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
quote:UN Agenda 21 Hmmm, yes the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is a hand of the New World Order, it's all clear now
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:I'm sorry to single you out but this kind of bullshit is really terrible. Talk about Synder's work -- we don't need to tell little stories about him, or 'oh, obviously Zack saw how stupid his movies were and then claimed they were satire to save face. I don't know what's locked inside Zack's head, or how his attitude towards his works have changed over time. None of us could possibly know any of this, but what we can know is what's in his movies. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but you can't apply satire to something if the author's intent was not satire. Otherwise you fall into a trap where everything affirms your world view, either by directly supporting it or by satirizing the opposition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Chunk posted:I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but you can't apply satire to something if the author's intent was not satire. Otherwise you fall into a trap where everything affirms your world view, either by directly supporting it or by satirizing the opposition. But can't something be ironically satirical, in that something wrote in earnest honoring someone or something actually makes that thing look terricle, thereby critiquing it? A great example of this is how Stephen Colbert often says almost the same exact things that you might read on Conservapedia and other die-hard right0wing publications about how evil liberals are, the veracity of creationism, how poor people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, etc. He's obviously being intentionally satirical/sardonic, but I would argue that the sheer stupidity and insanity of these same exact things published in earnest elsewhere is ironically self-satirical. These people are not intentionally making fun of themselves or their beliefs, but what they say/write is just so absurdly stupid and crazy that it makes one doubt the veracity and logic of the rest of their views. Think about it in terms of Poe's law. Is what someone wrote any more revealing of the stupidity and insanity of that position if you find out that they intended it to be taken satirically? Isn't it just as critical of that position irrespective of their intent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 07:57
|
|
|
That's not satire though. Satire without intention is just stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 13:07
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:That's not satire though. Satire without intention is just stupidity. So satire requires a Mens rea? Perhaps in civil satire actions, we can apply a lesser standard of a "reasonable republican".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Some psycho could have written A Modest Proposal completely honestly, and that would have made it non-satire, just gross.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:I'm sorry to single you out but this kind of bullshit is really terrible. Talk about Synder's work -- we don't need to tell little stories about him, or 'oh, obviously Zack saw how stupid his movies were and then claimed they were satire to save face. I don't know what's locked inside Zack's head, or how his attitude towards his works have changed over time. None of us could possibly know any of this, but what we can know is what's in his movies. We've already addressed what's in his movies, namely the lack of any evidence to support the claim that they are satirical. Satire is a question of intent, and Snyder's movies, despite his claims to the contrary, demonstrate no satirical intent. Let me make this clear, for something to be satirical, there must be actual "textual" evidence to support the satirical intention. Verhoeven provided this evidence when he framed SST as an in-universe propaganda film and alluded to the humans' role in instigating the conflict. Swift provided this evidence when he structured his essay along the lines of Latin Satires and made sly jokes at the expense of the English. Colbert provides this evidence by the inclusion of a laughing studio audience and The Word's comic deconstruction of his statements. Snyder did not provide this evidence in any of his films. So while you're correct that we can't know what's going on in Snyder's head, we can still speculate as to what's going on based on his statements. And the statement we're talking about is contradicted by the very evidence his films provide. That leaves us with a question: why does Snyder claim his films are satirical when they evidently are not? Three possible answers present themselves: Snyder misreads his own work, Snyder is a terrible satirist, or Snyder uses the claim of satire as a screen against criticism. There's nothing terrible about speculating over which one of these answers is the correct one. We're done analyzing his films; now we're analyzing his statements regarding those films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Verhoeven provided this evidence when he framed SST as an in-universe propaganda film Apparently you never watched 300 because the story is being told to you by a disfigured guy propagandizing at you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Apparently you never watched 300 because the story is being told to you by a disfigured guy propagandizing at you. That's exactly how it is in the comic book and Frank Miller was certainly not writing a satire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Verhoeven's scripts aren't generally stained with semen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Apparently you never watched 300 because the story is being told to you by a disfigured guy propagandizing at you. He's not propagandizing me; he's giving an inspiring speech to the united Greek forces. Nothing in that final scene gives you any reason to question his narration. There is no change in the visual tone, and his disfigurement is better read as a symbol of the sacrifice the Spartans made at the Hot Gates (their death equals the loss of an important part of the Greek "body," but it's not a loss that prevents them from continuing the fight) than it is as a clue to unreliable narrator. quote:That's exactly how it is in the comic book and Frank Miller was certainly not writing a satire. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
You see the real problem behind unemployment is that college graduates are not willing to become ditch diggers or join the military. http://www.startribune.com/business/134150043.html quote:I fear that the biggest risk threatening America's exceptional character is that more Americans would rather complain about the lack of job than go find one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
There's really one statistic necessary to completely throw that whole rant out the window, and that's that McDonalds had over 16 applicants per position when they had their massive hiring fair. Don't even have to get into how migrant labor is exploited, how destructive having an entire generation swallowed by debt is, or how unemployment doesn't work the way they think it does. 16 applicants per position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:U.S. Department of Labor issued a report that said unemployment insurance is a disincentive to seek new work Tried to find a source for this, and instead I found that it was only one guy who used that verbiage. On the other hand, someone actually used DoL stats and came up with a different conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:You see the real problem behind unemployment is that college graduates are not willing to become ditch diggers or join the military.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
The military is downsizing right now anyway and it's difficult to get in because so many people are enlisting due to the lovely economy. Also, becoming an officer requires a college education. Also, in the 1930's you could still take the train from almost any rural small town to just about any destination in the country, something that no longer exists.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Also, in the 1930's you could still take the train from almost any rural small town to just about any destination in the country, something that no longer exists. You'd be surprised how untrue this is, really. There were tons of places that to get to a train station you'd have to go dozens or even hundreds of miles, and even then most or often all of the trains running from the station were freights. Also here's the rail network in 1918, its height with 250,000 route miles  And today, with 141,000 route miles within the US  Much of the lost trackage came during the 50s through 80s when many rail companies merged and then recofigured their trackage so that places where they formerly competed with very nearly spaced rail lines were reduced to only one of the predeccesor companies' routes. If you meant take the train as in sneak aboard like a hobo, then yes most rural areas that was possible in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Not even. From Amtrak's website.  Almost all the US rail is for freight. Used to be you could get from Dows, Iowa to Chicago on the Rock Island Line. Not any more. Notice that in your map, the blank areas are either in the mountains, desert, or largely unpopulated areas out west.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Not even. You do realize most of the rail in 1918 was for freight too right? Also the Amtrak map leaves out most of the commuter rail in the US which carries tons of people every day. In the 1930s, most towns along a rail line would be lucky to get 2 stopping passenger trains through a week. Sure you could travel from one suburb of a city to another suburb in another city by passenger rail conveniently, but the outlying areas you barely could. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Nov 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
If you didn't own a car, which many people didn't during the Deprssion, two passenger trains a week is a lot better than none.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:If you didn't own a car, which many people didn't during the Deprssion, two passenger trains a week is a lot better than none. That'd be two passenger trains in the town a few dozen miles away where the railroad actually passed through and bothered to have a passenger station. You'd need to get to the station in the first place, without a car, over a few dozen miles. In more rural areas it might even be a hundred miles. You couldn't just expect to hop on a train in any small rural town then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Trains have been replaced by buses for the most part. Trains are a hell of a lot cooler though. You can walk around and go buy things. The views are also much nicer. Even here in Japan where we have trains running all over the place there is still a lot of long distance bus service. I can take a train to Tokyo in 5 hours that costs 22k yen or a bus that takes 15 hours and costs 9k yen. Poor people take buses these days. Trains rule though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Here's a rail map of Iowa from 1948. All these lines carried passengers. My grandmother grew up in Varina, IA and could take the train to Fonda, about 8 miles away. This line went to Ft. Dodge, then Dubuque, then Chicago. My other grandmother could take the train from Mapleton to Sioux City and then to Chicago. The most a person might have to walk is about 3 or 4 hours to get to the train, which isn't that much of a walk if you're used to it.  Rail access in the USA is nothing compared to what it was. True, you can take Greyhound now, forgot about that.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:He's not propagandizing me; he's giving an inspiring speech to the united Greek forces. Nothing in that final scene gives you any reason to question his narration. There is no change in the visual tone, and his disfigurement is better read as a symbol of the sacrifice the Spartans made at the Hot Gates (their death equals the loss of an important part of the Greek "body," but it's not a loss that prevents them from continuing the fight) than it is as a clue to unreliable narrator. "Unreliable narrator" does not mean "everything he says is lies! LIES!" The narrator of 300 is unmistakably propagandizing; for instance, early in the book, he is telling his fellow troops in camp a tale about the youthful exploits of King Leonidas that he himself did not witness, for purposes of entertainment and morale. Earlier in this thread, there was a quote in which Miller proudly declared himself to be a propagandist as well. In some sense, this is incredibly faithful to the era from which the story came, and the mentality of the historians of the age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Here's a rail map of Iowa from 1948. All these lines carried passengers. My grandmother grew up in Varina, IA and could take the train to Fonda, about 8 miles away. This line went to Ft. Dodge, then Dubuque, then Chicago. I see plenty of area on that map that are way more than an 8 mile walk man. You also have to remember that World War II caused a temporary re-expansion of passenger rail service while air travel and car travel were restricted by fuel rationing, and further that just because all those lines carried passengers, it didn't mean that the passenger trains stopped at every place along the line indicated. And yes, Greyhound and other such bus carriers serve the purpose passenger rail did for the rural areas. In fact, greyhound often ends up providing better service to more locations then the railroads would. Remember, that railroads were always prioritizing freight service over passengers, it's why to this day American railroads carry far more freight than passengers, and why the opposite is true in Europe. In 1997, for example, while U.S. trains moved 2,165 billion ton-kilometers of freight, the 15-nation European Union moved only 238 billion ton-kilometers of freight. The point is, it was never really that much easier to just leave a rural area and travel long distances without a car in the past, certainly not the 30s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Yep, you're right, trains didn't go to more destinations or cover more area in the 30's than they do now.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:"Unreliable narrator" does not mean "everything he says is lies! LIES!" The narrator of 300 is unmistakably propagandizing; for instance, early in the book, he is telling his fellow troops in camp a tale about the youthful exploits of King Leonidas that he himself did not witness, for purposes of entertainment and morale. Earlier in this thread, there was a quote in which Miller proudly declared himself to be a propagandist as well. In some sense, this is incredibly faithful to the era from which the story came, and the mentality of the historians of the age. I know what an unreliable narrator is. Baudolino is an unreliable narrator. Milton's bard is an unreliable narrator. The narrator of 300 may or may not be; the text doesn't provide any evidence to question his version of either story, nor is it evidence of "unmistakable propagandizing". Telling an inspiring and entertaining story does not automatically equal propaganda. And even if he is embellishing his tales for propaganda purposes, we the audience are not the target of that propaganda. We see the battle of the Hot Gates through the same visual lens as we see the rest of the story. There is no visual tonal shift that says, "that was a fiction within this fiction." The hyper stylized presentation persists from opening to closing credits. Now Miller calls himself a propagandist, and 300 may be a work of propaganda, but what does Snyder do in his film version to satirize that propaganda? Everything that has been mentioned so far is a scene directly from the book. Compare that to the framing device Verhoeven uses (which is not in the book it's based on), where we the audience are made to be in-universe subjects of that propaganda. Throughout the film, time and time again, we are reminded that we are watching a production of the Federal Government. The "Would you like to know more" bits actively engage us as subjects to that propaganda. We are constantly called to question the veracity of the story we're being told.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Yep, you're right, trains didn't go to more destinations or cover more area in the 30's than they do now. The Greyhound etc buses go to more destinations and cover more area than the 30s passenger trains did, which is what I actually said and not your strawman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The Greyhound etc buses go to more destinations and cover more area than the 30s passenger trains did, which is what I actually said and not your strawman. While this is certainly true, it doesn't necessarily mean people are more mobile today than they were in the 30s. That should seem self-evident, but perhaps it's not. We need to consider the relative costs of taking a train in the 30s and taking a bus today. We should also consider that hitchhiking and hobo riding were more common and socially acceptable at the time. Finally, the rural poor of the Great Depression were probably better equipped, and the nature of the country was probably more conducive to cross country travel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Finally, the rural poor of the Great Depression were probably better equipped, and the nature of the country was probably more conducive to cross country travel. That's a ludicrous assertion I'd like to see you support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:33
|
|
