|
PeterWeller posted: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. They were not more mobile in 1930, actually. Also railroad workers were quite violent towards hobo riding! And hitchhiking across America would be quite hard back then, it was not uncommon that if you were going to drive cross country you might only make 40 to 60 miles a day, thanks to lack of good roads. This also goes against your assertion that the nature of the country was more conducive to cross country travel. And as far as prices... in 1930 a ticket from New York City to Chicago might cost $19. You know what that is, inflation adjusted? $257.60 You know what it costs to Greyhound that? $132
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That's a ludicrous assertion I'd like to see you support. It probably is ludicrous, and I should have said "may have" instead of "probably", but I'll explain my thinking nonetheless. The rural poor of the 1930s surely spent a lot more time doing things like hunting, camping, and preparing their own food (I mean that in the sense of taking something you killed and turning it into cookable meat), and the country was a lot less populous and developed, leading to a lot less land to get kicked off while trying to pass the night. Now that I think about it further, I realize I was romanticizing. quote:They were not more mobile in 1930, actually. Also railroad workers were quite violent towards hobo riding! Thanks. I didn't mean to say you were wrong. I really just wanted to point out that the rail network v bus network argument wasn't the only thing to consider.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:55
|
|
|
Yeah, it is a period that tend sto get romanticized. Here's something to consider: "In 1920 average Americans used autos 50 miles per year for intercity travel, while they used trains 450 miles per year. Just ten years later the average American drove 1,691 miles per year in intercity travel but rode only 219 miles per year on the train."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Interesting. Where's that from, might I ask? I should break my romantic notions regarding that era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Interesting. Where's that from, might I ask? I should break my romantic notions regarding that era. http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/railroad_history/ Cars had started getting really popular in the 1920s. Railroad passenger traffic consequently went down. Passenger traffic going down led to it becoming increasingly unprofitable, and by 1930 in fact railroads as a whole were running deficits on passenger travel. This is why, by the 1960s, most passenger rail service was dead, and even today Amtrak doesn't run that much service, it having taken over practically all remaining non-commuter passenger services in 1971. Freight service was and is vastly more profitable for American railroads than passengers ever were. America actually uses freight by rail much more than Europe does, in raw stuff moved and in proportion - roughly 40% of freight shipment in US is by train, roughly 9% in Europe is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 07:12
|
|
|
We must stop the barbaric practice of quote:Happy Halal Thanksgiving Jesus Christ. You can't make this poo poo up. On the upside, however, the early comments reacting to this story are surprisingly sane. Then, however, we get into some epic wignut debates: quote:Freedomatheart 11/21/2011 05:03 PM quote:Rudy 11/21/2011 08:02 PM in reply to Freedomatheart So whats the real challenge facing America? Halal Buterball Turkeys or a Commie President? Please don't make us choose!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
How did the author of that article do so much digging into butterball and what halal means and not learn that the method of killing the animal is pretty much exactly the same for jews?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
A local county commission meeting was asked not to pray before their meetings by an atheist group. Incoming awful letter to the editor dumpquote:Having read the Herald’s Nov. 15 article “Commissioner’s asked to halt prayers,” I am once again struck by the lack of basic reading comprehension skills among those who assault our God-given and constitutionally secured rights and freedoms. quote:A Nov. 15 Herald headline says “Commissioners asked to halt prayers.” quote:Manatee County commissioners, stand your ground! Don’t let Freedom From Religion Foundation dictate to you. I WILL NOT LET THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY SUPERCEDE THE INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY quote:Forty years ago we let the vocal minority stop prayer in our schools. The silent majority, as we became known, did not speak up. I believe we never saw that coming; who would have thought it possible in the 1960s? Posting this one just for ACLU (Anti Christian Lawyers Union) and because apparently when you stop praying, you start acting violently or something quote:I read in the Bradenton Herald that atheists are trying to bully county commissioners into believing the lie that the Constitution prohibits their prayer at the beginning of their meetings. quote:For me this is important! Manatee County commissioners better not stop prayer before starting meetings. Having prayer before a meeting is constitutional and I challenge anyone who thinks it is unconstitutional. Also here's a letter from loving 4 days ago about a July article. Apparently we're still fighting the Japanese or something. NO MOSQUES IN PEARL HARBOR  quote:I read with great interest a July 20 news article and have been seething ever since. United States organizers (who are they?) hosted an ancient Japanese tea ceremony on the memorial of the USS Arizona and the grave site of its sailors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Branis posted:How did the author of that article do so much digging into butterball and what halal means and not learn that the method of killing the animal is pretty much exactly the same for jews? Pam Gellar is a loving monster and a total loving hypocrite. Halal slaughter is absolutely identical to Kosher slaughter, which is why Muslims will eat Kosher food when Halal food isn't available. The only difference is the prayer said over the meat, which is why it is absolutely hypocritical for Gellar to cite animal cruelty as a criticism against Halal food. This is an especially stinging indictment of Gellar when you consider that she is Jewish. I'm not sure what denomination of Judaism she adheres to, so I'm unsure whether she keeps strictly Kosher or not, but she's clearly not criticizing Kosher slaughter in this editorial, which is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. ts12 posted:Also here's a letter from loving 4 days ago about a July article. Apparently we're still fighting the Japanese or something. NO MOSQUES IN PEARL HARBOR Jesus, that's dumb. Japanese tea ceremonies are loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
ts12 posted:NO MOSQUES IN PEARL HARBOR My favorite part of that is them describing the tea ceremony as some kind of raucous party Tea ceremonies are one of the most boring loving things in the world where an old woman robotically spends like 40 minutes making a cup of tea and you even have to rotate the cup in your hand a certain way or everyone thinks you're a dick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yYch_ddxPM It's also super creepo misogynistic in a "SERVE US, WOMEN" way
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted: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. I guess everyone's kind of moved on from this topic but Leonidas literally tells the narrator to lie about what happened. There's also the part about how the narrator's not present for the final stand and just plain makes poo poo up about how Leonidas totally threw a spear at Xerxes and everyone died heroically in badass ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
peer posted:I guess everyone's kind of moved on from this topic but Leonidas literally tells the narrator to lie about what happened. There's also the part about how the narrator's not present for the final stand and just plain makes poo poo up about how Leonidas totally threw a spear at Xerxes and everyone died heroically in badass ways. In most mainstream horror movies the "bad" or irresponsible people tend to die and the morally pure individual tends to live. In most action movies there tends to be some vague objective related to "peace" or "justice" and there's typically some vague acknowledgement that violence is problematic. That doesn't change the fact that 99% of the screen times on these movies are actually devoted to the opposite message: i.e. that violence and mayhem are aesthetically appealing and viscerally exciting to watch. This is why I tend to spend less time examining a movies overt "message" - which is usually very superficial in a visual medium like film - and tend to focus more on what elements of the movie get the most camera time and on how various shots are framed and how individuals are characterized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
peer posted:I guess everyone's kind of moved on from this topic but Leonidas literally tells the narrator to lie about what happened. There's also the part about how the narrator's not present for the final stand and just plain makes poo poo up about how Leonidas totally threw a spear at Xerxes and everyone died heroically in badass ways. Okay, so we have reason to mistrust the ending of his story, but don't you see the bigger problem this causes for the claim that the narrator is propagandizing throughout the entire movie? You're using a scene from the narrative to prove that it's a false narrative. If the story of the Hot Gates is a fiction constructed for propaganda purposes, why does the narrator tell us it's a fiction? Indeed, the inclusion of that scene would indicate that what we're watching is the real version of the story the narrator is telling the assembled Greeks. The narrator's tacit admission of a false ending to his story actually supports the veracity of the rest of his story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Anpther winnder from shithead Barrettquote:Barrett: Occupy slackers want others to repay their student loans
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
This one is from Tabatha Southey, from the Globe and Mail (Canada). By way of some background, a reference case (where a question of law is put to a judge without there being underlying facts at issue) was recently heard in Canada on polygamy. A judge ruled that laws prohibiting polygamy are constitutional. Included in his decision was a consideration of various evidence that polygamy is associated with social harms, particularly afflicting women. In light of that, he found, at paragraph 1335 "Having found a reasoned apprehension that polygamy is associated with numerous harms, it follows that criminalizing the practice is one way of limiting those harms." This prompted Ms. Southey's opinion piece, published November 25, 2011: quote:A list of things that have been decried as threats to monogamous marriage: contraceptives, gay marriage, sex education, out-of-wedlock cohabitation, lewd dancing to rock 'n' roll, women in the work force, legal alcohol, naughty films, no-fault divorce and educating women. Compare the opinion written by Justice Bauman to the opinion piece by Ms. Southey. Ms. Southey:
spits out a specious analogy about banning cars to stop drunk driving; claims the judge confused correleation with causation (he used correlative data as evidence, but obviously understood the difference between correlation and causation); makes claims damage to women's health because of traditional marriage, without a shred of evidence in support; says the ruling compares only the best monogomous marriage to polygamy (it doesn't); takes a shot at feminists, out of left field; tears down a strawman argument about "everyone will do it without a law", and claims it is a pillar of the judge's reasoning (can't find a hint of it in the decision); Obviously I detest this opinion piece. It uses many hackneyed debate tactics, the most offensive of which is inserting arguments into a judge's reasons that simply aren't there, so that she can tear down those points without addressing the reasoning actually employed. Anyone who reads this piece without actually referring to the (very lengthy) underlying decision will be seriously misled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Sometimes the letters to the editor in the local paper sound like they came Pawnee Indiana.quote:Alas and alack! Steve Berg implies that "Minneapolis/St. Paul" has blended into "Minnesota" and become invisible compared to Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta ("Which is of these is not like the others?" Nov. 20). Serial Killers, the new urban blight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
The Miami Herald employs actual open racistsquote:Imagine five Jewish kids go to school one day wearing their yarmulkes. The school’s numerous skinhead students are furious. At lunch they mill around in the school yard, muttering threats and complaining to the assistant principal that that their political beliefs have been insulted. The assistant principal responds by calling the Jewish kids into his office and ordering them to take off their yarmulkes or go home. multiculturalism: it sees American democracy as an enemy that must be beaten into submission. gently caress I hate everyone I'm just posting this one because I think it's loving hilarious to see a guy in 2011 complain about those drat lawmakers and their VCRs quote:This “super committee” is one of the all-time political jokes! Let’s see, this is the third time they have gone until the last day to dramatically decide that they can’t come to an agreement. enjoy some random teacher hate from the comments too 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Maneck posted:This one is from Tabatha Southey, from the Globe and Mail (Canada). This woman is the reason why Dave Foley can't return to Canada and why there won't be another Kids in the Hall tour for a very, very long time. http://wtfpod.libsyn.com/episode-146-dave-foley
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
VR Cowboy posted:This woman is the reason why Dave Foley can't return to Canada and why there won't be another Kids in the Hall tour for a very, very long time. http://wtfpod.libsyn.com/episode-146-dave-foley Didn't know that. Looks like Dave Foley is claiming poverty (well, reduced income) but refuses to turn over his work records. A lot of guys do that to get out of child support. They'll reduce your payments if you turn your records over. If you don't, they assume you're hiding income. A quick Google search on VR Cowboy's point turns up that she's supposed to be a humour columnist. Maybe I didn't get the joke?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Dave Foley is really scummy about his "poverty", he "can't go home" because he refuses to do anything to defend himself and refuses to pay what the court said. It sucks how there are dudes screwed over like that but Dave doesn't give any reason to think he's one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Dave Foley is really scummy about his "poverty", he "can't go home" because he refuses to do anything to defend himself and refuses to pay what the court said. It sucks how there are dudes screwed over like that but Dave doesn't give any reason to think he's one. Just from googling the issue, it basically seems like the court set his child support and alimony payments based upon his income during his most profitable years, to the tune of over a million dollars a year. He obviously isn't working nearly as much as he was before and not nearly as high profile, but the payment formula hasn't changed to reflect this. Now, whether Foley has actually done anything practical to resolve this situation or just plead poverty and stayed in the US to just avoid the issue is the real question. It also seems that the financial strain of these payments is what partially caused the dissolution of his second marriage, so he may be resentful of his first wife and kids to the point that he's purposely avoiding going back to Canada because he's adamant about giving any more money to people who he blames for ruining his second marriage. That doesn't absolve him of his legal obligations, but it would explain why he's so steadfast about not doing anything to resolve the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Dave Foley is really scummy about his "poverty", he "can't go home" because he refuses to do anything to defend himself and refuses to pay what the court said. It sucks how there are dudes screwed over like that but Dave doesn't give any reason to think he's one. Foley got boned pretty hard when Phil Hartman was murdered. Until then News Radio was one of the top-rated comedies on television. The show was never the same after Phil was gone, and ratings declined to the point where the show was canceled. When Foley was divorced, the judge set his alimony payments at a level that would've been fair in his News Radio heyday, but were unsupportable after the show was canceled and he was thrown out of work. Since Canadian law allows a person who's behind on their alimony to be arrested and jailed, Foley can't leave the US and go home to Canada without being subject to arrest. What money he did have was used up fighting the ruling, so he's pretty broke. He's gotten pretty bitter about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Yea that post was a bit too hard with 'scummy' and all, he was put in a lovely situation with his payment plan, but basically his refusal to let the other side see his records and generally just going 'nope too poor' rather than fighting in a practical way is what makes me wish he wasn't the poster boy for a dude being hosed by divorce courts, when there are a lot more clear examples.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Foley got boned pretty hard when Phil Hartman was murdered. Until then News Radio was one of the top-rated comedies on television. I loved NewsRadio, even the season after Hartman left, but it was never even close to being highly rated in the Neilsons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsRadio#Season_ratings In fact, they actually briefly cancelled it after the fourth season, then renewed it a few days before Hartman was killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
Shasta Orange Soda posted:I loved NewsRadio, even the season after Hartman left, but it was never even close to being highly rated in the Neilsons: It wasn't top rated but the show was popular. It's mostly that NBC is a terrible, terrible network and mismanaged the show so badly that even devoted fans had no idea when it was on. I can see how Foley would be bitter over how his entire career turned out, because for every kernel of good luck he's had there's been a mountain of bullshit coming down on top of it and the cherry on top is a $15,000/month alimony payment that he's now facing debtor's prison if he can't pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
Plus he's got that terrible beard nowadays
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Foley got boned pretty hard when Phil Hartman was murdered. Until then News Radio was one of the top-rated comedies on television. The show was never the same after Phil was gone, and ratings declined to the point where the show was canceled. I like the guy as an actor. But it's really pretty simple. Owe someone money based on income? Refuse to turn over income records? Get judicially slapped. And contrary to what deadbeats will tell you, judge's aren't out to throw people in jail. For someone to get into his situation, he pretty much has to have ignored what was going on in Court. Whether his kids and ex had a negative impact on his new relationship, they're still his kids. May explain why his ex is so down on monogamous marriage. She still wrote a terrible editorial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
Maneck posted:I like the guy as an actor. But it's really pretty simple. Owe someone money based on income? Refuse to turn over income records? Get judicially slapped. The apparent simplicity of the situation makes me think we don't really know what's going on. Maybe the guy had terrible legal counsel that screwed things up irreversibly. Maybe he really is a deadbeat. There just has to be some element we're not privy to, and that makes the story pretty murky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 06:13
|
|
|
Woozy posted:It wasn't top rated but the show was popular. It's mostly that NBC is a terrible, terrible network and mismanaged the show so badly that even devoted fans had no idea when it was on. I can see how Foley would be bitter over how his entire career turned out, because for every kernel of good luck he's had there's been a mountain of bullshit coming down on top of it and the cherry on top is a $15,000/month alimony payment that he's now facing debtor's prison if he can't pay. Very true about NBC, just look at what they're doing with "Community" so that they can have a full season of the terrible "Whitney" and the similar and likely terrible new Chelsea Handler sitcom "Are You There, Chelsea?" Maneck posted:I like the guy as an actor. But it's really pretty simple. Owe someone money based on income? Refuse to turn over income records? Get judicially slapped. Just because a judge ordered something doesn't make it inherently good or fair. If his alimony and child support payments are based on his income at his highest paying years (probably during his time on NewsRadio)and never adjusted when his income substantially fell, it's kind of understandable that he didn't pay money he wasn't earning. Now whether he did anything proactive to constructively fix the situation rather than simply not paying and staying out of Canada is a completely different matter and I'm not knowledgeable enough about what happened to make a judgement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
If he refused to turn over income records then I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. The system is far from perfect but it really isn't acceptable to dodge alimony payments by simply saying "trust me, I can't afford it!" There is a reason that society ultimately decided these sorts of conflicts required the court to mediate them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 07:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If he refused to turn over income records then I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. The system is far from perfect but it really isn't acceptable to dodge alimony payments by simply saying "trust me, I can't afford it!" There is a reason that society ultimately decided these sorts of conflicts required the court to mediate them. But the response to that argument is, he's already been hosed over by the court in the first place with this absurd alimony and child support arrangement, so he may not have confidence in the court system to resolve the matter in a fair way. This is even more sympathetic if he risks jail time for previous non-payment simply because he did not have the money. Who wants to be a part of a corrupt process that's already treated you unfairly? How does he know that when he goes to resolve the matter in Canada that the judge doesn't send him straight to jail or that any negotiation is coerced with the threat of sending him to jail if he doesn't agree with what his ex-wife demands?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 08:40
|
|
|
If he truly fears that then he can hire a lawyer in Canada over the phone, or get a lawyer stateside, and have them handle the relevant paperwork. There simply is not a credible excuse for refusing to turn over documentation relating to his income when he simultaneously is using his income as an excuse to defer payments. He doesn't get to decide for himself whether or not the law applies to him and the only reason people are defending him is because they like his work as an actor, which is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 08:57
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:Sometimes the letters to the editor in the local paper sound like they came Pawnee Indiana. The serial killer reference is a little baffling, but otherwise that seems like a pretty fine comment. I've never been to Minneapolis but I did live in Seattle with someone from the midwest and she always had great things to say about the city. And Garrison Keillor always makes it sound like a great place. Besides, if you want to talk about culture, Seattle doesn't really have an identifiable culture unless you want to count the 20-something coffee scene. It's mostly just tech yuppies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 10:09
|
|
|
chumpchous posted:Besides, if you want to talk about culture, Seattle doesn't really have an identifiable culture unless you want to count the 20-something coffee scene. It's mostly just tech yuppies. What about Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:What about Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain? Artists are not culture. Besides, Kurt Cobain died before most of the people "in the scene" today were even born. And anyhow, I'd argue that the entire notion of a city possessing "cultural relevance" is antiquated in the digital era. edit: Seattle does still have Sir Mixalot, though. DONT THREAD ON ME fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Dec 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
Branis posted:How did the author of that article do so much digging into butterball and what halal means and not learn that the method of killing the animal is pretty much exactly the same for jews? I know, right??! Its basically the exact same thing except for the stuff you say to God in the process. Both ways animals are basically strung up, the same tubes are severed and they bleed out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:I know, right??! Its basically the exact same thing except for the stuff you say to God in the process. Both ways animals are basically strung up, the same tubes are severed and they bleed out. Not only that, but isn't there something in the Koran to the effect of "If it's kosher, it's halal by extension"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
redmercer posted:Not only that, but isn't there something in the Koran to the effect of "If it's kosher, it's halal by extension"? It's Surah 5.5: quote:This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 11:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:the only reason people are defending him is because they like his work as an actor, which is absurd. His story is also pretty believable, regardless, due to the course of his career being public knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
I couldn't even finish this. Eat poo poo Susan Brown.quote:As I write, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement’s popularity is dropping just about as rapidly as the movement’s masses are being kicked out of the places across the country they’ve all but destroyed. What was originally painted as an innocent expression of freedom of speech quickly morphed into a violent temper-tantrum against all forms of normal society generally, and banks and financial institutions specifically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 23:37
|
|
