How does the liberal code of movie production run, like this? 1) Aim low then lower still. Hate you country, let the bad win, let the good suffer. Bamboozle, perplex.
2) Incorrect standards of life will be seen as thought provoking: man married to sister both marrying a sheep. Vegan cats. 3) Law is relative. Subject to change at short notice, always increasing, obscure - it'll keep you guessing and anything WE SAY IT IS. For natural law see (2). -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 20:37 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Remi Cornwall wrote: >Are you sure? Yes, I have read history, and lived through it, and I am sure things were much worse in the past. I am also sure they can get worse again. >The public are infantilised, not talk how to think, how to have any >dignity for themselves, putty infinitely mouldable in the hands of the elite. Much less today than it was in the 1930s, or the 1830s. Look at movies back when the US Motion Picture Production Codes were in effect! Talk about infantilization. No movie theater in the US would show a movie in which married couples slept in the same bed or evildoers did not get their comeuppance by the last reel. Quoting Wikipedia, the The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles" as follows: 1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin. 2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented. 3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation. Some specifics: The ridicule of religion was forbidden, and ministers of religion were not to be represented as comic characters or villains. References to alleged sex perversion (such as homosexuality) and venereal disease were forbidden, as were depictions of childbirth. . . . Can you imagine trying to pass a law enforcing that today? There were countless other laws of this nature on the books until the 1960s. - Jed
