7 posts tagged “stang”
Travis Reed
The Associated Press
March 24, 2007
Walt Disney Co.'s 1946 film "Song of the South" was historic. It was Disney's first big live-action picture and produced one of the company's most famous songs -- the Oscar-winning "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah." It also carries the story line of the Splash Mountain rides at its theme parks.
But the movie remains hidden in the Disney archives -- never released on video in the United States and criticized as racist for its depiction of Southern plantation blacks. The film's 60th anniversary passed last year without a whisper of official rerelease, which is unusual for Disney, but President and CEO Bob Iger recently said the company was reconsidering.
The film's reissue would surely spark debate, but it could also sell big. Nearly 115,000 people have signed an online petition urging Disney to make the movie available, and out-of-print international copies routinely sell online for $50-$90, some even more than $100.
Iger was answering a shareholder's inquiry about the movie for the second year in a row at Disney's annual meeting in New Orleans. This month the Disney chief made a rerelease sound more possible.
"The question of 'Song of the South' comes up periodically, in fact it was raised at last year's annual meeting ..." Iger said. "And since that time, we've decided to take a look at it again because we've had numerous requests about bringing it out. Our concern was that a film that was made so many decades ago being brought out today perhaps could be either misinterpreted or that it would be somewhat challenging in terms of providing the appropriate context."
"Song of the South" was re-shown in theaters in 1956, 1972 and 1986. Both animated and live-action, it tells the story of a young white boy, Johnny, who goes to live on his grandparents' Georgia plantation when his parents split up. Johnny is charmed by Uncle Remus -- a popular black servant -- and his fables of Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear and Brer Fox, which are actual black folk tales.
Remus' stories include the famous "tar baby," a phrase Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Mitt Romney were recently criticized for using to describe difficult situations. In "Song of the South," it was a trick Brer Fox and Brer Bear used to catch the rabbit -- dressing a lump of hot tar as a person to ensnare their prey. To some, it is now a derogatory term for blacks, regardless of context.
The movie doesn't reveal whether it takes place before or after the Civil War, and never refers to blacks on the plantation as slaves. It makes clear they work for the family, living down dirt roads in wood shacks while the white characters stay in a mansion. Remus and other black characters' dialogue is full of "ain't nevers," "ain't nobodys," "you tells," and "dem days's."
"In today's environment, 'Song of the South' probably doesn't have a lot of meaning, especially to the younger audiences," said James Pappas, associate professor of African-American Studies at the University of New York at Buffalo. "Older audiences probably would have more of a connection with the stereotypes, which were considered harmless at the time."
Pappas said it's not clear that the movie is intentionally racist, but it inappropriately projects Remus as a happy, laughing storyteller even though he's a plantation worker.
"Gone with the Wind," produced seven years earlier, endured the same criticism and even shares a common actress (Hattie McDaniel, who won an Oscar for "Gone" for playing the house slave "Mammy").
However, Pappas said he thinks the movie should be rereleased because of its historical significance. He said it should be prefaced, and closed, with present-day statements.
"I think it's important that these images are shown today so that especially young people can understand this historical context for some of the blatant stereotyping that's done today," Pappas said.
From a financial standpoint, Iger acknowledged last year that Disney stood to gain from rereleasing "Song." The company's movies are popular with collectors, and Disney has kept sales strong by tightly controlling when they're available.
Christian Willis, a 26-year-old IT administrator in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., started a "Song" fan site in 1999 to showcase memorabilia. He soon expanded it into a clearinghouse for information on the movie that now averages more than 800 hits a day and manages the online petition.
Willis said he doesn't think the movie is racist, just from a different time.
"Stereotypes did exist on the screen," he said. "But if you look at other films of that time period, I think 'Song of the South' was really quite tame in that regard. I think Disney did make an effort to show African Americans in a more positive light."
Though Willis is hopeful, there's still no telling when -- or if -- the movie could come out (beyond its copyright lapsing decades from now).
For this story, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Disney's distribution arm, issued a statement: "Song of the South is one of a handful of titles that has not seen a home distribution window. To this point, we have not discounted nor committed to any distribution window concerning this title."
Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel | Get home delivery - up to 50% off
There is a current move in congress for enact a law which will force a journalist to choose between jail time and divulging their source of information.
Journalists of course are vehemently against this idea and with good reason. They argue that such a law violates their first amendment rights. In addition to that being a valid argument, I look at the bigger picture.
I know that what I'm about to say seems like apples and oranges but if you hang in there with me, you'll see where I'm headed with this.
There are some professions where the anonymity of a source is very important. Bodyguards, journalism and some law enforcement agencies really rely on information from others to get to the root of things. Bodyguards are a bit different, they are just bound to see and hear nothing that is not harming or threatening harm to the one they are guarding. When Bill Clinton's bodyguard was forced to testify as to the presidents activities, I really feel as if the courts had overstepped their boundaries. Never before was such a demand placed on a bodyguard for any other president, even when the presidential affair was much less discreet.
I knew then that if a presidential confidant was not protected from judicial scrutiny that the rest of us were screwed. People who give up criminal or scandalous information do so either for monetary gain, to clear their conscience, revenge or some other incentive. I feel very confident that if an informant knows that he/she may be named as a source of information, that well will run dry.
At the moment, the push is for journalists to give up their sources, would that still be the case if journalists had not exposed so many Capitol Hill wrongdoings? I'm not so sure. I think this is an expensive way to keep white collar secrets white collar.
Each day I become more and more convinced that people THINK they know what they want but in all reality they have no damn clue. Oh sure, they articulate what sounds ideal but when you get down to brass tax, nothing could be further from the truth.
I hear men who say they want an "independent" woman. From my personal experience, I am thinking that nothing could be further from the truth. They want a woman how is mildly independent but in all actuality not so independent that they truthful don't need a man at all, they want one. In my experience, when a woman is totally independent and the man is unsure how to handle her, he says that she's "selfish", "detached", "cold" and my favorite, "spoiled". None of those could be further from the truth. A woman who is truly independent wants a partner in her life to share experiences she's already defined her self worth and is not looking for a man to do that for her, therefore his ego tends to suffer.
I also hear and read men who claim they want "no games" and "no drama". HA!! Did I mention HA!? What they mean is they don't want anyone to play games or cause drama with THEM! Simultaneously they are out collecting every non game playing, no drama having woman on the net and in real life they can find. I am seeing that men who claim to want no drama or games are actually looking for groups of women that can be manipulated from the heart. If a man truly wants no drama or games, he just won't cause any or play any, it will show more in his actions and not in his words.
I don't know, maybe it's me being a bit jaded but I deal with enough people on a regular basis to cite examples of each instance that I've mentioned. Ahh just some more of my mindless ramblings, it is what it is.
People are funny sometimes. They are masters and mistresses of thinking what they want to think without looking at the whole picture. I have lots of friends who have dated online and I get approached by men who are attempting to and something I hear a lot from singles is that they are tired or frustrated with the dating scene.
Contrary to public opinion, being frustrated does not make one desperate by default. I mean just because someone gets fed up with head games and things doesn't mean that they are going to settle for the first sweet thing that might sound plausable. I am learning though that some people don't think that way.
I know that I miss some of the good things about the relationship I had with my ex. Not "him" so to speak, I got passed that part but more the waking up to someone, having someone to tell my day to or listen to theirs and having a man around that enjoys my company and allows me to enjoy his as well. Now, just because I miss those things does not make me a target for anyone who says they will fill those voids. People talk a lot and I know that's a no brainer. I just wish people could get the vocab right and be true to themselves and others and much less predatory.
Talk about frustrating! As I mentioned earlier in my about me, I am a member of many community sites. One site allows me to post some of my more revealing images (nooo not totally nekkit) but erotic for sure. Anyway, earlier in the month, I was notified by some community site members that they had seen one of my images on an amateur adult website. Now, not only had they stolen the image but had the nerve to mark it as their own so no one else could steal it....got nerve?
I was HEATED! My images are copyrighted by either myself, my photographer or a jointly. Soo I file a DMCA Infringement letter (Digital Copyright Infringement Act) against the site. I send this not once, not twice, not three times but four times to the sites owners and management. Protocol states that if they are disputing the claim, they are supposed to notify me in writing or just remove the image. So I sat....and I sat....and I sat...nada. I then phoned this deadbeat asshound.......no answer. Called again...no answer. Grrrrr!
I was so finished with the site owner that I contacted the sites hosting company. I did this for two reasons, the first of course is to have my image removed. Secondly, the site works on a submission basis, they have no way to verify that their models are over the age of 18. So, on November 15th I talk to Mark who requests additional copies of the DMCA. I send one to their copyright department and another to their abuse department. I wait...and I wait...and I wait, did I mention that I waited? Goose egg.
I started to wonder if either the site owner or the hosting service realized that they are in violation of the law. So, out of goodwill I called the hosting company again. They showed my DMCA on file but had no idea why it had not been acted upon. It seems that they were awaiting a response from the site owner. WHAT!?? Did it dawn on them that maybe they were contacted because of the site owners inaction? This is getting better by the minute huh? They are waiting for the fox to tell the farmer how many chickens are missing!
I finally told Jordan, the nice man that I spoke with today that this is my last attempt to have these images removed without the benefit of counsel. I hope he listens.
I'll update this when I know more............
The Update.....For now, they have changed the permissions on the image so it is not viewable by the public. They are still trying to contact the site owner for it's permanent removal and if he does not respond, they will remove it for me.
"Contagious shooting" is what the NYPD calls the phenomenon formerly known as "Group-think". The New York Times defines Contagious Shooting as "gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too."
This is the expert explanation of why police officers fired multiple times in New York over the weekend, killing Shawn Bell just hours before his wedding. According to the reports, Bell and friends became involved in an altercation with undercover police officers in a strip club during this bachelor party. What happened next is pretty sketchy as I've read a few articles on this and the only things that are really consistent are the altercation and at some point the vehicle that Bell was in hitting a minivan, followed by the shooting.
The fact that Al Sharpton has arrived at the scene tells me that they will try and play the race card on this and that bothers me. Hell, Sharpton bothers me...but that's another blog entry. Camera is rolling...Lights, Camera...Sharpton.
Anyway with that in mind. It's reported that five police officers fired 50 rounds into the vehicle that the bridegroom was in. How does that happen? What is now being called "Contagious Shooting" is a variation on a 1972 theory by Irving Janis. Janis defines group-think as "A mode of thinking when people are engaged in a cohesive group, when the members striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."
This same theory is also known as "mob mentality" and now "contagious shooting". When do peoples actions become "responsibility related"? It seems that the experts are so fast to label and analyze behavior yet are not as apt to encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions. At what point do we, as a society use reason in conjunction with accountability? Simply stated, continue to understand why people do what they do but still encourage them to not let it be a crutch and admit when they have made a bad decision?
Click Here To Read The New York Times Article
I have my tag line as "Not just another pretty face" for a reason. If you have read my profile, you'll see that I'm on a number of different sites. Most of them are based on appearance and in all actuality, I'm unsure if they give a damn that I have a brain in my in head or not.
I am a freelance model but I have a full time job that pays the bills.......mmmmk for the most part anyway..LOL. I'm an office manager for an advertising, marketing and branding agency. I am also a full time, pre-law student with a second major of psychology. I guess that's fitting as it takes a stark raving lunatic to carry a double major on purpose.
I live in Missouri and absolutely loathe cold weather, cooked carrots, liars and players. I don't have time nor patience for any of them. The cold I have to deal with but that doesn't make me like it. I also have two dogs that I just love. Both my dalmatian and my pekingese have personalities of their own and they are the true diva's of the house. Now only if they could get a true jobby job, we'd be all set.
Nice to meet you and I hope you'll introduce yourself to me as well.
