MovieChat Forums > ajr01 > Replies
ajr01's Replies
What makes one think about the "gal for hire" scenario is what she says to Fr O'Malley at their first meeting, when she is trying to put her daughter in the school, "I supposed you're wondering as to how I have been supporting her all this time. So is she".
Based on the time frame, one has the impression that Gaby was a good Catholic girl, in Brussels. Remember, in that era, a nice girl wasn't supposed to do things like that. Before the scene with Jean's items, you hear her uttering aloud the counsels of religious life, including Jesus' words about if you would be perfect, sell what thou has and give to the poor and come follow me! But in the next breath, she can't forego something as simple as a fountain pen, indicating perhaps she really isn't suited to what she is embarking upon. As the story progresses, we see this again and again, which is even recognized by her atheist doctor colleague.
I trust I didn't give away too many spoilers then!
Well that was because, based on the story line, Mr Robin Javrin (the Queen's private secretary) telephoned the PM to indicate Elizabeth had been taken completely by shock at the public's reaction to Diana's death, and in her own mind, (based on past traumatic experiences like the abdication and her father's premature death), was in denial over the significance of this. Because the Royal Family weren't communicating with the public, Blair saw it as his duty to be a sort of spokesperson for them. As he said to Robin, "I'll see what I can do, but I can't promise anything. It's not me they want to see", in an attempt to reverse the terrible newspaper headlines attacking Her Majesty, and her family.
On the basis of the evidence presented at the court trial, the jury had no option but to find Kya not guilty, because of the lack of formal evidence showing she had means & opportunity in order to do this, in spite of the strong motive where she had been heard threatening to kill Chase.
But even accepting that she returned to Barkley Cove from Greenville, and returned there early the next morning, how could she have been with Chase at the top of a fire tower in the middle of the night, pushing him through the opening?
The damning evidence is of course the discovery by Tate after she had passed away, of the actual physical necklace, that it was known Chase had been wearing that evening. If the jury had been made aware she was in possession of this necklace, that most certainly would have convicted her.
I do understand that Burt finding Virginia, with his father, sent him off the edge. No question of that. But taking the side of those horrible two, they indicated to Millie, that all he does is lie, and that is true. What is the reason for that? Why when they just met that time in the restaurant, did he tell her he came from Racine, Wisconsin instead of his hometown of Chicago? Why did he lie about his military record? Virginia told Millie when they met that time, that they had discovered Burt had gotten involved in shoplifting and other misdemeanours. From that, Millie went to the store and found he was not the deputy manager of Hathaways, just a tie salesman, and there is no way he could have written off all those presents he gave her, she realizing he must have shoplifted those as well. Burt was obviously twisted, and him seeing the three of them together outside the apartment, made him wrongly conclude they were in cahoots with each other. But why all the other dishonesty, that bore no relationship to the problem in question, his father and Virginia? Particularly if he loved Millie so much. Burt's father told Millie just as she was to leave his hotel room that what he needs is to be sent to a hospital. Well in the end, Millie saw that was necessary too, and had him committed. Regardless of the illicit romance, could Virginia have been drawn to his father, simply because Burt was so unstable to begin with, and the tryst isn't really the reason for his madness?
As has been said, in another post, here there was a scene filmed in the Old Tuscon movie set, (presumably it would have been Sr Benedict's new home), but the scene was deleted from the final cut of the movie. It would be interesting to see what it was though.
I see what you are saying, but is also a fact that in the forties doctors were far less forthcoming about the actual details of sickness, believing if a person really knew what was wrong, it would only depress them further. Nowadays it is believed that a patient has the right to know the truth
I have been reflecting on a new argument to demonstrate the veracity of the report of the miracle of the sun, or at least that something compelling happened on that fateful 13 October 1917, in the Cova da Iria.
In various accounts I have read of the events leading up to that day, a number of clerics and even her own family (in particular her mother) tried very hard to persuade Lucia to admit that the whole thing had been a fraud.
They reasoned that if a huge crowd of people shows up there on the day and nothing happens, they would have cause to believe that the children (specifically Lucia as she was the eldest), had deliberately deceived them, and the multitude of persons would then vent their anger on them and their families, and may even kill them for their lies. The crowd that day was estimated to have been between 50,000 and 100,000 persons.
To make matters even worse, was the torrential rain that started to pour the day before, when crowds were starting to make their way to the site of the apparitions, which made the physical conditions in a mountainous area, extremely hazardous.
In spite of the threats of possible harm, the children however repeated their claim that the miracle would indeed happen on this day, where they said the lady had appeared.
Maria Rosa dos Santos (Lucia's mother) who had scoffed about the events right from the start, told her daughter they better go to confession beforehand, lest they receive the wrath of a disappointed crowd of people. Lucia said she was happy to go to confession, but not for those reasons.
After the miracle occurred, there are no published accounts of any group of persons, trying to seek vengeance on the children, or their families. If anything they now became the town celebrities, with so many people gathering around, and even entering the children's homes, in particular to give them prayer petitions. For months of course, the anti clerical press in Lisbon, had been mocking these events. But as we know, they published eyewitness accounts of the miracle, and no longer were derisive when speaking about the happenings at Fatima.
But would it not have been a different story, had nothing spectacular had happened? The children and their families would have been exposed as con artists, with the Church as their ally in this fraud having to deal with the persecution of an anti-clerical government, which they had already had dealt with since the revolution, for nearly a decade previously.
30 states ratified ERA by the end of 1973. But what explains the fact that only 5 more did by 1977, and no more after that? Also 5 states rescinded their ratification, by the 1982 deadline. The ratification of this amendment seems to have been embraced very enthusiastically by the people of the United States, but shortly after, there was a dramatic change in wind direction. Both friends and foes, have largely attributed this to Phyllis Schlafly, love her or hate her.
So your saying when I came to the country club in St Louis, they were polite to my face, but after I left, I was the butt of some commentary! Fair enough, life often seems to go down that path. But remember my hostess (a member of the club) let me stay in her home for a couple of days, so I take it I was there on approval.
Not likely. They were quite annoying, the guy even more than the girl!
Yes, that is correct. She and Ronald Reagan were quite close, and even though she was dying in 2016, she advocated Donald Trump, which caused a fracas in her organization Eagle Forum, as most of the board members did not like him! She died two months before the election result.
As time goes on, people will often lose their prior admiration for somebody. We're all individuals at the end of the day, and not puppets, where somebody can pull the strings. It's good to talk to somebody who knows a bit about American politics! As long as you understand, I am having a go at that series Mrs America, because it is presenting in my opinion a view of Phyllis Schlafly, that is intellectually dishonest, love her or hate her! NB Barry Goldwater in his memoirs, never gave credit to the paperback, written by Schlafly, which most commentators agree made the Arizona senator a national figure in 1964, to the point of him winning the Republican presidential nomination, of course losing to the incumbent Democrat Lyndon B Johnson, in the election. I am aware he voted against the Civil Rights Act, which I am sure hardly won him many admirers.
I was not aware of ERA having passed officially. Congress granted a three year extension to the amendment. It should have expired in 1979. By 30 June 1982, it sill had not achieved a ratification of the necessary 38 states. Very interesting what you say about Texas. But that state is largely a Republican one, so I can imagine that even if there was a push for the ERA there, it would still be supportive of homemakers. I am not an American (I am from Australia) but American politics is a strong hobby of mine. I know there are also in the USA, state versions of the ERA! But that is different from making it a constitutional amendment, and to my knowledge, it has not been added to the American Constitution. To add a pertinent anecdote from my previous post, trying to debunk the notion presented in the Mrs America series, that Phyllis' crusade against the ERA, was a reaction to her housewifely boredom, in 1964 nearly a decade before, she published a page turner entitled A Choice Not An Echo. (The last of her six children was born in that year). It sold three million copies! The paperback advocated Barry Goldwater as the Republican presidential candidate in the election later that year, and is widely credited as having given him the nomination. Just to say that Phyllis Schlafly's impressive conservative credentials (even if you don't agree with her) long predate the Equal Rights Amendment
Phyllis Schlafly was never against women having legal rights and protections. In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which was designed to prohibit job discrimination for reasons of race, religion, color, national origin, and sex. She strongly supported this legislation, as well as equal pay for equal work. She was never against the proper advancement of women. What her crusade was about was defending the right of a woman to be a full time homemaker, if that was her choice. If a woman chose to be in the work force and have a career, that was her right also. A large amount of blue collar women, who worked in factories, were also against the ratification of this amendment, because they were worried they would lose any protective laws on account of their gender, that were already in effect. I recognize there are many people who don't like Phyllis Schlafly. I for one, do not support all of her views either. What I take exception to is this series, which I believe based on what we have been subjected to already, is a false perception of her aims, and why she chose to fight the amendment, which seems to imply she was just a bored housewife (who due to her affluence could afford plenty of home help!) and mother with too much time on her hands, and saw fighting ERA as a way to propel her on to the national stage, not because she believed there was anything wrong with the amendment. This is just a load of fantasy. Her political action here was consistent with other activities of hers, in previous decades, including being the author of a number of books expounding her conservative views, and writing a newsletter. She first ran for Congress in 1952 as a conservative Republican, when she was only a few years married and had an infant son, 20 years previously, for instance.
Again, you are misrepresenting her, like that show is doing. A rather unusual housewife and mother of six for sure, who writes books on nuclear strategy, and ran twice for Congress, before launching a national campaign against a constitutional amendment. Schlafly was defending the right of a woman to stay at home and for that choice to be respected by the government, but what the choice of any individual woman was, that was her business, and nobody else's. But as she herself said, while respecting the right of a woman to have a career, (she said, "I hope she gets a break in the labor force") it is a different thing entirely to refer to a homemaker who has made a different choice as an "obsolete stereotype" that has little relevance in the modern age, something she argued the ERA tried to do. She was effectively the voice of these women, at a time in particular in the seventies and eighties, the media was largely preoccupied with those pursuing a career, as an illustration of women's advancement.
Of course, Andy Schlafly!