The question, “What exactly did Neville Chamberlain do to piss off wingnuts so badly?” is on everyone’s lips, everyone being defined as “those who watched that awesome video of Hardball getting interesting for once.” Some would say that it has something to do with Hitler and Czechoslovakia, but that’s not in the talking points memo and for a good reason. After all, if merely capitulating to the demands of fascist dictators with genocidal tendencies were appeasement, then what’s arming said dictators, training them, funding them, and giving them a bevy of economists on the job to spin everything? That would be like super-appeasement, which would make the Republicans like the best most appeasingly appeasing appeasers in the world, and so that can’t be it.
It’s never a bad time for this picture.
So what did Chamberlain do to earn himself such a poor reputation, especially compared to Winston Churchill? Well, his first and most important act of appeasement was to let his parents name him “Neville Chamberlain”, a pussified commie lib name with overtones of pure frogginess that meant he was only good for a lifetime of letting Hitler force him to perform ass-to-mouth rituals.
“Winston Churchill”, on the other hand, is a manly name. At first blush, the name “Winston” might not be the best way to hang the sign “Exit Only For Life” on your newborn son’s ass, but you must remember that it’s also the name of a cigarette, so it’s a way to signal that this man is not about to let some nanny state liberals tell him what to give himself lung cancer with.* The name “Churchill” is pure testosterone, an implicit argument that churches belong on hills, giving the finger to pansy notions of the church/state separation and telling wives to get out of the office and into the kitchen already. It’s not the best name in the world—that would be Richard “Wolverine” Ramen, if you’re going to be having a son soon—but certainly it wins the contest of who is the least appeasing.
Speaking of wolverines, Thers caught some wingnuts fiercely discussing whether or not MGM should remake the most boring movie ever made, Red Dawn. I think they should, and recast Patrick Swayze as the head of a group of high school kids fighting what will no doubt be an Iranian invasion. This time, though, there should be at least one character that says, “I wasn’t willing to get an education, so why should I get a re-education?” In the post, there’s an awesome rant about how those damn New Yorker liberals don’t understand how serious terrorism is, with the implication being they should get attacked again as a reminder. Like D says, this is the sort of situation where you’re reminded that the worst kind of warbloggers are in full agreement with the terrorists about the infidel nature of America, and how a little bombing to shore up people’s moral stamina would be a good thing. I wonder how many warbloggers have contemplated writing a check to Osama bin Laden with a note saying, “Can you please help us out? It doesn’t have to be a big thing—a bomb on 5th Avenue, blowing up the Statue of Liberty, whatever. But please, Iran is a hard sell and a terrorist attack on American shores would be a great thing for shoring up morale. I’d be obliged if you kept the attacks to New York City or some other place I never visit.”
Extreme, I know, but you can’t let yourself be caught acting like an appeaser.
*That Winston Churchill was 80 years old when Winston cigarettes were invented should not distract you from the important point of this argument. Facts and reading up on history through a quick Wikipedia search are clearly meant for girls.
53 Responses to “The Wolverines of Appeasement”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m afraid Red Dawn is still one of my guilty pleasure movies. Even when I was a 14-year old Reagan Youth, I recognized how blatant the right-wing dog whistles were, but there’s something about the core of the story (and the all-star cast of Outsiders) that I just couldn’t resist.
The really hilarious thing is the way the war fetishists continue to embrace a film where the villains are an invading and occupying superpower army, and the protagonists are a ragtag band of guerrillas who use “unconventional warfare” (including a civilian who conceals a bomb in a bicycle basket) to protect their home.
They love it so much, they named the operation to capture Saddam Hussein after it. Their sense of Yankee victory completely overwhelms their ability to draw correct parallels.
When I saw it, I at least expected it to be entertaining, but I kept falling asleep. However, what I find entertaining is no yardstick for anyone else.
The most jaw-dropping part of the whole “appeasement” dustup is the total conflation, by everyone on the right wing, between diplomacy (what Obama suggested) with appeasement. Chamberlain gave away part of what’s today the Czech Republic in the hopes that this would make Hitler stop. But to your modern day 28%er, anything other than dropping bombs is giving away the Sudetenland.
“Winston” is indeed the name of a cigarette, but as your older readers no doubt remember that doesn’t quite get one out of the subtextual woods. (Perhaps also applicable to Orwell-worshipping “decent leftists”.)
“To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war.”
- Winston Churchill, 1954.
They got to Winston too!
Heh. The wimps currently In Charge should just wish they were 10% as manly as ol’ Winston…he fought in more than 3 different military campaigns by the time he was 26, got captured by the Boers, put in a POW camp, escaped by crawling out of an outhouse and hiked across South Africa, returned to England and got elected to the House of Commons after writing two books and a number of articles, and was a Cabinet member by his mid-Thirties and First Lord of the Admiralty by the time the First World War started. After the Gallipoli disaster he was forced to resign and spent the remainder of the war fighting in France, where he served with distinction.
Now, let’s look at the current “manly” administration…remind me again, who amongst them did anything even close?
Ah, the posturing of the NeoCons is so amusing…
Looking at that picture of Rummy with Saddam, it’s obvious that another Winston, Winston Smith, did not do his job correctly.
If he had, that picture would no longer exist, but would be replaced by a thrilling account of Comrade Ogilvy’s brave and daring exploits in defense of the homeland and AmSoc, accompanied by a picture of his brave mother receiving his posthumous Medal of Honor…
Chamberlain wasn’t the only “appeaser” of Hitler. And the reason Hitler was able to get so far with as little resistance as he did was because he was willing to plunge his country into war, while the Western democracies wanted to avoid war at all costs. When you play a game of chicken with a homicidal/suicidal maniac, you’re at a disadvantage.
As for “Red Dawn,” that was the movie that proved conclusively to me that I did not want to review movies for a living. I found it especially annoying because it was released about the time that Ronnie Alzheimer’s made his “joke” into a live mike about bombing Russia. I mentioned that in my review and got flamed; it was my first brush with wingnut sensitivity.
What you don’t understand, Amanda, is that it’s morally superior for people to be killed by US soldiers, US-backed state security forces or US-backed rebels/terrorists than for them to be killed by non-US-backed forces (or, heaven forfend, not to be killed at all). If they’re killed the wingnut way, they’re dying for Freedom and Democracy.
(Any parallels to the 72 virgins thing is, of course, entirely spurious.)
Chamberlain gave away part of what’s today the Czech Republic in the hopes that this would make Hitler stop.
The goal of appeasement was not to get Hitler to “stop” as much as it was to get him to change directions and attack the Soviet Union.
One point that has not, AFAIK, been brought up is that Chamberlain was the leader of the British Conservative Party and appeasement was viewed favorably by almost everyone in the Conservative Party save Winston Churchill (who was consigned to the political wilderness by the Party leaders for his opposition).
The Conservatives felt Bolshevism was a much greater threat than Nazism and Adolf Hitler made it very clear in the pages of Mein Kampf that one of the goals of National Socialism was creating lebensraum (living space) for the so-called “Aryan race” by conquering the territories to the east of Germany that were then controlled by the Soviets. Hitler, of course, did attack the Soviet Union–but only after conquering all of Western Europe and reducing a good portion of London to rubble.
Of course there were also quite a few wealthy Britons on the extreme right who open approved of the Nazis and were, like Dubya’s grandfather Prescott Bush, more than happy to do business with Nazi Germany. One of the sad ironies of history is that many of the bombs that fell on Britain during the Blitz were manufactured using money lent by British financiers.
Red Dawn is one of those movies that proves quite conclusively that a good chunk of the American population gets most of their information from pop culture. It doesn’t matter what actual facts and actual logic say if a movie or TV show you saw implied differently.
In our real life version of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith isn’t a destroyer of evidence, he’s a TV writer.
I have to admit, Red Dawn was sort of a guilty pleasure at the time it came out. (I haven’t seen it in probably 15-years or so.)
I can’t help being fascinated by any movie featuring a scene where several young men pee into a truck’s radiator because it’s out of water. And who can forget the evil Commies going from house to house confiscating firearms they knew the residents had because of the wickedness of gun registration. Woohoo!!!
Of course, at the time it was the very embodiment of the Reaganite/Reichwing worldview that if we didn’t stop those commies “over there”, they were going to march right in a take us over.
And, as expected, the wingnuts are totally oblivious to the parallels between the Cuban/Soviet invasion depicted in Red Dawn and our own invasion of Iraq.
We (some of us at least) seem completely unable to recognize that America can do harm, and has done so many times in the past. We are not exempt from being “the bad guy”.
There is a very basic truth behind this saying: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…
Red Dawn isn’t high camp? Color me surprised.
I actually like a lot of John Milius’ work. The first Conan flick and Rome especially. Keep him away from guns and he’s pretty good. The commentary track on the Conan The Barbarian DVD is comedy gold, and Ahhhnuhld makes Milius come off as a super-genius.
To name-check another iconic movie, wingnuts don’t seem to realize that in the Star Wars universe, WE’RE the Empire.
Aww, I loved Red Dawn and sort of hope they remake it, especially since the original is basically about how awesome Osama bin Laden was. I also recommend If Footman Tire You, What Will Horses Do? although it doesn’t have quite the same entertainment value.
Conservatives have short memories.
This time, though, there should be at least one character that says, “I wasn’t willing to get an education, so why should I get a re-education?”
I am so going to use that on my students.I don’t know how and I don’t know when, but it will come up one day, and I’ll have it in my pocket.
So … why didn’t we bomb Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Why were the family names of certain important lunatic scions who were involved redacted from all public reports?
That’s because the GOP is tough on terrasm and doesn’t appease, that’s why!
Ah yes, the Munich Analogy, trotted out with great regularity during the Cold War. “You can’t negotiate with dictators! Remember Munich!” Supposedly we learned at Munich that negotiation with dictators only teaches them we are weak. No, we learned you can’t make deals with Hitler, and he being dead, this is a moot point.
That we made lots of deals with lots of dictators when it suited our interests, of course, goes without saying.
WOLVERINES! Red Dawn is so horrible I have to watch it every few years. I was in the target demographic when it came out. Never could figure out how the Soviet Union hadn’t been glassed over with nukes. The subs can launch the nukes without without the signal from the president’s “nuclear football”. I don’t know all the details, but it is a complicated procedure that involves the cooperation of several officers located in different parts of the sub so they can’t be held at gunpoint and forced to launch missiles.
But in any case the basic point of the movie is that occupation is a bitch. In Red Dawn that Cuban general even predicts from his own experience with guerrilla warfare that the occupation will fail. I can hardly see how a remake of Red Dawn would increase morale or resonate with the viewing public given that our armed forces are having so many problems occupying Iraq.
And don’t forget Iran. Reagan appeased the shit out of it. Not only did we immediately bail out of Lebanon after that Iranian backed truck bomb, we then sold Iran weapons and got some hostages released.
While I don’t believe in the full fledged October Surprise conspiracy, it’s fairly certain that people involved in Reagan’s 1980 campaign did have contact with the Iranian government. This likely emboldend the Iranian govt to hold out for a better deal, and it sure looks like they got one.
bacopa, you endanger yourself. AmSoc will not be subject to those slanderous accusations. All of us good party members are required to report your incorrect reading of history to Miniluv…
Nixon’s invasion of China sure showed those godless commies!
“Nixon’s invasion of China sure showed those godless commies!”
Well, we HAVE always been at war with Eastasia…
Sending Ayatolla Khomeini a birthday cake delivered personally by Oliver North along with the promise of weaponry in exchange for Iranian funds for St. Ronnie’s Central American Proxy-war = the perverse fusion of appeasement with knee-pad-ready knob-slobbering.
Now I’m asking, even though i know Ollie will never tell, but was there a *umm* deeper meaning when North said “The old man loves my ass?”
Just a quick point about Chamberlain… by selling out Czechoslovakia he probably saved Britain. If the war had started in 1938, Britain would have been completely unprepared. Putting off the war until the Fall of 1939, gave Britain important time to build more Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Spitfire wasn’t even production until the summer of 1938. Germany was much better prepared for in 1938 than the Allies. The real failure of Chamberlain was in his dealing with Stalin. His failure to keep Stalin appeased drove the USSR into Hitler’s arms.
They love it so much, they named the operation to capture Saddam Hussein after it. Their sense of Yankee victory completely overwhelms their ability to draw correct parallels.
Right-wingers, and wingnuts in particular, have always had a problem with irony.
Red Dawn wasn’t that great over here. We had the very sober correctives of Sleeping Dogs and Broken October to remind us that there wasn’t that much difference between us and the Central and South American client states of Uncle Sam, with all that implied…
felagund: Chamberlain gave away part of what’s today the Czech Republic in the hopes that this would make Hitler stop.
I have read an argument that he was trying to buy time, because Germany was much more ready for a war than England… saying “nice doggie” while looking for a big stick.
No idea if it holds water. IIRC, Churchill wrote that handing Skoda to the Germans was kind of moronic…
So, Chamberlain didn’t do ENOUGH appeasing???
Fun fact: John Milius, the auteur of “Red Dawn,” was unable to go to Vietnam because of severe asthma and has suffered an inferiority complex ever since.
If you’re surprised, raise your hand.
Actually, the “Chamberlain saved Britain” argument has a number of counter-arguments:
1) Stalin was willing to fight Hitler in 1938; the USSR made numerous attempts to form an “anti-Fascist front” to defend Czechoslovakia. The Western governments were, of course, leery of allowing the USSR to send troops to defend Czechoslovakia - after all, the Soviets tended not to leave once they found themselves somewhere. It is argued that the “cowardly” attitude of the French and British at Munich led Stalin to believe that he could not count on them if it came to a Nazi-Soviet war and therefore he sought an accommodation with Hitler, leading to the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939.
2) As far as raw numbers were concerned, the combined French and Czech armies of 1938 were numerically superior to the Germans and arguably had better-quality equipment. A point in this argument’s favor is that the Germans, once they took over the Czech armament factories, continued to manufacture and use Czech armored vehicles and weapons well into 1941-1942. Furthermore, the German General Staff was extremely nervous about facing those armies since the rearmament program hadn’t yet hit its stride; while it’s true that the year’s delay gave Britain that much time to rearm, it also meant that the Germans entered the war with that much more equipment as well.
3) Finally, and most sketchily, General Ludwig Beck and the anti-Hitler circle of German conspirators had a lot of support amongst the General Staff in 1938. Some scholars have argued that if Britain and France had been firmer and forced Hitler to either commit to a war with Czechoslovakia or back down, either result allowing the conspirators to make a play for overthrowing Hitler. As it was, the diplomatic victory increased Hitler’s popularity and added to his mythical reputation among the German people.
However, it is true that public sentiment in France and Britain was very much against war in 1938, especially over Czechoslovakia. Up until that point Hitler’s arguments had seemed to be consistent with his public statements of wishing only to unify the German people - the Rhineland in 1935, the Anschluss of Austria in 1938 - and thus there was a general feeling that the Germans just wanted justice. Appeasement, in that context, did not have the emotional lading we give it today, but merely meant “satisfying Hitler’s justified demands.”
So…Neville Chamberlain gets a lot of the blame for the results of Munich, but he was responding to public pressure and the French were at least as supportive of the partition agreement as the British. Enthusiastic crowds greeted the returning French and British delegations and it was generally felt that superior statesmanship had avoided a horrific war - remember, these people had vivid memories of the bloodletting of the First World War and could not but imagine a war of even more staggering cost.
Thus it always amuses me when the NeoCons make arguments based on “appeasing Hitler” and comparing them to “giving in to terrorism.” As usual, the media focuses on juicy sound bites and invokes the Hitler specter to justify policies which are fundamentally different than those of 1938.
“So, Chamberlain didn’t do ENOUGH appeasing???”
I think Amanda’s conception of contemporary Rightie thinking about Chamberlain goes like so:
“Chamberlain could have gotten away with giving Hitler not only some northerly cheese-paring of Czechoslovakia but the whole thing (with most of Poland and France thrown in, had that been possible) if only he’d carried a totemic big stick instead of that faggy umbrella. Real appeasery, you see, is the equivalent of a fashion statement. Men become appeasers (and only men can become appeasers, because women are born appeasers) by acting all appeasey. Oh, yeah, and by dressing all appeasey. Real gifts of arms and territory don’t count, because they don’t make such a terrible (read: limp-wristed) impression. I mean, in order to give arms and territory to your enemies, you’ve gotta have the disposition of the arms and territory in the first place, and having that kind of power kind of tends to prove you’re a real dude.”
That’s my interpretation of Amanda’s interpretation of the Rightie interpretation of Chamberlain’s actions. For the record, I think Amanda is spot on the mark.
Real gifts of arms and territory don’t count, because they don’t make such a terrible (read: limp-wristed) impression.
So does the Ayatollah’s birthday cake count as arms or territory? I mean, normally a cake would be an incredibly wimpy gesture, but since Big Manly Man Ronnie Reagan presented it (by proxy), clearly it was testosterone-filled in some way.
September 2001:
Bin Laden’s anger with the United States stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow the U.S. to stage attacks on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq. After the U.S. victory, the U.S. military presence became permanent.
April 2003:
The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia… the BBC’s Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says this is a strategic shift of great political as well as military significance.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Patrick Swayze won’t be available for any remakes. He’s dying.
Great. Now I’m imagining a cake filled with—ick. Thank you soooo much, Mnemosyne.
Yeah, Red Dawn is one of the great bad movies of the 80’s. Sure, the premise is absurd, the dialog is terrible, and the plot goes nowhere. but most of my girlfriends sighed over the dreamy cast. I’ve always hoped the Mike Nelson and his gang would spoof Red Dawn like they did Road House.
Thanks for the link, Samotabby! It looks like you did a great job. I could use a few laughs about now.
Best snarky line in Red Dawn review; “The Wolverines sneak back into their occupied town, where the water is running, the electricity is on, and people walk the streets unarmed. So the Cubans are obviously taking much better care of the American town than the Americans took of Bagdad.”
Please, the right wingers don’t even know where the Sudetenland is. They probably think it’s in Africa or something. I’m sure history isn’t the only thing they’re foggy on.
Ooh, the snark: it burns, but in a good way.
F#cking awesome post, Amanda.
Also, it formed the basis of one of the best Mr. Sinus Theater presentations at the Ritz Colorado, with ¡Wolverines! being the trigger in the drinking game. Also: Patrick Swayze as a 35-year-old high school student and Powers Boothe grumbling something about a 40% reduction in the Chinese population.
As near as my reading of history can go, neville Chamberlain’s greatest crime is that he didn’t have some magical ability to see into the future. “Appeasement” was in line with popular sentiment and common sense: something about massive deaths in a war where you didn’t gain all that much sitting in living memory turns the public off of fighting on behalf of some other country, and it’s not like anything in Mein Kampft was actually all that unusual. tons of tinpot dictators had dreams of being Napoleon 2 Electric Boogaloo, most of whom could be shut up with petty trifles.
Basically, Hitler was bloodthirsty, not just power hungry, and he underestimated that. Which because he wasn’t guiding his own actions from the year 1952, he couldn’t actually know all that.
and they get all pissy when they insist that no one could have known there were no WMDs in Iraq (even though one could, and we did.)
That’s a good question, but unfortunately I don’t think it’s a question a mere mortal can answer, because it’s been proven over and over again that when one deals with the Deeds Of Sacred Ron, all bets are off. Reagan had so much extra duditude (judged by the Rightie estimation of such things*) that he could, as an apéritif to the birthday cake, have presented the Ayatollah with a compliment on the nice dress he was wearing and on his nifty taste in scarves and still have been congratulated afterwards on the potency of his leading-man charm. Don’t ask me to explain this. Explanations of such phenomena tend to devolve into accusations of witchcraft and into speculations about deals with the Devil, and I’m not goin’ there.
Now that’s gotta be a recipe assembled by a Black Ops program—it’s sure not something you can buy in Safeway.
*Rightie manliness is a quality so distinct from actual masculinity that IMO a separate term ought to be invented to describe it. My private name for it is “ManliBrand®”—-with the “®” standing for “Republican” of course.
Amanda, I can now see that a few scruples are standing between you and fame and fortune.
Your analysis of the births of the Neville Chamberlain/Winston Churchill duo is an obvious model for a lucrative right wing astrology column. You can cast the horoscopes of manly rightwingers - McCain, Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, the Cheneys, or even our seasoned warrior President himself, - and give an instant character reading that would show how incredibly strong and unpussified they are, men seasoned in combat. Similarly, star charts of Barack Husseini Osama and other lizards of appeasement could show how spineless and treacherous they are, when not born to backstab our boys dying so that we can be free! Sure, the bullshit would be a bit heartsickening - even Bill O’Reilley must sometimes look at himself in the mirror and wonder how he became such a universal shit - but the money would be fabulous. I’m sure they could whip up an endowment from the Scaifes for a Heritage Foundation astrologer
“…even Bill O’Reilley must sometimes look at himself in the mirror and wonder how he became such a universal shit…”
I’m sure O’Lielly had any ability to examine his own life and see what a waste he’s made of it surgically removed many years ago. Same for Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.
Of course, it’s very possible that none of them even HAVE a reflection in the mirror…
“Of course, it’s very possible that none of them even HAVE a reflection in the mirror…”
Which brings up yet another issue: is it possible to have no reflection in the mirror, yet be able to be filmed? I’d love to hear the answer to that one…
(demonic voice in background: “Tee-hee!! You’re gonna like this. It’s our new deal we’ve been working on, we call it our Partial-Soul Special. See, what we do, as stated, is, we only take part of your soul. That way, even though you may not be able to shave using a mirror, you’ll still show up on camera. Perfect for the aspiring talking head!! Half for the price of one!! Whaddaya say?”)
…bear in mind that I’m joking here, not speculating.
Amanda, that was terrific. You’ve just appeased me.
Roger -
Are you familiar with the term “sesquipedalian locquaciousness?”
I’m genuinely not sure if you’re praising amanda sincerely, or a winger troll just trying to sound smart.
Also, that star chart stuff isn’t funny. Hillaryis44 has a resident astrologer who predicted an early downfall for Obama, and then when proven wrong, blamed it on an error in Hillary’s time of birth on her star chart and a miscalculation of the strength of Jupiter for Obama.
Whoa, karpad, ease up! If you are really “genuinely not sure if you’re praising amanda sincerely, or a winger troll just trying to sound smart,” then you have completely lost your sense of humor. And you should lose that partisan bitterness about Clinton. I was an alternative delegate for Obama, I’m hugely pleased at his success, but I’m hold no grudge against Clinton for putting up a damn good fight. I am still a little, uh, shall we say puzzled by her campaigning as a George Wallace Dem in West Virginia, but I’m going to put that down to desperation.
karpad–hey, a fellow troper! Sweet!
I still think “Stronghard Godcock” is the best manly name ever. Or, I suppose, if you prefer, “Rayford Steele”.
beka,
It has to do with silver.
Mirrors are backed in silver. Hence they cannot reflect the soulless.
Silver Nitrate film (B&W) does not capture the soulless.
Color film? shoots just fine, soul or no.
You see, since silver was the metal Judas was paid in, God promised it would never again need to deal with the wicked.
Hence silver bullets for werewolves, silver mirrors against vampires and such like.
This has been a public service announcement from your resident vampire writer.
Now, appease me, dammit.
I don’t want Czechoslovakia, just a best-seller.
Well, actually… problems there, Angelia.
Silver Nitrate’s the mirror stuff. It’s stable and not photoreactive, thus totally useless in the film department. Film uses one of the silver halides, which IS photoreactive.
The only use of nitrates in photo technology was as cellulose nitrate, used as a backing layer for the gelatin emulsion, but it fell STRONGLY out of favor as soon as there were options. Nitrates, you see, are inflammable; quite dangerous stuff. (Photographers who ran out of flash powder or didn’t have the money used to chop bad negatives very small and ignite them instead. I actually wound up with some nitrate stock buying a job lot from an old camera store; it made a dandy firestarter and the Samhain trick-or-treaters STILL haven’t come back around….) It’s also got some aging characteristics that make it undesirable…. it tends to fog, and it becomes brittle. It also shrinks a tiny bit, which makes emulsions flake off.
Next problem is that color film still uses silver halides to capture the image; the developing process uses various chemical couplers to replace the silver halide ions with color dyes, and a later step washes out the silver the exact same way that undeveloped silver ions are washed out in developing B&W film. (The fixer I’ve used in my (B&W only) darkroom for the last several years is actually a color formulation that I took home when the color lab I worked for a while back made an ordering mistake and wound up with 50 extra and unreturnable gallons of 1+7 concentrate (400 gallons at working strength). It’s packaged and labelled “Process C41 for film.” It’s chemically the same stuff as B&W RapidFix, an ammonium thiosulfate solution. (Older “classic” fixes use sodium thiosulfate and take much longer… but don’t stink up the darkroom. Rapidfix is fast but phew.)
So NO film-based photo process is going to actually capture a vampire or, theoretically, a werewolf (though this is actually problematic as there have been numerous canonical photographs of both werewolves and vampires. It’s a bit of an anomaly.)
Digitally, of course, it SHOULD be open season….
This has been a vampire-service announcement from your local photographic darkroom maven. Carry on.
Ah, thank you.
It was my understanding that B&W film had silver and color didn’t.
Never did darkroom work, all I did was shoot pictures.
I always welcome a correction in areas where I’m sketchy.
If you are really “genuinely not sure if you’re praising amanda sincerely, or a winger troll just trying to sound smart,” then you have completely lost your sense of humor.
Rule one: sarcasm on the internet doesn’t fucking work. No matter how insanely over the top “of course he’s joking” you think you’re being, someone else said it seriously.
And you should lose that partisan bitterness about Clinton. I was an alternative delegate for Obama, I’m hugely pleased at his success, but I’m hold no grudge against Clinton for putting up a damn good fight. I am still a little, uh, shall we say puzzled by her campaigning as a George Wallace Dem in West Virginia, but I’m going to put that down to desperation.
Hillary I don’t really have much of a problem with. Hillaryis44 however is a website of a bunch of crazy partisan motherfuckers who have taken to spamming superdelegates with threats that if Obama is selected they’ll be voting for McCain, among other crazy shit that you’d really expect more from hard core wingers.
karpad–hey, a fellow troper! Sweet!
yes, indeed. “Shit yes, son” would actually convey the emotion a bit better, but is unfortunately gendered. perhaps “girl, you know it.” or something. has stolen more hours of my life than any videogame published in the last several years.
Nevill chamberlin is actually a scapegoat for a failed British attempt to push Germany into war with Russia. Hitler’s secret pact with Stalin to divide Poland thwarted this strategy and led to the end of the British empire. Check out the writings of Carroll Quigly, Oxford professor and mentor of Bill Clinton.
Diplomats actually told the Germans that that England would not take action if Germany invaded Poland. There’s more to this story than simple appeasement.
The main thing I remember Red Dawn for is that it was the very first movie to have the PG-13 rating.
I wanted to see it for that very reason, being the ’satiably curious Katt that I am.
So a vampire could shave (if a vampire needed to shave) in a polished-bronze mirror? Hmmm. That’s worth thinking about. I’ve read vampire books in which the vampire protagonists were unable to glimpse themselves even in still pools of water. What’s going on there?