h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>And doesn't it seem weird that Mel Gibson and Costas Mandylor have trained away their Australian accents?

Umm.. who is Costas Mandylor?

I don't find it weird that Mel Gibson has trained away his aussie accent because 1 he's a yank who lived here (aust) for a while and made some movies, but was not born here, and therefore is probably inclined to be a little more patriotic towards his own country, and 2 it probably makes him more likable/employable/understandable to americans, like Portia de Rossi (aust actor on Ally McBeal) who states those reasons.

One does wonder why Greg Norman (aust golfer) changed his accent though...

and Paul Hogan makes money from his Crocadile Dundee over-ocker aussie accent, so that makes sense to keep it (sorry, couldn't resist going there, in the light of that bloody CD3 in LA)

Well, This hour is filmed in Halifax. Still not quite as pronounced as the real newfie accent.

Do you catch the one hour (I swear it was longer then 22 minutes) Talking to american special? What a hoot, I don't know how he does it with a straight face. Maybe the 22 minute thing has something to do with using the 20 hour clock!

Since we are on the topic of being Canadian, what does everyone thing of the new Molson I AM CANADIAN commercial? The one with the Scottish guy reading the toast.

Statement: Regional Aussie accents.

Comment: I have a dear friend in Sydney who sounds absolutely nothing like the mainstream Aussie accent portrayed in American media. Her accent is much more broad, and she pronounces her "e"'s in a way that makes my mouth hurt trying to reproduce.

Statement: Why does everyone think Canadians are goofy?

Comment: Curling. Pure and simple. Curling.

Statement: Americans are Bible-thumping isolationist morons.

Comment: We also have nuclear weapons, or you'd be calling us goofy too.

But in all seriousness, any sweeping stereotypes bother me. I am who I am, neither a Bible thumper, nor an isolationist, nor one who participates in the sport of curling, nor a moron. I am simply who I am: a Bahá'í; and a left-wing, liberal, can't-we-all-just-get-along (and accept that everyone has different ways of doing things), post Duran Duran pop culture/technology junkie.

Peace,

:X

Statement: Regional Aussie accents.

Comment: I have a dear friend in Sydney who sounds absolutely nothing like the mainstream Aussie accent portrayed in American media. Her accent is much more broad, and she pronounces her "e"'s in a way that makes my mouth hurt trying to reproduce.

Statement: Why does everyone think Canadians are goofy?

Comment: Curling. Pure and simple. Curling.

Statement: Americans are Bible-thumping isolationist morons.

Comment: We also have nuclear weapons, or you'd be calling us goofy too.

But in all seriousness, any sweeping stereotypes bother me. I am who I am, neither a Bible thumper, nor an isolationist, nor one who participates in the sport of curling, nor a moron. I am simply who I am: a Bahá'í; and a left-wing, liberal, can't-we-all-just-get-along (and accept that everyone has different ways of doing things), post Duran Duran pop culture/technology junkie.

Peace,

:X

This post has been removed.

I always thought Mel Gibson was from Australia because I thought he made Mad Max there. (Why would any American go to Australia to make movies? Sorry, uh, I guess there must be a lot of Yanks who go down under to follow in the footsteps of...Yahoo Serious?)

By the way, the single stupidest voiceover of any movie is the American-english version of Mad Max.

Costas Mandylor has been on a couple tv shows and maybe had some bit parts in movies. The only part I can remember now is that he was deputy on Picket Fences, a show that only lasted one or two seasons.

One hour special of 22 minutes? Nope, I must have missed that one. Not really that big a fan. (Actually I waste most of my time on this thing lately, and leave the tv alone.)

Haven't seen the Molson commercial.

Wait a minute. I heard the "bible-thumping" and I heard the "moron" accusation without really noticing, but I must have glossed over "isolationist" without paying attention.

Americans are TOO isolationist??!?!?!?

Any Iraqis or Panamanians or Serbs or Cubans or Columbians or Vietnamese who have survived U.S. foreign policy and who believe U.S. foreign policy has been too "isolationist" in the last century, please raise your hands. If you're too weak from U.S. blockades on your nation receiving food & medicine, or if you have no hands or limbs left to raise due to "humanitarian interventions" that the U.S. performed in your country, please just say "aye."

People in other countries ought to be happy if America would go isolationist for a change, since it means we won't be shooting them or sending economic and military support for anti-democratic dicatators. It's doubtful that Bush will be as isolationist as he seemed in his campaign, but if he could just engage in one or two fewer bomb-dropping-parties than Clinton did, it would be a good thing for the rest of the world.

"we've got nuclear bombs too?", yes, and you are the only people daft enough to use them on people, twice.
"too isolationist?", yes, in the sense that most american presidents use foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy, and the easiest way for a president in trouble to pick up votes is to do something violent to somebody external (but all in the name of patriotism). The rest of the time, they don't want to get their hands dirty.

Daft enough to use nukes twice? You're probably right... we should have let our brave, compassionate friends in the UK lead the invasion of Honshu against a foe willing to fight to the last drop of blood. What were we thinking?

Oh, yeah... we were probably thinking that, after taking on the most difficult assignments at Normandy, we'd seen quite enough of that sort of thing. And the Germans didn't have the Japanese resolve, nor the support of the civilians.

And if war is so good for votes, then why did Bush Sr. fail to get a second term?

RE: Japanese fighting to the last drop of blood, or preparing to surrender?

"But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotionations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered..."

[The above is an excerpt of INSIGNIFICANT length taken from "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, Chapter 16.]

Okay, xyroth, I might agree with you there somewhat. U.S. is "too isolationist" when it comes to Africans making war on each other, or Indonesia invading and slaughtering East Timorese, but too interventionist in Iraq, Panama, Columbia, etc. etc.

What happened to the happy-go-lucky conversation we were having about Canadians a few posts back? Pretty soon some veteran of a U.S. "intervention" is going to discover this thread and go buckwild on us. Hope nobody brings up "vietnam." (oops)

Nobody has any bad feelings about Canadians because, for the most part, they mind their own business. But when America tries to emulate that, we're "too isolationist." So then we do get involved, and we become "too interventionist."

It's not easy being the most powerful country in the world... everyone gets so jealous. The same thing happened to Rome, Spain, France, and Britain in their turns.

More on WWII: Yes, an element of the Japanese government was looking for peace, but the military was firmly against it, and ready to ignore their superiors. And the Russians never passed on the messages from the element working for peace.

The bomb was dropped first at Bikini Atoll, to demonstrate it, and the surrender ultimatum was issued. The hardliners were still in control of the government, and the ultimatum was ignored. The next bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The hardliners still refused to buckle, since they thought that the US had to have used every scrap of plutonium in their hands on the previous two bombs. Nagasaki was necessary to prove them wrong, and as Tokyo was named for the next target, the hardliners collapsed and the surrender was signed.

Interesting footnote: Nagasaki was actually the end of US plutonium... the early bombs required tons of it, and it was still very difficult to produce. The Americans couldn't have hit Tokyo if they'd wanted to for another several months. And since Nagasaki was a relatively small town...

If you read richard feynmann, you will find that the bomb was first tested in america, and developed because hitler was expected to try and develope it first. when hitler lost, there was no thought of not continuing, and the second bomb was dropped on japan before the news of the first bombing reached tokio. it has also been convincingly argued that the beachhead invasion tactics would only have taken another six months, and not significantly altered the final death toll.
As to wars winning votes, only if you win them without any significant loses. What wins votes is things like bombing the libians from high altitude, with no loses, but a boost to national pride because "we spanked them nasty people good".

xy,

RE: theories on what motivated the U.S. to drop the bomb.
In that same chapter of "A People's History of the United States," Zinn argues that the U.S. scheduled the a-bombs carefully before Russia entered the war.

Russia was not technically at war with Japan, but had "secretly" (?) agreed to enter the war 90 days after victory in Europe (which would have scheduled Russia to begin on August 8?). U.S. leaders feared that Russians would have taken control of lands they occupied when Japan eventually surrendered. So the U.S. wanted to ensure that they would be the ones to occupy Japan before Russia could even enter the war against Japan.

Also very frightening to note: "When the papers of the Manhattan Project...were released years later, they showed that [General George] Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit." (Another INSIGNIFICANT excerpt from Ch. 16, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.

The people who planned these attacks knew full well that they would be killing thousands of civilians. The caricature of Japanese as subhumans who would never give up seems to have helped them overcome any concerns for killing mostly civilians to force surrender.

The "Mother of All Surrenders" was an awfully huge win, with awfully small losses. It did far more for national pride than Reagan's antics ever did.

Yes, the bomb was tested in the US. Bikini Atoll was not so much a test as a demonstration. And it may have been "argued convincingly" about the final death tolls, etc., but 6 months is a long time in a war, and a lot of people died on the other islands. Honshu was much better prepared than Iwo Jima, and a lot bigger besides.

I suspect that Richard Feynmann is to WWII what Graham Hancock is to ancient Egyptian history...

***sorry, slight correction. I always screw up with pronouns and what they refer to, such as "they" in the last sentence of my post above. Should read:

"The caricature of Japanese as subhumans who would never give up seems to have helped [U.S. leaders] overcome any concerns for killing mostly civilians to force surrender."

My post was meant to be funny ...



It seems like Yanks and Brits take ourselves way too seriously. Canadians seem to have a decent sense of humor -- no wonder their country stands out as the leader of common sense and civility for the rest of the Western Hemisphere. 1812 was a LONG time ago folks.

Is it just me or is there an alarming swell of nationalism in the world ... Ten years ago it was looking like borders were going to become obsolete, now they are not only on paper but seem to be fortified in peoples' minds.

I do not give a damn who started it. I do not care whose fault it is. It's ugly.

We can do better than this can't we? It means a little give and take on all sides, but shees, that's so much better than this bickering. I thought Britain and America were allies with a deep relationship. In here we sound like adversaries.

Yuck.

My two cents USD, which are worth about 1 cent Pound Sterling. I guess I'll unsubscribe from this conversation too ...

:X

"Ten years ago it was looking like borders were going to become obsolete, now they are not only on paper but seem to be fortified in peoples' minds."

In some ways, yes, in some ways, no.

Look at the European Union. I never would have thought so many nations in Europe would loosen their borders, seemingly give up sovereignty to come together as they have.

On the scary side of loose borders, check out the Free Trade zones and agreements, helping businesses migrate back and forth across borders seemingly more freely than citizens.