The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes, I was watching the classic western Liberty Valance over the weekend. Its a great film by any measure.

Jimmy Stewart plays a lawyer in a frontier town that is terrorised by Lee Marvin and his gang.

Politically the film is a bit of a mish mash. Stewart is a civilised man who believes in the rule of law. However he is forced to confront Marvin with a gun in his hand. Stewart represents modern civilised values whilst Marvin is a savage. John Wayne bridges the two worlds.

If you havent seen it yet then you are in for a treat.

Anyway one of the side issues in the film is the fight for statehood and this seems to be a hotly contested proposition.

On the one side are the small holders from “south of the picketwire”. They are represented by Stewart and are all for statehood. John Wayne is supportive of this as well.

On the other side are the big ranchers who do not want statehood at any cost. Their man is Lee Marvin.

Anyway my questions are as follows.
What would be the arguments against statehood ?

Surely it is a good thing in itself ?

If the big ranchers are against it would that be because they are powerful enough to not need the protection of statehood ?

Is statehood such a big deal ?

Many thanks, TT

 

[emilynghiem]

Nice post and topic, Tommy Tainant!
Reminds me of two different scenarios
A. with Puerto Rico, the people who want statehood want fuller benefits than just being
a territory. The people who want Puerto Rico to maintain independence don't want to give up local control to a central federal govt. If the people can have both, and preserve the sovereignty while also having the protection, security and representation through the US, that would be ideal. But people are generally afraid of changing things to this degree without any guarantee it won't backfire.

B. with Kingwood in Houston, Kingwood had developed as a community for the workers with Exxon/Mobil. Before Kingwood could incorporate formally as a separate city (they already had bought and set up their own fire stations and other services), the City of Houston decided to annex Kingwood, in order to get to its tax base.

I personally believe that people and communities should be as independent as possible,
and then choose, by informed consent, when and with whom to enter contracts in order to ensure equal protection and inclusion of all the members.

It's similar to both people in a marriage being independent first, BEFORE they form a partnership.
Otherwise, if the partners aren't equally independent, it can lead to endless conflicts on what conditions to expect within the relationship.

For the question of statehood, I might compare it to a couple where one partner WANTS to get married in order to have security and shared resources, but the other is saying NO I don't want to give up my freedom and share decision making about a joint household with you; I want to call my own shots and stay single, instead of having all the increased responsibility shared by couples. Go do your own thing, I'll do my own thing, we'll keep it loose and don't have to get married formally.

 

[waltky]

Obama would do well to watch that movie.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Thank you for that.I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ? I noticed that they were having a lot of financial problems not so long ago.

My own views differ from your own. My observation is that a collection of individuals is little better than a jungle without the protection of the community.

Jimmy Stewart would have benefited from a little support !

Obviously there are tensions around where the line is drawn and that will always be the case.

My vision of America is gleaned mainly from popular culture and that vision is that Americans see big corporations as as much of a problem as the over mighty state. The little guy is always the hero.

Nice post and topic, Tommy Tainant!
Reminds me of two different scenarios
A. with Puerto Rico, the people who want statehood want fuller benefits than just being
a territory. The people who want Puerto Rico to maintain independence don't want to give up local control to a central federal govt. If the people can have both, and preserve the sovereignty while also having the protection, security and representation through the US, that would be ideal. But people are generally afraid of changing things to this degree without any guarantee it won't backfire.

B. with Kingwood in Houston, Kingwood had developed as a community for the workers with Exxon/Mobil. Before Kingwood could incorporate formally as a separate city (they already had bought and set up their own fire stations and other services), the City of Houston decided to annex Kingwood, in order to get to its tax base.

I personally believe that people and communities should be as independent as possible,
and then choose, by informed consent, when and with whom to enter contracts in order to ensure equal protection and inclusion of all the members.

It's similar to both people in a marriage being independent first, BEFORE they form a partnership.
Otherwise, if the partners aren't equally independent, it can lead to endless conflicts on what conditions to expect within the relationship.

For the question of statehood, I might compare it to a couple where one partner WANTS to get married in order to have security and shared resources, but the other is saying NO I don't want to give up my freedom and share decision making about a joint household with you; I want to call my own shots and stay single, instead of having all the increased responsibility shared by couples. Go do your own thing, I'll do my own thing, we'll keep it loose and don't have to get married formally.

 

[Boss]

I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ?

Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa... several others.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ?

Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa... several others.

Many thanks.

I do remember from my youth that Miss Guam was always a stunner in the Miss World contest.

I am a bit surprised about Samoa. There were two Samoas at one time, they play rugby and are a ferocious people.Surely they should play American Football ?

Could these places become states if there was a wish to do so ?

What are the advantages to not being states ?

 

[imawhosure]

Thank you for that.I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ? I noticed that they were having a lot of financial problems not so long ago.

My own views differ from your own. My observation is that a collection of individuals is little better than a jungle without the protection of the community.

Jimmy Stewart would have benefited from a little support !

Obviously there are tensions around where the line is drawn and that will always be the case.

My vision of America is gleaned mainly from popular culture and that vision is that Americans see big corporations as as much of a problem as the over mighty state. The little guy is always the hero.

Nice post and topic, Tommy Tainant!
Reminds me of two different scenarios
A. with Puerto Rico, the people who want statehood want fuller benefits than just being
a territory. The people who want Puerto Rico to maintain independence don't want to give up local control to a central federal govt. If the people can have both, and preserve the sovereignty while also having the protection, security and representation through the US, that would be ideal. But people are generally afraid of changing things to this degree without any guarantee it won't backfire.

B. with Kingwood in Houston, Kingwood had developed as a community for the workers with Exxon/Mobil. Before Kingwood could incorporate formally as a separate city (they already had bought and set up their own fire stations and other services), the City of Houston decided to annex Kingwood, in order to get to its tax base.

I personally believe that people and communities should be as independent as possible,
and then choose, by informed consent, when and with whom to enter contracts in order to ensure equal protection and inclusion of all the members.

It's similar to both people in a marriage being independent first, BEFORE they form a partnership.
Otherwise, if the partners aren't equally independent, it can lead to endless conflicts on what conditions to expect within the relationship.

For the question of statehood, I might compare it to a couple where one partner WANTS to get married in order to have security and shared resources, but the other is saying NO I don't want to give up my freedom and share decision making about a joint household with you; I want to call my own shots and stay single, instead of having all the increased responsibility shared by couples. Go do your own thing, I'll do my own thing, we'll keep it loose and don't have to get married formally.

Your vision is put forth to you purposely, because most films back then and today, are produced by Hollywood. Hollywood is usually left, so of course it shows a wonderful, benevolent government trying to help the little guy against evil corporations.

There is always 2 sides to every coin. There is also the reality that has come to pass in real life, that many times, the supposed hero becomes that which he/she/it vanquished, which is the tyrant.

Who here thinks Mao, Stalin, or Hitler started out by proclaiming, "put me in power, and I will kill millions of you?"

So you see, who is really on the good compassionate side, changes with each and every situation. In your case of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," you are correct. But, have you ever watched movies where the government is trying to railroad someone? Are you rooting for the benevolent government in those movies too!

 

[Wildman]

Thank you for that.I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ?

here they are, just a simple search would have saved you yhe embarrassment of ignorance!

• *American Samoa.
• *Guam.
• *Northern Mariana Islands.
• *Puerto Rico.
• *U.S. Virgin Islands

 

[bullwinkle]

Thank you for that.I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ?

here they are, just a simple search would have saved you yhe embarrassment of ignorance!

• *American Samoa.
• *Guam.
• *Northern Mariana Islands.
• *Puerto Rico.
• *U.S. Virgin Islands

This has been an interesting and educational conversation right up until Wildman inserted his pompous superiority and political sniping. I thank all others for presenting both sides of the trade-off it requires to either become part of the whole or be an unrestrained individual, assuming one has the discipline to be without restraints. Please continue without the rancor Wildman is trying to insert.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

[FONT=Roboto, sans-serif]I think our definitions of "left" may need to be synced so that we are on the same page. Hollywoods primary aim is to make money and its difficult for me to see it as revolutionary in that respect.[/FONT]

In answer to your point I cant really think of many movies where the “state” is the actual hero. Public officials tend to be shown as crooks,(Erin Brokovich, Missing (Jack Lemmon),City Hall etc) or in a bad light completely. As an example the Bureau of Indian Affairs must be more maligned
than the Spanish Inquisition. In a million westerns I have never heard a good word said about them.

I cant think of any big screen politicians who we would vote for either. (Mr Smith Goes to Washington,The Candidate, Born Yesterday)

I take your point about evil replacing evil. Meet the same boss etc..........

Going back to the Duke I always used to enjoy “The Alamo” as a massive spectacle. But then I learned that one of the things that Texas was fighting for was to preserve slavery. Took the edge off it for me, cant enjoy it. I have similar feelings about the Mel Gibson film The Patriot.


I suppose the point I am making is that the “individual” can do a lot more good by working with others than by ploughing a lone furrow.
















Your vision is put forth to you purposely, because most films back then and today, are produced by Hollywood. Hollywood is usually left, so of course it shows a wonderful, benevolent government trying to help the little guy against evil corporations.

There is always 2 sides to every coin. There is also the reality that has come to pass in real life, that many times, the supposed hero becomes that which he/she/it vanquished, which is the tyrant.

Who here thinks Mao, Stalin, or Hitler started out by proclaiming, "put me in power, and I will kill millions of you?"

So you see, who is really on the good compassionate side, changes with each and every situation. In your case of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," you are correct. But, have you ever watched movies where the government is trying to railroad someone? Are you rooting for the benevolent government in those movies too![/QUOTE]

 

[konradv]

Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa... several others.

I am a bit surprised about Samoa. There were two Samoas at one time, they play rugby and are a ferocious people.Surely they should play American Football ?

There are many football players that hail from American Samoa. They are equally ferocious as those from the British side that play rugby. At least one is destined for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Born in CA, but of Somoan descent.

Troy Polamalu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FJO]

Let us not forget the REAL athletes from Samoa: The professional wrestlers!!!!

 

[konradv]

Let us not forget the REAL athletes from Samoa: The professional wrestlers!!!!

They're the ones who couldn't make the NFL.

 

[Boss]

Let us not forget the REAL athletes from Samoa: The professional wrestlers!!!!

They're the ones who couldn't make the NFL.

I just know they make some mean ass Girl Scout cookies!

 

[g5000]

Here's a clip worth watching that was even cited by the US Supreme Court:

 

[Boss]

Could these places become states if there was a wish to do so ?

What are the advantages to not being states ?

Well the biggest advantage is taxation. Federal taxation would encroach on every aspect of their lives, from their personal incomes to commerce and trade. There is very little "upside" for them, as they have relatively small populations-- so not much representation politically. They would probably be eligible for some government programs but, like, Social Security... they haven't paid in so they wouldn't be able to draw.

Also, I don't think it's really a matter of their wish... this would have to pass Congress. And, if I am not mistaken, there is a checklist of things that must be in compliance before Congress would ever consider it. So it's not likely to happen for anyone other than perhaps Puerto Rico. I think they have been actively pursuing statehood for 30 years or so.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Could these places become states if there was a wish to do so ?

What are the advantages to not being states ?

Well the biggest advantage is taxation. Federal taxation would encroach on every aspect of their lives, from their personal incomes to commerce and trade. There is very little "upside" for them, as they have relatively small populations-- so not much representation politically. They would probably be eligible for some government programs but, like, Social Security... they haven't paid in so they wouldn't be able to draw.

Also, I don't think it's really a matter of their wish... this would have to pass Congress. And, if I am not mistaken, there is a checklist of things that must be in compliance before Congress would ever consider it. So it's not likely to happen for anyone other than perhaps Puerto Rico. I think they have been actively pursuing statehood for 30 years or so.

Cheers. They would probably have to pay to get the flag updated as well ?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Thank you for that.I am guessing that Puerto Rico is the only territory that US has now ? I noticed that they were having a lot of financial problems not so long ago.

My own views differ from your own. My observation is that a collection of individuals is little better than a jungle without the protection of the community.

Jimmy Stewart would have benefited from a little support !

Obviously there are tensions around where the line is drawn and that will always be the case.

My vision of America is gleaned mainly from popular culture and that vision is that Americans see big corporations as as much of a problem as the over mighty state. The little guy is always the hero.

Nice post and topic, Tommy Tainant!
Reminds me of two different scenarios
A. with Puerto Rico, the people who want statehood want fuller benefits than just being
a territory. The people who want Puerto Rico to maintain independence don't want to give up local control to a central federal govt. If the people can have both, and preserve the sovereignty while also having the protection, security and representation through the US, that would be ideal. But people are generally afraid of changing things to this degree without any guarantee it won't backfire.

B. with Kingwood in Houston, Kingwood had developed as a community for the workers with Exxon/Mobil. Before Kingwood could incorporate formally as a separate city (they already had bought and set up their own fire stations and other services), the City of Houston decided to annex Kingwood, in order to get to its tax base.

I personally believe that people and communities should be as independent as possible,
and then choose, by informed consent, when and with whom to enter contracts in order to ensure equal protection and inclusion of all the members.

It's similar to both people in a marriage being independent first, BEFORE they form a partnership.
Otherwise, if the partners aren't equally independent, it can lead to endless conflicts on what conditions to expect within the relationship.

For the question of statehood, I might compare it to a couple where one partner WANTS to get married in order to have security and shared resources, but the other is saying NO I don't want to give up my freedom and share decision making about a joint household with you; I want to call my own shots and stay single, instead of having all the increased responsibility shared by couples. Go do your own thing, I'll do my own thing, we'll keep it loose and don't have to get married formally.

Saw your op on Liberty Valance....

You should read Warlock and Badlands, by Oakley Hall...

Thank me later...