I have lots of friends that love Moes, which means I usually eat there for free. Subway isn't really expensive. And there's always this. (I practically live off that stuff )
Ugh, cannot stand Ramen noodles. If I'm gonna have a micro meal, I'd prefer Stoufer's. A little more expensive, but completely worth it.
After a few years of only eating Ramen noodles, I'd rather eat dog poop. (Well, maybe not, but still...)
I lived off Velveeta shells and cheese and Ramen noodles in college; I'd go hungry before I'd eat them now. @Dark Lord Tarkas: I saw Lincoln and I'll be buying the Blu-Ray as soon as it comes out. Daniel Day-Lewis is Lincoln as I always imagined him, and I'm a bit of a history buff myself. And the film was outstanding.
That would be Daniel Day Lewis. The man is probably the most insane method actor in film today. He was also in There Will Be Blood, and the awesome Last of the Mohicans. Fun fact about the last one, Lewis lived in a homemade tent during the entire filming, learned how to load a musket while running (Muskets can take up to thirty seconds to load standing still in the hands of a professional), and sewed his own costume out.
It's not coming out over here until late January, unfortunately. We should have got it around the same time as North America, considering the UK was essentially the third faction of the American Civil War.
The UK freed its slaves in 1831. I would have loved to have seen some reference to that fact in the film, but it's overlooked by most American history books.
American history books overlook a lot. Lincoln wasn't particularly keen on the idea of emancipation initially. Most books gloss over that too, only focus on the positive details that reinforce the idea of him as some kind of saintly hero and not as a human being who was not immune to popular attitudes of the era.
In the movie I saw quite a bit of "I will make it legal" on Lincoln's part, which is essentially what I have read (as an adult) in books about him but never learned about him in history classes in high school. And as far as I can tell, Lincoln wasn't in love with slavery either but he would have been willing to leave it alone if he had not seen the opportunity to use emancipation as a political tool. It is good, in a twisted sort of way, to know that bat**** crazy corrupt politicians are far from being a modern phenomenon.
I've not seen Lincoln, so I can't comment on how they depict him in that film, I'm just remarking about how the American education system seems to (in my experience anyway) glorify certain individuals in an almost flawless light. It was only as an undergrad in college that I finally got into history classes that weren't so biased and that you can learn things about Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela, etc. that really reveal them to be flawed, while all through K-12 these kinds of people are only painted in a flawless light. And the South isn't so villified in the Civil War and the North is treated as the saintly liberators. And things like how the Haitian Revolution lead to emancipation before the U.S. and was the second successful attempt of a Western state to overthrow the authority of a colonial European power and achieve independence, and yet the United States did what it could to discredit Haiti and condemn the Haitian Revolution out of fear of it inspiring slave revolts in the US as well. That's the kind of thing that they didn't teach me in high school.
There are Heroes on Both Sides! Evil is Everywhere! Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. History is written by the victors. I wonder if anyone has tried teaching history to kids through that lens.
Well... I grew up in a place where the Rebel Flag flew across the street and where civil war reenactments took place and usually looked something like the South Park episode about Civil War reenactments (I dunno if its appropriate to type the title of that episode) which tended to portray the South more favorably... so.
Yeah, with SP it's best to assume anything from that show is inappropriate. (good episode though, that Civil War one)
