Just was being polite and saying hello. Someone from Ornery.org mentioned this place. It may be more my speed as lately having a child has tended to limit my current affairs watching. Plus I have really limited Mac time these days to go find video feeds to back up every single comment I make.Have a degree in Modern German History, as well as Anthropology. And I chose the avatar mostly because I was forced to in order to register-but mostly because I am related directly  to the Arlington Lees.

I recall watching a Star Trek The Old Series rerun (the one where Khan/Ricardo Montelban takes over the ship) where they I think discuss a little history of the creation of “superhumans” or a war that takes place in 1997.  To their credit I don't know how many TV shows are remembered some 30 years after their original airing date, so they probably weren't too concerned about being proven wrong as reality played out differently.

I recall another theory that he was a doctor for the royal family. 

True on both counts; the revisionists though, want to assign the logic and values of today to that bygone time. When we judge historical events and persons in the light of today the past will always lose. We have to look at the time and what was going on and the values of the time before we can comment. It's called historical empathy

You touched on something here which is all-too-common these days, and I've had an interest in uncovering it as it has become apparent to me.  In fact we discussed this a bit in another thread about movies which project modern-day values on historical peoples.....and it can be quite annoying for me, the viewer, to watch it (see ).  While I'm no Civil War expert, I'd wager that your common Confederate infantryman was not a slave owner and was not fighting for the "ideal" of owning slaves.  While I can understand the anger with the basic philosophies of the South which defended slavery, anger at honoring specific individuals who didn't necessarily participate in the a defense of the pro-slavery mentality is another thing. 

That reminds me of something I had heard a while back.  Someone said that there's something like “sorrow” in politics, like when Jerry Brown became governor of California after his father (?) lost some other election.  In the same way it was said that George H.W. lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton and so then people kind of felt sorry and voted his son into office.  I thought it was kind of intersting but can't remember exactly where I heard it.

I thought about archaeological thieves for a moment, but then I asked myself “how would they ever get a hold of NASA satellite maps?  I don't believe the particular ones used can be found on Google Maps!  And I'm sure that they aired the NOVA documentary only after they had already excavated a number of the sites.  In fact, I think they did the search in 2001.

So then is this merely leftover of European (and perhaps global) fascination with a monarchy or system or royalty?  The idea might be that there's a constant “something” in the ruling elite which may change from time to time but retains some continuous thread.

I watched a show on TV which was a panel discussion about the CIA and Hollywood.  It was really interesting to hear them talk.  Panel members included CIA folks (retired, I'm guessing) and even the guy who wrote Black Hawk Down.  They gave their picks for their favorite spy movies….I think someone picked Clear and Present Danger….someone picked a trilogy of movies which had Alec Guinness in them (can't remember the name).  One thing the author of BHD mentioned was that the Bourne movie was originally written in the 70s when the CIA was thought of in a negative light.  The fact that the character is therefore battling against the CIA (being a rogue CIA agent) is significant for viewers.  I can't remember exactly what he said on this point but it was something like the fact that it was put into film in the last few years gave it a different reception.  I wish I could remember.