Judge — July 17, 1920 — page 17: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

The Rage—The movie star was sob- bing as if her heart would break. “What's the matter, dearie?” asked her friend. “T want to get a divorce,” replied the teary one, “but my husband is so good to me that I cannot find any grounds.”— Film Fun. Movies Immune—“ Of {course,” said Film Fannie, ‘a white paper shortage Not All in Gotham—For a piece of fancy thievery, the sort that has the city variety put to shame, we mention this— twenty-four shoats were hauled away from the farm of George Bayse and the owner has never been able to get the slightest clew as to identity of the thieves. —Fayette Democrat-Leader. Coincidence—“‘Are there any snakes around here?” may be something annoying for a time. Yet how thankful we ought to be——”” “Yes! For what?” “That it isn’t a celluloid shortage.” — Louisville Courier-Journal. Ruined—Scenario Editor—You can never become a great scenario writer. Ambitious One—Why not? Scenario Editor—Didn’t you just ad- mit you took lessons in scenario writing? —Film Fun. “So you are doing well now?” “Yes, I earn all I need.” “Lord! You must earn a lot!”—Kor- saren (Christiania). Some Footage —Director—Did you or did you not tell the camera man yes- terday that I had the biggest feet of any human being you had ever seen? Leading Man—I did not. I merely said that if you would take your shoes off, you would be half undressed.—Film Fun, “No rattlers or anything that calls for stimulant,” replied Farmer Corntossel. “It’s remarkable that since prohibition, "bout the only things we see in that line are water snakes.”—Washington Star. Summer Board—“ Where has the far- mer been?” “He went after fish.” “Any luck?” “Yes; he came back with a fine mess of tinned salmon. ’—Detroit Free Press. sion of the recurrence period of the political fever. We should have less politics, and perhaps of slightly better quality. BROTHER GOMPERS'S flock have also been having a joy- fest up in Montreal where the Wurtzburger still flows with- out a constitutional dam. Like the three tailors of Tooley Street, they did a lot of things and about as effectively. Included in the program of demands by the A. F. L. is one that is impressive by its vagueness and which authorizes labor anywhere, at any time, to ask any old thing it thinks it wants. The demand provides for “advances in wages wherever necessary to maintain the American standard of living.” Un- fortunately the convention didn’t define “the American stan- dard of living.” Most of us know though that the American standard of living is made vastly more expensive by the unreasonable demands and actions’ of organized labor badly advised. When labor itself recognizes that fact we may perhaps get nearer a real standard. Perhaps Mr. Gompers’s standard refers to keeping half a dozen automobiles and chauffeurs, town, country and Palm Beach houses, having daily supplies of pearl and diamond neck- laces for burglar consumption, getting a Reno divorce every little while, and similar necessities included in some American living. Or he may mean the standard that has to be followed by most American professional and salaried men who on a fixed income have to pay exorbitant taxes, profiteer prices for the necessities of life and meet organized extortion when forced to employ union labor. If observation and authority are to be believed, the Ameri- can standard from the labor point of view means a fifteen-dollar silk shirt, a perfecto cigar and a Ford flivver for every nan, the highest priced junk in the department stores for every woman and daily movie picture plays for the whole family with free chewing-gum for everybody. If this is wrong, it would be valuable to have from Mr. Gom- pers and his associates their exact definition of the American standard of living. Then some of us would know whether there is any possibility of our ever getting up to it.