Simon Cowell. Gordon Ramsay. "Supernanny."
If Americans love Brits bossing them around so much, why exactly did we fight that revolution?
************************************
I just saw this on Yahoo!, and it's far too good not to pass along:
At the Arab Shooting Championship on Thursday (by the way, that's a shooting championship held in an Arab country--Kuwait--not an event where people shoot Arabs), Maria Dmitrienko of Kazakhstan won a gold medal. As Dmitrienko stood on the podium, the Kazakh national anthem played over the arena's public-address system. . . only it wasn't the actual Kazakh anthem--it was the mock anthem from "Borat."
Dmitrienko was gracious about the whole thing, and why shouldn't she be? She won a gold medal for shooting. Her time will come.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Standing on Principle
Have you seen this picture:
That's LeBron James (just right of center, I believe) and the rest of the Miami Heat participating in the "I am Travyon Martin" protests that have been going on over the last few days across the country (see post of March 21 for a recap of the case). In solidarity with the Martin family and in protest against the Sanford, Fla., police department's supposed "inability" even to arrest George Zimmerman for the highly questionable shooting of an unarmed teenager, the Heat and others have pulled up their hoodies to replicate the "suspicious" look of Travyon Martin before he was killed.
This picture is a particularly provocative and powerful image: Even though these professional basketball players probably all reside comfortably within the rarefied precincts of the "one percent," the sad reality is that, under the right (or, more accurately, "wrong") conditions, they, too, could easily find themselves confronted by a, shall we say, overzealous neighborhood watchman, and the result could be tragic. We are all Travyon Martin; some of us more than others.
I've been down on LeBron ever since his infamous "I'm taking my talents to South Beach" press conference, but I'm impressed by his willingness to take a stand on this issue. Some might argue that this is a minor gesture, but, frankly, it's rare for professional athletes to take stands on controversial issues; it's even rarer for prominent African-Americans to take stands on racially-charged controversial issues. Michael Jordan, for example, was often criticized for not speaking out about racial injustice.
By participating in this kind of protest, LeBron has nothing to gain and potentially something to lose. Yes, he gets some good press--particularly among the lefty liberal crowd--but the lefty liberals are not necessarily the ones who sign his paychecks or ink him to eight-figure endorsement deals. Potentially alienating corporate titans is not necessarily a smart move financially. Don't get me wrong: I don't think LeBron James is in any particular danger of heading to the poorhouse. Still, it's nice to see a prominent athlete taking a stand for what he believes in, even if it might cause him some problems down the road.
I'll bet he even gets some applause in Cleveland for this. Okay, maybe not.
That's LeBron James (just right of center, I believe) and the rest of the Miami Heat participating in the "I am Travyon Martin" protests that have been going on over the last few days across the country (see post of March 21 for a recap of the case). In solidarity with the Martin family and in protest against the Sanford, Fla., police department's supposed "inability" even to arrest George Zimmerman for the highly questionable shooting of an unarmed teenager, the Heat and others have pulled up their hoodies to replicate the "suspicious" look of Travyon Martin before he was killed.
This picture is a particularly provocative and powerful image: Even though these professional basketball players probably all reside comfortably within the rarefied precincts of the "one percent," the sad reality is that, under the right (or, more accurately, "wrong") conditions, they, too, could easily find themselves confronted by a, shall we say, overzealous neighborhood watchman, and the result could be tragic. We are all Travyon Martin; some of us more than others.
I've been down on LeBron ever since his infamous "I'm taking my talents to South Beach" press conference, but I'm impressed by his willingness to take a stand on this issue. Some might argue that this is a minor gesture, but, frankly, it's rare for professional athletes to take stands on controversial issues; it's even rarer for prominent African-Americans to take stands on racially-charged controversial issues. Michael Jordan, for example, was often criticized for not speaking out about racial injustice.
By participating in this kind of protest, LeBron has nothing to gain and potentially something to lose. Yes, he gets some good press--particularly among the lefty liberal crowd--but the lefty liberals are not necessarily the ones who sign his paychecks or ink him to eight-figure endorsement deals. Potentially alienating corporate titans is not necessarily a smart move financially. Don't get me wrong: I don't think LeBron James is in any particular danger of heading to the poorhouse. Still, it's nice to see a prominent athlete taking a stand for what he believes in, even if it might cause him some problems down the road.
I'll bet he even gets some applause in Cleveland for this. Okay, maybe not.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!! 2
Today, according to FOS, we celebrate "Talk Like Captain Kirk" Day. I. . . .would TRY. . . .towritetoday'spost. . . . in the STYLE. . . of. . . WilliamShatner'sspeech. I'm afraid, though, that all the unnecessarily long and random pauses would drag this thing out to next Wednesday. And I would hate to interfere with "Something on a Stick" Day.
Now, Spock. . . ?
Now, Spock. . . ?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
No Self-Defense
Travyon Martin was not killed in self-defense. He was murdered. The only real question is how guilty the shooter, George Zimmerman, is.
The facts of the case, in brief, are these: In Sanford, Florida, Travyon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American with no criminal history, was walking to his father's girlfriend's house from a convenience store one evening in February. He was spotted by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, who found Martin "suspicious." Zimmerman called 911 and then proceeded to follow Martin. Ultimately, Zimmerman, who was carrying a licensed gun, got out of his car and confronted Martin. The two men struggled and, in the end, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, under a provision of Florida law known as "stand your ground": Under this theory, a person is not obligated to attempt to flee from an attacker in order to claim self-defense. The problem with Zimmerman's claim is that he wasn't simply "standing his ground." When he called 911 and reported the "suspicious" Travyon Martin--who was armed with nothing more deadly than a bag of Skittles--the 911 operator expressly told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin and to stay in his vehicle. When Zimmerman ignored this directive, he was effectively hunting the 17-year-old. So unless Florida's self-defense law also has a "looking for trouble" provision, Zimmerman's claims fall apart. Nevertheless, Sanford police claim that their hands are tied and that they cannot arrest Zimmerman.
Nonsense.
Obviously, there are facts in this case that we do not know; there may well be evidence to support Zimmerman's self-defense claim--possibly even to exonerate him. But the factual evidence of the 911 call--with the operator's explicit command not to follow Martin--certainly calls the self-defense claim into enough question that it should be presented to jury. Anything else will simply exacerbate what is already a grievous miscarriage of justice.
The facts of the case, in brief, are these: In Sanford, Florida, Travyon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American with no criminal history, was walking to his father's girlfriend's house from a convenience store one evening in February. He was spotted by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, who found Martin "suspicious." Zimmerman called 911 and then proceeded to follow Martin. Ultimately, Zimmerman, who was carrying a licensed gun, got out of his car and confronted Martin. The two men struggled and, in the end, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, under a provision of Florida law known as "stand your ground": Under this theory, a person is not obligated to attempt to flee from an attacker in order to claim self-defense. The problem with Zimmerman's claim is that he wasn't simply "standing his ground." When he called 911 and reported the "suspicious" Travyon Martin--who was armed with nothing more deadly than a bag of Skittles--the 911 operator expressly told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin and to stay in his vehicle. When Zimmerman ignored this directive, he was effectively hunting the 17-year-old. So unless Florida's self-defense law also has a "looking for trouble" provision, Zimmerman's claims fall apart. Nevertheless, Sanford police claim that their hands are tied and that they cannot arrest Zimmerman.
Nonsense.
Obviously, there are facts in this case that we do not know; there may well be evidence to support Zimmerman's self-defense claim--possibly even to exonerate him. But the factual evidence of the 911 call--with the operator's explicit command not to follow Martin--certainly calls the self-defense claim into enough question that it should be presented to jury. Anything else will simply exacerbate what is already a grievous miscarriage of justice.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Two Hours I'm Not Getting Back
Watched "Green Lantern" the other night. Because it was THERE, OK? A couple of observations:
OBSERVATION #1) As even a casual reader of the Green Lantern comic book knows, Green Lantern's arch-enemy is Sinestro. In this version, though, Sinestro spends the entire movie as Green Lantern's colleague--admittedly, a begrudging and arrogant colleague, but a colleague nonetheless. At the very end of the film--after the end credits have begun to roll, in fact--Sinestro slips the yellow power ring on his finger, thus indicating that he has--for no apparent reason that I can see--become evil. Obviously the producers are banking on there being enough interest to justify a sequel.
My point, though, is that, if you're going to launch a superhero franchise, the FIRST movie should feature a battle between the hero and his/her/their arch-nemesis: Superman vs. Lex Luthor! The X-Men vs. Magneto! Spider-man vs. the Green Goblin! Nitpickers will point out that Christopher Nolan's Batman didn't fight the Joker until the sequel, to which we will reply that (A) whoever directed "Green Lantern" is no Christopher Nolan and therefore does not deserve as much leeway, and (B) Nolan was actually "re-booting" the Batman franchise; Tim Burton's initial Batman did, of course, fight the Joker in film one. Green Lantern fans (they MUST exist) were no doubt clamoring for a knock-down drag-out ringslinging showdown between GL and Sinestro. They wuz robbed!
OBSERVATION #2) I think I finally "get" Ryan Reynolds: He's this generation's Keanu Reeves, i.e., a very good-looking actor who can't act and who has all the charisma of a mop. Still, as one of my colleagues pointed out, "He's really hot." But that's not the point! "Yes it is." No, it really isn't "No, it REALLY is."
Sigh.
My blog, I get the last word: No. It REALLY isn't.
OBSERVATION #1) As even a casual reader of the Green Lantern comic book knows, Green Lantern's arch-enemy is Sinestro. In this version, though, Sinestro spends the entire movie as Green Lantern's colleague--admittedly, a begrudging and arrogant colleague, but a colleague nonetheless. At the very end of the film--after the end credits have begun to roll, in fact--Sinestro slips the yellow power ring on his finger, thus indicating that he has--for no apparent reason that I can see--become evil. Obviously the producers are banking on there being enough interest to justify a sequel.
My point, though, is that, if you're going to launch a superhero franchise, the FIRST movie should feature a battle between the hero and his/her/their arch-nemesis: Superman vs. Lex Luthor! The X-Men vs. Magneto! Spider-man vs. the Green Goblin! Nitpickers will point out that Christopher Nolan's Batman didn't fight the Joker until the sequel, to which we will reply that (A) whoever directed "Green Lantern" is no Christopher Nolan and therefore does not deserve as much leeway, and (B) Nolan was actually "re-booting" the Batman franchise; Tim Burton's initial Batman did, of course, fight the Joker in film one. Green Lantern fans (they MUST exist) were no doubt clamoring for a knock-down drag-out ringslinging showdown between GL and Sinestro. They wuz robbed!
OBSERVATION #2) I think I finally "get" Ryan Reynolds: He's this generation's Keanu Reeves, i.e., a very good-looking actor who can't act and who has all the charisma of a mop. Still, as one of my colleagues pointed out, "He's really hot." But that's not the point! "Yes it is." No, it really isn't "No, it REALLY is."
Sigh.
My blog, I get the last word: No. It REALLY isn't.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Super-Sad True Love Story
Awhile back, a student came to my office and asked if I could help her with something she was writing. She brought me over to the computer she was working on and showed me the document. To my surprise, it was not a class assignment, but an e-mail. This was several months ago, so obviously I'm not quoting it verbatim, but basically it went like this:
"'I am writing to wish to you a Merry Christmas.' Is OK?"
"Well. . .yes, you wouldn't say 'to wish TO you.' Just 'to wish you.'"
"Ah! OK. 'to wish YOU a Merry Christmas.' OK. 'I wrote to you every year for nine years.'"
"Yes--"
"Excuse me, 'FOR nine years' or 'SINCE nine years.'"
"No, you're right, 'for nine years.' Only you'd say 'have written.'"
"Ah! 'I HAVE WRITTEN to you every year for nine years.' Yes?"
"Yes."
"'For nine years'?"
"Yes!"
"OK. OK. 'I know you don't write back.". . . .
We continued in this way through the rest of the e-mail (which was actually about three times as long as what I've shared here). How utterly unself-conscious she was about allowing me, a complete stranger and a teacher to boot, to read this highly personal e-mail, filled with frustration and pathos! And for what? So this letter--presumably doomed to be consigned to some long-lost love's dead-letter file just like those sent each year for the last nine years--would be grammatically correct? Did she imagine her inability to express herself in proper English led to rejection?
As I got up to go back to my office, she thanked me for helping her. I was almost too embarrassed to say, "You're welcome."
"I am writing to wish to you a Merry Christmas. I wrote to you every year for nine years. I know you don't write back. I hope sometime you write back. I think of you every time and even you don't want to write to me I still think of you and love you always."Before I could give much consideration to whether I should say something about how she shouldn't be using school computers for her personal e-mails--or whether I was facilitating stalking by helping her--she began grilling me about the letter.
"'I am writing to wish to you a Merry Christmas.' Is OK?"
"Well. . .yes, you wouldn't say 'to wish TO you.' Just 'to wish you.'"
"Ah! OK. 'to wish YOU a Merry Christmas.' OK. 'I wrote to you every year for nine years.'"
"Yes--"
"Excuse me, 'FOR nine years' or 'SINCE nine years.'"
"No, you're right, 'for nine years.' Only you'd say 'have written.'"
"Ah! 'I HAVE WRITTEN to you every year for nine years.' Yes?"
"Yes."
"'For nine years'?"
"Yes!"
"OK. OK. 'I know you don't write back.". . . .
We continued in this way through the rest of the e-mail (which was actually about three times as long as what I've shared here). How utterly unself-conscious she was about allowing me, a complete stranger and a teacher to boot, to read this highly personal e-mail, filled with frustration and pathos! And for what? So this letter--presumably doomed to be consigned to some long-lost love's dead-letter file just like those sent each year for the last nine years--would be grammatically correct? Did she imagine her inability to express herself in proper English led to rejection?
As I got up to go back to my office, she thanked me for helping her. I was almost too embarrassed to say, "You're welcome."
Sunday, March 18, 2012
On the Plus Side, Sarah Palin Wouldn't Be Able to Run for Office, Either
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are going to be off next week, so I feel it's my duty to share this. (Thanks to DOS for telling me about it).
You know how the Republican presidential candidates have been accused of wanting to take the United States back to the 1950s? Well, in case you missed it, on Friday Sarah Palin rose to their defense (?), telling Fox News, "What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back before those days [of the Civil War] when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin."
Palin complained that the recent HBO film "Game Change" was "based on a false narrative." She's right: It makes her look far too smart.
You know how the Republican presidential candidates have been accused of wanting to take the United States back to the 1950s? Well, in case you missed it, on Friday Sarah Palin rose to their defense (?), telling Fox News, "What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back before those days [of the Civil War] when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin."
Palin complained that the recent HBO film "Game Change" was "based on a false narrative." She's right: It makes her look far too smart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)