Unless you’ve been under a rock all this time, you know by now that William Windsor, Son of Charles Prince of Wales and grandson of Queen Elizabeth, is engaged to commoner Catherine ‘Kate’ Middleton. The wedding will take place the morning of Friday, April 29th: tomorrow to be exact. It is scheduled to be the biggest Royal Wedding of the British Monarchy since Prince Charles wed Lady Diana Spencer in 1981. Most of the world will be watching, especially England and other members of the Commonwealth. The big questions are what will the future of the Monarchy be like? And will the new Royal couple go the distance?
The British Monarchy has always been an important symbol of the British Empire, especially in the heydays of its superiority back in the 19th Century. In fact Victoria Day is still celebrated in Canada in tribute to the Queen that granted Canada its Dominion. Even though the United Kingdom is a democracy under rule of the Prime Minister, the Queen and her Royal subjects are still an important symbol of rule in England and many other nations of what is now called the Commonwealth Of Nations.
The present-day Commonwealth is completely different from what has been known as the British Empire. The Commonwealth is an intergovernmental organization that promotes many core values amongst its fifty-three independent member states including Canada such as democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, multilateralism and world peace. Even Queen Elizabeth herself declared shortly after her Coronation in 1952: “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty, and the desire for freedom and peace.”
The Head of the Commonwealth is the King or Queen Of England. Currently that title belongs to Elizabeth II. She is a symbol of the Commonwealth’s free association and plays an important role in shaping the Commonwealth. She attends the biennial meetings of the Heads of Government, attends dinners and makes speeches at the meetings, and has private meetings with the individual heads of state.
Now that we’ve dished out on the importance of the British monarchy–and as stated above, they actually are important in today’s world–there’s the question of the future of the one sitting on the Throne. Elizabeth II has held the throne since her coronation as Queen in 1952. She shows no signs yet of handing the throne over to the next in line: Charles Prince of Wales, first-born child of Queen Elizabeth and father of Prince William. One of the key rules of the monarchy–one that reiterated in the movie The King’s Speech–is that the King is not to be married to a woman previously divorced. Prince Charles was married to Lady Diana Spencer in 1981 but the marriage dissolved in 1992. Soon he had a relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles who was already married. It was her relationship with Charles that led her first husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles to divorce her. In 2005 the two finally married with Camilla choosing to adopt the title Duchess of Cornwall. Since the marriage, Camilla has worked to develop a more positive image away from the ‘scandals’ of the past. This may explain why Elizabeth is in no rush to hand over the Throne to Charles. As for Edward, the only one of Queen Elizabeth’s children who has kept their first marriage intact, he shows no interest in owning the Throne. Talk about a Royal dilemma!
Now outside of the future of the Throne is the big question of another future: the marriage of William and Kate. William and Kate first met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland back in 2001. You could say the rest is history but there’s more to it. While the world is familiar with William’s ancestry and background of privilege, Kate came from a family that started as workers for British Airways but later formed their own mail order business which succeeded well. Kate herself worked as an accessories buyer for a clothing company for some time. William has grown up in a fishbowl while Kate experienced discomfort during the first few years upon dating William but leaving the relationship ambiguous. Many times during the early years of the suspected relationship, she would complain to her lawyer and even threaten legal action against the press. In 2007 they broke up but would reconcile within months. Even after the reconciliation, they would try to keep their relationship low-key. That all ended in November of last year when their engagement was officially announced.
Now comes the personalities of the two. William may have been born into a life of privilege but he has come across as well-behaved and considerate. A lot of it is attributed to Diana raising him and Harry outside of Buckingham Palace. It’s noticeable as William appears to posess more of Diana’s personality traits than Charles’. Although he’s second in line to the throne behind his father Prince Charles, there are many who feel he should be King instead. He’s had his share of living the high life, but he has also followed in his mother’s footsteps and has done humanitarian work. He’s also part of the RAF and has done military work in recent years. Kate, like Diana, has developed a fashion sense all her own and has made many ‘Best Dressed’ lists in recent years. She has graduated university with an honors degree. She’s also known for being well-mannered. As for whether the marriage will go the distance, that remains for the future to tell. They both appear to be two intelligent people in love but anything could change. We shouldn’t forget about their breakup from years earlier. It’s possible it could happen again. As mentioned earlier, Kate had her own difficulties with living life in a fishbowl when she was just ‘seeing’ William. After the marriage, it will most likely increase and top of it Kate will now have to play a role as a public figure. Will she be able to handle her new role and the pressure of the press?
Friday April 29th will not only mark the beginning of Prince William’s marriage but also the beginning to his future fate in being heir to the Throne. We all know it’s the divorce and remarriage to a divorcee that is causing Prince Charles to wait. Only the future will tell if Prince William’s marriage will go the distance, and if whatever happens is a help or hindrance to his line of succession. Also Kate’s role in both the Royal Family and in the public eye will also come under intense media scrutiny. Will she remain calm under pressure? Or will she be a huge subject of scandal and tabloid fare? Stay tuned.
WIKIPEDIA: Commonwealth Of Nations.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations>
WIKIPEDIA: Catherine Middleton.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Middleton>
WIKIPEDIA: Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall>
Okay, you’re probably wondering why on earth am I just posting this review now when Paul has been out for at least a month? Here’s the thing. I don’t immediately rush out to the theatres whenever a movie comes out. I see them when I see them. Often when there’s a big hit movie, I wait weeks until the crowds die down to go see it. So that explains why you get my review of Paul later than most. So after explaining all that…
Who is Paul? He’s a fugitive. He’s a celebrity. He’s a slacker. He’s a joker…He’s an alien. Paul is all those things, and the subject of a recent comedy movie. The latest concoction of the British writing/acting collaboration of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. So how does this close encounter of the funny kind end up?
Graeme Willy and Clive Gollings are two British comic book dweebs with a passion for sci-fi and alien encounters. The love it so much, they rent an RV and take it from San Diego’s Comic-Con all across the US for their own alien encounter tour. Little do they know they’d find themselves in trouble. First they come across some homophobic hunters who suspect them to be a couple. They head off, accidentally denting their truck. On the run, they get hit by a car driven by, among other things, an alien named Paul. The two bring Paul along in the RV. Little do they know that Paul is actually in pursuit by a shady government agent named Zoil who even recruits two inept FBI agents in the capture.
Later during a campfire over at a campground run by Moses, a strict Christian and his daughter Ruth, Paul tells the twosome that while captured by the government, he helped with Spielberg’s E.T. and the X-Files’ Mulder. Ever since he learned the government planned to dissect his brain, he’s been on the run since. Ruth is then kidnapped by the two. Once in the RV, she learns of Paul and refuses to trust him as it contradicts her devout beliefs. Once Paul heals her blind eye, blind since she was four, she trusts him to the point she becomes eager to sin.
Meanwhile Zoil and the two agents question Moses who says she was abducted by demons. Graeme, Ruth and Willy once again meet up with the homophobic hunters, but Paul comes to the rescue. Upon pursuit of Paul, Zoil and the agents come across him. Once Paul makes his escape, all three are after him but for their own separate pursuits each. Meanwhile Moses is chasing for Ruth.
Paul finds refuge in an old house which is owned by Tara, a young girl who saved his live back in 1947 and is all grown up, reclusive because of the ostracism she received throughout her life. Tara is relieved to find that Paul is real. After turning on the stove, a shootout ensues at her house, causing it to explode with Paul, Graeme, Clive, Ruth and Tara on the run. The three agents go on their pursuits again but only Zoil survives in meeting up with Paul, who is in a field waiting for his UFO to take him home. Instead, it’s a helicopter with ‘The Big Guy’, Zoil’s superior. Zoil reveals he was the one who helped Paul get away. Zoil disarms the men but is shot in the shoulder. Tara punches out ‘The Big Guy’. Moses shoots Clive dead. Paul heals him but his healing powers come at the risk of his own life. After Clive is revived, it appears Paul is dead but he’s just exhausted. Paul’s ship arrives, crushing ‘The Big Guy’. Heading for home, he invites Tara to come with him and finally live a life. Two years later, Clive, Graeme and Ruth return to Comic-Con. This time, they are on stage as successful comic book writers thanks to their comic book Paul.
I have to say the biggest overall glitch with this movie is that it often appears to rely on the crude and rude one-liners in many parts. It has enough humorous subject matter and comedic characters without having to resort too often to such lines. First off, the incorporation of the subject lines of many alien shows of past, like Star Wars, Close Encounters, E.T. and the X-Files. Second off, there are already a lot of talented actors that have been able to prove of recent that they can do comedy well. Kristin Wiig and Bill Hader have proved their humor in Saturday Night Live and other movies they’ve acted in. Blythe Danner, Sigourney Weaver and Jason Bateman were also able to make their roles work in the movie. Seth Rogen, already a reputed funny man himself, did a good job in the voice over as Paul. Pegg and Frost are already known for their comedic acting as well as their writing for Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. They don’t have to resort too often to such low brow material.
Outside of that, the movie was a good job of meshing 3D animation with live-action, an alien encounter story with comedy, and even romance with sci-fi dweebs. Pegg and Frost once again show that they’re at their best when they’re together. They also showed they can do a good job with an American story line for the first time. Also it was unique to see a comedy not just revolve around an alien encounter but also with San Diego’s Comic-Con, which has grown in popularity in recent years to the point even A-listers make appearances.
Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who both wrote and star in Paul, describe it as a ‘love letter to Steven Spielberg’. You could describe their two previous big-screen comedies, Shaun OIf The Dead and Hot Fuzz, as ‘love letters’ too. If you saw Shaun Of The Dead, you’d tell it was a love letter to all those zombie movies. If you saw Hot Fuzz, you’d definitely know it was a love letter to all those gunslinger action movies of the 80’s and 90’s. I don’t think Paul is so much a love letter to Spielberg as much as it is a love letter to sci-fi as a whole. Good mesh of stories but I feel this movie is more of a salute to sci-fi dweebs and comic books geeks the world over.
Paul is an enjoyable movie. Even though I felt it could be better with the humor in the script, it is a delight to watch. Pegg and Forst know how to do enjoyable movies and they do it again here.
Pope Benedict XVI: 21st Century Radical
One thing about the Easter holidays is that there’s often stories on magazines focusing on Christianity, Churches, Jesus or other Bible figures. The Pope also becomes subject of cover stories around Easter time. This Easter, there were a lot of good reasons to pay attention to the Pope and the Church, especially this Easter. This also comes to light as April 16th was Pope Benedict’s 84th birthday.
Joseph Ratzinger has been with the Vatican since 1981 when he was voted Cardinal-Prefect for Pope John Paul II. After John Paul’s death, he has led the Catholic Church as Pope Benedict for six years. He has made a lot of news over the years on the actions he’s done and the responses to issues he’s spoken out about. The responses have differed. Some have welcomed his views and his actions. Others are unhappy or even outraged. Even though he is an interim Pope, he has already made his own legacy in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
This Easter weekend, he did something unique for a Pope. On Good Friday, he hosted an international televised dialogue where he answered questions written to the Vatican. Of 3000, he answered seven. This was done so on an Italian television show In His Image which was taped a week earlier.
One question was from a 7 year-old Japanese girl Elena. She asked him to explain the suffering in her country ever since the March earthquake and tsunami. His response: “I ask myself the same question: Why is it this way? Why do you have to suffer so much while others live in ease? And we do not have the answers, but we know that Jesus suffered as you do, an innocent.” He went on to give words of comfort: “even if we are still sad, God is by your side.”
Other questions he asked included one from an Italian man of what Jesus did in between the time of his crucifixion and resurrection. His answer: “The descent of Jesus’ soul should not be imagined as a geographical or spatial trip, from one continent to another. It is the soul’s journey.” An Italian woman asked of the soul of her son who has been in a coma for two years: “The situation . . . is like that of a guitar whose strings have been broken and therefore can no longer play . . . The soul cannot be heard, but it remains within.” A woman from the Ivory Coast asked of the violence that’s tearing her country apart: “Violence never comes from God, never helps bring anything good . . . The only path is to renounce violence, to begin anew with dialogue.”
This is a break from the traditional or expected norm for the Pope. It’s a common belief that the Pope preaches from the pulpit but has no clue of what’s going on in the real world. If that interview has proven something, it’s that the Pope is listening and he is aware of the situations around the world and of people’s concerns. He’s also willing to give answers. Last year, we saw an example of his response to sexual abuse scandal by setting up a council dedicated to the scandal. This year’s example of how he’s willing to answer questions for an Italian television show demonstrated how Pope Benedict is willing to go to connect people with the answers of the Church. This factor is enough to consider Pope Benedict a radical of the Catholic Church.
We shouldn’t forget that during the reign of Pope John Paul II, John Paul came to Benedict for advise and speeches back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. It was because of this that he was heavily expected to be elected Pope after the death of John Paul II. Pope Benedict knew what the job of being Pope was long before he took to the throne. Despite what one believes, he is to represent the moral voice of the Roman Catholic Church to its 1.2 billion followers. He can’t simply ‘go with the times’ or ‘get with the program’ and say ‘yes’ to what is already deemed sin in the Bible. In fact many faithful admire how the Pope is refusing to bless popular sins. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the Church now has a ‘counterculture’ status: “Jesus stood in opposition to the world, in opposition to culture and society. It’s a good thing the Church is against the world.” This is enough to label Pope Benedict a radical of the times.
This is one of the challenges of the Church and of Pope Benedict. He knows that the Catholic Church has to be an example of God’s love. He also knows that the Church has to be a strong moral voice to its followers and condemn sinful acts. Finding a balance between the two is the hard part. This is not the only balancing act Pope Benedict has been trying to do. Another is trying to bring back a lot of common traits of the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council from fifty years ago. One of which was encouraging a return to the Latin Mass. He knows how a lot of Catholics left when the Latin Mass was dropped. He also is taking into account the Traditional Catholics that separated themselves from the Vatican after the Council and consider the Church false and the seat of the Pope vacant.
However the biggest surprise I received in terms of the press’ attitutes towards Pope Benedict came in an Article from Maclean’s magazine. It asked “Is The Pope Catholic?” It gave account to a lot of surprising things Pope Benedict has done over his reign and puts them into question. MacLean’s has even highlighted some of his questionable sayings:
From inflaming the Islamic world by quoting medieval anti-Muhammad remarks to welcoming disaffected Anglicans into the Roman fold, becoming personally embroiled in the clerical sex-abuse scandal, endorsing the (sometimes) use of condoms, writing a passage in his newest book exonerating Jews from the charge of killing Christ, and a host of less headline-grabbing initiatives (including a casual acceptance of the theory of evolution).
This was brought to the attention by a book by Canadian author Michael Coren entitled Why Catholics Are Right. Coren defends the Church and Pope Benedict’s actions in the book. However it’s also highlighted that the top concern of Pope Benedict is the spiritual state of Europe. There’s no question that the secularizing of European society has upset Benedict a great deal and he wants Europe to see that the Church has reason in society. He also wants to see Europe return to the Church-based values that helped shaped the continent for centuries. Only time will tell if it does or not.
Interesting the quote above mentions the ‘condom use’ part. Many remember how Pope Benedict mentioned that condom use is justifiable in some cases, like sex with a prostitute. Although it created a lot of news the world over, one thing that was overlooked that that sex with a prostitute remains a mortal sin, condom or no condom.
As Easter passes, the Church will experience another year. As the world becomes more secularized, Pope Benedict carries the Church and its moral voice on his shoulders. Some will welcome what he has to say while some will question and others will be outraged. Nevertheless, the Church has to stand firm on its morals as it carries the conscience of the Church’s 1.2 billion believers. Pope Benedict knows it and he’s ready to meet the challenge.
MACLEAN’S: Is The Pope Catholic?. Macleans.ca. Author: Brian Bethune. 2011. Rogers Media Inc.<http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/18/rebel-with-a-cross/>
NEW YORK POST: Pope Benedict Answers Questions On TV On Good Friday.NYPost.com. Author: Andy Soltis.2011. NYP Holdings, Inc. <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/good_fri_popecast_bXYW6mxE0djUeun3iQ4j5K>
In the past year, Lady Gaga has gone from being the latest diva phenomenon to getting people suspecting if she’s stealing Madonna’s act. How could that be? She’s already been able to start buzz with her own songs and her own outrageous wardrobe.
Lady Gaga arrived at the right time. In 2008, she blew the world away with her electronica-dance song Let’s Dance. That one song was enough to create buzz on the charts and welcome the world to the biggest female singing debut since Britney Spears and the biggest diva since Madonna. Let’s face it. As much as Britney is often refered to as a diva, she’s really more tart than diva. Further hits like Poker Face and Paparazzi followed and we had a new diva phenomenon. Her stage show at concerts would add to the new legend.
Like Madonna, she also knew how to rattle cages on her own. At awards shows, she would frequently thank “God and the gays.” She was also known to wear a meat dress at performances. Her video to Bad Romance took outrageous to new lengths and won the Video Of The Year award at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards. Further hits like Telefone, Alejandro and Dance In The Dark followed. Even though she may not have been as original as Madonna, she knew how to be provocative and entertaining on her own.
Lately however, she has brought upon suspicions of trying to copy Madonna. The first such issue came almost three months earlier with the release of the single Born This Way. Many have drawn comparisons to Madonna’s Express Yourself, while one magazine writers claims it’s actually a mix of big pop tunes meshed together. Then came the song Judas and its accompanying video. Along with the controversy the video has cause, it has also drawn comparisons from a certain Madonna video: Like A Prayer. This is enough cause to suspect that Lady Gaga is a Madonna wannabe. Gaga would have to come up with something less like Madonna for her next single and video release.
Anyways I’ll hold off from any more accusations and wait until her next hits play out. Right now Gaga is facing another sort of flack for her albums cover in which many critics and fans dismiss as amateurish Photoshop work. In the meantime, I want to see Gaga being more Gaga than Madonna.
Ever notice how in the news there’s always a story that comes from nowhere and is not worth paying any mind, until some loudmouth makes a hullabaloo about it? It’s funny that while Japan is recovering from a tsunami, earthquake and nuclear meltdown, and Libya is fighting a war to depose a dictator, there’s a minor story that makes a lot of loud news. It happened this week when the picture on the right that was featured in an e-catalog from J.Crew got on a conservative pundit’s nerves to the point he spoke out about it. And it has since drawn a lot of reactions since Tuesday.
It all started when J.Crew sent out its e-catalog to subscribers on Tuesday April 5th. For those unfamiliar, J. Crew is a clothing store known for its colorful preppy looking clothes. Its most famous customer is First Lady Michelle Obama. Included is a Saturday With Jenna column written by J. Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons. On that column’s front page that weekend was that picture of her having fun with her 5 year-old son Beckett. Why should that cause controversy? Because the fun she had with Beckett was painting his toenails with pink nail polish. She even included in the Quality Time caption: “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”
Some of the J. Crew customers who received that ad would look at it as something funny and some might raise their eyebrows over it. It was able to stay away from being a complete controversy, until Tuesday April 12th. That’s when FOX News Psychologist Dr. Keith Ablow made these comments:
Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.
This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” is not known.
Dr. Ablow further goes on to talk about the benefits and goods of gender distinctions and continues:
Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions a whole lot more than any creative Force in the universe.
Dr. Ablow wasn’t the only right wing pundit speaking their mind on this. Four days earlier, Erin M. Brown, writer for the Culture and Media Institute website, wrote an article on the ad which she declared ‘blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children’. She then went on to say: “Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna’s indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future. J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics.”
Since the ad controversy, there have been a lot of responses. Numerous news stories in websites, newspapers and television have featured the heated issue. All three major networks have done discussions about this. They’ve interviewed parents on the street: some were freaked out while some liked it. Psychiatrists interviewed have said it’s normal for children to play cross-dressing games. Some news stories showed celebrity parents including Gwen Stefani with pictures of their own boys wearing nail polish. Alyona Minkovski from RT Network responded: “Look people. Mom’s actually spending time with her child having fun, which is a lot more than what I can say about a lot of parents out there who tend to neglect their children. And if painting your child’s toenails is a way for a child and parent to connect, then have at it.” Jon Stewart even talked about it on his Daily Show, declaring the fiasco ‘Toemageddon 2011’ and commenting: “You make it sound like it’s a story about incest or cannabalism…You’re all aware that nail polish comes off, right? You’re all acting like this lady gave her son an ‘I Love Cock’ tattoo.” For the record, J. Crew have not responded because they ‘don’t want to add fuel to a non-issue.’
Even amongst the internet, there have been responses. Youtubers have also spoken their mind with one man even paining his fingernails pink. On the opposite side, there’s been at least one video in support of the complaining pundits, from the channel Final Justice Movement. Bloggers have posted their opinions. Message boards have also been loaded with comments both for the ad ‘what century is this?’ and against this ‘This is disgusting!’ Change.org started a petition thanking J.Crew ‘for the heartwarming ad’ and received 7500 signatures. The 10 year-old son of a writer for Wired magazine painted his fingernails green in response. There’s even a Pink Piggies page on Facebook where the page honors ‘people of all gender identities.’
One thing I like to say is that it’s another example of how people like to raise a big fiasco of just about anything. I’ve seen it from both the left and right side of people raising a big fuss over something simple. It seems like the thing nowadays to be offended about anything. Years ago, people were declaring The Passion Of The Christ to be anti-Semitic when it’s the story of Christ’s crucifixion that has been played out many times in the past including on film. Recently after the movie Mars Needs Moms was released, a gay Youtube personality posted on his Twitter page that it’s very offensive to non-traditional families. And now we have right-wing pundits taking a crack at this ad. Do people enjoy getting offended?
Yes, it’s a different parent-child bonding scenario but it’s not worth declaring ‘propaganda’ to turn into an issue for headlines’ sake. I also agree with Alyona: in case you didn’t notice, there’s a load of joy between Jenna and Beckett in that picture. It’s very common for parents to neglect their children in their busy lives so a moment like that should be considered fun.Secondly I don’t think paining a son’s toenails pink makes him gay. His orientation has already formed itself even before he was born. In addition when I brought this story up at work, one of my co-workers mentioned that she painted her nephew’s fingernails and they had a fun time together. Weeks later when she brought up ‘nail polish’, he said “That’s girls stuff.” So what does that tell you? Also I admire J. Crew for not responding to this and dismissing it for the ‘non-issue’ that it is.
Have you been to Denny’s lately? Then I guess you’ve noticed they have something running for a seven-week period called Baconlia. Yes, a celebration for bacon lovers. With this ‘fest’ is seven exclusive menu items with bacon including bacon flapjacks, bacon meatloaf and a bacon sundae. A bacon sundae? That’s right! Denny’s has added new invention to sweet and sour items. It’s cut up pieces of bacon sprinkled on top of a maple syrup sundae. Tried it yet? I’ve seen some Youtube videos of people trying it out. One said it’s good. I’m undecided if it’s worth it or not.
Anyways this just comes months after KFC shocked us all with their double down: a sandwich of bacon, two cheese slices, ‘special sauce’ and two colonel’s-recipe filets that act as the bun. Remember? Tried it when it was out? One health office said it had a day’s worth of sodium. Canada tried it in October but it was dropped in less than a month. How did that happen?
Knowing those two items in the last while makes me wonder about chain restaurants in the last while. Ever since it was announced ten years ago there’s an obesity epidemic thanks to fast food and constant computer use, and after the documentary Super Size Me came out, fast food restaurants and other chain restaurants have worked to promote healthier alternatives for customers. Even McDonalds went as far as creating a new brand of salads. However in the last year, it seems like there has been a reversal with those two ‘special’ items released. Makes me wonder if there’s an ‘unhealthy rebellion’ going on.
Anyways I didn’t try the Double Down and I haven’t decided if I’ll try the bacon sundae. If I do decide, I think I’ll try it at a Denny’s that’s near a hospital so that I don’t have far to walk once the heart attack happens.
On Wednesday, April 6th, it was made official mention by the International Olympic Committee. Six new events will be added to the Winter Olympic program and one of which will be Women’s Ski Jumping.
For those who were living in Vancouver, this was a big news story before the 2010 Winter Olympics were to begin. Of the fifteen sports to be contested at the Vancouver Olympics, two of which–ski jumping and nordic combined– would not have women competing. This was disheartening to many young women who were competing in ski jumping, including at the 2009 World Nordic Championships. IOC president Jacques Rogge had always maintained the it was due to the level of the competition. It was not competitive enough and not World class enough. Many of the young women complained it was discrimination. In fact some even pointed to Canada’s Charter Of Human Rights, which prevents gender discrimination. They tried in three different courts to get their case heard and it was always the same result: While it was discriminating, the IOC decision overrides any other court. There was definitely disappointment. World Champion Lindsay Van of the USA made things look bad for them by describing the Canadian justice system as ‘weak’ and the IOC as the ‘Taliban.’
Just before the IOC was to announce new events for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the World Nordic Championships were held again this year. The entries in the women’s ski jump event went from 36 women from 13 countries in 2009 to 43 women from 15 countries this time. The competition results were a lot stronger this time too. Then came the official announcement from the IOC of the new events added to the Winter Olympic programs. Women’s Ski Jumping – Small Hill was one of the six added to the program. The announcement was greeted with celebration from the women whom some have fought as long as seven years to get it included onto the Olympic program. Some have even said Sochi may be the first gender-equal Winter Olympics. One exception is that the sport of Nordic Combined (combined event of jumping and skiing) has yet to have a women’s event.
One of the common beliefs people shared around this subject was that the International Olympic Committee was sexist. Sexism was further echoed during the Vancouver Olympics when IOC president Jacques Rogge demanded that women’s hockey up its competitive level in eight years or it will face removal. This came after Canada won a preliminary round against Slovakia 18-0 en route to a gold medal-winning final against the USA: the third USA vs. Canada gold medal final out of four Olympics contested. One thing we should remember is that the IOC wants parity amongst sports on an even level. Every sport has a demand placed of having national federations in so many countries over so many continents for Olympic eligibility. Baseball and Softball were eliminated from the Olympic program for London 2012 because of that reason. I know it was disheartened for many to see no Women’s Ski Jumping event at the 2010 Winter Olympics, especially since ski jumping has been contested since the first Winter Olympics in 1924, but it’s because of that lack of parity and competitiveness that women’s ski jumping was left off the Olympic program in 2010. In fact it didn’t even have a World Championship event before the new events for 2010 were announced. The first ever women’s competition was held in 2009. Now it had it’s chance to demonstrate again at the 2011 World Championships and it proved itself worthy of being contested at the next Winter Olympics in 2014.
Already many women ski jumper who retired after being disheartened by their losing campaign at getting an even for Vancouver have immediately come out of retirement or are now reconsidering. Lindsay Van herself said she’s taking things one day at a time. In the meantime, gender parity is one step closer at the Winter Olympics. All that remains now for full parity is a Women’s Nordic Combined. Then we’ll really have a gender neutral Winter Olympics.
Recent meltdown in the public eye forces him to question his “Winning” ways.
Do you know anyone who doesn’t have a clue about all the notoriety Charlie Sheen has gone through this past month? If you do, they must live under a rock. Hard to believe that 2011 is only three months old and we already have the celebrity meltdown of the year with Charlie Sheen, who’srecent famous phrase is ‘Winning.”. The funniest thing about it is that it was waiting to happen and we all knew it!
Charlie Sheen has grown up his whole life in the Hollywood scene even when not acting. He was born Carlos Estevez in 1965 to actor Martin Sheen, whose real name is Ramon Estevez. Through Martin, he experienced the life of showbiz and of the Hollywood high life. He’s also noticed the taste of the lows with his father’s marital problems and struggles with alcohol abuse. Like Martin, Charlie has had his own acting success in both movies and television. Also like Martin, Charlie has had both the big highs and big lows of Hollywood life. However while Martin’s troubles have happened in a more private manner, Charlie’s problems have been more public. Way more public!
The first sign that Charlie was a born troublemaker was when he was expelled from his high school before graduating for bad grades and poor attendance. At 19, he became a father through his high school girlfriend. 1990 was a milestone year for him as he had his first trip to a rehab clinic, for alcohol abuse, and accidentally shot then-fiancée Kelly Preston in the arm. During the 90’s, he dated two porn stars, had two more trips to rehab, was arrested twice for assaulting his girlfriends, and admitted at the trial of Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss to sleeping with many of her prostitutes. In the 2000’s, his bachelor pad was already the legendary butt of jokes. He married Denise Richards but she soon divorced him for substance abuse and threats of violence. His 2008 marriage to Brooke Mueller followed which produced twin children. The marriage ended in November 2010, less than a year after he was arrested for domestic abuse.
Then came the biggest events leading to the meltdown. By March 1st, Sheen was living with pornographic actress Bree Olson. His two sons from Brooke Mueller were removed from his custody. Mueller herself has a restraining order against Sheen. Sheen however declares he will fight for the children with his famous phrase “Winning.” On March 7th, Warner Bros. and CBS decided to terminate Charlie Sheen from Two And A Half Men, the hit sitcom he has starred in for seven years. A week before, Sheen was banned from entering the Warner Bros. production lot. Since the firing, Sheen declared his firing ‘illegal’, has vocally criticized Two And A Half Men creator Chuck Lorre openly and has even filed a $100 million lawsuit against Lorre and Warner Bros. He also claims he was underpaid while he was already making $1.8 million per episode. Recent public feedback has a mostly negative impression of Charlie Sheen. Is he really ‘Winning’?
Isn’t it funny that in the past five years we have seen some of the most spectacular celebrity meltdowns? In 2006 there was Mel Gibson’s alcoholism bout most brought to light with a July DUI arrest that included an anti-Semitic outburst. 2007 brought about the jailing of Paris Hilton for driving while suspended, violent outbursts of Britney Spears while dealing with a heated custody battle, and the first substance-related arrests of many to come for Lindsay Lohan. Now it’s Charlie Sheen. Currently It’s unclear what his future, or the future of Two And A Half Men, hold. In the meantime, keep your eyes peeled to TMZ, Perez Hilton, E! Online or even Charlie’s own Twitter page for the latest. Right now I can only say one thing for Charlie: Losing!
WIKIPEDIA: Charlie Sheen. Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen>
IMDB: Charlie Sheen: Biography. IMDB.com. 2011. Imdb.com Inc. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000221/bio>