It wouldn’t surprise me to learn many people consider one of the more vexing problems they deal with is the inconsistencies of every day life.
Take, for example, the seemingly generous offer of discounts to senior citizens. Clearview Cinemas extends a senior discount to anyone 62 or older, any day of the week. At Kohl’s, you have to be at least 60 and must shop on a Wednesday to get 15% off everything in the store. The Westchester Wine Warehouse also gives 15% off, but its discount day is Tuesday. And you have to be at least 65.
Don’t these stores know as we get older we have more senior moments? Who can remember all the variables? About the only positive thing I can say about the different programs, aside from the obvious of saving money, is it gets seniors out of the house more often. We’re a notorious thrifty bunch, you know, who need all the exercise we can get schlepping from store to store on the right day.
No Surprise Here: I can’t say I’m surprised to learn some Arizonans are complaining Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is not properly representing her constituents because she’s missing too many votes in the House of Representatives.
I kid you not. One even sent a letter to the editor to the Tucson Star stating, “It's been almost three months since U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded in the Jan. 8 shooting, and since then we who live in her district have had no representation in the House.”
Seems recovering from an assassination attempt doesn’t pass muster in the land that time and progress forgot. Some might say that her “not voting” record is more constituent-friendly than the votes cast by her Republican colleagues who favor cuts in social services spending.
Who’s More Incorrigible? A contributed essay in Sunday’s NY Times identified the author as a retired chairperson of the English department in a Westchester County junior-senior high school.
She hasn’t abandoned education instruction. She’s a volunteer teacher at a maximum security prison.
Which led me to wonder, given the nature of many of today’s students, is it easier teaching criminals or teenagers?
Role Model: Apparently, if you’re well-connected, it can pay quite handsomely to be an unwed teenager mother.
The Candies Foundation, a non-profit arm of the apparel company, which encourages abstinence to prevent teenage pregnancies, has paid Bristol Palin $332,000 to preach prevention. Sarah Palin’s daughter received $262,000 in 2009 for 15 to 20 days of work and another $70,000 last year for less time on the job. Though not on the payroll in 2011, her campaign of public service announcements, media interviews plus TV and radio spots was successful, with a greater impact than one would have had with a non-celebrity spokesperson, according to Candies executives.
Could be. If the intent is to gain public attention, Bristol clearly has the right pedigree. But I do wonder about that $13,000 a day pay scale. Seems pretty steep to me, but maybe that’s the going rate. Celebrities who have been part of a Candies Foundation campaign include Hayden Panettiere, Beyoncé, Ciara, Jenny McCarthy, Vanessa Minnillo, Ashley Tisdale, Hilary Duff, Ashlee Simpson, Usher, Rachel Bilson, and Teddy Geiger.
Candies also is not apologizing for what many consider a public relations fiasco—while subsidizing Palin, the foundation handed out just $35,000 in grants to programs to help teenagers at risk. Its rationale: the purpose of the Candies Foundation is to support awareness of abstinence as an alternative to pre-marital sex. It is not a grant-making foundation.
Bottom line—Bristol’s is a message of, Do as I say, not as I did.
Dumb and Dumber: Does anyone have any sympathy for those who shelled out money to see Charlie Sheen in concert and are disappointed with his “performance”?
How depraved can one be to be rooting for a flameout, and angry when one doesn’t happen? It’s the same mentality of those who attend NASCAR races hoping to see a crash or who attend a hockey game hoping a fight breaks out. It’s outrageous behavior, and I’m not just talking about Sheen.
Is there any more cogent evidence that a huge segment of the American electorate is bonkers than word that recent polls of likely voters in Republican primaries consider Donald Trump the second most appealing candidate?
We truly are a messed up nation.
Showing posts with label Charlie Sheen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Sheen. Show all posts
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Charlie Sheen Isn't the Only One Who Can Rant
Am I the only one who thinks Charlie Sheen is auditioning to be Hugh Hefner's replacement when the dirty old man passes on? All Charlie needs is a pair of black silk pajamas. He already has an ex-porn star and a model as live-in bunk mates.
I try to avoid Charlie-Sheen-all-news-all-the-time coverage, but it's hard to avoid it when every TV newscast, except CBS, has fashioned this story as the second coming of OJ Simpson coverage, albeit without the blood and gore, though Charlie reportedly has threatened violence against his ex-wife and mother of his twin boys.
Sheen's breakdown is like a train wreck. You're almost compelled to watch it unfold in front of your eyes. The other day a friend sent me a YouTube of cars crashing as they sped through red lights. I wound up watching the full video. I couldn't take my eyes away from it. Sheen's meltdown is the same. Though most everyone is counseling him to stay silent, he keeps ignoring the red lights and plows ahead with rants that make Qaddafi seem almost sane.
Cry Babies: The other day I compared the GOP to bullies. Today I think they're also cry babies. Here's why:
In their attempt to beat back opposition to the draconian measures they have proposed in state and federal budgets, Republicans argue they are merely following through on what they told the voeters they would do if elected. Since they shellacked the Democrats last November, they should be entitled to enact their campaign promises, they say. Therefore, Democrats should just get out of the way and stop whining.
Sounds like a plausible argument. Until one remembers that in 2008 Democrats won a convincing national election on a platform that included passage of universal health care. We know, of course, Republicans fought to forestall passage of health care reform and continue to battle its implementation in the courts and in Congress. So much for accepting the will of the people when it doesn't agree with their view.
Disrespect for reality and the will of the people can also be seen in continuing efforts to deny Barack Obama's legitimacy as president. Georgia has before it a proposal to challenge the native born citizenship of the president unless he produces a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii. Without it, the proposed legislation would not allow his name to appear on Peach State ballots. Of course, Georgia is ignoring documentation already released by Hawaii affirming Obama's birth status. But the Georgia GOP keeps crying foul.
Shades of the 50's and 60's: State and local budgets are being cut to the bone with school districts across the nation suffering major funding cutbacks forcing teacher layoffs that will result in more children per classroom per teacher.
What's the big deal? Back in the 1950s, my elementary school packed 35 per classroom taught by one teacher. A private Hebrew school, our school day ran from 9 am to 4:30 pm. Gilda's high school in the 1960s, Brooklyn's Erasmus Hall, was so overcrowded it required three different shifts to accommodate its 8,000 students. That's not a typo—8,000 students. There weren't enough desks and chairs for everyone in her class, so kids sat on the floor and the radiators.
We learned. We achieved. We had good teachers, we had bad teachers. Two critical factors helped us succeed—we were motivated and supported by parents who believed education was critical to upward mobility.
Until parents accept their responsibility, teachers will unfairly be cast as the villains for low tests scores and underachieving students.
I try to avoid Charlie-Sheen-all-news-all-the-time coverage, but it's hard to avoid it when every TV newscast, except CBS, has fashioned this story as the second coming of OJ Simpson coverage, albeit without the blood and gore, though Charlie reportedly has threatened violence against his ex-wife and mother of his twin boys.
Sheen's breakdown is like a train wreck. You're almost compelled to watch it unfold in front of your eyes. The other day a friend sent me a YouTube of cars crashing as they sped through red lights. I wound up watching the full video. I couldn't take my eyes away from it. Sheen's meltdown is the same. Though most everyone is counseling him to stay silent, he keeps ignoring the red lights and plows ahead with rants that make Qaddafi seem almost sane.
Cry Babies: The other day I compared the GOP to bullies. Today I think they're also cry babies. Here's why:
In their attempt to beat back opposition to the draconian measures they have proposed in state and federal budgets, Republicans argue they are merely following through on what they told the voeters they would do if elected. Since they shellacked the Democrats last November, they should be entitled to enact their campaign promises, they say. Therefore, Democrats should just get out of the way and stop whining.
Sounds like a plausible argument. Until one remembers that in 2008 Democrats won a convincing national election on a platform that included passage of universal health care. We know, of course, Republicans fought to forestall passage of health care reform and continue to battle its implementation in the courts and in Congress. So much for accepting the will of the people when it doesn't agree with their view.
Disrespect for reality and the will of the people can also be seen in continuing efforts to deny Barack Obama's legitimacy as president. Georgia has before it a proposal to challenge the native born citizenship of the president unless he produces a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii. Without it, the proposed legislation would not allow his name to appear on Peach State ballots. Of course, Georgia is ignoring documentation already released by Hawaii affirming Obama's birth status. But the Georgia GOP keeps crying foul.
Shades of the 50's and 60's: State and local budgets are being cut to the bone with school districts across the nation suffering major funding cutbacks forcing teacher layoffs that will result in more children per classroom per teacher.
What's the big deal? Back in the 1950s, my elementary school packed 35 per classroom taught by one teacher. A private Hebrew school, our school day ran from 9 am to 4:30 pm. Gilda's high school in the 1960s, Brooklyn's Erasmus Hall, was so overcrowded it required three different shifts to accommodate its 8,000 students. That's not a typo—8,000 students. There weren't enough desks and chairs for everyone in her class, so kids sat on the floor and the radiators.
We learned. We achieved. We had good teachers, we had bad teachers. Two critical factors helped us succeed—we were motivated and supported by parents who believed education was critical to upward mobility.
Until parents accept their responsibility, teachers will unfairly be cast as the villains for low tests scores and underachieving students.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Oscar Picks, Libya Fallout and Bully Tactics
Gilda and I have been frantically trying to see as many of the Oscar-nominated films before tonight’s telecast. We did a fairly good job of it, so here are picks for the golden statues for the top awards:
Best Actor: Colin Firth of The King’s Speech
Best Actress: Natalie Portman of Black Swan
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale of The Fighter
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo of The Fighter
Best Director: David O. Russell of The Fighter
Best Picture: The Fighter
Crisis at the Pump: Forget about the precipitous rise in oil prices because of the upheaval in Libya and other Middle Eastern fiefdoms. We have to focus our attention on the real crisis in Arabia—how will Muslim potentates be able to import Western values if their access to Beyoncé, Usher and Mariah Carey is cut off?
One of the more interesting stories to come out of the turmoil was the report on how Muammar el-Qaddafi’s sons engaged in a game of one-upsmanship, spending countless millions to party with entertainment from the likes of the aforementioned performers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23cables.html?scp=2&sq=mariah%20carey&st=cse). Are Beyoncé, Usher and Mariah Carey so hard up for cash they would dignify despots with their talent? Even for a million dollars? Keep in mind, the millions they were paid did not come out of the Qaddafi family’s pockets. They were paid with money ripped off from the Libyan people.
It’s just another sad commentary on the shallowness of some of our “stars” and a value system that plays to the tune of the highest bidder.
Bully Tactics: Speaking of shallow, it’s hard to evince any sympathy for Charlie Sheen, the raging and enraged star of Two and a Half Men. He’s placed himself in the mold of Mel Gibson with his rant about show creator Chuck Lorre’s birth name, Chaim Levine. (At least in Sheen’s case the apple has fallen far from the tree. Gibson seems to be following in his father’s anti-Semitic footsteps, whereas Sheen’s father, Martin Sheen, is the darling of liberals.) One can only surmise Sheen was expressing a not so veiled anti-Semitic comment, though he denies it. It is hard to imagine any other explanation, given the long history of bigots who dredge up birth names to cast aspersions on their targets.
I admit I have occasionally watched Two and a Half Men during its eight year run. I’ve laughed at some of the humor. But I never really was comfortable with its comic take on life. I’m turned off by humor that derives its punch line from insults and offensiveness. I’m turned off by a character that extols drunkenness, conniving, insensitivity and a mostly misogynist attitude. He’s not too kind to his brother, either.
For the most part, Sheen’s character is a bully, someone who takes advantage of the weak and defenseless. I don’t know Charlie Sheen’s political orientation, but his bullying tactics on the air and in his personal life smack too much like the politics being engaged in by Republicans on the federal and state levels. I’m particularly incensed by the choices Republicans are making. For example, last year Arizona eliminated a Children’s Health Insurance Program that covered 47,000 low-income children without coverage. Another 310,000 childless couples lost Medicaid coverage under the state’s budget. In the proposed federal budget approved by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, funding would be cut for a host of programs that aid women and children (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html?src=me&ref=general). I don’t know how many of you actually click on the links I provide, but this last one is important. After reading the editorial, I challenge anyone to explain the term “compassionate conservative” with a straight face.
I’m all for cutting wasteful programs and imposing a fair tax system. But I just cannot understand, or accept, the GOP’s stance on de-funding programs that help the disadvantaged. How can they claim to be pro-family when all they do is cut programs that help struggling families? How can they do that at the same time they support tax relief for millionaires? How do they sleep at night?
Best Actor: Colin Firth of The King’s Speech
Best Actress: Natalie Portman of Black Swan
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale of The Fighter
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo of The Fighter
Best Director: David O. Russell of The Fighter
Best Picture: The Fighter
Crisis at the Pump: Forget about the precipitous rise in oil prices because of the upheaval in Libya and other Middle Eastern fiefdoms. We have to focus our attention on the real crisis in Arabia—how will Muslim potentates be able to import Western values if their access to Beyoncé, Usher and Mariah Carey is cut off?
One of the more interesting stories to come out of the turmoil was the report on how Muammar el-Qaddafi’s sons engaged in a game of one-upsmanship, spending countless millions to party with entertainment from the likes of the aforementioned performers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23cables.html?scp=2&sq=mariah%20carey&st=cse). Are Beyoncé, Usher and Mariah Carey so hard up for cash they would dignify despots with their talent? Even for a million dollars? Keep in mind, the millions they were paid did not come out of the Qaddafi family’s pockets. They were paid with money ripped off from the Libyan people.
It’s just another sad commentary on the shallowness of some of our “stars” and a value system that plays to the tune of the highest bidder.
Bully Tactics: Speaking of shallow, it’s hard to evince any sympathy for Charlie Sheen, the raging and enraged star of Two and a Half Men. He’s placed himself in the mold of Mel Gibson with his rant about show creator Chuck Lorre’s birth name, Chaim Levine. (At least in Sheen’s case the apple has fallen far from the tree. Gibson seems to be following in his father’s anti-Semitic footsteps, whereas Sheen’s father, Martin Sheen, is the darling of liberals.) One can only surmise Sheen was expressing a not so veiled anti-Semitic comment, though he denies it. It is hard to imagine any other explanation, given the long history of bigots who dredge up birth names to cast aspersions on their targets.
I admit I have occasionally watched Two and a Half Men during its eight year run. I’ve laughed at some of the humor. But I never really was comfortable with its comic take on life. I’m turned off by humor that derives its punch line from insults and offensiveness. I’m turned off by a character that extols drunkenness, conniving, insensitivity and a mostly misogynist attitude. He’s not too kind to his brother, either.
For the most part, Sheen’s character is a bully, someone who takes advantage of the weak and defenseless. I don’t know Charlie Sheen’s political orientation, but his bullying tactics on the air and in his personal life smack too much like the politics being engaged in by Republicans on the federal and state levels. I’m particularly incensed by the choices Republicans are making. For example, last year Arizona eliminated a Children’s Health Insurance Program that covered 47,000 low-income children without coverage. Another 310,000 childless couples lost Medicaid coverage under the state’s budget. In the proposed federal budget approved by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, funding would be cut for a host of programs that aid women and children (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html?src=me&ref=general). I don’t know how many of you actually click on the links I provide, but this last one is important. After reading the editorial, I challenge anyone to explain the term “compassionate conservative” with a straight face.
I’m all for cutting wasteful programs and imposing a fair tax system. But I just cannot understand, or accept, the GOP’s stance on de-funding programs that help the disadvantaged. How can they claim to be pro-family when all they do is cut programs that help struggling families? How can they do that at the same time they support tax relief for millionaires? How do they sleep at night?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
