University of Washington students were amped to celebrate the Seahawks’ Super Bowl XLVIII win.
A few minutes after the game ended, they started lighting stuff on fire and then tweeting about it.
The fire was out briefly, but then re-ignited some time later.
This is a pretty cool story, an unlikely discovery… Spyridon Mitsotakis reports:
A newly discovered audio tape of a June 3, 1964 speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at Arizona State University, reveals the work he had to do to overcome the Democratic Party’s filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act led by Senator Robert Byrd (a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who would become the Democrats’ Senate Majority leader during the 1990s).
In one part of the speech, Dr. King advised black Americans to be the best at whatever it is they do and transcend race:
Don’t just set out to do a good negro job. You see, if you’re setting out merely to be a good negro teacher, or good negro doctor, good negro lawyer, good negro skilled laborer, good negro barber, good negro beautician – you have already flunked your matriculation examination for entrance into the university of integration.
Sports Illustrated has the wrap-up: Despite employing something of a makeshift unit, the Broncos protected Peyton Manning better than any other O-line guarded any QB in the league. Denver allowed all of 20 sacks in 16 regular-season games, easily the lowest number in the league.
“We are confident in what we can do,” Seattle defensive end Cliff Avril said confidently on Thursday. “We feel like we can definitely rush him. Whenever we get the chance we’re going to try to make it happen.”
Make it happen, they did in a 43-8 win over the Broncos.
Avril came up with one of the most important plays of all up front. The game was still somewhat in the balance at 15-0 in the second quarter when Avril pushed his way into the pocket and hit Peyton Manning’s arm as he went to throw. Manning’s pass attempt fluttered out of his hand and into the arms of Seattle’s Malcolm Smith, who raced back 69 yards for a touchdown — turning the game from an early mismatch into a complete laugher.
Manning took just one sack in the game overall, resulting in a fumble, with 3:50 left to play. He also had little time to set in the pocket and scan the field. That was a focus for Seattle’s aggressive defensive front entering the game: moving Manning off his spots.
Ace nails it:
Obama claims that Benghazi is a false scandal which is only talked about because people on FoxNews keep talking about it. Full video below. He denies everything. He also denies denying everything.
“These kind of things keep resurfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them..”
Deadline Hollywood reports:
Things turned tense quickly today between President Obama and Bill O’Reilly in their Super Bowl pregame interview. “OK, Bill, you’ve got a long list of my mistakes,” Obama said to The O’Reilly Factor host near the start of their 10-minute live interview on Fox. That remark — in response to a question from O’Reilly whether it was the biggest mistake of Obama’s presidency when he told Americans no one would lose their healthcare under Obamacare — was one of a number of points on which the two butted heads. The duo sparred almost from the beginning in the interview live from the White House this afternoon. Obama also took on Fox News Channel when O’Reilly asked him about reports the IRS was investigating Tea Party-related groups for political reasons. “These kind of things keep resurfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them,” Obama said. “When you look there have been multiple hearings.” Obama denied any corruption, just some “boneheaded decisions.” Earlier, the Fox News host interrupted Obama with a “you’re not going to answer that?” as the President replied to a question about why he didn’t fire Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius after the botched online launch of Obamacare.
Emphasis mine…from New York Post:
…Cops found five empty glassine envelopes in a garbage can, two more under the bed and one on a table in the apartment, where Hoffman — who has repeatedly struggled with substance abuse — was living recently, sources said.
Cops also found a charred spoon in the kitchen sink, sources say.
“He was shooting up in the bathroom,” a law-enforcement source said.
The envelopes were marked “Ace of Spades,” which sources said is a brand of heroin that hasn’t been seen on the streets since around 2008 in Brooklyn.
There was no note, and Hoffman’s death is believed to be accidental…
I’m pretty sure Ace of Spades HQ has no connection to the brand. But I had a mental image of an envelope with that logo on it (shown below) as the last thing the actor saw before he perished, of an overdose.
Speaking of Ace…
Does the MacInoe photo, shown here represent the Brooklyn heroin baggie type similar to the one found in Hoffman’s Greenwich Village apartment? It’s unclear, but certainly possible. The photographer was also a consumer (addict) he has an interesting photo essay here:
“The images in this series are of heroin baggies collected years ago during a period of addiction. I became intrigued by the typography and design of the glassine envelopes used to package dope, stamped with references to popular culture like Twilight, Crooklyn and New Jack City. Dealers branded and marketed their product like entrepreneurs in any business, pairing names like Dead Medicine with a skull and crossbones to appeal to risk-takers, or an airplane labeled First Class to give the illusion of grandeur…
Update: Feb. 2, 3:35 p.m. ET — Blanchett and representatives for Allen have now responded to Farrow’s New York Times piece.
Allen’s lawyer Elkan Abramowitz sent Mother Jones the following statement on the afternoon of Sunday, Feb. 2:
“It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces after it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities. The one to blame for Dylan’s distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen.” And a rep for Allen also told ABC News Radio, “Mr. Allen has read the article and found it untrue and disgraceful. He will be responding very soon.”
From The Little Mermaid and Anna Karenina to Holly Golightly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Samantha Ellis examines the heroines written by men
I was delighted to see Truman Capote–the little freak was a genius–featured as an example of an author that excelled at writing woman characters. Holly Golightly is arguably one of the most compelling women characters in 20th century popular fiction.
Besides being a classic 1960s Hollywood movie, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a novella, a small book with a big character. Made famous, of course, by Audrey Hepburn. Which is unfortunate–many contemporary readers wouldn’t likely place Capote’s forgotten book on their must-read list. I came across it casually, in my 20s, and it was this exact thing that captivated me. The creation of this… indelible character. I almost felt like the detective in Laura, infatuated with a ghost. In this case, a fictional creation. The character is darker, more seductive, more melancholy, in Capote’s book, than the romantic, candy-coated version in the movie.
The other thing I found striking was that Capote was writing about himself. If we take the Holly Golightly character, and switch the gender, it’s a story of a young homosexual male from the south, hustling among the wealthy and famous in New York. Swinging between euphoria and depression, a sexual social climber, running from a troubled past. That’s a Truman Capote autobiography.
But we also know that Capote drew inspiration, like a reporter, from real women. One of Truman’s great talents was befriending talkative, wealthy, fascinating women. It’s said that he based the book on an actual young socialite in Manhattan (or a composite of a few women he knew) which involved discretion, misdirection, secrecy, and even threats of lawsuits, as the guessing game disrupted reputations and ignited rumors among New York’s elite. One wonders if the handful of society women in contention were insisting they were not her, or claiming that they were.
It’s also unfortunate that Capote was remembered more for his decadent celebrity, than his (regrettably thin) body of work. He was a writer of great promise who lost his way. After the obscenely-rewarding success of In Cold Blood (it made Truman literally the most famous writer on earth) Capote never wrote a serious novel again. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a forgotten little gem that gave us one of fiction’s great heroines.
Samantha Ellis poses a good question. She writes:
Can men write good heroines? Most of the heroines I write about in my book How to Be a Heroine are written by women. And most of the heroines I find most problematic are written by men. It’s very troubling to go back to Hans Christian Andersen‘s The Little Mermaid and find that it’s a story about a mermaid who gives up her voice for legs to get a man. And even as a girl, I was furious with Charles Dickens for letting Nancy get bludgeoned in Oliver Twist and, later, outraged that Samuel Richardson heaped pain and indignity on Clarissa and called her “an Exemplar to her sex” as though learning to suffer well made us exemplary.
It’s particularly distressing to see how male writers have punished their heroines for being sexually adventurous. Leo Tolstoy‘s Anna Karenina throws herself under a train; Gustave Flaubert makes Emma Bovary pathetic even before she poisons herself. It’s striking that when Erica Jong wrote about an adulteress in Fear of Flying, she gave her a happy ending, in which she is reborn in a hotel bathtub, and summons her adoring husband back.
A review of Yuval Levin’s Book The Great Debate
Jon Bishop writes: We too often assume that the left and right divide began with the eruptions of the ’60s or with the presidency of FDR. It is in fact much older — ancient, even, for it is not out of the question to assume that Greece and Rome faced similar questions. So Yuval Levin, with his The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left, has done modern American political discourse an incredible service by reminding us to always consider the historical context.
Levin takes the reader on a guided tour of the Enlightenment-drenched late 18th century and demonstrates how Burke and Paine, who serve as Levin’s representatives for conservative liberalism and progressive liberalism, respectively, adapted the thinking of the age to their approach to political questions. He draws from both their letters and published works — which make for great reading, by the way. Both, after all, were wonderful rhetoricians.
A Movie for All Time: Groundhog Day
Re-running this Feb. 2005 cover story, year after year, is a tradition at NRO. It’s a thoughtful and entertaining review, for a beloved cult movie that’s gotten an unusual amount of attention, for a comedy, over the years, since its release in 1983. Both serious and funny (it’s funny first) Groundhog Day is also moral, and spiritual, in ways we don’t expect. Every religion, creed, faith, philosophy known to man claims the movie’s message as its own. In scholarly theological circles, no less, it’s generated a lot of ink, and a lot of discussion. This article is a good summary of all that.
Jonah Goldberg writes:
Here’s a line you’ll either recognize or you won’t: “This is one time where television really fails to capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather.” If you don’t recognize this little gem, you’ve either never seen Groundhog Day or you’re not a fan of what is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the last 40 years. As the day of the groundhog again approaches, it seems only fitting to celebrate what will almost undoubtedly join It’s a Wonderful Life in the pantheon of America’s most uplifting, morally serious, enjoyable, and timeless movies.
When I set out to write this article, I thought it’d be fun to do a quirky homage to an offbeat flick, one I think is brilliant as both comedy and moral philosophy. But while doing what I intended to be cursory research — how much reporting do you need for a review of a twelve-year-old movie that plays constantly on cable? — I discovered that I wasn’t alone in my interest.
Private support beats public subsidies
Jared Meyer writes: Should the federal government subsidize the arts? Dancer Nora Younkin thinks so. In the Huffington Post recently, she argued that the societal benefits of arts such as dance are not only cultural and educational, but economic as well. “It is well documented that dance and the arts generate revenue for local economies,” she wrote. “The performing arts also create jobs. And I don’t mean just the jobs of dancemakers and performers. The technical crew, the artistic collaborators, the venues, the technical equipment rentals or purchases, the restaurant down the street from the venue, even the taxi driver that got you to a performance. Those are all real jobs from which people take home a paycheck and go on to spend buying groceries or clothes.” But assuming that all federal funding reaches struggling artists—and that art subsidies indeed “trickle down” to a local economy—is a mistake.