Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

New dad who asked when he’ll get his ‘life back’ gets great advice from experienced parents

The change from being without a child to a parent is a whirlwind that happens overnight. Babies demand so much care and attention that it’s easy to feel you’ve lost the life you had before and traded it for a little human who needs to be fed, rocked, supervised, played with, and changed 24-7.

Having a baby is exhausting, and it can be challenging for parents to admit that, for most of us, life pre-baby was much more fun than after the new arrival.

A 33-year-old Redditor named RCerberus90 took to the Parenting forum to ask if he’s ever going to be able to enjoy the life that he knew before having kids, and he received a lot of support from parents who told him it gets better.


However, things will never be like they were again.

“My little lad is 13 months now, and I am struggling socially,” the dad admitted. “Every day feels like Groundhog Day. My weekdays consist of getting up, going to work, coming home, playing with blocks, and then going to bed. My weekends are the same, except I don’t go to work.”

“My question is, when does it get easier?” the dad asked. “Everybody I speak to laughs and says: ‘It doesn’t get easier” [and it’s] not helpful. It’s one of those really frustrating answers where people think they’re being comical.”

“Realistically, I know my life has changed forever, but at what point do parents find that they started to get their life back?” the dad continued.

One of the most popular responses to his question provided hope for the future while making the subtle but essential point that it’s crucial to enjoy the moment, as hard as it may be.

“Rest assured, it does get easier! I found that from 3 to 4, you can start to (try to) reason with them, and from 5, it’s noticeably better and then progressively better each year. I found it exhausting from 1-5 but now look back with fondness wishing I could spend time with my toddler kids who no longer rely on me so much,” Hexusmelbourne wrote.

Another commenter noted that working with your partner to give one another a mental and physical break makes things a lot easier.

“13 months is still pretty firmly in the ‘baby’ stage, so normally parents trade off responsibilities, invite people over, or find hobbies that can be done after the kid goes to bed or around kiddo’s schedule. For example, I used to listen to podcasts on my drive to work and then read a book on my lunch break. Maybe your wife could have one night off a week where you handle dinner/bathtime, and then you also get one night off a week? Maybe you could invite a friend to join you at the park with your son? Maybe you could look into hiring a babysitter for monthly date nights?” Stardewseastarr wrote.

Another commenter agreed. Having a partner with whom you can share the load is one of the most important ways to navigate the infant phase.

“You have to dedicate time for yourself each week,” aHostileApostle wrote. “The old life is not gone, you need to create balance. If you have a partner, sit down and hash out some ‘me’ and ‘us’ time, including pints with the boys. It’s all about balance. You got this.”

Orney-Tea-795 was slightly bothered by the dad’s desire to get his “life back.”

“I’m confused on what you mean by ‘get your life back.’ This is your life,” they wrote. “Your lifestyle has changed because of your child. If you need to go out and hang with friends, then get a babysitter so you can do so. Just because you have a child doesn’t mean your life stops, it just changes around the baby and what the baby needs a bit more. Also, get a hobby to do after the kid goes to bed or goes down for a nap.”

In the end, the father was happy to get some support and learn that there is hope that the daily grind will get easier.

“Thank you all for the replies. Sorry, too many to reply individually, but I have read them all,” the dad wrote. “In regard to my comment about ‘getting my life back,’ it’s more a figure of speech. Of course, I ‘have a life.’ It’s more quality of life that’s degraded. Simple things I took for granted before have gone. I like to think I’m very much a ‘do-er’ — before my son, I couldn’t think of anything worse than sitting in all weekend watching Netflix. I would rather do a physical activity. I think that’s why I’m really struggling. Simple things like going for a pint with my dad on a Sunday, going for a drive, or having a project to work on in the garage have all stopped.”

“Thank you all for the comments and your stories. It has helped,” the dad concluded.

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

A ‘Daily Show’ correspondent asks a millionaire about inequality and gets an unexpected response.

Inequality has gotten worse than you think.

An investigation by former “Daily Show” correspondent Hasan Minhaj is still perfectly apt and shows that the problem isn’t just your classic case of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”


As much as we hear about wealth inequality these days, one disparity remains mostly ignored: the gap between the wealthy and the ridiculously wealthy.

Minhaj spoke to Richard Reeves, an economist with the Brookings Institute, who painted a dark picture:

wealth, comedy, Hasan Minhaj

The study Reeves refers to points to the growing wealth of the top 10th of the top 1%:

“The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012 — a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined.”

And no one’s paid any attention.

Between the cries of the 45.3 million people in poverty and a dwindling middle class in every state, the voice of the average millionaire is all but drowned out.

the one percent, inequality, investment

But not all millionaires are worried about growing inequality in the top 1%.

In his search for a concerned millionaire, Minhaj met Morris Pearl, a retired investment banking director and member of an organization called The Patriotic Millionaires. Minhaj was baffled by what Pearl had to say:

resources, rich, Ronald Reagan

What about trickle-down economics?

Trickle-down theory was popularized under Ronald Reagan’s presidency. The idea was that clearing a path for the rich to make more money would spur more private investment, which would lead to more jobs and higher wages for all workers.

tax breaks, income, classism

Reagan put trickle-down theory into practice in two basic ways: by lowering taxes for the wealthy and by freezing wages for the poor.

In 1981, he cut the top marginal income tax rate — which only applies to the highest-income households — from 70% to 50%. Then in 1986, he more than doubled-down by slashing the rate to 28%. (The current rate is 39.6%.) And under Reagan’s leadership, the minimum wage was frozen, even as costs of living were rising.

Pearl and other so-called Patriotic Millionaires think top one-percenters like themselves should pay more taxes.

trickle-down theory, financial institutions, comedy show

Not only that, they believe raising the minimum wage is critical to reducing inequality.

OK, maybe not everyone — including millionaires — are convinced that giving more money to the rich will fix the economy. So why do our policies do just the opposite?


This article originally appeared on May 23, 2015

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

Overwhelmed new mother hears the perfect parenting advice from her mom on doorbell cam

“How on earth can one person do it all?”

This is a question so many mothers ask themselves. Especially after giving birth, when life seems to expect them to take care of their newborn, get their body back, return to work and keep a clean house all at the same time.

It’s a question that had completely overwhelmed Monica Murphy, only one month into welcoming her third child, while still recovering from a C-section and taking care of her other children, who were also nursing, according to Today.com.

Luckily for Murphy, her mom had the perfect piece of advice to ease her troubled mind. And luckily for us, it was all caught on the family’s doorbell cam.


In a now-viral Instagram post, Murphy wrote her formidable to-do list, which included:

Working

Staying present on social media

Maintaining a clean home

Tandem breastfeeding

Being present with my kids

Eating a nutritious diet

Making time for my husband

Keeping in touch with friends

Making time for myself

Planning activities for kids

Frick decorate for Christmas

Followed by that burning question: “How on earth can one person do it all?”

Of course, Murphy hadn’t expressed any of these stresses to her mom, who had been visiting. But still, her mom knew something heavily weighed on her daughter’s mind.

So, as she was walking out, Murphy’s mom left her with these words of wisdom:

“They aren’t gonna remember a clean house, they are gonna remember how much you loved them and hung out with them.”

Murphy told Today.com that she “broke down” crying after her mom had left, and was instantly inspired to share the video for other moms who needed similar encouragement.

Indeed, the message struck an emotional chord with thousands of viewers.

“The way I would’ve just bawled if she said that to me,” one person commented.

Another added, “I needed to hear this today.”

Some shared how it was a sentiment they sadly would never hear from their own mothers, and how they are now re-parenting themselves.

“My mom would just nag I’m lazy and how am I supposed to leave my house a mess. So I’m just easing my anxiety with gentle words from other people’s mothers. As I’ve been doing my whole life. Clean house was above happy children,” one person wrote.

It can be so easy for moms to lose themselves in the never ending cycle of responsibilities and, frankly, unrealistic societal expectations. But hopefully this sweet message can help moms everywhere go a bit easier on themselves, and actually enjoy the time they have with their kids. That’s part of what family is all about, after all.

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

Lessons we should have learned from the liberation of Auschwitz and other Nazi camps

From 1940 to 1945, an estimated 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz, the largest complex of Nazi concentration camps. More than four out of five of those people—at least 1.1 million people—were murdered there.

On January 27, 1945, Soviet forces liberated the final prisoners from these camps—7,000 people, most of whom were sick or dying. Those of us with a decent public education are familiar with at least a few names of Nazi extermination facilities—Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen—but these are merely a few of the thousands (yes, thousands) of concentration camps, sub camps, and ghettos spread across Europe where Jews and other targets of Hitler’s regime were persecuted, tortured, and killed by the millions.


The scale of the atrocity is unfathomable. Like slavery, the Holocaust is a piece of history where the more you learn the more horrifying it becomes. The inhumane depravity of the perpetrators and the gut-wrenching suffering of the victims defies description. It almost becomes too much for the mind and heart to take in, but it’s vital that we push through that resistance.

The liberation of the Nazi camps marked the end of Hitler’s attempt at ethnic cleansing, and the beginning of humanity’s awareness about how such a heinous chapter in human history took place. The farther we get from that chapter, the more important it is to focus on the lessons it taught us, lest we ignore the signs of history repeating itself.

Lesson 1: Unspeakable evil can be institutionalized on a massive scale

Perhaps the most jarring thing about the Holocaust is how systematized it was. We’re not talking about humans slaying other humans in a fit of rage or a small number of twisted individuals torturing people in a basement someplace—this was a structured, calculated, disciplined, and meticulously planned and carried out effort to exterminate masses of people. The Nazi regime built a well-oiled killing machine the size of half a continent, and it worked exactly as intended. We often cite the number of people killed, but the number of people who partook in the systematic torture and destruction of millions of people is just as harrowing.

It has now come out that Allied forces knew about the mass killing of Jews as early as 1942—three years before the end of the war. And obviously, there were reports from individuals of what was happening from the very beginning. People often ask why more wasn’t done earlier on if people knew, and there are undoubtedly political reasons for that. But we also have the benefit of hindsight in asking that question. I can imagine most people simply disbelieving what was actually taking place because it sounds so utterly unbelievable.

The lesson here is that we have to question our tendency to disbelieve things that sound too horrible to be true. We have evidence that the worst things imaginable on a scale that seems unfathomable are totally plausible.

Lesson 2: Atrocity can happen right under our noses as we go about our daily lives

One thing that struck me as I was reading about the liberation of Auschwitz is that it was a mere 37 miles from Krakow, one of the largest cities in Poland. This camp where an average of 500 people a day were killed, where bodies were piled up like corded wood, where men, women, and children were herded into gas chambers—and it was not that far from a major population center.

And that was just one set of camps. We now know that there were thousands of locations where the Nazis carried out their “final solution,” and it’s not like they always did it way out in the middle of nowhere. A New York Times report on how many more camps there were than scholars originally thought describes what was happening to Jews and marginalized people as the average person went about their daily lives:

“The documented camps include not only ‘killing centers’ but also thousands of forced labor camps, where prisoners manufactured war supplies; prisoner-of-war camps; sites euphemistically named ‘care’ centers, where pregnant women were forced to have abortions or their babies were killed after birth; and brothels, where women were coerced into having sex with German military personnel.”

Whether or not the average person knew the full extent of what was happening is unclear. But surely there were reports. And we know how the average person responds to reports, even today in our own country.

How many news stories have we seen of abuses and inhumane conditions inside U.S. immigrant detention camps? What is our reaction when the United Nations human rights chief visits our detention facilities and comes away “appalled”? It’s a natural tendency to assume things simply can’t be that bad—that’s undoubtedly what millions of Germans thought as well when stories leaked through the propaganda.

Lesson 3: Propaganda works incredibly well

Propaganda has always been a part of governance, as leaders try to sway the general populace to support whatever they are doing. But the Nazis perfected the art and science of propaganda, shamelessly playing on people’s prejudices and fears and flooding the public with mountains of it.

Hermann Goering, one of Hitler’s top political and military figures, explained in an interview late in his life that such manipulation of the masses isn’t even that hard.

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders,” he said. “That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Terrifyingly true, isn’t it? This is why we have to stay vigilant in the face of fear-mongering rhetoric coming from our leaders. When an entire religion or nationality or ethnic group is painted as “dangerous” or “criminal” or “terrorists,” we have to recognize that we are being exposed to the same propaganda used to convince Germans that the Nazis were just trying to protect them. Safety and security are powerful human desires that make it easy to justify horrible acts.

Hitler was also great at playing the victim. While marching through Europe, conquering countries and rounding up millions of innocent people to exterminate, he claimed that Germany was the one under attack. Blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric surely fired up Hitler’s core supporters, but the message to the average German was that this was all being done in the name of protecting the homeland, rather than a quest for a world-dominating master race.

Lesson 4: Most of us are in greater danger of committing a holocaust than being a victim of one

I had to pause when this realization hit me one day. As fairly average white American, I am in the majority in my country. And as strange as it is to say, that means I have more in common with the Germans who either committed heinous acts or capitulated to the Nazis than I do with the Jews and other targets of the Nazi party. That isn’t to say that I would easily go along with mass genocide, but who’s to say that I could fully resist the combination of systematic dehumanization, propaganda, and terrorism that led to the Holocaust? We all like to think we’d be the brave heroes hiding the Anne Franks of the world in our secret cupboards, but the truth is we don’t really know what we would have done.

Check out what this Army Captain who helped liberate a Nazi camp said about his bafflement at what the Germans, “a cultured people” allowed to happen:

“I had studied German literature while an undergraduate at Harvard College. I knew about the culture of the German people and I could not, could not really believe that this was happening in this day and age; that in the twentieth century a cultured people like the Germans would undertake something like this. It was just beyond our imagination… Captain (Dr.) Philip Leif – 3rd Auxiliary Surgical Group, First Army

Some say that we can gauge what we would have done by examining what we’re doing right now, and perhaps they are right. Are we speaking out against our government’s cruel family separations that traumatize innocent children? Do we justify travel bans from entire countries because we trust that it’s simply our leadership trying to keep us safe? Do we buy into the “Muslims are terrorists” and “undocumented immigrants are criminals” rhetoric?

While it’s wise to be wary of comparing current events to the Holocaust, it’s also wise to recognize that the Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers. It started with “othering,” scapegoating, and fear-mongering. We have to be watchful not only for signs of atrocity, but for the signs leading up to it.

Lesson 5: Teaching full and accurate history matters

There are people who deny that the Holocaust even happened, which is mind-boggling. But there are far more people who are ignorant to the true horrors of it. Reading first-hand accounts of both the people who survived the camps and those who liberated them is perhaps the best way to begin to grasp the scope of what happened.

One small example is Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower’s attempt to describe what he saw when he visited Ohrdruf, a sub-camp of Buchenwald:

“The things I saw beggar description. While I was touring the camp I encountered three men who had been inmates and by one ruse or another had made their escape. I interviewed them through an interpreter. The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.'”

And of course, the most important narratives to read and try to digest are the accounts of those who survived the camps. Today, 200 survivors of Auschwitz gathered to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation. They warned about the rise in anti-Semitism in the world and how we must not let prejudice and hatred fester. Imagine having to make such a warning seven decades after watching family and friends being slaughtered in front of you.

Let’s use this anniversary as an opportunity to dive deeper into what circumstances and environment enabled millions of people to be killed by one country’s leadership. Let’s learn the lessons the Holocaust has to teach us about human nature and our place in the creation of history. And let’s make darn sure we do everything in our power to fend off the forces that threaten to lead us down a similarly perilous path.

This article originally appeared on 01.27.20

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

George Harrison’s elaborate prank on Phil Collins may be the funniest joke in rock history

Beatle George Harrison was pigeon-holed as the “Quiet Beatle,” but the youngest member of the Fab Four had an acerbic, dry sense of humor that was as sharp as the rest of his bandmates.

He gave great performances in the musical comedy classics, “A Hard Days Night” and “Help!” while holding his own during The Beatles’ notoriously anarchic press conferences. After he left the band in 1970, in addition to his musical career, he would produce the 1979 Monty Python classic, “The Life of Brian.”


Harrison clearly didn’t lose his sense of humor for the rest of his life. Shortly before his death in 2001, he played an elaborate prank on Phil Collins that shows how the “Here Comes the Sun” singer would go the extra mile for a laugh.

In 1970, Harrison was recording his first solo record and arguably the best by a Beatle, “All things Must Pass.” The session for the song, “The Art of Dying” featured former Beatle Ringo Starr on drums, keyboard legend Billy Preston on keys, virtuoso Eric Clapton on guitar, and was produced by the notorious Phil Spector.

Harrison wanted a conga player for the session, so Ringo’s chauffeur reached out to Phil Collins’ manager. At the time, Collins was a relative unknown who was about to join Genesis, a band that would bring him worldwide stardom.

The 18-year-old Collins was starstruck playing on a session with two former Beatles, so he played extra hard in rehearsals, resulting in blood blisters on both hands.

“Anyway, after about two hours of this, Phil Spector says, ‘Okay congas, you play this time.’ And I’d had my mic off, so everybody laughed, but my hands were shot,” Collins told Express.

“And just after that they all disappeared – someone said they were watching TV or something – and I was told I could go,” after that, Collins was relieved of his duties and told to go home. A few months later, Collins bought the massive triple album in the record shop and was devastated to learn he’d been edited out of the song.

“There must be some mistake! Collins thought. “But it’s a different version of the song, and I’m not on it.”

Some thirty years later, Collins bought the home of Formula One driver Jackie Stewart, a close friend of Harrison. Stewart mentioned to Collins that Harrison was remixing “All Things Must Pass” for a rerelease.

“And he said, ‘You were on it, weren’t you?’ And I said, ‘Well I was there,”‘ Collins recalled.

Two days later, a tape was delivered from Harrison to Collins with a note that read: “Could this be you?” Collins continued: “I rush off and listen to it, and straight away I recognize it.” It was a recording of “The Art of Dying.”

“Suddenly the congas come in – too loud and just awful,” Collins was devastated, then as the end of the take, Harrison can be heard saying, “Hey, Phil, can we try another without the conga player?”

Collins was devastated, to say the least.

A while later, Stewart calls Collins and puts Harrison on the line. “‘Did you get the tape?’ Harrison asked. “I now realize I was fired by a Beatle,” Collins sighed. The two changed the subject, but a few minutes later, Harrison couldn’t stop laughing.

“Don’t worry, it was a piss-take. I got Ray Cooper to play really badly and we dubbed it on,” Harrison admitted. “Thought you’d like it!” So, Harrison had an entire recording session with a conga player who he asked to play poorly, just to pull one over on Collins.

If you’re in the mood for another of rock’s greatest pranks. The story of “The Ring” told by Beastie Boys’ Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz shared in “Beastie Boys Story” is another great example of someone going to incredible lengths just for a laugh.

The story revolves around the late Beasties’ rapper Adam “MCA” Yach, his bandmate Horovitz, and a very creepy ring given to him by a fan backstage at a concert.


This article originally appeared on 12.01.21

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

The First Reviews For Ridley Scott’s ‘Napoleon’ Call It ‘Thrilling’ But Also Kind Of A Comedy

Joaquin Phoenix Napoleon
Via Apple TV+

The one born Napoleone di Buonaparte (thanks to being born on the Italian-speaking Corsica) has long bewitched great filmmakers. Charles Chaplin famously wanted to make a film about him. So did Stanley Kubrick, who had to settle for another lavish period epic: Barry Lyndon, arguably his greatest achievement. But Ridley Scott succeeded where they did not, and his latest, on the infamous (though complicated) French emperor, comes out in time for Thanksgiving. What better family movie than one about one of history’s most famous cuckolds!

A week-plus ahead of the release, the review embargo lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of takes. Some were rapturous, some where skeptical. Others, though, including Uproxx’s Mike Ryan, argued that it’s best when read as a very funny comedy.

Let’s break the reviews thus far down. Here are the ones that were enraptured by Scott’s take on arguably the best historical figure in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Journey. Like Peter Bradshaw over at The Guardian:

“Many directors have tried following Napoleon where the paths of glory lead, and maybe it is only defiant defeat that is really glorious. But Ridley Scott – the Wellington of cinema – has created an outrageously enjoyable cavalry charge of a movie, a full-tilt biopic of two and a half hours in which Scott doesn’t allow his troops to get bogged down mid-gallop in the muddy terrain of either fact or metaphysical significance, the tactical issues that have defeated other film-makers.”

Or Nicholas Barber at the BBC, who saw it as yet another example of kickass octagenarians:

Martin Scorsese is 80 and Ridley Scott is nearly 86, but neither director is showing any signs of slowing down. In recent years, in fact, their films have grown longer, more expensive and more ambitious than ever. The latest example is Napoleon, Scott’s 160-minute biopic of the French military commander and ruler, which sweeps through several countries and several decades, and has several thunderous battle scenes along the way. It’s an awe-inspiring achievement, although it may leave you with a greater appreciation of Scott’s leadership skills than of Napoleon’s.

Or Robbie Collin at The Telegraph, who argued that if 85-year-old Scott “has reached the final season of his filmmaking career, Napoleon is the ideal work of wintry grandeur to mark it.” Of star Joaquin Phoenix, Collin said he plays Napoleon with “startling blunt-force charisma,” and whose “sore-thumb manner makes his loopier lines land well.” He also says Rupert Everett as the Duke of Wellington is a “treat.”

Damon Wise, at Deadline, admits that the epic “doesn’t exactly fly by,” but that it is a fascinatingly complex character study:

What takes some getting used to is that the real movie is happening in Bonaparte’s mind; he is inured to the fact that his peers think he is a thug, that he has held the world hostage, that he will fight to achieve peace by any means necessary, and, while doing it, he is dismissive of almost everyone he meets (“It’s such a shame that such a great man should have no manners,” sniffs a British envoy). It’s hard to imagine an actor that could pull this off and make I t so engaging, but Phoenix does, an achievement made especially impressive when you realize that this self-styled master of war sent over 3 million men to their deaths in just 22 years.

The Independent saw it as pure Ridley:

In short, it’s the life of Napoleon as only Scott can tell it, full of verve, spectacle, and machismo. Its battle scenes are thrilling, a throwback to the sort of spectacle no one in Hollywood – save, well, Ridley Scott – is interested in anymore. But it can be equally dispassionate, in a way that duly and accurately captures the man one contemporary described as “a chess master whose opponents happen to be the rest of humanity”.

Now the haters. Less impressed was David Rooney over at The Hollywood Reporter, who said that “even with the near-constant bluster of infantry clashes, stealth attacks, skirmishes and thunderous bloodbaths, Napoleon often feels narratively sludgy, dull and flat.”

Mashable’s Kristy Puchko was also left unimpressed:

If you don’t know the story of Napoleon Bonaparte beyond pop culture standards of his short stature, big ego, and ABBA-recognized surrender at Waterloo, Scott won’t be much help. Napoleon’s script, written by David Scarpa, has a fitful pacing, leaping from highlights and lowlights with the casualness of a history professor chatting snoozily among his peers. Cursive title cards aim to add context with the whos, wheres, and whats, but they do so with a shrug, as if they are helpful reminders instead of introductions.

One pan, though, may have touched on something: Is Scott Napoleon supposed to be funny? That’s what The New York Post’s Johnny Oleksinski was wondering: “Depicting one of the most consequential figures in all of European history as a sourpuss clown who crazily rattles off nonsense is a brow-raising choice by Scott, screenwriter David Scarpa and the always peculiar Phoenix.”

Others wondered if it was funny on purpose. IndieWire’s David Ehrlich said he “wasn’t prepared for the extent to which his latest film utterly humiliates one of history’s most ambitious rulers.”

Jordan Hoffman, over at The Messenger, opens his rave by quoting what appears to be one of the film’s most guffaw-inducing lines: one of the most powerful figures in history whining to an opponent, “You think you are so great because you have BOATS?!?!” Hoffman wonders if we’re not supposed to be taking this film entirely seriously:

In addition to whining about British boats, Napoleon Bonaparte, whilst dining, declares that “destiny has brought me this lamb chop!” He also cuts through screenwriter David Scarpa’s finely tailored dialogue with an occasional “shooshh!” when he’s heard enough, and later makes what are essentially Three Stooges noises when his passions are inflamed by Josephine.

Two years ago, Scott gifted those spending Thanksgiving with their families at the movies with House of Gucci, a not-so-secretly hilarious epic where the most accurate Italian accent went to Jared Leto. Sounds like he’s gifted us again.

Napoleon hits theaters on November 22.

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

Pink Plans To Give Away 2,000 Copies Of Banned Books During Florida Stops Of Her Tour

pink 2023
Getty Image

Through her music and through her platforms, Pink aims to empower. Never one to play by the rules, the “So What’ hitmaker is challenging Florida legislature on a mission to instill knowledge and awareness within fans and their children.

Today (November 14), Pink and free expression organization PEN America, along with Florida bookseller Books & Books announced they will give away 2,000 books that have been banned in Florida schools. These giveaways will take place at Pink’s concerts in Miami and Sunrise, FL tonight and tomorrow, respectively.

“Books have held a special joy for me from the time I was a child, and that’s why I am unwilling to stand by and watch while books are banned by schools,” said Pink in a statement. “It’s especially hateful to see authorities take aim at books about race and racism and against LGBTQ authors and those of color. We have made so many strides toward equality in this country and no one should want to see this progress reversed. This is why I am supporting PEN America in its work and why I agree with them: no more banned books.”

According to the news release, Pink plans to give away copies of “The Family Book,” by Todd Parr, “The Hill We Climb,” by Gorman, “Beloved,” by Toni Morrison, and a book from the movement “Girls Who Code,” founded by Reshma Saujani.

“We are thrilled to be working with Pink on this important cause,” said Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read Program, in a statement. “Every child deserves access to literature that reflects their lives. Rampant censorship is depriving kids of the chance to see themselves in books and learn about the world and its history.”

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

Charles Barkley Says The Clippers Need To Move Someone To The Bench: ‘This Ain’t Brain Surgery’

charles barkley
TNT

The Los Angeles Clippers are 0-5 since trading for James Harden (0-4 with Harden in the lineup), and have had real issues creating good offense despite having four stars sharing the floor.

The challenge in making their new quartet work is at least three of them prefer to operate on the ball (Paul George is at least a willing secondary option) and aren’t particularly adept at moving and working off of others. The result has been a lot of stagnant offense, taking turns on the ball, and never really establishing a rhythm. Harden in particular has struggled and been overly passive, leading to Ty Lue saying they need to play through Harden more, which is likely exactly what he wants but it raises concerns about taking the ball out of Kawhi Leonard and George’s hands more.

On Tuesday night, Charles Barkley and Shaq laid out the issue that everyone seems to understand, which is they have four stars who need the ball to be at their best all on the court together, noting the fix “ain’t brain surgery” and one of them needs to move to the bench.

Barkley is right, and I do love he and Shaq rightfully losing it over Kenny trying to say Westbrook doesn’t need the ball to be effective. Smith does correctly point out other things Russ does to help the team, but pushing the pace only works when he has the ball and he is definitively not a floor-spacing threat. If anything, Harden should be a better off-ball threat given his shooting ability, but his almost confounding refusal to take catch-and-shoot threes regularly has already been a thing in his first few games with the Clippers.

At some point you expect L.A. to make a lineup change, it’s just that they almost have to prove to the stars that someone needs to make that sacrifice. What will be fascinating is who is willing (or told) to do that between Russell Westbrook and James Harden, as it almost has to be one of those two. Westbrook jumps out initially as the one to make that move, but there’s an argument to be made that he already has experience playing with George and Leonard and understands how to work with those two and does provide a few more things on the periphery even if he is not treated as a three-point threat. Harden may be the better player at this moment, but his fit is murkier, as he will slow the pace down, which Leonard already has a propensity to do, and isn’t a particularly active off-ball threat due to his preferred play style, not skill.

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

Mother whose three daughters are CEOs and a doctor shares her one ‘unpopular’ parenting rule

Esther Wojcicki has earned the right to tell people how to raise their kids. She’s an educator, journalist and bestselling author of “How to Raise Successful People” who has raised three daughters—two are CEOs and the other a doctor.

Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube, Anne Wojcicki is the co-founder and CEO of 23andMe and Dr. Janet Wojcicki is an anthropologist and epidemiologist who works on HIV progression and obesity risk in children.

In “How to Raise Successful People” Esther Wojcicki says the secret to success is the result of “TRICK”: trust, respect, independence, collaboration and kindness. In a new article she wrote for NBC Chicago, she boiled that down to one rule, “Don’t do anything for your kids that they can do for themselves.”


“Parents need to stop coddling their kids,” she continues. “The more you trust your children to do things on their own, the more empowered they’ll be. The key is to begin with guided practice: It’s the ‘I do, we do, you do’ method.”

The “I do, we do, you do” method is used by teachers to gradually give students new responsibilities. The teacher first demonstrates the task, then they do it with the student and finally, the student does it alone.

Wojcicki says that parents can start with their children by asking them to make their beds, pick their own outfits and to help with dishes and making dinner. It’s funny that every child is raised by a parent who cooks them meals, but an astonishing number of them grow up having no idea how to boil water. Why? Because nobody bothered to get them involved.

As the old saying goes, “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he’ll eat forever.”

“The idea is to teach them how to cope with what life throws at them,” she writes. “One of the most important lessons I taught my daughters is that the only thing you can control is how you react to things.”

Wojcicki’s rules are a reaction to the modern trend of helicopter parenting, which is “overly focused on their children” where parents “take too much responsibility for their children’s experiences and, specifically, their successes or failures.” This can result in children who grow into adults with lower self-confidence and self-esteem, poor coping skills, increased anxiety and a sense of entitlement.

Simply put, when children are too dependent on their parents, they become ill-equipped to deal with real-world challenges. So when parents think they’re helping their children, they are actually setting them up for failure. Is it any wonder why we live in an age where more and more people suffer from crippling anxiety and depression? The world is a lot scarier when you’re not properly equipped to deal with everyday problems.

“When you trust kids to make their own decisions, they start to feel more engaged, confident and empowered,” Wojcicki writes. “And once that happens, there’s no limit to what they can achieve.”

While, at first, this dramatic change in parenting may seem difficult for parents who have a hard time letting go, it’s an opportunity for them to grow. “What I realized, through a lot of conscious effort, is that parenting gives us perhaps the most profound opportunity to grow as human beings,” she writes in “How to Raise Successful People.”

This article originally appeared on 11.02.22

Categories
News Trending Viral Worldwide

Did Kevin McCarthy Punch A Fellow Republican Lawmaker In The Kidneys? The Ousted House Speaker Claims He Didn’t, But If He Had ‘They Would Know’

Kevin McCarthy
Getty Image

Today’s Republican Party sure is violent. The GOP currently controls the House (by a slim margin), and polls for the 2024 election — a whole year away — slightly favor a return of Donald Trump. Has that made them happier? Hell no. On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders had to break up a fight between Oklahoma senator Markwayne Mullin and Teamsters president Sean O’Brien. The House isn’t doing so hot either. On the same day word of another, older altercation was made public involving recently ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Alas, he’s pleading innocent.

Per Mediaite, McCarthy responded to claims made by Senator Tim Burchett, one of eight Republican representatives who successfully voted to remove him from his gig back in October. Burchett accused McCarthy of shoving him, with a “clean shot to the kidneys,” while he and his security team were walking past him. When Burchett approached him about it, McCarthy told him called him “pathetic.”

“He’s a bully with $17 million and a security detail,” Burchett told reporters. “He’s the type of guy that when you’re a kid would throw a rock over the fence and run home and hide behind his momma’s skirt.”

But McCarthy is denying that he hit him — though if he had (which he didn’t) it would have been wicked nasty.

“I would not hit him in the kidney,” McCarthy said, before laying out his version of the story, in which their shoulders or elbows or both simply hit one another.

McCarthy added, “If I would hit somebody, they would know I hit them.”

So for those keeping score at home, McCarthy didn’t actually hit anybody. But he would and if he did they would stay plastered. Because they guy who got mad that a few Dr. Seuss books were being pulled from release over racist bits is tough.

(Via Mediaite)