Scottie Pippen has had quite the week or so. Pippen has called out a number of individuals in some form or fashion, from negatively comparing Kevin Durant to LeBron James (and drawing the ire of KD in the process), to seriously critiquing Ben Simmons, to calling out Phil Jackson for allegedly being a racist.
One such person who drew Pippen’s ire was Charles Barkley. Pippen made light of how he can be diminished on Inside the NBA for never winning a ring, then said of Barkley’s reputation for being a tough player, “He only got arrested for throwing some little white guys out of a window. I ain’t never seen him fight a Black man unless there were referees around. He plays his role like he’s tough. I don’t know nobody he done whooped.”
On Friday, Barkley appeared on the Dan Patrick Show to respond to Pippen, and more or less said that the reason he’s saying these sorts of things is he has a book to sell.
Here’s what Charles Barkley had to say in response to the comments made by Scottie Pippen… pic.twitter.com/rO5QdgV9i6
“I’m disappointed in Scottie, because he’s burning every bridge,” Barkley said. “I know he has a book coming out. Listen, Scottie was a very good player, I’ve always liked Scottie, too. I’ve always liked him, I’ve never had a disagreement or an argument with him. But he’s taking shots at me, and I’m just laughing, because I’m like, ‘Yo, man, you do know we’re, like, 60 years old. We don’t have beefs anymore, we’re like 60.’
“I was disappointed he’s taking shots at Michael, Phil Jackson, and myself,” Barkley went on to say. “But I understand he’s got a book coming out. And I just think it’s silly and stupid, to be honest with you. Listen, hey, we know you’ve got a book coming out, stop trying to take shots at big fish, he’s big game hunting. You come after myself, you come after Michael, you come after Phil Jackson, and we know you’ve got a book coming out. But it really just makes you look stupid and silly in the long run, to be honest with you.”
With how things have gone here, we fully expect Pippen to respond sooner rather than later.
This week, portions of the continental United States saw record temperatures that caused deaths, power outages and generally made a lot of people realize climate change is impacting the world much more severely than politicians seem to realize. And to top all that off, now the ocean caught on fire.
Social media lit up with concern and much-deserved hyperbole when video emerged of a fire right in the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently caused by a broken oil pipe near a Pemex oil platform. The result was a literal fire in the middle of the ocean, with crews trying to somehow contain it amid millions upon millions of gallons of water.
The ocean is on fire in the Gulf of Mexico after a pipeline ruptured. Good system.
The first video looks somewhat like it’s all taking place underwater somehow, but it actually is ignited oil on the surface of the water. You know, like Cleveland In 1969-style.
Sobre el incendio registrado en aguas del Golfo de México, en la Sonda de Campeche, a unos metros de la plataforma Ku-Charly (dentro del Activo Integral de Producción Ku Maloob Zaap)
— Manuel Lopez San Martin (@MLopezSanMartin) July 2, 2021
Basically every video of this thing was horrifying.
I know this might sound controversial, but maybe extracting fossil fuels from the seafloor (or anywhere really) is a bad idea pic.twitter.com/J4ur5MNyt1
According to Reuters, though, the fire had been put out by Friday night. Still, feel free to add this to the growing list of ways humanity is quite literally setting the planet on fire in startlingly dramatic, supervillain-like ways. I’m sure it’s all going to be fine.
Men will literally send laundry detergent to their therapists before they will go to therapy.
Quit your squealing, piggies. That sweet, sweet gabagool flavored slop is back with that divorced dad energy you find so attractive. Guest Noel Brown from the Stuff They Don’t Want You To Know, Ridiculous History, and Movie Crush podcasts joins Matt and Vince to talk about The Sopranos season five premiere, “Two Tonys.”
When season 5 starts, Tony and Carm aren’t officially divorced but they are separated enough for Tony to shoot his shot with Dr Melfi, and he’s not exactly Steph Curry. As discussed in the podcast, he’s coming on strong and looking psychologically sweaty. Tony’s undeniable raw magnetism is well-documented on this podcast, but in this episode, his raw animal instincts are on display in the least appealing way imaginable. He’s like a Rottweiler with his lipstick out trying to hump Melfi’s leg as she backs away. That might get a disgusting weirdo like you riled up, but it’s not working for Melfi.
Tony’s not the only animal lurking around, as AJ runs into an actual bear in the backyard. If this were a podcast for nerds, there would likely be some kind of discussion about the symbolism here. “Tony is the bear and the bear is Tony!” the nerds are shouting as Matt, Vince, and Noel agree that AJ sounds like a whiny little baby when he cries for his mommy.
If you want our skin, our mouth, our eyes, tell us in a five star review on Apple Podcasts.
Support the Pod: become a patron at patreon.com/Frotcast and get more bonus content than you could ever want, AND if you sign up for the Pod Yourself a Shoutout tier, you can bask in the glory of hearing your name on the podcast like this week’s newest members: Garfield, Deuce, Annikin Skywalker, & F*ckface.
I Think You Should Leave returns later this month for a second season the Internet’s biggest meme fans have been waiting for since the glorious premiere of the Tim Robinson sketch show in 2019. The announcement of a Season 2 release date came with a medley of some of the show’s greatest hits, and ahead of the long weekend the show’s Twitter account returned with a full version of a Season One classic.
The Turbo Team shared a video of the acoustic version of “Friday Night,” the best song ever sung at a mother’s funeral.
— I think you should leave turbo team (@ITYSL) July 2, 2021
“Friday Night,” of course, is all about the limitless potential of an evening that kicks off the weekend. From the fourth episode of the first season, the sketch features Robinson driving in a car with a bumper sticker that says “honk if you’re horny” on it. Conner O’Malley’s character is more than willing to oblige, setting up one of the weirder sketches of the season that culminated in an equally touching and bizarre burial scene in a cemetery.
We already saw a bit of this last month, as part of a medley of songs from Robinson and Sam Richardson along with musician Phredley Brown. That sequence contained a ton of hits, though the meme-filled show did have too many songs to fit in there: “The Day That Robert Palins Murdered Me” was nowhere to be seen.
Perhaps that will drop before the July 6 return of I Think You Should Leave. But either way, being just a long weekend away from more of the show is welcome news, indeed.
A mother’s experience job hunting with a one-year-old child highlights the reality many parents face and how employers can be part of the solution.
Mother-of-two Maggie Mundwiller, 38, was laid-off six weeks after her one-year-old Mylo was born in the middle of the pandemic. Finding a job over the past year has been hard enough, let alone with a newborn baby.
“A lot of people are not able to pay for the childcare if they’re unemployed even if there is one parent that is employed,” she told WMUR. “You have so many other bills that you have to pay for.”
She recently interviewed for a marketing position at a senior living facility and received a last-minute call from the company to come in for a follow-up. However, her family had prior commitments they couldn’t get out of to watch the baby.
Mundwiller asked the company if they could reschedule the interview because she had no one to look after her child. The company told her not to worry, because it’s child-friendly. “So, I just let them know, OK we’ll be there in a few hours and Mylo will be interview ready,” Mundwiller said.
Ever been to a toddler friendly interview? #companyculture #toddler #fyp #foryourpage #PrimeDayDealsDance #toddler #covidbaby #job #interview #cute
Mudwiller dressed little Mylo up in a dapper suit, gave him his first resume, and cleaned up his stroller so they could make the best impression possible. She hoped to “make a good impression and make light out of a situation that’s a little bit different than what we’re used to,” she said.
The interview went well because she felt she had nothing to hide. “The interview certainly felt more laid back than a traditional one. I could be my authentic self without hiding parts of my personal life,” she told Buzzfeed.
The video of her and Mylo getting prepped for the interview went viral on TikTok earning over nine million views. It even caught the attention of Senator Elizabeth Warren.
“I remember what it was like as a young mom trying to juggle a big new job—standing in the driveway, bouncing my baby on my hip, panic mounting because the babysitter hadn’t come yet,” Warren wrote on Facebook. “That’s why I’m in this fight for quality, affordable child care.”
Mudwiller was completely shocked that her video was seen by the Senator.
In a follow-up video, Mudwiller revealed that she had got the job and that all she and Mylo had to do was make sure they were the right fit for the company.
The mother-of-two is happy that she was able to highlight an issue that so many parents face and to give them a voice. “You can tell that there’s just so many people that relate and there hasn’t been a voice for them, and so I feel like finally there’s a voice for people who are struggling in the same way that I have been,” she said.
Mudwiller’s interview made her realize how important it is for companies to cater to employees with children so she’s working on a website for parents that lets them know which employers are child-friendly.
He also won ESPN’s award for the Best Meme of 2020 for the pouty face he made at Carlos Correa of the Astros after striking him out in a heated contest. After the strikeout, there was a bench-clearing and Kelly was suspended for five games for throwing at two players.
2020 has brought us countless memes, but only one can be the best of the year.
And who better to declare the winne… https://t.co/WwUY6r6gIH
But Kelly isn’t only known for being a larger-than-life personality, he also has a helluva fastball that helped the Dodgers win the 2020 World Series. The Dodgers’ championship earned them a trip to the White House to meet president Joe Biden on Friday.
When Joe Kelly arrived at the White House, he caught a lot of attention on social media for his amazing outfit. He wore a stunning blue mariachi jacket, a white dress shirt, and blue flood pants.
That ain’t Joe Kelly.. that’s José Kelly https://t.co/bRecR8LO30
He was also the only Dodger to pose for a photo with the president wearing a face mask.
Kelly’s audacious outfit was par for the course for a player who’s known for being a cut-up. But it may have been about something more. Kelly’s mother, Andrea Valencia, is Mexican-American and the jacket could have been a nod to his heritage.
Eagle-eyed Dodger fans quickly realized where Kelly got the jacket. On Sunday, the team had a Viva Los Dodgers event celebrating Mexican heritage before their game against the Chicago Cubs.
While Kelly and the rest of the Dodgers were warming up before the game, pitcher Kenley Jansen invited a mariachi band that was to perform the national anthem to come on the field and play for the team.
Mariachi Garibaldi serenaded the Dodgers during pregame workouts on Sunday, and Joe Kelly traded his jersey for a m… https://t.co/qLSX3RDD9s
“We didn’t anticipate being on the field, and being that close to the players, so as soon as we got that chance, I think we were all just shocked, we were just in awe,” said one of the Mariachi Garibaldi band members. “It was amazing.”
Kelly thought that the mariachi outfits were impressive so he offered to trade band member Grover Rodrigo his jersey for his jacket. Later, after the band played the national anthem, the deal was made from the bullpen.
Joe Kelly traded his actual game jersey for this fan’s mariachi jacket
“Really glad he kept his word,” said Rodrigo. “A little bit of me had a little bit of doubt, but I’m so glad it happened. I hope he treasures his jacket as much as I treasure his jersey.”
Rodrigo had to be super excited to see his old jacket show up at the White House.
Kelly may have caused a stir at the White House but the drama-free departure from the previous administration. During the Trump years, White House visits from professional athletes became cultural flashpoints that often led to public conflicts between the president and the athletes.
But this time, it was all about baseball and its power to bring people together during the pandemic.
“When we go through a crisis, very often, sports brings us together to heal. To help us feel like things are going to be okay. Are going to get better,” Biden said. “For a few hours each day, feeling, sensing, and experiencing something familiar. Something normal. Something that’s fun in the middle of the chaos.”
U.S. Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana sent a letter to fellow Republicans on June 24, 2021, stating: “As Republicans, we reject the racial essentialism that critical race theory teaches … that our institutions are racist and need to be destroyed from the ground up.”
Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor and central figure in the development of critical race theory, said in a recent interview that critical race theory “just says, let’s pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. … Critical Race Theory … is more patriotic than those who are opposed to it because … we believe in the promises of equality. And we know we can’t get there if we can’t confront and talk honestly about inequality.”
Rep. Banks’ account is demonstrably false and typical of many people publicly declaring their opposition to critical race theory. Crenshaw’s characterization, while true, does not detail its main features. So what is critical race theory and what brought it into existence?
The development of critical race theory by legal scholars such as Derrick Belland Crenshaw was largely a response to the slow legal progress and setbacks faced by African Americans from the end of the Civil War, in 1865, through the end of the civil rights era, in 1968. To understand critical race theory, you need to first understand the history of African American rights in the U.S.
The history
After 304 years of enslavement, then-former slaves gained equal protection under the law with passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, guaranteed voting rights for men regardless of race or “previous condition of servitude.”
This early progress was subsequently diminished by state laws throughout the American South called ” Black Codes,” which limited voting rights, property rights and compensation for work; made it illegal to be unemployed or not have documented proof of employment; and could subject prisoners to work without pay on behalf of the state. These legal rollbacks were worsened by the spread of “Jim Crow” laws throughout the country requiring segregation in almost all aspects of life.
Grassroots struggles for civil rights were constant in post-Civil War America. Some historians even refer to the period from the New Deal Era, which began in 1933, to the present as ” The Long Civil Rights Movement.”
The period stretching from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which found school segregation to be unconstitutional, to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing, was especially productive.
The civil rights movement used practices such as civil disobedience, nonviolent protest, grassroots organizing and legal challenges to advance civil rights. The U.S.’s need to improve its image abroad during the Cold War importantly aided these advancements. The movement succeeded in banning explicit legal discrimination and segregation, promoted equal access to work and housing and extended federal protection of voting rights.
However, the movement that produced legal advances had no effect on the increasing racial wealth gap between Blacks and whites, while school and housing segregation persisted.
Carde Cornish takes his son past blighted buildings in Baltimore. ‘Our race issues aren’t necessarily toward individuals who are white, but it is towards the system that keeps us all down, one, but keeps Black people disproportionally down a lot more than anybody else,’ he said. AP Photo/Matt Rourke
Through the study of law and U.S. history, it attempts to reveal how racial oppression shaped the legal fabric of the U.S. Critical race theory is traditionally less concerned with how racism manifests itself in interactions with individuals and more concerned with how racism has been, and is, codified into the law.
There are a few beliefs commonly held by most critical race theorists.
First, race is not fundamentally or essentially a matter of biology, but rather a social construct. While physical features and geographic origin play a part in making up what we think of as race, societies will often make up the rest of what we think of as race. For instance, 19th- and early-20th-century scientists and politicians frequently described people of color as intellectually or morally inferior, and used those false descriptions to justify oppression and discrimination.
Creator Of Term ‘Critical Race Theory’ Kimberlé Crenshaw Explains What It Really Is
Second, these racial views have been codified into the nation’s foundational documents and legal system. For evidence of that, look no further than the ” Three-Fifths Compromise” in the Constitution, whereby slaves, denied the right to vote, were nonetheless treated as part of the population for increasing congressional representation of slave-holding states.
Third, given the pervasiveness of racism in our legal system and institutions, racism is not aberrant, but a normal part of life.
Fourth, multiple elements, such as race and gender, can lead to kinds of compounded discrimination that lack the civil rights protections given to individual, protected categories. For example, Crenshaw has forcibly argued that there is a lack of legal protection for Black women as a category. The courts have treated Black women as Black, or women, but not both in discrimination cases – despite the fact that they may have experienced discrimination because they were both.
These beliefs are shared by scholars in a variety of fields who explore the role of racism in areas such as education, health care and history.
Finally, critical race theorists are interested not just in studying the law and systems of racism, but in changing them for the better.
DeSantis lashes out at ‘critical race theory’ in push to overhaul Florida’s civics curriculum
“Critical race theory” has become a catch-all phrase among legislators attempting to ban a wide array of teaching practices concerning race. State legislators in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia have introduced legislation banning what they believe to be critical race theory from schools.
But what is being banned in education, and what many media outlets and legislators are calling “critical race theory,” is far from it. Here are sections from identical legislation in Oklahoma and Tennessee that propose to ban the teaching of these concepts. As a philosopher of race and racism, I can safely say that critical race theory does not assert the following:
(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex;
(4) An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex;
(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.
What most of these bills go on to do is limit the presentation of educational materials that suggest that Americans do not live in a meritocracy, that foundational elements of U.S. laws are racist, and that racism is a perpetual struggle from which America has not escaped.
Americans are used to viewing their history through a triumphalist lens, where we overcome hardships, defeat our British oppressors and create a country where all are free with equal access to opportunities.
Obviously, not all of that is true.
Critical race theory provides techniques to analyze U.S. history and legal institutions by acknowledging that racial problems do not go away when we leave them unaddressed.
David Miguel Gray is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Affiliate, Institute for Intelligent Systems at the University of Memphis.
This article first appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.
Exactly 300 years ago, in 1721, Benjamin Franklin and his fellow American colonists faced a deadly smallpox outbreak. Their varying responses constitute an eerily prescient object lesson for today’s world, similarly devastated by a virus and divided over vaccination three centuries later.
As a microbiologist and a Franklin scholar, we see some parallels between then and now that could help governments, journalists and the rest of us cope with the coronavirus pandemic and future threats.
Smallpox strikes Boston
Smallpox was nothing new in 1721. Known to have affected people for at least 3,000 years, it ran rampant in Boston, eventually striking more than half the city’s population. The virus killed about 1 in 13 residents – but the death toll was probably more, since the lack of sophisticated epidemiology made it impossible to identify the cause of all deaths.
What was new, at least to Boston, was a simple procedure that could protect people from the disease. It was known as “variolation” or “inoculation,” and involved deliberately exposing someone to the smallpox “matter” from a victim’s scabs or pus, injecting the material into the skin using a needle. This approach typically caused a mild disease and induced a state of “immunity” against smallpox.
Even today, the exact mechanism is poorly understood and not much research on variolation has been done. Inoculation through the skin seems to activate an immune response that leads to milder symptoms and less transmission, possibly because of the route of infection and the lower dose. Since it relies on activating the immune response with live smallpox variola virus, inoculation is different from the modern vaccination that eradicated smallpox using the much less harmful but related vaccinia virus.
The inoculation treatment, which originated in Asia and Africa, came to be known in Boston thanks to a man named Onesimus. By 1721, Onesimus was enslaved, owned by the most influential man in all of Boston, the Rev. Cotton Mather.
Known primarily as a Congregational minister, Mather was also a scientist with a special interest in biology. He paid attention when Onesimus told him “he had undergone an operation, which had given him something of the smallpox and would forever preserve him from it; adding that it was often used” in West Africa, where he was from.
Inspired by this information from Onesimus, Mather teamed up with a Boston physician, Zabdiel Boylston, to conduct a scientific study of inoculation’s effectiveness worthy of 21st-century praise. They found that of the approximately 300 people Boylston had inoculated, 2% had died, compared with almost 15% of those who contracted smallpox from nature.
The findings seemed clear: Inoculation could help in the fight against smallpox. Science won out in this clergyman’s mind. But others were not convinced.
Stirring up controversy
A local newspaper editor named James Franklin had his own affliction – namely an insatiable hunger for controversy. Franklin, who was no fan of Mather, set about attacking inoculation in his newspaper, The New-England Courant.
One article from August 1721 tried to guilt readers into resisting inoculation. If someone gets inoculated and then spreads the disease to someone else, who in turn dies of it, the article asked, “at whose hands shall their Blood be required?” The same article went on to say that “Epidemeal Distempers” such as smallpox come “as Judgments from an angry and displeased God.”
In contrast to Mather and Boylston’s research, the Courant’s articles were designed not to discover, but to sow doubt and distrust. The argument that inoculation might help to spread the disease posits something that was theoretically possible – at least if simple precautions were not taken – but it seems beside the point. If inoculation worked, wouldn’t it be worth this small risk, especially since widespread inoculations would dramatically decrease the likelihood that one person would infect another?
Franklin, the Courant’s editor, had a kid brother apprenticed to him at the time – a teenager by the name of Benjamin.
Historians don’t know which side the younger Franklin took in 1721 – or whether he took a side at all – but his subsequent approach to inoculation years later has lessons for the world’s current encounter with a deadly virus and a divided response to a vaccine.
That he was capable of overcoming this inclination shows Benjamin Franklin’s capacity for independent thought, an asset that would serve him well throughout his life as a writer, scientist and statesman. While sticking with social expectations confers certain advantages in certain settings, being able to shake off these norms when they are dangerous is also valuable. We believe the most successful people are the ones who, like Franklin, have the intellectual flexibility to choose between adherence and independence.
Perhaps the inoculation controversy of 1721 had helped him to understand an unfortunate phenomenon that continues to plague the U.S. in 2021: When people take sides, progress suffers. Tribes, whether long-standing or newly formed around an issue, can devote their energies to demonizing the other side and rallying their own. Instead of attacking the problem, they attack each other.
Franklin, in fact, became convinced that inoculation was a sound approach to preventing smallpox. Years later he intended to have his son Francis inoculated after recovering from a case of diarrhea. But before inoculation took place, the 4-year-old boy contracted smallpox and died in 1736. Citing a rumor that Francis had died because of inoculation and noting that such a rumor might deter parents from exposing their children to this procedure, Franklin made a point of setting the record straight, explaining that the child had “receiv’d the Distemper in the common Way of Infection.”
Writing his autobiography in 1771, Franklin reflected on the tragedy and used it to advocate for inoculation. He explained that he “regretted bitterly and still regret” not inoculating the boy, adding, “This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.”
A scientific perspective
A final lesson from 1721 has to do with the importance of a truly scientific perspective, one that embraces science, facts and objectivity.
Inoculation was a relatively new procedure for Bostonians in 1721, and this lifesaving method was not without deadly risks. To address this paradox, several physicians meticulously collected data and compared the number of those who died because of natural smallpox with deaths after smallpox inoculation. Boylston essentially carried out what today’s researchers would call a clinical study on the efficacy of inoculation. Knowing he needed to demonstrate the usefulness of inoculation in a diverse population, he reported in a short book how he inoculated nearly 300 individuals and carefully noted their symptoms and conditions over days and weeks.
The recent emergency-use authorization of mRNA-based and viral-vector vaccines for COVID-19 has produced a vast array of hoaxes, false claims and conspiracy theories, especially in various social media. Like 18th-century inoculations, these vaccines represent new scientific approaches to vaccination, but ones that are based on decades of scientific research and clinical studies.
We suspect that if he were alive today, Benjamin Franklin would want his example to guide modern scientists, politicians, journalists and everyone else making personal health decisions. Like Mather and Boylston, Franklin was a scientist with a respect for evidence and ultimately for truth.
When it comes to a deadly virus and a divided response to a preventive treatment, Franklin was clear what he would do. It doesn’t take a visionary like Franklin to accept the evidence of medical science today.
Mark Canada is Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Indiana University Kokomo.
Christian Chauret is Dean of School of Sciences, Professor of Microbiology at Indiana University Kokomo.
This article first appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.
The sports world is abuzz in reaction to Sha’Carri Richardson getting banned from running the 100 meters at the Summer Olympics. Richardson tested positive for marijuana recently, meaning she accepted a one-month suspension from the United States Anti-Doping Agency and saw her recent result in the race, in which she ran a 10.86 en route to establishing herself as a gold medal contender in Tokyo, disqualified.
Richardson can still run the 4×100 at the Olympics, but it’s an overly harsh penalty and one that comes, as she explained on Today, after she used marijuana as a way to cope with the recent passing of her mother. Only 21, Richardson has the silver lining of youth, and it is very possible this won’t be the only time she’s a gold medal threat.
In the aftermath of this, plenty of folks — including a number of professional athletes — have been in Richardson’s corner. One person who decided to fire off a take is Emmanuel Acho, the former NFL linebacker who is now a Fox Sports personality. Please look at this tweet:
Legalizing weed in track and field competition is all good if you’re running in a straight line.
Legalizing weed in track and field competition is terribly dangerous if you throw the javelin.
What this appears to imply is that if we let javelin participants smoke marijuana, they’d take them in their hands and then throw them and impale people, making some type of human kebab. It seems to be something out of a really weird cartoon and not, you know, real.
As you can guess, the Twitterverse saw this and was totally baffled as to whatever Acho was going for.
emmanuel, agree. you’ve got so many people on the ropes with this epic point. marijuana-crazed javelin throwers are a real problem in this country. you never know what can happen when that reefer madness pokes your frontal lobe. stay speaking #truth!
— charles (crying online) mcdonald (@FourVerts) July 2, 2021
I don’t think the athletes will be doing bong rips as they warm up for the throw…. This is silly.
— mayor of hydrated summer chris long (@JOEL9ONE) July 2, 2021
I am not an expert but I am inclined to believe that a person who is baked out of their mind would not be allowed to throw the javelin, and if so, people would probably not stand in such a place that they could get their lives ruined. Having said this, I have been wrong before, so who knows?
Seinfeld, a show about nothing, now officially has the slap bass-fueled soundtrack its fans have always desired. Variety reported Thursday that the legendary sitcom would get an official soundtrack, 23 years after it left primetime for an endless loop of syndication and streaming binges.
The show’s popularity in the two decades since its last episode has only grown as new generations experienced its eccentricities. Which perhaps is why more Seinfeld content like this has emerged in recent years. And, quite frankly, no one seems to know why it’s taken so long for the show to get an official soundtrack anyway.
“It was 30 years in the making,” says “Seinfeld” composer Jonathan Wolff, with a laugh, about the new release. He confesses he doesn’t know why there wasn’t a “Seinfeld” soundtrack while the series was on NBC between 1989 and 1998.
“It struggled for the first few seasons,” he points out. “We were an accidental hit. We were busy getting episodes out, and nobody was thinking about the music. And that’s OK.” The series was among TV’s most popular shows for its last five seasons.
The good news for longtime fans of the Jerry Seinfeld vehicle is that all your favorites are there. The mouth popping, slap bass and synthesizer that would highlight the show’s transitions and credit sequences are at full power on the Jonathan Wolff-led official TV soundtrack. And with 180 episodes to pluck songs from, there’s a surprising range to the offerings and even some never-aired stuff in the mix.
The range of styles is surprisingly broad: hip-hop for “Kramer’s Pimpwalk,” happy whistling and guitars for “Jerry the Mailman,” a “Mission: Impossible” vibe for “Jerry vs. Newman Chase,” suspense-thriller scoring for “Cable Guy vs. Kramer Chase,” ’90s rock for “Kramer’s Boombox,” Eastern mysticism for “Peterman in Burmese Jungle,” and vintage guitar-and-harmonica blues for “Waiting for the Verdict” from the series finale.
A highlight turns out to be music that was intended for, but never heard in, the show. When Elaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) dates a saxophone player in a seventh-season episode, the original script called for several scenes in a jazz club where he was playing.
And, indeed, the show’s theme song and other tracks did hit Spotify and elsewhere on Friday. So if you need your fill of mouth-popping sounds on this July 4 holiday weekend, boy is it going to be lots of fun for 32 tracks or so.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Sobre el incendio registrado en aguas del Golfo de México, en la Sonda de Campeche, a unos metros de la plataforma Ku-Charly (dentro del Activo Integral de Producción Ku Maloob Zaap)
