April, 2003, LOS ANGELES -- As Halle Berry glided center stage, the tension in the Kodak Theater became electric. The Oscar for Best Actor of the year was now going to be announced. The air was tense with the buzz for Jack Nicholson or Daniel Day Lewis. Both actors had turned in wonderful performances. But I had voted for neither. I voted for the underdog -- Adrian Brody. His was an extraordinary achievement. It is, of course, impossible to measure an actor's performance quantitatively. The success of his work lies in the singular impact that his performance has on his audience. For me, Adrian Brody as Wladyslaw Szpilman in "The Pianist" was the most profoundly moving motion picture experience this year. It was a compellingly soul felt performance. Underdog or not, my vote was for Adrian Brody.
"And the Oscar goes to..." Halle Berry's struggle opening the envelope was torturous. "Adrian Brody!" As a body, the theater gasped, then, broke out in astounded applause. Brody himself seemed momentarily stunned. Then, with a nervous brush of his fingers through his unruly hair, he climbed on stage. Halle Berry waited smiling with his Oscar. In spontaneous exuberance, he embraced the beautiful Ms. Berry bowling her over and planted on her the most celebratory kiss in the history of Academy Award moments. The audience howled in appreciative joy. As he expressed his gratitude to the Academy for the recognition, he at the same time reminded us that his work on "The Pianist" kept him ever mindful of the dehumanization of war. Even in celebration, he rooted his art in the reality of life. The U.S. had invaded Iraq just three days before. Adrian Brody marked this year's Academy Awards, not only with his singular act of joy, but with a graceful, meaningful acceptance speech as well.
As I write this on my laptop in New York City, we are now into the third week of war. The U.S. just took control of Baghdad International Airport and coalition troops are now only miles from the city limits of the capital. The days of the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein now seem numbered. But our coalition's body count and the number of those wounded also continue to climb. Despite the much-vaunted technical precision of our bombing, the pain of civilian casualties continues to mount as well. They are what are called the collateral damages. "Body count," "collateral damage" - those sterile, dehumanized euphemisms of war. Soldier or civilian, each is a human life ended by warfare. This was what Adrian Brody was talking about.
Determined not to see death turned into euphemisms, three days ago, I went down to Ground Zero in downtown Manhattan. I had made my first pilgrimage to the site of the World Trade Center devastation on a cold January day fifteen months ago. I wanted to go once again to pay my respects. The people who died there will never become euphemisms. They are now a part of American history. They will be remembered with a memorial on the site that will be both warmly human and spiritually evocative. A striking plan by the brilliant architect Daniel Libeskind has been selected. The excavated site of the former towers will remain open with a contemplative green sunken garden in its place. The great slurry wall holding back the waters of the Hudson River will remain exposed. Soaring up beside the memorial garden will be a magnificent building towering a symbolic 1776 ft. high into the sky. That is taller than the former World Trade Center structures - the new height symbolic of the beginning of our nation's independence. It is a soaring statement of the triumph of freedom over terrorism. The peak of the building will taper into a spire merging with the heavens.
In that apex of the structure will be a lush, living garden in the sky. There is to be life, both on earth at the foot of the tower as well as at its very pinnacle.
When I first visited the scene of devastation on that January morning, snowflakes were falling. Those white flakes reminded me of the ashes that came down that awful morning of September 11. This time, my visit was in early April. But again, it was cold and gray and a light snow started to fall. Again, it was a chilly reminder of that terrible day. However, the site was now dramatically changed. The debris of the wreckage had been completely cleared away and there was preliminary construction beginning at the far bottom of the excavation. We were moving forward. After intensely spirited competition, an architectural plan had been selected for rebuilding on the site. We were working to build the future. There is a vision to replace the past with something better, something even more dimensioned.
New York celebrates the human spirit, and, for me, the theater does it best with joy, passion and insight. In so many different ways, the plays I have been taking in are just that - a celebration of the human spirit. The British comedy, "The Play What I Wrote," did it with laughter. The award winning British drama, "Vincent in Brixton," did it with love. The big Broadway hit musical, "Hairspray" rejoices with both love and laughter. "Last Sunday in June," an off-Broadway original celebrated the bonds of friendship and community
The Pulitzer Prize nominated new drama, "Take Me Out" celebrates the diversity of life with the metaphor of baseball. The quintessential celebration of the human spirit, however, is the great musical, "Man of La Mancha," now revived on Broadway starring the glorious voice of Brian Stokes Mitchell.
As I sat in the theater enthralled by its stirring anthem, "To Dream the Impossible Dream," I sensed the entire house connect as one and soar with the shining words of the song. How can anyone's spirit not soar to these ideals? How can anyone's soul not glory in its humanity?
To dream the impossible dream And the world will be better for this, |
Some Residents Of Uranus, Missouri Are Not Happy About The Name Of Their New Local Newspaper 😆
There's nothing like a good pun about human anatomy. Really gets the juices flowing!
The Uranus Examiner is coming to this Missouri town. Yes, really. https://t.co/RKy7kDcCFT— The Kansas City Star (@The Kansas City Star) 1536865442.0
Owners of the new Uranus Examiner must have been snickering as they announced the paper's name. Apparently, it's caused quite the controversy in the small town of Uranus, Missouri, over the last few days.
Residents are divided over whether the pun is an embarrassment or perfectly snarky:
“It’s a serious newspaper!” declares the managing editor of the Uranus Examiner. @nypost https://t.co/uig5eYxT2t— Bryan A. Garner (@Bryan A. Garner) 1537038088.0
Folks on the internet responded with maturity and composure after learning about the Uranus Examiner.
Oh, wait. No they didn't.
@qikipedia Uranus Examiner... it's got a nice ring to it 😀.— Roy Elliott (@Roy Elliott) 1537364058.0
I pitched “The Regina Monologues” as the name for my column at the Regina Leader-Post and was unceremoniously turn… https://t.co/aejjXcooWK— Jana G. Pruden (@Jana G. Pruden) 1536938407.0
If we ever colonize Uranus, the hardest part will be picked a newspaper name. "The Uranus Examiner"? Gonna be rough.— Scott Johnson (@Scott Johnson) 1537192690.0
@qikipedia How is it I've lived in Missouri my whole life and never gone through Uranus— Joshua Ryman, Sigma Grindcore Consultant (@Joshua Ryman, Sigma Grindcore Consultant) 1537366074.0
The newspaper name is a source of controversy — “Butt I like it,” the Uranus mayor said. https://t.co/xZWn4qthd1— Kaitlyn Alanis (@Kaitlyn Alanis) 1536865208.0
If you think about it... there might actually be a method to the madness here. The brand new paper's name has received widespread media coverage over this past week. Simply put... everyone's talking about Uranus.
In terms of publicizing their new venture, the owners of the Uranus Examiner have actually done a pretty sweet job!
In the video above, a woman suggests the paper should have been called "The Pulaski County Examiner."
If you ask me, that's TOTALLY BORING, and wouldn't have generated as much interest and publicity for the paper. So while the name might be cringeworthy to some, you can bet Uranus that it'll stick around. Who knows, Uranus might even grow as a result!
H/T: Indy100, The Kansas City Star
Woman Was Fired For Refusing To Wear A Bra At Work—And Now She's Suing
Christina Schell, from Alberta, Canada, stopped wearing bras three years ago citing health reasons.
While Schell did not specify the health reasons, she did state she finds them to be "horrible."
But after her refusal to sign or adhere to a new enforced dress code policy to wear a bra or tank top under her work shirt at a golf course grill where she worked, Schell was promptly fired.
Now, the 25-year-old has filed a human rights violation against the Osoyoos Golf Club, Osoyoos, in British Columbia, Canada.
Schell said:
"I don't think any other human being should be able to dictate another person's undergarments."
When she asked the general manager, Doug Robb, why she had to comply, the manager told her the mandate was for her protection.
Robb allegedly said:
"I know what happens in golf clubs when alcohol's involved."
After losing her job, she brought the case to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and told them the club's dress code was discriminatory because the rule didn't apply towards male employees.
Schell told CBC:
"It's gender-based and that's why it's a human rights issue. I have nipples and so do the men."
David Brown, an employment lawyer in Kelowna, BC, said gender-specific dress codes could be viewed as discriminatory under the BC Human Rights Code.
He stated:
"It's an interesting question as to whether or not an employer can dictate the underwear that women can wear, but they don't say anything about the underwear that men can wear, and does that create an adverse impact on the individual?"
Brown added:
"If this policy is found to be discrimination, the next question is does the employer have a bonafide occupational requirement to essentially impose this on the individual?"
"I'm kind of scratching my head as to what that occupational requirement would be."
@GlobalBC The policy is sexist the peopl supporting it are sexist. Hope she wins her complaint— Lori bell (@Lori bell) 1529692660.0
@Shelby_Thom @WoodfordCHNL @GlobalOkanagan @GlobalBC Then men should have to wear either a tank top or undershirt— caffene fiend (@caffene fiend) 1529624161.0
@SoldByBrock @Shelby_Thom @GlobalOkanagan @GlobalBC What does common courtesy have to do with wearing a bra? Breast… https://t.co/ZVI2xDdpgf— M Shumway (@M Shumway) 1529843759.0
As for the tank top option, due to working under oftentimes extreme heat serving tables outsides, Schell did not want to wear another layer of clothes just because of her gender.
Schell said:
"It was absurd. Why do you get to dictate what's underneath my clothes?"
Employment lawyer Nadia Zaman told CBC that the club can enforce a gender-specific policy as they deem necessary as long as the establishment can prove it is for the occupational safety of its workers.
But the attorney questioned if forcing female employees to wear a bra was applicable in this case.
Zaman stated:
"If they simply require that female employees wear a bra but then they don't have a similar requirement for males, and they can't really justify that … then there is a risk that their policy's going to be deemed to be discriminatory."
Under British Columbia's discrimination law, it is illegal for employers:
'to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'.
@GlobalBC @globalnews Logistically bras or the absence of does not impact health or work performance. That is my v… https://t.co/65cLHBMowf— Louisette Lanteigne (@Louisette Lanteigne) 1529769211.0
McDonald's employee Kate Gosek, 19, agrees with Schell in that the dress code is "unnecessary." She too was harassed by her employers at a McDonald's in Selkirk, Manitoba, over refusing to wear a bra.
"She just told me that I should put on a bra because, McDonald's—we are a polite restaurant and no one needs to see that."
Schell's case sparked plenty of debates on Twitter.
@DunnMan77 @GlobalBC It's just discriminatory, woman shouldn't have to wear bras if they don't want to. As well as… https://t.co/RXhRVWUuNy— Mary Johnson (@Mary Johnson) 1529685276.0
@DunnMan77 @GlobalBC Men do not have to wear underpants if they don't want to. As of right now there are no laws to… https://t.co/l8FuPVybWo— Mary Johnson (@Mary Johnson) 1529686418.0
@GlobalBC Women have the right not to be forced to wear a bra Shaving & makeup also is a choice. If you want to do… https://t.co/Ybkj6PLDnD— Lozan (@Lozan) 1529686156.0
@Lozan72 @GlobalBC I would completely understand her and your argument if we were talking about a potential law to… https://t.co/trRyNAubn4— Chris George (@Chris George) 1529690293.0
@GlobalBC This story frustrates me. There's no dress code equivalent for men? Well if I saw the outline of a male s… https://t.co/5YbAvXKRcO— Molly Max (@Molly Max) 1529705327.0
Schell is not alone in her disdain for bras.
@GlobalBC I personally HATE wearing a #bra absolutely hate it with passion and unashamed to admit it. I HATE BEING… https://t.co/GEi3LtxIDa— Lozan (@Lozan) 1529686305.0
Schell is still waiting to hear from the Human Rights Commission about her claim.
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, CBC