The Guessing Game

Update: Nope. People goes with the Brangelina Breakup for the second week in a row. Poor Kim is downgraded to the corner (and a not-very-flattering picture.)

Issue dated October 17, 2016: Brangelina Divorce


Original post:
Will the Kim Kardashian robbery be the main cover story this week? Probably.

Huh?

Afternoon update: Twitter, as you might imagine, has some thoughts about this event. I'm going to post some of the interesting comments.

Not sure which is sadder re #Kardashian 1)Level of distrust as to it's PR stunt or not 2) all the haters hating her

— Conor Cunneen (@IrishmanSpeaks) October 3, 2016

I'll just leave this here... #Kardashian #robbery https://t.co/4LsCCfK8lN

— PJ Coogan (@pjcoogan) October 3, 2016

Am I the only one taking the #Kardashian robbery story with a grain of salt?

— Rob Schmitt (@SchmittNYC) October 3, 2016

Mid-morning update: OK, I may be obsessing about something that has absolutely nothing to do with me, but really. How, exactly, did Kim Kardashian get herself unbound and unhandcuffed?

Original post:
Am I a terrible person if I say that the "Kim K was robbed" story sounds strange to me?  Here's how People.com is reporting it, at 9.00 Monday morning:

Five men in ski masks and police jackets were involved in the robbery about 3 a.m. local time Monday, Reuters reports.

Two men entered her room at No Address Hotel, bound Kardashian's hands and feet with tape then locked her in the bathroom before stealing a jewelry box worth $6.7 million in jewelry and a ring worth $4 million, police sources told La Parisien.

Her purse, two cell phones and 1,000 euros were also taken, police sources tell BFM TV. 

Kardashian was gagged and bound at her hands and feet, then handcuffed and held at gunpoint, according to E! News. After the men left with "all her jewelry," Kardashian "broke out of her bindings and got out."

"She begged for them to let her live and [said] she has babies at home. Then they wrapped her mouth in tape and put her in the bathtub," a source told E!. "She thought they were for sure going to kill her." 

The men were able to gain access to Kardashian's private apartment after five men threatened the apartment building's concierge with a weapon, handcuffed him and forced him to open the private apartment, says The French Interior Ministry, according to CNN. Two of the men were able to gain entry and a gun was held to her head, according to the Paris prosecutor's office. Read the entire story here. 

This may just be a problem with the way the story is reported and written but I'm scratching my head. She was gagged, bound at her hands and feet, handcuffed and lying in the bathtub. At some point in all this she begged for her life, and at some point she had a gun pointed at her head. While she was lying in the bathtub? Before they gagged her? 

Then, after the bad guys left her hotel room (and how, exactly did they gain entrance to a major celebrity's room anyway?) she "broke out of her bindings and got out." Really? She somehow unbound her hands and feet and magically got out of the handcuffs? Really? 

Really? 

The only thing I've read about this situation is the story I pasted above. I'm sure there will be a tsunami of information coming out throughout the day and the details of what happened will be sorted out. For now, call me cynical but the story just doesn't make sense. 

The Math

For some reason I felt like writing about numbers this afternoon. Donald J. Trump likes to brag that he got more votes during the Republican primary than any of his opponents, and in fact, he's been known to say he got more primary votes than any Republican ever. Maybe. It is true that he got the most primary votes this time around, but remember, he had, at one point, 16 opponents. If you add up all of their votes, more Republican primary voters voted against The Donald than for him:

Donald's votes: 14,095,993
The other candidates' votes: 17,023,694

The total number of votes cast is 31,119,687, of which Trump got approximately 45%. The other number to keep in mind is 60,933,500. That's the number of votes Mitt Romney got in the 2012 general election, and he still lost.

By-the-way, do you remember all of the distinguished statesmen/women who ran in the Republican primary? It was all kind of fuzzy in my head, e.g., did Gingrich run this time around or was that in 2012? (Gingrich ran in 2012.) Was it Ron Paul or Rand Paul? (Ron in 2012, Rand in 2016.) Santorum and Perry? (Both in both.)

Anyway, here's my blast-from-the-not-so-distant-past list of the 2016 GOP primary candidates:

Declared (and still in the race) GOP Candidates

1. Donald Trump (June 16)

Officially Not Running
Rob Portman (Dec 2, 2014)
Paul Ryan (Jan 12, 2015)
Mitt Romney (Jan 30, 2015)
Rick Snyder (May 7, 2015)
John Bolton (May 14, 2015) 

Mike Pence (May 20, 2015) 

Bob Ehrlich (August 4, 2015)

You're Fired!: Candidates Who Have Dropped Out
Rick Perry (June 4 - Sept. 11)
Scott Walker (July 13 - Sept. 21)
Bobby Jindal (June 24 - November 17)
Lindsey Graham (June 1 - December 21)
George Pataki (May 28 - December 29)
Mike Huckabee (May 5 - Feb 2)
Rand Paul (April 17 - Feb 3)
Rick Santorum (May 27 - Feb 3)
Carly Fiorina (May 4 - Feb 10)
Chris Christie (June 20 - Feb 10)
Jim Gilmore (July 30 - Feb 14) 
Jeb Bush (June 15 - Feb 20)
Dr. Ben Carson (May 3 - March 4)
Marco Rubio (April 14 - March 15)
Ted Cruz (March 23 2015 - May 3 2016)
John Kasich (July 21 2015 - May 4, 2016)

Days until Election Day: 36

A Blast From The Past!

Suggestion for #TheBachelor producers: in honor of 20th season, put some early seasons online.  Would be so fun to watch. #Nostalgia

— Kimberly Hanes (@WritingTheWorld) January 28, 2016

On January 27 I sent out this tweet and guess what? It worked! ABC has put season 1 of The Bachelor, starring Alex Michel, and season 1 of The Bachelorette, featuring Trista Rehn (now Sutter,) on their website where you can watch for free. I'm going to check them out this week-end and I'll let you know how it goes.

I Am An American Citizen And I'm Going To Vote

This is heartbreaking (and infuriating):

This Day In History, 1960: 1st Kennedy-Nixon Debate

First Kennedy-Nixon debate was exactly 56 years to the day before Trump-Clinton on Monday:    #Getty pic.twitter.com/QGyu9ld5xd

— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) September 24, 2016

Bachelor Nick, With Beard

Sneak peek!!! #TheBachelor pic.twitter.com/rN9twkReqK

— Mike Fleiss (@fleissmeister) September 25, 2016

Another tweet from Mike Fleiss, showing Nick as the Bachelor during last night's filming. I kinda figured he'd shave off his beard, but apparently not.

Ducking The Duck

If it looks like a Duck. Moves like a Duck. Must be a Duck. #GoDucks pic.twitter.com/iKz5cOUdfF

— GoDucks (@GoDucks) September 22, 2016

How cool is this? For today's game, the Ducks' uniforms pay tribute to the actual Duck.

#QuackAttack

Never Mind

"Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and goes 'Dude, what's your problem?'"
--Ted Cruz, 143 days ago. Watch the full statement here:



Apparently Cruz was just kidding because word on the street is that he's going to endorse Donald Trump as soon as this afternoon. This is why people hate politicians.

And Now It Starts

Update #2: from Ashley I's Instagram. Looks like it's tonight.

The last time I got to hangout with my good friend @nickviall before they whisked him away on his Bachelor journey. He meets the girls for the first time tonight and I already miss him! I hope he finds someone with as good of a heart as he has.

A photo posted by Ashley Iaconetti (@ashley_iaconetti) on Sep 24, 2016 at 1:56pm PDT

Saturday afternoon update: Mike Fleiss must have been teasing with his tweet on Thursday, because he just sent out this, which sounds like first-night filming is tonight:

Gassing up the limos, chilling the champagne!!! #TheBachelor

— Mike Fleiss (@fleissmeister) September 24, 2016

 Original post:

Heading to the mansion! Almost limo time!!! #TheBachelor

— Mike Fleiss (@fleissmeister) September 22, 2016

Based on Bach Guru Mike Fleiss's tweet, which was sent out yesterday, filming for Nick Viall's Bach season is now underway, and based on past seasons, should finish up with the final rose ceremony just before Thanksgiving. Per this tweet from our host Chris Harrison, the actual show premieres on January 2, the first Monday in January.

Always 1st Monday in January! RT @HireACoach: @chrisbharrison When is The Bachelor back on?...

— Chris Harrison (@chrisbharrison) September 20, 2016

This will be the 21st season of The Bachelor, and Nick is the 20th distinguished gentleman to have the title (Brad Womack scored twice.) Can you name all the previous Bachelors? Blog readers know I like lists and doesn't this one bring back memories:

1. Alex Michel
2. Aaron Buerge
3. Andrew Firestone
4. Bob Guiney
5. Jesse Palmer
6. Byron Velvick
7. Charlie O'Connell
8. Travis Stork
9. Lorenzo Borghese
10. Andrew Baldwin
11. Brad Womack (the first time around)
12. Matt Grant
13. Jason Mesnick
14. Jake Pavelka
15. Brad Womack (second try) 
16. Ben Flajnik
17. Sean Lowe
18. Juan Pablo Galavais
19. Chris Soules 
20. Ben Higgins
21. Nick Viall

This Day In History, 1999: The West Wing Debuts

photo credit: denofgeek.com

My favorite show of all time, The West Wing, debuted 17 years ago on September 22, 1999. TV Guide declared the show a "Fall Preview Favorite:"

The ultimate workplace series, expertly melding comedy and drama in an intoxicating and sophisticated rush of sharp writing and canny acting. The show deservedly has taken heat for not casting minorities among the president's staff and Sports Night fans will recognize Sorkin's tendency toward speechifying, but this is solid, slick, irresistible entertainment. Even those with C-SPAN phobia might get hooked. 

Confession: I wasn't watching. For some reason the show just didn't interest me during its first season. In the summer of 2000, however, promos for the season 2 opener showed the aftermath of an assassination attempt and that caught my attention. The first episode of season 2, "In The Shadow Of Two Gunman," a two-hour special shown on October 4 2000, was the first episode I watched and from that night I was hooked.

I watched religiously when the show was on, right up to the finale (episode 154,) titled "Tomorrow," which aired on May 14, 2006. I bought seasons 1 and 2 on DVD as soon as they came out, and then one day at Costco I splurged and bought the 45-disc Complete Series. Every year in September, when the new shows debut, I hope there will be something that engages my mind and heart the way The West Wing did. I DVR'ed Designated Survivor, which premiered last night, and I'm planning to watch Timeless, which starts in a couple of weeks. Will be be talking about either of those shows in 17 years? Probably not but a girl can hope.

And speaking of talking about The West Wing, I'm not the only "Wingnut" out there. Actor Joshua Malina, who replaced Rob Lowe in season 3, and his friend Hrishikesh Hirway have started a podcast called The West Wing Weekly, in which they're discussing their way through all seven seasons. Needless to say, I'm a fan. Check it out here.


phote credit: theodysseyonline,com

Stop The Presses

October 1 update: I've now read the actual article in the Oct. 10 "Why She Left" issue and what I originally wrote in this post was right - People didn't have "The Real Story." The article was pretty generic, actually, and the magazine rushed itself into print before the 2nd bombshell exploded, which is that there was an altercation on a private plane and Brad is being investigated by Child Services and the FBI. As I write this, there's news that Brad and Angie have reached some kind of temporary custody agreement.

Original post:
When I wrote my previous post, about the Brangelina divorce being the People cover story this week, I had a brief moment of wondering if People could really get the story written and published by Wednesday morning. I figured they'd go for it, stopping the presses and scrambling like mad to get the info out there in print as soon as possible.

I was wrong about that. The cover that posted online Wednesday morning was clearly the original "pre-bombshell" version, with no reference at all to the big news:

Issue dated October 3, 2016: Michael Strahan


According to The Cut, at New York magazine, the timing is not coincidental but a carefully executed media strategy by Angelina:

By filing for divorce on a Monday, Angie left [Brad] with few avenues to make his case to the public: The major tabloids — People, Us Weekly, OK! — all go to press Monday night. The New York Post reports that none of the tabloids have Brangelina stories for this week; they won’t be able to “exploit the explosive and popular news story until Sept. 28, when next week’s issues start to hit newsstands.” As Lainey Lui at Lainey Gossip explains, “This was all was part of [Angelina’s] plan, as always, to control the media, to get her piece out there first, so that she can come strong in negotiations. If he gives her sole physical custody of the kids, she’ll shut it down, and all this can just be ‘gossip.’” Read the article here. 

(Apparently the tabloids, including People, actually finalize each issue on Monday night.)

People wasn't playing by Angie's rules, however, and they did scramble like mad to get next week's issue out six days early:

Issue dated October 10, 2016: Brangelina Divorce


They didn't really have THE REAL STORY, however, because this cover was clearly finalized before this morning's bombshell went public, which is that Brad Pitt is being investigated for child abuse. (Read that story here.)

Final thoughts, at least for now:

What's next for Brad and Angie? No way to know, but a short announcement that Brad has checked himself into rehab for substance abuse wouldn't surprise me.

George and Amal Clooney get a topline story on the Michael Strahan cover, in honor of their second anniversary, just a few weeks after Brad and Angie's. At the time of the two big weddings in 2014, I would have said that Brangelina had a better shot at going the distance, but so far George and Amal appear to be doing just fine.

Finally, Michael Strahan. Is he annoyed that his big moment in the spotlight got swallowed up by the Brangelina divorce story? Probably.

Irreconcilable Differences

Is there any question what the cover story on tomorrow's new People magazine will be? Just kidding, but if you've been under a rock since mid-morning central time, here's a hint. These stories are all currently posted at people.com:

• Brad Pitt Breaks Silence on Divorce from Angelina Jolie: "What Matters Most Now Is the Well-Being of Our Kids"
• Inside Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's Final Months Together
• Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's Most Memorable Red Carpet Moments
• Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt Divorce: Couple Separated Just 5 Days Ago, Court Filing Says
• Brad Pitt Fled to France Amid Fight with Angelina Jolie This Year, Source Says
• A Look Back at Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie's Best Collaborations
• The Way They Were: Brad and Angelina Jolie Pitt's Most PDA-Filled Moments

And most intriguingly, this:

• Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's Split Has Nothing to Do with His Allied Costar Marion Cotillard, Source Says 

If you change "Angelina Jolie" to Jennifer Aniston, "Allied" to Mr & Mrs Smith, and "Marion Cotillard" to Angelina Jolie, you will have time-warped right back to 2005, when Pitt and Aniston announced they were separating and wanted everyone to believe it had nothing to do with Angelina. (Allied is a movie coming out in November, starring Pitt and Cotillard.)

I admit, in common with many other people, I was shocked by this. As a blogger who writes about celebrities and keeps an arch eye on pop culture, I know that from Brangelina to the Bachelor to the Real Housewives of New Jersey, we don't really know anything about what's really going on in the lives of famous people, but still. I thought Brad and Angie would go the distance. They appeared, at least, to be in sync with each other and committed to raising their family of six kids. To be fair, that may have been the case for most of the time from 2005 until 5 days ago, or whenever it was that things fell apart.

So now it starts. The tabloids and other media have already initiated their Celebrity Divorce 101 protocols and this story will be competing with the New York/New Jersey bombings and the presidential election for airtime and pixel space for the next few days at least. I haven't seen a specific quote from Pitt or Jolie asking for "privacy at this difficult time," but I'm sure one's out there. Jennifer Aniston hasn't been heard from either but she would hardly be human if she isn't feeling just a teensy weensy bit of schadenfreude. Read my past musing about Brangelina here, here and here.   

Finally, is there anything else going on in the world? Well, yes. Apparently former president George H.W. Bush is giving serious thought to voting for Hillary. 

"My Conscience Is Clean"

From Dan Rather's Facebook page, dated September 16, and for the record, I agree:

Donald Trump’s disdain, mockery, and antagonism of the press, whose freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and whose presence has provided ballast to our democracy since its inception, raises very serious questions about his fitness for the presidency of the United States.

For a long while, these thoughts have been coursing through my veins with concern and disbelief, and yet my abiding loyalty to the notion of fair, accurate and unbiased journalism held me in check from saying it out loud – much as I suspect it has muzzled the true feelings of many of my colleagues. But we must remember that Donald Trump knows this and cynically plays the press corps’ deep desire for fairness to his undeserved benefit. The latest, barring the traveling press from covering an event and using them as ridicule in a speech, are but the most recent chapters in a novel full of outrageous acts. And this sentiment apparently extends to members of his own family as witnessed by his daughter Ivanka’s actions in an interview with Cosmo.

I am well aware that I will be met with bile and venom for saying this, called a communist, a liberal in bed with Hillary Clinton, a washed-up joke. To quote Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Let others attack my motives. My conscience is clean. This is not about partisan politics, about who is right on immigration or gun control. This is about the very machinery that has allowed our American experiment to persist and thrive, a machinery which is far more fragile than we would like to believe.

Trump’s relationship with the press is at the heart of so much that is troubling about his candidacy - the secrecy, the lack of transparency on something as normal as tax returns, the flaunting of the very rules by which we elect our leaders, the appeasement of hate groups. And his embrace of Roger Ailes and Breitbart, institutions who have polluted press freedoms, is a further dangerous sign of decay.

And yet when presented with this challenge, too much of the press has been cowed into inaction. This is a man who can be fact-checked into obscurity by any second grader with an Internet connection. And yet when he issues a mealy-mouth non-apology about President Obama’s obvious pedigree as an American, here we are with too many in the press not acknowledging his years of lies (check your Twitter feeds about how the New York Times initially covered this event). All of this of course sets the stage for Trump to lie again about somehow birtherism being Clinton’s fault.

I fear that this mindset will infect the debates. Trump is already setting the stage for that. If you are moderating and are not going to fact check him, you might as well just roll campaign speeches live - far too many of which have been shown on television without being subjected to journalistic context. If these debates will be debates in name only, another opportunity for Trump to flout fairness by spewing his venom and bullshine, I say cancel them.

Enough is enough. It is a reality that every reporter must come to grips with. Trump is not a normal candidate. This is not a normal election. He will set a precedent that other demagogues will study and follow. Fear, combined with the lure of ratings, views, clicks and profits, have hypnotized too much of the press into inaction and false equivalency for far too long. I am optimistic the trance is being broken. Fear not the Internet trolls. Fear instead the judgement of history.

We'll Know In A Year

Update: How many days until the next Olympics? Here's the countdown, from olympic.org:

PyeongChang Winter Games: 509 days
Tokyo Summer Games: 1405 days
Beijing Winter Games: 1965 days

Original post:
Does the following list ring a bell?

Sydney, Australia
Salt Lake City, USA
Athens, Greece
Turin, Italy
Beijing, China
Vancouver, Canada
London, England
Sochi, Russia
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

These are the cities/countries that have hosted the nine most recent Olympic games, starting with Sydney in 2000 and ending with the Rio games this summer. The reason the list interests me is that the "Let's give every continent a chance" pattern is about to change. After touring the globe from Europe to Asia to Australia to North and South America, we're looking at three Olympiads in a row in Asia:

2018 Winter Games: PyeongChang, South Korea
2020 Summer Games: Tokyo, Japan
2022 Winter Games: Beijing, China

This is not necessarily what the IOC would prefer, but more a reflection of the fact that several potential host cities either lost interest and dropped out or were not capable of hosting the games.

No Asian city is bidding for the 2024 Summer Games, which will return to either the U.S. or Europe, with Los Angeles, Paris, Rome and Budapest in the running as the "final four."


Will the games return to the U.S. after 22 years? In an article dated September 13 at gamesbids.com, a site that obsessively tracks all things related to Olympic bidding, Los Angeles and Paris appear to have the strongest bids, at least for the moment:

Rome, with no support from recently-elected Mayor Virginia Raggi, could bail out of the race later this month on its own accord should the mayor maintain her position and deny the campaign a needed endorsement ahead of an October 7 IOC deadline.  But even if Rome survives, low public support and economic headaches in Italy could have voters shying away from an Olympic partnership with the Eternal City.

Los Angeles enjoys stellar support, recently polled at about 88 per cent, and boasts that most of its venues are already constructed allowing the Golden State to organize a low-cost Games while focusing efforts on the athlete experience – and not construction.  The city has already hosted twice, but its last Games in 1984 has been widely considered to be the most recent profitable Games.

But will politics get in the way of Southern California dreams?  L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti said last month that the potential election of the seemingly xenophobic Donald Trump as U.S. President wouldn’t have an impact on the bid – however that will ultimately be the decision of IOC members.

Paris vows to bring the Games back to Europe and to a city with existing venues, event experience and a deep history with the Olympic movement.  But it won’t be easy – Paris has failed to convince the IOC to gather the world’s athletes in France on three previous bids.  The recent spate of terror attacks in France may also spook Olympic voters.

Budapest hopes to refresh the Olympic movement by leveraging some ready-built venues and offering new needed facilities to be constructed before the Games.  Organizers believe recent successful venue construction projects and a future fifteen year sports development plan will give the IOC the comfort it needs to partner with the Eastern European capital.  While Budapest is the only city of the four to have never had the opportunity to host – the relatively small population of Hungary may have IOC members questioning whether the plans are scalable and legacies sound. Read the entire article here.

The United States is the biggest market for the Olympic product and contributes the most revenue to IOC coffers. My guess is that after 22 years, and following the politically and financially motivated snub to Chicago in 2009, the Olympics will indeed be awarded to the American candidate city. Whether that's actually a good thing for L.A. or not remains to be seen. The announcement comes on September 13, 2017.  

A Nothing-Burger Filled With Falsehoods

Apparently he didn't bother to actually read the article. Here's what Trump tweeted out very early this morning, about an article in the Washington Post:

"Donald Trump’s birther event is the greatest trick he’s ever pulled"https://t.co/zvVQnxeiQ9

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 17, 2016

And here's (part of) what the article actually says:

Trump's assertions about Clinton's role in the birther movement are wrong. His simple statement that Obama was born in the United States directly contradicts myriad statements he has made questioning the president's birthplace over the past five years.

But neither of those things were the most amazing part of that Trump event. The most amazing thing was that it took the Republican nominee 29 minutes to deliver those three sentences. The event was slated to start at 10 a.m. Eastern time. It wasn't until 11 a.m. that it actually began — with Trump touting his new hotel and proclaiming that it is likely to be one of the best in the world. He then ceded the stage to a parade of decorated military veterans who testified to his toughness, his judgment and his temperament. 

… It was a low moment for politics and political coverage. A nothing-burger filled with falsehoods covered as though it was the Super Bowl. But for Trump, it might have been his crowning achievement: All eyes on him with the chance to direct the play in whatever way he saw fit. The ringmaster — calling the shots in all three rings of the circus. It was peak Trump. Read the entire article here. 

Renee Zellweger (And Bachelor Nick)

Issue dated Sept. 26, 2016: Renee Zellweger

Disabled?

Presidential health, or more specifically, potential presidential health, is in the news today and while I'm not going to comment on the health of Hillary or The Donald (at least not right now,) I have been thinking about the topic. Two years ago I contributed several posts to a blog called "Blog To Work," and on September 15, 2014, in conjunction with the Ken Burns documentary, I wrote about President Roosevelt.

Here is that post.

If you'd like to check out my other job search-related posts at Blog To Work, click here.

The Other Kardashian

Issue dated September 19, 2016
Patrick Dempsey



Issue dated September 12, 2016
Rob Kardashian & Blac Chyna

This Day In History, 1966: To Boldly Go...

Who knew? It was 50 years ago tonight that the original Star Trek premiered on NBC, and strange as it sounds now, it wasn't a big success. As explained at variety.com, initial reviews were iffy and the show only lasted three seasons:  

“And away we go to another planet for the sci-fi buffs to lick the plate clean,” Variety‘s Sept. 8, 1966 review of the premiere episode, “The Man Trap,” declared. “But there had better be a hefty cargo of them or the Nielsen samplers may come up short.” Predicting doom, it continued, “The opener won’t open up many new frequencies after this sampler.” So not exactly boffo.

The review was typical of the initial response to Gene Roddenberry’s science fiction drama. After a troubled development that saw the initial pilot scrapped and a new one with mostly new characters — the only holdover being Leonard Nimoy’s Spock — created from scratch, “Star Trek” hung on for a short while, renewed for a second, then a third season before being cancelled.

The run was just long enough to create a library that would catch fire years later in syndication, finding a popularity it never achieved in its first window. A TV show that had at best been a moderate success for NBC would spawn four live-action spinoff series — soon to be five with the addition of CBS All Access’ “Star Trek: Discovery” — 13 movies, one animated series, comic books, postage stamps, documentaries, tell-all books, conventions and untold units of prosthetic ears sold. When Nimoy died last year, the White House issued a lengthy statement from President Obama in which he wrote, “I loved Spock.” Read the article here. 

People.com has a fun article featuring "19 things you never knew" about the original show, including the fact that Captain Kirk was partially modeled on Horatio Hornblower, nope didn't know that; Klingon is the most widely spoken fictional language, didn't know, don't care; and Leonard Nimoy's father owned a barbershop. Apparently kids would come in and request a "Spock" haircut, with no idea the barber had a real-life connection to the character. Read it here.  

I'm also celebrating a personal milestone today. One year ago I went under the knife and got a new left hip, and I'm happy to report that it's working just fine. 

It Was 8 Years Ago Today...

August 29, 2008, a day that will live in political infamy. John McCain took leave of his senses and announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. My thoughts from last year:

Who The Heck Is Sarah Palin?

Kate Plus Eight

Issue dated September 5, 2016


People (the magazine) is so predictable. "Half Their Size," "Sexiest Man," "Prince George's Birthday," there are certain topics they return to again and again. But the Gosselins? Apparently Gosselin covers sell really well because when I saw this week's cover it looked familiar, and sure enough, three years ago, the magazine ran almost exactly the same cover:

Issue dated August, 26, 2013


In my blog post at the time, I wrote:

"Have you been wondering what Kate Gosselin is up to? Me neither, but apparently People feels we need an update." (Read the post here.)

Three years later, I still haven't been wondering what Kate is up to and People still apparently thinks we need an update. Whatever.

In other news, Ryan Lochte didn't get the main cover slot but he is there, front and center at the top, along with another pregnant Duggar, ick.

Catching Up

Monday morning update:

Will Ryan Lochte's antics get him the cover of People this week? My guess? Yes.

— Kimberly Hanes (@WritingTheWorld) August 22, 2016

After his interview with Matt Lauer, which was taped Saturday and in my opinion didn't go very well, our buddy Ryan gave an interview to People magazine on Sunday afternoon. In the story at people.com com, which you can read here, he comes across as smarter and more remorseful, agreeing that no, no robbery took place, and stating that he's going to pay teammate James Feigan's fine. Will Ryan be the main cover story this week? As I tweeted this morning, I'm guessing yes. How can you not put this face front and center, although, full disclosure, his hair's now back to its original color:

 

Original post:
Time to catch up with the People covers (and I'm not sure what's up with the Jon Benet cover. For some reason I can't get it to left-justify.) I've been in one of my on-again-off-again zones with the blog but I'm beginning to feel the blog juices flowing again, so stay tuned. More blogging to come!

Issue dated August 29, 2016

Issue dated August 22, 2016



















Issue dated August 15, 2016


Issue dated August 8, 2016


Issue dated August 1, 2016


Issue dated July 25, 2016

Hilarious

It Starts Tonight

They were supposed to be the Chicago Olympics. Leading up to the selection announcement in October, 2009, it felt like a done deal. How could we lose? Newly elected president Barack Obama personally went to Copenhagen to pitch the IOC. Oprah was there too, on behalf of her home city. It was a lock.

Except, no, it wasn't. In an article titled "In retrospect, losing 2016 Olympics to Rio a big victory for Chicago," Tribune writer David Haugh describes what happened:

It was Oct. 2, 2009, and thousands of us gathered at Daley Plaza to await the big announcement from the International Olympic Committee's vote in Copenhagen. Satellite trucks from 15 news organizations parked on Clark Street. October optimism — the rarest of things in Chicago — reigned. 

Anticipation filled the autumn air. One mother pulled her son out of elementary school to experience what she expected to be historic event. And it was.

It was the day the IOC saved Chicago from itself.

At exactly 10:32 a.m., then-IOC President Jacques Rogge forever became part of the city's sports landscape with a stunning declaration: "The city of Chicago, having obtained the least number of votes, will not participate in the next round.'' Given Chicago's status as the favorite, this was the equivalent of a No. 1 seed being ousted by a No. 16 on the first day of March Madness. A shocker.

Seven years later, things look different: 

As bad as things seem in a city already fighting violence and the financial collapse of its government and school system, consider how much worse things would be if officials were distracted by hosting an international event as gargantuan as the Games. Hosting the Olympics would have skewed our civic priorities even more, a conclusion more potential host cities are reaching. Chicago is broken. The Olympics likely would have added to the disrepair more than made it easier to fix.

On Tuesday, we learned that July was Chicago's deadliest July in a decade. Yet even that grim news was spun in some police circles as progress because, at least, the 65 homicides represented an improvement from June's 72. Can you imagine welcoming the world to Chicago under those circumstances? How much confidence would anybody have in security for the Games in a city that struggles so mightily protecting itself?

Not to mention the frightening financial realities in the land of stopgap budgets. Finding a way to pay for the Olympics would have been hard to accept in a city that barely can pay its teachers. Chicago's bid came in at $4.8 billion, an unrealistically low number. Rio already has gone at least $100 million above its $14.4 billion estimate. London, host of the 2012 Games, budgeted $4 billion but spent $14 billion. According to tax returns, Chicago's unsuccessful bid cost $70.6 million and we can feel fortunate the sea of debt went no deeper.

So Chicago dodged a bullet and the Games are Rio's problem now, and for better or for worse, it starts tonight. Thoughts: 

The conventions went first. If it seems like things are a little backwards this time around, you're right. The Olympics usually happen before the political conventions. (Last time around the Democratic convention didn't start until after Labor Day.) Both parties moved their meetings to earlier in the summer this time, mostly having to do with campaign finance rules about when they can raise and spend money in the general election. In past election years the campaigns went into a bit of a lull during the Olympic fortnight. Will that happen this year? Possibly not. With the GOP nominee's documented love of media attention, who knows what he'll do or say to keep the spotlight on himself. 

Is Mitt there? Ever since he led the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Mitt Romney has been a familiar face at the Games. In 2012 he took a break from campaigning for president to attend the London Games, stirring up some controversy in the process. (Remember "Mitt the Twit?") 

Is Rafalca there? Who? Rafalca is Ann Romney's dressage horse, who participated in the dressage events at the 2012 games, somewhat to the dismay of horse daddy Mittens. (I wrote about it here.) I did a quick google search and best as I can tell, Rafalca's not competing this time around; if I hear differently I'll note it here in the blog. 

Time zones. Rio is only one hour ahead of Eastern time, a big change from Beijing (12 hours ahead) and London (5 hours ahead.) Still, NBC is not showing the Opening Ceremony live, reserving their right to not show us what's really happening but rather what they want us to see, all spruced up in a rah rah American way and broken up with many, many commercials. There was a bit of a thing about language and the names of countries. Countries walk in the Parade of Nations in alphabetical order, as expressed in the language of the host country, in this case, Portuguese. This put the U.S. (Estados Unidos) somewhere in the middle of the pack. That's not good for NBC, because what if American viewers tune out/turn off after the Americans walk in? Not good for ratings, so NBC tried to get things changed to English, which puts the United States near the end of the parade. (Read about it here.) 

After Rio, what's next? The next three Olympic games will be the 2018 Winter Games in PyeongChang, Korea, the 2020 Summer Games in Tokyo, and the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing. Will the games ever return to the U.S.? Possibly. Los Angeles is bidding for the 2024 games, with the selection announcement to be made on September 13, 2017.