- Jennifer LawrenceFilm actress
- Jennifer Shrader Lawrence is an American actress. Her first major role was as a lead cast member on the TBS sitcom The Bill Engvall Show. Wikipedia
- Born: August 15, 1990 (age 24), Louisville, Kentucky, United States
- Height: 1.75 m
Jennifer Lawrence (III)
Academy Award-winning actress Jennifer Lawrence, best-known for playing Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games (2012), was born in Louisville, Kentucky on August 15, 1990, to Karen (Koch), who manages a children's camp, and Gary Lawrence, who works in construction. She has two older brothers, Ben and Blaine, and has English, as well as some German, ... See full bio »
Saturday, 7 February 2015
Saturday, 19 July 2014
- Actor
- Robert John Downey, Jr. is an American actor who made his screen debut at the age of five, appearing in his father Robert Downey, Sr.'s film Pound. He has appeared in roles associated with the Brat Pack, such as Less Than Zero and Weird Science. Wikipedia
- Born: April 4, 1965 (age 49), Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States
- Height: 1.76 m
- Spouse: Susan Downey (m. 2005), Deborah Falconer (m. 1992–2004)
- Parents: Elsie Ford, Robert Downey Sr.
- Children: Indio Falconer Downey, Exton Elias DowneyWith the news today of the arrest of Robert Downey Jr’s son Indio for cocaine possession came this quote from the actor:
“Unfortunately there’s a genetic component to addiction and Indio has likely inherited it,” Robert Downey Jr. said in a statement released by his representatives. “Also, there is a lot of family support and understanding, and we’re all determined to rally behind him and help him become the man he’s capable of being. We’re grateful to the Sheriff’s department for their intervention, and believe Indio can be another recovery success story instead of a cautionary tale.”
Indio Downey, 20, was released on $10,250 bail last night after being arrested in West Hollywood and booked on suspicion of possession of cocaine and smoking paraphernalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, a sherif’s deputy spotted Indio Downey smoking a pipe while a passenger in a car.
Robert Downey Jr’s own struggles with addiction were well publicized throughout the 1980s and 90s with multiple stints in rehab until he got clean and sober in 2001 with the help of a year in the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison.
Click Here
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
The Hobby Lobby ruling proves men of the law still can't get over 'immoral' women having sex
The Hobby Lobby ruling proves men of the law still can't get over 'immoral' women having sex
Thirty-five years ago, cultural critic Ellen Willis wrote, "it is
depressing to have to insist that sex is not an unnecessary, morally
dubious self-indulgence but a basic human need, no less for women than
for men".
If it was depressing in 1979, it looks downright miserable today.
Because let's be clear: While Monday's US supreme court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was officially about religious freedom, the real issue at stake is sex – namely, if women should be able to have it as freely as men.
The court ruled – in a 5-4 decision in which all the female justices dissented – that a closely-held company does not have to cover contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby argued that, as a corporation, it has religious objections to certain forms of contraception that it believes are "abortifacients" (they are not). But the underlying values that drove this company to sue – and spurred a national debate – is the belief that women having pre-marital or non-procreative sex is wrong.
There is a reason that the first large-scale cultural reaction to the issue of insurance coverage for birth control was a female law student being called a "slut". Sandra Fluke's testimony to a congressional committee in favor of contraceptive coverage for a friend's serious medical condition set off an apoplectic frenzy of sexually-based attacks on her – and they weren't just limited to pundit Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" on the air. (Even today, I still see tweets calling her a "whore".)
More than 30 years after women thought the right to birth control was fought and won, we are still having to justify why we'd like to have sex – and why that doesn't make us bad, immoral or disgusting people.
The true concerns of conservative "freedom-seekers" are made especially clear in the amicus briefs in support of Hobby Lobby – which sound more like abstinence-only education curricula than legal arguments.
One brief from the Beverly Lahaye Institute and Janice Crouse (who once gave a sex talk to college students called "False Promises, Searing Pain, Tragic Problems") insists that the court consider the "documented negative effects the widespread availability of contraceptives has on women's ability to enter into and maintain desired marital relationships". The American Freedom Center argued that birth control has "harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually". And lawyer David Boyle wrote in his brief that contraceptives are not necessary, "since sexual relations are basically a voluntary activity. ... [S]ex is only a human want (like bowling or stamp collecting), not an actual need".
Bowling or stamp collecting. The jokes write themselves.
Legal decisions about contraception have always been based, at least in part, on concerns about women's potential promiscuity. The supreme court decision in Eisenstadt v Baird that gave unmarried Americans the right to procure birth control – in, yes, 1972 – was sparked by the arrest of William Baird after he handed a condom to an unmarried woman at a lecture he was giving about birth control at Boston University. At the time, his action violated Massachusetts law on "crimes against chastity".
Decades later, we've seen the conservative obsession with women's sexual purity restrict access to Plan B and the HPV vaccine – and now it's interfering with women's access to health care, of which sexual health is certainly a part.
Dr Nancy L Stanwood, the chair of the board at Physicians for Reproductive Health, released a statement on Monday saying that "[c]ontraception is essential to women's health and well-being, a critical component of preventive care, and integral to the health of families."
The court put to rest the slippery slope concern many had, stating that the their decision "concerns only the contraceptive mandate" and not vaccinations or blood transfusions. But Louise Melling, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in a call after the ruling that this exceptionalism only seems to apply when it comes to women and reproductive rights - or, as lawyer and writer Jill Filipovic tweeted, "Whew, really glad #SCOTUS made sure its #HobbyLobby decision wouldn't negatively impact men who need medical care some religions object to!".
And while SCOTUSblog reported that the decision will allow for the government to "provide alternative ways [for women] to obtain or access [contraception] coverage", several women's health leaders I heard from said that is far from certain.
No matter the legal rhetoric, the message about women and sex remains the same. It seems appropriate that that quote from Ellen Willis is from the essay "Abortion: Is a Woman a Person?" Because what's at stake in a decision like this – and in a debate like this – is women's basic humanity, of which sexuality is an integral part. Yes, contraception is about health and women often need birth control for medical reasons – but we also need it for sex, and that's just fine.
The supreme court wrote that this decision doesn't "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice". But what else can we call the targeting of contraception - and the targeting of women's health and lives?
READ MORE ON HOBBY LOBBY:
• Hobby Lobby ruling: Firms can refuse to provide contraception coverage
• Gallery: Reactions to the supreme court's ruling on corporation's religious rights
• Plus: Supporters and detractors react, from Washington and beyond
• You told us: Me and my affordable birth control
• Earlier: What Sandra Fluke knows about Hobby Lobby
If it was depressing in 1979, it looks downright miserable today.
Because let's be clear: While Monday's US supreme court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was officially about religious freedom, the real issue at stake is sex – namely, if women should be able to have it as freely as men.
The court ruled – in a 5-4 decision in which all the female justices dissented – that a closely-held company does not have to cover contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby argued that, as a corporation, it has religious objections to certain forms of contraception that it believes are "abortifacients" (they are not). But the underlying values that drove this company to sue – and spurred a national debate – is the belief that women having pre-marital or non-procreative sex is wrong.
There is a reason that the first large-scale cultural reaction to the issue of insurance coverage for birth control was a female law student being called a "slut". Sandra Fluke's testimony to a congressional committee in favor of contraceptive coverage for a friend's serious medical condition set off an apoplectic frenzy of sexually-based attacks on her – and they weren't just limited to pundit Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" on the air. (Even today, I still see tweets calling her a "whore".)
More than 30 years after women thought the right to birth control was fought and won, we are still having to justify why we'd like to have sex – and why that doesn't make us bad, immoral or disgusting people.
The true concerns of conservative "freedom-seekers" are made especially clear in the amicus briefs in support of Hobby Lobby – which sound more like abstinence-only education curricula than legal arguments.
One brief from the Beverly Lahaye Institute and Janice Crouse (who once gave a sex talk to college students called "False Promises, Searing Pain, Tragic Problems") insists that the court consider the "documented negative effects the widespread availability of contraceptives has on women's ability to enter into and maintain desired marital relationships". The American Freedom Center argued that birth control has "harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually". And lawyer David Boyle wrote in his brief that contraceptives are not necessary, "since sexual relations are basically a voluntary activity. ... [S]ex is only a human want (like bowling or stamp collecting), not an actual need".
Bowling or stamp collecting. The jokes write themselves.
Legal decisions about contraception have always been based, at least in part, on concerns about women's potential promiscuity. The supreme court decision in Eisenstadt v Baird that gave unmarried Americans the right to procure birth control – in, yes, 1972 – was sparked by the arrest of William Baird after he handed a condom to an unmarried woman at a lecture he was giving about birth control at Boston University. At the time, his action violated Massachusetts law on "crimes against chastity".
Decades later, we've seen the conservative obsession with women's sexual purity restrict access to Plan B and the HPV vaccine – and now it's interfering with women's access to health care, of which sexual health is certainly a part.
Dr Nancy L Stanwood, the chair of the board at Physicians for Reproductive Health, released a statement on Monday saying that "[c]ontraception is essential to women's health and well-being, a critical component of preventive care, and integral to the health of families."
The court put to rest the slippery slope concern many had, stating that the their decision "concerns only the contraceptive mandate" and not vaccinations or blood transfusions. But Louise Melling, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in a call after the ruling that this exceptionalism only seems to apply when it comes to women and reproductive rights - or, as lawyer and writer Jill Filipovic tweeted, "Whew, really glad #SCOTUS made sure its #HobbyLobby decision wouldn't negatively impact men who need medical care some religions object to!".
And while SCOTUSblog reported that the decision will allow for the government to "provide alternative ways [for women] to obtain or access [contraception] coverage", several women's health leaders I heard from said that is far from certain.
No matter the legal rhetoric, the message about women and sex remains the same. It seems appropriate that that quote from Ellen Willis is from the essay "Abortion: Is a Woman a Person?" Because what's at stake in a decision like this – and in a debate like this – is women's basic humanity, of which sexuality is an integral part. Yes, contraception is about health and women often need birth control for medical reasons – but we also need it for sex, and that's just fine.
The supreme court wrote that this decision doesn't "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice". But what else can we call the targeting of contraception - and the targeting of women's health and lives?
READ MORE ON HOBBY LOBBY:
• Hobby Lobby ruling: Firms can refuse to provide contraception coverage
• Gallery: Reactions to the supreme court's ruling on corporation's religious rights
• Plus: Supporters and detractors react, from Washington and beyond
• You told us: Me and my affordable birth control
• Earlier: What Sandra Fluke knows about Hobby Lobby
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Legend of Korra (Avatar)
- The Legend of Korra is an American animated drama television series that premiered on the Nickelodeon television network in 2012. Wikipedia
- First episode: April 14, 2012
- Theme song: Avatar: Legend of Korra Theme Song
- Network: Nickelodeon
But Nickelodeon wanted to build the excitement days before the debut of Book 3: Change, so they released a 5-minute sneak peek of the first episode entitled "A Breath of Fresh Air." What can be learned from the clip?
For one, Book 3's first episode picks up right where it left off—the after events of the season 2 finale. This includes what happened when Korra opened the doors to the spirit world. A more vital revelation in the 5-minute clip is the "occurrence of airbenders." The airbenders are nearly extinct and this may cause a problem in the new season. It will also be interesting to see how spirits and humans cohabit in the world.
In Book 3: Change, Team Avatar will return to Republic City, but the new season will also dwell on the world outside the city as well as in the South Pole. Further, Korra will be a part of the politics in the city too.
The sneak peek also showed some humor as Bumi chased Bum-Ju, his spirit friend. But for those who are worried that the new season might lean to the silly side, there's no need to worry. This is just a 5-minute clip and the creators of the show guaranteed a balance between silly instances and serious situations.
Brazil Vs Chile
The World Cup would have lost something without its hosts, Brazil, but it
loses something too with the departure of Chile. Marvellous entertainers,
and tonight was great entertainment.
Chile deserved better... I have to say, though, that Brazil were the better
side I thought - but then they should be, they are the hosts, and have such
quality in Neymar. But Chile showed such courage, tactical acumen. That was
seriously exciting. Our match
report from Belo Horizonte is here, or enjoy our minute-by-minute
report below.
Penalty shootout
Gonzalo Jara - the Nottingham Forest man hits the post! Brazil are through!
Neymar...cool as you like. Dummies, then strokes it in. Quality. Brazil 3-2 - last kick of the 10 to come
Diaz ... scores. 2-2 (4 kicks each). Good, straight strike.
Hulk misses! Bravo told him where to go. It was a low, powerful stiuke but the keeper aves with his feet. 2-1 Brazil (Chile 2 misses, Brazil 2)
Aranguiz no nerves - scores! Buries it. A master-blaster. 2-1 Brazil (Chile 2 misses, Brazil 1)
Marcelo - scores! Bravo got a hand to it. But it's a strong, bold spot-kick (after a chimmy) 2-0 Brazil (Chile 2 misses, Brazil 1)
Alexis Sanchez - the Iceman Cometh? Super save from Cesar. What QPR fans missed last season. Low, to his right, magnificent stop. 1-0 Brazil (Chile 2 misses, Brazil 1)
Willian - limply scuffs it wide 1-0 Brazil (1 miss each)
Pinilla next - brilliant save from Cesar. 1-0 Brazil (Chile 1 miss)
Luiz scores! Perfect penalty, to the right. 1-0 Brazil
19:48 Howard Webb gives the keepers Cesar and Bravo their instructions. Don't move too early - yeah, right. who doesn't do that? David Luiz to go first for Brazil.
19:46 Prayers on the pitch from Brazil's Gustavo.
19.45 Neymar the leader, coaxing his older team-mates on.
19:43 Brazil has not lost a competitive match on home soil since 1975. More pressure on them? Chile certainly seemed happy to play for extra time towards the end of the second half. And penalties during extra time - admirable as their enterprise and endeavour was for most of those 120 minutes.
Brazil missed all of them in their shootout defeat to Paraguay in the 2011 Copa America. They beat the Dutch 4-2 at the 2002 World Cup. They have won two and lost one.
It's penalties!
Spendid strike from the sub Mauricio Pinilla it was. Brazil got lucky.
121 mins Brazil break, but Chile clear for a corner. One final twist? No, Ramires shoots wide.
120 mins Pinilla hits the bar! What drama! Brazil so close to the exit door.
119 mins Hulk blasts over. He is angry. You wouldn't like him when he is angry.
117 mins Willian has a free-kick. It's a good 'un, swinging in, but it is cleared. Penalties loom. Chile not unhappy about that, it seems.
115 mins Willian looking lively. Crosses. Headed away. Brazil still patient. Brazil still building. I admire them - even though a stat suggests their passing accuracy is their lowest in a World Cup match since 1966. Neymar has faded, though, and they are ever so reliant on him.
113 mins Pinilla tries another ludicrous long-range shot that hits a defender. Then Diaz take another of his daft blasts.
111 mins Brazil's fans stirring their side for one final push, a nine-minute surge. Alves thwacks it over from range. Team-mates annoyed.
110 mins Pinilla takes the ball, turns well, and shoots, errr - well, poorly. Over.
108 mins Gary Medel is taken off on a stretcher. Thigh so heavily strapped it's a wonder there was any blood flowing through it. Jose Rojas on. Captain of Universidad de Chile. Goes out on the left.
106 mins Neymar run and cross. Jo slips again - change of boots, son? As Chile block for a corner. Neymar corner, Jo gets a good touch but heads it over.
105 mins We are away. Chelsea's Oscar going off, Chelsea's Willian coming on for his ninth cap - all as sub. He has scored twice for Brazil, against Hondura and Panama. Can he be a national hero here?
End of the first period. Exciting but quality slipped a bit - understandably in the heat I guess. While the quality decreases the tension rises, of course.
105 mins Alves booked for poor challenge. Chile have free-kick at the death of this first period of extra time. Sanchez prepares to strike. Bit limo and it goes wide.
103 mins Hulk fires off a good low drive, Bravo stoops down well to block. Fine run by Hulk, weaving in and out of two challenges. Barcelona's new keeper having a good game as he mentally prepares himself for replacing Victor Valdes at the Nou Camp.
102 mins Pinilla booked for deliberate trip on Luiz.
101 mins Oscar does well to peel off a cross. Tame header by Hulk.
100 mins Jo gives his defender the slip before slipping himelf. He has done pretty well. The consensus is that he did not do himself justice in the Premier League.
Jorge Sampaoli, the cunning Argentine schemer, versus the passionate Brazilian 'Big Phil' Scolari - who will triumph here?
95 mins Ramires pushes the slippery Sanchez to the turf. Diaz blasts a free-kick from distance. Rather senselessly, in fact.
93 mins Long ball and Jo goes in high, the studs thumping into Bravo's chest. The striker's eyes were on the ball, but it is a foul. Hesitation in the Chile defence. Jo booked - perhaps a bit harsh.
91 mins Extra time underway - Hulk pushed to the floor by by Mena. The Brazilians trying to fire up the crowd here, aware the 40,000 Chile fans are making a din. Neymar free-kick and it is cleared for a corner.
19:00 Interesting Chile's gameplan as they wanted extra time. Frustrate the hosts and pinch it, I guess. Alexis Sanchez has been hugely impressive - I wonder if he will be lighting up the Premier League next season?
Technically not such a good half but still gripping drama. And the controversy of Hulk's 'goal', ruled out for handball by Howard Webb. Hulk also could have had a penalty in the first half. Webb's view being queried. For the record: I think it did hit his bicep.
It's extra time ...
92 mins Corner for Chile. Brazil tense these last few minutes. But Alves flicks away at near post. Dangerous whipped corner. Minute to go.
As we approach the 90 it will be three minutes added on.
89 mins Pinilla lovely backflick to Mena, he tries to cross but no one in box so Chile seem happy to play for extra time.
 |
|  |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
END OF EXTRA-TIME
| 108' |
| 106' |
EXTRA-TIME HALF-TIME
| 105+1' |
| 102' |
| 93' |
FULL-TIME
| 87' |
| 72' |
| 64' |
| 60' |
| 57' |
| 55' |
HALF-TIME
| 40' |
| 32' |
|
| 18' |
| 17' |
https://www.google.com.pk/search?q=Brazil+Vs+Chile
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)