Sure, you’ve probably already gone to some totally illegal site and seen the entire third season by now, but my recaps will still add to your viewing pleasure and are now available over at Happy Nice Time People, your Wonkette’s more beautiful younger sister. Take a look at my take on Season 3 Episode One, and Season 3 Episode 2, and to get you in the mood for the upcoming (for us Americans) season finale, check out the preview below.
Unlocking Sherlock’s Secrets
Nine more days to the US Premiere of Sherlock on PBS, which means ten more days till the folks over at HappyNiceTimePeople (Wonkette’s prettier sister) start running my recaps. Meantime, the Brits have now completed two thirds of a three episode third season of Sherlock, while we poor Yanks must suffer or become video-outlaws. There was a lovely seven minute webisode as if we weren’t already salivating at the prospect of the return of our boys – Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Holmes and Watson. This Sunday, PBS will be throwing another bone our way when it premieres Unlocking Sherlock, a 57-minute retrospective and teaser, featuring interviews with the cast and creators. More good news – it’s already available online LEGALLY at PBS.
What do we learn from this special? First and foremost, the reason there are so many shout-outs and references to the original Author Conan Doyle stories is because series creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are major “fanboys” – so says Benedict Cumberbatch.
There’s a brief history of Conan Doyle’s career, and a shout out to his medical professor, Dr Joseph Bell, a genius diagnostician on whom he based his great detective (though no mention of the television series, Murder Rooms, a fictionalized account of Bell’s adventures, which is available in the usual places.)
Did you know that Holmes and Watson are the most portrayed literary characters ever? There’s footage of earlier cinematic attempts including silents and a version shot on the streets of London with Conan Doyle’s blessings.
L’Elisir D’Amore — A Star is Born
Last year we did not see the Bartlett Sher production of L’Elisir D’Amore with Anna Netrebko because we are idiots. We decided to rectify that mistake and see the revival also with Netrebko this year and bought tickets for its opening night.
I’ve seen Netrebko in the Willy Decker version of La Traviata thanks to youtube, but the only time the better-half and I saw her live was in this season’s dismal Eugene Onegrin, known in our house as Six Singers Flailing on a Stage in Search of a Production. So we thought it would be great to see her in a role in which she’d triumphed, in a production that actually had a director.
Not keeping up on all the gossip, we didn’t know that Netrebko was out with the flu and we’d be watching the Met debut of Andriana Chuchman. Fortunately, the Met knew, and Chuchman had been at the dress rehearsal. All we knew was what was on the note inserted in our Playbill. Someone we’d never heard of would be making her Met debut in a role we’d come to hear the sweetheart of the Metropolitan sing.
Pressure much?
The better-half who is also the nicer-half made it clear that unless she was terrible he planned to applaud her very loudly.
She started off a little soft and drowned out by the orchestra. It didn’t seem like she had the vocal power for the house, but then Continue reading L’Elisir D’Amore — A Star is Born
Heiress Trophy Husband Tom Friedman Knows What Public Schools Need
I did not get through whatever drool was spewing from the mouth of the Gray Lady who at this point deserves to face the death panels. I merely opened the new Week in Review Lite section when these words from the middle of Thomas Friedman’s column jumped out:
“In some cities, teachers’ unions really are holding up education reform.”
If you consider “school reform” stealing resources from public community schools to put them into corporate charters for a “lucky” few, then yes, teacher’s unions are standing in the way. If you want those charters to hire new grads eager to pad their resumes before going on to something else because who needs experienced teachers, then yup, the unions will try to block that as well, and sure if you then decide to close the public schools that you gutted to give the charters space and materials, then I’m sure the unions will not be pleased.
Greedy bastards, those teachers. Unlike men who marry heiresses, teachers are all in it for the money.
Friedman goes on:
“But we need to stop blaming teachers alone. We also have a parent problem: parents who do not take an interest in their children’s schooling or set high standards.”
Do such parents actually exist? Yes, they do. But most parents do take an interest, and they certainly want the best for their kids. They may need to work a couple of jobs making talking to the teachers difficult. They might not be proficient in English, and the only available translator might be their kid, but not taking an interest is generally not an issue.
Then he goes on to blame the students.
Finally, he blames the President for failing to create a national campaign to “challenge parents and create a culture of respect and excitement for learning.”
The President is not completely blameless here. His education secretary, Arne Duncan, has put too much faith in charters, but his administration has done more than any previous one to try to build 21st century skills into the curriculum, and to push for excellence, and anyone who popped into a public school during or after the election of 2008 would have seen how much the election of an African American President who extolled education, changed everything.
Instead of blaming teachers, parents and students, why not just try to make schools better? It’s not that hard to look at those schools that work best in poor areas, middle-class and wealthy ones to figure out what the best practices should be. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that poverty sets up numerous blocks to educational success, and that income inequality in this country is a growing problem. Is there a need for some tough talk with unions Continue reading Heiress Trophy Husband Tom Friedman Knows What Public Schools Need
David Brooks was a Teenaged Pothead but That’s Ok for David Brooks
In today’s The New York Times, David Brooks fondly remembers his days as a teenage pothead. While he finds his experience with the devil-weed did not harm him in any way, he is out to seriously harsh Colorado’s mellow, suggesting that legalizing pot was not prudent and certainly not something government should be doing.
Dear David, just imagine what would have happened if during one of those innocent, frollicky, friendship-deepening marijuana smoking sessions which you fondly recall, you had been busted. Not busted by your friend’s dad, who would have called your parents who would have grounded you for a month, but busted by the police.
Wait. You’re white and middle-class. The police probably wouldn’t have done much. After all back in the 1980s there was that time that Geraldine Ferraro’s son was arrested for dealing coke, and he only got four months in jail, and that was some kind of private luxury jail and that was COCAINE and there was too much publicity for him not to go to jail; plus his mom had lost the election, and Americans hate losers.
The problem with making something against the law isn’t that it discourages use. It really doesn’t. You and your friends were an example of that. (See also, Volstead Act, The) The problem is that laws have consequences and those consequences aren’t always allotted equally. The problem is some kids might get busted and get the shit kicked out of them by police officers. Some kids might even go to jail or lose their ability to get financial aide for Continue reading David Brooks was a Teenaged Pothead but That’s Ok for David Brooks