Author: Joey deVilla

Found via Reg Braithwaite.

I think that Marvel Studios should add AC Stuart’s suggestion as an alternate ending when they release the DVD/Blu-Ray/whatever edition of Guardians of the Galaxy…

The Falling Man is the name of the photograph above, taken 13 years ago today. Taken by Associated Press photographer Richard Drew, it shows a man — still unidentified to this day — falling from the World Trade Center’s North Tower on September 11, 2001. Of all the images from 9/11, I believe this one is the most powerful. As theologian Mark Thompson of Moore Theological College says:

“…perhaps the most powerful image of despair at the beginning of the twenty-first century is not found in art, or literature, or even popular music. It is found in a single photograph.”

The photo, for obvious reasons, isn’t shown much. It strikes a nerve that’s still raw. Still, it’s a necessary reminder of what happened and what has yet to be done to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Depending on your point of view, you and I may or may not agree on what should be done in response, but I’m pretty sure we can agree that this day should be remembered.

The Falling Man is also the name of an essay by Tom Junod published in Esquire in 2003. It’s about the Falling Man photo, which Junod describes as “the Unknown Solider in a war whose end we have not yet seen”. It’s still worthwhile reading eleven years later. Steven Church summed it up nicely when he wrote this about the piece:

My favorite sorts of essays are often those that advertise themselves as one thing while performing several different, often contradictory functions, essays where the stakes shift between the first paragraph and the last. “The Falling Man,” does this. It was a feature piece in Esquire, and I think at least part of why I like it is because it seems like the sort of piece that the Esquire editors would have normally sanitized and polished into something much smoother and less interesting, something less intimate and confrontational, less risky, digressive, and essayistic.

Junod’s The Falling Man has a new introduction, The Fallen Man, which talks about a more recent photo: that of American journalist James Foley being murdered by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Like the Falling Man photo, the New York Post’s publication of a still from the video in which Foley was decapitated was controversial. There are many more connections between the two photos, including this quote from Richard Drew:

“I don’t need to see the video the same way I didn’t need to see the Falling Man hit the ground to know the outcome.”

James Foley. Photo from Wikipedia.

Esquire published The Falling Man with the new introduction, The Fallen Man, with a purpose: to promote a memorial scholarship at Marquette University’s J. William and Mary Diederich College of Communications in Foley’s name. You can still read the essay and its new introduction for free, but should you feel the urge, there’s a link you can click to make a donation to the scholarship fund, which I did.

Rob Ford, mayor of my old home town, was hospitalized earlier today after complaining of abdominal pain. Doctors found a tumor and will spend this week determining exactly its type. Here’s hoping that it’s benign, that he gets it removed and gets back on his feet, and that his family are comforted during this time.

Here’s a video showing Toronto mayor Rob Ford in an interview on Monday doing some ducking and bobbing that would impress Muhammad Ali. Unfortunately, he’s not in the middle of a sparring match, he’s doing interviews on Toronto’s Sheppard subway line as part of his mayoral campaign.

And lest you think that the subway train is going around some tight corners at high speed, you should know that the Sheppard line is pretty much straight. As my friend Kelly Kay points out, no one else in the video, including the person behind the camera, seems to have any difficulty staying upright.

And now, the video:

“Read this,” said my friend Erinn as he welcomed us to his party and handed me the grenade-shaped can pictured below. I had to put the can under a light to be sure, but there it was, just below the alcohol content: substandard orange wine.

“I like the truth in advertising,” I said, “but how is substandard wine legal?”

“If you don’t like substandard wine, there’s another flavor with other than standard wine,” he replied, showing me this can:

Substandard and “other than standard” wine, it turns out, is wine that falls under this definition in the regulations for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms concerning the labeling and advertising of wine, section 4.21:

(2) “Substandard wine” or “other than standard wine” shall bear as a part of its designation the word “substandard,” and shall include: 

(i) Any wine having a volatile acidity in excess of the maximum prescribed therefor in §§ 4.20 to 4.25. 

(ii) Any wine for which no maximum volatile acidity is prescribed in §§ 4.20 to 4.25, inclusive, having a volatile acidity, calculated as acetic acid and exclusive of sulfur dioxide, in excess of 0.14 gram per 100 milliliters (20° C.). 

(iii) Any wine for which a standard of identity is prescribed in this §§ 4.20 to 4.25, inclusive, which, through disease, decomposition, or otherwise, fails to have the composition, color, and clean vinous taste and aroma of normal wines conforming to such standard. 

(iv) Any “grape wine” “citrus wine,” “fruit wine,” or “wine from other agricultural products” to which has been added sugar and water solution in an amount which is in excess of the limitations prescribed in the standards of identity for these products, unless, in the case of “citrus wine,” “fruit wine” and “wine from other agricultural products” the normal acidity of the material from which such wine is produced is 20 parts or more per thousand and the volume of the resulting product has not been increased more than 60 percent by such addition. 

Substandard wine used to be a way for small restaurants and bars that could afford only beer-and-wine licenses in Florida to serve cocktails. Banned from serving hard liquor, they served mixed drinks made with something called “Premium Blend”, a mix of 45% distilled liquor and 55% fermented wine that was labeled “premium substandard orange wine with natural flavors added”. At half the strength of standard liquor, it’s legally a wine.

With the amusingly-shaped can and fruit-drink flavors, “Tropic Chillerz” are clearly being aimed at the underage drinker. As for the taste: I tried some, and let’s just say that if you’re looking for a cheap, fruity drunk, you’re probably better off just mixing Everclear (or alcool, if you’re from Ontario or Quebec) with some Sunny D.

Click the image to see the source.

Thanks to AZSpot.net for the find!