by Staff
0 votedvote

Daredevil Season 2

Daredevil Season 2, Daredevil’s second season hits the ground running with a surprisingly Frank Miller-esque tour of Hell’s Kitchen. Indeed, the 70s Miller vibe continues all the way through this episode, from the heatwave they set up (recalling the famous New York heatwave/blackout of 1977) to the grit of the detectives surveying the Punisher’s first murder scene and complaining about paperwork.

Essentially though, it seems to be setting up a standard episode. We see Daredevil fighting crooks, hanging out with Foggy, working at the law firm with Karen, hitting up Turk for information and finally clocking off in the evening at Josie’s Bar. There’s a sense of routine – which is then interrupted when someone decides to kill an entire mob family unexpectedly, leaving the only survivor to call in Nelson & Murdock.

Not surprisingly, the power vacuum left by Fisk’s disappearance (and the withdrawal of the other bosses from Season One) seems set to be a major theme of this series. There’s no obvious candidate to fill it, at least in this episode, so it seems likely we’ll be seeing a war between various factions. With, of course, the Punisher in the mix.

If there’s any criticism to make of this first episode, it’s that the publicity kind of blew the idea that this was a gang of militaristic attackers. As soon as someone guns down a family of Irish mobsters (Garth Ennis would be proud) we’re waiting to see the Punisher turn up because of the publicity. You could argue successfully either way – maybe they shouldn’t have teased it, maybe they should be praised for making sure the work stood alone – but personally, I was having a lot of “GET TO THE FIREWORKS FACTORY!” feelings about them spending so much time talking about “a gang” of attackers.

Other than that? A solid opener. It seems like it sets the tone a lot more than the plot, but personally I was into it in a big way. By the end of the episode we’ve got our first Punisher Vs. Daredevil fight, and make no mistake, I was practically convulsing with fanboy glee. It’s one of those classic hero-vs-hero face-offs that comics fans can’t help but love, like Wolverine and Spider-Man, or Iron Man and the Hulk. It first happened in Daredevil #183 (June, 1982) in an issue drawn and co-written by (you guessed it) Frank Miller.

As for actual references to published material, this episode is far thinner on the ground than season one was. The guy Nelson and Murdock are trying to protect – Grotto – is (unsurprisingly) a thug from Frank Miller’s Daredevil run who first appeared in Daredevil #168 (January 1981). The TV version and the comics version only really share a name, though.

But that’s not the episode’s only reference. The “Dogs of Hell” are an already-established motorcycle gang who were previously seen in the Agents of SHIELD episode, Yes Men, though it was the Nevada chapter rather than the Hell’s Kitchen one.

by Staff
0 votedvote

Super Singer 5 Winner

Super Singer 5 Winner, The grand finale of Super Singer 5 took place on March 17 at the DB Jain College, Thuraipakkam, Chennai. The five finalists popular Tamil TV programme were Faridha, Rajaganapathy, Siyad, Anand Krishnan and Lakshmi Pradeep. In a tough battle, Anand Krishnan turned out to be Super Singer 5 winner.

The five finalists popular Tamil TV programme were Faridha, Rajaganapathy, Siyad, Anand Krishnan and Lakshmi Pradeep.
Faridha was declared as first runner-up and Rajaganapathy as the Judges’ Choice. The programme was aired live on Star VIjay and on Hot Star as well.

The Twitter handle of the Vijay Television has all the performances of the contestants who were in the race to lift the trophy.

Super Singer 5 Winner

by Staff
0 votedvote

India Vs Pakistan

India Vs Pakistan, – India captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni won the toss Saturday and chose to bowl against Pakistan in their high-profile World Twenty20 Group 2 game.

The match was reduced to 18 overs per side after a one-hour delay due to a wet outfield.

Pakistan made one change to the team that won its opener against Bangladesh by 55 runs, bringing in pace bowler Mohammad Sami for spinner Imad Wasim.

India went in unchanged despite a surprise 47-run loss to New Zealand in its opening game.

New Zealand heads the group with two wins, including an eight-run victory over Australia on Friday.

Saturday’s game was originally scheduled for the city of Dharamsala but moved to Kolkata because of security concerns expressed by Pakistan.



India: Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, Virat Kohli, Suresh Raina, Yuvraj Singh, Mahendra Singh Dhoni (captain), Hardik Pandya, Ravindra Jadeja, Ravichandran Ashwin, Ashish Nehra, Jasprit Bumrah.

Pakistan: Ahmed Shehzad, Sharjeel Khan, Mohammad Hafeez, Umar Akmal, Shahid Afridi (captain), Shoaib Malik, Sarfraz Ahmed, Mohammad Sami, Wahab Riaz, Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Irfan.

by Staff
0 votedvote

Bernie Sanders Ohio Voters

Bernie Sanders Ohio Voters, Bernie Sanders’s win in Michigan last week was a massive upset relative to the pre-election polls of the state’s voters, which had shown Hillary Clinton ahead by an average of 21 percentage points. In fact, Sanders may have pulled off the biggest upset in the history of primary polling, eclipsing the previous record from 1984, when Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale in New Hampshire despite having trailed him by 17 percentage points.

When you consider Michigan’s demographics, however, the result wasn’t all that shocking. Michigan Democrats are fairly liberal and the state has a lot of college students — both factors that help Sanders. We aren’t just making this up as we go along; last month, we published state-by-state targets for the Clinton-Sanders race based on a few simple demographic variables in each state: specifically, its racial composition, how liberal or conservative it was, and how rural it was. Those targets had Sanders ahead of Clinton by 4 percentage points in Michigan.

Does that mean we called the upset in Michigan weeks ahead of time? No, we weren’t quite that good or lucky. The targets were based on a hypothetical race in which Clinton and Sanders were each winning about half the vote and half the delegates nationally. Since Clinton is ahead of Sanders nationally, she still would have been favored in our model (although not by the blowout margin that polls suggested).

Either way, the big gap between polls and demographics makes us nervous, especially because three more Midwestern states are voting today, including Ohio, where Clinton leads Sanders by about 11 percentage points in the polls. Historically, a margin like that would be quite safe: hence our polling model’s conclusion that Clinton is a 97 percent favorite. But after what just happened in Michigan? I’d love to drop a few bucks on Sanders if a bookmaker offered 30-to-1 odds against him, as our polling model does.

Fortunately, even if the polls haven’t been great, the conditions1 are potentially favorable for making demographic forecasts of the Democratic race. In 2008, under similar circumstances, I made demographic-based predictions of the Democratic race — see here for my North Carolina prediction, for example — which often outperformed the polls.

Those predictions in 2008 were based on regression analysis. They took advantage of the fact that Democrats report their vote by congressional district, which makes the sample more robust; by the time North Carolina voted eight years ago, for instance, hundreds of diverse congressional districts had already weighed in. So we’re overdue to apply the same technique this year.

In contrast to the demographic benchmarks we set in February, which were based on polling data, these are based on actual votes so far, aggregated across congressional districts. We can then compare these votes against demographic and attitudinal variables in each congressional district. For a more technical description of the analysis, see the footnotes.2 But basically, we’re just looking for sensible variables that have done a good job of explaining the split in the vote between Clinton and Sanders so far. The ones we included in the model are as follows:

This regression analysis6 models the vote by congressional district reasonably well. We can aggregate the congressional district projections to come up with state forecasts. Here’s what they would have said about the states to have voted so far:

2/1 Iowa 40% 59% 50% 50%
2/9 New Hampshire 47 52 38 60
2/20 Nevada 48 51 53 47
2/27 South Carolina 66 33 73 26
3/1 Alabama 74 25 78 19
Arkansas 59 40 66 30
Colorado 42 57 40 59
Georgia 73 26 71 28
Massachusetts 46 53 50 49
Minnesota 39 60 38 61
Oklahoma 52 47 42 52
Tennessee 66 33 66 32
Texas 65 34 65 33
Vermont 37 62 14 86
Virginia 64 35 64 35
3/5 Kansas 46 53 32 67
Louisiana 76 23 71 23
Nebraska 44 55 43 57
3/6 Maine 37 62 35 64
3/8 Michigan 51 48 48 50
Mississippi 77 22 83 16
How a demographic model has fit the Democratic race so far
Our demographic “retrodiction”7 for Michigan still has Clinton winning, but only barely — by 3 percentage points, compared with the actual 2-point win for Sanders. Especially under the Democrats’ proportional allocation method, that’s a pretty minor difference. The model’s retrodictions in Vermont and Arkansas are also pretty far off, as you can see, but that makes sense given potential home-state effects for Sanders and Clinton in those states.

Other results are a bit harder to explain. How did Clinton (barely) win the Iowa caucuses when she got crushed in other Midwest caucus states, like Kansas and Minnesota? How did Sanders lose Massachusetts after winning New Hampshire by so much? How did Sanders win Oklahoma by 10 percentage points?

I have my theories — Clinton’s ground game may have saved her in Iowa, for instance — but my goal isn’t to explain away every last bit of variance (in which case I’d be guilty of overfitting my model). Instead, it’s to have reasonably sensible demographic-based projections that pass the smell test when applied to future states. Here are those forecasts, starting with the five states that will vote on Tuesday:

3/15 Fla. 67% 32% 4% 63% 34% <1%
Ill. 54 45 34 52 44 10
Mo. 54 45 33 49 48 46
N.C. 68 31 4 63 36 <1
Ohio 51 48 42 54 43 3
3/22 Ariz. 52 47 40
Idaho 42 57 75
Utah 40 59 82
3/26 Alaska 36 63 91
Hawaii 41 58 81
Wash. 39 60 85
4/5 Wis. 47 52 61
4/9 Wyo. 41 58 80
4/19 N.Y. 55 44 30
4/26 Conn. 51 48 43
Del. 58 41 21
Md. 63 36 10 66 32 5
Penn. 52 47 41
R.I. 49 50 52
5/3 Ind. 52 47 42
5/10 W. Va. 45 54 67
5/17 Ky. 54 45 32
Ore. 44 55 70
6/7 Calif. 53 46 37
Mont. 39 60 85
N.J. 54 45 32
N.M. 52 47 42
N.D. 36 63 90
S.D. 54 45 34
6/14 D. C. 63 36 9
Demographic projections of the remaining Democratic states
The numbers in Ohio jump out, since they suggest — in contrast to the polls — a very close race between Sanders and Clinton. After accounting for the uncertainty in the forecasts, the demographic model gives Sanders a 42 percent chance of winning Ohio, much better than the 3 percent chance that our “polls-only” forecast gives to him.

The news isn’t as good for Sanders in Missouri. There, the demographic model concludes that polls showing the race to be essentially tied are slightly too generous to Sanders; it forecasts Clinton to win by 9 percentage points.

In Illinois, the polls have been all over the place, with recent surveys showing everything from a 42-point lead for Clinton to a 2-point lead for Sanders. Our weighted polling average has Clinton up by 7 points there, and the demographic model is largely in agreement, forecasting a 9-point win for Clinton.

Posted in US | |
by Staff
0 votedvote

Donald Trump Legal Fees Sucker Punch

Donald Trump Legal Fees Sucker Punch, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump denied on Tuesday that he said he was looking into paying the legal fees for a man who is accused of punching a protester at one of Trump’s rallies.

“I didn’t say that. I haven’t looked at it yet. And nobody’s asked me to pay for fees,” Trump said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

A man was filmed sucker punching a demonstrator at a Trump rally last week in North Carolina. John McGraw, 78, is reportedly facing assault charges in the attack.

On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said he “actually instructed my people to look into” paying McGraw’s legal bills. Trump also said he wanted to see the “full tape” and noted that the protester was “very loud, very disruptive.”

But during his Tuesday “Good Morning America” interview Trump appeared to be far less inclined to get involved.

“Somebody asked me the question. And I hadn’t even seen it. So I never said I was going to pay for fees,” he recalled.

“You said you were ‘looking into it,'” host George Stephanopoulos pressed. “And I’m just saying, if you’re open to that, wouldn’t by paying those fees, wouldn’t that be rewarding violence?”

Trump replied:

Well, maybe so. And maybe that’s why I wouldn’t do it. I don’t condone violence at all. I looked and I watched and I’m going to make a decision, but I certainly don’t condone violence. And maybe you’re right. And maybe that’s why I wouldn’t do it.

Trump has been harshly criticized in recent days for his violent campaign-trail rhetoric. Trump has voiced his desire to punch protesters in the face, pined for the old days in which hecklers would be roughed up, and at one event said he would pay for the legal fees of people if they “knock the crap out” of protesters throwing tomatoes.

Donald Trump Legal Fees Sucker Punch

Posted in US | |
by Staff
0 votedvote

Zayn Malik Tattoo

Zayn Malik Tattoo, Gigi Hadid has completely thrown into question whether Zayn Malik’s new tattoo is the real deal.

Just as fans were beginning to come to terms with the singer’s new look, his girlfriend Gigi has shared a new Snapchat of her man.

And whad’ya know, he’s got an ink-free face on it.

There’s still plenty of art in the image thanks to Gigi showing off her editing skills to make Zayn look like Deadpool.

But between the red and black paint job that she’d given her fella, the blonde beauty had left his face untouched.

It meant that there wasn’t a single trace of anything on Zayn’s face – including the new ink he debuted over the weekend on Instagram.

Zayn Malik Tattoo

by Staff
0 votedvote

Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death

Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death
, The abrupt death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia-the fiery, funny, polarizing face of the Court’s modern conservative turn-ended a chapter in legal history and opened a political battle of a kind that America has not seen in decades. The bitter divide of this Presidential election season-over visions for the economy, national security, and immigration-has widened to include the ideological composition of the nation’s highest court.

At seventy-nine, Scalia was the Court’s longest-serving Justice, a father of nine, and an outsized personality who thrilled conservatives and infuriated liberals like nobody else in Washington. Though he maintained close friendships with some of his combatants, including fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and always hired a “token liberal” among his clerks, he openly relished the political implications of the Court’s affairs. Ever since he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan, in 1986, he dedicated himself to combating the notion of a “living” Constitution that evolves in step with the nation. The very announcement of Scalia’s death was accompanied by a political declaration. In the first official notice, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said, “We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the rule of law.”

The 2016 election has become a contest not only to determine control of the White House and the Congress but also to shape the future of the Supreme Court. The next President was expected to make multiple appointments to the court. (On Inauguration Day, Ginsburg will be nearly eighty-four, Anthony Kennedy will be over eighty, and Stephen Breyer will be seventy-eight.) With Scalia’s death, the partisan composition of the Court is now already up in the air. In a hastily arranged address on Saturday night, President Obama said he planned to name a nominee, over the protests of Republicans who could seek to prevent the Senate from voting on it. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor, in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to carry out its responsibility for a timely vote,” he said. The issues at stake, he added, “are bigger than any one party. They are about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his life.”

The outcome of the process has the potential to reshape American law on abortion, affirmative action, voting rights, energy, campaign finance, and many other issues. The political effects on the Presidential race cut in multiple directions: Will the suddenly inescapable vision of, say, a Cruz Presidency and a Cruz-chosen nominee bring more Democrats to the polls? And to which Democrat does that benefit accrue? Will the risk of a Sanders Court inspire evangelical voters to consolidate behind a Republican choice?

As news of Scalia’s death spread, hours before a Republican debate, the call for a moratorium on political strategizing around the news, in order to honor his achievements, was brief. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that, in effect, called on President Obama to refrain from naming a replacement and allow the Court to operate with eight Justices. “The American people? should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said.

Ted Cruz, the Texas senator who was a clerk for former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, agreed, marking Scalia’s passing in a tweet: “We owe it to him, and the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called on Obama to nominate a replacement immediately, saying, “The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible.” Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, called for the Senate to “delay, delay, delay” if President Obama attempts to name a successor.

Hillary Clinton said that Republicans who want the seat to remain vacant until the next President is in office “dishonor our Constitution” for partisan reasons. Bernie Sanders, who defeated Clinton last week in the New Hampshire primary in part by presenting himself as a different kind of politician, avoided any mention of the political implications: “While I differed with Justice Scalia’s views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing.”

When Obama does nominate a successor to Scalia, that could set the stage for a Republican filibuster in the Senate. If there is a filibuster of a nominee, it will be the first time that has occurred since 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson, blocked by Senate Republicans and Southern Democrats, reluctantly withdrew the nomination of his confidant Abe Fortas, whom he had appointed to the Supreme Court three years earlier, to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.

That drama began in June of that year when Warren, a Republican known for his liberal decisions, informed Johnson that he intended to retire. Just months before Election Day, Johnson moved swiftly to nominate Fortas as a successor to the Chief Justice. But it emerged that Fortas had attended White House staff meetings, briefed Johnson on Court deliberations, and pressured senators to limit their opposition to the Vietnam War. Moreover, Fortas had been paid outside his salary to speak to students at American University. The Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen and others withdrew their support-sparking the first and, so far, the only Senate filibuster over a Supreme Court nomination. (Scholars and partisan opponents have debated, ever since, whether it was technically a filibuster or another form of parliamentary procedure, though Laura Kalman, a professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has said that “Abe Fortas and L.B.J. are spinning in their graves at the notion there was no filibuster.”)

While the White House weighs potential nominees, the courts and Presidential contenders face a range of puzzling implications. What will happen if the Supreme Court reaches a tie in any of the cases that are currently before the Justices? (The lower court ruling would stand but would not set a legal precedent.) Is there any liberal nominee who stands a chance of winning confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate? (Early bets landed on Federal Appeals Court Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who has worked in both Democratic and Republican Administrations.) In his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Srinivasan won, in 2013, that rare achievement for a Democrat in today’s Washington-unanimous confirmation, with praise from Republicans.

Justice Antonin Scalia's Death

Posted in US | |
by Staff
0 votedvote

I Love You

I Love You, I love saying “I love you.” I’ll say “love ya” to my parents when I’m about to get off the phone with them, and “love you!!” to my wife as she’s heading out the door for work (“love you???” on Gchat means I’ve gotten myself into trouble with her and I’m searching for a way out). I tell my son I love him, and he doesn’t even get it-he’s an infant.? I’ve been known to proclaim that I love sushi and football and Benjamin Franklin (I mean, how could you not love Ben?).

Many people in this world would find my behavior rather strange. That’s because Americans are exceptionally promiscuous when it comes to professing their love. In the United States, “I love you” is at once exalted and devalued. It can mean everything … or nothing at all. This is not universally the case.

The disconnect was on display during a recent season of The Bachelor, when the host, Chris Harrison, was dumbfounded by the refusal of the reality show’s star, Juan Pablo Galavis, to say “I love you” to Nikki, a woman he had just plucked from a pool of female contestants after a surreal, months-long, on-camera courtship. This was nothing less than Bachelor blasphemy. Galavis, who is Venezuelan-American, later explained that there are numerous ways in Spanish to express your deep affection for a romantic partner-phrases like te quiero (“I like you”) and te adoro (“I adore you”). “I’ve learned that ‘love’ is used a lot in the States for everything: ‘I love that burger, I love my shoes, I love a friend,'” he said. “To me, if it’s overused, it loses meaning.” (For the record: I’m not trying to make excuses for Juan Pablo. There’s a compelling case to be made that his feelings for Nikki never even approached te quiero levels.)

In China, younger people are beginning to use wo ai ni (“I love you”)-something largely unheard of among older generations. “We said, Wo xihuan ni (‘I like you’),” the psychology professor Kaiping Peng told the journalist Roseann Lake, recalling his dating days during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Until recently, “you just showed love through holding hands, kissing, or maybe writing or doing something nice-but you never said it.”

Here’s how distinct America’s situation is: In 2014, four Chinese researchers devoted a study to how the use of “I love you” had become a “daily phenomenon” in the States-directed even at pets and Facebook friends, and deployed for purposes ranging from apologizing to ending phone calls. Their goal was to help teachers in other countries explain the phrase to perplexed students learning English as a foreign language. “In our own experience, as teachers of English in China, we often try to avoid the explanation and practice of the locution I love you even though it appears in the textbook we are teaching,” they wrote. “We do not want to embarrass ourselves or our students.”

Some of the most insightful research on this topic has been conducted by Elisabeth Gareis and Richard Wilkins, both professors of communication at Baruch College. In a 2006 study based on an online survey of American and international students in the United States, Gareis and Wilkins found that relative to American students, international students reported less frequent declarations of “I love you” between romantic partners and from parents to children. Most respondents whose native language was not English said they used the English words ”I love you” more often than the equivalent expression in their native language.

Gareis and Wilkins invited respondents to elaborate on how they thought about the phrase. Here’s what one Chinese-American woman wrote:

Every time when I go back home, my father always go to kitchen and asks me what I want to eat. He doesn’t say anything but make food for me quietly. It is very touching every time when I see my father does it. Love doesn’t have to be express verbally.

In China, men are always the heads of the families. The women were taught to obey their father, husband and son. Therefore, men are very dominating. In order to show men’s power, they don’t say ”I love you” easily because it is considered emotional when they say it.

A Syrian-American man:

”I love you” is a more serious and committing term in other cultures. Middle eastern girls I know who hear that from a guy automatically think marriage.

A Polish woman:

I know that if I would tell my parents straightforward that I love them they would not feel comfortable, same thing with my sister. We [Polish people] know we love each other but we don’t say it straight to somebody’s face if it is not our husband or wife.

I tell my son every day that I love him and he tells me the same thing. He was born here [in the United States] and I think it is easier for him and for me to use English ”I love you” than if I would have to tell him in Polish. I don’t know how to explain this. I do mean real love when I tell him this, but it sounds different if I think about it in Polish. Maybe the way I was brought up has an influence.

A Colombian-American man (contradicting Juan Pablo, I should add):

It’s something that Latin people don’t really hold back on verbally. The word [“love”] is sometimes thrown around like a love struck teenager.

A Hungarian woman from Romania:

[Saying “I love you”] shows the weakness of the person who couldn’t control herself/himself and had to burst out.

My partner is American who feels the urge of declaring his love to me verbally and nonverbally way too often. And he is hurt by my reaction or lack of response. It took me four years, but I learned that it is important to him, so I let him say it, and I say it back, surprisingly easily. English is not my first, second or third language, saying ”I love you” means nothing to me. I wouldn’t dare say it in Hungarian to anyone.

I must say things are changing lately. For 30 years I only heard on TV anybody saying ”I love you.” Since I’ve been studying in the US, my father started to write me text messages on my cell phone ending in ”I love you.” My Mom expresses the same in the end of her e-mails. It’s a huge step in my family and for my culture. They still don’t say it to my sister, who lives in the same city [abroad].

So what explains all this variation? The Chinese researchers who studied the ubiquity of “I love you” in American English cited the anthropologist Edward Hall’s theory of “low-context” and “high-context” cultures, where the style of communication reflects a low or high level of common experiences. If the level of shared cultural context is high, much can be left implicit or unsaid. To generalize: A relatively young, individualistic, demographically diverse country like the United States is low-context; an older, collectivist, more demographically homogeneous country like China is high-context.

“Chinese values hold that direct and open verbal declaration”-like saying “I love you”-“is considered shallow and frivolous,” the researchers wrote. “Conversely, an indirect style of communication is considered civilized and sophisticated since actions speak louder than words.”

But this explanation only goes so far. In a 2010 study, Gareis and Wilkins discovered that “I love you” was used more frequently in U.S. relationships than in German ones, even though German culture has been categorized as lower-context. They attributed the difference in part to the fact that in English there is one all-purpose word for love, while in German there are different expressions-“I hold you dearly,” for instance-for different sorts of love (and the literal German equivalent of “I love you,” Ich liebe dich, is perceived by many Germans as either excessively formal or indicative of a serious romantic commitment).

Gareis and Wilkins also point out that widespread declarations of love in the United States, and the emotional openness associated with them, have actually developed only recently, perhaps stemming from the lovefest of the 1960s and the feminist and men’s-liberation movements in the second half of the 20th century. And they’ve spread to other parts of the world, and particularly to younger generations in other countries, through American pop culture and new technology.

“There seems to be an inflationary process within and beyond the United States, especially with respect to the use of the English locution ‘I love you,'” they wrote in 2006. “Reasons provided by the respondents include a movement toward greater openness concerning the expression of feelings, parenting advice to express love more consciously, the ease of sending love declarations via new technology (e.g., text messaging), and-for the increase of verbal love expression beyond the United States-the worldwide influence of US popular culture (through movies, TV, pop music, etc.).”

Gareis and Wilkins offer a great example of these trends: In 2003, McDonald’s launched its “I’m lovin’ it” marketing campaign in Germany, translating its slogan literally as Ich liebe es?. Guardians of the German language were not pleased. “An American is relatively quick in expressing love for profane things and therefore is able to give his/her heart to fast food. The German translation ‘Ich liebe es,’ however, is just too strong to be squeezed into a styrofoam box together with a fatty burger,” one journalist argued.

But is it really not OK to love a Big Mac? Is there really a “right” way to express love? What strikes me about all these differences is not the merits of each approach, but rather the splendid variation, which enrich the definition of love itself. Several years ago, in an article for The New York Times, Jennifer Percy recalled how her German-speaking boyfriend tried to explain the phrase ich habe mich gerade wieder in dich verliebt (“I just fell in love with you again”), and why she shouldn’t be insulted when he said it to her-why she shouldn’t be distressed by the suggestion that his love flickered in and out. The expression “actually means a moment when you realize again why you are in love with someone,” Percy wrote. It’s a feeling many of us have experienced, but one that “I love you” doesn’t quite convey.

I Love You

by Staff
0 votedvote

Happy Valentine’s Day

Happy Valentine’s Day, It’s easy to be cynical about a day that’s devoted to love and relationships. So why not instead add a bit of humor to Valentine’s Day, whether you’re celebrating it alone or with someone special Sunday? Here is a collection of funny quotes about romance, dating, love and marriage to get your girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse or single friends laughing about the holiday:

“It wasn’t love at first sight. It took a full five minutes.” – Lucille Ball

“Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage.” – Ambrose Bierce

“I thought I was promiscuous, but it turns out I was just thorough.” – Russell Brand

“Today, folks should be all about love. Unless you’re old.” – Stephen Colbert

“Women marry men hoping they will change. Men marry women hoping they will not. So each is inevitably disappointed.” -Albert Einstein

“Oh, here’s an idea: Let’s make pictures of our internal organs and give them to other people we love on Valentine’s Day. That’s not weird at all.” – Jimmy Fallon

“Valentine’s Day has gotten blown way out of proportion. Valentine’s Day just used to be for your girlfriend or your wife but now everyone’s like, ‘Oh, Happy Valentine’s Day!’ I even got a Valentine’s Day card from my grandmother. How ridiculous is that? We stopped having sex years ago!” – Greg Giraldo

“Love is like a faucet, it turns off and on.” – Billie Holiday

“Honesty is the key to a relationship. If you can fake that, you’re in.” – Richard Jeni

“Love is telling someone their hair extensions are showing.” – Natasha Leggero

“Today is Valentine’s Day. Or, as men like to call it, Extortion Day.” – Jay Leno

“The jewelry stores say, ‘Tell your wife you love her with a diamond,’ while wives tell you they love you with, ‘OK, but just because it’s Valentine’s Day.'” – George Lopez

“I require three things in a man: He must be handsome, ruthless and stupid.” – Dorothy Parker

“Love is a grave mental disease” – Plato

“Love is like an hourglass, with the heart filling up as the brain empties.” – Jules Renard

“There are only three things women need in life: Food, water and compliments.” – Chris Rock

“All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn’t hurt.” – Charles M. Schulz

“Being a good husband is like being a stand-up comic. You need 10 years before you can call yourself a beginner.” – Jerry Seinfeld

“I wanted to make it really special on Valentine’s Day, so I tied my boyfriend up. And for three solid hours, I watched whatever I wanted on TV.” – Tracy Smith

“Every year, girls are like, ‘This is the year I get diamonds!'” And guys are like, ‘This is the year I get a blowjob!’ Everybody’s disappointed.” – Aisha Tyler

“Men always want to be a woman’s first love – women like to be a man’s last romance.” – Oscar Wilde

  Happy Valentine's Day