Tuesday's intriguing people
Romeo Beckham, 8, is Britain's 26th-most-stylish "man," behind his father, who’s at No. 16, according to GQ magazine.
January 4th, 2011
11:35 AM ET

Tuesday's intriguing people

Romeo Beckham

The 8-year-old son of soccer superstar David Beckham and former Spice Girl (Posh) Victoria Beckham is one of Britain’s most stylish men, according GQ magazine in the UK.

The youngster came in No. 26 in GQ’s annual ranking of Britain’s 50 most stylish men. That puts Romeo one spot in front of the recently engaged Prince William but 10 spots behind his L.A. Galaxy midfielder father.

GQ calls the Beckhams' middle child “a frighteningly tuned-in (and well-connected) eight-year-old.” Not shocking for a boy who last year signed a deal to design his own line of sunglasses.

Top on the list is “Kick-Ass” and “Nowhere Boy” actor Aaron Johnson.

Other notables include Prince Harry at No. 5, British Prime Minister David Cameron at No. 20, singer Elton John at No. 21 and actor Daniel Day-Lewis at No. 50.

James Jablon

Talk about being thrown into the lion’s den – except that Jablon is sleeping there of his own accord.

The Spring Hill, Florida, wildlife expert is holing up with Lea and Ed, two adult lions who reside at his Wildlife Rehabilitation of Hernando County. He will live with the lions all month to raise money for the facility, which takes about $75,000 a year to operate.

The 14-acre facility is home to several animals, including monkeys, alligators, coyotes and eagles. CNN affiliate WTSP-TV in Tampa reported. Jablon said he’d like to make between $100,000 and $200,000, every penny of which he says will go the animals at his center.

The cohabitation was scheduled to be streamed live on the internet, but the site was not loading Tuesday morning. However, the center’s Facebook site was still up and running for those with inquiries or donations.

“I’m a nut. I don’t know, and I pick a month with 31 days, my daughter keeps reminding me,” Jablon told CNN affiliate WFTS-TV in Tampa.

Though the lions recognize him as their caretaker (check out photos of Jablon snuggling and wrestling with the big cats), he is not naive. They’re still wild animals, he said, and he has set up a lock-out area if the lions’ play time gets too raucous.

He also plans on eating when the lions eat - once a day in the evening - and he’ll be leaving the cage only to use the portable toilet just outside the confines.

Antonin Scalia

The Supreme Court justice, who has been on the bench for 24 years, is catching some heat after remarks he made during an interview with California Lawyer magazine about whether the Constitution protects women and gays from discrimination.

The interview has sparked outrage on Twitter and in mainstream media. Among those who took issue were Marcia Greenberger, founder of the National Women's Law Center, who called the justice's remarks "shocking."

Blogger Perez Hilton, known for quickly coming to the defense of gay rights, titled a post "WTF Scalia" and said, "We find it really troubling that all of this is coming from a current Supreme Court justice. He's retiring soon, right?"

The blog Gawker, too, had its own take: "Surprise, surprise! There is no line in the Constitution that reads, "ATTN: ANTONIN SCALIA JUST SO YOU KNOW WOMEN ARE AFFORDED THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AS EVERYONE ELSE FYI ... "

Here's the exchange exactly as it went down:

Interviewer: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

soundoff (16 Responses)
  1. mjp

    I'm not a fan of Scalia but I'm not seeing anything wrong with his comments. He's talking about the democratic system of government in the U.S. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't find his statement all the offensive.

    January 4, 2011 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jonathan

      This is the part that's wrong:

      "Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law"

      The role of government is to protect monitories from the passion and greed of the majority. That is exactly what courts do. But since this is an issue that Scalia doesn't like, he's sidestepping this fact.

      January 4, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • 16halo

      His comments are not offensive they are scary. Think about it. If we left issues regarding equal rights, affirmative action, disability access, the right to vote, etc to the ballot box and the legislator this country would be a nightmare to live in. It would be in totaly disarry. You would have states that protected minorities and states that didn't. It's the pretense that good people would do the right thing at some point.

      January 4, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Ray

    Oops . .. that was meant for the Anotonin Scalia article . . .

    January 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Caravelle

    I'm not seeing anything wrong with his comments

    January 4, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Vote for Pedro

    Naming an 8 year old britians 26th most stylish man does not reflect well on the state of british men in general.

    January 4, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Ian

    I read that article about beckham's kid after reading the one about the little afghan girl who has to burn trash to stay warm and I feel sick now.

    January 4, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Lacey

    Ian....I agree. This is sickening! I guess this article shows what is important to the rich and famous. Most stylish men....ummm he's a kid and looking at him in the above picture he looks like any other kid you see in the school yards. Designing sunglasses...give me a break. The Beckham family needs to look at Brad and Angelina who truly care about people and help with many charities.

    January 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
  7. patricia lumaava

    That 8 year old boy should never have made the list in the first place. He's not even a genius... He just happens to have rich parents who pay for everything. He's not even interesting or talented.

    January 4, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  8. youshallbejudged

    What a pathetic story. Meanwhile there is a little afghan girl name Marjan who is burning trash to stay alive. How sick have we become?

    January 4, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
  9. purga

    An "8 year old boy" is considered a "man?" in UK? Ok, wait till someone that young commits a crime, will he be given a punishment deserving of a "man?"

    January 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
  10. ItsDaPoleece

    I completely agree, mjp. Not only is his statement not offensive, it's 100% true. Congress never intended for the 14th Amendment to apply to women or gays, and if someone mentioned that one day it would apply to them, the Congress then probably wouldve included provisions to prohibit that.

    I see where the problem may lie though, and that is in the phrasing of the question, not in Judge Scalia's answer. The interviewer asks, "does that mean we've gone off in error," when that implies we took a wrong course morally. He shouldve asked in more specific words if our current interpretation veered off from the Amendment's original intention.

    Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the poor wording of the question was on purpose to cause a controversy out of an answer that I feel was common sense. An interviewer's entire job is to ask questions and be a good communicator. Either this interviewer failed at his job in this instance, or he succeeded at an ulterior motive.

    January 4, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
  11. COL. BAT GUANO

    My pick? That's easy. Ronald McDonald.

    January 4, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Report abuse |
  12. pw

    Go back to law school scalia

    January 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Captain_Colossal

    Well he's certainly got that British smile. hahahahahahahahaha

    January 5, 2011 at 1:17 am | Report abuse |
  14. Maria Jolicoeur

    I think he is a positive role model.

    January 10, 2011 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |