Quantcast
Channel: Gawker
Viewing all 24829 articles
Browse latest View live

Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

$
0
0

Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

Apple’s new set top box, a cheap VR headset, and the smallest Jambox highlight today’s best deals. Commerce Content is independent of Editorial and Advertising, and if you buy something through our posts, we may get a small share of the sale. Click here to learn more.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01...

http://deals.kinja.com/todays-best-ap...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

For a limited time, RadioShack (that’s not a typo) is selling a new Apple TV for $120, or $30 off its MSRP. They’ll also toss an HDMI cable in for good measure. Be sure to check out Gizmodo’s review if you’re on the fence. [Apple TV Next Generation - 32GB and HDMI Cable Bundle, $120]

https://www.radioshack.com/products/apple...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

You have no shortage of options when it comes to Bluetooth speakers, but the Jawbone Jambox line started the entire trend, and its highly-rated mini model is just $60 today on Amazon. [MINI JAMBOX by Jawbone Wireless Bluetooth Speaker, $60]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DVKORXC/...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

It’s not as advanced as a Samsung Gear VR or Oculus Rift, but if you have a smartphone and $19, you can experience VR with this View-Master VR starter set.

The View-Master is actually just a Google Cardboard-compatible VR headset, except, you know, it’s not made of cardboard. That means it’s cheap, but not too janky to give as a gift this holiday season. [Viewmaster VR With Google Cardboard Support, $19]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

We can all afford to be paranoid at this price. [Magicfly Stainless Steel RFID Blocking Credit Card Holder, $3 with code QNY3U45R]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0143ZIKTA


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

If your car is old enough to lack both Bluetooth and an AUX jack, this wireless FM transmitter will bring it up to code, no wires required. [Mpow Streambot Flex 2-In-1 Wireless Car Stereo Bluetooth FM Transmitter, $25 with code SJGSYZHL]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WAWMV62


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

I dare say, even a footman could afford to buy the first five seasons of Downton Abbey on Blu-ray for $45. [Preorder Masterpiece Classic: Downton Abbey: Seasons 1-5, $45]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

Amazon just kicked off their end-of-year digital game sale, with big discounts on downloadable PC, PS4, and Xbox One titles. Highlights include Cities: Skylines for $12, Bioshock Triple Pack for $14, and Civilization V Complete for $13, but be sure to head over to Amazon to see all of the available discounts. [Amazon]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

Adobe’s Photoshop and Lightroom Creative Cloud photography suite normally costs $10 per month, but Amazon’s currently selling a 12-month plan for just $8 per month for the holidays. Creative Cloud plans don’t go on sale often, so if you’re a creative professional, or just want to make your own photos look better, this is a great opportunity to save on industry standard software. [Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan, $8 per month for one year]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

In just a few short years, App Santa has become one of my favorite holiday traditions, and it’s back today with great deals on popular iOS and Mac apps from some of the best indie developers in the business.

Personally, I use Tweetbot for Mac every single day, and Soulver, Drafts, Clear, and Deliveries also occupy space on my first two iPhone home screens. Every app in the promotion is popular and highly-rated though, so be sure to check out the full list below.


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

If you’ve got some cash to spend, and need a whopper of a last minute gift, Logitech’s Harmony Ultimate remote is marked down to just $195 today on Amazon, which is an all-time low, and more than $100 off its usual price. [Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote with Customizable Touch Screen and Closed Cabinet RF Control, $195]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BQ5RY1G/...


Today's Best Deals: Apple TV, Virtual Reality, Mini Jambox, and More

Order today, and you can still stuff everyone’s stockings with sub-$20 Bluetooth headphones. [Mpow Wolverine Bluetooth 4.1 Wireless Sports Headphones, $18 with code NXZ7GIVS]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0192MRF5Y/


More Deals


Tech

Home

Gaming

Media


Commerce Content is independent of Editorial and Advertising, and if you buy something through our posts, we may get a smallClick here to learn more. We want your feedback.Send deal submissions to Deals@Gawker and all other inquiries to Shane@Gawker

httpsDeals/status/630717684355694593


No Offense

$
0
0

No Offense

It’s strange to edit a feminist website when almost nothing offends you, because the feminist website is traditionally imagined to run on offense.

This is not how we imagine it ourselves while we’re working. I’ve learned it slowly, watching strangers react. The model, I gather, is that of a factory, which ideally functions like this: (1) Feminists are full of ambient, legitimate discontentment because of generalized inequality—the wage gap, institutional discrimination, normalized sexual violence, etc. (2) That discontentment is then drawn to a headline on a feminist website like “Ohio Just Passed a Law Requiring Pregnant Women to Name All Fetuses ‘Ava Avery’ Before Obtaining Abortion” or “Look at This Dumbass Douche With His Ballsack Draped Over an LIRR Armrest.” (3) Within that article on the feminist website, the feminist’s discontentment is validated, essentially self-actualized—it gains a sense of greater purpose, is attached to an identity, and becomes that grandly pressing thing, offense.

There’s supposed to be a fourth step; the offense is supposed to go somewhere and do something. The Ohio law is blocked after wide public protest; the ballsack man (just one more point on the spectrum of all those men who think their ballsacks can go places they shouldn’t, am I right, she cried, burning in hell) is meekly and humbly shamed.

Of course, in practice, that’s not what happens at all.

This summer, at Lollapalooza, I got offended while talking to a man wearing a North Face parody shirt that said RAPE YOUR FACE. He was an objectively upsetting sight, just visually, but I wasn’t mad about it until the end of our conversation: I asked him if he’d ever raped a face and he told me, grinning, that I’d just have to find out for myself.

At that precise moment, I felt the offense mechanism kick in: the everyday occurrence of seeing something bad, plus the added condition of taking it personally. Fuck that guy! I thought, flushed with a sensation I experience maybe three times per year. I had tried to convey the fact that “RAPE YOUR FACE” wasn’t an abstract message; the guy jumped ahead of me, personalizing it with an invitation. I felt directly involved, which is a sensation that appeals to people in a way I don’t connect with. I don’t like the hit of that feeling, the self-enlargement, the heat.

The next morning, I wrote it up. The post was short and gentle, without commentary and without the man’s name. Still, it was a “get offended at this” post—a classic Jezebel category that I presume has always been overrepresented by virality and exacerbated by the problem of tonal register. There’s a large gap between “this is bad” and “you should be offended” that seems to vanish on the internet, and the harder we try to widen it on this website, the more we are constrained by that lingering expectation: that Jezebel exists, as some have always imagined it to, for the infantilizing purpose of telling women when they should get mad.

It felt like something adjacent to satisfaction to live up to that expectation for once. And it worked; people got mad; other websites picked the story up. The factory processed my offense forward to the final step, and then, as usually happens, it went nowhere. The rape-your-face guy did not, as far as I know, come to the understanding that his shirt was horrible. Presumably, his already considerable sense of alienation from and aggression towards women got deeper. For sure, his friends photoshopped dicks on my face and tweeted them at me for a week.

The offense factory model is the longstanding public conception of the feminist site’s broadest political use—“court[ing] pageviews with...easy indignation,” as Molly Fischer wrote about Jezebel in n+1 in 2012. As a formula, it relies on offense being viewed as politically valuable, a tool that will unite people with similar interests and make them do something other than type, complain, and type.

But at the end of 2015, it should be clear: offense doesn’t work that way. The offense model has failed, and dramatically. Women have a prominent voice in online media; feminism is a broad and verbally defended platform, and what has it all amounted to except a nightmarish discursive juxtaposition between what feminism says and what it is able to do? Pop stars preach female solidarity while reproductive rights roll back all over the country; we have politicized and vindicated every possible manifestation of female narcissism without getting any legislative movement towards mandatory paid parental leave. Feminism is proliferating essentially as merchandise; we can buy anything that suits us and nothing that we really need.

A deep frustration about this disconnect simmers. It produces, incorrectly, the idea that the solution is for feminism to be more tightly regulated. The old expectation lingers as the practices are changing: in theory, people still expect a feminist site to tell people what to be offended at; but what people seek from a feminist site is that the site itself will cause offense.


A website, like a person, can go about its day in a relatively unfettered fashion and still, when it matters, be confined within a larger frame. More specifically, as tends to happen with women generally, women’s sites are known less for the times they are quietly successful or respectably competent and more for the times that they have loudly fucked up.

Not counting the large audience of conservative people that we are constantly offending in a way that’s not worth thinking about, Jezebel has angered people three major times this year. All three posts I find instinctively defensible; two of them involved editorial decisions I’d classify as mistakes. The first was Natasha Vargas-Cooper’s post about Amy Pascal’s pube dye, the reaction to which the editors did not anticipate (that was our mistake); the second was the Zola story, which I wrote (my mistake here was to not blur Zola’s friend’s face immediately); the third was Sarah Miller’s personal essay about how much she hates maxi dresses, which I edited, and still think is great.

None of those posts were intended to get attention via offending people, but they immediately attracted the type of traffic that these types of posts do. Providing women all over the internet an occasion to distance themselves from some purported baseline, these offense posts are in a practical sense the “greatest hits” of feminist discourse; these three got 140,000, 410,000 and 200,000 hits respectively. (For comparison, the same day we published the Pascal post, we published an essay by a woman who is facing a decade of legal entanglement in Burkina Faso to try her rapist in court; it was viewed 67,000 times.) On Pascal, Zola, and Maxi Dress, we got hundreds of offended comments, dozens of angry emails; people wrote nice pieces on respected outlets about Jezebel’s poor editorial judgment and anti-pube, anti-sex-worker, body-shaming politics; others, nearly all liberal women, tweeted at me, calling me sociopathic, saying that we hated women, that no one respected us, on and on.

The “woman-hating from a so-called feminist site” line of criticism has been attached to Jezebel since the beginning. The motion of the criticism itself tends to be valid and valuable; what surprises me every time is the weight attached to this criticism, the sense of actual offense, the personal investment, the damningly fatalistic idea that feminist ideology itself, as well as every woman who believes in it, is threatened if a women’s website makes a misstep or mistake. (The sense that the label will only invoke a grading rubric—not a gimme, as it is for others, but a gotcha—is one of the reasons why Jezebel, to the long-standing dismay of some readers, hasn’t explicitly self-identified as a feminist website; I’m calling it a feminist website now because we are described that way nonetheless.)

I have criticized Jezebel myself in the past: I wrote a piece at The Hairpin in early 2014 about the Lena Dunham photoshop bounty, which did not strike me as offensive as much as it did ideologically transparent. I didn’t like it, but it did not occur to me for a second that a blog post at a website that generally corresponded with my politics could actually have the power to sully those politics, or meaningfully put them at stake. That piece was edited by Emma Carmichael, who hired me at Jezebel later that year.

Criticism exists for its own sake, while offense has larger goals—to extract an apology, to shore up moral superiority, to browbeat the offender into changing her life. Fischer’s n+1 piece documents a 2008 incident where Tracie Egan Morrissey and Moe Tkacik were called on the carpet for saying some off-color things at a comedian’s live show. She writes:

Egan and Tkacik made some efforts to defend themselves: they were drunk, they were caught off guard. Basically, they wanted to be women and speak without necessarily speaking for women. Their online bravado had looked like it might be some brash new face of feminism. After a certain point, though, their rebellion seemed to be demanding the right to not be taken seriously.

Or perhaps what they were demanding the right not to be representative, which isn’t necessarily the same thing. It is possible to believe in your own politics and not expect other people to echo you. It is possible, perhaps necessary, to think you are right without needing anyone to agree. It seems like something that anyone would want, as a person, as a feminist, as a person who works for a feminist website: to not have your work’s purpose identified by other people as predicting and adhering to a large, messy, multivalent crowd’s idea of what is correct.

Let’s say a feminist site fucks up occasionally; so do feminists. Let’s say even that the site is frequently unpalatable; that seems reasonable in a world where every human is a nightmare to someone else. To me, the obvious conclusion from everything that is annoying on the internet is that the stakes of representation should be much, much lower. But we are trudging through these wild storms of approval and disapprobation on a failing hunt for consensus; we are worshiping and trying to locate a mirage.


Some of the most “offensive” things that have been written about me on the internet stem from my defense of Lena Dunham, who, ironically, may be the person most offended at Jezebel out of everyone in the world.

You may remember that, in 2014, some maniacs tried to drum up the idea that Dunham was a child molester based on the way she describes touching her sister’s diaper in her memoir. I wrote several times about how I disagreed with this, which caused a few fringy right-wing men to clog up my SEO with articles about how I love child rape and child rapists and rape in general almost as much as I love Lena Dunham, my presumed role model and ideological twin.

I think this is fine, and almost funny, for the same reasons that I think it’s fine and almost funny when people tweet that I hate women: (1) it’s not true, and (2) it seems unrealistic to think of other people’s opinions as strictly my business, even when those opinions are about me. But, in light of the clammy men’s rights tenacity with which I’ve been tied to my defense of Dunham, it was quite annoying to hear her describe Jezebel like this on a podcast at Re/code:

I used to read Gawker and Jezebel in college and be like, “I can’t wait to get to New York where my people will be to welcome me.” And it’s like, it’s literally, if I read it, it’s like going back to a husband who beat me in the face — it just doesn’t make any sense.

Dunham later apologized for this statement with a dinosaur cartoon on Instagram, captioning it with the statement that “[The internet has] allowed for so much magic. But also makes room for so much hate and a new kind of violence. I’m not the first to say it. I shan’t be the last.”

She was certainly not the first to label a blog post as “violence,” and at this rate of overly figurative word usage, she surely “shan’t” be the last. There’s also no question that Gawker and Jezebel are staffed with combative people who may not aim for cruelty but occasionally achieve it through our steady love of rudeness, or that both sites have both gone over the line on Dunham, too. Gawker outed her rapist; Jezebel called aggressively for her unretouched Vogue photos. On the other hand, Gawker also defended her against the National Review; both sites defended her (three times on my byline) against the allegations that she was a child abuser; both sites have also written legitimate criticism of her treatment of race and her opposition to sex work decriminalization.

I’m not sure I’d read Jezebel if I were Dunham, either. But there are several kinks in the rhetoric surrounding Lenny, Dunham’s newsletter, which has Jessica Grose, early Jezebel alum, as editor-in-chief. In an interview with Anne Helen Petersen at BuzzFeed, Grose said:

The internet feminism conversation can be very circular and limiting and exclusive. And it saddens me to see that a lot of the competition is about saying “you’re not feminist enough”: trying to kick people out of feminism rather than bring them in. And Lenny is an opportunity to say, “There are many different types of feminisms, and we can work together.”

You can see the submerged truth in here—the understanding that if there is any consensus to be built in feminism, it must necessarily incorporate dissent. But “feminists are bad when they say other feminists are bad” is an extremely convoluted idea. So is “we’re going to be better than the bad feminists by being inclusive of all feminists, except whoever does not fit our definition of what a good feminist is.”

This line of thinking is too complicated to be useful or even regularly put to use in the real world, where feminism often seems much simpler: a matter of being aware of inequities, of accounting for them, of letting people be. But on the internet, the idea that feminism requires careful, crowd-conscious positioning is dominant. The idea also hovered around two of the most popular woman-centered books of last year: first Roxane Gay’s Bad Feminist—the primary intellectual weakness of the woman-centered internet can be summed up as “we love Bad Feminist but we hate bad feminists”—and then Lena Dunham’s memoir itself, which insightfully crystallized one of the largest cultural trends of this decade with its title, Not That Kind of Girl.

The essence of this type of thinking is negative self-definition: the delineation of political identity by what you are not. This is not new, of course, but it’s exacerbated by the internet, which revolves around brand-building and feelings of superiority and incentivizes the public, repeated, politically decorative combination of the two. (Actually decorative, on occasion: $46 at Lenny’s new online store will get you a tasseled banner that reads “FEMINIST,” and for $46 more you can preface it with the word “STAUNCH.”) In other words, it’s easy to look around at this unappealing buffet of identity and establish who you are by deciding first who you don’t want to be. It’s easy to say you are Not That Kind of Feminist as if that were sufficient to establish What Kind of Feminist You Are.


The avowal of something does not instantiate it. Is that as obvious as I think? Fervent support for a political position does not automatically translate into any meaningful gains. The failure of the feminist offense factory to result in much else other than better TV and extremely woke 12-year-olds should be sufficient proof of that.

Contemporary life means being hyper-aware and worse off than ever; we are increasingly shut out of the mechanisms of representational democracy and simultaneously being forced to know more and more and more. We know many rape kits are backlogged in all the big cities, how many black teenagers have been shot by the police this year, how shamelessly the NRA pulls its levers, how corporate campaign finance ensures that the wealth gap is here to stay. And we can’t change any of it—or at the very least, not very easily, not when it’s so much easier to sit around and get very precisely insightful online.

And so, there is an unspoken, horrible idea that contemporary political activity starts and perhaps ends with building a really good politicized identity—a process that, again, relies on disapproval, disaffiliation, offense. As tired as the Jezebel-as-offense-factory expectation is, we still get a constant stream of emails asking why we haven’t stated our outrage at one thing or another, telling us that not taking umbrage will weaken our general stance. Offense masquerades are seen as so politically useful that there’s a whole subgenre of rhetoric centered on offense taken hypothetically. What if this post were written about a woman, we conjecture, in the light of our own self-approval. Would you still be offended if the clock had been a bomb?

What? And yet this system of loaded identity formation is impossible to get around on an internet that is socially mediated, where instead of receiving ideas, we receive reactions to those ideas first. Then, further, we are encouraged to react to—to approve or disapprove of—other people’s reactions. This chain of reactions doesn’t do anything; our opinions are useless. But we are so very interested in them, because we are incentivized to be. Social media’s conceptual home base is personal identity, constructed via opinions—it’s your face and whatever you disapprove of, more or less.

So we say who we are by announcing what offends us. We prune our personal stances into intricate dioramas; we call these stances an identity; we call it all action, maybe even progress, where some are concerned.

The feminist dream of being unconstrained by other people’s opinions has been replaced, for the feminist website (and I think, for individual feminists), with a noose of daisy-chained ideas from people who don’t even have the decency to admit they find it more politically productive when you’re wrong than when you’re right. I can’t think of an obligation that feminism ought to have lifted faster than the obligation that a woman construct her life around agreement—and yet, this year, it seems like this is exactly what many people understand feminism, within its own sphere, to be.


In 2015, feminist discourse sought agreement and not-so-secretly craved internal strife. A quick way to prompt backlash was to be a woman who claimed to center other women: newly branded feminist Taylor Swift took a hit over her obviously self-promotional “squad” machinations; Broadly earned some empty fuss over their winking tagline (“for women who know their place”); Vanessa Grigoriadis was slammed for her Nicki Minaj profile in the New York Times Magazine, her writerly distance reinterpreted as racial hatred.

This confusion is inevitable for a movement that was founded on disagreement but appears, deceptively, to have achieved consensus. While feminism is still at significant odds with patriarchal discourse, it’s been normalized into a parallel track, a viable selling point; it is centered in popular vision and somehow evaporating into the air. And so we come to imagine that the problem is one of marketability. We center feminism around palatability, inspiration—female-dictated obligations descended directly from male-dictated obligations that women play nice and look lovely and agree.

In 1970, in a piece of music criticism, Ellen Willis wrote about the danger that feminists would “shore up the very system that punishes them.” In that piece, she wrote, “What disturbed me about both brands of women’s culture music was that it was so conventionally feminine.” The two brands she’s talking about are folk music—intimate, communitarian, rhetorically loaded, insular—and slick, conventional pop. Willis took the sum of it: “It seemed to me that too many of the women’s culture people had merely switched from trying to please men to trying to please other women.”

I wonder how long we’ll be able to read that sentence and still be able to imagine that it was written yesterday? (Around the same time, Willis also wrote about what’s lost when “violence is robbed of all concreteness and becomes a metaphor for a larger, and seemingly inexpressible, set of feminist concerns.”) In a way, the bind Willis wrote about in the aesthetics of music has even gotten worse. She presents two parallel options: slumber-party sensitive feminism, or widely appealing, conventional feminism. The current expectation, maddeningly, is that feminist ideology will somehow adhere to both. It’s supposed to be hard and soft, all-inclusive and heavily patrolled. Approval of women is feminist, disapproval of women is anti-feminist, unless it’s disapproval of the wrong kind of feminist, in which case that disapproval is the nexus of feminism itself. It is a wasteful trap that this dishonest positivity has come to seem essential.

Willis wrote, in another essay called “Feminist Radicalism and Radical Feminism”:

One typical feminine strategy is to compensate for the humiliation of sexual “inferiority” with self-righteous moralism or asceticism. Whether this is rationalized as religious virtue or feminist militance, the result is to reinforce patriarchal values. As I see it, a psychoanalytic perspective is crucial to understanding and challenging such self-defeating tendencies in feminist politics, and for that it is anathema to feminists who confuse the interests of women with their own unconscious agenda.

The unconscious agenda dictated by the internet is to value only what speaks to us directly, to approve only of what corroborates our ideals; to never upset people, to write for approval; to create an identity based on who offends you; to govern your conduct with the goal of being admired. This passes, remarkably, as what’s good for feminism. I can’t imagine anything worse.


Decidedly unhelpful in this dilemma is the fact that the internet visually flattens the peaks and valleys of importance; the platforms we use every day make all ideas look more or less the same. A tweet about something you care about deeply is the same size as a tweet about something you’ll never think about again; engagement shoots on Facebook sit next to death announcements, vacation photos, self-promotion, obvious cries for help; a joke post on this site takes up the same amount of space as a meaningful piece of reporting, and it’s all swept away every day.

In this environment, it’s not just the case that all concerns seem inaccurately equal, but that everything personal seems equally political, too. In the context of feminism, this is particularly counterproductive. Feminism’s promise should ostensibly be that of de-politicization, but its effect has been the opposite; everything about a woman’s life has been politicized to the point of fragile veneration.

This has been one of the most casually alarming things about working at Jezebel: tracking the idea that period stain photos should be allowed on Instagram not because they’re unremarkable but because they are beautiful; the idea that we shouldn’t report on a much-lauded entrepreneur’s questionable business practices in the interest of protecting and “building up” young women; the idea that if women appear on a rude yet accurate list of unintentionally onanistic tweets, as a few did last week, it must be because Gawker Media doesn’t like women who like themselves.

There is an extremely bad undercurrent in this delicate line of thinking that suggests that women are both weak and precious enough to require this—that (unless we are bad feminists, of course) we should be theoretically protected from harshness as a class. There is a growing inseparability between female narcissism and feminist liberation and female identity full stop; there is an idea that women and women’s bodies have to be sacred, treated worshipfully or never mentioned, in order to be worthwhile. There is an idea that every woman is vulnerable enough to be shamed by anything, and that she is also incapable of doing anything (except for being a bad feminist) that should cause her public shame.

It has been interesting to negotiate this editorially. I am overwhelmed with the sense sometimes that what people want from a feminist website is what we seem to want from women generally, what women have learned to want from themselves: a trick mirror that carries the illusion of flawlessness as well as the self-flagellating option of constantly finding fault.


What I want, in front of this mirror, is a de-escalated agenda. I want to see my flaws as they are, no more, no less. I could stand to care a little more when people disapprove of Jezebel, or, more specifically, to believe that my words and choices signify more than I want them to. I wonder sometimes if—in what I think is a sincere political desire to decouple consensus and representation, to detach both obligations from the feminist writer—I am doing exactly what bothers me most in other people: going out of my way to justify whatever I find personally pleasing, acting in extreme self-interest under the rough cloak of social good.

I wonder, I really do, if I’m shirking some basic editorial accountability under the belief that feminism’s relationship to offense is changing—that it has changed significantly already—as well as the sense, despite what is suggested to me, that there are other things to worry about other than getting caught on the wrong side. I think it’s fine when people get offended at this website; I think it’s fine that I tend to disagree. I don’t know if that’s the same thing as believing that the only person who will ever perfectly agree with my politics is me.


Contact the author at jia@jezebel.com.

Illustration by Tara Jacoby

NYPD Cop Charged After Arresting Man Who Tried to Film Him

$
0
0

New York City police officer Jonathan Munoz was charged yesterday in connection to a March 12, 2014 incident in which he arrested a man for trying to film him outside a Washington Heights bar. As the surveillance video above shows, the incident played out very differently than Munoz originally claimed, and the officer has now been charged with official misconduct and lying on a criminal complaint.

When Munoz arrested 21-year-old Jason Disisto in Washington Heights on March 12, he claimed Disisto “had crouched in a fighting stance, lunged at him and swung a fist before he was arrested.” Surveillance footage from the bar shows exactly none of that happened. Still, Munoz arrested Disisto on charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and interfering a police investigation.

According to the video, the incident actually played out like this: Munoz approached Disisto’s friend outside the bar and attempted to illegally search her pockets. Disisto borrowed a cellphone from another friend and started to film Munoz. Munoz then grabbed Disisto and arrested him with the help of two other officers.

The New York Times notes that Disisto’s borrowed phone was later thrown from Munoz’s police car.

Prosecutor Julio Cuevas, Jr., said in state supreme court yesterday that the surveillance video showed that “not only had the man not engaged in the actions attributed to him by Munoz, but that Munoz had unlawfully searched the woman as she stood on the sidewalk.” Munoz’s lawyer, Stephen C. Worth, claimed the absence of audio made the videos misleading.

Munoz pleaded not guilty to both charges.


Contact the author at allie@gawker.com.

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

$
0
0

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

Sean Penn goes by a number of honorifics: actor, journalist, philanthropist, activist, humanitarian. At scattered points throughout his career, however, reporters and biographers have branded him with a much less noble title: wife beater. Since the late Eighties, numerous media outlets have alleged, with varying degrees of specificity and confidence, that Penn is guilty of assaulting—in some versions, torturing—his ex-wife of four years, Madonna. But are these accounts actually true?

The questions surrounding these allegations, which center on a mysterious altercation between the ex-couple at their Malibu home in late 1988, are now receiving a wave of fresh attention thanks to a $10 million defamation lawsuit Penn filed against Lee Daniels, the creator of Empire, in late September. According to the suit, Daniels “falsely asserted and/or implied that Penn is guilty of ongoing, continuous violence against women.” In the same papers, Penn’s lawyers took pains to clarify that he “has never been arrested, much less convicted, for domestic violence.”

Considering the established facts of the case and legal precedent, it is unlikely that Penn will be able to prove in court that Daniels knowingly defamed him. (The allegedly defamatory speech consisted of Daniels’ oblique comparison, during an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, between Penn and the actor Terrence Howard, who has been repeatedly accused of beating up women.) But prevailing against Daniels does not appear to be the primary aim of Penn’s lawsuit. Instead, the actor seems to be treating the case as a publicity campaign to revise the predominant narrative about his behavior toward women in general and Madonna in particular.

This strategy has already produced immense dividends for Penn’s public image, most recently in the form of a sworn affidavit, signed by Madonna Louise Ciccone on October 7 and filed in court last week, in which the singer wrote, “Sean has never struck me, ‘tied me up,’ or physically assaulted me, and any report to the contrary is completely outrageous, malicious, reckless, and false.”

It’s not immediately clear how the Supreme Court of New York County will weigh Madonna’s declaration, given that she signed it after Daniels compared Penn to Howard. Nor is it clear how effective Penn’s strategy will be in the long run. After all, his attempt to prosecute Lee Daniels’ speech will require the court, and the public, to confront the most vexing mystery of the underlying lawsuit: If Sean Penn never struck Madonna, never bound her, never assaulted her—as she now claims—then why, for the past 27 years, have so many people come to believe he did?


It is a matter of record, of course, that Penn possesses violent tendencies. The actor’s history of assaulting mena film extra, a paparazzo, a friend of Madonna’s—is rather well-documented. But it is also a matter of record, if you consider mainstream news outlets the “record,” that those violent tendencies extended to Madonna. Indeed, attorneys for Daniels recently submitted 18 separate exhibits (including copies of six articles, scans for three different Madonna biographies, and a reproduction of a Google search for “Sean Penn domestic violence”), which give the clear impression, separately or combined, that Penn has a history of domestic violence.

Some of the headlines from those exhibits are damning. Here’s one from The Daily Beast:

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

Another from BuzzFeed:

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

And The Daily Mail:

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

A closer scrutiny of these exhibits, however, raises a curious epistemological problem: Where exactly did these accounts of Penn’s violence come from? The Daily Beast piece, which was published earlier this year, is an instructive example. It noted two major allegations: 1) Penn “hi[t Madonna] across the head with a baseball bat” in June 1987, and 2) Penn bound Madonna with a lamp cord before he “smacked and roughed [Madonna] up” for nine hours in December 1989.

For the first allegation, The Daily Beast cited a February 2013 Washington Post article titled “No more free passes to famous men who abuse women,” whose author stated: “Once, Madonna was hospitalized after Penn struck her with a baseball bat. He was charged with domestic assault in 1988 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.” To support this claim, the Post article linked to an un-bylined News.com.au listicle from 2009. That pieces describes Madonna as a “famous victi[m] of domestic violence” and claims Penn “was charged with domestic assault” sometime in the Eighties. It names no sources, and mentions nothing of a baseball bat. It’s not clear, then, how The Washington Post verified the general claim of domestic assault, or the particular weapon Penn used against Madonna.1

For the second allegation, The Daily Beast linked to the aforementioned Daily Mail piece, which came out in March 2009 and largely supported The Daily Beast’s assertion. It even noted that, “In June 1987, Madonna went to the Cedars Sinai hospital [in Los Angeles] for an X-ray after Penn apparently hit her across the head with a baseball bat.” It also quoted a law enforcement agent named “Bill McSweeny” who apparently encountered Madonna after an altercation with Penn: “I hardly recognised her as Madonna. She was weeping, her lip was bleeding and she had obviously been struck.”

The Mail piece, though apparently definitive, is strangely written. It leaves unclear how exactly the piece’s authors were able to confirm any of their article’s claims. How did they know, for example, that Madonna went to the hospital for an X-ray after Penn struck her with a baseball bat? Did the facility confirm the singer’s admittance? And did they speak directly with the law enforcement agent who describe Madonna’s bloodied lip? Or did they speak to someone else?2

These flaws are particularly troublesome because nearly every contemporary account of Penn’s alleged domestic violence relies, either directly or indirectly, upon the same Mail article. Confirming or denying the various allegations against Penn therefore entails getting to the bottom of the Mail’s sourcing. It’s unlikely, after all, that its claims came out of nowhere. But where exactly did they come from? What sources did they rely upon? And were those sources credible?

Sean Penn has confirmed in multiple interviews that Madonna summoned the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to their home on Malibu’s Carbon Mesa Road on the night of December 28, 1988. (Not 1989, as numerous outlets—and Madonna’s own affidavit—have mistakenly noted.) Beyond that, however, the details of that night are still fairly murky. It’s unclear, for example, whether or not Penn was actually arrested. (In Gawker’s original post about his defamation lawsuit against Lee Daniels, we claimed he was in fact arrested, but as we noted in our correction, the available evidence isn’t at all definitive one way or the other.) And Madonna, for her part, has never publicly addressed why exactly she asked the L.A. Sheriff to intervene.

Making matters even murkier is how the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deals with older police records. When we asked the agency for the related incident report, a sheriff named Jim McDonnell told us that documents dated before 1992 “have been purged from our system in accordance with our retention schedule and are no longer available.” He later explained that the agency does not even keep track of which records have been purged.

The lack of an official record makes it difficult, but not impossible, to grapple with the many questions surrounding that night in Malibu. Following Penn’s lawsuit, we began combing through hundreds of reports regarding the alleged incident that have appeared over the past 27 years—including newspaper articles, magazine essays, several books, and various archives in New York and England—to see how many of them can be answered.

January 1989

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

The first account of the alleged incident emerged in the January 8, 1989 edition of The People, a Sunday tabloid paper published by Trinity Mirror, the largest media conglomerate in Britain. There are virtually zero references to, or copies of, the article on the public Internet. However Gawker recently obtained an original copy of the January 8 edition from a newspaper archive in Hertfordshire, England. Under the front-page headline “MADONNA FOUND BOUND AND GAGGED,” the article begins:

SEXY pop star Madonna spent New Year’s Eve trussed up like a turkey after being cruelly battered by her drunken, bully-boy husband Sean Penn. The terrified singer was beaten, gagged, strapped to an armchair with flex and left for nine hours.

She is said to have been “frothing at the mouth” when horrified staff freed her at 1am on New Year’s Day. “The was the final degradation after three years of hell,” said a secretary at the singer’s Malibu mansion. “Madonna was weeping. Her lip was bleeding, her spirit was crushed. She was marked and sore where he had cracked her across the face.”

According to the report’s author, Peter Kent, Malibu law enforcement confirmed their “peripheral involvement”—i.e., they were called to investigate an incident at the same house. But Penn’s publicist, Kent noted, “shrugged off the incident as part of a young couple’s normal ‘ups and downs.’” A spokesperson for Madonna’s record label, meanwhile, issued a bizarre non-denial: “I find it hard to believe Sean would act this way. This sounds like a madman—and there has been nothing in his recent behavior to indicate that he is completely insane.”

The degree to which any outlet or article can be trusted to tell the truth is a matter of debate. But nothing within the text of The People’s report suggests its author decided to invent the events described in the piece. This is not to say his account is completely consistent with other ones: While every other report placed the incident on the night of December 28, 1988, The People placed it, apparently in error, on January 1, 1989. Nor is it to ignore the inherent difficulty in determining the accuracy of any piece of writing that purports to describe an event that you did not personally witness: You can’t possibly experience everything you read about. But if you consider The People’s sourcing—an eyewitness, statements from both parties (neither of which disputed the report’s particulars), and confirmation of police involvement—neither the erroneous date or the natural limits of human knowledge is enough, in and of themselves, to discredit the allegation that Penn bound and beat up Madonna.

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

News of The People’s allegations reached the United States two days later, on January 10, when New York Daily News gossip columnist Liz Smith featured The People’s report as her syndicated column’s first item. No copies of this particular column are available on the Internet, but we were able to find one preserved on microfilm at the New York Public Library. Under the heading “Brits tell a tale of Madonna bondage,” Smith wrote:

BRITAIN’s tabloid titled The People has a big headlined story dated Jan. 8 in which they claim that Madonna spent New Year’s Eve “trussed up like a turkey” after being beaten, gagged, strapped to an armchair and left alone by Sean Penn for nine hours. They say the very next day, the outraged Madonna filed for divorce.

“Although I have no evidence that this happened,” Smith continued, “sources close to Madonna who told this column last week that the marriage definitely over, also hinted at the time that the split had come after some particularly violent episode.”

Major American outlets began to flesh out the alleged incident’s fallout the day thereafter, beginning with the Associated Press reporting that Madonna had filed—and later withdrawn—an assault complaint against Penn. “Contents of the report were not disclosed,” noted the A.P., whose report was preserved by the news archive Lexis-Nexis. “However, the British tabloid press reported that Madonna was beaten, gagged and left strapped to an armchair for nine hours before she escaped.”

USA Today went even further in their own report:

The complaint was filed after L.A. County sheriff’s deputies responded to a disturbance call at the couple’s Malibu home Dec. 28. They determined ‘that a possible assault had been attempted,’ said Detective John Flaherty of the Malibu station. Prosecutors and Madonna’s spokeswoman refused to discuss the incident.

Both the A.P. and USA Today included a statement from a deputy district attorney named Al Albergate: “Madonna asked that there be no criminal charges pressed. There is no other evidence with which to base a criminal charge so there won’t be a criminal charge filed.”

March 1989

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

Between her and Penn, Madonna was the first party to acknowledge the incident, during an extended interview with the journalist Bill Zehme for the March 23, 1989 issue of Rolling Stone. Rumors about the altercation were still in full force, so Zehme prefaced a transcript of their exchange with a lengthy run-down of what people in Hollywood were talking about:

Rumors surrounding Madonna’s “night of terror” (December 28th, 1988): A drunken Sean explodes at Madonna in their Malibu estate because (a) having a baby in the near future does not jibe with her plans; (b) he is annoyed at her friendships with Warren Beatty and/or Sandra Bernhard. Sean demonstrates his displeasure by (a) roughing her up; (b) threatening to thrust her head into an oven; (c) hogtying her with leather straps (and/or twine) to a chair and leaving her “trussed up like a turkey” (tabloid description) for nine hours. She persuades him to release her and/or escapes to the Malibu sheriff’s office, where she swears out an assault complaint against her husband. (The complaint, which was actually filed, is withdrawn by her days later.) She then seeks refuge in the home of (a) photographer friend Herb Ritts; (b) her manager, Freddy DeMann.

Madonna obliquely denied these rumors to Zehme:

Zehme: How accurate are the tabloid tales of your night of terror—the nine hours in bondage?

Madonna: Extremely inaccurate, as they usually are. They made it all up. But I expect it. They’re always making shit up. I’ve completely reconciled myself to that fact.

Shortly thereafter, Zehme pressed Madonna about the police report she filed with the Malibu sheriff:

Zehme: But you did file and later drop charges with the Malibu police, right?

Madonna: [Pauses] I understand your position. People want to hear the dirt. But this is not really anything I want to talk about here. It’s totally unfair to Sean, too. I have great respect for him. It’s like most relationships that fail. It’s not one thing, it’s many thing that go on over a period of time.

By contending that everything had been made up by tabloids—while otherwise refusing to specify why she had filed and later withdrawn a police report against Penn—Madonna placed the rumors in the odd state of limbo usually reserved for urban legends. “But what exactly did happen between them?” Liz Smith would write two years later, in October 1991. “That’s still a popular Hollywood parlor game.”

October 1991

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

The first major break about the incident’s particulars appeared in Douglas Thompson’s Madonna Revealed: The Unauthorized Biography, which was published in the United Kingdom in October 1991 and is by all accounts the first major biography of the singer. The relevant section of the book, on page 114, begins:

It was just after 4:00 P.M. on December 28 when Penn broke into his own home. Madonna had allowed all the help time off for the holidays. Penn put Madonna through hours of terror. He hit her, he tied her up, and he humiliated her. He also sexually assaulted her.

It’s not immediately clear how Thompson determined this sequence of events. However, he appears to have been the first journalist to locate and interview Lieutenant Bill McSweeney, one of the Malibu sheriffs who witnessed Madonna approach the sheriff’s station and disclose what Penn had done to her. Citing California’s privacy laws, McSweeney refused to disclose the precise nature of Penn’s alleged depredations, but supplied enough context for Thompson to perform an educated guess:

Lieutenant McSweeney would not specify the sexual offenses Penn inflicted upon Madonna other than to tell me: “It was a unique, specific type of violence.” he did did indicate it was an act where California law is constructed to protect the privacy of victims. And under Deering’s Penal Code these are [oral copulation, penetration by any foreign object, sodomy, and rape]. …

She was held captive for nine hours or four days, depending on which account you accept. But McSweeney offered this view: “It was all over by the time we got there. The act had been completed.”

“It was a serious matter. It was something that if prosecuted would have had great implications. It was fully explained to her what charges she could bring.”

Penn could not, as Madonna’s husband, have legally raped her. McSweeney indicated he would have been charged with one or more of the three other offenses.

Later on, Thompson refers to an “assault report” the sheriff’s department has produced in relation to the incident—“The details of her assault report were sealed—until now.”—but it’s unclear whether Thompson ever obtained that document; nowhere in the book does he appear directly quote from it. Still, McSweeney’s testimony is no small thing

November 1991

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

Sean Penn finally addressed the incident during an interview published in the November 1991 issue of Playboy, where he confirmed that some kind of incident occurred but rebutted the thrust of the rumors surrounding it. Here’s the relevant passage, on page 72:

PLAYBOY: We have to ask this, so help us out: What about the biggest rumor, that Sean-Penn-tied-up-Madonna-for-nine-hours thing?

PENN: Don’t forget the rest of it: And dressed her up like a turkey. After I read that stuff, I thought long and hard about what one would do to dress someone up like a turkey. And I nailed it. I figured you’ve got to get out the Playtex glove, blow it up and put the glove over the head. [Laughs]

PLAYBOY: Is any of it true?

PENN: I was looking at locations in Vancouver when I read about it. At that point it was … a welcome fantasy. It was also a great disappointment to some of my acquaintances to tell them that it hadn’t occurred.

PLAYBOY: So you never tied her up?

PENN: My biggest question is, Why didn’t anybody ever ask her that? She can tell them I didn’t.

In the same interview, Penn acknowledged that law enforcement officers had indeed been summoned to his and Madonna’s house that night, but blamed their presence on Madonna’s apparently misplaced fear of Penn’s collection of firearms:

PLAYBOY: What did occur on that last day?

PENN: A SWAT team surrounded my house and came in every door. But it happened because on the day that we split up, she developed a concern that if she were to return to the house, she would get a very severe haircut.

PLAYBOY: You mean haircut of head hair?

PENN: I think that’s what she thought. So she took this concern to the local authorities, who came back up to the house. She felt the responsible thing to do would be to inform them—since they were coming up there ostensibly to keep her from getting a haircut and to let her gather some personal effects—that there were firearms in the house.

PLAYBOY: True?

PENN: Uh, yes.

PLAYBOY: What were you doing when the cops arrived?

PENN: Eating cereal.

PLAYBOY: Did they slap you against the wall?

PENN: No, they did what they had to do pretty decently, considering that they thought they were coming in to a volatile situation with firearms.

PLAYBOY: What about the charges Madonna supposedly filed and then withdrew?

PENN: [Quickly] She never filed any charges at all. They didn’t need a search warrant to come in, because she was a co-owner of the house. Go down to the D.A.’s office or call them up. There’s no charges. I was never arrested.

These passages raise a obvious question: Why did Madonna say the tabloids “made it all up” if, according to Penn, at least two important aspects of the rumors—that Madonna spoke to police; that those police visited the house in Malibu—were true? And if those aspects were accurately reported, what else was, or wasn’t?

It’s true that Madonna seemed concerned primarily with not discussing the incident in her Rolling Stone interview. Penn, by contrast, used his exchange with Playboy to try to clear the air about what happened, by which Penn certainly gives the impression of somehow coming clean.

On closer inspection, however, that impression begins to look suspect. It’s not just that Penn misconstrues the primary allegation (that he had “trussed up” Madonna as one might bind a Thanksgiving turkey with string, not literally dressed her up like a turkey). It’s that, except for Madonna’s charges, his arrest (or lack thereof), and the presence of police, the actor never specifies what did or did not happen that night. In response to the magazine’s most pointed question—So you never tied her up?—Penn simply tells them to go ask Madonna about it, so she can tell them he never tied her up. Given Madonna’s extreme reluctance to divulge anything about her marriage to Penn, this seems less of an answer and more of an evasion.

August 1992

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

An even clearer picture emerged in the summer of 1992, with the U.S. publication of Christopher Andersen’s Madonna: Unauthorized, the second major biography of the singer.

http://www.amazon.com/Madonna-Unauth...

Beginning on page 259, Andersen discussed the context of the altercation, assembled a detailed timeline of Madonna’s captivity, and delved into the nature of the local cops’ response:

Christmas dawned like D-day at the Malibu house. After another shouting match, Penn moved in with his parents. From there, he made several abusive phone calls to Madonna. When she stopped answering the phone, he left obscenity-laced messages on her answering machine.

Three days later Penn, frustrated and drunk, staked out the Malibu house. Around four P.M., after Madonna had given her small household staff the rest of the day off to go to a party, he scaled the fence encircling the estate, broke into the house, and confronted a terrified Madonna. After slapping her around, he bound and gagged her, then strapped her to a chair with twine. He berated and beat her for two hours, then stormed out of the house.

Gagged, tied up, and trembling with fear, Madonna waited for hours for help to arrive. Incredibly, Penn returned, swigging tequila from a bottle, and began tormenting her all over again. This time, she managed to persuade him to untie her. Once free, she dashed out of the house, jumped into a coral-colored 1957 Thunderbird Penn had bought her for her twenty-eighth birthday, locked the doors, and called the police on her car phone. She then sped off to the Malibu sheriff’s station to swear out a complaint against her ex-husband. There, bruised and bleeding, she told the horrifying story of her nine-hour ordeal to dumbstruck officers.

As you may have noticed, this part of Andersen’s account does not entirely conflict with Penn’s own retelling the year prior, in the pages of Playboy. The only crucial difference is that Andersen openly claims Penn tied Madonna up, whereas Penn evaded any explanation of what he did, or did not do, to his ex-wife. Andersen’s account continued:

As Madonna sought refuge at the home of her manager Freddy DeMann, sheriff’s officers descended on the Malibu house. Heeding Madonna’s warning that her husband might be armed, they circled the house. Guns drawn, they ordered Penn over a police bullhorn to surrender. Their command echoed off the Malibu canyon walls: “Sean Penn, come out with your hands up.”

Handcuffed and carted unceremoniously off to the sheriff’s station, Penn told police that Madonna had trumped up the charges to get even with him for dating a stripper. Not so, said the friends in whom Madonna confided. They had seen plenty of evidence of Penn’s abusive behavior over the years.

You’ll notice that Andersen’s account matches up with The People’s original account in several aspects (the approximate length of the episode, the implements with which Penn bound Madonna, the involvement of alcohol). You’ll also notice Anderson’s assertion that, in apparent opposition to Penn’s statements in 1991 and 2015, the actor was arrested after the altercation.

The sourcing of Andersen’s account is somewhat hazy, however. According to his book’s endnotes, he interviewed seven people for the chapters in which he discusses this incident—Erica Bell, Melinda Cooper, John Marion, Robert Mosconi, Anthony Savignano, and Stephanie Mansfield—but doesn’t specify who told him what. Furthermore, his endnotes carry the following disclaimer: “The author has respected the wishes of many interview subjects not to be named and accordingly has not listed them here or elsewhere in the text.”

This is not to say that Anderson, who by all counts is an accomplished journalist, should be considered untrustworthy. Madonna—Unauthorized did not come out of a third-rate publishing house or have a crank editor overseeing it; it was published by Simon & Schuster and edited by Fred Hills, who spent 26 years at the publisher and edited Vladimir Nabokov. And, perhaps most telling of all, neither Penn nor Madonna attempted to refute Andersen’s reporting, before or after the book’s publication.

July 2001

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

The most complete account of Madonna’s ordeal appeared in July 2001, upon the publication of J. Randy Taraborrelli’s Madonna: An Intimate Biography, which appears to be the the main (albeit uncredited) source of the 2009 Daily Mail piece.

http://www.amazon.com/Madonna-Intima...

As with Madonna: Revealed and Madonna: Unauthorized, Taraborrelli’s biography was unauthorized by its subject. Unlike Andersen or Thompson, however, Taraborrelli claimed to have obtained the actual police report from the L.A. Sheriff, which took Madonna’s own testimony after she managed to escape Penn’s captivity.

According to a police report later filed by Madonna with the Malibu Sheriff’s Office, the two began once again to quarrel over Madonna’s decision to divorce. When she told him that she was going to leave the house—at least, according to the official report—he tried to bind her hands with an electric lamp and cord. Madonna fled from the bedroom.

Sean chased her into the living room. Once there—again, according to the report—he tied her to an easy chair with heavy twine. Many other dreadful things occurred—at least according to published accounts of this incident, none of which was ever contested by Madonna—but, suffice it to say, it appears to have been a night of physical and emotional abuse.

As per the police report, Penn was “drinking liquor straight from the bottle,” and his abuse of her went on for several hours, during which time he allegedly smacked her and roughed her up. After a couple of hours, Penn went out to purchase more alcohol. Several hours later, he returned and—back to that police report—continued his attacks against her.

In desperation—again, according to official documents—Madonna finally persuaded Sean to untie her by telling him that she needed to go to the bathroom. Finally free, she ran out of the house. Sean stumbled while racing after her, which gave her an edge. She got into the coral-colored 1957 Thunderbird, which Penn had bought her on her twenty-eighth birthday. She locked herself inside the car.

Taraborrelli also quotes the same eyewitness interviewed by Douglas Thompson, Lieutenant Bill McSweeney, who confirmed that Madonna appeared to have been assaulted. (According to the biography’s end-notes, the interview with McSweeney took place in 1989.) Another officer, whom Taraborrelli does not name, indicated that Penn was in fact arrested some time after his wife arrived at the sheriff’s station:

While Sean pounded furiously on the automobile windows, Madonna called the police on her cell phone. When she had finished speaking to them, she threw the car into reverse, and sped away—headed for the Malibu Sheriff’s Office on Pacific Coast Highway.

“When Madonna staggered into the station [fifteen minutes later], she was distraught, crying, with makeup smeared all over her face,” remembered Lieutenant Bill McSweeney. “I hardly recognized her as Madonna, the singer. She was weeping, her lip was bleeding and she was all marked up. She had obviously been struck. This was a woman in big trouble, no doubt about it.”

Police officers, stunned by details Madonna had provided of her nine-hour ordeal, went to arrest her husband. Sean Penn was still inside the house when the officers pulled up outside. Remembered one officer, “We had to use our bullhorns. ‘Sean Penn, come out of the house with your hands in the air,’ we said. The suspect came out and we took him away in handcuffs.”

A bit later, Taraborrelli quoted the Playboy interview in which Penn provided his version of the same night’s events:

He says he never tied up his wife. He explains that, after a typical argument with him, Madonna stormed out of the house to cool off. He hollered after her that if she dared return, he would cut all of her hair off. He says that as a result of his threat, “she developed a concern that she would get a very severe haircut.” If Sean’s story is true, it’s understandable that the image of her infuriated husband coming at her with a pair of scissors would be a terrifying one to Madonna.

Taraborrelli also included Penn’s (fairly vague) recollection of police officers surrounding his house, though it’s unclear whether Penn provided this recollection in a different interview or to Taraborrelli directly:

Sean was in the kitchen eating Rice Krispies cereal when the authorities arrived, brandishing bullhorns and handcuffs. Sean says the police, fearing that he had a gun, “suggested I come out of the house. They did what they had to do, the way they had to do it. I was cool with that.”

Considering Penn’s insistence that he never attacked (or “tied up”) Madonna, and was never arrested for related allegations, Taraborrelli’s account is rather damning. If Penn hadn’t touched Madonna, then how did she cut her lip? How did she obtain marks all over her body? How did she become so disfigured as to be unrecognizable to Lieutenant Sweeney?

It’s true that, despite its reliance on a government document and a named eyewitness, Taraborrelli’s reporting is somewhat difficult to replicate. As we noted previously, the police report he quotes from no longer exists. According to the Los Angeles County Sheriff, the original document was destroyed sometime in the 1990s, thanks to the State of California’s records destruction policy. Two, Lieutenant Bill McSweeney—who by all accounts appears to be alive and well—did not return multiple emails and phone calls seeking comment.

Taraborrelli confirmed to Gawker, however, that he did in fact acquire a copy of the police report detailing the night of December 28, but later lost it. In an email to Gawker, he said a search of his Palm Springs storage facility, where he keeps his research materials, came up empty: “Sorry, no luck in finding what you are looking for. Wish I could help. Been too many years.” It’s unknown whether any other copy of Madonna’s police report has managed to survive.

As for how he managed to obtain the police report before it was marked for destruction, Taraborrelli explains in the book’s end-notes that he “reviewed the police documents from the LAPD relating to Sean Penn’s arrest in December 1988,” in the midst of “developing a proposal for a book entitled Sean Penn: Lone Wolf.” That book was never published.

April 2006

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

There is one credible account of the night in Malibu that claims Penn was not arrested. In a long profile of the actor that appeared in The New Yorker in April 2006, staff writer John Lahr asserts the actor “was not arrested in the well-publicized incident.” Even in the absence of any cited evidence, this statement should be treated as credible, given the magazine’s renowned fact-checking department, headed by long-time editor Peter Canby and staffed by sixteen full-time fact-checkers at any given moment. If The New Yorker reports Penn was not arrested, you can be reasonably certain Penn was not arrested.

Except, perhaps, in this case. When I asked Lahr how he determined that Penn was not arrested that night in 1988, he responded via email: “It was very long ago, but the piece was fact checked. So I trust The New Yorker.” A spokesperson for the magazine was similarly evasive. “This story was published nearly a decade ago and we no longer have the checking documents,” the spokesperson said. “We would have verified the information at the time of publication, in 2006.”

The same spokesperson refused to identify the fact-checker assigned to Lahr’s piece, and Peter Canby, who has worked for The New Yorker since 1979, did not return repeated requests for comment. However a former employee who worked at the magazine in 2006 said a fact-checker named Nana Asfour was frequently assigned to check Lahr’s stories. Asfour, who is now a writer and critic based in New York, declined to comment, and The New Yorker’s public relations office did not respond when we asked if Asfour was indeed the fact-checker assigned to check Lahr’s piece. But Lahr answered right away: “She may well have been.” When asked if they regularly worked together, he clarified, “Writers are assigned fact-checkers; they don’t choose them. It’s a roll of the dice.”

After being apprised of the destruction of the police report about the December, 28, 1988 incident, a former New Yorker fact-checker explained to Gawker how the magazine would likely deal with the absence of such evidence:

I think we would definitely not accept a source’s word for the fact that they had not been arrested if the allegation was made that they had been. On the other hand, if you contacted the police department and they said there was no record of an arrest, you would have good reason to accept this as a fact, since you checked with the original source, the police themselves, and they said they had no record of it.

The same former fact-checker added: “If you were going to be really careful, of course, you’d say ‘Penn denies he was arrested and the police say they have no record,’ but if you didn’t think this was a particularly controversial or sensitive point you might not feel the need to go into so much detail about the state of our knowledge.”

It remains unclear, then, what evidence—if any—The New Yorker relied upon when it reported that Penn was not arrested on December 28, 1988. Incredibly, the magazine does not seem to have the slightest idea itself.

September 2015

The most recent account of Penn’s relationship with Madonna—at least in broad terms—is the actor’s aforementioned lawsuit against Lee Daniels, which Penn filed after The Hollywood Reporter quoted Daniels defending Empire star Terrence Howard, who has been repeatedly accused of assaulting a number of women including his ex-wife, by comparing Howard to Penn and Marlon Brando:

[Howard’s] co-stars have been advised not to comment on the ongoing saga, but Daniels can’t help himself. “That poor boy,” he says, fiercely protective of his actor. He then alludes to other actors who have been the subject of domestic abuse allegations in the past. “[Terrence] ain’t done nothing different than Marlon Brando or Sean Penn, and all of a sudden he’s some fuckin’ demon,” says Daniels. “That’s a sign of the time, of race, of where we are right now in America.”

Now, most of Penn’s initial filing is dedicated to listing the actor’s various accomplishments in acting, journalism, and humanitarianism—to establish, apparently, what Penn stands to lose if people begin to think he is comparable to Terrence Howard. The small section where his lawyers argue that Penn is not comparable to Howard reads as follows:

Most problematic, Daniels falsely equates Penn with Howard, even though, while he has certainly had several brushes with the law, Penn (unlike Howard) has never been arrested, much less convicted, for domestic violence, as his ex-wives (including Madonna) would confirm and attest. Nor has Penn admitted to “slap[ping]” a woman or abusing others (as Howard has also reportedly admitted, reportedly asserting that he was acting in self-defense).

What could possibly account for this statement, at least in light of the public record—in books, newspapers, and magazines—over the past 27 years? After all, there seems to be a blindingly obvious contradiction between the established accounts of Penn’s arrest for attacking Madonna in 1988 and Penn’s lawyers arguing that that their client was “never arrested, much less convicted, for domestic violence.”

That contradiction could resolve itself once you consider the extremely careful language with which Penn’s lawsuit is written. For one, Penn’s lawyers are dodging when they insist that their client has not “admitted to “slap[ping]” a woman or abusing others.” Simply because Penn has not admitted to doing something does not mean he has never done that same thing.

Two, it is possible that Penn was not arrested on the grounds of “domestic violence” per se. As J. Randy Taraborrelli notes in his book, Lieutenant Bill McSweeney said that his department was “called to investigate an assault.” That suggests he and his colleagues may not have been aware of the fact that Penn and Madonna were married and/or cohabiting, which would have likely changed how the alleged incident, and the reason for Penn’s arrest, were classified internally.

In any case, the question is not whether Penn has ever been arrested for domestic violence. The question is whether he has ever been arrested over allegations that he tied up and assaulted Madonna on December 28, 1988. And the question that falls out of the last one is: Did Penn tie up and assault Madonna in the first place?

November 2015

After digging up most of the stories quoted above, we reached out to Madonna and Penn for official comment. Madonna didn’t get back to us. But Penn’s lawyer, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles named Mathew Rosengart, wrote in an email to Gawker: “As both Sean Penn and Madonna indicated on the public record more than 25 years ago, the notion that Mr. Penn ‘struck,’ ‘tied up,’ or ‘beat up’ Madonna is false, outrageous, malicious, and defamatory. Madonna’s Declaration reconfirms and makes crystal clear that it simply never happened, and the defendant’s statements to the contrary were reckless and defamatory.”

Rosengart added: “If he had done so (which he obviously did not), he would have been arrested and charged. Mr. Penn was neither arrested nor charged, because as we will further irrefutably demonstrate in court and as Madonna has once again confirmed in her Declaration, the defendant’s allegations are false.” He later noted that “we are in possession of incontrovertible evidence of the falsity of the defendant’s statements and his reckless disregard of the truth, and we look forward to litigating the matter in court.”

Madonna’s recent statement is one piece of evidence in Penn’s favor. Another, it seems, is a statement Rosengart obtained from Howard Weitzman, a Santa Monica attorney who represented Penn at the time of the alleged incident. The statement, which Rosengart provided to Gawker, reads:

Sean Penn was never arrested let alone charged with any criminal conduct involving Madonna in 1988. I would have known if Mr. Penn had been arrested for any such alleged unlawful conduct because I represented him during that time period.

But that leaves the police report, if a copy of it can be located, and the account of Lieutenant Bill McSweeney, who has spoke on the record with at least two biographers about the incident. Rosengart did not directly address the matter of the police report, but he did provide a copy of a second affidavit, dated November 20 of this year, which he intends to enter into evidence at some point in the future.

Did Sean Penn Beat Up Madonna? An Archaeology of Hollywood’s Most Explosive Rumor

The affidavit is not signed by McSweeney. Instead, it’s signed by an L.A. private investigator named John Marcello, who served in the Army during the Vietnam War before working for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, from which he retired in 1998. According to the affidavit, Marcello interviewed McSweeney in September 2015 (the exact date and location are unclear) about “an unauthorized biography of Madonna” that appears to be Taraborrelli’s:

6. In September, 2015 I interviewed William McSweeney, a former Chief with the Los Angles Sheriff’s Department, in connection with the above-referenced matter.

7. During the interview, I referred Chief McSweeney to an unauthorized biography of Madonna, which implies that Madonna had been “struck” by Sean Penn in 1989 and attributes a purported quote to Chief McSweeney in connection with an alleged verbal dispute between Mr. Penn and Madonna in 1989.

8. Chief McSweeney informed me that he had heard something“about [the unauthorized book] a long time ago,” but he had “never seen it.”

9. Chief McSweeney further stated that, contrary to the purported quote attributed to him, to his recollection, Madonna “never had any wounds or anything like that.”

10. Based upon my more than 30 years of law enforcement expertise and experience, if Madonna had been “struck” or had “any wounds,” Mr. Penn would have been arrested.

The document is unusual for a number of reasons. It does not detail the manner in which McSweeney was interviewed, and lacks both Marcello’s questions and McSweeney’s full answers. It renders McSweeney’s quote to Taraborrelli—“She was weeping, her lip was bleeding and she was all marked up. She had obviously been struck.”—as simply “struck.” It conflates being marked up and having a bleeding lip (as Madonna allegedly was) with having wounds, plural. Every significant declaration the affidavit contains, including “I am aware that Mr. Penn has never been arrested or charged with anything related to domestic violence,” is attributed to the knowledge and opinion of John Marcello (who did not witness Madonna enter the Malibu Sheriff’s station on December 28, 1988), rather than Bill McSweeney (who did).

Still, human memory is a fragile, suggestible thing, so it still may be possible for Penn’s attorneys to cast enough doubt upon McSweeney’s account to render it void. Otherwise, the ambiguities of Marcello’s affidavit would likely benefit Daniels, not Penn.

Which brings us back to that missing police report, the one J. Randy Taraborrelli obtained in 1988 but (understandably) lost track of in the intervening years. We can be reasonably certain that it existed at one point in the past. But what are the chances that someone has another copy lying around—a former sheriff, perhaps, or a former district attorney? Given the prominence of the alleged assailant (who became one of Hollywood’s most accomplished actors) and the alleged victim (who became the most celebrated performing artist of her generation), the odds are likely more than zero.

In the absence of that report, and the testimony of Madonna supposedly contained therein, any truth-claims on the events of that night in Malibu—including those of either involved party—will remain difficult, and perhaps impossible, to accurately evaluate. But even that document wouldn’t be able to explain the way in which this particular story acquired its present shape and force. How did this story, in spite of its still-ambiguous details, become a widespread symbol of injustice?

You may consider the various uncertainties about the incident, or the inherent obstacles in reconstructing any event experienced by only two people nearly three decades ago, to be less important than the undeniable fact that the tale of Sean Penn and Madonna has given people a way to think about, talk about, and potentially change the systems by which men dominate women. If that’s the case, it’s only harder to shake the feeling that, for whatever reason, the story’s residual ambiguity is what Madonna has desired to maintain all along. Up until the moment, at least, when that ambiguity began to look like proof that all of it was true.


Footnotes

1. We were unable to locate the original source of the claim that Penn used a baseball bat to hit Madonna, either in June 1987 or at any other point. The earliest reference to that allegation we could find was an August 16, 1987 article in The Sunday Times of London, accessed via Lexis-Nexis. It noted that Britain’s “tabloid press” (with no mention of a specific outlet) had alleged Penn was “prone to hitting [Madonna] with a base ball bat.” It also included a denial from Penn’s publicist: “Sean Penn hasn’t even got a baseball bat. Why do they write this?” Subsequent reports have claimed Madonna was admitted to the Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles after Penn used a bat against her, but like The Sunday Times they each lack any record or eyewitness statement to support that specific claim.

2. The absence of proof regarding Penn’s use of a baseball bat is especially noteworthy because that particular allegation has all but fully penetrated the popular narrative of Penn and Madonna’s marriage. In Madonna and Me: Women Writers on the Queen of Pop, a collection of essays published by Soft Skull Press in 2012, the writer Kate Harding included the following question among those she wished to ask Madonna if she had the opportunity to do so: “Does it kill you that Sean Penn is this big Oscar-winning star and director now, and everyone’s pretty much forgotten about him hitting you with a baseball bat?” The fifth edition of Responding to Domestic Violence: The Integration of Criminal Justice and Human Services, a college textbook published in October 2015, straightforwardly asserts: “Sean Penn, actor, attacked his then wife, singer and actress Madonna, in 1987 with a baseball bat.” As with prior accounts, neither book cites any source for this claim.


Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Photo credit: Getty Images · Art by Tara Jacoby

Kim Davis Won

$
0
0

Kim Davis Won

In Kentucky, county employees will no longer be required to suffer the indignity of their names signifying love and equality. This is the legacy of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis.

Davis, infamously, railed against the Supreme Court’s order legalizing gay marriage this summer by refusing to issue marriage licenses altogether, categorizing her arguably bigoted views as a religious exemption. She was jailed over her contempt of court and the argument made its way to the state’s highest court, where a judge ruled Davis would have to issue the licenses, despite the evident discomfort she felt signing off on equal rights for gay couples.

Because until Tuesday, Kentucky law required the clerk’s name be written on the license—a statute Davis would later attempt to circumvent by illegally altering the licenses. Even so, for a time, it seemed she might be forced to do the right thing.

http://jezebel.com/deputy-clerk-c...

But though Davis lost the war, she did, in the end, win a battle: Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, issued an executive order Tuesday changing the forms. The new licenses, Bevins’ office announced, will instead cater to the state’s most intolerant employees. Via UPI:

“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, Executive Order 2015-048 directs the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to issue a revised marriage license form to the offices of all Kentucky county clerks. The name of the county clerk is no longer required to appear on the form,” Bevins’ office said in a statement.

A beautiful gift for Kim Davis—a tacit endorsement of her discrimination. Plenty of people hold sincere beliefs. The Son of Sam sincerely believed that his neighbor’s dog was ordering to kill people. Doesn’t mean we should legalize murder.


Image via AP. Contact the author at gabrielle@gawker.com.

The 10 Best Articles Wikipedia Deleted This Week

$
0
0

The 10 Best Articles Wikipedia Deleted This Week

When the faceless, unaccountable (and nearly exclusively male) editors of Wikipedia decide that an article is not fit for public consumption, it’s gone—disappeared into the site’s recesses, and only accessible to the most elite editors. These deleted articles have been a dark spot in Wikipedia’s otherwise laudable transparency. That is, until now.

Wikipedia’s deletion rules are vast and varied, but every to-be-deleted article (that isn’t already slated for something called “Speedy deletion”) gets put in something called “Articles for deletion” before the hammer actually comes down. So we’re sucking up each and every proposed deletion, going through the whole mess of eventual deletions, and giving you the best of what Wikipedia has deemed the worst. We’re doing this because Wikipedia, one of the most-trafficked websites in the world, is a crucial repository of information that increasingly defines what constitutes “public knowledge” in the 21st century, and what its elite editors consider “notable” is itself notable.

But we’re also doing this because these insane, horribly sourced articles are consistently the most fun.

Here’s this week’s set of the best articles Wikipedia didn’t want you to see.


The 10 Best Articles Wikipedia Deleted This Week

Magic Mansion

Magic Mansion is (ALLEGEDLY) a short-lived sitcom from the sixties that was only broadcast on the Armed Force’s internal television network and, even then, only for a mere two-and-a-half seasons. It was created by an Air Force Staff Sergeant as a bit of family-friendly entertainment for those living on army bases, and worked as a makeshift variety/magic/ventriloquism/??? show set in a large, winding mansion.

Best line:

The series had a small boy who resembled the [central wooden dummy] and when made-up as the character, provided the perfect illusion of real-life movement. Of all the characters in the series, it was the inanimate Danny O’Kaye, who received the most fan mail.

Why it got deleted:

This is where things get interesting. If you check out the article’s deletion discussion, you’ll see an extensive debate about whether or not the show actually ever existed in the first place. Which, if someone did make the whole thing up, is an incredible prospect. The Wikipedia page is elaborate, detailed, and filled with tons of photos that would have had to be Photoshopped (a reverse image search doesn’t turn up any trace of the photos anywhere else online).

The 10 Best Articles Wikipedia Deleted This Week

At one point, one of the editors actually emailed the United States Armed Forces Radio and Television Service to see if it had any mention of the show in its records. The AFRTS only has records going back a few years, but recommended contacting the National Archives. Ultimately, they decided the show wasn’t notable enough to merit an entry (there is absolutely zero record of it anywhere online that doesn’t trace back to the Wikipedia page), so they gave it the boot with the mystery still unsolved.

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Even if it is fake, someone put a lot of work into building that wildly elaborate lie.


Twelve commandments of a creative individual

Some man named S.K. Sarkisov decided to “summarize his life experiences” and all he’s learned along the way. Which means this entry is, more or less, his entire life’s work.

Best line:

The agreement to travel with my adversary Pankrat and the fight with the mafia at the construction of Moscow State University were related to the impossibility to surrender without losing face.

Note: There is no mention of any mafia either before or after this one sentence.

Why it got deleted:

Officially, because it “seems to be some random essay someone wrote, can’t find any sources for it’s [sic] subject.” The real reason it got deleted, though, is because people are monsters who have no respect for the creative individual.

Why it shouldn’t have been:

This article has everything. He finds love. He bears witness to his father’s arrest. He gets involved in a patent war. He gets beat up by “shepherd boys with stick.” (I think, it’s hard to tell. There’s a lot of talk about shepherd boys.) Sarsikov’s story is beautiful by any definition of the word, and to kill it is a crime.


E-Safety

“E-Safety” is exactly what it sounds like: a friendly, helpful article about staying safe on the information superhighway.

Best line:

1. Never give permission to a program that is called “Not a virus” !

Why it got deleted:

For being an extension of the author’s previous Twitter rants and containing “lots of promotion, and nothing of any encyclopedic value,” which is patently false considering that I learned to never “share images that portray yourself/friend in a bad way on facebook/instagram/twitter etc.”

Why it shouldn’t have been:

It says right there at the top of the page: “Please do not delete this.”


Female Nude Wrestling

An article that tries very, very, very hard to legitimize “female nude wrestling” by presenting it as a classic, noble sport with roots in Grecco-Roman antiquity.

Best line:

...the participants do not engage in any kind of sexual activity during a match. An occasional and seemingly shameless presentation of the female pubic zone is not intentional; actions like spreading the legs occur during all wrestling competitions and are a consequence of wrestling technique.

Followed later by:

Female wrestlers are encouraged to oil themselves, which increases the difficulty of a match.

Why it got deleted:

The attempted connections were tenuous at best and at worst what Wikipedia refers to as “not real.”

Why it shouldn’t have been:

You’ll never get someone to stop making terrible things unless you shame them into submission. Don’t bury “Female Nude Wrestling” under the rug—celebrate it as a prime example of dubious justifications for exploitative trash. It’s the only way they’ll learn.


Little Italy, Rochester

An adamant—if not terrible—attempt to turn an allegedly heavily Catholic portion of Rochester, New York into its own “Little Italy.”

Best line:

A little construction is going to be needed to create this authentic Italian feel, to make you feel like you are actually in Italy. But it is definitely official, The town of Gates, is Rochester New Yorks Little Italy.

Why it got deleted:

For not having any sources other than the author’s own will to believe.

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Deleting this is racist against Italians.


Wellywoman

“Wellywoman” tells the poignant tale of the pub-going, English bag lady of Wolverhampton.

Best line: All of it! This entry is perfect, so we present it to you in full:

The Wellywoman was an iconic character among the people of Wolverhampton. She made her first appearance in the 1980s when she began to frequent the centre of Wolverhampton and its many pubs, wearing a decrepit raincoat and pair of wellies whatever the weather, even if it was a scorching hot heatwave or a big freeze in the winter. She was in the city almost every day for easily 30 years until about 2014 when her health began to decline and she eventually died in 2015. The biggest loss to the city since the death of Fred the Tramp a few years before.

Why it got deleted:

Because people are heartless and apparently feel nothing for a dearly departed hero. Also because it lacked any sourcing or “facts.”

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Has the Wellywoman not already suffered enough?


HJIS Grade 10 of 2015-2016

A wildly incomplete overview of life in tenth grade at Horizon Japan International School.

Best line:

Saving your files saves your life.

Why it got deleted:

“I mean seriously? Absolutely zero notability. In fact, if notability could have a negative value, this article would qualify.”

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Delete it, fine, but no need to be rude.


List of Jews from New York City

Exactly what it sounds like.

Best line:

The following list is a list of notable Jews from or who currently live in New York City, the city with the largest Jewish population in the United States.

Why it got deleted:

It contains 70 or so arbitrary entries of hundreds of thousands potential listings. Also, many people on the list aren’t actually Jewish.

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Ok, this one was maybe a good call.


Easy Listening Satanic

An article introducing a new-genre of easy listening and/or Satanic music to the masses as well as the bands that make it, bands such as The Grateful Dead (?), The Rolling Stones (??), and Cake (????).

Best line:

That which follows(additional cd’s) are very simple to experimental so as to intentionally not put too much of a strain on the planet and to test it for weaknesses and also to fulfill the strengthening obligation of said Magus which tendeth the planet.

Why it got deleted:

There is no such thing as “Easy Listening Satanic.”

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Good luck trying to stir the elements of the planet into a waking life force of energy to combat that which is toxic upon return for the planet giving you life now.


Tomi Kenn

The tragic story of singer whose big break never came.

Best line:

After mediocre national success, and before it was officially released to major radio, Kenn’s label dropped him, and the track was later forgotten about.

Why it got deleted:

Tomi Kenn may or may not exist.

Why it shouldn’t have been:

Questionable existence aside—hasn’t Tomi suffered enough?


Contact the author at ashley@gawker.com. And special thanks to Adam Pash for making it possible!

Which Video Game Console Should You Buy?

$
0
0

Which Video Game Console Should You Buy?

Last week, I got an e-mail from a reader with a simple yet challenging question: Which video game console should they buy?

It’s a question we often discuss but have never quite answered definitively here on Kotaku. As we enter 2016, there are six main gaming machines—four stationary, two portable—that compete for our time and credit cards. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. One console might have the best exclusives but lack third-party games; another might be a delightful piece of hardware whose creators have abandoned it. There is no undisputed “best.”

All six modern options—the PlayStation 4, the Xbox One, the Vita, the Wii U, the 3DS, and the PC—are excellent machines in a variety of ways. There’s no perfect recommendation, no catch-all advice that can indiscriminately tell anyone which console to buy. But we can break down all the pros and cons so you, fine Kotaku reader and/or Google stumbler, can decide which is the best fit for you. Enjoy!

PC

When it comes to playing video games, one machine has always had the most to offer: the good old personal computer. Buying a modern gaming computer is a little trickier than getting a console—you’ll have to read up on graphics cards, SSDs, and RAM—but you’ll have access to the biggest, broadest library of games out there. Sure, you’ll miss out on console exclusives like Destiny and the upcoming Final Fantasy XV, but if you have the money, space, and patience, a gaming PC is a great investment.

What you’re getting: Depends what you buy. Investing big money into a beefy machine will let you play games like The Witcher 3 at stunning levels of graphical fidelity, especially if you take the time to futz around with mods. But that’ll cost you more than a PS4 or Xbox One. Still, even a cheap laptop with integrated graphics will give you access to a ton of must-play classic games that you just can’t get on a console.

What you’re not getting: A simple, streamlined game machine. Computer gaming is a bit more expensive and a bit more complicated than just buying one of Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo’s consoles, so if you want to join the ranks of PC gamers, prepare for a learning curve. Occasionally we’ll see multiplatform games run like garbage on the PC, which is also a bummer. (For shame, Arkham Knight.)

Key 2015 exclusives: StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void, Pillars of Eternity, Undertale

http://kotaku.com/5878852/the-12...

PlayStation 4

Sony’s latest PlayStation is its best piece of hardware to date, sporting impressive guts and a comfortable controller that trumps its competitors in many ways. The online PlayStation Network has some glaring issues, and we sure wish Sony would let us change our usernames, but the PS4 is a generally excellent, convenient piece of hardware that runs both big and small games without a problem. You won’t get the big Microsoft exclusives like Halo and Gears of War, but hey, Uncharted ain’t nothing.

What you’re getting: A modern gaming machine that can play almost everything released in a given year, often at higher resolutions and more stable framerates than its main competitor, the Xbox One. The PS4 also makes it pretty damn easy to take screenshots, capture videos, and stream yourself playing games.

What you’re not getting: Decent backwards compatibility. While Microsoft has bolstered their Xbox One lineup with a new patch that lets users play old 360 games, Sony’s own stab—a streaming service called PlayStation Now—is underwhelming and overpriced. Sony recently started selling PS2 games piecemeal on the PlayStation Store, but there’s still no ideal solution for playing older games on the PS4.

Key 2015 exclusives: Bloodborne, Until Dawn

http://kotaku.com/the-best-games...

Xbox One

Although the Xbox One stumbled out of the gate thanks to a string of poor marketing moves and a Kinect sensor that never quite caught on, Microsoft has worked hard to catch up, and today the newest Xbox is a solid choice both for first- and third-party games. On top of some interesting multi-tasking experiments like Xbox Snap, the One has a lot of small-yet-helpful usability benefits, like button remapping. It’s a pretty cool console, all things considered.

What you’re getting: A sleek machine that will let you play all of the standard third-party games, plus a handful of Microsoft-published exclusives like Sunset Overdrive and Rare Replay. You can also pop in and play a number of 360 games like Castle Crashers and South Park: The Stick of Truth.

What you’re not getting: The best possible multi-platform games. Xbox One versions of third-party games like The Witcher 3 generally run at lower native resolutions than their PS4 counterparts. The Xbox One is also significantly less popular in Japan, and many upcoming Japanese games are either exclusive to the PS4 or launching first on Sony’s machine.

Key 2015 exclusives: Rise of the Tomb Raider, Halo 5, Rare Replay

http://kotaku.com/the-best-games...

[A quick note: If you’re trying to decide between the Xbox One and PS4, your best bet might be seeing what your friends are using most. Grouping up with buddies in games like Destiny and Call of Duty requires everyone to be on the same platform.]

Wii U

Although Nintendo’s newest console might not have made the same cultural splash as its predecessor, the Wii U is full of gems that you won’t find anywhere else. Super Mario Maker, for example, gives you an incredible tool-set for crafting your own Mario levels and playing other people’s devious creations. The new Smash is the best one yet, and games like Mario Kart 8 and Bayonetta 2 rank among this generation’s elite.

What you’re getting: Access to some of Nintendo’s best video games ever, from the transcendent Super Mario 3D World to the surprisingly spunky Splatoon. Thanks to the GamePad controller, which is embedded with a screen, you can play just about any Wii U game without looking at your television. Helpful if you want to, say, watch Netflix on your TV while playing the Wii U’s HD remake of Wind Waker, one of the best Zelda games of all time.

What you’re not getting: Third-party games. The bulk of non-Nintendo games released over the past few years have been mostly for PC, PS4, and Xbox One, so if you want to play the likes of Fallout 4 or Assassin’s Creed, you’ll have to look elsewhere. It’s useful to look at the Wii U not as your solo machine but as something that complements the PS4, Xbox One, or PC.

Key 2015 exclusives: Super Mario Maker, Splatoon, Xenoblade Chronicles X

http://kotaku.com/the-12-best-ga...

Nintendo 3DS

If you’re looking for a way to play games on the go, you could do way worse than the 3DS, a convenient dual-screened portable system that’s full of interesting games. Trying to sort out all the different hardware models can get a little confusing, but the best right now is the New 3DS XL. It’s a little less convenient to take out the 3DS on a plane or subway than it would be to just play Threes on your phone, but Nintendo’s portable machine has too many great games to ignore.

What you’re getting: Glasses-free 3D and, more importantly, a big library of great Japanese games both by Nintendo and third-parties like Atlus. In addition to big hits like Zelda: A Link Between Worlds and Fire Emblem Awakening, the 3DS also features some under-the-radar gems that are not to be missed, like Pushmo and BoxBoy, both of which epitomize Nintendo’s meticulous design skills and attention to detail.

What you’re not getting: A machine with tons of life ahead of it. Nintendo is preparing to unveil their next system, code-named NX, in 2016, and it’s hard to shake the feeling that both the 3DS and Wii U might be on their last legs.

Key 2015 exclusives: The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes, Code Name STEAM

http://kotaku.com/the-12-best-ga...

PlayStation Vita

Poor Vita. Thanks to a series of Sony fumbles, their underappreciated handheld never really had a chance to make it big. Still, if you can stomach paying extra for the overpriced proprietary memory card, the Vita is a pretty good machine for certain types of gamers. If you’re into role-playing games or visual novels, for example, the Vita was built for you.

What you’re getting: Tons and tons of unique Japanese games, classic RPGs, and ports of indie hits. With the Vita, you can buy and download tons of old PS1 and PSP games, which has helped bolster an otherwise barren lineup. If you like a good story and don’t mind reading, you’ve gotta check out Danganronpa and Zero Escape: Virtue’s Last Reward, two Vita visual novels that double as mystery thrillers. Plus, the Vita’s got great ports of very good indies like Nuclear Throne and Spelunky.

What you’re not getting: First-party support. Sony has all but given up on their much-maligned Vita, so don’t expect much from them. Other developers are certainly still putting out new Vita games, and we expect to see plenty of cool stuff coming the Vita’s way over the next year both from the West and Japan, but Sony’s switched gears to the PS4.

Key 2015 exclusives: Persona 4: Dancing All Night, Lost Dimension

http://kotaku.com/5886630/the-9-...


Ray Kelly Accuses Bill Bratton of Manipulating NYPD Crime Stats, Just Like He Did

$
0
0

Ray Kelly Accuses Bill Bratton of Manipulating NYPD Crime Stats, Just Like He Did

This week, former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly implicitly accused his successor Bill Bratton of manipulating crime statistics to make New York City look safer. And if anyone knows about manipulating crime statistics, it’s former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly.

“I think there is some issue with the numbers that are being put out,” Kelly said in a radio interview Monday. “I think there is some redefinition going on as to what amounts to a shooting. That sort of thing.” This is a valid question to raise about Bratton’s NYPD, but only because it’s a valid question to raise about any large urban police department. “Look, all administrations want to show that crime is down,” Kelly added. It’s true: police departments are probably always fudging the numbers on some level—and none more than Ray Kelly’s NYPD, which was accused of doing so frequently.

In 2010, eight years into Kelly’s second stint at the head of the department, dozens of ex-captains and officers said in an anonymous survey that pressure to appear to be lowering crime led commanders to juke the stats. Two years later, an internal NYPD report was publicized that substantiated their claims. “This is the underbelly of the program: the (crime) numbers are being gamed, plain and simple, and the numbers are being gamed because the (police district) commanders are under tremendous pressure to make the numbers look good. This is happening all over the city,” said John Eterno, a former NYPD captain and author of a book about the department’s stats-tracking program, in 2012.

Kelly’s motives for the claim are obvious: Stop-and-frisk, which became the trademark of his department, was widely rebuked by Bratton and Mayor Bill de Blasio upon the changing of the regime. In response, Kelly claimed repeatedly that the rebuke would make New York City more dangerous. Now, statistics show that crime is down despite a drastic reduction in street stops. To Kelly, the only feasible explanation is that the statistics are wrong.

The silver lining of the retired top cop’s prickishness comes in the New York Post’s writeup, which contains a sentence I really was not expecting to encounter in that paper today: “Overall, crime is at historic lows, according to NYPD CompStat figures.” This is a surprising admission from the Post, which ordinarily covers lawbreaking in its home city with a voice not unlike that of a sandwich-boarded doomsday preacher. Caught between its unending defense of the cops and its equally enduring support for critics of the liberal de Blasio administration, the paper was forced to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: Either the NYPD is lying, or New York City is safer today than it has ever been. I can’t imagine either of those options feel particularly good to Col Allan.


Image via Getty. Contact the author at andy@gawker.com.


500 Days of Kristin, Day 333: Kristin Cavallari Daily 

$
0
0

500 Days of Kristin, Day 333: Kristin Cavallari Daily 

Twitter suggested today that I follow @KristinDaily, an account associated with the Kristin Cavallari fan site KristinCavallariDaily.com. Makes sense, I guess. Upon further inspection, however, it appears that neither @KristinDaily nor KristinCavallariDaily.com is actually updated on a daily basis. KristinCavallariDaily.com even lists Kristin’s age as 27—one year younger than her widely reported age of 28. Either KristinCavallariDaily.com is on a campaign to convince the public that Kristin is younger than her reported age, or it’s still catching up on some updates from last year. All this is to say: weak. No, I will not follow @KristinDaily. “Kristin Daily” is right here.

@KristinDaily, however, already has one follower I know:

500 Days of Kristin, Day 333: Kristin Cavallari Daily 

Miss Kristin Cavallari herself.

Further review indicates that of the 47 accounts that Kristin currently follows on Twitter, two are about Kristin Cavallari—@KristinDaily and @KristinCavMex, an account associated with the site KristinCavMexico.blogspot.mx.

Research for her forthcoming book about herself, perhaps.


This has been 500 Days of Kristin.

[Photo via Getty]

Has Jeb Bush Worn the Same Sweater Four Days in a Row? [Updated]

$
0
0

Has Jeb Bush Worn the Same Sweater Four Days in a Row? [Updated]

Jeb Bush has been making the rounds in New Hampshire this week, which is perfectly normal behavior for a man running for president. But the many tweets coming from Jeb’s camp this week have included more than just photos of Jeb’s stilted handshakes—they’ve also raised questions. Specifically: Why has Jeb Bush been wearing the exact same sweater for the past four days?

http://gawker.com/how-often-does...

Let’s take a look at the facts.


December 19

Jeb held a total of four town halls on his journey through New Hampshire.

And according to this video, the sweater appeared at every single one.

December 20

On Sunday, Jeb took some time to go on CBS’s Face the Nation wearing—what else—his beloved greyish sweater.

December 21

The next day, at New Hampshire’s very merrily decorated Legion Post 72, Jeb Bush shows up decorated in his favorite gray sweater.

December 22

At an event in Berlin, New Hampshire, Jeb again dons his lucky (?) sweater.

Even when relaxing with friends at the North Conway Grand Hotel, Bush and his sweater will not be apart.

December 23

This video could have been shot yesterday!, the sweater skeptic might opine. But the keen observer of Bush’s mysteriously stagnant outerwear will notice that the shirt collar carries a markedly different pattern than that which peeked out the day before.

Bush is, once again, wearing the same tan-grey sweater.

What’s more, this definitely isn’t a new sweater bought specifically for this trip. Jeb’s been spotted wearing it before. Such as at an event in Newton on December 1:


With all this in mind, there exist several possible lines of query. Is Jeb Bush simply out of clean clothes? Dry cleaning is expensive, and as we know, the Bush campaign is staying as lean as it can these days.

Or maybe Jeb just planned poorly for the weather, and only brought one sweater to New Hampshire. That raises a more alarming question: Will Jeb Bush be a poor (weather) planner as president?

Or perhaps he has a closet filled with 50 different copies of the exact same sweater?

Also: Is the sweater more grey or light tan?

And what does the sweater now smell like after so much wear?

If you have any information at all regarding Jeb’s sweater and its current or past condition, please send us an email here. We just want answers.

Update 4:29 p.m.

Jeb’s camp had this to say regarding the sweater situation.

Update 6:07 p.m.

Jeb Bush sent us the following email denying the sweater allegations:

Has Jeb Bush Worn the Same Sweater Four Days in a Row? [Updated]

We’ve asked Jeb for clarification regarding the connection between ISIS and his sweater, and will update as soon as we hear back.


Contact the author at ashley@gawker.com.

Ted Cruz Was For Controversial Cartoons Before He Was Against Them

$
0
0

Ted Cruz Was For Controversial Cartoons Before He Was Against Them

Are you up to date on the election’s newest micro-controversy? Yesterday, the Washington Post published a cartoon depicting Ted Cruz’s daughters as trained circus monkeys, a reference to a recent political ad released by his campaign that uses Cruz’s admittedly adorable tots as, arguably, props. Later that night, after widespread condemnation [citation needed], the Post decided to pull the cartoon, drawn by Pulitzer winner Ann Telnaes.

http://gawker.com/ted-cruz-would...

Which brings us back to Ted Cruz, who ignited the pushback against the cartoon with both a tweet and a fundraising email.

Ted Cruz jumping all over an ultimately harmless political cartoon in the hopes of dominating a meaningless one-day news cycle is nothing if not entirely predictable, but—but!—Ted Cruz has spoken about the sanctity of political cartoons before, and wouldn’t you believe that he struck a different chord?

Back in January of this year, politicians across the partisan and global spectrum used the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a way of asserting themselves as anti-terror chest-thumpers and, often, newfound free speech advocates. Among those was Ted Cruz, who, as ex-Medium cartoonist Matt Bors points out, defended political cartoons as a vital part of democratic society. Via Buzzfeed:

“The attack in Paris is heartbreaking,” Cruz told BuzzFeed News. “It is a reminder of the global threat we face and the enormous peril presented by radical Islamic terrorists. It is unfortunate to see media outlets engaging in censorship.”

“The First Amendment is designed to ensure a robust debate and refusing to publish the cartoons that are the alleged reason for this brutal act of murder and terror is inconsistent with the spirit of a free debate,” he said.

With regards to the Post cartoon involving him and his family, Cruz didn’t call for the cartoon to be taken down, but he didn’t say it should be kept either. All of which is to say, Ted Cruz isn’t the ardent free speech defender that nobody thought he was.

[image via Getty]


Contact the author at jordan@gawker.com.

Banksy Has Done It Again

$
0
0

“I call this piece ‘Society.’”

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss

$
0
0

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss


The Serpent Society used to be a group of slither-themed lamers that Steve Rogers used to pound on for months at a time. They were supervillains in the classic mustache-twirling mode. Today, they’re a lot more dangerous. Today, their leader name-drops his buddies at Bain Capital. It’s acerbically funny—and wince-inducing—stuff.

The newest Captain America series has drawn controversy for having a main character that takes political stances on the issues of the day. Sam Wilson’s storylines inserted him into situations focused on immigration and the surveillance state, resulting in a lot of fictional and real-world hate being directed at him for daring to state an opinion. His actions have seen him branded with the derisive nickname “Captain Communist”. This week, he’s fighting a thematic polar opposite, a Serpent Society that’s getting rich by doing dirty work for high-powered corporations.

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss

Captain America: Sam Wilson #4—written by Nick Spencer with art by Paul Renaud, Romulo Fjardo, and Joe Caramagna—finds its lead character looking a lot different than he usually does. This is the second issue where Sam has been trapped in a werewolf form, the results of a run-in with old Cap villain Karl Malus. Malus’ experiments with splicing human and animal DNA weren’t just garden-variety mad scientist shenanigans; they were R&D for the newest iteration of an old supervillain cadre called the Serpent Society. They’re calling themselves Serpent Solutions now and they’re serving as a metaphor for all the horrible things that happen in the name of turning a profit. Kidnapping people and turning them into giant iguanas? Just another regrettable but necessary fact-of-life decision in today’s business landscape, according to exec leader Viper:

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss

The previous versions of the Serpent Society had slight resemblances to business organizations, with dues-payment memberships and schemes meant to funnel money into corrupt but legitimate corporations. But this version leans more closely on happenings from real-world conference rooms.

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss

Let’s be clear: this evolution of the Serpent Society into Serpent Solutions is a broad caricature of the One Percent. Their cavalier assessment of the cost of human lives and the business-meeting-on-a-golf-course bluster and name-dropping might be easy to laugh at but it’s also a discomfiting reminder of the wealth gap and the extra-legal mechanisms that keep a certain class of people super-rich.

Captain America’s Latest Comic Book Enemies: Corporate Snakesssssss


Aside from all the pointed political commentary, Spencer’s delivering a lot of comedy in this Captain America series so far. It’s a big change from how deadly serious the last few volumes of Steve Rogers-centric adventures were, but one that almost feels necessary given the uptick in political messaging Spencer is throwing in there. People will probably stay mad at this series’ shift in direction but that doesn’t mean it’s not a fun read.


Contact the author at evan@kotaku.com.

Jeb Bush has responded to our claim that he wore the same sweater four days in a row, saying “It was

California Bear Captured After Hitching Ride to Dump on Garbage Truck

$
0
0

California Bear Captured After Hitching Ride to Dump on Garbage Truck

A black mountain bear was tranquilized at a garbage dump in Fresno, California, on Tuesday afternoon, the Associated Press reports. The bear had ridden there from the Hume Lake area, some 65 miles away, in the back of a garbage truck.

The bear was captured, unharmed, by Fresno police and California Department of Fish and Wildlife authorities. According to the Fresno Bee, the bear was spotted near a ponding basin at the Orange Avenue dump in south Fresno

From the Bee:

There were witnesses.

“He’s right in there,” a dump worker shouted to Lt. Joe Gomez, as he pointed to some heavy brush along Orange Avenue.

“That’s crazy,” someone said to Gomez.

“Yes, it is,” laughed Gomez, who serves as the police spokesman and now appeared to be ad hoc leader of a hastily assembled bear hunting expedition.

A wildlife biologist with California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, Dan Fidler, shot the young cub—only about a year old, the Bee reports, and weighing between 75 and 100 pounds—with a tranquilizer dart. He was put in the back of a Fish and Wildlife pickup truck to be returned to the mountains.


Photo via AP Images. Contact the author of this post: brendan.oconnor@gawker.com.


Accused Planned Parenthood Killer Tries to Fire Lawyers

$
0
0

Accused Planned Parenthood Killer Tries to Fire Lawyers

In Colorado Springs, Colorado, Robert Dear, the man accused of killing three people in an attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic there, stopped court proceedings on Wednesday with an outburst demanding that he be allowed to represent himself.

Earlier in the status hearing, as Judge Martinez was ordering a mental competency evaluation for the accused shooter, who freely acknowledged his involvement in the November shooting earlier this month, Dear, 57, interrupted to say that competency evaluators would want to “administer the drug treatment and make me a zombie.”

http://gawker.com/accused-planne...

“Do I sound like a zombie?” he asked, according to the Associated Press. “Do I sound like I have no intelligence?” Dear, who faces 179 counts, including first-degree murder and attempted murder, is currently being represented by Daniel King, an attorney from the Colorado public defender’s office. “I do not want them as my lawyers. I invoke my constitutional right to defend myself,” he said.

According to The Guardian, Judge Gilbert Martinez encouraged Dear to trust his lawyer. Dear asked, “How can I trust my attorney when he says I’m incompetent in the newspaper?” The judge then cleared the courtroom so that Dear and King, who also represented Aurora theater shooter James Holmes, could speak privately.


Photo via AP Images. Contact the author of this post: brendan.oconnor@gawker.com.

Fernande Grudet, a.k.a.

What 'Major Shakeup' Is Ben Carson Planning for His Campaign? 

$
0
0

What 'Major Shakeup' Is Ben Carson Planning for His Campaign? 

Brain surgeon and extremely calm man Ben Carson is still running for president, barely. He’s currently polling at around 10 percent, but there is a secret plan to change all that, he told the Associated Press today. What could it be? Let’s speculate wildly and irresponsibly.

Carson told the AP he’s planning a major change, in an interview that sounds like it was conducted with a lil bit of wholly unnecessary but very entertaining cloak-and-dagger involved:

In an interview with the Associated Press at his Maryland home — conducted without the knowledge of his own campaign manager — Carson said “personnel changes” could be coming, suggesting he is about to sideline his top aides.

“Everything. Everything is on the table,” he said of the potential changes. “Every single thing is on the table. I’m looking carefully.”

Carson’s longtime business adviser Armstrong Williams put more bluntly: “Dr. Carson is back in charge, and I’m so happy to see that,” he said. Williams himself has publicly feuded with the paid political professionals brought in to run Carson’s campaign.

Campaign manager Barry Bennett declined to make any immediate comment when told of Carson’s remarks. “I’m getting ready to have a conversation with him. Why don’t I have that conversation and call you back.”

So either Carson is planning on firing campaign manager Barry Bennett, a possibility Bennett himself seems...unaware of.

Or maybe, the AP suggested, he’s finally planning to do something campaign-related with all that money he’s raised:

Carson had raised $31 million by the end of September, more than any other Republican in the race, but he’s outpaced the competition on spending — mostly on fundraising costs rather than critical political infrastructure.

“I recognize that nothing is perfect,” Carson said. “And, yes, we’ve had enormous fundraising, but that requires that you be efficient in the way you utilize the funds. And, yes, we are looking at all those things.”

But those shakeups are kind of boring, unbefitting of such a maverick candidate. Some other possibilities:

Coming Out

Dr. Carson could volunteer to go to prison, for instance, where people become gay, per his science.

Divorcing Candy

It’s hard being married to a pop star.

Announcing A New Campaign Plank: Evolution is Probably Real

Nah.

Stabbing a Man on Live Television

Proving both that he’s tough enough to take on ISIS and that he wasn’t lying about that other time he stabbed someone.

Equipping Every Campaign Employee with Shakeweights

He’s a very literal man.

Admitting He Was Never Really a Neurosurgeon

Isn’t this, in a way, the most likely option of all?

Please share your ideas in the comments.


Contact the author at anna.merlan@jezebel.com.

Public PGP key
PGP fingerprint: 67B5 5767 9D6F 652E 8EFD 76F5 3CF0 DAF2 79E5 1FB6

Carson during the AP interview at his home in Upperco, Maryland, December 23, 2015. Photo via AP Images

Another British Muslim Prevented from Flying to the United States Without Explanation

$
0
0

Another British Muslim Prevented from Flying to the United States Without Explanation

A British imam has accused the U.S. State Department of enacting Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims “before he has received a single vote,” the Guardian reports. The imam’s business visa was revoked by U.S. embassy staff at Heathrow without explanation as he tried to board a plane to New York.

Ajmal Masroor, 44, was due to lead Friday prayers last week at a mosque in Queens, New York. He said he’s travelled to the United States multiple times this year. From the Guardian:

Masroor said he was used to being profiled and receiving further questioning and bag searches when flying to the US. “Yet this time,” he said, “when I handed over my passport they took me aside.”

He said a man who said he was from the US embassy began to question him and asked him why he was travelling to the US. He described the official as “cold, calculated and very unhelpful”.

He was also asked about his itinerary and where he would be staying. “After some other frivolous questions, [the official] said: ‘I’m afraid your visa has been revoked’.”

Masroor added that when he asked further questions, the official said: “You must have done something wrong ,” before walking away. He claims to know of other British Muslims who have also been turned away.

Just a few days before, a British Muslim family was prevented from flying from Gatwick to Los Angeles, where they had planned to visit Disneyland. “In my mind, the refusal and revoking of my visa was calculated,” Masroor said. “For me it’s very callous.”

http://gawker.com/u-s-bars-musli...

Today, Masroor addressed the incident on Facebook. “USA has every right to deny anyone access to its country but to single out Muslims and ban them from entering USA is simply unjust and counter productive,” he wrote. “This racism and Islamophobia merged into one terrible policy.”

“This ban would give Donald Trump and his maniacs a victory, if USA does not approve of the Trump policies then it must not bar innocent Muslims from entering USA,” he continued. “We are all victims of terrorism and terrorism doesn’t have a religion. If USA has zero Muslim tolerance then they are confirming that all Muslims are terrorist, such belief and attitude is deeply disturbing and not suitable for peaceful world.”

“USA is loosing friends and not winning hearts and minds of ordinary people by this unfair and disproportionate policy. Our response must be measured and intelligent in tackling threats. We cannot enact laws based on fear and tarnish the whole community.”

The U.S. embassy in London told the Guardian: “The embassy is aware of this matter. We are in contact with the individual and therefore have no further public comment at this time.”


Photo of Masroor (2006) via AP. Contact the author of this post: brendan.oconnor@gawker.com.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Target List From The Cold War Declassified For The First Time 

$
0
0

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Target List From The Cold War Declassified For The First Time 

The National Security Archive has published what is said to be the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear weapons targets and applied weapons strategy that has ever been declassified. The report includes details plans for purposefully targeting civilian populations and military infrastructure for the systematic destruction of the Soviet Bloc.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/see-what-would...

It is called the Strategic Air Command Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959 and was penned in 1956. The 800-plus page study identifies more than 1,100 airfields tagged for destruction, all prioritized in order of their strategic value.

This makes sense as Russia’s main nuclear delivery system at the time was its growing bomber fleet. Just as well, a similar list of over 1,200 targeted population centers is part of the document, ranging from Berlin to Beijing, with top priorities placed on Moscow and Leningrad.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Target List From The Cold War Declassified For The First Time 

The study goes on to outline proposed weapon strategies for different targets, including particular yields and detonation methods that would cause desired effects, one of which included enveloping the local population in as much fallout as possible. National Security Archive also notes that the report recommends developing a much more powerful bomb than anything in inventory at the time or today: a 60-megaton super-nuke, to be more exact. Keep in mind the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested was Russia’s Tsar Bomb which was gauged at 50 megatons.

From the report:

Given the expansive definition of Air Power, this suggested that targets in major cities such as Moscow and Leningrad could be subjected to H-bomb attack because both were rich in air power targets. For example, according to the SAC study, the Moscow area had 12 airbases. None of them were even in the top 400 airbases on the list so they may not have been attacked immediately, but Moscow had other potentially higher priority targets: 7 Air Force storage areas, 1 Air Force military control, 1 government control (presumably Kremlin and vicinity), 4 guided missile entities (R&D, production), 5 atomic energy research centers, 11 airframe entities, 6 aircraft engine entities, 2 liquid fuel plants, and 16 liquid fuel storage areas, including refineries. Moreover Moscow had a variety of other non-air military objectives, such as an Army military headquarters, Army and Navy military storage areas, and biological warfare research centers that might have been deemed worthy of attack at the opening of the war.

Leningrad was also a prime candidate for high-yield nuclear weapons aimed at air power targets. It had 12 airbases in the vicinity, as well as such installations as: 1 air frame , 1 aircraft engine, 2 atomic energy research, 2 guided missiles, 3 liquid fuel, 1 Air Force military control, and 4 Air Force military storage areas.

The study also goes on to describe how surface-bursting high-yield nukes would be ideal compared to an air-bursting them, so that as much physical concussive damage is done and as much fallout is dispersed. Apparently the thermal effects and radiation were not quick enough as killers.

The National Security Archive has a great synopsis full of all kinds of eyebrow-raising details. Here’s the map of nuclear targets from their site:

In the end, it’s clear that this report was as much a manual of how to destroy mankind and the planet’s ability to support it, as it was a strategic study into how to execute World War III. Let’s look at that map and be thankful it never happened.


Contact the author at Tyler@jalopnik.com.

Top photo via wikicommons/public domain

Viewing all 24829 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images