Conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza was sentenced to five years probation and a $30,000 fine today for violating campaign finance laws. For the first eight months of his probation, D'Souza will have to live in a "community confinement center" and undergo "therapeutic counseling." Basically, he has to go to rehab for being a bad person.

In May, D'Souza pleaded guilty to illegally arranging donations in the 2012 election. He maintains that he was unfairly targeted by prosecutors because he's a vocal critic of President Obama.

One interesting piece of information that surfaced during today's sentencing hearing is that D'Souza allegedly beat his soon-to-be ex-wife. Judge Richard Berman read a letter from Dixie D'Souza, who was married to Dinesh for 20 years, that stated:

In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day.

Huh. Maybe one day he'll land in jail.

[Photo via AP]

If you drive long enough through the mountains and valleys of the western United States, eventually you're going to hit and kill a wild animal with your car.

It usually can't be helped. Of course no sane person wants to run over some poor animal that's decided to run out in front of their car—but nobody wants to flip their car into a ravine in the middle of nowhere while trying to swerve either.

In any case, it's usually not something that people usually brag about—unless there is something very seriously wrong with them. Perhaps like a weird obsession or fixation of some kind.

For example...

Toby Bridges of Missoula, Montana, hates wolves with a personal vitriol and aggressiveness that you don't usually see in most people—even other hunters.

In fact, he runs a website and a Facebook page dedicated to hating wolves in the name of supporting "the efforts of all who feel that in order to save wildlife, outdoor recreation and a healthy outdoor lifestyle, sportsmen must fight radical anti-hunting environmental groups and state and federal wildlife agencies which have abandoned those who have financed real wildlife conservation efforts in this country for the past 75 to 100 years."

For Bridges, that means killing the hell out of wolves—despite over a century of definitive scientific evidence that wolves and other large predators are a vital part of a healthy ecosystem.

But it appears that Bridges may have finally gone a bit too far after he actually bragged on his anti-wolf Facebook page that he intentionally struck and killed a pair of young wolves with his minivan as they crossed Interstate 90 near the Montana-Idaho state line.

According to a September 16th post, Bridges claims that a cow elk and her calf ran out onto the interstate near Lookout Pass, and he slowed down in case there were more elk about to cross the roadway.

What followed were two adult wolves. The cow jumped over the concrete barrier seperating(sic) West and East traffic lanes, the calf stayed on "my" side - and both were running up the highway, toward the pass. The wolves went after the calf...and I let off the brake and hit the accelerator. I was going to save that calf.

Bridges then claims that he hit two young wolves, leaving one dead on the side of the road while the other crawled off into the woods with a badly broken leg.

Two wolves out of the equation...and it was all an accident. I love it when things go good.

He even included some (WARNING: GRAPHIC) photographs from the scene, in case his words didn't paint a clear enough picture of what he did:

The problem with calling it "an accident" is that Bridges already admitted stepping on the gas instead of the brakes, making it much less of "an accident" and more like "an entirely on purpose"—and now law enforcement officials say that they are looking into his boasts.

According to the Great Falls Tribune, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Game Warden Capt. Joseph Jaquith says that they are aware of the Facebook post, and are investigating Bridges' claims to see if they're true.

"Whether or not it's true remains to be seen," said Jaquith, who in a moment of profound understatement added that running down wildlife in a vehicle is illegal in Montana and "very unsporting."

There you have it—running down wildlife with your car is officially considered "very unsporting" in the state of Montana. I suppose like a baseball player stealing second base at gunpoint is "very unsporting."

But wait a second, you may say. Aren't wolves federally protected endangered species? Why aren't the feds crawling all over this case?

Nope. Wolves are no longer their jurisdiction.

In case you may have missed it, wolves are no longer covered by the federal Endangered Species Act, and are instead managed by state wildlife agencies—thanks to a rider attached to the 2011 budget bill by Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.

As a result, wolf hunting has increased dramatically across the Northern Rockies and Upper Midwest. According to wildlife conservation organization Predator Defense, over 2,800 wolves have been killed in the U.S. since they were de-listed in 2011. They now estimate that there are less than 7,000 gray wolves left in the lower 48 states.

But even more disturbing is that there now appears to be an online subculture of people like Bridges who seem to get off on killing wolves and other predators.

Brooks Fahy of Predator Defense says that graphic pictures and stories about predators like wolves being purposefully maimed and tortured are popping frequently on social media sites and online forums.

Fahy told the Tribune that wildlife agencies are turning a blind eye to what's happening online.

"This type of vitriol and hatred tends to build if it goes unchallenged," Fahy said. "One thing that's very disconcerting so far in the Northern Rockies — Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming — is we're constantly hearing of animals being intentionally gut-shot, dead wolves being posed in disturbing position for photos. As far as I'm aware, none of these agencies, including Montana, have come out and publicly said, 'this is deplorable; this language is deplorable.'"

So, what's going to happen with Bridges? Likely nothing.

Jaquith says that his department is still trying to determine what, if anything, they can do about a Facebook post with no actual physical evidence of a crime.

He told the Tribune that he will be taking his time with the investigation.

"We're taking a look at it," said Jaquith, who also noted that Bridges has a right to "free speech" online. "We're not turning a blind eye to it."

I guess that at least a cursory investigation would be the sporting thing to do.

Image via Shutterstock

As a small business owner, a very easy way to lose the trust of others is to not give them the things you promised when they handed you money. Another way is to take that money and waste it on craziness. These men did both, ArsTechnica reports.

Two years ago, Sonny Vleisides (right) introduced himself to the BitcoinTalk.org message board, explaining away some dodgy run-ins with law enforcement surrounding a gambling site he previously worked for. It looked like an attempt to come clean by a man who needed to earn the community's trust regarding his new venture: Butterfly Labs, a company that manufactured high-end computer equipment. He ended his post with optimism:

The bitcoin community and it's success are important to me and my past isn't a threat to it or to the BFL corporation. I hope you can see that.

It seemed to work: "I'm satisfied," read the first reply. Vleisides and partner Nasser Ghoseiri (left) went on to become some of the most hated actors in Bitcoin world, earning Kansas-based BFL a notoriously unscrupulous and scammy reputation, even in a fledgling finance sector that's no stranger to unscrupulousness. Years of customer anger are now a federal lawsuit, says ArsTechnica:

"The FTC alleges that one corporate defendant and three individual defendants have taken in over $50 million by operating a scheme that required consumers to pre-pay for machines that would allow consumers to 'mine' for Bitcoins, a new virtual currency," the complaint states. "Defendants either never delivered these machines or delivered them so late that they became obsolete."

If they weren't shipping out Bitcoin mining gear, what were they doing with all the money they made? According to complaint documents, they were spending it on themselves:

The FTC alleges Butterfly Labs' operators took customers for up to $50 million, which will buy you quite a few saunas. The FTC is now seeking to seize Butterfly's assets while the faltering company tells Ars "The government wants to shut Butterfly Labs down, and we are not going away without a fight to vindicate bitcoin, our company, and our employees."

Over the last six weeks, the U.S. has launched nearly 200 airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq. This morning, President Obama delivered a short statement to officially announce that the U.S. has launched airstrikes in Syria now, too.

Who are these airstrikes targeting? ISIS, right?

The airstrikes, which began last night, are primarily targeting ISIS, or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Al Qaeda descendant that controls a significant portion of Iraq and Syria. This is the group that mass-murdered Iraqi soldiers, kidnapped aid workers, beheaded American journalists, and has convinced thousands (including American teens) to join them and wage jihad.

Obama wants to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS militants wherever they are. But they're not the only group targeted in these most recent strikes: the U.S. is going after the Khorasan group, too.

Wait—what's the Khorasan group?

The Khorasan group is a terrorist outfit that has closer ties to al Qaeda's many organizations than ISIS. It's based in Pakistan, operates in Iraq and Syria, and still sits within Al Qaeda's hierarchy, which means the group is mainly focused on attacking America. Khorasan militants also work with the Yemeni branch of al Qaeda called al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Are they dangerous?

Yes. While ISIS is only a regional threat, the Pentagon believes the Khorasan group does have the capability to carry out attacks on Western nations. The administration targeted them last night because U.S. officials believe the group posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S.

What kind of threat?

Well...U.S. officials have not said who or what the Khorasan group planned to target. But they insist that they plots are in the advanced stage. Per a CNN source:

There were indications that the militants had obtained materials and were working on new improvised explosive devices that would be hard to detect, including common hand-held electronic devices and airplane carry-on items such as toiletries.

Are ISIS and the Khorasan group working together? Why did the U.S. attack them at the same time?

No, ISIS and the Khorasan group aren't working together. In Syria, the groups apparently compete for recruits. Muhsin al Fadhli, thought to be a senior member of the Khorasan group, hired one of ISIS's social media managers in order to mimic ISIS's advanced online recruiting efforts.

The U.S. attacked the Khorasan group last night to maintain an element of surprise. The Pentagon feared Khorasan members would scatter if the U.S. attacked ISIS first.

OK, got it. Are other countries helping us out with the airstrike campaigns?

With the Khorasan group, no. The U.S. was the only country to launch airstrikes on Khorasan targets. Five Arab nations did help us attack ISIS in Syria, however. Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates all participated in the strikes. Getting that coalition together was a foreign policy "win" for Obama.

What about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? Is he on board?

Assad probably doesn't mind that the U.S. is attacking ISIS in Syria now, since ISIS is targeting his government. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was clear today, however, that the U.S. did not work with Assad's government to carry out the strikes:

We did not request the regime's permission. We did not coordinate our actions with the Syrian government. We did not provide advance notification to the Syrians at a military level, or give any indication of our timing on specific targets.

If you can think back to 2013, you'll remember that Assad is a horrible and inhuman dictator. Obama has called for him to step down multiple times since chemical weapons attacks were launched on Assad's own people in the midst of the Syrian civil war. The U.S. government supports the moderate opposition in Syria, not Assad.

So wait–won't these strikes technically help Assad?

That's the fear. Syrian rebels are worried that Assad's forces will fill the vacuum on the ground where ISIS is wiped out. The U.S. knows this is a possibility and that the moderate Free Syrian Army probably isn't ready to overtake Assad's forces.

Obama weighed the options and ultimately decided that letting ISIS have a safe haven in Syria couldn't go on.

Gotcha. So what was hit? Are the strikes even working?

It's too soon to tell if this campaign is "working," but the strikes on ISIS in Syria are already more intense than those launched in Iraq. Preliminary photos like this one are rolling in now:

First photo of #syriaairstrikes: before & after on #ISIS installation in #Syria following F22 Raptor strike pic.twitter.com/2uL4m81qIZ

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) September 23, 2014

According to U.S. Central Command, the airstrikes on ISIS targeted militants as well as "training compounds, headquarters and command and control facilities, storage facilities, a finance center, supply trucks, and armed vehicles in the vicinity of Raqqa, Dayr az Zawr, Al-Hasakah and Abu Kamal." The U.S. launched strikes from the air and sea.

With respect to the Khorasan group, the U.S. hit "training camps, an explosives and munitions production facility, a communication building, and command-and-control facilities."

Here's a helpful map from The New York Times:

Raqqa citizen Abdulkader Hariri live-tweeted the airstrikes last night, if you're looking for a rough timeline of the events.

Breaking: Huge explosions shook the city in what might be the beginning of US airstrikes on ISIS HQs in Raqqa

— Abdulkader Hariri (@3bdUlkaed6r) September 23, 2014

Okay, one more question: Is bombing ISIS really the right strategy?

That's still up for debate. At least one former analyst (Chelsea Manning) thinks it'd be better to contain ISIS and let the group fail on its own. There are also those who worry targeting ISIS in Syria will only cement Assad's position of power. Obama's calculus is that targeting ISIS in Iraq but not Syria doesn't make much sense, since ISIS would enjoy a safe haven in Syria.

U.S. officials say last night's bombing is "just a start." The effectiveness of the campaign now depends on what we do next and how quickly ISIS regroups. Former CIA analyst and counterterrorism expert Philip Mudd told CNN today, "When this gets interesting to me ... is six months down the road, when a second-tier ISIS commander starts to create some sort of cell to recruit foreigners from Europe or the United States or Canada into Syria, do we still have the will and capability, and the intelligence, to locate that person, or that group of people, and put lead on the target?"

We'll have to wait and see. For what it's worth, the six-week bombing campaign on ISIS in Iraq has done little to shake the militants. ISIS was prevented from taking Baghdad, but the militants are still "dealing humiliating blows to the Iraqi Army."

[Photo via Getty]

Kevin Martin, the angry weather hoaxer and serial threat-giver whose string of viral prognosticatory hoaxes of late worried millions with false prophecies of doom, has a new message for Facebook and President Obama: "STOP MESSING WITH ME!" And he's very srs, guys.

The latest kerfuffle began last week after Martin started issuing look-alike severe thunderstorm warnings via his Facebook page. Martin further used his page, which has more than 30,000 followers despite its constant suspensions by Facebook, to tell his readers to completely disregard severe weather watches and warnings issued by NOAA's National Weather Service, the only reputable weather agency in the United States that issues these types of advisories.

Under the current system, it's legal for anyone to say "tornado warning for Prince William County!!!" even if there isn't one. Despite corporate angling to co-opt and trendset in the weather community, no reputable weather organizations issue their own watches or warnings. The closest any agency comes to issuing its own advisories is WeatherBug with its "Dangerous Thunderstorm Alert," which utilizes weather radar and a lightning detection network to alert users that a thunderstorm is in the vicinity.

In response to Martin's ongoing War Against Meteorology, a frequent critic of Martin's created a petition on change.org to urge members of Congress to pass a law restricting the ability to issue severe weather watches and warnings to the National Weather Service. The petition is addressed to President Obama and three senators who sit on the committee responsible for overseeing the Department of Commerce, under which the National Weather Service is operated.

Not to be outdone, and true to his form, Martin snapped back with the ferocity of a moody five-year-old angrily taping a note to his blanket fortress that reads "NOONE ALLOWD AND THAT MEENS U TO, MOM."

Kevin Martin's counter-petition is succinctly titled "Ignore Petition To Pass legislation restricting the issuance of severe weather watches and warnings to Federal Government agencies only and for Facebook to STOP terminating Kevin Martin."

If that wasn't enough word salad for you, enjoy trying to read the petition itself, throughout which Martin gloriously refers to himself in the first person:

This petition will send a message that the public wants alternative alerts, in addition to the ones NOAA provides. Such sites like Southern California Weather Central.com and Weather Alert Central.com are sites I work with to do just that.

The people (under their rights in this country) have the option to follow what alerts they wish to follow, without government control on such. Such alerts can and have saved lives over what NOAA can provide on its own.

Private alert agencies + NOAA is what is needed for the public alert system.

So the signature the people put is in support to private weather services issuing their own weather alerts by means of their own website, phone application, or any other means they might use in-which the freedom to do this is protected by the U.S. Constitution so never forget that exists.

FACEBOOK: We the signed want our weatherman Kevin Martin to remain on Facebook and run his pages. Trolls are always doing false reports and we are sick of you taking him off for no reason at all. He spends a lot of money advertising his products on your site with your advertising department and for you to do that to him is UNPROFESSIONAL and you are a social site so start being social to your advertisers.

STOP MESSING WITH KEVIN MARTIN

It's almost Palin-esque, isn't it? Stop messing with the free right of the people to mislead and the freedom of the patriots to patriot and the free U.S. Constitution that exists so never forget also that, too. And STOP MESSING WITH KEVIN MARTIN, OBAMA.

Neither petition is doing very well in the signatures department (the original has 56 signatures and Martin's counter-petition, boosted on Facebook to his tens of thousands of 'likes,' has 225 as of publication), and neither movement will grab the attention of lawmakers. It's hard enough to convince a certain party that the National Weather Service is necessary (1, 2), let alone that it should have the sole authority to do something like issue life-saving weather warnings.

[Image: Angela Waye/Shutterstock]

You can follow the author on Twitter or send him an email.

A special grand jury called to review evidence in the fatal shooting of John Crawford III, killed by police in an Ohio Walmart while carrying a BB gun from store's shelves, decided today that no officers involved in the shooting will be indicted.

Surveillance video from Crawford's shooting—previously unavailable to the public—shows Crawford walking around the store while talking on the phone, with the BB gun at his side or on his shoulder. The disturbing video then shows multiple officers rushing toward Crawford with guns drawn, shooting him:

Though the special grand jury reportedly considered charging the officers with murder, reckless homicide, or negligent homicide, WHIO reports the jury ultimately decided not to indict the officers involved in the shooting, finding their actions were justified.

Vince Pope, attorney for the officers involved in the shooting, released a statement following the decision:

"I believe the grand jury's decision, it's absolutely the right decision, that the officers acted well within their training."

Derrick Foward, president of the Dayton Unit NAACP, also released a statement:

"The Special Grand Jury in Greene County made the wrong decision. It's a sad day in the history of Dayton."

Foward added the NAACP will call for a complete investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

[Photo via WHIO]

According to sources who spoke with the New York Post, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell is not fucking around when it comes to winning a bid for the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Instead of making a convincing argument for his city, he's allegedly dragging New York City, his loud upstairs neighbor, through the mud.

The source claims that Rendell, who is also the former mayor of Philadelphia, has sent articles to the Democratic National Committee that reveal New York City's dirty, disgusting underside: from sweltering hot subway cars to an infestation of bedbugs, this place is no fit temporary home for hundreds of upstanding politicians, Rendell reportedly said.

The former governor spoke with the Post, ignoring allegations that he'd trash-talked New York's bedbug problem, instead saying that the biggest issue with hosting the DNC at Brooklyn's Barclays Center is that delegates will get stuck in traffic:

Reached by phone, Rendell said he has been lightheartedly busting the city's chops over a potentially serious problem: transporting thousands of delegates from Manhattan to Barclays Center in Brooklyn during rush hour.

"I think that's the big weakness with New York City's bid: the hotels are in one borough, the convention's in another," he said.

While the Republican National Committee announced their 2016 convention location in July (Destination: hell!), the DNC has yet to come to any decision on theirs. With Columbus, Phoenix, and Birmingham all still in the mix, the competition remains stiff.

[Image via AP]

On Monday afternoon, Clemson University sophomore Tucker Hipps was reported missing by the fraternity Sigma Phi Epsilon. A few hours later police spotted him floating in a lake under a bridge and retrieved his body. He was pronounced dead just after 5 p.m. The question that members of the Clemson community now want answered is whether fraternity brothers were responsible for his death.

Sig Ep's story, as relayed by the university in an official statement, is as follows:

Tucker was participating in an early-morning group activity run with fraternity members. He didn't return from the run and wasn't at breakfast, so they began looking for him. Members of the fraternity contacted the Clemson University Police Department to report him missing at 1:45 p.m. Monday.

A spokesperson for the Oconee County Sheriff's Office provided a bit more detail early this morning:

Oconee County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Jimmy Watt said Hipps was on a voluntary pledge run with about 30 other pledges and brothers of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity when he began to fall behind the group.

What happened next is not known because Watt said no one saw Hipps fall into Lake Hartwell from the Highway 93 bridge that crosses over the Seneca River portion of the lake.

The official story is clear enough to absolve Sig Ep and its members of culpability—at least at this early stage—but still vague to the point that many Clemson students have alleged that Hipps died because of hazing. (The run, according to police, took place around 5:30 a.m.)

To that end, Oconee County police have acknowledged the accusations while still maintaining that hazing was not the cause of Hipps' death. But the case is still decidedly open—in a USA Today article on the incident from late Tuesday night headlined "Clemson weeps as questions linger in student's death," Sheriff Mike Crenshaw says his office is still investigating the matter.

Those "questions" that USA Today is referring to are not just the routine police work of tying up loose ends. Clemson's social media networks are currently embroiled in discussion over whether Hipps died because of frat hijinks. It is not hard to find Clemson students on Twitter matter-of-factly stating that Hipps died because of hazing.

I hope that sig ep feels awful that because their hazing has resulted in the death of their "brother"

— Auztin (@troyauztin) September 22, 2014

Why has no action been taken against Sig Ep? Tucker died because of pledge hazing.

— Kimberley Owen (@KMoney865) September 23, 2014

In light of everything that has happened with Tucker I hope that everyone takes a real look at hazing... It is NEVER okay. #TuckerTuesday

— Kelsey Wylie (@KelseyWylie) September 24, 2014

@PanthersAnon some kid named Tucker Hipps. I heard it was frat hazing, found his body in a lake.

— KIRK COUSINS DA GAWD (@cmurderdagawd) September 23, 2014

But the real debate is happening on an anonymous location based app called Yik Yak, which is something like a cross between a traditional message board and 4chan. Like 4chan, posters don't have usernames and threads self-destruct in reverse-chronological order as newer threads are added. But like a traditional message board the content of Yik Yak is text-based and mostly banal—the app is popular on college campuses, and Clemson's page is mostly filled with kids complaining about this class or that walk across campus.

But ever since Monday, it has been flooded with yaks about Hipps' death. The majority of yaks about Hipps opine that his death was caused by Sig Ep, which has incited it own backlash from pro-Greek factions. Here is some of what you'll find if you open Yik Yak and "peek" at Clemson's page:

Of course, this is all just speculation—it's impossible to tell which yaks are opinion and which are based on rumors, and it's even harder to know which, if any, of the rumors are founded. But it's clear, at least, that Clemson students are split on the university's official explanation regarding Hipps' death.

Yesterday Clemson suspended activities for all 24 fraternities on campus. Hipps' death seems to obviously be the catalyst for that decision, but in its statement the university noted that "there has been a high number of reports of serious incidents involving fraternity activities" this semester "ranging from alcohol-related medical emergencies to sexual misconduct." Another thing you can read on Yik Yak, which is elucidated in this message board post on Clemson forum Tigernet, is that the main allegation of "sexual misconduct" alluded to in that statement stems from a rumored incident at a Sig Ep party in which a girl claims that she was sexually assaulted after being drugged. (That accusation has not been publicly verified and no one seems to have been charged.)

Fraternity life has been placed in a crucible in American society recently, and even if Sig Ep is officially cleared of any wrongdoing, the specter of Hipps' death will loom over the Greek community at Clemson. Just a few weeks ago, the possibilities seemed much more open.

My pledge brothers tho>>

— Tucker Hipps (@TuckerHipps5) September 6, 2014

If you know anything regarding Hipps' death, email me at jordan@gawker.com or leave a comment below.

[photo via Facebook]

Sebastian Thrun, founder of Google X and the former project lead of Google Glass, started Udacity in 2011 to bring "university-level education to the world." But the lofty mission of his unaccredited for-profit online education racket is already dead, and Thrun just pulled in 35 million more investment dollars to promote his organization's "Nanodegrees."

Udacity's Nanodegree program was proudly "pioneered together with AT&T," so you already know it's crooked. And it is: Nanodegrees are faux-trade school diplomas for short-cutting techies that are only recognized by partnering companies. Via Re/code:

The startup now teaches people computing skills that will help them get jobs, awarding what it calls "nanodegrees" recognized by partner employers like Google, Facebook and AT&T.

Thrun insists upon the legitimacy of his Nanodegrees, explaining to TechCrunch that many of the courses are designed by the partnering corporations themselves (specifically, Google built Udacity's Android developer classes). Besides, the startup trade school claims to be only supplemental education, not a replacement for a proper degree:

Udacity has been excoriated by academics, who fret that the company's emphasis on vocational training could replace the liberal arts degree as debt-saddled students opt for cheaper (and ostensibly faster) paths to a career than spending four years in an ivory tower.

Thrun's response is that Udacity is not meant to replace four-year degrees but supplement them. And some grounding in computer programming is essential before a student can enroll in one of its nano-degree programs.

"We are distinctly not in the college space," says Thrun.

Emphasis mine. That's a big change in tune compared to Thrun's stumping in June, when the Udacity co-founder told the New York Times that the company "is like a university, built by industry." In fact, one year ago while on a conference stage with Gavin Newsom, the California Lieutenant Governor trumpeted the disruptive impact of Udacity, claiming "If this doesn't wake up the U.C., CSU and the community college systems, I don't know what will."

Bailing on a UC degree for a quick, $200/month coding tutorial from eHow: The University might be fast way to land yourself soul-destroying gig at AT&T. But as soon as you want to get another job, you're screwed.

To contact the author of this post, please email kevin@valleywag.com.

"In the age of knowing what you're made of, there's no room for erectile dysfunction," says Viagra, who claims that their most recent batch of commercials show men "engaging in daily activities without letting anything get in their way." Right: they don't let anything get in their way of BEING HOT.

The nearly identical commercials were cast with nearly identical dudes. But though they are nearly identical, some are clearly hotter than others. Below, a ranking.

9. Random Dudes Jogging, Surfing, Being a Cowboy and Hiking

Your appearances are too brief for us to really know about you. Come back again so we can decide if you are going to use that bionic penis for good or evil.

8. The Dudes Who Have Viagra Delivered Straight to Them at Home

Did you know you can have Viagra delivered straight to you at your home?

That's the home that you fuck your wife in, btw.

7. The Dude Who Builds Bridges

This man will build you a bridge to somewhere.

It's dark out while he's building that bridge, so it's kind of hard to see his face.

There it is!

His wife/partner is into this face.

*beep beep* [Car unlocks] "Honey, I'm coming home!"

6. The Dude Who Sails Boats Alone

Look at this Calm Dude, who is out for a sail alone, just feeling the wind on his face.

You are the boat and Calm Sailor knows how to reach into your hull and Get Things Done.

Things might even get a little ~frisky~ on the way there.

But he's still Calm.

Good with his hands.

Good at staring at the sea.

Good at following the North Star via the Good Ship Viagra home.

5. The Dude Who Fishes

This Dude doesn't just fish – he fishes for a living.

While on his fishing boat, he fixes things that go awry.

In between fixing things, he stares at the sea.

All is well there, because of him.

Now that all is well on the boat at sea, Fishing Man can return home.

His wife and their station wagon are very glad to see him.

4. The Dude Who Knows Horses

Horse man wears a cowboy hat.

He is strong, silent and knows his horses.

Very silent.

Maybe not so silent at his happy home though...

3. The Dude Who Fixes Cars

This man has a nice car and is going for a nice drive.

Unfortunately, his nice car is also an old car, which means that sometimes, it gets into a spot of trouble.

That's just life, you know.

[Raises arms]

Car man has a secret trick to fix his overheated engine though: water, the magic elixir of life.

Now he's back on the road.

Home is but a brief ride away.

2. The Dude Who Is a White Collar Factory Man

At first, this Dude seems like just a regular Dude.

Then it becomes clear that he is Going Places. UP places.

To his private, glassed-in office, more specifically.

He's done with a nice day of work, which means he gets to attend to the :-) texts he gets from his ladyfriend.

All work and no play makes Factory Dude a dull boy.

1. A Dude Who Can Make Fire

Once upon a time, man could not make fire.

We're not talking about back in the day; no, this is recently. You see, man's trusty man-made lighter was failing him. He found he had to rely on his own hands.

[Pauses]

[Blows on fire to get it burning]

[Blows some more]

[Pauses]

He looks off into the distance and sees his fire glowing, plus the shadow of his love in a tent. Is there going to be a fire in the tent tonight?

Yes.

Images via Viagra

Bill O'Reilly has the spittle of a young soldier and the wattle of an elder statesman, but does he have the intellectual or moral mettle of a war strategist? No. No, he does not.

O'Reilly used his "Talking Points" segment Monday to solve a sticky security dilemma: Only ground troops, he surmised, could defeat the Islamic State's forces. But Americans don't want a ground war. How to break this impasse, Bill?

What about a mercenary army?

Eh?

Elite fighters who would be well-paid and well-trained to fight terrorists all over the world? Here's how it would work.

No.

The fighters would be recruited by America and trained in the USA by our special forces…

You can listen to the rest of O'Reilly's spiel above, which basically boils down to 25,000 handsomely compensated soldiers of fortune, all English-speaking, to put on their shitkickers and traipse about the world for three years kicking some shit. Say, what do you call an "anti-terror army" like this?

The force would be called "The Anti-Terror Army."

Oh, and one more thing:

Finally, it would help a lot if the U.S. Congress would formally declare war on terrorism.

Would it! Would it? It would not! That's according to the foreign policy hawks that O'Reilly proceeded to ask about the mercenary gambit. First there's Tom Nichols, a big-stick kinda guy who teaches strategy at the Naval War College (and helped get this guy hired there). O'Reilly asked Nichols for his take on the Anti-Terror Army, and Nichols replied thus:

Well, Bill, I understand your frustration. I really do. But this is a terrible idea, a terrible idea not just as a practical matter but a moral matter. It's a morally corrosive idea to try to outsource our national security. This is something Americans are going to have to deal for themselves. We're not going to solve this problem by creating an army of Marvel Avengers or the Guardians of the Galaxy.

Okay, the conservative professoriate has spoken. But what about a real fancypants war-addict like Charles Krauthammer?

"Saying that something is needed is not an argument for saying it's gonna work," Krauthammer shot back at O'Reilly, having suddenly accessed a portion of his left brain that had been unavailable since 2002. "Do you really want to be running around the world responsible for a band of desperados?":

Your idea you've gone from out of the box to off the wall… you want to create a French Foreign Legion that speaks English.

When you've lost Neocon Mack Daddy, you've lost America. Unless...

Ah, Billy, you bold fresh piece of humanity.

Vox.com, a website run by fans of real rap, lashed out this afternoon against an Iggy Azalea Twitter account that had claimed the whitebread rapper and her gingerbread friend Macklemore were the king and queens of rap. Only problem: the Vox writer believed the account belonged to the real Iggy Azalea.

The article was pulled only 10 minutes after Vox posted it at 1:50 this afternoon with the title headline "Iggy Azalea just said she's the queen of rap. She's wrong." Speaking of being wrong! The tweet was sent from a fan account under the name @atlantakilos, whose profile reads: "• Iggy Azalea •|• Lady Gaga •|• Lana Del Rey • ★ Gaga Followed 3/4/13 + Iggy Follows ★"

Hard to believe that this wasn't really posted by her:

the king and queen of rap 😍👌💯 pic.twitter.com/R2eYuaRp57

— IGGY AZALEA (@atlantakilos) September 23, 2014

The full post, for the morbidly curious, is below:

Last night, Australian rapper Iggy Azalea posted a photo of herself, posing with rapper Macklemore, to her Twitter. Azalea captioned the photo of the two very blonde, very white rappers "the king and queen of rap."

Iggy Azalea's hit song "Fancy" claimed the hallowed "song of summer" crown earlier this year, spending a solid seven weeks in the no. 1 spot. Azalea also appeared on Ariana Grande's "Problem" this summer, making her only the fifth female artist to have two singles among the top five songs at the same time, joining Mariah Carey and Taylor Swift. Macklemore, too, has done quite well for himself. At last year's Grammy awards Macklemore was awarded the Grammy for Best Rap Album, Best Rap Song and Best New Artist.

In terms of numbers alone, it's not totally outrageous for Iggy to claim that she and Macklemore are the king and queen of rap. This is absurd, however, because chart topping and Grammys aren't everything, and both Macklemore and Azalea make music that blurs the line between rap and pop. If somebody asked you "Who are the king and queen of rap?" how long would it take you to come up with Iggy and Macklemore? Quite a while, we should think.

The statement is also a complete disregarding of the the decades of history — notably black history — that embody rap and make it what it is today. Most would probably claim that Jay-Z is closer to a "king of rap" than Macklemore is, and that Nicki Minaj or Lil' Kim would be a better pick for "queen of rap" than Iggy. Or if you want to go old school why not crown Notorious B.I.G. or 2Pac or Eve or MC Lyte.

But then again, this could just be earnest trolling. We wouldn't put it past Iggy.

Vox seemed like it would be a good idea. It wasn't.

A performance art piece set to debut in London that features black actors caged and in chains to mimic 19th-and 20th-century human zoos has been shut down because of vocal protest against it. The show, called Exhibit B, was to run at London's Barbican Centre from Sept. 23-27.

Facing heat for cosigning what many saw as flagrant racism, the Barbican issued a statement today regarding its decision to discontinue Exhibit B performances. It reads in part:

Last night as Exhibit B was opening at the Vaults it became impossible for us to continue with the show because of the extreme nature of the protest and the serious threat to the safety of performers, audiences and staff. Given that protests are scheduled for future performances of Exhibit B we have had no choice but to cancel all performances of the piece.

We find it profoundly troubling that such methods have been used to silence artists and performers and that audiences have been denied the opportunity to see this important work. Exhibit B raises, in a serious and responsible manner, issues about racism; it has previously been shown in 12 cities, involved 150 performers and been seen by around 25,000 people with the responses from participants, audiences and critics alike being overwhelmingly positive.

Exhibit B, a work by white South African artist Brett Bailey, takes the idea of human zoos— in which Africans were displayed for the enjoyment and supposed ethnographic enlightenment of Europeans and Americans—and turns it on its ear, according to this August profile by the Guardian:

Bailey's installation aims to subvert the premise of the zoos by replacing its exhibits with powerful living snapshots depicting racism and colonialism: a black woman chained to the bed of a French colonial officer; a Namibian Herero woman scraping brain tissue out of human skulls; the slowly revolving silhouette of Baartman.

Of course, striking this philosophical connection requires putting actual black people in actual cages, which did not sit well with a lot of people, including some of the performers. "How do you know we are not entertaining people the same way the human zoos did?" asked one in the above-linked Guardian piece.

The Times describes Exhibit B like this:

There are 12 tableaux vivants in the exhibition, featuring black actors who pose in silence within glass boxes, eyes fixed on visitors. The scenes include a man in a cage, a topless woman chained to the bed of a French colonial officer, and a reference to a Congolese man, Ota Benga, who was displayed in 1906 at the Bronx Zoo in New York.

Two hundred people protested in front of the Barbican yesterday, leading up to the show's aborted London debut. Additionally, an online petition calling for the exhibition to be withdrawn from the Barbican was signed by almost 23,000 people.

Petition author Sara Myers' description of the show is pessimistic, to say the least. It contains Suey Park-levels of flagrant reductiveness, and her interpretation of Bailey's art smacks of a non-artist's egocentrism. In her seeming conflation of the portrayal of racism and the endorsement of it, she also at times stumbles into agreement with Bailey's ostensible objectives. Meyers writes:

I'm a Black African mother from Birmingham. I campaign and work with my community to try to breakdown the stereotypes that black people have to struggle against in society on a daily basis. I want my children to grow up in a world where the barbaric things that happened to their ancestors are a thing of the past. We have come a long way since the days of the grotesque human zoo - we should not be taking steps back now.

If Brett Bailey is trying to make a point about slavery this is not the way to do it. The irony gets lost and it's not long before the people behind the cage begin to feel like animals trapped in a zoo.

And then:

This is simply an exercise in white racial privilege – if it isn't, then perhaps Bailey can explain why he didn't use white people in his zoo. After all, wouldn't him doing so be both more striking and send a clearer message?

Bailey didn't use white people in his zoo because he didn't use white people in his zoo. He's the artist.

White South African Brett Bailey claims his human zoo vanity project is "art"; just how are we as Black African's supposed to respond to this?

Agree to disagree? If you're so opposed to vanity projects, it's probably better to forgo any public speaking, even petition writing. It all feeds and affects the ego. (Not that Exhibit B is particularly vain, as vanity projects go—the ideas and imagery surely eclipse Bailey and his persona.)

Myers characterizes the show as:

...Nothing more than that of a racist white man taking the opportunity given to him on the platform that the Barbican is providing to repaint a picture that puts Black African people back into a space which we are superficially encouraged to believe we have been 'freed' from.

Given his attempt to draw the line from the past to the present, where racism still thrives to the chagrin of any of us with any sense of compassion or justice, Bailey would probably agree with Myers' use of the word "superficially." This seems to be a huge part of his point.

We as Black African people, do not need to be reminded or re-brainwashed into thinking we are less than.

Noted. But if we're going to talk about white racial privilege, well, a cornerstone of that phenomenon is being able to exist without ever confronting the racism that you don't suffer from. So maybe black people, or this particular black person doesn't need to be reminded of the overt hallmarks of white supremacy, but maybe this sort of literal translation of it could help those who otherwise ignore it. Not that art has any responsibility to help anyone do anything but think (and even that may be placing too much responsibility on it).

Here's a point where Myers presents a hypothesis as evidence:

What Bailey and his ilk (disturbingly many of whom are black) are doing is cynically courting attention to generate attention, thus sales. And they are using black bodies and the bloody history of white supremacism to do so. None of these artists would dare confront, say, Muslims or Jews in this way, because they know the potential ramifications for them. But it seems Black African people, continue to remain fair game, just as we have been for centuries.

But whatever, all of this worked. Myers is certainly entitled to her feelings, and Exhibit B certainly exists to provoke them. And Myers is also, it turns out, entitled to censor an artist and keep other people from experiencing his work.

Kehinde Andrews also wrote a takedown of Exhibit B in The Guardian earlier this month. An excerpt:

Art is not beyond censorship when offensive in nature. Freedom of expression does not mean license to racially abuse. If we accept that "art should not be censored", could a London venue such as the Barbican host an exhibit of jihadist "art work", celebrating the glory of 7/7?

Exhibit B is offensive because it perpetuates the objectification of the black body that is a standard trope of society. A performer when the show ran in Poland had the experience of a group of men "laughing and making comments about my boobs and my body. They didn't realize I was a human being. They thought I was a statue."

The group apologized but this hardly mitigates the objectification; which apparently would have been OK if she were a statue. The exhibit invites liberals to feel the "discomfort" of their colonial history while fawning over the naked and prostrate black body.

This objectification is defended by Bailey as a strategy to "provoke audiences to reflect on the historical roots of today's prejudices and policies". Even if the motives are pure, the vehicle is tainted. This exhibition reproduces the idea that black people are passive agents to be used as conduits for white people to speak to each other.

Of course the content of Exhibit B is detestable—it would be dishonest to portray racism as anything but. The worth of Bailey's work is evident in the dialogue it has provoked—that there is a nuanced argument at all to be made against Exhibit B (as opposed to an outright dismissal) proves how challenging it is. It has made so many people think so much, and to discontinue it is to disallow thought.

On Bailey's part, he told the Guardian, "I'm creating a journey that's embracing and immersive, in which you can be delighted and disturbed, but I'd like you to be disturbed more than anything."

In a lengthy response to the petition against Exhibit B and the show's cancellation, Bailey wrote on Facebook:

It has not been my intention to offend people with this work. To challenge perceptions and histories, yes. Explicitly to offend: no. But I work in difficult and contested territory, territory that is fraught with deep pain, anger and hatred. There are no clear paths through this territory. The terrain is littered with landmines. Does that mean that as an artist I should not enter? I am a white South African who spent my first 27 years living under a detestable regime of racism – albeit on the side of privilege. As an artist I continually reflect in my work on that system and its ramifications and implications. I will not make anodyne works that pander to status quos, and that do not confront people with realities that it is all to easy to leave festering in the dark.

Do any of us really want to live in a society in which expression is suppressed, banned, silenced, denied a platform? If my work is shut down today, whose will be closed down tomorrow?

[ Photo via Sofie Knijff/The Barbican]

The new PR captain at Snapchat has her first headache: Elizabeth and Sarah Turner are suing the company (and its deeply unlikable CEO) for taking advantage of them through an unpaid modeling gig.

The suit, first reported by TMZ and filed yesterday in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges Spiegel misused photos he took of the Turner sisters, making them the "faces" of Snapchat sans permission. It's sort of true, in that the above promotional images (first released as iTunes screenshots in the app store) have been passed around for ages now—I always assumed they were just stock photo models. But there's more to it:

The suit continues:

In short: Spiegel told the girls he was going to use their likeness to promote an obscure iOS app called Picaboo which later turned into a wildly popular iOS and Android app called Snapchat. I'm sure it's uncomfortable to have several orders of magnitude more people see your face than you expected, but this is almost certainly an opportunistic attempt at cashing-in on Snapchat's large public rep. It's not even a very good one, either: in addition to punitive damages, the suit demands a share of Snapchat's profits, which are non-existent.

At least we can ever so slightly flesh out a piece of Snapchat's sleazy origin story: two plucky startup dudes invited the Turners to Spiegel's dad's place and photographed them in their bathing suits, allegedly saying it was for a school project, and then, this:

The photographs used by Defendants on the snapchat.me website included one photograph cropped and edited by Defendants to falsely suggest to the casual observer that Elizabeth was pulling off Sarah's bathing suit top and that they were nude on the beach.

Spiegel, in an email to his fraternity, sure seemed happy with the shoot:

The Turner sisters did not reply to a request for comment.

To contact the author of this post, write to biddle@gawker.com

One of the reasons that the private prison industry is one of the most disgusting manifestations of capitalism is that it creates an economic incentive to imprison more people. What if we did... the opposite of that?

In the Wall Street Journal today, John C. Williams writes about social impact bonds, a form of government financing that aligns the incentives towards doing things that are good for people (like helping them stay out of prison) rather than doing things that are bad for people (like imprisoning more of them and cutting every last penny from prison budgets so that prisons are even more hellish than usual). What a revolutionary idea!

The way it works, in essence, is that the government signs a deal with a private contractor to pay them if they accomplish some desirable social goal; if they don't accomplish it, they don't get paid. For example: in Massachusetts, the state government has created a social impact bond for a social service organization to work with high-risk juvenile offenders to help ensure that they do not get themselves incarcerated again. "If the project is a success, the intermediary and service provider receive deferred services fees and the loan providers are repaid their investment, plus a rate of return: 5% for the senior loan and 2% for the junior loan," Williams writes. "Payments begin at a 5% reduction in prison-bed days and lenders are fully repaid at 40%, with bonus payments for further reductions. If the project fails to deliver, the state pays nothing."

If everything goes well, these arrangements could be win-wins for both the government and the contractors. The state of Massachusetts saves millions of dollars that it would have spent to incarcerate young people; private industry makes money on incentive-based contracts. And those incentives aren't for something perverse like "cutting prison health care costs," for a change. Social impact bonds can be used outside of criminal justice, for almost any kind of contracted social program—Williams also cites a Utah program that uses a similar structure for a preschool program.

Of course, if the contractor fails, we might question the wisdom of hiring them in the first place. But contractors fail now, and at least with social impact bonds, they don't get paid for failing. Hell, they're worth a shot. "Private sector"-worshiping free marketeers should love them. Liberals should love them, too, if they succeed in their social goals. The system (possibly) works!

[Photo: AP]

The first nor'easter of the year is developing over nor'eastern Nor'Carolina this afternoon, leaving residents from D.C. to Boston getting ready for some much-needed rain. The term "nor'easter" is causing some concern for residents, but fear not: it's too warm to snow.

A nor'easter (or "northeaster" as some old-timey journalists insist we whippersnappers call it) is a low pressure system that develops along or just off the East Coast and moves parallel to the coast as it heads off towards Atlantic Canada. The term comes from the storm's northeasterly winds that batter the coast as the storm passes through.

Most East Coasters know nor'easters as fickle systems that often produce copious amounts of snow if they move along just the right track—I-95 usually serves as a sharp dividing line between a truckload of snow and a cold, miserable rain. This one will be rather forgettable thanks to the fact that it will stay relatively weak as far as nor'easters go, producing little but some heavy rain and gusty winds.

This particular nor'easter will create a stereotypically gloomy fall day for millions of people today and tomorrow. Residents across the megalopolis can expect low clouds, cool temperatures, rain ranging from a drizzle to a downpour, and some gusty winds. An inch or two of rain is possible from D.C. to New York City, with higher amounts closer to the ocean (the WPC's 3-day predicted rainfall map is shown above).

High waves and rip currents are also a strong likelihood along coastal areas, so it's a good idea to stay home (or at least stay out of the water) if you're vising the shore this week.

Temperatures will stay on the cool side as long as the clouds hang around, with most folks not jumping out of the 50s or 60s for the duration of the gloom. The Mid-Atlantic and Northeast will bounce back into the 70s and 80s over the next few days before another shot of cooler air filters in next week.

[Images via NASA and the WPC]

You can follow the author on Twitter or send him an email.

Can you believe it's only been two years since Desperate Housewives ended? Seems like closer to a billion, but anyway: Eva Longoria was the best actor on that show, and now she is poised to be the best actor on a number of new comedies, that number ranging somewhere between "just one" and "infinity."

Deadline reported last night that the NBC-planned comedy Telenovela, which may lead to a mind-bending twist in real life where the fictional telenovela being filmed on the show Telenovela will also be an actual telenovela, to be aired on Telemundo, is looking for Longoria to star. If she does, the project (from Cougar Town co-execs Chrissy Pietrosh and Jessica Goldstein) will get an immediate order to series; if not, it still gets a pilot.

Originally developed as a one-hour dramedy, this leaner (but still one-camera) iteration comes under Peitrosh and Goldstein's recently inked overall deal at Universal. Longoria created the character and show, in which she will reign supreme over the intense world of behind-the-scenes soap opera politics. You say Soapdish, I say Tootsie. Both good comparisons, but Longoria is funny in a way that goes beyond camp in my opinion.

Meanwhile, an untitled comedy at ABC—from the creators of the criminally underestimated Trophy Wife—is also after her very famous ass, with a similar 13-episode pickup deal (well, in this case it's a penalty, but either way momma gets paid). In this one, the lead (also written for Longoria) is a house flipper with problems like ladies often have, such as wacky neighbors and bedroom shenanigans.

It would be nice to see her act down to Earth, which is where her funny is located (Earth), but on the other hand if she plays a soap opera star she will wear amazing clothes all the time: Conflicted.

When not perusing scripts, having entire TV shows written about her, and touching things so they turn into gold, Longoria exec-produces Devious Maids at Lifetime. Her production company UnbeliEVAble—the name of which contains an Easter Egg of sorts, if you look closely—recently developed and sold several more projects including a medical drama (Critical, to NBC) and a Texas politics/family drama to ABC, called Pair of Aces.

[Image via Getty]

Morning After is a new home for television discussion online, brought to you by Gawker. Follow @GawkerMA and read more about it here.

Usually celebrities trend on Twitter because they died, retired, or are One Direction. None of that describes Back to the Future star Michael J. Fox. So why are so many people tweeting about him?

The Parkinson's Disease-suffering actor was the tenth-most discussed topic on Twitter in the U.S. this morning, behind other, more timely topics like Rosh Hashana, Derek Jeter, and #SkinnygirlSnacks. According to the site trends24, over the last 24 hours or so he's risen as high as the number-three spot, and he's been trending on and off for three days.

A quick search for Fox's name reveals the explanation: for some reason, an army of bots—that is, spammy, ostensibly automated Twitter accounts—is incessantly tweeting bad Parkinson's jokes about him.

Michael J Fox is good at acting but GREAT at developing Polaroid photos

— Ayanna Carter (@hoakace1984) September 24, 2014

I'll make the cake if Michael J Fox does the sprinkles.

— Lachelle Carter (@giahiov25) September 24, 2014

In retrospect, it was a poor decision on my part to ask Michael J Fox to hold my balls while I hung from a trapeze bar.

— Uriel Perry (@litaragn) September 24, 2014

Some of these youtube videos are shakier than a hand job from Michael J Fox.

— Yvone White (@yvohwhitei90) September 24, 2014

Every few seconds, a new one pops up. Jokes get recycled verbatim. Occasionally, they're not jokes at all, but sentimental tributes or inspirational quotes. In nearly every case, the bots sprang to life earlier this week, tweeted a few inane observations—usually cribbed, word for word, from someone else's feed—then get to the Fox joke. Many of their profiles are formatted the same way: handles like gunnarl30, poeweqi24, and fuapode84; photos that appear taken from other people's public social media accounts; locations written out like "Napoleon town, IN, USA," or "Winona city, MS, USA," or "Swinomish village, WA, USA." Their Twitter bios are snippets lifted from authors like Robert Benchley and George Santayana.

Whatever is happening, it started happening this week. A search for Fox's name on the social analytics site Topsy reveals an explosion in popularity beginning Sunday.

He's also not the only celebrity to suddenly become one of Twitter's most talked-about:

Who would go to the trouble of creating what must be an enormous fleet of Twitter bots just to tweet terrible jokes about a not-even-particularly-famous celebrity? Trolls? Assholes? Who's got a grudge against Michael J. Fox?

Probably no one. Twitter has long been home to large armies of fake accounts, each tweeting the same single line; it's not hard, searching around Twitter, to stumble on a small group of these bots, each sending out its own copy of, for example, Gawker writer Jordan Sargent's Twitter bio. The various bot swarms sending out Fox punchlines are different only in their size, and in the common subject of their copied tweets.

So who is behind it? The most likely theory we've heard is that the accounts themselves were created by the many shady companies that sell Twitter followers—companies whose business practices appear to involve creating huge hordes of accounts that seem just real enough to avoid Twitter's spam detection services. The best way to appear real, of course, is to scrape the real words of real people—like, say, a bad but decently popular Michael J. Fox joke.

[h/t Neetzan Zimmerman/Image via AP]

It's been a banner week for horny dudes rubbing one out in public. Today, we have yet another video courtesy of Gothamist. This one shows a man who appears to be furiously masturbating in the driver's seat of a van parked on a street corner in Williamsburg. The witness who took the video this morning tells Gothamist, "I didn't stick around to catch him finish, but when I left my apartment he was still in the car, digging into a bag of Popchips with the same hand." Nice.

R.I.P. Miles Teller. According to an interview in W Magazine, his role in dystopian teen blockbuster Divergent made him dead inside. He will be remembered by some.

Miles Teller, a young actor from such subway posters as That Awkward Moment and The Spectacular Now, spoke to W Magazine about how excited he was to play pretend for lots of money in the upcoming film Whiplash. Much more excited, he says, than he was to play pretend for even more money in Divergent, which killed him (inside):

"When I first read Whiplash, I was feeling dead inside," Teller confided, in a rare display of emotion. At that time, he was in Chicago shooting this past spring's Divergent. "I didn't have an interesting part, and I'd taken the film for business reasons: It was the first movie I'd done that was going to have an international audience. I called my agent and said, 'This sucks.'

The lucrative pretending that would suck the least for Teller, though, is pretending to be Elvis. They do a lot of similar things well:

"My main dream is to play Elvis. I think he and I look alike and do a lot of similar things well: sing, dance, and I think he played sports."

Looking forward to seeing Teller—R.I.P., the poor thing—in Elvis: The Singer and Dancer Who Maybe Played Sports.

[h/t Uproxx, image via Getty]