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

The Best Books to Give This Holiday Season: A Bookseller's Guide

$
0
0

The Best Books to Give This Holiday Season: A Bookseller's Guide

It's already December and you haven't a clue what to get your family, friends or, gasp, co-workers for the holidays. Instead of racking your brain, let us do the heavy lifting. Here are 10 books that you should consider procuring for the history buff, fiction addict, or nonfiction enthusiast in your life.

Boy, Snow, Bird by Helen Oyeyemi

A fantastic read by the award-winning Nigerian-British author best known for reimagining fairy tales into modern sagas. Boy, Snow, Bird is no different. The novel is a poignant reworking of Snow White as the daughter of a black man who passes for white. It is a tale so haunting in its exploration of identity, race, and belonging you will regret not buying a copy for yourself.


My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante

The first in a trilogy, My Brilliant Friend is set in an Italy undergoing change at the outset of the 1950s. Ferrante's account—one about the fragility and beauty of human relationships—follows the close bond between two friends. It is an all-engrossing trip across time and country. Are you up for the ride? Ferrante can write the hell out of human relationships, and if My Brilliant Friend leaves you craving more, pick up her novel Days of Abandonment.


Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson

This is the nonfiction legal thriller John Grisham never wrote. Written by the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and a MacArthur fellow, Bryan Stevenson depicts his legal battle to pull a man off death row and expose the failures of the criminal justice system. Just Mercy is a bare-boned, true-life account of the legal system and its toxic affects on the most vulnerable among us. This book is great for any legal buff, political hound, or activist. But, in truth, it is also a book for everybody: a story as heartbreaking as it is powerful.


Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and a Way to a Meaningful Life by William Deresiewicz

Deresiewicz's book is an uncompromising critique of higher education in America—and perhaps one of the finest in recent memory. As the former Yale professor cautions: "Learning how to think is only the beginning, though." Excellent Sheep is ideal for the college student, high school graduate, or twentysomething trying to figure out what they want to do with their life.


Gone Girl by Gillian Fynn

You probably saw the film but didn't read the book. But you should read the book. For those not familiar with the plot; the story follows a man accused of murdering his wife, but the reality of the situation is anything but. Gone Girl is everything you want it to be: mysterious, suspenseful, and absorbing. Who wouldn't want to read a thriller of a relationship gone crazy?


The Secret History by Donna Tartt

The Secret History is the debut novel from the author who's 2014 Pulitzer Prize-winning work, The Goldfinch, is the hardcover of the moment. Set at a small New England college, the story unravels around the misbehavior of six classics students. This is another hard-to-put-down story with a twist—murder. Who did it, why, and will it happen again? But you'll have to read the book to find out.


A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James

Marlon James's novel, A Brief History of Seven Killings, is perhaps the best book of 2014. Set in Jamaica, it is a work of historical fiction based on true events: it details the days leading up to, and the fall out after, an assassination attempt on famed singer Bob Marley. Told in various first person accounts—gangsters, assassins, politicians, CIA agents, and a music journalist—Seven Killings is captivating in its unapologetic spirit and rich portrayal of Kingston.


Bad Feminist by Roxane Gay

Bad Feminist will get you talking—to friends, family members, and Twitter frenemies. Gay, who has become one of our most provocative essayists, leaves nothing off the table in her debut collection: race, gender, sexuality, feminism, politics, and compassion all filter through her sharp-eyed view. Taken in whole, Bad Feminist is a brave affirmation of selfhood: I am a woman, this is my story, and there is power in its telling.


Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande

In the abstract, Being Mortal deals with two certainties: aging and death. More closely, the book probes the ability of medicine to grant us more fulfilling, prolonged lives. Time waits for no one, and Gawande, who is a surgeon and professor at Harvard, attempts to expand (and illuminate!) our understanding of what growing old means today. Make no mistake: whoever you give this to will thank you for it.


The World of Ice and Fire: The Untold History of Westoros and The Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin, Elio M. García Jr. and Linda Antonsson

This is the perfect book companion for the Game of Thrones buff. All the history, nuance, and character minutiae you wanted to know about the Seven Kingdoms but don't, are here. Drop what you're doing—no, really—and proceed to the nearest bookstore. The World of Ice and Fire is selling out fast. Don't be the last to gift it.


Cop May Have Bashed Fare-Beater's Face So Hard He Injured His Own Wrist

$
0
0

Cop May Have Bashed Fare-Beater's Face So Hard He Injured His Own Wrist

NYPD officer Evans Mazile, the cop who was recorded smashing an unarmed alleged fare-beater's face with a nightstick last month, has been on paid leave since then with an injured wrist he apparently sustained during the encounter, DNAinfo reports.

DNAinfo's police sources also gave an account of what happened at the Myrtle/Broadway JMZ stop before a bystander began recording the widely circulated video of Mazile beating 20-year-old Donovan Lawson:

The incident began around 7:50 p.m. when Lawson slipped through a turnstile "doubled up" with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who used her high school MetroCard, sources said.

Mazile, a six-year veteran, was on patrol positioned behind a token booth watching for fare beaters. Authorities say he quickly approached the couple, and asked for identification.

The young girl, whose name was withheld, produced proper ID, but Lawson said he had none, sources said.

Mazile told Lawson he would have to arrest him, but Lawson told him he was on parole for robbery and didn't want to be arrested, sources said.

Lawson's girlfriend tried to coax him to "be calm," sources said, but Mazile apparently became frustrated, and grabbed Donovan and ordered him to sit down.

He refused, sources said.

According to DNAinfo's sources, Mazile, who "didn't like the way he was being spoken to," then punched Lawson in the face several times, maced him, and pulled out his baton.

Mazile has eight previous CCRB complaints against him, at least one of which involves alleged excessive force including "hitting a suspect in the head," DNAinfo reports. Lawson is being held at Rikers Island on charges relating to the fare-beating and is also on parole for a 2013 robbery.

Columbia Law Students Are Upset About Ferguson—Exactly as They Should Be

$
0
0

Columbia Law Students Are Upset About Ferguson—Exactly as They Should Be

Columbia Law School students who've been traumatized by the recent nonindictments of police officers in the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner will be allowed to postpone their final exams, the school's interim dean announced Saturday. Good.

The email from dean Robert E. Scott leaked out through a conservative blog that could hardly believe it wasn't a parody—because who could possibly be upset about unarmed people of color being killed by the police?—and mocked students upset by the grand jury decisions as too "unstable" for law school.

Fuck that.

First, the option to petition for a postponement isn't some wild new policy initiated in response to the Brown and Garner cases. It's just a reminder of a policy that was already in place. From Dean Scott's email:

The law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period. In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled.

And that's not just at Columbia. A spokesperson for the NYU School of Law told Yahoo! News the rules are similar there:

"We haven't made any announcement that's similar to Columbia's. It's always been the case that students can request a postponement on a case-by-case basis, and that's always been true."

Second, the notion that law students who are deeply affected, outraged, or traumatized by these police killings and the grand juries' failures to act are "unstable" or, as one defense attorney told the New York Times, "should not try to become lawyers," is profoundly shitty.

A lot of students enter law school with hopes (naive and otherwise) of working to right systemic wrongs. If law schools weeded out everyone who had strong feelings about justice, we'd end up with a world where lawyers were seen as petty and motivated only by prof—oh, wait.

The dean touches on this point in his email:

"For some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and equality."

Granted, the experience of law school itself tends to undermine all of those things, but is anyone seriously arguing that it should?

Apparently, yes, because law school causing Paper Chase levels of pain and emotional damage is a character-building tradition worth upholding. Otherwise, what would the institution stand for? (Answer: enriching universities at the expense of gullible students, a.k.a. the American dream, but I digress.)

Schools didn't postpone exams for the assassinations of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, Cardozo con-law professor David Rudenstine pointed out to the Times.

"Law schools also have a tradition of being very tough-minded about these things. If you have an exam, it happens. That's the schedule."

Totally. If there's one lesson America's aspiring lawyers should take away from the killings of Brown and Garner, it's that the system has always been this way, and we'll all just have to deal with it.

Incidentally, the Times reports only a handful of students requested postponements, and they were given a whopping one extra week.

[h/t Yahoo News, Photo: Getty Images]

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

$
0
0

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

This was Nashville's mid-season finale and the drama was on such overload that you might call it absurd except for the fact that it was SO GOOD: Someone's floating face-down in a pool! Someone possibly has cancer! Someone's getting married! Someone's NOT getting married! Someone (a lady!) gets punched in the face! Someone has a Maury–esque paternity test moment! Someone bangs a reporter to counter gay rumors! (Okay, you know who that last one was.)

At any rate: Jesus, Nashville. I know that Connie Britton wants to be involved in some subtle, nuanced shit, but the truth is that this show mostly only works when it's bonkers insane. For evidence to support this theory I submit: PORK BLOOD. And then I rest my case.

So here we go. The following plot points are listed in order from least to most overwrought, with the criteria for overwroughtness being how often I fanned myself and/or gasped when big reveals were revealed, with bonus points for situations where actual death might be involved.

Teddy Dumps His Prostitute Girlfriend: Prostitute girlfriend clarifies that there will be no more freebies, and THEN proposes a two-day a week dedicated contract wherein she acts like a girlfriend. He's finally like, "The fact that the only friend I have is a woman I'm paying for sex is too pathetic even for ME, the world's most pathetic character." And so he bids her adieu, but does NOT bid adieu to how Jeff is going to eventually blackmail his ass because of her. Teddy is the dumbest.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Tandy Is Back: Hey, Tandy! Way to ask probing questions of Rayna at strategic moments!

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Bring It On Down to Studztown: Jeff and Will are in a tizzy about a story on a blog called Studztown, entitled, "Super hot country boys we wish were gay…and one who just might be." If there weren't a photo of shirtless Will below the article, I'm sure he'd would want to meet that mystery man. Jeff instructs him to "butch it up" to squelch the rumors, and so Will asks Layla to come on the next leg of his tour. Of course she's head over heels for Jeff now, so doesn't want to go. At Jeff's crazy rager of a party, Will is propositioned by a female music writer. He's OBVIOUSLY not interested in her, and she's like, "MWAH HA YOU ARE TOTALLY GAY!" So then he immediately bangs her, because his true talent is the ability to do that on command.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Gunnar's Maury Moment: Just as Gunnar is really enjoying being a dad, Micah's grandparents show up to take him back to Texas. For some reason Gunnar can't bear to let go of this dorky kid, so plans to take them to court. First he needs a paternity test. Easy, right? NOT SO MUCH! It turns out that Gunnar isn't Micah's dad…but he's RELATED to Micah's dad. Yes, Micah is the spawn of Gunnar's dead brother Jason! This would have been more shocking to me, except you genius folks in the comments totally called it weeks ago. Gunnar is devastated, and winds up in Scarlett's arms once again, just in a friendship way, FOR NOW. But what I'm saying is, expect some plaintive duets from these two after the mid-season break.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Sadie Stone's Ex, Holy Shit: Sadie Stone's asshole ex-husband shows up to accuse her of stealing a song they wrote together. This guy is obviously a VERY BAD MAN and later shows up on her porch, creepily rocks in her rocking chair, and then when she tells him she's no longer a scared little girl just fucking belts her in the face. We really needed THAT on top of everything else?

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

This Insane Mini-Bar: Seriously, what hotel room has a mini-bar like that? All that booze just sitting out on top of a dresser in the corner of the room?

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Deacon Not Drunk, Still Alive, Possibly Has Cancer: Deacon and Scarlett hang out in Memphis for the duration of Rayna's wedding, where they have a fine time UNTIL Deacon throws a Layna-covered magazine in the direction of the aforementioned mini-bar and nips go flying. Scarlett comes home to find him passed out with broken bottles all around him and calls 911. He wasn't actually drunk, BUT something much more serious is afoot. Deacon has "undiagnosed cirrhosis of the liver with extremely elevated white blood cell count strongly pointing to cancer." And seriously, if he and Rayna get back together after the break only to have him die in the season finale I QUIT THIS SHOW.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Juliette and Avery Get Married!!!!: Finally, a happy thing! Avery and Juliette are having a difficult time trying to be friends, and Avery can't take it anymore. He comes to Juliette's place and says it doesn't work, and is impossible. She asks what he wants to do, and the answer is GET MARRIED! YAY! They have a sweet, private ceremony at the courthouse, which is apparently the way weddings should be done, unlike some other garish spectacles, AHEM LAYNA.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Rayna's Wedding Is Off! RAYNA'S WEDDING IS OFF!: And speaking of, Rayna looks awfully miserable during the events leading up to her wedding. And she looks miserable-er when the girls tell her she should go ahead and extend her tour for six months because, since none of their parents are ever around anyway, they want to go to boarding school—a thing that Luke knew about and didn't tell her. After one sweet song from the girls, a lot of soul-searching and several truly excellent hair moments, Rayna approaches Luke on the MORNING OF THE WEDDING and is all, "Wheels down! We're totally not getting married." And, like, that is seriously a dick move. Could she not have thought about this before 500 chairs were set up on Luke's front lawn? She says it's Deacon but it's not Deacon, but of COURSE it's Deacon. Also, basically, she just hates who she is when she's one half of Layna. Luke is PISSED, y'all. Like, SERIOUSLY. And Rayna drives off with tears in her eyes but also kind of smiling and I am simultaneously thrilled that she and Deacon might finally get together (again!) while also believing that she's kind of the worst.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Layla Gets the Valley of the Dolls Moment of Her Dreams: Layla is SO hot for Jeff now, then gets wasted at his party, then is devastated when he wants to call things off largely so she'll continue to be a convincing beard for Will. He gives her a bottle of pills to calm her down (dolls!), ALL OF WHICH she takes after walking in on Will banging that writer. Poor Layla, seriously. I will say that this entire situation is REALLY stretching her acting abilities, yowser. At the end of the episode, Layla is face down in Jeff's pool, probably dead. Will sees her, jumps in, and yells for Jeff to call 911. Jeff picks up the phone and calls Teddy instead, saying, "I'm really glad we're friends, buddy, because I've got a small problem that I'm gonna need your help handling." And thus it all comes full circle back to Teddy being a tool.

Everybody on Nashville Has Lost Their Shit

Nashville returns on February 4, when Luke becomes a rage-o-holic and Rayna goes to see Deacon and everything basically is madness!

[Images via ABC.]

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

What Happens in Your Body During a "Cleanse" or "Detox"

$
0
0

What Happens in Your Body During a "Cleanse" or "Detox"

Juice cleanses, colon cleanses, fruit detoxes, sugar detoxes—we've all seen these things, but do they actually work? What are they supposed to do? Let's take a look at the science behind the fad.

Cleanses and detoxes are trendy, popular, and promise to clear out nasty toxins from your body and make you healthier. It's a tall promise. So, we decided to talk with Las Vegas-based registered dietitian Andy Bellatti, nutrition researcher Kamal Patel, and science writer and educator Beth Skwarecki to see if they can measure up to the claims.

What Cleanses and Detoxes Promise

What Happens in Your Body During a "Cleanse" or "Detox"

There are tons of different cleanses and detoxes. For the most part, a cleanse and a detox are the same thing. They're typically used interchangeably and have the same basic goals: to remove "harmful" things from your body. Sometimes, they aim to target a specific organ like the liver or colon, and supposedly, detoxing makes you feel better.

There's no specific definition of a detox or cleanse, but they often involve limiting your food intake to pressed juice, avoiding specific types of food, or drinking a concoction of juices that supposedly rids your body of toxins. These supposed toxins are rarely described by cleansers in detail, but generally referred to as "poisons" or "pollutants." In the medical field, toxins can refer to just about anything, from alcohol, to foods, to medicines, to asbestos. "Detoxing" can also refer to treatment for drug addiction, but that's very different—here, we're specifically discussing these food-and-drink cleanses.

There are far too many of these cleanses and detoxes to dig through, but here are 10 that Shape Magazine deemed popular in the last year, to give you an idea of what they're all about. As an example, let's take a closer look at the Master Cleanse, one of the most longstanding and popular cleanses out there. Here's an excerpt from the book that describes exactly how the Master Cleanse works:

The cleanse starts with a herbal laxative tea both morning and evening. If this is not sufficient to clean out the intestinal tract, he advises a salt-water wash. These stops are necessary to remove the toxins loosened by the lemon juice cleanse.

I was then to drink between six and twelve glasses of lemonade, which consisted of lemon and maple syrup in proper proportions, with a small amount of cayenne added to wash out the mucus loosened by the cleanse.

Sounds gross, right? Well, it might be worth it for you if you believe the promises purported by Master Cleanse creator Stanley Burroughs:

For the novice and the advanced student alike, cleansing is basis for elimination of every kind of disease. The purpose of this book is to simplify the cause and the correction of all disorders, regardless of the name or names. As we eliminate and correct one disease, we correct them all, for every disease is corrected by the same process of cleansing and building positive good health.

The hyperbole goes on from there, but you get the idea. Kamal Patel sums most cleanses up like so:

What ties these diets together is a dual aim: weight loss plus a notion that we have built-up toxins in the body which are slowing us down and possibly killing us. So a typical cleanse, let's say of juices only, is meant to shift your intestines away from digestion and absorption and towards "ridding the body of toxins". That's where the benefits are claimed to lie, but they may actually lie elsewhere.

Most cleanses have similar promises, claiming that going on some sort of juice fast (or other cleanse) can free your body of harmful toxins.

What Happens in Your Body When You're On a Cleanse

What Happens in Your Body During a "Cleanse" or "Detox"

We're all aware that fruit and vegetables are good for us, so following that logic suggests that a diet of just fruit and vegetables must be super healthy, right? Right??

Not really. If you drink nothing but juice for a week, you'll lose weight, but it's because you're not eating, not because your body is "detoxing". Water is stored in your muscles with glycogen. When you eat a low calorie diet, you use up those glycogen stores, and lose the water weight with it. You'll gain that water weight right back when you return to your normal diet. You're also missing out on all those other vital nutrients like fat, fiber, and protein. In fact, some cleanses suggest that you avoid exercise when you're on them because your caloric intake is so low—which leads to fatigue and dizziness.

After a few days, your body is basically running on fumes, and without protein your body might start to break down muscle tissue instead. Likewise, the lack of fiber in your diet tends to impact the function of your large intestine, which might explain why people tend to describe their gut feelings on a juice cleanse as similar to the stomach flu.

Most importantly, a juice cleanse doesn't do anything that your body doesn't already do on its own. Andy Bellatti reminds us that our bodies are already pretty good at removing toxins. If they weren't, and you needed a yearly detox, we'd all probably be dead:

Will drinking nothing but juice for three or five days land you in the hospital or result in irreversible nutrient deficiencies? No, but it is also unnecessary. Our bodies remove toxins on a daily basis thanks to the kidneys, lungs, and liver. The whole point of going to the bathroom is to flush out toxins!

Beth Skwarecki adds that while most of these cleanses and detoxes aren't dangerous, they can cause some problems. Since juices don't include much fiber, the body ends up absorbing more fructose sugar, which—as we all know—isn't good for you:

The ones that are mostly sugar (like with lots of fruit juices, or the lemonade thing) may put you on a sugar crash roller coaster and negate the potential good effects of fasting that have to do with insulin sensitivity and such.

The good news on depriving yourself is that it takes months to get any serious vitamin deficiencies. Most of these cleanses are probably stupid but not seriously harmful (if all you're doing is restricting food for a few days). As for the claims of eliminating toxins, well, even the ones that name specific toxins don't actually give any mechanism by which the diet/herbs they're pushing affect what your body does with them.

Skwarecki's final point is key: most commercial detoxes don't list what a toxin is. And even when they do, they don't give an evidence that they work. If they did, we could test the effectiveness of their claims. In a 2009 investigation by Sense about Science, they checked 15 commercial detox products and found that none could name toxins, agree on a definition of detox, or supply any evidence for their claims.

All of this is to say: the only thing a detox or juice cleanse actually does to your body is make you hungry and nutrient deprived for a few days.

Better Alternatives to Cleanses

What Happens in Your Body During a "Cleanse" or "Detox"

So, cleanses don't really do anything productive and a special juice mixture won't remove toxins from your system. That doesn't mean you can't do other things to get your health back on track.

In fact, the idea of a cleanse is basically just a reboot of your diet, which Bellatti agrees with:

There is something to be said for doing "food resets." That is, going back to the basic tenets of healthful eating (mainly eating whole, minimally processed, largely plant-based foods) to reaccustom the taste buds to more subtle flavors. That, however, should not be confused with a cleanse.

But he does add:

Nutrition and health is about the big picture. What you do for five or seven days out of the year is pretty inconsequential.

Rather than worry about 'detoxing,' people would be better off thinking about eating nutritious, health-promoting foods on a daily basis. Think leafy greens, beans, whole fruit, nuts, and seeds. The idea that six months of unhealthy eating can somehow be remedied by drinking nothing but green juice for 72 hours is erroneous.

Likewise, an actual fast, as in, just drinking water, has some research showing that it's useful. Patel explains:

Cleanses sometimes involve fasting or near-fasting, and that can actually have benefits, unless you have medical conditions or do it for too long. There is ample research demonstrating the effect of fasting on longevity; how fasting promotes autophagy, reduces mitochondrial oxidative stress, general decrease in signals associated with aging, and the potential to prevent and treat chronic illness, at least on some level. "Intermittent fasting" may be a viable option for those otherwise looking at specific cleanse diets. You basically limit eating to a few hours a day (typically around 8). That is a simple and sustainable way of eating, and doesn't involve buying cleanse products.

Health and nutrition might seem like a confusing mess, but a healthy diet is really all you need. Not a gimmick, not a week long cleanse, not a detox. You'll need a full reboot of your diet.

Kamal Patel is the director of Examine.com. He's a nutrition researcher with an MPH and MBA from Johns Hopkins University, and is on hiatus from a PhD in nutrition in which he researched the link between diet and chronic pain. He has published peer-reviewed articles on vitamin D and calcium as well as a variety of clinical research topics. Kamal has also been involved in research on fructose and liver health, mindfulness meditation, and nutrition in low income areas. Examine.com and Kamal are both on Facebook.

Beth Skwarecki is a science writer and educator. Her work has appeared in Scientific American,PLOS Public Health Perspectives, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. You can find more of her work in her portfolio here, and you can follow her on Twitter at @BethSkw.

Andy Bellatti, MS, RD is a Las Vegas-based dietitian and the author of the nutrition blog Small Bites. You can follow him on Twitter at @andybellatti.

Photos by Vectomart, AJ, bertholf, epsos.de.

Chris Rock's Bad Gay Joke

$
0
0

Chris Rock's Bad Gay Joke

Chris Rock's Top Five doesn't have any real villains, per se, but in it is one truly awful character. The film has been very well reviewed, so perhaps this depiction is hitting me harder than most people. I do think, though, it is worth examining.

The main source of conflict is Rock's actor character Andre versus the public. Andre no longer wants to be known for the lowbrow comedies that made him famous, despite his audience's demand for that kind of material. He's also struggling with sobriety. The movie is structured around an interview conducted by New York Times reporter Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson). She is occasionally deceptive and challenging, but again, not an antagonist. Gabrielle Union plays Rock's fiancé Erica Long, who is the vapid and materialistic star of some Real Housewives franchise. She's not exactly a bad guy, either, though—she's got about five minutes of screen time in total and she's just kind of selfish.

The closest that the movie comes to an actual villain is Chelsea's boyfriend Brad (Anders Holm), who breaks her heart by cheating on her with a man. He is further vilified for his sexuality. But, you know, humorously.

During Chelsea's marathon interview with Andre, they run into Brad in a hotel lobby. The friend he is with attempts to duck out of sight. Soon enough, it is clear that we have yet another deceitful, guy on the DL on the screen in front of us (here's a twist, though: Brad's white). Andre asks if she ever suspected that Brad might be into guys and she tells the story of their foray into anal play.

A series of flashbacks shows us Brad and Chelsea in bed one day. He asks her to stick a finger in his ass while they fuck. She does it. That finger in his ass makes her far more uncomfortable than it does him. He loves it. He needs it. We find out that he wanted her up his butt all the time: in an airplane bathroom, during a friend's party. We see things escalate to the point where, upon deciding to have sex, Brad strips down and gets the bed on all fours, his pasty white ass pointed upward longingly. The visual reiterates the joke—it's hilarious that this guy likes putting things in his ass.

Chelsea snaps and exacts revenge. Why she should have to retaliate at all remains unsaid—you're just supposed to get it. Of course this is worthy of counteraction. She takes a tampon, puts hot sauce on it, and shoves it up Brad's ass.

When the action flashes to the present, Andre gets no fewer than three residual jokes out of Chelsea's deed. Chelsea seems amazed that Brad didn't break up with her then, but Andre points out, "What's he gonna tell people, 'My girlfriend shoved a red hot chili pepper up my ass?'" Discussing further, Andre allows that Brad may have acted in a less-than-ideal manner, but "he wasn't burn-his-ass wrong." Finally, he refers to Chelsea as, "Miss I-Use-My-Boyfriend's-Ass-as-a-Hand-Puppet."

I know these are all jokes. I know that I'm supposed to be able to take a joke if I can take a dick. But this depiction of gay sexuality struck me as being straight out of 1985. Why would Rock go out of his way to write a gay character that he then ridicules for enjoying what many gay people do, and then vilify for being deceptive? Jokes like that and the disdain fueling them are part of the reason why gay people don't feel comfortable disclosing their sexuality and end up lying to the people that they say they love.

The Brad character sticks out in a movie that is far from perfect, but that really does seem invested in on-screen representation. Rock presents a range of black people in his film with a casualness that never telegraphs how socially conscious and bold within Hollywood's confines it is. Rock, especially in the movie's best scene that finds Andrew returning home to Harlem to visit his family and lifelong friends, just shows a bunch of black people talking about their culture and their lives. He presents a range of black experiences in a matter of fact way, which is at once beautiful, hilarious, and crucial.

But Brad is such a needless character, which makes him all that more disappointing. Rock elected to use the character at the expense of gay sexuality.

Terry Gross recently asked Rock about the tampon scene:

I feel your pain — but I've never thought about any joke or anything like that deeply. ... I mean, you're Terry Gross. It's your job to analyze this and fight the good fight, you know, but you know, I probably, I might be the only black comedian in the country who hasn't gay-bashed. Ever.

... No comedian wants to have to analyze and defend something. It's like, you thought something was funny; you wrote it down; you acted it out; you talked to people. You know? It works or it doesn't work. I'm not a politician; I'm not a thinker. I'm a comedian. It's just like, "OK. Tell jokes." Some work, some don't. There's no bigger indictment that the joke's not working than to not laugh. Nothing is a bigger indictment. Nothing is a bigger, screamingly, "This is wrong!" than the sound of non-laughter.

There's a lot to pick through here, but his assessment of audience indictment is correct. You can't argue with results. The joke killed. The audience at my screening went crazy during the exploration of Brad's burgeoning bottom side. The howling and delighted groans made the gay guy getting punished in the ass feel like the movie's centerpiece.

"I'm not a thinker," though, is an utter copout. Rock is a thinker and he's exactly the kind of thinker this embattled country needs right now, one who can call bullshit in a clear, hilarious voice. Rock is a smart, engaged dude whose art is imbued with social commentary. His recent interviews have gotten so much attention precisely because of his thinking. His take on "racial progress?" Brilliant. His first-person experience of being a black man with a modicum of power in Hollywood? Riveting. His thoughts on the absence of black women in movies? Essential.

Top Five, which Rock directed and wrote, exists to right some of the wrongs he's been identifying. I know he's a straight guy who just isn't going to care as much about gay issues as I will; I just wish he cared slightly more or avoided writing gay characters. Yeah, he's preternaturally funny. I believe that his process is virtually reflexive, that humor comes out of his pores. But there's presenting something that is self-evidently funny, and then there's pandering to the lowest common denominator. There's humor and there's inconsideration. There's exposing truths and there's defaulting to stereotypes. Rock's smart enough to know the difference.

[Image via Getty]

Here's Stephen Colbert Cosplaying Hobbit Characters for Some Reason

$
0
0

Stephen Colbert, Middle Earth aficionado, landed the role of cover model for Entertainment Weekly's Hobbit tribute. We're coming to accept that we'll have to get used to Colbert outside of his Report persona, but who knew he made such a sexy Legolas?

The Hobbit really didn't need to be three movies long, but if no other good thing comes of it, at least we have this video of Stephen Colbert fucking about in costumes and yelling "you shall not pass" at strangers on a bridge. Probably worth the $800 million, to be honest.

[h/t TastefullyOff]

I'm a Sony Pictures Employee

$
0
0

I'm a Sony Pictures Employee

I work at Sony Pictures Entertainment. Here are a few things that stand out to me about life on the lot right now.

As the Sony Pictures hacks continue to escalate, we've been hearing from employees about the often overlooked toll on everyday workers. It's a confusing time; just yesterday the FBI said the attack would have beaten 90 percent of companies, while Sony Pictures continues to deflect blame. Meanwhile, as one Sony Pictures employee describe to us below, the rank and file have been left largely in the dark. —BB

1) Every communication between the upper management and the rest of us has been carefully couched in wording that VERY much emphasizes Sony Pictures' innocence in the hack vis-a-vis security. I don't doubt that the hackers are talented and there is every chance that they would have broken in with great security, but it's more than a little bothersome to those of us with brains in our skulls that upper management tried hard right out of the gate to avoid any potential for legal ramification. The words "civil suit" are being whispered around the lot like the name Voldemort.

2) Sony has offered every current employee and their dependents, as well as former employees (though the scope is unclear) and their dependents, a year of professional identity theft protection. Initially it was just employees, then a few days later they offered to cover dependents, then early this week they sent an email stating that "alumni" were being offered the coverage. It's unclear how they planned to contact these alumni. I knew people who had moved on and was able to contact them through email and social media. Most people on the lot are appreciating this step, though to bring it back to point #1 the more cynical among us are looking at it as a way to stave off lawsuits.

3) At one of the all-hands meetings, we were asked if we wanted to stop the release of The Interview to play it safe. Nobody said yes. When asked if any of us thought it would make a difference, there were a few "no"s. It may have been the natural reticence of a crowd to appear weak, but clearly a point was being made. As upsetting as the possibility that we have been hacked out of spite from N. Korea is, none of us feels like bowing to pressure is the answer.

4) I think we all appreciate that Amy [Pascal, Co-Chairman, Sony Pictures Entertainment] and Michael [Lynton, CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment] have been trying to communicate with us frequently, but ultimately NOBODY is giving us answers. This is leaving many feeling that they are either clueless or covering their asses. Neither option is particularly appealing. Today there were FBI consultants on hand to talk about online self-protection, but it was all very general. Everything we've been told has been very general. It's frustrating. More than fear, the predominant emotion most people are expressing is frustration. I understand that Amy and Michael fear civil suits, but they are almost making it worse by keeping us all out of the loop.

If you're a Sony Pictures employee who wants to share your perspective on the recent hacks and their human toll, we'd love to hear from you. Email us at tipbox@gizmodo.com.

Image credit: Valerie Macon, Getty Images


Zooey Deschanel, What Did You Do to That Poor Pony? 

$
0
0

Zooey Deschanel, What Did You Do to That Poor Pony? 

Quirky bathrobe Zooey Deschanel is being sued by a horse owner because she allegedly injured a rented stallion named Literati (lol) so badly that he will never be the same again. Zooey Deschanel, what did you do?

According to TMZ, "hardcore equestrian" Deschanel leased Literati for $13,000 last year. Owner Patty Parker claims in her suit:

Deschanel signed a horse contract ... promising not to overwork [Literati] with restrictions that included "no more than 3 jumping lessons per week."

But Patty says ... when Deschanel returned the horse ... it was a shell of its former self — "injured and unusable." Sad.

Sad and mysterious. Where is Literati now? Is he okay? Zooey!!

If you know what Zooey Deschanel did to her horse, feel free to email me at allie@gawker.com.

[Photo via Getty]

Elderly Man Arrested for Watching Child Porn in Lowe's Parking Lot

$
0
0

Elderly Man Arrested for Watching Child Porn in Lowe's Parking Lot

A 73-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the parking lot of a South Carolina Lowe's after someone told police he'd been sitting in a handicapped spot, acting suspicious. When cops approached him, Leroy Moore confessed he'd been using the store's free Wi-Fi to look at child porn.

Moore had been parked there with his laptop for 90 minutes, WSOC TV reported.

"When we asked him, he said he was watching little boys," said the arresting officer, York police lieutenant Rich Caddell, who captured Moore's confession and some of the images of "young boys in sex acts" on his body camera.

"What I watched ... will probably affect me for a while," Caddell told WSOC.

Since his arrest, Moore has been linked to several reports of a man in a Pontiac lurking in public parks and parking lots. He was also the subject of a previous child porn investigation, when the man he hired to fix his computer told police he'd stumbled on a folder of photos of topless young girls.

Moore was never charged over that 2010 report, but he's now facing up to 10 years in prison for child exploitation.

[h/t Daily Dot, Photo: York (S.C) PD]

The Amazing Attempt to Blame the Internet for Everything

$
0
0

The Amazing Attempt to Blame the Internet for Everything

In recent weeks, several respected magazines, their publishers, and writers have fallen prey to various journalistic malfeasance and scandals. Who is to blame? Internet boogeymen, of course.

Edward Kosner is a septuagenarian former newspaper and magazine editor. You may be shocked to learn that such a man blames the internet for the downfall of journalism, based on paper-thin misconceptions. Alas, it is true. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, Kosner weaves together A) the recent uproar at The New Republic, B) the problems with Rolling Stone's UVA rape story, C) Newsweek's flawed cover story purporting to identify the creator of Bitcoin, and D) the failure of mainstream journalists, including magazine editor and biographer Mark Whitaker, to write about Bill Cosby's sexual abuse history for many years. What do these seemingly discrete and unrelated foibles of traditional print media outlets add up to, in Edward Kosner's estimation? A chance to condemn internet journalism!

Quite simply, print editors and their writers, and especially the publications' proprietors, are being unhinged by the challenge of making a splash in a new world increasingly dominated by the values of digital journalism. Traditional long-form journalism—painstakingly reported, carefully written, rewritten and edited, scrupulously fact-checked—finds itself fighting a losing battle for readers and advertisers. Quick hits, snarky posts and click-bait in the new, ever-expanding cosmos of websites promoted by even quicker teasers on Twitter and Facebook have broadened the audience but shrunk its attention span, sometimes to 140 characters (shorter than this sentence).

Shorter than this sentence? But... but... it's so short!

Yes: Kosner has managed to concoct a laughable case against "digital journalism" based solely on high profile mistakes of traditional print media outlets. This may count as blazing a new frontier in the "Internet is the source of all evil" old person think piece wars. Leaving aside the fact that each and every one of the publications cited by Kosner are now published online—making them, in fact, "digital journalism" themselves—Kosner's various analyses are just wrong. Of the Rolling Stone rape story he says, "Here was a story made to go viral—doing journalistic due diligence on it might blunt its sharp edges and sap its appeal."

Really? A nine thousand word magazine story is supposed to be the example of "viral" content—and one without enough space for "due diligence?"

He calls Newsweek, which he used to edit, a "sad tale of digital undoing." This is true. But not because the internet somehow forced Newsweek to publish an erroneous story—because the internet rendered the act of publishing news once a week an anachronism.

And here is his masterful philosophical jujitsu excusing Mark Whitaker (another former Newsweek editor) for the act of publishing an entire Bill Cosby biography while leaving out the extremely pertinent allegations of rampant sexual abuse against dozens of women:

Mark Whitaker, a former editor of Newsweek and news executive at NBC and CNN, had a different digital challenge. Researching his doorstop Cosby biography, he decided to omit any reference to the sexual-assault allegations—most of which had already been published online—because, he told me, he couldn't independently confirm them and he worried that his publisher wouldn't defend him in a lawsuit if the comedian sued.

But there was also concern that gossip websites and tabloid newspapers and television shows would seize on the sex charges and hijack serious coverage of his book. In fact, websites and newspapers like the Washington Post seized on the author's omission of the rape claims to re-interview women whose original Cosby horror stories had mostly been ignored. These articles prompted yet other women to speak up, until the Cosby book was subsumed by a flood of rape stories that have turned Mr. Cosby into a pariah.

Mark Whitaker is not in the wrong here, for leaving valid information out of his supposedly definitive biography; "digital journalism" is at fault, for publishing that valid information. How's that for a neat trick? Why, Mark Whitaker couldn't have told the world that Bill Cosby was a rapist—"gossip websites" would have repeated those charges. Just imagine that. A tragedy narrowly averted. Whew.

And finally, here is what passes for Kosner's disclosure of all the fucking journalistic scandals that happened before the big bad internet:

Great newspapers and magazines had their disasters long before the Internet age. Newsweek, after all, had its Hitler diaries debacle in 1983. A couple of years earlier, Ben Bradlee had to give back a Pulitzer Prize awarded to the Washington Post for Janet Cooke 's fairy tale, "Jimmy's World," about an 8-year-old heroin addict. Even the oh-so-serious New Republic was hoaxed by a fabulist named Stephen Glass. But these humiliations were prompted by greed for a too-good story, not desperation in the face of implacable competition.

You see, there were enormous journalistic scandals before the internet—but they were not "prompted" by "competition."

There was no competition in journalism before the internet, QED. Okay.

There's nothing wrong with being an old person or reminiscing about print media. Just don't be wrong about everything.

[Photo of a Newsweek issue edited by Edward Kosner via]

Chokehold Cop Who Killed Eric Garner Insists He Didn't Use a Chokehold

$
0
0

Chokehold Cop Who Killed Eric Garner Insists He Didn't Use a Chokehold

If you were so inclined, watching the video of Eric Garner's death, there are a few flimsy defenses you could make of the killer cop. You could say the use of force was warranted, or that Garner was wrong to resist arrest. One seemingly irrefutable point, however, is that Daniel Pantaleo choked him.

Not so, says Pantaleo. According to his lawyer, at meeting with NYPD internal affairs investigators this week, the officer insisted he used not the chokehold he was clearly shown on video using, but an innocent "takedown maneuver." The New York Post reports:

"He reiterated that he used a takedown maneuver, that he did not utilize a chokehold. And any contact his arm had with the neck was incidental. He never intended to harm Mr. Garner, nor did he ever apply any pressure to his neck area," attorney Stuart London told The Post about his client, Daniel Pantaleo.

"We have always maintained it was never a chokehold. It was takedown procedure he was instructed in how to perform while in the police academy."

A Staten Island grand jury failed to indict Pantaleo this month, and investigations by internal affairs and the U.S. Department of Justice are ongoing.

[h/t Gothamist]

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

$
0
0

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

Beyoncé has been wearing some truly enormous clothes lately.

This fact, taken on its own, doesn't reveal much: Wearing another person's giant clothing keeps Beyoncé' humble; Beyoncé is wealthy and can afford extra fabric. But for some of us at Gawker, this realization prompted a whiplash flashback sequence like the one that occurs at the end of The Sixth Sense, when a ghost realizes he was famous American film actor Bruce Willis the whole time.

Whooooooooosh! Beyoncé wore a huge coat to the premiere of the new Annie movie.

Whooooooooosh! Beyoncé did not drink a beer at Monday night's Nets game.

Whooooooooosh! Do Beyoncé's arms look softer?

Whooooooooosh! Beyoncé's hair looks dark now.

Whooooooooosh! Bruce Willis' wife ignored him at their anniversary dinner, like she didn't even see him.

Whooooooooosh! Beyoncé...is pregnant? And has been since roughly August.

What follows is the case.

Whooooooooosh! Photographic Physical Evidence

Until Beyoncé and Jay Z overcome the bizarre trust issues that prevent them from releasing their medical records to the public directly, old fashioned eye-balling will tell us more about their current physical states than anything else.

The first faint evidence that Beyoncé might be pregnant with another child arrived this past August, all bundled up in a jeweled mosaic leotard. It was the VMA's.

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

On the far left is a photograph of Beyoncé performing a tribute to Beyoncé at the climax of the MTV Video Music awards on August 24th, 2014. On the right, is a photograph of Beyoncé taken several months earlier on January 26th, 2014 when she opened up the Grammys with a performance of "Drunk in Love" alongside husband Jay Z.

Both Beyoncé's are trim, and no protruding pregnant belly is visible either picture. B ut the Beyoncé of late summer looks fleshier. More rounded. Softer overall. This is because she is pregnant with the child of Beyoncé.

Up until just a few weeks ago, Beyoncé, whose powerful stomach muscles make her one of America's most awesome and terrifying natural resources, did not shy away from sporting form-fitting clothing. Here she is on November 16, wearing a skintight white dress to her sister Solange's wedding. Since then—on the rare occasions she has been photographed in public (another baby pink flag)—Beyoncé's apparel has been noticeably looser.

She wore a black and white sack to the Annie premiere.

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

She wore a red sack in Williamsburg.

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

She wore a weird lumpy short-sleeved blouse to Monday night's Nets game.

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

Let us be clear here: It is not Beyoncé that looks weird and lumpy. It is the shirt. Beyoncé looks divine. She is glowing. She is pregnant.

Whooooooooosh! What She's Been Drankin'

Not definitively alcohol. On Monday night, Beyoncé was photographed holding what could be either a vodka soda, a gin and tonic, a seltzer, a water, or a giant cup of spit that she dropped a lime into. In video from the event, she and Jay Z can be seen negotiating their way through some kind of beverage mix-em-up with a waiter: You hold these drinks—Now what's this drink?—You take that drink—I'll take this drink—This drink his drink—Red drink blue drink.

Is Jay Z dutifully making sure pregnant Beyoncé is given water and not alcohol? It's possible, but hard to say for sure. (It does look like Beyoncé ends up with a bubble-less drink, while Jay Z hands one with bubbles back to the waiter.)

What is interesting here is what the drink definitively is not: It is not beer, which she chugged at this Knicks game while wearing sunglasses indoors. It is not champagne, which she sipped at this Nets game while eating a lollipop. It is not a lemon drop shot, served to her by her hunchbacked butler Drake, to the delight of her husband with the Roosevelt grin.

Moreover, three weeks ago, paparazzi captured Beyoncé drinking an XL Slurpee from 7-Eleven while leaving her office in Midtown Manhattan.

Wait—Has Beyoncé Been Secretly Pregnant THIS WHOLE TIME?

The second most interesting thing about the image to the left is that it depicts Beyoncé drinking an ice cold Slurpee in chilly November—an odd beverage choice for anyone other than a pregnant woman with a craving. Her purse is so cold she wrapped it in a warm fur coat.

The most interesting thing about this image is that the photo agency responsible for this picture (Splash) captioned it "Beyoncé smears her thick lipstick all over her straw while drinking an XL slurpee (299 calories) when heading out of her office in NYC," which sounds vaguely pornographic, and puts a curious emphasis on the caloric content of Beyoncé's drink.

Note that, per the U.S. National Library of Medicine, pregnant women require an extra 300 calories from food per day.


Whooooooooosh! Rock-a-Bey Beybey

Early last month, video surfaced of Beyoncé silently rocking herself back and forth, back and forth, back and forth while watching a Nets game, or perhaps something more interesting on an astral plane no one else could see. At the time, many interpreted the eerie rhythmic rocking as a sign Beyoncé had possessed by a demon, and that her pure soul was lost forever. But check out the potential side effects of Zofran, a medication prescribed to combat severe morning sickness:

Common side effects of Zofran include diarrhea, headache, fever, lightheadedness, dizziness, drowsiness, constipation, rash, blurred vision and muscle spasm.

Perhaps she was not plagued by a demon, but rather by her own darling baby.

Whooooooooosh! Remember September?

Back in September, rumors started swirling that Beyoncé was once again pregnant, after the Internet latched onto a dubious claim of unknown origin that Jay Z altered some lyrics from his song "Beach Is Better" to reference a second pregnancy while in Paris for the couple's On The Run tour. In fan-shot video purportedly of that performance, it's unclear whether Jay Z is indeed saying, as the rumor claims, "...and she pregnant with another one," or if he's simply reciting the original lyrics: "I replace it with another one." To me it sounds like "bah pizzit wih duhduh one."

The baby chatter died down after a snapshot of Beyoncé toasting with—but not drinking—what appeared to be a glass of champagne at the conclusion of the Paris show was released online. It died down because Beyoncé and Jay Z never confirmed the rumor. But they also never denied it.

The human gestation period is roughly nine months. The public's attention span is much shorter. Predicting pregnancies with nothing to go on but a calendar, a few paparazzi shots, and a perfect and absolute certainty in your heart that Beyoncé is pregnant is a tricky business. But if Beyoncé really did become pregnant at the end of the summer, there's no reason to expect she would have informed the public at that time. After the initial flurry of guesses, people stopped talking about if she was pregnant. She was able to have at least one trimester in peace.

She and the Duchess of Cambridge reportedly discussed their children at Monday night's Nets game.

Congrats on your second pregnancy, Beyoncé.

Full disclosure: We've been wrong before.

[ Images via Splash, Getty]

What I Read This Year: Tracy K. Smith

$
0
0

What I Read This Year: Tracy K. Smith

2014 was a year when I couldn't get away from the idea of America. Every time I turned around, something rushed at me, forcing me to consider whether, for however long we as a nation have been traveling, we've been covering real ground or merely going in circles.

There's the private America, the one each of us lives inside of alone—the one whose silent, solitary spaces are characterized by the particular loneliness of, say, surfing the internet late at night for evidence of old rivals, former loves, even evidence of oneself. Dorothea Lasky's newest collection of poems, Rome, does such a perfect job of scouring this hungry, lonely version of America, and bearing witness to the vacuous pain lurking in the crevices of even a happy life.

Rome doesn't truck in overt political speech, but it very obliquely answers some of the questions public America is asking. Questions about how, if we love ourselves so much, we can treat one another with such hateful adamancy. In a poem titled "Porn," Lasky nails the leaden recognition that comes from looking too long or too closely at any of the products of our 21st Century appetite for fabrications of reality—not just porn, but reality TV or even the versions of our own lives we've learned to stage for social media:

The title of the movie was Divorce Party
And throughout his big cock, her skinny thighs
Her friends shouted, nah girl, now you're free

But no she's not she's in a movie
And now I am crying
Because the man looks like[…]
Someone who darkened me
A million times over

A book like this consoles because it stands as proof that, yes, we are lonely; yes, we have been hurt; yes, memory hounds us. And yes, the culture we have made chips away at us. Even when we find a way to heal and grow back, our very own appetites urge the predator to start in on us again.

In contemplating the public America, I return again and again to Claudia Rankine's Citizen: An American Lyric, a collection of chastening poems that reckon with the dark conundrum of racism at America's core. Meditations upon victims of racial violence like Trayvon Martin and James Craig Anderson are interspersed with descriptions of something ever so slightly more benign, something we might call "disregard." Rankine writes, "The new therapist specializes in trauma counseling. You have only ever spoken on the phone….At the front door the bell is a small round disc that you press firmly. When the door finally opens, the woman standing there yells, at the top of her lungs, Get away from my house! What are you doing in my yard?" Citizen urges us to look differently at the social "other," but more importantly it also asks us to look honestly and unflinchingly at our own capacity for hatred and ignorance, and at the fear that sets such feelings into motion.

I'm not sure any of us can know where America is heading. Sometimes I worry we're so close to arriving that little can be done to alter our course. But books like this give my pessimism pause. They say, this is who we are; this is what we feel; this is what we are guilty of. Sometimes that kind of fidelity to the truth feels like enough.

Tracy K. Smith won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry. A professor of creative writing at Princeton, Smith is the author of The Body's Question, Duende, and Life on Mars. Her forthcoming memoir, Ordinary Light, will be published in March.

How the System Treats Cops Differently: The Essential Guide

$
0
0

How the System Treats Cops Differently: The Essential Guide

Eric Garner and Mike Brown are dead, and the men who killed them walked free. Why?

The failure of grand juries in New York and Missouri to indict the police officers who killed Garner and Brown—both unarmed black men—is a heartwrenching demonstration of the extent to which the American legal system treats police officers differently than civilians. Why is that? What does it mean? And what options do we have if grand juries and prosecutors fail us? Below, our guide to the complicated world of prosecuting cops.

What Is Excessive Force?

In theory, excessive force is defined as "any force beyond what's necessary to arrest a suspect and keep police and bystanders safe." But that conclusion is often complicated, because it all depends on the officer's state of mind.

So, in practice, shooting an unarmed suspect or putting a suspect in a chokehold isn't excessive force—legally speaking—when an officer believes the situation is life-threatening. It's not an objective standard, so the jury doesn't have to believe that the cop was actually in danger—just that he reasonably believed he was.

And this is exactly also where the institutionalized racism starts to creep in—cops seem to disproportionately fear for their lives around black people.

Why Don't Cops Get Indicted?

For the most part, cops don't get indicted because the criminal justice system treats cops differently.

When a possible felony has been committed, prosecutors usually bring charges by presenting evidence to a grand jury. The jurors determine two things: 1) whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and 2) whether the defendant committed that crime. It is, as they say, fairly easy to obtain an indictment. Except when the defendant is a cop.

One reason is because, by law, officers are allowed to use "whatever force they reasonably believe is necessary to make an arrest or to protect themselves." This standard means it's irrelevant if the suspect is unarmed, or deaf, or just playing with a toy at the park—as long as the police officer perceived there was a danger, it's generally not a crime.

For example, a Kentucky grand jury recently declined to indict a Sheriff's Deputy who killed a a 19-year-old preschool teacher last spring because they found the officer, Tyler Brockman, "feared for his life." The teacher, who had a .12 BAC, was driving away from a party when she accidentally ran over Brockman's foot. The officer then jumped on the hood of her slow-moving car and shot her through the windshield four times at point blank range.

In these types of shooting cases, officers "often testify that they perceived a deadly threat and acted in self-defense. This stance can inoculate them even if the threat later turns out to be false," criminologist Geoffrey P. Alpert told the New York Times.

What Role Do Prosecutors Play?

Another reason officers are so rarely indicted is the close relationship between the District Attorney's office and the police department.

"The district attorney's office works way too closely with the local police department and individual officers to be able to objectively look at these cases," a lawyer for the family of Jonathan Ferrell—a 24-year-old former football player who was killed by police as he tried to get help for his broken down car—told the New York Times.

When it comes to grand jury hearings, prosecutors act as an orchestra conductor, emphasizing the evidence they like and highlighting certain witnesses by calling them to testify. That's why it's so easy to indict defendants—the prosecutor can shape the story however he or she wants, and it's the only side the grand jury gets to hear. Via the Times:

For most felonies, grand jury hearings are swift, bare-bones proceedings. Prosecutors present enough evidence to show it is probable that the defendant, who rarely testifies, committed a crime, and ask the jury to vote for an indictment. Several cases are usually processed in a single day.

But not when the defendant is a cop.

But because most prosecutors impanel a special grand jury to investigate police-related deaths, they insulate themselves from the final decision, while appearing to fulfill the public desire for an independent review, legal experts said. The inquiries often go on for weeks or months, with testimony from several witnesses.

During the proceedings, offending officers are routinely allowed to tell the jury their version of the story, express remorse, and emphasize their adherence to training—all without having to be cross-examined. This is a courtesy rarely extended to civilian defendants.

It's not hard to see that reluctance to prosecute in recent high-profile cases. When the Ferguson grand jury decision came down, St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch presented an hour-long case for Wilson's innocence in a speech broadcast across the country.

In the Eric Garner grand jury proceedings, which concluded last weekend, the prosecutor limited the jury to two potential charges: criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter. In almost every felony case, a prosecutor will also ask the jury to consider what are known as "lesser included charges"—less serious charges that arise out of the same set of facts or circumstances. But Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan chose to leave those charges—in this case, reckless endangerment—off the table. He has not explained why.

And that's when the case even goes before a grand jury.

In August 2010, a police officer there pulled up to a homeless man carrying a knife and ordered him three times to drop it. When the man didn't immediately comply, the officer shot and killed him. The man with the knife was partially deaf, and the knife was a woodcarving tool. Seattle's firearms review board ruled the shooting unjustified. The officer resigned but did not stand trial because the district attorney ruled there was not enough evidence to convince a jury he had acted with malice.

Las Vegas police aren't under a consent decree, but they were headed there after an investigation by the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper in 2011 exposed a culture in which unnecessary shootings were always found to be justified.

James Young, a 49-year-old father of three, fell into a coma and later died after he was choked by a narcotics detective "for an extended period of time" until he started foaming at the mouth and lost consciousness, a lawsuit claims. The Brooklyn district attorney declined to prosecute the case, and the civil lawsuit was settled for $832,500 in June.

A mentally ill woman, Shereese Francis, 29, of Queens, died of heart failure in 2012 after being suffocated by four male officers who were called to get her in an ambulance because she hadn't been taking her meds, another lawsuit claims.

After a 14-month investigation that included several home visits and interviews with family members who were present on the day of the death, the Queens DA declined to prosecute, according to court records. The family was awarded $1.1 million in a civil lawsuit in May.

A prosecutor cleared two Utah police officers of criminal charges in the killing of a young black man wielding a samurai sword, saying Monday the shooting was justified because the man had swung the sword at the officers.

Two Saratoga Springs police officers fired a total of seven shots, Utah County Attorney Jeff R. Buhman told reporters, hitting Darrien Hunt, 22, six times — at least once in the back as he ran away. Buhman's office investigated the Sept. 10 incident for nearly two months.

What Does It Take to File a Civil Suit Against a Cop?

Civil actions are a little friendlier to plaintiffs. As in a criminal case, the question again is whether the force was reasonable. But the plaintiff must only prove misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence, an easier evidentiary standard to attain.

Even so, the deck is often stacked against the victim suing a police officer. First, a plaintiff must show that the officer isn't shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which prevents a plaintiff from suing a cop for actions that "fall short of violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right."

It's not always an easy standard to meet.

For example, this summer, the Supreme Court held that an Arkansas cop who fired 12 shots into a car that crashed during a police chase cop was immune from a wrongful death lawsuit because "the use of deadly force to end a dangerous high-speed chase was constitutional and did not violate any statute."

And even when there is a basis for a suit, plaintiffs must jump through additional hoops to sue an officer:

Many states treat excessive force cases somewhat differently than typical lawsuits. In some jurisdictions, there is a presumption that the officer acted with the necessary level of force that the plaintiff must overcome. Additionally, some impose a higher burden of proof than "preponderance of the evidence," instead requiring the plaintiff to prove a claim of excessive force by "clear and convincing evidence" (a standard higher than "by a preponderance of evidence" but lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt").

When can the Justice Department step in?

When police misconduct is systemic and involving multiple victims, the Justice Department can step in by launching a "pattern or practice" probe. Authorized by a 1994 law, the DOJ has the power to sue police departments and cities that it concludes have systematically deprived citizens of their constitutional rights.

They generally focus on at least one of two things—police misconduct and civil rights violations. In misconduct inquiries, conduct like "excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests," are investigated. In civil rights investigations, investigators look one step further, for discrimination based on "race, color, national origin, sex, and religion."

The Justice Department is currently investigating police shootings in Ferguson and St. Louis, New York, and Fairfax.

But the investigating body—the Department of Justice Special Litigation unit—is small, and moves slowly. And when the Justice Department does find violations, it's only the first step.

In Cleveland, for example, it took almost two years to generate a report on the city police department's "pattern of excessive force." And it could be years before any changes are made to the police department—first Justice and the city will have to negotiate a consent decree, a process that could stretch into the 2020's, Cleveland.com reports.

The DOJ recently negotiated similar consent decrees—which allow the city to settle the charges without admitting guilt—in nine cities, including Albuqurque, New Orleans, Newark, New Jersey, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle. But as they enact new policies with criminal consequences, not all cops are receptive to the changes. In Oakland, for example, a federal judge had to place the entire police department under a receivership "after nine years of non-compliance." Cops in Cincinnati took seven years to adopt their new regulations, and hundreds of Seattle police officers sued the DOJ last spring, claiming rules requiring they "use only the force necessary to perform their duties," were slowing them down. The officers lost the suit, which all things considered, is a start.

[Illustration by Jim Cooke, handcuff photo via Shutterstock]


11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

$
0
0

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

Normally, it's the Western Powers who are remembered for developing some of the most innovative and conceptual weapons of the Second World War. But when it came to experimental military technologies, Japan suffered from no shortage of ideas. Here are 11 you should know about.

Illustration: MXY-7 Okha Suicide Attacker, by Fiddlers Green

Japan emerged as a world power in 1905 after its humiliating defeat of Russia. Though allied with the Entente during the First World War, Imperial Japan shifted its allegiances after being snubbed at Versailles. Starting in the 1930s, and allied with Nazi Germany, the empire began a series of aggressive campaigns at it worked to assert itself in the Pacific region. Its actions would eventually bring it into conflict with the United States, a development that proved to be its undoing.

Shōwa Japan, knowing it was up against a superior enemy, both in terms of industrial strength and technological sophistication, accelerated its efforts to keep pace. To that end, the Japanese Imperial Army was equipped with advanced conventional weapons, specialized suicide attack weapons, and even weapons to conduct biological and chemical warfare. Indeed, Japanese military planners did not care much for the Geneva Protocol. And in fact, they assumed that banned weapons were particularly effective.

The Japanese developed dozens, if not hundreds, of highly conceptual weapons during the war, including some that actually made it to the battlefield. Here are 11 you need to know about.

1. Fu-Go Balloon Bombs

As the Nazis were lobbing V2 rockets over the English Channel, the Japanese were fashioning their own "vengeance weapons" as well. Military planners, who were unable to develop an intercontinental missile, instead came up with the idea of balloon bombs.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

To make it work, the Japanese attached incendiary bombs to balloons which travelled 5,000 miles toward the United States along the jet stream. The intention was to have the devices explode over the forested regions of the Pacific Northwest and start large forest fires that would divert precious U.S. manpower.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

Geologist and historian J. David Rogers explains how they worked:

The balloons were crafted from mulberry paper, glued together with potato flour and filled with expansive hydrogen. They were 33 feet in diameter and could lift approximately 1,000 pounds, but the deadly portion of their cargo was a 33-lb anti-personnel fragmentation bomb, attached to a 64–foot long fuse that was intended to burn for 82 minutes before detonating. The Japanese programmed the balloons to release hydrogen if they ascended to over 38,000 feet and to drop pairs of sand filled ballast bags if the balloon dropped below 30,000 feet, using an onboard altimeter. Three-dozen sand-filled ballast bags were hung from a 4-spoke aluminum wheel that was suspended beneath the balloon, along with the bomb. Each ballast bag weighed between 3 and 7 pounds. The bags were programmed to be released in pairs on opposing sides of the wheel so the balloon would not be tipped to one side or another, releasing any of the precious hydrogen. In this way the balloons would rise in the daylight heat each day of the crossing and fall each evening, till their ballast bags were depleted, at which time the balloon and its deadly contents would descend upon whatever lay beneath it.

The first balloons were launched in late 1944, landing in the U.S. on November 5th off San Pedro, California. By the following day they landed as far away as Thermopolis, Wyoming. Some even landed in Canada. In all, some 285 confirmed landings and/or sightings were made. On March 5, 1945, six Americans (a minister and five children) were killed by one of the grounded balloons in Oregon while attempting to pull it through the forest back to their camp.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The U.S. government muzzled the media about the balloons for fear of encouraging the enemy. The American public was eventually made aware of the balloons after the war. (Photos via U.S. Army)

2. Sen Toku Class Mega Sub

The Japanese managed to build three of these behemoths during the war, vessels which hold the record as the largest conventionally powered submarines ever built. As part of the Japanese plan to dominate the Pacific Ocean — including the Western seaboard of the United States — they were designed to attack the Panama Canal.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The subs were equipped with three Aichi M6A1 airplanes which could carry a torpedo or up to 1,763 pounds (800 kg) of bombs. They were housed in a watertight, pressure-resistant hangar. The planes were launched from a catapult located in front of the tower, and all three could be assembled, fueled, armed and launched within 45 minutes of surfacing.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

It even featured a German-inspired snorkel that was coated with a thick, rubber-like substance designed to absorb radar and sonar signals. The war ended before the Japanese could use them in combat. In 1946, the I-400 was surrendered to the USA and sunk off the coast of Hawaii. Researchers only re-discovered it last year. (Images CC)

3. Unit 731 and the Use of Bioweapons

From 1937 until the end of the war, the Japanese experimented with various biological weapons, including the toxic defoliation bacilli bomb (a precursor to Agent Orange) and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague. The Imperial Japanese Army's notorious Unit 731 — a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit — performed tests on human subjects with Bubonic plague, cholera, smallpox, botulism, and other diseases. Japanese soldiers used these bombs to to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

According to Sheldon H. Harris, a historian at California State University in Northridge, more than 200,000 Chinese were killed in germ warfare field experiments. His work also shows that plague-infected animals were released toward the close of the war, causing outbreaks of the plague that killed at least 30,000 people in the Harbin area from 1946 through 1948. Some Japanese scholars contest these figures, but they're probably accurate.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

An unidentified victim of Unit 731. (Image: China-Underground via Government of Japan)

And as noted by historian Antony Beevor, the Japanese also planned to these weapons against American soldiers in the Pacific theatre, along with delivering disease-carrying balloon bombs to the United States. They even had a plan in the summer of 1945 to use kamikaze pilots to dump plague-infected fleas over San Diego. (Images via War Pardons)

Related: Nazis used mosquitoes as biological weapons

It's worth noting that commanders of Unit 731 were granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for sharing biological warfare secrets with the U.S. military. Relatedly, Japan was the only country to use chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, during the Second World War.

4. Fukuryi Suicide Attack Suits

These special dive suits were designed for the Japanese Special Attack Units to fend off an invasion of the Home islands by Allied forces. The suits were armed with a mine containing 33 pounds (15 kg) of explosives attached to a 16 foot (5 meter) bamboo pole.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The divers, weighed down by 20 pounds (9 kg) of lead, would walk underwater for as much as six hours and at depths of 16-23 feet (5-7 meters). The divers, upon reaching the hull of an enemy ship, would detonate the explosives, killing themselves in the process. It's not known if this suit was ever used in combat, but there are accounts of U.S. infantry landing craft and a surveyor ship being attacked by suicide swimmers. (Image: U.S. Navy/CC)

5. The "Purple" Encryption Machine

The German Enigma Machine may be the most famous encryption device of the Second World War, but it was by no means the only one. In 1937, the Japanese developed the "97-shiki O-bun In-ji-ki" or "97 Alphabetical Typewriter," named for its creation on the Japanese year 2597. This device was better known by its U.S. code-name: "Purple".

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The machine consisted of two typewriters and an electrical rotor system with a 25-character alphabetic switchboard. Like the Enigma machine that inspired it, a plaintext, or unencrypted message, could be manually inputted. But its main innovation was the second electric typewriter, which would print the encrypted message onto a piece of paper (Enigma presented text in the form of blinking lights). Thus, only one person was needed to operate it. And because the Japanese changed the key on a daily basis, codebreakers weren't able to find patterns in the messages. The switchboard contained 25 connections, which could be arranged 6 pairs of connections, producing 70,000,000,000,000 possible arrangements. (image: USAF/CC)

Incredibly, U.S. code breakers found a way to crack the machine, a story you can read here.

6. Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka Kamikaze Plane

As the war progressed, and as at the Japanese refined their kamikaze techniques, they began to develop aircraft explicitly for that purpose. The Yokosuka MXY-7 was a rocket-propelled aircraft that made its debut in September 1944. To build the machine, the Japanese used as little important raw materials as possible, and the plane's construction was extremely rudimentary.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

A captured Ohka plane. (Image: U.S. Army)

During combat, the Ohka was carried under the fuselage of a Mitsubishi G4M until the target was within close range, when it was released. The pilot would try to glide as close to the target as possible before firing the rockets and smashing into the target.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The weapon was armed with a 2,643 pound warhead. Its intense speed made it virtually impossible to intercept by anti-aircraft fire. That said, along with the carrier plane, it was extremely vulnerable during the gliding phase. What's more, it was very difficult to steer once the rockets had been fired. Despite these limitations, at least one US destroyer was sunk by this weapon.

7. Mitsubishi J8M (Shushi) Rocket-powered Interceptor Aircraft

If you think this looks similar to the German Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, you're right.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The J8M1 was supposed to be a license-built copy of the advanced Nazi aircraft, but the Germans weren't able to ship a functional version to Japan (a German submarine with an actual Komet on board was sunk en route to Japan). Instead, Japanese designers had to reverse-engineer the advanced attack plane from a flight operations manual and limited technical blueprints.

Indeed, the Japanese were eager to build an interceptor plane in consideration of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe. Military planners feared it would only be a matter of time before a similar campaign raged over Japan. Because the B-29 Superfortresses operated at an altitude out of reach of most Japanese fighters, the Me 163 was thus seen as a potential solution to the problem.

Despite not having a functional model to work off of, a single prototype was tested before the end of the war. On July 7, 1945, the J8M made its maiden flight with Lieutenant Commander Toyohiko Inuzuka at the controls. The inaugural flight was brief and disastrous. The J8M1 took off successfully, but the engine failed during the steep climb, crashing and killing the pilot. Six more prototypes were built, but none of them flew before the end of the war.

Along these lines, there was also the Mizuno Shinryu, a late-WW2 rocket-powered interceptor:

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

8. O-I Super- and Ultra-heavy Tanks

The Japanese aren't typically remembered for their tanks, though they did have some fairly good ones, including the 97 Chi-Ha medium tank. But late in the war they had the ambitious — if not completely crazy — idea to build super-heavy and even ultra-heavy tanks for use in the Pacific Theatre.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

These beasts would have been absolutely massive, capable of carrying a crew of 11 in its 100 to 120 ton body. The super-heavy featured three turrets, one large cannon, and two smaller guns. An uncorroborated report claims that one of these tanks was sent to Manchuria, but it's unknown if it ever saw combat.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

The advanced experimental prototype, the ultra-heavy O-I, would have featured four turrets.

9. Ku-Go Death Ray

Like many other combattants, the Japanese were actively working to develop a death ray, a concentrated beam of energy that could take down aircraft hundreds of miles away. According to documents confiscated by the U.S. military after the war, work on a Japanese death ray began as early as 1939 at laboratories in Noborito. To that end, the researchers developed a high-powered magnetron that could generate a beam of radiation. Physicist Sinitiro Tomonaga's team developed a magnetron measuring 8 inches (20 cm) in diameter with an output rated at 100kW. It's doubtful, however, that this technology could have worked like the death rays of science fiction. Calculations suggested that the beam, if properly focused, could have killed a rabbit over a distance of 1,000 yards, but only if the rabbit stayed perfectly still for at least 5 minutes.

10. Flying Tanks

One of the major problems faced by the Japanese military during WW2 was the challenge of transporting heavy equipment, like tanks, from island to island. A potential solution was found in the form of flying, or rather gliding, tanks.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

These light tanks featured detachable wings, empennage (stabilizing surfaces at the tail-end of an aircraft), and take-off carriages. But because the tracks of the tank would never survive a landing, a pair of detachable skis were attached to the machine. Once detached from an aircraft, like the Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" heavy bomber, it would coast to the destination like a glider, land, and assume responsibilities as an armoured ground vehicle.

The Japanese managed to produce some prototypes of these flying tanks, including the Maeda Ku-6 and the Special No. 3 Flying Tank, or Ku-Ro.

11. Z Superbombers Project

Like the Nazi Amerika Bomber project, Imperial Japan wanted an intercontinental bomber capable of reaching North America. As the war progressed, the Japanese were desperate for something like the American B-29 Superfortress. In 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy introduced the experimental 13-Shi Attack Bomber, a four-engined long-range heavy bomber. But military planners wanted something considerably larger, heavier, and faster — something capable of flying at 32,800 feet with a load of twenty-two 1,000 pound bombs.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

Designs were presented to the Imperial Japanese Army, including the the Nakajima G10N (pictured above) and Kawasaki Ki-91, the former of which featured 237 foot wingspans and a total length of 144 feet. It would have been capable of reaching speeds of 365 mph (590 km/h) at 25,000 feet and powered by six engines of 5,000 horsepower each; to that end, the Nakajima Aircraft Company began developing engines for the plane, and proposed doubling HA-44 engines (the most powerful engine available in Japan) into a 36-cylinder engine. Project Z was cancelled in July 1944 owing to deteriorating war conditions.

11 Secret Weapons Developed By Japan During World War 2

Historian Steve Horn says the monstrous Project Z bomber should be compared more equally with the postwar Convair Consolidated Peacemaker bomber (pictured) in terms of size, weight, and performance, rather than the wartime Superfortress. (Image: USAF)

Related: How the Nazis tried to bomb New York | Weapons from WW2 you probably never heard of

Sources: Tsyneishi Keiichi: "Unit 731" | NYT: "Unmasking Horror — A special report.; Japan Confronting Gruesome War Atrocity" | Brian Ford: Secret Weapons | J. D. Rogers: "How Geologists Unraveled the Mystery of Japanese Vengeance Balloon Bombs in World War II" | Steve Horn: The Second Attack on Pearl Harbor: Operation K and Other Japanese Attempts to Bomb America in World War II

Follow George on Twitter and friend him on Facebook.

Supermodel Beverly Johnson Says Bill Cosby Drugged Her at an Audition 

$
0
0

Supermodel Beverly Johnson Says Bill Cosby Drugged Her at an Audition 

In a thoughtful, revealing essay for Vanity Fair, Vogue's first black cover girl Beverly Johnson writes that Bill Cosby drugged her at his home while she was auditioning for a small part on The Cosby Show in the mid-1980s. She says that she was hesitant to tell her story before, because "black men have enough enemies out there already, they certainly don't need someone like [me], an African American with a familiar face and a famous name, fanning the flames."

Johnson says her agent called her for a small role on The Cosby Show in the mid-80s when she was trying to break into acting and get out of a bad marriage. She met Cosby twice before he allegedly tried to attack her: once at a taping of the show, and once at his home with her young daughter. She explains, "Looking back, that first invite from Cosby to his home seems like part of a perfectly laid out plan, a way to make me feel secure with him at all times. It worked like a charm. Cosby suggested I come back to his house a few days later to read for the part. I agreed, and one late afternoon the following week I returned."

Here is how she describes that afternoon:

After the meal, we walked upstairs to a huge living area of his home that featured a massive bar. A huge brass espresso contraption took up half the counter. At the time, it seemed rare for someone to have such a machine in his home for personal use.

Cosby said he wanted to see how I handled various scenes, so he suggested that I pretend to be drunk. (When did a pregnant woman ever appear drunk on The Cosby Show? Probably never, but I went with it.)

As I readied myself to be the best drunk I could be, he offered me a cappuccino from the espresso machine. I told him I didn't drink coffee that late in the afternoon because it made getting to sleep at night more difficult. He wouldn't let it go. He insisted that his espresso machine was the best model on the market and promised I'd never tasted a cappuccino quite like this one.

It's nuts, I know, but it felt oddly inappropriate arguing with Bill Cosby so I took a few sips of the coffee just to appease him.

Now let me explain this: I was a top model during the 70s, a period when drugs flowed at parties and photo shoots like bottled water at a health spa. I'd had my fun and experimented with my fair share of mood enhancers. I knew by the second sip of the drink Cosby had given me that I'd been drugged—and drugged good.

Johnson managed to escape by calling Cosby a "motherfucker" multiple times, angering him:

As I felt my body go completely limp, my brain switched into automatic-survival mode. That meant making sure Cosby understood that I knew exactly what was happening at that very moment.

"You are a motherfucker aren't you?"

That's the exact question I yelled at him as he stood there holding me, expecting me to bend to his will. I rapidly called him several more "motherfuckers." By the fifth, I could tell that I was really pissing him off. At one point he dropped his hands from my waist and just stood there looking at me like I'd lost my mind.

What happened next is somewhat cloudy for me because the drug was in fuller play by that time. I recall his seething anger at my tirade and then him grabbing me by my left arm hard and yanking all 110 pounds of me down a bunch of stairs as my high heels clicked and clacked on every step. I feared my neck was going to break with the force he was using to pull me down those stairs.

It was still late afternoon and the sun hadn't completely gone down yet. When we reached the front door, he pulled me outside of the brownstone and then, with his hand still tightly clenched around my arm, stood in the middle of the street waving down taxis.

When one stopped, Cosby opened the door, shoved me into it and slammed the door behind me without ever saying a word. I somehow managed to tell the driver my address and before blacking out, I looked at the cabbie and asked, as if he knew: "Did I really just call Bill Cosby 'a motherfucker'?"

Cosby didn't respond to requests for comment from Vanity Fair.

Johnson says she was inspired to finally speak up by the other women who have told their Cosby stories, including her longtime friend and fellow model Janice Dickinson. "Many are still afraid to speak up," Johnson concludes. "I couldn't sit back and watch the other women be vilified and shamed for something I knew was true."

Why is milk cheaper now?

​Brave Puppy Destroys Fear, Cleanses World of Toxic Trepidation 

$
0
0

He Himself bore our fears in His tiny meatball body on the steps, so that we might die to fear and live to fearlessness; for by His straight up no joke extraordinary pup bravery you were healed.

I love this dog!

[h/t TastefullyOffensive]

Why Teachers Pay for Students' Supplies Out of Their Own Pockets

$
0
0

Why Teachers Pay for Students' Supplies Out of Their Own Pockets

In the second volume in our series on American teachers, we're exploring the reality that many of our public schools are greatly underfunded, short on supplies, and are financially supported by teachers themselves. Take P.S. 132 in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City where the children's toilets are decrepit, old, and overflowing with waste. Or, even worse, a Philadelphia elementary school with a yearly budget of $160. Yes, $160 to support a school of 400 students for the entire year.

From the Philly Inquirer report on Lingelbach Elementary:

The school has no music class nor playground equipment. There's a single noontime aide for the whole school, so two teachers volunteer to watch students during lunch and recess. An upbeat school police officer is a plus, but she's also assigned to two other schools.

And the boxy, Cold War-era building is a worry, suffering from years of deferred maintenance. Leaks are common, and so is standing water and clogged toilets. In one basement classroom, poison ivy creeps up the unsealed windows. There are pests, too — a mouse once jumped out of eighth grade teacher Kara Yanochko's purse.

Most people will tell you that they have bought some necessary item for their job in order to make their lives easier. This is not out of the ordinary, even if it means eating the cost yourself. But the reason that so many teachers lament having to buy their own supplies isn't simple. Teachers face mismanaged budgets, lack of awareness on the part of administrators for teacher/student needs, and the knowledge that, without certain tools at their disposal, students simply cannot learn. If there were no need for supply money at schools, a website like DonorsChoose.org, a GoFundMe-adjacent place for crowdfunding teacher-student projects in schools across America, would cease to exist.

Hear it from the teachers themselves.

From an email submission about an actual rationing system put into place at a school:

Supplies. The elementary school has to ration paper. At the HS, we can have all the paper we want, but out copy machine is broken 80% of the time. High schoolers eat pencils, but lord help you if you don't have enough writing materials for students every day. I spend hundreds of dollars a year buying books for students and materials for class that the school won't cover. I'm lucky – we do have a supply budget. In schools without one, teachings spend thousands of dollars of their own money. I'm not being hyperbolic.

From a commenter on our last post, regarding the myth that teachers get summers off:

Teaching is the only job you'll steal supplies from home to take to work

Another commenter pointing out how funding is frequently einadequately portioned:

I wish people who make education policy where actual educators. Special Education is in a sense under attack. The move towards standardization means that the powers that be want me to treat all students the same. The Education Sec. of the United States, Arne Duncan recently said something to the affect that special ed is a failure because students in SPED don't have the same outcomes as students in general education. He advocates just holding high standards and my students will overcome their disabilities and achieve greatly apparently. (Arne by the way has never taught a day in his life.)

I have a student with severe emotional disturbance and low cognitive ability. He spits, bites, and hits. His behavior has greatly impedes his education. His cognitive ability also means he struggles with basic phonics. And I'm magically supposed to have him reading at grade level. That's just one student out of my current 15 in my self contained behavior classroom.

There's a lot of money in these tests, grading of the tests, testing materials etc etc etc. I sincerely question most school reform ideas because most of it seems predicated on the idea that a lot of public money is going to enrich a very select few. Case in point, look at all the money going to EXTREMELY shady charter school operations for one example.

PS. I apologize for any and all errors. Please don't murder me.

From an email submission on available technology, or the lack thereof:

I don't have technology adequate for my job. The computers are dated, the LED projectors don't always work, the school doesn't have enough people handling tech support, so problem tickets can take weeks to resolve. I think the lack of technology, facilities and supplies is what surprised me most about coming from the tech sector and going into education. Common Core is supposed to be about preparing the students to work in our global economy and my students have computers that are 7+ years old. Their cell phones have more computing power.

A teacher who spent eight hours teaching in a struggling school emailed a link to a blog post regarding her day substitute teaching:

According to my fellow sub, I was about to be the third substitute the students had had in their first week of school because the school had yet to hire a new Spanish teacher. She said that the school had had such low test scores in previous years that they were being looked at closely by the state (this turned out to be mostly true). As a result, they had fired about half of their teachers at the end of last year and had yet to replace them all. In their first week of class, the Spanish I students had learned to count to 10 in Spanish. They had no textbooks or workbooks, because only full-time teachers can request textbooks from the school. There wasn't a notebook, piece of scrap paper or pencil to be found. When students asked to borrow a pencil we had to ask other students to lend them one. Most of the technology in the room didn't work. The Spanish II teacher offered us a binder full of worksheets for the students but the school's copy machine was broken. Earlier in the week they had used the projector to project worksheets about the numbers 1-10 onto a screen, but now the projector was broken and regardless, the remaining worksheets required the students to speak basic spanish. And they couldn't cancel the class and move the students into classes with full-time teachers because they were required by the state to offer two years of Spanish.

...

I met a handful of other teachers, including two of the new teachers. When I mentioned the difficulties we were having they conspiratorially admitted that they didn't have anywhere near the support or materials they needed. A new math teacher told us that she had been hired late in the summer and told to take the first week of school off as a professional development week, to get to know the school, prepare her materials, etc. She stopped into her classroom halfway through the first week and asked the substitute what her students had been working on. The sub said "Oh, I'm a health teacher, we haven't been doing any math." She came to work the next day. Several teachers came in to use the copy machine only to find that it was (still) broken. One mentioned that things might be easier once the students received the Nook tablets the school would be handing out soon. I assumed that they were part of some company promotion or technology grant, otherwise why in the world would the school invest their limited funds on tablets when they can't keep teachers in the classrooms or maintain their existing technology?

An email submission about the dire lack of books in schools:

There were many problems with my school and unfortunately that affected my experience as well as the students. First, we were underfunded. My first year I was a new teacher without books. I had no guidance as to what I was supposed to do, and I relied on workbooks that I bought on my own to create lessons. I tried to be creative and I managed to have some successes, one being a "Poetry Hour" that the 6th graders put on for the school after developing their poetry portfolios. Unfortunately, most of my days were terrible. The kids didn't want to learn, discipline was a huge problem, the parents didn't seem to care, and the administration did not support the teachers. The kids fought all the time and there were times I felt scared for my own safety. I remember one time when I taught 7th grade, a student said he was going to meet me by my car and stab me. It just wasn't a good place to work. I hated waking up every morning and dreaded most of my days.

One teacher explains she spent $2,000 of her own money in the first year of teaching:

The cost. I spent over $2,000 on my classroom my first year. That includes: staples, tape, posters, baskets, file folders, bins, pencil sharpeners, bookcases, books for my classroom library, sticky notes, pens, pencils, folders, tissues, hand wipes, snacks, snacks, more snacks, movies, more books, whiteboard markers, a dongle, mp3 players for my special ed students to have audio-books, alarm clocks for my students who wake up late, tickets to my students' sports games, more books, my teaching books, printer paper, notecards, markers, colored pencils, colored paper, etc. I've already passed $800 this year— and I fundraised $600 from friends and family in addition. If you think I'm exaggerating, ask a teacher you know. She or he might even have some receipts to show you— I actually kept all mine from my first year. It was horrifying.

A little math problem on what teacher salaries should look like, from an email submission:

You may have read this before or already had it sent to you, but: Even if you consider teachers "babysitters" - which the worst few are in the least and the best many are laughably more than - their salaries would prorate out to sums much larger than what they actually make. Assume $3/hr x 30 kids x 7 hours a day = $630/day. They "only" work 180 days a year, so that's $113,400. And doesn't include the whole $5/minute extra that babysitting services are able to charge every time you're late to pickup your kid!

For what it's worth, I'm not a teacher myself. I do, however, come from a family of teachers, so feel their misery when people make light of their profession. I actually believe the work ethic I saw growing up from them - working late nights, weekends, vacations and giving their personal time and money (of which there wasn't much) towards their kids - has made me successful today.

As always, we are accepting submissions from America's educators, aides, and administrators. Please comment with your stories below or email me here: dayna@gawker.com.

Next up in this series, we'll take a detailed look at teachers' daily schedules.

Previously: Teachers Want You To Know: We Don't Get Summers Off

[Image by Jim Cooke, photo via Shutterstock]

Viewing all 24829 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images