Science news: "Monkeys can learn to see themselves in the mirror." Okay...congrats. (Sarcasm.)

An attack by Boko Haram on Baga, Nigeria, was the deadliest in the history of the militant group, according to a statement from Amnesty International. Musa Alhaji Bukar, a local government official, told the BBC he feared that 2,000 people had been killed in the massacre.

The precise number of the dead is unclear. Baba Abba Hassan, another official, told the Associated Press that that most of the victims were women, children, and elderly people "who could not run fast enough" when the attackers arrived in Baga with assault rifles and grenade launchers. An anti-Boko Haram civilian fighter said that his group had given up attempting to count the corpses.

The attack left Baga razed to the ground, according to Amnesty. Musa Alhaji Bukar described the grisly aftermath to the BBC:

Musa Alhaji Bukar, a senior government official in the area, said that fleeing residents told him that Baga, which had a population of about 10,000, was now "virtually non-existent".

"It has been burnt down," he told the BBC Hausa service.

Those who fled reported that they had been unable to bury the dead, and corpses littered the town's streets, he said.

Boko Haram now reportedly controls Baga and 16 neighboring towns in northeastern Nigeria. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Islamist group killed 10,000 people in Nigeria in 2014 alone and displaced over a million more.

[Image via AP]

Throughout the coverage of the NFL's handling of Ray Rice, talk of the league's investigatory arm has for the most part presumed a certain level of competence. The NFL employs a number of former law enforcement agents, and has billions of dollars besides—it's got to be capable of getting any information it so desires, which would make a failure to do so seem willful, right? Well, it's complicated.

Robert Mueller's report is a strange document in a lot of ways, following its own hazy logic into a conclusion that the NFL's best course of action is to mobilize itself into a fascist nation-state. But by a funny quirk of bureaucracy, the series of events that precipitated the NFL's apparent need for its own secret police all run through one man—a private investigator in New Jersey named James Buckley—and his laudably American tendency to half-ass all of his work. The real story behind the NFL's investigation, as it's told in the report, is of one man unwittingly putting the brakes on the league's super-judiciary power creep.

The story is almost too good to be real—so good as to make you stop to wonder how it can possibly be true given the stories about how ridiculously hands-on Roger Goodell is. (This is a man whose executives are too scared to eat a fucking slice of pizza without him having grabbed one first.) As we walk through Mueller's fact-finding, the most striking thing about the report is what's not here. In the entire 96-page report, in which Mueller brags openly about his team's access to the email and hard drives of Goodell and NFL head of security Jeff Miller, there isn't a single email or other correspondence from Goodell. He's a totally unaccounted-for actor throughout the investigation, and we're asked to believe that he spent that time anxiously awaiting word from his investigator, who is described to have been, essentially, hitting refresh on his web browser. Read a certain way, the Mueller report is a fascinating look into a fundamental bureaucratic breakdown—or into the darker arts of calculated institutional negligence.

February: NFL alerted to Rice

The first time we meet James Buckley is in February, on the day after the league first learns that Rice had been arrested. Having sent around a link to the InsideHoops.com message board, Jeff Miller, head of NFL security, contacts John Raucci, director of investigation services at the NFL, and Mario Di Fonzo, the security representative assigned to the Ravens' area. They assign the case to Buckley, a 30-year veteran of the Paterson police department who'd also worked with the DEA in New Jersey, and who has done security with the NFL since 1999.

(Throughout this article, emphasis in blockquotes is ours.)

On Monday, February 17, Senior Labor Relations Counsel for the League emailed Raucci, asking, "Did you see the reports of Ray Rice's eventful weekend in Atlantic City?" Raucci responded a few minutes later: "Yes. It is an Internet feeding frenzy. He either punched a female acquaintance or knocked out, with one-single punch to the head, his fiancé. We have [James Buckley] collecting the reports."

Although Di Fonzo had filed the initial SARAX [the league's case management system] report, by February 19, James Buckley—the Security Representative for the New York Giants/New Jersey area—took the lead investigative role. Because the Rice assault had occurred in New Jersey, the League's policy assigned the lead role to Buckley, who had geographic responsibility for that area.

In 1999, the League hired Buckley as the New York Giants Security Representative. Buckley is a licensed private detective in New Jersey and a former police officer in Paterson, New Jersey. After retiring from the Paterson Police Department as the Chief of Detectives, Buckley served as an Advisor to the Special Agent in Charge of the New Jersey Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration. He reported to us that he does not have substantial familiarity with or connection to Atlantic City law-enforcement officials and that in another matter he had difficulty with those officials sharing information.

It's clear from the report's summary that the league's knowledge of the events for the first several days consisted mainly what it read through internet reports, presumably gathered by Buckley here.

On Feb. 19, two days after he was noted to be assigned to the case, Buckley called the Atlantic City Police Department to ask for the arrest report and other details about Rice's case. He was given a flat no on two separate calls, including by records division supervisor Ava Davenport. Here's how she stonewalled him:

When Buckley inquired whether an Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") request would be a proper vehicle for obtaining the materials, Davenport informed him that everything in the police report would be redacted before he received it. Davenport referred him to the Atlantic City Solicitor's Office for further inquiries or information. Buckley called the Atlantic City Solicitor a few days later and left a voicemail message—a message that was not returned.

Buckley did not bother to file the OPRA request to force the issue—we have records showing that he didn't—and would not follow up with the solicitor's office until months later, after all the drama had played out.

Buckley did, however, watch the TMZ video of Rice dragging his fiancé out of the elevator. After a section detailing the process that TMZ went through to determine where the leak came from—because the tape had audio and visibly shook, it was determined to have come from a cell phone, since the elevator cameras were in a fixed position and had no microphone—Mueller then details how Buckley talked about the tape with a confidential source ... who hadn't watched it:

Buckley Communicates With A Confidential Source

After watching the TMZ video, Buckley communicated with a confidential source to obtain further information about the Rice incident. According to Buckley's SARAX report, "[t]o [the source's] knowledge, an altercation between RICE and his fiance initially took place inside an elevator cab at Revel Casino wherein RICE was initially assaulted by his fiance who slapped him in the face and in turn, RICE allegedly struck her (unknown whether a slap or closed fist)." Buckley told us that his confidential source was not a member of ACPD and had no direct access to the in-elevator video and that Buckley has no reason to believe that the source ever saw the in-elevator footage before it became public.

Let's unpack this "confidential source" a little bit. Buckley, having seen the video from TMZ, gets in touch with a confidential source. The source's actual identity isn't quite as interesting as who we can assume it's not. Buckley doesn't have much reason to lie in his official report to the league, so let's assume that it wasn't a member of the ACPD. We know that the tape was almost immediately passed around the Revel's staff, so it likely wasn't someone from the hotel. Nor was it Rice's lawyer, Michael Diamondstein, who would engage with the Revel's general counsel on Feb. 20 when he made his first request for the tape but would have little reason to cooperate with the league's investigation, or Ravens director of security Darren Sanders, who (as we'll see) ran a comically more efficient investigation, and had already requested the video some days prior to its release by TMZ. This leaves who, exactly? And with what possibly relevant information if they had no access to even the exterior tape? Friends of friends from the force, who heard from a guy who heard from a guy? That the version of events washes with what had already been disseminated by multiple outlets hardly clears this up.

Obviously, this wasn't very helpful for the league. The next day, Buckley's boss got back in his ear:

Raucci Asks Buckley For More Details

On February 20, Raucci emailed Buckley, asking, "Is it possible to collect some details and facts regarding the incident? Police Reports—? The public reporting and 'press accounts' are crushing us, and [Miller] needs to brief [Pash]." Buckley responded that, "[a]s per my contact with ACPD[,] we cannot obtain even through OPRA request the investigative report. In addition, this matter is under investigation and nothing is being released."

Technically, this is the information that was given to him, though Buckley never filed the OPRA request to test the waters. But consider the context. Places like the NFL hire ex-cops under the presumption that, in looking into matters precisely like this, they will be able to tap their old buddies on the shoulder and call in a favor or two—get some of the report read back to them over the phone, or have some information "accidentally" forwarded to them. It's a special sort of telling that Buckley wasn't just not getting any of this, but doesn't appear to have even been sniffing it.

But that's less embarrassing than the next step, which ends up explaining how (in this version of events at least), the NFL was the only interested party not to acquire the in-elevator tape:

In response, Raucci stated: "Ok – we were hoping for some 'non-attribution' info to work off of. … I'm figuring the elevator has one CCTV loop and the elevator area (outside of the doors) has another. What I believe the interest is [to] understand the various press accounts: mutual pushing and shoving VS. cold-cocks her and knocks her unconscious. Between us – DV is DV and if the Commissioner is going to come down hard on the guy he should do so; I don't care who started the incident."

Buckley volunteered that he "can contact Revel security to confirm" whether there is an in-elevator camera. Raucci responded by email that same day: "I have never heard of a Casino not having elevator - interior cameras. Separate and apart we have heard from a source, with no attribution, the interior camera shows RR striking his fiancé, more than once, above the shoulders, after she knocked off his hat." Raucci informed us that he did not recall this email and did not himself have a source reporting about the incident. The reference to a source may be to the write-up by Wilson sent to the League on February 16.

Buckley did not, in fact, contact the Revel about the in-elevator video, believing that the Revel would have provided the original video to the police department and retained no copies. Instead, he asked his confidential source to investigate. The confidential source reported that the elevators at the Revel did have cameras inside the elevator cabs.

James! You didn't even call!? Come on, man! Is there a chance that this is an elaborate plant on the part of the NFL to exculpate itself from having seen the tape? Sure, it's possible. But before jumping on that wagon, check out this next paragraph:

Buckley's Investigative Efforts In March Through May

The League's investigation of the Rice incident between March and May consisted of Buckley monitoring developments in the ongoing criminal proceeding against Rice by reviewing public news articles. He did not perform any additional investigative steps, nor was he instructed by the League to seek additional information.

COME ON, THAT'S JUST READING THE INTERNET!!! SHIT! But that's skipping ahead a little bit, and the progress in other camps over the next few weeks is an incredible contrast.

Late February to March: The NFL falls behind

Clearly, the NFL's investigation was not going well. Not only did Buckley seem to be at least a week behind the concurrent investigations being run by the Ravens and Rice's lawyers, but he and Raucci were exchanging emails that contained, in this telling, outright lies (Buckley saying that he would follow up; Raucci that he had a source on the matter).

It would take a week and a half for Buckley to even confirm that the video existed, and he seems to have only bothered to go that far after being prodded by Raucci and Miller. His report included, among other things, a picture of the camera in the elevator—a basic detail that could have been cleared up in the first hours of investigation.

The League Confirms An In-Elevator Camera Exists And Learns Of Additional Rumors

Based on information from his confidential source on February 27, Buckley emailed Raucci and Di Fonzo a photo of a camera in an elevator at the Revel. Buckley explained that"[t]he photo depicts elevator cab camera (s) which are in cabs at revel [sic] casino meaning whatever happened inside the elevator cab between Rice and his fiancé should have been recorded and that casino and [Law-Enforcement Authorities] have reviewed same." Raucci responded: "I agree. [Miller] spoke to someone last week and they so much [as] confirmed your inference. Assuming his source was fully forthcoming, he (source) claimed the interior 'cab' video had not been fully reviewed or processed by local authorities."

Miller told us that he did not have a confidential source that Raucci referenced in the email. Both Miller and Raucci told us that the reference in the email is likely to Miller's meeting the previous week with NJSP officials. Apart from the issue of Miller's source, the email exchange shows that, at least by February 27, the League knew there were in-elevator cameras at the Revel and had reason to believe a video of the Rice incident from inside the elevator existed.

In contrast, Rice's lawyer Diamondstein had filed a subpoena to get the interior video a week earlier, and been denied by the Revel due to a request by the Atlantic County prosecutor. Sanders got a little further for the Ravens, having convinced Lt. Rodney Ruark of the ACPD to describe the contents of the tape to him. His notes, dated Feb. 25:

Shows Ray walking away from Janay from restaurant ahead of her by 30 yards, her following. Both are seen arguing in hallway. Janay appears to spit on Ray and to slap him. Ray pushes her away and walks away. Argue at elevators, Ray appears to spit on her, she elbows him, then spits on him. She walks away and then reappears, slapping at him. She enters elevators first with him behind her. He slaps/punches her, she spits on him and punches at him, he slaps/punches her again causing her to fall striking her head against the wall, going 'unconscious.' He stands over her for a brief moment then tries to drag her off the elevator.

This is an accurate enough account of the video, though Ruark added that he couldn't be sure how drunk Janay actually was, and if that contributed to her falling. According to the report, he didn't inform Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome and John Harbaugh until March 10 or 11, by which time Sanders's description had evolved to get Ozzie's notes reading like this:

"She elbow him starting throwing/Punches after she spit on/him he slap her she sailed/backward – more intoxication/than the hit."

So the Ravens got at least a description of the video, even if this version of the story has them fucking it up once they had it.

Meanwhile, Rice's lawyers spent March continuing to press the Revel for a copy of the tape. The Revel had been asked to withhold it until after Rice's indictment, which came down March 27, and would give him a copy on April 1. Diamondstein would receive a second copy from the official discovery materials, which arrived in early April, meaning that by this point he had acquired the video twice while Buckley still hadn't gotten around to asking for it. He spent the next few months, we're told, reading news items.

May: Rice enters pre-trial intervention program

The next we hear from Buckley, it's May, and Rice's hearing has come and gone. On May 1, Rice pleads not guilty and applies for a PTI program. Here's how Buckley handled it:

The next day, Buckley filed a report in SARAX. Based on a news report, Buckley explained that Rice had pleaded not guilty; that he applied for the PTI program; and that the prosecutors will decide whether Rice is allowed to enter the program. The SARAX report also noted that, "[r]eportedly, the AC Prosecutors Office has more video than what appeared through the media/website but the ACPO would not provide what the video shows."

On May 20, the prosecutor's office approved the PTI terms. Here again is Buckley's official report to the NFL:

The following day, Buckley filed a SARAX report. The report noted that, according to a news report, Rice "received initial approval to enter a court program that could result in dismissal of an assault charge against him." Buckley added that he "will attempt to confirm this information as well as identifying the source and the actual court program mentioned."

A few days later on May 24, Jeff Miller, head of NFL security, emails Raucci to tell him that now that the case is out of court, it should be easier to get information out of the police, even if the ACPD are traditionally unaccommodating. Among other concerns, Miller tells Raucci, "[I]t's important that we establish factually what occurred inside the elevator … [I]f the lead detective would be willing to talk to us, he can hopefully definitively describe whether Rice struck her and if so, how many times in what manner." This sort of account, remember, was provided to the Ravens as early as Feb. 25, and the Revel was cleared by the prosecutor's office to release the video itself to concerned parties on April 2, and the Ravens were aware that Diamondstein had copies.

So with renewed confidence, Raucci tells Buckley to get back on the case:

That same morning, Raucci asked Buckley to reach out to the police detective involved in responding to the Rice incident to ask about the possibility of an interview. Specifically, Raucci asked that Buckley, when he returned from a trip, "please see if the police detective or someone would submit to an interview regarding the circumstances which actually took place in the elevator (ie, behind closed doors)." Buckley responded to Raucci that evening: "Will do, John although I doubt we will get the cooperation but will give it a good try."

More than a week later, on Jun 3, Buckley puts in a call to the Atlantic City solicitor's office to ask about which officers were involved in the case. ("No one called Buckley back.") Buckley takes a few days to decide what to do next, but:

Three days later, Buckley called the Atlantic County Superior Court and spoke with the PTI Director. She advised Buckley that the police reports were confidential, but agreed to provide him with a copy of the indictment and PTI order.

Buckley, maybe thinking he picked up on a wink from the director, decides to file a far broader records request:

Buckley then faxed a records request. The cover letter explained that he wanted "copies of the Indictment and the Pre-trial Intervention (PTI) order as it pertains to … Ray Rice." The records request itself sought the "Arrest report from Atlantic City P.D. regarding Subject's arrest … at Revel Casino for aggravated assault; victim identified as Janay Palmer, Subject's reported fiancee. Disposition of matter and any documentation available regarding a diversion program that Subject may have been admitted into by the Court." That same day, the PTI Director faxed Buckley a copy of the indictment and PTI order

Our man Buckley got mushed, basically.

Afterword

From here, the Mueller report kicks into fast forward, running through the league's June meeting with Rice, the July and September disciplinary actions, and the eventual release of the full video by TMZ. Apart from a message from Miller to Raucci saying, "Wish we could have gotten that in advance," and the NFL's general counsel saying he was pretty sure Goodell only saw the video of Rice dragging Janay out of the elevator, no further emails are produced from this point on.

We don't know what happened to Buckley from here on out. He isn't mentioned in the report any further, and we don't know if he was retained by the NFL for further work on the case. We just know that, in the capacity in which he was asked to operate, his investigation was an abject failure on every level.

Perhaps Buckley is just wildly incompetent, and truly did fuck up the NFL's earnest (and ridiculous) blood frenzy for the facts of the case, necessary so it could best enforce its harsh judgement. But it would take a more prosecutorial investigation on the part of Mueller and his team to say with any certainty if that is really the case, or if Buckley conveniently forgetting the tricks of his trade at these exact moments was in concert with a broader desire not to find anything, or if he really was a moron, but a useful one put on the case by someone who would prefer a moron handle it. In the results column, these all amount to the same thing. But for anyone reading this report finely, trying to divine some motive out of the Kremlin, this was the only question worth considering in the first place.

Image via Getty

The Episcopal bishop who allegedly killed cyclist Thomas Palermo in a hit-and-run last month will be be charged with manslaughter. Heather Cook, the second-highest leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, will also face charges of leaving the scene of a fatal accident, driving under the influence, and causing an accident due to texting while driving.

A warrant has been issued for Cook's arrest, Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced today; if convicted, she faces 10 years in prison for both the manslaughter and leaving the scene charges.

Cook allegedly collided with Palmero on December 27 in Baltimore's Roland Park neighborhood. The bishop reportedly fled the scene only to return 20 minutes later; police said her blood-alcohol level was .22 after the wreck, nearly three times Maryland's limit.

From ABC News:

Moncure Lyon, 65, of Baltimore, said he was just finishing up a bike ride when he came upon Palermo lying in the street in a semi-fetal position, his head on the curb. As other passers-by called 911, Lyon went looking for the car, based on other witnesses' descriptions. He found it about 100 yards away at a light, he said.

"The windshield was completely smashed in, with a hole on the passenger side, and from the damage of the car, there was no doubt in my mind that was the car," he said. "I asked the lady who was driving, 'Are you all right?' Then the light turned green, she said 'Yes,' and she left."

When he returned to the scene, he saw the woman there as well, talking to a police officer.

This isn't the first time Cook's been accused of driving under the influence. In 2010, she was arrested after police found her driving 29 mph in a 50-mph-zone with a shredded front tire on the shoulder of a highway. Police said Cook smelled like booze and had vomit on the front of her shirt; a search of the car turned up wine, a bottle of liquor, two bags of weed, and paraphernalia. Cook was reportedly so intoxicated that she couldn't complete her sobriety test because of concern that she'd injure herself. She later pleaded guilty to drunken driving, and the drug charges were dropped.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Cook's previous DUI conviction was not revealed to the Episcopal Church before she was elected bishop in May. Episcopal officials opened an investigation into Cook last week to see if her accident also violated church law.

Joan Didion, an ever-more popular lifestyle brand, was on Vogue.com this week to celebrate her new collaboration with the French fashion house Céline.

As the Times wrote:

When Vogue, a former employer of the esteemed writer Joan Didion, announced on Tuesday that she was starring in Céline's latest ad campaign, with a photograph featuring her in black shirt, oversize gold pendant and dark sunglasses, the fashion Internet quivered in a way it hasn't at least since Kim Kardashian stripped nude for Paper magazine two months ago.

(Hm. I'm actually not quite sure which woman is better for a contemporary brand, Kim or Joan. Kim does understand the current social landscape better than anyone, and she has Kanye. But Joan has the automobile and cigarette market. Does Joan vape? Would she vape? Joan Didion would be great for vaping's image.)

The Vogue advertorial announcing Joan's "collaboration" with Céline was no less tongue-waggy than the Times'. (Contemporary writing about Joan Didion is always bad.)

Let's talk about Céline for a minute. Let's reflect on Phoebe Philo's artfully honed aesthetic. You know the one, synonymous with an ideal that's at once sensual, austere, controlled, and achingly, achingly cool...

And now let's talk about Céline's just-debuted ad campaign featuring French dancer Marie-Agnes Gillot, model Freya Lawrence, and none other than immortal intellectual-and-otherwise dream girl Joan Didion. Well, did you just feel the collective intake of breath shared by every cool girl you know? Did you feel the pulse-quickening vibrations of every recent college grad and literature fan? Did you sense the earth trembling beneath your feet? Do you have two eyes and a heart?

"Intellectual-and-otherwise dream girl Joan Didion." God, poor Joan! An 80-year-old girl. The coolest of the cool girls. Austere, like a cigarette, but with hair (silver hair). Thinner than a cigarette. Only smokes French cigarettes (the thin ones). Always wearing sunglasses to protect herself from the world. French sunglasses. Céline sunglasses, make you look like you just had cataract surgery, very cool. Price upon request.

This is the first column in a new series called Joan Didion Watch.

Before you ask—and not that you were going to (Why would you, because she's O.K.)—Jennifer Aniston is O.K. SHE'S FINE. I don't see what the big deal is, and Jen definitely doesn't see what the big deal is, not because she sometimes "fails to see things," but because she's good and fine. And if you should happen to read one or several interviews in which Jennifer Aniston sounds not O.K., maybe you need to take a moment and interview yourself about why you're always acting like people aren't O.K. and judging them, when they're telling you they're fine, and they're fine.

That being said, here are some things Jen has said in interviews with InStyle, The New York Times, and other outlets on her Oscar media campaign tour for her buzzy, serious role in the upcoming film Cake to make you go "Hmmm."

"And so what? You go up a size. What's the big deal?"

Jen recently started eating carbohydrates again, which is not a big deal to her. The re-introduction of carbs into her diet does not indicate that anything is "up" with Jen. "I've been allowing myself a lot more in the past few years," including pasta, she told InStyle. "[It] does make it harder to lose those last few pounds. But you have to live. And so what? You go up a size. What's the big deal?"

What's the big deal? Can she live? It's fine.

"I don't find [talking about my divorce] painful"

One of the many things Jennifer Aniston doesn't find painful is talking about her 2005 divorce from Brad Pitt, who is now married to Angelina Jolie. "I don't find it painful," she explained on CBS Sunday Morning.

Furthermore, Jen wishes the best for Brad. Not all the fucking time, of course—sometimes she thinks of other things besides what went wrong there and how well she wishes him—but they're fine. They're O.K. "We've exchanged good wishes and all that sort of stuff to each other, but not a constant thing," she said. "I mean, do you talk to your ex-wife?"

Do you?

"[My fiancé] had no personality but he was very sweet"

In the aforementioned InStyle interview, Jen also told the story of how she met her current fiancé Justin Theroux, to whom she's been engaged for more than two years. He's fine.

"I was on vacation in Kauai with [David Arquette] and [Courteney Cox] and my friend [Mandy Ingber], who's also my yoga teacher..." began Jen. O.K., O.K., blah blah blah, fast forward. "I remember thinking, 'Isn't he hot?' But he was very hidden. As he says, for him, 'It's winter from the waist down no matter what season it is,' so he was wearing black jeans, combat boots, glasses, and a fedora."

Jen says that at the time she met Justin in 2008, she was "soooo single. But it was never [a romantic thing]. I just thought, 'What a lovely guy.' He was funny. But he was actually really quiet. I later came to find out that he was just exhausted because he had been writing nonstop, like a little hamster on a wheel. This was his one night off, and he had no personality, but he was very sweet and very overdressed."

He had no personality, he was very overdressed, he was winter from the waist down, he was a hamster, it was fine.

"It's a rock, I know."

Jen got what some might call a massive diamond ring when Justin finally proposed. 1) She knows 2) She didn't even want it because it's not her style, but 3) It's O.K.

"It's a rock, I know," she told The New York Times. "He rocked it up. It took me a while to get used to it. I'm not a diamond girl. I'm more Indian jewelry and stuff."

I know you didn't ask, but she's more Indian jewelry and stuff, but it's fine.

"[My dead boyfriend] must have sent me Justin"

There has been much speculation as to why Jen and Justin, who became engaged in 2012, have not yet married. Jen told The New York Times that everything about not getting married yet is O.K., because her relationship is part of a cosmic path drawn for her by her ex-boyfriend who died of a brain tumor after she dumped him.

"He was my first love—five years we were together," she said. "He would have been the one. But I was 25, and I was stupid. He must have sent me Justin to make up for it all."

So it's all fine.

"When I'm pregnant and married, I will let you know, [not] Crapass Bullshit Times Weekly"

Yes, it has been roughly 30 months since Justin proposed to Jen, and no, they are not currently married, but that's O.K. When asked by InStyle to write her own tabloid headline about her current romantic situation, she responded, "Oh, that's a tough one. That should be a Justin question. Wait a sec. How's this? 'When I'm pregnant and married, I will let you know.' Not a tabloid publication. Not Bulls—t Times orCrapass Bulls—t Times Weekly. They will not be telling you."

She added, "And by the way, stop stealing my thunder! Let me have the fun of telling that story."

She just wants to have fun. Is that O.K.? Yes, because she's fine!

"I can't go underwater and no one will believe me"

At a screening of Cake this week, Jen revealed to E! News, "I basically have a real fear of going underwater." At times, while filming Cake, Jen had to go underwater. She explained:

I was a kid and I was riding this tricycle around a swimming pool and I drove my tricycle into the swimming pool and I didn't let go and my brother tried to [help me]. So, I can't go underwater and no one will believe me. I honestly can't.

No one will believe her no one will believe her no one will believe her.

It's fine.

[Images via Getty]

After a rash of wildfires burned through Victoria and South Australia this month, poor baby koalas have been getting their paws and their "rumps" singed when hanging out, minding their own business in trees. The only solution: mittens with cartoon koalas on them! Cute!!!

The BBC reports that the koalas, "if they are picked up early enough and treated are able to be released and have normal lives," so that is an enormous relief. But wow, dang they look dapper in those mittens so maybe they can take them home with them once the time comes.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare even has a pattern you can download to sew your own mittens for our koala friends. Intrepid sewers with big hearts, this wicked cute task is for you.

[Image via BBC]

A group of men who are attracted to men are under attack.

Their identities are being decried as "false"; their stories deemed "irresponsible." An online petition to cancel the first television show focused on their lives has been signed 100,000 times. Some consider them dangerous, with the potential to infect lives beyond their own. Hands have been wrung wondering what impressionable kids will make of these deviant lives. The children, won't someone think of the children?

These are the stars of TLC's special My Husband's Not Gay, which airs Sunday at 10 p.m.

This narrative sketch should remind you of the way queer men have been treated by puritanical mainstream culture for decades now. This time, though, that script has been recast: Religious men who are attracted to men but don't identify with gay on one side are the "deviants"; their opposition gay-identified men and organizations, including GLAAD and Truth Wins Out's Evan Hurst. Welcome to 2015, where the queer gets queerer.

The show features three Mormon couples (and one stray single guy) who live in Salt Lake City, Utah. They are part of what one member calls a "tight-knit SSA community"—SSA refers to "same sex attraction." Throughout the show "SSA" is said dozens of times to describe the male subjects; "gay" is not. As one wife, Tera, explains, "Gay to them is a lifestyle choice, and same-sex attraction is just part of who they are."

Though the terms "gay" and "homosexual" are often conflated, the people featured on My Husband's Not Gay are not the first to make the distinction between the cultural and the innate. Plenty of men who sleep with men do not identify as "gay" or "bisexual," in part because of all the baggage they perceive that comes along with identity. This may seem like semantic nitpicking or flat-out denial. Whether such men are deluded or liars or so sexually specific that there's not a simple label for them, well, that's impossible to determine certainly as an objective outsider. But given the frustration I feel when people who know nothing about my sexuality comment on it and attempt to explain it, I am willing to give those people on the fringes of queerness the benefit of the doubt. It's as easy as listening.

I understand why My Husband's Not Gay is challenging to a lot of pro-gay people: We have been conditioned to chant the mantra "it's not a choice." Framing things as such idiot-proofs the argument over gay rights; if we view sexuality as something innate, as a designation bestowed to us upon birth or earlier, then it is morally unacceptable to discriminate and subjugate because of it.

The truth is more nuanced than that. The truth is that it shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not; you have the right to do whatever you want with another consenting body or bodies (within the realm of the law, I suppose, as long as that law doesn't include bigoted bullshit). Within that freedom comes choices. So many choices.

The men of My Husband's Not Gay have chosen not to act on their sexual desires toward men. Instead, most of them have married women to raise families to uphold the teachings of the Mormon church. While all of the married men claim to have active sex lives with their wives, what's fascinating about the show is the constant, open negotiation that these men engage in between their urges and their elected life paths.

There's a scene in which the four guys play basketball and two of them ogle a guy on the opposing team. On the sidelines, they discuss the "danger scale," which allows them to numerically designate how triggered they are by their attraction to another man (1 is "you notice, you look," while 4 is "you're requiring restraint"). When Jeff places the object of his lust at 2.5, Pret tells him, "I'd go higher than that." "That's some danger," Jeff responds. "That's why basketball's been fun," replies Pret.

In another scene, Jeff's wife Tanya discusses scoping out guys with her husband: "If he wants to check out a guy it's fine as long as I get to check him out with him."

So much of what has been written about this show by its detractors is factually incorrect, presumably because they haven't seen it. In his widely circulated change.org petition calling for the cancellation of My Husband's Not Gay, ex-ex-gay Jeff Sanders wrote, "TLC is presenting victims' lives as entertainment, while sending the message that being gay is something that can and ought to be changed, or that you should reject your sexual orientation by marrying someone of the opposite sex."

Instead, My Husband's Not Gay repeatedly sends the message that sexuality cannot be changed, that these guys are merely managing and their methods put them in constant jeopardy. Jeff tells Tanya about an upcoming overnight camping trip with a bunch of guys and she grows apprehensive, vaguely referencing a recent time in which Jeff presumably slipped. We also see him openly flirt with a waiter in front of his wife, Pret, and Pret's wife Megan.

In yet another scene, a straight male friend of the SSAs describes same-attraction as a "problem" during prayer group and is roundly corrected by everyone in the room. Tanya invokes Seinfeld when she says that she doesn't like when people call her husband gay "not that there's anything wrong with that." There is more gay-acceptance expressed on this show than you've been led to believe, and more sophistication regarding sexuality than you probably expect. At one point, Curtis cites studies on the fluid nature of sexuality, which is not something I ever expected to hear a member of the LDS church say in public.

Far from " downright irresponsible," as GLAAD President & CEO Sarah Kate Ellis claimed, My Husband's Not Gay presents its subjects lives as delicately and specifically as possible. It includes ample room for those who disagree with the SSA lifestyle. While out shopping, the guys come upon two out gay guys they know, one of whom underwent the reparative therapy that guys on this show have promoted (though "ex-gay" and "reparative therapy" are never mentioned on the show). Outside the store, the gay guys discuss the folly of the level of sacrifice the SSA guys are attempting.

And indeed, a folly is what it looks like to me, too. I did not find the SSA guys aspirational, just like I don't find the majority of people on reality TV aspirational. I think much of what they do is ridiculous and the show is peppered with winking moments that reveal the underlying absurdity of their situation ("I don't feel like I fit the mold of guys that are attracted to other men by other then my deep and abiding love for Broadway show tunes and my attraction to other males. Those are the things that are kind of gay about me," says the single guy, Tom). We read story after story about the failure of reparative therapy, and if you know anything about sexuality, you know how suppressing it is a setup for failure.

But look, what My Husband's Not Gay presents is an actual phenomenon within American culture, an imperfect way that people negotiate themselves with their religion. We know this occurs, and the show does an adequate job of exploring as many resulting issues as possible in 43 minutes without much detectable editorializing (one exception is the climax that the episode builds to, as you're expected to root for Tom's blind date to accept him and enter a relationship with him). To portray is not to condone.

In Sanders's petition, which if successful would have rendered you unable to watch My Husband's Not Gay, he writes, "The men featured in this show deserve to be shown compassion and acceptance." But it's much easier to do so once we've heard their stories. For Sanders's cause alone, My Husband's Not Gay is essential viewing.

As you may or may not know, Deadspin Editor-in-Chief Tommy Craggs has been kicked upstairs to become Gawker Media's Digital Prophet, and thus is no longer the proprietor of this fine dick-joke emporium. Later today, he will be inducted into the Deadspin Hall of Fame, where he will join every other former Deadspin EIC in blogging immortality. We're just that deluded when it comes to our own accomplishments as a media outlet. I don't even think AJ was on the job for more than two years, and somehow he still got in. The bar is set very low.

Anyway, when you get enshrined, you get your sorry ass roasted. Today, that will be the case with Craggs, a dour old man who still goes by the name Tommy. He will be remembered as the slowest goddamn person in the history of the internet. Frankly, the fact that anything got published at all under his reign is something of a miracle, given that Craggs will kidnap every post and spend eight weeks trying to work the words CRAVEN and SMARM into the copy. We probably have a story about Roger Goodell paying to have someone killed sitting on our drafts page, because Craggs couldn't find enough places to suck off a union leader somewhere.

Craggs is best known for turning down better jobs, hating on Dead John Wooden, re-publishing Inside Sports schlongform pieces from 1981 that get five pageviews, deploying AJ Daulerio's management style (unanswered emails, random notes to go fuck yourself) minus the charm, and being the only person alive who thinks Slate is any good. He officially left his post as EIC at the end of 2014 in order to be fired by Nick Denton a year from now for slowing down EVERY Gawker site with his old-man doddering, and failing to increase traffic network-wide by 38 zillion percent. But that doesn't mean we can't spend this fine day giving him THE BUSINESS. Some quick facts about Craggs:

* He's a self-loathing Asian.

* He hates sports, unless you count collecting Marvin Miller trading cards as sports.

* He throws up once a week, because Craggs was born with a trick esophagus with a separate chamber where food will occasionally get lodged and cause severe acid reflux. When that happens, he has to head over to the bathroom to yak up a piece of chicken covered in throat mucus, and then go about his business.

* He believes "Weird Al" Yankovic is a national treasure.

* He once got in a fight with his girlfriend when he told her that Mariah Carey was better off when she was blowing label executives instead of blowing rappers.

* He rips off oral-sex insults from Good Morning Vietnam.

* He adores Sherlock, karaoke, and "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together."

* When he hired Tim Marchman, he assured me that Marchman was "one of us." He was not wearing a Che Guevara shirt when he said this, but he may as well have been. Fucking dirty liberal shitbag.

So stick around all day. We'll have posts from all of Craggs's co-workers and family and frie—uh, well, his family, at least. It'll be enough internal humor to make this place an honorary SBNation site.

Fuck Craggs.

Sometimes the world wide web functions exactly as designed, funneling information where it's requested, and expediting tasks that would've taken days in another era. Other times, a group of young men that self-describe as sexless wizards swarms your personal blog.

Wizardchan is an offshoot of 4chan, the notorious online hub filled with rape cartoons and photos of people shitting on one another. Wizardchan makes 4chan look like a southern finishing school; it is a complete vacuum of social norms. A typical Wizardchan post looks like this:

Now that we have a New Wizchan, lets not rely on old 4chad memes.

Lets create genuine homegrown Wizard memes made by actual Wizards. We don't need to rely on Pepe and Wojak anymore. They are just normies, angry that their gfs aren't fucking enough.

Artfags get in here

Or this:

Right now I'm in California and I really hate it. The rent costs are incredibly high. When I ask people what they like about Cali they say "muh friends!" or "It's one big partay bra!" Being a wizard I don't care about such things.

This is it. That's the whole thing—young men discussing the particular ecstasy of celibacy and what it's like to avoid human contact. Now imagine you are web designer Helena N., who maintains a personal blog at herrowna.me, and woke up one day earlier this week to discover Wizardchan.org was inexplicably pointing to her own humble website:

There is a strange misunderstanding that wizardchan.org is now redirecting to my blog, heck, not even redirecting, but sort of 'became' my website at herrowna.me. I received a tweet recently about Wizardchan 'replacing' my website and prior to this I had no idea what Wizardchan is about.

[...]

It seems that the webmaster at Wizardchan has been 'pointing' the wrong IP address to their domain and therefore ended up with mine. And they don't seem to know it's happening as well...

[...]

I suppose I am not very welcome in their community considering I am not a male virgin. But, lesson of the story is that, these things happen.

A kind reminder to Wizardchan users that the website has been moved to wizchan.org, as I have been informed by the webmaster.

So if you have landed on my blog, read this and move along for now.

Peace,

Helena.

The internet burps and gurgles like some fetid swamp, and we're best off if we never drink (or even stir) the water. I hope Helena will never have to read a sentence like this one ever again:

@herrowna Wizardchan is a website for male virgins by the way. http://t.co/D5XgxbPzDS is the new domain

— Wizard Chan (@WizchanDotOrg) January 7, 2015

Always remember that there are people like this out there, and that you're never as far from them as you think you are. The sexless spell-casters are always looming.

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid broke his ribs and his face in a mysterious "exercise accident." Now, Harry Reid is speaking out on what the hell happened. We still don't get it.

The Washington Post points us to Reid's radio interview today with KNPR, in which he details the, uh, circumstances of his injuries.

Bands (?).

"Three days a week I have an exercise routine. I do 250 situps, I some yoga-type stuff for a little while and then I've been using for the last three or [so] plus years, these bands. I use one that's the second-strongest you can get, it's dark grey. Anyway, I do those things hundreds of times three days a week. I do different routines. And I was doing almost finished at my new home in Nevada and the band broke and it catapulted me backwards and to one side. I crashed into a series of cabinets we have and fortunately it missed my temple by just a little tiny bit and it hit me in my right eye and it broke a number of bones around my right eye and broke four ribs and a few bruises other places."

"I don't know how many people out there could sit and do 250 sit-ups. Or do the strength and exercise routines I did with those bands hundreds of times, there times a week," Reid later added.

Catapulted—by bands.

I still have no idea what happened to Harry Reid.

[Photo: AP]

Sometimes our enemies present themselves to us plainly from the start, like Helena Erdman, who stomped on my foot backstage during the 9th grade musical before I even had a chance to tell her that I didn't like her hair (which I did not). Other times, they lie in wait, plotting the perfect moment to reveal themselves as haters. John Corbett, the 54-year-old American actor known for his roles on Sex and The City and My Big Fat Greek Wedding, has just revealed himself as a hater.

Of me!

Earlier today, I was preparing a short blog post about John Corbett's recent interview with E! News, in which he suggested that Sex and the City should "come back for a couple of seasons like The Comeback." I had some jokes in the works, like "Aidan, u are so desperate to get back with Carrie," and other great jokes like that one. Prior to posting the blog, while performing my due diligence as a reporter, I checked John Corbett's Twitter feed to see if he'd posted anything relevant lately. It was then I discovered that John Corbett and I will never be friends so long as I live on this Earth:

Blocked. For who knows how long. And why?

I couldn't recall ever having written anything about John Corbett in print or online. However, a Twitter search revealed that I did tweet about him once, on May 13 of last year at 10:42 a.m.:

john corbett is a spokesperson for applebee's

— Allie Jones (@allierileyjones) May 13, 2014

This is a statement of fact for which I will not apologize. John Corbett has also done advertisements for Walgreens. By logging out of my account and refreshing his Twitter page (which, HI JOHN, I can still see this way), I was able to confirm that the majority of his 15 tweets are retweets of other users misspelling the proper noun "Walgreens."

It appears John Corbett has also blocked at least one other journalist who once tweeted something innocuous about his work with brands, which suggests that he did not block me by mistake, and further reveals his vindictive nature.

Perhaps, instead of searching for his name on Twitter and teaching people in a backhanded way how to spell "Walgreens," John Corbett could contribute something positive to this world, but that is advice he won't get from me, because we are not friends. Goodbye, John.

The only other thing I will say is that I am 100% cool with John Corbett's life partner Bo Derek, who hasn't blocked me on Twitter and apparently does not support his rash, unwarranted, and hurtful actions.

[Photo via Getty]

A nasty lake effect snow event is cranking up over western New York this afternoon, threatening to dump several feet of snow on communities from Buffalo to Watertown. Towns south of Buffalo could dig out from three feet of snow from the system, while eastern Lake Ontario could see up to five feet of snow in 36 hours.

Bands of lake effect snow are developing on all five of the Great Lakes this afternoon, but the heaviest snowfall totals are expected to occur across western New York near Buffalo and Watertown. The latest forecast from the National Weather Service shows that up to three feet of snow will fall south of Buffalo (with the city proper seeing eight to ten inches). The snow will be even heavier east of Lake Ontario, where orographic lift will allow for up to five feet of snow to fall across northern Oswego and southern Jefferson Counties.

Lake effect snow is nature's greatest snow machine—as we saw back in November, it can produce unimaginable amounts of snow in an extremely short amount of time. In order for lake effect snow to develop, you need three major ingredients: warm lake water unobstructed by ice cover, very cold air moving over the lake, and a long fetch (wind moving over the water).

Water has a higher heat capacity than air; it takes much longer for the lakes to warm up and cool off than the air above them. As a result, the Great Lakes often stay relatively warm well into the winter months. Even though temperatures have dipped far below freezing (and even far below zero) more than a few times in the past couple of months, this morning's ice cover analysis shows that only 18.7% of the five Great Lakes have ice on them, which is a little above average for January 8 in the past six years. As you can see in the above map, water surface temperatures range from the upper 40s on eastern Lake Ontario to near freezing on Lake Superior.

According to a temperature analysis performed at 2:00 PM EST, air temperatures are downright frigid across the Great Lakes region, with readings in the single digits above the northwestern part of Lake Superior, gradually warming into the upper teens and lower 20s as you cross Lakes Erie and Ontario.

As bitterly cold air passes through the region, the relatively warm water heats up the air directly above the surface of the lake through conduction. This lake-warmed air begins to rise as a result of convection—and if there's enough moisture available—the convection will manifest as heavy snow showers.

The third factor involved in lake effect snow is the fetch, or the length of water over which the wind blows. A long fetch—wind blowing lengthwise across one of the lakes—is conducive to the development of single-band lake effect snow, or one heavy band that can persist for a long time (up to a day or more in the most intense scenarios). A short fetch—wind blowing across the narrow width of the lakes—supports multi-band lake effect snow, or numerous smaller bands that produce modest snow totals over a much larger area.

Thanks to the good folks over at nullschool dot net, we have a great visualization of which way the winds are blowing this afternoon. The orientation of surface winds is providing a short fetch across Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron, a mixed (?) fetch over Lake Erie, and a long fetch over Lake Ontario.

Here's the result:

Folks who live in western Michigan have a widespread, steady snowfall thanks to numerous, small bands feeding ashore from Lake Michigan. Lake Superior also has some multi-banding going on, as does Lake Erie since the winds are not quite lined up with the length of the lake at the moment. Snowfall totals near Lakes Michigan and Superior will be conversational in nature, with just a couple of inches expected along the northern shore of the U.P. and western shore of the mitten.

Now we get to the fun stuff. The wind is lined up perfectly to produce a long fetch over Lake Ontario, and we can see that by looking at the radar site in Montague, New York:

Like a cold, wintry fire hose, the single band coming off Lake Ontario is blasting a narrow corridor between Watertown and Pulaski with snowfall rates of up to three inches per hour. This is where we'll see the heaviest snowfall accumulations by tomorrow night. The band will drift north and south (and probably change orientation a bit as winds shift), and whichever unlucky communities get caught under the band the longest will see snowfall totals of about one child deep.

Once surface winds finally align along the length of Lake Erie, snow should switch from multi-band to one of these single-band events that sets up over or just south of Buffalo, providing the region with two to three feet of snow.

Odds are that if you're reading this and you're not experiencing lake effect snow right now, you can't let your guard down just yet. Even though temperatures are warming up after this week's deep freeze, most people who live in the Ohio Valley, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast have a few shots at seeing frozen precipitation next week. It's too early for details right now, but it could be interesting. Keep an eye on your forecasts this weekend.

[Images: NASA, NWS, GLERL, WeatherBELL, earth.nullschool.net, Intellicast, Gibson Ridge]

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

My reply (slightly edited once Nick unveiled his "let's-do-this-publicly" scheme):

Hey - yeah, dinner was great. David was particularly grateful for Derrence and Ryan's presence, delivering him from dreary politics/journalism talk. So it worked out perfectly. I've mostly given up eating beef so being "forced" to do it was a good combination of satisfaction and fleeting guilt.

Overnight, inter-continental flying sucks so hard. It's so fucking draining. It's probably a by-product of getting older, but I find it so repressive. I sadly do it way more than I'd like: it's the one and only downside to living here.

The question you're asking about tone is a complicated one, and one I've thought a lot about over the last couple years, so you're probably going to get a longer and more complicated answer than you wanted, but you have only yourself to blame:

1) I've actually modulated my tone quite a bit in the past few years. Previously, I would write almost every article & post in that same tone of outrage: mostly because I usually found what I was writing about outrageous. But then I realized that using that tone too often dilutes its impact: if everything is outrageous, then nothing is.

So now I reserve it only for those times when I really think it's necessary to make the point and/or when I would be inauthentic as a writer if I suppressed it (I think both were true for the piece you're referencing). See, for instance, my latest article from yesterday, on criminalizing online speech, which has a much different tone than the one you asked about: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...

2) Despite using it less, I think that tone is sometimes crucial. For one thing, authenticity as a writer is vital: if you feel intense outrage but pretend you don't, your writing will be stifled, fake and weak.

Also, one of the worst journalistic practices is according respect to prominent people and things that simply don't deserve respect. Some things deserve to be disrespected - it's a crucial component of journalism - and speaking about a really corrupt practice or person in respectful tones vest them with a respectability that they don't deserve and which can be quite damaging: like writing about torture or Dick Cheney or the Iraq War (or the new Judy Millers of the world) as though they're within the bounds of reasonableness.

It's ironic that you raise this question now given how effective that Deadspin critique of Vox was (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-t...), which I quoted. What made that so effective and have such impact was the unrestrained tone of the critique. Had he larded up what he was saying with a whole bunch of caveats that diluted the tone ("I say this with the greatest respect for Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias"), or had he been less than clear and hard-hitting in his critique, his key point would have been totally lost: namely, that some Vox writers haven't just made a few errors, but have been a huge fuck-up in an important, fundamental way.

Also, the meanest parts were also his most important: that they have fucked up so much because of the arrogant mindset of entitlement some of them have adopted about who they are and what they are doing (eg Max Fisher, the paragon of condescending journalistic recklessness; he somehow managed simultaneously to spew the most banal ideas of conventional wisdom *and* got huge amounts of it factually wrong). There would be no way to effectively make that vital substantive point with a different tone.

3) It's definitely not the case that I only employ that aggressive argumentative style in writing. In fact, most people say that I'm at my most aggressive and critical in TV and in-person debates when I have an adversary in front me to attack (which is sometimes - maybe usually - the host!).

We all have different parts of our personality. I'm always amused when journalists come to Rio to profile me and end up shocked that I'm not this fire-breathing, abusive prick with horns growing out of my head. It's awesome in one way: I have a very low behavioral bar to clear! But of course I don't conduct myself the same way if I'm writing a polemic v. doing a friendly interview v. having a social dinner v. cooing with David. It'd be unhealthy to be the same way all that time.

That said, if you and I had discussed some political issue about which I feel passionate - if you had started to advocate state censorship or justified indefinite detention or said bigoted things about Muslims - I'd definitely have been polemically aggressive: not rude, but I'd have embraced the conflict of ideas with vigor. That's because I think a clash of ideas is crucial to truth-finding, which is another reason I think that tone can be not just journalistically justifiable but also necessary.

4) I think it's important to acknowledge (and I can't believe I'm telling this to NICK DENTON of all people!) that there is a necessary and even noble entertainment component to journalism and political activism. If you just ignore the imperative to engage people and make them interested in what you're doing, then the whole thing becomes self-indulgent and boring, and therefore inconsequential.

When I began blogging, I did all the things people said you shouldn't do if you want to build a readership: I wrote really, really long and detailed posts with lots of formal argumentative structure (like this email!); I ignored the Controversy of the Day and instead focused relentlessly on a handful of topics; and I avoided things like profanity and informal language. Yet I did attract a really big readership - and quickly.

Part of that was because I was writing about stuff other people weren't writing about, in a way that was different. But a big part was that I was always attentive to the entertainment factor: not being boring. I'd pick fights with big media figures or other bloggers and eagerly pursue the back-and-forth that ensued. People love that stuff.

One shouldn't do that just for the sake of doing it, to attract attention, to be entertaining for its own sake - and I don't think I did. But it's necessary to get people into the door, to listen to what you have to say. It's a tool used to engage people so that your serious journalism isn't just good but - as importantly - "heard."

I did a lot of that with the Snowden stuff: thought a lot about how to make sure people pay attention to it. That, to me, was part of the responsibility of doing the journalism: to engage people and make them want to pay attention. A lot of the drama around what we were doing was crucial in getting people to listen. And that's how I see this issue of tone: if an aggressive, insulting tone helps to keep people interested in the substantive points you're making, then it's justified for that reason, independent of all the substantive arguments above.

These days, I receive emails now and then from long-time readers complaining that I've modulated my tone and my writing is thus not as "interesting." I'm sensitive to that: not because I want to be a circus clown that juggles and does magic tricks to keep people entertained, but because you have to do things to make people want to spend their finite time reading what you've written instead of all the other shit they can be doing on the internet.

5) All this said, I do agree that this kind of tone can be - and often is - way overused in online writing. Part of it is Paavlovian: writers get a more acute response when they use this tone, so they keep doing it in pursuit of the immediate gratification. Part of it is monkey behavior: young journalists see successful writers (like, say, Matt Taibbi) using this tone so they think they should, too - and end up forcing it and copying it without the same skill or nuance that Matt has, and - most important - without the firm footing in expert, fact-driven journalism. Part of it is cultural: I think a lot of online magazines and websites try to establish themselves as edgy, innovative New Media - in contrast to stodgy Old Media - and one cheap and easy way to do this is to have writers spew screaming polemics even when it's often vapid and substance-free.

If someone is using this tone without first doing the much harder work of creating the substance, then it's just worthless or worse. But the tone can be an important spice - flavor - once the substance is established. Often, it is not just important but indispensable.

This afternoon France 2 released video of police storming the kosher supermarket in eastern Paris where Amedy Coulibaly had taken 14 people hostage. The video shows several dozen police firing into the store and tossing flash grenades until Couibaly, who earlier in the week allegedly killed a Paris police officer, runs out. The video pauses before Couibaly is killed, but France 2 reports he was shot 60 times. Seconds later, the video resumes and terrified hostages are seen fleeing the market.

Four hostages were killed and five more were injured during the standoff, which Couibaly reportedly seized as part of a coordinated attack with the two Charlie Hebdo suspects. Two police officers were also injured in the raid. Five hostages escaped unharmed.

[France 2]

Occasionally, against all odds, you'll see an interesting or even enjoyable picture on the Internet. But is it worth sharing, or just another Photoshop job that belongs in the digital trash heap? Check in here and find out if that viral photo deserves an enthusiastic "forward" or a pitiless "delete."

Image via Facebook

FORWARD

Okay, so this image is fake in that U.S. Ambassador to Finland Bruce Oreck doesn't actually have full tattoo sleeves featuring Finnish comic icon Moomin (they're the work of body painter Riina Laine), but real in that dude uploaded this bonkers Christmas card to Facebook yesterday.

The former body builder, Mr. Clean doppelganger and son of vacuum tycoon David Oreck has a history of releasing "controversial" holiday cards, including these demented works of art from 2012 and 2013:

Some (dopes) have criticized the images for "embarrassing the United States," but if there's a truer representation of American power than a hugely buff guy in a suit posing for homoerotic photos, I haven't seen it.

Images via Facebook

DELETE

Did Barack Obama, the tragically normcore President of the United States, wear an "I Can't Breathe" shirt to this week's swearing-in ceremonies for the House and Senate? Nope, but around 60,000 Facebook users seem to think he did thanks to this fake news story from satire site The Daily Currant and the manipulated photo that ran with it.

As his schedule shows, Obama was too busy doing real-life POTUS stuff like meeting with the President of Mexico to pose for blatantly fake-looking photos.

Image via Twitter

DELETE

Similarly, this viral, racially-charged photo is also a fake, also originating from a quasi-satire site, in this case "daily satirical news source" Naha Daily.

On Sunday, the site ran a story titled "Fox News Airs Stuart Scott R.I.P. Tribute with Picture of Stephen A. Smith," the hi-larious premise being that both men are black sportscasters and Fox has a history of fucking things like this up.

Unfortunately, thousands failed to see the non-existent joke and shared the article as legitimate. Fox's actual graphic following Scott's death was, as one might expect, a bit more professional than the MS Paint-quality mockup seen above:

Images via Twitter/Fox News

DELETE

In the wake of Wednesday's deadly shooting at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, many saw cartoons as an especially fitting tribute to the satirists who lost their lives and soon media outlets were compiling reactions from around the world.

But in the rush to collect them all, some bullshit was tracked inside, including the attribution of the above image to Banksy. Actually drawn by London illustrator Lucille Clerc, reporters apparently fell for various Banksy "parody" accounts on Instagram and Twitter that shared the comic.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the artist told The Independent, "We can confirm this is not by Banksy."

Image via Twitter

FORWARD

Although it may look like misleading internet glurge, this improbably cute-sad picture of an injured koala is absolutely real, released Thursday by Australian Marine Wildlife Research & Rescue Organisation.

One of many animals hurt in the recent Sampson Flat bushfire, the koala called Jeremy is shown here "receiving much needed treatment on all four burnt paws."

Some versions of the image are accompanied by pleas from the International Fund for Animal Welfare for tiny mittens to protect burnt koala paws, but on Friday afternoon the IFAW announced it had all the "high-koality home-sewn mittens" it needed in a pun-filled Facebook post.

Image via Twitter

Uh, yeah—what did you think Paris Hilton was going to name her tiny new dog? Stella? Yeah right. Bailey? Give me a break. Coco? No. Bella? Fat chance. Katie? Nope! Molly? Keep dreaming.

Rosie? By no means. Gracie? Hah. Lady? You've got to be kidding me. Lucy? Never. Ellie? When pigs fly—maybe. Chloe? Heck no. Priscilla? You're crazy. Kate? Nein. Lola? Not at all. Isabelle? Don't make me laugh.

Maggie? NOOOOOOOO. Roxy? Negative, my friend. Kelly? I wish! Penny? When hell freezes over maybe Paris will name her dog Penny. Lizzy? LOL. Buttons? Nah-uh. Basil? No siree!

Princess Paris Jr.? Nooo—wait, yes! From the Daily Mail:

"I love her. Her name's Princess Paris Jr."

The blonde calls herself Princess Paris, so the furry friend is clearly meant to follow in her footsteps.

Ah, of course. Excellent work, Princess Paris Sr.

[image via Instagram]

Deadspin Meet The Dunce Ex-Cop Who Fucked Up The NFL's Ray Rice Investigation | Gizmodo The Bad Dumb World of "Lady-Tech" | io9 Why Did Japanese People Stop Performing Seppuku? | Jalopnik Video: Semi Truck Carrying 40,000Lbs Of Fireworks Explodes In Pileup | Kinja Popular Posts

An ambitious teenage go-getter spotted a bikini photo of his friend's hot mom on Twitter Wednesday and immediately decided she was a total MILR (a mom he would like to respect). With his heart full of pure intentions, he made a wager with his friend: If he managed to get 500,000 retweets, he'd be allowed to take her mom to prom and respect the heck out of her.

Young Anthony "Tone" Pinnisi would like to make sure that the lying news media comparing him to Stifler—are high schoolers even old enough for that reference?—doesn't twist the story to imply that he joked about taking Chloe Albrite's mom to prom because he's horny. He, a teenage boy, is pretty unsure where they got the idea that Mrs. Albrite is an M he would L to F:

Why am i being labled as perverted and horny like nothing about that tweet was perverted or horny i have respect for her mom

— TONE (@AnthonyJPinnisi) January 8, 2015

That's a respect boner, twisted news media. Get it right!

Pinnisi's tweet hit 80,000 retweets before the school district decided that if he's going to politely, non-hornily respect anyone's mom, he'll have to do it outside of a school sponsored event. In what's surely a grievous blow to the status of women everywhere, they ordered him to take it down.

Chloe Albrite confirmed the whole thing was a joke, but Tone's retweets of other high school bros calling him a hero suggest he probably would have gone through with it anyway. Mrs. Albrite, on the other hand, would not have.

"She wouldn't have agreed to go to prom with him, married mothers don't go to prom with teenage boys. She was flattered though," Chloe told MTV.

Chloe also denied the stunt was a roundabout way of asking her to prom, saying she and Tone are just friends.

Godspeed, young Anthony. Enjoy the glory days of your youth with friends your own age, and don't worry: You'll respect a woman someday, and I'm sure it will be beautiful and memorable for both of you.

[h/t Daily Mail, Photo: Twitter via Daily Mail]

JUST IN: Mitt Romney tells GOP donors at Manhattan event that he is considering run for White House in 2016, Dow Jones reports.

— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) January 9, 2015