Actor and activist Randy Quaid has uploaded a series of videos of himself having sex with his wife, American director Evi Quaid, which you can watch here, if that's something you want to do. A tipster writes:

Hunting for the now-famous video of Randy Quaid having sex with his wife in a Rupert Murdoch mask, we came across a number of recently posted new videos on Quaid's own Vidme page, including a series of lengthy, explicit, hardcore sex tapes like this one: https://vid.me/ynAd

The rest of the videos are available for anyone to see here on his page: https://vid.me/u/RandyQuaid

Stunned nobody's come across this yet. Hope you run with it. Thanks.

It's like a wormhole to some alternate universe. Can't believe nobody's seen this yet.

While it is true that clicking through the links above will take you to a page filled with previously unseen footage of Evi Quaid performing intimate acts with her heavily bearded husband under the watchful eye of a Rupert Murdoch portrait, while a dog barks loudly and incessantly on the other side of the room, we must take issue with one portion of our tipster's email: it is not at all difficult to believe that nobody's seen this yet.

America's health care system has many problems. One is the fact that it is incredibly difficult to know how much things cost. We asked for prices on health care. Now, we've assembled some for you.

The high cost of health care is one problem. But a separate and more basic problem is our health care system's lack of price transparency. It is hard for the average person in need of health care to know how much that health care will cost. It is hard to comparison shop for medical procedures. The system is opaque. For the non-expert—that is, for most of us—health care prices are little more than a nasty and unhelpful surprise.

We'd like to offer you one small step towards health care price transparency. Below, you will find a graph showing the average cost of 19 different common procedures in each of six large markets across the nation: DC, New York, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Each graph shows how big the variations are on average cost of that procedure in different markets. The price data in these charts was assembled for us by HealthSparq, a company that provides consumers with cost information and reviews that they can use to intelligently shop for health care. Each regional price listed is based on roughly 1,000 data points. The data is about three years old, making it slightly dated but still useful for comparison purposes.

Click on the various procedures listed under the chart. You will see that the cost of some procedures can vary by more than 400% depending on what city you're in.

Perhaps our health care system could use some standardization.

[Data provided by HealthSparq. Chart by Adam Pash; Top illustration by Jim Cooke]

Tairod Nathan Webster Pugh, an Air Force veteran, has been charged by the Justice Department for attempting to travel to Syria and join the ranks of the Islamic State.

Pugh, 47, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Brooklyn yesterday on two charges: attempting to provide material support to terror organization, and obstruction and attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.

The U.S. Air Force veteran allegedly flew to Turkey in January of this year to attempt to cross into Syria, where ISIS has long based their operations; Turkish authorities refused him entry into the country. After being deported back to the United States, ABC News reports, Pugh was arrested by the FBI:

On his laptop, FBI agents discovered that he had been viewing ISIS propaganda online and conducting online searches for such phrases as "borders controlled by Islamic state," "kobani border crossing," and "who controls kobani," according to prosecutors.

In addition, the FBI recovered two of Pugh's backpacks, which allegedly contained two compasses, a solar-powered flashlight, a solar-powered power source, a fatigue jacket and camping clothes.

Pugh also allegedly searched online for the ISIS video "Flames of War," a 55-minute piece of propaganda that even the FBI highlighted late last year when asking "for the public's help identifying individuals who have traveled—or are planning to travel—overseas to engage in combat alongside terrorist organizations."

According to the Department of Justice, Pugh worked on plane engines during his time in the Air Force:

As alleged in the complaint, indictment and other court filings, the defendant served in the Air Force as an avionics instrument system specialist and received training in the installation and maintenance of aircraft engine, navigation and weapons systems. After leaving the Air Force, the defendant worked for a number of companies in the United States and Middle East as an avionics specialist and airplane mechanic. The defendant lived abroad for over a year before his arrest in this case.

He faces a maximum 35 years in prison if convicted. His attorney told CNN that his client intends to plead not guilty.

[Image via AP]

Last night, Don Lemon took to his show, CNN Tonight, to host a discussion of, as he put it, The N-Word. It wasn't the first time he'd done so; nearly two years ago, he devoted an entire special to this topic. Famously, note cards were used, and the question of whether the words "cracker" and "nigger" hold the same weight was posed. Last night was every bit as fun.

That's because last night, Lemon convened a panel to debate the use of the word "nigger" in the aftermath of the University of Oklahoma's historically racist fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon getting caught being racist on video. There to help him work through it were rapper Trinidad James, whose "nigga"-laden song "All Gold Everything" was kind of parroted by SAE house mom Beauton Gilbow; Morehouse professor Marc Lamont Hill; and a conservative white fellow by the name of Ben Ferguson, who, it must be said, is a clown who really had no place in the conversation. Naturally, he stole the show.

Ferguson spent most of his talking time chiding and even yelling at his black co-panelists (and, more broadly, black people) for their use of the word "nigga." The GIF at the top of this post captures what took place right after Ferguson engaged James, saying, "I'll be honest with you. I think you know that we should probably get rid of the n-word, but in reality, I think many rappers are afraid they will lose out on money and sales and street cred if they don't stop using the word."

Ferguson then got to his main beef with the word. No one should be able to say "nigga," he says, because it is divisive, and because it's unfair to white people that blacks can say the word. Soon after, Ferguson accused James of making money off saying "nigga" in his songs, rather than the songs themselves.

"I'm making money off of doing music," a delightfully charismatic James retorted. "I'm making money off of doing music and being creative, sir. I'm not making money just because I use the n-word. Nobody goes to the store and buys albums because it's full of the n-word. No sir."

This was a fascinating moment, not least because in addition to everything else, Ferguson, by ignoring the existence of, say, dramatic context or irony, was completely discounting the idea that hip hop is legitimate in the way that country or folk or house are, or that it has inherent value as an art form. It's 2015! That's some heavy shit!

I can't do justice to how great Ferguson was. Here's a chunk of the interview:

By the time the four men parted, nothing was really solved. No news was broken. There were no breakthroughs. As a segment at a reputable news station, it was disgraceful. But here's what a producer had to say afterward.

Best. Panel. Ever. @donlemon @marclamonthill @benfergusonshow and introducing @TrinidadJamesGG LIVE on @CNNTonight pic.twitter.com/Yz5UaRdKMD

— Melanie Lefkowitz (@Mel415) March 17, 2015

Melanie Lefkowitz was pumped. And Melanie Lefkowitz was right! Because while as news, it was terrible, as television, it was astounding and outstanding, and the most fun I've had watching TV since, well, the last time I watched Don Lemon.

Lemon is perhaps the most hated anchor working in TV right now, and for good reason. America has looked on as this baby-faced 49-year-old, a staunch believer in and purveyor of respectability politics, has suggested that black people can't have nice things because black people sag their pants. A year ago, Lemon pondered if the lost Malaysian Airlines flight 370 had disappeared into a black hole. Last summer, Lemon asked if black people were responsible for Justin Bieber being caught on camera saying the word "nigga." Last November, Lemon asked a one of Bill Cosby's many alleged rape victims why she didn't simply bite the comedian's dick off. Less than a week after that, while covering the protests in Ferguson, Mo., following the killing of unarmed black boy Michael Brown, Lemon said, "Obviously, there's a smell of marijuana," and got in an on-air argument with rapper Talib Kweli. Just after the New Year, Lemon asked an American human rights lawyer if he supports ISIS. Just three weeks ago, I saw Lemon spend a segment with a llama in New York, because this llama looked similar to another llama that was loose earlier that day in Arizona. A llama.

If Don Lemon were in fact a news anchor or any kind of journalist at all, Don Lemon would be among the worst to ever have taken a breath, and if we lived in a good and just world, he would be stepping on his dick out of the public eye, in another profession. He appears clueless; he's consistently unaware of basic facts and broad currents of opinion; and his quest to hear both sides of all issues, even when there is only one side to be heard, leads to things like this interview with a member of the Ku Klux Klan last Thursday. (It, too, made for phenomenal television.)

The thing is, though ... this is what Lemon is here for. He's not a news anchor at all, but a personality masquerading as one, a plant by cynical CNN executives whose purpose is to garner attention rather than enlighten or inform his audience. (Whether he's in on the joke or not is an interesting but ultimately irrelevant question.) Pierre the Celebrity Llama doesn't have the answers I need, the Imperial Kludd doesn't have necessary insight on race relations at this vital time in our country's history, and Ben Ferguson's takes on how black people are oppressing white people by reclaiming a racial slur are the least necessary thing to make air maybe ever, but while all of this makes for cheap, trashy viewing, it is also, most importantly, must-see. You literally have no idea what this dude's gonna do, or who's going to show up, or how these parties will interact. Because of all this, Lemon is among the very best at his job.

American television has become more and more liberal since I was a kid. This may be because, as some will tell you, truth tends to skew to the left; others will tell you that this is symptomatic of a successful Jewish and/or elite plot to monopolize television, or just the inevitable endpoint of the pussification of America. In any case, TV has changed. It used to be a lot more fun. Think of Jerry Springer, or Ricki Lake, or the time Geraldo Rivera had a gang of white supremacists and a black man on stage at the same time, which led to a stage-wide brawl and Rivera himself breaking his nose. This doesn't happen anymore.

Can you imagine watching that live? I mean, can you imagine?

Lemon is a throwback to these days. He's no Anderson Cooper, nor any kind of reporter at all, and he shouldn't be judged as one. He's an entertainer whom many of us watch and hate-watch because we want to bear witness to the incredible train wreck his show can be at any time, or the cast of lunatics he thinks it's a good idea to book at any given point, or what he'll say about black folks. But it's good, and fun, and it's something to get used to, because this sideshow isn't going anywhere. Hateful viewers' money is just as green as that of the few who love him.

[CNN]

According to reports, a rude Qatar Airlines executive forwarded the entire company an image of one of his employees passed-out drunk this weekend.

The security camera screenshot was allegedly sent out by vice president Rossen Dimitrov, who also typed up a smarmy note about the woman, who was apparently based at the company's headquarters in Qatar, where drinking is legal for non-Muslims, but frowned on by many.

The airline reportedly confirmed the email was real and defended the exec's reply-all tactic as making effective use of a teachable moment.

"The email was sent to impress on our cabin crew that, to make their working environment as good as it can be, while still respecting the norms and values of the Qatari society in which we work, everyone has a part to play.

"In Doha, the consumption of alcohol is not permitted for nationals and, although drinking is permitted for foreigners, being seen to be drunk would be considered highly disrespectful - it would have negative implications for both the individual and those associated with them."

The spokesperson added: "In this particular case, the individual concerned was found in a state of incapacity by the entrance of a Qatar Airways staff building.

"The vast majority of our cabin crew would themselves be disappointed at the idea that one of their colleagues should get into this situation, since they share our pride in the reputation of our team, and they would also, as we are, be very concerned about the safety implications for someone in this position."

A spokesperson claims the matter is under investigation.

Contact the author of this post at gabrielle@gawker.com

You know what would be a fun way to spend your Saturday night? Playing hide and seek with a huge group of Dutch people at an IKEA in Amsterdam. IKEA is wicked stressful, and that stress could be alleviated with some childhood revelry among plastic laptops and display couches. IKEA's bosses, however, have to disagree.

The AP reports that after 19,000 people signed up for a fun game of hide and seek at an IKEA store in Amsterdam, and nearly 13,000 signed up for a game in Utrecht, the big guys at IKEA HQ decided to squash the activities. Too dangerous, Martina Smedberg, a spokesperson for the company, said today:

"In general we are happy that our customers are playful and want to have fun together with friends and family," Smedberg said. "But unfortunately this hide and seek phenomenon has reached proportions where we can no longer guarantee the security of those who are playing or our customers and employees."

The company reached out to the event organizers, asking them to "have their hide and seek games somewhere else."

Party at your house, see you there.

[Image via AP]

After roughly a decade of living in nightmarish captivity and being forced to view a man's exposed dick on a weekly basis, residents of one Charlotte, N.C. neighborhood are organizing to rise up against their nude oppressor.

The police have been no help, because a man standing on his own porch naked is not a crime, and whatever dark witchcraft compels his victims to stare angrily at his p-wang instead of looking away and moving on with their lives has yet to be proscribed by local lawmakers.

When the public menace strode once more to the stoop of his sinister, aluminum-sided lair Friday (see photo above) police responded the same way they've responded for the past 10 years.

"Since it is not a criminal incident, it was documented in the 'call for service' but there is no report," a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police spokeswoman told WBTV.

Now the unnamed man's prisoners are taking more drastic steps to end his reign of naked terror, endeavoring to change the local laws that allow him to live as an Always-Nude on his private property.

They've appealed to the Homeowner's Association, hoping they might be more responsive than Charlotte's live-and-let-live cops.

But, while they're waiting for their appeal to be heard, they find themselves unable to look away from the cock and balls in their midst. In fact, things seem to be getting worse: WBTV reports that this week, they "capture[d] pictures and video of the man standing at his door."

Now even when the villain retreats to the privacy of his home, the digital image of his donger will linger on, haunting them eternally.

[h/t Fox News, Photo: WBTV]

According to Baltimore police, three people have been stabbed at Morgan State University. One person, the Associated Press reports, is in serious condition. WBAL is reporting that the stabbing victims are all football players.

The students were attacked, WBAL reports, around 2 p.m. this afternoon outside a campus dining hall; a suspect is apparently in custody.

One student, Sim Dena, told the Baltimore Sun that she saw paramedics "pick up a victim who was bleeding heavily." The stabbing is apparently the second reported near the campus in five days:

On Friday, a male student stabbed his roommate with scissors inside the Rawlings Hall dormitory after an argument over the cleanliness of their room.

And early Saturday morning, an on-campus party that drew 1,200 people had to be broken up after fights broke out, police said. The party, sponsored by the student government and Greek letter organizations, had marked the first on-campus party since a moratorium had been placed on such events a year ago, in part due to a similar incident.

[Image via Morgan State University/Facebook]

Robert Durst is one of the more sympathetic alleged serial killers I've seen interviewed on television. He's not folksily unhinged, like Charles Manson, or flatly terrifying, like Jeffrey Dahmer. He seems like any other New York eccentric. He carries a backpack, wears little sneakers and toddles around New York City, Starbucks Americano in hand. He speaks in a nasal drawl, his voice steady, never rising or falling above a certain pitch (except for some stray whispers).

We can thank Durst's documentarian, the filmmaker Andrew Jarecki, for this portrayal. Jarecki said he was giving Durst "tremendous benefit of the doubt" in making The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst, the HBO documentary whose final episode premiered on Sunday night. Jarecki might be the world's foremost expert on Durst, a New York real estate heir suspected of killing his first wife and two of his best friends. In 2010, Jarecki directed All Good Things, a fictional movie based on Durst's life starring Ryan Gosling as Durst and Kirsten Dunst as his wife. After seeing the movie, Durst phoned Jarecki and asked him if would be interested in interviewing him. Jarecki said yes.

The power dynamic between subject and journalist (for all intents and purposes, Jarecki is a journalist here) is the subject of fertile debate for the modern media industry. By media law, all such discussion must occur in the shadow of The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm's evisceration of Joe McGinniss for his work in writing about the Jeffrey MacDonald case.

MacDonald, a former Green Beret accused of murdering his wife and two young daughters in 1970, wrote to McGinniss, a well-regarded journalist, inviting him to cover his case and pending trial, in the hopes of documenting his innocence. A contract was signed; McGinniss embedded with MacDonald's defense team and, after four years, produced the 900-page bestseller Fatal Vision, which thoroughly and forensically dismantled MacDonald's credibility.

The two men, Malcolm writes in her own book, functioned under the guise of friendship—perhaps even "best" friendship. The story that McGinniss produced as a result of that relationship has been called an "unserious" work of journalism and—in Malcolm's notorious and immortal formulation, "morally indefensible." The New Yorker's Rebecca Mead would go back to Malcolm for the kicker of her own online piece this week, scolding audiences for having partaken in The Jinx.

This received wisdom neatly replaces the story of MacDonald and his brutally murdered family with the story of McGinniss' seeming betrayal of a source's trust. What is that original story?MacDonald, painted by his defense team as a dashing, All-American Princeton-trained doctor, claimed that his wife and two young daughters had been stabbed with an ice pick by four itinerant hippies who scrawled on his headboard in blood "kill the pigs." MacDonald, who was in their home in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina during the attack, escaped with minor wounds.

McGinniss, charmed by Jeffrey MacDonald, said that he had believed him innocent at first. By the end of the trial, when MacDonald was convicted of murder, McGinniss believed him guilty. He decided to write his book as such, but not tell MacDonald. Fatal Vision captures that transformation through a slow burn of revelatory evidence: It is not until late in the book that the reader learns MacDonald was not sleeping and using amphetamine-laced diet pills at the time of his family's death, and that shortly afterward he had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old. (His libido is well-documented throughout.)

Even as he moved toward that conclusion, McGinniss let MacDonald keep confiding in him, exploiting the access of a source who believed that the reporter believed his story. In Malcolm's eyes, this was an act of unscrupulous betrayal. But still, McGinniss wrote a great book: heavily reported, well-researched, expertly detached. So what if he screwed over a murderer?

In The Jinx, it was clear that Andrew Jarecki liked Robert Durst. The filmmaker said as much, in episode six. He and his subject set out to use each other for mutual benefit. Like MacDonald, Durst reached out to his interviewer. Durst would get to tell his side of the story, maybe clear his name, and Jarecki would get to make an interesting movie that would be discussed on Twitter and might be nominated for an award or two.

Early on in The Jinx, Jarecki flat-out asked Durst the pros and cons of agreeing to an interview with him: "The downside of giving an interview is that the interviewer will take what I've said to make me look as bad as possible," Durst said. "The upside is that there will be something out there from me... I will be able to tell [the story] my way."

Through most of the series, Jarecki could barely question his subject. His interview questions, and follow-up questions, were weak, to the point that Durst was almost mocking him in his replies. In the third episode, Jarecki and Durst discussed Jarecki's "disguise" after he is caught stealing a chicken-salad sandwich from a Wegman's in Pennsylvania. Jarecki: "Why were you bald?" Durst: "I was on the lam!" Jarecki: "...and you shaved your eyebrows... that was intentional?" Durst: "Yeah! How do you accidentally shave your eyebrows?"

Jarecki has said that he wasn't convinced of Durst's guilt during the filming of The Jinx (though he has since changed his mind). The first four episodes of the series are of little consequence; besides the interview portions with Durst, the other segments lacked objective. But it is in the fifth episode that the film lost its footing, switching its focus from Durst to the documentary crew, a much less deserving subject.

Suddenly the audience is taken from a riveting story to journalistic amateur hour: How should Jarecki question Durst? The inclusion of the film crew's excited undulations in the final cut of this project is bizarre. The cynicism of Jarecki's team—suddenly on the cusp of a breaking a story, instead of filming a high-production-value profile of an infamous alleged murderer—shined forth, and the importance of their film over human lives took center stage. Jarecki, on the possibility of Durst confessing to the crimes when presented with their newfound evidence: "Now instead of going through 800 levels of the LAPD we have Bob reacting really clean to this huge piece of evidence." And of course, if not for the fluke discovery of the bathroom confession, the filmmakers would have still had nothing, except for the envelope that Durst denied writing.

The pivot toward transparency could be attributed to the post-Malcolm obsession with journalistic process—transparency as restitution for committing the "morally indefensible" act of journalism. But as we all know, and as my colleague Rich Juzwiak has drawn out, this is also where the timeline of The Jinx gets unduly shady, and Jarecki has been less than forthcoming about the order in which events surrounding the admission of evidence to the LAPD and Durst's arrest occurred, as well as in the order in which events occurred in his documentary—scenes that could be timestamped are not, evens that seem to be happening in a linear fashion are not.

Did Jarecki's team obstruct justice to make a better film? In episode six, Jarecki asked his colleagues, "How do we make sure we accomplish our goals?" He answered himself: "Number one, get justice, such as we can get, so we don't want to interfere with anything the police can do." This was a new goal: As he explained to the Times, he went into the Durst interview without a clear objective: "We didn't go into it with any kind of overarching goal," he said. "But we just couldn't predict going in that was going to be the goal of the thing. It went from being more of a movie to being a bit more of a mission when we started to realize how open Bob was being."

It's unsurprising, if disingenuous, to see justice suddenly emphasized as a goal. Jarecki was performing for cameras he knew were running, pleading before the judges, all part of a non-fiction narrative he had complete control over: how he is ultimately perceived. His sin, in the end, is not in deceiving of his source, but even worse: his audience.

Still, Jarecki got the big interview, perhaps the biggest of his career, and then an even larger piece of evidence, and then out of nowhere, a bombshell confession that led him to seemingly solve two decades-long unsolved murders. Jarecki became an actor in his own story. It made for exciting, if strange, television. The plaudits are raining down: he's a genius. But his focus on process only extends so far. Asked by the Times when Durst's apparent confession was caught on tape, Jarecki said: "I think I've got to get back to you with a proper response on that."

What was, exactly, Jarecki's mission? Justice? Closure? Vigilante journalism? Claim to any of those rings false. He should just say it: He wanted to make a really good, not-entirely truthful documentary about a person he's been obsessed with for almost a decade. Did he screw Durst over? Not really. Does he owe Durst everything? Probably. Is The Jinx a work of journalism? Nah.

Things weren't as complicated with Joe McGinniss and Jeffrey MacDonald—both men used each other, and McGinniss came out on top (although MacDonald sued McGinniss for libel and won a hefty settlement after the book's publication). With Durst and Jarecki, it gets quite murky. It's interesting to watch The Jinx not as a true crime caper but as a battle of wills. Jarecki might have had directorial control, but one gets the feeling Durst enjoyed playing him.

[Image via AP]

Elton John carries Dolce & Gabbana bag day after claiming to boycott brand http://t.co/9Tnty2BXPm pic.twitter.com/7IPYdYSXsT

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) March 17, 2015

Yesterday Elton John declared, "I shall never wear Dolce and Gabbana ever again."

Today Elton John got himself photographed carrying a shopping bag with a big Dolce and Gabbana logo slapped across it. What is going on? Was he actually shopping at the becursed store? Or did he, like, dig the bag out from under his sink to throw garbage in? It makes a difference, because if we're not boycotting D&G someone should really stop Martina Navratilova from destroying all those shirts.

Contact the author of this post at gabrielle@gawker.com

What do police officers do when they witness their colleagues abusing citizens or otherwise behaving badly? To what degree is modern law enforcement driven by a focus on generating statistics? Why didn't the cops beat me up when I threw rocks at them as a teen? Do you consider yourself a hero?

This morning, one anonymous police officer—a five-year veteran of the NYPD who now works as a reserve officer in a different city—spent about an hour chatting with Gawker readers, candidly answering the above questions and many more. If you'd rather not scroll through all the comments on the original post, you can read all of our anonymous cop's answers and attendant questions below.

First up, Myrna Minkoff asked about how cops address colleagues who are "becoming dirty" or "being needlessly abusive to citizens."

I understand why cops like to maintain an air of unity and brotherhood and don't talk shit about the bad things some cops do. But out of the public eye, when good cops see one of their coworkers is being needlessly abusive to citizens, becoming dirty, or otherwise just being an asshole, do you ever address it directly?

And if so, how is it usually done? Is it a one-to-one conversation, a chat with the supervisor that he has someone he needs to rein in, an anonymous tip to the brass that someone needs counseling stat?

Our Anonymous cop answered:

Right, so there were guys I worked with that always seemed to brawl with people. A situation I could have handled 9 times out of ten by talking, this guy would start rolling. The way you normally handle that is by telling your Sergeant that you don't want to work with that guy anymore. And you would tell new guys, "Stay away from Smith, he's a little handsy."

That's really how you handle that stuff. Illegal shit there's other ways. [Internal Affairs] has all sorts of ways to tell them things.

After several follow-up questions from RawBean and others—"Do you think that is a sufficient means of deterring future behavior? Are you essentially trying to shame the offending officer by avoiding him or her?"—our Anonymous Cop continued:

Here's the issue. Guy on the street who struck his girlfriend in the face. She has redness and swelling, which means he's getting locked up.

My approach: Talk to both of them. Talk to guy. Explain what's happening. He knows the drill. Tell him that we'll process him quick and he should be able to see the judge in the morning. He says okay, allows me to give his possessions to the girlfriend and he goes to jail.

Other dude's approach: Sees injury to girlfriend. Yells at dude to put his hands behind his back. Guy asks why. Officer grabs dude and attempts to put handcuffs on. They struggle. Dude gets maced or whatever. Dude goes to jail.

So my issue is that there's no policy that forces the officer to talk to people normally. It's a human condition. So what am I supposed to do besides not work with that guy. That's on the Sgt to talk to him or to bring those concerns to a Lieutenant.

The problem is that after probation ends they have more job security, so once they have a certain number of complaints they go on monitoring and get a desk assignment. There could be a lot more counseling, but currently the stigma of seeing someone is that they'll take your gun and if they do that, then you're not a cop anymore.

When NoButWait asked about cops who don't speak out against "the abhorrent behavior" of police officers "that gets popularized in the media," our Anonymous cop addressed the NYPD's much-publicized funeral back-turning.

(He attended at least one of the funerals, but didn't turn his back).

So the issue of speaking out is a good one. However, most cops speak out against corruption or theft or drug sales, crimes that all agree tarnish the badge. In recent situations, we see officers using force or handling situations with less diplomacy than maybe they could have, but those are choices. Cops won't usually stand up to bad choices, because they know that spotlight could be on them soon for a bad choice. Also, most cops aren't allowed to talk to the media. They'll lose their jobs.

And I was at the funeral. I didn't turn my back, but that was my choice and I didn't get hazed. I think most guys wouldn't have done it, if there hadn't been a wave that came down the street. Dumb reason, but that display didn't really reflect the actual cop's thoughts.

CatDogWhisperer asked: Why didn't the cops who arrested me punch me in the stomach? Was it because I'm white?

I was arrested when I was 17 for throwing rocks at police officers that were taking our keg (I missed, they were like 40 yards away). I got away for about an hour before they found me, and they didn't beat me up or harm me in any way aside from tight cuffs. Do you think that this is because I'm white, I was a minor, the fact that they had an hour to calm down, or all of the above. I feel like I honestly deserved at least a punch in the stomach. I was such a little shit.

Anonymous cop answered:

I think that if you live in a town where the cops confiscate kegs of beer, then you're probably not going to have any problems, because your parents will get that cop fired if you don't get released right away or if you have to share a cell with an actual criminal.

If you want the stomach punch, message me off-line.

William-Wilson asked:

What were your thoughts when the officer involved in the death of Eric Garner was not indicted?

Anonymous cop answered:

I was surprised. Not shocked. He used a chokehold, which means he broke department policy but not NYS penal law. There's a huge difference there. I can use a chainsaw to stop someone from hurting me and be legally fine. I'll be fired in a heartbeat, but I'd be criminally safe.

I followed up:

If that's the case, do you think that a cop's relative carte blanche for use of deadly force in these situations is a legal issue that needs addressing, in NYC or elsewhere?

Anonymous cop answered:

Right. This is where it gets grey. I know some people reading this will think that the officer wanted to kill Garner, but I'm sure that's not the case. So if I was fighting for my life and I needed to use a chokehold, I would. Schoolyard rules. I'd bite and poke, etc. I get nervous for creating rules that are absolutes.

I think if the dept said that he used a chokehold, he should have been fired and then the family could have taken all of his stuff, since the city isn't going to defend him anymore.

AughtyNaughts just popped in to say "I hope you die."

Just popped in to say that I don't care at all about anything you have to say and I sincerely hope the politicians you serve cut all your benefits soon or that one of your fellow employees with a TBI from "serving" in Iraq gets super drunk and hits you with a car, killing you or maiming you. You are nothing. You do nothing of worth.

Anonymous cop answered:

Thanks. Tell Mom I'll be home late and to leave dinner in the oven.

Mitts Tagee asked:

Gawker and its commenterait tell me you and your kind provide no public benefit. Is this true?

Anonymous cop answered:

I would respectfully disagree, clearly. I think people don't often see what we do, or when they do, it's on video showing violence.

Computer2 asked:

Did you find your views on the black community changing over time for the worse? I've seen this happen to a friend of mine in the NYPD. Frustration over dealing with the worst of society over 10 years, and the antagonistic relationship between black leaders and the police department, have changed him into a legitimate racist.

Anonymous cop answered:

This is a great question. So you start to see the entire community as made up of the 5-10% of the people you interact with, which its not. Somewhere in my brain, I know that the vast majority of people take their kids to school, go to work, come home and watch the Knicks lose, just like me. But I never meet those people. I only get to meet the same 5-10% and that does affect you. I imagine it would be the same if I was in a latino neighborhood or a rich white one.

OpenIntro asked:

What is the most egregious thing you have seen a fellow officer do while on duty?

Anonymous cop answered:

Probably pull a convertible filled with ladies over and ask for the driver's phone number. She seemed excited about it. Like they were screaming like he was a fake cop at a bachelor party. But again, that was the last time I worked with that guy.

Dave asked: Do you see yourself as a soldier or a servant?

I was a military then civilian cop in the late 80's through the early 2000's. One of the problems I saw was the increasing "militarization" of the police department, long before armored vehicles and machine guns. Even my military law enforcement training taught us that we first and foremost servants with an oath to protect lives and enforce the law, we WORKED for the people we protected. Somewhere around the mid 90's this changed, and the prevailing attitude was one of "warriors" and the enemy was the public. I guess my question is where do you see yourself and your peers on the spectrum of soldiers versus servants?

Anonymous cop answered:

Well, I think the people I serve have stronger firepower than I do, so I don't feel like I'm a soldier, but again the departments I've worked with are large departments. We didn't carry long guns or shotguns. It was two guys in a car and you figured it out. I think it's a dangerous job, but we always were taught that every call you went on involved someone with a gun, because you were bringing one.

I asked:

In New York, I think a lot of us tend to view the NYPD as a monolithic entity instead of a collection of individuals. How often did you find yourself—or did your colleagues find themselves—in disagreement with the "official" positions put forth by police brass or union leadership? How did you personally square with those disagreements?

Anonymous cop answered, touching on unofficial stop-and-frisk quotas:

Oh God. We were always at odds with the brass. The whole stop, question and frisk thing was a fiasco when it went from actual police work (stop that guy because he looks suspicious) to a Sgt telling us that we had to have 5 stops a night because they became numbers and stats to feed the Compstat beast.

And the Union is another issue. The union was good about protecting you when the job wanted to screw you. Some guy once said I stole $100 from him, which I didn't. And when you're being recorded by IAB about that, its nice to have someone with you. Because you are a number to the department and they would happily cut you loose if you endanger them.

AJ Archer-Kane followed up about "the Compstat beast":

About "stats." How much is police work really driven by stats? And how much of it is about "collecting" stats like you said ("stats to feed the Compstat beast")?

Do you think the focus on generating statistics is a negative or a positive in police work?

Anonymous cop answered:

It is by the the worst trend in policing in the last 50 years. It's terrific when you have an out of control crime rate and you need to move resources and hold people accountable. But as the murder rate plummets and crime bottoms out in a city of 8.5 million people, it's like squeezing blood from a stone. There will always be crime. Until Minority Report becomes real or something. And continuing to push stats is ruining departments.

Raw Deal Monty asked:

Have you ever stopped and frisked a dude with a boner, 'cuz awkward.

Anonymous cop answered:

You know that when you're frisking men they will often start yelling "Hey, stop grabbing my cock. This dude is gay!" and the like. It's a tactic because they keep guns in their drawers and think you're going to be embarrassed and stop your frisk.

Never stopped me.

AlbertStanley asked:

Whenever an officer is involved in a controversy, one often hears it's just a few bad apples.

Is it really a question of a "few bad apples" or is the behaviour we're becoming aware of a general trend amongst cops?

Anonymous cop answered:

It depends on the trends. Cops who are criminals are a few bad apples. But to put it in perspective, my NYPD academy class was 1200 officers. One Lieutenant said the department was so big, that we had an "orchard" of misfits and criminals. But it's still a small number of the larger whole.

Gary Sebben asked: What the hell do you do all day?

I'd just like to say, as a latino who passed as white, that the police have never done anything useful for me in my life. I've called 911 to report someone threatening me and waited 40 minutes for a cop to arrive after I finally got the guy to leave me alone. I had a detective hang up on me when I asked him to look for my laptop, stolen from my home while I was in it, using the IP Address I found for him. I *have* seen three police cars show up to harass a bunch of black teenagers and annoy them for have a small bag of weed in their car. I *have* seen police vigorously enforcing sit/lie laws on homeless people. Police do nothing but abuse the poor among us and ignore the rest. There really is no point to your job. You can't even catch murders. Actual gang violence, not teenagers with a little pot, goes completely unpunished. What the hell do you do all day?

Anonymous cop answered, tongue presumably in cheek:

I harass people. I steal laptops and surf the net. I stop the scourge of weed. I keep homeless people moving. After all that? I'm exhausted.

Your friendly pediatrician and Anonymous cop had a back-and-forth about lawsuits:

When it comes to civil judgments for things like excessive force, do you know if your city/county/whatever carries liability insurance or whether these claims are paid directly by tax payers?

So the city/county has funds usually set-aside for lawsuits. Most larger communities are self-insured, so it's not like they'll get dropped by Allstate after too many claims. So this does come out of tax dollars.

So if there was a 100 million dollar claim, it sounds like the city would go bust? I guess that's why punitive damages are capped the way they are for excessive force cases (and not in med mal for example).

Yeah, I mean depending on the city. NYC has a budget of around $75 billion dollars, so it would take a lot of large suits to really bring it to its knees. A place like Ferguson though...

iamcc asked:

is mental health training required of your department and if so, what all does it entail and do you think it's effective?

Anonymous cop answered, possibly misinterpreting the question:

Mental Health training as in how to deal with mentally ill people? So there was a famous case in NYC in the 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_B...

As a result of that, Emergency Services, which is like our SWAT unit but they also handle animals and other stuff, respond to calls of emotionally disturbed people because they have more tools. You rarely end up needing them and you can cancel them once you see that the kid just wants to go to the hospital.

LA has an awesome program that pairs social workers with cops. I wish that program was used everywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angel...

LordBiznez asked about several things, including rape kits:

1.) What's up with not giving a crap about rapes or rape kit testing? Do cops side more with the abusers because they are guys and in an iffy situation, side more with the perp because you don't think he's a perp and you're not going to wreck his life?

2.) How exactly are cops trained about rape? date rape? Is it like one paragraph in training? Do victims come in? Do cops have continuing education? over pizza, I would buy.

3.) Is being a cop more about Respect than Keeping Situations Calm? Because of the cop-on-citizen issues seems to be entirely about some level of respect you think you should have which seems to be way, way higher than what I saw cops caring about when I was a kid. I think they were more apt to settle things than freak out unless they were John Burge of the Sadistic Chicago Cop Hall of Fame.

Also, all of you seem to need massages, would that make the weird ones chill out more? And make the nice ones happy?

Thanks! Happy St. Paddy's day!

Anonymous cop answered:

I want a massage.

As for the rape kits, I'm just a cog in the wheel. Unlike TV, I have only been to the police lab once and I had to speak to a guy through one of those bodega bulletproof windows, so I'm not sure how they do shit there.

You're trained on sexual assaults, but really you don't do the questioning. You figure out what you have and then you call...wait for it...Special Victims and they interview them in more detail. This goes double for acquaintance rape where you're probably reporting after it happened.

It's all about respect. Respect can get the biggest dude to call you sir and offer to help put his handcuffs on. Respect has saved my life.

Wishbone asked:

Do you consider yourself a hero or heroic?

How often do people tell you that you're these things?

Anonymous cop answered:

I'm not a hero. If you can find a cop who is alive who considers himself a hero, then he's a dick and I bet no one likes him. I was there for 9/11, and people LOVED us. It was weird. And it got back to normal a few months later, when you start writing tickets again. But the only heroes that day from our department were the 23 officers that didn't return to roll call.

[Illustration by Jim Cooke]

Contact the author at andy@gawker.com.

It seems like every time you turn around these days, Ryan Reynolds is joking.

This past weekend, Ryan Reynolds posted a photo of himself and his wife Blake Lively photoshopped to look like Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears wearing all-denim outfits on Twitter, as a joke.

The night started exactly as planned. But I take full responsibility for the denim condom. It was a mistake. pic.twitter.com/Uy1hXD34Bb

— Ryan Reynolds (@VancityReynolds) March 15, 2015

Hee haw. My wife (like Borat). Oppa kidding style.

Wouldn't it be funny if..., Ryan thinks to himself daily. The answer is almost always a firm no.

Ryan also joked this weekend that his new baby daughter will "make him pay" if he reveals her name to the media. He told the Associated Press, "That little girl will grow up to be a teenager who will find out that I blurted her name out on national television and probably make me pay for it. She will exact her revenge in searing, psychic pain!"

(The baby's name is James—not a joke.)

The joke part of Reynold's joke is that he can't say his baby's name because he's afraid of her. That's a pretty humorous image: a grown man cowering in fear of a small baby. Hollywood has been mining comedy gold from the notion of burly adult males being intimidated by gurgling infants for years, and the vein still has not run dry. But now let's examine the in-joke logic Reynolds applies to reach this hilarious destination: The premise of Reynolds' joke is that a teen would not only care but, in fact, be upset that her name had been spoken aloud on television by her father over a decade earlier.

??? That doesn't make sense. That's not a funny joke.

Has Ryan Reynolds always been prone to this type of showboat-y "funny" unfunny outburst? Maybe—he starred in National Lampoon's Van Wilder and took to the role like a fish to an ice cold pitcher of beer (hilarious). Perhaps Ryan Reynolds goofed off when he was engaged to Alanis Morissette in the mid-aughts, too, but no one could understand him because his jokes were all in Canadian English. Perhaps he only recently purchased the revised third edition of the Jokelopedia.

Whatever the case, his funnies are getting a lot more air time all of a sudden, which is simultaneously the best and worst thing that could possibly happen to Ryan Reynolds' comedy career.

Just look at all the headlines he's gotten recently:

"Ryan Reynolds Jokes He Wants to Name His Baby Excalibur Anaconda or Bruce Jenner"

In October, Ryan told Us Weekly, "On the plane over here I was trying to think of baby names. I don't want a name that's anything pretentious or, like, Hollywoody. So I'm going with Excalibur Anaconda Reynolds...that's if it's a girl. If it's a boy, Bruce Jenner."

"Ryan Reynolds Jokes He's 'Even Tried Breastfeeding'"

Ryan told People in January that since the birth of his daughter, "I gotta jump in and do all those sorts of things. I mean, I've even tried breastfeeding. It's frustrating for the baby and frankly disturbing for me."

"Ryan Reynolds Jokes About Using Wife Blake Lively As A 'Human Shield' To Protect Infant Daughter"

In February, Ryan told David Letterman, "I used to say to [Blake], 'I would take a bullet for you. I could never love anything as much as I love you.' I would say that to my wife. And the second I looked in that baby's eyes, I knew in that exact moment that if we were ever under attack, I would use my wife as a human shield to protect that baby."

"Ryan Reynolds Jokes His Baby Daughter With Blake Lively Is 'Totally Average'"

During an appearance on Live! With Kelly and Michael in February, Ryan said, "Everyone thinks their baby's a genius. People find it delightfully refreshing when I tell them, 'My baby? Totally average. One hundred percent average.'"

"Ryan Reynolds Jokes His Baby Is 'Allergic To Sleep'"

"Our baby in particular we think is allergic to sleep," Ryan told Jimmy Fallon this month.

Ryan Reynolds, you are a handsome man who's had a lot of luck in life. The Blake Lively Laugh Test is not an accurate gauge of a joke's widespread comedic appeal—if it was, the number one sitcom in America would just be bubbles. Say your baby's name or don't; we already know it.

Stop fucking joking!

Contact the author at allie@gawker.com.

Surfing father Jorge Tirado took his 9-month-old son out for his first little surf recently, filming the adventure for posterity and, more importantly, the internet. Hmm. Should you take your infant surfing?

No.

I don't think so.

"But he's smiling," you're thinking. "I see him smiling, he loves it!" Yeah right. You know what else that baby would "love"? Getting into the poisons you keep underneath the sink—that's why you have to put the thing on the cabinet door that makes it impossible to open for some adults, even.

You know what else your baby would "love"? If you gave him the knife he was grabbing for, and if you let him touch the hot stove. You think your baby's not smiling when he sticks marbles in his nose? Surfing is not for babies. At worst, the baby dies. At best, the baby does not die.

Maybe you take your baby to do a fun baby thing instead, if you want your baby to smile.

And guess what, he's not even smiling most of the time:

Oh yeah, looks like he loves it.

I really wish you wouldn't take your infant surfing.

[h/t NYPost]

Contact the author at kelly.conaboy@gawker.com.

A fifteen-year-old boy died on Thursday while attempting to jump from one roof to another in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, the New York Times reports. The teen was with a group of friends on an adjacent roof when he fell to his death.

The teen, Tyreek Riley, was trying to jump from the roof of one four-story building to another that was about eight feet away when he fell to "a trash-strewn concrete alley below," the Times reports. Police came after a resident of the first building saw somebody lying down below, which he thought was unusual.

Police told the Times that an investigation was underway around the boy's death, and that he did not live in the building. Teens, if you are reading this, please do not jump between roofs of buildings in any city. It is very, very dangerous.

[Image via Shutterstock]

Deadspin Don Lemon Is Great At His Job | Gizmodo What It Will Really Cost to Ditch Cable for à la Carte TV | Jezebel Man Continuously Interrupts Woman During SXSW Panel on Diversity | Kotaku The Man Who Does The Impossible in Super Mario 64 | Kinja Popular Posts

Kristin Cavallari, power user of InfoWars.com and other Monsanto conspiracy trumpeting "health" websites, has identified the final piece of evidence on which she will base her forthcoming book's argument in favor of an organic lifestyle. Except, of course, the evidence was proven wrong many times over before Kristin stumbled across it.

In a now-deleted Instagram post submitted to us by a reader, Kristin decried the toxic effects of genetically modified corn on lab rats. "Working on the health section of my book so I was doing a little GMO research to make sure I was up to date with the recent GMO foods," she wrote. "And I came across this picture. These rats were fed a GMO diet and this is what happened. Please please do not eat GMOs!!!"

GMO? GTFO. LMAO.

Where Kristin found these photos, she didn't say, but the 2012 study often cited in connection with them was retracted a year after it was published. There have been no studies that conclusively prove a GM corn diet causes cancer in rats.

Maybe that's why Kristin deleted the post. Or maybe she got tired of looking at the rats, ew!

This has been 500 Days of Kristin.

[Photo via Getty]

Last Saturday night, a gaggle of fuck-hungry rich folks gathered in a 23rd Street loft to celebrate the New York City debut of Killing Kittens, a soiree where the world's "sexually elite" are free to tug rhythmically at each other's appendages without the distracting presence of uglies. According to a mostly sex-free writeup in the New York Post, at least one high-powered Manhattan couple was present. But who?

The party, hosted by an apparent buddy of Kate Middleton's, has an entry fee of $95 per woman or $295 per couple. Men aren't allowed to arrive solo or interact with women unless they're approached or spoken to first. Attendees must be aged 18 to 50, and are subject to what the Post describes as a "strict vetting system," which includes submitting photos for approval. Everyone wears a mask.

Here's Post reporter Dana Schuster's interaction with the movers and shakers:

One man who looked in his early 30s approached my pal and me.

"I'm a principal at a major hedge fund and my wife is a media magnate. She is 100 times more successful than I am," he volunteered as he inched closer and closer.

I asked why he and his wife of 10 years enjoy going to these parties. "We're fit, we have good bodies and we like sex, and want to share our sex with others," he said.

"But if you're not feeling the chemistry," he said, eyeing my crossed arms, "you don't have to do anything you don't want to do."

Which fit and sex-loving media magnate and hedge fund principal might Schuster have encountered? Argue among yourselves in the comments.

[Photo via Everett Collection/Shutterstock]

Contact the author at andy@gawker.com.

Comedian Kathy Griffin is taking a stand. After a seven-episode stint, she quit E!'s reliably savage roundtable gabfest Fashion Police with a socially conscious flourish, calling herself a feminist whose positive message didn't "fit with the creative direction of the show."

But it may be a bit less selfless than that. A source tells me Griffin's come-to-Jesus moment was a last-minute attempt to save face after realizing she was about to be fired over diva behavior on set.

In a message posted to Twitter on Friday (written with assistance from Lena Dunham, Griffin revealed Monday on The View), Griffin explained her departure was rooted in her ideological conflict with the show's. It read in part:

Listen, I'm no saint – I'm a feminist AND a Gurrrrl who loves an offensive joke or a well-timed barb and you will find plenty in my repertoire. But I do not want to use my comedy to contribute to a culture of unattainable perfectionism and intolerance toward difference. I want to help women, gay kids, people of color and anyone who feels underrepresented to have a voice and a LAUGH. That has been my platform for decades and my body of style does not fit with the creative direction of the show & now it's time to move on.

In the days since posting that, she has made similar comments in her standup, on The View, and to Howard Stern. Even before announcing her departure, she was already making a show of turning over her new leaf. In a Chicago Sun-Times Splash profile that was posted on the internet Thursday, Griffin spoke of a personal evolution:

…There is a chasm of difference between making a joke about Miley Cyrus wearing duct tape over her nipples in public — which I think is totally fair game — and simply looking at a photo of her on a red carpet and saying she is ugly or a bad singer or pathetic or something like that…Look, God knows my — how shall I say? — repertoire over all these years on TV and live touring has used some language I wouldn't use today, but people just aren't into that stuff anymore and I get it. Name-calling and alliteration with no comedic context is simply the lowest hanging fruit.

To hear Griffin tell it, she took the gig replacing Joan Rivers as Fashion Police center star and then realized that it wasn't the job for her (she admitted as much in the aforementioned Stern interview).

But according to a source close to the show who spoke with me on the condition of anonymity, Griffin's gig was "doomed from the start." She alienated her co-panelists, demanded the termination of some of the show's longtime employees, and was otherwise "obstinate"—and her current redemption tour is face-saving attempting, something seemingly corroborated in her email plea for a public showing of support from her celebrity friends over her supposedly brave decision to exit the E! staple ("I am asking for your support via Twitter, etc. IF you are comfortable. I admire you & your work and hope that you can stand by me").

Maybe it was doomed before it even got a chance to start. In her March 1 column in the New York Post titled "Fashion Police a Mess Without Joan Rivers," Rivers's personal friend Cindy Adams predicted the imminent ruin and provided this flashback, which is jaw-droppingly opportunistic even by Hollywood standards:

Kathy Griffin — talented, able — made a grab for the job while Joan lay on life support. I know. I was right there in her hospital room holding my forever friend's hand.

However, Griffin and an E! spokesperson have denied it. Nobody will confirm this, so don't try.

My source confirmed Griffin's maneuvering—"Kathy literally called E! the day after Joan went into a coma and said, 'If she doesn't make it, I'd like the job"—something Adams first reported days after Rivers's death last September, albeit without naming Griffin:

Two different people report that, while Joan was still comatose, another comedienne already pushed for her E-TV Fashion Police show. Nice, right? No business like show business. Replacements begin when a star coughs.

Despite her name not being mentioned, Griffin responded to the allegation days later, telling Larry King that the rumor was "disgusting" and "not true." Furthermore, Griffin claimed, "I would never take Joan's job. Joan and I had a different style."

"Never" arrived on December 1 when Joan Rivers's daughter/Fashion Police executive producer Melissa Rivers announced that Kathy Griffin and stylist/reality star Brad Goreski were joining the lineup. Goreski replaced four-year Fashion Police vet George Kotsiopoulos, which according to my source, was a decision bearing Griffin's influence.

"She had George [Kotsiopoulos] fired because she didn't want the gay guy that had been laughing at Joan's jokes all these years sitting next to her," my source said. "She wanted to bring her own guy in that would laugh at her jokes, and she knew Brad Goreski because they both had shows on Bravo."

Griffin also reportedly had her former friend Tony Tripoli fired from the show, according to a post on Kenneth Walsh's Kenneth in the 212 blog last week that my source confirmed. Tripoli served as a producer on the show starting in 2002, and became the show's head writer in 2010. Walsh writes:

In addition to the hypocrisy of it all, what Kathy also isn't copping to is the fact that her age-old "Mean Girls" vendetta against former best pal Tony Tripoli — who was Rivers' right-hand man and the show's hilarious head writer — led her to get him SHITCANNED the second she joined the fold. (You may recall Tripoli and Dennis Hensley as Griffin's gay BFFs and joke writers she used to hang out with at Chevys Fresh Mex in the Valley on season one of "My Life on the D-List.") With Tripoli ousted, Griffin then reportedly refused to put in any work on the show. While Rivers is said to have had about 20 jokes written and at the ready for every situation, Griffin apparently thought she could waltz in and "wing it" and she simply BOMBED. (It's not about being mean, it's about being funny.)

That was posted last week; on yesterday's episode of The View, Griffin that she diverged from Fashion Police's style by being more "improvisational" in nature as a comic. She told Stern that producers "actually said, 'If you want, you can clean house.' I wasn't looking to put anybody out of work at all."

That's not how people on the show remember it. "Kathy from the start thought it was going to be The Kathy Griffin Show and not a four-person panel," my source—one of many people Griffin pissed off during her brief tenure—said. "Kathy doesn't do teams. She's always been a solo performer and she's not interested in being on a team. So right from the start, she was treating Giuliana [Rancic] and Kelly [Osbourne] like they were her staff."

That treatment, my source says, led to tension.

"Brad was the only one that would speak to her during the tapings," my source said. "By the time they got to [her] second episode, Giuliana, as soon as they got to commercial, she just looked down at her phone. Kelly busied herself or put her hands in her lap and just looked at her shoes. For being such a feminist, it's amazing that the first thing that [Griffin] did was alienate the two women on her team. All of the producers were like, 'How are we supposed to be funny when there's this stench of hostility in the air?'"

The comedy was also lost on critics like the Daily Beast's Tim Teeman who wrote that Griffin's January 12 debut on the show was timid, unfunny, and lacked sharpness. Radar reported that Griffin was upset over the backlash she received, which stemmed in part from her calling Amal Clooney "annoying."

Much louder backlash came after the show's Oscar-themed episode that aired February 23. On it, Giuliana Rancic said that teen Disney star Zendaya's dreadlocks made her look like she smelled like patchouli "or weed." Kelly Osbourne unleashed a string of tweets in response to the comment (and the rumor that it was she who suggested Zendaya smells like marijuana first). Three days after the tweet rant, E! announced that Osbourne was departing the show.

"Kelly was going to be fired because she was tweeting so much during the Zendaya issue and really pouring gasoline on it," says my source. "The network was like, 'We're a team here. You can't be shitting on Giuliana like this when you're on the show.' They called her and told her they were going to end her contract that that there was a monthlong hiatus [coming up] and that they should form an exit strategy. And then she called the press and told them that she quit."

E!'s statement followed a TMZ report that first announced Osbourne had quit. If my source is correct, it means Osbourne's departure set a precedent for E! allowing an employee to save face by appearing to quit a job from which she was about to be fired. Griffin then followed suit, and received a tweet of praise from Osbourne.

"The way [Griffin is] getting out of Fashion Police is genius," says my source. "She heard that there were meetings being held at E!, and put two and two together and realized she was going to be fired. She beat them to the punch and is framing it in this, 'I'm a feminist/gay activist/I would never say anything bad about another woman' sort of idea which is insane, 'cause anyone who's ever seen her standup knows that she's been getting checked for bullying people for 25 years."

On Friday, March 13, TMZ reported similar claims that Griffin's hero moment was pure spin to deflect her imminent firing (the turning point supposedly happened with Griffin was pitched a feature intended to evaluate the sluttiness of celebrities' outfits called "Whore Score"). Thing is, even comments Griffin made on her brand of comedy as recently as Monday's episode of The View don't hold up to scrutiny. On the show, she said, "I wouldn't hold up a picture of Oprah and say, 'She's fat, good night!' I would say, 'Oprah said, "John Travolta's here!!!"' You know, like, it's the behavior…the stuff to play with, and that's really what I do."

Griffin's 2006 standup special Strong Black Woman featured an extended riff on Oprah Winfrey's weight. It's not, "She's fat, good night!" It's, "She's fat, and I'm going to make your night great by providing a dozen jokes about it." It features Griffin's trademark cocktail of affection, derision, and schadenfreude. It's an intricate fat joke, but a fat joke all the same.

But that was almost 10 years ago, right? Griffin claims to have changed her ways as the years have passed, and god knows that just about everyone could be made to look like hypocrites by comparing past words to later, more mature mindsets. Michael Musto reports for Out that at Griffin's Atlantic City show on Saturday, she continued her campaign of social responsibility (or damage control, depending on your perspective). Musto says Griffin told the crowd:

I'm not down on putting down photos of women. I'm 54, a feminist, and it's not what I do. If you want me to make fun of 'Justine' Bieber pissing in a bucket, fine, but I'm not gonna say Selena Gomez is ugly. I'm not gonna look at a picture of Lena Dunham and go, 'She's fat. Good night, everybody'. I'd like to make fun more of celebrities' behavior.

And then minutes later, Griffin told a fat joke:

When discussing the woman from My 600-lb Life, Kathy had to tread carefully because, after all, she just publicly rejected the chance to make fun of women's looks on a TV show. So she sort of took a squeamishly positive approach, admiring the gal for having a skinny boyfriend who'll respond to demands like, "Come clean my folds!"

Some change.

Fashion Police was supposed to return March 30, but E! announced last night that the show was being put on hiatus until September. "We look forward to taking this opportunity to refresh the show before the next awards season," reads part of the network's statement. Before this announcement, my source told me that there's no way E! will cancel the show for good.

"They already have offers out to new talent," said my source. "They have too much invested in it and the name Fashion Police still means something, still has a value, so they have to figure out some way to continue it. It's not like they have five other hit shows that they can put in its time slot."

If you know more about the behind-the-scenes chaos at Fashion Police, I'm all ears: rich@gawker.com.

[Image via Getty]

One thing becomes apparent after the honeymoon of a newly-launched career is over: Your employer—whether it’s a scrappy startup or a massive multi-million dollar company—is not your friend. You are a resource. That means the only one you can trust, really, is you. Here's how to keep a cool head and stay in control of your career.

Sure, there are great jobs and companies out there that truly care about their employees. Those companies are rare, though, and you'll be lucky if you land a job with one of them. It's more likely you'll find a team or a boss that cares about you enough to keep every day from becoming soul-crushing drudgery.

For many of us though, we quickly learn—either through layoffs, bad bosses, or how they handle disputes—that the companies we work for aren't looking out for us. We learn the double standard of giving two weeks notice when we quit, even though the company can lay us off any time they choose with no warning. It sucks, but it's a reminder that you are your best ally.

Human Resources Is Not There to Protect You, They're There to Protect the Company

It's tempting to believe that Human Resources is there to help you. That's not necessarily true. More often than not, HR is responsible for personnel paperwork, benefits, payroll, and—assuming your company cares—employee training and morale. They make sure everyone can focus on work, that pay is competitive enough to attract talent, and that the distractions of employee relationships, bad managers, and other issues go away. Quickly. They will always serve the needs and interests of the company, whether that matches up with your interests or not.

Now, there are probably good people in your HR department willing to help, but finding them can be tough. When you do, you'll likely deal with them on an individual basis, like a counselor or advisor. After all, it's called "Human Resources," and employees are "human capital" for a reason.

We're not saying you should completely distrust HR, but HR should never be your first step if you have a problem. You can't always expect discretion unless it's specifically guaranteed, and your complaint will likely work its way back to the person at the root of it. Instead, try to resolve your differences and issues independently, before asking someone else to get involved. It may be harder, and sometimes not worth it, but learning how to be assertive and handle office issues yourself will serve you well for every subsequent problem that crops up or job you ever have.

Always Keep a Job Offer In Your Back Pocket

Several years ago, at a cliché "motivational event", I listened to a forgettable personality explain how we should stay driven to succeed—you know, the standard "rah rah work harder" kind of stuff. One thing stood out, however: In his time as a manager, he found that employees with another job offer in their pockets were the ones that did the best work. They were the ones most satisfied, most assertive, and happiest at the end of the day. Why? Simple: They felt wanted. They felt like their skills were in demand, that they had options, and that they had control over their careers. He suggested that all of us do the same.

Of course, not every employer is going to like that idea, but frankly, it's none of their business. I've worked for companies where managers would pull you aside to "make sure everything is alright" because HR snitched to them when you updated your resume. Those tactics are designed to make you feel like your current job is the only one you'll ever have or good enough for, and to make you fearful of the job market. Don't fall for it.

Even if you have to take your hunt undercover, research other companies you'd like to work for. Set up interviews and informal coffee talks with people who work there. Connect with them on LinkedIn (yes, people actually use it) and other social networks. Land some offers. Remember, a job offer isn't a contract—you can collect offers like a trick-or-treater on Halloween and never move. The point is to remember that you're marketable, and explore the field. And as a bonus, you’ll build your professional network as a result.

Never Stop Looking for Work, Especially After You Land a New Job

In the same vein, don't use a new job as an excuse to stop looking. A new job means you're at the beginning of a new opportunity, but the company sees you as a recently acquired risk. You've heard the old adage, "last hired, first fired," right? One round of layoffs and that's you. Most new jobs also come with a probationary period. Even if you think everything went well, all it takes is a round of budget cuts to your department or a boss that's tough to please and you're back on the market.

In some ways, being a new hire makes you more vulnerable than someone who's been at the same job for years and have people who rely on them every day. Of course, job security is a pipe dream for most people anyway, so we're all vulnerable—but that just underscores the importance of keeping your ear to the ground all the time, including those bright-eyed first days at a new gig.

Your Professional Network Is More Valuable than You Know

Many people scoff at the idea of a "professional network." It sounds sleazy, but it doesn't have to be. As we've said before, a professional network is nothing artificial, nothing fake—just friends who know each other professionally and try to help each other out when they can. You can see how that would be valuable in a world of layoffs, budget cuts, and "culture fit" firings.

A few months ago, I had lunch with my old CIO, and while I still owe him a few follow-up emails, I happily consider him someone I'd call if I took the "layoff test." In short, if you were laid off today, think of the first ten people you'd call or email to see if they had leads for new work, or advice. If you can't think of ten people, start emailing old coworkers and friends now. Say hello, see what they're up to, and ask them if you can help them with their career moves. You may not have much to offer, but you'd be surprised what a quick check of your own company's job boards or a whisper down the lane from a friend of a friend can mean to someone in a crappy job situation.

That's how you build a professional network. Follow old office friends on social media and congratulate them on their new jobs. Follow their work in your industry. Congratulate them when they have a kid or buy a house. In short, be a good friend. Now, think about how valuable all of that would be to you if you were looking for a way out of a terrible situation. There's no guarantee people would rally to your aid, but the odds are much higher if you're there for your friends too, aren't they?

Know When to Fold 'Em

Sometimes the best advice is to just quit. Seriously—we mention it in just about every career article because it should always be an option. One of the best things you can do at any job is walk in every day knowing they need you more than you need them. If the scale tips in the opposite direction, do something about it or start looking. Don't get stuck in a position where you're never confident you can find new work quickly. Just being in that power position is enough to get you through a lot of the crap we all slog through at any job.

Of course, it's easy to read about someone else's problems and say "just quit." Most of us have bills to pay, so don't be too rash. Be mature and try to work through your problems, but never put up with too much. The door is always over there, and you're free to walk through it and never come back.

Title image made using Piyaphat Detbun and Nemo. Additional images by esenkartall (Shutterstock), Egan Snow, Tim Green, Monkey Business Images (Shutterstock), and Carey Cluro.

New York City's comptroller, Scott Stringer, released details from a study on Wednesday that concluded New Yorkers work the longest workweeks in comparison to 29 other major American cities when our commuting hours are taken into account. The average New Yorker spends over six hours a week commuting. Hell. HELL!

Here, have someone else (the office of Scott Stringer) tell you about this shit:

Comptroller Stringer's study examined microdata from the 1990 and 2000 census and the 2013 American Community Survey to evaluate trends in work and commuting hours. The analysis found that full-time workers in New York City spend slightly more time at work than do workers in the next 29 largest cities, but they also spend about two hours more per week commuting — an average of 6 hours and 18 minutes per week. The combined work and commuting workweeks of New York City workers averages over 49 hours – three to four hours longer than in some other large cities.

Work longer hours. Spend more time on subways and buses. Can't even afford to live here.

The impact that crazy work hours and crazier commutes has on the New York City workforce, unsurprisingly, affects lower-wage workers and mothers the most. As Stringer's press release points out, "While employees in higher paid sectors can afford to live closer to the City's core in areas well-served by mass transit, lower-wage workers increasingly live in neighborhoods outside the city's job core–forcing them to spend more time commuting and less time with family." The lowest number of mothers participate in the New York workforce compared to the 29 other cities studied.

Stringer's study found that the average commute for residents of Los Angeles was about 4 hours 38 minutes a week. What do you do with that extra hour-and-forty-minutes, Angelenos?

What did Stringer conclude from releasing this report? That we all live in hell?

"If New York City is going to symbolize the American Dream, we can't be a nightmare when it comes to long work hours and commuting. Our residents deserve better. We need to give New Yorkers a 21st century transit system and better utilize women's skills so that they don't have to choose between work and family."

Hell.

[Image via AP]