Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1038

Should We Blame Social Media for Graffiti in National Parks?

[image error]It's always disturbing to see vandalism in our national parks, but it's not so clear, as this New York Times story suggests, that social media is exacerbating the problem. The report quotes park personnel who blame the Internet for encouraging vandals. "With social media people take pictures of what they’ve done or what they’ve seen. It’s much more instantaneous," said Lorna Lange, the spokeswoman for Joshua Tree — where vandalism has "escalated this year into wholesale vandalism of archaeological sites and remote vistas," including that oatmeal cookie drawing pictured at right. That mimics an official statement by the park given to CNN in April. "While this started as a few markings, social media posts appear to have sparked numerous individuals' interest in adding to the vandalism of this scenic canyon." But, reading through the various media reports on this horrible assault on nature, it's unclear how much we can really blame Instagram and Facebook. 

Minus the on-the-record remarks from park officials there's not much evidence to support the claims that the Internet did this. The Times article mentions a vandal putting her vacation pictures on Facebook — but in the context of the police using it to find the violators. That is the only reference to a specific someone posting their dirty doings online. The Los Angeles Times found a "graffiti expert," former San Bernardino police investigator Dwight Waldo, who pushed the Facebook theory. "It's all about the fame. They want worldwide attention," he said. "A lot of these things are posted on Facebook and stuff. These guys have their own pages." (An Internet search for said Facebook pages comes up empty.)

There might be some truth to what they say: if people are Instagramming their brunches and everything else they do, why wouldn't vandals put up photos of their work? But that's not the same thing as saying there is more graffiti because of Instagram. "In the old days,” said Lorna Lange, the spokeswoman for Joshua Tree, “people would paint something on a rock — it wouldn’t be till someone else came along that someone would report it and anybody would know about it," notes Lange. But, as much as that might gall people whose job it is to stop graffiti, having these incidents catalogued on the Internet should help track down the people who decided to deface nature. As with most societal woes, we are to blame — not the Internet. 

       

Stop Worrying: Robert Downey Jr. Will Be Paid Plenty Well for 'Avengers 2'

Following Iron Man 3's huge success, reports emerged of Robert Downey Jr. facing off with Marvel executives in hopes of nailing down his payday for future outings as Tony Stark. Considering that Avengers director Joss Whedon is now saying he won't make Avengers 2 without Downey Jr., it seems like the actor is going to get his cash. 

Speaking to Marlow Stern for The Daily Beast, Whedon said, "I have no intention of making Avengers 2 without him, nor do I think I’ll be called upon to do that. I don’t think it’s in my interest, Marvel’s interest, or his interest, and I think everything will be fine." He went on to admit that in Hollywood you do have to be reading to "the unexpected," but ultimately he seemed pretty confident.

Considering Whedon seems pretty securely locked into the sequel what with his Marvel contract and all and their TV hopes and dreams riding on his shoulders, it seems that Downey Jr. likely isn't going anywhere, either. The actor made around $50 million for the first Avengers movie, which is the third highest grossing film of all time. The question then becomes what happens with the rest of the cast. Nikki Finke reported in early May that there's a wide discrepancy between what some got paid and Downey's large sum. Cast members, she reported, have rallied behind the power-wielding Downey Jr. 

But for now, thanks to Whedon's comments, it looks like all is quite on the Avengers front. Interestingly enough though, Whedon said Downey Jr. was Stark in the way that Sean Connery was Bond—it was meant as a compliment, but obviously Connery was replaced in that role. Read into that what you wish. 

       

This Little Girl Who Gave Herself a Terrible Haircut Is an American Hero

We realize there's only so much time one can spend in a day watching new trailers, viral video clips, and shaky cellphone footage of people arguing on live television. This is why every day The Atlantic Wire highlights the videos that truly earn your five minutes (or less) of attention. Today:

True confession: when I was five, I gave my stuffed animals haircuts. Truer confession: the "stuffed animals" I may be am referring to may have actually been my little brother. Anyways, this girl pulls off the defiant act and the terrible haircut much better than any toddler who came before her: 

Apparently the one of the only things that's amazing about The Bachelorette is the amount of times the people on that reality show use the word "amazing": 

And here is the only doggy death that we can fully support (stop worrying: no dog actually died to make this video): 

Finally, most of us debate non-stop about the chicken or the egg (eggs definitely came first science says). Only a few of us imagine what it's like for a pig who has to choose between his chicken or his eggs, and for those people we are very thankful: 

       

Goobye 'Borgias'

Today in showbiz news: Showtime is ceasing its relationship with the papacy, a beloved (?) character leaves Shameless, and Django bombs in China.

Showtime and show creator Neil Jordan have decided to end The Borgias after three seasons, so the June 16 season finale will actually be the series finale. Apparently when they were filming a big scene for the finale episode, series star Jeremy Irons said he felt like it was an ending and Jordan agreed, even though he'd planned to do a fourth season. So he told Showtime that he could end things with a movie, but they deemed that too expensive, so everyone decided to just end things here. Jordan says he's happy with how it all wraps up, though the movie ending would have been better and more concrete, with the bad pope (played by Irons) dying and burning in hell. I'm not sure how literal Jordan's being about that "burning in hell" part, but it would have been pretty great if he really does mean for-real hell. Oh well. I'm sure everyone will find something else to do. Irons has his budding political career. Joanne Whalley has a movie called Monster Butler with Gary Oldman. Holliday Granger's got that Bonnie and Clyde miniseries that she did with Emile Hirsch. And of course François Arnaud is coming over to watch movies and then we'll probably turn in early. So everyone's fine. [Deadline]

In other Showtime news, Justin Chatwin will not return to Shameless for the show's fourth season. I guess Jimmy really is [SPOILER ALERT] dead. Well, OK, apparently Chatwin might return for one or two episodes next season, but they'll probably be flashbacks or something. I think he's gone. Which is sad! But also OK. His storyline had run its course, and Chatwin wasn't the best actor, so it's probably time he shuffles off. And this means Fiona gets a new love interest! Will it be Evan Chambers, I mean Jake McDorman, again? Or will there be another? I oddly can't wait to find out. Who knew I'd come to like Shameless so much? [The Hollywood Reporter]

Conan O'Brien has been tapped by Turner Classic Movies to host a show called Carson on TCM. The show is basically just old clips from Carson's run on The Tonight Show, specifically interviews. Airing every Monday, the show will have O'Brien introducing five old interviews with various celebrities and other people of note. The show premieres on July 1, and will feature an interview with an E.T.-era Drew Barrymore, along with Kirk Douglas, Mary Tyler Moore, George Burns and Neil Simon. So basically Conan is hosting a Tonight Show clip reel. That's gotta be a little bittersweet. I mean, on the one hand, nice to be asked to do the job. But on the other... He'll be talking about The Tonight Show every week. On basic cable. That's got to be a little difficult for him, right? I don't know. Maybe not. It's Carson! Carson's great. It'll be great. It's fine. [Deadline]

Hm. Apparently Django Unchained was a huge bomb in China. The movie originally came out there in April, but was pulled from theaters by the government almost immediately. It was then edited to tone down the violence a bit — one minute of material excised — and then rereleased in the middle of last month. And, well, nobody wanted to see it. It had to compete with Iron Man, which didn't help, and has only grossed $2.5 million so far. Oops! I guess some things don't translate? Or maybe the delay hurt it. It's possible everyone watched bootlegs while it was being tinkered with so when it finally came out, everyone had already seen it. Or they just didn't care. Whatever the reason, Django Unchained did not fare well in China. It did really well everywhere else, though. So it's fine too. Everything's fine. [The Hollywood Reporter]

J.J. Abrams's production company is developing the final script written by Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling before his death. It's called The Stops Along the Way and will be a limited-run TV series (also known by its street name "miniseries"). We don't know what it's about, but I'm sure we can somewhat accurately assume that, given the writer and J.J. Abrams's interest, there's some kind of mystery or sci-fi element to it. Intriguing! Let's just hope it's more Lost season one than season six. [Deadline]

Here's a trailer for the horror movie Insidious 2. Basically Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are having the same ghost/demon problems they were having in the first one, only on a bigger scale. Lots of weird things happen and Patrick Wilson goes down into some sort of demon basement to save his son. OK, sure, fine. Just hurry up and do well so we can get to the third one, Insidious: Spooky-o Drift.

       

MLB Reportedly Preparing to Suspend A-Rod, Others, in Doping Scandal

A report from ESPN late Tuesday indicates that 20 Major League Baseball players, including Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Braun, could end up suspended from the league — for up to 100 games — in what might be some of the biggest doping scandal punishments in professional sports history. The story, focusing on the now-shuttered Biogenesis clinic in South Florida, has been brewing for a while. But it looks like officials could have the break they need to push the investigation forward — and solidify Rodriguez's connection to the clinic. 

The suspensions seem to hinge on the cooperation of Tony Bosch in the MLB's investigation. Bosch founded the clinic at the center of the apparent doping operation, which also got him in trouble with the Florida Department of Health. Bosch reportedly struck a deal this week that would get him talking, though others reported that the deal isn't yet finalized. In any case, it's probably bad news for the players accused of using his services. Here's ESPN with more: 

"One source familiar with the case said the commissioner's office might seek 100-game suspensions for Rodriguez, Braun and other players, the penalty for a second doping offense. The argument, the source said, is the players' connection to Bosch constitutes one offense, and previous statements to MLB officials denying any such connection or the use of PEDs constitute another...Bosch is expected to begin meeting with officials -- and naming names -- within a week. The announcement of suspensions could follow within two weeks."

The clinic's records name both Rodriguez and Braun. As USA Today notes, A-Rod has previously admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs, but not in connection to the South Florida clinic. The league declined to comment to the paper beyond noting that the players are not currently suspended. 

Other players on the list of possible suspensions include Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Melky Cabrera, the Texas Rangers' Nelson Cruz, and former Cy Young Award winner Bartolo Colon, according to USA Today. 

       

Michelle Obama Stares Down Heckler at a Fundraiser

Michelle Obama isn't quite as tolerant of hecklers as her husband is, if a late Tuesday confrontation is any indication. Obama, speaking at a private fundraiser in Northwest Washington, was interrupted by Ellen Sturtz, who wanted the First Lady to get the president to sign an executive order banning LGBT discrimination.

According to a pool report from the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel, Sturtz's interruption began halfway through Obama's 20-minute speech. Obama, interrupted, paused, and proceeded to confront Sturtz face-to-face: 

"One of the things I don't do well is this," replied FLOTUS to loud applause. She left the lectern and moved over to the protester, saying they could "listen to me or you can take the mic, but I'm leaving. You all decide. You have one choice." 

Crowd started shouting that they wanted FLOTUS to stay. 

"You need to go!" said one woman near the protester. 

The protester was then escorted out, shouting "...lesbian looking for federal equality before I die." (First part of the quote was inaudible.) Pool could not get their name before they were taken out. 

According Terkel's interview with Sturtz after the fundraiser, the activist's outburst was impromptu. And, Sturtz added, she was startled by Obama's response: "Basically, I was asked by the first lady to be quiet, and I can't be quiet any longer," Sturtz said, adding, "she obviously thought she was going to make an example of me or something. I wasn't scared at all." The Washington Post had more description from Sturtz of the incident: "She came right down in my face...I was taken aback."

But the protest wasn't completely off-the-cuff. Sturtz said that she attended the fundraiser with the intention of confronting DNC officials after the First Lady's speech, along with other members of GetEqual, a pro-LGBT rights group with a history of publicly confronting the president.

Notably, the confrontation isn't spelled out in the official transcript of the First Lady's speech. Sturtz's interjection is simply written off as "inaudible:" 

And I don’t care what you believe in, we don’t --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)

MRS. OBAMA:  Wait, wait, wait.  One of the things --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.) 

MRS. OBAMA:  One of the things that I don’t do well is this.  (Applause.)  Do you understand?  (Applause.)  One of the things -- now -- 

(Inaudible audience interruption.)

Because the confrontation happened at a private event, there's apparently no video readily available of the whole episode. We'll have to wait and see if one emerges. 

       

The Unconstitutional Abortion Bill That's Advancing Through the House

Republican Representative Trent Franks wanted this May to be the sequel to America's "Newtown moment" on gun control. But instead of pushing for background checks, Franks is trying to pass a nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Even though his pitch — America would be so outraged by the Gosnell trial that they'd support, even demand, legislation similar to his — didn't pan out, the bill itself is still making its way through the House.

Today, the bill (which originally only applied to D.C) was passed along by a House Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Franks in an expanded form — if it were to become law, which seems unlikely, it would now apply nationwide. The bill will move to the full committee, chaired by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, who has a pretty consistent anti-abortion voting record. Franks, in a statement, declared today a personal win:

"I understand the unfortunate reality that today's markup will be surrounded by some degree of controversy. But we, as a nation, find ourselves at a point at which we don't offer unborn children even the most basic protections – even protections we extend to animals and property. The trial of Kermit Gosnell exposed late abortions for what they really are: relocated infanticide...I pray we use this as a 'teachable moment,' in the words of President Obama, and can agree that, at the very least, we are better than dismembering babies who can feel every excruciating moment. I look forward to the bill's moving on the full judiciary committee and to an eventual vote on this necessary, common-sense measure."

Franks's bill is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and is similar to a state law in Franks's home state of Arizona, recently struck down in a federal court. It would ban abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions only if the mother's life is in danger. In other words, later-term abortions for pregnancies resulting from incest, rape, and those that could pose significant (but non-lethal) health threats to the mother would be outlawed. The percentage of abortions affected in the country by the bill would be tiny — just 1.5 percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. So why would anti-abortion activists aim so low? Because the bill, if it became law, and if it survived a constitutional challenge (reminder: those are pretty big "if's"), would change the constitutional standard for determining the legality of abortions. As we explained before, the cut-off point of 20 weeks is based on what's called the fetal pain standard, which relies on a scientifically disputed claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point. That's against the precedent set by the Supreme Court, which has ruled that abortions are legal so long as the fetus isn't "viable," which is usually around 24 weeks. Any law like Franks's would, by going against that precedent, likely see a swift challenge in court, which is exactly what anti-abortion opponents are hoping for.

Today's Constitution and Civil Justice subcommittee markup of the bill ended with a 6-4 vote down party lines. Democrats on the subcommittee, noting that the bill was unconstitutional, also objected to the visual their discussion created: the 10-person subcommittee is entirely made up of men. Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan put it this way, according to the Huffington Posts's report on the markup: "No good has ever come from an all-male committee deciding the law about a woman's body. This is not appropriate."

       

Will the President Stop the ITC's Sales Ban on Some Older Apple Products?

For the first time since the Apple-Samsung patent war began, Apple could face a ban on U.S. sales of some of its products. That's after the ITC ruled today that a handful of older iPhone and iPad models infringe on the rival company's patent. And while it's not a devastating blow to Apple, it is one with limited avenues for appeals: the ITC's decision can only be overruled by the White House or the Federal Circuit. 

The products in question are AT&T models of the iPhone 4 and 3GS, an'd 3G versions of the iPads 1 and 2. While they're not the newest models, at least some of the products still do well for the company. Essentially, Samsung argued that the products infringed on a patent concerning simultaneous transmissions on 3G networks, as Reuters explains, and the ITC agreed. The order, which bans the sales of the products in the U.S. will go into effect in 60 days, unless the President or the Federal Circuit intervenes. 

Some are arguing that Apple actually has a good shot at seeing a White House intervention here. Foss Patents convincingly lays out the case for this, noting that the White House's recently declared War On Patent Trolls would also include provisions that make it harder for the ITC to issue cease and desist orders in patent disputes. Plus, the Associated Press notes, Obama is already on record as being against import bans like these. On the other hand, Apple isn't exactly best friends with the federal government right now. 

Or, the company could just let the products in question fade away. The AP notes that Apple would probably retire the iPhone 4 in a few months anyway, or whenever they introduced the newest version of the device, making the iPhone 4S the oldest model of the phone available for purchase. But that's not how Apple, or Samsung, have previously played things in their international series of patent disputes: the two companies tend to go all the way. So predictably, Apple has already told AllThingsD that they're planning an appeal to the Federal Circuit. 

337-794_notice06042013sgl

 

       

The World May Never See Rob Ford's Crack Video After All

And just like that, one of the most enticing political scandals in quite some time potentially goes up in smoke. Gawker's John Cook just updated the world on the site's crowdfunded efforts to purchase the video of Rob Ford (allegedly!) smoking crack cocaine, and it is not a breakthrough — even if the truth is out there, even if the other team hunting down the tape (besides the cops, and Ford) says the sellers are "running scared right now."

Cook reports he heard from the middle man handing negotiations between Gawker and the video's sellers on Friday, but now it's missing. "It's gone. Leave me alone," was the message relayed to Cook. The Atlantic Wire emailed Cook on Monday to ask how negotiations for the footage were going and Tuesday's update, evidently, is why we didn't receive a response. A full $200,000 "crackstarter" or not, the video was no longer for sale. Dammit. Cook has more info on why, exactly, the first hard video evidence of a major elected official doing drugs while in office has now likely vanished:

According to the intermediary, these two factors—a fear of being identified, and a strong desire from the Somali community to make the whole thing go away—led the owner of the video to go to ground and soured the owner's relationship with the intermediary. I frankly find it difficult to believe that a crack dealer would be more responsive to the desires of his ethnic community than to a $200,000 bounty. But I have heard independently from others familiar with the goings-on in Toronto that leaders in its Somali community have determined who the owner is and brought intense pressure to bear on him and his family. Toronto's "Little Mogadishu" neighborhood is located in the ward Rob Ford represented when he was a city councillor; though he is a conservative and a racist buffoon, I am told he has long-standing connections to Somali power brokers there.

Ford initially offered a carefully worded denial about being addicted to crack cocaine, a week after Gawker broke the scandal wide open. (The Toronto Star also says its staffers have viewed but not obtained the video.) But, three days later, Ford was comfortable enough to claim the video doesn't exist, a postion he's held in many interviews since.

Where the video went, though, is pretty unclear. The police allegedly knew of its existence, and where to find it, a few days after the video leaked. The big problem? So did members of Ford's staff, and some remain employed at Toronto city hall. (Many have quit over the last few weeks.) Cook also points to the leaked details, mostly from the mayor's staff, that led to the media locating the Etobicoke apartment on Dixon Road in Ford's former riding, or district, where the tape was allegedly being held.

So: What now? There are allegedly more copies of the tape, thought to be stashed outside of Toronto city limits for safe keeping, but who controls the access to those tapes is also pretty unclear. For what it's worth, Michael Cooke, the editor of the Star, said this today: 

"We are working towards obtaining it," Cooke said.

"The people who have this video, they're running scared right now. They're worried about deportation. They're worried about being charged criminally. But the video is slowly making its way to daylight, and when that happens, we'll all be better off."

Cook, of course, was probably the scandal lover's best bet for this footage ever surfacing. He was offering $200,000. The Star is not. 

Indeed, earlier on Tuesday, before Cook's video update, various remaining Ford staffers were amazed when the press scrum outside of the mayor's office dwindled into nothingness.

"We're not news anymore!" said Sunny Petrujkic, the mayor's acting press secretary. 

       

The Tear-Gassed Dogs in Turkey Will Break Your Heart

Over the last week, the social media portrait of Turkish protest painted by a single hashtag, #OccupyGezi, has been a violent collage, all streets obscured by clouds of tear gas and pepper spray, and police officers spraying more of it in people's faces at point-blank range. That and the beatings and the politics are making sure this uprising and subsequent human crackdown won't look any better anytime soon. But look closer, and you'll see police spraying down and abusing another kind of accidental protestor: the dogs of Occupy Gezi, the awful suffering of which are now on display for the rest of the world to see.

This confused pup, and the protesters trying to get the tear gas out of its eyes, broke the Internet's heart on Tuesday afternoon: 

Protesters in Turkey helping a dog affected by tear gas. twitter.com/Fascinatingpic…

— Fascinating Pictures (@Fascinatingpics) June 4, 2013

A similar scene (and similar pup getting some treatment) was tweeted out two days earlier:

Two protesters are aiding a stray dog after he was attacked with pepper spray by riot police #occupyGezi twitter.com/Cyberela/statu…

— Cyberella (@Cyberela) June 2, 2013

This pup's owner took preventative measures:

@jono_abrams a dog protesting in Turkey: twitter.com/Cyberela/statu…

— Nathan Abrams (@ndabrams) June 2, 2013

The obvious question: Why are these animals getting facefuls of toxic fumes? Some of them may be stray dogs, which explains why they might be in the middle of a violent protest in the middle of major cities. But these are still just dogs. They have no clue about the disproportionate and violent police response that happened a week ago, nor do they have any political yearning about the green space of Taksim Square.

It looks like the police don't seem to care, if this photo from Twitter user @CoriJane1 — of a dog getting hosed by either way or pepper spray, by a human — is any indication.... (WARNING: these next photos are graphic and show animals being harmed — scroll down until you see red asterisks if you'd like to skip over them.)

 

[image error]

That photo looks like it may belong to this larger set, wherein a photo, purportedly of a dog being kicked by a police officer, is also shown: 

#istanbul killing the dogs and fire them with tear gas bullets !!!!! twitter.com/KhaledAkil/sta…

— Khaled Akil(@KhaledAkil) June 1, 2013

And there's also this image floating around, of a policeman spraying a dog in the face:

Police spraying street dog with pepper spray #occupygezi #dayangeziparkı twitter.com/OnlyFreeThough…

— Turkish Freethinker (@OnlyFreeThought) May 31, 2013

 

* * * *

 

Not unlike some protests during the Arab Spring, it's hard to verify where each of these photos is taking place and who's taken the original photos. And that's been made doubly difficult with the lack of coverage by Turkish media. Other than photos on the major international newswires and international news agencies on the ground, these mysterious, uncredited, uncaptioned images floating around on social media are some of the only ones available for a sense of what's currently going on across the country. This cloudy, smoky image of deserted ruin was the scene in a part of Istanbul on Monday:

[image error]

This is purportedly a group of journalists who now have to wear gas masks to report on the riots:

Turkish journalists wearing gasmasks while working on their laptops. | twitter.com/tparsi/status/… | #OccupyGezi #OccupyTurkey #Resistanbul

— ¤ProletarianDissent¤ (@Anon4justice) June 4, 2013

And this video reportedly shows police attacking protesters in the town of Izmir. (WARNING: this, too, is graphic.)

By no means do sad photos of dogs take away from the brutality human protesters have documented, but they do give us a better idea of just how chaotic things have gotten since the protests began on May 28.