Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 820

Nearly Everything About Chris Christie's Inauguration Is Going Wrong

Associated Press

In the middle of a snowstorm, likely looking out at empty seats, the second term of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie begins with his inauguration on Tuesday afternoon. His message will largely be untempered — we must work together for all New Jerseyans — but it's impossible not to put it in the broader context of Christie's terrible past two weeks.

"One of the lessons that I have learned most acutely over the last four years is that New Jersey can really be one state," Christie is expected to say during his noon-time speech, according to excerpts released to the press. (You can watch it at right.) "We have to be willing to play outside the red and blue boxes the media and pundits put us in; we have to be willing to reach out to others who look or speak differently than us; we have to be willing to personally reach out a helping hand to a neighbor suffering from drug addiction, depression, or the dignity-stripping loss of a job."

Quick translations. The red and blue boxes? He's your guy to win in the November 2016 general election. The "speak differently" line? He's your guy to appeal to Latino voters. The helping hand? Less government aid, more neighbors helping each other.

Solid, center-right verbiage. But it is extremely hard not to subconsciously tack on another condition from which our neighbors might be suffering: being stuck in traffic. The Washington Post says of the speech that "[g]one is the brash talk that Christie has often employed during press conferences and interviews. What’s left is a subdued and filed-down text that celebrates 'listening' and 'compromise.'" Before the revelation earlier this month that a Christie staffer authorized the closure of on-ramps to the George Washington Bridge, backing up traffic into the town of Fort Lee, the governor would have had a tricky time making the case to the rest of the nation that he's a bring-'em-together sort of guy. Now, it's much trickier.

Even his response to Hurricane Sandy, previously unassailable, has become a minefield, with the mayor of Hoboken, Dawn Zimmer, accusing him of holding Sandy relief funds for ransom, and with questions being raised about his appearances in post-Sandy ads. "New Jersey came together as one community when it mattered most," he'll say today, "and now we must stay together." Expect Zimmer to appear on the news offering a rebuttal to that argument.

Christie's weakened political position has made this day, which last November seemed like it would be a coronation that took place along the king's march to the White House, into a politically difficult moment. On Saturday, The New York Times reported that Todd Christie, the governor's brother, was pressing donors for contributions to the inaugural events as recently as last week. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal indicated that there is "less enthusiasm" for tickets to the speech and evening gala on Ellis Island. A planned dinner was cancelled. The Journal quotes a Republican leader in the state: "They are having a hard time filling the spaces. The level of excitement is not there this time around."

And then there's the weather. Snow is already falling in the region, with 8 to 12 inches of snow expected. The Post's Robert Costa quoted a Jersey Republican who called the storm the "perfect excuse" to cancel the evening's inaugural ball. Update: And it's been cancelled.

Christie — in very Christie fashion — will push his way through the day, hoping that the text of his speech serves as the statement of principle he clearly hopes it will, and that all of the day's other problems, legal and not, eventually fade. The very last thing to happen in New Jersey politics before that noon swearing-in, though, is likely to be the announcement of what NBC's Michael Isikoff calls a "Bridgegate super panel" — the combined legislative investigation into what happened in Fort Lee. When it snows, it pours.

       

Chinese Pollution Is Making Its Way to the West Coast, and It's America's Fault

Smoke billows from the chimneys of a heating plant in Jilin, Jilin province January 8, 2014. (REUTERS/STRINGER)

The stifling air pollution you keep reading about in China is actually a byproduct of American outsourcing and now that pollution is drifting across the globe to the Western U.S. At least, that's the claim made by a new study, that the paper's co-authors called a "boomerang" effect. 

In the paper, published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors find that China's export-related pollution contributes up to 12 to 24 percent of daily sulfate levels in the Western United States, making Los Angeles and other Western cities violate national ozone levels for an extra day each year. The study is the first to examine how China's pollution affects the U.S. and how global consumption impacts pollution, according to the New York Times: 

The movement of air pollutants associated with the production of goods in China for the American market has resulted in a decline in air quality in the Western United States, the scientists wrote, though less manufacturing in the United States does mean cleaner air in the American East.

The report's authors, nine scientists from the U.S., U.K., and China, write that about one-fifth of Chinese pollution results from manufacture for export. The researchers considered data from 2006 in making their conclusions, and found that though moving manufacturing production to China yielded a net gain in terms of U.S. air pollution, it decreased the quality of Western air — not to mention China's. The Los Angeles Times reports: 

Scientists followed the path of air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides carbon monoxide and black carbon, through the atmosphere to gauge their effects on air quality in the United States. While the United States has reaped some of the benefits of outsourcing — cheaper cellphones, televisions and appliances and big declines in air pollution — rising emissions in China have paralyzed cities there with severe smog.

CNN notes that roughly 21 percent of export-related emissions from China come from goods sent to the U.S. The emissions include anthropogenic sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxides and black carbon, which is linked to lung cancer, emphysema, and heart and lung disease. China saw a manufacturing boom from the early 2000s, but their production is generally less efficient than America's, and subject to less stringent safety standards. 

In China, air pollution has become a huge safety concern. Chinese residents have been instructed to stay indoors on heavy smog days, and major cities are trying to curb pollution by introducing reforms. U.S. smog levels, on the other hand, are so far changing only slightly. According to the researchers, most LA pollution is caused locally. 

The report authors hope that their findings will shine a light on shared responsibility for air quality. “We need to move beyond placing blame for who’s creating these emissions and realize that we all have a common interest in reducing the pollution,” UC Irvine's Steve Davis said. 

       

Just How Debauched IS Justin Bieber These Days?

REUTERS

Today in celebrity gossip: Very scandalous yet very contradictory reports about Justin Bieber abound, Ben Affleck would like you to know about his largesse, and Victoria Beckham swears off any further Spice Girls reunions.

Does reality exist? What even is truth? How can we possibly hope to live fact-based lives when the universe's very veracity slips through our fingers like melted ice cream cake at a toddler's birthday party? Point being: There are no facts anymore, only theories, and that's especially true when it comes to celebrated figure of mystery Justin Bieber. For instance, it's recently come to everybody's attention that Justin Bieber is either (1) a hateful, abusive drug addict or (2) he's not. Just depends on when and where you're getting your online celeb gossip lately. But rather than attempt to sort through which sites are telling the truth about Justin Bieber's alleged debaucheries and which are spreading falsehoods to a contemptible extent suggesting that maybe the whole gossip industry is better off being burned to the ground, let's try and see these issues from all sides!

First of all: THE DRUGS. According to Page Six and TMZ, that recent raid of Bieber's home (hastened by his egg-throwing escapade) produced a "treasure trove of drugs" including marijuana, bongs, and codeine, the latter ingredient associated with something called sizzurp, a mixture of candy, soda, and pharmaceutical-grade narcotics that "can trigger seizures, and even worse." Sounds serious, right? And just look at that photo TMZ obtained that is alleged to show Bieber's brain-frying tableau. Unfortunately, all these stories are directly contradicted by a recent E! Online report from the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department that "authorities did not see any codeine bottles, containers of drugs or weed throughout the mansion." Except, of course, for the drugs in roommate Lil Za's room which got him arrested. None of the other stuff, though. So, that seems pretty official to me? Sheriff says there were no drugs. I wonder why so many gossip sites were quick to pin false drug discoveries on a widely derided bratty pop star? They're going to be so embarrassed for having reported misinformation to all those millions of visitors. Oh. Nevermind. [Page Six, E! Online, TMZ]

Second of all: THE SEX. Well, the sexts. Another J-Biebs story making the rounds lately is that in the same aforementioned raid, authorities confiscated a cell phone belonging to Bieber that is alleged to contain "X-rated nude photos" and fraught, hateful text messages sent to Selena Gomez who pleads with Bieber to "go to rehab!" You'll have to click through to Radar to see the (censored) iMessage screenshots, but I can save you the trouble: The alleged texts are the fakest fakes ever faked. First of all, the messages are captured from Gomez' vantage of the conversation (Radar claims they were "forwarded by a cellphone registered to Gomez’s stepfather"). But also, they touch upon almost every single Justin Bieber talking point in the quickest, most efficient manner possible. A breakup, talk of retirement, talk of the raid, talk of Lil Za being framed, talk of rehab... They read like they were written by a feverish TMZ commenter rather than two human beings. But anyway, it doesn't matter that they're obviously fake, because now TMZ reports that the obvious fakes were created by an impostor, either a member of Bieber's inner circle or possibly literally anybody off the street looking to make a buck capitalizing on Bieber's recent bout of bad press. Meanwhile Gomez (through her representative) confirmed to Daily Mail the texts were "not real." So there you have it. No Bieber dick pics (YET) and no official confirmation that he has ever referred to Gomez as a "talentless p***y." (YET.) [Radar, Daily Mail]

Third of all: THIS TMZ headline... JUSTIN BIEBER PISSES HIMSELF. At press time there does not seem to be a conflicting report of this incident, so it must be 100% true. (No need to click through, the headline is definitely not misleading in the slightest.) [TMZ]

Um, don't worry, we are NOT done talking about celebrity penises today. At least this time it's a bit more fun? In other words, let's talk about Ben Affleck's dick. Yesterday, at a random awards show you don't need to know or care about (The Producer's Guild of America Awards, for the record), the producer and creator behind all of CBS's finest sitcoms, Chuck Lorre, introduced Ben Affleck by saying he'd just urinated next to him in the men's room and "Yes, I peeked. And yes, Comic Con, he can play Batman." So now we know that not only does Ben Affleck have a prodigious member, but so does Batman! That is the more exciting revelation, in my opinion. Big congrats to Robin! Anyway, Affleck, the good sport that he is when it comes to jokes about his large penis, continued the line of very flattering hilarity by invoking another titan of the industry: "I'm often confused with Matt Damon, but rarely with Michael Fassbender." This was not a very important gossip item, except that it kind of WAS? Please enjoy your Tuesday, everybody. [Page Six, E! Online]

Taylor Swift, take note: THIS is how you deal with a Tina Fey joke told at your expense. When People asked George Clooney about the epic Clooney joke Tina Fey told at the Golden Globes Awards, he issued this charmingly facetious threat: "I don't want to scare Amy or Tina – I don't want them to be afraid at all – but they've poked the bear." Then when the hosts asked if the premise of Fey's joke had any merit, Clooney more or less owned up to it: "There is no defense. It was a really good joke." Now contrast Clooney's affable 'tude to Taylor Swift's utterly humorless response to Fey's jab at her dating life the previous year. Or better yet, just forward to Swift the full video of Clooney's response below and maybe she'll see the error of her ways?

Sorry, Spice Girls stans! The erstwhile Posh Spice Victoria Beckham has officially declared that she will never again, not ever reunite with her fellow compatriots in girl power. As she told Vanity Fair Italy, "Sometimes you've got to know when it's time to leave the party." Which, okay, that makes sense. A woman can only surf atop mini-Coopers at Olympics Opening Ceremonies so many times before it starts seeming tired. Plus, you know, it would be pretty hard to prioritize ANY creative endeavor over just hanging out with David Beckham all day, so this statement does make tons of sense. Anyway, R.I.P. Spice Girls! Let's listen to one of their most underrated jams in commemoration of all they've given us. [Us Weekly]

There is admittedly almost nothing interesting about the actual news item featured below, but the E! Online photo editor deserves credit for making me laugh out loud SO HARD today:

WHO IS THAT MYSTERY BRUNETTE? [E! Online]

       

Dolphin Hunt In Japan Draws Criticism from U.S. Ambassador

Reuters

In addition to criticism from environmental activists, the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji Cove in Japan has drawn criticism from the United States' Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy. The ambassador came out against "drive hunt" dolphin killing, in which hundreds of bottlenose dolphins are rounded up into a small area of water and then hunted.

Deeply concerned by inhumaneness of drive hunt dolphin killing. USG opposes drive hunt fisheries.

— キャロライン・ケネディ駐日米国大使 (@CarolineKennedy) January 18, 2014

Environmentalists claim that the practice is both inhumane and a threat to the dolphin population. One fisherman told CNN that this year, about 500 dolphins were driven into the cove and less that 100 will be hunted or captured. The rest will supposedly be released. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga defend the practice at a press conference, stating, "Dolphin fishing is one of traditional fishing forms of our country and is carried out appropriately in accordance with the law."

Kennedy's condemnation is the latest in a series of efforts to shine a spotlight on the practice. The 2009 documentary about the Taiji hunt, The Cove, won an Oscar for Best Documentary. Hackers from Anonymous also attacked the website for Wakayama Prefecture, where Taiji is located. 

       

Iran Got Uninvited from the UN's Syria Peace Talks

Reuters

On Sunday, the United States was up in arms over the United Nation's invitation to Iran to attend Syrian peace talks in Switzerland on January 22. Now it appears that that invitation has been revoked following protests from the U.S. and a threat from Syrian rebels to boycott the proceedings.

Reports say that Secretary of State John Kerry personally lobbied Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to rescind the invitation, threatening to not participate if Iran was in attendance.

The UN had originally called for Iran's attendance, since they are the main backers of the current regime of Bashar al-Assad, but in reversing course, they said that the adversarial nation had not agreed to the terms of the conference:

He [Ban] continues to urge Iran to join the global consensus behind the Geneva Communiqué. Given that it has chosen to remain outside that basic understanding, he has decided that the one-day Montreux gathering will proceed without Iran’s participation.

That 2012 communiqué stated that the goal of the talks was to lay the groundwork to transition power away from Assad, but on Monday, Iran gave no indication that they had agreed to those terms.

The conference, known as Geneva II, will begin in Montreux on Wednesday with a series of preliminary statements. On Friday, the talks will move to Geneva, where representatives for the Syrian opposition and Assad will have direct negotiations for the first time since the conflict began.

 

       

Five Best Monday Columns

MLK Jr. in 1965.  (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Matt Berman at National Journal on Martin Luther King Jr.'s forgotten radicalism. "Martin Luther King Jr. was not just the safe-for-all-political-stripes civil-rights activist he is often portrayed as today. He was never just the 'I Have a Dream' speech. He was an antiwar, anti-materialist activist whose views on American power would shock many of the same politicians who now scramble to sing his praises," Berman writes. For example, "the man who said that his dream of equality was 'deeply rooted in the American Dream' also believed the American government, with what he saw as its weapons testing in Vietnam, was on par with 'the Germans [who] tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe.' In the same speech, King said that, if U.S. actions were to continue, 'there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam.'" 

Paul Krugman at The New York Times on the undeserving rich. The fact that "American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society" shouldn't be up for argument, Krugman writes. "But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair’s famous dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it," Krugman argues. "I’ve noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is basically the result of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving rich," he writes. Americans are wealthy because they made the right choices, the story goes. "But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other, are only doing O.K." It's the top 0.1 percent that are growing in wealth. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent tweets, "Nice takedown of David Brooks' latest on inequality from @NYTimeskrugman (without ever mentioning Brooks' name)." 

Jonathan Chait at Daily Intelligencer on the deficit and unemployment. "The deficit scolds," Chait explains, "are a loose amalgamation of business executives, activists, and pundits, often centered around Pete Peterson and his network of activist groups, allied around the goal of bringing both parties together to agree on a plan to reduce the long-term budget deficit." But "the deficit scolds have consistently failed in their quest to achieve [the] bipartisan deficit-reducing dream. Despite this, they have dominated the economic-policy debate for most of the Obama era, and their influence has been an unremitting disaster for America," Chait argues. The problem is, the deficit scolds have identified the deficit as the country's number one crisis, when unemployment is the real, urgent problem. "To be sure, the deficit scolds would prefer to alleviate immediate suffering and reduce the long-term deficit; but if this proves unattainable, they will take suffering over even tiny, temporary increases in the deficit," he writes. That's why Congress still has not been able to extend unemployment benefits. Economist Mark Thoma recommends the post. 

Elizabeth Kolbert at The New Yorker on Chris Christie. "Last week, as the scandal inevitably known as Bridgegate bubbled away, Governor Chris Christie delivered his fourth annual State of the State address, in Trenton. It was, to paraphrase A. A. Milne, a Sad Christie, a Melancholy Christie, a Small and Sorry Christie who spoke to state lawmakers," Kolbert writes. The scandal started, Kolbert explains, with the Port Authority. "As soon as Christie took office, in 2010, he set about stuffing the weakened agency with his supporters. A lawsuit filed by a former employee revealed that within two years the new administration had sought berths at the Port Authority for nearly fifty loyalists," Kolbert writes. "Politics, as everyone knows, is not a profession for the fastidious. But there are rules even about stretching the rules, a precept that Christie either never bothered to learn or chose to ignore. As a consequence, his political career is now quite possibly in ruins," she argues. 

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic on Republican governors and Obamacare. "Everybody knows that red state officials aren’t enthusiastic about Obamacare. Some of them are even trying to undermine it. But are they succeeding? Are they actually holding back the law?" Cohn asks. Apparently, yes, they are. A greater percentage of eligible citizens have signed up for Obamacare in blue states versus red states. "It's possible the numbers will even out over the next few weeks and months, now that healthcare.gov is working and outreach campaigns ... are underway. But a red-blue divide in health insurance coverage is going to remain, thanks to a more familiar and ultimately more significant distinction between the states," Cohn explains. Many red states have opted not to expand Medicaid — "the end result will almost surely be fewer people in Republican-leaning states getting health insurance," Cohn writes.

       

Christie's 2016 Prep Is Going the Opposite Direction of Hillary's

Christie comforts a woman who lost her home in Hurricane Sandy. (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

If New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wants to run for president in 2016 (which, a new interview suggests, he does), he'll spend this critical year watching new mud accumulate on his record. Hillary Clinton is spending it wiping dirt away.

Matt Bai of Yahoo News has the first interview with Christie since the governor's lengthy press conference two weeks ago addressing allegations that an aide played a role in shutting down the George Washington Bridge, backing traffic into the town of Fort Lee for some as-yet-undetermined reason. Bai's interview took place last Friday, before the Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer accused Christie's lieutenant governor of threatening to withhold Hurricane Sandy relief funds — and Zimmer spent several hours discussing the accusation with the U.S. Attorney. At that point, Christie was unbowed.

"I don’t know exactly what it is yet that I’ll learn from it," Christie told Bai about the scandal. "But when I get the whole story and really try to understand what’s going on here, I know I’m going to learn things." That's a fair assumption. Christie also drew a contrast to 2011, when he told Bai that he wasn't yet ready to run for president. Christie now insists he's "readier" — though how much of that readiness stems from having spent two weeks taking some pretty serious punches isn't clear.

The Washington Post outlines how Hillary Clinton will spend her next 12 to 18 months: pushing a new memoir that, she hopes, will reframe her legacy as a senator and secretary of state. She'll have help in doing so. Just as the Ready for Hillary PAC is working unofficially to build a campaign team, another group, Correct the Record, will be working to rebut the longstanding critiques of Clinton. "Correct the Record is developing digital and social-media campaigns that would complement Clinton’s book," the Post reports, "including building an interactive map that would let users click on any country to find out specific things Clinton did there as secretary..." Among the focal points will be the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, which occurred on her watch.

Clearly Clinton has learned from the experience of her successor, John Kerry. In 2004, his strong campaign to replace George W. Bush was submarined, in part, thanks to scurrilous attacks from a group called Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. (Last week, The Onion suggested that the group's long investigation into Kerry finally concluded.) In 2008, Obama similarly worked to overcome negative attacks, launching a website called "Fight The Smears."

Christie can take consolation in two things. First, that Obama launched that site only a few months before the election (though, of course, Obama was already far in the lead by that point). Second, it's not yet clear how badly Christie will be tarnished by the bridge scandal. The governor spent the weekend in Florida appearing at Republican fundraisers. As The New York Times reports, Christie largely avoided discussion of his own future prospects. He said that he had not been enjoying the last 11 days ("No sane person would") but had a terse recommendation for those interested in discussing his presidential prospects: "Come see me next year."

By then, Christie will either be explicitly running for president or, should the U.S. Attorney's investigation recommend another direction, obviously not. If he is running, his main opponent will have a year's head start.

       

Today in Celebrity Homophobia!

AP

Today in celebrity gossip: Two surprising celebrities said some questionable things about gay people, Dennis Rodman has checked into rehab, and Johnny Depp is definitely engaged to Amber Heard.

Just as fish can't feel water, many heterosexuals just can't seem to detect homophobia—and that includes even famous ones. Over the weekend and perhaps due to some strange confluence of cosmic forces, two very prominent (and beloved!) heterosexuals of note have suddenly decided to speak truth to power about gay people. A more studied trend piece is probably more appropriate at this point (because, seriously, WHAT is going on?), but let's at least name some names:

1. The Bachelor's Juan Pablo Galavis, perhaps the most widely beloved Bachelor to date, recently gave an interview in which he suggested that a gay version of The Bachelor would be inappropriate because "I don’t think it is a good example for kids to watch that on TV." When pressed to elaborate he continued:

There's this thing about gay people... it seems to me, and I don't know if I'm mistaken or not... but they're more 'pervert' in a sense. And to me the show would be too strong... too hard to watch.

In his swift retraction, Galavis apologized for having offended gay people (he has gay friends, after all!) and insisted that his use of the word "pervert" was a mistake resulting from his shaky grasp on the English language. But, of course, we knew what he meant: Gay people are too innately sexual to appear on a television show in which a man makes out with several dozen women over the course of a few days. The problem is that Galavis (and presumably people who would defend him in this case) believe that homosexuality is explicitly about sex rather than romance, a belief which is a major cornerstone of general homophobia. Make no mistake: He meant to invoke sexual perversion, because nobody is as obsessed with gay sex as those who are uncomfortable with its existence. Even a modicum of big-picture awareness would reveal that everything from billboards to advertisements to 97% of all movies and TV shows are about straight men getting laid or trying to get laid. Yet gay people are the overly sexualized ones? Galavis might not be intentionally bigoted but he was certainly giving voice to one of the most popular forms of homophobia currently going: That gay people are fine, but their behind-closed-doors behaviors are not. We get it. Loud and clear. [Us Weekly]

2. Then there was One Direction's Liam Payne, widely considered the more thoughtful and grown up of the five lads (when he's not tip-toeing around on building ledges). For some unexplained reason, and just after the controversy about Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments to GQ had finally started dying down, Payne tweeted an unsolicited statement of support for the family:

@williebosshog huge love to you/your family huge respect for your business prosperities and the family values you still all behold. big fan

— Liam Payne (@Real_Liam_Payne) January 18, 2014

Uh, A LOT of people instantly noticed Payne's display of camaraderie with the compatriots of a noted bigot and immediately called him out for it. (Payne then tweeted something vague about not agreeing with everything Robertson has said, but never specified what he didn't agree with.) But unlike Galavis who quickly clarified and/or apologized, Payne went on the offensive, declaring that anyone who criticized him for supporting Robertson's "family values" (which in 2014 America remains a dog-whistle euphemism for anti-gay rhetoric) was either wrong, not a fan, without balls, and/or needing to grow up. Which, fine, Liam Payne is allowed to defend himself by any language he sees fit. But let's close-read the intentions behind that tweet. Why a random tweet of support for a family who's currently under fire for one specific reason? Why now? It reeks of the kind of just-beneath-the-surface homophobia hundreds of thousands of people embraced when they rallied to show their support for Chik-Fil-A while claiming it was a celebration of freedom. Nope, it wasn't. It was straight-up bigotry disguised as something more socially acceptable (the only thing bigots hate more than a particular minority group is being labeled bigots). Payne may not be anti-gay in life, but something deep within him inspired him to support a known homophobe; something deep within him decided to dig in and lash out at rightfully offended gay people (who, after several centuries' worth of institutionalized discrimination, remain a bit touchy on such issues). As Galavis demonstrated, it's usually best for a famous person to apologize, clarify, backtrack, heck, even LIE, about a statement's original meaning, if only to immediately shrug off any whiffs of homophobia. But Payne has opted not to. Message received, Liam Payne! (Save us from this, Harry Styles.) [TMZ]

Speaking of celebrities who have made unfortunate public statements lately: Dennis Rodman! The former professional basketball player has annoyed most of America for the past few months by palling around with murderous North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, going so far as to sing him "Happy Birthday" and give interviews praising the communist leader. But after a recent incident in which Rodman angrily defended his despotic "best friend" to American press, he backtracked and claimed he'd been inebriated during that interview. Well, now he's officially checked into a rehab facility for alcoholism. So uh, sorry, Kim Jong Un. That is one less friend for you to hang out with. But fortunately for Rodman, it's also one less friend for Kim Jong Un to spitefully execute via wild dogs. [Us Weekly]

This next story does not yet involve wild dogs: Johnny Depp is engaged to actress Amber Heard! Rumors first swirled at the Golden Globe Awards where Heard was spotted wearing a dazzling jewel on her ring finger, but an "inside source" has now "confirmed" to Us Weekly that the pair are definitely engaged and have been for a while: "The proposal happened a while ago. She just didn't wear the ring." Meanwhile, Us Weekly dug up an interview with Depp demonstrating that as recently as 2010 he was giving big excuses as to why he never married Vanessa Paradis, the mother of his children: "Marriage is really from soul to soul, heart to heart. You don't need somebody to say, okay you're married." But Depp seems to need that now, though! Congratulations, you pair of lovebirds. [Page Six, Us Weekly]

In the world of celebrity gossip, this is considered nothing less than a heist-of-the-century: Laura Linney has given birth without anybody even knowing she was pregnant! The 49-year-old actress and husband Marc Schauer welcomed a baby boy, Bennett, to this mortal coil last week. According to Us Weekly, Linney hadn't been photographed in public in seven months! Didn't she realize that pregnancy news is like sweet, sweet, heroin to a celeb gossip rag? Does Laura Linney realize that by depriving these e-scandal sheets of their precious baby bump scoops that she's putting tons of hard-working gossipmongers' jobs at risk? Ugh, Laura Linney, only thinking about herself. How truly reprehensible. Congratulations on your news, though, Laura Linney!

Finally, because your day can only be improved by yet another an image of Lupita Nyong'o looking immaculate: Here is the 12 Years a Slave Actress hanging out with Oprah! (Oprah should probably figure out how to spell Nyong'o's last name, though.)

My favorite photo of the night at Broadcast Critics Award. Lupita N'Yongo #12YearsaSlave pic.twitter.com/2M6OcgOBrR

— Oprah Winfrey (@Oprah) January 17, 2014

       

'Girls': Everything's Coming Up Marnie

HBO

The only logical explanation there is as to why Lena Dunham consistently writes Marnie as the one of the most unlikable, aloof, and deeply toxic characters on television is that Girls is really just a slow-simmering revenge plot against Brian and Allison Williams. I jokingly threw out this theory back in November when all we had was a trailer. Now, three episodes into this uneven season, I just have one question: What kind of dirt does Ms. Dunham have on the Williams family? 

The answer to that, like many questions about this tumbly season of Girls, is unknowable. Like, when did Marnie become so unconsciously rude? And why Hannah, the number-one target of Marnie's rudeness, thinks it a great idea to put this beautiful monster in charge of her 25th birthday is beyond me. A monster who says things like this about you, in front of you to other people on your birthday: "I keep telling her she can look like this every day if she wanted.” A monster who yells at YouTube customer service associates. A monster who forces you to sing a song from Rent so she can hog your birthday spotlight.

In seven minutes or so of screen time, Marnie managed to do all of that. And when it comes to Marnie's/Williams's singing, it's treated not unlike her rendition of "Stronger" — aggressively embarrassing. The biggest problem with all this overt meanness and assertive rudeness is that I don't buy it. I have a hard time believing that Marnie, after what she went through in the first two seasons (a break-up, being assaulted by an art installation, getting fired, getting dumped again, having Hannah pick Adam over her) wouldn't learn from those lessons. I could also be giving Marnie just too much credit. 

Hiding in the shadows of Marnie's rampage was the rest of the episode, which wrapped itself around the introduction of Caroline Sackler (Gaby Hoffmann), Adam's sister. Caroline, who allegedly euthanized her and Adam's grandmother, spills into Adam and Hannah's love nest after making a frantic phone call and flashing a leopard-pattern of bruises on her leg. "She destroys everything in her wake," Adam tells Hannah, possibly referring to his grandma and maybe foreshadowing their relationship.

Even with the volume of all of the characters turned up — Ray is dopier than ever, Shoshanna as wholly ditzy as ever, Marnie (we went over this), and Hannah as selfish as ever — Caroline sticks out. That isn't because the episode leaves with her naked, full bush, and crushing a drinking glass with one of her bare hands, but because she gives us some insight into Adam, and perhaps an explanation of why he treats women the way he does. I wouldn't put it past Hannah to try and game Caroline's visit to her advantage.  

We've seen Adam with Hannah, Natalia, and now Caroline. And grandma-killing, glass-crushing Caroline kind of explains his reluctance to trust women (probably a good idea with Caroline) and why he discards women the way he does — saying goodbye to something you don't love is a lot easier than putting in the effort into cultivating a relationship and watching the bottom fall out. 

The last few gasps of the episode are eaten up by Hannah's parents, whose tics, like the other characters', are blown out to a point where they're hardly recognizable. And then there's Shoshanna. A Shoshanna who apparently yells out, "Hey, hottie. Do you know where I can find some dank weed?” to random boys and is equally callous to her friends. "It's really amazing that all three of you have accomplished so little in the four years since college," she says. The search for recognizable humanity in this Girl continues.

In a sense, you almost don't want to blame Marnie for acting the way she does, because she could just ultimately be a reflection of her self-absorbed, churlish friends. After all, Shoshanna is supposed to be the nicest one and she is just a nightmare this season. But I'm still betting Dunham has some incriminating photos (not of the Vogue variety) somewhere.

 

 

       

Iran Kicks Off Historic Deal to Halt Some Nuclear Activity

In this Oct. 26, 2010 file photo, a worker rides a bicycle in front of the reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, just outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran. (AP PHOTO/MEHR NEWS AGENCY, MAJID ASGARIPOUR)

Iran has reportedly halted some activity at its nuclear power plants, setting in motion an interim nuclear deal that promises the country relief from economic sanctions worth $6 billion to $7 billion, in exchange for scaling back its disputed program. 

The deal, which is slated to last for six months, was agreed to by Iran and six global powers, the U.K., U.S., Germany, France, China and Russia, back in mid-November and has been hailed as a historic step towards ensuring that Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons — an ambition long suspected by world leaders, but denied by the country. Iran insists their nuclear program is for energy purposes only.

Iran's state-run Fars news agency said on Monday that the Iran has halted enriching uranium up to 20 percent and has started to down-blend uranium at higher levels. The 20 percent mark is significant because it is dangerously close to the level of enrichment required for nuclear weaponry, and the fact that Iran has enriched uranium to the high level stokes suspicion that the country is after weaponry, rather than just scientific and medical research as it claims. The IAEA confirmed Fars' report, paving the way for sanctions to lift later today.

Iran has also agreed to allow the U.N. access to its historically secretive program and stop plans to open another nuclear plant. In exchange, the country can continue exporting crude oil at current levels, will be spared new sanctions and see the lifting of ones targeting services, plane parts, petrochemicals, precious metals and services. 

Last week, Reuters reported that Russia and Iran had made a trade deal that would weaken the effect of a Western sanctions lift and potentially harm the nuclear agreement. Any Russia-Iran deal does not appear to have stopped Iran from following through on its commitment, at least for now — but some are unhappy with the terms of the agreement, suggesting that an alternative solution could be sought at a later date. According to the New York Times, criticism of the program from within Iran has been silenced:

Inside Iran, some hard-liners are complaining that the government is trying to silence critics of the deal, which some here say was a loss for the Iranians, who refused any compromise with the West for more than a decade. “Criticizing the Geneva agreement is like denying the Holocaust,” said Hamid Rasaei, a hard-line member of Parliament, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. His newspaper and another weekly were closed after they spoke out against the agreement, said Mr. Rasaei, a Shiite Muslim cleric. “Anybody who dares to speak out against parts of the agreement will be confronted,” he said. 

Opposition to the deal has come from American politicians as well, according to Al Jazeera:

Threatening to put an end to the deal, however, is a push by US politicians, including some from Obama's own party, to impose new sanctions on the Islamic republic, even though this would contravene the November deal. The pro-sanctions camp believe it has at least 59 votes in the Senate and a healthy majority in the House of Representatives and could be approaching the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto Obama has promised.

And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed disappointment with the deal back in November, calling it a "historic mistake," and adding, "For years the international community has demanded that Iran cease all uranium enrichment. Now, for the first time, the international community has formally consented that Iran continue its enrichment of uranium." Netanyahu has strongly suggested that he will order military action against Iran if he feels the enemy nation is posing a threat to Israel. 

The deal comes as global leaders dispute the U.N.'s invitation to Iran to attend upcoming Syria peace talks. Iran's commitment to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has made its spot at the negotiation table controversial in the past and has angered world leaders this time as well, even though some appear to be warming up to Assad.