Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 932

'World of Warcraft' Gets the Movie Treatment

Today in show business news: A popular video game is becoming a movie, the Atlas Shrugged people want your money, and Daniel Radcliffe is not playing Freddie Mercury.

And a great cry rose up from the basements and computer rooms and sweaty, boxer-strewn bedrooms across America. For the movie version of the extremely popular computer game World of Warcraft, a huge multiplayer online thing that involves role playing and stuff, is underway. Hollywood has streamlined the title to just Warcraft, and the lead roles have been offered to Paula Patton and Colin Farrell. Paul Dano, Anton Yelchin, Anson Mount, and the guy from that show Vikings are also in the running for roles. There's no info about a particular plot or anything, but this thing is happening. It really is. This isn't going to be some Halo movie debacle. This is the real deal. Are you ready? I mean, people are still playing WoW, right? Or is it all GTA V now? Who can keep up with this stuff. [Deadline]

Oh man. The irony! The producers of the Atlas Shrugged movies, the trilogy based on the Ayn Rand novel beloved by college-age libertarian guys the nation over (some of whom undoubtedly play World of Warcraft), are doing something very un-Randian: They're begging for money. The production has started a Kickstarter campaign, trying to raise funds for the third movie. They're only looking for $250,000, and have already raised $43,000, but still. Still! It is rather funny, isn't it? Someone says in the campaign's video, "You can't allow other people to do things for you." In a Kickstarter campaign video. Anyway, good luck, you crazy objectivists. Twenty-nine days to go! [The Dissolve]

There was a rumor that little Daniel Radcliffe, a wizard turned Broadway song and dance man turned in-demand movie star, was going to combine all of that and play Queen frontman Freddie Mercury in an upcoming biopic. This sounded like a strange and exciting prospect, but The Wrap say it's not true. It's all rubbish and lies, the living members of Queen haven't even spoken to Radcliffe. So, oh well. Who should play Freddie Mercury? It was going to be Sacha Baron Cohen, but then he dropped out. So who else might be good? Though, really, why even bother trying to come up with a good person. It's going to James Franco and we all know it. What's the point of fighting it? [The Wrap]

Here is a first look at Lily James as Cinderella in Disney's live-action Cinderella. She's riding a horse. So that's exciting. It'd be way cooler to see Cate Blanchett's wicked stepmother, or hell Richard Madden's Prince Charming, but this is still interesting. Cindy, on her horse. There she goes. She looks happy! So maybe this is toward the end of the film? We'll have to wait a year and a half to find out. [Entertainment Weekly]

[image error]

Here's a trailer for the new basic cable miniseries Bonnie & Clyde, starring Emile Hirsch as Clyde and Holliday Grainger as Bonnie. (The trailer says "introducing Holliday Grainger," but she's been in lots of things before, including The Borgias, which just ended.) William Hurt and Holly Hunter are also in this decidedly cheap-looking thing, which will be simulcast on Lifetime, History, and A&E. Clearly they're going for another Hatfields & McCoys breakout success here, but I don't know if this is gonna do it. Looks a little cheesy, doesn't it?

And here's a trailer for Dom Hemingway, a British crime comedy starring Jude Law as an ex-con looking to get paid for keeping his mouth shut in prison. Daenerys Stormborn plays his estranged daughter. It seems... loud. That's the main takeaway. Lot of noise.

       

Mastering the Art of the Thought Catalog Troll

"Being Privileged Is Not A Choice, So Stop Hating Me For It", which made the rounds today, is the perfect Thought Catalog post. As Tyler Coates at Flavorwire put it, it's "The most Thought Catalog post to ever Thought Catalog." The headline says it all — "I’m sick of feeling ashamed for being privileged," wrote the author, running a hand through her professionally highlighted hair, probably while she looked out window of her high-rise apartment as all the jealous poor folk walked by. "What do you suggest I do about it?" she wondered. No, really, that's the first line. 

[image error]

It's self-centered in the way we sometimes assume millennials are. It taps into one of the buzziest buzz words in liberal urban circles — privilege, as in check yours. And, it managed to piss off a whole lot of people who tweeted and linked to it, just like Kate Menendez probably planned when she wrote it. Jared Keller at Al Jazeera America tweeted a link, along with "ban Thought Catalog, ban it and burn it."

"'Thought Catalog' should change its name to 'Giving 19-Year-Olds Enough Rope Catalog,'" suggested Lindy West at Jezebel (again, with a link). There's also a link to the story in this article, so good for you Thought Catalog. You've got the hate-linking mastered.

You never know if a good Thought Catalog troll is truly meant to be tongue in cheek or the person is just kind of oblivious. Like a bad Onion article it's not clever enough to say something meaningful, but it's also too outlandish be a real person's genuine opinion.

A well crafted troll is one of the surest ways to get published on Thought Catalog, second to a millennial-specific wisdom listicle (ex. 22 Things I Wish I'd Known When I was 22, Now That I'm 23). Based off our observations, this is the formula for the Thought Catalog troll, in a list.

1. Craft an excellent headline

This is a universal rule, but it's especially important for trolling. If the reader can't tell they'll be offended/annoyed by the headline then you've failed. Some prime examples:

"The 5 Best Compliments My Dick Has Ever Gotten" — Not offensive, but you just sort of hope you never run into him at a house party, where he'd probably be the guy double fisting PBR telling anyone who'll listen about compliments 6-10. "Dear Girls, Please Shave Your Pubic Hair" — Bonus points for using "girls" to refer to the presumably adult women you want to sleep with, and for not using your last name. Also not horribly offensive, but it did make people mad. "I Got Yelled At By An Inner City Kid At A YMCA Camp" — This is actually an interesting story about a nice girl who got yelled at by one of her playmates at camp. Starting off with "I never went to public school ... I did, however, go to summer camp with the inner city kids" is the troll factor. You're pretty sure you know what she means by inner city kids and that you won't like it.  "The 10 Most Horribly Racist Ads That Aren’t Even Remotely Racist"   — Hint: #10 is Everything. Everything racist isn't even remotely racist, so get over yourself. 

2. Choose your target demographic to anger

"Being Privileged Is Not A Choice, So Stop Hating Me For It" works so well because it offends anyone who thinks privilege — whether based on social class, race, gender or sexuality — by implying that all "unprivileged people" are jealous haters who need to stop raining Menendez' J. Crew sponsored parade. She understands being poor "blows," so why are you still mad?

And in "Your Privilege Isn’t The Problem, You Are The Problem", a swift response to Menendez posted today, Nico Lang's target demographic is everyone who kind of agreed with the original post on privilege. "I don’t hate Kate Menendez because she chose to be rich. I hate her because she chose to be an asshole," Lang writes. Which, yep. Can't argue with that. But Lang's a Thought Catalog producer. Did he not think Menendez was an "asshole" when it went up?

3. Almost have a point, and fail miserably at making it

"Being Privileged Is Not A Choice, So Stop Hating Me For It", actually has a point, kinda. If your parents did well and are able to provide for you, then you shouldn't be ashamed of that. But when Menendez says "privilege," she actually means "wealthy." She doesn't seem to actually understand what privilege, as its commonly used now, means. 

4. Understand your audience

People who want to read tongue in cheek, satirical, insightful and usually funny commentary on social issues read The Onion. People who want to read egocentric personal essays on the plight of urban millennials trying to find themselves after college read Thought Catalog. You can't have your cake and eat it too, especially if you're shopping at J. Crew. 

       

Where Things Stand in the Most Competitive 2014 Senate Races

Monday was an eventful enough day on the 2014 Senate election front: ex-Democratic candidate Ed Marksberry has just declared a bid as an independent in Kentucky, and the Rev. Mark Harris is looking to unseat Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan in North Carolina, a battleground for the religious right. 

Things are heating up as the GOP looks to recapture the Senate, but Republicans will have to endure a year of bickering and infighting before that comes to fruition. Here's a glimpse at five competitive races in play towards that goal — and who's in the lead.

[image error]Kentucky

Incumbent: Mitch McConnell (R)

Challengers: Alison Lundergan Grimes (D), Ed Marksberry (Independent), Matt Bevin (R)

The Latest: Things have been rather tight between McConnell and Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (at right), the Democratic candidate, for some weeks while the incumbent's approval rating hovers at a measly 40 percent. But Democrat Ed Marksberry's decision to jump in as an independent—which he confirmed to WFPL-FM today—is likely to help things for McConnell. A 2010 congressional candidate, Marksberry blasted Grimes for failing to "open up and talk about the issues."

Polling: Last month it looked like Grimes was leading McConnell by a scant 1 point (45 percent to 44) that may have widened in recent weeks. We'll see how Ed Marksberry's presence in the race shuffles numbers around, though.

[image error]Wyoming

Incumbent: Mike Enzi (R)

Challengers: Thomas Bleming (R), Liz Cheney (R)

The Latest: Things aren't going so hot for Liz Cheney, the elder daughter of erstwhile Vice President Dick Cheney. Her politicization of Syria is doing her few favors (especially as incumbent Enzi tears apart her flip-flops), and her staunch opposition to gay marriage has opened up an awkward rift with her openly gay sister.

Polling: Cheney has gone to great lengths to disassociate herself from her rather, err, controversial dad, but that doesn't seem to be enough. Incumbent Enzi has been in the lead since the beginning, and subsequent polling shows him holding onto his advantage. Part of the problem for Cheney is that a sparse 31 percent of voters actually consider her to be a "Wyomingite"; others wonder why she didn't simply run in Virginia.

[image error]Georgia

Incumbent: Saxby Chambliss (R) (not running for reelection)

Challengers: Paul Broun (R), Phil Gingrey (R), Derrick Grayson (R), Karen Handel (R), Jack Kingston (R), David Perdue (R), Eugene Yu (R)

The Latest: Things are getting pretty crowded in here as the Todd Akin clones pile into the race. Broun has been declaring himself the next Ted Cruz, and Gingrey (at right) just captured headlines by griping about making $172,000 a year in Congress. Those two have been leading the pack, which GOP leaders are less than thrilled about.

Polling: As of August, Gingrey's in the lead with 25 percent, followed by Broun with 19. We'll see how the former's most recent gaffe shifts things (if at all).

[image error]Arkansas

Incumbent: Mark Pryor (D)

Challengers: Tom Cotton (D)

The Latest: This one's crucial for Republicans to retake the Senate, and the ads are already heating up. As NPR notes, Pryor attacked freshman Rep. Cotton (at right) in an ad before the latter had even announced his campaign; conservative group Club for Growth Action went negative on the Democratic incumbent in a pricy ad the following day. Meanwhile, the candidates' divergent views on Syria could shift recent polling.

Polling: As of August, Pryor's leading his challenger 47 percent to 41. More recently, it looks to be really, really close as the GOP realizes the significance of the race.

  [image error]North Carolina

Incumbent: Kay Hagan (D)

Challengers: Greg Brannon (R), Heather Grant (R), Mark Harris (R), Thom Tillis (R)

The Latest: Right-wing reverend Mark Harris has just today thrown his hat in the ring, looking to pick a fight with Kay Hagan (at right), who came out in favor of gay marriage in the spring. Considering Harris joined in the effort to amend the North Carolina state constitution to ban gay marriage, the senate race is likely to be a heated battle on the social issues front, with Harris tapping into the same religious right grassroots movements.

Polling: Unclear, since Harris has just entered the race. But Hagan's been leading the GOP.

All photos via Associated Press.

       

The Justice Department's AP Leaker Was an Ex-FBI Agent

Former FBI bomb technician Donald Sachtleben, a 55-year-old who was arrested last year for distributing child pornography, has been identified as the source for the Associated Press story about a foiled Al Qaeda terrorist plot that led the Justice Department to snoop on AP reporters' phone records. 

The Justice Department announced Sachtleben will plead guilty to charges of unlawfully disclosing national defense information and face 43 months in prison. Sachtleben worked for the FBI for 25 years, before retiring in 2008, when he was rehired as a contractor and maintained his Top Secret clearance. During his time with the agency, he worked on high-profile cases like the hunt for the Oklahoma City bomber. If an Indiana court approves, some are saying it would be the longest prison term ever for releasing national security information. You can read the plea agreements here, per the Huffington Post.

"While I never intended harm to the United States or to any individuals, I do not make excuses for myself," Sachtleben said in a statement. "I understand and accept that today's filings start the process of paying the full consequences of my misconduct, and I know that the Justice System I once served so proudly will have its say."

In May, it was revealed the Justice Department subpoenaed two months of telephone records — incoming number, outgoing number, and call duration — for up to 20 lines related to the Associated Press. They were hunting for the leak that disclosed this May 2012 article detailing an al-Qaeda bomb plot, based in Yemen, to be carried out on the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's death. But their man was already in federal custody. 

Federal investigators arrested Sachtleben last year for allegedly distributing child pronography last year. Some reports said he used the email address "pedodave69@yahoo.com" to trade his illicit materials. According to the Justice Department, it was information retrieved from the AP subpoena cross-referenced with evidence retrieved in the child porn case that led to the second charge: 

Sachtleben was identified as a suspect in the case of this unauthorized disclosure only after toll records for phone numbers related to the reporter were obtained through a subpoena and compared to other evidence collected during the leak investigation. This allowed investigators to obtain a search warrant authorizing a more exhaustive search of Sachtleben’s cell phone, computer, and other electronic media, which were in the possession of federal investigators due to the child pornography investigation.

       

The Supreme Court Really Can't Figure Out This Internet Thing

In dealing with cases on Internet censorship, music piracy, and digital GPS tracking, the Supreme Court needs a good understanding of how the Internet functions. So it's with a fair amount of worry to read yet another example of their total inability to work with the World Wide Web. On Monday, The New York Times cites a study that found the court is quite fond of linking to Internet articles in making its arguments — but almost half of those links are now broken. 

That study looked at the 555 digital links in Court cases since 1996 and found that 49 percent of those led to nowhere. The reasons come down to "link rot," or the basic decay of articles online over time. But link rot didn't just affect old pieces, as a case from February already has a dead link in it. This link death was the same across the type of link, too, be it PDF, HTML, or other, according to another study in the Yale Journal of Law and Society. "The modern Supreme Court opinion is increasingly built on sand," the Times writes.

To be fair to the court, link rot is just a regular consequence of using the Internet over time. But it's hard not to notice the justices' average age of 67 years when the court makes major decisions on the future of the Internet. For example, the Times reports, "For proof that many dog owners use six-foot leashes, for instance, Justice [Samuel] Alito included a link to About.com." For regular Internet users, About.com is obviously not the most trusted source; Alito might as well have linked to Yahoo Answers. But for a group that "hasn't really 'gotten to' email," according to Justice Elana Kagan, it's evident of a broader issue.

And understanding the Internet isn't just relevant to those few Internet court decisions. In last year's huge DOMA arguments, Alito used the newness of the Internet to make a point against legalizing gay marriage.

“Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in the Netherlands in 2000,” Alito said. “It may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing … But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?”

For Alito, the Internet, formed for the public in the early 90s, is too new to be understood. Therefore, gay marriage, legally formed in 2000, is too new to be understood. How can Alito be expected to understand gay marriage when he hasn't figured out his Internet machine?

That's the main issue that this link rot evidence shows; the court will avoid the Internet except when it's convenient to its argument. And even then, you probably won't be able to double-check their sources, because those links will all be dead.

       

Ted Cruz's Defense of His Obamacare Battle Was Jaw-Droppingly Misleading

In a relatively brief statement from the floor of the Senate on Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for the first time presented his case for how a vote to fund the government should proceed. It was a stunning presentation, largely divorced from how most people — his colleagues included — understand the reality of his quixotic fight.

First, the reality. Cruz, backed by conservative activists, spent the summer arguing that the key to defunding Obamacare (technically, the Affordable Care Act) was to refuse to pass any legislation funding the government unless it didn't include money for the program. The House, under pressure from those activists, passed a continuing resolution doing exactly that — at which point, Cruz largely threw up his hands, lamenting that nothing could be done in the Senate. When others in his party criticized that move, Cruz pledged to do whatever he could despite the Senate Democratic majority — including, oddly, to filibuster the House bill.

That only began the topsy-turvy logic that was evident on Monday.

1. Lamenting how things work in D.C.

Cruz said:

"There is a tendency in this town towards brinksmanship, towards pointing to events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way. … Had the majority leader simply said, "I consent," a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table. Now, why didn't he? We all know why he did not. Because the majority leader embraces Obamacare."

His argument: People in D.C. sometimes wait until there is a moment of crisis, offering leverage on contested issues.

Reality: Cruz knows this happens because it is precisely what he is doing. Just to spell it out: Cruz was actively using brinksmanship to try and get his way on the issue of Obamacare. As for the "I consent" argument …

2. His offer to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

(In the following quotes, "Mr. President" refers to the rotating acting president of the body, to whom speeches are addressed.) Cruz said:

"I don't want a government shutdown. No one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. … Mr. President, five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown. The request that I promulgated to the majority leader was to pass the continuing resolution that the House of Representatives passed. And if that had happened, there would be no government shutdown. A government shutdown would be taken off the table. … But unfortunately, the majority leader chose to object."

And later: "He is willing to force even a government shutdown in order to insist that Obamacare is funded."

His argument: It was up to Harry Reid to avoid a shutdown by acquiescing to a funding bill that left out Obamacare. Since Reid wouldn't, the shutdown is his fault.

Reality: Pick your analogy. A kid saying "stop hitting yourself" as he pops his little brother in the face with his own hand? The always-evocative kidnapper, lamenting that he has no choice but to kill the prisoner after receipt of payment was delayed? If your argument is do-what-I-want-or-nothing-gets-done, it's more than a little disingenuous to suggest it's your opponent's fault if nothing gets done.

3. Obamacare is killing jobs

"Americans all over this country are suffering because of Obamacare. It is the single biggest job killer in America. Every day we're seeing more and more evidence that Obamacare is killing jobs, that it is hurting American workers who are struggling, that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part-time work 29 hours a week, that it is jacking up their health insurance premiums, and it's causing more and more people who are struggling to lose their health insurance altogether."

His argument: The nefarious Obamacare is the most damaging thing affecting the economy.

Reality: It isn't. We looked at the effects of the bill earlier this month, finding that response to businesses adjusting for Obamacare was mixed. It's very pertinent in this conversation to note that the broadest component of Obamacare hasn't yet gone into effect — so some businesses are preparing by shifting employees to part-time, but most businesses have seen little effect.

As for his later claims that Americans oppose Obamacare: They do. Conservatives have been pummeling the policy, while advocates have just started promoting it. Because it largely hasn't yet kicked in.

What is the single biggest job-killer in the country? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: cuts in government job rolls. Cruz supports those cuts.

4. Getting sixty votes for amendments on important bills is how the Senate works

"The majority leader has stated it is his intention to force a vote to fund Obamacare and to do so using just 51 votes, to do so on what could be a straight party-line vote, and in all likelihood would be a straight party-line vote. … If it is the majority leader's intent to fund Obamacare using just 51 votes, then I would submit to every Republican in this body it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding Obamacare with just 51 votes."

His argument: By forcing the need for 60 votes on the continuing resolution — in other words, enough votes to overcome a filibuster — it's giving the issue the debate it deserves. The issue is too important for a simple majority to pass it.

Reality: Cruz loves the filibuster, a tool he once called the "traditional 60-vote threshold" in the Senate. Here, his goal is largely to not have to actually get up and talk indefinitely in order to maintain a filibuster, since, obviously, that can't last forever.

But the best rebuttal to Cruz's argument on this comes from Cruz. Here's his description of how Obamacare was passed:

We all know that, three-and-a-half years ago, Obamacare was forced into law on a strict party-line vote, by straight brute force. But it shouldn't be funded that way. That's not the way a government should proceed. That's not the way this institution should proceed.

As for the House vote that moved the funding bill to the Senate (and which passed 230 to 189):

[Two hundred thirty] members of the House of Representatives came together and said explicitly: do not fund Obamacare. I would note that included two Democrats who came together with their Republicans in a bipartisan manner to say this law isn't working.

Got that? Fifty-one Democratic votes in the Senate is a party-line, brute force vote. Two hundred twenty-eight House Republicans joining with two Democrats is "bipartisan." If even one Republican joins with the Democrats on this measure, that's already a higher percentage of support than the House saw. Ergo, Ted Cruz must obviously endorse the idea as a representation of all that is great in our American democracy.

5. Ted Cruz's only concern is the little guy

"This body should be not be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class, for those with power and privilege. We should be fighting for those who are struggling, and those are the people that are getting hurt the most by Obamacare."

His argument: Self-evident.

Reality: Cruz has not yet taken a public position on the House Republicans' push to eviscerate the federal Food Stamp program.

       

Netflix Wants to Block 'Breaking Bad' Spoilers for You

Netflix is overreacting to spoilers. The streaming service has created the "Spoiler Foiler," Alex Stedman of Variety reports, a tool you can use to make sure you're avoiding any Breaking Bad spoilers on Twitter. You could also, you know, step away from Twitter for a sec, but that's probably too much to ask. 

The Spoiler Foiler, which at this point only works for Breaking Bad, simply provides a version of a Twitter timeline with certain tweets that may—or in certain cases may not—contain references to the show. It makes sense that Netflix would do this for Breaking Bad, after all Vince Gilligan told reporters after the show won the Emmy that he thinks "Netflix kept us on the air."

Here's one example of just what the tool blocks out. The following...

[image error]

...was revealed to be: 

[image error]

But sometimes it can be a little overzealous. This tweet...

[image error]

...was actually completely unrelated: 

[image error]

Though we, perhaps, are fairly blasé about spoilers, this takes spoiler-phobia to the next level. If you're really that concerned about someone ruining the show for you a) make time to watch it when it premieres b) stay away from following people on Twitter who may spoil it for you. It's really that simple.

       

Matthew Shepard Truthers Say Hate Crime Laws Were Built On a Lie

This week, almost 15 years to the day since Matthew Shepard was killed and strung up on a fence in Wyoming, a book claiming to provide the true story of Shepard's death will be released — a book that blames drugs, not homophobia, as the reason Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson killed him.

The book in question is The Book of Matt, by Stephen Jimenez, who postulates that one of Shepard's murderers had gay sex, possibly with Shepard, and that this is more proof that Shepard wasn't killed because he was gay. Jimenez mentions a letter he found while going through unsealed court documents. "It mentioned at first both Aaron and Russell, but as the letter went on it spoke more about Aaron, mentioning that he really did like having sex with gay guys, that he wasn't unfamiliar with homosexuality and the gay world," Jimenez told Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish. Because McKinney was allegedly OK with having sex with men, Jimenez believes this gives credence to McKinney and Henderson's assertion that Shepard was killed because both men were coming down from crystal meth. (Never mind the idea that being homophobic, engaging in gay sex, and being a meth user aren't mutually exclusive, and it's possible that someone could be all three.)

That narrative goes against everything we've been told and possibly what we know about Matthew Shepard. Take Jimenez's theory a step further, and you could make the argument that hate crime legislation — President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law in 2009 — has been built on deceit. 

What we're left with are questions about who to trust and what story to believe. Jimenez's narrative could be slanted. Jimenez is gay, which some believe makes his story more truthful, in that he would naturally be more sympathetic to Shepard. The counterpoint to that is that Jimenez is friends with an attorney named Tim Newcomb, (left-leaning) Media Matters points out. Newcomb represented Shepard's killer, Russell Henderson. And Jimenez has spoken about whether or not Henderson and McKinney deserved equal sentences.

[image error]Conservatives love Jimenez's narrative of the Shepard story. Last week, Breitbart News contributor Ben Shapiro wrote a column (which spelled Jimenez's name wrong in every instance) for the conservative-leaning Town Hall website connecting Shepard's murder to Trayvon Martin. Shapiro does not mention Jimenez's connection to Newcomb, and accepts Jimenez's narrative as fact. One of the qualifiers that Shapiro uses as a gauge to whether or not this narrative is true is that Andrew Sullivan, a gay blogger who sometimes hates New York and roots for Obama, approves of Jimenez's book. Shapiro writes: 

Were the left to openly contend that gay men and women around America are in danger every day from the vastly homophobic majority of the American populace, most Americans would rightly be insulted and skeptical. Were the left to suggest that most Americans are vicious racists a hairsbreadth away from murdering black teenagers, most Americans would scoff. Instead, the left trots out cases like Shepard and cases like Trayvon -- and manufactures those cases to fit their needs.

Shapiro's point: Shepard's legacy is one more lie peddled by liberals. Shapiro seems to have case of convenient amnesia, forgetting the right's now-failed attempt to pander to conservative voters by demonizing gay voters and rights. New York's Jonathan Chait questioned this forget-it strategy during the Supreme Court's hearing on DOMA in March. Chait documented instances like in 1998, when the GOP-dominated Senate blocked a Clinton appointee for ambassador because he was homosexual, or in 2000, when George W. Bush insinuated that he did not want to give "special rights for gay people." And conservatives made gay rights and gay marriage an issue during the 2004 election.

During those DOMA hearings, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had to chime in and call Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the House and defending DOMA, out on his glossing over how the legislation compromised the rights of gay people. The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin reported: 

He was portraying DOMA as almost a kind of housekeeping measure, designed to keep federal law consistent across all fifty states. As Clement told it, there was almost no ideological content to the law at all.

Then Justice Elena Kagan swiftly and elegantly lowered the boom on him. She said, "Well, is what happened in 1996—and I’m going to quote from the House Report here—is that 'Congress decided … to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.'"

Dismissing Matthew Shepard's hate crime legislation as a lie takes that amnesia to another level. It implies that anti-gay bias and violence isn't real — i.e. if people lied about Matthew Shepard, one of the most visible episodes of anti-gay hate in American history, can we really trust the word of gay people? "In different ways, the Shepard story we've come to embrace was just as necessary for shaping the history of gay rights as Lawrence v. Texas; it galvanized a generation of LGBT youth and stung lawmakers into action," Out Editor Aaron Hicklin wrote in his review of the book, adding:

There are obvious reasons why advocates of hate crime legislation must want to preserve one particular version of the Matthew Shepard story, but it was always just that — a version. Jimenez’s version is another, more studiously reported account ...

Hicklin goes on to explain that McKinney is actually an unreliable witness and is "desperate" to refute the idea that he is gay or bisexual, one of the backbones of Jimenez's theory. The Matthew Shepard foundation has weighed in too. "Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law," the foundation said.

       

Coming Soon: iPads and Kindles During Take-off and Landing

If all goes as expected this week, the New York Times's Nick Bilton will get almost everything he's ever wanted when the Federal Aviation Administration relaxes its safety recommendations for electronics use during take-off and landing. Flyers will get to read ebooks, listen to podcasts, or do almost anything else possible on a Kindle or iPad without using WiFi or a data connection during those crucial flight periods. The outline of the FAA's new plan was reported earlier this summer. But now, with almost certainty, it's happening. 

Bilton himself, along with fellow Times reporter Jad Mouawad, got to blow the trumpets on the impending change, which goes before a crucial advisory panel for the FAA this week. By the end of the month, the agency is expected to approve the new rules. They'll likely go into effect next year. They explain: 

The guidelines are expected to allow reading e-books or other publications, listening to podcasts, and watching videos, according to several of the panel’s members who requested anonymity because they could not comment on the recommendations. The ban on making phone calls, as well as sending and receiving e-mails and text messages or using Wi-Fi, is expected to remain in place.

The policy would apply "gate to gate," and would not include phone usage, which wasn't up for consideration this round. The policy could go into effect faster than previously thought thanks to what is apparently a change of strategy by the FAA for the device approval process. At first, the agency wanted to test and approve each model of electronic device individually, which would take forever. Now, however, planes, instead of devices, will need to pass approval. Aircrafts with WiFi on board have already tested for those interferences, the Times explains, helping to expedite the process even further. 

       

The Internet Is Mad That Jeff Daniels Won Best Actor

In one of the Emmys' most surprising moments, Jeff Daniels won the best actor in a drama trophy for his work on The Newsroom, beating Bryan Cranston for Breaking Bad, thus inciting the ire of the Internet. The Emmy ceremony already seemed to be hemorrhaging viewers to AMC, which was showing the penultimate episode of Breaking Bad. Those who stayed watching with the hope of seeing Cranston take the prize had reason to be angry. 

The Emmys finally discovered how to piss off the internet. #avctv

— HuffPostPunk (@pilotbacon) September 23, 2013

"Hey Jeff Daniels, I would tread lightly." - Heisenberg

— Kumail Nanjiani (@kumailn) September 23, 201

Jeff Daniels has wronged both Walter White and Keyser Soze. Sleep well tonight. #emmys

— Jenelle Riley (@jenelleriley) September 23, 2013

Anyone who thinks Jeff Daniels deserved an Emmy is watching the Emmys right now and not Breaking Bad.

— Mark Raymond (@markraymond) September 23, 2013

Daniels's win also happened to come after another surprise, Bobby Cannavale of Boardwalk Empire snatching the supporting actor prize away from Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul and Homeland's Mandy Patinkin. When Daniels won it seemed the show had, to use a TV term, just jumped the shark. 

The #Emmys just shit the bed. Oof. Sorry. Ugh.

— Sasha Stone (@AwardsDaily) September 23, 2013

It's official: these Emmy Awards are taking place in an alternate universe.

— Jace Lacob (@televisionary) September 23, 2013