Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 921
December 16, 2015
Derek Jeter’s underwear drama heats up: “Too gay” was a dealbreaker, according to Swedish brand he was signed to promote
Derek Jeter's been getting in an awful lot of trouble for his underwear lately. He's at the center of a legal dispute with Swedish luxury apparel company Frigo — one that has sparked damning accusations over why the former Yankee allegedly backed out of promoting the brand. Last month, TMZ Sports reported that Jeter "signed a 3-year deal to be a director of the company in 2011 and agreed to participate in major publicity events." But it claims the company says the relationship turned sour two years later, when Jeter reportedly said he didn't want to be involved with the company's U.S. promotions. That's when Frigo brought in 50 Cent as a brand ambassador — a move the rapper boasted of last year by announcing, "I just did a deal for $78 million for underwear. What did you muthaf__kas do today? Lllllllllooooolllllllllll #Boom #FRIGO." It was also a collaboration Frigo majority owner Mathias Ingvarsson now tells TMZ left Jeter concerned would make the brand appear too "urban." The company is now reportedly seeking $4.7 million from Jeter. In November, 50 Cent alluded to the rumors on Twitter, saying, "Wow, guess I'm not a Yankees fan anymore. LETS GO METS? Man you can't trust…" But Jeter, who is biracial, swiftly denied accusations, saying the claims were "categorically false" and that he had no knowledge of any lawsuit. He added, "As a major investor, current stockholder and lender to the Company, I am disgusted by Ingvarsson's decision to make these false allegations against me in the press, instead of attempting to work out our business dispute in private." And in a statement to the New York Post's Page Six, Jeter claimed, "I facilitated the introductory meeting between 50 Cent and the company, so it makes absolutely no sense that I would object to 50 Cent being a Frigo brand ambassador or think that 50 Cent is 'too urban' for the brand…. Mr. Ingvarsson’s statements are particularly malicious because he knew all along that I never agreed to be a spokesperson or ambassador for the brand, and that is confirmed in documents that Mr. Ingvarsson himself signed…. I will take all necessary steps to prove these allegations to be untrue." That hasn't been the end of the drama — Jeter now reportedly has his own suit against Frigo pending in Delaware, and now a new accusation has been leveled against him. TMZ says this week that Frigo also claims "[Jeter] demanded that [Frigo] not market to the gay community and states that he did not want the Frigo brand to be 'too gay.'" While the dispute continues to play itself out, it's worth observing that when a male star aligns with an expensive underwear brand, he's surely doing it with the understanding that the gay male fans are going to take notice. Noted fan of going shirtless David Beckham, for example, has long openly embraced his gay fan base. Way back in 2002 he proudly appeared on the cover of the British gay magazine Attitude. In a 2007 interview, the footballer said, "I'm very honored to have the tag of gay icon," adding, "Maybe it's things like, I like to look after myself, I like to look smart and presentable most of the time." And his slick 2009 Armani campaign had a distinctly homoerotic frisson. Frigo attorney Joseph Tacopina tells TMZ, "We look forward to cross-examining Jeter and his representatives under oath to expose his alleged frauds to the public. We also have numerous witnesses who are waiting for their chance to testify about his alleged frauds and misconduct." But Jeter meanwhile calls the whole dustup a calculated "negative publicity campaign," saying, "It is unfortunate that Mr. Ingvarsson continues to make false claims and bad decisions."Derek Jeter's been getting in an awful lot of trouble for his underwear lately. He's at the center of a legal dispute with Swedish luxury apparel company Frigo — one that has sparked damning accusations over why the former Yankee allegedly backed out of promoting the brand. Last month, TMZ Sports reported that Jeter "signed a 3-year deal to be a director of the company in 2011 and agreed to participate in major publicity events." But it claims the company says the relationship turned sour two years later, when Jeter reportedly said he didn't want to be involved with the company's U.S. promotions. That's when Frigo brought in 50 Cent as a brand ambassador — a move the rapper boasted of last year by announcing, "I just did a deal for $78 million for underwear. What did you muthaf__kas do today? Lllllllllooooolllllllllll #Boom #FRIGO." It was also a collaboration Frigo majority owner Mathias Ingvarsson now tells TMZ left Jeter concerned would make the brand appear too "urban." The company is now reportedly seeking $4.7 million from Jeter. In November, 50 Cent alluded to the rumors on Twitter, saying, "Wow, guess I'm not a Yankees fan anymore. LETS GO METS? Man you can't trust…" But Jeter, who is biracial, swiftly denied accusations, saying the claims were "categorically false" and that he had no knowledge of any lawsuit. He added, "As a major investor, current stockholder and lender to the Company, I am disgusted by Ingvarsson's decision to make these false allegations against me in the press, instead of attempting to work out our business dispute in private." And in a statement to the New York Post's Page Six, Jeter claimed, "I facilitated the introductory meeting between 50 Cent and the company, so it makes absolutely no sense that I would object to 50 Cent being a Frigo brand ambassador or think that 50 Cent is 'too urban' for the brand…. Mr. Ingvarsson’s statements are particularly malicious because he knew all along that I never agreed to be a spokesperson or ambassador for the brand, and that is confirmed in documents that Mr. Ingvarsson himself signed…. I will take all necessary steps to prove these allegations to be untrue." That hasn't been the end of the drama — Jeter now reportedly has his own suit against Frigo pending in Delaware, and now a new accusation has been leveled against him. TMZ says this week that Frigo also claims "[Jeter] demanded that [Frigo] not market to the gay community and states that he did not want the Frigo brand to be 'too gay.'" While the dispute continues to play itself out, it's worth observing that when a male star aligns with an expensive underwear brand, he's surely doing it with the understanding that the gay male fans are going to take notice. Noted fan of going shirtless David Beckham, for example, has long openly embraced his gay fan base. Way back in 2002 he proudly appeared on the cover of the British gay magazine Attitude. In a 2007 interview, the footballer said, "I'm very honored to have the tag of gay icon," adding, "Maybe it's things like, I like to look after myself, I like to look smart and presentable most of the time." And his slick 2009 Armani campaign had a distinctly homoerotic frisson. Frigo attorney Joseph Tacopina tells TMZ, "We look forward to cross-examining Jeter and his representatives under oath to expose his alleged frauds to the public. We also have numerous witnesses who are waiting for their chance to testify about his alleged frauds and misconduct." But Jeter meanwhile calls the whole dustup a calculated "negative publicity campaign," saying, "It is unfortunate that Mr. Ingvarsson continues to make false claims and bad decisions."
They charged a rape victim for “lying”: Chilling case deserves same attention as Rolling Stone scandal
Last year, a scandal getting nationwide attention erupted when it was discovered that one of the victims in a Rolling Stone exposé about a rape at the University of Virginia, a woman who claimed she was brutally gang-raped at a frat party, was probably lying about most or even all of her story. The woman in question had gone out of her way to avoid accusing anyone of this possibly fake crime, even going so far as to refuse to name the ring leader in the alleged attack off the record to the journalist interviewing her. But the whole thing kicked off a nationwide hysteria about false rape accusations anyway, a hysteria that was only checked by the cold bath in reality that are the Bill Cosby allegations, which reminded everyone that, by and large, most rape accusers are telling the truth. On Wednesday, T. Christian Miller of Pro Publica and Ken Armstrong of The Marshall Project published an brutal exposé of a false accusation, titled "An Unbelievable Story of Rape." The piece details a false accusation far more horrifying than the one turned up by the Rolling Stone scandal. Unlike the UVA case, the victim of this false accusation in Lynnwood, Washington was actually named and turned over to the police to be charged. A ruined reputation, public humiliation, and estrangement from family members all followed this false accusation. Authorities very nearly kicked the victim from her home. Yes, "her." Because the victim of this bona fide, filed with the authorities, false accusation was, in fact, a woman. And she wasn't accused of rape, but of filing a false police report after she was raped. And no, it's not an "alleged" rape. Despite years of being branded as a liar, the victim, who goes by the name of "Marie" in this story, finally saw her rapist arrested and found guilty of his crime, after pictures of himself raping her were discovered in his home. It's a story of a false accusation that is far more chilling and shocking than the story of a troubled college girl misleading a journalist. As Miller and Armstrong carefully lay out, the victim, Marie, was subjected to a lengthy rape by a stranger who broke into her house, delighted in terrifying her for hours, and then tried to make her forgive him for it before he left. But even though there was physical evidence of the rape, the police were so eager to believe the "hysterical women make stuff up for attention" myth that they bullied Marie for hours until she gave in and told them what they wanted to hear, that she made it all up. Then they charged her for a crime for reporting her rape —which really did happen —in the first place. The short answer for why all this happened is sexism. The longer answer is a depressing, and depressingly predictable, laundry list of everything feminists have been telling us for decades about why people don't believe rape victims. Marie's two foster mothers, women who should have been there for her, fell for the trap of believing that victims have to act a certain way — sobbing all the time, looking properly forlorn and helpless — to be believed. "I’m a big 'Law & Order' fan," one foster mother explained, confirmed every feminist's worst fears about how that show distorts the issue of rape. The police, in turn, fell victim to every stupid misogynist stereotype that holds that women are "crazy" and that the female need for attention is so all-encompassing that they will endure the horror show that is a rape investigation, complete with a humiliating rape examination at the local ER, to get that precious, precious attention. And everyone, including the housing authorities that helped Marie get her apartment, fell victim to ugly stereotypes about people on public assistance (Marie had grown up in foster care and was living in a subsidized apartment): That they are untrustworthy, greedy, shallow people with no sense of proportion. At one point, one officer mentions that he got a tip that "Marie was unhappy with her apartment" and had made up a rape in a bid to get a new one. A million right-wing digs about welfare cheats clearly helped lead to this moment. Marie was even forced to lie, by claiming she lied, in front of her fellow adult children of foster care in order to keep her apartment. There's a whole cottage industry of anti-feminist pundits out there who make it their life's work to push the myth that women routinely lie about being raped, to get attention or to conceal consensual sexual activity. They champion poorly researched studies claiming that false rape reports are common, even going so far as to argue that half of rape reports are lies and trying to cast doubt even on claims for which there is no evidence of lying. Reliable research, meanwhile, suggests that false reports are only 2-8 percent of reports. An even smaller percentage are actual accusations, as many false reporters carefully avoid naming names. All these efforts to push the myth that false rape reports are common clearly paid off, as Marie's disturbing story shows. And not just with this one victim who was strong-armed into "admitting" she lied when she did not. "In the five years from 2008 to 2012, the department determined that 10 of 47 rapes reported to Lynnwood police were unfounded — 21.3 percent," Miller and Armstrong write. "That’s five times the national average of 4.3 percent for agencies covering similar-sized populations during that same period." How many other victims are out there, branded as liars, just because the cops would rather believe that women are hysterical rather than that rape is a crime that happens as much as it does? To be clear, no one is saying that we should simply convict men, without evidence of rape. But, as Stacy Galbraith, the detective who helped break this case, explained, you should take the time to listen to victims. “A lot of times people say, ‘Believe your victim, believe your victim,’” Galbraith told Miller and Armstrong. “But I don’t think that that’s the right standpoint. I think it’s listen to your victim. And then corroborate or refute based on how things go.” Unfortunately, as this story shows, that's often not how it goes. Victims often find, instead, that people, even friends and family, are so intent on discrediting you that you never even have a chance to make your case. Somehow I fear that this story, which has a real victim and real consequences, will not get nearly as much national attention as was paid to the story of the Rolling Stone getting snookered by a fabulist at UVA. The very real struggles that rape victims have being believed isn't as enticing a story as the baseless fears so many men have about false accusations. Like the police who ganged up on Marie, it is still easier for many of us to believe that women make all this up rather than this is a thing that is actually happening. 
White guys are killing us: Toxic, cowardly masculinity, our unhealable national illness
When the New York Times editorial board issued its powerful condemnation of America’s gun culture, they went beyond mere outrage in response to the recent murder sprees in San Bernardino, California, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Times went so far as to suggest that “assault rifle”-style weapons should be banned from civilian ownership. As is our national ritual, President Obama also condemned gun violence, and just as he has been forced to do too many times during his tenure, pleaded that Americans must find a way to stop killing each other. The American people do in fact support stronger gun control laws; the NRA, functioning as the lobbying arm for the gun industry, opposes even the most basic common sense gun laws. The NRA wins while the American people die. This is political intractability in a democracy broken by the power of a very well-funded interest group to subvert the public’s will. But, there is another little-discussed factor that helps to explain America’s obsessive and near pathological gun culture, unwillingness to treat gun violence as a public health crisis, Right-wing domestic terrorism, and propensity for mass shootings. It transcends all of those issues. But this factor is usually treated as verboten, something to not be unspoken of, because of the rage, threats of violence, and animus it inspires. The common denominator is white masculinity and the particular ways that it is connected to American gun culture and the color line. The gun is central to the founding of an American society where hierarchies of race and gender were central to the country’s Herrenvolk white racial settler democratic project. America was born as, and remains, a culture and society dedicated to maintaining the dominance, privilege, and power of white men over people of color and women. This was not an accident, bug, or a glitch. It was a feature. Guns helped White America to commit genocide against First Nations peoples and to steal land under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. The gun maintained Southern society as a white over black racial military dictatorship. The gun was also a tool for white elites to control the working classes and poor. The color line dominates America’s past and present. The United States’ racial order, those seemingly arbitrary, yet so very powerful and life altering demarcations of who is “white” and “non-white” in the United States, was born in 1675 during Bacon’s Rebellion. In that moment, white indentured servants and black “laborers” struggled together against the planter class in Virginia. The planter class found a solution, one that still dominates how Whiteness pays a psychological and material wage to white people in the United States. White elites decided to give white indentured men guns and land when their period of service was complete. In contrast, black people would be slaves, people without rights in that society, and whose period of “service” was permanent: the black body became human property and a vessel for White America’s wealth. In that crucible of race-making, poor white people in America were elevated above their (former) black allies, friends, family members, lovers, and compatriots. They were also made central to maintaining America’s racial order by using the gun to kill indigenous peoples and to suppress slave rebellions. This class of (now empowered) poor white men would become the overseers and slave patrollers of the antebellum slave South, a group that would be the basis for the United States’ first modern police forces. At the moment of genesis for race in America, when “white people” and “whiteness” were born, the gun was a marker of racial identity and power. After the Civil War, white Southerners desperately tried to snuff out the freedom dreams and democratic power of now free African-Americans. Once Reconstruction was betrayed, white Southerners would launch a reign of terror where it is estimated that approximately 50,000 black Americans were killed by whites. White elites understood the practical and symbolic power of the gun. As such, they passed laws that made it illegal for black Americans to own firearms. African-American Civil War veterans, a group that had earned their full citizenship as men via martial prowess, would be made the focus of special violence by white Southerners. The infamous Black Codes and Jim and Jane Crow denied guns to black people on practical grounds—black people with guns would be able to actively resist white supremacist violence and political disenfranchisement. These laws had symbolic power as well. Because gun ownership was reserved for white people, it was deeply integral to notions of white masculinity and white male power. The gun was a tool for white men to protect “the white family” against non-whites. The gun was also a way for white men (the normative and idealized “white heterosexual Christian male) to impose their power both within their families, as well as against other white men in the public and private sphere when necessary. In America, hegemonic white masculinity has many dimensions: the gun is central to its order. African-Americans and other people of color have resisted white supremacy and fought for their democratic rights and liberties since before the founding of the United States. Black elites, as well as the rank and file members of the black public, understood the practical and symbolic power of guns in America. Black freedom fighter Ida B. Welles famously said that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Black home.” African-Americans used guns to fight back against white on black racial pogroms and efforts at ethnic cleansing across the United States during the “bloody summers” of the post World War I era. There were armed self-defense groups such as the legendary Deacons for Defense who served during the Civil Rights Movement. Robert Williams, author of the book Negroes with Guns, and founder of Radio Free Dixie, advocated black armed self-defense against white racial violence. In an iconic visual, members of The Black Panther Party, in compliance with state law, marched on the California state capital while brandishing their guns. The notion that gun ownership should be exclusive to white people would be asserted once more. Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, worked to pass stricter gun laws because of the Black Panthers using open carry laws. Robert Williams would be forced into exile in Cuba. Black people who fought back against white racial terrorism were killed by white mobs, police, and other State actors. While black Americans and other people of color tried to use guns for self-defense and to actively protect their full citizenship rights, firearms are also a tool for stifling democracy and freedom. While gun fetishists and conservatives obsess over their fantastically deranged belief that a firearm is a Constitutional “right,” one that in an age of drones and robotic killing would help them fight “tyranny” in America, leading scholar Richard Slotkin has insightfully observed that guns are also the ultimate suppressor of dissent and democratic discourse. There are many examples of this at present. Armed white people, mostly men, have been brandishing weapons to intimidate Muslims in Texas. White, mostly male, open carry advocates, march in public with guns, intimidating the general public and those who disagree with them. After mass shooting incidents, Republican politicians suggest that gun violence is somehow the price for the “freedom” and “liberty” of gun ownership in America. For them, a country awash with guns and gun violence is inseparable from American Exceptionalism. This is a macabre and sick understanding of what makes America “great.” That gun violence apologists on the American Right-wing cannot think of some greater motivation for their worship of “American Exceptionalism” is a devastating indictment of the country’s civic health. Moreover, those who advocate better enforcement of gun laws, and treating gun ownership and violence as threats to public health and safety, are often treated by conservatives as though they are “anti-American” threats to “freedom.” And given the eliminationist rhetoric and authoritarian tendencies of contemporary conservatism, gun control advocates are often harassed and threatened with violence. Race, guns, gender, and politics have a knotted relationship in the United States. But research by social scientists and others can help us to gain some insight into this puzzle. White men are approximately 30 percent of the population but account for 60 percent of the mass shootings. Domestic terrorism by white Right-wing Christians, again, mostly men, has been identified by the F.B.I. as the United States’ greatest internal threat. Research by Kerry O’Brien, Walter Forrest, Dermot Lynott, and Michael Daly as featured in the journal PLS One, has shown that white symbolic racism is directly related to gun ownership, hostility to gun control laws, and support for concealed carry. Stand Your Ground laws are racist in their enforcement and use. Support for concealed carried laws is also related to anti-black sentiment and animus. The demographics of gun ownership in the United States are also essential to working through this puzzle. Guns are more likely to be owned in the South and “rural” parts of the United States. The American South is the former slave owning white supremacist Confederacy, land of Jim and Jane Crow, and now bastion for Red State America. In American public discourse the word “rural” is code for “white.” Ultimately, patterns of gun ownership help to map out the racial geography and attitudes of the United States. White men are 31 percent of the population but own 62 percent of the guns in the United States. While the inability of the United States to pass and enforce meaningful gun control laws is a result of the power of monied interests such as the National Rifle Association and gun industry, it is also a function of how gun ownership has historically been connected to white masculinity. In a social and political moment where white (working class) men are less hopeful about their futures, sense (however incorrectly) their diminishing power as a group, the country is experiencing the rise of authoritarianism and proto fascism as embodied by Donald Trump and the Republican Party, fear of “terrorism” and narratives about “white people” becoming a “minority” are en vogue, the gun is a type of security blanket and defense against a sense of existential angst and white male obsolescence. There will be no effective gun control in the United States, even in the aftermath of horrific events such as Sandy Hook, the Planned Parenthood Shooting, or the San Bernardino massacre, until politicians, pundits, and analysts realize that the gun is a type of totem or fetish object for too many white men. As such, when we try to talk about gun control in America, a centuries-deep sense of white masculinity that understands the gun as its exclusive right is made to feel imperiled and upset. The complex relationship between guns, race, and gender are central to America’s national character. One cannot truly understand America’s past and present without taking a full account of those variables. As a recent article in the American Journal of Public Health notes: However, in the present day, the actions of lone White male shooters lead to calls to expand gun rights, focus on individual brains, or limit gun rights just for the severely mentally ill. Indeed it would seem political suicide for a legislator or doctor to hint at restricting the gun rights for White Americans, private citizens, or men, even though these groups are frequently linked to high-profile mass shootings. Meanwhile, members of political groups such as the Tea Party who advocate broadening gun rights to guard against government tyranny—indeed the same claims made by Black Panther leaders in the 1960s—take seats in the US Congress rather than being subjected to psychiatric surveillance. It would appear that in the United States too many white men love guns more than their children, wives, each other, and--as indicated by suicide rates--even themselves. 
British court clears Saudi millionaire of rape charges after he claimed he accidentally tripped and fell on teenage girl
A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." 
A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private."
A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private." A Saudi millionaire was found innocent of rape charges after claiming he accidentally tripped and fell on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping on a sofa in his luxury London condo. The young girl said she woke up in the early hours of the morning and real estate mogul Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was raping her. Abdulaziz had previously slept with the teenager's 24-year-old friend in his bedroom. He claimed that he had walked over to the young girl to offer to give her a t-shirt, when he tripped and fell on her, with his penis still sticking out of his underwear from the previous sexual encounter. An investigation found that Abdulaziz' semen and DNA were inside the teenage girl, but he claimed this was leftover from having sex with the teen's friend. The millionaire property developer also blamed the alleged rape survivor for pulling him on top of her. "I'm fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened," Abdulaziz said, according to British media reports. Abdulaziz had met the young women in a high-end London club. He invited them to his private $1,500-per-night table and bought them both drinks. Later that night, the millionaire offered to drive them home in his lavish Aston Martin car. Abdulaziz is married and lives with his wife and child. At the time of the incident, the two were spending the summer in the Czech Republic. The jury, in London's Southwark Crown Court, acquitted the millionaire after roughly 30 minutes of deliberation. British publication the Daily Mail reported that, "During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Mr Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private."
Shocker, Rand Paul’s actually good for something! Love him or hate him, he shows how incoherent and ridiculous the Republicans are
Rand Paul deserves a round of applause. The Kentucky senator may be wrong about a lot of things, but he’s consistent and he has an actual governing philosophy. More importantly, his presence in the Republican race has clarified just how vacuous and unprincipled the other candidates are. Whether you agree with him or not, Paul makes arguments on the basis of firmly held principles. At the very least, there’s an internal logic to his worldview, and that allows for a substantive debate with those who disagree, which is about the best we can hope for in a presidential campaign. Paul’s consistency was evident in last night’s Republican debate, as it was in previous debates. Indeed, his opening statement pointed out how disconnected everyone else on that stage is: 
Rand Paul deserves a round of applause. The Kentucky senator may be wrong about a lot of things, but he’s consistent and he has an actual governing philosophy. More importantly, his presence in the Republican race has clarified just how vacuous and unprincipled the other candidates are. Whether you agree with him or not, Paul makes arguments on the basis of firmly held principles. At the very least, there’s an internal logic to his worldview, and that allows for a substantive debate with those who disagree, which is about the best we can hope for in a presidential campaign. Paul’s consistency was evident in last night’s Republican debate, as it was in previous debates. Indeed, his opening statement pointed out how disconnected everyone else on that stage is: Rand Paul deserves a round of applause. The Kentucky senator may be wrong about a lot of things, but he’s consistent and he has an actual governing philosophy. More importantly, his presence in the Republican race has clarified just how vacuous and unprincipled the other candidates are. Whether you agree with him or not, Paul makes arguments on the basis of firmly held principles. At the very least, there’s an internal logic to his worldview, and that allows for a substantive debate with those who disagree, which is about the best we can hope for in a presidential campaign. Paul’s consistency was evident in last night’s Republican debate, as it was in previous debates. Indeed, his opening statement pointed out how disconnected everyone else on that stage is:
“The question is, how do we keep America safe from terrorism? Trump says we ought to close that Internet thing. The question really is, what does he mean by that? Like they do in North Korea? Like they do in China? Rubio says we should collect all Americans' records all of the time. The Constitution says otherwise. I think they're both wrong. I think we defeat terrorism by showing them that we do not fear them. I think if we ban certain religions, if we censor the Internet, I think that at that point the terrorists will have won. Regime change hasn't won. Toppling secular dictators in the Middle East has only led to chaos and the rise of radical Islam. I think if we want to defeat terrorism, I think if we truly are sincere about defeating terrorism, we need to quit arming the allies of ISIS. If we want to defeat terrorism, the boots on the ground -- the boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground. As commander-in-chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend America. But in defending America, we cannot lose what America stands for. Today is the Bill of Rights' anniversary. I hope we will remember that and cherish that in the fight on terrorism.”There’s nothing heroic about Paul’s proclamation, but it’s honest and grounded in recent history. Almost every other candidate on that stage is too cowardly to admit this, however. The Republican Party has become pathologically militaristic, and Paul is the only person willing to push back, who will concede that the last fifteen years actually happened. Throughout the debate, Paul was the lone voice of reason. When Rubio, a small government conservative, called for more troops and more spending, Paul noted his fiscal hypocrisy. When practically every other candidate endorsed arming the “moderates” in Syria, he made the obvious point: “I think that by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Assad, that we created a safe space or made the space bigger for ISIS to grow. I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake. When we toppled Gadhafi in Libya, I think that was a mistake. I think ISIS grew stronger, we had a failed state, and we were more at risk.” When Christie blustered about no-fly zones and shooting down Russian planes, Paul pounced: “Well, I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate….My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, ‘Yes, I’m jumping up and down; I’m going to shoot down Russian planes.’’ This is the role Paul has played for the duration of this campaign. He's the only person who dares to poke holes in the phantasms peddled by his fellow candidates. In a party of blinkered non-leaders, Paul has continually said what he thought was true, regardless of the room. He deserves credit for that. Unfortunately, Paul has virtually no chance of winning the Republican nomination. To win, Paul had to energize the libertarian wing of the party, and he’s failed to do that. Part of the problem is that candidates like Trump and Cruz have emerged as the preferred “outsider” candidates, leaving little space for Paul. But Paul’s bigger problem is his tendency to tell the truth; conservative voters aren’t interested in that. They want red meat, empty platitudes, and false promises. Trump and Cruz are counterfeit conservatives; they’ll shape-shift and say whatever they think their audience wants to hear. Paul is serious, however, even if you disagree with him. He has governing principles, and his rhetoric is constrained by reality; this is something of a sin in Republican circles. Whether it’s defense spending or reckless interventionism or the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance program, Paul is the only one willing to take an unpopular – but necessary – stand. And he does so on the basis of libertarian and conservative principles. That he stands alone on these issues is a reminder that his Republicans colleagues aren’t conservative at all – they’re incoherent or worse. That Republican voters refuse to take him seriously when he defends conservative principles also shows how disjointed their views are. Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would make a far better president than Rand Paul. However, a general election campaign with Paul at the top of the Republican ticket would be a good thing for the country. We’d have a real debate. With Sanders in particular, there would be a crystal clear contrast, and a genuine collision of ideas. That won’t happen with Trump or Cruz or Carson or Rubio or Bush because they’re conservatives in name only. Unlike Paul, they won’t even acknowledge the failures of the previous Republican administration, and so there’s no real conversation to be had about what went wrong or how to fix it. Instead, they muddy the waters with misinformation and a version of history that begins the day Obama was inaugurated. Paul, to his credit, has the courage of his convictions, and will engage in a serious debate. That sets him apart in today’s GOP.
Rand Paul deserves a round of applause. The Kentucky senator may be wrong about a lot of things, but he’s consistent and he has an actual governing philosophy. More importantly, his presence in the Republican race has clarified just how vacuous and unprincipled the other candidates are. Whether you agree with him or not, Paul makes arguments on the basis of firmly held principles. At the very least, there’s an internal logic to his worldview, and that allows for a substantive debate with those who disagree, which is about the best we can hope for in a presidential campaign. Paul’s consistency was evident in last night’s Republican debate, as it was in previous debates. Indeed, his opening statement pointed out how disconnected everyone else on that stage is: “The question is, how do we keep America safe from terrorism? Trump says we ought to close that Internet thing. The question really is, what does he mean by that? Like they do in North Korea? Like they do in China? Rubio says we should collect all Americans' records all of the time. The Constitution says otherwise. I think they're both wrong. I think we defeat terrorism by showing them that we do not fear them. I think if we ban certain religions, if we censor the Internet, I think that at that point the terrorists will have won. Regime change hasn't won. Toppling secular dictators in the Middle East has only led to chaos and the rise of radical Islam. I think if we want to defeat terrorism, I think if we truly are sincere about defeating terrorism, we need to quit arming the allies of ISIS. If we want to defeat terrorism, the boots on the ground -- the boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground. As commander-in-chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend America. But in defending America, we cannot lose what America stands for. Today is the Bill of Rights' anniversary. I hope we will remember that and cherish that in the fight on terrorism.”There’s nothing heroic about Paul’s proclamation, but it’s honest and grounded in recent history. Almost every other candidate on that stage is too cowardly to admit this, however. The Republican Party has become pathologically militaristic, and Paul is the only person willing to push back, who will concede that the last fifteen years actually happened. Throughout the debate, Paul was the lone voice of reason. When Rubio, a small government conservative, called for more troops and more spending, Paul noted his fiscal hypocrisy. When practically every other candidate endorsed arming the “moderates” in Syria, he made the obvious point: “I think that by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Assad, that we created a safe space or made the space bigger for ISIS to grow. I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake. When we toppled Gadhafi in Libya, I think that was a mistake. I think ISIS grew stronger, we had a failed state, and we were more at risk.” When Christie blustered about no-fly zones and shooting down Russian planes, Paul pounced: “Well, I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate….My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, ‘Yes, I’m jumping up and down; I’m going to shoot down Russian planes.’’ This is the role Paul has played for the duration of this campaign. He's the only person who dares to poke holes in the phantasms peddled by his fellow candidates. In a party of blinkered non-leaders, Paul has continually said what he thought was true, regardless of the room. He deserves credit for that. Unfortunately, Paul has virtually no chance of winning the Republican nomination. To win, Paul had to energize the libertarian wing of the party, and he’s failed to do that. Part of the problem is that candidates like Trump and Cruz have emerged as the preferred “outsider” candidates, leaving little space for Paul. But Paul’s bigger problem is his tendency to tell the truth; conservative voters aren’t interested in that. They want red meat, empty platitudes, and false promises. Trump and Cruz are counterfeit conservatives; they’ll shape-shift and say whatever they think their audience wants to hear. Paul is serious, however, even if you disagree with him. He has governing principles, and his rhetoric is constrained by reality; this is something of a sin in Republican circles. Whether it’s defense spending or reckless interventionism or the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance program, Paul is the only one willing to take an unpopular – but necessary – stand. And he does so on the basis of libertarian and conservative principles. That he stands alone on these issues is a reminder that his Republicans colleagues aren’t conservative at all – they’re incoherent or worse. That Republican voters refuse to take him seriously when he defends conservative principles also shows how disjointed their views are. Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would make a far better president than Rand Paul. However, a general election campaign with Paul at the top of the Republican ticket would be a good thing for the country. We’d have a real debate. With Sanders in particular, there would be a crystal clear contrast, and a genuine collision of ideas. That won’t happen with Trump or Cruz or Carson or Rubio or Bush because they’re conservatives in name only. Unlike Paul, they won’t even acknowledge the failures of the previous Republican administration, and so there’s no real conversation to be had about what went wrong or how to fix it. Instead, they muddy the waters with misinformation and a version of history that begins the day Obama was inaugurated. Paul, to his credit, has the courage of his convictions, and will engage in a serious debate. That sets him apart in today’s GOP.
Rand Paul deserves a round of applause. The Kentucky senator may be wrong about a lot of things, but he’s consistent and he has an actual governing philosophy. More importantly, his presence in the Republican race has clarified just how vacuous and unprincipled the other candidates are. Whether you agree with him or not, Paul makes arguments on the basis of firmly held principles. At the very least, there’s an internal logic to his worldview, and that allows for a substantive debate with those who disagree, which is about the best we can hope for in a presidential campaign. Paul’s consistency was evident in last night’s Republican debate, as it was in previous debates. Indeed, his opening statement pointed out how disconnected everyone else on that stage is: “The question is, how do we keep America safe from terrorism? Trump says we ought to close that Internet thing. The question really is, what does he mean by that? Like they do in North Korea? Like they do in China? Rubio says we should collect all Americans' records all of the time. The Constitution says otherwise. I think they're both wrong. I think we defeat terrorism by showing them that we do not fear them. I think if we ban certain religions, if we censor the Internet, I think that at that point the terrorists will have won. Regime change hasn't won. Toppling secular dictators in the Middle East has only led to chaos and the rise of radical Islam. I think if we want to defeat terrorism, I think if we truly are sincere about defeating terrorism, we need to quit arming the allies of ISIS. If we want to defeat terrorism, the boots on the ground -- the boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground. As commander-in-chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend America. But in defending America, we cannot lose what America stands for. Today is the Bill of Rights' anniversary. I hope we will remember that and cherish that in the fight on terrorism.”There’s nothing heroic about Paul’s proclamation, but it’s honest and grounded in recent history. Almost every other candidate on that stage is too cowardly to admit this, however. The Republican Party has become pathologically militaristic, and Paul is the only person willing to push back, who will concede that the last fifteen years actually happened. Throughout the debate, Paul was the lone voice of reason. When Rubio, a small government conservative, called for more troops and more spending, Paul noted his fiscal hypocrisy. When practically every other candidate endorsed arming the “moderates” in Syria, he made the obvious point: “I think that by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Assad, that we created a safe space or made the space bigger for ISIS to grow. I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake. When we toppled Gadhafi in Libya, I think that was a mistake. I think ISIS grew stronger, we had a failed state, and we were more at risk.” When Christie blustered about no-fly zones and shooting down Russian planes, Paul pounced: “Well, I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate….My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, ‘Yes, I’m jumping up and down; I’m going to shoot down Russian planes.’’ This is the role Paul has played for the duration of this campaign. He's the only person who dares to poke holes in the phantasms peddled by his fellow candidates. In a party of blinkered non-leaders, Paul has continually said what he thought was true, regardless of the room. He deserves credit for that. Unfortunately, Paul has virtually no chance of winning the Republican nomination. To win, Paul had to energize the libertarian wing of the party, and he’s failed to do that. Part of the problem is that candidates like Trump and Cruz have emerged as the preferred “outsider” candidates, leaving little space for Paul. But Paul’s bigger problem is his tendency to tell the truth; conservative voters aren’t interested in that. They want red meat, empty platitudes, and false promises. Trump and Cruz are counterfeit conservatives; they’ll shape-shift and say whatever they think their audience wants to hear. Paul is serious, however, even if you disagree with him. He has governing principles, and his rhetoric is constrained by reality; this is something of a sin in Republican circles. Whether it’s defense spending or reckless interventionism or the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance program, Paul is the only one willing to take an unpopular – but necessary – stand. And he does so on the basis of libertarian and conservative principles. That he stands alone on these issues is a reminder that his Republicans colleagues aren’t conservative at all – they’re incoherent or worse. That Republican voters refuse to take him seriously when he defends conservative principles also shows how disjointed their views are. Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would make a far better president than Rand Paul. However, a general election campaign with Paul at the top of the Republican ticket would be a good thing for the country. We’d have a real debate. With Sanders in particular, there would be a crystal clear contrast, and a genuine collision of ideas. That won’t happen with Trump or Cruz or Carson or Rubio or Bush because they’re conservatives in name only. Unlike Paul, they won’t even acknowledge the failures of the previous Republican administration, and so there’s no real conversation to be had about what went wrong or how to fix it. Instead, they muddy the waters with misinformation and a version of history that begins the day Obama was inaugurated. Paul, to his credit, has the courage of his convictions, and will engage in a serious debate. That sets him apart in today’s GOP.
“They are going out of their way to f*ck me”: Tarantino slams Disney over “Star Wars” and “Hateful Eight” clash
Quentin Tarantino was “moved to [rage] tears” while promoting his new movie, “The Hateful Eight,” this morning on The Howard Stern Show.
Tarantino used the platform to complain that Disney planned to box out his latest film from ArcLight’s iconic three-projector Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. “The Hateful Eight” was set to begin a two-week run at the Cinerama Dome on Christmas Day.
“I grew up in Los Angeles, so I think of the Cinerama Dome as a real big deal,” Tarantino told Stern. “I’d imagined seeing it at the Cinerama Dome.”
According to Tarantino, Disney threatened to pull “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” from all ArcLight locations if the theater honored its contract with “The Hateful Eight” and denied Disney an extended holiday season run of the latest edition of the “Star Wars” franchise.
“They are going out of their way to fuck me,” Tarantino said. “They didn’t need to be this vindictive.”
Stern generously threw his weight behind Tarantino's cause, Godfather-style. "Will you let me handle this now?" Stern said, appealing directly to "Bobby" — Disney CEO Bob Iger, with whom Stern has partied, apparently, in the past, and who "does listen to the show religiously" — to let Tarantino screen in his favorite theater "for me."
"It's Christmas, for Chrissakes, the guy had no father," Stern joked, referring to Tarantino's estranged father, who criticized Tarantino's police brutality protest on Sean Hannity's show. “Bob, if you never met your dad and he’s on fucking Hannity, calling you wrong …”
“I’ve never seen you do anything quite so sweet,” Tarantino told Stern.
Listen to the full segment here:
(h/t Deadline)
Quentin Tarantino was “moved to [rage] tears” while promoting his new movie, “The Hateful Eight,” this morning on The Howard Stern Show.
Tarantino used the platform to complain that Disney planned to box out his latest film from ArcLight’s iconic three-projector Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. “The Hateful Eight” was set to begin a two-week run at the Cinerama Dome on Christmas Day.
“I grew up in Los Angeles, so I think of the Cinerama Dome as a real big deal,” Tarantino told Stern. “I’d imagined seeing it at the Cinerama Dome.”
According to Tarantino, Disney threatened to pull “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” from all ArcLight locations if the theater honored its contract with “The Hateful Eight” and denied Disney an extended holiday season run of the latest edition of the “Star Wars” franchise.
“They are going out of their way to fuck me,” Tarantino said. “They didn’t need to be this vindictive.”
Stern generously threw his weight behind Tarantino's cause, Godfather-style. "Will you let me handle this now?" Stern said, appealing directly to "Bobby" — Disney CEO Bob Iger, with whom Stern has partied, apparently, in the past, and who "does listen to the show religiously" — to let Tarantino screen in his favorite theater "for me."
"It's Christmas, for Chrissakes, the guy had no father," Stern joked, referring to Tarantino's estranged father, who criticized Tarantino's police brutality protest on Sean Hannity's show. “Bob, if you never met your dad and he’s on fucking Hannity, calling you wrong …”
“I’ve never seen you do anything quite so sweet,” Tarantino told Stern.
Listen to the full segment here:
(h/t Deadline)
Quentin Tarantino was “moved to [rage] tears” while promoting his new movie, “The Hateful Eight,” this morning on The Howard Stern Show.
Tarantino used the platform to complain that Disney planned to box out his latest film from ArcLight’s iconic three-projector Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. “The Hateful Eight” was set to begin a two-week run at the Cinerama Dome on Christmas Day.
“I grew up in Los Angeles, so I think of the Cinerama Dome as a real big deal,” Tarantino told Stern. “I’d imagined seeing it at the Cinerama Dome.”
According to Tarantino, Disney threatened to pull “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” from all ArcLight locations if the theater honored its contract with “The Hateful Eight” and denied Disney an extended holiday season run of the latest edition of the “Star Wars” franchise.
“They are going out of their way to fuck me,” Tarantino said. “They didn’t need to be this vindictive.”
Stern generously threw his weight behind Tarantino's cause, Godfather-style. "Will you let me handle this now?" Stern said, appealing directly to "Bobby" — Disney CEO Bob Iger, with whom Stern has partied, apparently, in the past, and who "does listen to the show religiously" — to let Tarantino screen in his favorite theater "for me."
"It's Christmas, for Chrissakes, the guy had no father," Stern joked, referring to Tarantino's estranged father, who criticized Tarantino's police brutality protest on Sean Hannity's show. “Bob, if you never met your dad and he’s on fucking Hannity, calling you wrong …”
“I’ve never seen you do anything quite so sweet,” Tarantino told Stern.
Listen to the full segment here:
(h/t Deadline)
Quentin Tarantino was “moved to [rage] tears” while promoting his new movie, “The Hateful Eight,” this morning on The Howard Stern Show.
Tarantino used the platform to complain that Disney planned to box out his latest film from ArcLight’s iconic three-projector Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. “The Hateful Eight” was set to begin a two-week run at the Cinerama Dome on Christmas Day.
“I grew up in Los Angeles, so I think of the Cinerama Dome as a real big deal,” Tarantino told Stern. “I’d imagined seeing it at the Cinerama Dome.”
According to Tarantino, Disney threatened to pull “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” from all ArcLight locations if the theater honored its contract with “The Hateful Eight” and denied Disney an extended holiday season run of the latest edition of the “Star Wars” franchise.
“They are going out of their way to fuck me,” Tarantino said. “They didn’t need to be this vindictive.”
Stern generously threw his weight behind Tarantino's cause, Godfather-style. "Will you let me handle this now?" Stern said, appealing directly to "Bobby" — Disney CEO Bob Iger, with whom Stern has partied, apparently, in the past, and who "does listen to the show religiously" — to let Tarantino screen in his favorite theater "for me."
"It's Christmas, for Chrissakes, the guy had no father," Stern joked, referring to Tarantino's estranged father, who criticized Tarantino's police brutality protest on Sean Hannity's show. “Bob, if you never met your dad and he’s on fucking Hannity, calling you wrong …”
“I’ve never seen you do anything quite so sweet,” Tarantino told Stern.
Listen to the full segment here:
(h/t Deadline)
Quentin Tarantino was “moved to [rage] tears” while promoting his new movie, “The Hateful Eight,” this morning on The Howard Stern Show.
Tarantino used the platform to complain that Disney planned to box out his latest film from ArcLight’s iconic three-projector Cinerama Dome on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. “The Hateful Eight” was set to begin a two-week run at the Cinerama Dome on Christmas Day.
“I grew up in Los Angeles, so I think of the Cinerama Dome as a real big deal,” Tarantino told Stern. “I’d imagined seeing it at the Cinerama Dome.”
According to Tarantino, Disney threatened to pull “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” from all ArcLight locations if the theater honored its contract with “The Hateful Eight” and denied Disney an extended holiday season run of the latest edition of the “Star Wars” franchise.
“They are going out of their way to fuck me,” Tarantino said. “They didn’t need to be this vindictive.”
Stern generously threw his weight behind Tarantino's cause, Godfather-style. "Will you let me handle this now?" Stern said, appealing directly to "Bobby" — Disney CEO Bob Iger, with whom Stern has partied, apparently, in the past, and who "does listen to the show religiously" — to let Tarantino screen in his favorite theater "for me."
"It's Christmas, for Chrissakes, the guy had no father," Stern joked, referring to Tarantino's estranged father, who criticized Tarantino's police brutality protest on Sean Hannity's show. “Bob, if you never met your dad and he’s on fucking Hannity, calling you wrong …”
“I’ve never seen you do anything quite so sweet,” Tarantino told Stern.
Listen to the full segment here:
(h/t Deadline)
December 15, 2015
Donald Trump, FDR and Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson problem: Here’s how we stop defending historical racism and move forward
After news broke last week that Erika Christakis, the Yale House Master whose terminally offensive email set off a wave of protests, decided to give up her teaching position, conservative columnists went wild. Christakis was characterized as a victim of the “free-speech surveillance state” she'd denounced back in 2012. Are you happy now? Christakis defenders goaded. I can only speak for myself, but no. Abandoning her teaching role while keeping her cushy and prestigious role as Associate House Master was the precise opposite of what I wanted from Christakis. The former was a narrowly tailored academic position. In the latter she is, and will continue to be, charged with defining the living experience of a broad swath of the student body. It is in this role that she failed, miserably. But what was, perhaps, the most telling was not the absurd suggestion that her voluntary resignation signaled the collapse of academic freedom successfully wrought by the p.c. police. It was, instead, a failure to characterize Christakis as lacking “resilience,” a charge that was happily levied at the students who'd taken offense at her words. That some are more inclined to demand “resilience” of our minority students than our white administrators is damning. For only the feelings of minorities are obstacles to be overcome, and only the feelings of white people are worth protection. “Resilience,” as so-called defenders of free speech would define it, amounts to sitting down and shutting up. In a society whose impulse is to shield white points of view from criticism while silencing minority ones, the ongoing protests demand a great deal of fortitude. It is a show of inner strength to declare one's feelings relevant in the face of national scorn and mockery. Some such protests revolve around renaming institutions whose namesakes were venomous racists: the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs of Princeton and
Auschwitz as an industrial workplace: Devastating Holocaust drama “Son of Saul” finds a new story in the Nazi death camp
You may suspect there are no more untold stories about the Holocaust, the central signifying event of the 20th century, or at any rate no new ways of telling them. I suspected that myself, but “Son of Saul,” the riveting debut feature from Hungarian director László Nemes, proves otherwise. Gripping from its first frame to its last, and ending with a shot of unforgettable and heartbreaking simplicity – just a stand of trees in a Polish wood, through which we have seen a small boy running away, stirring in a gentle breeze – “Son of Saul” is a work of superlative filmmaking craft and moral intensity. Most of the film is shot in medium close-up or extreme close-up, so there are often background or foreground events occurring out of focus that we can only partly apprehend. (Sometimes we may not want to.) For most of the running time, cinematographer Mátyás Erdély (shooting on old-school 35mm film) remains tightly focused on the face of a concentration-camp inmate named Saul Ausländer, who is played by the remarkable Hungarian actor Géza Röhrig. If my rudimentary German does not fail me, Saul’s last name means “foreigner,” and the clear implication is that (like the actor Röhrig) he is a Hungarian of German background, who may understand more of the Nazi guards’ language than he lets on. Saul is a Sonderkommando, a Jewish inmate compelled to work as slave labor in a death camp. Although the camp in “Son of Saul” has been identified as Auschwitz, it might as well be Treblinka or Belzec or Sobibór or a number of other places. If this is indeed Auschwitz, we are late in World War II, probably the summer or fall of 1944, when the tide of war had turned decisively against Germany and Hitler’s administrators devoted considerable resources to exterminating as many Jews as possible during the time left to them. Of course the Nazi regime had already committed unforgivable war crimes by that time, but one measure of its insanity lies here: Faced with imminent defeat, the Germans did not make the logical decision to abandon the Final Solution and pour all available money and manpower into military counterattack. It would appear they decided that killing Jews was more important than winning the war. We never see that level of contest in Nemes’ film, but Saul and his fellow Sonderkommando have no illusions about what’s going on. They have been selected from most able-bodied of male arrivals, and they are being kept alive for a few months, with enough food and sleep to sustain them, because the SS needs them to perform the menial labor that keeps the camp running. For the first time in any Holocaust movie I can remember, we understand a death camp as an industrial production system – as a workplace built around repetitious tasks, with laborers who shirk and complain and steal and bosses who grumble, make unreasonable demands, take bribes and pass the buck. Is it obscene to consider the gas chambers of Auschwitz as a factory, not inherently unlike one where trousers are sewn or automobiles banged together? (Or where cattle are slaughtered, to take the obvious parallel.) Of course it is, but that was precisely the displacement mechanism that allowed the officers, guards and inmates to move from one day to the next in a semblance of normal behavior. The industrial process in which Saul works is mass murder, to be sure, and its principal output is dead bodies by the thousands, which create an increasingly difficult disposal problem. (The men, women and children to be dragged from the gas chambers are always described as “pieces” by the guards.) As in any industrial process, there are important byproducts as well. One of Saul’s jobs is to pull down and sort all the clothing that new arrivals have hung on hooks before being sent to the “showers,” looking for hidden gold, jewelry and other valuables. All that loot is supposed to be surrendered to the SS guards, of course, but everyone understands that some of it disappears along the way. Such hidden valuables are the most important camp currency, and as we learn during the two-day narrative arc of “Son of Saul,” they can be used to acquire almost anything short of actual freedom: Food, liquor, sexual liaisons and even packages delivered from the outside. Saul and the other Sonderkommando display no visible emotion about the tasks they perform, which include participating in the killing of other Jews and then stealing their belongings. How would despair or grief help them to survive? But that is not to say there is no humanity left in them, or no moral sensibility. Saul wants to spend his ill-gotten loot to pay for rabbinical services from another inmate, for reasons that become clear very early in the film. This puts him in potential collision with a cabal of inmates who are stockpiling smuggled arms and planning an uprising, and want all the stolen gold to go toward that end. There were several acts of armed rebellion in the extermination camps, most famously at Sobibór, where roughly 400 inmates broke out in October 1943 and at least 58 are known to have survived the war. Nemes’ screenplay, co-written with Clara Royer, is no doubt based on a documented uprising at Auschwitz-Birkenau that happened about a year after that, but I would advise you not to look up that history before you see the film. I would say that Nemes never cheats for one second in “Son of Saul.” He never tries to make this dire episode of human history any better than it was, never looks for extraordinary humanity or decency among the Nazis and does not try to make the unpalatable moral dilemma of someone like Saul any easier to manage. Yet in telling a story that we know can have no good outcome, about a man who has been compelled to aid in the destruction of his own people and also compelled to crush or quell his own instincts and emotions, “Son of Saul” actually finds the possibility of freedom and transcendence and even hope. Röhrig’s impassive, single-minded performance as Saul breaks exactly once, just before that last shot of the trees in the Polish wind, and at that moment we see a human being who has not surrendered, and who sees that there is life beyond this living hell. "Son of Saul" opens this week in New York and Los Angeles, with wider national release to follow.You may suspect there are no more untold stories about the Holocaust, the central signifying event of the 20th century, or at any rate no new ways of telling them. I suspected that myself, but “Son of Saul,” the riveting debut feature from Hungarian director László Nemes, proves otherwise. Gripping from its first frame to its last, and ending with a shot of unforgettable and heartbreaking simplicity – just a stand of trees in a Polish wood, through which we have seen a small boy running away, stirring in a gentle breeze – “Son of Saul” is a work of superlative filmmaking craft and moral intensity. Most of the film is shot in medium close-up or extreme close-up, so there are often background or foreground events occurring out of focus that we can only partly apprehend. (Sometimes we may not want to.) For most of the running time, cinematographer Mátyás Erdély (shooting on old-school 35mm film) remains tightly focused on the face of a concentration-camp inmate named Saul Ausländer, who is played by the remarkable Hungarian actor Géza Röhrig. If my rudimentary German does not fail me, Saul’s last name means “foreigner,” and the clear implication is that (like the actor Röhrig) he is a Hungarian of German background, who may understand more of the Nazi guards’ language than he lets on. Saul is a Sonderkommando, a Jewish inmate compelled to work as slave labor in a death camp. Although the camp in “Son of Saul” has been identified as Auschwitz, it might as well be Treblinka or Belzec or Sobibór or a number of other places. If this is indeed Auschwitz, we are late in World War II, probably the summer or fall of 1944, when the tide of war had turned decisively against Germany and Hitler’s administrators devoted considerable resources to exterminating as many Jews as possible during the time left to them. Of course the Nazi regime had already committed unforgivable war crimes by that time, but one measure of its insanity lies here: Faced with imminent defeat, the Germans did not make the logical decision to abandon the Final Solution and pour all available money and manpower into military counterattack. It would appear they decided that killing Jews was more important than winning the war. We never see that level of contest in Nemes’ film, but Saul and his fellow Sonderkommando have no illusions about what’s going on. They have been selected from most able-bodied of male arrivals, and they are being kept alive for a few months, with enough food and sleep to sustain them, because the SS needs them to perform the menial labor that keeps the camp running. For the first time in any Holocaust movie I can remember, we understand a death camp as an industrial production system – as a workplace built around repetitious tasks, with laborers who shirk and complain and steal and bosses who grumble, make unreasonable demands, take bribes and pass the buck. Is it obscene to consider the gas chambers of Auschwitz as a factory, not inherently unlike one where trousers are sewn or automobiles banged together? (Or where cattle are slaughtered, to take the obvious parallel.) Of course it is, but that was precisely the displacement mechanism that allowed the officers, guards and inmates to move from one day to the next in a semblance of normal behavior. The industrial process in which Saul works is mass murder, to be sure, and its principal output is dead bodies by the thousands, which create an increasingly difficult disposal problem. (The men, women and children to be dragged from the gas chambers are always described as “pieces” by the guards.) As in any industrial process, there are important byproducts as well. One of Saul’s jobs is to pull down and sort all the clothing that new arrivals have hung on hooks before being sent to the “showers,” looking for hidden gold, jewelry and other valuables. All that loot is supposed to be surrendered to the SS guards, of course, but everyone understands that some of it disappears along the way. Such hidden valuables are the most important camp currency, and as we learn during the two-day narrative arc of “Son of Saul,” they can be used to acquire almost anything short of actual freedom: Food, liquor, sexual liaisons and even packages delivered from the outside. Saul and the other Sonderkommando display no visible emotion about the tasks they perform, which include participating in the killing of other Jews and then stealing their belongings. How would despair or grief help them to survive? But that is not to say there is no humanity left in them, or no moral sensibility. Saul wants to spend his ill-gotten loot to pay for rabbinical services from another inmate, for reasons that become clear very early in the film. This puts him in potential collision with a cabal of inmates who are stockpiling smuggled arms and planning an uprising, and want all the stolen gold to go toward that end. There were several acts of armed rebellion in the extermination camps, most famously at Sobibór, where roughly 400 inmates broke out in October 1943 and at least 58 are known to have survived the war. Nemes’ screenplay, co-written with Clara Royer, is no doubt based on a documented uprising at Auschwitz-Birkenau that happened about a year after that, but I would advise you not to look up that history before you see the film. I would say that Nemes never cheats for one second in “Son of Saul.” He never tries to make this dire episode of human history any better than it was, never looks for extraordinary humanity or decency among the Nazis and does not try to make the unpalatable moral dilemma of someone like Saul any easier to manage. Yet in telling a story that we know can have no good outcome, about a man who has been compelled to aid in the destruction of his own people and also compelled to crush or quell his own instincts and emotions, “Son of Saul” actually finds the possibility of freedom and transcendence and even hope. Röhrig’s impassive, single-minded performance as Saul breaks exactly once, just before that last shot of the trees in the Polish wind, and at that moment we see a human being who has not surrendered, and who sees that there is life beyond this living hell. "Son of Saul" opens this week in New York and Los Angeles, with wider national release to follow.
6 classic movies in which cocaine is the driving force
Cocaine doesn't seem particularly hip these days, but the South American marching powder has a long, if not exactly glorious history in American culture. It's been the stuff of folk songs, blues moans and rock anthems, it's been used to demonize black people (again and again) and it's been a staple of American cinema from the very beginning. Here are six films from genres ranging from silent slapstick to the gangster/mobster movie and beyond that really got into cocaine. 1. The Mystery of the Leaping Fish (1916). This silent short starred Douglas Fairbanks as "scientific" detective Coke Ennyday, who certainly lived up to his name. With bandoliers full of syringes wrapped around his chest and a hatbox-sized container of white powder marked "Cocaine" on his desk, Ennyday was maniacal yet methodical. In between injections and mustache-twirls, he manages to catch a gang of opium smugglers, but only after smoking most of their opium. This lighthearted lampoon of Sherlock Holmes was directed by Tod Browning, who later went on to direct the classic bizarro flick Freaks. 2. Superfly (1972). "He's got a plan to stick it to the man, he's super hood, super high, super dude, Superfly." This classic Blaxploitation flick featured Ron O'Neal as Youngblood Priest, a cocaine dealer on the rise who battles junkies, cops, mafiosos, and black activists as he goes about his gritty but glamorous snow-slinging business in search of the million-dollar deal that'll keep him from having to settle for "a jive job." Directed by Gordon Parks Sr., who did Shaft the year before, the film also boasts an awesome and hugely popular soundtrack by Curtis Mayfield ("Superfly," "Pusherman," "Freddie's Dead"), as well as the cinematic progenitor of the Pimpmobile, Priest's tricked-out 1971 Cadillac Eldorado. Did it glorify '70s thug life or was it a veiled critique of the American class and racial caste system? Yes. 3. Scarface (1983). In this intense remake of the 1932 Scarface starring Edward G. Robinson, Tony Montana (Al Pacino) comes to Miami as part of the Mariel boatlift of 1980, when Castro dumped thousands of criminals and misfits on American shores. As Scarface, "he loved the American dream…with a vengeance." The film is graphic, glitzy, ultraviolent, and eminently quotable as it portrays Tony's rise and inevitable fall (it is, after all, a gangster film). It's considered a classic of the mob genre. Written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian De Palma, the movie also introduced Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira Hancock, Tony's alluring and coke-addicted trophy wife. 4. Boogie Nights (1997). This critically acclaimed film which was centered on the San Fernando Valley porn industry in the 1970s and '80s really captured the feel of an era. Mark Wahlberg stars as Dirk Diggler, the porn name for a charismatic and very well-endowed young dishwasher who became a star in the biz, but then falls victim to his own—and the era's—excesses, particularly cocaine. Diggler goes from nobody to stardown to the gutter in what seems like a flash. The movie has a stellar cast, including Burt Reynolds, who won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of porn director Jack Horner, William Macy, John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, Julianne Moore and Heather Graham (as Roller Girl). 5. Blow (2001). George Jung walked out of federal prison last year after serving nearly two decades behind bars for cocaine smuggling. This movie is his life story, and quite a story it is: Jung, portrayed in a sizzling performance by Johnny Depp, starts off poor, becomes a college pot dealer, gets busted, meets new friends in prison, and waltzes his way into the middle of the burgeoning 1970s Colombian cocaine trade. As seems inevitable in cocaine movies, his downfall is nearly as rapid and dramatic as his ascent, though not nearly as fun. The film features Ray Liotta as Jung's father, Penelope Cruz as Jung's wife and Paul Reubens (!) as a pot dealer, plus a smoking '70s soundtrack. 6. Maria Full of Grace (2004). This movie depicts the Colombian cocaine trade from the vantage point of a young woman named Maria, brilliantly played by Catalina Sandino Moreno, who won an Academy Award nomination and best actress at the Berlin Film Festival for her efforts. A story of hope and horror, the film follows poverty-stricken Maria as she takes a job as a drug mule, swallowing 62 pellets of cocaine and flying to New York with her friend Blanca. One of their fellow mules dies when a balloon ruptures as they await the traffickers in a motel room, and Maria and Blanca decide to flee with the dope. But their trials and tribulations are only beginning. Phillip Smith is editor of the AlterNet Drug Reporter and author of the Drug War Chronicle. 
