Back in September, the web was buzzing over an episode of Dr. Oz’s show during which he tested popular juices on the market and decreed many contained unsafe levels of arsenic.

At the time, the FDA struck back immediately, dismissing the reports, and a juice trade association issued a statement saying in part that the results broadcast on the Dr. Oz show should “not be interpreted as fact.” The story died down for a bit, and consumers kept swilling away at their apple juice, unconcerned that the innocuous baby bottle favorite may contain scary poisons. But the issue has popped up again following a report in consumer advocacy magazine Consumer Reports that seems to support what Dr. Oz initially claimed to some degree.

The report, released today, indicates that “roughly 10% of apple and grape juice samples tested by Consumer Reports contained total levels of arsenic that exceeded federal standards set for drinking water.” In and of itself, that doesn’t sound very comforting, but there’s more. According to MedPageToday, the arsenic found in the popular juices is not the natural form the FDA said can often be found in drinking water, and rather stems from “the inorganic form- a known carcinogen introduced into the environment through pesticides and wood treatments that have been banned, and coal-fired power plants.” Originally, the FDA had stated:

“…you can’t compare water and juice for several critical reasons. They include the fact that inorganic arsenic is the form found in drinking water, whereas organic arsenic is the form mostly found in food, including juices.”

As such, Consumer Reports says that the FDA’s remarks were ”irresponsible and misleading” when it comes to the arsenic and lead content in apple juice. Following the report, Consumer Reports’ Consumer Union- an advocacy group- has called on the government to re-examine recommended safe levels of lead and arsenic in apple and grape juice.

Consumer Reports Arsenic in Juice Testing: Was Dr. Oz Right? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Militant conservative Ann Coulter isn’t one to mince words.

Author of a series of books with increasingly alarming titles accusing the left of everything from godlessness to treason, Coulter isn’t above using strong language to get her point across. So when the flaxen-haired GOP-atrix appeared on Joe Scarborough’s Morning Joe on MSNBC Tuesday, it wasn’t technically very surprising a large portion of her unvarnished opinion about some fellow Republicans was bleeped or muted- making the gist of her complaints unintelligible.

The audible portion of Coulter’s comments Tuesday morning went something like this:

“I’d rather have [?] McCain was consistent, he was [?] we have Romney and Gingrich [?], …what did I say? Douchebag?”

Which kinda reads like GOP Mad Libs! (Amusingly, the “douchebag” at the end wasn’t censored.) So later in the day, Coulter appeared on left-leaning Joy Behar’s show, and clarified her remarks about McCain, Romney and Gingrich. Coulter explained:

“I said ‘dickweed,’…They were talking about the lack of consistency, people complain about it with Romney…and I was just making the point, I don’t think consistency is the most important value. And you know, look at John McCain, he was consistently a dickweed.”

Lefty Behar and the conservative pundit then discussed whether Behar’s show had been cancelled due to a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and Coulter admitted that she appreciated Behar’s show and would miss it when it departs from the airwaves. Coulter lamented that Behar’s show was one of the few of its kind where she could avoid news about Casey Anthony, who Coulter dubbed a “white trash bimbo.”

Ann Coulter Clarifies: Dickweed, Not Douchebag in Rant on ‘Morning Joe’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Susan Sarandon has raised hackles after remarks she made at a Hamptons event this weekend during which she called the current Pope a “Nazi.”

Sarandon has been criticized strongly by the Catholic League for the remarks, and the group says that the remarks are unfair but par for the course for Sarandon in their estimation. The comments came in response to a question about her statement that she’d sent the Pope a copy of the anti-death penalty film Dead Man Walking, in which Sarandon plays a nun. When asked which Pope had received the package, Sarandon specified the previous one and added “not this Nazi one we have now.” The interviewer attempted to move on, but the actress reiterated the comment.

The Hollywood Reporter carried part of a statement from the Catholic League’s William Donohue addressing Sarandon’s remarks. He said:

“Susan Sarandon’s ignorance is willful: those who have hatred in their veins are not interested in the truth. The fact is that Joseph Ratzinger [the Pope] was conscripted at the age of 14 into the Hitler Youth, along with every other young German boy…

“Unlike most of the other teenagers, Ratzinger refused to go to meetings, bringing economic hardship to his family. Moreover, unlike most of the others, he deserted at the first opportunity. Sarandon’s comment is obscene. Sadly, it’s what we’ve come to expect from her.”

It wasn’t just Catholics that found Sarandon’s remarks offensive- Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League commented:

“We hope that Susan Sarandon will have the good sense to apologize to the Catholic community and all those she may have offended with this disturbing, deeply offensive and completely uncalled for attack on the good name of Pope Benedict XVI. Ms. Sarandon may have her differences with the Catholic Church, but that is no excuse for throwing around Nazi analogies. Such words are hateful, vindictive and only serve to diminish the true history and meaning of the Holocaust.”

Neither Sarandon nor her reps have commented on the remarks since the event.

Susan Sarandon Under Fire From Catholic League for ‘Nazi Pope’ Remark is a post from: The Inquisitr

When the offensively-named camp came up in discussion during a recent candidates’ debate, fellow Republican candidate Herman Cain used the word in describing the location, though other candidates were not as comfortable calling the ranch by its iffy moniker. Of her feelings in using the word, Walters said:

“It’s very hard for me to say… It gives me chills.”

Shepherd then discussed the different way she felt hearing co-host Whoopi Goldberg use the word as opposed to when Walters used it. Shepherd clarified:

“When I heard [Whoopi] say it, it was fine… I didn’t like the way [Barbara] said it… I don’t know if it’s a semantics thing, but it’s something that goes through my body.”

Walters questioned:

“Is it because I’m white?”

Shepherd then said:

“It’s something about hearing you say it… I don’t like it when you use the word… when you say it it’s a different connotation.”

Walters then pressed:

“If I’m reporting on this, you mean I can’t use the word?”

To which Shepherd dodged:

“You can do anything you want! You’re Barbara Walters!”

Walters quite reasonably pointed out that the statement was a little passive aggressive and unfair on Shepherd’s part:

“I’m sorry, that has nothing to do with it, Sherri… I never knew you felt this way and I find it just amazing.”

Shepherd also told Walters that the veteran newswoman can’t “take away” how Shepherd feels when white people use the slur, even in the context of a news broadcast. Should the word be stricken even from the news? Was Shepherd fair to Barbara Walters?

Sherri Shepherd Calls out Barbara Walters For N-Word Use is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you don’t have a job outside the home or just have really bad taste in television and science and medicine, perhaps you watch the Dr. Oz show.

Dr. Oz is known particularly for embracing what many call pseudo-science- it’s not that much of a shock he got his TV start in a big way from the “law of attraction” embracing Oprah. And while some of his claims or ideas have attracted scorn from more mainstream practitioners of medicine on TV, this time, the Food Drug Administration has taken Dr. Oz to task for some shaky information the doc spread about apple juice.

Yes, apple juice. The stuff we put in the sippy cups of two-year-olds, the most virtuous of juices. Which could, according to Dr. Oz, kill you and everyone you love. While there have not been any wide-scale reports of preschoolers dropping dead en masse from the consumption of the innocuous beverage, according to Dr. Oz, several brands of the popular apple product are secretly harboring arsenic- you know, the stuff Alfred Hitchcock villains use to kill and get away with it.

Minute Maid Apple Juice, Apple and Eve Apple Juice, Mott’s, Juicy Juice, and Gerber were all named and shamed on Dr. Oz’s show earlier this week, undoubtedly striking fear into the hearts of stay-at-home moms across the country. But the FDA cautions consumers to take the juice claims with a grain of salt. In a statement, the regulatory body explained that Dr. Oz did not account for the fact that the difference between inorganic and organic arsenic makes a huge difference as far as dying a sudden death is concerned:

“…you can’t compare water and juice for several critical reasons. They include the fact that inorganic arsenic is the form found in drinking water, whereas organic arsenic is the form mostly found in food, including juices.

FDA will continue to test juices and juice concentrate and evaluate data provided by industry, consumer groups and government agencies, as well as data published in scientific literature. If the agency finds too much inorganic arsenic in any juice, it will take steps to remove that product from the market…”

The trade association for juice makers added:

“The results of tests for arsenic in apple juice that were shared by the Dr. Oz show with the Juice Products Association should not be interpreted as fact. Subsequent testing of the same lots of juice from two of the named brands, using an appropriate method for testing arsenic levels in juice, found significantly lower levels of arsenic, all well under any FDA level of concern.”

Apple Juice Probably Not Going to Kill You, FDA Says is a post from: The Inquisitr

Cipha Sounds, a Hot 97 DJ with several years of tenure, has been suspended indefinitely after controversial on-air remarks about Haitian women.

On a broadcast last Friday Morning, Cipha sparked outrage in the Haitian-American community after he commented during the Cipha Sounds and Rosenberg show:

“The reason I’m HIV negative is because I don’t mess with Haitian girls.”

The parent company of WQHT issued a statement saying that the remarks were being taken seriously:

“Cipha made an immediate public apology and recognizes his insensitivity and the negative impact his comments have on all Haitians,” said Alex Cameron, SVP/Market Manager of Emmis-New York via written statement. “The Haitian community is an important part of our listenership whom we respect and value.  The suspension is an indication of the importance we place on delivering a product that respects our Haitian audience.”

Cipha is said to be required to undergo sensitivity training, but it is unclear if or when he will resume broadcasting the popular Cipha Sounds and Rosenberg show. Cipha’s Twitter account can be found here.

[Image]

Hot 97 DJ Cipha Sounds suspended indefinitely for Haitian HIV remarks is a post from: The Inquisitr

I know what you’re thinking- racist cupcakes? No way anyone can accidentally do that.

But it appears Duncan Hines has, at least for a short time, managed to actually make cupcakes singing in blackface for a commercial. Eater snagged a clip of the questionable commercial after Duncan Hines scrubbed the footage for their “Amazing Glazes” line from YouTube. (As we know, removing the clip will only drive searches for it, thus driving interest in it, heretofore evermore associating the brand with blackface cupcakes.)

The screenshot above depicts the cupcakes in all their racially insensitive glory, but you can click through to watch the clip as the cupcakes beatbox and otherwise manage to be totally cringeworthy. Do you think you could have missed the blackface connection watching this clip, ever? Do you find it offensive, or are they just, as Duncan Hines dubbed the clip, “Hip Hop Cupcakes?”

[via ONTD]

[Video] Did Duncan Hines invent the most racist cupcakes on the internet? is a post from: The Inquisitr

A principal in Orange County, New York has been suspended after a family reported that he entered their home without permission and tried to order two sleeping kids, a 12-year-old and a 16-year-old, to school after their mom called them in sick.

Prior to the disciplinary action, the boys’ father, Michael DiQuattro, told press that he felt that Chester Academy Middle School principal majorly overstepped his bounds by entering the students’ bedroom:

“My kids were in their underwear, again you are talking about a 12-year-old and a 16-year-old, where does he get the right to violate my children’s rights[?]” DiQuattro said.

Police in the jurisdiction report that the elder child was caring for the younger, sick one while the boys’ mother was at work. Only the children were present in the home at the time of the principal’s unwelcome visit, but police believe his only intention was to ascertain the reason behind the students’ absence. Police are also examining the boys’ attendance records, although no reason was given as to why that might be.

Despite the strange allegations against him, it would appear he has many dedicated supporters among students and parents with kids in the school. Students at Chester Academy told press that he was known to go out of his way to help children he believed were troubled or at risk.

[via snopes, Image]

Upstate NY principal suspended for allegedly visiting, rousing absentee kids is a post from: The Inquisitr

Is the American love affair with the circumcised penis finally coming to an end?

Like breastfeeding, abortion and tipping, circumcision is one of those topics that most Americans are pretty strongly for or against. And while the procedure has admittedly few benefits and arguably many drawbacks (can we start with loss of sensation?) the idea that an uncircumcised penis is a sign of lax personal hygiene, immigration status or hippie woo-woo ness has been pretty prolific in the US. But is the tide finally turning against the mostly-cosmetic procedure?

Interest in circumcision has been dipping, but according to health care data from between 2006-2009 (data that wouldn’t include religious circumcisions, for instance) even babies born in hospitals are far less likely to be circumcised:

A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna suggested that the rate had fallen precipitously — to fewer than half of all boys born in conventional hospitals from 2006 to 2009, from about two-thirds through the 1980s and ’90s…

The slide portrays a precipitous drop in circumcision, to just 32.5 percent in 2009 from 56 percent in 2006. The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.

The NYT quoted one anti-circumcision advocate who believes parents are beginning to realize the procedure isn’t of much benefit:

“Word has gotten out that it’s not necessary, it’s harmful and it’s painful,” said Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, a nonprofit organization based in Tarrytown, N.Y.

Greater awareness about female circumcision may have influenced parents as well, she said, asking, “How can you think it’s O.K. to cut little boys, when you are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls?”

The CDC concedes that rates of those opting for the procedure are dropping, but would not comment on the data.

‘Precipitous’ three year drop seen in US circumcisions is a post from: The Inquisitr

Constance McMillen, the girl from Mississippi who was banned from her prom for planning to bring a same-sex date, then later “allowed” to go only to be redirected to a fake event while almost all the other students partied at a secret undisclosed location, was awarded a settlement after the ACLU sued the Itawamba school district on her behalf.

While the school agreed as part of the settlement to “follow a nondiscrimination policy,” the district contends that it has been in place all along despite the nationwide attention drawn to the whole “no lesbians at the prom” flap:

McMillen’s lawyers filed notice Monday in U.S. District Court to accept a judgment offer from school district that will pay $35,000, plus attorney’s fees. As part of the agreement, the district also said it would follow a policy not to discriminate based on sexual orientation in any educational or extracurricular activities or allow harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

School officials contend that their agreement to follow the nondiscrimination policy merely reaffirms inclusiveness rules the district already had, said school board attorney Michele Floyd. She said the district’s insurance company will pay McMillen.

McMillen, who eventually sought to finish out her senior year at a school in Jackson, Mississippi, has relocated to Memphis. She says she is attending Southwest Community College, and plans to use the settlement money to pay for her education. Of the incident, McMillen speculated to NPR:

McMillen said she thinks the case resonated with so many people because “prom is a common theme and everyone knows how it feels to want to go to prom. With my story, even if people didn’t agree with being gay, they understood. They figured out how cruel some people can be.”

School who banned lesbian teen from prom ordered to pay $35,000 is a post from: The Inquisitr

Top commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal has reportedly submitted his resignation in the wake of a controversial “Rolling Stone” interview that heavily criticized the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan.

According to a timeline on CNN, Defense Secretary Robert Gates released the following statement earlier today regarding the interview (titled “The Runaway General”) with journalist Michael Hastings:

“I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person.”

President Obama was presented with the piece last night, and was, by all accounts, displeased with the story. By this afternoon, senators were calling for General McChrystal’s resignation, and reports indicate that he has indeed resigned:

[Updated at 3:50 p.m.]Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, called for McChrystal to step down, telling CNN that the remarks in Rolling Stone were “unbelievably inappropriate and just

can’t be allowed to stand.”

[Updated at 4:41 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation, Time magazine’s Joe Klein told CNN, citing an unnamed source. CNN is working to confirm Klein’s information.

Official confirmation has not yet been received that Gen. McChrystal has resigned.

Update: Gen. McChrystal is said to be meeting with President Obama tomorrow to discuss the situation:

[Updated at 5:55 p.m.] President Obama said that Gen. Stanley McChrystal showed “poor judgment,” but he added that he would wait until meeting in person with McChrystal before making a decision on McChrystal’s future. Obama is expected to meet with McChrystal on Wednesday.

Report: McChrystal resigns after straight up busting on Afghan war is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we reported not too long ago, a Mississippi teen was cruelly redirected to a fake prom with only a handful of students in attendance while all her classmates partied nearby- because her peers and their parents were snitty that she’d requested a ticket for a same sex date.

While McMillen’s peers seemed proud of their actions and shamelessly posted pictures of their straight-only prom all over the internet, the openly gay teen took the high road, even going so far as to chastise supporters for lambasting her classmates on Facebook. Ellen DeGeneres invited McMillen to be on Ellen, and gave the teen a $30,000 scholarship, but Constance has other supporters, too.

McMillen was named as a Grand Marshal of New York City’s late June pride parade this year, parade organizers Heritage of Pride have announced. McMillen’s lawyer confirmed that the teenager will be attendance for the parade on June 27th in Manhattan. McMillen also plans to attend a “promlike event” on May 1st in San Francisco, so it appears that her classmates in Fulton, Mississippi can indeed suck it.

[NYT]

Constance McMillen, lesbian teen sent to fake prom, named Grand Marshal of NYC pride parade is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rumors that the teenage lesbian from Mississippi who was banned from attending her prom only to be re-directed to a fake prom with a mere five other students in attendance have been confirmed, quite hatefully, by McMillen’s classmates.

A classmate of Constance’s named Lindsay Begley wrote a rather lengthy explanation of why she and her classmates are a bunch of horrid bigots, and if following this story from the outset hasn’t brought back the wretchedness of the highschool hierarchy, Begley’s message certainly will. (And if you’re the type of person who would throw rocks at McMillen and call her names, you can join the Facebook group “Constance, quit yer cryin’.”)

Begley says:

**Open Minded Readers Only**

I am a senior at IAHS, and I’ve known Constance for the last 6 years. Please hear our side of the story before you decide on our fate.
The party we had in Evergreen (the county neighborhood I live in) is 30 mins away from the school. we rented out the community center, hired vendors, decorated, and our parents ran the security/chaperone staff- but it wasn’t prom. Prom was at the country club where constance and 7 other students were. The reason the senior class boycotted the actual prom was not because we hate gays. We wanted a drama-free gathering to celebrate 3 great years and 1 lousy one together, and we wanted to lay low. We also wanted to do it without the main cause of the lousy. What people are failing to realize is that much of the fault of this whole stink lies with Constance, not her mistreatment by the school district, but her crazy-reckless need for attention. It sounds mean and horrible and like we planned it all specifically to embarrass Constance, but we didn’t. We let her have her prom with her girlfriend and her tuxedo and we went to party it up in the “boondocks” not because we wanted her rights violated, but so we could salvage what has turned into a total fiasco. As a whole we didn’t support her decision to throw the district under the bus, or her insinuations that we’re all just a bunch ‘a hicks driving around in beater pick up trucks spitting tobacco and burning crosses. IAHS is one of the top schools in the state and I’m proud of that, and I’m proud that we took a stand and just said you know what? forget it, we have just as much right as you do to have a party for ourselves. So we did, and now we’re getting flack because poor Connie’s ego got a bit of bruising. She’s playing the lesbian card to prove she ALWAYS gets what she wants. This time, we didn’t just let her.

Take it as you will, because I’m sure it sounds like we faked her out, but understand this- the decision NOT to attend prom had nothing to do with the school or with Constance’s sexual preferences; it had everything to do with proving we weren’t going to let her and the ACLU steamroll us into doing what Constance wanted. We flexed the muscle of the majority and we’ll suffer the consequences.

Still don’t see why the en masse actions of McMillen’s classmates were so shameful, bigoted and horrible? The same thing happened to a black girl 45 years ago in Birmingham. Have you been buying the story that these kids and their parents just wanted a “drama free” prom? You can read some of their Facebook comments after the event here. Still okay with it? The blog Global Shift explains how this kind of institutionalized discrimination parallels the “separate but equal” racial struggles of the past:

Of course, this goes beyond helping the football team shove a science nerd in a locker; we’re discussing an active and willful plot to publicly separate and shame McMillen and (presumably) Itawamba’s other socially “undesirables” from fraternizing with the mainstream popular kids. The kind of emotional depravity that could justify for a mob mentality to ruin one girl’s high school prom rivals the Old Culture South’s reliance on separate but equal to avoid racial integration (which, apparently, few of the school district officials and none of the Itawamba parents knew had been overturned 56 years ago byPlessy v. Ferguson).

Below are some screencaps of students gloating after the event. Would that real life were like 1980s teen movies and these creeps were treated to some John Hughes style comeuppance.

Followup: Constance McMillen’s classmates confirm prom ruse, the fact that they’re bigoted is a post from: The Inquisitr

If internet reports are correct, the teen who went to court for the right to attend her prom is Mississippi with a same-sex date was redirected Friday night to a “fake prom” with only five other students in attendance.

While Constance McMillen and a handful of other students attended the “prom,” the balance of the students attended a prom from which McMillen was deliberately directed away from and then deliberately excluded from attending:

The judge declined to force the school district to hold the prom because a parent-sponsored, private prom was being organized — and the understanding was that McMillen and her date were invited to that event. But Hampton says McMillen was never invited and organizers made it very difficult for her to find information on the time and location. That prom was later mysteriously canceled, with the Friday night event at the country club officially replacing it.

McMillen confirms that version of events, and says that the prom she attended was also attended by students with “learning difficulties”:

Two students with learning difficulties were among the seven people at the country club event, McMillen recalls. “They had the time of their lives,” McMillen says. “That’s the one good thing that come out of this, [these kids] didn’t have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom].”

It’s difficult to imagine that all the other students would be able to keep their yaps shut forevermore about the secret prom, and reports on the Facebook group supporting McMillen’s efforts to attend her prom say that other students uploaded pictures from the “real prom.” If the picture above is accurate and taken on the night of the fake prom, it would appear that more than seven students were in attendance.

While the real, secret prom was likely parent sponsored and private (ruling out ACLU intervention) a commenter on the Advocate’s coverage of the incident who identifies himself as Christopher Bingham has a novel solution for discouraging similar behavior in the future:

We live in the age of the internet. Surely the people who organized the other party have names and if it was country club, or a church that hosted they have names too. The kids that orgnanized the event and thir [sic] parents should be known to the world. As an employer, I know I wouldn’t hire anyone who organized something like that – and the internet is forever. There are surely lots of jobs in the fundie world for this kind of sewage, but not so much in the rest of the world. A future enmployer should see the names of these kids much like what you get when you google “santorum.” the only person who has risked anything is the young woman who sued. The other side should have some consequences for their actions as well.

Constance McMillen, banned from prom for being gay, says district staged “fake prom” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Would you feel comfortable knowing a range of auto dealership employees had remote access to determine whether you could get to work on time or at all, transport your partner to the hospital in an emergency or bring your children to school?

Technology used to disable vehicles when consumers are late with payments saw many vehicles in Texas disturbed in such a way recently, when police say former Texas Auto Center employee, 20-year-old Omar Ramos-Lopez, interfered with the vehicles of over 100 customers of the four dealership chain. Ramos-Lopez was reportedly angered over having been laid off last month, and in retaliation the former employee set horns to honk uncontrollably or rendered the vehicles themselves useless. Although dealership management initially dismissed the incidents as a “mechanical failure,” Ramos-Lopez’s interference was soon discovered and he was arrested Tuesday on “computer interference” charges..

The incidents in Texas raise serious questions about the practice, as merely disabling Ramos-Lopez’s login was not enough to keep him from logging on remotely and causing problems:

Ramos-Lopez’s account had been closed when he was terminated from Texas Auto Center in a workforce reduction last month, but he allegedly got in through another employee’s account, Garcia says. At first, the intruder targeted vehicles by searching on the names of specific customers. Then he discovered he could pull up a database of all 1,100 Auto Center customers whose cars were equipped with the device. He started going down the list in alphabetical order, vandalizing the records, disabling the cars and setting off the horns.

How do you feel about dealerships having access to your vehicle in such a manner? Should good old repossession be good enough, or should a shady car salesman have the ability to set your horn off honking while you’re at a job interview when you’ve fallen behind on payments due to unemployment?

Disgruntled employee disables more than 100 cars remotely is a post from: The Inquisitr

Remember in high school when you goofed off at Field Hockey and Coach Lally made the entire team run for twenty minutes?

This story is kind of like that, but instead of acting like a schmuck, Constance McMillen is gay. And instead of Coach making the team run laps, her lesbianism is the reason the Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi is canceling the prom for everyone. The school didn’t come out and say, “well thanks to your gayness, no one can go to the prom,” but they did cite “distractions to the educational process caused by recent events” in a statement about the decision. Because the prom itself is totally educational and not at all distracting.

McMillen reacted in a way any kid would react when their request to bring a date caused the whole prom to be taken away:

“Oh, my God. That’s really messed up because the message they are sending is that if they have to let gay people go to prom that they are not going to have one,” she said. “A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this, so in a way it’s really retaliation.”

Of course, the prom isn’t really canceled, it’s just canceled in a way to exclude the gays:

The school board’s statement canceling the official school prom also included a suggestion that a private group could organize an independent prom instead. Ms. McMillen said that’s their way of getting around the issue.

“If they set it up privately they probably aren’t going to allow gay people to go, and there is nothing that you can do about it,” she said. “I’m going to have to change schools or something.”

What a compromise! The anti-gay folks involved get to be martyrs for political correctness, they don’t miss out on any opportunities to pick on the girl and the prom goes on anyway! Just with no pesky gay people!

Is it wrong to hope that Clinton Kelly, that guy who does weddings after Bridezillas is on and other reality-tv fabulousness experts swoop in and give this kid and all her supporters a better prom than her podunk town ever could have thrown? And that at the door they have a no homophobes policy?

Being a lesbian ruins the prom for everyone is a post from: The Inquisitr

A mix of amusement and outrage amongst Florida A&M University students has erupted on Twitter this morning, due to a circulating sex tape rumored to have been filmed in FAMU dorms and apparently featuring an orgy.

It’s clear that there is a single “sex tape” that is being referred to, although students at the school say the location in the video is certainly not a dorm at FAMU.

From Twitter:

EliPresidente @LizMoShep the porn was not shot on famu’s campus nor did it involve famu students so before u sell us out know the facts ma am.

ClubKaGe @HBCUDigest Any current student can tell you they do not attend FAMU. the dorms are not similar. I read the article most of it.

Comments made on a blog:

It doesn’t appear to be FAMU! The ceilings in the dorm appear to be too high for any FAMU dorm (@14:28min) and clearly not Paddyfoote which seems to be the closest resemblence. And in Paddyfoote, the windows go all the way to the floor.(@13:35min)

While the original footage was posted on DareDorm.com, a paysite that will open with extremely pornographic images (be warned), most links purporting to offer free access to the video redirect to malware. So although the FAMU sextape can be accessed on DareDorm.com for a price, there is no verified safe place to view it on the web as of yet.
Officials from FAMU have not commented on the tape, nor have they confirmed if any current students are captured on the footage. In the meantime, it is likely a poor idea to visit any links (particularly shortened URLs) purporting to lead to the FAMU sextape, as I have yet to see one legitimate source.
[Image]

Did a bunch of FAMU students film an orgy and post in on the internet? is a post from: The Inquisitr

A woman named Angie Jackson created an inevitable firestorm of controversy this week when she decided to live-tweet her medical abortion.

Jackson, 27, hit up her own blog, YouTube and Twitter with the ongoing details of her in-progress abortion, sparking an outpouring of support from the feminist blogosphere while anti-abortion activists did their anti-abortion dance. Comparisions were predictably made to Penelope Trunk’s miscarriage tweet, and the question was again raised as to whether the social media experience of abortion helps or harms women experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

I should disclose here that I have changed my mind considerably on the issue of abortion in the past decade. While I did, in the past, espouse an anti-abortion viewpoint (though less political than ethical, I never picketed a clinic or anything- my feeling was more that resources to promote birth control and assist struggling mothers were a better focus) I am currently relatively gray on the subject. I believe it should be safe and legal, but I think that to gloss over the experience does women a disservice and creates unnecessary friction between factions who would be better served having a productive dialogue on the issue. I don’t believe that as a feminist I have to accept every party line on the subject, and I don’t believe in solidarity for solidarity’s sake. I’ve heard and read abortion stories that were moving, sad, engaging and informative. That said, I don’t think this is one of them.

Via the magic of the internet, this very common experience (more than 35% of American women are said to opt for the procedure at least once in their lives, and 47% of abortions are obtained by women who previously had an abortion) has inspired pockets of support and advocacy, activism and of course, criticism. In the days following Jackson’s abortion, she received threats against herself and her son, a result she admits to being “naive” in not anticipating. But the idea of the issue of first person abortion stories being underrepresented on the internet is also somewhat naive- there are thriving, non-judgmental grassroots communities of women across the internet who not only talk about their abortions and crisis pregnancies, but remain largely under the radar and insular and exist in a relatively serene space of women educating other women. (Livejournal’s Vagina Pagina springs to mind.)

I think this particular instance, due in no small part to its sensationalism, is not doing the demographic of women of reproductive age a favor. When someone with so narrow a worldview and clear an agenda elects herself the voice of a group of women (Jackson’s handle of choice seems to be “AngieTheAntiTheist”) it is inevitable that the bulk of women who could be spoken for are not. Furthermore, as a feminist myself, I find Jackson’s assertions that she would die (I hear this a great deal more than is statistically possible- the vast majority of abortions are not life-saving) and that she was using two forms of birth control to be grating. With those repeating epithets, she’s lashing out her own judgment at women who have experienced a crisis pregnancy. Apparently, Jackson is a pretty, pretty princess different than the rest of us who just found ourselves on the wrong end of a pink line on a stick.

I can’t get past the fact that she is saying on one hand her actions don’t need justification while constantly spilling forth justifications for her actions. Which is it? If you refer to Penelope Trunk’s earlier, brief mention of miscarriage and abortion, she didn’t even hint at the reasons she found herself miscarrying at work and or seeking an abortion- she just said it, indicated that women often find themselves in that situation, and left it at that. Trunk paints an image of a woman who is in control of her life and her decisions, and not seeking anything (validation, dissent, a stage) from the community at large. Jackson followed up with a Twitter drama fest that seems to indicate the whole #livetweetingabortion thing was more about herself and her own experiences than breaking down social taboos.

When Trunk found herself at the center of a controversy because of her tweet, even pop-feminism blog Jezebel was critical that “anti-choicers” would have a field day with her candor:

And, unfortunately for everyone, now that this has gone national, the context and way in which Trunk framed this confirms the worst and most fantastical ideas of the anti-choice movement: that women (especially career women!) who have abortions all do so casually and callously on their lunch breaks, the way one might get a manicure. If Trunk thinks she’s done anything to help women in Wisconsin get better access to abortions (her defensive post asks readers to donate to Planned Parenthood), she obviously doesn’t know anything about how the anti-choice movement works.

But Jackson, on the other hand, does not possess that kind of matter of fact, in control voice. She sounds reactionary, unsure, angry and laden with emotional baggage. She offers a tremendous amount of detail as to the whys and hows of her abortion, but the conflicting backstory again seems to paint a crisis pregnancy as needing justification. What ever happened to “I’m a woman, sometimes women get pregnant and this is not always convenient” being all the reason we need? IUDs (with a success rate of over 99%) don’t have to fall out, children don’t have to be “special needs,” and lives don’t have to be in danger every time a woman gets pregnant at the worst time. The core issue here is that it’s nobody’s business. I’m all for destigmatization, but I am certainly not all for being expected to have a “good enough reason” to avoid being labeled irresponsible or stupid, nor do I support cloudy facts that don’t represent the reality a lot of women face.

As a woman and as a feminist, I’d much rather be spoken for by Penelope Trunk than Angie Jackson. What do you think? I’ve embedded Jackson’s video below- do you believe her use of social media during her abortion helped or harmed women in the same situation?

Is liveblogging your abortion enlightened or exhibitionistic? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Actress Andrea Fay Friedman, 39, voiced a Family Guy character recently in a bit that took a swipe at Sarah Palin.

In Sunday’s episode, Friedman did the voice for Chris Griffin’s date, a girl who has Down Syndrome and says that her mother is the “former governor of Alaska.” Palin predictably struck out at the show, calling the material “unfunny” and the show’s creators “cruel, cold-hearted people.” But Friedman, who herself has Down Syndrome, emailed the New York Times in response to Palin’s camp’s outrage:

I guess former Governor Palin does not have a sense of humor. I thought the line “I am the daughter of the former governor of Alaska” was very funny. I think the word is “sarcasm.”

In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life.

According to Gawker, the Times didn’t publish more scathing remarks made by Friedman in the email, in which she allegedly also said:

My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.

You can read a full Q&A with Andrea Friedman in the Times piece.

Family Guy voice actress slams Palin’s “sense of humor” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Poor David Kiely- his moment of internet fame came while he inadvertently viewed some racy pics during a financial news segment.

Kiely became the unwitting star of a viral video when an otherwise boring as a coma stocks-type news segment featured the poor dude reading an e-mail with some pics of Miranda Kerr attached. As soon as the man views the images, he turns around and realizes that the ogling has been caught on live TV. The whole of the internet pointed and laughed at the guy after the segment aired on Tuesday in Australia (which is like Monday here or something) but since the video went viral, there have been rumblings of a set up.

In what may be kind of a huge dick move, it’s said that a colleague of Kiely’s sent an email with the pics attached and an addendum to “turn around” or something to that effect- exactly what the video appears to depict. A viral story is what threatens Kiely’s job and possible future prospects- could a viral campaign save him? British site Here is the City is urging readers to e-mail Kiely’s employers and ask them not to sack the fellow for what may have been a very douchey practical joke. They make a concise, straightforward case on the matter, asking readers to email mediaquery@macquarie.com and let the company know “we love David.”

Anyway, we are now officially starting a campaign to get the client investment manager back to work, because:

1. He seems like a nice bloke

2. The pics weren’t hardcore

3. He has suffered enough

4. There’s just too much political correctness in this world anyway

Mainstream news outlets like the BBC and Reuters have picked up on the campaign, so hopefully Kiely won’t be sacked even if he wasn’t the victim of a prank and just wanted to see boobs. (Although some people think you should feel worse for his “female co-workers.” I would like to take this opportunity, as a female, to say that many of us would never wish to deny men the opportunity to view titty pics whenever the chance presents itself. “Never turn down a chance to sleep, have sex, be on TV or look at boobs,” Gore Vidal would have said if he were straight.)

At least one person is benefiting from the sudden attention, though- Google searches for Miranda Kerr were up 100% after the video became popular.

Web rallies to save banker caught out looking at topless pics during news segment is a post from: The Inquisitr