Discovery Cancels “American Guns” After Sandy Hook Massacre

By Samantha R. Selman

Just days after the terrible tragedy of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the country, and even the world at large, faces an undeniable need to re-examine the role of gun control on the world stage. As with numerous tragedies in the past, much of the focus shifts to violence in media as depicted across film and television, which today faces one of its first casualties. Discovery has opted to pull the plug on its pro-firearm reality series ‘American Guns.’ But what will the reaction to the news bring?

We are now in a stage of extraordinary self-examination, more crucial than ever in the wake of the recent tragedy in Newtown that ended 27 lives. Not only will debates rage across the nation, but sensibilities alter and re-shape the manner in which violence is presented for years to come. In particular, we’ve learned that Discovery has taken a step toward addressing public outcry directed at the network, cancelling its highly-rated series ‘American Guns.’

The series  followed a family of gun-makers in Colorado, and even experienced a 50 percent ratings increase for its second season premiere, but its plans for a third season were scrapped by the network. Reps for Discovery wouldn’t definitively link the cancellation to the Connecticut killings, though public outcry on the show’s Facebook and Twitter feeds has multiplied exponentially over the last few days.

Among some of the complaints compiled by Fox News, some wrote “I know you all have to make money but would Discovery Channel please consider ceasing to broadcast the show in the U.K.? Sadly your program makes buying/owning guns seem fun, glamorous, even normal.” Another reads, “With Discovery shows like ‘Sons of Guns’, ‘American Guns’, ‘Ted Nugent’s Gun Country’ etc it’s not surprising how guns are seen as acceptable.”

The debate, and grief associated with the recent tragedy won’t abate for some time, but what do you say?  Is Discovery’s cancellation of ‘American Guns’ a first step toward greater awareness or overreacting to current events?

Debut Poetry Collection Coming From James Franco

 

By Samantha R. Selman

 

Perhaps the only way that James Franco could surprise us now with his unpredictable creative pursuits is if he simply chucked them all to spend more time splitting rocks at his local quarry. And yet Mr. Franco, the artist, author and actor (whose films include “Milk” and “127 Hours”), continues to add to his eclectic résumé, announcing plans on Monday to publish his first book of poetry.

Graywolf Press, the independent Minnesota publisher, said that it had acquired a new poetry collection by Mr. Franco called “Directing Herbert White,” which it plans to release in April 2014.

The collection takes its title from a poem Mr. Franco composed about his work on a short film that he, in turn, adapted from the poem “Herbert White,” by Frank Bidart.

Mr. Franco said in a twitter interview on Monday that this poem was “about my relationship to that poem, Frank’s relationship to the poem as I have learned about it from knowing Frank and the adaptation process,” and “how Frank puts so much of himself into the figure of this psycho necrophiliac.” The other works in the collection, he said, were “a way to blend film and poetry and performance and persona — all the things that I think are related to that poem and that process I went through of adapting that poem.”

Mr. Franco, who has portrayed poets in films like “Howl” (which cast him as Allen Ginsberg) and “The Broken Tower” (in which he played Hart Crane, and which he also wrote and directed), is not simply an admirer of well-crafted verse: he also holds a master of fine arts in creative writing from Brooklyn College in New York and an M.F.A. in poetry from Warren Wilson College in North Carolina. His previously published writings include a short story collection, “Palo Alto.”

Jeffrey Shotts, the poetry editor of Graywolf Press, described Mr. Franco’s new poetry collection in a statement as “a frank and illuminating set of scenes from inside filmmaking and fame.” He said that these poems “are, in part, a series of portraits of American successes and failures from within Hollywood, as a young actor comes of age.” He added, “But they are also smart and highly aware notes of caution of what can happen when the filmed self becomes fixed and duplicated, while the ongoing self must continue living and watching.”

 

Nolan Daniels Powerball Hoax: Man Posts Fake Lottery Ticket To Facebook

By Samantha R. Selman

A Facebook user named Nolan Daniels posted a photo of himself holding what appears to be a winning Powerball ticket from Wednesday’s record $588 million lottery drawing to his feed, according to the Savannah Morning News. The post is reportedly a hoax.

The public photo, which was shared at about 10 p.m. Thursday evening and had received more than 450,000 shares by Friday afternoon, included the statement:

Looks like I won’t be going to work EVER!!!! Share this photo and I will give a random person 1 million dollars!

Citing the Powerball website, Gawker points out that the numbers on the ticket were “not in numerical order… [as] a real ticket would be” and called the image “poorly photoshopped.”

But the post was enough to fool a lot of people, even after a winner in Missouri came forward, and video footage of the alleged second winner surfaced.

Powerball has yet to confirm a second winner of the historic jackpot. The remaining winning ticket was bought in Arizona.

‘Two and a Half Men’ star begs viewers to stop watching Two and A Half Men

By Jane Zuckerberg

Was “Two and a Half Men” teen star Angus T. Jones so turned off by the recent storyline that had his character Jake Harper making out with Miley Cyrus that he’s now biting the hand that feeds him by trashing the series he’s starred on for the last decade?

No, it goes much deeper than that. Not only has the 19-year-old called his series “filth” in a new interview, but he also begs viewers to stop watching “Two and a Half Men” and talks about how being on the show goes against his religious beliefs.
“Jake from ‘Two and a Half Men’ means nothing,” Jones says in a video interview with Chris “The Forerunner” Hudson, who leads a Seventh day Adventist-leaning video series. “If you watch ‘Two and a Half Men,’ please stop watching ‘Two and a Half Men.’ I don’t want to be on it. Please stop watching it. Please stop filling your head with filth. Please.”

Jones also talks in the video about how TV, and apparently “Two and a Half Men” specifically, does the work of the devil.
“A lot of people don’t like to think about how deceptive the enemy is,” Jones says. “He’s been doing this for a lot longer than any of us have been around. There’s no playing around when it comes to eternity.”

So why, you wonder, is Jones still appearing on a show he so clearly detests and is publicly trashing?

“It’s very weird being on a television show, especially now that I’m trying to walk with God, because my television show has nothing to do with God and doesn’t want anything to do with God,” Jones said during a Seventh-day Adventist Church workshop on his birthday in October (as reported at Vulture.com). He said that he had considered not continuing his role, but “it’s a strange position that I’m put in … I’m under contract for another year, so it’s not too much of a decision on my part. … I know God has me there for a reason for another year.”

In the workshop testimony, Jones also talks about his parents’ divorce and his own drug use.

CBS declined to comment on Jones’s interview. A representative for Jones, who is reportedly paid between $300,000 and $350,000 per episode for “Two and a Half Men,” has not responded to our request for comment.

Jones, along with co-stars Ashton Kutcher and Jon Cryer, signed a one-year deal to continue the 10th, and current, season of “Two and a Half Men,” in which his character has graduated from high school and joined the Army. The sitcom remains a top 10 ratings hit for CBS.

On Twitter, reaction to Jones’s video vacillated between comments on Jones’s actions and his religious beliefs and, of course, blaming Charlie Sheen, the man who played Jones’s on-screen uncle for eight — well, seven and a half — seasons before a public meltdown (which included publicly making disparaging comments about the series) ended with his getting axed from the sitcom.

Evil Dead Remake Poster Makes A Bold Promise

Fans tend to think they know better than filmmakers when it comes to how to handle a franchise. So, when news arose that an Evil Dead remakes was in the works, the outcry was intense and immediate; many declared that without Bruce Campbell as Ash, it could not rightfully be called Evil Dead. It wasn’t enough for this group that Campbell–who became a cult icon from the original trilogy–and Sam Raimi, who wrote and directed them, were on board to produce. It wasn’t enough that Raimi handpicked the reboot’s director Fede Alvarez, and contributed to the script. This reboot, many fans declared, could never be as good as Evil Dead.

At NY Comic Con this year, Campbell took these criticisms on with gusto, proudly proclaiming true horror fans who crave gore, guts and absolute terror will love this new Evil Dead. He made a believer out of everyone in that auditorium. Then the trailer they saw that day was unleashed on the web, and more formerly outraged Evil Dead fans admitted this could be good. Now, Yahoo’s got a new poster, which like the trailer it clearly defines this is a little bit of old—in this case a nod to the old logo—with a little bit of new—like the deeply unnerving image of a girl covered in dirt and blood stumbling down a dirt road.

I don’t know why, but I am captivated by this poster. The black and white image is chilling, with the gritty impression of blood on creeping down her legs. It’s not audacious in its visuals, just in its bold claims: “The most terrifying film you will ever experience.” I know many of you are disappointed Raimi is not helming this himself, but if this is a sign of what his mentoring can bring forth from new filmmakers, I think we’ll all be grateful and terrified next spring.

Cher Has a Smart Crush on MSNBC’s Chris Hayes

Cher has a crush on *gasp* MSNBC’s Chris Hayes!

CHER has fallen for a guy half her age – 33-year-old, married, MSNBC newscaster Chris Hayes. The “Believe” singer, 66, has been gushing to friends about her huge crush on the nerdy rising cable star, who hosts the weekend morning show “UP w/ Chris Hayes.”

Though Chris is clearly married, outspoken Cher says her passion for him has inspired her to give up bad boys. Now she’s looking for a political wonk just like the young commentator. “Cher adores Chris,” revealed an insider. “She says he’s the perfect man for her despite the age gap and is bummed out that he’s married. “She doesn’t want to mess around with tough guys and bikers anymore. She’d like to finally settle down with a man who can discuss things like world affairs and economic policies. She’s put the word out to all her friends that she’s ready and willing to be set up with a lawyer, financier or professor – no hell-raisers need apply.”

Cher went public with her feelings, tweeting that she has a “smart crush” on Chris. Cher’s been married twice, first to the late Sonny Bono and then to rocker Gregg Allman. She’s since dated a string of younger men including “Bagel Boy” Rob Camilletti, Bon Jovi guitarist Richie Sambora and former Hell’s Angel Tim Medvetz, whom she briefly reunited with over the summer.

But the new mellow Cher has gone intellectual, said the source, adding: “She’s even e-mailed Chris to try to arrange a meeting – just to chew the fat about politics and the economy.”

Presidential debate: Which questions might trip up Obama and Romney?

By Amanda Paulson

Why don’t you support the DREAM Act, Mr. Romney? What economic missteps have you made, President Obama? Both candidates could face tricky questions in Wednesday’s debate.

On Wednesday, expect both presidential candidates to be pushed on some uncomfortable issues. How willing they are to address tough questions head-on will vary, of course – there is still plenty of room in a debate format to dodge the issue – but one purpose of a debate is to push candidates beyond their stump speeches.

In a first, moderator Jim Lehrer has already given advance notice of the broad topics he plans to cover: three questions on the economy, one on health care, one on governing, and one on the role of government. But that could change, and his list is also so vague as to leave room for almost anything. So, what are some of the questions that could – or should – come up in Denver Wednesday night? Expect both candidates to be pushed hard on the economy.

For Mitt Romney, one of the toughest questions might revolve around his now infamous comment to private donors that 47 percent of the country “believe that they are victims” and pay no federal income taxes.

Any question that pushes Romney on those comments – and forces him to explain how his economic policies could benefit the middle class rather than just the wealthy – could put him in a difficult position, says Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public policy at Princeton University in New Jersey.

It could also provide Romney with an opportunity, Professor Zelizer notes – but only if he has the right demeanor.
“In answering, it’s not simply that he says the right things about the middle class, but that he appears genuine,” says Zelizer. “Romney has to display a kind of humanity that’s often missing.”

And economic questions could put President Obama in a tricky position too – particularly if Mr. Lehrer presses him on why, despite his policies and the stimulus, the economy is still in as bad shape as it is.

Mr. Obama’s transition team forecast that the stimulus would keep unemployment from going above 8 percent, and instead it hasn’t gone below 8 percent, notes Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.
“If they haven’t anticipated that question, then [the debate prep team] is pretty hopeless,” he adds.
In Romney’s case, says Professor Pitney, they should also be anticipating some question on the 47 percent issue that explores where those policies came from: “Ronald Reagan made a big point of taking lower-income Americans off the income-tax rolls,” for instance. “Why do you think Reagan was wrong?”

And both candidates might be pushed beyond where they’re comfortable going on economic specifics: what programs they’d cut to reduce the deficit and, in Romney’s case, what exactly he’d do differently from Obama to make the economy improve.

Health care is certainly going to come up, and is a somewhat difficult topic, complete with a lot of potential pitfalls, for both candidates.

“Obama will have to talk about health care, why this is a good bill, and why it was more important than focusing on the economy or focusing on continued stimulus,” says Zelizer.

Romney, on the other hand, still hasn’t explained to some voters’ satisfaction why his position on health care has changed.

The fact-checker team at The Washington Post has also come up with a list of tough questions based on candidates’ suspect claims. For Example: Romney has said he would reduce the size of government while boosting defense spending and reversing the slowdown in Medicare spending – a plan some experts have said doesn’t add up. He could be asked what he would cut to make the numbers work.

Or Obama could be asked when he’ll start taking responsibility for economic missteps on his watch – and whether there are any economic decisions he regrets. Multiple fact-checking organizations have questioned his claim that 90 percent of the deficit on his watch came from Bush-era policies.

Beyond the economy and health care, it’s unclear – and somewhat doubtful, given that this debate format favors fewer questions and longer discussion times – whether domestic issues like immigration, gun control, trade, education, or climate change will come up. But some of those have pitfalls as well.

Immigration is a particularly thorny issue for Romney, given the resistance in much of the Republican party to any policy smacking of amnesty. On Monday, Romney clarified his stance somewhat on Obama’s controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, sometimes referred to as the DREAM Act-lite.

Romney has been pressured recently to explain what he would do about undocumented immigrants granted temporary work status under the program. DACA essentially gives a two-year visa to some undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, have lived here at least five years, and are still age 30 or under, among other requirements.

Romney told The Denver Post Monday that he would not rescind work permits for those who have received them – but that still doesn’t answer what he’d do about the hundreds of thousands who may have pending applications, or whether he’d allow the program to continue. It’s a tricky question for him, given how popular the program is among the Hispanic voting groups he’d like to court, and how unpopular it is among many conservatives.

Gun control is another possibility as a sleeper question, especially given the debate’s proximity to both Aurora, Colo., and Littleton, Colo., where the Columbine shootings took place. And it’s likely not a question either candidate would welcome, given how evasive they’ve been about gun control in the past – and how unpopular the issue is among many key swing voters.

On Monday, the United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund unveiled an ad featuring Stephen Barton, one of the shooting victims in this past summer’s Aurora movie theater shooting, posing that question himself.
“When you watch the presidential debates, ask yourself: Who has a plan to stop gun violence?” Mr. Barton says in the ad. “Let’s demand a plan.”

It’s unclear whether the candidates will have to answer that question themselves Wednesday night, but their answers to that – and other tough questions – might be illuminating.

Police waiting for toxicology results on ‘Sons of Anarchy’ actor Johnny Lewis

The Los Angeles Police Department is awaiting the results of toxicology tests conducted on “Sons of Anarchy” actor Johnny Lewis, to determine if he was under the influence of any drugs or chemical substances when he murdered his landlady and subsequently fell to his death, according to a Los Angeles Times report Monday.

The results of the drug tests conducted may not be available for two more weeks, according to authorities.
Police say Catherine Davis, 81, was killed by Lewis around 10:30 a.m. on Sept. 26, after he went back to her home following an altercation with neighbors. Her residence had been ransacked. When police arrived on scene, Lewis was found dead in the driveway of the home, having apparently fallen on his head from a balcony or roof.

The neighbors who witnessed some of Lewis’ behavior described him as having “superhuman strength,” prompting some to speculate that he may have been under the influence of drugs. Over the past ten months, Lewis appeared to be on a downward spiral facing several criminal charges, a stint in rehab, and jail time. E! News reported Lewis was also in a heated custody battle regarding his young daughter.

According to the LA Times, Lewis was arrested on Jan. 3, 2012, after being accused of breaking into a Northridge town-home and bludgeoning two men with a bottle. He was released from custody on bail, but was arrested again on Feb. 10, after allegedly punching a man in the face at a Santa Monica yogurt shop.

Lewis was then arrested on Feb. 18, accused of trying to break into a Santa Monica home. While out on bail, he failed to show up to court and was arrested on a bench warrant in March.

On May 23, he was ordered to spend 30 days in an outpatient program for substance abuse and mental health issues. On Aug. 17, Lewis was released on probation, having served his jail time and having completed rehabilitation. The Times notes it is “not entirely clear” what took place next, but Lewis found himself back in jail and was released on Sept. 21—only five days before Davis’ murder and his death.

100Feed: Former Penn State President Graham Spanier Cites His Own Child Abuse

By Jane Zuckerberg

Graham Spanier, the former Penn State University president who stepped down in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal, told ABC News today that he was a victim of child abuse so severe that he required several surgeries to correct the damage.

His history as a victim, he said, was a deeply personal rejoinder to those critics who accuse him of trying to cover up Sandusky’s crimes and not caring about the children.

“I’ve never met anyone who has had a higher level of awareness [about child abuse,]” Spanier said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Josh Elliott.

Spanier, 64, is on a campaign to resurrect his once pristine reputation. Though not charged with a crime, the findings of an independent investigation accuse him of failing to prevent a “child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” The abuse he sustained at the hands of his father, a working class immigrant, began when he was a child and continued through his adolescence. Spanier said he has had four surgeries in his adulthood to correct problems with his breathing, face and head as a result of the injuries.

“It resulted in, of course, some emotional scarring, but also some substantial physical damage,” he said of the abuse. Before his tenure as a university administrator, Spanier was a professor specializing in the study of dysfunctional families and child abuse, an interest he said resulted directly from his childhood.

Spanier objects to the findings of the Freeh Report calling it “wrong in its conclusions” and denying the accusation that he “conspired to conceal a known child predator.”

Spanier insists when an assistant football coach reported seeing Sandusky acting suspiciously with a boy in the team showers in 2001, he was only made aware that Sandusky had engaged in “horseplay” with a child.

An independent investigation ordered by the unviersity, the so-called Freeh Report, and others have questioned why Spanier did not further investigate Sandusky after learning even that information.

“Never in my time as president of Penn State did I ever receive a report or even a hint that Jerry Sandusky was engaged in child abuse, a sexual act, criminal activity or anything resembling that with any child. Had I known that, or even suspected it, I would have forcefully intervened. But I never heard a report like that,” he said.

Spanier said he had only met Sandusky once and was only marginally involved when in 1998 and again in 2001 reports were made that Sandusky was seen engaged in inappropriate behavior with a child.
“I do not get involved in police matters. I always had a very hands-off attitude and issues pertaining to people were dealt with by the police, by human resources, or by supervisors in various areas of the university,” he said of the 1998 incident. He also noted that police, the state Department of Public Welfare and prosecutors all determined that Sandusky had not molested a child at that time.

In 2001, however, Spanier was copied on an email about another Sandusky incident, witnessed by assistant coach Mike McQueary who heard sexual noises and saw an underage boy in the shower.

In emails two administrators, Athletic Director Tim Curley and now retired Vice President Gary Schultz, proposed not alerting the authorities but instead letting Sandusky off with a warning and the promise that he would get “professional help.” Spanier agreed to that plan. However, he noted in an email that by not bringing the accusations to police they would be “vulnerable for not having reported it.”

That phrase has dogged Spanier and was crucial in the Freeh’s reports assessment of what he knew and how he failed to act. “‘Vulnerable’ was not best choice of a term,” Spanier told ABC News, adding that “it was a reaction to the possibility that we didn’t want this to happen.” Spanier said he had “no recollection of being concerned” that the school might be held legally liable.
Spanier recalled the anger with the university when the grand jury indicted Sandusky, leading ultimately to Spanier’s demotion to professor and the firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno.

“I opposed the firing [of Paterno]… There could be riots, it could be a rush to judgment, they knew it was his last season” and Paterno should have been allowed to finish the season, he said. Spanier said he and Paterno had secretly signed agreement that the coach would retire at the end of 2012. In July, Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of abuse against 10 boys. Curley and Schultz are awaiting trial on charges of perjury and failing to report child abuse.

100Feed: Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism

By Richard Best

Time columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria has apologized profusely for apparently lifting a paragraph out of The New Yorker for a recent Time column.

Conservative media watchdog Newsbusters was the first to spot the similarities between a Zakaria piece on gun control and an article by Jill Lepore that appeared in the New Yorker in April.

From Lepore’s piece:

As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

From Zakaria’s:

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”
Robert VerBruggen, a writer for National Review, noticed other portions of Zakaria’s article that hewed closely to Lepore’s as well.

The Atlantic Wire posted a statement from Zakaria on Friday afternoon, taking full responsibility for the incident:

“Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 22nd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers.”
A spokesperson for Time told The Huffington Post, “Time takes any accusation of plagiarism by any of our journalists very seriously, and we will carefully examine the facts before saying anything else on the matter.”

This is not the first time Zakaria has come under ethical fire. Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg accused him of lifting quotes without attribution in 2009. He also caused controversy for his series of off-the-record conversations with President Obama, though he said they were no different than those the president held with any other journalist.