Bigot's Protest Burning of 'Gay Cereal' Fails Really Hard [Video]

Aug 6, 2012 11:15 PM  

This misguided and, let's be honest, hapless gentleman thinks that a good way to protest General Mills' support of same-sex marriage is to burn a perfectly good box of Honey Nut Cheerios. It's quite possible that the box is empty, since there isn't a person, bigoted or otherwise, who would just torch Honey Nut Cheerios like this. Thankfully, however, General Mills makes their cereal boxes idiot proof, which is why this sad, lonely, cry-for-help protest doesn't proceed quite as smoothly as it would if a non-stupid were in charge.

via @DaveKrumholtz

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Women Really Wish Cops Wouldn't Grope Them Unnecessarily [Nypd]

New York City police officers aren't taught how to "stop-and-frisk" women differently from men. They say gender is blind when it comes to street stops, but the women in question don't feel the same way.

Last year, the NYPD frisked around 16,000 of the 46,784 women they stopped; only 59 guns were found in total, but 3,993 women were ultimately arrested. The rate of guns found on women is almost equally as low as the rate found on men (0.12 percent and 0.13 percent, respectively), and unnecessary stop-and-frisks aren't pleasurable for anyone, but women say they feel additionally violated and embarrassed by undeserved searches in which cops may pull panties and tampons out of bags or engage in some light groping in the middle of broad daylight, all in the name of the law.

One 24-year-old who was frisked told the New York Times that she felt "powerless" during the procedure. "A male officer should not have a right to touch me in any sort of manner, even if it's on the outside of my clothing," she said. "We're girls. They are men. And they are cops. It feels like a way for them to exert power over you." Another woman said she and two female friends still don't understand why they were frisked by officers who said they were looking for a rapist. "They tapped the back pockets of my jeans, around my buttock," she said. "It was kind of disrespectful and degrading. It was uncalled-for. It made no sense. How are you going to stop three females when you are supposedly looking for a male rapist?"

The Times interviewed a number of people who said one reason women might feel particularly violated is because most incorrectly think that only female officers are allowed to stop-and-frisk women, just like when you go through airport security. But that's not true. Police Inspector Kim Y. Royster said it's unsafe for male officers to wait for female officers to arrive at the scene, especially because they'd often have to wait a very long time — more than 80 percent of the city's cops are men. NYPD cops do go through training which teaches them to "be sensitive to issues surrounding gender, race and ethnicity," but the course doesn't mention anything about stop-and-frisks for weapons.

Oddly, the article never mentions another huge reason why women might not trust the cops: the NYPD's long and grievous history of abusing their power to intimidate and sexually harass women — or worse. Remember last year's "rape cop" cases? Or the time the Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union told us that illegal strip searches by NYPD officers are "a longstanding problem" that "25 years of litigation" have done little to correct? Maybe that
has something to do with how wary the city's women are of the officers who are supposed to protect them. Just a thought.

For Women in Street Stops, Deeper Humiliation [NYT]

Image via SVLuma Shutterstock.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Kirsten Gillibrand Really Must Insist that More Women Run for Office [Politics]

On Tuesday, the Washington Post featured a profile on Democratic New York State Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is taking time out of her reelection bid (she's expected to win by a 2 to 1 margin, so it's nbd) to personally ensure that, after the next election cycle, she can look forward to seeing more women waiting patiently in the Capitol Hill cafeteria line for tater-tots.

There are are currently just 17 women serving in the Senate, and a mere 75 in the House of Representatives, glaring minorities that do not sit well with Gillibrand. If both the House and Senate were more evenly proportioned, she recently told a donor conference, "We would not be debating contraception. We would be debating the economy, small business, jobs, national security - everything but." Gillibrand has been helping to raise money for three different prospective female candidates, each of which would face a GOP incumbent. Former Iowa first lady Christie Vilsack will challenge Rep. Steve King (R.) in Iowa; Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth will face Rep Joe Walsh (R.) in Illinois for control of the Chicago suburbs district; and former Orlando police chief Val Dennings will seek to unseat Rep. Daniel Webster from his unexpurgated dictionary throne.

The Monday fundraiser cobbled together over $100,000 for all three women and, despite prevailing Republican sentiment in all three contended districts, the challengers seem to be keeping pace with the incumbents, an underdog narrative, notes the WaPo, that should be familiar to Gillibrand considering she originally defeated a Republican incumbent from a conservative House district in New York State. Now, however, Gillibrand is quickly becoming a prominent face in the Democratic party, having notched the third-largest fundraising total ($14 million) in the whole party. Her opponent, Wendy Long, has raised a mere $113,000 by comparison.

It's this bursting political war chest that has allowed Gillibrand to focus more on helping other women break into a stubbornly male-dominated Capitol Hill, and to that end, Gillibrand has created a program and PAC, each of which are called "Off the Sidelines." The effort to help women secure positions of power extends beyond the political sphere — Gillibrand wants to see women ascend the corporate ladder as well. In a recent interview Gillibrand laid out her goals for "Off the Sidelines":

I want to make it a call to action - asking women first and foremost to vote; second, being an advocate on the issues they care about; third, holding their lawmakers accountable on their priorities; and then hoping to get a few more to run.

Though Gillibrand isn't the only female politician hoping to open up some more opportunities for women (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Patty Murray are also engaged in the effort), some see Gillibrand as the next Hillary, viewing her work with "Off the Sidelines" as being more primarily concerned with strengthening her political future, with vaulting women into positions of power a fortunate (and necessary) side effect of that self-interested undertaking. Gillibrand insists, however, that she's doing all this work to help fill the House and Senate ranks with more women, to encourage women who are considering a political bid to simply go for it. That initial reluctance to run for political office, according to Gillibrand, might account for a the gender disparity in Congress:

Most men - I don't want to say that - many men will say, ‘Of course I can do it.' It's the first thing out of their mouths. But a woman will always doubt herself," she said. "It's more in our nature to be questioning. Can this be done? Will I make a difference? That's one of the things you have to address up front - yes, you can do it.

Hopefully, Gillibrand's profile continues to rise so that her work with Off the Sidelines garners more attention and helps make our representative government a little more, um, representative of the population it...represents. Dammit.

Gillibrand works to elect more women [WaPo]

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Astrologers Explain: Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson Were Never Really Compatible Anyway [In The Stars]

Vampires may be immortal, but in Hollywood, forever is not long at all. And, according to their zodiac signs, long-term true love was never going to happen for Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. As of right now, she's apologized for her indiscretion, but Rob's moved out. We ask the cosmos: Will K-Stew and R-Patz survive an infidelity?

Our sources say no, and the stars back it up. Sad as we are to see the Twilight saga end — in real life and theaters — the stars predict a slim-to-zero chance of reconciliation. Here's are four reasons why.

Bad as we feel for poor Pattinson, there may have be some cosmic mismatching here from the start. Taurus men and Aries women can have incredible chemistry, but are also wired differently (despite their similar Ram/Bull stubbornness).

Aries is a restless fire sign, while Taurus is a steady earth sign. Earth signs like Taurus are planners, while fiery Aries is impulsive, easily swayed by passion and attraction.

Pattinson was a grounding, stable force in Stewart's life, but perhaps a little TOO much so. While the Taurus man is quick to start construction on his picket-fence fantasy, the Aries woman who "settles down" young is often likely to marry multiple times. Lady Aries is an adventurer who needs to sow her oats before she commits for the long haul. The Taurus man, old-fashioned at heart, has no tolerance for that.

Yes, the Aries woman-Taurus man match CAN work…and does for couples like Victoria and David Beckham, and Ashley Judd and Dario Franchitti. However, they're all a bit older than Stewart — and age does make a difference.

So if you're a fire sign (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius) interested in a Taurus, you'll need to tame your wild ways…or rather, reserve them all for your Bull's pleasure. Don't go roaming in the pasture checking out the other cattle and steers!

What infuriates people about Taurus men — their stubbornness, their ability to reduce everything to its simplest state — is actually what makes them such loyal partners. To the Taurus man, it's simple: you're either in or you're out. There's no grey area in the commitment zone. If they love you, they're with you. If they don't, they leave. Maybe it doesn't work that way for the other 11 zodiac signs, but for Taurus, that's how things operate. (This may be why Taurus George Clooney is the world's most monogamous bachelor.)

"There is one thing I've never understood: Why people cheat," Pattinson recently told Italian Vogue. "My parents met when my mom was 17 and my father 25, they are still together, and seem very happy. I grew up believing that you can be together all of your life."

Nor do we expect Pattinson to try and understand, or to offer Stewart another (Bella) swan song. Public humiliation is not something Taurus takes well. He'll pack his shit and move on, taking their dog and his broken heart with him. Rumor has it he's already staying with his Water for Elephants co-star Reese Witherspoon-who, interestingly, happens to be an Aries like Kristen Stewart, one who knows the perils of marrying too young.

In the extremely rare event that they reconcile, Pattinson may never trust Stewart. Which, when weighed and measured by his rational Taurus mind, probably won't make sense. Says Ophira's Taurus husband Jeffrey,"When you get bitten by a dog once, you never trust that dog again. That's the Taurus code."

While we don't expect Pattison to rush back into the dating scene, with Jupiter in his second house of self-worth until June 2013 (and serious Saturn moving into his relationship house this fall), he could be happily ensconced in a new relationship by the holidays. There certainly won't be a shortage of takers.

The aftermath could be a tough landing for Kristen, who could end up losing both men in the end. Why? Aries are coming to the tail end of Saturn's visit to Libra, their relationship house. Maturity planet Saturn rules tough lessons. It's also associated with older people. Her attraction to a man almost 20 years her senior (Rupert Sanders is 41; she's 22) falls in line with this transit.

In true impulsive Aries style, Stewart issued a public apology to Pattinson: "I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so sorry."

While we have to give her some props for her honesty (hey, we're Sagittarians and we value that), most PR pros and media experts are critical of her move, even calling it "career suicide."

While we doubt that, it was certainly the kind of headstrong, leap-before-looking Aries move that probably got Stewart into this mess in the first place. And with Saturnine lessons, hindsight is often 20/20.

Forgive us, o' Fishboys who swim in the clear waters of integrity. There are some among the Piscean school who prefer the murky depths, who love to dart in and out of the coral reefs and cast deceitful shadows. See, we even made cheating sound poetic and fateful, something the mystical-but-tortured Pisces man can do.

Pisces is ruled by Neptune, the planet of fantasy, illusion and escape. Hopeless romantics to the core, Pisces men have a strong pull toward secrecy and "forbidden fruit," which can manifest as addictions, cheating or codependence if they're not careful. Anyone who's been with a Pisces man has probably been treated to at least one disappearing act…even if he just emotionally checks out. It's a tricky sign, one that can take you to both the most heavenly highs and the most depraved lows.

Sanders' estranged wife Liberty Ross even hinted at her marital loneliness in a recent interview, saying, "I would never say out loud that I am raising my children alone, but a lot of the time it has felt like that." Indeed, as a husband, the Pisces man often feels like a fish trapped on the line. Even the best "bait" loses its luster when he's stuck on someone else's hook. Difficult indeed.

Interestingly, both Sanders and Pattinson are one sign away from Kristen's on the zodiac wheel, which can be a tricky match. When two people are one sign apart, they're often teachers for each other on a karmic level. By nature, their signs have little in common, yet they can complement each other in a dynamic way. However, they'll need to navigate some fundamental differences and compromise often.

Alas, in this cosmic and fateful love triangle, the lessons aren't happy ones. Looks like Bella Swan fell for the wolf (in civilian clothing) after all.

This piece originally appeared on AstroStyle.com. Republished with permission. Identical twin sisters Tali and Ophira Edut — known as The AstroTwins — reach millions every month as the astrologers for Elle.com, TV Guide and Lifetime, and the authors of The AstroTwins' Love Zodiac: The Essential Astrology Guide for Women (Sourcebooks), a 450-page guide to the men of every sign. Tali and Ophira have read charts for celebrities including Beyoncé, LeAnn Rimes, Stevie Wonder and Sting. As the co-creators of AstroStyle.com and Momstrology.com, The AstroTwins help clients and readers create amazing lives with their unique, applied method of astrology and coaching. They are available for private astrology readings by phone or in person. Find out who you match with — join their mailing list and get a free compatibility guide.) Also follow them on Twitter: @astrotwins and @momstrology.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Family Planning at Zoos Can Get Really Depressing [Sad]

This isn't going to be easy, but, um, you know how you go on some random squee site and see really adorable pictures of the new tiger cubs born, let's say, at the Copenhagen Zoo? Yeah, well, some of those cubs were probably euthanized to help control the tiger population and recreate the extremely high cub mortality rate in the wild. It's just all part of making animals in captivity feel more at home.

According to a downer of a New York Times report on how zoos handle exotic animal reproduction, there are two ways zoos can control their exotic animal populations: Option A, the American method, ironically, is to put animals on birth control, while Option 2, the European method, is to put animals to sleep. Forever. Before your heart breaks into a million pieces, consider the logic behind euthanizing zooborns. European zookeepers have argued — nowhere more ardently than in Denmark — that euthanization helps an exotic animal retain as much of its natural behavior as possible. Bengt Holst, director of conservation at the Copenhagen Zoo, explains the rationale behind putting down newborn additions to the zoo:

We'd rather they have as natural behavior as possible. We have already taken away their predatory and antipredatory behaviors. If we take away their parenting behavior, they have not much left.

To have animals maintain their "natural behavior," Holst and many of his European colleagues let animals give birth to offspring, raise those offspring to a certain age, when zookeepers then take those cubs, kits, pups, and whelps that don't figure into the zoo's breeding plans and euthanize them. Why, just this spring, the Copenhagen Zoo euthanized two 2-year-old leopard cubs whose genes were already overrepresented in the zoo's leopard population. In the wild, 80 percent of feline offspring die before they reach maturity, so the Danish strategy mimics life in the wild and allows animals the opportunity to reproduce and raise offspring more or less the same way they would if they weren't languishing around a really complex nature tableau.

American zoos opt for birth control, claiming that this more easily prevents inbreeding among populations, allowing animals like gorillas, for instance, to remain in their family units without giving birth to genetically redundant offspring. Hormones in contraception, moreover, can dull some aggressive mating behavior in males, which can help create a way mellower zoo experience for easily-rattled visitors.

The problem, however, with giving birth control to animals is that, while it's safe for some, it can present a myriad of health problems for others. Birth control works best with apes because they're the most similar to humans, but some big cats can develop uterine infections or tumors as a result of birth control implants. European zoos arguing against contraception cite the potential health risks, though some employ euthanasia with more zeal than others — Denmark, for example, is very open with the public about its euthanasia practices, while Germany only employs euthanasia in "reasonable" circumstances, which, for zookeepers, can be a little ambiguous, meaning anything from, "There are too many anteaters and we're instituting a Shirley Jackson lottery," to "There is no way I can euthanize this tiger cub — it just mewed at me."

When Babies Don't Fit Plan, Question for Zoos Is, Now What? [NY Times]

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The New York Stock Exchange Really Needs to Move the Women's Restroom [Running In Heels]

Aug 2, 2012 3:10 PM  

No doubt that the goals of the Moving the Needle campaign are noble. Their aim is to help diversify US corporations by creating opportunities for a diverse set of candidates to network with established businesses.

As stated on their website, the goal is not to implement quotas to or put women or people of color in token positions, but rather to create value through diversity that will "improve all facets of a board's and company's performance and ultimately enhance the shareholders' investment value."

After all, in 2010 people of color were 11.9% of Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers and 20.1% of all First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers. And only 16% of Fortune 500 board members were women.

The New York Stock Exchange is one organization that is embracing the Move the Needle program in order to help it diversify. But women familiar with the NYSE have a problem that is representative of the institutionalized sexism that often undermines efforts like Move the Needle.

The problem is the bathrooms.

Yes, the bathrooms. During a meeting designed to highlight the efforts to expand the number of female board members, some of the high-powered and successful women in attendance noticed that the women's bathrooms were so far away from the floor of the exchange that the path had to be marked with multiple signs so women could find their way-all the way from the conveniently-located mens room through three winding corridors to the "Female Clerks Rest Room".

Given the fast-paced nature of the stock exchange, it seems that this workplace in particular would benefit from having restrooms that are available for quick and efficient access.
Perhaps one of the first steps the NYSE needs to make to Move the Needle would be to move the ladies' restroom.

Follow one woman as she photographs the journey from the trading floor to the women's restroom.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Urban Outfitters Really Doesn't Want You to Know About Its Bed Bug Problem [Urban Outfitters]

Want a free bed bug with your Urban Outfitters Navajo panties? Probably not. But if you shop at one Urban Outfitters in downtown Manhattan, you might not have a choice; the store has been dealing with the parasitic insects for months and refuses to take the issue seriously, even though two employees have confirmed cases of bed bugs in their homes and around a dozen associates have reported telltale bites since the first insect intruder was spotted by a customer in March. Experts say it would only take a few hours to correctly treat the entire store overnight. Why hasn't that happened yet?

A store representative told us that they could "neither confirm or deny" whether they had bed bugs in the store, but we've seen multiple memos confirming that employees of Urban Outfitters' Flatiron District location have been asking higher-ups to do something about the store's bed bugs for months.

In March, a customer found a bed bug on the sales floor. After that, Urban Outfitters called in an extermination company, but the company's canine inspectors couldn't detect any live bed bugs on the scene. In April, an associate reported a confirmed bed bug outbreak at home but the store didn't take any preventative action, even though all employees share a break room and locker space for their belongings. The next month — and into June and July — numerous employees started getting painful, itchy bug bites while in the offices, break area, and on the sales floor where customers buy their embellished goddess headwraps. Most of the bites appeared three in a row, as bed bug bites often do.

"As soon as it started getting hotter, everyone started getting bites, probably because everyone shares one communal office: bags, coats, everything goes in there," said our source. "Employees told their supervisors they were getting bitten and asked what they should do. But they haven't really done much."

Memos show that the same exterminators returned to the store on July 9th. After detecting bed bugs, they used cedar oil (an all-natural option that only works if you get it on the actual insect) to treat the lockers, break area, office, "perimeter and crack & crevices," but they did not treat any public areas of the store. When the extermination company returned on the 19th, dogs still detected bugs in two of the store's offices. But instead of taking instant action, managers threw away some old furniture and told employees not to keep their bags in the office.

We asked Arnold Caspro, a specialist at Ecology Ep, what Urban Outfitters could do to get rid of the bed bugs once and for all. He said the problem was likely that the exterminators hadn't found the main source of the problem — perhaps because some cracks and crevices hadn't been sealed — and that the store should've closed down for a night to steam all its clothing and treat all common spaces long ago. It would only take a night of work to treat a store of this size, he said — meaning Urban Outfitters wouldn't have to lose a day of business.

"It's very likely that the employees are transferring bed bugs to each other," he said. When we told him that dozens of employees work in the two-level store, he said, "Oh God."

A supervisor did say they were considering a night time extermination in a memo last week, but why have they waited so long to set that up? Until they deal with the situation in a more serious manner, any staffer — or customer — could carry the bugs home with their pre-ripped short shorts and "tribal"-print leggings.

After a number of New York City stores experienced infestations in 2010, a survey found that 40 percent of bed bug problems occur in commercial businesses. That year, Soho's Hollister outpost, an Abercrombie & Fitch store in South Street Seaport, and an uptown Victoria's Secret closed their doors for fumigation purposes after issues with bed bugs. When the latter took action after just one bed bug sighting, the store released a statement saying, "As a proactive measure, we tested our Manhattan stores. When we found small, isolated areas that may have been impacted, we immediately took action to resolve the situation." An excellent call, given as most fashion retail customers try on multiple articles of clothing whenever they visit a store. Why isn't Urban Outfitters more concerned?

"It shouldn't be up to the employees to fix this problem," our tipster said. "I hope [this] gets this store the publicity it deserves and ultimately (and most importantly) a safe work space for Urban's employees." And its customers, too.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Someone Think of the Children: Could There Really Be a Fifty Shades of Grey Baby Boom? [Fifty Shades Of Grey]

Jul 31, 2012 6:15 PM   You ladies! Ever since you picked up E.L. James' adult Little Golden Book Fifty Shades of Grey, you can't stop getting it wet. But, seriously, did you ever think that all of your freewheeling fucking might have real life-altering consequences? You know what they tell you in middle school — all it takes is one trip to the Red Room of Pain and you can come back pregnant, which is why, much to the embarrassment of everyone involved, Good Morning America is predicting a Fifty Shades of Grey baby boom in just a matter of months. Dubious? You're right to be. Their only proof is that several babies — or greybies, if you really want to sound like an asshole — could be born in Febuary, which is approximately 9 months after the book series peaked in sales. There are, however, a few pregnant couples willing to admit that it was actually the fan fiction-turned-best seller that motivated them to get crawl back into the sack and get to child-making again, with some even considering naming their unborn children after the novels' main characters Christian and Anastasia. Do this at your own risk, parents — giving your kids the names of characters famed for tampon sex play is like giving carte blanche to CPS to have them taken away. E.L. James' '50 Shades of Grey' Causing New Baby Boom [GMA]

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.