View Entire Post ›

Just days after hinting at a new project set to precede the release of his sophomore album, PG County’s own IDK revealed that the interim project would be a follow-up to his fan-favorite 2018 EP, IDK & Friends. Over the weekend, IDK tweeted, “Before I give you my second album “USEE4YOURSELF” I’d like to drop off something me and my brother made 4 y’all. 9 Tracks, details soon.”

“Soon” turned out to be today, June 15, as IDK uploaded the pixelated album cover to his IDK & Friends 2 to Instagram and promised it would be “coming soon.” The 2018 original consists of seven tracks and as its title suggested, featured appearances from many of IDK’s closest associates including Denzel Curry, Domo Genesis, Maxo Kream, Q Da Fool, Rico Nasty, Thirty Rack, and Wale. While he kept the tracklist under wraps in his announcement post, the new project comes on the heels of IDK’s recent high-profile collaborations “495” and “Hello Pt. 4,” which established working relationships with YoungManny and Jpegmafia, among others.

Intriguingly, IDK had previously closed the door on a sequel to IDK & Friends, tweeting in 2019 that the project “was a sacrifice I had to make in order to fund #ISHEREAL without a label.” He says that while his album was “basically done before I did my partnership,” he would “never put out a project like IDK&FRIENDS again.” It looks like he’s reneged on that vow for whatever reason, but considering the quality and craftsmanship he puts into even the projects he calls his “simple sh*t,” that can only be a good thing.

Check out IDK’s IDK & Friends 2 album cover above.

IDK is a Warner Music artist Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.

CNN has hired New Orleans Saints safety Malcolm Jenkins as a commentator on race and social justice, several news outlets reported Monday. The NFL veteran has been an outspoken advocate for social justice, and becomes the first active professional athlete to be hired as a contributor for the network.

Jenkins was drafted by the Saints out of Ohio State in 2009 and won a Super Bowl with New Orleans his rookie year. He went on to play for the Philadelphia Eagles for six seasons, capturing the 2018 Super Bowl with the team, before returning to New Orleans this offseason.

In 2010, he founded The Malcolm Jenkins Foundation, a non-profit organization focused on helping the youth in under-served communities in New Orleans, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In 2017, Jenkins and retired wide receiver Anquan Boldin created the Players Coalition, an independent advocacy group that is dedicated to improving the U.S. criminal-justice system. He is also the co-founder of Listen Up Media, a production company, and the executive producer of “Black Boys,” a documentary that seeks to examine what it’s like to grow up as a Black man in the U.S. focused on the “intersection of sports, education and criminal justice.” Earlier this month, he marched in a Philadelphia protest and gave a powerful speech outside The American American Museum.

“We’ve continued on our path towards normalcy with slow, small steps toward change,” Jenkins told the crowd of protesters. “Well, I think the people have made themselves clear that right now is when we want that change. Our voices will no longer be ignored. So I say it again: I hope that we have your attention.”

Jenkins was one of several NFL players who spoke out against racism and police brutality against Black Americans, raising his fist during the national anthem ahead of Eagles’ home games in 2017 and 2018. The two-time Super Bowl champion has also contributed op-eds to CNN.com, The New York Times and Washington Post in the past on topics like mass incarceration and alternative policies for dealing with nonviolent criminal offenders.

He was also not afraid to correct Saints quarterback Drew Brees earlier this month when the white franchise player said he would “never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag,” when it came to the issue of kneeling for the national anthem to raise awareness about police violence and racial injustice. Brees has since apologized for his “insensitive” comments.

With protests for George Floyd and other Black victims of police violence focusing the world’s eye on systemic racism and injustice, Jenkins hopes to retain the country’s attention and bring his perspective to CNN’s studio shows.

“Having spent years running non-profits and supporting grassroots organizations to address the inequalities of our criminal justice system, educational system and disparate wealth in our marginalized communities, I believe I can be a voice for other athlete activists and those who have dedicated their lives to changing legislation, policies and reforms for human equality,” Jenkins said in a statement. “Now more than ever, the public needs to be educated on the roles of elected positions of power, such as the District Attorney, Police Chief or City Council and how to hold those individuals accountable, especially through their voice and their vote.

“Looking forward to being heard,” Jenkins tweeted Monday.

View Entire Post ›

While the first Thor never achieved the bombastic reception that audiences gave Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man, for the most part, it’s still viewed as a fun and welcomed entry from director Kenneth Branagh during the early days of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Unfortunately, the first sequel, Thor: The Dark World, is considered one of the low points in the MCU, and in a new interview, Branagh has opened up about his decision to not direct the sequel.

While promoting his Disney+ movie, Artemis Fowl, Branagh revealed that there was an intense amount of pressure regarding the casting of Thor and Loki in the first film. Unbeknownst to audiences, Branagh knew ahead of time that the relationship between the two brothers would spill over into The Avengers, and if they didn’t get the casting just right and nail the Shakespearean-like drama between the God of Thunder and his trickster sibling, the whole MCU could collapse on itself. Obviously, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston nailed their respective roles, but there was a considerable amount of stress over banking on the two actors, who were nowhere close to the household names they are now. Via Collider:

“I’ll never forget the moment that we cast those two boys [Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston]. It was like a sort of meditation or a sort of incantation… Kevin Feige must’ve walked around this long oval table a hundred times on that Saturday morning as I kept sort of saying, ‘I think we should call them.’ ‘Are you sure?’ ‘Yeah, I think we should call them.’… and I knew how profoundly serious that decision was. Kevin said, ‘We’ll never make a more important decision in this company than what’s happening in this room, Saturday morning at 10:30, when you pick up the phone to Chris Hemsworth and then Tom Hiddleston. It’s either going to work or it’s not. Good luck.’”

Despite having his own ideas for a Thor trilogy, the high-stakes decision-making on the first film wore Branagh down, and he needed to “recharge on something else.” While Taiki Waititi is now in-charge of the franchise after rejuvenating the character in Thor: Ragnarok, Branagh is definitely open to the idea of coming back and directing a new character for the MCU.

(Via Collider)

Crossing Swords (Hulu) — Over the weekend, the creators of Robot Chicken gave us this animated gem starring Nicholas Hoult as a good-natured peasant who gets promoted to squire for the royal court and quickly learns the monarchy is a lot hornier and more incompetent than he ever imagined. It leans into the raunch a bit too much to deliver any kind of meaningful comedy, but hey, we’re allowed to like purely ridiculous stuff, right?

Da 5 Bloods (Netflix) — Spike Lee’s latest streaming joint also hit Netflix last week and since next to nothing is on regular TV right now, it’s a good time to check this movie out if you haven’t already. Black Panther star Chadwick Boseman plays a Black Vietnam war vet and squad leader. Flash forward to the present, and his team’s returned to find the buried gold they left behind. The bigger struggle will be coming to terms with the price of defending their country and receiving no gratitude in return.

The Bachelor: The Greatest Seasons – Ever! (ABC, 8:00 p.m.) — The show looks back at Kaitlyn Bristowe’s controversial season that followed a shocking Bachelor finale.

The Titan Games (NBC, 8:00 p.m.) — Victor Cruz and stunt woman Jessie Graff serve as tonight’s pro Titans who will face off against the West Division champion on Mt. Olympus.

Roswell, New Mexico (CW, 9:00 p.m.) — Liz and Isobel are forced to make a devastating choice when Max’s life is put in danger thanks to a threat at CrashCon. Elsewhere, Michael is caught in the middle of a conflict between Jesse and Alex, Maria’s life hangs in the balance, and Kyle faces an ethical dilemma.

Songland (NBC, 10:00 p.m.) — Multiplatinum, eight-time Grammy and American Music Award-winning R&B icon, Usher, comes to “Songland” to hear unknown songwriters pitch their original material.

Many people are still experiencing the majority of their human interactions on Zoom as the COVID-19 pandemic rages worldwide, so it’s no surprise that the feeling of talking to someone was inevitably monetized for celebrity gain.

Cameo has found interesting ways to stay in the news as many people remain relatively trapped in their homes and seek human connection. Remember when Mark McGrath breaking a couple up during a Cameo went viral, a video that turned out to be a fairly predictable hoax? Well, now the company has upped the ante while adding Zoom calls to the equation. That’s right, for a somewhat unreasonable rate you can now have private talks with celebrities, which I’m sure won’t be awkward even a little bit because you’re just so dang personable.

Cameo’s public relations team listed some of the notable celebrity options like Jeremy Piven, Gilbert Gottfried, Lance Bass, Vicki Gunvalson, Brett Favre, Drake Bell, and Dr. Drew, which are just a few of the more than 50 people now available for Zoom calls. And as the AV Club noted, Piven is available for a 10-minute group call if you have a cool $15,000 at your disposal and need to get yelled at by the dude from Entourage.

It sounds miserable enough that we can’t really blame Jeremy Piven, the mercury-filled Entourage actor, for valuing that 10 minutes at an alarming rate of $15,000. Lance Bass is only charging $1,250, for fuck’s sake. Sean Astin’s only $600. And while $5,000 still seems high for Brett Favre, it’s not $15,000. Thinking it might be a typo, we reached out to Cameo and were told that, yes, that is absolutely Piven’s rate.

Here’s the list of Zoom-available celebrities if you’re looking for a bit of face time with Ari or, say, Tony Hawk. Just maybe think ahead and buy a flip phone Piven can smash against a wall during your call. Really get your money’s worth if you’re gonna go for it.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

In a recent interview, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison was asked why it’s so difficult to prosecute cases against police officers.

“Just think about all the cop shows you may have watched in your life,” he replied. “We’re just inundated with this cultural message that these people will do the right thing.”

While two of those shows, “Cops” and “Live PD,” have just been canceled, Americans have long been awash in a sea of police dramas. In shows like “Hill Street Blues,” “Gangbusters,” “The Untouchables,” “Dragnet,” “NYPD Blue” and “Law and Order,” audiences view the world from the perspective of law enforcement, in which alternately heroic and beleaguered police fight a series of wars on crime. These shows – and countless others – mythologize the police, ensuring that their point of view has dominated popular culture.

This didn’t happen by accident.

As a media historian, I’ve studied how, beginning in the 1930s, law enforcement agencies worked closely with media producers in order to rehabilitate their image. Many of the shows proved to be hits with viewers, and this symbiotic relationship spawned numerous collaborations that would go on to create a one-sided view of law and order, with the voices of the policed going unheard.

The FBI’s PR machine

For FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, police served a primary role: to protect a “vigorous, intelligent, old-fashioned Americanism” that was threatened by what he saw as unreasonable demands for civil rights and liberties.

Hoover wanted his agents to reflect his vision of “Americanism,” so he hired agents with an eye toward whether they fit the mold of what he deemed a “good physical specimen“: white, Christian and tall. They couldn’t suffer from “physical defects” like baldness and impaired vision, nor could they have “foreign” accents.

In the 1930s, Hoover also established a public relations arm within the agency called the Crime Records Division. At the time, the image of the police was sorely in need of rehabilitation, thanks to high-profile federal crime commissions that documented widespread violence, suppression and corruption within police departments.

Hoover realized that broadcast media could serve as a perfect vehicle to disseminate his conception of law enforcement and repair the police’s standing with the public.

The Crime Records Division cultivated relationships with “friendly” media owners, producers and journalists who would reliably endorse the FBI’s views. In 1935, the FBI partnered with Warner Brothers on the film “‘G’ Men.” A “G-Men” radio series followed, made in collaboration with producer Phillips H. Lord and reviewed by J. Edgar Hoover,” who “checked every statement” and made “valuable suggestions,” according to the series’ credits.

A year later, the FBI worked with Lord again on the radio series “Gang Busters,” whose gunshot-filled opening credits boasted of the show’s “cooperation with police and federal law enforcement departments throughout the United States” its status as “the only national program that brings you authentic police case histories.”

Although Hoover and Lord notoriously clashed over the details – Hoover wanted to emphasize the science of policing and the professionalism of law enforcement, while Lord wanted more drama – the focus on the police as protagonists went largely unquestioned.

The FBI’s collaborations continued into the 1970s, with the long-running series “This is Your FBI” (1945-1953) and “The FBI,” (1965-1974). Like “G-Men” and “Gang Busters,” these programs were based on solved police cases and made the most of their ripped-from-the-headlines realism.

Other writers and producers pursued similar collaborations with law enforcement. The iconic series “Dragnet,” for example, was written with the approval of Los Angeles police chief William H. Parker, who notoriously headed the LAPD during the 1965 Watts riots.

images.theconversation.com

Reactionary retaliation

The FBI didn’t just collaborate on media production. My research on the television blacklist – a smear campaign to silence anti-racist progressives in the media industry – reveals how the agency routinely retaliated against its critics.

When journalist John Crosby criticized the FBI during a 1952 television broadcast, Hoover scrawled a note on the report of the incident: “This is an outrageous allegation. We ought to nail this. What do our files show on Crosby?”

Shortly afterwards, Crosby was denounced in American Legion Magazine as someone who supported supposedly communist performers and artists.

When lawyer and government official Max Lowenthal was completing a book critical of the FBI in 1950, the Bureau wiretapped his phone and planted stories so disparaging that few copies of the book sold, ending Lowenthal’s government career. The Bureau even succeeded in getting at least one writer fired from “This is Your FBI” merely because it believed his wife was not a sufficiently “loyal American citizen.” Worse was always visited on black performers, journalists and activists, who were subject to far more intense spying, surveillance and police abuse.

Law enforcement’s efforts to control its image through production and repression helped create police dramas that seldom questioned their built-in bias. Meanwhile, the dearth of diversity in writers’ rooms reinforced this formula.

Of course, some notable exceptions dulled the police drama’s sheen, including David Simon’s “The Wire” and “The Corner,” and Ava DuVernay’s recent miniseries “When They See Us.” These dramas upend the traditional police point-of-view, asking viewers to see the police through the eyes of those most often policed and punished.

Time’s up for the police drama?

Periodically, Americans have been made aware of the one-sidedness of these media depictions of police conduct. In 1968, for example, the Kerner Commission explored the causes of uprisings in black communities. Its report noted that, within these communities, there was longstanding awareness that “the press has too long basked in a white world looking out of it, if at all, with white men’s eyes and white perspective.”

Changing that perspective requires more than recognizing the role police dramas have played as propaganda for law enforcement. It means reckoning with the legacy of stories that gloss over police misconduct and violence, which disproportionately affect people of color.

“We want to see more,” Rashad Robinson, the executive director of the civil rights advocacy organization Color of Change, told The New York Times after the cancellation of “Cops.” “These cop reality shows that glorify police but will never show the deep level of police violence are not reality, they are P.R. arms for law enforcement. Law enforcement doesn’t need P.R. They need accountability.”

Carol A. Stabile is a professor at the University of Oregon

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling that protects LGBTQ+ people from workplace discrimination. In the 6-3 ruling, two conservative-leaning justices, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, joined the four liberal-leaning judges in the decision. Gorsuch himself wrote the Supreme Court opinion.

The courts are supposed to be objective. so labeling justices with ideological labels such as “conservative” and “liberal” always feels a bit reductive. But we live in a highly partisan era, and it would be naive to ignore the politicized underpinnings of judicial appointments. Especially in high-profile cases like this one, a 5-4 split along conservative/liberal lines wouldn’t have been surprising.

So how did these two conservative judges end up ruling in favor of the LGBTQ+ community, which is generally viewed as a liberal stance?

In a nutshell, they didn’t. Not explicitly anyway.

The basis of the ruling isn’t actually about legal protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity itself. In the opinion, Gorsuch explains that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” What the court determined was that the “sex” part of the law is what LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination cases really boils down to.

“If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred,” Gorsuch wrote in the 27-page opinion.

The entire opinion includes specific precedents and arguments against dissents issued by the other conservative justices, but the gist of the ruling is summed up in these two paragraphs:

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.

That distinguishes these cases from countless others where Title VII has nothing to say. Take an employer who fires a female employee for tardiness or incompetence or simply supporting the wrong sports team. Assuming the employer would not have tolerated the same trait in a man, Title VII stands silent. But unlike any of these other traits or actions, homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex. Not because homosexuality or transgender status are related to sex in some vague sense or because discrimination on these bases has some disparate impact on one sex or another, but because to discriminate on these grounds requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex.”

What’s interesting about basing the ruling on sex discrimination—aside from the fact that it makes perfect sense within the letter of the law—is that it serves as a loophole of sorts, through which these conservative justices are able to rule in favor of LGBTQ+ protection under the law without explicitly defending anyone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, they don’t have to voice support for the LGBTQ+ community anywhere in this opinion—the law regarding sex discrimination covers it.

Gorsuch summed up the opinion as such:

“Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

The court has concluded that “the law,” as written, protects LGBTQ+ folks from discrimination because LGBTQ+ discrimination is inseparable from sex discrimination.

What’s striking about this ruling is that it means these protections have already been in place for the past 56 years. In some ways, that makes the ruling more powerful than if new legislation had been passed adding specific language regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. On one hand, it sort of allows the court to skirt around the question of specific protections for LGBTQ+ people. On the other hand, it essentially reaches an arm around the LGBTQ+ community and sweeps them into the broad protections already guaranteed to everyone else.

With the argument being made by a conservative justice and signed off by another, that’s a huge, historic statement, and a big win for LGBTQ+ workers.

View Entire Post ›