Posted on

Food Network Must Drop Paula Deen’s Sons As Well

Food Network Must Drop Paula Deen's Sons As Well


Just as parents will do anything to save their children from harm, so too will children do anything to protect their parents. The instinct to close ranks and go on the defensive is strong, passionate, and often blinding.

So it is no surprise that on Tuesday morning Paula Deen’s two sons, Jamie and Bobby, went on CNN’s New Day to not only defend their embattled mother, but also save her rapidly vanishing financial empire. Their exclusive interview wasn’t entirely altruistic, of course, since their own livelihoods — which include a television show each, books, endorsement deals, and speaking engagements — are grounded in their mother’s fame.

But that filial instinct probably means that the time has come for the Food Network to drop them, too.

Instead of apologizing for their mother’s behavior or expressing contrition for the ugliness that arose from her deposition, Jamie and Bobby made matters worse. They made excuses, attacks, denials. But not apologies.

“These accusations are very hurtful to her, and it’s very sad, and frankly I’m disgusted by the entire thing because it began as extortion, and it’s become character assassination, and our mother is not the picture that’s being painted of her,” Bobby Deen, 41, said in the interview.

When asked by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo why Paula Deen would say under oath that she taught them that there can be acceptable uses of the N-word, they essentially said she lied.

“That’s completely false,” said Jamie Deen, 44, adding that, “These are her words, and not for Bobby and I.”

Added Bobby, “She has never said those words to me.”

So, clearly someone’s lying, and it seems unlikely that the one admitting to racism is the one being untruthful.

Jamie even went so far as to lay the groundwork for the family’s defense against further allegations by rhetorically asking Cuomo regarding anyone else who might come forward with similar charges, “You think people are going to take this opportunity to come out and try to get their piece now?”

“It’s part of the price you pay when you’re in, you know, you have a high profile business or the television shows or whatever that Mom might do,” he added.

The only thing less genuine than the “that’s the price of fame” argument would be if one of the sons recounted a story about how Hank Aaron or some other prominent athlete of African-American descent was a hero to them to underscore how not racist they are.

Oh wait, that’s exactly what Jamie did, recounting how Aaron was his hero growing up and how Paula and her husband gave him pajamas featuring the famed Atlanta Braves slugger.

Taken together, it seems completely inconsistent for the Food Network to drop Paula but keep Jamie and Bobby. Consistency would dictate that the network not only punish the sinner, but also those who are denying the sin. You can’t hold one party responsible and turn a blind eye towards the other.

What Jamie and Bobby are essentially saying in their interview is that their mother isn’t so bad, and that she’s being treated unfairly. What they decidedly are not saying is that she was wrong or apologizing for the situation or how they plan to address it going forward. Basically, they are defending and protecting their mother against what they feel is an inaccurate portrait of her — and, by extension, them. They are closing family ranks. You, viewer, don’t know us, and therefore you don’t know much.

A Food Network representative told BuzzFeed Tuesday it had no further comment at this time beyond its original statement that Bobby’s show, Not My Mama’s Meals, and Jamie’s show, Home for Dinner, would be unaffected by the situation surrounding their mother.

But how much longer can the network hold steady to that position? In defending and protecting their mother, Jamie and Bobby made the situation worse for everyone. Put it this way, if Bobby Flay and Mario Batali went on CNN and gave the same interview, would they remain on the air?

Read more:

Posted on

Senate Democrats Eye Push For Gay Couples’ Protections In Immigration Bill

Senate Democrats Eye Push For Gay Couples' Protections In Immigration Bill

Curtis Tate / MCT

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee as soon as next week could insert new protections for same-sex couples into bipartisan immigration reform legislation quickly making its way through the chamber — injecting another contentious social issue into the already heated immigration debate.

Although the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators did not include language allowing Americans in same-sex relationships to sponsor their foreign partner for a green card in the base bill, Democratic lawmakers and aides alike said its inclusion during the committee markup, which begins next week, appears likely.

“I expect that it would be an amendment that could be adopted by the committee. … I hope it will receive a majority vote in the committee,” Judiciary Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday.

Although Chairman Patrick Leahy is expected to offer the amendment, at least officially his office insists no final decision has been made.

“The Chairman believes that equality and family unification need to be a part of this legislation but he has not decided his amendment strategy yet,” a Judiciary Committee aide told BuzzFeed. “All amendments must be filed by next Tuesday night (the 7th) at 5 p.m. Then members will decide what to offer in the Committee mark ups.”

But staff for Democrats on the committee said a vote on the amendment, similar to language in the Uniting American Families Act, is likely a foregone conclusion.

“Frankly, the bill getting out of committee without the Uniting American Families language isn’t really a possibility we’ve considered,” said Ian Koski, a spokesman for Sen. Chris Coons, who also serves on the committee. Spokespersons for two other members of the committee, Sens. Al Franken and Sheldon Whitehouse, also voiced support for the provision.

The base immigration reform bill introduced by the Gang of Eight earlier this month did not include such protections, but LGBT advocates said at the time that they were hopeful such a measure would be added to the bill in committee. The Defense of Marriage Act’s prohibition on the federal government recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages mean that requests by such couples for green cards are not granted and have been denied in the past.

The measure to allow same-sex couples to be eligible for green cards has been introduced as the Uniting American Families Act for the past several sessions of Congress, and its absence from the base bill drew only muted criticism from supporters of the measure’s inclusion at the time.

Assuming Leahy does introduce the amendment, it is all but certain to be accepted. “This Judiciary Committee has a strong and consistent record on matters of equality and we expect that this amendment will have equally strong support,” Koski said.

All 10 of the Democratic members on the committee have expressed support for marriage equality and are considered reliable votes in favor of LGBT equality measures.

One Democratic aide, however, said the decision of whether the amendment will be offered and voted upon in committee once deliberations on the bill begin May 9 is up to Leahy.

A possible reason for Democrats’ desire to keep from stating their plans unambiguously is the nature of the delicate coalition attempting to move immigration reform forward.

Sen. Jeff Flake — a Republican member of the Gang of Eight who also is on the Judiciary Committee — put the issue front and center in a statement provided to BuzzFeed. “There’s a reason that this language wasn’t included in the Gang of Eight’s bill — it’s a deal breaker for most Republicans. Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues,” Flake said in the statement.

If the provision ends up being added into the bill, Republicans could be given an attempt to remove the provision on the floor, but it almost definitely would fail. At that point, the question would be whether Senate Republicans otherwise inclined to vote for the bill would be willing to give up those political gains in order to eliminate the potential for a gay-rights gain in the immigration reform bill.

Even if included in the Senate bill, the measure likely would not find its way into any House version of immigration reform, which would either lead to a conference committee or a situation similar to that faced by the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, when House Republicans balked at a more inclusive Senate version in the last session of Congress but relented and passed the Senate version earlier this year.

But Blumenthal dismissed that notion that the same-sex provisions could end up being a deal breaker. “There’s no justification for that result. My hope is that Republicans who may be talking about this provision being a deal breaker will reconsider,” Blumenthal said.

Read more:

Posted on

6 Things That Will Probably Happen On The How to Get Away with Murder Winter Finale

6 Things That Will Probably Happen On The How to Get Away with Murder Winter Finale

Tonight is the winter finale of How to Get Away with Murder, AKA our fave new show. If you don’t watch it, who the fuck are you. Supposedly we will be finding out who killed Lila (the coked out, pregnant sorority girl), who killed Sam (Annalise’s sketch as fuck husband and also Lila’s secret boyfriend), and who’s going to get blamed for it all (probably Wes because he’s poor). All we know for sure is that shit is going down and that Connor will look good while it happens.

Even though everything is completely up in the air, because Shonda Rhimes creates plot lines more intricate than our getting ready process, we have a few predictions of things that will most likely happen.

  • 1. Wes is going to wear a fugly plaid shirt.

    Like we get it, you’re on scholarship. We don’t need a reminder every single episode. You have to have some old Hogwarts uniforms lying around, which would be preferable at this point.

  • 2. Bonnie is going to admit to her big lesbian crush on Annalise.

    Even though she’s been eye fucking Sam all season long, last episode we learned that Bonnie is eternally loyal to Annalise and also really good at embarrassing displays of emotion. It doesn’t matter what you do to your hair or who you sleep with (really though, Asher?), you’ll always be Paris Gellar to us.

  • 3. Rebecca is going to fuck up her defense. Again.

    Seriously, what are you doing. Annalise Keating is your lawyer. In case you didn’t notice, she always wins, even if she has to take down senators and the patriarchy to do it. She literally teaches a class named How to Get Away with Murder, which coincidentally is what you are on trial for. Stop playing Sherlock with her ex-fuck buddy and just let the woman to do her job.

  • 4. Frank is going to breathe heavily in the vicinity of Laurel.

    Ew. Just ew. That beard. The weird three piece suits. The fact that he’s a fucking 30-year-old lawyer who probably makes bank but has to stoop to seducing law students. Also, the man needs some boundaries. If any bro took a naked selfie and set it as his caller ID on my phone, I’d be out of their faster than you could say “bye, Felicia.”

  • 5. Conor is going to fuck someone.

    Apparently Conor is enough of a sex God to turn half of his boarding school gay, which means he is allotted one soft core porn scene per episode.

  • 6. Whatever your prediction is, it’ll be wrong.

    After ten seasons of Grey’s Anatomy and four seasons of Scandal, I’ve learned that when it come to Shonda Rhimes, you are never right. Stop trying and just let it happen.

Read more:

Posted on

8 Life Hacks Every Woman Needs

8 Life Hacks Every Woman Needs

Via 120 Ways to Annoy Your Mother by Ana Benaroya. BF_STATIC.timequeue.push(function () { if (BF_STATIC.bf_test_mode) localStorage.setItem(‘posted_date’, 1408353513); }); BF_STATIC.timequeue.push(function () { document.getElementById(“update_posted_time_3420779”).innerHTML = “posted on ” + UI.dateFormat.get_formatted_date(1408353513); }); 1.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 2.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 3.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 4.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 5.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 6.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 7.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya 8.

View this image ›

© Ana Benaroya

All images via 120 Ways to Annoy Your Mother, by Ana Benaroya, published by Thames & Hudson on 1 September at #10.

Read more: