Three covers for the viral campaign I shot for Catapult.org
Even in 2014, the rights of women and girls are severely threatened by sex trafficking, slavery, child marriage and other violations around the world. International Women’s Day, observed annually on March 8, continues to spread awareness and garner support — and change — for women across the globe.
Catapult, a crowdfunding site dedicated specifically to the advancement of women and girls, has released a startling new visual campaign in an attempt to make this year’s IWD “more than just a cover story.” The Cover Stories campaign features three mock magazine covers that highlight terrifyingly real human rights issues to push the conversation forward.
The magazines display the grisly names Child Bride, Good Slavekeeping and Thirteen — wordplays on the popular magazines Brides, Good Housekeeping and Seventeen, respectively.
Headlines such as "The Wedding You’ll Never Forget But Wish You Could" and "Who Needs a Childhood Anyway?" float next to the young models. The cover of Good Slavekeeping pretends to cater to the human rights violators themselves, adding another dark layer to the already serious campaign.
Who wants to try this with me over March Break?
"A domino can knock over the next domino at about 1.5x larger (perhaps 2x larger) and this instant video classic from 2009 is a great example of this chain reaction. Watch University of Toronto’s Professor Stephen Morris knock over a 1-meter tall domino that weighs over 100 pounds by starting with a 5mm high by 1mm thick domino. TINY.
There are 13 dominoes in this sequence. If Professor Morris used 29 dominoes in total, with the next one always being 1.5x larger, the last domino would be the height of the Empire State Building.”
Shin came from a loving, supportive, hard-working family. He had a top-tier education and ample opportunities at a legitimate career. On the surface, his descent into the criminal underworld seemed unlikely, but it fit an emerging pattern. According to police, in multicultural Toronto, certain types of criminal activity are often tied to ethnicity: South Americans dominate cocaine production, while Italians handle the distribution and Mexicans the street-level trafficking; Chinese rule the meth trade, thanks to ties to mainland China where raw chemicals originate; Middle Eastern immigrants largely control the heroin market; and West Africans are the masters of identity fraud. The production and distribution of marijuana is an Asian specialty, due mostly to cultural connections to Canada’s West Coast, the mecca of pot, where the vaunted B.C. Bud is grown. The hyperpotent strain, which was developed in the 1980s by Vietnamese farmers on northern Vancouver Island, gives those who have access to it an enormous advantage in the market.
“I’d heard whisperings about the existence of Kappa Beta Phi, whose members included both incredibly successful financiers (New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Goldman Sachs chairman John Whitehead, hedge-fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones) and incredibly unsuccessful ones (Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld, Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne, former New Jersey governor and MF Global flameout Jon Corzine). It was a secret fraternity, founded at the beginning of the Great Depression, that functioned as a sort of one-percenter’s Friars Club. Each year, the group’s dinner features comedy skits, musical acts in drag, and off-color jokes, and its group’s privacy mantra is “What happens at the St. Regis stays at the St. Regis.” For eight decades, it worked. No outsider in living memory had witnessed the entire proceedings firsthand.”
To many book professionals, Amazon is a ruthless predator; recently, the company has even started publishing books. A monopoly is dangerous because it concentrates so much economic power, but in the book business the prospect is especially worrisome: it would give Amazon more control over the exchange of ideas than any company in U.S. history.
We have continued People v. Bieber (2014) so that we can instead relitigate Allen v. Farrow (1992). To be perfectly clear, the court must state up front that in the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that in the Court of Public Opinion, choosing silence or doubt is itself a prosecutable offense.
Look, I am as maddened as the next guy at the persistent inability of our legal system to conclusively resolve so many disputed sexual assault cases. Under the very best of circumstances, the system strains to uncover the truth. And under the strain of 20-plus years and dueling judges, the system often just buckles. I am as aware as anyone of the baked-in asymmetry that pervades a culture that encourages violence and degradation of women, and that silences their reports with shame. I am fully cognizant of the extent to which our judicial system can fail when it comes to conflicts between powerful men and powerless young girls. But in the current debate about what happened between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow in a Connecticut farmhouse in 1992, it massively disserves and undermines the most basic goals of the legal system when we import legal concepts into what is essentially a barroom brawl. You’re pissed, good. I’m pissed, too. But this widespread litigation by hashtag, all dressed up in legal language and presumptions, isn’t getting us any closer to justice.”
“In the Court of Public Opinion, the one-eyed man with the most Twitter followers is king.
Let’s be clear about our terms here: You are entitled to your opinions about what happened between Allen and Farrow in 1992, and you are entitled to your accompanying opinions about whether children can be coached to lie and whether rich men transgress boundaries without consequence. Failing to have an opinion about the latter suggests you live in a hole, but failing to have an opinion about the former is not a moral lapse. … I have opinions as well.
But recognize that these are opinions and inferences, not “evidence.” They are not “cases,” and we are not adjudicating this mess in any kind of court. Recognize that dressing your personal opinions up in fancy talk of “burdens of proof” and “presumptions of innocence” helps clarify almost nothing and confuses a great deal. Mob justice often has all the trappings of an unbiased search for truth, but it’s actually just an (understandable) outpouring of rage and blame. We have statutes of limitation,not to punish complaining witnesses but because the legal system recognizes that memories and evidence are degraded over time, even as umbrage on both side burns brighter than ever.
Investigative journalism is one thing. But the Court of Public Opinion is what we used to call villagers with flaming torches. It has no rules, no arbiter, no mechanism at all for separating truth from lies. It allows everything into evidence and has no mechanism to separate facts about the case from the experiences and political leanings of the millions of us who are all acting as witnesses, judges, and jurors. So go ahead and tweet your truth or publicly shame someone who is tweeting hers, but don’t believe for an instant that this is how complicated factual disputes get resolved or that this will change hearts and minds about our woefully anti-woman, anti-victim culture.”