Lily Salter's Blog, page 956
November 12, 2015
David Spade could have had Letterman’s show: “I couldn’t believe they were handing me this. I thought, I don’t know what the f*ck I’m doing”
In a bizarro universe, David Spade is a late-night talk show host legend, and Conan O'Brien isn't. In a new interview with Esquire about his memoir, "Almost Interesting," "Saturday Night Live" alum David Spade reveals to writer Mike Sacks the biggest inside-late night story he didn't include in his book. Apparently, back in 1993 when NBC was looking for a replacement for David Letterman as host of "Late Night," after Letterman departed to helm "The Late Show" for CBS, Spade's Hollywood Minute segment on "SNL"'s Weekend Update attracted network brass attention. They offered him the gig — which ended up going to Conan O'Brien — and he turned it down. "How the fuck I spaced that, didn't put that in the book, I don't know," Spade tells Sacks. "But when I was going through the final version of the book, I thought, Oh shit, that happened. It occurred to me that it might have been interesting for people to know that I got offered Letterman and didn't do it." Spade elaborates on his fateful lunch with Bernie Brillstein, Lorne and Brad Grey:
Now, in fairness, there was a rumor that they had first gone to Garry Shandling and Dana Carvey, and they had both said no. I said, "Why me?" And they said, "Well, you sort of brought a new attitude to Saturday Night Live and a little edge, and you're not like People magazine. You're going after people, and we like that." And I was young and new. And I said, "Aw, I don't think I'd really want to do a talk show." And they were all sort of stunned. They went, "Well, it's like a million dollars a year. It's Letterman!" Which was huge. I couldn't believe they were handing me this. I thought, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing! They said, "We'll get you writers, you know." I said, "I always pictured maybe a sitcom or something like that. I want to try that first. I want to go try that. And a talk show feels like the last job you would take. You don't have another job. That is it."Grey upped the offer, and Spade still declined. He says he has no regrets for not taking the gig. "I would have been more like Letterman. Just do one thing, and it's dry," Spade said. "That used to work, and I don't think it does anymore with all the viral stuff and shit you need to do." In this alternate late-night universe, does Spade end up besting Jay Leno and wrestling permanent control of "The Tonight Show?" Read the fascinating interview here, which also covers being raised by a driven divorced mom, the personal tragedies that helped jumpstart his comedy career and his experiences with Johnny Carson and on "Saturday Night Live."In a bizarro universe, David Spade is a late-night talk show host legend, and Conan O'Brien isn't. In a new interview with Esquire about his memoir, "Almost Interesting," "Saturday Night Live" alum David Spade reveals to writer Mike Sacks the biggest inside-late night story he didn't include in his book. Apparently, back in 1993 when NBC was looking for a replacement for David Letterman as host of "Late Night," after Letterman departed to helm "The Late Show" for CBS, Spade's Hollywood Minute segment on "SNL"'s Weekend Update attracted network brass attention. They offered him the gig — which ended up going to Conan O'Brien — and he turned it down. "How the fuck I spaced that, didn't put that in the book, I don't know," Spade tells Sacks. "But when I was going through the final version of the book, I thought, Oh shit, that happened. It occurred to me that it might have been interesting for people to know that I got offered Letterman and didn't do it." Spade elaborates on his fateful lunch with Bernie Brillstein, Lorne and Brad Grey:
Now, in fairness, there was a rumor that they had first gone to Garry Shandling and Dana Carvey, and they had both said no. I said, "Why me?" And they said, "Well, you sort of brought a new attitude to Saturday Night Live and a little edge, and you're not like People magazine. You're going after people, and we like that." And I was young and new. And I said, "Aw, I don't think I'd really want to do a talk show." And they were all sort of stunned. They went, "Well, it's like a million dollars a year. It's Letterman!" Which was huge. I couldn't believe they were handing me this. I thought, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing! They said, "We'll get you writers, you know." I said, "I always pictured maybe a sitcom or something like that. I want to try that first. I want to go try that. And a talk show feels like the last job you would take. You don't have another job. That is it."Grey upped the offer, and Spade still declined. He says he has no regrets for not taking the gig. "I would have been more like Letterman. Just do one thing, and it's dry," Spade said. "That used to work, and I don't think it does anymore with all the viral stuff and shit you need to do." In this alternate late-night universe, does Spade end up besting Jay Leno and wrestling permanent control of "The Tonight Show?" Read the fascinating interview here, which also covers being raised by a driven divorced mom, the personal tragedies that helped jumpstart his comedy career and his experiences with Johnny Carson and on "Saturday Night Live."
“Daddy Don’t Go” smashes stereotypes of disadvantaged “deadbeat” dads: “Stability is the biggest gift that you get when you enter the middle class”
A refreshing highlight at this year’s NYC Docs Festival is Emily Abt and Andrew Osborne’s “Daddy Don’t Go,” which challenges the all-too-familiar, conveniently reductive and hardened stereotype of minority dads that tends to dominate the Hollywood landscape. Shot over two years in the greater NYC area, the documentary’s four main protagonists — Nelson, Omar, Alex, and Roy — prove themselves self-sacrificing, committed and unexpectedly tender fathers as they struggle against homelessness, unemployment, bureaucracy and, in some cases, a criminal past. The flashing statistics in “Daddy Don’t Go” are brutal: 1 in 3 American children grow up without fathers, and there are at least 1.1 million incarcerated fathers who live in the US. But the numbers also belie a deeper, concealed truth about low-income fathers. A John Hopkins study found that those who might be labeled "deadbeat dads" often spend as much on their children as parents in formal child-support arrangements, but prefer to invest in provisions like baby food, school supplies, and clothing, rather than hand out cash — support that goes unacknowledged in any government surveys or statistics. Even more surprisingly, the study also reported that the proportion of total support offered in-kind was higher among black fathers (44 percent) than non-black fathers (35 percent). The human factor behind the demographic data emerges within scenes of Nelson, Omar, Alex, and Roy reading to their kids on a subway ride, doing laundry, braiding hair, sharing a sandwich, or tucking them into bed; it’s the small mundane rituals which finally resonate as the significant and poetic in childhood. I chatted with Abt — named one of Variety Magazine’s “Ten Top Directors to Watch”- about the new kinds of social dialogue and support she hopes to inspire in filming “dads with real, real problems,” as well as the changing gender roles motivated by the rising trend of stay-at-home fathers in the U.S. Can you tell me what sparked your documentary on disadvantaged dads in the first place? I have an amazing dad who was a wonderful father to me, but he didn’t have a father himself. So I always had this built-in empathy for disadvantaged fathers who were lacking in role models themselves, who didn’t feel well-parented, but were trying to do things differently by their kids. But also, I started out as a caseworker in my early twenties — that was my first job. And that was how I came to make my first documentary, which followed four of my clients as they transitioned from welfare to work. I was making films that focused on women protagonists, but men were also often very active in their children’s lives, and I was hearing these stories and wondering, why isn’t their story being told? Ironically, I think this is my most feminist film to date. What we’re hoping with this film is that it inspires all kinds of dads to lean into the domestic sphere and their parenting roles. Because women can’t progress in a professional setting until men really step up in terms of the home arena. Absolutely. A good example of that in your film is when Nelson decides to support his girlfriend and her two kids while she gets her GED and trains as an EMT — she even calls Nelson her “home wife.” Definitely, fatherhood in general is in the zeitgeist. But more specifically, this whole deadbeat dad stereotype that characterizes disadvantaged dads — often minority dads — as not able and willing seems so played out and tired. So that was our big mission, to replace that deadbeat dad stereotype with positive images of disadvantaged dads who might not be resource-rich or even have stable employment, but definitely want to be present in their kids’ lives. Right now, our current court system does not support that. Men are seen as wallets, basically. But what if a guy doesn’t have money, but really wants to be a good dad? Good point. As a filmmaker and an ex-caseworker, what kind of policy changes for disadvantaged dads were you hoping to inspire? Malik Yoba has been very active in the political arena around this issue, and we’re starting to put together an outreach plan and identify legislative areas where we feel like this film could inspire change. Having Malik and Omar Epps on board to kind of shepherd this project along to make sure that it gets seen by a broader audience is super-important. They both grew up in New York City without dads, and now both have three kids themselves. So they really understand on a very personal level how important this film is. A lot of surprising reversals of fate happen to these four dads. Was there anything that you wanted to leave in the film, but left out because it was too controversial or personal? We didn’t actually end up including this in the final cut, but Omar was homeless for a period while we were making the film. Alex was in a shelter, there was domestic violence — just every tough social issue that’s happening in this country happened to those guys. We wanted the audience to be pushed and pulled and sometimes confused by their decisions, but ultimately, we wanted to present a positive, hopeful portrait of these guys. So that guided a lot of decisions in the editing room. Because there were moments that were less flattering that we felt were very interesting, but not consistent with this overall message of men being there for their kids, against all the odds. It’s a sad truism, but people who struggle in this country really struggle. We shot almost 300 hours of footage, and there were major ups and downs. Stability is the biggest gift that you get when you enter the middle class. So true. I think your film reflects that by mentioning the fact that 60 percent of felons in NY state are still unemployed a year after their release. Also, Omar shares that he’s been through 15 different jobs because of his ex-offender past — in your opinion, is there really a second chance for dads with a criminal record in America? Well, it’s funny that you should mention that because in New York there’s been this movement called Ban the Box. But I’m really happy to say that that’s gone away, because if you’ve gone to prison, when you’re released, you should be able to return to mainstream society. We’re so punitive in this country, and not sympathetic to guys who have made mistakes — sometimes huge mistakes. Nonetheless, I personally believe in second chances. I know I’ve needed second chances sometimes. If you look at the environment that these guys are growing up in, a lot of times criminal activity seems almost inevitable. Definitely. At some point in the film, all four protagonists refer to the temptation of “easy money.” Nelson says: “In three days, I could come back with $1,000.” Realistically speaking, if you found yourself in his situation, how could you not at least consider it? For me the bottom line there is that, yes, they were unemployed, but it’s not like they weren’t trying. I think we have a hard time recognizing in this country that not everybody who wants a job can actually get a job. And people say, “Oh, McDonald’s is always hiring” and stuff like that. Well, if you don’t have teeth, then even McDonald’s doesn’t want you. We have a stubborn unemployment problem that really affects disadvantaged men in this city — I think 50 percent of African-American men in New York City are unemployed. And the Bronx, it has the highest poverty rate of any congressional district in America. That’s why we wove in those statistics, because that was part of the story. We couldn’t ignore it; it just kept slapping us in the face. Speaking along racial lines, I couldn't help but notice that Roy, who is also an ex-offender, is the only dad in the documentary who ends up receiving any counseling and finding a job. Do you think it’s because he's white? I don’t think it’s unrelated to the fact that he’s white. It’s always really important to me when I’m making a film that the demographic representation of our subjects mirrors reality, and I definitely wanted to be sure that we had a Caucasian subject because I didn’t want people to say, “My god, this is a black and brown thing.” If you look at actual socio-economic statistics in our country, a lot of times white people are more privileged than minorities; that is the reality. And while he’s an ex-offender and is parenting on his own and can’t afford his own home, he does have these support systems that the other guys don’t. Do you think disadvantaged fathers in the U.S. should have free access to counseling services to help them become better parents? Roy starts off as the most emotionally repressed character in your film, so it really struck me when, after some therapy, he reveals his nightmares of his father and abused sisters. I think that story moves a lot of people. But the good news is that we now have President Obama, who is the first President to speak openly about commitment to parenting. He’s kicked off this whole fatherhood initiative, and there’s been some funding earmarked for what they call “father-friendly programs.” That program that you see in our film, nonprofit Forestdale, they’ve certainly been the beneficiary of those kind of government funds. I think any program that puts fathers in a room together to have real talk, kind of AA style, is a very powerful thing. Now the harder thing is, how do you get the guys there? I hope the film opens more doors for funding along those lines. I really believe in work programs, training programs, because I think for men in particular, it really hurts their self-esteem when they’re not working. If we can incentivize guys to stay away from street life and criminal activity by giving them a job - it doesn’t have to pay that much, just a decent, steady job — that seems like good policy to me. What also struck me about these disadvantaged dads was that they weren’t just great parents. They were also trying to be better human beings by addressing their own fractured childhoods, by giving their own kids a better childhood. Totally. We had this line from Alex that I wanted in the movie so bad, but it didn’t work for various editing reasons. Basically he was saying, “My son really needs me, and I really need him too.” That to me is just the unspoken theme throughout the film, which is that as much as these kids need their fathers, the fathers derive so much love and satisfaction and self-esteem from being dads. We were talking about it to Omar once and he was like, “If people see my story, and they see that with all the problems I have, I’m still a great dad, then hopefully they’ll say, ‘Well, maybe I can step up too. I can do a better job too.’ ” “
Daddy Don’t Go
” premieres at NYC Docs Festival Saturday, November 14.
This dollhouse is most likely worth more than your house — plus all the houses you will ever live in, combined
The Astolat Castle Dollhouse is appraised at $8.5 million or $2,035 per square inch. The castle has seven levels, 29 rooms, and houses 10,000 miniature pieces at a time. It also features gold frames, oil paintings and a (fully stocked) wine cellar. It took master miniaturist Elaine Diehl 13 years to complete.
November 11, 2015
Aziz Ansari pens emotional tribute to his folks: “I’ve been overwhelmed by the response to the ‘Parents’ episode of our show”
Aziz Ansari's new Netflix comedy "Master of None" is garnering high praise since it debuted last Friday — not only for its humor and relatable millennial storyline, but also for how the series has made Ansari's real parents its break-out stars. Shoukath Ansari and Fatima Ansari stole the show as parents of protagonist Dev in the much-lauded second episode, "Parents." The episode highlighted the frustrations felt by both parents and child and takes it to another level—a level where this frustration is analyzed and resolved through a hilarious dinner that includes Dev, his parents, and Dev’s friend Brian and his father. In a sweet Facebook post today by the actor, Ansari thanks his father for taking most of his vacation time to work on the show. He admits his he and parents haven’t always been very close, but the “Parents” episode and the show in general have brought them closer. Ansari uses his platform as a prominent actor to show that he goes through the same things with his parents as we do—but he also reminds us that we need to cherish them as much as we can. "Sorry if this is cheesy or too sentimental but if your parents are good to you too, just go do something nice for them" — wise words, even if you can't get your dad on as a Colbert guest. He says, "I urge you to work at it and get better because these are special people in your life and I get terrified when my dad tells me about friends of his, people close to his age, that are having serious health issues, etc. Enjoy and love these people while you can.” The emotional post not only adds to the message of the “Parents” episode, but also gives us a glimpse of how this helped his relationship with his parents. Casting his parents as Dev's parents is a visible and endearing part of Ansari's push to shine a light on the problem of the lack of Asian representation in American TV and in Hollywood. Here he is, the star of his own show, with an Asian co-star and with his own parents playing well, his character’s parents—which is a commendable feat. He is using his influence, not only to outline the problem of lack of diversity on television, but also to solve it the best way he can. He writes in a New York Times essay published yesterday: “Even at a time when minorities account for almost 40 percent of the American population, when Hollywood wants an 'everyman,' what it really wants is a straight white guy. But a straight white guy is not every man. The 'everyman' is everybody.” It's a powerful statement, pointing out what's wrong with western television and the need to cast a majority of white actors for major roles, or rather, for more common roles. Ansari uses his influence to show that he’s serious about fixing this problem. He admits he’s sold out Madison Square as a comedian, but when he gets offered a role, it’s usually defined by ethnicity and not really by talent. He goes on to define the problem to include finding the right Asian actors for a role. He explains how he paused and thought how this shouldn’t be a huge problem. But it is. It’s how things are, as Ansari rightly points out, and how they've been this way for decades. But it doesn't have to be — and he's doing his part to make it right.Aziz Ansari's new Netflix comedy "Master of None" is garnering high praise since it debuted last Friday — not only for its humor and relatable millennial storyline, but also for how the series has made Ansari's real parents its break-out stars. Shoukath Ansari and Fatima Ansari stole the show as parents of protagonist Dev in the much-lauded second episode, "Parents." The episode highlighted the frustrations felt by both parents and child and takes it to another level—a level where this frustration is analyzed and resolved through a hilarious dinner that includes Dev, his parents, and Dev’s friend Brian and his father. In a sweet Facebook post today by the actor, Ansari thanks his father for taking most of his vacation time to work on the show. He admits his he and parents haven’t always been very close, but the “Parents” episode and the show in general have brought them closer. Ansari uses his platform as a prominent actor to show that he goes through the same things with his parents as we do—but he also reminds us that we need to cherish them as much as we can. "Sorry if this is cheesy or too sentimental but if your parents are good to you too, just go do something nice for them" — wise words, even if you can't get your dad on as a Colbert guest. He says, "I urge you to work at it and get better because these are special people in your life and I get terrified when my dad tells me about friends of his, people close to his age, that are having serious health issues, etc. Enjoy and love these people while you can.” The emotional post not only adds to the message of the “Parents” episode, but also gives us a glimpse of how this helped his relationship with his parents. Casting his parents as Dev's parents is a visible and endearing part of Ansari's push to shine a light on the problem of the lack of Asian representation in American TV and in Hollywood. Here he is, the star of his own show, with an Asian co-star and with his own parents playing well, his character’s parents—which is a commendable feat. He is using his influence, not only to outline the problem of lack of diversity on television, but also to solve it the best way he can. He writes in a New York Times essay published yesterday: “Even at a time when minorities account for almost 40 percent of the American population, when Hollywood wants an 'everyman,' what it really wants is a straight white guy. But a straight white guy is not every man. The 'everyman' is everybody.” It's a powerful statement, pointing out what's wrong with western television and the need to cast a majority of white actors for major roles, or rather, for more common roles. Ansari uses his influence to show that he’s serious about fixing this problem. He admits he’s sold out Madison Square as a comedian, but when he gets offered a role, it’s usually defined by ethnicity and not really by talent. He goes on to define the problem to include finding the right Asian actors for a role. He explains how he paused and thought how this shouldn’t be a huge problem. But it is. It’s how things are, as Ansari rightly points out, and how they've been this way for decades. But it doesn't have to be — and he's doing his part to make it right.
Marco Rubio declares war on the liberal arts: Pitting vocational training against the humanities misses the point of both
The first outrageous statement in last night’s Republican debate also ends up being the one that’s likely to stay around the longest. In a discussion of the minimum wage, Marco Rubio pivoted to discussing the importance of vocational training, arguing that a better trained workforce could earn more without requiring market intervention. "Welders make more money than philosophers," Rubio said, not for the first time. "We need more welders and less philosophers." So far, much of the chatter, on both sides of the political spectrum, has been about whether he’s literally correct or not. Rubio’s supporters – including the Fox News crowd – jeered a bit over his comment; some pointed out that welding employs far more Americans than philosophy. And it does: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 850,000 people employed in welding and similar fields, which compares to a mere 23,000 postsecondary teachers of philosophy and religion, the most typical full-time philosopher gig. But Rubio’s line was about welders earning more, and here he seems to be wrong. The annual mean wage for welders – again, this is from the BLS -- is between $36,450 and $40,040, while for college philosophy and religion teachers, it’s $71,350. There are two other ways to look at this that may be more substantial than just comparing salaries. The first comes from the GOP’s anti-intellectualism and war on the liberal arts. It wasn’t that long ago that conservatives fought for the literary canon, for student exposure to Western civilization, and the like: A certain kind of Republican saw himself as defending the humanities against the identity-politics-driven radicals. But that kind of Republican – the blue-blood WASPs as well as conservative Jewish intellectuals like Allan “Closing of the American Mind” Bloom -- are not really driving the political right any more. In the Tea Party age, a more typical conservative is someone like Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, who went a bit farther than Rubio along the same anti-intellectual lines. McCrory complained to old Reagan hand and high-stakes gambler William Bennett about college curriculums being out of sync with where jobs are. “So I’m going to adjust my education curriculum to what business and commerce needs to get our kids jobs as opposed to moving back in with their parents after they graduate with debt," the governor said. "What are we teaching these courses for if they're not going to help get a job?" He went on to say, “If you want to take gender studies that's fine. Go to a private school, and take it. But I don't want to subsidize that if that's not going to get someone a job." Though Rubio has become more assertive these days, he’s still working hard to be the friendly face of the Republican field, and he rarely follows his ideas through when he speaks about them. The large number of candidates in the debates means he can just toss out a phrase including the term “21st century” in it and draw applause. But he’s coming from the same place as McCrory on these matters. Education is not there to deepen your critical thinking, expose you to the great works of the past, or enlarge the soul, but simply to get you a job. Of course, expanding vocational training and taking it seriously does not have to be opposed to studying philosophy. It doesn’t have to be anti-intellectual to pursue a trade. The non-reactionary case for vocational training was made eloquently by Matthew Crawford, who trained as a political philosopher at the University of Chicago, joined a right-of-center think tank, and resigned to devote more of his time to repairing motorcycles. His book “Shop Class as Soulcraft” begins by describing the huge number of “metal lathes, milling machines, and table saws” floating around now that vo-tech education has been dismantled for the sake of the “knowledge worker.” “The disappearance of tools from our common education is the first step toward a wider ignorance of the world of artifacts we inhabit,” Crawford writes. “Many people are trying to recover a field of vision that is basically human in scale, and extricate themselves from dependence on the obscure forces of a global economy.” The book’s argument – which is by turns individualistic, a bit macho, and a critique of capitalism – is hard to sum up. Let’s just say that, contra Rubio and his like, it’s possible to imagine an America that values both the welder and the philosopher, and doesn’t pit the two against each other. Somehow, this notion seems unlike to come up at the next GOP debate. But that's a 21st century I could get behind.The first outrageous statement in last night’s Republican debate also ends up being the one that’s likely to stay around the longest. In a discussion of the minimum wage, Marco Rubio pivoted to discussing the importance of vocational training, arguing that a better trained workforce could earn more without requiring market intervention. "Welders make more money than philosophers," Rubio said, not for the first time. "We need more welders and less philosophers." So far, much of the chatter, on both sides of the political spectrum, has been about whether he’s literally correct or not. Rubio’s supporters – including the Fox News crowd – jeered a bit over his comment; some pointed out that welding employs far more Americans than philosophy. And it does: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 850,000 people employed in welding and similar fields, which compares to a mere 23,000 postsecondary teachers of philosophy and religion, the most typical full-time philosopher gig. But Rubio’s line was about welders earning more, and here he seems to be wrong. The annual mean wage for welders – again, this is from the BLS -- is between $36,450 and $40,040, while for college philosophy and religion teachers, it’s $71,350. There are two other ways to look at this that may be more substantial than just comparing salaries. The first comes from the GOP’s anti-intellectualism and war on the liberal arts. It wasn’t that long ago that conservatives fought for the literary canon, for student exposure to Western civilization, and the like: A certain kind of Republican saw himself as defending the humanities against the identity-politics-driven radicals. But that kind of Republican – the blue-blood WASPs as well as conservative Jewish intellectuals like Allan “Closing of the American Mind” Bloom -- are not really driving the political right any more. In the Tea Party age, a more typical conservative is someone like Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, who went a bit farther than Rubio along the same anti-intellectual lines. McCrory complained to old Reagan hand and high-stakes gambler William Bennett about college curriculums being out of sync with where jobs are. “So I’m going to adjust my education curriculum to what business and commerce needs to get our kids jobs as opposed to moving back in with their parents after they graduate with debt," the governor said. "What are we teaching these courses for if they're not going to help get a job?" He went on to say, “If you want to take gender studies that's fine. Go to a private school, and take it. But I don't want to subsidize that if that's not going to get someone a job." Though Rubio has become more assertive these days, he’s still working hard to be the friendly face of the Republican field, and he rarely follows his ideas through when he speaks about them. The large number of candidates in the debates means he can just toss out a phrase including the term “21st century” in it and draw applause. But he’s coming from the same place as McCrory on these matters. Education is not there to deepen your critical thinking, expose you to the great works of the past, or enlarge the soul, but simply to get you a job. Of course, expanding vocational training and taking it seriously does not have to be opposed to studying philosophy. It doesn’t have to be anti-intellectual to pursue a trade. The non-reactionary case for vocational training was made eloquently by Matthew Crawford, who trained as a political philosopher at the University of Chicago, joined a right-of-center think tank, and resigned to devote more of his time to repairing motorcycles. His book “Shop Class as Soulcraft” begins by describing the huge number of “metal lathes, milling machines, and table saws” floating around now that vo-tech education has been dismantled for the sake of the “knowledge worker.” “The disappearance of tools from our common education is the first step toward a wider ignorance of the world of artifacts we inhabit,” Crawford writes. “Many people are trying to recover a field of vision that is basically human in scale, and extricate themselves from dependence on the obscure forces of a global economy.” The book’s argument – which is by turns individualistic, a bit macho, and a critique of capitalism – is hard to sum up. Let’s just say that, contra Rubio and his like, it’s possible to imagine an America that values both the welder and the philosopher, and doesn’t pit the two against each other. Somehow, this notion seems unlike to come up at the next GOP debate. But that's a 21st century I could get behind.The first outrageous statement in last night’s Republican debate also ends up being the one that’s likely to stay around the longest. In a discussion of the minimum wage, Marco Rubio pivoted to discussing the importance of vocational training, arguing that a better trained workforce could earn more without requiring market intervention. "Welders make more money than philosophers," Rubio said, not for the first time. "We need more welders and less philosophers." So far, much of the chatter, on both sides of the political spectrum, has been about whether he’s literally correct or not. Rubio’s supporters – including the Fox News crowd – jeered a bit over his comment; some pointed out that welding employs far more Americans than philosophy. And it does: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 850,000 people employed in welding and similar fields, which compares to a mere 23,000 postsecondary teachers of philosophy and religion, the most typical full-time philosopher gig. But Rubio’s line was about welders earning more, and here he seems to be wrong. The annual mean wage for welders – again, this is from the BLS -- is between $36,450 and $40,040, while for college philosophy and religion teachers, it’s $71,350. There are two other ways to look at this that may be more substantial than just comparing salaries. The first comes from the GOP’s anti-intellectualism and war on the liberal arts. It wasn’t that long ago that conservatives fought for the literary canon, for student exposure to Western civilization, and the like: A certain kind of Republican saw himself as defending the humanities against the identity-politics-driven radicals. But that kind of Republican – the blue-blood WASPs as well as conservative Jewish intellectuals like Allan “Closing of the American Mind” Bloom -- are not really driving the political right any more. In the Tea Party age, a more typical conservative is someone like Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, who went a bit farther than Rubio along the same anti-intellectual lines. McCrory complained to old Reagan hand and high-stakes gambler William Bennett about college curriculums being out of sync with where jobs are. “So I’m going to adjust my education curriculum to what business and commerce needs to get our kids jobs as opposed to moving back in with their parents after they graduate with debt," the governor said. "What are we teaching these courses for if they're not going to help get a job?" He went on to say, “If you want to take gender studies that's fine. Go to a private school, and take it. But I don't want to subsidize that if that's not going to get someone a job." Though Rubio has become more assertive these days, he’s still working hard to be the friendly face of the Republican field, and he rarely follows his ideas through when he speaks about them. The large number of candidates in the debates means he can just toss out a phrase including the term “21st century” in it and draw applause. But he’s coming from the same place as McCrory on these matters. Education is not there to deepen your critical thinking, expose you to the great works of the past, or enlarge the soul, but simply to get you a job. Of course, expanding vocational training and taking it seriously does not have to be opposed to studying philosophy. It doesn’t have to be anti-intellectual to pursue a trade. The non-reactionary case for vocational training was made eloquently by Matthew Crawford, who trained as a political philosopher at the University of Chicago, joined a right-of-center think tank, and resigned to devote more of his time to repairing motorcycles. His book “Shop Class as Soulcraft” begins by describing the huge number of “metal lathes, milling machines, and table saws” floating around now that vo-tech education has been dismantled for the sake of the “knowledge worker.” “The disappearance of tools from our common education is the first step toward a wider ignorance of the world of artifacts we inhabit,” Crawford writes. “Many people are trying to recover a field of vision that is basically human in scale, and extricate themselves from dependence on the obscure forces of a global economy.” The book’s argument – which is by turns individualistic, a bit macho, and a critique of capitalism – is hard to sum up. Let’s just say that, contra Rubio and his like, it’s possible to imagine an America that values both the welder and the philosopher, and doesn’t pit the two against each other. Somehow, this notion seems unlike to come up at the next GOP debate. But that's a 21st century I could get behind.
George Will vs. Bill O’Reilly rages on: O’Reilly accuses Will of waging a “jihad” against him out of jealousy
Accusations of jealousy and hypocrisy abound in the latest installment of this most laughable conservative reality TV show. Catch up on episodes 1, 2 and 3, but there is surely no need for a spoiler alert in this slow-moving Fox News melodrama. Bill O'Reilly promised not to spend anymore airtime attacking George Will during the "O'Reilly Factor" last night, after the conservative Washington Post columnist released his second op-ed filleting O'Reilly's bestseller "Killing Reagan." But of course, O'Reilly first accused Will of waging a personal "jihad" against him out of jealousy. Fun times. Opening his latest salvo in this war of attrition, Will began his second column by directly calling out O'Reilly as a know-nothing bloviator. "Were the lungs the seat of wisdom, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly would be wise, but they are not and he is not." Will went on to accuse O'Reilly's sloppy historical account of fueling longtime efforts to discredit conservatism by undermining President Reagan’s competency in office:
O’Reilly impales himself on a contradiction: He says his book is “laudatory” about Reagan — and that it is being attacked by Reagan “guardians” and “loyalists.” How odd. Liberals, who have long recognized that to discredit conservatism they must devalue Reagan’s presidency, surely are delighted with O’Reilly’s assistance. The diaspora of Reagan administration alumni, and the conservative movement, now recognize O’Reilly as an opportunistic interloper.While everyone else was watching last night's GOP presidential debate on sister network Fox Business Channel, O'Reilly took the chance to respond to Will's second take-down. And for the second night in a row, O'Reilly found his loyal viewers preoccupied with the ongoing feud. He responded to one such loyal fan from The Villages who complained that O'Reilly had gone "too far" in his on-air lashing of Will. "You should let the facts speak for themselves and write a rebuttal in the Washington Post," the viewer encouraged O'Reilly. "Funny you should mention that," Bill-O began. "The Washington Post will not print the rebuttal written by me and Martin Dugard. Ron, they won't print it," the hosted explained. "Even though the newspaper has run two op-eds and possibly will run a third, attacking 'Killing Reagan.' They won't let us reply." Calling the Post's move "disgraceful," O'Reilly extended his attacks to the paper, calling it "unfair, unbalanced, and unworthy." O'Reilly assured his viewers that despite it not being printed in the Post, his rebuttal could be found on his website. O'Reilly then redirected his target back on Will and went off on this epic rant:
But you know what, George? I'm bored with it, I'm bored with it. So this is my last reply to you. Everything in Killing Reagan is true. Everything is documented. You, George, are jealous. You're jealous of our success on television and in publishing. Your last book was a huge bomb, George. A catastrophe in the sales department. Only 28,000 copies sold. I might be jealous, too, with that kind of resume. So I really don't blame you. But your elitist tone has never really been welcomed here in The Factor, as you know. And we believe that is a factor in your current jihad against us. As far as we're concerned George, where there's a Will, there's no way. End of story.In his rebuttal to Will's second column, O'Reilly again accuses Will of being part of the "Reagan cabal," hellbent on nothing short of "deification" in historical accounts of 40th president:
Recently, the Washington Post published two columns attacking our book Killing Reagan. We believe the hostile criticism is both misguided and disingenuous and is motivated by a small group of Reagan loyalists who are vehemently opposed to any objective look at the 40th President. It should be noted that Killing Reagan is, on balance, a book that lauds the man but apparently that is not enough. The Reagan cabal insists on deification.Watch O'Reilly's hysterical rant, via Media Matters: Accusations of jealousy and hypocrisy abound in the latest installment of this most laughable conservative reality TV show. Catch up on episodes 1, 2 and 3, but there is surely no need for a spoiler alert in this slow-moving Fox News melodrama. Bill O'Reilly promised not to spend anymore airtime attacking George Will during the "O'Reilly Factor" last night, after the conservative Washington Post columnist released his second op-ed filleting O'Reilly's bestseller "Killing Reagan." But of course, O'Reilly first accused Will of waging a personal "jihad" against him out of jealousy. Fun times. Opening his latest salvo in this war of attrition, Will began his second column by directly calling out O'Reilly as a know-nothing bloviator. "Were the lungs the seat of wisdom, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly would be wise, but they are not and he is not." Will went on to accuse O'Reilly's sloppy historical account of fueling longtime efforts to discredit conservatism by undermining President Reagan’s competency in office:
O’Reilly impales himself on a contradiction: He says his book is “laudatory” about Reagan — and that it is being attacked by Reagan “guardians” and “loyalists.” How odd. Liberals, who have long recognized that to discredit conservatism they must devalue Reagan’s presidency, surely are delighted with O’Reilly’s assistance. The diaspora of Reagan administration alumni, and the conservative movement, now recognize O’Reilly as an opportunistic interloper.While everyone else was watching last night's GOP presidential debate on sister network Fox Business Channel, O'Reilly took the chance to respond to Will's second take-down. And for the second night in a row, O'Reilly found his loyal viewers preoccupied with the ongoing feud. He responded to one such loyal fan from The Villages who complained that O'Reilly had gone "too far" in his on-air lashing of Will. "You should let the facts speak for themselves and write a rebuttal in the Washington Post," the viewer encouraged O'Reilly. "Funny you should mention that," Bill-O began. "The Washington Post will not print the rebuttal written by me and Martin Dugard. Ron, they won't print it," the hosted explained. "Even though the newspaper has run two op-eds and possibly will run a third, attacking 'Killing Reagan.' They won't let us reply." Calling the Post's move "disgraceful," O'Reilly extended his attacks to the paper, calling it "unfair, unbalanced, and unworthy." O'Reilly assured his viewers that despite it not being printed in the Post, his rebuttal could be found on his website. O'Reilly then redirected his target back on Will and went off on this epic rant:
But you know what, George? I'm bored with it, I'm bored with it. So this is my last reply to you. Everything in Killing Reagan is true. Everything is documented. You, George, are jealous. You're jealous of our success on television and in publishing. Your last book was a huge bomb, George. A catastrophe in the sales department. Only 28,000 copies sold. I might be jealous, too, with that kind of resume. So I really don't blame you. But your elitist tone has never really been welcomed here in The Factor, as you know. And we believe that is a factor in your current jihad against us. As far as we're concerned George, where there's a Will, there's no way. End of story.In his rebuttal to Will's second column, O'Reilly again accuses Will of being part of the "Reagan cabal," hellbent on nothing short of "deification" in historical accounts of 40th president:
Recently, the Washington Post published two columns attacking our book Killing Reagan. We believe the hostile criticism is both misguided and disingenuous and is motivated by a small group of Reagan loyalists who are vehemently opposed to any objective look at the 40th President. It should be noted that Killing Reagan is, on balance, a book that lauds the man but apparently that is not enough. The Reagan cabal insists on deification.Watch O'Reilly's hysterical rant, via Media Matters:
Alec Baldwin gets it right: Parents don’t have to be weird about their adult children’s sex lives
Recently, while interviewing Amy Schumer on his podcast “Here’s The Thing with Alec Baldwin,” the actor shared that he’s learned about the idea of sexuality being a spectrum from younger people he’s worked with as well as his daughter, Ireland Baldwin. Ireland made headlines last year for very publicly kissing rapper Angel Haze, who told an interviewer, “I’m just a kid in love right now. It’s just like some 14-year-old posting pictures of their first girlfriend.” While the pair reportedly split up earlier this year, Ireland’s same sex relationship has left its mark on her father, making him more open-minded than he’d presumably been previously. On the podcast, after being asked whether women throw themselves at her because of how funny and “sexually liberated,” Schumer told Baldwin that “women get confused around me. They want my attention, they like me,” but they can’t quite figure out whether they have a girl crush or a crush crush. “I’m straight, but they’ll sometimes deal with me the way that they would a guy that they’re attracted to,” said Schumer. This prompted Baldwin to share, “As my daughter said to me—because she had a girlfriend for a while—she said to me, ‘You don’t sleep with a man or a woman. You sleep with the person. I’m attracted to that person. So she slept with somebody who was a woman. I was like, you know, wow, I’ve met men that I loved as much as anybody in my life.’” When Schumer asked Baldwin, “And you’re never?” he replied, “I’m not built that way.” But the very fact that Baldwin so casually mentioned that his daughter had slept with a woman and that he clearly didn’t consider it a problem—plus that he learned that there’s more varieties to the sexual rainbow than straight, gay or bi—is a sign of how far we’ve come in the evolution of sexual freedom, not to mention parental acceptance and openness. Parents who make such statements are acknowledging that their child is an adult capable of making his or her own decisions, and a sign that the older generation can learn from the younger. As Emily Winter wrote at The Frisky, “[W]hen dads can’t admit that their daughters are sexual, it sustains the pattern of men filing women into two groups: sex ones and non-sex ones. But Baldwin proves he’s a little more evolved.” In January here at Salon, Tracy Clark-Flory wrote approvingly of Brian Williams being totally supportive of his daughter Allison Williams’ infamous butt eating sex scene on HBO drama "Girls." “Dads have so many opportunities to positively influence how their daughters feel about their own bodies and sexualities. They have so many chances to not teach them shame. They have so many ways to communicate that it’s a woman, not a man — be he her father or husband — who owns her sexuality,” declared Clark-Flory. She’s exactly right, but this isn’t just about dads and daughters. Kristen Stewart’s mom Jules Stewart was quoted in June in the UK’s The Sunday Mirror saying, “What’s not to be accepting about her now having a girlfriend? She’s happy. She’s my daughter, I’m just her mom so she knows I would accept her choices. I’ve met Kristen’s new girlfriend, I like her. What’s not to accept? She’s a lovely girl.” While Jules later denied speaking to The Sunday Mirror reporter about her daughter, she admitted to US Weekly that she did say in that interview, speaking about Kristen’s personal assistant (and rumored girlfriend), Alicia Cargile, “Yes, she’s a lovely girl” and went on the record as being a “huge supporter of gay rights.” Whether or not she actually talked about Kristen being in love with a woman, Stewart’s outspokenness about gay rights and the fact that she didn’t rush to deny that her daughter might be in a same-sex relationship, speak volumes. Johnny Depp wore a “We Are You” t-shirt on The Ellen DeGeneres Show to broadcast his support for teenage daughter Lily-Rose Depp, who came out as sexually fluid on Instagram earlier this year by also wearing a “We Are You” t-shirt. The t-shirts are part of The Self Evident Truths project, which is described on its website as “a photographic document of 10,000 people in the USA that identify as ANYTHING OTHER than 100% straight – as in, if you are anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum in ANY way, even 1% gay, we want to take your picture!” In other words, you can show your support for your child being able to own their own sexuality, wherever it falls on the spectrum Baldwin mentioned, without even saying a word, by aligning yourself with those working to expand the cultural discussion around sex and sexual orientation. Of course this isn’t going to be the easiest process for all parents, especially when there are still plenty of people out there who think it’s perfectly okay for a daughter to proudly present a “certificate of purity” to her father on her wedding day ensuring that her hymen is intact. The ways Baldwin, Depp, and Stewart have chosen to support their children is the exact opposite of the kind of monitoring purity culture asks parents to do, as if they are the ultimate arbiters of who their offspring should be attracted to and how those attractions should manifest. This week’s "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" featured a plotline about Rebecca helping her boss in his custody battle. After she accuses him of rhapsodizing about his daughter in way that came off as creepy, he busts into song to declare why “I Love My Daughter,” which features the lines, “One day she’ll fall in love and I’ll give her away/not like I ever had her/what a weird thing to say.” The song is as over-the-top as most of the songs on the show, but it highlights the schism fathers can be made to feel about whether they are showing too much enthusiasm about parenting a daughter. What does that say about our culture when we assume a father can’t be as obsessive of a parent as a mom without bordering on something untoward? This is the start of the kinds of attitudes that breed people thinking Brian Williams should have automatically condemned his daughter’s anilingus scene. Now, can this be taken too far? Of course. Every family has to figure out what their boundaries are around discussing sex amongst themselves or, in the case of celebrities, in public. Justin Bieber’s father Jeremy caught flak for a now-deleted Tweet joking about his son’s penis after paparazzi photos of it were published, in which he asked “@justinbieber what do you feed that thing. #proud daddy.” But you know what? The Biebs himself found his dad’s comment funny, so who am I to challenge it? I’d rather see parents at least acknowledge that their kids don’t belong to them and have sexual body parts and sexual desires than pretending the opposite. Someday, I hope that statements like Baldwin’s are so commonplace they aren’t even noteworthy. But until that time, let’s applaud parents who can appreciate that their adult children are sexual beings, and aren’t ashamed or embarrassed about that fact.
“Unwanted twerking” isn’t a joke: Sexual abuse charges shouldn’t make cute headlines
It was a story tailor-made for your local 10 o'clock news show and your Facebook "trending" feed — security footage out of Washington, DC. of "Women caught on cam twerking & groping" a male stranger. As WUSA-9 reported Tuesday, 22 year-old Ayanna Marie Knight has been arrested over an October incident at a local gas station convenience store. Police say Knight has two previous arrests for prostitution. She is now charged with third-degree sexual abuse, and the other woman in the video, whom police are still searching for, faces similar charges. Those are serious allegations, regardless of the gender of the alleged perpetrator or victim. In D.C., third degree sexual abuse involves engaging in or causing sexual contact with another person by force or other means. The charge can carry up to ten years imprisonment and $100,000 in fines. In the security footage, at least, it appears that what is happening to man fits that description. He is standing behind one of the women near the checkout and talking on the phone when she backs up on him and begins to twerk. Then the other woman approaches him and grabs his crotch. She persistently touches him, appearing to try to take his phone away, aggressively putting her arm around him — and she keeps coming even as he repeatedly moves away from her. The man says he explicitly told both the women to stop. The man — who has withheld his name — told NBC News Washington Tuesday that "I was assaulted sexually. I felt 100 percent violated. I felt really humiliated also." He adds, "The two cashiers that were at the station just sat there. I asked them to help, they said, 'What do you want us to do?' I'm saying, 'Call the police.'" At one point in the video, you can see another patron walk past the man, paying no apparent attention, all while the victim's trying to fend off the woman. He says the women then followed him outside the station and tried to stop him from calling the cops. Many women face a regular barrage of unwanted physical contact, especially in crowded cities and in confined public transportation spaces. They're grabbed on London buses and groped in Yankee stadium and felt up while they're sleeping on airplanes. It's such a commonplace event it rarely makes the evening news. And when the alleged crime is a male on female one, the dynamic is undoubtedly different. But it doesn't really matter whether these women felt entitled to violate a man's personal space because he was there and they felt like they could get away with it or there was some other motive for their alleged assault. This isn't just about some news shows having an excuse to show underdressed young women in a story, nor is about "unwanted twerking," as DCist fancifully calls it, or bad behavior "being caught on cam" like a blooper reel. It's about acknowledging that just because certain crimes happen more often to women, it doesn't make them funny or acceptable when it happens to men. Men have a right to privacy and bodily autonomy, too, and if those rights are ignored and violated on purpose, it's not some dumb dance move -- it's a crime. As the man in the video told NBC, "Because when someone is just grabbing your body parts without your permission, no matter who it is, that's just a violation completely."
