Lily Salter's Blog, page 966

Not just “Dead Man’s Party” on a Halloween mix: Oingo Boingo deserves more respect than this

Feel free to use the following controversial statement to bolster your own superior music taste if it’s to your fancy: Oingo Boingo is one of the best, most rewarding and ingenious bands of all time. Disagree with me? I’m not surprised. But if you do agree with me, I believe you hold to every element of the above “controversial statement.” Oingo Boingo is a band you either adore with frenzied joy or one you don’t care about at all and maybe even deride people for touting. If you don’t mind, I’d like to try to get you to be the former if you’re the latter. It’s Halloween — bear with me. I’ve got a long history of being the only guy in the room who loves this band. In sixth grade, I’d yet to hear any song of value outside the pre-’80s albums my parents played in their cars. I was sitting in my computer class, feeling as much social anxiety as an 11-year-old probably can, when I heard the horn blasts calling my name. I mustered up the courage to ask my teacher, Mr. Colwell, what and whom I was hearing. He said, perplexed but smiling, “'Dead Man’s Party' by Oingo Boingo.” Before I sat down, he amended his initial information by saying the "Boingo Alive" version was better. It was the first song I ever bought on iTunes and I listened to it more than 300 times in the first year I owned it. Since then, I’ve had a lot of favorite bands. Right now, the one I tell people is my number one — and am mostly sure actually is — is Pavement. I only say “mostly sure" because always lurking in the shadows are the specters of Danny Elfman’s wild and skeletal new wave band. I saw a Facebook friend post a status saying he’d have a harder time giving up Boingo than the Beatles, and I think I feel the same way. It’d probably be easier to just come out and say they were my favorite if it weren’t for the fact that when I’ve done so, the statement has been met 45 percent of the time with “who are they?,” 45 percent with outright pretentious laughter and derision, and only 10 percent with a similar level of enthusiasm to my own. I don’t mind those who haven’t bent an ear to the band’s freak-outs, but the critics drive me nuts. Upon pressing them, it becomes apparent they’ve only heard three songs by the group: “Little Girls,” “Weird Science,” and/or “Dead Man’s Party.” Let’s take this apart. “Little Girls” is the only one I’d understand causing such disdain. It’s a satirical, bubblegum song about pedophilia. I completely understand why someone wouldn’t want to listen to songs about pedophilia, satirical or otherwise, and it would be remiss of me not to say I feel weird about that song too. “Weird Science” is the theme song for a second-tier John Hughes movie about teenage boys inventing the perfect woman. If you have a problem with the misogynist content of such a film and do not like Oingo Boingo as a result, I understand, but would politely hope you can someday divorce the movie from the song in your mind. However, if you’ve heard “Dead Man’s Party” at a Halloween party and thought it was no good, there is no hope for you. You are most likely an unethical and frustrating person to be around. The strength of Oingo Boingo doesn’t even remotely reside in those few singles, anyway. The fact of the matter is they’ve got a no-misfire ’80s discography. Okay, fine, "Good for Your Soul" leaves a little to be desired, but just swap it out for "So-Lo," Elfman’s solo album, recorded with his Boingo cohorts to get out of a label dispute, and we’re back to a par for the course. Each album, from 1981’s "Only A Lad" to 1987’s "Boi-Ngo," is attacked from a different vantage point with the same weapons: Elfman’s witty lyricism and madman vocals, Steve Bartek’s remarkable guitar work, Johnny “Vatos” Hernandez keeping the drumbeats dancey and dark all at once, a continually inspiring horn section and rotating bass and keyboard players who always found a way to perfectly gel with the band’s escape-the-asylum sound. "Only a Lad" was their first statement as a new wave rock band after a few years of performance art expressionism as the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. The only real issue with their debut album is that it sounds a lot like Devo. You know how Devo did that really bizarre cover of the Rolling Stones’ “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”? There’s a similarly deconstructionist cover of The Kinks’ “You Really Got Me” on here. The overall sonic palate of their debut wears a red helmet. If you can get past the closeness of sound to Mark Mothersbaugh’s, you start to really appreciate Elfman’s ear for satire. Yes, the troublesome “Little Girls” is on here, but so are the less offensive (at least to those of a leftist bent) “Capitalism” and (at least to those who don’t take their more private vices too seriously) “Nasty Habits.” The best songs, though, are the furious title track and “On the Outside,” the perfectly-orchestrated ode to being a square peg everyone’s trying to shove through a round hole. 1982’s "Nothing to Fear" sees Elfman and company divorcing themselves from any discernible Devo copycatting. This is where Oingo Boingo really started to sound like their own band. “Grey Matter” starts things out with a spookier synthline than you would’ve found in any other new wave material, and yet sillier than you would be able to locate in post-punk bands of the same time. “Insects” sounds like a band playing punk in a house filled with bees and “Private Life” is equal parts depressing, disturbing and delightful in its depiction of a social outcast who doesn’t seem to have much of a public life. Plus, you know you’re dealing with a pretty subversive band if “Wild Sex (In the Working Class)” is actually one of your least provocative songs. 1983’s "Good for Your Soul" sounds like Danny Elfman splitting himself into two different vocalists: the madcap yowler of the first two records and the earnest songbird of the band’s remaining records. The album’s opener, “Who Do You Want to Be?” is business as usual, insofar as business usually entailed music akin to blowing up your office building. But the title track has Elfman losing the shrieking intensity of “Who Do You Want to Be?” and supplanting it with a more conventionally pretty voice. It’s ultimately a better way to convey how frightening he finds daily life. “Good For Your Soul” is the first Oingo Boingo song that seems to ask the listener to take it seriously. As mentioned earlier, the fourth Oingo Boingo album is actually the first Danny Elfman “solo” album. Due to a label dispute, 1984’s "So-Lo" was attributed to the front man alone. Funnily enough, this is where I’d point most Boingo deniers to begin their journey. The arrangements on songs like “Gratitude” and “Cool City” share far more in common with Elfman’s future as a film composer than with any new wave music of the period. His voice soars skyward instead of slipping into insanity, and the music itself enters a level of complexity you’d have a hard time finding with other pop bands of the period. As far as pop goes, Elfman’s genius lies in his ability to amp up both the intricacy of his composition and the catchiness of his choruses in equal measure. Things seemed to reach critical mass with 1985’s "Dead Man’s Party." Their most popular songs are both here: the title track and “Weird Science”. But if you can make it past the opening synth marimba (yes, marimba) riff accompanied by Elfman wearily intoning, “There’s life in the ground,” without feeling an immense amount of dopamine coursing through your system, Halloween may not be the holiday for you. Other ways to gauge whether you should ever attend a costume party again include whether you don’t start dancing like a maniac to “Heard Somebody Cry,” singing the chorus of “Stay” by the end of the first listen and playing air guitar to “Help Me.” If you can’t get behind the experience this record offers, I’d hazard a guess you don’t like "Ghostbusters" or carving pumpkins, either. It’s fine if that’s the case — it just isn’t something I’d bring up on a first date, if I were you. Most Boingo fans I’ve spoken with point to "Dead Man’s Party" as the pinnacle of the band’s career. It’s their best-known album, the songcraft is top notch and their sound is as developed as it ever would become. But I’d have to give the honor of best Boingo album to their somewhat self-titled 1987 release, "Boi-Ngo." It sounds quite a bit like its predecessor; all the elements that made the former great are here, too. But this is, ultimately, the trump card for any Elfman apologist. Almost every song on "Boi-Ngo" is a ten out of ten. “Home Again” reminds the listener immediately why this is a band so intertwined with October 31st. “Where Do All My Friends Go?” is a vocally layered, alternately sparse and lush song as friendly to new wave as it is to doo-wop and “Elevator Man” is a dance-as-you're-driving song if there ever was one. “New Generation” is perhaps the weakest offering here, but my two favorite songs in their catalogue follow it: the mortality-obsessed yet joyful ballad “We Close Our Eyes” and the ecstatic, organ-driven love song “Not My Slave.” Closing out the set are the resigned yet hopeful “My Life,” the nutcase guitar-and-horns blast of “Outrageous” and the altogether perfect “Pain.” After this, Oingo Boingo lost some steam. Danny Elfman was gaining notoriety as a film composer and it seems like most of his ingenuity ended up getting channeled in that direction. Their last two records, 1990’s "Dark at the End of the Tunnel" and 1994’s "Boingo," sound like a far less dedicated band recorded them. They flirt with the strains of alternative rock popular throughout the early '90s, and the dalliance doesn’t have quite the same impact. After developing such a unique sound, it’s hard to enjoy when a band goes back to parroting what’s popular. Perhaps I’ve been too harsh. You may have perfectly valid reasons to not enjoy Oingo Boingo beyond the ones I’ve already listed. Ultimately, everyone’s taste is subjective and different. But for anyone who ever felt like they were “on the outside looking in,” to borrow a phrase from the band, these guys are the whole package. Their early work is the best kind of furious parody, denigrating the straight-laced and counterculture alike for their judgments toward any given misfit, which makes the emotional maturity and authenticity of their records from 1984 on seem a little more pure. All this to say: If you’ve got an open mind and an ear bent toward the eerie and enjoyable, Oingo Boingo is worth a listen if you haven’t heard them beyond the basic Halloween party mix. If you still think they’re just some ridiculous novelty band, that’s fine too. Just remember Danny Elfman wrote some fantastic songs about people just like you.Feel free to use the following controversial statement to bolster your own superior music taste if it’s to your fancy: Oingo Boingo is one of the best, most rewarding and ingenious bands of all time. Disagree with me? I’m not surprised. But if you do agree with me, I believe you hold to every element of the above “controversial statement.” Oingo Boingo is a band you either adore with frenzied joy or one you don’t care about at all and maybe even deride people for touting. If you don’t mind, I’d like to try to get you to be the former if you’re the latter. It’s Halloween — bear with me. I’ve got a long history of being the only guy in the room who loves this band. In sixth grade, I’d yet to hear any song of value outside the pre-’80s albums my parents played in their cars. I was sitting in my computer class, feeling as much social anxiety as an 11-year-old probably can, when I heard the horn blasts calling my name. I mustered up the courage to ask my teacher, Mr. Colwell, what and whom I was hearing. He said, perplexed but smiling, “'Dead Man’s Party' by Oingo Boingo.” Before I sat down, he amended his initial information by saying the "Boingo Alive" version was better. It was the first song I ever bought on iTunes and I listened to it more than 300 times in the first year I owned it. Since then, I’ve had a lot of favorite bands. Right now, the one I tell people is my number one — and am mostly sure actually is — is Pavement. I only say “mostly sure" because always lurking in the shadows are the specters of Danny Elfman’s wild and skeletal new wave band. I saw a Facebook friend post a status saying he’d have a harder time giving up Boingo than the Beatles, and I think I feel the same way. It’d probably be easier to just come out and say they were my favorite if it weren’t for the fact that when I’ve done so, the statement has been met 45 percent of the time with “who are they?,” 45 percent with outright pretentious laughter and derision, and only 10 percent with a similar level of enthusiasm to my own. I don’t mind those who haven’t bent an ear to the band’s freak-outs, but the critics drive me nuts. Upon pressing them, it becomes apparent they’ve only heard three songs by the group: “Little Girls,” “Weird Science,” and/or “Dead Man’s Party.” Let’s take this apart. “Little Girls” is the only one I’d understand causing such disdain. It’s a satirical, bubblegum song about pedophilia. I completely understand why someone wouldn’t want to listen to songs about pedophilia, satirical or otherwise, and it would be remiss of me not to say I feel weird about that song too. “Weird Science” is the theme song for a second-tier John Hughes movie about teenage boys inventing the perfect woman. If you have a problem with the misogynist content of such a film and do not like Oingo Boingo as a result, I understand, but would politely hope you can someday divorce the movie from the song in your mind. However, if you’ve heard “Dead Man’s Party” at a Halloween party and thought it was no good, there is no hope for you. You are most likely an unethical and frustrating person to be around. The strength of Oingo Boingo doesn’t even remotely reside in those few singles, anyway. The fact of the matter is they’ve got a no-misfire ’80s discography. Okay, fine, "Good for Your Soul" leaves a little to be desired, but just swap it out for "So-Lo," Elfman’s solo album, recorded with his Boingo cohorts to get out of a label dispute, and we’re back to a par for the course. Each album, from 1981’s "Only A Lad" to 1987’s "Boi-Ngo," is attacked from a different vantage point with the same weapons: Elfman’s witty lyricism and madman vocals, Steve Bartek’s remarkable guitar work, Johnny “Vatos” Hernandez keeping the drumbeats dancey and dark all at once, a continually inspiring horn section and rotating bass and keyboard players who always found a way to perfectly gel with the band’s escape-the-asylum sound. "Only a Lad" was their first statement as a new wave rock band after a few years of performance art expressionism as the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. The only real issue with their debut album is that it sounds a lot like Devo. You know how Devo did that really bizarre cover of the Rolling Stones’ “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”? There’s a similarly deconstructionist cover of The Kinks’ “You Really Got Me” on here. The overall sonic palate of their debut wears a red helmet. If you can get past the closeness of sound to Mark Mothersbaugh’s, you start to really appreciate Elfman’s ear for satire. Yes, the troublesome “Little Girls” is on here, but so are the less offensive (at least to those of a leftist bent) “Capitalism” and (at least to those who don’t take their more private vices too seriously) “Nasty Habits.” The best songs, though, are the furious title track and “On the Outside,” the perfectly-orchestrated ode to being a square peg everyone’s trying to shove through a round hole. 1982’s "Nothing to Fear" sees Elfman and company divorcing themselves from any discernible Devo copycatting. This is where Oingo Boingo really started to sound like their own band. “Grey Matter” starts things out with a spookier synthline than you would’ve found in any other new wave material, and yet sillier than you would be able to locate in post-punk bands of the same time. “Insects” sounds like a band playing punk in a house filled with bees and “Private Life” is equal parts depressing, disturbing and delightful in its depiction of a social outcast who doesn’t seem to have much of a public life. Plus, you know you’re dealing with a pretty subversive band if “Wild Sex (In the Working Class)” is actually one of your least provocative songs. 1983’s "Good for Your Soul" sounds like Danny Elfman splitting himself into two different vocalists: the madcap yowler of the first two records and the earnest songbird of the band’s remaining records. The album’s opener, “Who Do You Want to Be?” is business as usual, insofar as business usually entailed music akin to blowing up your office building. But the title track has Elfman losing the shrieking intensity of “Who Do You Want to Be?” and supplanting it with a more conventionally pretty voice. It’s ultimately a better way to convey how frightening he finds daily life. “Good For Your Soul” is the first Oingo Boingo song that seems to ask the listener to take it seriously. As mentioned earlier, the fourth Oingo Boingo album is actually the first Danny Elfman “solo” album. Due to a label dispute, 1984’s "So-Lo" was attributed to the front man alone. Funnily enough, this is where I’d point most Boingo deniers to begin their journey. The arrangements on songs like “Gratitude” and “Cool City” share far more in common with Elfman’s future as a film composer than with any new wave music of the period. His voice soars skyward instead of slipping into insanity, and the music itself enters a level of complexity you’d have a hard time finding with other pop bands of the period. As far as pop goes, Elfman’s genius lies in his ability to amp up both the intricacy of his composition and the catchiness of his choruses in equal measure. Things seemed to reach critical mass with 1985’s "Dead Man’s Party." Their most popular songs are both here: the title track and “Weird Science”. But if you can make it past the opening synth marimba (yes, marimba) riff accompanied by Elfman wearily intoning, “There’s life in the ground,” without feeling an immense amount of dopamine coursing through your system, Halloween may not be the holiday for you. Other ways to gauge whether you should ever attend a costume party again include whether you don’t start dancing like a maniac to “Heard Somebody Cry,” singing the chorus of “Stay” by the end of the first listen and playing air guitar to “Help Me.” If you can’t get behind the experience this record offers, I’d hazard a guess you don’t like "Ghostbusters" or carving pumpkins, either. It’s fine if that’s the case — it just isn’t something I’d bring up on a first date, if I were you. Most Boingo fans I’ve spoken with point to "Dead Man’s Party" as the pinnacle of the band’s career. It’s their best-known album, the songcraft is top notch and their sound is as developed as it ever would become. But I’d have to give the honor of best Boingo album to their somewhat self-titled 1987 release, "Boi-Ngo." It sounds quite a bit like its predecessor; all the elements that made the former great are here, too. But this is, ultimately, the trump card for any Elfman apologist. Almost every song on "Boi-Ngo" is a ten out of ten. “Home Again” reminds the listener immediately why this is a band so intertwined with October 31st. “Where Do All My Friends Go?” is a vocally layered, alternately sparse and lush song as friendly to new wave as it is to doo-wop and “Elevator Man” is a dance-as-you're-driving song if there ever was one. “New Generation” is perhaps the weakest offering here, but my two favorite songs in their catalogue follow it: the mortality-obsessed yet joyful ballad “We Close Our Eyes” and the ecstatic, organ-driven love song “Not My Slave.” Closing out the set are the resigned yet hopeful “My Life,” the nutcase guitar-and-horns blast of “Outrageous” and the altogether perfect “Pain.” After this, Oingo Boingo lost some steam. Danny Elfman was gaining notoriety as a film composer and it seems like most of his ingenuity ended up getting channeled in that direction. Their last two records, 1990’s "Dark at the End of the Tunnel" and 1994’s "Boingo," sound like a far less dedicated band recorded them. They flirt with the strains of alternative rock popular throughout the early '90s, and the dalliance doesn’t have quite the same impact. After developing such a unique sound, it’s hard to enjoy when a band goes back to parroting what’s popular. Perhaps I’ve been too harsh. You may have perfectly valid reasons to not enjoy Oingo Boingo beyond the ones I’ve already listed. Ultimately, everyone’s taste is subjective and different. But for anyone who ever felt like they were “on the outside looking in,” to borrow a phrase from the band, these guys are the whole package. Their early work is the best kind of furious parody, denigrating the straight-laced and counterculture alike for their judgments toward any given misfit, which makes the emotional maturity and authenticity of their records from 1984 on seem a little more pure. All this to say: If you’ve got an open mind and an ear bent toward the eerie and enjoyable, Oingo Boingo is worth a listen if you haven’t heard them beyond the basic Halloween party mix. If you still think they’re just some ridiculous novelty band, that’s fine too. Just remember Danny Elfman wrote some fantastic songs about people just like you.Feel free to use the following controversial statement to bolster your own superior music taste if it’s to your fancy: Oingo Boingo is one of the best, most rewarding and ingenious bands of all time. Disagree with me? I’m not surprised. But if you do agree with me, I believe you hold to every element of the above “controversial statement.” Oingo Boingo is a band you either adore with frenzied joy or one you don’t care about at all and maybe even deride people for touting. If you don’t mind, I’d like to try to get you to be the former if you’re the latter. It’s Halloween — bear with me. I’ve got a long history of being the only guy in the room who loves this band. In sixth grade, I’d yet to hear any song of value outside the pre-’80s albums my parents played in their cars. I was sitting in my computer class, feeling as much social anxiety as an 11-year-old probably can, when I heard the horn blasts calling my name. I mustered up the courage to ask my teacher, Mr. Colwell, what and whom I was hearing. He said, perplexed but smiling, “'Dead Man’s Party' by Oingo Boingo.” Before I sat down, he amended his initial information by saying the "Boingo Alive" version was better. It was the first song I ever bought on iTunes and I listened to it more than 300 times in the first year I owned it. Since then, I’ve had a lot of favorite bands. Right now, the one I tell people is my number one — and am mostly sure actually is — is Pavement. I only say “mostly sure" because always lurking in the shadows are the specters of Danny Elfman’s wild and skeletal new wave band. I saw a Facebook friend post a status saying he’d have a harder time giving up Boingo than the Beatles, and I think I feel the same way. It’d probably be easier to just come out and say they were my favorite if it weren’t for the fact that when I’ve done so, the statement has been met 45 percent of the time with “who are they?,” 45 percent with outright pretentious laughter and derision, and only 10 percent with a similar level of enthusiasm to my own. I don’t mind those who haven’t bent an ear to the band’s freak-outs, but the critics drive me nuts. Upon pressing them, it becomes apparent they’ve only heard three songs by the group: “Little Girls,” “Weird Science,” and/or “Dead Man’s Party.” Let’s take this apart. “Little Girls” is the only one I’d understand causing such disdain. It’s a satirical, bubblegum song about pedophilia. I completely understand why someone wouldn’t want to listen to songs about pedophilia, satirical or otherwise, and it would be remiss of me not to say I feel weird about that song too. “Weird Science” is the theme song for a second-tier John Hughes movie about teenage boys inventing the perfect woman. If you have a problem with the misogynist content of such a film and do not like Oingo Boingo as a result, I understand, but would politely hope you can someday divorce the movie from the song in your mind. However, if you’ve heard “Dead Man’s Party” at a Halloween party and thought it was no good, there is no hope for you. You are most likely an unethical and frustrating person to be around. The strength of Oingo Boingo doesn’t even remotely reside in those few singles, anyway. The fact of the matter is they’ve got a no-misfire ’80s discography. Okay, fine, "Good for Your Soul" leaves a little to be desired, but just swap it out for "So-Lo," Elfman’s solo album, recorded with his Boingo cohorts to get out of a label dispute, and we’re back to a par for the course. Each album, from 1981’s "Only A Lad" to 1987’s "Boi-Ngo," is attacked from a different vantage point with the same weapons: Elfman’s witty lyricism and madman vocals, Steve Bartek’s remarkable guitar work, Johnny “Vatos” Hernandez keeping the drumbeats dancey and dark all at once, a continually inspiring horn section and rotating bass and keyboard players who always found a way to perfectly gel with the band’s escape-the-asylum sound. "Only a Lad" was their first statement as a new wave rock band after a few years of performance art expressionism as the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. The only real issue with their debut album is that it sounds a lot like Devo. You know how Devo did that really bizarre cover of the Rolling Stones’ “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”? There’s a similarly deconstructionist cover of The Kinks’ “You Really Got Me” on here. The overall sonic palate of their debut wears a red helmet. If you can get past the closeness of sound to Mark Mothersbaugh’s, you start to really appreciate Elfman’s ear for satire. Yes, the troublesome “Little Girls” is on here, but so are the less offensive (at least to those of a leftist bent) “Capitalism” and (at least to those who don’t take their more private vices too seriously) “Nasty Habits.” The best songs, though, are the furious title track and “On the Outside,” the perfectly-orchestrated ode to being a square peg everyone’s trying to shove through a round hole. 1982’s "Nothing to Fear" sees Elfman and company divorcing themselves from any discernible Devo copycatting. This is where Oingo Boingo really started to sound like their own band. “Grey Matter” starts things out with a spookier synthline than you would’ve found in any other new wave material, and yet sillier than you would be able to locate in post-punk bands of the same time. “Insects” sounds like a band playing punk in a house filled with bees and “Private Life” is equal parts depressing, disturbing and delightful in its depiction of a social outcast who doesn’t seem to have much of a public life. Plus, you know you’re dealing with a pretty subversive band if “Wild Sex (In the Working Class)” is actually one of your least provocative songs. 1983’s "Good for Your Soul" sounds like Danny Elfman splitting himself into two different vocalists: the madcap yowler of the first two records and the earnest songbird of the band’s remaining records. The album’s opener, “Who Do You Want to Be?” is business as usual, insofar as business usually entailed music akin to blowing up your office building. But the title track has Elfman losing the shrieking intensity of “Who Do You Want to Be?” and supplanting it with a more conventionally pretty voice. It’s ultimately a better way to convey how frightening he finds daily life. “Good For Your Soul” is the first Oingo Boingo song that seems to ask the listener to take it seriously. As mentioned earlier, the fourth Oingo Boingo album is actually the first Danny Elfman “solo” album. Due to a label dispute, 1984’s "So-Lo" was attributed to the front man alone. Funnily enough, this is where I’d point most Boingo deniers to begin their journey. The arrangements on songs like “Gratitude” and “Cool City” share far more in common with Elfman’s future as a film composer than with any new wave music of the period. His voice soars skyward instead of slipping into insanity, and the music itself enters a level of complexity you’d have a hard time finding with other pop bands of the period. As far as pop goes, Elfman’s genius lies in his ability to amp up both the intricacy of his composition and the catchiness of his choruses in equal measure. Things seemed to reach critical mass with 1985’s "Dead Man’s Party." Their most popular songs are both here: the title track and “Weird Science”. But if you can make it past the opening synth marimba (yes, marimba) riff accompanied by Elfman wearily intoning, “There’s life in the ground,” without feeling an immense amount of dopamine coursing through your system, Halloween may not be the holiday for you. Other ways to gauge whether you should ever attend a costume party again include whether you don’t start dancing like a maniac to “Heard Somebody Cry,” singing the chorus of “Stay” by the end of the first listen and playing air guitar to “Help Me.” If you can’t get behind the experience this record offers, I’d hazard a guess you don’t like "Ghostbusters" or carving pumpkins, either. It’s fine if that’s the case — it just isn’t something I’d bring up on a first date, if I were you. Most Boingo fans I’ve spoken with point to "Dead Man’s Party" as the pinnacle of the band’s career. It’s their best-known album, the songcraft is top notch and their sound is as developed as it ever would become. But I’d have to give the honor of best Boingo album to their somewhat self-titled 1987 release, "Boi-Ngo." It sounds quite a bit like its predecessor; all the elements that made the former great are here, too. But this is, ultimately, the trump card for any Elfman apologist. Almost every song on "Boi-Ngo" is a ten out of ten. “Home Again” reminds the listener immediately why this is a band so intertwined with October 31st. “Where Do All My Friends Go?” is a vocally layered, alternately sparse and lush song as friendly to new wave as it is to doo-wop and “Elevator Man” is a dance-as-you're-driving song if there ever was one. “New Generation” is perhaps the weakest offering here, but my two favorite songs in their catalogue follow it: the mortality-obsessed yet joyful ballad “We Close Our Eyes” and the ecstatic, organ-driven love song “Not My Slave.” Closing out the set are the resigned yet hopeful “My Life,” the nutcase guitar-and-horns blast of “Outrageous” and the altogether perfect “Pain.” After this, Oingo Boingo lost some steam. Danny Elfman was gaining notoriety as a film composer and it seems like most of his ingenuity ended up getting channeled in that direction. Their last two records, 1990’s "Dark at the End of the Tunnel" and 1994’s "Boingo," sound like a far less dedicated band recorded them. They flirt with the strains of alternative rock popular throughout the early '90s, and the dalliance doesn’t have quite the same impact. After developing such a unique sound, it’s hard to enjoy when a band goes back to parroting what’s popular. Perhaps I’ve been too harsh. You may have perfectly valid reasons to not enjoy Oingo Boingo beyond the ones I’ve already listed. Ultimately, everyone’s taste is subjective and different. But for anyone who ever felt like they were “on the outside looking in,” to borrow a phrase from the band, these guys are the whole package. Their early work is the best kind of furious parody, denigrating the straight-laced and counterculture alike for their judgments toward any given misfit, which makes the emotional maturity and authenticity of their records from 1984 on seem a little more pure. All this to say: If you’ve got an open mind and an ear bent toward the eerie and enjoyable, Oingo Boingo is worth a listen if you haven’t heard them beyond the basic Halloween party mix. If you still think they’re just some ridiculous novelty band, that’s fine too. Just remember Danny Elfman wrote some fantastic songs about people just like you.

Continue Reading...

“Douchebag says what?”: Stephen Colbert unloads on CNBC, GOP crybabies

Stephen Colbert joined the list of people blaming the CNBC moderators for asking the GOP uncomfortable questions at the debate on Thursday night's "Late Show." From the very beginning, Colbert says it was a shitshow -- because the panel asked the one question that no single person in human history has ever answered honestly: "What is your biggest weakness?" "When I interviewed for this job I said that sometimes I work so hard I forget to cash my paychecks." But of all the crappy answers, it was Ted Cruz who Colbert said was "the most, least." Cruz answered with his now famous comment that he isn't the guy you're going to grab a beer with, but he'll drive you home. "That's a great appeal to the voters," Colbert said. "Ted Cruz 2016: Get in the car." From that point on, it was CNBC who showed us all how to conduct a debate, unburdened by any respect. But, let's be honest, respect is something this GOP primary hasn't had that much of so far anyway. Whether it was tanking poll numbers for Bush or why Fiorina got canned, Colbert said it was the most impolite set of questions "since the Lincoln-Douglas debate started with 'Mr. Lincoln, douchebag says what?'" Of course, these terrible questions perpetuate the "liberal media" bias that the Republicans love to tout, and they did so with gusto each time they got a question that challenged their campaign narrative or ideology. Even Chris Christie called the moderators rude at one point, saying that people in his state would find it abhorrent, which is really saying something. "Yeah! Listen to the governor of New Jersey," Colbert said. "He knows the people in his home state act like animals! Closing statements in Newark get chopped up and dumped in the Meadowlands." But after a few of these long-ass debates became overwhelming to the candidates, Donald Trump went to make a deal. Not for him of course, because he can go all night even without debate Viagra. It's the American people Trump sought to save from three hours of nonstop questioning like it some kind of Benghazi hearing or something. That was the point that Colbert joined the Trump campaign. "Donald! You saved us from another hour and a half of that debate! You truly are a great leader and you have earned my vote. As long as you can negotiate your presidency down from four years to .... ya know, two hours feels about right." But even before the debate began, the complaints were pouring in from the Republican candidates. Debate green rooms were not created equal. Trump's and Cruz' looked like a movie theater and Fiorina's had a jacuzzi in it. Rand Paul's pretty much was a jail cell and Chris Christie got a closet with a toilet in it. "Maybe it wasn't an insult. For instance, the RNC might have just wanted Chris Christie to be closer to where his campaign has gone." Check out the rest here:

Continue Reading...

Carly Fiorina doesn’t know what she’s talking about, part (we’ve lost count): How her latest Hillary Clinton swipe diminishes women

In all the fussing over whether or not CNBC ran a fair debate for Republicans on Wednesday night, some of the actual claims made by the candidates got somewhat lost in the shuffle. (Which is no doubt the reason for the faux controversy about CNBC's moderation.) But now the fact-checkers, who had a hell of a job to complete after the candidates dropped bucketfuls of lies on the audience, are finally getting the hard work of correcting the record done. One of the biggest lies of the night, unsurprisingly, came out of the mouth of Carly Fiorina, when she let loose with this statement, which has so much falseness that it's hard to unpack it all:

Becky, it is the height of hypocrisy for Mrs. Clinton to talk about being the first woman President, when every single policy she espouses, and every single policy of President Obama has been demonstrably bad for women. 92 percent -- 92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama's first term belonged to women. Senator Cruz is precisely right. Three million women have fallen into poverty under this administration. The number of women living in extreme poverty is the highest level on record.

Every single policy? Oh really? Even setting aside the economic questions, Fiorina's statement assumes that reproductive choice, greater access to birth control, access to health insurance under Obamacare, and increased access to justice if you're sexually harassed or assaulted on campus is somehow bad for women. In the world of demonstrable claims, the opposite is clearly true. On the economic front, Fiorina was not telling the truth. The fact-checking hardly needs to be done---most readers can guess that the job loss she's talking about is due to the horrible recession that Obama inherited and had to spend most his administration trying to turn around---but Think Progress nonetheless has a careful breakdown of how wrong Fiorina was. The 3 million figure appears to be made up whole cloth. While it is true that more women (and men) are living in extreme poverty, much of it has to do with restrictions on welfare, which is a conservative policy idea, even though some Democrats have gone along with it.  The job loss figures are the result of seriously massaging the statistics:

Employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that women lost 362,000 jobs between January 2009 — Obama took office on January 21 — and March 2012, the timeframe originally cited by Romney and the Republican National Committee to get to the 92 percent figure. There were 303,000 jobs lost overall during that period. But women’s job loss was following a decline that began under President George W. Bush. Between their peak in January of 2008 and when Obama took office a year later, women lost 1.13 million jobs. The recession, which was causing everyone’s job losses, didn’t begin under Obama’s watch.

If you look at the overall job losses that are due the recession -- which is Bush's recession, not Obama's -- instead of merely assuming that Obama started the recession by entering office, the numbers show that men lost a lot of jobs, as well. So this is a multi-faceted lie that lies by blaming the recession on Obama and by skewing the statistics on job losses to make it look like women were the primary victims when they were not. As Think Progress notes, "women and men have nearly identical unemployment rates — 4.6 and 4.7 percent, respectively, as of September". But what makes this talking point interesting, beyond just being false, is that it builds off a larger rhetorical strategy that Republicans have been using to deflect accusations that they are waging war on women: Suggesting that it's unseemly and somehow inherently reductive to speak of women's issues outside of economic concerns. For a couple years now, Republicans have argued that if you support a woman's right to contraception and abortion, then you are saying that this is only thing she could possibly care about. Mike Huckabee used it in 2013, when he argued that being pro-choice means you somehow don't believe women are "far more complicated than their libido and the management of their reproductive system". Republicans also shamed Mark Udall for being pro-choice in his run against Cory Gardner for Colorado senator by calling him "Mark Uterus." Dana Loesch of Breitbart frequently equates being pro-choice to "reducing" women to their "vaginas." Andrea Tantaros of Fox News, upon finding out that the majority of women voted for Democrats, argued that it is because they are "one-issue" voters who only care about "free birth control." Obviously, it's barking madness to argue that support for reproductive health care access somehow means you don't care about issues. In fact, if anyone is obsessed with women's bodies, it's Republicans, who have spent the past few years obsessively attacking abortion access and throwing nationwide temper tantrums over the idea of treating contraception like it's a normal part of women's preventive health care. But there's a reason that this talking point makes emotional sense to conservatives, even if it doesn't make logical sense to anyone. The underlying assumption driving this talking point is that there are two kinds of women: Women who have sex for pleasure instead of procreation (or at least admit to doing so) and women who deserve respect. Because pro-choicers take it as a given that women have sex, conservatives assume they are insulting them. To the conservative mind, it's simply impossible to treat a woman like a full, complex human being with many political concerns while assuming she's sexual. This talking point is pure projection, of course, since the only people who can't grasp that a woman might want reproductive rights and a job and an education are Republicans. This talking point is what Fiorina was eluding to with her weird claim that "every single policy" Clinton espouses is somehow bad for women. Through conservative pretzel logic, defending reproductive rights is somehow bad for women because it assumes that women might be having sex, which is supposedly an insult to women. This talking point also assumes that there's a conflict between wanting women to have reproductive health care and wanting women to have jobs. In the real world, these goals all work together, particularly since being able to choose when you give birth makes it easier for women to plan out their careers successfully. The fact that Republicans keep going to this well, acting like there's some kind of conflict between wanting women to be treated like equals in the workplace and wanting women to be able to have sex on their own terms, says a lot more about Republicans than it does the Democrats they aim to criticize.

Continue Reading...

GOP “death spiral” shocker: “We’ve gone beyond the tipping point on the demographic changes”

America is now too diverse and progressive for President Obama's "third term" and entirely too liberal for the extreme anti-immigrant GOP to remain a winning national party in 2016, according to former President Bill Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg. Greenberg, whose new book "America Ascendant" argues that the nation will soon be "exceptional again" because of its cultural diversity, argued that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to now advocate for "very bold policy changes." In an interview with the Huffington Post, Greenberg said that he was pleasantly surprised by the degree to which the all the Democratic candidates had embraced such boldly progressive policy prescriptions thus far. But speaking of Vice President Joe Biden's urging for Democrats to run on President Obama's legacy as he announced his decision not to run for president, Greenberg argued that a third Obama term is not what voters want, despite the President's recent proclamations. "The Democratic Party is waiting for a president who will articulate the scale of the problems we face and challenge them to address it," Greenberg argued. "The problem the president has had is that he's not tried to educate the country on how deep the downside is," Greenberg said, referring to Obama's selling of his domestic agenda. "He was trying to tell the country that we're on an upward path without being honest, leveling with them about how big a price we have [to pay] in the short term and how much government has to do in order to get us onto a different path." Noting that "we've gone beyond the tipping point on the demographic changes taking place in the country," Greenberg credited "ongoing, extraordinary, disruptive changes" with "producing a different kind of politics" that allows for a more robust progressive debate. "That bigger story is what is creating our politics," Greenberg explained. "There is a new American majority. It's growing at an extraordinary rate driven by these revolutions." "A rural, white, married, evangelical, religious," Republican Party, Greenberg argued, is waging a "furious counter-revolution" to blunt the rise of a more diverse, liberal populace, but is actually working to further marginalize itself. "The Republican Party essentially exists -- particularly in the last decade -- to deny that new American majority the ability to govern based on its values." This effort has "alienated the Republican Party from the country," according to Greenberg, who says a GOP "implosion" is already underway. A "shattering loss" for the Republicans in 2016, comparable to Democrats 1984 loss which eventually gave rise to Bill Clinton's successful 1992 moderation, Greenberg argued, could lead the GOP's "embrace of immigration and the country's diversity." List to Greenberg explain his prediction of an ascendant America as the GOP implodes and the nation grows more diverse:  America is now too diverse and progressive for President Obama's "third term" and entirely too liberal for the extreme anti-immigrant GOP to remain a winning national party in 2016, according to former President Bill Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg. Greenberg, whose new book "America Ascendant" argues that the nation will soon be "exceptional again" because of its cultural diversity, argued that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to now advocate for "very bold policy changes." In an interview with the Huffington Post, Greenberg said that he was pleasantly surprised by the degree to which the all the Democratic candidates had embraced such boldly progressive policy prescriptions thus far. But speaking of Vice President Joe Biden's urging for Democrats to run on President Obama's legacy as he announced his decision not to run for president, Greenberg argued that a third Obama term is not what voters want, despite the President's recent proclamations. "The Democratic Party is waiting for a president who will articulate the scale of the problems we face and challenge them to address it," Greenberg argued. "The problem the president has had is that he's not tried to educate the country on how deep the downside is," Greenberg said, referring to Obama's selling of his domestic agenda. "He was trying to tell the country that we're on an upward path without being honest, leveling with them about how big a price we have [to pay] in the short term and how much government has to do in order to get us onto a different path." Noting that "we've gone beyond the tipping point on the demographic changes taking place in the country," Greenberg credited "ongoing, extraordinary, disruptive changes" with "producing a different kind of politics" that allows for a more robust progressive debate. "That bigger story is what is creating our politics," Greenberg explained. "There is a new American majority. It's growing at an extraordinary rate driven by these revolutions." "A rural, white, married, evangelical, religious," Republican Party, Greenberg argued, is waging a "furious counter-revolution" to blunt the rise of a more diverse, liberal populace, but is actually working to further marginalize itself. "The Republican Party essentially exists -- particularly in the last decade -- to deny that new American majority the ability to govern based on its values." This effort has "alienated the Republican Party from the country," according to Greenberg, who says a GOP "implosion" is already underway. A "shattering loss" for the Republicans in 2016, comparable to Democrats 1984 loss which eventually gave rise to Bill Clinton's successful 1992 moderation, Greenberg argued, could lead the GOP's "embrace of immigration and the country's diversity." List to Greenberg explain his prediction of an ascendant America as the GOP implodes and the nation grows more diverse:  

Continue Reading...

“F*ck the politicians”: Benedict Cumberbatch blasts inadequate response to the migrant crisis after “Hamlet” performance

According to The Guardian, Benedict Cumberbatch has taken to giving  impassioned speeches about the European migrant crisis after his performances of “Hamlet” at London’s Barbican theater, and has raised more than £150,000 pounds in audience donations for Save The Children. But his remarks got particularly heated on Tuesday night when, according to theatergoers, Cumberbatch said “fuck the politicians” while discussing the tepid government response to the refugee crisis. https://twitter.com/govieburbie/statu... https://twitter.com/CharlotteyLF/stat... According to an audience member who spoke to The Daily Mail, Cumberbatch began by reading a poem by Somali poet Warsan Shire called “Home,” which laments “no one puts children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” "He then spoke about a friend who had come back from the Greek island of Lesbos a few months ago, where there were 5,000 people arriving a day, and how the [British] government was allowing just 20,000 refugees into the country over the next five years,” the audience member described. "Then, out of nowhere came this 'F--- the politicians' remark. It’s not quite what you’d expect when you go for an evening with the Bard, but it got a few cheers.” While the British government has agreed to admit 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years, critics have argued that this is an inadequate response given that four million refugees have fled Syria so far. Cumberbatch has been outspoken on this issue, recording a video for Save The Children and speaking out about the crisis in press appearances. "There is a huge crisis and not enough is being done," Cumberbatch told Sky News in a recent interview. "Yes, we need long-term solutions; yes, we need to get people out of the camps so they don't make a perilous journey. But to say 20,000 over five years when 5,000 arrive in one day? We've all got to wake up to this."According to The Guardian, Benedict Cumberbatch has taken to giving  impassioned speeches about the European migrant crisis after his performances of “Hamlet” at London’s Barbican theater, and has raised more than £150,000 pounds in audience donations for Save The Children. But his remarks got particularly heated on Tuesday night when, according to theatergoers, Cumberbatch said “fuck the politicians” while discussing the tepid government response to the refugee crisis. https://twitter.com/govieburbie/statu... https://twitter.com/CharlotteyLF/stat... According to an audience member who spoke to The Daily Mail, Cumberbatch began by reading a poem by Somali poet Warsan Shire called “Home,” which laments “no one puts children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” "He then spoke about a friend who had come back from the Greek island of Lesbos a few months ago, where there were 5,000 people arriving a day, and how the [British] government was allowing just 20,000 refugees into the country over the next five years,” the audience member described. "Then, out of nowhere came this 'F--- the politicians' remark. It’s not quite what you’d expect when you go for an evening with the Bard, but it got a few cheers.” While the British government has agreed to admit 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years, critics have argued that this is an inadequate response given that four million refugees have fled Syria so far. Cumberbatch has been outspoken on this issue, recording a video for Save The Children and speaking out about the crisis in press appearances. "There is a huge crisis and not enough is being done," Cumberbatch told Sky News in a recent interview. "Yes, we need long-term solutions; yes, we need to get people out of the camps so they don't make a perilous journey. But to say 20,000 over five years when 5,000 arrive in one day? We've all got to wake up to this."According to The Guardian, Benedict Cumberbatch has taken to giving  impassioned speeches about the European migrant crisis after his performances of “Hamlet” at London’s Barbican theater, and has raised more than £150,000 pounds in audience donations for Save The Children. But his remarks got particularly heated on Tuesday night when, according to theatergoers, Cumberbatch said “fuck the politicians” while discussing the tepid government response to the refugee crisis. https://twitter.com/govieburbie/statu... https://twitter.com/CharlotteyLF/stat... According to an audience member who spoke to The Daily Mail, Cumberbatch began by reading a poem by Somali poet Warsan Shire called “Home,” which laments “no one puts children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” "He then spoke about a friend who had come back from the Greek island of Lesbos a few months ago, where there were 5,000 people arriving a day, and how the [British] government was allowing just 20,000 refugees into the country over the next five years,” the audience member described. "Then, out of nowhere came this 'F--- the politicians' remark. It’s not quite what you’d expect when you go for an evening with the Bard, but it got a few cheers.” While the British government has agreed to admit 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years, critics have argued that this is an inadequate response given that four million refugees have fled Syria so far. Cumberbatch has been outspoken on this issue, recording a video for Save The Children and speaking out about the crisis in press appearances. "There is a huge crisis and not enough is being done," Cumberbatch told Sky News in a recent interview. "Yes, we need long-term solutions; yes, we need to get people out of the camps so they don't make a perilous journey. But to say 20,000 over five years when 5,000 arrive in one day? We've all got to wake up to this."

Continue Reading...

The GOP’s media warfare goes nuclear: How the RNC is trying to hold journalism hostage

The battle between the Republicans and the media reached ridiculous new heights on Friday when the Republican National Committee announced that it is suspending its partnership with NBC News for a presidential debate in February. RNC chief Reince Priebus told NBC that he was so incensed by the way the most recent debate on CNBC went that he is pulling out, writing, "We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns."

Let's put to one side the irony of CNBC—which is home to some of the most rabid free-marketeers around, and which, lest we forget, is where the Tea Party started—suddenly being portrayed as the ultimate symbol of radical left-wing bias. Priebus's letter represents a sharp escalation in hostilities towards the media in general.

The RNC's move must be read in the context of a simmering revolt from the individual presidential campaigns, which had begun banding together to force just this kind of action from the GOP hierarchy. Priebus must have been terrified that he would lose control over the debate process, so he moved to defuse the anger coming from below.

It would have been great if NBC News had responded with similar contempt. The CNBC debate may have been abysmal, but it's not for the Republican Party to dictate terms to a news network, or to look over its shoulder as it crafts the questions for a debate. NBC should have told Priebus to get lost.

Sadly, that didn't happen. NBC almost immediately came out with a meek statement, saying,

"This is a disappointing development. However, along with our debate broadcast partners at Telemundo we will work in good faith to resolve this matter with the Republican Party."

Translation: we really, really, really don't want to lose out on this debate.

NBC has some very sound reasons for wanting to stay on the GOP's good side, and few of them are journalistic ones. The network has seen how much of a ratings bonanza the debates have been. They're a gold mine. NBC is surely salivating over the ad rates it can charge and the viewers it can bring in, but it can't do that if it has no debate to air, so it would rather look weak and keep the show on the road than take a stand and see all of that vanish. NBC likely also has some practical concerns about wading into a full-on war with a major political party. What if Republican candidates stop going on "Meet the Press"? Since these kinds of shows see their only guest options as Democratic politicians, Republican politicians and some combination of David Brooks, Andrea Mitchell and maybe a general, this would blow a huge hole in the lineup. NBC's potential capitulation means that Donald Trump will keep deigning to call Chuck Todd from one of his jets every Sunday. The likely outcome to all of this is that the two sides will come to some new agreement—possibly with increased participation from some conservative hosts—and that, once again, Republicans will claim another victory in their endless war against the media. Happy days all around.

Continue Reading...

“Simply appalling”: Bill Simmons slams ESPN for “callously” shuttering Grantland as fans mourn

ESPN announced today it was suspending operations at Grantland, the sports features and culture site founded by Bill Simmons.  “After careful consideration, we have decided to direct our time and energy going forward to projects that we believe will have a broader and more significant impact across our enterprise,” said ESPN in a statement this afternoon. ESPN fired Simmons back in March, and he's since found a new home at HBO, where he will launch a new talk show next year. Simmons took to Twitter to lambast his former bosses for their decision: https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/statu... Despite the part of ESPN's statement thanking not only Simmons but "all the other writers, editors and staff who worked very hard to create content with an identifiable sensibility and consistent intelligence and quality," apparently at least some of those hard-working staff members did find out the callous way: https://twitter.com/MJ_Baumann/status... The fate of Grantland follows the news of lay-offs at ESPN earlier this month, with about 300 employees losing their jobs. CNN reports that some Grantland staffers will be hired by other ESPN divisions, but prospects aren't good for Gwriters who focused on non-sports coverage. "We're getting out of the pop culture business," a senior ESPN source told CNN. Fans mourned the end of the site, whose long-form features and insightful pop culture coverage will obviously be missed: https://twitter.com/Patrick_Wyman/sta... https://twitter.com/hhavrilesky/statu... And some took the time to troll ESPN over this video, too: https://twitter.com/espn/status/66016... https://twitter.com/JZWalker/status/6... https://twitter.com/james_bisson/stat...  ESPN announced today it was suspending operations at Grantland, the sports features and culture site founded by Bill Simmons.  “After careful consideration, we have decided to direct our time and energy going forward to projects that we believe will have a broader and more significant impact across our enterprise,” said ESPN in a statement this afternoon. ESPN fired Simmons back in March, and he's since found a new home at HBO, where he will launch a new talk show next year. Simmons took to Twitter to lambast his former bosses for their decision: https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/statu... Despite the part of ESPN's statement thanking not only Simmons but "all the other writers, editors and staff who worked very hard to create content with an identifiable sensibility and consistent intelligence and quality," apparently at least some of those hard-working staff members did find out the callous way: https://twitter.com/MJ_Baumann/status... The fate of Grantland follows the news of lay-offs at ESPN earlier this month, with about 300 employees losing their jobs. CNN reports that some Grantland staffers will be hired by other ESPN divisions, but prospects aren't good for Gwriters who focused on non-sports coverage. "We're getting out of the pop culture business," a senior ESPN source told CNN. Fans mourned the end of the site, whose long-form features and insightful pop culture coverage will obviously be missed: https://twitter.com/Patrick_Wyman/sta... https://twitter.com/hhavrilesky/statu... And some took the time to troll ESPN over this video, too: https://twitter.com/espn/status/66016... https://twitter.com/JZWalker/status/6... https://twitter.com/james_bisson/stat...  ESPN announced today it was suspending operations at Grantland, the sports features and culture site founded by Bill Simmons.  “After careful consideration, we have decided to direct our time and energy going forward to projects that we believe will have a broader and more significant impact across our enterprise,” said ESPN in a statement this afternoon. ESPN fired Simmons back in March, and he's since found a new home at HBO, where he will launch a new talk show next year. Simmons took to Twitter to lambast his former bosses for their decision: https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/statu... Despite the part of ESPN's statement thanking not only Simmons but "all the other writers, editors and staff who worked very hard to create content with an identifiable sensibility and consistent intelligence and quality," apparently at least some of those hard-working staff members did find out the callous way: https://twitter.com/MJ_Baumann/status... The fate of Grantland follows the news of lay-offs at ESPN earlier this month, with about 300 employees losing their jobs. CNN reports that some Grantland staffers will be hired by other ESPN divisions, but prospects aren't good for Gwriters who focused on non-sports coverage. "We're getting out of the pop culture business," a senior ESPN source told CNN. Fans mourned the end of the site, whose long-form features and insightful pop culture coverage will obviously be missed: https://twitter.com/Patrick_Wyman/sta... https://twitter.com/hhavrilesky/statu... And some took the time to troll ESPN over this video, too: https://twitter.com/espn/status/66016... https://twitter.com/JZWalker/status/6... https://twitter.com/james_bisson/stat...  

Continue Reading...

There’s one group missing from the talks to end the Syrian civil war: Syrians

A catastrophic civil war has devastated Syria for over four-and-a-half years. More than a quarter of a million people have been killed. Almost 12 million Syrians, over half of the entire population, are displaced, with four million external refugees registered with the U.N. Large chunks of what were formerly bustling cities have been reduced to rubble. Senior diplomats representing almost 20 countries are converging in Vienna in an attempt to reach a political solution to stop this disastrous conflict. Yet one group is missing: Syrians themselves. A.P. confirmed that the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, who support Syrian rebel groups; along with Russia and Iran, who back the Assad government; will be at the talks. In a press briefing on Wednesday morning, the State Department also noted that Egypt, Qatar, Lebanon, France, and the E.U. will participate. Syrian voices, however, will absent from the discussion. Syria's main political opposition body, the Syrian National Council, and other rebels were not invited to the international Vienna talks. The Assad government was not invited either. Rebel-aligned countries want Assad to step down. Many say they will consider a brief transitional period. Iran and Russia insist that Assad must stay in power for the near future. On Friday, nevertheless, Iran said it would support a proposal that would give Assad a six-month transitional period, before an election to determine Syria's next leader. In 2011, as uprisings spread around the Middle East and North Africa, Syrians began to protest the dictatorship of the Assad family, which has controlled Syria uninterrupted since 1970. Government forces crushed the demonstrations, which turned the uprising violent. The subsequent meddling of dozens of foreign nations has only exacerbated the conflict. The Syrian Civil War has widely been characterized as a proxy war. The U.S. and allied countries have supported a variety of rebel groups, which are greatly divided on ideological lines. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have also funded extremist groups that have committed war crimes and carried out sectarian attacks on civilians of other ethnic and/or religious groups. Specifically, these two U.S. allies have indirectly backed al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda affiliate. Turkey has also been accused of helping ISIS quash Kurdish rebels. Russia and Iran, on the other side, have propped up the Assad government, which has bombed civilians areas in rebel-controlled cities for years. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a pro-rebel organization based in the U.K., the government is responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in the war. Officials who defected from the government say it is engaging in mass torture campaigns, brutally beating and abusing dissidents. Assad has also blockaded neighborhoods like the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmouk. In a shift away from U.S. policy, Israel has welcomed Russian intervention in support of the Assad government, and has even coordinated with the Russian military. The rise of ISIS in 2014 further complicated the already convoluted alliances. ISIS has fought most rebel groups, as well as the Syrian government. With the rapid spread of the extremist group, the U.S. also softened its rhetoric about Assad. In October 2014, the US did not invite the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to be part of a conference with the coalition fighting against ISIS (although extremist theocratic Gulf states were invited). That same month, the U.S. said it was no longer formerly coordinating with the FSA. In December, representatives of the FSA and Syrian National Coalition said they had "been almost completely cut off from what they saw as already meager support from the Western coalition led by the U.S." The Obama administration embarked on a new policy of training its own soldiers. It spent millions of dollars on a small handful of fighters who promised to only fight ISIS, not Assad, but who were promptly killed or kidnapped upon arriving in the country. This week, the U.S. announced a new strategy: After months of insisting there would be no American "boots on the ground," the Obama administration is deploying troops to Syria to fight ISIS. Today, over a dozen countries are involved in the war in Syria, many of which are bombing and/or funneling weapons to groups they support. The New York Times has called the conflict "a proto-world war." In the Vienna talks, these countries are working together to try to find a way to put out the raging fire upon which they have all dumped gasoline. And yet, what continues to be clear is that the input of Syrians themselves is seen as superfluous. For years, Syrians have had little say in the violent conflict that has destroyed their country. Now, Syrians are not welcome at the inter-imperial conference that will determine their fate.A catastrophic civil war has devastated Syria for over four-and-a-half years. More than a quarter of a million people have been killed. Almost 12 million Syrians, over half of the entire population, are displaced, with four million external refugees registered with the U.N. Large chunks of what were formerly bustling cities have been reduced to rubble. Senior diplomats representing almost 20 countries are converging in Vienna in an attempt to reach a political solution to stop this disastrous conflict. Yet one group is missing: Syrians themselves. A.P. confirmed that the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, who support Syrian rebel groups; along with Russia and Iran, who back the Assad government; will be at the talks. In a press briefing on Wednesday morning, the State Department also noted that Egypt, Qatar, Lebanon, France, and the E.U. will participate. Syrian voices, however, will absent from the discussion. Syria's main political opposition body, the Syrian National Council, and other rebels were not invited to the international Vienna talks. The Assad government was not invited either. Rebel-aligned countries want Assad to step down. Many say they will consider a brief transitional period. Iran and Russia insist that Assad must stay in power for the near future. On Friday, nevertheless, Iran said it would support a proposal that would give Assad a six-month transitional period, before an election to determine Syria's next leader. In 2011, as uprisings spread around the Middle East and North Africa, Syrians began to protest the dictatorship of the Assad family, which has controlled Syria uninterrupted since 1970. Government forces crushed the demonstrations, which turned the uprising violent. The subsequent meddling of dozens of foreign nations has only exacerbated the conflict. The Syrian Civil War has widely been characterized as a proxy war. The U.S. and allied countries have supported a variety of rebel groups, which are greatly divided on ideological lines. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have also funded extremist groups that have committed war crimes and carried out sectarian attacks on civilians of other ethnic and/or religious groups. Specifically, these two U.S. allies have indirectly backed al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda affiliate. Turkey has also been accused of helping ISIS quash Kurdish rebels. Russia and Iran, on the other side, have propped up the Assad government, which has bombed civilians areas in rebel-controlled cities for years. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a pro-rebel organization based in the U.K., the government is responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in the war. Officials who defected from the government say it is engaging in mass torture campaigns, brutally beating and abusing dissidents. Assad has also blockaded neighborhoods like the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmouk. In a shift away from U.S. policy, Israel has welcomed Russian intervention in support of the Assad government, and has even coordinated with the Russian military. The rise of ISIS in 2014 further complicated the already convoluted alliances. ISIS has fought most rebel groups, as well as the Syrian government. With the rapid spread of the extremist group, the U.S. also softened its rhetoric about Assad. In October 2014, the US did not invite the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to be part of a conference with the coalition fighting against ISIS (although extremist theocratic Gulf states were invited). That same month, the U.S. said it was no longer formerly coordinating with the FSA. In December, representatives of the FSA and Syrian National Coalition said they had "been almost completely cut off from what they saw as already meager support from the Western coalition led by the U.S." The Obama administration embarked on a new policy of training its own soldiers. It spent millions of dollars on a small handful of fighters who promised to only fight ISIS, not Assad, but who were promptly killed or kidnapped upon arriving in the country. This week, the U.S. announced a new strategy: After months of insisting there would be no American "boots on the ground," the Obama administration is deploying troops to Syria to fight ISIS. Today, over a dozen countries are involved in the war in Syria, many of which are bombing and/or funneling weapons to groups they support. The New York Times has called the conflict "a proto-world war." In the Vienna talks, these countries are working together to try to find a way to put out the raging fire upon which they have all dumped gasoline. And yet, what continues to be clear is that the input of Syrians themselves is seen as superfluous. For years, Syrians have had little say in the violent conflict that has destroyed their country. Now, Syrians are not welcome at the inter-imperial conference that will determine their fate.A catastrophic civil war has devastated Syria for over four-and-a-half years. More than a quarter of a million people have been killed. Almost 12 million Syrians, over half of the entire population, are displaced, with four million external refugees registered with the U.N. Large chunks of what were formerly bustling cities have been reduced to rubble. Senior diplomats representing almost 20 countries are converging in Vienna in an attempt to reach a political solution to stop this disastrous conflict. Yet one group is missing: Syrians themselves. A.P. confirmed that the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, who support Syrian rebel groups; along with Russia and Iran, who back the Assad government; will be at the talks. In a press briefing on Wednesday morning, the State Department also noted that Egypt, Qatar, Lebanon, France, and the E.U. will participate. Syrian voices, however, will absent from the discussion. Syria's main political opposition body, the Syrian National Council, and other rebels were not invited to the international Vienna talks. The Assad government was not invited either. Rebel-aligned countries want Assad to step down. Many say they will consider a brief transitional period. Iran and Russia insist that Assad must stay in power for the near future. On Friday, nevertheless, Iran said it would support a proposal that would give Assad a six-month transitional period, before an election to determine Syria's next leader. In 2011, as uprisings spread around the Middle East and North Africa, Syrians began to protest the dictatorship of the Assad family, which has controlled Syria uninterrupted since 1970. Government forces crushed the demonstrations, which turned the uprising violent. The subsequent meddling of dozens of foreign nations has only exacerbated the conflict. The Syrian Civil War has widely been characterized as a proxy war. The U.S. and allied countries have supported a variety of rebel groups, which are greatly divided on ideological lines. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have also funded extremist groups that have committed war crimes and carried out sectarian attacks on civilians of other ethnic and/or religious groups. Specifically, these two U.S. allies have indirectly backed al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda affiliate. Turkey has also been accused of helping ISIS quash Kurdish rebels. Russia and Iran, on the other side, have propped up the Assad government, which has bombed civilians areas in rebel-controlled cities for years. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a pro-rebel organization based in the U.K., the government is responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in the war. Officials who defected from the government say it is engaging in mass torture campaigns, brutally beating and abusing dissidents. Assad has also blockaded neighborhoods like the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmouk. In a shift away from U.S. policy, Israel has welcomed Russian intervention in support of the Assad government, and has even coordinated with the Russian military. The rise of ISIS in 2014 further complicated the already convoluted alliances. ISIS has fought most rebel groups, as well as the Syrian government. With the rapid spread of the extremist group, the U.S. also softened its rhetoric about Assad. In October 2014, the US did not invite the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to be part of a conference with the coalition fighting against ISIS (although extremist theocratic Gulf states were invited). That same month, the U.S. said it was no longer formerly coordinating with the FSA. In December, representatives of the FSA and Syrian National Coalition said they had "been almost completely cut off from what they saw as already meager support from the Western coalition led by the U.S." The Obama administration embarked on a new policy of training its own soldiers. It spent millions of dollars on a small handful of fighters who promised to only fight ISIS, not Assad, but who were promptly killed or kidnapped upon arriving in the country. This week, the U.S. announced a new strategy: After months of insisting there would be no American "boots on the ground," the Obama administration is deploying troops to Syria to fight ISIS. Today, over a dozen countries are involved in the war in Syria, many of which are bombing and/or funneling weapons to groups they support. The New York Times has called the conflict "a proto-world war." In the Vienna talks, these countries are working together to try to find a way to put out the raging fire upon which they have all dumped gasoline. And yet, what continues to be clear is that the input of Syrians themselves is seen as superfluous. For years, Syrians have had little say in the violent conflict that has destroyed their country. Now, Syrians are not welcome at the inter-imperial conference that will determine their fate.

Continue Reading...

“It felt like the bullsh*t was flowing directly at us”: Morgan Spurlock turns fact-checking the outrageous GOP debate into a game

Is Donald Trump really funding his own campaign? Did he ever file for bankruptcy? Does Ben Carson have any relationship to dodgy nutritional-supplements company Mannatech? Will his flat tax stimulate the economy? Does the Federal Reserve need to be audited? These are some of the questions batted around last night at the Republican debate on CNBC. They’re also elements of an interactive video that documentary filmmaker and general trouble-maker Morgan Spurlock has put together to highlight the number of lies and half-truth being tossed around in politics today. The video – "Call Bullsh#t" – helps sort out the truth behind the claims and should be of interest to fans of the Jon Stewart-era “Daily Show.” (It was put together in collaboration with the video production company Interlude.) We spoke to Spurlock and Jeremy Chilnick, COO of Spurlock’s production company, Warrior Poets, from New York. The interviews have been lightly edited for clarity. Politicians have been lying or shading the truth for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Why did this seem like the right time for a fact-checking video? Spurlock: I feel like throughout history we’ve heard bullshit from politicians, but now we’re at the perfect intersection of technology and entertainment where we can, in real time, produce something that holds people accountable. That’s an exciting time to be living in. Chilnick: Morgan and I, and Interlude, are very interested in politics and interactive storytelling. From the moment we saw the last Republican debate – how audacious it was – it seemed like the perfect time to launch this. Has the lying, the deception, gotten worse over the years? Spurlock: I don’t know if it’s gotten worse – there are just a lot more places where it can be amplified. I think it’s probably been consistent. But now there’s more places to tweet about it or Facebook about it, broadcast it – there are more people picking [misinformation] up. But the harder part is that there are not as many people calling it out. We wanted to engage people in this election, and do it in a way infinitely more entertaining than just watching it and talking about it. Did this debate seem as full of deceptions as that awful second debate? Spurlock: It was a lot shorter. It limited the amount of bullshit to half, because it was half as long time-wise. But I feel like it was a little bit more reigned in. Some candidates has a specific purpose in mind, others were trying to clamor and get attention. Does it make sense to do this for the Democratic debate, or is this something that only Republicans deserve? Spurlock: There were 10 people onstage, and when you have 10 people onstage together trying to say something that will get them headlines the next day, people reach a bit more. Chilnick: There there were so many candidates onstage – it was an arena atmosphere, everyone was trying to outdo everyone else. It created a perfect storm of bullshit. Spurlock: But I’ve already been contacted by so many people saying, “I didn’t see Hillary or Bernie in this video.” Hillary and Bernie weren’t in the debate. But there are already people itching for the Democrat version. Did one of the candidates seem to stay closer to the truth, and another stretch out into falsehood more often? Spurlock: Marco Rubio was doing everything he could to stand out. So did Chris Christie. But they did it in very different ways. Rubio was trying to be this team-builder on the Republican side. But Christie was still out for blood – he was playing the bullshit shark. Or someone like Ben Carson – he’s in a position where he’s saying anything he can to get elected. He was full of bullshit last night – it was great. Chilnick: Marco Rubio did seem to be the most honest, came across as the most level-headed, and connected at the most human level. On the flip side of that, Chris Christie seemed to be seizing every moment to really demonstrate that he was still in the race. That need to justify himself as a candidate led to hyperbole and outright bullshitting – the way he was talking direct to the camera, ignoring the audience in the room. It felt like the bullshit was flowing directly at us when we were sitting in our room watching the TV — we were sort of ducking out of the way of the bullshit coming our way. So you plan to keep this up through the Republican and Democratic debates? Spurlock: That’s the plan. As long as everyone who worked 27 or 28 hours straight yesterday can go home and get some rest, and be enthusiastic about it, we can do it again.Is Donald Trump really funding his own campaign? Did he ever file for bankruptcy? Does Ben Carson have any relationship to dodgy nutritional-supplements company Mannatech? Will his flat tax stimulate the economy? Does the Federal Reserve need to be audited? These are some of the questions batted around last night at the Republican debate on CNBC. They’re also elements of an interactive video that documentary filmmaker and general trouble-maker Morgan Spurlock has put together to highlight the number of lies and half-truth being tossed around in politics today. The video – "Call Bullsh#t" – helps sort out the truth behind the claims and should be of interest to fans of the Jon Stewart-era “Daily Show.” (It was put together in collaboration with the video production company Interlude.) We spoke to Spurlock and Jeremy Chilnick, COO of Spurlock’s production company, Warrior Poets, from New York. The interviews have been lightly edited for clarity. Politicians have been lying or shading the truth for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Why did this seem like the right time for a fact-checking video? Spurlock: I feel like throughout history we’ve heard bullshit from politicians, but now we’re at the perfect intersection of technology and entertainment where we can, in real time, produce something that holds people accountable. That’s an exciting time to be living in. Chilnick: Morgan and I, and Interlude, are very interested in politics and interactive storytelling. From the moment we saw the last Republican debate – how audacious it was – it seemed like the perfect time to launch this. Has the lying, the deception, gotten worse over the years? Spurlock: I don’t know if it’s gotten worse – there are just a lot more places where it can be amplified. I think it’s probably been consistent. But now there’s more places to tweet about it or Facebook about it, broadcast it – there are more people picking [misinformation] up. But the harder part is that there are not as many people calling it out. We wanted to engage people in this election, and do it in a way infinitely more entertaining than just watching it and talking about it. Did this debate seem as full of deceptions as that awful second debate? Spurlock: It was a lot shorter. It limited the amount of bullshit to half, because it was half as long time-wise. But I feel like it was a little bit more reigned in. Some candidates has a specific purpose in mind, others were trying to clamor and get attention. Does it make sense to do this for the Democratic debate, or is this something that only Republicans deserve? Spurlock: There were 10 people onstage, and when you have 10 people onstage together trying to say something that will get them headlines the next day, people reach a bit more. Chilnick: There there were so many candidates onstage – it was an arena atmosphere, everyone was trying to outdo everyone else. It created a perfect storm of bullshit. Spurlock: But I’ve already been contacted by so many people saying, “I didn’t see Hillary or Bernie in this video.” Hillary and Bernie weren’t in the debate. But there are already people itching for the Democrat version. Did one of the candidates seem to stay closer to the truth, and another stretch out into falsehood more often? Spurlock: Marco Rubio was doing everything he could to stand out. So did Chris Christie. But they did it in very different ways. Rubio was trying to be this team-builder on the Republican side. But Christie was still out for blood – he was playing the bullshit shark. Or someone like Ben Carson – he’s in a position where he’s saying anything he can to get elected. He was full of bullshit last night – it was great. Chilnick: Marco Rubio did seem to be the most honest, came across as the most level-headed, and connected at the most human level. On the flip side of that, Chris Christie seemed to be seizing every moment to really demonstrate that he was still in the race. That need to justify himself as a candidate led to hyperbole and outright bullshitting – the way he was talking direct to the camera, ignoring the audience in the room. It felt like the bullshit was flowing directly at us when we were sitting in our room watching the TV — we were sort of ducking out of the way of the bullshit coming our way. So you plan to keep this up through the Republican and Democratic debates? Spurlock: That’s the plan. As long as everyone who worked 27 or 28 hours straight yesterday can go home and get some rest, and be enthusiastic about it, we can do it again.

Continue Reading...

Victory for the douchebags: Not taking sides is the easiest way to help the worst guys win

I think at this point it’s safe to say, even though SXSW 2016 is still several months in the future, that SXSW’s leadership has made some considerable errors. It’s not a good day for PR when you’re a major conference/festival in the hipster tech world and you’ve got Buzzfeed and Vox both pulling out in protest of your recent actions, when you’ve got ex-NFL star Chris Kluwe’s excoriation of your cowardice going viral on Twitter, and when “dramatically announcing you’re not going to SXSW” is the new “rescinding Bill Cosby’s honorary degree”. It’s easy to point fingers at outsiders over this and I’m sure people at SXSW are doing just that right now. You could blame the charming folks at the r/KotakuInAction and their less-presentable brethren at /baph/ on 8chan, who have a distressing tendency to try to cause as much trouble as possible “for the lulz” whether or not it hurts their ostensible cause. You could join the legions of other people who’ve blamed “Twitter outrage culture” for making you guys “look bad.” You could blame any of the specific individuals who tweeted mean things. You could blame Joan Walsh, or John Scalzi, or U.S. Representative Katherine Clark. You could blame me. After biting my tongue since August I finally decided to write a long tell-all article my and others’ treatment during SXSW’s “PanelPicker” process, in hopes that it would cause some trouble for SXSW. It appears to be succeeding. But while it’s tempting to cast blame on the outraged for giving you a hard time, it bears asking what, exactly, led to all these people having something to be outraged about. In this case, as in so many others, SXSW screwed themselves over. By the time they got to the point of creating a big public stink by canceling two panels they’d already announced were approved and making sanctimonious references to the “sanctity of the big tent” as they did so, it was already too late. No one would’ve consciously chosen to be in that position. Even the lowest-level intern at SXSW must’ve known that there’s no good outcome from doing something like that. SXSW didn’t get to that quandary by making any particular decision. They did it by making a series of non-decisions. Like so many big, clueless organizations before them, SXSW screwed itself over by thinking it could always take the safest, easiest path of least resistance, the (non-)choice that pleased everyone. The problem is that that doesn’t work for serious issues where there are real stakes. I get that SXSW wants to keep things “positive,” in the shallow sense of “positive,” by which I mean generally avoiding upsetting, unpleasant conflicts and pretending things are already basically okay. It wouldn’t make a very good recruiting landscape for Goldman Sachs otherwise. And that’s fine. I really mean it, it is. Concern trolls defending SXSW’s actions keep coming up to me and my friends saying “SXSW has no obligation to host a ‘fight’ if they don’t want to.” Of course they don’t. But if they wanted to keep it light and fun and avoid stuff that might attract controversy or bum people out at the afterparties then the time to make that decision was before putting panels about the topic of Internet harassment up on the Internet to be harassed. This isn’t just them, this applies to a lot of people across the board. I can’t count how many times I’ve experienced or observed people trying to “start a dialogue” or “draw attention” to online harassment doing it in exactly the wrong way such that all they do is increase harassment. We have generally agreed-upon rules for how to report on suicide and