Lily Salter's Blog, page 993
October 2, 2015
“If any network had a chance to put Tina Fey in that job, they’d throw every man overboard”: Bill Carter surveys the late-night landscape
In the last few weeks, Stephen Colbert has taken over “The Late Show” from David Letterman, and Trevor Noah has inherited Jon Stewart’s perch on “The Daily Show.” Other “Daily Show” alums – Larry Wilmore, John Oliver – now have their own programs. And with the 2016 political race in motion, political issues are at the center of late night in what may be an unprecedented degree. It all adds up to the most attention and expectation around late-night television in years. To make sense of the big picture, we spoke to Bill Carter, the former New York Times television writer who now contributes to CNN, the Hollywood Reporter and Sirius XM. He’s also the author of “The Late Shift” and “The War for Late Night.” The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Late-night television seems to be in a pretty significant period of transition these days, with the arrival of Colbert and Noah. How does this seem to be working out? Do audiences seem to be responding? Do the shows seem to be as lively as they used to be? Well, it’s pretty early. Most guys get a boost of publicity when they first start out. There was a tremendous [buzz] around Colbert’s arrival; he got a nice launch, and he’s done alright since then. I think Jimmy Fallon, who’s been the dominant guy for a year and a half or so, has been very shrewd in how he’s loaded up his show to thwart what momentum Colbert has. Fallon had a brilliant show the second night of Colbert — it looked like it took months, with Ellen DeGeneres and Justin Timberlake; they really pulled out all the stops. You could see that he was making his move to say, no, I’m not going to stand on the sidelines. As for Trevor Noah, he got a lot of people excited because he’s new and fresh, and he came out with a very smooth show. I think people are really excited to give him a chance. He’s got a tall, tall [order] to replace Stewart. It’s a challenge to replace Letterman, but let’s face it, Letterman was at the end of his career – Stewart could have gone another 10 years. So that’s a taller order. It still seemed like Stewart had something to offer. And the change in temperament, change in nationality, and change in generation when you bring Trevor Noah in ... No question. And they’re emphasizing that generational change when they bring Trevor Noah in. They’re going for millennials – they’re openly saying that. I think it’s a little risky. That show has always had a pretty broad and serious audience of regular adults. Temperament is a good word: Jon brought an edge. He was angry about certain things. One note I’d give Trevor Noah early on: Don’t laugh at your own jokes so much. Personally, I don’t think that plays well. We’ve been talking partly about hosts who discuss politics on late night. John Oliver does, too. How does the current discussion of politics on late night compare to the way it worked out 10, 20 years ago? It’s way, way more intense. Twenty years ago, it would be highly rare to have politicians on. Ten years ago, the more prominent [pols] would come on near the end of the presidential race. You wouldn’t see the more marginal candidates weaving their way through. Late night shows were not that interested in political candidates: They didn’t bring in audiences, they weren’t entertainment, they weren’t funny. Now I think they’re very interested. The same celebrities are everywhere, and you can’t stand out that much [hosting] celebrities. So it is exciting to book a politician, especially Trump, who’s a celebrity and a politician, and he drives numbers. But they’re interested in Chris Christie, and Biden, and Hillary, of course, and even second-tier people. Colbert seems to be heavily concentrating on that kind of guest, and not just politicians. He’s also bringing on CEOs of tech companies and people with other causes, such as Malala, the Muslim teenager who won the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s not a typical late-night guest. Colbert’s trying to stand out that way. There might be a risk; in late night, you can have some of that. But I do think people want lighter entertainment before they go to bed. They don’t want to see “Meet the Press.” John Kerry was on last night, deep into Syria and bombing… Those guys are on CNN all day, talking about that. Back to “The Daily Show.” We’ve heard that the host job was offered to Amy Schumer and Amy Poehler. But there’s still no major late-night program hosted by a woman. Is that because of the demographics of late night – because it’s still mostly a male audience – or network politics? Or is it something that could easily flip in the next year or two? I’ve been on the record saying that as soon as Jon [Stewart] left and someone asked me who they should hire, I said Amy Schumer, instantly. She’s the biggest comic star out there. In the past there probably was a more male audience; I don’t think that’s true anymore. I think if any network had a chance to put Tina Fey in that job, they’d throw every man overboard. She is a home-run, classic, perfect host. So it’s not that they don’t think they’d be great. But it’s a different sort of lifestyle to do this; you have to change your life. People have criticized me for saying this, but it’s true: If you’re Tina Fey, and you have two little kids at home, I don’t think you want to do this job. It’s a different kind of role. I talk to these guys all the time – [especially] the Jimmys – their lives are defined by this job, especially the five-nights-a-week guys. So I think there’s some reluctance, on a lifestyle basis, by some of the hugely talented women to do this. There are other women who could do it. I think Amy [Schumer] is single, so she could do it. But her career is going through the roof right now, and maybe she thinks it would be limiting. The reach for the unknown – which happened with James Corden – wouldn’t happen with a woman; they’d be afraid to do that. There’s a sense among some people that Conan O’Brien has dropped off the map a bit, that his talents are being wasted. How has his show on TBS worked out for him and his admirers? Conan has always had a fantastic following among young people, and I think he’s retained a lot of that. But there’s no question that going off to TBS put certain limits on his reach. Not on his talent – he’s still really talented, and a very funny guy. But there’s no question that when you have a cable channel – unlike Comedy Central, which has a lot of shows, from “South Park” to “Key and Peele” to “Inside Amy Schumer”… On TBS they’ve not had an original show work on prime time for a long time; they’re not bringing in an audience with their other shows to let them know, “Conan’s got Will Ferrell tonight.” He’s not enough on the radar, but it has nothing to do with his talent. His monologues are consistently fantastically well-written. Unfortunately he did not get to do what would have been advantageous to him when he left NBC – to join Comedy Central or Fox. If he had, he’d be as hot as he ever was. How healthy does the late night landscape seem to be these day? Does it seem lively, well-rounded, or is there something missing? I think it’s doing more than it’s ever done. There’s a huge amount of talent there – the talent level is way up high. Because they’re trying to expand their audience through the Internet, they’re doing things with video that are occasionally extremely ambitious. And very creative. Fallon has set the [standard] for this: The show is bigger, broader, more variety elements, the range of elements. That guy is a fantastic sketch comedian, brilliant using music, he’s a fantastic impressionist, he does all these things that have to be rehearsed, he did a barbershop quartet thing… Do you know how much time it takes to do that? A relentless pace, high energy. The jury is still out on a few things. I don’t know if Trevor Noah will measure up to Jon Stewart. But you throw John Oliver in… And I think James Corden is fantastic, he brings in a lot of those elements: singing, dancing, Broadway-style entertainment. And he’s funny. So with all these shows, if you can’t find something to like, I don’t know what to say.In the last few weeks, Stephen Colbert has taken over “The Late Show” from David Letterman, and Trevor Noah has inherited Jon Stewart’s perch on “The Daily Show.” Other “Daily Show” alums – Larry Wilmore, John Oliver – now have their own programs. And with the 2016 political race in motion, political issues are at the center of late night in what may be an unprecedented degree. It all adds up to the most attention and expectation around late-night television in years. To make sense of the big picture, we spoke to Bill Carter, the former New York Times television writer who now contributes to CNN, the Hollywood Reporter and Sirius XM. He’s also the author of “The Late Shift” and “The War for Late Night.” The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Late-night television seems to be in a pretty significant period of transition these days, with the arrival of Colbert and Noah. How does this seem to be working out? Do audiences seem to be responding? Do the shows seem to be as lively as they used to be? Well, it’s pretty early. Most guys get a boost of publicity when they first start out. There was a tremendous [buzz] around Colbert’s arrival; he got a nice launch, and he’s done alright since then. I think Jimmy Fallon, who’s been the dominant guy for a year and a half or so, has been very shrewd in how he’s loaded up his show to thwart what momentum Colbert has. Fallon had a brilliant show the second night of Colbert — it looked like it took months, with Ellen DeGeneres and Justin Timberlake; they really pulled out all the stops. You could see that he was making his move to say, no, I’m not going to stand on the sidelines. As for Trevor Noah, he got a lot of people excited because he’s new and fresh, and he came out with a very smooth show. I think people are really excited to give him a chance. He’s got a tall, tall [order] to replace Stewart. It’s a challenge to replace Letterman, but let’s face it, Letterman was at the end of his career – Stewart could have gone another 10 years. So that’s a taller order. It still seemed like Stewart had something to offer. And the change in temperament, change in nationality, and change in generation when you bring Trevor Noah in ... No question. And they’re emphasizing that generational change when they bring Trevor Noah in. They’re going for millennials – they’re openly saying that. I think it’s a little risky. That show has always had a pretty broad and serious audience of regular adults. Temperament is a good word: Jon brought an edge. He was angry about certain things. One note I’d give Trevor Noah early on: Don’t laugh at your own jokes so much. Personally, I don’t think that plays well. We’ve been talking partly about hosts who discuss politics on late night. John Oliver does, too. How does the current discussion of politics on late night compare to the way it worked out 10, 20 years ago? It’s way, way more intense. Twenty years ago, it would be highly rare to have politicians on. Ten years ago, the more prominent [pols] would come on near the end of the presidential race. You wouldn’t see the more marginal candidates weaving their way through. Late night shows were not that interested in political candidates: They didn’t bring in audiences, they weren’t entertainment, they weren’t funny. Now I think they’re very interested. The same celebrities are everywhere, and you can’t stand out that much [hosting] celebrities. So it is exciting to book a politician, especially Trump, who’s a celebrity and a politician, and he drives numbers. But they’re interested in Chris Christie, and Biden, and Hillary, of course, and even second-tier people. Colbert seems to be heavily concentrating on that kind of guest, and not just politicians. He’s also bringing on CEOs of tech companies and people with other causes, such as Malala, the Muslim teenager who won the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s not a typical late-night guest. Colbert’s trying to stand out that way. There might be a risk; in late night, you can have some of that. But I do think people want lighter entertainment before they go to bed. They don’t want to see “Meet the Press.” John Kerry was on last night, deep into Syria and bombing… Those guys are on CNN all day, talking about that. Back to “The Daily Show.” We’ve heard that the host job was offered to Amy Schumer and Amy Poehler. But there’s still no major late-night program hosted by a woman. Is that because of the demographics of late night – because it’s still mostly a male audience – or network politics? Or is it something that could easily flip in the next year or two? I’ve been on the record saying that as soon as Jon [Stewart] left and someone asked me who they should hire, I said Amy Schumer, instantly. She’s the biggest comic star out there. In the past there probably was a more male audience; I don’t think that’s true anymore. I think if any network had a chance to put Tina Fey in that job, they’d throw every man overboard. She is a home-run, classic, perfect host. So it’s not that they don’t think they’d be great. But it’s a different sort of lifestyle to do this; you have to change your life. People have criticized me for saying this, but it’s true: If you’re Tina Fey, and you have two little kids at home, I don’t think you want to do this job. It’s a different kind of role. I talk to these guys all the time – [especially] the Jimmys – their lives are defined by this job, especially the five-nights-a-week guys. So I think there’s some reluctance, on a lifestyle basis, by some of the hugely talented women to do this. There are other women who could do it. I think Amy [Schumer] is single, so she could do it. But her career is going through the roof right now, and maybe she thinks it would be limiting. The reach for the unknown – which happened with James Corden – wouldn’t happen with a woman; they’d be afraid to do that. There’s a sense among some people that Conan O’Brien has dropped off the map a bit, that his talents are being wasted. How has his show on TBS worked out for him and his admirers? Conan has always had a fantastic following among young people, and I think he’s retained a lot of that. But there’s no question that going off to TBS put certain limits on his reach. Not on his talent – he’s still really talented, and a very funny guy. But there’s no question that when you have a cable channel – unlike Comedy Central, which has a lot of shows, from “South Park” to “Key and Peele” to “Inside Amy Schumer”… On TBS they’ve not had an original show work on prime time for a long time; they’re not bringing in an audience with their other shows to let them know, “Conan’s got Will Ferrell tonight.” He’s not enough on the radar, but it has nothing to do with his talent. His monologues are consistently fantastically well-written. Unfortunately he did not get to do what would have been advantageous to him when he left NBC – to join Comedy Central or Fox. If he had, he’d be as hot as he ever was. How healthy does the late night landscape seem to be these day? Does it seem lively, well-rounded, or is there something missing? I think it’s doing more than it’s ever done. There’s a huge amount of talent there – the talent level is way up high. Because they’re trying to expand their audience through the Internet, they’re doing things with video that are occasionally extremely ambitious. And very creative. Fallon has set the [standard] for this: The show is bigger, broader, more variety elements, the range of elements. That guy is a fantastic sketch comedian, brilliant using music, he’s a fantastic impressionist, he does all these things that have to be rehearsed, he did a barbershop quartet thing… Do you know how much time it takes to do that? A relentless pace, high energy. The jury is still out on a few things. I don’t know if Trevor Noah will measure up to Jon Stewart. But you throw John Oliver in… And I think James Corden is fantastic, he brings in a lot of those elements: singing, dancing, Broadway-style entertainment. And he’s funny. So with all these shows, if you can’t find something to like, I don’t know what to say.
An Oregon teacher’s letter to lawmakers: We don’t need your prayers, we need your courage
Thursday, October 1 was my second day of class as a writing instructor at a community college in Oregon.
Following the shooting that occurred at Umpqua Community College on Thursday, where 10 people were killed, I realized that as a new hire, I hadn’t been fully informed on my college’s emergency protocols. What should I do in the event of what we now call, with heartbreaking regularity, an active shooter situation? According to my school’s Emergency Response Guide, I should attempt to evacuate my students if it is deemed safe to do so. My classroom is on the third floor; to evacuate we would need to descend two flights down an open staircase, and exit through a wide lobby. We would need to know with absolute certainty that the active shooter was not on the third floor, or the second, or anywhere in the lobby. In other words, evacuation, my first course of action, seems highly unlikely.
The next option, according to my college, is to lock the door. This unfortunately is not possible, as the door to my classroom can only be locked with a key, a key that I do not have and won’t ever be given. Left, then, in my third-floor classroom with its unlocked door, I am instructed to turn off the lights and lower the blinds, to use the tables to build a barricade, and get everyone out of the line of fire. I am further instructed to “arm [myself] with classroom items (e.g., stapler, chair, fire extinguisher) to fight back with in the event that the shooter attempts to enter [my] room.”
In the next paragraph, I am told what to do if that shooter does in fact enter our classroom: “There is no one procedure that can be recommended in this situation,” the manual informs me with grim honesty, before adding, “[i]f you must fight, fight to win and survive.”
Fight to survive. I am a teacher, with a master’s degree in creative writing, and this is part of my job.
These security measures -- generic, unfollowable, completely incompatible with the reality of my school -- are, in their inadequate way, essential. It is not the school’s fault that heavily armed people, whether through incurable rage or mental instability, all too frequently choose academic institutions as the settings for the horror they unleash. I recognize that we do not have the resources to retrofit our facilities with safer features. I am positive that handing me -- or any teacher -- a gun will solve nothing. Regardless of the level of preparedness, though, it is clear that schools and teachers are being asked to do a job that they are not meant to do.
My son will start kindergarten next year. At 5 years old he and his classmates, in addition to learning reading and math, will be walked through lockdown drills by a teacher who will likely be hiding an immense terror as she has students practice finding a cozy place to hide and times how long they can remain quiet. It will probably seem like a game to him at first, but eventually my son and the rest of America’s schoolchildren who are learning the same lessons will ask why. Why have we allowed our schools to become a place where children must hide, and teachers must fight to survive?
What do you recommend I tell him? This week, when I speak to my students about what happened at Umpqua and about our own emergency procedures, what do you advise I say after I explain that the stapler and whiteboard markers — the only classroom supplies I have in my room — are critical to our survival?
I could tell them that your thoughts and prayers are with us. I could tell them we have your deepest sympathies. But I am teaching a class on argument, instructing my students on the importance of facts. So instead I will tell them the truth: They have to be prepared to hide out of the line of fire, and I to fight for our survival, because you, our lawmakers, haven’t done your jobs. I will tell them that their rights, my rights, the rights of my 5-year-old, to attend school without fear of facing senseless slaughter by machine-gun fire, are not important to you, that we must be prepared to fight tooth and nail, stapler and whiteboard marker, because you refuse to fight the gun lobby in this country.
The next time you have an opportunity to sponsor or vote on common-sense gun legislation, instead of fearing the attack ads the gun lobby will undoubtedly launch against you, the lost campaign revenue, or the threat to your job, I hope that you think of me and my students, of the rest of the educators and students across the country, who have been asked to stand up to gunmen because you are too scared to stand up to a handful of lobbyists.
Laura Jane Grace’s rebel music: “I doubt you’re gonna find a successful civil movement or social movement that doesn’t have a soundtrack”
As anyone who’s caught Against Me! in concert lately will testify, the veteran punk band is in a particularly ferocious and inspired-sounding period. Thankfully, the quartet — frontwoman Laura Jane Grace, longtime guitarist James Bowman, bassist Inge Johansson and drummer Atom Willard — have captured this moment in time with a new live album, “23 Live Sex Acts.” The record documents songs from the band’s entire career — from the scrappy early songs “Don’t Lose Touch” and “I Still Love You Julie” to the major label-era jams “I Was a Teenage Anarchist” and “Thrash Unreal” and recent songs from 2014’s “Transgender Dysphoria Blues.” When not fronting Against Me!, however, Laura Jane Grace is a busy woman. She’s the music curator of MTV's “Rebel Music” series, which explores the way activism and political music manifests itself around the world, and was also nominated for a News & Documentary Emmy for her AOL original show, “True Trans.” The compelling multi-episode documentary series weaves Grace’s own personal transgender coming-out story with the lives and experiences of transgender and gender-variant people from all over the U.S. In between all of this work, Grace is putting the finishing touches on her memoir — and is also on the precipice of recording new Against Me! music. Grace talked to Salon on Labor Day, while she was holed up in a hotel in New York. “I don’t usually get to sleep and I’ve gotten to sleep for the past 24 hours, and it’s been kind of heavenly, I’ll be honest with you,” she laughs. What was the genesis for deciding to release this new Against Me! live record? Laura Jane Grace: We’ve been on tour for the last two years in support of our last record, and as we were touring, it felt better and better and better. Just as we were playing tighter as a band, that’s was what started getting said backstage after the shows. It’s like, “Wow, we really should be recording these shows, and we should do something with it.” [Laughs] And then we were like, “You know, we can do that. Let’s just do that.” So we did it. We wanted to capture a snapshot of a“that was us when we were touring then” type of deal. And so many of the older songs have changed and grown, and they’re played differently than they were recorded, just being that it’s a pretty new band now. [We kind of wanted] to give ownership to everyone in the band of our older songs, and to give a… bookmark in a way. The close of a chapter and moving forward, you know? A song like “I Was a Teenage Anarchist,” when you guys play it now, there’s almost a more wistful, nostalgic bent than it had in the past. How has your relationship changed to other songs in the Against Me! catalog? That one in particular, every time you play it, you’re further and further away from being a teenager. [Laughs] [That’s] what really causes a lot of that wistfulness, of like, “Ah yes, back in the day when I was a teenager, and now I’m in my mid-thirties.” It’s funny — songs are strange in that oftentimes the real meaning of them will reveal itself to you over time. A lot of the songs that I’ve been playing the longest are like that, where what it meant to me to play it when I was 20 years old doesn’t mean the same when I’m 30. And in a good way. Some of them, though, you play them, and it brings you right back to that time and place, and you can always feel that attachment to where they were coming from. I saw Against Me! in Cleveland this summer, and the band was easily the best it’s ever been live. I mean, obviously Atom Willard’s insanely good, and then Inge’s an incredible bassist. What else do you think is contributing to the obvious chemistry you guys have now? It took a really long time to get to a place where the four people in the band are all on the same page as far as knowing why they’re there, wanting to be there for the same reason, and wanting to really focus on music and play music and be a band — and be really appreciative of that, and not have this other thing on the side that they feel drawn towards too. Having that is really invaluable. And then we’ve just gotten lucky, too, with the past couple years of touring with the crew that we’ve had with us — like, our road crew has been the right combination of people. That can really make or break a tour or a show for you. And everyone was just so exuberant on stage. It’s nice to see a band where everyone is having fun. That should be obvious, but I see so many bands where it’s like, you don’t want to be up there; you’d rather be, like, anywhere else. [Laughs] I mean, when it comes down to it, our whole reason for being there is that hour up on stage. We’ve tried to be really cognizant of the fact that for some people going out to the show, [it’s] this thing they’ve been looking forward to for X amount of time. They got their tickets and it’s their night out or whatever, and they’re going to it. And your [own personal] experience of traveling to get there to the show, maybe it was like you had some crappy travel with the airport or whatever. But it was totally different than [the experience of] those people. So you’ve really gotta recognize that when you’re there at the show, it’s like… that’s the thing. That’s why you’re here, and that’s why you have to make that all worth it. Your AOL docu-series “True Trans” was nominated for an Emmy. What does that mean to you to be recognized like that? It’s really kind of alien to me. It’s one of those things that you never, I guess, really expect to hear. Or when you get the email about it, you’re like, “What? Really? Wait, what?” I mean, it’s awesome. It’s really cool and humbling and makes me feel really excited. Even just being nominated, it’s a cool thing to say happened. It’s nice to get recognized for something in that way, for sure. When you were filming the series, what was the most illuminating thing for you personally? Really just making the connections, and being in the room listening to the conversations. It became a thing where the cameras weren’t really even thought about. And having the conversations, and being able to relate to people’s experiences, and realize things I was really stressed out about, or maybe unsure or depressed about, that I wasn’t the first person to be unsure about those things [and] to be struggling with it. And then really to see the power of having those conversations and the way that could reach and educate people — knowing that, okay, hopefully whatever’s filmed goes on to reach people. But [also] knowing that the five people who are even working on the camera crew on the series, [we were able to watch] them as they understood more about trans people or gender-variant people, as they listened to more and more of the testimonials and videos. In real time being able to watch people understand something, relate to it, and have it become a non-issue was really satisfying. You’re also the music director of MTV’s “Rebel Music” series. What did the artists that you curated and spotlighted on the series teach you about your own music? It really re-demonstrated to me the importance of protest music. And that when it comes to music like that, artists will find a way to record and get their music out to people no matter what, even if that’s like, you know, dubbing it on a cassette tape and passing it out, putting it online, or bedroom-recording style on any recording medium that they could get. And that “by any means necessary” recording is rad, you know? Seeing those records, and seeing songs develop in other countries… At this point I, of course, love punk music, but I don’t only listen to punk music. And I’ve been lucky to travel a lot, and go to a lot of different countries and experience protest culture in a lot of different countries, and to see that kind of music firsthand — and see the way that people’s movements is really carried by music. And I doubt you’re gonna find a successful civil movement or social movement that doesn’t have a soundtrack to it. What was kind of your process of curating this music? How did you discover the artists? Well, a lot of it was really pretty limited, unfortunately, in that, when [you’re] focusing on some place like Myanmar or Venezuela or whatever, there were only so many bands that fit the criteria of being able to be showcased on the show. So really it was MTV just coming and being like, “Here are the bands that we’re choosing through, and here are the ones that we’re focusing on,” and listening through stuff. Oftentimes that’s kind of the amazing thing, too, is that you’re listening to a song [and] you can’t understand the language that it’s being sung in, but you understand the intent behind it. It’s pretty powerful, speaking to that. You’re working on your memoir as well. Does it have a release date yet? What’s the status of it? No release date yet, but yeah, I’m perpetually working on it. It turns out writing a book is a lot harder than one would think. [Laughs] But it’s been happening, you know. A lot of it’s just been slow because I’ve been touring and playing shows and everything like that. It’ll definitely be done within the next couple months, and then hopefully be out not too long after that. That’s one thing I was going to ask, is how writing that is different than writing songs. I always start with the lyrics when it comes to songwriting, so on the one hand it’s not too different. But you’re using a different voice or I guess sticking to one voice. And then you have a lot more… like with songwriting, I know that if I fill up one page of normal notebook paper, then I probably have enough lyrics for a song, whereas opposed to a book you just have to keep going and going and going. [Laughs] It’s just a little more drawn-out of a process. It’s hard, too, when it’s your own story, you know, and you’re looking back and remembering things. And things that may have way bigger importance to you might not necessarily have as big of importance to an audience or someone who doesn’t know the story. So figuring out even what’s interesting or what needs to be focused on, especially because my problem isn’t having a lack of material, it’s more that I have too much material. This memoir is based on tour journals, and I’ve totally transcribed all my tour journals. I had something like a million words, so cutting that down into a book under 100,000 words is an undertaking. That’s ridiculous! That’s like a massive editing job. It took a long time just to transcribe everything, and I was really determined that I wanted to do that. I wanted to fully transcribe all the journals, and it took a while. That was really the biggest thing that’s held me back. Now you know how journalists feel when we have to transcribe hours and hours of interviews… Oh, it’s brutal, right? It is brutal! [Laughs] It’s just tedious. Well, there’s no creative element involved in it. You’re just typing, you know? And to spend a lot of time where you’re not being creative sitting in front of the computer is like… your back starts hurting. [Laughs] You start thinking about all the other things you could be doing. But you get through it. As you were transcribing the journals, was there anything that really stood out to you as you were going back and reading things you wrote a long time ago? A lot of it was just remembering certain things, and remembering the moods you were in when certain things [were] happening, and forgetting about certain circumstances. Which was a real healthy exercise. When trying to write any kind of present-day narrative about the past, to actually be able to go back and in your own handwriting relive what you were going through was really a good tool to have, and really interesting to look back on. What’s more interesting, too, is, having gone back and read through all that stuff is… I read this book recently called “On the Road with The Ramones” that was like… it’s kind of an oral history of The Ramones, and it goes through talking to all of them and all the crew and everything. [It was interesting] reading through that, and knowing what I’ve read through of my own journals and remembering what I do of touring experiences, [and] realizing how much everything is the same — [and] how much has changed, too, at the same time. Yeah, there’s dodgy venues, dodgy bathrooms and dodgy promoters… And there never being any ice at venues in Europe. [Laughs] Stuff like that, you know? Really? That’s so bizarre. Yeah, that’s always the joke. We’re always like, you know, “Let’s trade in the guarantee tonight for a tub of ice so we can all have ice in our drinks.” [Laughs] Why is that? You know, I think — well, in general it’s a lot more common to just drink beverages warm over there, like warm beer, warm sodas, like that’s a thing. [Laughs] You ask for ice and even when you do get ice, it’s usually like two cubes in a cup and you’re like, “I want a full glass of ice right now!” [Laughs] The band has some tour dates at the end of September, but then what’s on the horizon for you after these wrap up? Yeah, we have up until the end of the month where we’re still playing shows, and then we’re just going right into the studio. I’ve just been kind of like… we’ve been working on the new record as we’ve been going, while we’ve been touring, and have a good handful of songs. So we’re ready to just start going for it and see where we get by the end of the year. What are the songs sounding like? What’s really been inspiring you? In general, it’s been a really travel-based record so far — or travel-based songs. Songs written while on the go in different locations and inspired by the experiences of travel is so far what I get of it. But it’s a little too soon to really have any perspective or grasp on a definite direction.As anyone who’s caught Against Me! in concert lately will testify, the veteran punk band is in a particularly ferocious and inspired-sounding period. Thankfully, the quartet — frontwoman Laura Jane Grace, longtime guitarist James Bowman, bassist Inge Johansson and drummer Atom Willard — have captured this moment in time with a new live album, “23 Live Sex Acts.” The record documents songs from the band’s entire career — from the scrappy early songs “Don’t Lose Touch” and “I Still Love You Julie” to the major label-era jams “I Was a Teenage Anarchist” and “Thrash Unreal” and recent songs from 2014’s “Transgender Dysphoria Blues.” When not fronting Against Me!, however, Laura Jane Grace is a busy woman. She’s the music curator of MTV's “Rebel Music” series, which explores the way activism and political music manifests itself around the world, and was also nominated for a News & Documentary Emmy for her AOL original show, “True Trans.” The compelling multi-episode documentary series weaves Grace’s own personal transgender coming-out story with the lives and experiences of transgender and gender-variant people from all over the U.S. In between all of this work, Grace is putting the finishing touches on her memoir — and is also on the precipice of recording new Against Me! music. Grace talked to Salon on Labor Day, while she was holed up in a hotel in New York. “I don’t usually get to sleep and I’ve gotten to sleep for the past 24 hours, and it’s been kind of heavenly, I’ll be honest with you,” she laughs. What was the genesis for deciding to release this new Against Me! live record? Laura Jane Grace: We’ve been on tour for the last two years in support of our last record, and as we were touring, it felt better and better and better. Just as we were playing tighter as a band, that’s was what started getting said backstage after the shows. It’s like, “Wow, we really should be recording these shows, and we should do something with it.” [Laughs] And then we were like, “You know, we can do that. Let’s just do that.” So we did it. We wanted to capture a snapshot of a“that was us when we were touring then” type of deal. And so many of the older songs have changed and grown, and they’re played differently than they were recorded, just being that it’s a pretty new band now. [We kind of wanted] to give ownership to everyone in the band of our older songs, and to give a… bookmark in a way. The close of a chapter and moving forward, you know? A song like “I Was a Teenage Anarchist,” when you guys play it now, there’s almost a more wistful, nostalgic bent than it had in the past. How has your relationship changed to other songs in the Against Me! catalog? That one in particular, every time you play it, you’re further and further away from being a teenager. [Laughs] [That’s] what really causes a lot of that wistfulness, of like, “Ah yes, back in the day when I was a teenager, and now I’m in my mid-thirties.” It’s funny — songs are strange in that oftentimes the real meaning of them will reveal itself to you over time. A lot of the songs that I’ve been playing the longest are like that, where what it meant to me to play it when I was 20 years old doesn’t mean the same when I’m 30. And in a good way. Some of them, though, you play them, and it brings you right back to that time and place, and you can always feel that attachment to where they were coming from. I saw Against Me! in Cleveland this summer, and the band was easily the best it’s ever been live. I mean, obviously Atom Willard’s insanely good, and then Inge’s an incredible bassist. What else do you think is contributing to the obvious chemistry you guys have now? It took a really long time to get to a place where the four people in the band are all on the same page as far as knowing why they’re there, wanting to be there for the same reason, and wanting to really focus on music and play music and be a band — and be really appreciative of that, and not have this other thing on the side that they feel drawn towards too. Having that is really invaluable. And then we’ve just gotten lucky, too, with the past couple years of touring with the crew that we’ve had with us — like, our road crew has been the right combination of people. That can really make or break a tour or a show for you. And everyone was just so exuberant on stage. It’s nice to see a band where everyone is having fun. That should be obvious, but I see so many bands where it’s like, you don’t want to be up there; you’d rather be, like, anywhere else. [Laughs] I mean, when it comes down to it, our whole reason for being there is that hour up on stage. We’ve tried to be really cognizant of the fact that for some people going out to the show, [it’s] this thing they’ve been looking forward to for X amount of time. They got their tickets and it’s their night out or whatever, and they’re going to it. And your [own personal] experience of traveling to get there to the show, maybe it was like you had some crappy travel with the airport or whatever. But it was totally different than [the experience of] those people. So you’ve really gotta recognize that when you’re there at the show, it’s like… that’s the thing. That’s why you’re here, and that’s why you have to make that all worth it. Your AOL docu-series “True Trans” was nominated for an Emmy. What does that mean to you to be recognized like that? It’s really kind of alien to me. It’s one of those things that you never, I guess, really expect to hear. Or when you get the email about it, you’re like, “What? Really? Wait, what?” I mean, it’s awesome. It’s really cool and humbling and makes me feel really excited. Even just being nominated, it’s a cool thing to say happened. It’s nice to get recognized for something in that way, for sure. When you were filming the series, what was the most illuminating thing for you personally? Really just making the connections, and being in the room listening to the conversations. It became a thing where the cameras weren’t really even thought about. And having the conversations, and being able to relate to people’s experiences, and realize things I was really stressed out about, or maybe unsure or depressed about, that I wasn’t the first person to be unsure about those things [and] to be struggling with it. And then really to see the power of having those conversations and the way that could reach and educate people — knowing that, okay, hopefully whatever’s filmed goes on to reach people. But [also] knowing that the five people who are even working on the camera crew on the series, [we were able to watch] them as they understood more about trans people or gender-variant people, as they listened to more and more of the testimonials and videos. In real time being able to watch people understand something, relate to it, and have it become a non-issue was really satisfying. You’re also the music director of MTV’s “Rebel Music” series. What did the artists that you curated and spotlighted on the series teach you about your own music? It really re-demonstrated to me the importance of protest music. And that when it comes to music like that, artists will find a way to record and get their music out to people no matter what, even if that’s like, you know, dubbing it on a cassette tape and passing it out, putting it online, or bedroom-recording style on any recording medium that they could get. And that “by any means necessary” recording is rad, you know? Seeing those records, and seeing songs develop in other countries… At this point I, of course, love punk music, but I don’t only listen to punk music. And I’ve been lucky to travel a lot, and go to a lot of different countries and experience protest culture in a lot of different countries, and to see that kind of music firsthand — and see the way that people’s movements is really carried by music. And I doubt you’re gonna find a successful civil movement or social movement that doesn’t have a soundtrack to it. What was kind of your process of curating this music? How did you discover the artists? Well, a lot of it was really pretty limited, unfortunately, in that, when [you’re] focusing on some place like Myanmar or Venezuela or whatever, there were only so many bands that fit the criteria of being able to be showcased on the show. So really it was MTV just coming and being like, “Here are the bands that we’re choosing through, and here are the ones that we’re focusing on,” and listening through stuff. Oftentimes that’s kind of the amazing thing, too, is that you’re listening to a song [and] you can’t understand the language that it’s being sung in, but you understand the intent behind it. It’s pretty powerful, speaking to that. You’re working on your memoir as well. Does it have a release date yet? What’s the status of it? No release date yet, but yeah, I’m perpetually working on it. It turns out writing a book is a lot harder than one would think. [Laughs] But it’s been happening, you know. A lot of it’s just been slow because I’ve been touring and playing shows and everything like that. It’ll definitely be done within the next couple months, and then hopefully be out not too long after that. That’s one thing I was going to ask, is how writing that is different than writing songs. I always start with the lyrics when it comes to songwriting, so on the one hand it’s not too different. But you’re using a different voice or I guess sticking to one voice. And then you have a lot more… like with songwriting, I know that if I fill up one page of normal notebook paper, then I probably have enough lyrics for a song, whereas opposed to a book you just have to keep going and going and going. [Laughs] It’s just a little more drawn-out of a process. It’s hard, too, when it’s your own story, you know, and you’re looking back and remembering things. And things that may have way bigger importance to you might not necessarily have as big of importance to an audience or someone who doesn’t know the story. So figuring out even what’s interesting or what needs to be focused on, especially because my problem isn’t having a lack of material, it’s more that I have too much material. This memoir is based on tour journals, and I’ve totally transcribed all my tour journals. I had something like a million words, so cutting that down into a book under 100,000 words is an undertaking. That’s ridiculous! That’s like a massive editing job. It took a long time just to transcribe everything, and I was really determined that I wanted to do that. I wanted to fully transcribe all the journals, and it took a while. That was really the biggest thing that’s held me back. Now you know how journalists feel when we have to transcribe hours and hours of interviews… Oh, it’s brutal, right? It is brutal! [Laughs] It’s just tedious. Well, there’s no creative element involved in it. You’re just typing, you know? And to spend a lot of time where you’re not being creative sitting in front of the computer is like… your back starts hurting. [Laughs] You start thinking about all the other things you could be doing. But you get through it. As you were transcribing the journals, was there anything that really stood out to you as you were going back and reading things you wrote a long time ago? A lot of it was just remembering certain things, and remembering the moods you were in when certain things [were] happening, and forgetting about certain circumstances. Which was a real healthy exercise. When trying to write any kind of present-day narrative about the past, to actually be able to go back and in your own handwriting relive what you were going through was really a good tool to have, and really interesting to look back on. What’s more interesting, too, is, having gone back and read through all that stuff is… I read this book recently called “On the Road with The Ramones” that was like… it’s kind of an oral history of The Ramones, and it goes through talking to all of them and all the crew and everything. [It was interesting] reading through that, and knowing what I’ve read through of my own journals and remembering what I do of touring experiences, [and] realizing how much everything is the same — [and] how much has changed, too, at the same time. Yeah, there’s dodgy venues, dodgy bathrooms and dodgy promoters… And there never being any ice at venues in Europe. [Laughs] Stuff like that, you know? Really? That’s so bizarre. Yeah, that’s always the joke. We’re always like, you know, “Let’s trade in the guarantee tonight for a tub of ice so we can all have ice in our drinks.” [Laughs] Why is that? You know, I think — well, in general it’s a lot more common to just drink beverages warm over there, like warm beer, warm sodas, like that’s a thing. [Laughs] You ask for ice and even when you do get ice, it’s usually like two cubes in a cup and you’re like, “I want a full glass of ice right now!” [Laughs] The band has some tour dates at the end of September, but then what’s on the horizon for you after these wrap up? Yeah, we have up until the end of the month where we’re still playing shows, and then we’re just going right into the studio. I’ve just been kind of like… we’ve been working on the new record as we’ve been going, while we’ve been touring, and have a good handful of songs. So we’re ready to just start going for it and see where we get by the end of the year. What are the songs sounding like? What’s really been inspiring you? In general, it’s been a really travel-based record so far — or travel-based songs. Songs written while on the go in different locations and inspired by the experiences of travel is so far what I get of it. But it’s a little too soon to really have any perspective or grasp on a definite direction.
4chan and the Oregon shooter: What the suspicious thread says about a horrifying subculture of young male rage
It may have been a direct warning. It may have been just a coincidence. And regardless of which scenario is true, the fact we can't yet be sure should tell you plenty already about the horrifying subculture of murderously angry young men out there. As law enforcement and the press scrambled for information in the wake of Thursday's mass shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, which left ten people dead and seven wounded, Federal officials announced they were investigating a recent 4chan exchange that appeared to predict the rampage. In a cryptic post on the /r9k board on Wednesday, an anonymous poster with an image of Pepe the Frog holding a gun reportedly posted, "Some of you guys are alright. Don’t go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest. happening thread will be posted tomorrow morning. so long space robots." After the shooting, some users noted that a well-known figure on the board who goes by Eggman had in August posted a video declaring "I'm done with r9k" and on Wednesday had added another video saying, "Anybody in the Seattle area, the Washington area, and want me to come, like, couch surf at their house or whatever, just hit me up dawg. I’m going to be here a few days." Predictably, speculation soon ran rampant that Eggman was the shooter. But the killer was later identified as someone else — 26 year-old Chris Harper Mercer. Was Mercer the 4chan user who issued the warning? The timing is certainly eerie. But what's demoralizing is that it could easily have been the rambling of just one more loathsome 4chan troll in an ocean of loathsome 4chan trolls. The post was immediately greeted with a Christmas Eve level excitement — the first reply was, "Is beta uprising finally going down? You might want to chillax and not alert police." See, in the sad world of frustrated men who dwell in the lowest reaches of online community, males can divide themselves into "alphas" — self-aggrandizing, openly hostile followers of pick up artist culture, and betas, the poor misunderstood, passed over men who will have their glorious day of revenge. Does this talk of alphas and betas sound familiar? Maybe you remember getting the tutorial a year and a half ago, when another young man, Elliot Rodger, went on a deadly spree. Responding to the original poster, other users jumped in with helpful feedback. One person told him, "I suggest you enter a classroom and tell people that you will take them as hostages. Make everyone get in one corner and then open fire. Make sure that there is no way that someone can disarm you as it it possible. I suggest you carry a knife on your belt as last resort if someone is holding your gun." Another suggested, "You might want to target a girls school which is safer because there are no beta males throwing themselves for their rescue. Do not use a shotgun. I would suggest a powerful assault rifle and a pistol or 2x pistols. Possibly the type of pistols who have 15+ ammo." Someone else posted a photo of Elliot Rodger with the message, "It takes a great man to do great things. Become Legendary." Someone else, concerned, asked, "You're only shooting college age students, correct? I have grandparents that live up there," while another person encouraged discretion, telling him to aim for the "Chads and Stacies who have scorned many and yourself. You'll do the world a favor by purging part of the population that only exists to consume resources and act for themselves." And one person posted hopefully, "I am so excited for this. If this comes true then thank you for my late birthday gift anon." Yes, some other participants chimed in to say, "Nobody cares you're pathetic and this is why no one likes you," but the amount of enthusiastic support the post received is nauseating. And after the news of the shooting broke? "HE DID IT ONE OF US ONE OF US." "You made us proud today, son. You made us proud." One of the more rational comments came from the man who said,"Wanting to KILL EVERYONE (including yourself) is a symptom of having male emotions," because at least he added, "Ya gotta get some distance mentally... but more importantly, you have to turn around and feel, just feel." Not every frustrated male with mental health issues posting about how "Our hero showed us the light and a reason to live" is going to go out and do what Mercer did. What Rodger did. What Roof did. But it should be clear that guys like this are there, all the time, so full of fury at the world and the regular people living in it that they are delighted at the prospect of their deaths. And when it happens, they celebrate it. So maybe Chris Harper Mercer wasn't really in that 4chan thread on Wednesday. The sickening thing is, there are so many voices in it, just like his, how could you even tell?
Tennessee Republican’s deranged reaction to Oregon shooting: Christians must now arm themselves
Conservatives have scrambled to connect nearly every recent event to a larger trend of Christian persecution. Now obviously, terror groups like ISIS have singled out Christians for persecution in places like Iraq and Libya but somehow America's religious right has inserted themselves into the mix to paint themselves as victims of a broader attack against the faith. Call it the Kim Davis complex. The latest examples comes courtesy of Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey who reacted to yesterday's mass shooting in Oregon by imploring Christians to consider arming themselves with a gun for protection. The Tennessean first flagged Ramsey's Facebook post, which links to a New York Post article titled "Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage." There are reports that the 28-year-old man who opened fire at Umpqua Community College on Wednesday, killing nine people and wounding seven more, asked the victims if they were Christians before shooting those who affirmatively answered in the head and shooting those who said no or denied to respond in the leg. "While this is not the time for widespread panic, it is a time to prepare," Ramsey suggested, reacting to the 294th mass shooting in America this year. "Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West," he declared. Ramsey then urged Christians to get serious about their faith and "think about getting a handgun carry permit." "Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise," he concluded.
As I scroll through the news this morning I am saddened to read the details of the horrible tragedy in Oregon. My heart... Posted by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey on Friday, October 2, 2015Conservatives have scrambled to connect nearly every recent event to a larger trend of Christian persecution. Now obviously, terror groups like ISIS have singled out Christians for persecution in places like Iraq and Libya but somehow America's religious right has inserted themselves into the mix to paint themselves as victims of a broader attack against the faith. Call it the Kim Davis complex. The latest examples comes courtesy of Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey who reacted to yesterday's mass shooting in Oregon by imploring Christians to consider arming themselves with a gun for protection. The Tennessean first flagged Ramsey's Facebook post, which links to a New York Post article titled "Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage." There are reports that the 28-year-old man who opened fire at Umpqua Community College on Wednesday, killing nine people and wounding seven more, asked the victims if they were Christians before shooting those who affirmatively answered in the head and shooting those who said no or denied to respond in the leg. "While this is not the time for widespread panic, it is a time to prepare," Ramsey suggested, reacting to the 294th mass shooting in America this year. "Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West," he declared. Ramsey then urged Christians to get serious about their faith and "think about getting a handgun carry permit." "Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise," he concluded.
As I scroll through the news this morning I am saddened to read the details of the horrible tragedy in Oregon. My heart... Posted by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey on Friday, October 2, 2015Conservatives have scrambled to connect nearly every recent event to a larger trend of Christian persecution. Now obviously, terror groups like ISIS have singled out Christians for persecution in places like Iraq and Libya but somehow America's religious right has inserted themselves into the mix to paint themselves as victims of a broader attack against the faith. Call it the Kim Davis complex. The latest examples comes courtesy of Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey who reacted to yesterday's mass shooting in Oregon by imploring Christians to consider arming themselves with a gun for protection. The Tennessean first flagged Ramsey's Facebook post, which links to a New York Post article titled "Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage." There are reports that the 28-year-old man who opened fire at Umpqua Community College on Wednesday, killing nine people and wounding seven more, asked the victims if they were Christians before shooting those who affirmatively answered in the head and shooting those who said no or denied to respond in the leg. "While this is not the time for widespread panic, it is a time to prepare," Ramsey suggested, reacting to the 294th mass shooting in America this year. "Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West," he declared. Ramsey then urged Christians to get serious about their faith and "think about getting a handgun carry permit." "Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise," he concluded.
As I scroll through the news this morning I am saddened to read the details of the horrible tragedy in Oregon. My heart... Posted by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey on Friday, October 2, 2015
“Shut the f**k up Donny”: This mashup of The Big Lebowski’s Walter Sobchak silencing Donald Trump is everything
Apparently, the 1998 film The Big Lebowski was 17 years ahead of its time. The movie's iconic phrase "Shut the f**k up, Donny!" is seemingly the perfect response to every ridiculous Donald Trump quote. So we decided to create the mashup for you. Enjoy. [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/ShutUp..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/Screen..., the 1998 film The Big Lebowski was 17 years ahead of its time. The movie's iconic phrase "Shut the f**k up, Donny!" is seemingly the perfect response to every ridiculous Donald Trump quote. So we decided to create the mashup for you. Enjoy. [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/ShutUp..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/Screen...]
Jeb Bush shrugs off Oregon shooting: “Stuff happens”
After ignoring the issue of guns, failing to even mention that the killings at Oregon's Umpqua Community College were caused by a deranged man with a gun when he tweeted his condolences to the families yesterday, Jeb Bush is apparently just shrugging off the 45th school shooting in 2015 as another example of how "stuff happens." This guy: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/... "We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this, I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else," Bush offered in response to a question about the shooting. “But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do." Bush doubled-down on his remarks when he was pressed by New Yorker Magazine's Ryan Lizza, denying that he had misspoken when he referred to America's latest mass shooting as "stuff happens." “No, it wasn’t a mistake. I said exactly what I said. Why would you explain to me what I said wrong? Things happen all the time—things—is that better?” Bush said defensively. Bush's remarks were quick to cause a stir and even evoked a response from President Obama who reacted to news of Bush's comments during a press briefing today with a straight face, saying, “I don’t even think I have to react to that.” Watch both of Bush's remarks below: Bush's remarks echo those of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Discussing Thursday's shooting, Trump said Friday that the massacre was "horrible" but "these things happen." 
After ignoring the issue of guns, failing to even mention that the killings at Oregon's Umpqua Community College were caused by a deranged man with a gun when he tweeted his condolences to the families yesterday, Jeb Bush is apparently just shrugging off the 45th school shooting in 2015 as another example of how "stuff happens." This guy: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/... "We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this, I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else," Bush offered in response to a question about the shooting. “But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do." Bush doubled-down on his remarks when he was pressed by New Yorker Magazine's Ryan Lizza, denying that he had misspoken when he referred to America's latest mass shooting as "stuff happens." “No, it wasn’t a mistake. I said exactly what I said. Why would you explain to me what I said wrong? Things happen all the time—things—is that better?” Bush said defensively. Bush's remarks were quick to cause a stir and even evoked a response from President Obama who reacted to news of Bush's comments during a press briefing today with a straight face, saying, “I don’t even think I have to react to that.” Watch both of Bush's remarks below: Bush's remarks echo those of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Discussing Thursday's shooting, Trump said Friday that the massacre was "horrible" but "these things happen." After ignoring the issue of guns, failing to even mention that the killings at Oregon's Umpqua Community College were caused by a deranged man with a gun when he tweeted his condolences to the families yesterday, Jeb Bush is apparently just shrugging off the 45th school shooting in 2015 as another example of how "stuff happens." This guy: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/... "We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this, I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else," Bush offered in response to a question about the shooting. “But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do." Bush doubled-down on his remarks when he was pressed by New Yorker Magazine's Ryan Lizza, denying that he had misspoken when he referred to America's latest mass shooting as "stuff happens." “No, it wasn’t a mistake. I said exactly what I said. Why would you explain to me what I said wrong? Things happen all the time—things—is that better?” Bush said defensively. Bush's remarks were quick to cause a stir and even evoked a response from President Obama who reacted to news of Bush's comments during a press briefing today with a straight face, saying, “I don’t even think I have to react to that.” Watch both of Bush's remarks below: Bush's remarks echo those of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Discussing Thursday's shooting, Trump said Friday that the massacre was "horrible" but "these things happen."
After ignoring the issue of guns, failing to even mention that the killings at Oregon's Umpqua Community College were caused by a deranged man with a gun when he tweeted his condolences to the families yesterday, Jeb Bush is apparently just shrugging off the 45th school shooting in 2015 as another example of how "stuff happens." This guy: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/... "We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this, I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else," Bush offered in response to a question about the shooting. “But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do." Bush doubled-down on his remarks when he was pressed by New Yorker Magazine's Ryan Lizza, denying that he had misspoken when he referred to America's latest mass shooting as "stuff happens." “No, it wasn’t a mistake. I said exactly what I said. Why would you explain to me what I said wrong? Things happen all the time—things—is that better?” Bush said defensively. Bush's remarks were quick to cause a stir and even evoked a response from President Obama who reacted to news of Bush's comments during a press briefing today with a straight face, saying, “I don’t even think I have to react to that.” Watch both of Bush's remarks below: Bush's remarks echo those of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Discussing Thursday's shooting, Trump said Friday that the massacre was "horrible" but "these things happen." After ignoring the issue of guns, failing to even mention that the killings at Oregon's Umpqua Community College were caused by a deranged man with a gun when he tweeted his condolences to the families yesterday, Jeb Bush is apparently just shrugging off the 45th school shooting in 2015 as another example of how "stuff happens." This guy: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/... "We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this, I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else," Bush offered in response to a question about the shooting. “But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do." Bush doubled-down on his remarks when he was pressed by New Yorker Magazine's Ryan Lizza, denying that he had misspoken when he referred to America's latest mass shooting as "stuff happens." “No, it wasn’t a mistake. I said exactly what I said. Why would you explain to me what I said wrong? Things happen all the time—things—is that better?” Bush said defensively. Bush's remarks were quick to cause a stir and even evoked a response from President Obama who reacted to news of Bush's comments during a press briefing today with a straight face, saying, “I don’t even think I have to react to that.” Watch both of Bush's remarks below: Bush's remarks echo those of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Discussing Thursday's shooting, Trump said Friday that the massacre was "horrible" but "these things happen."
Australia doesn’t want this guy: Troy Newman, head of extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, not welcome Down Under
Here's a novel thought — what if somebody actually did something about people who go around trying to incite dangerous ideas and behavior? What would that be like? Maybe something to consider, especially as we wrap up this perfect dumpster fire week of a shameless attack on Planned Parenthood and yet another deadly school shooting. So let's take it as one small victory that Operation Rescue head Troy Newman has been sent packing after trying to enter Australia. You may remember Operation Rescue. The anti-abortion group ran into a bit of bad publicity a few years back after the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder, an active supporter of the organization. How could Roeder have ever come up with such a terrible idea? I don't know, but it does sound awfully in line with Newman's 2000 book, "Their Blood Cries Out," in which he wrote, "In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people." In 2003, Newman spoke out against the execution of Paul Jennings Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett in 1994. In a press release, he said, "Florida judge denied Rev. Hill his right to present a defense that claimed that the killing of the abortionist was necessary to save the lives of the pre-born babies that were scheduled to be killed by abortion that day…. There are many examples where taking the life in defense of innocent human beings is legally justified and permissible under the law." That kind of talk seems pretty clear. But when Newman was invited to Australia to give a ten-day series of talks in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and Cairns, he was shocked that Australia did not welcome him with open arms. The New York Times reports that immigration had already canceled his visa "after Australian politicians raised concerns that he might encourage violence against abortion providers or women seeking the procedure." Undeterred, the intrepid Newman attempted to wend his way there anyway. After boarding a flight from Los Angeles this week, he was detained in Melbourne. On Thursday, his attorneys filed an urgent injunction to stop him from being deported. The Guardian explains the logic, noting, "While Newman has been arrested for taking part in anti-abortion protests in the US, he has never been charged or advocated violence." Hey, Newman, this is Australia. They will kick out Johnny Depp's dogs. You think they have patience for your shenanigans? On Friday, Justice Geoffrey Nettle rejected the bid, and rebuked Newman for flying without a visa, saying, "Acting as he did means he does not come to this court with clean hands," chastising him for treating the law as "nought." So now Mr. Newman and Operation Rescue are deeply offended at the actions of the Australian government, not permitting someone who spews hateful garbage and doesn't have a visa to just swan into their country. During his flight, he posted an update on Facebook that said, "The revocation was based on a pile of lies, including the idea that I promote violence…. Through a chain of events the Lord has allowed me to get on a plane in spite of many objections by the airlines and Australia." Would that chain of events be… ignoring the restrictions on your travel? It's a miracle! Considering that Australia also has its act way more together than ours regarding gun violence, it's possible that Newman's more extreme rhetoric would be less persuasive there anyway. It still doesn't make him any more welcome, and it also reveals how delusionally entitled the so called pro-life movement really is. In a statement, Australian Labor MP Terri Butler said, "I am most concerned that Mr. Newman's call for abortionists to be executed could lead to threats or the commission of acts of violence against women and medical professionals." Imagine if we felt the same in the US. And Butler added, "To think he is above the law gives us an insight into the sort of person we are dealing with. We don't welcome extremists into our country and we don't welcome extremism."
What the f*ck, Nebraska? Why is this dancing pumpkin man on all my feeds?
Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today: Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today: Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today: Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today: Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today: Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today: Memes. We know -- just exhale pointedly with us, it's going to be OK. Memes take over your various social media feeds, and you have no idea why, but you don't want to out yourself as an out-of-toucher so you don't speak up. Fortunately, we're just as confused as you are and have no shame, so we'll ask the nearest child "What in God's name is going on?" for you. In this case, what's going on is that in 2006, a man in a Jack O'Lantern mask danced on Omaha, Nebraska's CW affiliate, KXCO, in a skin-tight leotard to the theme from the 1984 blockbuster "Ghostbusters." Since this initial performance, it's become a yearly tradition to annually re-post video of this anonymous dancer's Internet accomplishment in October, which is why your social media feeds probably look a little like this today:
October 1, 2015
Russell Brand’s impossible revolution: How a drugged-out comedian reinvented himself as radical apostle
Russell Brand is smart enough to see that to be a comedian is already to stand against the social order in some respects, and to enlist himself in a tradition of comedy as political provocation that stretches from Jon Stewart through Lenny Bruce and Mark Twain all the way back to Socrates (who we must assume was not the first person to make fun of the self-satisfied morons who run things). If anything, the Brand we encounter in Ondi Timoner’s fascinating documentary “Brand: A Second Coming" is too smart for his own good. Brand is not content with being a trickster, a philosopher or a provocateur. He wants to be a revolutionary, a word so freighted with ideological baggage we can no longer understand it. He has openly floated ideas of himself as a savior, a symbol, a messiah. Of course his “Messiah Complex” comedy tour was a “joke,” and his self-comparisons to Gandhi, Jesus, Che Guevara and Malcolm X were intentionally narcissistic and grandiose. But where do the jokes end with Russell Brand? The complicated, inspiring and often maddening former spouse of Katy Perry we meet in Timoner’s film is trapped in a cycle he can clearly perceive but is unable to escape. He’s a little like that guy in the late medieval illustration, pushing his head through the sky: What good does it do him, or anybody else, to know too much? Brand’s 2014 book “Revolution” did not spark a revolution, at least not that I noticed. It was daring, fatally undisciplined and sometimes idiotic, almost an exaggerated juvenile prank. Outside his fan base, it was largely ignored or derided. That may not have been fair, but cultural discourse is rarely based on principles of fairness and decency, especially not in the Information Age – which demands instant, negative opinions from everyone about everything. Just ask Brand’s old friend Amy Winehouse, who rose to celebrity status in London around the same time he did and succumbed to the same excesses, but lacked his resilience or his luck or his male privilege. Indeed, “Brand: A Second Coming” stands in accidental counterpoint to Asif Kapadia’s “Amy,” both films asking why we nominate certain talented and charismatic people as celebrities, and what God of Darkness we then sacrifice them to. Throughout this movie, Brand bounces around the world in first-class airplane seats and the backs of limousines, moving from the practical to the impossible to the unreal. He has conventional celebrity do-gooder moments, visiting children who make their living by scavenging in a vast garbage dump in East Africa. (Actually seeing that, he says, was a revelation.) He launches a promising entrepreneurial and residential facility for recovering drug addicts in London, a social question much closer to his own biography. As Brand frequently tells his stand-up audiences, he has done extensive personal research on addiction in the pub bathrooms and back alleys of England. When he appears on a BBC panel show opposite a smug Tory prohibitionist, Brand runs rings around the guy. When it comes to specific questions of policy and politics, in fact, Brand is sharply focused, well-informed and generally on the money. Whatever value there is in seeing a major British media celebrity, who was briefly on track to become a Hollywood star as well, embrace openly radical positions, Brand has delivered that in full. He has repeatedly argued that the perverse system that elevated him to wealth and fame has condemned millions of others to poverty and servitude, and that the entire political economy of the Western world is organized to protect that anti-democratic and inhumane division of the spoils. In virtually every television appearance, Brand is more intelligent, more far-sighted and more compelling than the people supposedly interviewing him – who of course would not be on television in the first place if they didn’t accept the dominant social and economic order as normal and natural. His classic takeover of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” which ended with host Mika Brzezinski in a state of conspicuous agitation and arousal, is one of the highlights here. When Fox News pundits or their British cognates (not that British TV can remotely compete in terms of sheer bigotry and ignorance) deride Brand as a failed D-list actor gone rogue, a Champagne socialist or a post-adolescent poseur, that only demonstrates what an irritant he has become, and what a threat he presents. But those criticisms keep reappearing, and clearly get under Brand’s skin, because they’re not far wide of the mark. He looks, dresses and acts like a groupie-shagging rebel rock star from an underground comic. Like all famous people, he is surrounded by a coterie of assistants and supposed friends who demonstrate their loyalty by catering to his whims and never telling him he’s wrong. According to his American agent, Brand owns a house in Beverly Hills (a legacy of his 14-month marriage to Perry) that he has never been inside. I’m not embracing the specious Fox News logic that those things invalidate Brand’s political arguments, or render him a hopeless hypocrite. We all must live in the world as we find it, and let those who are untainted with any personal or political hypocrisy cast the first stone. We also have limited time on the planet before we die, and if Russell Brand wants to leverage his fame to shift consciousness and change society during the time he has left, more power to him. But he is far more comfortable and more powerful during the more intimate and unscripted moments captured by Timoner’s camera, as when he engages children on the streets and schoolyards of the dismal Essex suburb where he grew up. “You married Katy Perry!” one little girl screams at him. He tells her that adults do all sorts of things for all sorts of crazy reasons, and when she grows up she is likely to marry Katy Perry too. Early in the film, Brand kicks back in his limo reflecting on a just-concluded gig in the “Messiah Complex” tour, during which he spun out an elaborate gay-sex anecdote in increasingly lewd detail. The point was supposed to be a gag about the 10 Commandments, which do not mention homosexuality but urge us not to covet our neighbor’s oxen. But Brand had pushed it in an entirely different direction, and had relished the audience’s struggle between its avowed position of liberal tolerance – “we’re not shocked by gay people!” – and its increasing discomfort with the raunchy specifics. “I liked that,” Brand muses with a mischievous smile. I have no idea whether a great social and political revolution is coming, as Brand confidently predicts, or what it will look like. But I suspect he serves the cause more profoundly when he challenges his own complacent fans with what gay men actually do with their bodies, or reminds the audience at a grotesque fashion gala that Hugo Boss designed uniforms for the Nazis, than by orating about injustice from a soapbox. The revolution needs comedians at least as much as it needs “revolutionaries.” “Brand: A Second Coming” is now playing at the Village East Cinema in New York, with wider release and home video to follow. Russell Brand is smart enough to see that to be a comedian is already to stand against the social order in some respects, and to enlist himself in a tradition of comedy as political provocation that stretches from Jon Stewart through Lenny Bruce and Mark Twain all the way back to Socrates (who we must assume was not the first person to make fun of the self-satisfied morons who run things). If anything, the Brand we encounter in Ondi Timoner’s fascinating documentary “Brand: A Second Coming" is too smart for his own good. Brand is not content with being a trickster, a philosopher or a provocateur. He wants to be a revolutionary, a word so freighted with ideological baggage we can no longer understand it. He has openly floated ideas of himself as a savior, a symbol, a messiah. Of course his “Messiah Complex” comedy tour was a “joke,” and his self-comparisons to Gandhi, Jesus, Che Guevara and Malcolm X were intentionally narcissistic and grandiose. But where do the jokes end with Russell Brand? The complicated, inspiring and often maddening former spouse of Katy Perry we meet in Timoner’s film is trapped in a cycle he can clearly perceive but is unable to escape. He’s a little like that guy in the late medieval illustration, pushing his head through the sky: What good does it do him, or anybody else, to know too much? Brand’s 2014 book “Revolution” did not spark a revolution, at least not that I noticed. It was daring, fatally undisciplined and sometimes idiotic, almost an exaggerated juvenile prank. Outside his fan base, it was largely ignored or derided. That may not have been fair, but cultural discourse is rarely based on principles of fairness and decency, especially not in the Information Age – which demands instant, negative opinions from everyone about everything. Just ask Brand’s old friend Amy Winehouse, who rose to celebrity status in London around the same time he did and succumbed to the same excesses, but lacked his resilience or his luck or his male privilege. Indeed, “Brand: A Second Coming” stands in accidental counterpoint to Asif Kapadia’s “Amy,” both films asking why we nominate certain talented and charismatic people as celebrities, and what God of Darkness we then sacrifice them to. Throughout this movie, Brand bounces around the world in first-class airplane seats and the backs of limousines, moving from the practical to the impossible to the unreal. He has conventional celebrity do-gooder moments, visiting children who make their living by scavenging in a vast garbage dump in East Africa. (Actually seeing that, he says, was a revelation.) He launches a promising entrepreneurial and residential facility for recovering drug addicts in London, a social question much closer to his own biography. As Brand frequently tells his stand-up audiences, he has done extensive personal research on addiction in the pub bathrooms and back alleys of England. When he appears on a BBC panel show opposite a smug Tory prohibitionist, Brand runs rings around the guy. When it comes to specific questions of policy and politics, in fact, Brand is sharply focused, well-informed and generally on the money. Whatever value there is in seeing a major British media celebrity, who was briefly on track to become a Hollywood star as well, embrace openly radical positions, Brand has delivered that in full. He has repeatedly argued that the perverse system that elevated him to wealth and fame has condemned millions of others to poverty and servitude, and that the entire political economy of the Western world is organized to protect that anti-democratic and inhumane division of the spoils. In virtually every television appearance, Brand is more intelligent, more far-sighted and more compelling than the people supposedly interviewing him – who of course would not be on television in the first place if they didn’t accept the dominant social and economic order as normal and natural. His classic takeover of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” which ended with host Mika Brzezinski in a state of conspicuous agitation and arousal, is one of the highlights here. When Fox News pundits or their British cognates (not that British TV can remotely compete in terms of sheer bigotry and ignorance) deride Brand as a failed D-list actor gone rogue, a Champagne socialist or a post-adolescent poseur, that only demonstrates what an irritant he has become, and what a threat he presents. But those criticisms keep reappearing, and clearly get under Brand’s skin, because they’re not far wide of the mark. He looks, dresses and acts like a groupie-shagging rebel rock star from an underground comic. Like all famous people, he is surrounded by a coterie of assistants and supposed friends who demonstrate their loyalty by catering to his whims and never telling him he’s wrong. According to his American agent, Brand owns a house in Beverly Hills (a legacy of his 14-month marriage to Perry) that he has never been inside. I’m not embracing the specious Fox News logic that those things invalidate Brand’s political arguments, or render him a hopeless hypocrite. We all must live in the world as we find it, and let those who are untainted with any personal or political hypocrisy cast the first stone. We also have limited time on the planet before we die, and if Russell Brand wants to leverage his fame to shift consciousness and change society during the time he has left, more power to him. But he is far more comfortable and more powerful during the more intimate and unscripted moments captured by Timoner’s camera, as when he engages children on the streets and schoolyards of the dismal Essex suburb where he grew up. “You married Katy Perry!” one little girl screams at him. He tells her that adults do all sorts of things for all sorts of crazy reasons, and when she grows up she is likely to marry Katy Perry too. Early in the film, Brand kicks back in his limo reflecting on a just-concluded gig in the “Messiah Complex” tour, during which he spun out an elaborate gay-sex anecdote in increasingly lewd detail. The point was supposed to be a gag about the 10 Commandments, which do not mention homosexuality but urge us not to covet our neighbor’s oxen. But Brand had pushed it in an entirely different direction, and had relished the audience’s struggle between its avowed position of liberal tolerance – “we’re not shocked by gay people!” – and its increasing discomfort with the raunchy specifics. “I liked that,” Brand muses with a mischievous smile. I have no idea whether a great social and political revolution is coming, as Brand confidently predicts, or what it will look like. But I suspect he serves the cause more profoundly when he challenges his own complacent fans with what gay men actually do with their bodies, or reminds the audience at a grotesque fashion gala that Hugo Boss designed uniforms for the Nazis, than by orating about injustice from a soapbox. The revolution needs comedians at least as much as it needs “revolutionaries.” “Brand: A Second Coming” is now playing at the Village East Cinema in New York, with wider release and home video to follow.
