Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 826
March 24, 2016
Whoopi Goldberg deserves a medal: Watch her go ballistic on Ben Carson for backing Donald Trump on “The View”
Former-pediatric neurosurgeon and current Trump-stumper Dr. Ben Carson received a probably-unexpectedly hostile welcome on "The View" Thursday morning. Asked point-blank by host Whoopi Goldberg why he chose to endorse Trump, Carson attempted a joke, saying that when he dropped out of the presidential race, "my first choice went with me." "I was gonna remain neutral," he continued once the audience and hosts caught up to him. "But then I realized that ... the political establishment was aligning to protect their turf. And they don't like the idea of people who are not beholding to them, and who cannot be controlled coming into Washington, D.C." Goldberg cut through Carson's bullshit, pressing him to explain his endorsement of "a man who has bashed women, made countless racist remarks." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "Why would you align yourself with that?" "There's no perfect person," Carson responded before touting Trump's "insisting" Mar-a-Lago admit "Blacks and Jews" at a time when such integration was a rarity among swanky private clubs. "I always say that one of the ways that you measure a person is looking at their children," he continued, essentially saying Trump's kids are well-behaved relative to other rich kids. "And how do their children act." "Well, one's a big-game hunter," host Joy Behar interrupted, referring to Donald, Jr. "I'm not thrilled with that." "That's your privilege," Carson responded. Halfway through Round 2 of his condemnation of the political "establishment"/"ruling class," Goldberg spoke her (and, I think, everyone else's) mind again, telling Carson, "You can say that 'til the cows come home. This guy is ... he's a racist. And he's not good for the country." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "You're so much better than this." The Donald rebutted in typical fashion, shooting off a few concurrent fire tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Watch the heated interview in full below: Former-pediatric neurosurgeon and current Trump-stumper Dr. Ben Carson received a probably-unexpectedly hostile welcome on "The View" Thursday morning. Asked point-blank by host Whoopi Goldberg why he chose to endorse Trump, Carson attempted a joke, saying that when he dropped out of the presidential race, "my first choice went with me." "I was gonna remain neutral," he continued once the audience and hosts caught up to him. "But then I realized that ... the political establishment was aligning to protect their turf. And they don't like the idea of people who are not beholding to them, and who cannot be controlled coming into Washington, D.C." Goldberg cut through Carson's bullshit, pressing him to explain his endorsement of "a man who has bashed women, made countless racist remarks." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "Why would you align yourself with that?" "There's no perfect person," Carson responded before touting Trump's "insisting" Mar-a-Lago admit "Blacks and Jews" at a time when such integration was a rarity among swanky private clubs. "I always say that one of the ways that you measure a person is looking at their children," he continued, essentially saying Trump's kids are well-behaved relative to other rich kids. "And how do their children act." "Well, one's a big-game hunter," host Joy Behar interrupted, referring to Donald, Jr. "I'm not thrilled with that." "That's your privilege," Carson responded. Halfway through Round 2 of his condemnation of the political "establishment"/"ruling class," Goldberg spoke her (and, I think, everyone else's) mind again, telling Carson, "You can say that 'til the cows come home. This guy is ... he's a racist. And he's not good for the country." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "You're so much better than this." The Donald rebutted in typical fashion, shooting off a few concurrent fire tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Watch the heated interview in full below: Former-pediatric neurosurgeon and current Trump-stumper Dr. Ben Carson received a probably-unexpectedly hostile welcome on "The View" Thursday morning. Asked point-blank by host Whoopi Goldberg why he chose to endorse Trump, Carson attempted a joke, saying that when he dropped out of the presidential race, "my first choice went with me." "I was gonna remain neutral," he continued once the audience and hosts caught up to him. "But then I realized that ... the political establishment was aligning to protect their turf. And they don't like the idea of people who are not beholding to them, and who cannot be controlled coming into Washington, D.C." Goldberg cut through Carson's bullshit, pressing him to explain his endorsement of "a man who has bashed women, made countless racist remarks." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "Why would you align yourself with that?" "There's no perfect person," Carson responded before touting Trump's "insisting" Mar-a-Lago admit "Blacks and Jews" at a time when such integration was a rarity among swanky private clubs. "I always say that one of the ways that you measure a person is looking at their children," he continued, essentially saying Trump's kids are well-behaved relative to other rich kids. "And how do their children act." "Well, one's a big-game hunter," host Joy Behar interrupted, referring to Donald, Jr. "I'm not thrilled with that." "That's your privilege," Carson responded. Halfway through Round 2 of his condemnation of the political "establishment"/"ruling class," Goldberg spoke her (and, I think, everyone else's) mind again, telling Carson, "You can say that 'til the cows come home. This guy is ... he's a racist. And he's not good for the country." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "You're so much better than this." The Donald rebutted in typical fashion, shooting off a few concurrent fire tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Watch the heated interview in full below: Former-pediatric neurosurgeon and current Trump-stumper Dr. Ben Carson received a probably-unexpectedly hostile welcome on "The View" Thursday morning. Asked point-blank by host Whoopi Goldberg why he chose to endorse Trump, Carson attempted a joke, saying that when he dropped out of the presidential race, "my first choice went with me." "I was gonna remain neutral," he continued once the audience and hosts caught up to him. "But then I realized that ... the political establishment was aligning to protect their turf. And they don't like the idea of people who are not beholding to them, and who cannot be controlled coming into Washington, D.C." Goldberg cut through Carson's bullshit, pressing him to explain his endorsement of "a man who has bashed women, made countless racist remarks." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "Why would you align yourself with that?" "There's no perfect person," Carson responded before touting Trump's "insisting" Mar-a-Lago admit "Blacks and Jews" at a time when such integration was a rarity among swanky private clubs. "I always say that one of the ways that you measure a person is looking at their children," he continued, essentially saying Trump's kids are well-behaved relative to other rich kids. "And how do their children act." "Well, one's a big-game hunter," host Joy Behar interrupted, referring to Donald, Jr. "I'm not thrilled with that." "That's your privilege," Carson responded. Halfway through Round 2 of his condemnation of the political "establishment"/"ruling class," Goldberg spoke her (and, I think, everyone else's) mind again, telling Carson, "You can say that 'til the cows come home. This guy is ... he's a racist. And he's not good for the country." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "You're so much better than this." The Donald rebutted in typical fashion, shooting off a few concurrent fire tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Watch the heated interview in full below: Former-pediatric neurosurgeon and current Trump-stumper Dr. Ben Carson received a probably-unexpectedly hostile welcome on "The View" Thursday morning. Asked point-blank by host Whoopi Goldberg why he chose to endorse Trump, Carson attempted a joke, saying that when he dropped out of the presidential race, "my first choice went with me." "I was gonna remain neutral," he continued once the audience and hosts caught up to him. "But then I realized that ... the political establishment was aligning to protect their turf. And they don't like the idea of people who are not beholding to them, and who cannot be controlled coming into Washington, D.C." Goldberg cut through Carson's bullshit, pressing him to explain his endorsement of "a man who has bashed women, made countless racist remarks." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "Why would you align yourself with that?" "There's no perfect person," Carson responded before touting Trump's "insisting" Mar-a-Lago admit "Blacks and Jews" at a time when such integration was a rarity among swanky private clubs. "I always say that one of the ways that you measure a person is looking at their children," he continued, essentially saying Trump's kids are well-behaved relative to other rich kids. "And how do their children act." "Well, one's a big-game hunter," host Joy Behar interrupted, referring to Donald, Jr. "I'm not thrilled with that." "That's your privilege," Carson responded. Halfway through Round 2 of his condemnation of the political "establishment"/"ruling class," Goldberg spoke her (and, I think, everyone else's) mind again, telling Carson, "You can say that 'til the cows come home. This guy is ... he's a racist. And he's not good for the country." "You're Ben Carson," she added. "You're so much better than this." The Donald rebutted in typical fashion, shooting off a few concurrent fire tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Watch the heated interview in full below:
Rahm and Debbie have to go: Why Hillary should be calling for their resignation
There are two Democrats whose resignation from office right now would do their party and country a service. Their disappearance might also help Hillary Clinton convince skeptical Democrats that her nomination, if it happens, is about the future, and not about resurrecting and ratifying the worst aspects of the first Clinton reign when she and her husband rarely met a donor to whom they wouldn’t try to auction a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. In fact, while we’re at it, and if Secretary Clinton really wants us to believe she’s no creature of the corporate and Wall Street money machine — despite more than $44 million in contributions from the financial industry since 2000 and her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, not to mention several million more paid by other business interests for an hour or two of her time — she should pick up the gauntlet herself and publicly call for the departure of these two, although they are among her nearest and dearest. And we don’t mean Bill and Chelsea. No, she should come right out and ask for the resignations of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Democratic National Committee Chair — and Florida congresswoman — Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In one masterstroke, she could separate herself from two of the most prominent of all corporate Democratic elitists. Each is a Clinton disciple and devotee, each has profited mightily from the association and each represents all that is wrong with a Democratic Party that in the pursuit of money from rich donors and powerful corporations has abandoned those it once so proudly represented — working men and women. Rahm Emanuel first came to prominence as head of the finance committee for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, browbeating ever-increasing amounts of money out of fat cat donors, and following Clinton into the White House as a senior adviser attuned to the wishes and profits of organized wealth. Few pushed harder for NAFTA, a treaty that would cost a million or more working people their livelihood, or for the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” crime bill which Clinton later admitted was a mistake. After alienating most of Washington with his arrogance and bluster Emanuel left in 1998 and went into investment banking in Chicago, making more than $16 million in less than three years. He came back to Washington as a three-term Illinois congressman, chaired the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (calling on his Wall Street sources to get in on the gravy by electing so-called New Democrats over New Deal Democrats), and soon was back in the White House as Barack Obama’s chief of staff. There, he infamously told a strategy meeting of liberal groups and administration types that the liberals were “retarded” for planning to run attack ads against conservative Democrats resisting Obamacare. Classy.Writer Jane Hamsher described him as tough guy wannabe but really “a brown nose for power ready to rumble on behalf of the status quo.” And now he’s mayor of Chicago, reelected last April for a second term, but, as historian Rick Pearlstein wrote in The New Yorker a couple of months ago, “Chicagoans — and Democrats nationally — are suffering buyer’s remorse.” Remember that shocking dashcam video of a black 17-year-old named Laquan McDonald being shot 16 times by a Chicago policeman while he was walking away? Of course you do; who can forget it? Remember, too, that for 400 days the police kept the existence of the video secret and did nothing about the shooting. Meanwhile, the City of Chicago paid five million dollars to McDonald’s family, who at that point had not filed a lawsuit. But despite the large sum of money coughed up by his own administration, Emanuel claims he never saw the video. If that’s true, he was guilty of dreadful mismanagement; if he did know, he’s guilty of far worse. Only after his re-election was the cover-up of the murder revealed. In Pearlstein’s words, “Given that he surely would not have been reelected had any of this come out before the balloting, a recent poll showed that only 17 percent of Chicagoans believe him. And a majority of Chicagoans now think he should resign.” The Laquan McDonald murder is just one of the scandals on Emanuel’s watch: crime and abuse by police run rampant, the city’s public schools are a disaster, the transit system’s a mess. Yet while Emanuel has devoted little of his schedule to meeting with community leaders, Pearlstein reminds us that he did, however, “spend enormous blocks of time with the rich businessmen, including Republicans, who had showered him with cash…” Now many of them have deserted him, including one of his richest Republican — yes, Republican— contributors, multimillionaire Bruce Rauner, who became governor of Illinois. Emanuel should go — and Hillary Clinton should say so. But while Senator Bernie Sanders, campaigning during the Illinois primary, said he would not seek and would not accept the mayor’s endorsement, with Secretary Clinton it’s business as usual. Emanuel has held fundraisers for her campaign since 2014 so chances are she’ll stay mum, take the money and run. As for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence. She has played games with the party’s voter database, been accused of restricting the number of Democratic candidate debates and scheduling them at odd days and times to favor Hillary Clinton, and recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper that super delegates — strongly establishment and pro-Clinton — are necessary at the party’s convention so deserving incumbent officials and party leaders don’t have to run for delegate slots “against grassroots activists.” Let that sink in, but hold your nose against the aroma of entitlement. But here’s just about the worst of it. Rep. Wasserman Schultz — the people’s representative, right? — has aligned herself with corporate interests out to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s effort to create national standards for the payday-lending industry, a business that in particular targets the poor. Payday loans, as Yuka Hayashi writes at The Wall Street Journal, “are quick credits of a few hundred dollars, with effective annual interest rates ranging between 300% and 500%. Loans are due in a lump sum on the borrower’s next payday, a structure that often sends people into cycles of debt by forcing them to take out new loans to repay the old ones.” According to the nonpartisan Americans for Financial Reform, this tail-chasing cycle of “turned” loans to pay off previous loans makes up about 76 percent of the payday loan business. The Pew Charitable Trust found that in Wasserman Schultz’s home state, the average payday loan customer takes out nine such loans a year, which usually has them mired in debt for about half a year. No wonder radio host and financial guru Dave Ramsey describes the payday loan business, which loans $38.5 billion a year, as “scum-sucking, bottom-feeding predatory people who have no moral restraint.” The very people, it must be acknowledged, who now have an ally in the chair of the Democratic National Committee, who has so engineered the rules of the current Democratic primary process so as to virtually assure her unlimited access to a Clinton White House where she can walk in freely to press the case for her, ahem, “scum-sucking, bottom-feeding predatory” donors and pals. So imagine now the Democratic National Convention this July. Presiding over it will be, yes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tribune for a party of incumbency, money and crony capitalism. Follow her as she makes the rounds of private parties where zillionaire donors, lobbyists and consultants transact the real business of politics. Watch as she and Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel of Chicago greet and embrace. Then imagine those thousands of young people outside the convention hall who have arrived from long months of campaigning earnestly for reform of the party they see as an instrument of their future, as well as members of Black Lives Matter and other people of color for whom Rahm Emanuel is the incarnation of deceit and oppression. This is why Emanuel and Wasserman Schultz must go. To millions, they are enablers of the one percent, perpetuators of the Washington mentality that the rest of the country has grown to hate. What a message such servants of plutocracy send: Democrats — a bridge to the past.There are two Democrats whose resignation from office right now would do their party and country a service. Their disappearance might also help Hillary Clinton convince skeptical Democrats that her nomination, if it happens, is about the future, and not about resurrecting and ratifying the worst aspects of the first Clinton reign when she and her husband rarely met a donor to whom they wouldn’t try to auction a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. In fact, while we’re at it, and if Secretary Clinton really wants us to believe she’s no creature of the corporate and Wall Street money machine — despite more than $44 million in contributions from the financial industry since 2000 and her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, not to mention several million more paid by other business interests for an hour or two of her time — she should pick up the gauntlet herself and publicly call for the departure of these two, although they are among her nearest and dearest. And we don’t mean Bill and Chelsea. No, she should come right out and ask for the resignations of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Democratic National Committee Chair — and Florida congresswoman — Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In one masterstroke, she could separate herself from two of the most prominent of all corporate Democratic elitists. Each is a Clinton disciple and devotee, each has profited mightily from the association and each represents all that is wrong with a Democratic Party that in the pursuit of money from rich donors and powerful corporations has abandoned those it once so proudly represented — working men and women. Rahm Emanuel first came to prominence as head of the finance committee for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, browbeating ever-increasing amounts of money out of fat cat donors, and following Clinton into the White House as a senior adviser attuned to the wishes and profits of organized wealth. Few pushed harder for NAFTA, a treaty that would cost a million or more working people their livelihood, or for the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” crime bill which Clinton later admitted was a mistake. After alienating most of Washington with his arrogance and bluster Emanuel left in 1998 and went into investment banking in Chicago, making more than $16 million in less than three years. He came back to Washington as a three-term Illinois congressman, chaired the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (calling on his Wall Street sources to get in on the gravy by electing so-called New Democrats over New Deal Democrats), and soon was back in the White House as Barack Obama’s chief of staff. There, he infamously told a strategy meeting of liberal groups and administration types that the liberals were “retarded” for planning to run attack ads against conservative Democrats resisting Obamacare. Classy.Writer Jane Hamsher described him as tough guy wannabe but really “a brown nose for power ready to rumble on behalf of the status quo.” And now he’s mayor of Chicago, reelected last April for a second term, but, as historian Rick Pearlstein wrote in The New Yorker a couple of months ago, “Chicagoans — and Democrats nationally — are suffering buyer’s remorse.” Remember that shocking dashcam video of a black 17-year-old named Laquan McDonald being shot 16 times by a Chicago policeman while he was walking away? Of course you do; who can forget it? Remember, too, that for 400 days the police kept the existence of the video secret and did nothing about the shooting. Meanwhile, the City of Chicago paid five million dollars to McDonald’s family, who at that point had not filed a lawsuit. But despite the large sum of money coughed up by his own administration, Emanuel claims he never saw the video. If that’s true, he was guilty of dreadful mismanagement; if he did know, he’s guilty of far worse. Only after his re-election was the cover-up of the murder revealed. In Pearlstein’s words, “Given that he surely would not have been reelected had any of this come out before the balloting, a recent poll showed that only 17 percent of Chicagoans believe him. And a majority of Chicagoans now think he should resign.” The Laquan McDonald murder is just one of the scandals on Emanuel’s watch: crime and abuse by police run rampant, the city’s public schools are a disaster, the transit system’s a mess. Yet while Emanuel has devoted little of his schedule to meeting with community leaders, Pearlstein reminds us that he did, however, “spend enormous blocks of time with the rich businessmen, including Republicans, who had showered him with cash…” Now many of them have deserted him, including one of his richest Republican — yes, Republican— contributors, multimillionaire Bruce Rauner, who became governor of Illinois. Emanuel should go — and Hillary Clinton should say so. But while Senator Bernie Sanders, campaigning during the Illinois primary, said he would not seek and would not accept the mayor’s endorsement, with Secretary Clinton it’s business as usual. Emanuel has held fundraisers for her campaign since 2014 so chances are she’ll stay mum, take the money and run. As for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence. She has played games with the party’s voter database, been accused of restricting the number of Democratic candidate debates and scheduling them at odd days and times to favor Hillary Clinton, and recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper that super delegates — strongly establishment and pro-Clinton — are necessary at the party’s convention so deserving incumbent officials and party leaders don’t have to run for delegate slots “against grassroots activists.” Let that sink in, but hold your nose against the aroma of entitlement. But here’s just about the worst of it. Rep. Wasserman Schultz — the people’s representative, right? — has aligned herself with corporate interests out to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s effort to create national standards for the payday-lending industry, a business that in particular targets the poor. Payday loans, as Yuka Hayashi writes at The Wall Street Journal, “are quick credits of a few hundred dollars, with effective annual interest rates ranging between 300% and 500%. Loans are due in a lump sum on the borrower’s next payday, a structure that often sends people into cycles of debt by forcing them to take out new loans to repay the old ones.” According to the nonpartisan Americans for Financial Reform, this tail-chasing cycle of “turned” loans to pay off previous loans makes up about 76 percent of the payday loan business. The Pew Charitable Trust found that in Wasserman Schultz’s home state, the average payday loan customer takes out nine such loans a year, which usually has them mired in debt for about half a year. No wonder radio host and financial guru Dave Ramsey describes the payday loan business, which loans $38.5 billion a year, as “scum-sucking, bottom-feeding predatory people who have no moral restraint.” The very people, it must be acknowledged, who now have an ally in the chair of the Democratic National Committee, who has so engineered the rules of the current Democratic primary process so as to virtually assure her unlimited access to a Clinton White House where she can walk in freely to press the case for her, ahem, “scum-sucking, bottom-feeding predatory” donors and pals. So imagine now the Democratic National Convention this July. Presiding over it will be, yes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tribune for a party of incumbency, money and crony capitalism. Follow her as she makes the rounds of private parties where zillionaire donors, lobbyists and consultants transact the real business of politics. Watch as she and Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel of Chicago greet and embrace. Then imagine those thousands of young people outside the convention hall who have arrived from long months of campaigning earnestly for reform of the party they see as an instrument of their future, as well as members of Black Lives Matter and other people of color for whom Rahm Emanuel is the incarnation of deceit and oppression. This is why Emanuel and Wasserman Schultz must go. To millions, they are enablers of the one percent, perpetuators of the Washington mentality that the rest of the country has grown to hate. What a message such servants of plutocracy send: Democrats — a bridge to the past.
March 23, 2016
Best ever superhero movie (in terms of fabrics): It’s god vs. psycho in Zack Snyder’s bombastic “Batman v Superman”
Whatever qualities it may lack, Zack Snyder’s superhero blockbuster “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” — which officially recalibrates the summer movie season into early spring — does not lack texture. That’s not some fancy film-critic metaphor. If this movie is about anything (which is debatable), it is about materials and fabrics, about the way they look and feel. This obsession became apparent in Snyder’s ponderous, apocalyptic Superman picture “Man of Steel,” where I was repeatedly distracted by the close-up shots of Superman’s complicated synthetic-mesh costume. Both in this movie and that one, Superman’s alter ego Clark Kent (both played by the cartoonishly sculpted Henry Cavill) wears suspiciously nice and alarmingly tasteful suits, considering that he’s an oft-derided cub reporter for the Daily Planet. Where are the pleated Dockers we saw in “Spotlight”? It’s less surprising that Ben Affleck’s Bruce Wayne dresses like the guy wearing a $10,000 watch in a magazine ad. First of all, Affleck’s entire career has been about splitting the difference between that kind of simulated masculinity and the serious filmmaking craftsman who’s not quite pretentious enough to call himself an artist. I don’t know whether “Batman v Superman” is defined as a sequel or a reboot or an alternate-universe something-something; it could, at a stretch, be located in the same world as the Christopher Nolan-Christian Bale “Dark Knight” trilogy. Batman has moved from Gotham City to Metropolis — which are like Dallas and Fort Worth or something? Council Bluffs and Omaha? — and has been driven increasingly psychotic by the arrival of Superman, godlike drone weapon from outer space. This movie isn’t nearly as terrible as I was expecting, largely due to Snyder’s OCD-level attention to the visual details. And, yes, due to Wonder Woman (played by Israeli actress Gal Gadot), who brings in a badly needed dose of “Dragon Tattoo”-style female energy and whose emergence herein can’t possibly be considered a spoiler at this point. But it still represents a subtle downgrade from the Nolan films on numerous levels, imperfectly concealed by doses of steroids (and amazing fabrics!). First of all, Affleck is a major downgrade from Bale; I don’t care what anyone says. Yeah, I know people like him. He’s likable! But during Affleck’s serious scenes as Bruce Wayne, he always looks to me like he’s thinking, “I’m acting my ass off! Matt’s finally gonna see what I can do!” Whereas in his serious scenes as Batman, using the growly Batman voice-box and wearing the clanky armored RoboBatsuit with built in arched eyebrows — it’s even more homoerotic than the suit George Clooney wore in Joel Schumacher’s infamous 1997 “Batman & Robin,” if such a thing is possible — well, I’m sorry, but there aren’t any because you can't really take him seriously. I have long been fascinated with Zack Snyder and I’m willing to defend all his films up to a certain point. (Yes, even “Watchmen.” Even “Sucker Punch”! Which I had forgotten I had described as "the Nietzschean Superman of action movies.") Snyder is devoted to a mannered, everything-on-the-surface style that is almost surrealist, almost infused with Freudian themes and 20th-century politics and almost total bullshit. I’m not as horrified as I should be, I guess, by this week’s news that Snyder is working on an adaptation of Ayn Rand magnum-bogus “The Fountainhead.” Of course he is. That’s totally perfect. It’s gonna be amazing, with or without scare quotes. So I’m kind of a Snyder defender and kind of a Nolan skeptic, but that’s me being an ass. In reality, the former is unquestionably a downgrade from the latter in terms of cinematic technique, pictorial sensibility, action choreography, thematic complexity and a bunch of other stuff. In short: I like Snyder but he seems kinda dumb, which is something no one has ever said about Chris Nolan. As I wrote on Tuesday, it was deeply strange to go see “Batman v Superman” on the day of the Brussels attacks and walk out into a world that resembles Snyder’s paranoid fantasy universe way too much. This movie features a disastrous suicide bombing inside an iconic American institution, exactly the sort of attack Donald Trump and Ted Cruz halfway wish would happen to justify their incoherent anti-Muslim policies. It features a proxy debate on the drone wars, after Superman is accused of indiscriminately killing a bunch of African villagers while rescuing Lois Lane (Amy Adams) from some al-Shabab-style militant group. It features images of destruction in Belgium. (OK, in the form of a black-and-white photo from World War I depicting an oddly attired Amazon warrior type.) It features politicians collectively crapping their drawers over immigration and terrorism, epitomized by Holly Hunter’s enjoyable performance as a folksy but hardass Kentucky senator. (She's supposed to be a Democrat, which lets you know we're in a different universe.) But for all the obvious attempts made by screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer to connect “Batman v Superman” to real-world 21st-century issues, there is still way too much of the DC Comics universe that either can’t be rethought (because it’s considered integral to the franchise) or simply isn’t rethought. Do all Batman movies, forever and ever, have to be set in a steady-state version of 1989, where crime is unmanageably high, large tracts of urban real estate are abandoned or decrepit, and the cops are incompetent and corrupt bozos with bad sideburns? There’s definitely some psychological resonance to that scenario: Many Americans appear to believe all sorts of apocalyptic and impossible things, including that all big cities are like the worst parts of Detroit, that violent crime is out of control and gay Muslim killers are flooding across the border, and that since all social institutions have failed us, the only answer is to prostrate ourselves before some messianic redeemer. Hell, at least the beleaguered populace of greater MetroGotham has awesome options when it comes to selecting a fascist overlord. Out here in the real world, we’ve got C-minus alien invaders: A lizard-man with a bad combover who has never actually accomplished anything and an individual of unknown species who claims to be “Canadian” but may be the lead singer of Stryper. In the movie, they have an actual super-being from another planet, who is undeniably handsome (if you’re an unimaginative 11-year-old girl), who saves children from burning buildings even if they happen to be Mexican, and who claims, Cincinnatus style, that he doesn’t want the job of ruling our planet. They also have a tormented, sadistic crime-fighting billionaire who dresses up in kinky costumes and lives on an isolated island with his “butler” (an underwritten role for Jeremy Irons, who is funny anyway). Seriously, guys, it’s 2016: Aren’t we beyond all this dissimulation and evasion, these semi-closeted Frodo-and-Sam relationships between man and master? Except it’s 2016 by way of 1989, so I guess we’re not. Compared to the cardboard character of Superman and the pseudo-dark Batman — well, as I said earlier, Gadot’s international slinkster role as socialite Diana Prince and her warrioress alter ego is an enormous breath of fresh air. But if I had to choose between those two guys, I’d still go with Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor, an awkward zillionaire in tennis shoes and obnoxious Brooklyn-hipster outfits. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Eisenberg winks at the audience or undercuts the movie; one of the features of a Zack Snyder picture is that all possible winks are winked in advance and there’s nothing left to undercut. But in playing Luthor as a more severely disabled Mark Zuckerberg from “The Social Network,” Eisenberg at least makes himself into a locus of fun in a movie otherwise devoted to po-faced, comics-geek earnestness. When Luthor stammers out his announcements that power is never innocent and these costumed buffoons are peddling delusions — and by the way, there’s an open bar — I’m all like, finally a hero to believe in. I couldn’t even tell you whether the story of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” makes sense, and I don’t suspect it matters. Batman and Superman are gonna fight! Because they’re both jerks. Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace and Neil deGrasse Tyson are super-concerned about this, because it will affect the future of the human species and because ratings. (Somewhat respectable people have got to stop “playing themselves” in these shameless Hollywood spectacles. It’s not funny or cool anymore, and whatever it hypothetically does for their brand it makes me want to splatter vomit on their expensive loafers.) Then, really, really suddenly, Batman and Superman decide to join forces because Lex Luthor has a secret weapon and oh wow, except for the Wonder Woman stuff it’s really boring and predictable. So “Batman v Superman” is kind of dopey and plays out some laborious plot twists in the DC narrative at unnecessary length, but as I’ve already said it largely kept me entertained for two and a half hours, which is not nothing. Snyder’s intense, obsessive artificiality yields numerous striking images, and the supporting cast around the leaden central duo of Affleck and Cavill (and the dancing electricity of Eisenberg) is excellent, especially Irons, Hunter, Laurence Fishburne as the cantankerous editor of the Daily Planet and Scoot McNairy as a disabled and disgruntled Bruce Wayne employee who believes that corporate misdeeds demand public scrutiny. In the comic-book universe such an attitude is viewed as deeply uncool: Who needs bureaucrats and congressional hearings when we have Batman! Gosh, aren't we lucky to live in the real America, where democracy holds the rich and powerful to account?
Sorry, but the Grateful Dead are cool now: This upcoming hater-proof tribute officially ends their decades of dorkdom
Last week, 4AD announced "Day of the Dead," the newest addition to the Red Hot series of albums, which are released to benefit the HIV/AIDS-associated nonprofit Red Hot Organization. The latest installment is a doozy: It's a six-hour collection of Grateful Dead covers, spread out over five CDs and 59 tracks, curated by the National's Aaron and Bryce Dessner. The brothers' musical imprint is all over "Day of the Dead"—they're part of the house band, as are their National bandmates, Scott and Bryan Devendorf—but they've also recruited an impressive lineup of featured artists, including (to name a few) the Band's Garth Hudson, Wilco, Flaming Lips, Mumford & Sons, Jenny Lewis, Sonic Youth's Lee Ranaldo, TV on the Radio's Tunde Adebimpe, Kurt Vile, J. Mascis, and members of Grizzly Bear and Arcade Fire. The members of the Dead and their extended family are even on board: Guitarist/co-founder Bob Weir appears on a couple of tracks, while collaborator Bruce Hornsby performs "Black Muddy River" with the band DeYarmond Edison, which features Bon Iver's Justin Vernon. As the press release for the project notes, the Dessner brothers come by their Dead enthusiasm honestly: The band was "a gateway to [them] playing music together; the first music the brothers investigated deeply. The two recall their first-ever jam session at 14 years old with The National’s future drummer Bryan Devendorf playing the Dead’s 'Eyes of the World' for several hours in Bryan’s attic in suburban Ohio." That love hasn't waned over time: In 2012, the National performed with Weir at a fundraiser, and he returned the favor by jumping onstage with the band a few times. Others in the tribute's lineup share the affection. "I feel like the Dead managed to show the bridge from the past to the future in a respectful way," said Bill Callahan. "Much more so than someone like the Stones who felt like pillagers to me. The Dead breathed life into the old songs, expanded the lungs of the old songs." For those who dislike the Dead—and there are many, many people in this category—"Day of the Dead" represents the latest unwelcome resurgence of critical reevaluation. Of course, loathing the band is a sport in and of itself: In fact, Google the phrase "musicians who love the Grateful Dead," and instead of adoration, you're first faced with a series of articles about hatred for the group, along with pieces that attempt to understand their mystifying appeal. Over the years, the Dead've been accused of having "contempt for their fans" (the assessment of someone reviewing drummer Bill Kreutzmann’s book, "Deal: My Three Decades of Drumming, Dreams, and Drugs with the Grateful Dead"), been called out for being a hit-or-miss live band—in fact, an author who saw them in the late '60s said they "sounded positively catatonic"—and condemned for everything from their fan base to their fashion choices. Some of these criticisms are fairer than others, of course—and as a New Yorker piece pointed out last year around the Dead's Fare Thee Well farewell shows, the "glorious inconsistency" of the band has its charms. Yet the idea that the Grateful Dead, of all bands, is receiving the type of lavish tribute reserved for more universally beloved groups is intriguing. There's nothing ironic involved here, no shtick involved, just a legitimate desire to showcase the Dead's music—and on a larger scale, convey how and why the Dessner brothers originally "were drawn not just to the Dead’s songwriting, but also to the detail, spontaneity, and depth in the instrumentation." It's a major attempt to steer the Dead and its music toward something resembling respect. In a sense, "Day of the Dead" is what happens when younger generations and musicians assume a place of influence and prominence in the music industry, and have the clout to create these kinds of projects. But it also points to the fact that plenty of musicians on the album grew up being able to perceive and assimilate the Dead's music apart from the negative stereotypes or original cultural contexts associated with the band. For example, the Dessner brothers would've been 14 in 1990, discovering the band in far different ways (and in a far different time period) than older fans. In a similar way, anyone who first became aware of the Dead when 1987's "Touch of Grey" landed on MTV and became an inexplicable Top 10 hit, has a much different perception of the group than boomers, hippies or punks did. Back then, the band wasn't a manifestation of the counterculture or a hated example of the stodgy, bloated previous generation—it was just another classic rock band embracing the '80s by leveraging the new music video medium and the decade's modern, accessible sounds. Back in 1987, this was a common sight: The year-end Billboard Top 100 singles chart features Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, Whitesnake, Starship, Bruce Springsteen, Steve Winwood, Lou Gramm and Bob Seger. As this recollection also points out, however, "Touch of Grey" and the resulting success also came after the late Jerry Garcia finally kicked heroin and then survived a serious diabetic coma: "Garcia’s miraculous return from the brink did not go unnoticed. The group’s 1987 spring tour was big, big news: The tie-dyed spirit of the ’60s lives on! Grateful to be alive! Reluctant Haight-Ashbury guru is back and better than ever! It was incredible to read all the nice things that were suddenly being said about this band that was mostly ignored or derided by the mainstream and rock press just a year earlier. Thirty-some years later, the idea of rediscovering and elevating bands that maybe were sneered or scoffed at is completely acceptable—witness the ongoing Journey and Fleetwood Mac popularity surges, for example, and the recent toasting of Phil Collins. That our reassessment culture is finally getting around to the Dead makes perfect sense. Yet that the band is no longer an "other" to react to or rail against also speaks to how the ingrained biases and prejudices that once caused friction and division between music fandoms have largely dissipated, dissolved by time, historical revisionism and the leveling influence of the Internet. Identification with musical subcultures used to be fiercely intertwined with deeper personality shifts; taste in bands wasn't just casual entertainment, but a framework of guiding principles for an entire way of life. That's absolutely still the case for some genres or subcultures, but in general, the sharp social divisions spawned by liking (or disliking) a certain style of music aren't as pronounced. Borders between musical genres have collapsed, for starters: Mainstream music is a fluid cross-pollination of rock, pop, folk country, electronic and hip-hop. And seeing as a genre like classic rock is now something parents and their kids enjoy together, it makes sense that attitudes toward the Dead would similarly soften. Of course, it's not as though the Dead have been hurt financially or personally by any sort of vitriol: The band's fans remain incredibly loyal, and have followed each surviving member consistently over the years. Plus, long before the National unveiled "Day of the Dead," prominent mega-fan musicians have championed the band: Ryan Adams went through a heavy Dead phase in the mid-'00s, performing with Phil Lesh & Friends and covering songs such as "Franklin's Tower" and "Truckin'" with then-band the Cardinals. A decade or so later, modern indie rock feels influenced by the freewheeling Dead attitude more than ever; the genre's dominated by spacey folk-blues jams, cracked-out psychedelic moments and mellow grooves. It feels more correct to say "Day of the Dead" isn't the start of a contemporary Dead resurrection or revival, but the logical conclusion.
Here’s the scariest thing about “The Simpsons” episode that predicted President Trump
“Bart to the Future,” in season 11 of the iconic Fox animated series “The Simpsons,” is a truly abysmal episode of television. And yet, like many abysmal things, it is experiencing a renaissance, of sorts, because of a throwaway line spoken by Lisa, midway through the episode: “As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump.” Oh, yes: Lisa Simpson is the president of the United States, and she is speaking to her senior staff; and yes, the world is still somewhat intact following the hypothetical presidency of Donald Trump. The fact that the episode seems to have predicted a Donald Trump presidency has caught the attention of many publications, and last week, writer Dan Greaney spoke to both the Hollywood Reporter and the Washington Post about how that came to be. Here’s a bit from the Post’s Comic Riffs column:
… the real-estate mogul was just the right comedic fit at the time, and notes that they needed a celebrity name that would sound slyly absurdist. Besides, Greaney says, “He seems like a ‘Simpsons’-esque figure — he fits right in there, in an over-the-top way. “But now that he’s running for president, I see that in a much darker way,” the Emmy-winning writer-producer continues. “He seemed kind of lovable in the old days, in a blowhard way.”All the other predictions for the future in “Bart to the Future” have no resemblance to real life, which is probably the point; “The Simpsons” threw so much material at the wall that in some ways, a correct prediction was inevitable, amid the hover-buses and future-beer that litter the opening of the episode. (Most inexplicably, Bart still listens to tapes in a cassette player, which was already phasing out in 2000, when the episode was made.) And aside from the glory of seeing Lisa as the commander in chief, the episode doesn’t offer a lot of particularly funny or brilliant moments. At her first White House press conference, Lisa confidently tells the assembled media that she is proud to be their first “straight, female” president, which is the saddest attempt at humor in the episode. “Bart to the Future” hinges around the Simpson family visiting a reservation casino, and the litany of jokes made about Native Americans is pretty painful. Admittedly, it’s “The Simpsons,” so everything is terrible and absurd anyway, but having Bart sit down to see a vision of the future in a “shaman’s" fire—he’s the casino manager—is pretty awkward; having that character then announce his brother is named “Crazy Talk” is positively revolting. (Though I admit to laughing at the idea of a pop-up advertisement in Bart’s vision, which was apparently an idea gotten from a group called “Dances With Focus Groups.”) After a whole half-episode of disjointed and mediocre joke-telling, adult Bart and adult Lisa end up first clashing and then cooperating. The sibling dynamic between the two Simpsons is ostensibly the main thrust of the episode. Greaney told the Post that “the story was really about Bart saving Lisa’s presidency.” The conclusion of the episode is that Bart, despite being a freeloading layabout, can still help his sister Lisa in a crisis—in this case, it’s sweet-talking a bunch of cranky foreign creditors out of the White House, giving America a bit longer to pay off its Trump-caused massive debt. "What we needed was for Lisa to have problems that were beyond her fixing, that everything went as bad as it possibly could, and that's why we had Trump be president before her,” he told THR, adding that the Trump presidency is “consistent with the vision of America going insane.” Other problems faced by the Simpson administration: Oceans drained of water, super-criminal children, and the aforementioned deficit; they don’t even have enough money for the huge bookmobile Lisa so desperately wanted. One of her advisors suggests that their only solution is cyanide pills. So Trump does not leave “The Simpsons”’ future in a good place, which is not that surprising, given his real-life campaign promises. Lisa, with her slicked-back hair and skirt suit, so entirely resembles Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton that it is astounding; but in some ways, that makes this vision even sadder. Bart is a mooching stoner with a pipe dream for a band that will never materialize, but Lisa is an impotent president, shuttled between a terrible legacy and an insecure future. Trump isn't depicted in the episode–that has only happened in last summer's promo for “The Simpsons”' season 7— but to our 2016 eyes, if Lisa is Hillary, Bart actually seems more like our candidate Trump, the layabout mucking up her best intentions (and everyone else's, too). After all, Bart's big coup is in replicating the fictional President Trump's actions—talking creditors out of calling in their loans, all while asking for even more money. And while maybe "Bart to the Future" is scary for predicting a Trump future, what's even scarier is the implication that put-together, brilliant Lisa would ever need the expertise of her cool-obsessed, selfish brother.“Bart to the Future,” in season 11 of the iconic Fox animated series “The Simpsons,” is a truly abysmal episode of television. And yet, like many abysmal things, it is experiencing a renaissance, of sorts, because of a throwaway line spoken by Lisa, midway through the episode: “As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump.” Oh, yes: Lisa Simpson is the president of the United States, and she is speaking to her senior staff; and yes, the world is still somewhat intact following the hypothetical presidency of Donald Trump. The fact that the episode seems to have predicted a Donald Trump presidency has caught the attention of many publications, and last week, writer Dan Greaney spoke to both the Hollywood Reporter and the Washington Post about how that came to be. Here’s a bit from the Post’s Comic Riffs column:
… the real-estate mogul was just the right comedic fit at the time, and notes that they needed a celebrity name that would sound slyly absurdist. Besides, Greaney says, “He seems like a ‘Simpsons’-esque figure — he fits right in there, in an over-the-top way. “But now that he’s running for president, I see that in a much darker way,” the Emmy-winning writer-producer continues. “He seemed kind of lovable in the old days, in a blowhard way.”All the other predictions for the future in “Bart to the Future” have no resemblance to real life, which is probably the point; “The Simpsons” threw so much material at the wall that in some ways, a correct prediction was inevitable, amid the hover-buses and future-beer that litter the opening of the episode. (Most inexplicably, Bart still listens to tapes in a cassette player, which was already phasing out in 2000, when the episode was made.) And aside from the glory of seeing Lisa as the commander in chief, the episode doesn’t offer a lot of particularly funny or brilliant moments. At her first White House press conference, Lisa confidently tells the assembled media that she is proud to be their first “straight, female” president, which is the saddest attempt at humor in the episode. “Bart to the Future” hinges around the Simpson family visiting a reservation casino, and the litany of jokes made about Native Americans is pretty painful. Admittedly, it’s “The Simpsons,” so everything is terrible and absurd anyway, but having Bart sit down to see a vision of the future in a “shaman’s" fire—he’s the casino manager—is pretty awkward; having that character then announce his brother is named “Crazy Talk” is positively revolting. (Though I admit to laughing at the idea of a pop-up advertisement in Bart’s vision, which was apparently an idea gotten from a group called “Dances With Focus Groups.”) After a whole half-episode of disjointed and mediocre joke-telling, adult Bart and adult Lisa end up first clashing and then cooperating. The sibling dynamic between the two Simpsons is ostensibly the main thrust of the episode. Greaney told the Post that “the story was really about Bart saving Lisa’s presidency.” The conclusion of the episode is that Bart, despite being a freeloading layabout, can still help his sister Lisa in a crisis—in this case, it’s sweet-talking a bunch of cranky foreign creditors out of the White House, giving America a bit longer to pay off its Trump-caused massive debt. "What we needed was for Lisa to have problems that were beyond her fixing, that everything went as bad as it possibly could, and that's why we had Trump be president before her,” he told THR, adding that the Trump presidency is “consistent with the vision of America going insane.” Other problems faced by the Simpson administration: Oceans drained of water, super-criminal children, and the aforementioned deficit; they don’t even have enough money for the huge bookmobile Lisa so desperately wanted. One of her advisors suggests that their only solution is cyanide pills. So Trump does not leave “The Simpsons”’ future in a good place, which is not that surprising, given his real-life campaign promises. Lisa, with her slicked-back hair and skirt suit, so entirely resembles Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton that it is astounding; but in some ways, that makes this vision even sadder. Bart is a mooching stoner with a pipe dream for a band that will never materialize, but Lisa is an impotent president, shuttled between a terrible legacy and an insecure future. Trump isn't depicted in the episode–that has only happened in last summer's promo for “The Simpsons”' season 7— but to our 2016 eyes, if Lisa is Hillary, Bart actually seems more like our candidate Trump, the layabout mucking up her best intentions (and everyone else's, too). After all, Bart's big coup is in replicating the fictional President Trump's actions—talking creditors out of calling in their loans, all while asking for even more money. And while maybe "Bart to the Future" is scary for predicting a Trump future, what's even scarier is the implication that put-together, brilliant Lisa would ever need the expertise of her cool-obsessed, selfish brother.
Awash in plastic: It’s all around us — and its impact on human health is insidious
It’s all around us—in our houses, walls, plumbing pipes, bottles and cans, rugs, dental fillings, eyeglass lenses, phones, cars, garden mulch and much more. We are talking, of course, about plastic. Aside from the devastating impact on the planet’s health, plastic’s impact on human health has been insidious. Decade after decade we have watched as prostate and breast cancer rates have risen, fertility rates in men have dropped, young girls have entered early puberty, young boys have become increasingly hyperactive, and children have become fatter. All of these conditions result from multiple factors, but the effects of plastic cannot be discounted. Endocrine disruptors are the link between human health hazards and plastic. Some of the better publicized endocrine disruptors include dioxins and PCBs, which have polluted our nation’s waterways. In the human body, endocrine disruptors mimic the actions of the hormone estrogen. They upset the hormonal balance and can stimulate the growth of tumors in the breast, uterus or prostate. They can affect fertility, pregnancy, and worse, can affect the fetus by interfering with testosterone, disrupting normal sexual development. This disruption is not often apparent until adulthood and includes the increased risk of cancer. One of the main chemicals used to produce plastics is bisphenol A, or BPA, an endocrine disruptor that is prevalent in a vast number of widely used products, not least of which are plastic food and beverage bottles and the lining of metal cans. Heat, repeated washing, acidity, and alkalinity cause the BPA in plastics to leach into our food and beverages. Further, BPA leaches into our groundwater from all the plastic sitting in landfills. And of course we ingest BPA from all the fish we eat that has previously ingested all that plastic floating around in the ocean. In one study, the Centers for Disease Control found 95 percent of urine samples contained some amount of BPA. It’s in our blood, our amniotic fluid, our breast milk. Small children are most at risk because they put everything in their mouths, they breathe and drink more, relative to their size, and they excrete waste more slowly. The health risks of BPA have been observed primarily through animal testing, and there is some controversy as to whether human risk can be extrapolated from animal testing. However, many of the adverse effects of BPA, such as reproductive cancers, obesity, type-2 diabetes and even autism, have been observed to be increasing in the human population in the past 50 years, mirroring the rise of plastic consumption. While correlation is not causation, the signs are certainly not encouraging. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has maintained that the levels of BPA are safe, Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council told Mother Earth News, “BPA should be considered a hazard to human development and reproduction with clear evidence of adverse effects.” Many countries, including the U.S., have banned the presence of BPA in baby bottles. Unfortunately, the common substitute is often Biphenol S (BPS), which is also an endocrine disruptor and seems to cause many of the same problems as BPA. Polycarbonate water bottles, popular among those who seek to minimize plastic pollution, are a major source of human BPA exposure. Studies have shown that BPA leaches into water even at room temperature, and when exposed to boiling water, BPA leached 55 times more rapidly than it did prior to exposure to the heat. Another class of endocrine disruptor called phthalates is also present in plastic products containing PVC. Phthalates are used to soften plastic and can be found in toys, deodorants and shampoos, shower curtains, raincoats, food packaging and a myriad of other products. Phthalates are loosely bound to plastic and easily absorbed into food, beverages and saliva, and like BPA, have been commonly detected in our bodies. Most concerning is the effect phthalates have on reproductive health in males. Exposure in fetuses has been linked to the malformation of the male reproductive system. The dangers from plastic are not just from ingestion. During the industrial manufacturing of plastic, all manner of toxic chemicals are released, many of which are carcinogenic or neurotoxic. These would include vinyl chloride, from PVC; dioxins and benzene, from polystyrene; and formaldehyde, from polycarbonates. Many of these toxins are known as POPs, or persistent organic pollutants. They are highly toxic, and like plastic, they don’t easily go away. Plastic comes in many variations, different combinations of resins and polymers creating plastics with different properties, and different types of plastic present different dangers. The numbers embedded on most plastic products identify the type of plastic it is made from, ostensibly so it can be properly recycled. (The reality is that barely 10 percent of plastic is recycled, or more accurately down-cycled, say from a soda bottle to winter coat insulation, so it still ends up in a landfill.) Here are the most common plastics, by number, and some of the hazards they present. 1. PET: polyethylene terephthalate. PET is commonly used in commercially sold water bottles, soft drink bottles, sports drink bottles, and condiment bottles (like ketchup). While it is generally considered a “safe” plastic, and does not contain BPA, in the presence of heat it can leach antimony, a toxic metalloid, into food and beverages, which can cause vomiting, diarrhea and stomach ulcers. Some studies have shown up to 100 times the amount of antimony in bottled water than in clean groundwater. The longer the bottle is on the shelf or exposed to heat or sunshine, the more antimony is likely to have leached into the product. 2. HDPE: high-density polyethylene. HDPE is commonly used in milk and juice bottles, detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, grocery bags, and cereal box liners. Like PET, it is also considered “safe,” but has been shown to leach estrogenic chemicals dangerous to fetuses and juveniles. 3. PVC: polyvinyl chloride. PVC can be flexible or rigid, and is used for plumbing pipes, clear food packaging, shrink wrap, plastic children’s toys, tablecloths, vinyl flooring, children’s play mats, and blister packs (such as for medicines). PVC contains a phthalate called DEHP, which can cause male traits to become more feminized (DEHP-containing products have been banned in many countries, but not the U.S.). In some products, DEHP has been replaced with another chemical called DiNP, which has similarly been shown to have hormone disruption properties. 4. LDPE: low-density polyethylene. LDPE is used for dry cleaning bags, bread bags, newspaper bags, produce bags, and garbage bags, as well as “paper” milk cartons and hot/cold beverage cups. LDPE does not contain BPA, but as with most plastics, it can leach estrogenic chemicals. 5. PP: polypropylene. PP is used to make yogurt containers, deli food containers and winter clothing insulation. PP actually has a high heat tolerance and as such, does not seem to leach many of the chemicals other plastics do. 6. PS: polystyrene. PS, also popularly known as Styrofoam, is used for cups, plates, take-out containers, supermarket meat trays, and packing peanuts. Polystyrene can leach styrene, a suspected carcinogen, especially in the presence of heat (which makes hot coffee in a Styrofoam container an unwise choice). 7. Everything else. Any plastic item not made from the above six plastics is lumped together as a #7 plastic. Any plastic designated #7 is likely to leach BPA and/or BPS, both potent endocrine disruptors linked to interfering with proper mood, growth, development, sexual function, reproductive function, and puberty, among other essential human developmental processes. They are also suspected of increasing the risk of adult reproductive cancers, obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. The Dangers of Outgassing The danger from chemicals in plastic is not limited to leaching from bottles and food wraps. Another significant source of concern is from outgassing (also known as offgassing). That new-car smell, or the odor from a new synthetic-fiber carpet or new plastic toy is actually called outgassing. What is chemically happening is that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are evaporating into the air around us. These gases are, in many cases, hazardous to human health. These VOCs include aldehydes, alcohols, plasticizers, and alkanes. PVC is probably the worst outgassing offender and is prevalent throughout the household. A buildup of VOCs in the household (sometimes called sick building syndrome) can result in symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, allergies, skin/eye/nose/throat irritations, and asthma. Long-term damage can include cancer and heart disease. Heat can speed up the process of outgassing, so it may be helpful to put new products containing plastic out in the sun for a few hours to minimize the indoor VOC buildup. The ABCs of Avoiding Plastics The obvious solution to avoiding plastic toxicity is to avoid plastics, which, in a world awash in plastic, is pretty difficult. In the absence of this, it makes sense to limit your close encounters with plastic as best as you can. Never heat or microwave your food in plastic containers, which increases the leaching of chemicals. Avoid contact with BPA by avoiding plastic wrap (use wax or parchment paper, or aluminum foil), plastic food containers (use metal or glass containers), and disposable water bottles (use reusable non-plastic or BPA-free bottles). Look for BPA-free on the label of products (while this is not a guarantee of safety, it at least limits BPA exposure). Use metal and wooden eating and cooking utensils instead of plastic utensils. Find food and water containers that are BPA-free. Avoid phthalates by primarily avoiding PVC products (labeled as #3 plastic). Look for phthalates-free labels. When possible, air new plastic products like blowup mattresses, synthetic-fiber rugs, tablecloths, and toys outside for a few hours to let the VOCs disperse. Avoid plastics numbered #6 and #7 whenever possible. Larry Schwartz is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer with a focus on health, science and American history.
It’s all around us—in our houses, walls, plumbing pipes, bottles and cans, rugs, dental fillings, eyeglass lenses, phones, cars, garden mulch and much more. We are talking, of course, about plastic. Aside from the devastating impact on the planet’s health, plastic’s impact on human health has been insidious. Decade after decade we have watched as prostate and breast cancer rates have risen, fertility rates in men have dropped, young girls have entered early puberty, young boys have become increasingly hyperactive, and children have become fatter. All of these conditions result from multiple factors, but the effects of plastic cannot be discounted. Endocrine disruptors are the link between human health hazards and plastic. Some of the better publicized endocrine disruptors include dioxins and PCBs, which have polluted our nation’s waterways. In the human body, endocrine disruptors mimic the actions of the hormone estrogen. They upset the hormonal balance and can stimulate the growth of tumors in the breast, uterus or prostate. They can affect fertility, pregnancy, and worse, can affect the fetus by interfering with testosterone, disrupting normal sexual development. This disruption is not often apparent until adulthood and includes the increased risk of cancer. One of the main chemicals used to produce plastics is bisphenol A, or BPA, an endocrine disruptor that is prevalent in a vast number of widely used products, not least of which are plastic food and beverage bottles and the lining of metal cans. Heat, repeated washing, acidity, and alkalinity cause the BPA in plastics to leach into our food and beverages. Further, BPA leaches into our groundwater from all the plastic sitting in landfills. And of course we ingest BPA from all the fish we eat that has previously ingested all that plastic floating around in the ocean. In one study, the Centers for Disease Control found 95 percent of urine samples contained some amount of BPA. It’s in our blood, our amniotic fluid, our breast milk. Small children are most at risk because they put everything in their mouths, they breathe and drink more, relative to their size, and they excrete waste more slowly. The health risks of BPA have been observed primarily through animal testing, and there is some controversy as to whether human risk can be extrapolated from animal testing. However, many of the adverse effects of BPA, such as reproductive cancers, obesity, type-2 diabetes and even autism, have been observed to be increasing in the human population in the past 50 years, mirroring the rise of plastic consumption. While correlation is not causation, the signs are certainly not encouraging. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has maintained that the levels of BPA are safe, Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council told Mother Earth News, “BPA should be considered a hazard to human development and reproduction with clear evidence of adverse effects.” Many countries, including the U.S., have banned the presence of BPA in baby bottles. Unfortunately, the common substitute is often Biphenol S (BPS), which is also an endocrine disruptor and seems to cause many of the same problems as BPA. Polycarbonate water bottles, popular among those who seek to minimize plastic pollution, are a major source of human BPA exposure. Studies have shown that BPA leaches into water even at room temperature, and when exposed to boiling water, BPA leached 55 times more rapidly than it did prior to exposure to the heat. Another class of endocrine disruptor called phthalates is also present in plastic products containing PVC. Phthalates are used to soften plastic and can be found in toys, deodorants and shampoos, shower curtains, raincoats, food packaging and a myriad of other products. Phthalates are loosely bound to plastic and easily absorbed into food, beverages and saliva, and like BPA, have been commonly detected in our bodies. Most concerning is the effect phthalates have on reproductive health in males. Exposure in fetuses has been linked to the malformation of the male reproductive system. The dangers from plastic are not just from ingestion. During the industrial manufacturing of plastic, all manner of toxic chemicals are released, many of which are carcinogenic or neurotoxic. These would include vinyl chloride, from PVC; dioxins and benzene, from polystyrene; and formaldehyde, from polycarbonates. Many of these toxins are known as POPs, or persistent organic pollutants. They are highly toxic, and like plastic, they don’t easily go away. Plastic comes in many variations, different combinations of resins and polymers creating plastics with different properties, and different types of plastic present different dangers. The numbers embedded on most plastic products identify the type of plastic it is made from, ostensibly so it can be properly recycled. (The reality is that barely 10 percent of plastic is recycled, or more accurately down-cycled, say from a soda bottle to winter coat insulation, so it still ends up in a landfill.) Here are the most common plastics, by number, and some of the hazards they present. 1. PET: polyethylene terephthalate. PET is commonly used in commercially sold water bottles, soft drink bottles, sports drink bottles, and condiment bottles (like ketchup). While it is generally considered a “safe” plastic, and does not contain BPA, in the presence of heat it can leach antimony, a toxic metalloid, into food and beverages, which can cause vomiting, diarrhea and stomach ulcers. Some studies have shown up to 100 times the amount of antimony in bottled water than in clean groundwater. The longer the bottle is on the shelf or exposed to heat or sunshine, the more antimony is likely to have leached into the product. 2. HDPE: high-density polyethylene. HDPE is commonly used in milk and juice bottles, detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, grocery bags, and cereal box liners. Like PET, it is also considered “safe,” but has been shown to leach estrogenic chemicals dangerous to fetuses and juveniles. 3. PVC: polyvinyl chloride. PVC can be flexible or rigid, and is used for plumbing pipes, clear food packaging, shrink wrap, plastic children’s toys, tablecloths, vinyl flooring, children’s play mats, and blister packs (such as for medicines). PVC contains a phthalate called DEHP, which can cause male traits to become more feminized (DEHP-containing products have been banned in many countries, but not the U.S.). In some products, DEHP has been replaced with another chemical called DiNP, which has similarly been shown to have hormone disruption properties. 4. LDPE: low-density polyethylene. LDPE is used for dry cleaning bags, bread bags, newspaper bags, produce bags, and garbage bags, as well as “paper” milk cartons and hot/cold beverage cups. LDPE does not contain BPA, but as with most plastics, it can leach estrogenic chemicals. 5. PP: polypropylene. PP is used to make yogurt containers, deli food containers and winter clothing insulation. PP actually has a high heat tolerance and as such, does not seem to leach many of the chemicals other plastics do. 6. PS: polystyrene. PS, also popularly known as Styrofoam, is used for cups, plates, take-out containers, supermarket meat trays, and packing peanuts. Polystyrene can leach styrene, a suspected carcinogen, especially in the presence of heat (which makes hot coffee in a Styrofoam container an unwise choice). 7. Everything else. Any plastic item not made from the above six plastics is lumped together as a #7 plastic. Any plastic designated #7 is likely to leach BPA and/or BPS, both potent endocrine disruptors linked to interfering with proper mood, growth, development, sexual function, reproductive function, and puberty, among other essential human developmental processes. They are also suspected of increasing the risk of adult reproductive cancers, obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. The Dangers of Outgassing The danger from chemicals in plastic is not limited to leaching from bottles and food wraps. Another significant source of concern is from outgassing (also known as offgassing). That new-car smell, or the odor from a new synthetic-fiber carpet or new plastic toy is actually called outgassing. What is chemically happening is that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are evaporating into the air around us. These gases are, in many cases, hazardous to human health. These VOCs include aldehydes, alcohols, plasticizers, and alkanes. PVC is probably the worst outgassing offender and is prevalent throughout the household. A buildup of VOCs in the household (sometimes called sick building syndrome) can result in symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, allergies, skin/eye/nose/throat irritations, and asthma. Long-term damage can include cancer and heart disease. Heat can speed up the process of outgassing, so it may be helpful to put new products containing plastic out in the sun for a few hours to minimize the indoor VOC buildup. The ABCs of Avoiding Plastics The obvious solution to avoiding plastic toxicity is to avoid plastics, which, in a world awash in plastic, is pretty difficult. In the absence of this, it makes sense to limit your close encounters with plastic as best as you can. Never heat or microwave your food in plastic containers, which increases the leaching of chemicals. Avoid contact with BPA by avoiding plastic wrap (use wax or parchment paper, or aluminum foil), plastic food containers (use metal or glass containers), and disposable water bottles (use reusable non-plastic or BPA-free bottles). Look for BPA-free on the label of products (while this is not a guarantee of safety, it at least limits BPA exposure). Use metal and wooden eating and cooking utensils instead of plastic utensils. Find food and water containers that are BPA-free. Avoid phthalates by primarily avoiding PVC products (labeled as #3 plastic). Look for phthalates-free labels. When possible, air new plastic products like blowup mattresses, synthetic-fiber rugs, tablecloths, and toys outside for a few hours to let the VOCs disperse. Avoid plastics numbered #6 and #7 whenever possible. Larry Schwartz is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer with a focus on health, science and American history.
It’s all around us—in our houses, walls, plumbing pipes, bottles and cans, rugs, dental fillings, eyeglass lenses, phones, cars, garden mulch and much more. We are talking, of course, about plastic. Aside from the devastating impact on the planet’s health, plastic’s impact on human health has been insidious. Decade after decade we have watched as prostate and breast cancer rates have risen, fertility rates in men have dropped, young girls have entered early puberty, young boys have become increasingly hyperactive, and children have become fatter. All of these conditions result from multiple factors, but the effects of plastic cannot be discounted. Endocrine disruptors are the link between human health hazards and plastic. Some of the better publicized endocrine disruptors include dioxins and PCBs, which have polluted our nation’s waterways. In the human body, endocrine disruptors mimic the actions of the hormone estrogen. They upset the hormonal balance and can stimulate the growth of tumors in the breast, uterus or prostate. They can affect fertility, pregnancy, and worse, can affect the fetus by interfering with testosterone, disrupting normal sexual development. This disruption is not often apparent until adulthood and includes the increased risk of cancer. One of the main chemicals used to produce plastics is bisphenol A, or BPA, an endocrine disruptor that is prevalent in a vast number of widely used products, not least of which are plastic food and beverage bottles and the lining of metal cans. Heat, repeated washing, acidity, and alkalinity cause the BPA in plastics to leach into our food and beverages. Further, BPA leaches into our groundwater from all the plastic sitting in landfills. And of course we ingest BPA from all the fish we eat that has previously ingested all that plastic floating around in the ocean. In one study, the Centers for Disease Control found 95 percent of urine samples contained some amount of BPA. It’s in our blood, our amniotic fluid, our breast milk. Small children are most at risk because they put everything in their mouths, they breathe and drink more, relative to their size, and they excrete waste more slowly. The health risks of BPA have been observed primarily through animal testing, and there is some controversy as to whether human risk can be extrapolated from animal testing. However, many of the adverse effects of BPA, such as reproductive cancers, obesity, type-2 diabetes and even autism, have been observed to be increasing in the human population in the past 50 years, mirroring the rise of plastic consumption. While correlation is not causation, the signs are certainly not encouraging. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has maintained that the levels of BPA are safe, Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council told Mother Earth News, “BPA should be considered a hazard to human development and reproduction with clear evidence of adverse effects.” Many countries, including the U.S., have banned the presence of BPA in baby bottles. Unfortunately, the common substitute is often Biphenol S (BPS), which is also an endocrine disruptor and seems to cause many of the same problems as BPA. Polycarbonate water bottles, popular among those who seek to minimize plastic pollution, are a major source of human BPA exposure. Studies have shown that BPA leaches into water even at room temperature, and when exposed to boiling water, BPA leached 55 times more rapidly than it did prior to exposure to the heat. Another class of endocrine disruptor called phthalates is also present in plastic products containing PVC. Phthalates are used to soften plastic and can be found in toys, deodorants and shampoos, shower curtains, raincoats, food packaging and a myriad of other products. Phthalates are loosely bound to plastic and easily absorbed into food, beverages and saliva, and like BPA, have been commonly detected in our bodies. Most concerning is the effect phthalates have on reproductive health in males. Exposure in fetuses has been linked to the malformation of the male reproductive system. The dangers from plastic are not just from ingestion. During the industrial manufacturing of plastic, all manner of toxic chemicals are released, many of which are carcinogenic or neurotoxic. These would include vinyl chloride, from PVC; dioxins and benzene, from polystyrene; and formaldehyde, from polycarbonates. Many of these toxins are known as POPs, or persistent organic pollutants. They are highly toxic, and like plastic, they don’t easily go away. Plastic comes in many variations, different combinations of resins and polymers creating plastics with different properties, and different types of plastic present different dangers. The numbers embedded on most plastic products identify the type of plastic it is made from, ostensibly so it can be properly recycled. (The reality is that barely 10 percent of plastic is recycled, or more accurately down-cycled, say from a soda bottle to winter coat insulation, so it still ends up in a landfill.) Here are the most common plastics, by number, and some of the hazards they present. 1. PET: polyethylene terephthalate. PET is commonly used in commercially sold water bottles, soft drink bottles, sports drink bottles, and condiment bottles (like ketchup). While it is generally considered a “safe” plastic, and does not contain BPA, in the presence of heat it can leach antimony, a toxic metalloid, into food and beverages, which can cause vomiting, diarrhea and stomach ulcers. Some studies have shown up to 100 times the amount of antimony in bottled water than in clean groundwater. The longer the bottle is on the shelf or exposed to heat or sunshine, the more antimony is likely to have leached into the product. 2. HDPE: high-density polyethylene. HDPE is commonly used in milk and juice bottles, detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, grocery bags, and cereal box liners. Like PET, it is also considered “safe,” but has been shown to leach estrogenic chemicals dangerous to fetuses and juveniles. 3. PVC: polyvinyl chloride. PVC can be flexible or rigid, and is used for plumbing pipes, clear food packaging, shrink wrap, plastic children’s toys, tablecloths, vinyl flooring, children’s play mats, and blister packs (such as for medicines). PVC contains a phthalate called DEHP, which can cause male traits to become more feminized (DEHP-containing products have been banned in many countries, but not the U.S.). In some products, DEHP has been replaced with another chemical called DiNP, which has similarly been shown to have hormone disruption properties. 4. LDPE: low-density polyethylene. LDPE is used for dry cleaning bags, bread bags, newspaper bags, produce bags, and garbage bags, as well as “paper” milk cartons and hot/cold beverage cups. LDPE does not contain BPA, but as with most plastics, it can leach estrogenic chemicals. 5. PP: polypropylene. PP is used to make yogurt containers, deli food containers and winter clothing insulation. PP actually has a high heat tolerance and as such, does not seem to leach many of the chemicals other plastics do. 6. PS: polystyrene. PS, also popularly known as Styrofoam, is used for cups, plates, take-out containers, supermarket meat trays, and packing peanuts. Polystyrene can leach styrene, a suspected carcinogen, especially in the presence of heat (which makes hot coffee in a Styrofoam container an unwise choice). 7. Everything else. Any plastic item not made from the above six plastics is lumped together as a #7 plastic. Any plastic designated #7 is likely to leach BPA and/or BPS, both potent endocrine disruptors linked to interfering with proper mood, growth, development, sexual function, reproductive function, and puberty, among other essential human developmental processes. They are also suspected of increasing the risk of adult reproductive cancers, obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. The Dangers of Outgassing The danger from chemicals in plastic is not limited to leaching from bottles and food wraps. Another significant source of concern is from outgassing (also known as offgassing). That new-car smell, or the odor from a new synthetic-fiber carpet or new plastic toy is actually called outgassing. What is chemically happening is that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are evaporating into the air around us. These gases are, in many cases, hazardous to human health. These VOCs include aldehydes, alcohols, plasticizers, and alkanes. PVC is probably the worst outgassing offender and is prevalent throughout the household. A buildup of VOCs in the household (sometimes called sick building syndrome) can result in symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, allergies, skin/eye/nose/throat irritations, and asthma. Long-term damage can include cancer and heart disease. Heat can speed up the process of outgassing, so it may be helpful to put new products containing plastic out in the sun for a few hours to minimize the indoor VOC buildup. The ABCs of Avoiding Plastics The obvious solution to avoiding plastic toxicity is to avoid plastics, which, in a world awash in plastic, is pretty difficult. In the absence of this, it makes sense to limit your close encounters with plastic as best as you can. Never heat or microwave your food in plastic containers, which increases the leaching of chemicals. Avoid contact with BPA by avoiding plastic wrap (use wax or parchment paper, or aluminum foil), plastic food containers (use metal or glass containers), and disposable water bottles (use reusable non-plastic or BPA-free bottles). Look for BPA-free on the label of products (while this is not a guarantee of safety, it at least limits BPA exposure). Use metal and wooden eating and cooking utensils instead of plastic utensils. Find food and water containers that are BPA-free. Avoid phthalates by primarily avoiding PVC products (labeled as #3 plastic). Look for phthalates-free labels. When possible, air new plastic products like blowup mattresses, synthetic-fiber rugs, tablecloths, and toys outside for a few hours to let the VOCs disperse. Avoid plastics numbered #6 and #7 whenever possible. Larry Schwartz is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer with a focus on health, science and American history. 
My awful date with Donald Trump: The real story of a nightmare evening with a callow but cash-less heir
It was the early 1970s. I was about 23 at the time and he was in his late 20s. We met through friends talking at a bar. My friend knew his friends. It’s was a lively Upper East Side -- considered cool at the time -- spot. Still there and still considered a great place to go for a burger. A comfortable place for all generations. The tables are so close everyone feels like a friend. It’s cozy. This was over 40 years ago. So I met a nice guy through friends at the bar and he asked me for my telephone number. He called me the next day and asked me out. Said he would pick me up around 7. I lived in a building with a doorman who called me on the house-phone to say my date was here. I locked and went downstairs expecting to see a guy standing out front with his hands in his pockets looking sheepish. Instead there was no one. Just a white Cadillac convertible. My date leaned over and said, “Hop in.” I didn’t know what to make of this. I lived in NYC and nobody ever picked me up in a car except to go to the airport. I was too surprised and flustered to be impressed. I felt like I was in a James Dean movie. If he wanted to impress me, a Cadillac wouldn’t do it, but if he got out of the car, and opened the door for me, then I would be impressed. The interior was cherry red. The dashboard was red, even the steering wheel was red. It made me feel woozy. Like I was sitting someplace I shouldn’t. It was not the best start for a date. The car had a phone in it. I had never been in a car with a telephone. I don’t know why, but I didn’t think it was special. I just thought, who is this guy with a funny last name? He picked it up and said where would you like to go for dinner? I’ll make a reservation. I had no idea. The only place I could think to go in a car was to Peter Luger’s in Brooklyn. He makes the reservation on the car phone and we go. He was nice looking, not handsome, but nice. Preppy. Normal. Not a conversationalist, but neither was I. I didn’t think he was very bright. The check came but the restaurant didn’t take credit cards. My date couldn’t pay for the dinner. This was the first thing I could relate to all evening. Me, Jewish girl, independent but not too, always had bad-date, worst-case-scenario, awkward-situation, get-home money. So, my big shot, Cadillac, phone-in-convertible boring date couldn’t pay for dinner. He was stunned and embarrassed. I said, "Let’s get aprons and do the dishes. It would be fun." His face was horror-stricken. He was flustered. Relax, I have the money. Oh, thank God. He swore he’d pay me back tomorrow so many times that I thought it not likely. He never did. That may tell you something about my date with Donald Trump. Should he get to the White House, I would love to be paid back with interest. If he doesn’t get to the White House, I consider this story enough of a payback.It was the early 1970s. I was about 23 at the time and he was in his late 20s. We met through friends talking at a bar. My friend knew his friends. It’s was a lively Upper East Side -- considered cool at the time -- spot. Still there and still considered a great place to go for a burger. A comfortable place for all generations. The tables are so close everyone feels like a friend. It’s cozy. This was over 40 years ago. So I met a nice guy through friends at the bar and he asked me for my telephone number. He called me the next day and asked me out. Said he would pick me up around 7. I lived in a building with a doorman who called me on the house-phone to say my date was here. I locked and went downstairs expecting to see a guy standing out front with his hands in his pockets looking sheepish. Instead there was no one. Just a white Cadillac convertible. My date leaned over and said, “Hop in.” I didn’t know what to make of this. I lived in NYC and nobody ever picked me up in a car except to go to the airport. I was too surprised and flustered to be impressed. I felt like I was in a James Dean movie. If he wanted to impress me, a Cadillac wouldn’t do it, but if he got out of the car, and opened the door for me, then I would be impressed. The interior was cherry red. The dashboard was red, even the steering wheel was red. It made me feel woozy. Like I was sitting someplace I shouldn’t. It was not the best start for a date. The car had a phone in it. I had never been in a car with a telephone. I don’t know why, but I didn’t think it was special. I just thought, who is this guy with a funny last name? He picked it up and said where would you like to go for dinner? I’ll make a reservation. I had no idea. The only place I could think to go in a car was to Peter Luger’s in Brooklyn. He makes the reservation on the car phone and we go. He was nice looking, not handsome, but nice. Preppy. Normal. Not a conversationalist, but neither was I. I didn’t think he was very bright. The check came but the restaurant didn’t take credit cards. My date couldn’t pay for the dinner. This was the first thing I could relate to all evening. Me, Jewish girl, independent but not too, always had bad-date, worst-case-scenario, awkward-situation, get-home money. So, my big shot, Cadillac, phone-in-convertible boring date couldn’t pay for dinner. He was stunned and embarrassed. I said, "Let’s get aprons and do the dishes. It would be fun." His face was horror-stricken. He was flustered. Relax, I have the money. Oh, thank God. He swore he’d pay me back tomorrow so many times that I thought it not likely. He never did. That may tell you something about my date with Donald Trump. Should he get to the White House, I would love to be paid back with interest. If he doesn’t get to the White House, I consider this story enough of a payback.
Leave David Letterman alone: For a celebrity, “showing his age” means aging in public at all
If there is a hell, surely there is a special place in it for the tabloid hacks who bring us the "___ doesn't look like this any more" stories that report, with shock, that a celebrity has not been immune to the passage of time. The latest victim? David Letterman. It's been nearly a year since the 68 year-old stepped down from his perch as the host of "Late Night." Since then he's apparently been enjoying his new status as a retiree, with occasional brief forays back into the public eye. Back in September, he blew the paparazzi's collective mind by appearing — in the words of the New York Post — "looking like a bedraggled Tom Hanks in 'Cast Away'" with a "hobo chic" fluffy gray beard. In December, he spoke to Montana's "Whitefish Review" about his new life, and said decisively, "I had to shave every day, every day, for 33 years. And even before that when I was working on local TV. And I just thought, the first thing I will do when I am not on TV is stop shaving…. I've kind of developed a real creepy look with it that I'm sort of enjoying. And I can tell that people are off-put by it. And the more people implore me to shave, the stronger my resolve is to not shave." You hear that? Dave does not care. And he admitted, "I’ll be 69 next year and I’ve been doing this for 33 years. What did I want? Like you work until you’re a hundred? So there’s a lot of practical reasons why a person wouldn’t miss this." You hear that, too? Dave's doing just fine. Yet on Wednesday, the New York Daily News eagerly ran a duo of photos of the former host, looking "nearly unrecognizable" out on a run during a vacation in St. Barts. Decked in yellow shorts and a sweat-marked t-shirt from his alma mater, Ball State, Letterman was also still sporting his full beard — and not much hair on top. Or as the Daily News put it, the man was "really showing his age." Other sites also picked up on the news, with the Daily Mail deploying its favorite word to note that "David Letterman reveals bald head while in St Barts" — like a bald head is a nip slip — and both Extra and Us boggling that Letterman is "completely unrecognizable." At least E! noted that he's "Balding, Bearded and Looking as Happy as Ever in St. Barts." Despite the fact that aging happens to literally everyone except Angela Bassett, the idea that a well-known face would grow older and change in appearance is somehow routinely treated a shocking bit of news. God forbid the person also gain weight or lose hair. Last fall, Carrie Fisher, who once famously said that "I swear when I was shooting those films I never realized I was signing an invisible contract to stay looking the exact same way for the rest of my existence," confirmed that for the new "Star Wars," "They didn’t hire me, they hired me minus 35 pounds." And when, five years ago, Sinead O'Connor appeared at an Irish music festival looking different than she did in her twenty years prior "Nothing Compares 2 U" days, headlines proclaimed the news she was "no longer bald or skinny." Last year, the Daily Mail ran a feature on celebrities who've "aged badly" — by, you know, aging at all. The Daily News did one too, in which they managed to criticize a handful of stars like Nick Nolte for apparently growing older naturally while slamming others for "messing with" their faces. The 53 year-old Charles Barkley, meanwhile, earned a "Wowza!" for no longer being at his NBA playing peak. David Letterman doesn't need anybody to stick up for him. He looks like he's having fun, after giving his entire adult life to entertaining the rest of us. And we should all be lucky enough to one day to spend some retirement time jogging around a tropical island, with zero interest in being held up to the aesthetic standards of our working years prime. In his Whitefish Review interview last year, Letterman said, "I know I’ve grown old. But I don’t think I’ve grown up." He's grown up just fine. It's the people who snark about an adult man "showing his age" who could use a lesson in maturity.
Vinyl won’t save musicians: It’s still just a miniscule portion of music-industry revenues
Here are some things I’m pretty sure of. Vinyl has better, warmer, more complex sound than CDs, as well an old-school cool. The larger album covers and room for liner notes are better than the compressed little field and compact disc allowed. And vinyl has lent its name to an HBO show that is not perfect, but is at least besotted with the pre-punk and punk-rock ‘70s. So there is plenty of reason to buy vinyl and feel good about your record collection. But the idea that we hear in music circles sometimes, and that recent headlines will only encourage – that vinyl sales will save the beleaguered music business – is not quite right. Here’s the opening to a Pitchfork article titled “Vinyl Sales Made More Money Than Free Streams Last Year”:
The sale of vinyl albums in the U.S. brought in more money than the recording industry made from advertising on the free tier of services like YouTube and Spotify last year, according to the RIAA. Vinyl LP/EP sales rose 32% in 2015 to $416 million, their highest level since 1988, the U.S. record industry group said. That's still a fraction of overall industry revenues, which edged higher by 0.9% over 2014 to an estimated $7 billion. But it's more than the revenue generated from on-demand, ad-supported streaming, which grew 31% to $385 million.This article is perfectly responsible and well-reported. The trouble comes when people only read the headline, or jump to conclusions about what the data means. An increase in vinyl sales is good for musicians. But if you look at the article in context, you’ll see that vinyl – up, but still less than six percent of record industry revenues – only looks good because of the failure other sources of income. CDs are down by 11 percent, digital albums by 3 percent, and individual digital tracks by 12 percent. Despite the promise of tech hypesters, free streaming is just not as lucrative as predicted. It’s going in the right direction, but it’s only at $385 million – that number sounds high until you realize that there are more than 300 million people in the United States. Many musicians hate free streaming, since it gives their music away for almost nothing, and it’s very hard opt out of the process. And how much of that goes to musicians is tricky to decipher. Another issue is that even numbers like $7 billion – again, this sounds huge – are way down from where they used to be. In 1999, the year Napster hit, music industry revenues were more than double that -- $14.6 billion. So these increases still show a business that’s way down from where it was, mostly because CD sales have plummeted. Future of Music has a series of tweets that assess the vinyl news intelligently, including this one: https://twitter.com/future_of_music/s... FMC’s general message is that all of the sources of income – teaching, touring, downloads, streaming, vinyl, CDs, and so on -- are important for musicians. Even as some sources go up and others down, the need to draw from as many as possible gets more and more true every year, especially as urban rents rise. "When I was in my 20s I could afford to have my own apartment in Brooklyn," jazz and funk bassist Melvin Gibbs, who heads Content Creators Coalition, told Salon. "Professional musicians in their 20s now can't survive unless they double or triple up in an apartment." Here’s the good news: Vinyl could keep record stores alive, and many places in big cities and college towns that used to sell discs are now peddling vinyl. (Often it’s used vinyl, which means the income doesn’t make its way back to musicians.) If you care about your city or your neighborhood, and like the idea of people who love music and tend it with respect and priestly dedication, then support your local music shop. Some of those people – maybe at this point, most of them -- are musicians, and that puts money in their pockets. But don’t come away from news about the vinyl boom, or reports about the touring revenues of the tiny sliver of superstar musicians, thinking that the music industry – or the income of musicians – is recovering from the digital onslaught.Here are some things I’m pretty sure of. Vinyl has better, warmer, more complex sound than CDs, as well an old-school cool. The larger album covers and room for liner notes are better than the compressed little field and compact disc allowed. And vinyl has lent its name to an HBO show that is not perfect, but is at least besotted with the pre-punk and punk-rock ‘70s. So there is plenty of reason to buy vinyl and feel good about your record collection. But the idea that we hear in music circles sometimes, and that recent headlines will only encourage – that vinyl sales will save the beleaguered music business – is not quite right. Here’s the opening to a Pitchfork article titled “Vinyl Sales Made More Money Than Free Streams Last Year”:
The sale of vinyl albums in the U.S. brought in more money than the recording industry made from advertising on the free tier of services like YouTube and Spotify last year, according to the RIAA. Vinyl LP/EP sales rose 32% in 2015 to $416 million, their highest level since 1988, the U.S. record industry group said. That's still a fraction of overall industry revenues, which edged higher by 0.9% over 2014 to an estimated $7 billion. But it's more than the revenue generated from on-demand, ad-supported streaming, which grew 31% to $385 million.This article is perfectly responsible and well-reported. The trouble comes when people only read the headline, or jump to conclusions about what the data means. An increase in vinyl sales is good for musicians. But if you look at the article in context, you’ll see that vinyl – up, but still less than six percent of record industry revenues – only looks good because of the failure other sources of income. CDs are down by 11 percent, digital albums by 3 percent, and individual digital tracks by 12 percent. Despite the promise of tech hypesters, free streaming is just not as lucrative as predicted. It’s going in the right direction, but it’s only at $385 million – that number sounds high until you realize that there are more than 300 million people in the United States. Many musicians hate free streaming, since it gives their music away for almost nothing, and it’s very hard opt out of the process. And how much of that goes to musicians is tricky to decipher. Another issue is that even numbers like $7 billion – again, this sounds huge – are way down from where they used to be. In 1999, the year Napster hit, music industry revenues were more than double that -- $14.6 billion. So these increases still show a business that’s way down from where it was, mostly because CD sales have plummeted. Future of Music has a series of tweets that assess the vinyl news intelligently, including this one: https://twitter.com/future_of_music/s... FMC’s general message is that all of the sources of income – teaching, touring, downloads, streaming, vinyl, CDs, and so on -- are important for musicians. Even as some sources go up and others down, the need to draw from as many as possible gets more and more true every year, especially as urban rents rise. "When I was in my 20s I could afford to have my own apartment in Brooklyn," jazz and funk bassist Melvin Gibbs, who heads Content Creators Coalition, told Salon. "Professional musicians in their 20s now can't survive unless they double or triple up in an apartment." Here’s the good news: Vinyl could keep record stores alive, and many places in big cities and college towns that used to sell discs are now peddling vinyl. (Often it’s used vinyl, which means the income doesn’t make its way back to musicians.) If you care about your city or your neighborhood, and like the idea of people who love music and tend it with respect and priestly dedication, then support your local music shop. Some of those people – maybe at this point, most of them -- are musicians, and that puts money in their pockets. But don’t come away from news about the vinyl boom, or reports about the touring revenues of the tiny sliver of superstar musicians, thinking that the music industry – or the income of musicians – is recovering from the digital onslaught.Here are some things I’m pretty sure of. Vinyl has better, warmer, more complex sound than CDs, as well an old-school cool. The larger album covers and room for liner notes are better than the compressed little field and compact disc allowed. And vinyl has lent its name to an HBO show that is not perfect, but is at least besotted with the pre-punk and punk-rock ‘70s. So there is plenty of reason to buy vinyl and feel good about your record collection. But the idea that we hear in music circles sometimes, and that recent headlines will only encourage – that vinyl sales will save the beleaguered music business – is not quite right. Here’s the opening to a Pitchfork article titled “Vinyl Sales Made More Money Than Free Streams Last Year”:
The sale of vinyl albums in the U.S. brought in more money than the recording industry made from advertising on the free tier of services like YouTube and Spotify last year, according to the RIAA. Vinyl LP/EP sales rose 32% in 2015 to $416 million, their highest level since 1988, the U.S. record industry group said. That's still a fraction of overall industry revenues, which edged higher by 0.9% over 2014 to an estimated $7 billion. But it's more than the revenue generated from on-demand, ad-supported streaming, which grew 31% to $385 million.This article is perfectly responsible and well-reported. The trouble comes when people only read the headline, or jump to conclusions about what the data means. An increase in vinyl sales is good for musicians. But if you look at the article in context, you’ll see that vinyl – up, but still less than six percent of record industry revenues – only looks good because of the failure other sources of income. CDs are down by 11 percent, digital albums by 3 percent, and individual digital tracks by 12 percent. Despite the promise of tech hypesters, free streaming is just not as lucrative as predicted. It’s going in the right direction, but it’s only at $385 million – that number sounds high until you realize that there are more than 300 million people in the United States. Many musicians hate free streaming, since it gives their music away for almost nothing, and it’s very hard opt out of the process. And how much of that goes to musicians is tricky to decipher. Another issue is that even numbers like $7 billion – again, this sounds huge – are way down from where they used to be. In 1999, the year Napster hit, music industry revenues were more than double that -- $14.6 billion. So these increases still show a business that’s way down from where it was, mostly because CD sales have plummeted. Future of Music has a series of tweets that assess the vinyl news intelligently, including this one: https://twitter.com/future_of_music/s... FMC’s general message is that all of the sources of income – teaching, touring, downloads, streaming, vinyl, CDs, and so on -- are important for musicians. Even as some sources go up and others down, the need to draw from as many as possible gets more and more true every year, especially as urban rents rise. "When I was in my 20s I could afford to have my own apartment in Brooklyn," jazz and funk bassist Melvin Gibbs, who heads Content Creators Coalition, told Salon. "Professional musicians in their 20s now can't survive unless they double or triple up in an apartment." Here’s the good news: Vinyl could keep record stores alive, and many places in big cities and college towns that used to sell discs are now peddling vinyl. (Often it’s used vinyl, which means the income doesn’t make its way back to musicians.) If you care about your city or your neighborhood, and like the idea of people who love music and tend it with respect and priestly dedication, then support your local music shop. Some of those people – maybe at this point, most of them -- are musicians, and that puts money in their pockets. But don’t come away from news about the vinyl boom, or reports about the touring revenues of the tiny sliver of superstar musicians, thinking that the music industry – or the income of musicians – is recovering from the digital onslaught.
7 celebrities who kill press tours: Henry Cavill’s “disaster” interviews could be worse
Promoting a movie is tricky, dangerous business. Just ask Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson, the “Fifty Shades of Grey” co-stars who were forced to pretend that they can stand the sight of each other in a series of awkward press interviews last year. The most awkward—by far—was a painful Glamour interview where the pair were asked questions by a series of floating heads on a talking iPad. Dornan is asked: “What are three words you would use to describe Dakota?” He responds, “Funny, talented, and caring.” Johnson is asked what words she would choose. “Oooh,” Dornan laughs, knowing her answer won’t be good. She hesitates before her co-star jumps in. “It’s supposed to be instinctual,” he scolds her. “Superb,” she finally says after a long pause. However, Henry Cavill seemingly doesn’t need anyone else’s help to tank his own interviews. The star of the cumbersomely titled “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” has been on a charm offensive to promote his upcoming film, which lands in theaters Friday. The problem is that his press appearances have been more the latter than the former—clumsy, off-putting, and increasingly painful. Jezebel’s Madeleine Davies offers a helpful rundown of a press tour that’s been a total “disaster.” Cavill has repeatedly reminded everyone that he doesn’t care about what he’s doing, he’s just in it for the money. “I’m not just doing this for the art,” he told Man of the World. “The money’s fantastic and that’s something which I deem… very important.” Such a remark would seem refreshingly honest if he didn’t go on and on about his lavish lifestyle (spoiler: he loves first-class!), casually lament that NO ONE RECOGNIZED HIM while he trotted around in Times Square, and refer to #OscarsSoWhite as “racist.” “Maybe the solution is to have more diversity in the members,” he remarked to Man of the World. “But does that mean we are saying that to have more black Academy members would result in more black nominations? Is that not racist itself?” As if to finish off Henry Cavill’s scorched earth campaign against, well, himself, he further told Britain’s The Sunday Times that there’s a “double standard” when it comes to catcalling. “I mean, if a girl shouts something like ‘Oi, love, fancy a shag?’ to me as I walk past I do sometimes wonder how she’d feel if a builder said that to her,” he said. “Although, of course, I wouldn’t feel physically threatened, as she might.” Cavill, however, isn’t the only celebrity known for giving awkward, uncomfortable, or even downright hostile interviews. He joins a long lime of celebrities journalists might want to avoid at all costs—especially if their name rhymes with “Mommy Pee Bones.” 1. Bruce Willis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqpjX... Spending time John McClane is no walk in the park. After shooting 2011’s “Cop Out,” Kevin Smith notoriously described his time on set with Bruce Willis as “soul crushing.” At the wrap party for the critically derided film, the “Chasing Amy” director summed up his time on set with Willis in a speech he gave to the cast and crew: “I want to thank everyone who worked on the film, except for Bruce Willis, who is a f*cking dick.” In his 2012 book, “Tough Shit,” Smith further called him “the unhappiest, most bitter, and meanest emo-bitch I’ve ever met at any job I’ve held down.” In an awkward interview while promoting “Red 2,” Willis shed light on why he’s sparred with everyone from Sylvester Stallone to Cybill Shepherd throughout the course of his 35-year career. The 61-year-old is known for appearing checked out during interviews (see: this zombie-like appearance on The One Show to push “A Good Day to Die Hard’), but this segment with Magic FM in the U.K. takes the cake. “Has any actor ever told you this, Jamie?” Bruce Willis asked Magic FM’s Jamie Edwards. “This part is not acting. The fun part is over. We’re just selling the film now. Sales.” The affable Edwards, attempting to be a good sport, responds, “How would you sell me the film then?” The actor, however, shoots down his attempt at offering an olive branch: “I wouldn’t. I’d slash my hooves.” As if that weren’t enough, Bruce Willis even broadcasts to Edwards how bored he is. “I can hardly keep my mind on this interview,” he remarks at one point. 2. Tommy Lee Jones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTzk4... When asked who their least favorite person to interview on the red carpet was, Joan and Melissa Rivers didn’t have to think before responding: Tommy Lee Jones. In 2013, HuffPost Live asked the famous mother-daughter duo about their worst celebrity interview was, and Melissa immediately shot back: “Tommy Lee Jones.” Joan added, “Oh, without question!” HuffPost asked the pair to elaborate on that assertion. “He’s at the top of everybody’s list,” Melissa continued. “He doesn’t want to be there. He’s unhappy doing the red carpet, and he is going to make everyone else around him just as unhappy in the experience. Joan Rivers summed the issue up nicely: According to the late comedienne, Jones went to Harvard and is “very impressed” by that accomplishment. “We all went to Ivy League schools,” she said. “Calm down.” Whatever Tommy Lee Jones’ hangup is, it’s easy to sense his disdain at interacting with the press. When discussing 2012’s “Men in Black 3,” Jones offers a series of terse, monosyllabic non-answers to interviewers’ questions. Fox 5 entertainment reporter Kevin McCarthy asked Jones, “What was the moment—when you got into this business—where you realized, ‘Oh my gosh, this is what I’m going to be doing for the rest of my life?’” Jones stares blankly, looking back and forth. However, Tommy Lee Jones isn’t just hostile toward interviewers—he’s gruff toward everyone. In a 2012 profile of the actor, Entertainment Weekly’s Anthony Breznican writes, “[H]is reputation for being one of the most fearsome men in Hollywood is well earned.” When Josh Brolin sent Tommy Lee Jones well-wishes from his ex-wife, Diane Lane, and Charlize Theron, both of whom had appeared onscreen with Jones, he merely said, “Oh-kay.” 3. Jesse Eisenberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AU2T... When it comes to Jesse Eisenberg, who was nominated for an Oscar for “The Social Network,” it seems art imitates life. In David Fincher’s film, Eisenberg plays Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, an entitled asshole with a superiority complex. It may not have tested the 32-year-old’s range much. In a 2013 interview for Univison, Eisenberg mocked and belittled reporter Romina Pugh (who, it needs to be said, seemed pretty ill-prepared for the interview). When Pugh refer to his co-star, Morgan Freeman, simply as “Freeman,” Eisenberg asks, “What are you, on a baseball team with him?” It only goes downhill from there. He later refers to her as the “Carrot Top of interviewers.” She responds, “I’m going to go cry now.” The actor says, “Don’t cry now. Cry after the interview is over. Otherwise it’ll look like I’m responsible for it.” As a cherry on an awful, horrible interview, Pugh asks Eisenberg to say her name into the camera (as the segment is titled “Say My Name with Romina Pugh”). He asks how she wants him to say it. She explains, “Like you’re trying to find me in a crowded place.” Eisenberg repeats her name softly. Pugh says, “That’s it? I would never hear you.” Her interviewee remarks that there’s a reason for that. “The thing is I didn’t want to find you,” he says. “I was hoping to stay alone.” Ouch. According to Pugh—who says she felt “humiliated” and “butchered” by the encounter—Eisenberg’s bad behavior didn’t stop when the cameras quit rolling. She later wrote in a blog post (which has since been removed), “I peeked around the curtain to ask Jesse about his neighborhood in New York (he lives a few blocks from where I used to live),” she writes, “and he immediately says, ‘You’re still here?’" 4. Harrison Ford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKWU... The “Force Awakens” actor has warmed up to interviewers in recent years, even dressing up in a hot dog costume for “Jimmy Kimmel Live” to promote J.J. Abrams’ “Star Wars” reboot last year. Ford, however, has long had a reputation for not being a team player. When speaking to Conan O’Brien for his 2010 film “Morning Glory,” Ford gave a notoriously weird interview in which it appeared that the 73-year-old was under the influence of something. At time, it seemed as if Harrison Ford had what Diane Keaton was having when she appeared on Stephen Colbert (read: lots of weed), but the appearance was more or less what we expect from actor—brusque and detached. When O’Brien asks if Ford would consider doing another Indiana Jones sequel, he mutters, “Maybe." Conan, ever a good sport, quips, “Well, kids, you have your scoop!” These incidents are pretty par for the course when it comes to Harrison Ford. When “Entertainment Tonight” asked about Episode VII back in 2013, Ford pantomimed having his mouth zipped up. The Chicago Tribune’s Luis Gomez once remarked that “getting reamed by the notoriously grumpy Harrison Ford is a rite of passage for entertainment reporters,” but the ever-crafty Ellen Degeneres once put Ford’s penchant for the monosyllabic to good use. Last year, Degeneres offered Ford $1,000 to the charity of his choice for every question of hers that he actually answered. 5. Billy Bob Thornton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJWS6... In 2009, Billy Bob Thornton briefly became a meme after a hostile interview with now-disgraced CBC reporter Jian Ghomeshi. Thornton appeared on Q TV to promote his record with The Boxmasters, a country-pop band he formed two years earlier. The Academy Award-winner intentionally tanked the interview after Ghomeshi briefly name-dropped his acting career when introducing the group. He punished the host by refusing to answer questions and acting like a sulky teenager. When Ghomeshi remarks that Thornton “appears to be quite passionate about music,” the actor blows up. “Would you say that to Tom Petty? … Would you explain why it’s not a hobby?” Thornton then verbally berates Ghomeshi for going off-script, before adding: “We also said that we didn’t want to hear anything about this is my ‘first love.’ You wouldn’t say something like that to Tom Petty, would you? ‘I understand music is your first love.’ Well, my first love was a chick named Lisa Cohn.” The reaction from Billy Bob Thornton’s poor, long-suffering bandmates says it all. After the painful exchange finally concludes, the men resignedly skulk over to their instruments like Charlie Brown to play their set. 6. Gene Simmons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMpo... In the history of legendarily douchey interviews, Gene Simmons may just take the cake. Perhaps that’s unsurprising to you. Simmons, the bass guitarist for KISS, made his fortune by painting his face and spitting blood onstage. He’s an epic, notorious a-hole who went on a media tirade in 2014 by burning nearly every possible bridge in a short span of months. After defending Mel Gibson and Donald Sterling, Simmons shared his thoughts on America’s immigration problem with HuffPost Live. “Learn to speak goddamn English,” he remarked. On top of being racist, Simmons showed that he’s a heartless sociopath. In an interview recorded around the same time, he told Songfacts that if you’re depressed and thinking about killing yourself, you should go ahead and do it. “I’m the guy who says ‘Jump!’ when there’s a guy on top of a building who says, ‘That’s it, I can’t take it anymore, I’m going to jump,” he said. “Are you kidding? Why are you announcing it? Shut the fuck up, have some dignity and jump!” Should you have any sympathy for Simmons left, get ready to have it annihilated. During an epic, half hour interview with NPR’s Terry Gross, the 66-year-old (born Chaim Witz) quickly got off the wrong foot with the host, waxing on about how much money he has. It gets much worse when Simmons remarks to Gross, “The notion is that if you want to welcome me with open arms, I'm afraid you're also going to have to welcome me with open legs.” Gross is having none of his forced bravado. “That's a really obnoxious thing to say,” she says. It’s actually difficult to say what is the most awkward part of the interview, when Simmons offers Terry Gross suggestions about how to fix NPR or when he starts mansplaining why she’s so uncomfortable with the interview. “What bothers you is you're finally hearing a man tell the truth, instead of ‘You're the only one I'll ever live with and you're the …,” he says. “He's lying. He's lied ever since he was twelve.” Even better, he ends the interview by acting as her savior. “I'd like to think that the boring lady who's talking to me now is a lot sexier and more interesting than the one who's doing NPR,” he continues, “You know, studious and reserved, and… I bet you're a lot of fun at a party.” She doesn’t respond, but her exasperated sigh is everything you need to know. 7. The Hall of Fame: Lou Reed There’s an old adage that you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but that apparently doesn’t apply to Lou Reed, as it’s difficult to find a journalist who has anything kind to say about him. The late Velvet Underground singer was known for being the king of all bad celebrity interviewees. The Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone once described Reed, who passed away in 2013 at the age of 71, as a “vile and bullying… misanthrope.” Mick Brown of The Daily Telegraph recalls that Reed repeatedly ignored him and stonewalled his questions while interviewing him in a New York restaurant. “He came in and sat down at the table and quite deliberately, it seemed, refused to engage with me,” he said. “He had a long conversation with the waiter, then with his manager; finally, after about 20 minutes, he turned to me and said: ‘Well, what's your first question?’” Brown got lucky: Lou Reed notoriously hated journalists and was known to verbally berate them during interviews. In a 2000 sitdown with a Swedish interviewer, Reed called the press “disgusting... pigs” and the “lowest form of life.” In other cases, he was known to simply hang up his telephone on reporters entirely—cutting off interviews mid-sentence.Promoting a movie is tricky, dangerous business. Just ask Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson, the “Fifty Shades of Grey” co-stars who were forced to pretend that they can stand the sight of each other in a series of awkward press interviews last year. The most awkward—by far—was a painful Glamour interview where the pair were asked questions by a series of floating heads on a talking iPad. Dornan is asked: “What are three words you would use to describe Dakota?” He responds, “Funny, talented, and caring.” Johnson is asked what words she would choose. “Oooh,” Dornan laughs, knowing her answer won’t be good. She hesitates before her co-star jumps in. “It’s supposed to be instinctual,” he scolds her. “Superb,” she finally says after a long pause. However, Henry Cavill seemingly doesn’t need anyone else’s help to tank his own interviews. The star of the cumbersomely titled “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” has been on a charm offensive to promote his upcoming film, which lands in theaters Friday. The problem is that his press appearances have been more the latter than the former—clumsy, off-putting, and increasingly painful. Jezebel’s Madeleine Davies offers a helpful rundown of a press tour that’s been a total “disaster.” Cavill has repeatedly reminded everyone that he doesn’t care about what he’s doing, he’s just in it for the money. “I’m not just doing this for the art,” he told Man of the World. “The money’s fantastic and that’s something which I deem… very important.” Such a remark would seem refreshingly honest if he didn’t go on and on about his lavish lifestyle (spoiler: he loves first-class!), casually lament that NO ONE RECOGNIZED HIM while he trotted around in Times Square, and refer to #OscarsSoWhite as “racist.” “Maybe the solution is to have more diversity in the members,” he remarked to Man of the World. “But does that mean we are saying that to have more black Academy members would result in more black nominations? Is that not racist itself?” As if to finish off Henry Cavill’s scorched earth campaign against, well, himself, he further told Britain’s The Sunday Times that there’s a “double standard” when it comes to catcalling. “I mean, if a girl shouts something like ‘Oi, love, fancy a shag?’ to me as I walk past I do sometimes wonder how she’d feel if a builder said that to her,” he said. “Although, of course, I wouldn’t feel physically threatened, as she might.” Cavill, however, isn’t the only celebrity known for giving awkward, uncomfortable, or even downright hostile interviews. He joins a long lime of celebrities journalists might want to avoid at all costs—especially if their name rhymes with “Mommy Pee Bones.” 1. Bruce Willis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqpjX... Spending time John McClane is no walk in the park. After shooting 2011’s “Cop Out,” Kevin Smith notoriously described his time on set with Bruce Willis as “soul crushing.” At the wrap party for the critically derided film, the “Chasing Amy” director summed up his time on set with Willis in a speech he gave to the cast and crew: “I want to thank everyone who worked on the film, except for Bruce Willis, who is a f*cking dick.” In his 2012 book, “Tough Shit,” Smith further called him “the unhappiest, most bitter, and meanest emo-bitch I’ve ever met at any job I’ve held down.” In an awkward interview while promoting “Red 2,” Willis shed light on why he’s sparred with everyone from Sylvester Stallone to Cybill Shepherd throughout the course of his 35-year career. The 61-year-old is known for appearing checked out during interviews (see: this zombie-like appearance on The One Show to push “A Good Day to Die Hard’), but this segment with Magic FM in the U.K. takes the cake. “Has any actor ever told you this, Jamie?” Bruce Willis asked Magic FM’s Jamie Edwards. “This part is not acting. The fun part is over. We’re just selling the film now. Sales.” The affable Edwards, attempting to be a good sport, responds, “How would you sell me the film then?” The actor, however, shoots down his attempt at offering an olive branch: “I wouldn’t. I’d slash my hooves.” As if that weren’t enough, Bruce Willis even broadcasts to Edwards how bored he is. “I can hardly keep my mind on this interview,” he remarks at one point. 2. Tommy Lee Jones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTzk4... When asked who their least favorite person to interview on the red carpet was, Joan and Melissa Rivers didn’t have to think before responding: Tommy Lee Jones. In 2013, HuffPost Live asked the famous mother-daughter duo about their worst celebrity interview was, and Melissa immediately shot back: “Tommy Lee Jones.” Joan added, “Oh, without question!” HuffPost asked the pair to elaborate on that assertion. “He’s at the top of everybody’s list,” Melissa continued. “He doesn’t want to be there. He’s unhappy doing the red carpet, and he is going to make everyone else around him just as unhappy in the experience. Joan Rivers summed the issue up nicely: According to the late comedienne, Jones went to Harvard and is “very impressed” by that accomplishment. “We all went to Ivy League schools,” she said. “Calm down.” Whatever Tommy Lee Jones’ hangup is, it’s easy to sense his disdain at interacting with the press. When discussing 2012’s “Men in Black 3,” Jones offers a series of terse, monosyllabic non-answers to interviewers’ questions. Fox 5 entertainment reporter Kevin McCarthy asked Jones, “What was the moment—when you got into this business—where you realized, ‘Oh my gosh, this is what I’m going to be doing for the rest of my life?’” Jones stares blankly, looking back and forth. However, Tommy Lee Jones isn’t just hostile toward interviewers—he’s gruff toward everyone. In a 2012 profile of the actor, Entertainment Weekly’s Anthony Breznican writes, “[H]is reputation for being one of the most fearsome men in Hollywood is well earned.” When Josh Brolin sent Tommy Lee Jones well-wishes from his ex-wife, Diane Lane, and Charlize Theron, both of whom had appeared onscreen with Jones, he merely said, “Oh-kay.” 3. Jesse Eisenberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AU2T... When it comes to Jesse Eisenberg, who was nominated for an Oscar for “The Social Network,” it seems art imitates life. In David Fincher’s film, Eisenberg plays Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, an entitled asshole with a superiority complex. It may not have tested the 32-year-old’s range much. In a 2013 interview for Univison, Eisenberg mocked and belittled reporter Romina Pugh (who, it needs to be said, seemed pretty ill-prepared for the interview). When Pugh refer to his co-star, Morgan Freeman, simply as “Freeman,” Eisenberg asks, “What are you, on a baseball team with him?” It only goes downhill from there. He later refers to her as the “Carrot Top of interviewers.” She responds, “I’m going to go cry now.” The actor says, “Don’t cry now. Cry after the interview is over. Otherwise it’ll look like I’m responsible for it.” As a cherry on an awful, horrible interview, Pugh asks Eisenberg to say her name into the camera (as the segment is titled “Say My Name with Romina Pugh”). He asks how she wants him to say it. She explains, “Like you’re trying to find me in a crowded place.” Eisenberg repeats her name softly. Pugh says, “That’s it? I would never hear you.” Her interviewee remarks that there’s a reason for that. “The thing is I didn’t want to find you,” he says. “I was hoping to stay alone.” Ouch. According to Pugh—who says she felt “humiliated” and “butchered” by the encounter—Eisenberg’s bad behavior didn’t stop when the cameras quit rolling. She later wrote in a blog post (which has since been removed), “I peeked around the curtain to ask Jesse about his neighborhood in New York (he lives a few blocks from where I used to live),” she writes, “and he immediately says, ‘You’re still here?’" 4. Harrison Ford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKWU... The “Force Awakens” actor has warmed up to interviewers in recent years, even dressing up in a hot dog costume for “Jimmy Kimmel Live” to promote J.J. Abrams’ “Star Wars” reboot last year. Ford, however, has long had a reputation for not being a team player. When speaking to Conan O’Brien for his 2010 film “Morning Glory,” Ford gave a notoriously weird interview in which it appeared that the 73-year-old was under the influence of something. At time, it seemed as if Harrison Ford had what Diane Keaton was having when she appeared on Stephen Colbert (read: lots of weed), but the appearance was more or less what we expect from actor—brusque and detached. When O’Brien asks if Ford would consider doing another Indiana Jones sequel, he mutters, “Maybe." Conan, ever a good sport, quips, “Well, kids, you have your scoop!” These incidents are pretty par for the course when it comes to Harrison Ford. When “Entertainment Tonight” asked about Episode VII back in 2013, Ford pantomimed having his mouth zipped up. The Chicago Tribune’s Luis Gomez once remarked that “getting reamed by the notoriously grumpy Harrison Ford is a rite of passage for entertainment reporters,” but the ever-crafty Ellen Degeneres once put Ford’s penchant for the monosyllabic to good use. Last year, Degeneres offered Ford $1,000 to the charity of his choice for every question of hers that he actually answered. 5. Billy Bob Thornton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJWS6... In 2009, Billy Bob Thornton briefly became a meme after a hostile interview with now-disgraced CBC reporter Jian Ghomeshi. Thornton appeared on Q TV to promote his record with The Boxmasters, a country-pop band he formed two years earlier. The Academy Award-winner intentionally tanked the interview after Ghomeshi briefly name-dropped his acting career when introducing the group. He punished the host by refusing to answer questions and acting like a sulky teenager. When Ghomeshi remarks that Thornton “appears to be quite passionate about music,” the actor blows up. “Would you say that to Tom Petty? … Would you explain why it’s not a hobby?” Thornton then verbally berates Ghomeshi for going off-script, before adding: “We also said that we didn’t want to hear anything about this is my ‘first love.’ You wouldn’t say something like that to Tom Petty, would you? ‘I understand music is your first love.’ Well, my first love was a chick named Lisa Cohn.” The reaction from Billy Bob Thornton’s poor, long-suffering bandmates says it all. After the painful exchange finally concludes, the men resignedly skulk over to their instruments like Charlie Brown to play their set. 6. Gene Simmons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMpo... In the history of legendarily douchey interviews, Gene Simmons may just take the cake. Perhaps that’s unsurprising to you. Simmons, the bass guitarist for KISS, made his fortune by painting his face and spitting blood onstage. He’s an epic, notorious a-hole who went on a media tirade in 2014 by burning nearly every possible bridge in a short span of months. After defending Mel Gibson and Donald Sterling, Simmons shared his thoughts on America’s immigration problem with HuffPost Live. “Learn to speak goddamn English,” he remarked. On top of being racist, Simmons showed that he’s a heartless sociopath. In an interview recorded around the same time, he told Songfacts that if you’re depressed and thinking about killing yourself, you should go ahead and do it. “I’m the guy who says ‘Jump!’ when there’s a guy on top of a building who says, ‘That’s it, I can’t take it anymore, I’m going to jump,” he said. “Are you kidding? Why are you announcing it? Shut the fuck up, have some dignity and jump!” Should you have any sympathy for Simmons left, get ready to have it annihilated. During an epic, half hour interview with NPR’s Terry Gross, the 66-year-old (born Chaim Witz) quickly got off the wrong foot with the host, waxing on about how much money he has. It gets much worse when Simmons remarks to Gross, “The notion is that if you want to welcome me with open arms, I'm afraid you're also going to have to welcome me with open legs.” Gross is having none of his forced bravado. “That's a really obnoxious thing to say,” she says. It’s actually difficult to say what is the most awkward part of the interview, when Simmons offers Terry Gross suggestions about how to fix NPR or when he starts mansplaining why she’s so uncomfortable with the interview. “What bothers you is you're finally hearing a man tell the truth, instead of ‘You're the only one I'll ever live with and you're the …,” he says. “He's lying. He's lied ever since he was twelve.” Even better, he ends the interview by acting as her savior. “I'd like to think that the boring lady who's talking to me now is a lot sexier and more interesting than the one who's doing NPR,” he continues, “You know, studious and reserved, and… I bet you're a lot of fun at a party.” She doesn’t respond, but her exasperated sigh is everything you need to know. 7. The Hall of Fame: Lou Reed There’s an old adage that you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but that apparently doesn’t apply to Lou Reed, as it’s difficult to find a journalist who has anything kind to say about him. The late Velvet Underground singer was known for being the king of all bad celebrity interviewees. The Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone once described Reed, who passed away in 2013 at the age of 71, as a “vile and bullying… misanthrope.” Mick Brown of The Daily Telegraph recalls that Reed repeatedly ignored him and stonewalled his questions while interviewing him in a New York restaurant. “He came in and sat down at the table and quite deliberately, it seemed, refused to engage with me,” he said. “He had a long conversation with the waiter, then with his manager; finally, after about 20 minutes, he turned to me and said: ‘Well, what's your first question?’” Brown got lucky: Lou Reed notoriously hated journalists and was known to verbally berate them during interviews. In a 2000 sitdown with a Swedish interviewer, Reed called the press “disgusting... pigs” and the “lowest form of life.” In other cases, he was known to simply hang up his telephone on reporters entirely—cutting off interviews mid-sentence.
