Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 831

Asian guys get to be sexy, too: Finally, TV gives me the romantic leads I’ve been waiting for

Guys, I’m in love with Josh Chan from “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” And the most amazing thing is, I’m not the only one. What’s not to love about him? He’s sweet, funny, has killer boy-band moves, and biceps for days. He’s the kind of guy that you give up a successful career and minimalist-chic apartment in New York City and move 3,000 miles for. At least that’s the conceit of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” And what’s more remarkable is its main character Rebecca Bunch (played by series creator Rachel Bloom), who is a white Jewish lawyer, does it all for an Asian dude. Television these days seems to finally be learning what I’ve always known (I was raised on Jet Li movies and had an early crush on Shang in “Mulan”): that Asian men are hot. Between Josh Chan (played by Vincent Rodriguez III), Steven Yuen’s Glenn in “The Walking Dead,” and Aziz Ansari’s Dev in “Master of None,” it seems that Asian men on television are finally getting what they’ve been denied in American entertainment for so long: they’re getting laid. And that’s not counting the Asian leading men with wives such as in “Fresh Off the Boat” and “Dr. Ken.” When John Cho appeared as the male romantic lead in the very short-lived sitcom “Selfie,” in 2014, much was written about what a revolutionary casting move it was. For so long, Asian men have been the asexual sidekick, a comic punching bag who hung out in the sidelines while the lead (usually a white guy) got all the action. Unlike Asian women, who have been objects of desire since the 1800s with "Madama Butterfly," Asian men have rarely been afforded the same treatment. (Not to diminish the fact that the sexual objectification of Asian women continues to be an issue in entertainment, when we’re not being white-washed.) Even when Asian men were the heroes in an American-made film, they never got the girl (how often did Jet Li or Jackie Chan get laid in their movies?). But with “Selfie,” here was an Asian man who was a main character, who was on the fast track to romance with the female lead, Karen Gillan’s Eliza, before the show was cancelled. While Cho’s character was revolutionary, he wasn’t an anomaly. Yuen’s Glenn has had a girlfriend on “The Walking Dead” since 2011 (and he was considered by the show’s former executive producer, Glen Mazzara, as “the heart of the show.”) Cho and Yuen have ushered in the long-awaited era of the multifaceted Asian leading man. After all, Asian men aren't all accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers (sorry to disappoint, Chris Rock). These men aren’t dweebly, kind of misogynist scientists (I’m looking at you Raj from “Big Bang Theory”), or smartass computer programmers who can write code but can’t read women (“Silicon Valley”’s Dinesh), or whatever the hell Han Lee is in “Two Broke Girls.” And in the case of Rodriguez’s laid-back and unambitious Josh, they aren’t academic overachievers. They’re also not any of the types laid out in E. Alex Jung’s 2014 Vulture analysis of Asian men on television. What these men have in common is that they are charming, funny, caring, badass, and (this is the most important part) sexy as hell. They’re the heroes in their respective stories (Rebecca in “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” called Josh her prince last week). And they’re not afraid to be in-your-face about their sexuality. “Master of None” opened in a way that was a first for American television: it opened on an Asian man having sex. And not awkward, fumbling sex but vigorous, bed-shaking sex that breaks a condom. That’s not the only action that Ansari’s Dev has on the show. In the episode “The Other Man,” Dev gets to bang a character played by Claire Danes not once, but twice! The episode “Mornings” is equal parts romance, cutesy banter, and sex between him and Noël Wells’s character Rachel. Ansari and show co-creator Alan Yang deserved that Critic’s Choice Award not just because “Master of None” is a genuinely funny portrayal of modern millennial life, but because it dared to show an Asian man being fuckable. But a man’s sexiness isn’t dependent on how many women he beds. Rodriguez’s Josh is a ladies' man, but he’s also supportive and caring. “Josh represents the kind of undying, unconditional love [Rebecca] never got from her own family,” Rachel Bloom recently told Buzzfeed. In the most recent episode of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,” Josh was torn between longtime girlfriend Valencia, a hot and skinny yoga instructor, and Rebecca (who he had just kissed). And he approached the decision in a way that wasn’t stereotypically Asian or macho-male. He did the honorable thing: he came clean with Valencia and has decided to stay with her, despite his growing feelings for Rebecca. Because while he is a bro, he’s not a typical emotionally stunted man who can’t talk about his feelings; he has a good heart and a conscience, and treats the women in his life with honesty and respect. All of the men mentioned in this article do. And even though these characters are Asians, it’s a non-issue. Their ethnic identity is touched upon, such as in the “Master of None” episode “Indians on TV” or in the “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” episode “My First Thanksgiving with Josh!,” as background information. Being Asian doesn’t define who they are or why they’re on the show. In other words, they don’t act in a stereotypical way. There’s no agonizing about loving non-Asian women, no insecurities about their value as a man, no scenes of parents pressuring them to be doctors or lawyers, and no one ever says the word “assimilation” (except on “Fresh Off the Boat,” but that’s what the show is about). Because the women who love these men don’t love them because they’re Asian. They love them because they’re great guys who just happen to be Asian. Because in real life, Asian men can be computer programmers, but they can also be easygoing bros or devoted fathers who can give their sons love advice (such as Randall Park’s Louis in “Fresh Off the Boat”). These men have sex and are loved by all kinds of women (and men, too). How else do you explain the collective freakout that occurred in November when it looked like “The Walking Dead” had killed off Glenn? It’s about time Hollywood realized that Asian men are as worthy of love and respect as any white man. With the news that “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” has received a second season, and “Master of None” will no doubt come back for a second season with a new love interest for Dev, there’s no doubt that Asian men will be allowed more humanity on-screen for the foreseeable future.  Guys, I’m in love with Josh Chan from “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” And the most amazing thing is, I’m not the only one. What’s not to love about him? He’s sweet, funny, has killer boy-band moves, and biceps for days. He’s the kind of guy that you give up a successful career and minimalist-chic apartment in New York City and move 3,000 miles for. At least that’s the conceit of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” And what’s more remarkable is its main character Rebecca Bunch (played by series creator Rachel Bloom), who is a white Jewish lawyer, does it all for an Asian dude. Television these days seems to finally be learning what I’ve always known (I was raised on Jet Li movies and had an early crush on Shang in “Mulan”): that Asian men are hot. Between Josh Chan (played by Vincent Rodriguez III), Steven Yuen’s Glenn in “The Walking Dead,” and Aziz Ansari’s Dev in “Master of None,” it seems that Asian men on television are finally getting what they’ve been denied in American entertainment for so long: they’re getting laid. And that’s not counting the Asian leading men with wives such as in “Fresh Off the Boat” and “Dr. Ken.” When John Cho appeared as the male romantic lead in the very short-lived sitcom “Selfie,” in 2014, much was written about what a revolutionary casting move it was. For so long, Asian men have been the asexual sidekick, a comic punching bag who hung out in the sidelines while the lead (usually a white guy) got all the action. Unlike Asian women, who have been objects of desire since the 1800s with "Madama Butterfly," Asian men have rarely been afforded the same treatment. (Not to diminish the fact that the sexual objectification of Asian women continues to be an issue in entertainment, when we’re not being white-washed.) Even when Asian men were the heroes in an American-made film, they never got the girl (how often did Jet Li or Jackie Chan get laid in their movies?). But with “Selfie,” here was an Asian man who was a main character, who was on the fast track to romance with the female lead, Karen Gillan’s Eliza, before the show was cancelled. While Cho’s character was revolutionary, he wasn’t an anomaly. Yuen’s Glenn has had a girlfriend on “The Walking Dead” since 2011 (and he was considered by the show’s former executive producer, Glen Mazzara, as “the heart of the show.”) Cho and Yuen have ushered in the long-awaited era of the multifaceted Asian leading man. After all, Asian men aren't all accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers (sorry to disappoint, Chris Rock). These men aren’t dweebly, kind of misogynist scientists (I’m looking at you Raj from “Big Bang Theory”), or smartass computer programmers who can write code but can’t read women (“Silicon Valley”’s Dinesh), or whatever the hell Han Lee is in “Two Broke Girls.” And in the case of Rodriguez’s laid-back and unambitious Josh, they aren’t academic overachievers. They’re also not any of the types laid out in E. Alex Jung’s 2014 Vulture analysis of Asian men on television. What these men have in common is that they are charming, funny, caring, badass, and (this is the most important part) sexy as hell. They’re the heroes in their respective stories (Rebecca in “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” called Josh her prince last week). And they’re not afraid to be in-your-face about their sexuality. “Master of None” opened in a way that was a first for American television: it opened on an Asian man having sex. And not awkward, fumbling sex but vigorous, bed-shaking sex that breaks a condom. That’s not the only action that Ansari’s Dev has on the show. In the episode “The Other Man,” Dev gets to bang a character played by Claire Danes not once, but twice! The episode “Mornings” is equal parts romance, cutesy banter, and sex between him and Noël Wells’s character Rachel. Ansari and show co-creator Alan Yang deserved that Critic’s Choice Award not just because “Master of None” is a genuinely funny portrayal of modern millennial life, but because it dared to show an Asian man being fuckable. But a man’s sexiness isn’t dependent on how many women he beds. Rodriguez’s Josh is a ladies' man, but he’s also supportive and caring. “Josh represents the kind of undying, unconditional love [Rebecca] never got from her own family,” Rachel Bloom recently told Buzzfeed. In the most recent episode of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,” Josh was torn between longtime girlfriend Valencia, a hot and skinny yoga instructor, and Rebecca (who he had just kissed). And he approached the decision in a way that wasn’t stereotypically Asian or macho-male. He did the honorable thing: he came clean with Valencia and has decided to stay with her, despite his growing feelings for Rebecca. Because while he is a bro, he’s not a typical emotionally stunted man who can’t talk about his feelings; he has a good heart and a conscience, and treats the women in his life with honesty and respect. All of the men mentioned in this article do. And even though these characters are Asians, it’s a non-issue. Their ethnic identity is touched upon, such as in the “Master of None” episode “Indians on TV” or in the “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” episode “My First Thanksgiving with Josh!,” as background information. Being Asian doesn’t define who they are or why they’re on the show. In other words, they don’t act in a stereotypical way. There’s no agonizing about loving non-Asian women, no insecurities about their value as a man, no scenes of parents pressuring them to be doctors or lawyers, and no one ever says the word “assimilation” (except on “Fresh Off the Boat,” but that’s what the show is about). Because the women who love these men don’t love them because they’re Asian. They love them because they’re great guys who just happen to be Asian. Because in real life, Asian men can be computer programmers, but they can also be easygoing bros or devoted fathers who can give their sons love advice (such as Randall Park’s Louis in “Fresh Off the Boat”). These men have sex and are loved by all kinds of women (and men, too). How else do you explain the collective freakout that occurred in November when it looked like “The Walking Dead” had killed off Glenn? It’s about time Hollywood realized that Asian men are as worthy of love and respect as any white man. With the news that “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” has received a second season, and “Master of None” will no doubt come back for a second season with a new love interest for Dev, there’s no doubt that Asian men will be allowed more humanity on-screen for the foreseeable future.  Guys, I’m in love with Josh Chan from “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” And the most amazing thing is, I’m not the only one. What’s not to love about him? He’s sweet, funny, has killer boy-band moves, and biceps for days. He’s the kind of guy that you give up a successful career and minimalist-chic apartment in New York City and move 3,000 miles for. At least that’s the conceit of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” And what’s more remarkable is its main character Rebecca Bunch (played by series creator Rachel Bloom), who is a white Jewish lawyer, does it all for an Asian dude. Television these days seems to finally be learning what I’ve always known (I was raised on Jet Li movies and had an early crush on Shang in “Mulan”): that Asian men are hot. Between Josh Chan (played by Vincent Rodriguez III), Steven Yuen’s Glenn in “The Walking Dead,” and Aziz Ansari’s Dev in “Master of None,” it seems that Asian men on television are finally getting what they’ve been denied in American entertainment for so long: they’re getting laid. And that’s not counting the Asian leading men with wives such as in “Fresh Off the Boat” and “Dr. Ken.” When John Cho appeared as the male romantic lead in the very short-lived sitcom “Selfie,” in 2014, much was written about what a revolutionary casting move it was. For so long, Asian men have been the asexual sidekick, a comic punching bag who hung out in the sidelines while the lead (usually a white guy) got all the action. Unlike Asian women, who have been objects of desire since the 1800s with "Madama Butterfly," Asian men have rarely been afforded the same treatment. (Not to diminish the fact that the sexual objectification of Asian women continues to be an issue in entertainment, when we’re not being white-washed.) Even when Asian men were the heroes in an American-made film, they never got the girl (how often did Jet Li or Jackie Chan get laid in their movies?). But with “Selfie,” here was an Asian man who was a main character, who was on the fast track to romance with the female lead, Karen Gillan’s Eliza, before the show was cancelled. While Cho’s character was revolutionary, he wasn’t an anomaly. Yuen’s Glenn has had a girlfriend on “The Walking Dead” since 2011 (and he was considered by the show’s former executive producer, Glen Mazzara, as “the heart of the show.”) Cho and Yuen have ushered in the long-awaited era of the multifaceted Asian leading man. After all, Asian men aren't all accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers (sorry to disappoint, Chris Rock). These men aren’t dweebly, kind of misogynist scientists (I’m looking at you Raj from “Big Bang Theory”), or smartass computer programmers who can write code but can’t read women (“Silicon Valley”’s Dinesh), or whatever the hell Han Lee is in “Two Broke Girls.” And in the case of Rodriguez’s laid-back and unambitious Josh, they aren’t academic overachievers. They’re also not any of the types laid out in E. Alex Jung’s 2014 Vulture analysis of Asian men on television. What these men have in common is that they are charming, funny, caring, badass, and (this is the most important part) sexy as hell. They’re the heroes in their respective stories (Rebecca in “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” called Josh her prince last week). And they’re not afraid to be in-your-face about their sexuality. “Master of None” opened in a way that was a first for American television: it opened on an Asian man having sex. And not awkward, fumbling sex but vigorous, bed-shaking sex that breaks a condom. That’s not the only action that Ansari’s Dev has on the show. In the episode “The Other Man,” Dev gets to bang a character played by Claire Danes not once, but twice! The episode “Mornings” is equal parts romance, cutesy banter, and sex between him and Noël Wells’s character Rachel. Ansari and show co-creator Alan Yang deserved that Critic’s Choice Award not just because “Master of None” is a genuinely funny portrayal of modern millennial life, but because it dared to show an Asian man being fuckable. But a man’s sexiness isn’t dependent on how many women he beds. Rodriguez’s Josh is a ladies' man, but he’s also supportive and caring. “Josh represents the kind of undying, unconditional love [Rebecca] never got from her own family,” Rachel Bloom recently told Buzzfeed. In the most recent episode of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,” Josh was torn between longtime girlfriend Valencia, a hot and skinny yoga instructor, and Rebecca (who he had just kissed). And he approached the decision in a way that wasn’t stereotypically Asian or macho-male. He did the honorable thing: he came clean with Valencia and has decided to stay with her, despite his growing feelings for Rebecca. Because while he is a bro, he’s not a typical emotionally stunted man who can’t talk about his feelings; he has a good heart and a conscience, and treats the women in his life with honesty and respect. All of the men mentioned in this article do. And even though these characters are Asians, it’s a non-issue. Their ethnic identity is touched upon, such as in the “Master of None” episode “Indians on TV” or in the “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” episode “My First Thanksgiving with Josh!,” as background information. Being Asian doesn’t define who they are or why they’re on the show. In other words, they don’t act in a stereotypical way. There’s no agonizing about loving non-Asian women, no insecurities about their value as a man, no scenes of parents pressuring them to be doctors or lawyers, and no one ever says the word “assimilation” (except on “Fresh Off the Boat,” but that’s what the show is about). Because the women who love these men don’t love them because they’re Asian. They love them because they’re great guys who just happen to be Asian. Because in real life, Asian men can be computer programmers, but they can also be easygoing bros or devoted fathers who can give their sons love advice (such as Randall Park’s Louis in “Fresh Off the Boat”). These men have sex and are loved by all kinds of women (and men, too). How else do you explain the collective freakout that occurred in November when it looked like “The Walking Dead” had killed off Glenn? It’s about time Hollywood realized that Asian men are as worthy of love and respect as any white man. With the news that “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” has received a second season, and “Master of None” will no doubt come back for a second season with a new love interest for Dev, there’s no doubt that Asian men will be allowed more humanity on-screen for the foreseeable future.  

Continue Reading...

“Being a full-time author sounds great at cocktail parties”: Sean Beaudoin on his new story collection, and why he fantasizes about working at Starbucks

About six months ago, I was lucky enough to get an early look at Sean Beaudoin’s recently released story collection from Algonquin, "Welcome Thieves." Here is what I had to say upon my first reading: “Thrilling and mercilessly readable, the stories in "Welcome Thieves" go off like a string of firecrackers, sizzling and popping with a narrative velocity that is equal parts grit and polish. Beaudoin is definitely a writer to watch.” Having just opened a finished copy of "Welcome Thieves" this morning, I stand by those words. Sean has a verbal acuity and a narrative range that are rare among contemporary writers. Though I’ve been continuously impressed and amused by the wry observations and incisive cultural commentary he delivers regularly online at the Weeklings, and I was obsessed with his old advice column at the Nervous Breakdown, "Ask the Dust," nothing prepared me for "Welcome Thieves." There are lines and stories in this collection that I’d wished I’d written myself, which as every writer knows, is the ultimate compliment. I talked to Sean before our event together at Third Place Books in Seattle. We were tipsy. Here’s a transcript of our conversation, with the ums and hiccups edited out. Every one of these stories has a different pitch, a different vibe, and yet they all have something in common: narrative momentum. They’re all written with an impressive economy. Were the early drafts this sleek, or was this something you arrived at during the editing process? I've been revising/giving up hope on some of those stories for more than a decade. Every once in a while I'd pull one up on the laptop and do another draft, then stuff it away again. It's really only in the last few years that I started to feel like they were close to having arrived-- naked, dripping wet, stripped of all fat. Oddly, some of the newer ones seem to have the same effect without all the grind. Maybe I just figured out how to write. The rejections I got for the early versions hurt at the time, but it turns out they were pretty big favors. It’s always a good sign when a writer appreciates editorial input, good or bad. Thin-skinned writers are doing themselves and the rest of us a disservice. Even when it hurts, good input is such a great tool. As a guy who hasn’t written short stories in a decade, and probably will never write another (read: I never felt I was much good at them), I’m always fascinated by the process, from conception to execution. As a novelist, I usually begin with character, and that character has an arc, and that arc serves as sort of a vague blueprint for the novel. Talk to me a little about what you’re thinking when you sit down to start a story. In terms of editing, I completely agree. A lot of young writers will say, "I want you to be totally honest with me" when showing work to a friend or in class, but what they secretly mean is, "Tell me at length how much you love this and what a genius I am." I was certainly guilty of that sort of thing for a while. I think learning to receive criticism without being defensive or trolling for compliments is a vital muscle some people eventually develop and some don't. Sure, validation is great, but someone who is willing to dig into your dirt and find the little bones and roots and rotting leaves you've been glossing over draft after draft is a person who has earned being listened to without ego. Short fiction is so exacting that any reaction can be valuable, whether you agree with it or not. The funny thing about stories, though, is that you can show a collection to two people you respect, and invariably one will say, "Yeah, that one about the lime green Speedo? It rocked." And then the other will say, "You gotta lose the Speedo story, it's killing the collection." At that point I usually go for a few laps and then do what I was going to do all along anyway. When I read these stories, it seems they share a common voice, I recognize a certain flair for storytelling, but is there a “glue” to "Welcome Thieves" in your mind, a collection of themes, or moods, that holds them all together? A common authorial motive, or ambition, perhaps? Or does each one occupy its own conceptual universe, and adhere to its own unique logic? It's about relationships and how we inherently take from one another, emotionally and physically. Sometimes with malice. Sometimes because we don't know any better, completely unaware. It's about longing. For intimacy, for music, for the tiniest bit of recognition. It's about wanting to explode into something at full speed, expend yourself against an idea or a person or a concrete abutment. On the other hand, I think intention can be fluid. In a year it might seem like the glue is some other substance entirely. You mentioned that some of these stories had been around in one form or another for as long as a decade, and that some of them had been rejected time and again. That seems courageous to me. I've always been afraid to go back and look at any of my unpublished work prior to my "debut," "All About Lulu," which was actually my eighth or ninth book. In fact, I literally buried much of the work, and salted the earth. What was that like, resuming work that you began producing when you were a younger man? Obviously, you've grown as a writer in the interim, but then, did there also exist some qualities in that younger writer that you admired, and sought to recapture? What was it about these stories that convinced you that they deserved further exploration? Well, I have a 600-page crime novel on a disk somewhere that went unsold and will never be published. I haven't looked at it in many years, and probably never will again. So I totally understand the urge (necessity?) to just move on. Somehow it was different with these stories. Maybe it's obstinacy or self-delusion, but they nagged at me during the lonely Russian winters when I was working on other projects. I admire the discipline and stringency of a really solid story. The way it can deliver on a level that a novel often can't reach. I used to say in bars, to people only half-listening, that I wasn't giving up until I had at least one story under my belt that I didn't want to change a single line of. Not that I'd decided was finished but secretly knew wasn't very good, or kept submitting to journals with the hopes of wending through the slush instead of doing a dozen more drafts. I think stories and novels just exercise two different muscles, in the same way that writing is a solitary, antisocial pursuit but as an author you're also expected to be witty and charming at the podium. Maybe it takes 10 years of practicing scales to do both. Oh man, I hear that. I feel like I have to wear four different hats to make my living as an author—and I don’t even teach. If I didn’t naturally have an outgoing personality, and a crazy fast metabolism, and a steady diet of beer fueling me, I doubt I could sustain a living, or sustain my art at all. The touring and public speaking stuff, along with the general day-to-day engaging in the literary ecosystem stuff (like this interview), would exhaust me. I wouldn’t have any juice left for the writing, or my kids. At which point, I’d be happier going back to landscaping. But at the end of the day, I feel like the extraneous stuff is in service of the art. You have kids, talk to me about the juggling act of managing your art, your career and your family. I do sometimes fantasize about dropping the writing routine entirely and applying at Starbucks. To have set hours and funny co-workers and a repeatable list of tasks with an identifiable beginning and end would in many ways be a huge relief. Being a full-time author sounds great at cocktail parties and while surrounded by curious stewardesses, but the reality is that I work much harder, for more hours and less money than I have elsewhere. The highs of being paid for self-expression can definitely outweigh things like the promo circuit or reading snide comments about yourself on the Internet, but basically we're all narcissists and what else would we do? To loudly and repeatedly say, in a world where 100K books are published each year, "Listen to me! I've got some important insights and clever metaphors buried between obscure musical references that you really should read!" is pretty much indefensible. Which is just one reason why my next book is called "West of Forgiveness." Mainly, though, I feel incredibly lucky. Broken down to the smallest component parts: Playing with words is fun, and sometimes my sentences amuse people. Also, as far as I've seen, you only ever wear one hat, and you're really good at it. Yes, something I learned from Colonel Sanders: wear the same thing every day, and people will recognize you! He sells chicken, I sell books. We’re both shills. I think a lot of artists find the balance between art and commerce to be a tough dance. But when you’ve spent three decades systematically limiting every other viable financial option for yourself besides selling books for a living, and your kids need insurance, and clothing, and dolls that talk when you squeeze them, people might be surprised at how natural that dance becomes. And speaking of dances, I’m gonna end this thing by doing a dance you once did with me in a Weeklings interview. I’m gonna hit you with a rapid succession of questions, and I want you to answer them in 30 words or less. Beer or wine? Vodka-grapefruit. Ginger or Mary Ann? Mary Anne. I also preferred Kate Jackson to Farrah and Joyce Dewitt to Chrissy. Dogs or cats? Allergies Digital or wax? Glossy deep-groove 767 Lexington Hank Mobley fatwax.  Fanzines or websites? Nineties-era fanzines about either Danzig conspiracy theories, or how a smart staple-and-folder should sell their Xerox stock and invest in ARPANET. And one more—I’ll give you 50 words on this one. The single most valuable bit of advice you would give to an upstart writer with dreams of publication? Take anything but writing classes in college. Graduate or not. Get a crap job that allows you to work just enough to pay your rent while finishing that first novel. Put it away in a drawer. Backpack through Southeast Asia for a year. If it's worth coming home for, it's probably worth another draft.

Continue Reading...

Hate-watching Duke vs. Yale: It’s “Batman vs. Superman” for a-holes — not the game America wants, but it’s the one we deserve

As a child, Martin Shkreli fell asleep every night under posters of Duke basketball greats Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, and Bobby Hurley. I have no evidence to support the previous sentence, but I say it with no fear it could be wrong. As Tim O’Brien would say, “It’s true even if it didn’t happen.” Shkreli just seems like a Duke fan. The same sort of person who would look at a potential cure for AIDS and think, “Okay, but could it be more expensive?” would look at a beautiful artistic achievement like a basketball game and think, “I like it, but I wish it could favor wealthy people.” Duke is the cold sore on the mouth of college basketball. They fall over like fainting goats when a defender runs by them and ask the ref to bail them out. Their coach is a conservative Republican who looks like a cartoon gerbil wearing an Adolf Hitler toupee. Worst of all, of course, is that they’re exceptionally good, making it frustrating to hate them. But we know that. We’ve seen basketball, and we know the particular stench that the Duke White Devils make the rest of the nation smell. What we don’t know is how, on Saturday, Duke will cope with being arguably the most likable team on the court when they play the Yale Bulldogs. The Yale basketball team recently ran into controversy when their team captain, Jack Montague, was suspended from the school for alleged sexual misconduct. The team showed up to their next shoot-around with Montague’s nickname “Gucci” on their backs. They also had the name “YALE” written backwards across their jerseys to read “ELAY” presumably because they either think that the academic justice system is inverted or because want to brag about how good they are at Pig Latin. Montague strongly denies the accusations against him, and it would be wildly irresponsible to speculate on his guilt or innocence. Still, at Yale, not too long ago frat boys ran through the dorm halls chanting, “No means yes, yes means anal.” Even if they were joking, it means that a decent chunk of the male student body is okay with jokingly making female students think that consent is a polite suggestion. To be clear, Montague is in no way responsible for that. But he is presumably responsible for being a rational adult who willfully nicknamed himself “Gucci.” Who nicknames themselves “Gucci”? Assholes do. Rich, fashion-obsessed assholes. If you are nicknamed Gucci, fuck you. Duke vs. Yale is ultimately a clash between assholes. As a basketball fan, I can dismiss it as the NCAA favoring its least likable teams, but as an American, I can’t. America is going through a period of embracing the asshole. How else to explain the rise of Donald Trump? I call Donald Trump an asshole not because I disagree with him politically, but because he sells himself as an unrepentant asshole. My guess is that Donald Trump wouldn’t consider it an insult to call him an asshole, and not just because looking like a rectum would improve his complexion. He insults John McCain for getting captured by the Vietnamese, he calls the Chinese government “motherfuckers,” and he gives a casual “I’d hit that” joke about his daughter. And we love it because he is self-evidently successful. He’s a successful asshole so therefore success must mean being an asshole. Listen to Trump at the debates: His core message is “I’m good because I’m winning.” That’s not much different than his business model of “I’m successful because you’ve heard of me. My name is on the building, so therefore what I say must be true.” American society teaches that assholes make us safe. Assholes win, and we like winners, so why not love an asshole? We are clearly working backwards from a very poisoned finish line to find the fastest racers. Next week, America is going to plunk down $10 to $20 to watch Batman fight Superman. The drama of that story revolves around who wins in a fight between two immortals. Is it the bland alien or the rich kid with tremendous toys? But why do we like these guys at all? They both capitalize on their lineage and little else. Batman’s reason for being is that he saw his parents murdered as a child. But the actor who plays Batman is 43. If at 43, you are still consumed by the tragedy that happened to you when you were 10, then, I’m sorry, you’re kind of a bitch. Still, we associate with one of these superheroes because they tell us that they keep us safe. There aren’t two worse avatars of who we want to be than Duke and Yale. Duke’s star point guard trips players who are too athletic for him to guard and no one punishes him. Yet, as basketball fans, we are expected to like him because he plays for the “smart” team and “does things the right way.” We expect graduates of Duke and Yale to know what they’re doing, but the evidence of our public life proves they are as clueless as the rest of us. We have ceded to authority, even an authority we expect to disappoint us. So let’s enjoy the game as an artistic exercise. These are, whatever else we say about them, exceptional athletes playing a wonderful game. But let’s also remember that the fans of both squads are asking us to believe a very pernicious lie—that their talent is inextricably bound to their unlikeability, and that to be good, you have to come from a good family. It’s important to remember that the lie that the sports media tells informs the lie that the political media tells. Good luck to both teams. It is, of course, not fair that they bear the burden of their student bodies. I’m sure it will be a spirited, intense game on both sides. And let’s hope whoever wins, loses in the Sweet Sixteen by 50.As a child, Martin Shkreli fell asleep every night under posters of Duke basketball greats Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, and Bobby Hurley. I have no evidence to support the previous sentence, but I say it with no fear it could be wrong. As Tim O’Brien would say, “It’s true even if it didn’t happen.” Shkreli just seems like a Duke fan. The same sort of person who would look at a potential cure for AIDS and think, “Okay, but could it be more expensive?” would look at a beautiful artistic achievement like a basketball game and think, “I like it, but I wish it could favor wealthy people.” Duke is the cold sore on the mouth of college basketball. They fall over like fainting goats when a defender runs by them and ask the ref to bail them out. Their coach is a conservative Republican who looks like a cartoon gerbil wearing an Adolf Hitler toupee. Worst of all, of course, is that they’re exceptionally good, making it frustrating to hate them. But we know that. We’ve seen basketball, and we know the particular stench that the Duke White Devils make the rest of the nation smell. What we don’t know is how, on Saturday, Duke will cope with being arguably the most likable team on the court when they play the Yale Bulldogs. The Yale basketball team recently ran into controversy when their team captain, Jack Montague, was suspended from the school for alleged sexual misconduct. The team showed up to their next shoot-around with Montague’s nickname “Gucci” on their backs. They also had the name “YALE” written backwards across their jerseys to read “ELAY” presumably because they either think that the academic justice system is inverted or because want to brag about how good they are at Pig Latin. Montague strongly denies the accusations against him, and it would be wildly irresponsible to speculate on his guilt or innocence. Still, at Yale, not too long ago frat boys ran through the dorm halls chanting, “No means yes, yes means anal.” Even if they were joking, it means that a decent chunk of the male student body is okay with jokingly making female students think that consent is a polite suggestion. To be clear, Montague is in no way responsible for that. But he is presumably responsible for being a rational adult who willfully nicknamed himself “Gucci.” Who nicknames themselves “Gucci”? Assholes do. Rich, fashion-obsessed assholes. If you are nicknamed Gucci, fuck you. Duke vs. Yale is ultimately a clash between assholes. As a basketball fan, I can dismiss it as the NCAA favoring its least likable teams, but as an American, I can’t. America is going through a period of embracing the asshole. How else to explain the rise of Donald Trump? I call Donald Trump an asshole not because I disagree with him politically, but because he sells himself as an unrepentant asshole. My guess is that Donald Trump wouldn’t consider it an insult to call him an asshole, and not just because looking like a rectum would improve his complexion. He insults John McCain for getting captured by the Vietnamese, he calls the Chinese government “motherfuckers,” and he gives a casual “I’d hit that” joke about his daughter. And we love it because he is self-evidently successful. He’s a successful asshole so therefore success must mean being an asshole. Listen to Trump at the debates: His core message is “I’m good because I’m winning.” That’s not much different than his business model of “I’m successful because you’ve heard of me. My name is on the building, so therefore what I say must be true.” American society teaches that assholes make us safe. Assholes win, and we like winners, so why not love an asshole? We are clearly working backwards from a very poisoned finish line to find the fastest racers. Next week, America is going to plunk down $10 to $20 to watch Batman fight Superman. The drama of that story revolves around who wins in a fight between two immortals. Is it the bland alien or the rich kid with tremendous toys? But why do we like these guys at all? They both capitalize on their lineage and little else. Batman’s reason for being is that he saw his parents murdered as a child. But the actor who plays Batman is 43. If at 43, you are still consumed by the tragedy that happened to you when you were 10, then, I’m sorry, you’re kind of a bitch. Still, we associate with one of these superheroes because they tell us that they keep us safe. There aren’t two worse avatars of who we want to be than Duke and Yale. Duke’s star point guard trips players who are too athletic for him to guard and no one punishes him. Yet, as basketball fans, we are expected to like him because he plays for the “smart” team and “does things the right way.” We expect graduates of Duke and Yale to know what they’re doing, but the evidence of our public life proves they are as clueless as the rest of us. We have ceded to authority, even an authority we expect to disappoint us. So let’s enjoy the game as an artistic exercise. These are, whatever else we say about them, exceptional athletes playing a wonderful game. But let’s also remember that the fans of both squads are asking us to believe a very pernicious lie—that their talent is inextricably bound to their unlikeability, and that to be good, you have to come from a good family. It’s important to remember that the lie that the sports media tells informs the lie that the political media tells. Good luck to both teams. It is, of course, not fair that they bear the burden of their student bodies. I’m sure it will be a spirited, intense game on both sides. And let’s hope whoever wins, loses in the Sweet Sixteen by 50.

Continue Reading...

Right-wingers still in denial about the Oregon militiamen: New video proves they were villains, not martyrs

Even though the occupation of the would-be militiamen who took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon ended a month ago with a whimper instead of a martyr-producing bang, that doesn't mean that the right-wing fringe isn't still trying to turn this into the next Waco, to be lovingly obsessed over to stoke their victim complex. Now new video out shows this issue is not going away anytime soon. Robert "LaVoy" Finicum did get shot after FBI agents ambushed the occupiers flagrantly left the protection of the wildlife refuge to drive over an hour away to a community meeting. He is a piss-poor martyr — a taxpayer leech whose supposed hatred of government didn't stop him from housing foster kids for money and then making those kids do unpaid labor on his ranch — but he's the only one they've got, so the fringe right has been riding his death as hard as they can in hopes of establishing themselves as the victims here. The hopes for turning Finicum into a martyr rest on the possibility that a couple of bullets that were fired by FBI agents, but did not hit him, before he reached for his waistband in what was a clear "reaching for the gun" gesture that led to the agents killing him. Originally, the militia movement pushed the notion that Finicum did not reach for his gun and was shot with his hands up. (No big surprise that an unsubtly racist movement would "borrow" the imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement's slogan "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" to argue that they're the "real" victims here.) That didn't pan out, as the FBI immediately released an aerial video showing that Finicum did reach for his waistband, where he apparently had a gun. So the narrative changed to arguing that the FBI shot before Finicum reached for his gun. Unfortunately for the FBI, there is some evidence for this. There's a Justice Department investigation into the possibility that not only were shots fired unnecessarily, but that FBI agents conspired to hide the evidence. Earlier this week, video from inside of Finicum's truck, filmed by militia member Shawna Cox, bolsters the argument that FBI agents took shots before Finicum reached for his gun. "Cox's video showed that one shot hit the truck's left rear passenger window as Finicum stepped out," Les Zaitz of the Oregonian writes. "At the time, Finicum appeared to have his hands at least at shoulder height." You can watch the video for yourself:   That said, this video does as much to damage right-wing militia cries of martyrdom as it does to bolster it. When combined with the aerial footage, it paints a picture of Finicum as someone who is violent and reckless at best, and quite possibly out to get himself (and possibly others) killed. When the video starts, Finicum is taunting the FBI agents, daring them repeatedly to kill him. Inside the truck the militia members discuss whether they can get away with just taking off, and it's clear that they are aware of the FBI's desire not to create martyrs, and see this as evidence that they can just get away scot-free. "We have kids in here," you can hear a woman, likely Cox, saying as they contemplate whether to take the risk that law enforcement is too afraid of bloodshed to open fire. Finicum then throws caution to the wind and takes off, not getting far before running his car into an embankment and nearly running over an FBI agent in the process. Overall, the impression you get from the video is that Finicum is somewhere on the scale between eager to get some violence going and outright committing suicide by cop. Everyone else in the car seems delusional, like they can't quite grasp this isn't an action movie where they, the heroes of their own story, escape unscathed. It's only when the truck crashes and the FBI agents kill Finicum that reality sets in, as one woman (the 18-year-old "kid" that Cox was referring to) screams her head off as the horror of what's happening sets in. So while the FBI agents likely did pull the trigger too quickly, overall, it's impossible for an honest viewer to conclude that Finicum is anything but the villain of this story, a man so lost in his delusions of himself as a revolutionary that he deliberately chooses to end this episode with violence instead of surrender. That he puts the life of a teen girl in danger while doing it only reinforces the sense that he was anything but a martyr. Not that any of this will slow down the attempts by fringe right wingers to continue building Finicum up as if he were a peaceful man cut down for no reason whatsoever, their version of MLK. What was clear from day one of this Oregon standoff was that its main purpose was creating martyrs for the movement. The FBI frustrated and denied that desire at every turn, refusing to escalate and making it clear, as the days went by, that the would-be martyrs weren't quite ready enough to die that they were going to start the violence. Denied the narrative that they were looking for, militia groups and their followers are going to try to pound Finicum into the mold of the innocent martyr, no matter how ill-suited his death was for the story. The sad truth is that right-wing terrorist and militia groups are likely not going away anytime soon. If anything, there will probably be a surge of this activity starting next year. Odds are increasingly high that the presidential election will be Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump and that Clinton will win. There's just no way that fringe right-wing groups will react well to seeing a candidate who speaks directly to their paranoia and racism lose to a woman. The sense that they need to "take the country back" and that they are being oppressed by feminists and people of color is going to be just as strong as it was under a black president. Possibly worse. The lesson here is that federal authorities need to be even more cognizant of the need to deny the movement its martyrs. There's no point in arguing whether or not an attempted vehicular assault by Finicum justified shooting first. The reality is that if they shot first, the FBI gave the right wing fringe the thread of justification for their victim complex that they will cling to for dear life. Overall, the FBI showed the value in restraint, and this incident shows why even letting go of it for a moment can cause the whole thing to unravel. Under President Clinton, the lessons about restraint over overreaction will only become more necessary.Even though the occupation of the would-be militiamen who took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon ended a month ago with a whimper instead of a martyr-producing bang, that doesn't mean that the right-wing fringe isn't still trying to turn this into the next Waco, to be lovingly obsessed over to stoke their victim complex. Now new video out shows this issue is not going away anytime soon. Robert "LaVoy" Finicum did get shot after FBI agents ambushed the occupiers flagrantly left the protection of the wildlife refuge to drive over an hour away to a community meeting. He is a piss-poor martyr — a taxpayer leech whose supposed hatred of government didn't stop him from housing foster kids for money and then making those kids do unpaid labor on his ranch — but he's the only one they've got, so the fringe right has been riding his death as hard as they can in hopes of establishing themselves as the victims here. The hopes for turning Finicum into a martyr rest on the possibility that a couple of bullets that were fired by FBI agents, but did not hit him, before he reached for his waistband in what was a clear "reaching for the gun" gesture that led to the agents killing him. Originally, the militia movement pushed the notion that Finicum did not reach for his gun and was shot with his hands up. (No big surprise that an unsubtly racist movement would "borrow" the imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement's slogan "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" to argue that they're the "real" victims here.) That didn't pan out, as the FBI immediately released an aerial video showing that Finicum did reach for his waistband, where he apparently had a gun. So the narrative changed to arguing that the FBI shot before Finicum reached for his gun. Unfortunately for the FBI, there is some evidence for this. There's a Justice Department investigation into the possibility that not only were shots fired unnecessarily, but that FBI agents conspired to hide the evidence. Earlier this week, video from inside of Finicum's truck, filmed by militia member Shawna Cox, bolsters the argument that FBI agents took shots before Finicum reached for his gun. "Cox's video showed that one shot hit the truck's left rear passenger window as Finicum stepped out," Les Zaitz of the Oregonian writes. "At the time, Finicum appeared to have his hands at least at shoulder height." You can watch the video for yourself:   That said, this video does as much to damage right-wing militia cries of martyrdom as it does to bolster it. When combined with the aerial footage, it paints a picture of Finicum as someone who is violent and reckless at best, and quite possibly out to get himself (and possibly others) killed. When the video starts, Finicum is taunting the FBI agents, daring them repeatedly to kill him. Inside the truck the militia members discuss whether they can get away with just taking off, and it's clear that they are aware of the FBI's desire not to create martyrs, and see this as evidence that they can just get away scot-free. "We have kids in here," you can hear a woman, likely Cox, saying as they contemplate whether to take the risk that law enforcement is too afraid of bloodshed to open fire. Finicum then throws caution to the wind and takes off, not getting far before running his car into an embankment and nearly running over an FBI agent in the process. Overall, the impression you get from the video is that Finicum is somewhere on the scale between eager to get some violence going and outright committing suicide by cop. Everyone else in the car seems delusional, like they can't quite grasp this isn't an action movie where they, the heroes of their own story, escape unscathed. It's only when the truck crashes and the FBI agents kill Finicum that reality sets in, as one woman (the 18-year-old "kid" that Cox was referring to) screams her head off as the horror of what's happening sets in. So while the FBI agents likely did pull the trigger too quickly, overall, it's impossible for an honest viewer to conclude that Finicum is anything but the villain of this story, a man so lost in his delusions of himself as a revolutionary that he deliberately chooses to end this episode with violence instead of surrender. That he puts the life of a teen girl in danger while doing it only reinforces the sense that he was anything but a martyr. Not that any of this will slow down the attempts by fringe right wingers to continue building Finicum up as if he were a peaceful man cut down for no reason whatsoever, their version of MLK. What was clear from day one of this Oregon standoff was that its main purpose was creating martyrs for the movement. The FBI frustrated and denied that desire at every turn, refusing to escalate and making it clear, as the days went by, that the would-be martyrs weren't quite ready enough to die that they were going to start the violence. Denied the narrative that they were looking for, militia groups and their followers are going to try to pound Finicum into the mold of the innocent martyr, no matter how ill-suited his death was for the story. The sad truth is that right-wing terrorist and militia groups are likely not going away anytime soon. If anything, there will probably be a surge of this activity starting next year. Odds are increasingly high that the presidential election will be Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump and that Clinton will win. There's just no way that fringe right-wing groups will react well to seeing a candidate who speaks directly to their paranoia and racism lose to a woman. The sense that they need to "take the country back" and that they are being oppressed by feminists and people of color is going to be just as strong as it was under a black president. Possibly worse. The lesson here is that federal authorities need to be even more cognizant of the need to deny the movement its martyrs. There's no point in arguing whether or not an attempted vehicular assault by Finicum justified shooting first. The reality is that if they shot first, the FBI gave the right wing fringe the thread of justification for their victim complex that they will cling to for dear life. Overall, the FBI showed the value in restraint, and this incident shows why even letting go of it for a moment can cause the whole thing to unravel. Under President Clinton, the lessons about restraint over overreaction will only become more necessary.

Continue Reading...

“Exposing plots to attack Mr. Trump”: The Lion Guard, a pro-Trump group, is tracking protesters online

A pro-Donald Trump group calling itself the "Lion Guard" (not to be confused with Disney's "Lion King" spinoff of the same name) is using social media to "identify and expose plots to attack Mr. Trump, Trump Supporters, and their rallies before they even can happen." Lion Guard's Twitter bio describes it as "an informal civilian group dedicated to the safety and security of #Trump supporters by exposing Far-Left infiltrators and saboteurs." The group's name is derived from a variation on the Benito Mussolini quote Trump retweeted in February that appears on the Lion Guard website: "Better to be a lion for a day, than a lamb for eternity." A March 15, post titled "Lion Guard is Born" explains that the group was formed after clashes between protesters and Trump supporters forced the cancellation of a Trump rally in Chicago on March 11. The post explains that the group's main objective is "to search out for any Anti-M.A.G.A. [Make America Great Again] social media account that is planning to infiltrate, disrupt, attack, or otherwise do harm to Mr. Trump, any Trump rally, or any Trump supporter." To that end, the Lion Guard has been trawling social media for posts from would-be protesters who plan to attend a Trump rally in Phoenix on Saturday, then posting the protesters' photos to the Lion Guard Twitter account and instructing followers to inform security if they spot the "saboteurs" at the rally. https://twitter.com/lionsoftrump/stat... The Lion Guard manifesto is careful to avoid any promotion of violence against protesters. While noting that the idea of a pro-Trump paramilitary organization is "not a bad idea," the Lion Guard says such violence would feed into mainstream media's anti-Trump narrative. The group sees its mission as "principally to observe and report these vandals to the proper authorities, not confront them with force."A pro-Donald Trump group calling itself the "Lion Guard" (not to be confused with Disney's "Lion King" spinoff of the same name) is using social media to "identify and expose plots to attack Mr. Trump, Trump Supporters, and their rallies before they even can happen." Lion Guard's Twitter bio describes it as "an informal civilian group dedicated to the safety and security of #Trump supporters by exposing Far-Left infiltrators and saboteurs." The group's name is derived from a variation on the Benito Mussolini quote Trump retweeted in February that appears on the Lion Guard website: "Better to be a lion for a day, than a lamb for eternity." A March 15, post titled "Lion Guard is Born" explains that the group was formed after clashes between protesters and Trump supporters forced the cancellation of a Trump rally in Chicago on March 11. The post explains that the group's main objective is "to search out for any Anti-M.A.G.A. [Make America Great Again] social media account that is planning to infiltrate, disrupt, attack, or otherwise do harm to Mr. Trump, any Trump rally, or any Trump supporter." To that end, the Lion Guard has been trawling social media for posts from would-be protesters who plan to attend a Trump rally in Phoenix on Saturday, then posting the protesters' photos to the Lion Guard Twitter account and instructing followers to inform security if they spot the "saboteurs" at the rally. https://twitter.com/lionsoftrump/stat... The Lion Guard manifesto is careful to avoid any promotion of violence against protesters. While noting that the idea of a pro-Trump paramilitary organization is "not a bad idea," the Lion Guard says such violence would feed into mainstream media's anti-Trump narrative. The group sees its mission as "principally to observe and report these vandals to the proper authorities, not confront them with force."

Continue Reading...

Bernie’s bold move: Sanders only candidate to skip AIPAC pro-Israel conference

Continue Reading...

Watch: Frustrated Bernie Sanders walks out on hostile TV news interview

I believe Donald Trump put it best in justifying skipping out on the subsequently cancelled Fox News debate originally scheduled for March 21: "How many times can the same people ask the same question?" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... It looks like Trump isn't alone in being utterly fed up with the seemingly endless campaign trail. Bernie Sanders abruptly ended an admittedly hostile interview with NBC affiliate KNPX, at the Twin Arrows Casino in Flagstaff, Arizona. Primary voting in the state will take place this coming Tuesday. If polls are any indication (remember Michigan?), Sanders' future in the state looks bleak. "We discussed his wife's recent visit to Tent City, his votes on gun legislation, border issues, and why he's optimistic about his chances in Arizona," the station said in a write-up of the truncated four-minute interview, glossing over the inherent bias in its reporter's hypercriticism of Sanders's congressional voting record. "You know what, my views on immigration are very strong," Sanders said, interrupted a question about his yes-vote on the so-called Minuteman Project. "It's very easy for Secretary Clinton to be going through the thousands of votes that I cast, but the truth of the matter is, of course to suggest that I'm sympathetic to minutemen or vigilantes is totally outrageous." In the station's words, "Then the senator abruptly ended the interview, saying our time was up." The interview was conducted on Friday and set to air on Sunday. The video tells the whole story: I believe Donald Trump put it best in justifying skipping out on the subsequently cancelled Fox News debate originally scheduled for March 21: "How many times can the same people ask the same question?" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... It looks like Trump isn't alone in being utterly fed up with the seemingly endless campaign trail. Bernie Sanders abruptly ended an admittedly hostile interview with NBC affiliate KNPX, at the Twin Arrows Casino in Flagstaff, Arizona. Primary voting in the state will take place this coming Tuesday. If polls are any indication (remember Michigan?), Sanders' future in the state looks bleak. "We discussed his wife's recent visit to Tent City, his votes on gun legislation, border issues, and why he's optimistic about his chances in Arizona," the station said in a write-up of the truncated four-minute interview, glossing over the inherent bias in its reporter's hypercriticism of Sanders's congressional voting record. "You know what, my views on immigration are very strong," Sanders said, interrupted a question about his yes-vote on the so-called Minuteman Project. "It's very easy for Secretary Clinton to be going through the thousands of votes that I cast, but the truth of the matter is, of course to suggest that I'm sympathetic to minutemen or vigilantes is totally outrageous." In the station's words, "Then the senator abruptly ended the interview, saying our time was up." The interview was conducted on Friday and set to air on Sunday. The video tells the whole story:

Continue Reading...

The brewing Republican civil war heats up: Pundits, pols spar over their Donald Trump disaster

As Donald Trump drifts ever closer towards the Republican presidential nomination, an increasingly vocal GOP faction remains intent on testing Trump's prediction that "you'd have riots" if he's not the party's nominee. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson, who has positioned himself at the vanguard of the anti-Trump conservative movement, helped organize a gathering of Republican leaders in Washington on Thursday for the purpose of brainstorming solutions to that most vexing of questions: How can Trump be stopped? The same day, House Speaker Paul Ryan attended a secret meeting in Palm Beach, where Republican megadonors and GOP legislators pondered the same question. Possible answers include rigging the convention's rules to sabotage Trump, tapping Ryan or Mitt Romney at the convention as a last-minute "Republican Jesus," or adopting Bill Kristol's idea to rally the GOP establishment behind an anti-Trump third-party candidate in the general election. None of these options are particularly appealing, but then, neither is Trump. Trump's delegate lead, combined with the fact that it's taken anti-Trump Republicans until now to organize in earnest, has relegated folks like Erickson and Kristol to entertaining any available option. If you've got a better plan to stop Trump, they'd probably love to hear it. From the perspective of these anti-Trump Republicans, Trump has hijacked the pure conservative soul of their party and given voice to racists and xenophobes who "damage the brand" and have no place in the party — a group who Republicans have never courted at all, no sir. Whether you buy that or not, a real dilemma threatens to divide the Republican Party: whether to grudgingly cede the nomination to Trump or launch a potentially party-fracturing counterinsurgency that could invite the truly unthinkable — a Hillary Clinton presidency. The first salvos of this nascent civil war have come in the form of harsh backlash directed at anti-Trump Republicans like Erickson and Kristol. After Erickson floated the possibility of a third-party challenge to Trump, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich dismissed the notion out of hand:

"[T]hese people who the self-important definers of America, who are telling us about this fancy third choice, they make no sense at all. They ought to at least be honest and say to people: 'You know, I’d rather have Hillary Clinton than the Republican nominee.' Because that’s what they’re doing. They ought to just form 'Lost Republicans for Hillary' and be honest about the effect of what they’re doing."

Kristol fired back on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BillKristol/statu... Fox News has launched a sustained attack against Erickson and anti-Trump conservatives, as reported by Media Matters. No fewer than six Fox personalities spoke out against Erickson on Thursday. Stacey Dash called Erickson a "Benedict Arnold," while Sean Hannity called the idea of a third-party bid a "suicide mission" and a "circular firing squad." "I'm not going to go start a third party," said Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "I'm not going to try to blow up the Republican Party because I didn't get my way. I accept that in an election voters get to make this decision." True to form, Trump got into the mix on Twitter as well: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... This divide in the Republican Party is not going away.The intra-party bickering we've seen this week will only intensify until the Republican National Convention in July. Barring an unexpected surge from Ted Cruz, conservatives against Trump will face one of three options in Cleveland: (a) suck it up and back Trump; (b) try to back-door Trump out of the nomination; or (c) back a third-party candidate. For some, the convention will represent an opportunity to take a principled conservative stand against Trump. For others, the choice will come down to whichever option they believe has the best chance of blocking Hillary Clinton from the White House. Republican legislators facing credible Democratic challengers in November — or concerned about Trumpist primary challengers in the future — will have their own political calculus to consider when deciding whether to distance themselves from Trump. The idea of a unified Republican front in the general election seems farther-fetched by the day.As Donald Trump drifts ever closer towards the Republican presidential nomination, an increasingly vocal GOP faction remains intent on testing Trump's prediction that "you'd have riots" if he's not the party's nominee. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson, who has positioned himself at the vanguard of the anti-Trump conservative movement, helped organize a gathering of Republican leaders in Washington on Thursday for the purpose of brainstorming solutions to that most vexing of questions: How can Trump be stopped? The same day, House Speaker Paul Ryan attended a secret meeting in Palm Beach, where Republican megadonors and GOP legislators pondered the same question. Possible answers include rigging the convention's rules to sabotage Trump, tapping Ryan or Mitt Romney at the convention as a last-minute "Republican Jesus," or adopting Bill Kristol's idea to rally the GOP establishment behind an anti-Trump third-party candidate in the general election. None of these options are particularly appealing, but then, neither is Trump. Trump's delegate lead, combined with the fact that it's taken anti-Trump Republicans until now to organize in earnest, has relegated folks like Erickson and Kristol to entertaining any available option. If you've got a better plan to stop Trump, they'd probably love to hear it. From the perspective of these anti-Trump Republicans, Trump has hijacked the pure conservative soul of their party and given voice to racists and xenophobes who "damage the brand" and have no place in the party — a group who Republicans have never courted at all, no sir. Whether you buy that or not, a real dilemma threatens to divide the Republican Party: whether to grudgingly cede the nomination to Trump or launch a potentially party-fracturing counterinsurgency that could invite the truly unthinkable — a Hillary Clinton presidency. The first salvos of this nascent civil war have come in the form of harsh backlash directed at anti-Trump Republicans like Erickson and Kristol. After Erickson floated the possibility of a third-party challenge to Trump, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich dismissed the notion out of hand:

"[T]hese people who the self-important definers of America, who are telling us about this fancy third choice, they make no sense at all. They ought to at least be honest and say to people: 'You know, I’d rather have Hillary Clinton than the Republican nominee.' Because that’s what they’re doing. They ought to just form 'Lost Republicans for Hillary' and be honest about the effect of what they’re doing."

Kristol fired back on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BillKristol/statu... Fox News has launched a sustained attack against Erickson and anti-Trump conservatives, as reported by Media Matters. No fewer than six Fox personalities spoke out against Erickson on Thursday. Stacey Dash called Erickson a "Benedict Arnold," while Sean Hannity called the idea of a third-party bid a "suicide mission" and a "circular firing squad." "I'm not going to go start a third party," said Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "I'm not going to try to blow up the Republican Party because I didn't get my way. I accept that in an election voters get to make this decision." True to form, Trump got into the mix on Twitter as well: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... This divide in the Republican Party is not going away.The intra-party bickering we've seen this week will only intensify until the Republican National Convention in July. Barring an unexpected surge from Ted Cruz, conservatives against Trump will face one of three options in Cleveland: (a) suck it up and back Trump; (b) try to back-door Trump out of the nomination; or (c) back a third-party candidate. For some, the convention will represent an opportunity to take a principled conservative stand against Trump. For others, the choice will come down to whichever option they believe has the best chance of blocking Hillary Clinton from the White House. Republican legislators facing credible Democratic challengers in November — or concerned about Trumpist primary challengers in the future — will have their own political calculus to consider when deciding whether to distance themselves from Trump. The idea of a unified Republican front in the general election seems farther-fetched by the day.

Continue Reading...

GOP SCOTUS obstructionism already beginning to crack: Illinois Republican calls on his colleagues to “man up and cast a vote”

Senate Majority Mitch McConnell may remain as steadfastly committed to GOP obstructionism today as he was the night of President Obama's inauguration, however, only two days after a Supreme Court nominee was named by the White House, it is clear that some of his Republican colleagues are not as committed to the anti-Obama at-all-costs strategy their leader has employed for years -- at least not in a tough election year. Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk is the first to break ranks and not only agree to meet with President Obama's selection to replace recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, Merrick Garland, but to call on his colleagues to do their jobs, stop refusing to even hold a hearing on Garland's nomination and “man up and cast a vote." Kirk, who is in a tough re-election battle against Iraq veteran and Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, made his comments during an interview on Illinois radio show "The Big John Howell Show" on Friday. Noting that the Garland, the Chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is a Chicago area native, Kirk said that he was "open to talking to him." “We should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out," Kirk said. Asked about his leadership taking a reflexive position of obstruction moments after Scalia's death was announced, Kirk called on them to at least consider Garland's nomination. “[J]ust man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes. Your whole job is to either say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ and explain why”: Kirk's comments come after Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley budged a bit from his earlier do-nothing position and agreed to at least meet with Garland this week. Majority Leader McConnell, of course, couldn't bother to meet with Garland and called him to tell him to not bother paying him a visit on the Hill shortly after Garland was announced as the nominee on Wednesday. "If I can meet with a dictator in Uganda, I can surely meet with a decent person in America," Grassley told CNN on Thursday, however, after two former Iowa lieutenant governors, one Republican and one Democrat, called out the senator's blatant hypocrisy on judicial nominations. “[T]his is not the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew," Sally Pederson, the Democrat, told the Huffington Post. Along with Republican Joy Corning, Pederson has formed Justice Not Politics, described as a "nonpartisan coalition [that] represents tens of thousands of Iowans who think courts should be free of political and financial influence." “You voted in favor of Iowa’s constitutional amendment that took campaign politics out of Iowa’s judicial system,” Corning said of Grassley during a press conference in Des Moines this week meant to pressure the Chairman into holding hearings. Every single Supreme Court nominee in the modern era has received a Senate hearing. Croning recalled a 2014 interview in which Grassley bragged about his vote as a state lawmaker to prevent political parties from nominating judges. “You express great pride in that vote, and I quote, ‘It was a very forward-looking thing to do what we did 50 years ago.’” “Throughout your career, Chuck, you have been a fair-minded, common-sense consensus builder,” Corning went on. “Refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy is none of those things.” Still, so far, Grassley is holding firm on his refusal to hold hearings even though he'll meet with Garland. Grassley admitted to CNN that with the increased public pressure it is "pretty hard to say no" to a meeting with Garland, but added, "I want to make it clear that the message we told him on the phone yesterday -- I will tell him face-to-face." A new poll out Friday shows that almost half of all Republicans want Garland to received a hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee, while one third oppose any hearings.Senate Majority Mitch McConnell may remain as steadfastly committed to GOP obstructionism today as he was the night of President Obama's inauguration, however, only two days after a Supreme Court nominee was named by the White House, it is clear that some of his Republican colleagues are not as committed to the anti-Obama at-all-costs strategy their leader has employed for years -- at least not in a tough election year. Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk is the first to break ranks and not only agree to meet with President Obama's selection to replace recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, Merrick Garland, but to call on his colleagues to do their jobs, stop refusing to even hold a hearing on Garland's nomination and “man up and cast a vote." Kirk, who is in a tough re-election battle against Iraq veteran and Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, made his comments during an interview on Illinois radio show "The Big John Howell Show" on Friday. Noting that the Garland, the Chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is a Chicago area native, Kirk said that he was "open to talking to him." “We should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out," Kirk said. Asked about his leadership taking a reflexive position of obstruction moments after Scalia's death was announced, Kirk called on them to at least consider Garland's nomination. “[J]ust man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes. Your whole job is to either say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ and explain why”: Kirk's comments come after Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley budged a bit from his earlier do-nothing position and agreed to at least meet with Garland this week. Majority Leader McConnell, of course, couldn't bother to meet with Garland and called him to tell him to not bother paying him a visit on the Hill shortly after Garland was announced as the nominee on Wednesday. "If I can meet with a dictator in Uganda, I can surely meet with a decent person in America," Grassley told CNN on Thursday, however, after two former Iowa lieutenant governors, one Republican and one Democrat, called out the senator's blatant hypocrisy on judicial nominations. “[T]his is not the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew," Sally Pederson, the Democrat, told the Huffington Post. Along with Republican Joy Corning, Pederson has formed Justice Not Politics, described as a "nonpartisan coalition [that] represents tens of thousands of Iowans who think courts should be free of political and financial influence." “You voted in favor of Iowa’s constitutional amendment that took campaign politics out of Iowa’s judicial system,” Corning said of Grassley during a press conference in Des Moines this week meant to pressure the Chairman into holding hearings. Every single Supreme Court nominee in the modern era has received a Senate hearing. Croning recalled a 2014 interview in which Grassley bragged about his vote as a state lawmaker to prevent political parties from nominating judges. “You express great pride in that vote, and I quote, ‘It was a very forward-looking thing to do what we did 50 years ago.’” “Throughout your career, Chuck, you have been a fair-minded, common-sense consensus builder,” Corning went on. “Refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy is none of those things.” Still, so far, Grassley is holding firm on his refusal to hold hearings even though he'll meet with Garland. Grassley admitted to CNN that with the increased public pressure it is "pretty hard to say no" to a meeting with Garland, but added, "I want to make it clear that the message we told him on the phone yesterday -- I will tell him face-to-face." A new poll out Friday shows that almost half of all Republicans want Garland to received a hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee, while one third oppose any hearings.

Continue Reading...

The SeaWorld sea change: Will the marine park’s about-face signal a shift in how we think about animal captivity?

I visited SeaWorld in San Diego as a kid; I loved it. Of course, I also remember loving Orky and Corky, the performing orcas at Marineland of the Pacific, SeaWorld’s less prestigious competitor in Los Angeles. From the standpoint of the 21st century, that park — once featured in an episode of “I Love Lucy” — was no doubt a dreadful place. (Marineland disappeared abruptly in 1987, after SeaWorld bought the whole operation and trucked out the animals in the middle of the night. Some of its structures sat moldering on the L.A. waterfront for almost 20 years.) Entirely too much of the pop-culture economy is built around the concept of “stuff kids love”; we ought to understand by now that ethical or healthful behavior demands something more than that. Like a whole bunch of middle-class American parents, and like pretty much everyone who saw the documentary “Blackfish” — which explored the 2010 death of a SeaWorld orca trainer named Dawn Brancheau, and a long history of alleged mistreatment of captive killer whales at SeaWorld and elsewhere — I wouldn’t take my kids to any of those places today. That feeling is certainly not universal; almost 6.5 million people attended SeaWorld’s three “oceanarium” parks in the second quarter of 2015, down only slightly from the previous year. But the effect of director Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s film and investigative journalist David Kirby’s 2012 book “Death at SeaWorld” (one of the film’s primary sources) on both SeaWorld’s public image and on how we think about captive marine mammals has been enormous. This week the SeaWorld story culminated in the company’s announcement that it will no longer breed orcas in captivity, essentially abandoning its longtime business model in the face of an enormous shift in public perception. That’s a testament to the enduring power of activist media, even in an era when it often seems impossible to attract attention to serious issues amid the rising tide of meaningless effluvia. But the true causes and true consequences of the SeaWorld shift extend well beyond marine amusement parks and charismatic species like killer whales. We are beginning to think differently about the relationship between our species and other species, and to move beyond the longstanding assumption that we hold dominion over the natural world and are free to keep animals captive for our entertainment, or for any reason we like. Will future generations look back on zoos, circuses, racetracks and marine parks the way most of us now view bear-baiting and dogfights? At first SeaWorld responded to “Blackfish” as all corporations do when faced with public disclosure of widespread malfeasance: It fought back, sought to change the subject and muddy the waters (ha ha), and made a series of far-reaching counter-allegations based on misleading half-truths or outright falsehoods. As David Kirby has said, it was among “the clumsiest, most ill-advised acts of corporate crisis management” since New Coke. And then, after making the situation markedly worse for itself instead of better, SeaWorld pretty much capitulated. In a series of decisions that Cowperthwaite calls “paradigm-shifting,” SeaWorld first announced last fall that it would end its “theatrical shows” featuring orcas, and then fired a bunch of its executives last month, after admitting that management had ordered employees to infiltrate animal-rights groups. This week’s announcement that SeaWorld would no longer breed killer whales in captivity was the capstone. As the 23 orcas who now live in SeaWorld’s parks die off, they will not be replaced. Companies do not abandon a business model that was immensely profitable for decades out of the goodness of their hearts. Killer whales performing amusing tricks, and soaking the first 20 rows of kids with seawater, was pretty much the SeaWorld brand. That brand is being dumped, or at least radically altered, out of dire financial necessity, and because the paradigm shift Cowperthwaite mentions has already happened in the hearts and minds of the public. Since “Blackfish” was broadcast on CNN in the fall of 2013 (followed by an Anderson Cooper special), SeaWorld’s stock price has collapsed, sparking a class action suit by shareholders. Net income was down more than 80 percent in 2015. SeaWorld has lost numerous corporate partners and sponsors; scenes set at the company’s parks have been written out of at least two major Hollywood movies, including Pixar’s upcoming aquatic odyssey “Finding Dory.” In a sign of what we might call SeaWorld’s conditional surrender, the press release announcing an end to the captive breeding program was jointly issued by CEO Joel Manby, the Humane Society of the United States and Cowperthwaite, the director of “Blackfish.” Perhaps not coincidentally, SeaWorld has pledged to donate $50 million to the Humane Society’s campaign against illegal whaling and seal hunting over the next five years. More radical animal-rights activists, like PETA head Mimi Bekhechi, have not signed onto this deal, and are now urging SeaWorld to transfer its orcas to open-ocean enclosures where they can have “some semblance of a life outside these prison tanks.” (No one believes that whales raised in captivity would be likely to survive if released into the wild.) As even Bekhechi would agree, the fate of SeaWorld’s last two dozen killer whales, pathological and psychotic as they well may be, is a footnote to the larger ethical and moral issues here. In effect, SeaWorld has done an ideological about-face, and now agrees with its most ardent critics that it’s not OK to keep these magnificent animals in artificial environments for our entertainment, no matter what excuses are offered about conservation and education. So why doesn’t the venerable San Diego Zoo, a few miles away, feel the same way about its lions and tigers and bears and exotic animals from all over the globe? It’s an entirely serious question, with no obvious answer. Where exactly is the dividing line between the animals we can imprison without guilt for our amusement and those we can’t? Epistemologically speaking, why is a whale different from a gorilla or a giraffe or one of those adorable little harvest mice my daughter used to watch for hours in the Mouse House at the Bronx Zoo? For the record, I would agree that the adorable mouse is different: It’s much easier to care for and isn’t likely to injure anyone, and it gives no obvious sign of knowing or caring that it lives in an unnatural environment. But I’m not convinced those are the right criteria in any general sense, or that I’m equipped to make those decisions on a grand scale. Much bigger questions are at stake here, such as what it means to be human and what it means to be an animal, and how we understand the relationship between those categories. This has been a long, slow evolutionary process, but there’s no doubt it has accelerated dramatically in the age of media activism and environmental catastrophe. Our growing sense that the natural world has obvious limits, and in many places faces imminent destruction, is clearly linked to our growing sense of ethical responsibility toward animals, and the revolutionary idea that they may possess their own version of the “inalienable rights” so memorably laid out by Thomas Jefferson. Zoos like the big reputable ones I just mentioned have long since rebranded themselves as nonprofit institutions aimed at conservation, education and species preservation. There’s no reason to doubt the sincerity and dedication of the people who work at those places, and in some cases captivity may be the final refuge for a wild species facing extinction. But that offers no escape from the central conundrum behind the zoo as an institution, whose lineage clearly extends back to the blood-sport royal menageries of the ancient world and the infamous collection of wild animals maintained by King Henry III in the Tower of London. (When it was opened to the public some years later, you could save on the admission price by bringing a cat or dog to feed to the lions.) Big metropolitan zoos with their pious exhibits about habitat diversity and their interactive Dora the Explorer displays are eager to assure us that they are nothing like SeaWorld. They have no kinship with the hundreds or thousands of unlicensed or unaccredited roadside zoos around the world where tiger cubs are tortured for photo-ops and injured or deranged animals languish in concrete pits. (If you were scarred by the Central Park Zoo in the early ‘80s, as I was, you know how recently such things existed in American cities.) They have no connection to the ugly heritage of cockfighting and dog-fighting and bear-baiting, that favored sport of Queen Elizabeth which is still known to occur in such ass-backward parts of the world as the tribal regions of Pakistan and Spartanburg, South Carolina. (That famous stage direction from Shakespeare’s “A Winter’s Tale” — “Exit, pursued by a bear” — may have been meant to invoke an actual bear.) It wasn’t as if the Elizabethans and every other premodern civilization that enjoyed watching animals and/or humans kill each other in public didn’t understand that such things were cruel. They weren’t actually stupider than we are just because they didn’t have Comedy Central. As Friedrich Nietzsche enjoyed telling his horrified 19th-century readers, the ancient world often understood cruelty as a virtue, or at least as an inescapable and instructive fact of life. In our own era we have turned that philosophical problem upside down: With the notable exception of Donald Trump (I’m going to resist that tangent, I swear), we now claim that we’re opposed to cruelty or that we have transcended it. Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t; I would say the evidence is mixed. Queens don’t routinely visit bear gardens these days, and the gladiatorial combat seen in reality TV does not typically end in death. We are clearly more aware of cruelty as a problem, and more conflicted about it. Even the most articulate defenses of zoos and aquariums, like this utilitarian argument by Michael Hutchins, begin by conceding that it’s morally unacceptable to imprison animals for our entertainment, and that the animals in question would be better off in the wild. (In other words, the San Diego Zoo's best argument is that it's less cruel than other zoos, and that its public benefits outweigh its immoral actions.) What the SeaWorld case tells us is that we remain willing to ignore cruelty, and to accept all kinds of flimsy excuses for it, until it is laid bare before us. That moment of confrontation is coming for the entire captive-animal industry, and sooner than we think.  

Continue Reading...