Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 860

The FBI’s disturbing iPhone offensive: What Apple’s kerfuffle with the government says about the future of privacy

Continue Reading...

Meet the queer, 24-year-old woman of color who was just elected to the Georgia House of Representatives

Park Cannon just won a seat in Georgia's 58th District — watch our video for more on her background and policies.

Continue Reading...

Rush Limbaugh attacks Pope Francis in Trump’s defense: “I’m surprised he isn’t on the campaign trail for Bernie Sanders”

Rushing to his preferred candidate's defense, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh was sure to rip Pope Francis during his show on Thursday, slamming the religious leader for daring to weigh in on American politics and mocking his suggestion that Donald Trump is not a Christian. "The Pope says that Donald Trump is not a Christian, because Christians do not build walls, they build bridges. Never mind that the Vatican is surrounded by a wall and we won't even talk about who built that wall," Limbaugh said according to Media Matters, repeating a nonsensical argument the Trump campaign has propagated to push-back against the Pontiff today: https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status... On Thursday, Pope Francis responded to a question about Donald Trump's comments about his Holiness' visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, accusing the Pope of being a pawn of the Mexican government who had become too "political." "We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt,” Pope Francis began before asserting that "a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel.” Limbaugh, who has never hesitated to criticize Pope Francis, jumped on the opportunity to hit the Catholic leader while defending The Donald and taking a swipe at Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. "Given the pope's political leanings I'm surprised he isn't on the campaign trail for Bernie Sanders," Limbaugh quipped. "But maybe Bernie Sanders is too far to the right for the pope":

Continue Reading...

“SNL” has Weekend Update trouble: What this behind-the-scenes story really reveals about the floundering fake news

It was interesting seeing this piece from Variety cross the Salon culture desk’s email inboxes this afternoon: “Why ‘SNL’ is Adding Breaking News to ‘Weekend Update’ (EXCLUSIVE)”. It’s kind of a revolutionary idea—“Saturday Night Live”’s satirical news segment “Weekend Update” predated “The Daily Show” and The Onion, but being weekly can’t offer even close the level of hair-trigger responsive comedy that those comedy institutions can. Is this going to be a new segment in “Weekend Update”? Is this an announcement of a new format? Well, it’s none of those things—indeed, it is barely news, despite the “EXCLUSIVE” stinger. With no offense meant to Variety or this article’s author Brian Steinberg—we’re all in the same business—this is a light story behind the scenes at “Weekend Update,” and not too newsy at all. But it is fascinating, on closer analysis, how much this article reveals about “Saturday Night Live”’s current dysfunction, papered over with the intention of making “Weekend Update” sound on the up-and-up. This is a piece that is designed to prove the satirical news segment is improving—but unwittingly (or, rather cleverly) offers an insight into the inner workings of “Weekend Update” that make it sound like the segment is doing worse than ever. Some background, if you are blissfully unaware of the comedy-nerd meltdown presently occurring around “Weekend Update”: Everybody (in the loose use of that term) hates Colin Jost. He was a head writer on “SNL” until late last season, when he was quietly demoted; showrunner Lorne Michaels admitted to the New York Times that “Weekend Update” wasn’t working; and as the Atlantic, EW, and the Daily Beast have dissected, Jost just isn’t a good anchor. He didn’t mesh well with either Cecily Strong or Michael Che, either; the segment that launched the careers of Tina Fey, Seth Meyers, and Amy Poehler—not to mention “SNL” icons like Norm MacDonald, Jane Curtin, Dan Aykroyd, and Chevy Chase—has become the weakest on the show. The Variety article is framed as if “Weekend Update” is making major changes or really revitalizing the segment. What that boils down to? Introductory riffs on things that happened the day of, like the Saturday night debates. Doesn’t sound all that revolutionary—and it’s especially unimpressive given that “SNL” routinely does a cold open on an extremely timely event and has wigs, costumes, and a script ready to go. What else are they doing to inject new life into “Weekend Update?” Well, says Dennis McNicholas, who is currently supervising the segment (and worked with Fey as head writer):

Indeed, the “Update” crew is doing more communicating these days,  said McNicholas, who has dismantled a longstanding routine. In the past, “Update” writers worked on their own “and pounded out fast lines.” Now there is more collaboration, he said, part of an effort to find ways to spur cross-talk between Che and Jost. In one instance, Che might start riffing on Donald Trump and racism, then pass things along to Jost, who continues talking on the subject.

Article author Steinberg observes diplomatically, “While many of the tweaks are taking place behind the scenes, they might be considered seismic by ‘SNL’ standards, as ‘Update’ is something of an institution.” Less diplomatically, I’ll add that explaining how two comedians might riff off of the same topic has a painful, bad-improv class vibe that makes me wonder how “SNL” has ever been funny. Adding to the "Weekend Update" Studies Comedy Writing 101 vibe, Steinberg shares an anecdote from Jost on advice the anchors recently received:

The two were the beneficiaries of some valuable advice that they have recently taken to heart. Bill Murray, the actor and former cast member, stopped by the “SNL” offices in the fall, and suggested the duo start reading the “Update” script together to each other. “You just might find something there,” Jost recalled Murray telling them. “It was very simple advice,” Jost said, but “it helps us find asides or ways we can help each other tighten our jokes, or punch them up with a phrase.”

It’s entirely possible that “Weekend Update” is improving. It is difficult to imagine how I’d conclude that from this piece, where the major players are apparently back to square one of joke-writing, trying to solve what might well be an unfixable problem. McNicholas goes on to explain that the reason that riffs are such a big deal is because Lorne Michaels doesn’t like interplay on “Weekend Update”—and of course, Michaels is the man who decided to keep Jost in the anchor’s chair and dismiss Strong, who co-anchored with Seth Meyers. The thinking behind that decision is still the real story of "Weekend Update." It was interesting seeing this piece from Variety cross the Salon culture desk’s email inboxes this afternoon: “Why ‘SNL’ is Adding Breaking News to ‘Weekend Update’ (EXCLUSIVE)”. It’s kind of a revolutionary idea—“Saturday Night Live”’s satirical news segment “Weekend Update” predated “The Daily Show” and The Onion, but being weekly can’t offer even close the level of hair-trigger responsive comedy that those comedy institutions can. Is this going to be a new segment in “Weekend Update”? Is this an announcement of a new format? Well, it’s none of those things—indeed, it is barely news, despite the “EXCLUSIVE” stinger. With no offense meant to Variety or this article’s author Brian Steinberg—we’re all in the same business—this is a light story behind the scenes at “Weekend Update,” and not too newsy at all. But it is fascinating, on closer analysis, how much this article reveals about “Saturday Night Live”’s current dysfunction, papered over with the intention of making “Weekend Update” sound on the up-and-up. This is a piece that is designed to prove the satirical news segment is improving—but unwittingly (or, rather cleverly) offers an insight into the inner workings of “Weekend Update” that make it sound like the segment is doing worse than ever. Some background, if you are blissfully unaware of the comedy-nerd meltdown presently occurring around “Weekend Update”: Everybody (in the loose use of that term) hates Colin Jost. He was a head writer on “SNL” until late last season, when he was quietly demoted; showrunner Lorne Michaels admitted to the New York Times that “Weekend Update” wasn’t working; and as the Atlantic, EW, and the Daily Beast have dissected, Jost just isn’t a good anchor. He didn’t mesh well with either Cecily Strong or Michael Che, either; the segment that launched the careers of Tina Fey, Seth Meyers, and Amy Poehler—not to mention “SNL” icons like Norm MacDonald, Jane Curtin, Dan Aykroyd, and Chevy Chase—has become the weakest on the show. The Variety article is framed as if “Weekend Update” is making major changes or really revitalizing the segment. What that boils down to? Introductory riffs on things that happened the day of, like the Saturday night debates. Doesn’t sound all that revolutionary—and it’s especially unimpressive given that “SNL” routinely does a cold open on an extremely timely event and has wigs, costumes, and a script ready to go. What else are they doing to inject new life into “Weekend Update?” Well, says Dennis McNicholas, who is currently supervising the segment (and worked with Fey as head writer):

Indeed, the “Update” crew is doing more communicating these days,  said McNicholas, who has dismantled a longstanding routine. In the past, “Update” writers worked on their own “and pounded out fast lines.” Now there is more collaboration, he said, part of an effort to find ways to spur cross-talk between Che and Jost. In one instance, Che might start riffing on Donald Trump and racism, then pass things along to Jost, who continues talking on the subject.

Article author Steinberg observes diplomatically, “While many of the tweaks are taking place behind the scenes, they might be considered seismic by ‘SNL’ standards, as ‘Update’ is something of an institution.” Less diplomatically, I’ll add that explaining how two comedians might riff off of the same topic has a painful, bad-improv class vibe that makes me wonder how “SNL” has ever been funny. Adding to the "Weekend Update" Studies Comedy Writing 101 vibe, Steinberg shares an anecdote from Jost on advice the anchors recently received:

The two were the beneficiaries of some valuable advice that they have recently taken to heart. Bill Murray, the actor and former cast member, stopped by the “SNL” offices in the fall, and suggested the duo start reading the “Update” script together to each other. “You just might find something there,” Jost recalled Murray telling them. “It was very simple advice,” Jost said, but “it helps us find asides or ways we can help each other tighten our jokes, or punch them up with a phrase.”

It’s entirely possible that “Weekend Update” is improving. It is difficult to imagine how I’d conclude that from this piece, where the major players are apparently back to square one of joke-writing, trying to solve what might well be an unfixable problem. McNicholas goes on to explain that the reason that riffs are such a big deal is because Lorne Michaels doesn’t like interplay on “Weekend Update”—and of course, Michaels is the man who decided to keep Jost in the anchor’s chair and dismiss Strong, who co-anchored with Seth Meyers. The thinking behind that decision is still the real story of "Weekend Update."

Continue Reading...

“Hookers for Hillary” doesn’t speak for all sex workers: “Presidential politics is not where we will find our liberation”

Sex workers may not be the target audience of the Democratic presidential candidates, but they are playing a role in this election season and making their voices heard, both with splashy media campaigns and behind the scenes. The organization Hookers for Hillary launched its appropriately splashy red, white and blue website last year to campaign for Hillary Clinton on a four-point platform focused on “protecting health care reform, foreign policy experience, support for agencies that protect public’s health” and “prevention of a return to supply side economics.” Now the group, organized by Dennis Hof, the owner of Nevada legal brothel the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Carson City, Nevada, is back in the news this week with a major profile in the Guardian exploring why some of these women are campaigning so ardently for Hillary. Brothel worker Hollywood told the Guardian, “Hopefully maybe people who were not really [political] followers before kind of looked into it and went, ‘Wow, this is big! What’s going on?’” One Hookers for Hillary member, Caressa Kisses, told the Huffington Post, “If you tell me you’re caucusing or voting for Hillary, I will give you a free lunch or 30 extra minutes to use however you like.” However, other sex workers were skeptical of their motives, finding them self-serving rather than truly dedicated to social change. Anna Saini, an advisory board member of Best Practices Policy Project, which works to “protect the rights of people who engage in commercial sex,” said that Hookers for Hillary in no way speaks for the sex work community. She told Salon that the group “sounds like a mouthpiece for the Ranch owner, Dennis Hof, who would support Clinton's campaign since a Sanders presidency has the potential to lift up his employees into a position where he would no longer be empowered to exploit their labor by taking approximately half of their earnings.” Saini went so far as to argue, “I'm certain Hillary Clinton has driven more people into the sex industry than any pimp or trafficker. The policies that Clinton proactively supported—pushing people out of public housing, dismantling welfare, discriminating against formerly incarcerated people—have produced economic circumstances that force people into survival sex.” Saini said that while Sanders is problematic, citing his views on reparations, “he's the candidate most committed to economic justice, an issue of vital importance to the sex work community, particularly survival sex workers who are economically coerced into sex work as a means to exist.” In fact, not all Bunny Ranch workers are pro-Clinton. Ashlen Reed, a legal escort at the Bunny Ranch, told Salon via email, “As someone who leans toward the left and has been involved in activism work for years, specifically related to anti-racist feminism, prisoners' justice, and sex workers' rights, I'm feeling the Bern. I don't think Hillary Clinton has any intention of helping us. It isn't that she's an evil lizard person, but that she lacks the knowledge of what it means to be truly marginalized and holds too much faith in capitalism as a place of change.“ Reed certainly has some solidarity among Atlanta strippers, who rapper Killer Mike tweeted last month were also supporting Sanders: https://twitter.com/KillerMike/status... Reed articulated her reasons for supporting the Vermont senator. “Bernie Sanders hasn't spoken on sex workers rights as far as I know and he may never. I do know, however, that he doesn't refer to ‘deviants’ (people of color) as ‘super predators,’ and his plans for accessible college education are more promising in serving as an ‘anti trafficking’ measure than the surveillance and criminalization of sex workers, who have reported police raids to do more harm than good. If you want to end ‘trafficking,’ you need to end room for capitalist exploitation, a gendered and racialized phenomenon. Being a nice white lady with good intentions doesn't help me as a sex worker, a woman, or anything else.” Reed admitted that “while I'm terrified of another Clinton presidency, I'm nonetheless proud of my bunny sisters for the work they're doing on Hookers for Hillary.” Caty Simon, a longtime escort and co-editor of the by-and-for sex workers blog Tits and Sass, told Salon in an interview that she’s “unenthusiastic” about both major Democratic candidates, but said, “I suppose that I’ll have to vote for Sanders because his policies are the best. I don’t see how any sex worker can truly support Hillary when in the early '90s the Clintons destroyed welfare as we know it and eroded social services in this country and supported policies which allowed for a lot more federal lockups of all sorts of people.” Simon was dismayed by the Hookers for Hillary campaign, telling Salon, “I have all the respect in the world for Nevada brothel workers, but when it comes down to it, they represent a very privileged section of the industry so I think it’s easier for them to ignore the fact that Hillary doesn’t speak for the marginalized and in fact has actually worked against them throughout her career.” As for why there aren’t more sex worker rights organizations endorsing candidates, several sources offered reasons why sex workers might be more focused on local rather than national politics. According to Simon, it’s largely “because the oppression of sex workers in terms of the criminalization of prostitution happens on a state level. Where sex workers should be most politically invested is in local and state campaigns and that’s where I think most of our activism rightly is.” Simon cited two successful local campaigns where sex work activism made a difference: the New York campaign to end the use of condoms as evidence of prostitution, and “the successful Louisiana campaign against registering sex workers for ‘crimes against nature’ and putting them on sex offender registry lists.” Explaining the specifics of how a law unfairly targets sex workers and endangers public health is easier, according to Simon, than dismantling long-held beliefs that sex work itself is problematic. “I think that when you try to butt heads with the taboo against sex work head on, we don’t do so well, but when we try to minimize the harm that happens to our community, we can make a case,” Simon explained. Of both Sanders and Clinton, Simon said, “it’s not like any of them would ever support us back. The very idea of prostitution is still anathema to a political campaign.” As proof, Simon cited David Vitter’s loss to John Bel Edwards in November in his bid for governor over reports that his phone number was found in the records of a Washington, D.C., madam. The accusation was explicitly used against Vitter in an Edwards campaign ad, whose narrator stated, “David Vitter chose prostitutes over patriots. Now, the choice is yours.” Similarly, Saini argued, “No sex worker organization worth their salt is making presidential endorsements. The fact is that no presidential candidate is standing up for the rights of sex workers or speaking on our issues. Presidential politics is not where we will find our liberation.” Sex Worker Outreach Project (SWOP), a 501(c)3 charity, is legally prohibited from endorsing candidates. SWOP’s communication director, Katherine Koster, told Salon that “sex worker organizations don’t frequently form political action groups to support candidates for political office, but they do lobby elected officials regarding introducing and supporting bills. I don’t think sex workers' issues have gained mainstream solidarity or interest based in a real way yet so I don’t think lobbying for a specific candidate is going to be possible.” She did note that sex workers aren’t necessarily Democrats by default. While “sex workers are more likely to be Democrats because of traditional Republican stances, a lot of sex workers are also Libertarians, and some sex workers are socially conservative Republicans,” explained Koster. They also don’t necessarily agree on the issues. Both Simon and Saini questioned one of Hookers for Hillary’s key points on their website, where they state, “Nevada’s mandatory testing of legal prostitutes for sexually transmitted diseases is a successful example of effective government regulation. While Republican candidates have questioned the need for agencies like Health and Human Services (HHS) & the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), the Bunnies applaud Hillary’s recognition of the fact that responsible government oversight is a key to protecting the public’s health from widespread disease.” Saini called this aspect of their campaign “particularly appalling,” since it’s “an oppressive policy that is universally opposed by sex worker activists.”  Siouxsie Q, a San Francisco-based sex worker and author of the San Francisco Weekly column “The Whore Next Door,” told Salon she’s undecided as to whom to support in the upcoming election, though she’s been active on the issue of healthcare, organizing a “Healthy Ho’s party” in 2013 to encourage fellow sex workers to sign up for Obamacare. Of the Hookers for Hillary campaign, she said that while she disagrees with their endorsement of the Nevada legal brothel system because “I do not believe it is a legalization model that has sex workers' best interest in mind,” it’s still “great to see sex workers engaging in the political arena.” Those looking for a political candidate running on a platform specifically focused on sex worker rights may have to wait a few years, but at least one sex worker is determined to make that a reality. Siouxsie Q says she’s “always been incredibly politically minded.” She started her podcast The Whorecast in direct response to 2012 state ballot initiative Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, because of its overly broad definition of sex trafficking, but she has bigger political goals in mind. “I firmly believe that sex workers deserve the same rights and protections as every other American, and that sex work has been my path to the American dream,” said Siouxsie Q. “I don't hear a lot of politicians, especially presidential candidates, addressing issues of my industry. So I hope someday to run for office myself. Maybe not president, but the voices of sex workers need to be a part of the political sphere, and Hillary has often said that she thinks every woman should run for office at some point. I plan to follow her advice someday.”Sex workers may not be the target audience of the Democratic presidential candidates, but they are playing a role in this election season and making their voices heard, both with splashy media campaigns and behind the scenes. The organization Hookers for Hillary launched its appropriately splashy red, white and blue website last year to campaign for Hillary Clinton on a four-point platform focused on “protecting health care reform, foreign policy experience, support for agencies that protect public’s health” and “prevention of a return to supply side economics.” Now the group, organized by Dennis Hof, the owner of Nevada legal brothel the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Carson City, Nevada, is back in the news this week with a major profile in the Guardian exploring why some of these women are campaigning so ardently for Hillary. Brothel worker Hollywood told the Guardian, “Hopefully maybe people who were not really [political] followers before kind of looked into it and went, ‘Wow, this is big! What’s going on?’” One Hookers for Hillary member, Caressa Kisses, told the Huffington Post, “If you tell me you’re caucusing or voting for Hillary, I will give you a free lunch or 30 extra minutes to use however you like.” However, other sex workers were skeptical of their motives, finding them self-serving rather than truly dedicated to social change. Anna Saini, an advisory board member of Best Practices Policy Project, which works to “protect the rights of people who engage in commercial sex,” said that Hookers for Hillary in no way speaks for the sex work community. She told Salon that the group “sounds like a mouthpiece for the Ranch owner, Dennis Hof, who would support Clinton's campaign since a Sanders presidency has the potential to lift up his employees into a position where he would no longer be empowered to exploit their labor by taking approximately half of their earnings.” Saini went so far as to argue, “I'm certain Hillary Clinton has driven more people into the sex industry than any pimp or trafficker. The policies that Clinton proactively supported—pushing people out of public housing, dismantling welfare, discriminating against formerly incarcerated people—have produced economic circumstances that force people into survival sex.” Saini said that while Sanders is problematic, citing his views on reparations, “he's the candidate most committed to economic justice, an issue of vital importance to the sex work community, particularly survival sex workers who are economically coerced into sex work as a means to exist.” In fact, not all Bunny Ranch workers are pro-Clinton. Ashlen Reed, a legal escort at the Bunny Ranch, told Salon via email, “As someone who leans toward the left and has been involved in activism work for years, specifically related to anti-racist feminism, prisoners' justice, and sex workers' rights, I'm feeling the Bern. I don't think Hillary Clinton has any intention of helping us. It isn't that she's an evil lizard person, but that she lacks the knowledge of what it means to be truly marginalized and holds too much faith in capitalism as a place of change.“ Reed certainly has some solidarity among Atlanta strippers, who rapper Killer Mike tweeted last month were also supporting Sanders: https://twitter.com/KillerMike/status... Reed articulated her reasons for supporting the Vermont senator. “Bernie Sanders hasn't spoken on sex workers rights as far as I know and he may never. I do know, however, that he doesn't refer to ‘deviants’ (people of color) as ‘super predators,’ and his plans for accessible college education are more promising in serving as an ‘anti trafficking’ measure than the surveillance and criminalization of sex workers, who have reported police raids to do more harm than good. If you want to end ‘trafficking,’ you need to end room for capitalist exploitation, a gendered and racialized phenomenon. Being a nice white lady with good intentions doesn't help me as a sex worker, a woman, or anything else.” Reed admitted that “while I'm terrified of another Clinton presidency, I'm nonetheless proud of my bunny sisters for the work they're doing on Hookers for Hillary.” Caty Simon, a longtime escort and co-editor of the by-and-for sex workers blog Tits and Sass, told Salon in an interview that she’s “unenthusiastic” about both major Democratic candidates, but said, “I suppose that I’ll have to vote for Sanders because his policies are the best. I don’t see how any sex worker can truly support Hillary when in the early '90s the Clintons destroyed welfare as we know it and eroded social services in this country and supported policies which allowed for a lot more federal lockups of all sorts of people.” Simon was dismayed by the Hookers for Hillary campaign, telling Salon, “I have all the respect in the world for Nevada brothel workers, but when it comes down to it, they represent a very privileged section of the industry so I think it’s easier for them to ignore the fact that Hillary doesn’t speak for the marginalized and in fact has actually worked against them throughout her career.” As for why there aren’t more sex worker rights organizations endorsing candidates, several sources offered reasons why sex workers might be more focused on local rather than national politics. According to Simon, it’s largely “because the oppression of sex workers in terms of the criminalization of prostitution happens on a state level. Where sex workers should be most politically invested is in local and state campaigns and that’s where I think most of our activism rightly is.” Simon cited two successful local campaigns where sex work activism made a difference: the New York campaign to end the use of condoms as evidence of prostitution, and “the successful Louisiana campaign against registering sex workers for ‘crimes against nature’ and putting them on sex offender registry lists.” Explaining the specifics of how a law unfairly targets sex workers and endangers public health is easier, according to Simon, than dismantling long-held beliefs that sex work itself is problematic. “I think that when you try to butt heads with the taboo against sex work head on, we don’t do so well, but when we try to minimize the harm that happens to our community, we can make a case,” Simon explained. Of both Sanders and Clinton, Simon said, “it’s not like any of them would ever support us back. The very idea of prostitution is still anathema to a political campaign.” As proof, Simon cited David Vitter’s loss to John Bel Edwards in November in his bid for governor over reports that his phone number was found in the records of a Washington, D.C., madam. The accusation was explicitly used against Vitter in an Edwards campaign ad, whose narrator stated, “David Vitter chose prostitutes over patriots. Now, the choice is yours.” Similarly, Saini argued, “No sex worker organization worth their salt is making presidential endorsements. The fact is that no presidential candidate is standing up for the rights of sex workers or speaking on our issues. Presidential politics is not where we will find our liberation.” Sex Worker Outreach Project (SWOP), a 501(c)3 charity, is legally prohibited from endorsing candidates. SWOP’s communication director, Katherine Koster, told Salon that “sex worker organizations don’t frequently form political action groups to support candidates for political office, but they do lobby elected officials regarding introducing and supporting bills. I don’t think sex workers' issues have gained mainstream solidarity or interest based in a real way yet so I don’t think lobbying for a specific candidate is going to be possible.” She did note that sex workers aren’t necessarily Democrats by default. While “sex workers are more likely to be Democrats because of traditional Republican stances, a lot of sex workers are also Libertarians, and some sex workers are socially conservative Republicans,” explained Koster. They also don’t necessarily agree on the issues. Both Simon and Saini questioned one of Hookers for Hillary’s key points on their website, where they state, “Nevada’s mandatory testing of legal prostitutes for sexually transmitted diseases is a successful example of effective government regulation. While Republican candidates have questioned the need for agencies like Health and Human Services (HHS) & the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), the Bunnies applaud Hillary’s recognition of the fact that responsible government oversight is a key to protecting the public’s health from widespread disease.” Saini called this aspect of their campaign “particularly appalling,” since it’s “an oppressive policy that is universally opposed by sex worker activists.”  Siouxsie Q, a San Francisco-based sex worker and author of the San Francisco Weekly column “The Whore Next Door,” told Salon she’s undecided as to whom to support in the upcoming election, though she’s been active on the issue of healthcare, organizing a “Healthy Ho’s party” in 2013 to encourage fellow sex workers to sign up for Obamacare. Of the Hookers for Hillary campaign, she said that while she disagrees with their endorsement of the Nevada legal brothel system because “I do not believe it is a legalization model that has sex workers' best interest in mind,” it’s still “great to see sex workers engaging in the political arena.” Those looking for a political candidate running on a platform specifically focused on sex worker rights may have to wait a few years, but at least one sex worker is determined to make that a reality. Siouxsie Q says she’s “always been incredibly politically minded.” She started her podcast The Whorecast in direct response to 2012 state ballot initiative Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, because of its overly broad definition of sex trafficking, but she has bigger political goals in mind. “I firmly believe that sex workers deserve the same rights and protections as every other American, and that sex work has been my path to the American dream,” said Siouxsie Q. “I don't hear a lot of politicians, especially presidential candidates, addressing issues of my industry. So I hope someday to run for office myself. Maybe not president, but the voices of sex workers need to be a part of the political sphere, and Hillary has often said that she thinks every woman should run for office at some point. I plan to follow her advice someday.”

Continue Reading...

Can legal weed save the newspaper business? Wait — what was the question?

To my way of thinking the most interesting character in the documentary “Rolling Papers” is not Ricardo Baca, the onetime music journalist who had a moment of micro-celebrity after the Denver Post named him the first “marijuana editor” in the history of American journalism. (I promise this whole column won’t just be stoner gags — but yes, I have known many unofficial “marijuana editors” in my 20-plus years in the business.) It’s the editor of the Post, Gregory Moore, who seized on the opportunity that legal weed presented to Colorado’s largest daily newspaper at a moment when that business model is perceived as dead or dying. Moore is a lifelong newspaperman of the old school, with a long track record as an editor and reporter covering politics, education and criminal justice in Boston, Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio, before coming to Denver. He’s a middle-aged African-American man who favors suits and ties and presents a genial boardroom demeanor. Compared to the clientele and proprietors of Denver’s strip-mall storefront legal-weed emporia, he’s a total square. If I were making a snap judgment about him based on first impressions (and all journalists, like other people, do that) I would guess that Moore is a middle-of-the-road Democrat who doesn’t smoke pot or approve of it, and is moderately uncomfortable with legalization and widespread public consumption. Maybe that impression is accurate, and maybe not. We don’t really get to know Moore in “Rolling Papers,” which is too bad. Director Mitch Dickman’s film performs an essential public service by following the first-ever foray into serious weed journalism, but it’s also a meandering journey that seems easily distracted by minor tangents. I know! Ha, ha. Anyway, Moore’s deceptive, dry sense of humor comes through during a meeting when he quizzes the Post’s editorial board about whether anyone will be “sparking up” during Easter Sunday services at Red Rocks, Denver’s outdoor amphitheater. His religion reporters seem mildly appalled by this notion, but Moore won’t back down. The combination of Rocky Mountain morning air, strong ganja and the word of the Lord, he muses. “What could be better?” That puckish spirit served Moore well when he grasped, pretty much before anyone else did, that marijuana legalization was something more than an unprecedented business opportunity, a new source of state revenue and an opportunity for law enforcement to pursue actual criminals instead of people who sold and used an herb. It presented a whole range of issues that newspapers are supposed to cover: It was a consumer protection story and a public health story. It was a story about regulation and bureaucracy, a story about the paradoxical relationship between state law and federal law, a story about shifting social mores and shifting standards of parenting. It was also a story, as the world soon noticed, about a product sold in a highly competitive marketplace that demanded informed and impartial criticism, just like movies or restaurants or hip-hop albums. Since Baca had covered the music scene in Denver for many years, Moore says in another of his dry moments, “I knew he was familiar with marijuana.” And yes, once Baca was installed as editor of the Cannabist, the Post’s free-floating supplement devoted to all things cheeba, he hired marijuana critics. Jake Browne and Brittany Driver became the first employees of a major American newspaper who were paid to get high during the workday. (Nope, not in the office.) Browne, a handsome skier-surfer type, is the casual, quippy critic whose prose is laden with pop-culture references. In his middling review of a locally popular strain of weed known as Flo, he observes, “If it were a re-run on TV, it’s an episode of ‘Friends’ that’s all Phoebe. Sure, it’s fun and light, but you really wanted a good Chandler zing.” OK. I guess. In a similar vein, he compares a “sativa-dominant hybrid” called Headband to “the Ultimate Warrior coming off the top rope and landing on Andre the Giant.” You would almost think this guy smokes a lot of dope and watches a lot of TV. Driver, who has built out a corollary beat as Cannabist’s reporter on pot use as it intersects with parenting issues — despite legalization, Colorado’s child protection authorities remain tetchy on this question — favors matter-of-fact, descriptive writing. Smoking a powerful strain known as Oaktown Crippler, she reports, removed all traces of social anxiety. “My agility remained intact throughout my experience and dry mouth was nowhere to be found.” A blend called Stevie Wonder, on the other hand, turned out to be “mild to moderate,” and “didn’t change the way I perceive time.” Whether that’s a recommendation is up to you, I guess. Then there’s Ry Prichard, the Post’s third critic (added later), who brings the deep weed-nerd science traditionally associated with your college roommate’s older brother’s strange friend, the self-taught genius who won’t shut up. I can barely work out what he’s talking about: “Larry OG is a hybrid consisting of the Lemon Larry OG mother plant and a SFV OG Kush F3 male that was created by The Cali Connection Seed Company. The Lemon Larry cut is a famed Southern California OG clone which is known for having more of a sativa effect than many OGs as well as a very citrus-heavy flavor palate.” So it gets you way baked, am I right? Irresistible as that stuff is, the central point raised by “Rolling Papers” is that Moore and Baca saw an opening for old-fashioned enterprise journalism, and readers have embraced it. They get plenty of complaints from older and more conservative Coloradans about too much pot coverage, Moore says, but it’s easily the most popular material they publish. Baca’s team has investigated a wholesale vendor who was selling chocolate bars (“edibles,” in pot parlance) that contained virtually no THC, explored the commercial explosion of medical varieties that deliver painkilling cannabinoids but don’t get you high, and have traveled to Uruguay to report on the first nationwide legalization in our hemisphere. They have interviewed dealers who still sell pot illegally, outside the state’s taxed and licensed shops, and have compelled authorities to regulate THC content after a college student visiting from Wyoming consumed a psychosis-inducing dose of edibles and jumped out a fourth-floor window. It’s an impressive record, honestly, and at a glance it appears that local papers in every significant American city with a legal marijuana industry have followed the Denver Post’s lead, or tried to: Seattle has the Pot Blog; Anchorage, Alaska, has Cannabis North. In Portland, where weed went legal just last month, the Oregonian is looking for a pot critic and reports “high interest.” Marijuana can’t save daily journalism; that's too much to hope for. But the drug that supposedly messes with your memory may have reminded us why we needed newspapers in the first place.To my way of thinking the most interesting character in the documentary “Rolling Papers” is not Ricardo Baca, the onetime music journalist who had a moment of micro-celebrity after the Denver Post named him the first “marijuana editor” in the history of American journalism. (I promise this whole column won’t just be stoner gags — but yes, I have known many unofficial “marijuana editors” in my 20-plus years in the business.) It’s the editor of the Post, Gregory Moore, who seized on the opportunity that legal weed presented to Colorado’s largest daily newspaper at a moment when that business model is perceived as dead or dying. Moore is a lifelong newspaperman of the old school, with a long track record as an editor and reporter covering politics, education and criminal justice in Boston, Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio, before coming to Denver. He’s a middle-aged African-American man who favors suits and ties and presents a genial boardroom demeanor. Compared to the clientele and proprietors of Denver’s strip-mall storefront legal-weed emporia, he’s a total square. If I were making a snap judgment about him based on first impressions (and all journalists, like other people, do that) I would guess that Moore is a middle-of-the-road Democrat who doesn’t smoke pot or approve of it, and is moderately uncomfortable with legalization and widespread public consumption. Maybe that impression is accurate, and maybe not. We don’t really get to know Moore in “Rolling Papers,” which is too bad. Director Mitch Dickman’s film performs an essential public service by following the first-ever foray into serious weed journalism, but it’s also a meandering journey that seems easily distracted by minor tangents. I know! Ha, ha. Anyway, Moore’s deceptive, dry sense of humor comes through during a meeting when he quizzes the Post’s editorial board about whether anyone will be “sparking up” during Easter Sunday services at Red Rocks, Denver’s outdoor amphitheater. His religion reporters seem mildly appalled by this notion, but Moore won’t back down. The combination of Rocky Mountain morning air, strong ganja and the word of the Lord, he muses. “What could be better?” That puckish spirit served Moore well when he grasped, pretty much before anyone else did, that marijuana legalization was something more than an unprecedented business opportunity, a new source of state revenue and an opportunity for law enforcement to pursue actual criminals instead of people who sold and used an herb. It presented a whole range of issues that newspapers are supposed to cover: It was a consumer protection story and a public health story. It was a story about regulation and bureaucracy, a story about the paradoxical relationship between state law and federal law, a story about shifting social mores and shifting standards of parenting. It was also a story, as the world soon noticed, about a product sold in a highly competitive marketplace that demanded informed and impartial criticism, just like movies or restaurants or hip-hop albums. Since Baca had covered the music scene in Denver for many years, Moore says in another of his dry moments, “I knew he was familiar with marijuana.” And yes, once Baca was installed as editor of the Cannabist, the Post’s free-floating supplement devoted to all things cheeba, he hired marijuana critics. Jake Browne and Brittany Driver became the first employees of a major American newspaper who were paid to get high during the workday. (Nope, not in the office.) Browne, a handsome skier-surfer type, is the casual, quippy critic whose prose is laden with pop-culture references. In his middling review of a locally popular strain of weed known as Flo, he observes, “If it were a re-run on TV, it’s an episode of ‘Friends’ that’s all Phoebe. Sure, it’s fun and light, but you really wanted a good Chandler zing.” OK. I guess. In a similar vein, he compares a “sativa-dominant hybrid” called Headband to “the Ultimate Warrior coming off the top rope and landing on Andre the Giant.” You would almost think this guy smokes a lot of dope and watches a lot of TV. Driver, who has built out a corollary beat as Cannabist’s reporter on pot use as it intersects with parenting issues — despite legalization, Colorado’s child protection authorities remain tetchy on this question — favors matter-of-fact, descriptive writing. Smoking a powerful strain known as Oaktown Crippler, she reports, removed all traces of social anxiety. “My agility remained intact throughout my experience and dry mouth was nowhere to be found.” A blend called Stevie Wonder, on the other hand, turned out to be “mild to moderate,” and “didn’t change the way I perceive time.” Whether that’s a recommendation is up to you, I guess. Then there’s Ry Prichard, the Post’s third critic (added later), who brings the deep weed-nerd science traditionally associated with your college roommate’s older brother’s strange friend, the self-taught genius who won’t shut up. I can barely work out what he’s talking about: “Larry OG is a hybrid consisting of the Lemon Larry OG mother plant and a SFV OG Kush F3 male that was created by The Cali Connection Seed Company. The Lemon Larry cut is a famed Southern California OG clone which is known for having more of a sativa effect than many OGs as well as a very citrus-heavy flavor palate.” So it gets you way baked, am I right? Irresistible as that stuff is, the central point raised by “Rolling Papers” is that Moore and Baca saw an opening for old-fashioned enterprise journalism, and readers have embraced it. They get plenty of complaints from older and more conservative Coloradans about too much pot coverage, Moore says, but it’s easily the most popular material they publish. Baca’s team has investigated a wholesale vendor who was selling chocolate bars (“edibles,” in pot parlance) that contained virtually no THC, explored the commercial explosion of medical varieties that deliver painkilling cannabinoids but don’t get you high, and have traveled to Uruguay to report on the first nationwide legalization in our hemisphere. They have interviewed dealers who still sell pot illegally, outside the state’s taxed and licensed shops, and have compelled authorities to regulate THC content after a college student visiting from Wyoming consumed a psychosis-inducing dose of edibles and jumped out a fourth-floor window. It’s an impressive record, honestly, and at a glance it appears that local papers in every significant American city with a legal marijuana industry have followed the Denver Post’s lead, or tried to: Seattle has the Pot Blog; Anchorage, Alaska, has Cannabis North. In Portland, where weed went legal just last month, the Oregonian is looking for a pot critic and reports “high interest.” Marijuana can’t save daily journalism; that's too much to hope for. But the drug that supposedly messes with your memory may have reminded us why we needed newspapers in the first place.

Continue Reading...

Craig Ferguson breaks down Donald Trump’s old tricks and why comedians need to “just f**ing deal with” p.c. criticism

Sometime ranter and champion monologuist Craig Ferguson has calmed down a little bit for his new show, “Join or Die,” a look at history that premieres on the History Channel Thursday night. But it’s not the usual genial look at august figures: The first few episodes consider subjects like Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face while hunting, and beloved old remedies like using leeches to bleed patients. “Join or Die” is structured like a game show in which Ferguson and three guests try to narrow down strange and glorious historical moments. "The format provides just enough structure to give it a distinct flavor and focus — it's not just a new Craig Ferguson talk show on a less moneyed network — without getting in the way of conversation," Robert Lloyd wrote in the Los Angeles Times. The native Scotsman very publicly became an American citizen during his decade hosting “The Late Late Show,” one of the stranger programs ever to have a regular run on television. Ferguson spoke to Salon from Los Angeles. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Your new show is called “Join or Die.” You’ve got that phrase tattooed on your forearm, don’t you? Yeah, I do! That was the way you thought about your American citizenship when you became American? It seemed like a fitting thing to do when I became a citizen. It’s a cartoon that Benjamin Franklin put in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 – it was the first symbol of the united colony that became, of course, the United States. So it had a historical significance. And also it looks really cool. So I thought, that’ll do nicely! Your American citizenship was a big deal at the time: You went to great lengths to get it. What does it mean to you now, in 2016? It’s an evolving thing, much like America itself. It’s a very kind of rah-rah, Fourth of July feeling when you become a citizen. It goes from being a very simple thing to something more complicated. I’m no less patriotic… But like any good and faithful belief, it questions itself. That’s good. So I hold it up to scrutiny – and in an election year that’s more prevalent. For everybody – not just for immigrants. I want to get into the show in a second, but since you’ve mentioned the election: Has that done anything to weaken your patriotism? Oh, absolutely not! My love of America isn’t like that. It’s not a romantic love, it’s what I am. It’s more like you’re a family member – it’s not my girlfriend. As I look around – there’s nothing new to me, I’ve been around American elections for a long time – I think what’s interesting is that I don’t know who’s leading who. If the politicians are leading the media or the media leading the politicians. I think it might be the second. And that I think is a development I find a little troubling. I don’t know what to do about it; I don’t have a solution for it. Looking at every single neuron of every single candidate… Is that a great idea? It might be! I don’t know if it is. Have you ever seen a candidate, either in the U.S. or the U.K., quite like Donald Trump? I think he’s a very singular individual. But it’s an old historical trick: Everybody’s trying to get us! Everybody’s trying to steal out stuff! We better be careful! That’s old as human beings… Caesar did that, every politician in history did that. Some of them have been telling the truth, some of them have been using it for their own political ends, and some of them have been doing both. So he’s a recognizable figure. But what he and Bernie Sanders, on the other side, are both endemic of is a grass-roots despair at the efficacy of the Washington administration. Let’s talk about “Join or Die” a bit. Your first few shows are about bad ideas from history – “Biggest Political Blunders” this week, “History’s Worst Medical Advice” next week. Are the dumb ideas from history more fun to go back to? Looking at mistakes is always fun in hindsight. In general it’s more fun to poke holes in things than aggrandize then. But there’s both [in the show]. Have you been interested in history for a long time? I think history, for me, is like psychotherapy for the entire human race. If you go through psychotherapy you look at your past, where you made mistakes, odd patterns you may repeat, and ways to repeat that in the future. That’s what history is – it’s psychotherapy on a massive group scale. Tell us a little about the guests you’ll be bringing on the show. There will be fewer movie stars than on a traditional late-night show, I think. Movie stars are not banned from the show, of course. The formula we tried to follow – this is a very loose formula: One expert on whatever subject we’re doing. There has to be someone there who knows what the hell they’re talking about at a fairly high level. Then, usually we have a comedian. Comedians tend to be very well informed, they think fast, and they tend to be very smart. Most of them are very well read. And then usually someone who surprised me with how cool and interesting they were when I interviewed them during the late-night years. Is doing this really different from your old late-night show? It really is. I think it owes more to the British radio and old American discussion panel shows. Late night deals with today—you’re dealing with right now. Our references are very topical, because we live in the world right now. But you’re talking about [history] – not necessarily your movie or TV show or whatever the hell you have coming out. Comedy can be about keeping people off balance. When people come on your show, do you want to make them comfortable or uncomfortable, or some mix of the two? In this show it’s about providing an environment for discussion. I suppose it’s a little of both: If someone says something a little odd or that deserves to be challenged, I’ll challenge them on it… I’m not hugely into mind games with anybody. I guess: I don’t really have anybody on this show who I don’t think can hang. Not too long ago there was a lot of talk about what “political correctness” was doing to comedy. Is it a real problem? Is your ability to range across topics limited by political sensitivity? No – it’s not. There’s a fair amount of waa-waa from comedians. If you say something contemptible and someone calls you a dick, then fuckin’ deal with it! OK? As long as the government doesn’t say, “You can’t say that,” then we’re OK. If someone calls you out on something you said, it’s not them trying to restrict your free speech, it’s them exercising their free speech. That’s what free speech is! I don’t think free speech is consequence-free for your feelings. If you hurt their feelings by what you say, and that person lashes out and calls you on it, OK! That doesn’t seem unfair to me! It’s fair game – that’s the way it works. If you make a joke about a group of people who are tired of having jokes made at their expense, and they complain about that – good! Good! That’s good that they complain about it! It doesn’t mean that you can’t do the joke. Do the fuckin’ joke! And maybe you think, “I never thought of it like that, I’m not gonna do that joke anymore” — that’s fine!Sometime ranter and champion monologuist Craig Ferguson has calmed down a little bit for his new show, “Join or Die,” a look at history that premieres on the History Channel Thursday night. But it’s not the usual genial look at august figures: The first few episodes consider subjects like Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face while hunting, and beloved old remedies like using leeches to bleed patients. “Join or Die” is structured like a game show in which Ferguson and three guests try to narrow down strange and glorious historical moments. "The format provides just enough structure to give it a distinct flavor and focus — it's not just a new Craig Ferguson talk show on a less moneyed network — without getting in the way of conversation," Robert Lloyd wrote in the Los Angeles Times. The native Scotsman very publicly became an American citizen during his decade hosting “The Late Late Show,” one of the stranger programs ever to have a regular run on television. Ferguson spoke to Salon from Los Angeles. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Your new show is called “Join or Die.” You’ve got that phrase tattooed on your forearm, don’t you? Yeah, I do! That was the way you thought about your American citizenship when you became American? It seemed like a fitting thing to do when I became a citizen. It’s a cartoon that Benjamin Franklin put in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 – it was the first symbol of the united colony that became, of course, the United States. So it had a historical significance. And also it looks really cool. So I thought, that’ll do nicely! Your American citizenship was a big deal at the time: You went to great lengths to get it. What does it mean to you now, in 2016? It’s an evolving thing, much like America itself. It’s a very kind of rah-rah, Fourth of July feeling when you become a citizen. It goes from being a very simple thing to something more complicated. I’m no less patriotic… But like any good and faithful belief, it questions itself. That’s good. So I hold it up to scrutiny – and in an election year that’s more prevalent. For everybody – not just for immigrants. I want to get into the show in a second, but since you’ve mentioned the election: Has that done anything to weaken your patriotism? Oh, absolutely not! My love of America isn’t like that. It’s not a romantic love, it’s what I am. It’s more like you’re a family member – it’s not my girlfriend. As I look around – there’s nothing new to me, I’ve been around American elections for a long time – I think what’s interesting is that I don’t know who’s leading who. If the politicians are leading the media or the media leading the politicians. I think it might be the second. And that I think is a development I find a little troubling. I don’t know what to do about it; I don’t have a solution for it. Looking at every single neuron of every single candidate… Is that a great idea? It might be! I don’t know if it is. Have you ever seen a candidate, either in the U.S. or the U.K., quite like Donald Trump? I think he’s a very singular individual. But it’s an old historical trick: Everybody’s trying to get us! Everybody’s trying to steal out stuff! We better be careful! That’s old as human beings… Caesar did that, every politician in history did that. Some of them have been telling the truth, some of them have been using it for their own political ends, and some of them have been doing both. So he’s a recognizable figure. But what he and Bernie Sanders, on the other side, are both endemic of is a grass-roots despair at the efficacy of the Washington administration. Let’s talk about “Join or Die” a bit. Your first few shows are about bad ideas from history – “Biggest Political Blunders” this week, “History’s Worst Medical Advice” next week. Are the dumb ideas from history more fun to go back to? Looking at mistakes is always fun in hindsight. In general it’s more fun to poke holes in things than aggrandize then. But there’s both [in the show]. Have you been interested in history for a long time? I think history, for me, is like psychotherapy for the entire human race. If you go through psychotherapy you look at your past, where you made mistakes, odd patterns you may repeat, and ways to repeat that in the future. That’s what history is – it’s psychotherapy on a massive group scale. Tell us a little about the guests you’ll be bringing on the show. There will be fewer movie stars than on a traditional late-night show, I think. Movie stars are not banned from the show, of course. The formula we tried to follow – this is a very loose formula: One expert on whatever subject we’re doing. There has to be someone there who knows what the hell they’re talking about at a fairly high level. Then, usually we have a comedian. Comedians tend to be very well informed, they think fast, and they tend to be very smart. Most of them are very well read. And then usually someone who surprised me with how cool and interesting they were when I interviewed them during the late-night years. Is doing this really different from your old late-night show? It really is. I think it owes more to the British radio and old American discussion panel shows. Late night deals with today—you’re dealing with right now. Our references are very topical, because we live in the world right now. But you’re talking about [history] – not necessarily your movie or TV show or whatever the hell you have coming out. Comedy can be about keeping people off balance. When people come on your show, do you want to make them comfortable or uncomfortable, or some mix of the two? In this show it’s about providing an environment for discussion. I suppose it’s a little of both: If someone says something a little odd or that deserves to be challenged, I’ll challenge them on it… I’m not hugely into mind games with anybody. I guess: I don’t really have anybody on this show who I don’t think can hang. Not too long ago there was a lot of talk about what “political correctness” was doing to comedy. Is it a real problem? Is your ability to range across topics limited by political sensitivity? No – it’s not. There’s a fair amount of waa-waa from comedians. If you say something contemptible and someone calls you a dick, then fuckin’ deal with it! OK? As long as the government doesn’t say, “You can’t say that,” then we’re OK. If someone calls you out on something you said, it’s not them trying to restrict your free speech, it’s them exercising their free speech. That’s what free speech is! I don’t think free speech is consequence-free for your feelings. If you hurt their feelings by what you say, and that person lashes out and calls you on it, OK! That doesn’t seem unfair to me! It’s fair game – that’s the way it works. If you make a joke about a group of people who are tired of having jokes made at their expense, and they complain about that – good! Good! That’s good that they complain about it! It doesn’t mean that you can’t do the joke. Do the fuckin’ joke! And maybe you think, “I never thought of it like that, I’m not gonna do that joke anymore” — that’s fine!Sometime ranter and champion monologuist Craig Ferguson has calmed down a little bit for his new show, “Join or Die,” a look at history that premieres on the History Channel Thursday night. But it’s not the usual genial look at august figures: The first few episodes consider subjects like Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face while hunting, and beloved old remedies like using leeches to bleed patients. “Join or Die” is structured like a game show in which Ferguson and three guests try to narrow down strange and glorious historical moments. "The format provides just enough structure to give it a distinct flavor and focus — it's not just a new Craig Ferguson talk show on a less moneyed network — without getting in the way of conversation," Robert Lloyd wrote in the Los Angeles Times. The native Scotsman very publicly became an American citizen during his decade hosting “The Late Late Show,” one of the stranger programs ever to have a regular run on television. Ferguson spoke to Salon from Los Angeles. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Your new show is called “Join or Die.” You’ve got that phrase tattooed on your forearm, don’t you? Yeah, I do! That was the way you thought about your American citizenship when you became American? It seemed like a fitting thing to do when I became a citizen. It’s a cartoon that Benjamin Franklin put in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 – it was the first symbol of the united colony that became, of course, the United States. So it had a historical significance. And also it looks really cool. So I thought, that’ll do nicely! Your American citizenship was a big deal at the time: You went to great lengths to get it. What does it mean to you now, in 2016? It’s an evolving thing, much like America itself. It’s a very kind of rah-rah, Fourth of July feeling when you become a citizen. It goes from being a very simple thing to something more complicated. I’m no less patriotic… But like any good and faithful belief, it questions itself. That’s good. So I hold it up to scrutiny – and in an election year that’s more prevalent. For everybody – not just for immigrants. I want to get into the show in a second, but since you’ve mentioned the election: Has that done anything to weaken your patriotism? Oh, absolutely not! My love of America isn’t like that. It’s not a romantic love, it’s what I am. It’s more like you’re a family member – it’s not my girlfriend. As I look around – there’s nothing new to me, I’ve been around American elections for a long time – I think what’s interesting is that I don’t know who’s leading who. If the politicians are leading the media or the media leading the politicians. I think it might be the second. And that I think is a development I find a little troubling. I don’t know what to do about it; I don’t have a solution for it. Looking at every single neuron of every single candidate… Is that a great idea? It might be! I don’t know if it is. Have you ever seen a candidate, either in the U.S. or the U.K., quite like Donald Trump? I think he’s a very singular individual. But it’s an old historical trick: Everybody’s trying to get us! Everybody’s trying to steal out stuff! We better be careful! That’s old as human beings… Caesar did that, every politician in history did that. Some of them have been telling the truth, some of them have been using it for their own political ends, and some of them have been doing both. So he’s a recognizable figure. But what he and Bernie Sanders, on the other side, are both endemic of is a grass-roots despair at the efficacy of the Washington administration. Let’s talk about “Join or Die” a bit. Your first few shows are about bad ideas from history – “Biggest Political Blunders” this week, “History’s Worst Medical Advice” next week. Are the dumb ideas from history more fun to go back to? Looking at mistakes is always fun in hindsight. In general it’s more fun to poke holes in things than aggrandize then. But there’s both [in the show]. Have you been interested in history for a long time? I think history, for me, is like psychotherapy for the entire human race. If you go through psychotherapy you look at your past, where you made mistakes, odd patterns you may repeat, and ways to repeat that in the future. That’s what history is – it’s psychotherapy on a massive group scale. Tell us a little about the guests you’ll be bringing on the show. There will be fewer movie stars than on a traditional late-night show, I think. Movie stars are not banned from the show, of course. The formula we tried to follow – this is a very loose formula: One expert on whatever subject we’re doing. There has to be someone there who knows what the hell they’re talking about at a fairly high level. Then, usually we have a comedian. Comedians tend to be very well informed, they think fast, and they tend to be very smart. Most of them are very well read. And then usually someone who surprised me with how cool and interesting they were when I interviewed them during the late-night years. Is doing this really different from your old late-night show? It really is. I think it owes more to the British radio and old American discussion panel shows. Late night deals with today—you’re dealing with right now. Our references are very topical, because we live in the world right now. But you’re talking about [history] – not necessarily your movie or TV show or whatever the hell you have coming out. Comedy can be about keeping people off balance. When people come on your show, do you want to make them comfortable or uncomfortable, or some mix of the two? In this show it’s about providing an environment for discussion. I suppose it’s a little of both: If someone says something a little odd or that deserves to be challenged, I’ll challenge them on it… I’m not hugely into mind games with anybody. I guess: I don’t really have anybody on this show who I don’t think can hang. Not too long ago there was a lot of talk about what “political correctness” was doing to comedy. Is it a real problem? Is your ability to range across topics limited by political sensitivity? No – it’s not. There’s a fair amount of waa-waa from comedians. If you say something contemptible and someone calls you a dick, then fuckin’ deal with it! OK? As long as the government doesn’t say, “You can’t say that,” then we’re OK. If someone calls you out on something you said, it’s not them trying to restrict your free speech, it’s them exercising their free speech. That’s what free speech is! I don’t think free speech is consequence-free for your feelings. If you hurt their feelings by what you say, and that person lashes out and calls you on it, OK! That doesn’t seem unfair to me! It’s fair game – that’s the way it works. If you make a joke about a group of people who are tired of having jokes made at their expense, and they complain about that – good! Good! That’s good that they complain about it! It doesn’t mean that you can’t do the joke. Do the fuckin’ joke! And maybe you think, “I never thought of it like that, I’m not gonna do that joke anymore” — that’s fine!

Continue Reading...

Happy swiping: This is how to make Tinder work for you

A friend of mine got me into the Tinder game in 2014, when the app was at its peak with a billion swipes per day. I downloaded the app and was hooked. My first night I stayed up until three in the morning swiping and chatting it up with guys within a 25-mile radius of the Boston suburb I was living in. Two years later, after deleting and reinstalling the app several times after a slew of fruitless relationships, I began to wonder how one is successful on Tinder. Or is success just measured by the amount of times you end up “hooking up”? I spoke with some Tinder "experts" and a couple of habitual Tinder users, and got the following bits of (sometimes harsh) advice on how to make Tinder work best. The Profile: Where It All Begins When choosing photos for your Tinder account people typically try to put their best face forward. This is all well and good, but make sure those photos represent what you actually look like. Many times on Tinder you will see people employ several gimmicks to try to cover up certain flaws. The best approach is just not to. You shouldn’t underestimate people’s ability to see right past what you are trying to hide. If the end goal of Tinder is a date, deception is not the best way to start a relationship. And they are going to actually see you. One common misstep for men is to wear a hat in every single photo. Or even more telling, men whose photos are cut off at the forehead. If you do this, you are bald. “Optimize your flaws. Do not hide them completely … If you are seriously balding, shave your head and rock that style,” suggests Tinder pro White Panda, author of "Tinder for Experts." Most people are self-conscious about their weight. If you’re not, good for you and may you and your hot bod have a long happy life together. But, I know when guys ask me to send them selfies I suck in, or at the very least I’ll wear my control top leggings to compact all of the excess me. However, don’t go overboard with these slimming tactics. “Top down angle will immediately let me know you are fat,” says Daniel, a ridiculously good looking 29-year-old Tinder user. Mind you, Daniel is ripped like a pair of deconstructed jeans. Tinder is a visual app, so you should use all of the six photo slots to maximize your chances, according to White Panda. Having only a couple of photos arouses suspicion that you're hiding something. “If you have only two or three photos I will just assume you are ugly, insecure or pretentiously trying to show how you are above the idea that this app is nothing more than a meat market,” says Daniel. As for selfies, White Panda says it is not a “two-way street,” meaning it seems to be more appropriate for women to have selfies in their photos than it is for men. “If a guy has lots of selfies that’s concerning," says Mel DeLancey, a Tinder whiz who has been on 150 dates and created Tinder Roulette, a musical memoir of her experiences. "Straight men don’t really do that much, but one ironic selfie if it’s a good picture could be okay.” DeLancey also told me that one of the things that makes her immediately swipe left is a guy who has a photo of himself with a hot girl. She says it comes across as cocky and self-centered. There is already so much competition on Tinder, it’s not necessary to include more in your profile. What you should do is include photos of traveling or your pets, since most people like both of those. “Animal ones are good ones,” says Nicole, a 27-year-old habitual Tinder user who’s had her fair share of successes and failures on the app. “Even though you may be disgusting, I like your dog.” Travel photos (this excludes family trips to Disney World) also give you something to talk about when you want to get the conversation started. Beyond photos, there’s the 500-character limit description to work with. Across the board, everyone I spoke to agreed that the description should be short. “The worst descriptions are when you talk too much…less is more. It just seems too eager and too sad to pour that much energy into that,” says Nicole. If you want to go on and on about yourself, join OkCupid or Match.com. This is not the place for it. You also shouldn’t try to be too serious and certainly do not try to be deep in your description. There is nothing more pretentious than someone trying to philosophize on a dating app that is mainly based on physical attraction. I was sitting down with Nicole as we swiped through the Tinder men and we giggled at lots of profiles and discussed what makes a good one. Then we came across this winner. “Wandering soul with the dexterity of time,” Nicole read the description out loud. “Seriously? Go fuck yourself.” This kind of pseudointellectual drive will get you nowhere. “Your photos need to do all the talking,” White Panda writes. Don’t try to describe yourself or your hobbies. If you want to come across as fun and carefree, express that in your photos. Interacting: Online and In Person Your first message should be engaging. Unless I am incredibly attracted, “Hey, what’s up?” just isn’t enough. You need something that will get your match’s attention, but also not seem desperate. Usually the best approach is to use some information from their profile to come out with an opening. “Like if she says she’s into wine you could ask what her favorite wine spot in the city is … something that  could lead to a followup question where she can also learn something about you as well,” says DeLancey. Also, please spellcheck and be grammatically correct. For a lot of people, myself included, grammar is important when you are having a written dialogue with someone. Know the difference between your and you’re, and there, their and they’re. If you come across as unintelligent, or even just too lazy to use the correct punctuation in the chat, your match will assume that the same is true of you in person. When you do get around to the actual date, you might want to go casual. You don’t want to put in the time and energy into something that can potentially be a disaster. “You have never met the person before, so nothing justifies putting in a lot of effort into this first meeting," White Panda writes. "In fact, if you go out of your way to plan something great, the woman will feel uncomfortable.” Dinner is not a great first date. I had a dinner first date once and there was absolutely zero chemistry and an unbearable number of awkward silences. I had to order several glasses of wine to keep myself from digging my nails into my leg. He didn’t drink and I came across as an alcoholic. We never spoke again. On the other hand, don’t talk too much. Some people like to hear themselves talk, but overlook the power of listening. There is nothing more annoying than a date who goes on and on about himself. The conversation should be a volley. “If a guy keeps blabbing on, that’s how my drink gets to be very empty,” says Nicole. If your date goes well and you want to secure a second meeting, congratulations. You’re not a complete lost cause. Despite the success of the first date, it is important to remember not to get your hopes up. After all, you did find this individual through a lineup of thousands of men and women flashcards and more often than not, your date is back on Tinder the very next day. Which is not to say Tinder cannot be used to find a meaningful relationship. People have been known to fall in love on it. Even Daniel, who was adamant about Tinder being a hookup site, later revealed to me that he met a woman he describes as the “love of his life” on the app, and ended up dating her for eight months, before parting due to irreconcilable differences. “It is no doubt a hookup site, but sometimes hookups can turn into something much more than that,” he told me. “Just don’t have too many expectations," Nicole advises, "because you will encounter your fair share of bozos.” Keep an open mind, don’t take anything too seriously until seriousness is genuinely called for, and just enjoy whatever experience comes your way. Even the worst Tinder interactions can at the very least become funny stories. Tread lightly and happy swiping.

Continue Reading...

Kim Kardashian’s origin story works: “The People v. O.J. Simpson” translates the trial for a 21st century audience

One of the oddest little treats to FX’s “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” is the involvement of one of 2016’s most famous families as a sideshow to the events of 1995—the Kardashians, headed by now-deceased Robert Kardashian (David Schwimmer, in the show), who in addition to being the dad of Kim, Kourtney, Khloe and Rob, was a loyal friend and defense counsel for Simspon during the football star’s murder trial. Schwimmer’s portrayal of Kardashian is a surprisingly warm and multifaceted one, but what really strikes a nerve today is watching Robert Kardashian interact with his family, as they are thrust into what is the first of their several ignominious bouts with fame. Last night’s episode, “The Dream Team,” features Robert and his four children going out to a Father’s Day brunch at a Los Angeles hot spot, Chin Chin. There are absolutely no tables left, but when the hostess recognizes Robert as “the O.J. guy,” a table is found for the party of five. The kids are beside themselves with glee at being important in this way; Robert is a lot more conflicted, perhaps because he is old enough to grasp the implications of being famous for a connection to a murder trial. In the show, the notorious Kim Kardashian (Veronica Galvez) is just a pink-cardigan-sporting teen with a bob. Khloe (Morgan E. Bastin) is just a little girl with a headband with a bow, and brother Rob (Nicolas Bechtel) is very young. Kourtney (Isabella Balbi), a little shorter and shyer than Kim, has longer hair and more expressive eyebrows. The moment with the hostess leads them to discussing the trial, and Kim—the most outspoken—expresses her opinion to her dad about her godfather, “Uncle Juice.” In response, Schwimmer’s Kardashian intones something that would be quite serious if it weren’t for the lens of 2016: “We are Kardashians. And in this family, being a good person and being a loyal friend is more important than being famous. Fame is fleeting. It’s hollow. And it means nothing without a virtuous heart.” As with pretty much anything else he says, it washes over the kids without much impact. It’s a brilliant scene—one that is both funny and weirdly, implausibly, true, albeit with creative license. O.J. Simpson really is Kim’s godfather; they really did go to Father’s Day brunch at Chin Chin the Sunday after the Bronco chase. One of the reasons this show about this trial is so captivating is because these real people—a strange and now separately famous family—became enmeshed in it. “The People v. O.J. Simpson” is very aware of how public image creates and distorts narratives; what better contemporary reminder than teenage Kimberly Kardashian, already wise to the ways of celebrity? Not everyone agrees, though. Scott Meslow writes at the Week that “’The People Vs. O.J. Simpson’ has a Kardashian problem,” arguing that the show indulges its “impulse to demonize the Kardashian kids” while missing an opportunity to humanize both the characters and the real-life people they grew up into. He’s not wrong that the show is trying to lay the groundwork for the kids, making the flashpoint of the trial part of the Kardashian origin story. The kids are so enthusiastic about this brush with fame that it draws a convenient throughline to them becoming fame-seeking celebrities, notorious simply for being notorious. By that time, Kris Kardashian (Selma Blair, in the show) and her then-husband were selling Thighmasters on television, so it wasn’t like they were unaware of celebrity already. But my take on that is that the Kardashian kids’ reaction to fame is everyone’s reaction to fame, especially at that young age. The hostess is clearly beside herself to be welcoming “Richard Cordovian” in—and even Robert is pleased, faintly, that Barbara Walters personally called him up to be on her show. His speech sounds just as much like he’s reminding himself what’s important. The kids are audience surrogates for this trial, demonstrating how quickly the facts of the crime gave way to the media circus of it. Perhaps it’s a bit cynical about the kids at that age, but I feel like this lens makes the Kardashians of today a bit more sympathetic. These are kids who learned how the world worked early on, when fame immediately translated to privilege. There’s definitely a way to read the scene that finds it a bit too self-indulgent—even for a big-budget true-crime anthology series on basic cable about events just barely 20 years ago. But I found it certainly a more humane glimpse of their family life than every single episode of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” which often emphasizes their disharmony. So what if it is their origin story? “The People v. O.J. Simpson” narrates a lot of tragedies; the Kardashian kids turned out just fine.One of the oddest little treats to FX’s “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” is the involvement of one of 2016’s most famous families as a sideshow to the events of 1995—the Kardashians, headed by now-deceased Robert Kardashian (David Schwimmer, in the show), who in addition to being the dad of Kim, Kourtney, Khloe and Rob, was a loyal friend and defense counsel for Simspon during the football star’s murder trial. Schwimmer’s portrayal of Kardashian is a surprisingly warm and multifaceted one, but what really strikes a nerve today is watching Robert Kardashian interact with his family, as they are thrust into what is the first of their several ignominious bouts with fame. Last night’s episode, “The Dream Team,” features Robert and his four children going out to a Father’s Day brunch at a Los Angeles hot spot, Chin Chin. There are absolutely no tables left, but when the hostess recognizes Robert as “the O.J. guy,” a table is found for the party of five. The kids are beside themselves with glee at being important in this way; Robert is a lot more conflicted, perhaps because he is old enough to grasp the implications of being famous for a connection to a murder trial. In the show, the notorious Kim Kardashian (Veronica Galvez) is just a pink-cardigan-sporting teen with a bob. Khloe (Morgan E. Bastin) is just a little girl with a headband with a bow, and brother Rob (Nicolas Bechtel) is very young. Kourtney (Isabella Balbi), a little shorter and shyer than Kim, has longer hair and more expressive eyebrows. The moment with the hostess leads them to discussing the trial, and Kim—the most outspoken—expresses her opinion to her dad about her godfather, “Uncle Juice.” In response, Schwimmer’s Kardashian intones something that would be quite serious if it weren’t for the lens of 2016: “We are Kardashians. And in this family, being a good person and being a loyal friend is more important than being famous. Fame is fleeting. It’s hollow. And it means nothing without a virtuous heart.” As with pretty much anything else he says, it washes over the kids without much impact. It’s a brilliant scene—one that is both funny and weirdly, implausibly, true, albeit with creative license. O.J. Simpson really is Kim’s godfather; they really did go to Father’s Day brunch at Chin Chin the Sunday after the Bronco chase. One of the reasons this show about this trial is so captivating is because these real people—a strange and now separately famous family—became enmeshed in it. “The People v. O.J. Simpson” is very aware of how public image creates and distorts narratives; what better contemporary reminder than teenage Kimberly Kardashian, already wise to the ways of celebrity? Not everyone agrees, though. Scott Meslow writes at the Week that “’The People Vs. O.J. Simpson’ has a Kardashian problem,” arguing that the show indulges its “impulse to demonize the Kardashian kids” while missing an opportunity to humanize both the characters and the real-life people they grew up into. He’s not wrong that the show is trying to lay the groundwork for the kids, making the flashpoint of the trial part of the Kardashian origin story. The kids are so enthusiastic about this brush with fame that it draws a convenient throughline to them becoming fame-seeking celebrities, notorious simply for being notorious. By that time, Kris Kardashian (Selma Blair, in the show) and her then-husband were selling Thighmasters on television, so it wasn’t like they were unaware of celebrity already. But my take on that is that the Kardashian kids’ reaction to fame is everyone’s reaction to fame, especially at that young age. The hostess is clearly beside herself to be welcoming “Richard Cordovian” in—and even Robert is pleased, faintly, that Barbara Walters personally called him up to be on her show. His speech sounds just as much like he’s reminding himself what’s important. The kids are audience surrogates for this trial, demonstrating how quickly the facts of the crime gave way to the media circus of it. Perhaps it’s a bit cynical about the kids at that age, but I feel like this lens makes the Kardashians of today a bit more sympathetic. These are kids who learned how the world worked early on, when fame immediately translated to privilege. There’s definitely a way to read the scene that finds it a bit too self-indulgent—even for a big-budget true-crime anthology series on basic cable about events just barely 20 years ago. But I found it certainly a more humane glimpse of their family life than every single episode of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” which often emphasizes their disharmony. So what if it is their origin story? “The People v. O.J. Simpson” narrates a lot of tragedies; the Kardashian kids turned out just fine.

Continue Reading...

NY college event with Israeli scholar who said only rape can deter Palestinian militants postponed after protests

Continue Reading...