Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 954
November 13, 2015
Jeb’s big Bush administration lie just got exploded (again) — but here’s why it won’t matter
The four Republican debates so far have been mostly forgettable. There haven’t been a lot of “moments” or game-changing exchanges. Apart from a few stale one-liners about liberal bias in the media, nothing in particular stands out. There is one exception, however. Jeb Bush, whose appeal is limited to friends and family at this point, uttered what is arguably the biggest applause line of the debates. On September 16, the night of the second debate, Jeb was involved in a heated exchange with Donald Trump. “Your brother gave us Barack Obama,” Trump told Bush, “because it was such a disaster those last three months that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.” Flustered, Jeb replied: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure: He kept us safe. I don’t know if you remember, Donald. Do you remember the rubble? Do you remember the firefighter with his arms around him? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism and he did keep us safe.” The audience clapped rapturously. No one in the building recalled that 9/11, the greatest terrorist attack in the history of this country, happened on George W. Bush’s watch. No one recalled that more Americans were killed on U.S. soil during George W. Bush’s administration than under any other. No one recalled that Jeb’s brother received a Presidential Daily Briefing just one month before the towers crashed to the earth, warning him that Bin Laden was “determined to strike in the U.S.” It’s because of this collective amnesia that Republicans are able to sell themselves as the party of national defense, the ones who can “keep us safe.” But the more we learn about the last Republican administration, the more obvious the truth becomes. We now have enough evidence to say not only did George W. Bush fail to keep us safe; he was criminally negligent in his refusal to heed the warnings his administration was given in the months before 9/11. The August 6, 2001 daily briefing was damning enough, but a new report in Politico shows that the administration was sufficiently warned of the growing threat as far back as May 2001. From Politico:
The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House than an attack was coming. By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, ‘it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.’ ‘There were real plots being manifested,’ Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. ‘The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continued to rise. Terrorists were disappearing [as if in hiding, in preparation for an attack]. Camps were closing. Threat reportings on the rise.’And how did the hawkish Republican administration respond to these warnings?
The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan in the spring of 2001…It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat – ‘getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.’ ‘And the word back then,’ says Tenet, ‘was we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’ (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned).This is not what keeping us safe looks like. This is an administration asleep at the wheel, unprepared, and dangerously incompetent. “To me it remains incomprehensible still,” says Cofer Black. “I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened?” This is the historical record. This is what actually happened. And yet the Republican Party refuses to reckon with these realities. The entire party, as evidenced on that debate stage, still believes George W. Bush “kept us safe.” They still believe what happened on 9/11 was unpreventable, and that we’re lucky a Republican like George W. Bush was in office to deal with the aftermath. To listen to the Republican candidates (all of them, not just Jeb Bush) talk about 9/11 and foreign policy in general is to witness a mass delusion. They’ve learned nothing from the mistakes that were made. And this is why they talk about Iraq as though it were Obama’s sin, not George W. Bush’s. And to the extent that they do acknowledge mistakes, it’s always that Obama failed to extend Bush’s policies, not that those policies were wrong to begin with. Conservatives are wedded to a false narrative about the strength of Republicans and the weakness of Democrats. The lie that George W. Bush “kept us safe” is no more or less egregious than the belief, still popular among Republicans, that Iraq was a war of necessity; that we “fought them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here.” Even if you accept that the Iraq War was justifiable at the time, given what we thought we knew, the fact remains: It made us less safe. The war destabilized the region, empowered Iran, handed our enemy its greatest propaganda victory (Gitmo), and it prepared the way for ISIS. These are the facts. But Republicans are blind to them just as they’re blind to George W. Bush’s responsibility for what happened on and before 9/11. Which is why the latest revelations will fall upon deaf ears. If the August briefing didn’t change Republican minds, if the biggest blunder in the history of American foreign policy, the consequences of which are everywhere apparent, didn’t change Republican minds, then why would this?The four Republican debates so far have been mostly forgettable. There haven’t been a lot of “moments” or game-changing exchanges. Apart from a few stale one-liners about liberal bias in the media, nothing in particular stands out. There is one exception, however. Jeb Bush, whose appeal is limited to friends and family at this point, uttered what is arguably the biggest applause line of the debates. On September 16, the night of the second debate, Jeb was involved in a heated exchange with Donald Trump. “Your brother gave us Barack Obama,” Trump told Bush, “because it was such a disaster those last three months that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.” Flustered, Jeb replied: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure: He kept us safe. I don’t know if you remember, Donald. Do you remember the rubble? Do you remember the firefighter with his arms around him? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism and he did keep us safe.” The audience clapped rapturously. No one in the building recalled that 9/11, the greatest terrorist attack in the history of this country, happened on George W. Bush’s watch. No one recalled that more Americans were killed on U.S. soil during George W. Bush’s administration than under any other. No one recalled that Jeb’s brother received a Presidential Daily Briefing just one month before the towers crashed to the earth, warning him that Bin Laden was “determined to strike in the U.S.” It’s because of this collective amnesia that Republicans are able to sell themselves as the party of national defense, the ones who can “keep us safe.” But the more we learn about the last Republican administration, the more obvious the truth becomes. We now have enough evidence to say not only did George W. Bush fail to keep us safe; he was criminally negligent in his refusal to heed the warnings his administration was given in the months before 9/11. The August 6, 2001 daily briefing was damning enough, but a new report in Politico shows that the administration was sufficiently warned of the growing threat as far back as May 2001. From Politico:
The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House than an attack was coming. By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, ‘it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.’ ‘There were real plots being manifested,’ Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. ‘The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continued to rise. Terrorists were disappearing [as if in hiding, in preparation for an attack]. Camps were closing. Threat reportings on the rise.’And how did the hawkish Republican administration respond to these warnings?
The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan in the spring of 2001…It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat – ‘getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.’ ‘And the word back then,’ says Tenet, ‘was we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’ (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned).This is not what keeping us safe looks like. This is an administration asleep at the wheel, unprepared, and dangerously incompetent. “To me it remains incomprehensible still,” says Cofer Black. “I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened?” This is the historical record. This is what actually happened. And yet the Republican Party refuses to reckon with these realities. The entire party, as evidenced on that debate stage, still believes George W. Bush “kept us safe.” They still believe what happened on 9/11 was unpreventable, and that we’re lucky a Republican like George W. Bush was in office to deal with the aftermath. To listen to the Republican candidates (all of them, not just Jeb Bush) talk about 9/11 and foreign policy in general is to witness a mass delusion. They’ve learned nothing from the mistakes that were made. And this is why they talk about Iraq as though it were Obama’s sin, not George W. Bush’s. And to the extent that they do acknowledge mistakes, it’s always that Obama failed to extend Bush’s policies, not that those policies were wrong to begin with. Conservatives are wedded to a false narrative about the strength of Republicans and the weakness of Democrats. The lie that George W. Bush “kept us safe” is no more or less egregious than the belief, still popular among Republicans, that Iraq was a war of necessity; that we “fought them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here.” Even if you accept that the Iraq War was justifiable at the time, given what we thought we knew, the fact remains: It made us less safe. The war destabilized the region, empowered Iran, handed our enemy its greatest propaganda victory (Gitmo), and it prepared the way for ISIS. These are the facts. But Republicans are blind to them just as they’re blind to George W. Bush’s responsibility for what happened on and before 9/11. Which is why the latest revelations will fall upon deaf ears. If the August briefing didn’t change Republican minds, if the biggest blunder in the history of American foreign policy, the consequences of which are everywhere apparent, didn’t change Republican minds, then why would this?The four Republican debates so far have been mostly forgettable. There haven’t been a lot of “moments” or game-changing exchanges. Apart from a few stale one-liners about liberal bias in the media, nothing in particular stands out. There is one exception, however. Jeb Bush, whose appeal is limited to friends and family at this point, uttered what is arguably the biggest applause line of the debates. On September 16, the night of the second debate, Jeb was involved in a heated exchange with Donald Trump. “Your brother gave us Barack Obama,” Trump told Bush, “because it was such a disaster those last three months that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.” Flustered, Jeb replied: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure: He kept us safe. I don’t know if you remember, Donald. Do you remember the rubble? Do you remember the firefighter with his arms around him? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism and he did keep us safe.” The audience clapped rapturously. No one in the building recalled that 9/11, the greatest terrorist attack in the history of this country, happened on George W. Bush’s watch. No one recalled that more Americans were killed on U.S. soil during George W. Bush’s administration than under any other. No one recalled that Jeb’s brother received a Presidential Daily Briefing just one month before the towers crashed to the earth, warning him that Bin Laden was “determined to strike in the U.S.” It’s because of this collective amnesia that Republicans are able to sell themselves as the party of national defense, the ones who can “keep us safe.” But the more we learn about the last Republican administration, the more obvious the truth becomes. We now have enough evidence to say not only did George W. Bush fail to keep us safe; he was criminally negligent in his refusal to heed the warnings his administration was given in the months before 9/11. The August 6, 2001 daily briefing was damning enough, but a new report in Politico shows that the administration was sufficiently warned of the growing threat as far back as May 2001. From Politico:
The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House than an attack was coming. By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, ‘it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.’ ‘There were real plots being manifested,’ Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. ‘The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continued to rise. Terrorists were disappearing [as if in hiding, in preparation for an attack]. Camps were closing. Threat reportings on the rise.’And how did the hawkish Republican administration respond to these warnings?
The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan in the spring of 2001…It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat – ‘getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.’ ‘And the word back then,’ says Tenet, ‘was we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’ (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned).This is not what keeping us safe looks like. This is an administration asleep at the wheel, unprepared, and dangerously incompetent. “To me it remains incomprehensible still,” says Cofer Black. “I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened?” This is the historical record. This is what actually happened. And yet the Republican Party refuses to reckon with these realities. The entire party, as evidenced on that debate stage, still believes George W. Bush “kept us safe.” They still believe what happened on 9/11 was unpreventable, and that we’re lucky a Republican like George W. Bush was in office to deal with the aftermath. To listen to the Republican candidates (all of them, not just Jeb Bush) talk about 9/11 and foreign policy in general is to witness a mass delusion. They’ve learned nothing from the mistakes that were made. And this is why they talk about Iraq as though it were Obama’s sin, not George W. Bush’s. And to the extent that they do acknowledge mistakes, it’s always that Obama failed to extend Bush’s policies, not that those policies were wrong to begin with. Conservatives are wedded to a false narrative about the strength of Republicans and the weakness of Democrats. The lie that George W. Bush “kept us safe” is no more or less egregious than the belief, still popular among Republicans, that Iraq was a war of necessity; that we “fought them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here.” Even if you accept that the Iraq War was justifiable at the time, given what we thought we knew, the fact remains: It made us less safe. The war destabilized the region, empowered Iran, handed our enemy its greatest propaganda victory (Gitmo), and it prepared the way for ISIS. These are the facts. But Republicans are blind to them just as they’re blind to George W. Bush’s responsibility for what happened on and before 9/11. Which is why the latest revelations will fall upon deaf ears. If the August briefing didn’t change Republican minds, if the biggest blunder in the history of American foreign policy, the consequences of which are everywhere apparent, didn’t change Republican minds, then why would this?
November 12, 2015
Stupid biology: 7 reasons breakups wreak such emotional havoc
There are plenty of good reasons why the death of a relationship is so unbearable. There's shame, failure, guilt, sadness, anger and incredulousness, plus the personal rejection of your very being. The Czechs have a lovely word for it: litost. "Litost is a state of torment created by the sudden sight of one's own misery," writes Milan Kundera in "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting." But this torment is more than just the nature of breakups, the need to experience darkness to appreciate the light, blah blah blah. Breakups also activate all kinds of neurochemical, physical and psychological fuckery that makes the whole business even more painful. Stupid biology. 1. Breakups turn you into a jonesing addict. If the beginning of a love affair is a kind of chemical-fueled madness, so is the ending, but in reverse. In one of the crueler aspects of neurochemistry, just when you're hitting the personal low of a breakup is also when dopamine—the reward chemical that made you feel so damn good in the beginning—decides to flee the scene, making you desperate for another hit. Dopamine acts in the same way as any drug of abuse, according to Helen Fisher in "Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love": “If the beloved breaks off the relationship, the lover shows all the common signs of withdrawal, including depression, crying spells, anxiety, insomnia, loss of appetite (or binge eating), irritability, and chronic loneliness. Like all addicts, the lover then goes to unhealthy, humiliating, even physically dangerous lengths to procure their narcotic.” 2. Breakups actually hurt, physically. In one study researchers had subjects “who recently experienced an unwanted breakup view a photograph of their ex-partner as they think about being rejected.” This was pretty rough and probably not worth the 50 bucks or whatever the subjects got, but we learned that psychic trauma activates the same parts of the brain that process physical pain. Meaning, your brain experiences emotional pain as it would if you spilled hot coffee on yourself. Or more accurately, keep spilling coffee on yourself every time you hear that one song on the radio, go on Instagram, etc. 3. Breakups are depressing, officially. In a study of poor sods who had been rejected by a partner within the past eight weeks, 40 percent experienced clinically measurable depression, with 12 percent of those having moderate to severe depression. All breakups involve an amount of grief (and indeed, in another of those “think about your breakup while we MRI your brain” studies, the parts of the brain associated with grief lit up). But sometimes the grief becomes “complicated grief"—an unwieldy beast of grief lasting six months or more, featuring unpleasantries like over-rumination and mooning, bad dreams, and the excessive playing of Elliot Smith songs. 4. Your stupid brain can actually start to get off on your suffering. Anyone who has looked in the mirror to examine their tragic selves mid-cry knows there is a certain joy in one's own deep suffering. But sometimes that sort of self-schadenfreude can become addictive. In some people, enduring grief triggers the reward center in their brains, making them seek the dark feelings so they can get a little happy chemical hit. 5. You lose your sense of self. Without the identity created within the relationship (i.e., “We like paddleboarding”), some emerge bleary-eyed from a breakup with a hazy sense of self. That sort of psychic rootlessness is compounded by the loss of the sense of having a secure base within the relationship and with that partner. “Wherever that person is, that's your emotional home,” writes Emily Nagoski in "Come As You Are." Without that, you're kind of emotionally homeless. 6. It's even worse for people with “anxious attachment styles.” Some people have a “secure attachment style,” that is, they have relationships easily and trust others like normal healthy beings. The rest of us flounder about, either clinging too much (anxious attachment) or preemptively cutting and running (attachment avoidant). Those with anxious attachment styles show “greater preoccupation with the lost partner, greater perseveration over the loss, more extreme physical and emotional distress, exaggerated attempts to reestablish the relationship, partner-related sexual motivation, angry and vengeful behavior, interference with exploratory activities, dysfunctional coping strategies, and disordered resolution.” Meanwhile, the attachment avoidant (you know who you are) experience little such emotional fallout. Bastards. 7. Breakups kick in our survival biology. Attachment is a survival mechanism. A baby needs secure attachment or it will die. “When (our relationships) are threatened, we do whatever it takes to hold on to them, because there are no higher stakes than our connection with our attachment objects,” writes Nagoski, citing Harry Harlow's “monster mother” studies. In a sickeningly cruel experiment, Harlow bonded infant monkeys with mechanical “mothers,” then rigged the mothers to shake the babies, spike them or jet cold air on them to force them away. The babies responded to this treatment by running right back into the arms of those unpredictably cruel, rejecting mothers. Not only that, they became desperate to fix the relationship and tried to win back the mother by flirting with her, grooming and stroking her. That is, behavior some among us may recognize quite well. So yeah, it's bad. With the combination of biological, chemical and emotional havoc a breakup causes, it's a wonder any of us ever get over it. But we do. If you can just accept you're going to be miserable for a while, the appeal of spending car rides furtively weeping to Joni Mitchell's “All I Want” will eventually fade and you will indeed get over it. At some point. You might have to listen to a whole lot of “All I Want.” In the meantime, take solace in the words of Nietzche and Louis C.K., two dudes not exactly known for being consoling. “Ultimately, it is the desire, not the desired, that we love,” wrote Nietzche. That is, that passion is still in you regardless of who its recipient is. And the next person might be even better at appreciating it. And said Louis C.K., in a typically genius statement that could apply to any relationship: “No good marriage has ever ended in divorce. It's really that simple.” In other words, you're probably better off without 'em. Jill Hamilton writes In Bed With Married Women (www.inbedwithmarriedwomen.com). Follow her on Twitter @Jill_Hamilton. 
Grimes isn’t a novelty act: Maybe we’ll see more female producers when we stop treating them like kooky freaks
Last week, the Canadian artist Claire Boucher (aka Grimes) released her first new album in three years, "Art Angels." The wait was worth it: The 14-song collection is a meticulous blend of genres and approaches, from classical-influenced electropop (“Flesh Without Blood”) and synthpunk (standout “Kill V. Maim”) to dreamy, chart-ready pop (“Artangels”) and ’90s R&B (“Butterfly”). "Art Angels" assimilates these diverse influences so seamlessly, it’s tough to pigeonhole the album; if anything, Boucher uses familiar sounds and inspirations as a springboard to mix-and-match sounds with impunity. Lyrically, the record is just as eclectic and wide-ranging—“more happy and angry” as she told The Fader recently—and features songs from the point of view of different characters: “There’s Screechy Bat, who’s the metal one. There’s one that’s super vampish and sexy now — I don’t know her name yet, but she’s like the Ginger Spice.” Accordingly, "Art Angels" holds nothing back. “California” seemingly alludes to people who want to reduce her to a stereotype (“When you get bored of me, I’ll be back on the shelf,” “You only like me when you think I’m looking sad”), while the hip-hop-tinged, pogo-electro highlight “Venus Fly,” Grimes repeatedly asking pointedly, “Oh, why you looking at me? Oh, why you looking at me against them?” Boucher has always addressed musical and societal intricacies—and people’s inability to reconcile such complexities—in interviews and on Tumblr, especially a 2013 post in which she touches on frustrations she’s faced being a public figure. Among other things, she mentions the sexism she’s encountered as a musician: “I’m tired of men who aren’t professional or even accomplished musicians continually offering to ‘help me out’ (without being asked), as if i did this by accident and i’m gonna flounder without them. or as if the fact that I’m a woman makes me incapable of using technology. I have never seen this kind of thing happen to any of my male peers.” Boucher’s disgust is understandable, as she learned how to play violin and ukulele for "Art Angels," produced and engineered the album herself, and even created the artwork. It’s a DIY effort that should be cheered and championed, not seen as an anomaly. But Boucher isn’t alone in having her creative output undermined. In a recent Salon interview, Natalie Merchant discussed stepping out on her own to record “Tigerlily,” and how “excited” she was to be making an album “without being bossed around by anyone. …There were definitely decisions made in the recording process with producers in the past that I’d felt like I’d been kind of bullied. I was oversensitive, probably, and that’s just the way I felt. But I thought – whether I sink or swim, succeed or fail, I want to be making decisions.” And in a Pitchfork interview from earlier this year, Bjork described several instances in which her production work was deemphasized, in favor of the contributions from a male co-producer. To hear these sentiments coming from Merchant and Bjork—both of whom have been professional musicians since they were teenagers—was sobering. Sadly, it wasn’t surprising: Musicians considered to be along the “kooky female” continuum often have trouble being taken seriously as anything but a wacky novelty. Just ask Tori Amos, who’s been fighting off that pernicious label since she broke out as a solo artist, or the perennially minimized harpist Joanna Newsom. Or consider Lady Gaga, whose creative fashion sense often sees her reduced to a caricature, and Solange Knowles, whose music and style have been described as such. Or even take Babymetal, the all-girl Japanese metal group that’s often been treated with a mix of curiosity and condescension—and branded with a hefty dose of the “kooky” adjective. This isn’t limited to music, either: Through the years, actresses from Geena Davis and Swoosie Kurtz to Zooey Deschanel and Helena Bonham Carter have all been called kooky for one reason or another—as if cultivating a look or career approach that’s even the slightest bit unorthodox is strange. Women and girls who don’t conform to society’s ideal of what they “should” be—whether it’s the “cool girl” or its various offshoots, or some other invisible, impossible-to-live-up-to metric—are shoved into the “weird” box instead. Often, this tag comes with the added baggage of having their art devalued (as Grimes has discovered) or seen as strictly niche (see: Joanna Newsom). Either way, the “kooky” descriptor diminishes the boundary-breaking nature of an artist’s music, and instead emphasizes outward appearances. In some cases, musicians become known for perceived behavior instead of what they actually have to say, thereby relegating more interesting (or important) nuances to the background. They’re reduced to a digestible trope or a one-dimensional character. In other cases, being outspoken places impossible (and unfair) expectations on artists and what they choose to discuss, as if deviating from the “kooky” script is verboten. In a recent Noisey interview, Boucher says, “Everyone is always like, ‘How do you feel about feminism? How do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.” During that same interview, she expressed similar annoyance with “being gendered” by being tagged with the label of female producer: “It’s like, maybe the reason there aren’t so many other people besides men feeling like they can produce is because people act like it’s a fucking bomb that’s exploding.” As Boucher so acutely observes, women being asked (or simply talking) about their experiences in music is frequently fraught with ignorance. Asking women in the music industry to talk about the experience of being a female whatever—DJ, musician, producer, writer, executive, etc.—is demeaning; after all, nobody would ever ask a man, “What’s it like being a male guitarist?” Assuming that just because she’s a woman with opinions about feminism means she’s up for talking about feminism 24-7, in every interview, is equally misguided—if not insulting, especially if it’s an artist, like Grimes, who has a new record she’s excited to discuss. Yet it’s also problematic that people still find it strange that Boucher’s a producer. It’s representative of the bias and misogyny that still permeates the music industry, which critic Jessica Hopper underscored over the summer, when her Twitter feed became a place for women and other marginalized groups to describe their brushes with oppression. Sexism is clearly a systematic, ingrained problem, one that needs to be rectified. Figuring out how best to talk about this is the challenge, however: How can we discuss and address the unique experiences women have had in music —whether negative or positive—while not treating the group like they’re mystical unicorns? Certainly approaching interviews and criticism from a music-first perspective helps. But there also needs to be a profound shift in how female musicians like Boucher are treated and viewed: as complex human beings with malleable and valid moods, preferences and artistic interests, not quirky lucky charms.
GOP’s Obamacare repeal shambles: Turns out taking away health coverage isn’t super popular
It may have slipped your notice, what with the thrill-a-minute nonsense of the 2016 presidential race, but Republicans in Congress are still trying to repeal Obamacare. It’s not a real “repeal” – they’re trying to pass a filibuster-evading measure using budget reconciliation that they fully expect to be vetoed by President Obama. The entire point of the exercise to force Obama to veto it so they can prove to America that repeal can happen if they give Republicans control of Congress and the White House. But even in trying to pass this symbolic measure, they’re running into some snags – some Republicans don’t want to take away their constituents’ Obamacare, even if it’s only for pretend. One of the key features of the Affordable Care Act is its expansion of Medicaid, which the Supreme Court allowed states to opt out of in 2012. Several red states that flatly refused to expand Medicaid have since overcome their opposition and either accepted the funds from the federal government or obtained waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services to “experiment” with different ways to implement the program. As it stands right now, 30 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid in some way, and blood-red Utah is in talks to become the 31st. Lots and lots of low-income people have obtained access to healthcare as a result of this steady expansion. And that explains why Republican senators who represent states that expanded Medicaid are suddenly having reservations about passing legislation that would take that coverage away. As the Hill reports this morning:
“I am very concerned about the 160,000 people who had Medicaid expansion in my state. I have difficulty with that being included,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia. […] Sen. John Hoeven (R), who represents North Dakota, where an estimated 19,000 people gained access to Medicaid after Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple decided to broaden the program, said he was unsure about repealing the expansion. “We’ve started to talk about it but we haven’t gotten into it in depth,” he said. “I’m going to reserve judgment until I see exactly what we’re going to do.” “I respect the decision of our legislator and our governor on Medicaid expansion,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R) of Montana, which has a Democratic governor. “I’m one who respects their rights and voices.”The biggest hurdle to these Obamacare repeal bills has always been the fact that Obamacare, whether Republicans want to acknowledge it or not, is working. Because of the law, people are getting insured. If you take away the law, you’re taking away their newly obtained health security, which obviously won’t be very popular. This problem is only compounded by the fact that we’re closing in on year six of the GOP’s “Repeal and Replace” crusade and the party still has not coalesced around a replacement plan for Obamacare. To pass this repeal measure through reconciliation puts Republicans in a tough spot: they can spare some of the more popular parts of the ACA and risk bringing down the ire of hardline Obamacare opponents and conservative activists, or they nuke the whole thing and tell constituents “we’re taking away your coverage and offering nothing in return.” It feels safe to assume that anything but a full repeal measure would be rejected by the House, so the Senate’s hands might be tied if they want to get anything through to Obama’s desk. This same dynamic is playing out for real in Kentucky, which has been one of the ACA’s biggest success stories. Newly elected governor Matt Bevin promised to end Kentucky’s state-based Obamacare exchange and do some as-yet unspecified amount of violence to the state’s expanded Medicaid program. Going through with that will inevitably result in stripping people of health coverage. The GOP is finally being forced to grapple with the human and political cost of undoing the Affordable Care Act. [image error]
David Spade could have had Letterman’s show: “I couldn’t believe they were handing me this. I thought, I don’t know what the f*ck I’m doing”
In a bizarro universe, David Spade is a late-night talk show host legend, and Conan O'Brien isn't. In a new interview with Esquire about his memoir, "Almost Interesting," "Saturday Night Live" alum David Spade reveals to writer Mike Sacks the biggest inside-late night story he didn't include in his book. Apparently, back in 1993 when NBC was looking for a replacement for David Letterman as host of "Late Night," after Letterman departed to helm "The Late Show" for CBS, Spade's Hollywood Minute segment on "SNL"'s Weekend Update attracted network brass attention. They offered him the gig — which ended up going to Conan O'Brien — and he turned it down. "How the fuck I spaced that, didn't put that in the book, I don't know," Spade tells Sacks. "But when I was going through the final version of the book, I thought, Oh shit, that happened. It occurred to me that it might have been interesting for people to know that I got offered Letterman and didn't do it." Spade elaborates on his fateful lunch with Bernie Brillstein, Lorne and Brad Grey:
Now, in fairness, there was a rumor that they had first gone to Garry Shandling and Dana Carvey, and they had both said no. I said, "Why me?" And they said, "Well, you sort of brought a new attitude to Saturday Night Live and a little edge, and you're not like People magazine. You're going after people, and we like that." And I was young and new. And I said, "Aw, I don't think I'd really want to do a talk show." And they were all sort of stunned. They went, "Well, it's like a million dollars a year. It's Letterman!" Which was huge. I couldn't believe they were handing me this. I thought, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing! They said, "We'll get you writers, you know." I said, "I always pictured maybe a sitcom or something like that. I want to try that first. I want to go try that. And a talk show feels like the last job you would take. You don't have another job. That is it."Grey upped the offer, and Spade still declined. He says he has no regrets for not taking the gig. "I would have been more like Letterman. Just do one thing, and it's dry," Spade said. "That used to work, and I don't think it does anymore with all the viral stuff and shit you need to do." In this alternate late-night universe, does Spade end up besting Jay Leno and wrestling permanent control of "The Tonight Show?" Read the fascinating interview here, which also covers being raised by a driven divorced mom, the personal tragedies that helped jumpstart his comedy career and his experiences with Johnny Carson and on "Saturday Night Live."In a bizarro universe, David Spade is a late-night talk show host legend, and Conan O'Brien isn't. In a new interview with Esquire about his memoir, "Almost Interesting," "Saturday Night Live" alum David Spade reveals to writer Mike Sacks the biggest inside-late night story he didn't include in his book. Apparently, back in 1993 when NBC was looking for a replacement for David Letterman as host of "Late Night," after Letterman departed to helm "The Late Show" for CBS, Spade's Hollywood Minute segment on "SNL"'s Weekend Update attracted network brass attention. They offered him the gig — which ended up going to Conan O'Brien — and he turned it down. "How the fuck I spaced that, didn't put that in the book, I don't know," Spade tells Sacks. "But when I was going through the final version of the book, I thought, Oh shit, that happened. It occurred to me that it might have been interesting for people to know that I got offered Letterman and didn't do it." Spade elaborates on his fateful lunch with Bernie Brillstein, Lorne and Brad Grey:
Now, in fairness, there was a rumor that they had first gone to Garry Shandling and Dana Carvey, and they had both said no. I said, "Why me?" And they said, "Well, you sort of brought a new attitude to Saturday Night Live and a little edge, and you're not like People magazine. You're going after people, and we like that." And I was young and new. And I said, "Aw, I don't think I'd really want to do a talk show." And they were all sort of stunned. They went, "Well, it's like a million dollars a year. It's Letterman!" Which was huge. I couldn't believe they were handing me this. I thought, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing! They said, "We'll get you writers, you know." I said, "I always pictured maybe a sitcom or something like that. I want to try that first. I want to go try that. And a talk show feels like the last job you would take. You don't have another job. That is it."Grey upped the offer, and Spade still declined. He says he has no regrets for not taking the gig. "I would have been more like Letterman. Just do one thing, and it's dry," Spade said. "That used to work, and I don't think it does anymore with all the viral stuff and shit you need to do." In this alternate late-night universe, does Spade end up besting Jay Leno and wrestling permanent control of "The Tonight Show?" Read the fascinating interview here, which also covers being raised by a driven divorced mom, the personal tragedies that helped jumpstart his comedy career and his experiences with Johnny Carson and on "Saturday Night Live."
“Daddy Don’t Go” smashes stereotypes of disadvantaged “deadbeat” dads: “Stability is the biggest gift that you get when you enter the middle class”
A refreshing highlight at this year’s NYC Docs Festival is Emily Abt and Andrew Osborne’s “Daddy Don’t Go,” which challenges the all-too-familiar, conveniently reductive and hardened stereotype of minority dads that tends to dominate the Hollywood landscape. Shot over two years in the greater NYC area, the documentary’s four main protagonists — Nelson, Omar, Alex, and Roy — prove themselves self-sacrificing, committed and unexpectedly tender fathers as they struggle against homelessness, unemployment, bureaucracy and, in some cases, a criminal past. The flashing statistics in “Daddy Don’t Go” are brutal: 1 in 3 American children grow up without fathers, and there are at least 1.1 million incarcerated fathers who live in the US. But the numbers also belie a deeper, concealed truth about low-income fathers. A John Hopkins study found that those who might be labeled "deadbeat dads" often spend as much on their children as parents in formal child-support arrangements, but prefer to invest in provisions like baby food, school supplies, and clothing, rather than hand out cash — support that goes unacknowledged in any government surveys or statistics. Even more surprisingly, the study also reported that the proportion of total support offered in-kind was higher among black fathers (44 percent) than non-black fathers (35 percent). The human factor behind the demographic data emerges within scenes of Nelson, Omar, Alex, and Roy reading to their kids on a subway ride, doing laundry, braiding hair, sharing a sandwich, or tucking them into bed; it’s the small mundane rituals which finally resonate as the significant and poetic in childhood. I chatted with Abt — named one of Variety Magazine’s “Ten Top Directors to Watch”- about the new kinds of social dialogue and support she hopes to inspire in filming “dads with real, real problems,” as well as the changing gender roles motivated by the rising trend of stay-at-home fathers in the U.S. Can you tell me what sparked your documentary on disadvantaged dads in the first place? I have an amazing dad who was a wonderful father to me, but he didn’t have a father himself. So I always had this built-in empathy for disadvantaged fathers who were lacking in role models themselves, who didn’t feel well-parented, but were trying to do things differently by their kids. But also, I started out as a caseworker in my early twenties — that was my first job. And that was how I came to make my first documentary, which followed four of my clients as they transitioned from welfare to work. I was making films that focused on women protagonists, but men were also often very active in their children’s lives, and I was hearing these stories and wondering, why isn’t their story being told? Ironically, I think this is my most feminist film to date. What we’re hoping with this film is that it inspires all kinds of dads to lean into the domestic sphere and their parenting roles. Because women can’t progress in a professional setting until men really step up in terms of the home arena. Absolutely. A good example of that in your film is when Nelson decides to support his girlfriend and her two kids while she gets her GED and trains as an EMT — she even calls Nelson her “home wife.” Definitely, fatherhood in general is in the zeitgeist. But more specifically, this whole deadbeat dad stereotype that characterizes disadvantaged dads — often minority dads — as not able and willing seems so played out and tired. So that was our big mission, to replace that deadbeat dad stereotype with positive images of disadvantaged dads who might not be resource-rich or even have stable employment, but definitely want to be present in their kids’ lives. Right now, our current court system does not support that. Men are seen as wallets, basically. But what if a guy doesn’t have money, but really wants to be a good dad? Good point. As a filmmaker and an ex-caseworker, what kind of policy changes for disadvantaged dads were you hoping to inspire? Malik Yoba has been very active in the political arena around this issue, and we’re starting to put together an outreach plan and identify legislative areas where we feel like this film could inspire change. Having Malik and Omar Epps on board to kind of shepherd this project along to make sure that it gets seen by a broader audience is super-important. They both grew up in New York City without dads, and now both have three kids themselves. So they really understand on a very personal level how important this film is. A lot of surprising reversals of fate happen to these four dads. Was there anything that you wanted to leave in the film, but left out because it was too controversial or personal? We didn’t actually end up including this in the final cut, but Omar was homeless for a period while we were making the film. Alex was in a shelter, there was domestic violence — just every tough social issue that’s happening in this country happened to those guys. We wanted the audience to be pushed and pulled and sometimes confused by their decisions, but ultimately, we wanted to present a positive, hopeful portrait of these guys. So that guided a lot of decisions in the editing room. Because there were moments that were less flattering that we felt were very interesting, but not consistent with this overall message of men being there for their kids, against all the odds. It’s a sad truism, but people who struggle in this country really struggle. We shot almost 300 hours of footage, and there were major ups and downs. Stability is the biggest gift that you get when you enter the middle class. So true. I think your film reflects that by mentioning the fact that 60 percent of felons in NY state are still unemployed a year after their release. Also, Omar shares that he’s been through 15 different jobs because of his ex-offender past — in your opinion, is there really a second chance for dads with a criminal record in America? Well, it’s funny that you should mention that because in New York there’s been this movement called Ban the Box. But I’m really happy to say that that’s gone away, because if you’ve gone to prison, when you’re released, you should be able to return to mainstream society. We’re so punitive in this country, and not sympathetic to guys who have made mistakes — sometimes huge mistakes. Nonetheless, I personally believe in second chances. I know I’ve needed second chances sometimes. If you look at the environment that these guys are growing up in, a lot of times criminal activity seems almost inevitable. Definitely. At some point in the film, all four protagonists refer to the temptation of “easy money.” Nelson says: “In three days, I could come back with $1,000.” Realistically speaking, if you found yourself in his situation, how could you not at least consider it? For me the bottom line there is that, yes, they were unemployed, but it’s not like they weren’t trying. I think we have a hard time recognizing in this country that not everybody who wants a job can actually get a job. And people say, “Oh, McDonald’s is always hiring” and stuff like that. Well, if you don’t have teeth, then even McDonald’s doesn’t want you. We have a stubborn unemployment problem that really affects disadvantaged men in this city — I think 50 percent of African-American men in New York City are unemployed. And the Bronx, it has the highest poverty rate of any congressional district in America. That’s why we wove in those statistics, because that was part of the story. We couldn’t ignore it; it just kept slapping us in the face. Speaking along racial lines, I couldn't help but notice that Roy, who is also an ex-offender, is the only dad in the documentary who ends up receiving any counseling and finding a job. Do you think it’s because he's white? I don’t think it’s unrelated to the fact that he’s white. It’s always really important to me when I’m making a film that the demographic representation of our subjects mirrors reality, and I definitely wanted to be sure that we had a Caucasian subject because I didn’t want people to say, “My god, this is a black and brown thing.” If you look at actual socio-economic statistics in our country, a lot of times white people are more privileged than minorities; that is the reality. And while he’s an ex-offender and is parenting on his own and can’t afford his own home, he does have these support systems that the other guys don’t. Do you think disadvantaged fathers in the U.S. should have free access to counseling services to help them become better parents? Roy starts off as the most emotionally repressed character in your film, so it really struck me when, after some therapy, he reveals his nightmares of his father and abused sisters. I think that story moves a lot of people. But the good news is that we now have President Obama, who is the first President to speak openly about commitment to parenting. He’s kicked off this whole fatherhood initiative, and there’s been some funding earmarked for what they call “father-friendly programs.” That program that you see in our film, nonprofit Forestdale, they’ve certainly been the beneficiary of those kind of government funds. I think any program that puts fathers in a room together to have real talk, kind of AA style, is a very powerful thing. Now the harder thing is, how do you get the guys there? I hope the film opens more doors for funding along those lines. I really believe in work programs, training programs, because I think for men in particular, it really hurts their self-esteem when they’re not working. If we can incentivize guys to stay away from street life and criminal activity by giving them a job - it doesn’t have to pay that much, just a decent, steady job — that seems like good policy to me. What also struck me about these disadvantaged dads was that they weren’t just great parents. They were also trying to be better human beings by addressing their own fractured childhoods, by giving their own kids a better childhood. Totally. We had this line from Alex that I wanted in the movie so bad, but it didn’t work for various editing reasons. Basically he was saying, “My son really needs me, and I really need him too.” That to me is just the unspoken theme throughout the film, which is that as much as these kids need their fathers, the fathers derive so much love and satisfaction and self-esteem from being dads. We were talking about it to Omar once and he was like, “If people see my story, and they see that with all the problems I have, I’m still a great dad, then hopefully they’ll say, ‘Well, maybe I can step up too. I can do a better job too.’ ” “
Daddy Don’t Go
” premieres at NYC Docs Festival Saturday, November 14.
This dollhouse is most likely worth more than your house — plus all the houses you will ever live in, combined
The Astolat Castle Dollhouse is appraised at $8.5 million or $2,035 per square inch. The castle has seven levels, 29 rooms, and houses 10,000 miniature pieces at a time. It also features gold frames, oil paintings and a (fully stocked) wine cellar. It took master miniaturist Elaine Diehl 13 years to complete.
Don Lemon slams campus activists: “If you’re afraid of having your feelings hurt, don’t leave your house”
On The Tom Joyner Morning Show today, CNN anchor Don Lemon clarified his varied stances on the Mizzou goings on within a long-winded diatribe against free speech zones.
Lemon once again championed the efforts of the football players who successfully pushed forward the resignation of the University’s dean and chancellor, saying, “Even the NLF could learn from the Mizzou players who stood up for what they believe in.”
He did, however, criticize the University’s “vigorous effort to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
“As a journalist,” he added, “that really bothers me.”
Lemon was referring to free speech zones in relation to a heavily-trafficked video of Mizzou Communications Professor Melissa Click cawing at a student journalist who dared enter one of said zones with a camera.
“[Students] should not be coddled by retreating into so-called ‘safe spaces’ because they’re afraid of having their feelings hurt,” Lemon said. “If you’re afraid of having your feelings hurt, don’t leave your house.”
“And speaking as a Black person in America,” Lemon added, “considering the history of this country, if anyone should fight tooth-and-nail for free speech and a free and open press, it should be Black people.”
Listen to the interview and read the full report at Mediaite.
On The Tom Joyner Morning Show today, CNN anchor Don Lemon clarified his varied stances on the Mizzou goings on within a long-winded diatribe against free speech zones.
Lemon once again championed the efforts of the football players who successfully pushed forward the resignation of the University’s dean and chancellor, saying, “Even the NLF could learn from the Mizzou players who stood up for what they believe in.”
He did, however, criticize the University’s “vigorous effort to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
“As a journalist,” he added, “that really bothers me.”
Lemon was referring to free speech zones in relation to a heavily-trafficked video of Mizzou Communications Professor Melissa Click cawing at a student journalist who dared enter one of said zones with a camera.
“[Students] should not be coddled by retreating into so-called ‘safe spaces’ because they’re afraid of having their feelings hurt,” Lemon said. “If you’re afraid of having your feelings hurt, don’t leave your house.”
“And speaking as a Black person in America,” Lemon added, “considering the history of this country, if anyone should fight tooth-and-nail for free speech and a free and open press, it should be Black people.”
Listen to the interview and read the full report at Mediaite.
On The Tom Joyner Morning Show today, CNN anchor Don Lemon clarified his varied stances on the Mizzou goings on within a long-winded diatribe against free speech zones.
Lemon once again championed the efforts of the football players who successfully pushed forward the resignation of the University’s dean and chancellor, saying, “Even the NLF could learn from the Mizzou players who stood up for what they believe in.”
He did, however, criticize the University’s “vigorous effort to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
“As a journalist,” he added, “that really bothers me.”
Lemon was referring to free speech zones in relation to a heavily-trafficked video of Mizzou Communications Professor Melissa Click cawing at a student journalist who dared enter one of said zones with a camera.
“[Students] should not be coddled by retreating into so-called ‘safe spaces’ because they’re afraid of having their feelings hurt,” Lemon said. “If you’re afraid of having your feelings hurt, don’t leave your house.”
“And speaking as a Black person in America,” Lemon added, “considering the history of this country, if anyone should fight tooth-and-nail for free speech and a free and open press, it should be Black people.”
Listen to the interview and read the full report at Mediaite.
On The Tom Joyner Morning Show today, CNN anchor Don Lemon clarified his varied stances on the Mizzou goings on within a long-winded diatribe against free speech zones.
Lemon once again championed the efforts of the football players who successfully pushed forward the resignation of the University’s dean and chancellor, saying, “Even the NLF could learn from the Mizzou players who stood up for what they believe in.”
He did, however, criticize the University’s “vigorous effort to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
“As a journalist,” he added, “that really bothers me.”
Lemon was referring to free speech zones in relation to a heavily-trafficked video of Mizzou Communications Professor Melissa Click cawing at a student journalist who dared enter one of said zones with a camera.
“[Students] should not be coddled by retreating into so-called ‘safe spaces’ because they’re afraid of having their feelings hurt,” Lemon said. “If you’re afraid of having your feelings hurt, don’t leave your house.”
“And speaking as a Black person in America,” Lemon added, “considering the history of this country, if anyone should fight tooth-and-nail for free speech and a free and open press, it should be Black people.”
Listen to the interview and read the full report at Mediaite.
