Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 969

Ricky Gervais returns to host the Golden Globes: The comedian’s biting humor is bound to raise eyebrows

While Chris Rock will be bringing his edgy brand of comedy to the Oscars, he's not the only controversial comic suiting up for an Awards Show gig this season. That's right, Gervais-heads (is that a thing? Should be): Ricky Gervais is returning as Golden Globes host. The polarizing British comic hosted the ceremony in the 2010-2012 pre-Poehler and Fey years, where his biting cringe-comedy managed to offend so many people that he renounced all future hosting duties. “I’ve told my agent to never let me be persuaded to do it again though," he said a few years back. "It’s like a parachute jump." Thankfully, it sounds like Ricky is ready to get back in that chute. “We’re excited to have Ricky Gervais back to host the most enjoyable awards show of the season in his own inimitable way,” said NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt in a statement. “Disarming and surprising, Ricky is ready to honor — and send up — the best work of the year in film and television. Fasten your seats belts.”While Chris Rock will be bringing his edgy brand of comedy to the Oscars, he's not the only controversial comic suiting up for an Awards Show gig this season. That's right, Gervais-heads (is that a thing? Should be): Ricky Gervais is returning as Golden Globes host. The polarizing British comic hosted the ceremony in the 2010-2012 pre-Poehler and Fey years, where his biting cringe-comedy managed to offend so many people that he renounced all future hosting duties. “I’ve told my agent to never let me be persuaded to do it again though," he said a few years back. "It’s like a parachute jump." Thankfully, it sounds like Ricky is ready to get back in that chute. “We’re excited to have Ricky Gervais back to host the most enjoyable awards show of the season in his own inimitable way,” said NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt in a statement. “Disarming and surprising, Ricky is ready to honor — and send up — the best work of the year in film and television. Fasten your seats belts.”While Chris Rock will be bringing his edgy brand of comedy to the Oscars, he's not the only controversial comic suiting up for an Awards Show gig this season. That's right, Gervais-heads (is that a thing? Should be): Ricky Gervais is returning as Golden Globes host. The polarizing British comic hosted the ceremony in the 2010-2012 pre-Poehler and Fey years, where his biting cringe-comedy managed to offend so many people that he renounced all future hosting duties. “I’ve told my agent to never let me be persuaded to do it again though," he said a few years back. "It’s like a parachute jump." Thankfully, it sounds like Ricky is ready to get back in that chute. “We’re excited to have Ricky Gervais back to host the most enjoyable awards show of the season in his own inimitable way,” said NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt in a statement. “Disarming and surprising, Ricky is ready to honor — and send up — the best work of the year in film and television. Fasten your seats belts.”

Continue Reading...

The Trey Gowdy/Hillary Clinton conspiracy: The real Benghazi scandal only chairman Noam Chomsky would uncover

There are few groups more skilled in missing the forest for the trees than the Republican Party. The GOP has an absolutely uncanny ability to ignore what is right before its very own eyes in its dogmatic quest to fabricate scandals where there aren't any. Nowhere is this more evident than in the American Right's bewilderingly impassioned obsession with the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- a fanatic fixation that verges on the unhinged. There have been seven official investigations into Benghazi -- more than there have been into any other actual scandal in recent history -- and yet the GOP has still called for more. This deranged fanaticism culminated in an Oct. 22 hearing in which Republicans grilled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for eight long hours. After all of this work, after years of investigations, after however many millions of dollars poured down the drain, the GOP has not found the controversy it was looking for. Ironically, its efforts have precipitated numerous actual controversies -- most notably Clinton's potentially illegal use of private email servers, among others -- but not the particular smoking gun it insists is there. In its laser-like probing into the Benghazi tree, however, Republicans have ignored the much larger forest: The U.S. destruction of Libya. In 2011, the U.S. led a NATO coalition that bombed Libya for over seven months, destroying the government and leaving behind a political vacuum, large parts of which have been filled by extremist groups. Today, downtown Benghazi is in ruins, and chunks of the city are under the control of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist Salafi Islamist militia that is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. As for the rest of Libya, much of the land is now controlled by rival warlords. The country is divided into four major regions. The internationally recognized government in the east is caught up in intractable conflicts with fascistic ISIS affiliates, which control the city Sirte and a sliver of the north; more moderate Muslim Brotherhood-aligned rebels known as Libya Dawn, which control the city of Tripoli and the northwest; and tribal militias, which control the southwest; not to mention the vast array of smaller militant groups fighting throughout the country. No end is in sight for Libya's civil war, which has already dragged on for many months, leaving thousands of people dead. Because chaos reins in large swaths of the country, there is no official figure for the deaths. The project Libya Body Count, which simply compiles media reports, and is thus conservative in its estimates, has documented over 4,000 fatalities since 2014. This violent chaos has furthermore sparked a flood of refugees, exacerbating what is already the worst refugee crisis since World War II. Hundreds of thousands of Libyan civilians have been forced to flee, often on dangerous smuggling boats. As of December 2014, the U.N. estimated there were over 370,000 displaced Libyans. The number is likely higher today, a year later. Mere hours after Clinton's day-long Republican interrogation, at least six Libyans were killed and dozens more were wounded when militants in Benghazi fired rockets at a protest against a U.N. proposal for a unity government. Benghazi the city, ignored by the Benghazi conspiracists, remains roiled in violence. In the words of AP, the city is "shattered." As The New York Times describes it:

"Random shells sometimes fall out of the sky in various parts of the city. Trash piles up in the streets. Rolling power blackouts can last for five or 10 hours and sometimes engulf the entire city.

Fighting in the farmland around the city has created a shortage of vegetables. An influx of those displaced from war zones has overcrowded the safer neighborhoods, straining tempers. Public schools remain closed, and children have nothing to do.

The Islamist militias appear to be welcoming foreign fighters into their ranks and there are reports of suicide bombings."

A Benghazi man told The Times "I don’t see anyone smiling... The city we grew up loving is not the one we see today." This is the real Benghazi scandal. Yet it is being ignored. There is no dearth of actual Middle Eastern scandals the Republicans could go after. There is the Obama administration's drone program, which has left thousands dead, including hundreds of civilians. Or its $90 billion of arms deals with oil-rich repressive theocratic Gulf monarchies in just four years. Or its expansion of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, where it has bombed hospitals. Or its steadfast support for the Saudi-led coalition that is raining bombs down upon Yemeni civilians. The list goes on. The destruction of Libya is just another crime to add to this ever-growing list. Yet the reason Republicans are not concerned with any of these actual scandals, of course, is because they support all of these policies. Foreign policy is the area in which both dominant U.S. political parties overwhelmingly agree. Hillary Clinton was one of the leading voices in support of the disastrous war in Libya. In late 2011, the Washington Post indicated that Clinton was a "strong advocate" for and played a "pivotal role" in the NATO bombing. The Post noted that the "coalition air campaign has emerged as a foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most famous Cabinet member, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." Clinton and the Obama administration may consider the bombing a "success," but try telling that to Libyans now fleeing a bloody civil war. When Libyan dictator Mu'ammar Qadhafi was killed at the end of the NATO campaign in October 2011, Clinton, ever eager to flaunt her hawkish tendencies, infamously quipped "We came, we saw, he died." On her official website, Clinton still today boasts of the bipartisan consensus backing the Libya bombing, lifting up the military intervention that destroyed a north African country as a victory for her political record. A small handful of voices were outspoken critics of the war effort. Both parties, for the most part, supported the bombing, yet leftists, anti-war activists, and figures like independent democratic socialist senator and current presidential candidate Bernie Sanders warned that the NATO intervention would be a disaster. History showed them to be correct: The NATO bombing of Libya has proven disastrous in virtually every single way. The situation on the ground today in Libya is nothing short of catastrophic. One does not need to defend Qadhafi's dictatorship to recognize this. Mu'ammar Qadhafi was repressive and corrupt. He brutally crushed all opposition and lived like a king, with access to billions upon billions of wealth. This, naturally, did not stop the soi-disant democratic West from supporting him. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair worked with the dictator to imprison Libyan dissidents. He penned letters to Qadhafi, writing "Dear Mu'ammar" and signed "Best wishes yours ever, Tony." Moreover, Qadhafi participated in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, helping the U.S. detain and torture militants. Yet NATO turned on Qadhafi, who, since the 1990s, had largely abandoned his former anti-imperialism, instead warming up to the Washington consensus and implementing large-scale neoliberal policies. But Qadhafi's rhetoric -- although often in contradiction with his actions -- was still fiery, and he had never become an obedient ally. It should not go unnoticed, too, that Libya sits on enormous oil reserves and, before the bombing, was one of the world's largest oil producers. It also has -- or, rather, had -- many billions of dollars in gold reserves. In its bombing campaign, NATO did more than kill Qadhafi nevertheless; it destroyed the Libyan government. Parallels to the U.S. war in Iraq are constructive. As was the case in Iraq, the U.S. did not just overthrow the draconian Saddam Hussein; it completely dissolved his government. Al-Qaeda entered the country amid the mayhem and, now, large swaths of Iraq are controlled by ISIS. In an interview with Vice, an Iraqi man lamented that the "worst thing America has done to Iraq and Iraqis is this: They made a dictator look like an angel, in comparison to what we have right now." Similarly, as prominent Libyan activist Hend Amry put it, "Was life more stable under Gaddafi? Well, yes. Your head stays very still when a boot is pinning it to the ground." Later she added "now there are many boots instead of one." Today, many of these many boots are extremist in nature. ISIS, Ansar al-Sharia, and other Salafi groups are carving out parts of Libya through vicious violence and even ethnic cleansing. Where is the widespread outrage over this, the real Bengahzi scandal? It is not to be heard in the halls of Capitol Hill, because handing the Middle East over to extremist groups has, whether wittingly or not, been U.S. bipartisan policy now for decades. Where are the hearings on this, the real Benghazi scandal? There never will be one, because such a hearing would have to be overseen not by Chairman Gowdy, but rather by Chairman Chomsky. Where are the several official inquires into this, the real Benghazi scandal? They will not be conducted, because, to the U.S. political establishment, the tragic deaths of four Americans is worth infinitely more attention than the deaths of thousands of Libyans and the destruction of a country. Watch highlights from the 11-hour hearing: [jwplayer file=" http://media.salon.com/2015/10/Bengha..." image=" http://media.salon.com/2015/10/Bengha...] [image error]

Continue Reading...

Don’t panic, bacon lovers: Why the new report on cancer and processed meats doesn’t mean a total pork ban

It’s been a tough day for meat eaters, as a report by an international World Health Organization describes the relationship between processed food in specific and red meat in general and various kinds of cancer. The headlines, of course, have been blunt. CNN Money phrases it this way: “Processed meat causes cancer, says WHO." The Guardian offers a blunt headline as well “Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO.” The story goes on to say

Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco. The report from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said there was enough evidence to rank processed meats as group 1 carcinogens because of a causal link with bowel cancer.

Are we destined to bounce between reckless hedonism and alarmist headlines about our health choices? Do we really need to swear off bacon? Salon spoke to Timothy Caulfield, a heath researcher at the University of Edmonton and the author of "Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty, and Happiness." The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. The first thing I’m wondering is, What did this study tell us that we didn’t already know? Didn’t most people suspect that eating a lot of bacon or processed food or red meat wasn’t great for them? I’ve been following this for a long time, and often when I give public lectures I use bacon as example… Everyone seems to love bacon so it’s a great starting point. There have been some conflicting stories about bacon and red meat in general and its health value. What I think this allegedly does – they looked at over 800 studies and tried to come to some kind of consensus about the actual risks associated with cancer. That’s why it’s gotten so many headlines… I don’t think anyone eats bacon because they think it’s good for them. They eat it because they love it. But it sounds like you are saying it’s an important study and worth taking seriously. Yeah – and keep in mind, it’s more than a study, it’s a group of experts looking at the available evidence. It really did resonate with people. They said, Yeah, it really is bad for us. I don’t know if they were holding out hope that it was okay. But the headlines have been incredibly alarmist. So my message is to look beyond the hype and ask, What is this study really saying? And the message for me is really a story of moderation. We don’t all have to ban bacon from our kitchens. On the contrary, it probably shouldn’t be your go-to meat product. The study made some claims not just about processed meat but about red meat – the claims were not quite as pronounced. One thing about this study: We have to be careful about not mixing up relative risk and absolute risk. If you’re looking at an increased chance of getting colon cancer of 17 percent – that sounds really grim. But, it’s one of the more common forms of cancer, your chance of getting it over the course of a lifetime is about three or four percent. So you’re talking about an increase of a relatively rare event. So it’s a 17 percent increase on three or four percent? Yes – often these are read as, “That means there’s a 17 percent chance we’re gonna get it.” No, it’s not that at all. So often that’s left out of news stories, and it confuses thing. It’s a nice message – eat healthy, eat in moderation, whenever possible try to eat real food. This feels like part of a pattern of health scares. What are the most garishly distorted or misinterpreted study or report? A case where a scientific study came out and the media or general public took it wrong. Oh God, there are so many. You get, “Red wine is good for you.” Then, “You know what? Maybe antioxidants aren’t so good for you.” Or, “Eggs are terrible for you.” Then, “Maybe eggs aren’t so terrible for you.” The one I love is chocolate – “Chocolate is good for you.” Often you get studies that are correlation studies that suggest something that is either good or bad for you, and that study is blown up to a truism. We do it with macronutrients too. In general, when you’re talking about nutrition, you should be very skeptical toward anything that demonizes a certain food group, or makes any kind of food a super food. There are no super foods. I’m fascinated at how this is all presented. The fact that this study has resonated so much. How have you seen the report be misread and how do you think it will continue to be misinterpreted in the media? The headlines have [mostly]been extremist: “Bacon causes cancer.” That is an over-interpretation of the conclusions. Keep in mind: Everything causes cancer. You look at that World Health Organization list, and it’s long, and it has a lot of things on it we’re exposed to throughout the day. It’s not that bacon causes cancer – it’s that bacon has been associated with cancer. The other thing to follow going forward is how the information will be polarized. You’ll get the vegan and vegetarian community using this in their arsenal of why we should avoid meat. And to be fair, there are more arrows in that quiver. And you’ll see people who love their meat and love their bacon cherry-picking, saying it’s all just one study. It will be interesting to see that polarization, because it’s certainly happened in the past. What should the informed person take from this report? It’s the boring story of moderation. This is more evidence that eating a lot of processed meat is probably not a good idea. But it doesn’t mean you have to avoid it altogether. This increasingly suggests we should view it as a treat, and it looks like that’s increasingly true of red meat. But look, red meat has nutrients in it – it’s not a completely unhealthy product. And moderate means what, a burger once or twice a week? Yeah I think that’s fair to say. And also probably leaning toward meat that’s not as processed. But you can watch this story unfold. Look, nutrition research is really hard. That’s why we get these conflicting stories. You get these big cohort studies, they’re almost always association studies, and it’s often very hard to control for all the variables that are relevant. Some people have criticized this study and the alcohol-is-good-for-you study that they are really proxies for living a different kind of lifestyle. So if you eat a whole bunch of processed meat, there’s probably some other stuff going on in your life. And if you are drinking two glasses of red wine a day, maybe that’s a market for living a moderate lifestyle. It’s really hard to control for all those variables. So you’ve got to look at the whole body of evidence. These experts have tried to do that. And they’ve come to the conclusion – taking in all the biases – and come to the conclusion that bacon and processed food probably is associated with cancer to some degree. Finally, how does this distortion and panic fit in with the celebrity-worship you describe in your book? Does the cult of Gwyneth and other health-and-lifestyle gurus contribute to this kind of problem? For sure that’s the case. Pop culture generally serves as a polarizing source. They use these studies to promote whatever kind of lifestyle they’re promoting, whether eating raw food, or promoting whatever kind of product or agenda a celebrity is pushing. But I always say, There is no magic lifestyle. It’s all about the sensible stuff we’ve long known. So don’t believe the hype – don’t believe these messages that tend to flow out of celebrity culture. There is no magic diet. We’ve long known that lots of fruits and vegetables, nuts… It’s the stuff in general that most of us have known for a long time, and the research continuously backs that up. This study just confirms that – it really us about moderation.It’s been a tough day for meat eaters, as a report by an international World Health Organization describes the relationship between processed food in specific and red meat in general and various kinds of cancer. The headlines, of course, have been blunt. CNN Money phrases it this way: “Processed meat causes cancer, says WHO." The Guardian offers a blunt headline as well “Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO.” The story goes on to say

Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco. The report from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said there was enough evidence to rank processed meats as group 1 carcinogens because of a causal link with bowel cancer.

Are we destined to bounce between reckless hedonism and alarmist headlines about our health choices? Do we really need to swear off bacon? Salon spoke to Timothy Caulfield, a heath researcher at the University of Edmonton and the author of "Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty, and Happiness." The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. The first thing I’m wondering is, What did this study tell us that we didn’t already know? Didn’t most people suspect that eating a lot of bacon or processed food or red meat wasn’t great for them? I’ve been following this for a long time, and often when I give public lectures I use bacon as example… Everyone seems to love bacon so it’s a great starting point. There have been some conflicting stories about bacon and red meat in general and its health value. What I think this allegedly does – they looked at over 800 studies and tried to come to some kind of consensus about the actual risks associated with cancer. That’s why it’s gotten so many headlines… I don’t think anyone eats bacon because they think it’s good for them. They eat it because they love it. But it sounds like you are saying it’s an important study and worth taking seriously. Yeah – and keep in mind, it’s more than a study, it’s a group of experts looking at the available evidence. It really did resonate with people. They said, Yeah, it really is bad for us. I don’t know if they were holding out hope that it was okay. But the headlines have been incredibly alarmist. So my message is to look beyond the hype and ask, What is this study really saying? And the message for me is really a story of moderation. We don’t all have to ban bacon from our kitchens. On the contrary, it probably shouldn’t be your go-to meat product. The study made some claims not just about processed meat but about red meat – the claims were not quite as pronounced. One thing about this study: We have to be careful about not mixing up relative risk and absolute risk. If you’re looking at an increased chance of getting colon cancer of 17 percent – that sounds really grim. But, it’s one of the more common forms of cancer, your chance of getting it over the course of a lifetime is about three or four percent. So you’re talking about an increase of a relatively rare event. So it’s a 17 percent increase on three or four percent? Yes – often these are read as, “That means there’s a 17 percent chance we’re gonna get it.” No, it’s not that at all. So often that’s left out of news stories, and it confuses thing. It’s a nice message – eat healthy, eat in moderation, whenever possible try to eat real food. This feels like part of a pattern of health scares. What are the most garishly distorted or misinterpreted study or report? A case where a scientific study came out and the media or general public took it wrong. Oh God, there are so many. You get, “Red wine is good for you.” Then, “You know what? Maybe antioxidants aren’t so good for you.” Or, “Eggs are terrible for you.” Then, “Maybe eggs aren’t so terrible for you.” The one I love is chocolate – “Chocolate is good for you.” Often you get studies that are correlation studies that suggest something that is either good or bad for you, and that study is blown up to a truism. We do it with macronutrients too. In general, when you’re talking about nutrition, you should be very skeptical toward anything that demonizes a certain food group, or makes any kind of food a super food. There are no super foods. I’m fascinated at how this is all presented. The fact that this study has resonated so much. How have you seen the report be misread and how do you think it will continue to be misinterpreted in the media? The headlines have [mostly]been extremist: “Bacon causes cancer.” That is an over-interpretation of the conclusions. Keep in mind: Everything causes cancer. You look at that World Health Organization list, and it’s long, and it has a lot of things on it we’re exposed to throughout the day. It’s not that bacon causes cancer – it’s that bacon has been associated with cancer. The other thing to follow going forward is how the information will be polarized. You’ll get the vegan and vegetarian community using this in their arsenal of why we should avoid meat. And to be fair, there are more arrows in that quiver. And you’ll see people who love their meat and love their bacon cherry-picking, saying it’s all just one study. It will be interesting to see that polarization, because it’s certainly happened in the past. What should the informed person take from this report? It’s the boring story of moderation. This is more evidence that eating a lot of processed meat is probably not a good idea. But it doesn’t mean you have to avoid it altogether. This increasingly suggests we should view it as a treat, and it looks like that’s increasingly true of red meat. But look, red meat has nutrients in it – it’s not a completely unhealthy product. And moderate means what, a burger once or twice a week? Yeah I think that’s fair to say. And also probably leaning toward meat that’s not as processed. But you can watch this story unfold. Look, nutrition research is really hard. That’s why we get these conflicting stories. You get these big cohort studies, they’re almost always association studies, and it’s often very hard to control for all the variables that are relevant. Some people have criticized this study and the alcohol-is-good-for-you study that they are really proxies for living a different kind of lifestyle. So if you eat a whole bunch of processed meat, there’s probably some other stuff going on in your life. And if you are drinking two glasses of red wine a day, maybe that’s a market for living a moderate lifestyle. It’s really hard to control for all those variables. So you’ve got to look at the whole body of evidence. These experts have tried to do that. And they’ve come to the conclusion – taking in all the biases – and come to the conclusion that bacon and processed food probably is associated with cancer to some degree. Finally, how does this distortion and panic fit in with the celebrity-worship you describe in your book? Does the cult of Gwyneth and other health-and-lifestyle gurus contribute to this kind of problem? For sure that’s the case. Pop culture generally serves as a polarizing source. They use these studies to promote whatever kind of lifestyle they’re promoting, whether eating raw food, or promoting whatever kind of product or agenda a celebrity is pushing. But I always say, There is no magic lifestyle. It’s all about the sensible stuff we’ve long known. So don’t believe the hype – don’t believe these messages that tend to flow out of celebrity culture. There is no magic diet. We’ve long known that lots of fruits and vegetables, nuts… It’s the stuff in general that most of us have known for a long time, and the research continuously backs that up. This study just confirms that – it really us about moderation.It’s been a tough day for meat eaters, as a report by an international World Health Organization describes the relationship between processed food in specific and red meat in general and various kinds of cancer. The headlines, of course, have been blunt. CNN Money phrases it this way: “Processed meat causes cancer, says WHO." The Guardian offers a blunt headline as well “Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO.” The story goes on to say

Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco. The report from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said there was enough evidence to rank processed meats as group 1 carcinogens because of a causal link with bowel cancer.

Are we destined to bounce between reckless hedonism and alarmist headlines about our health choices? Do we really need to swear off bacon? Salon spoke to Timothy Caulfield, a heath researcher at the University of Edmonton and the author of "Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty, and Happiness." The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. The first thing I’m wondering is, What did this study tell us that we didn’t already know? Didn’t most people suspect that eating a lot of bacon or processed food or red meat wasn’t great for them? I’ve been following this for a long time, and often when I give public lectures I use bacon as example… Everyone seems to love bacon so it’s a great starting point. There have been some conflicting stories about bacon and red meat in general and its health value. What I think this allegedly does – they looked at over 800 studies and tried to come to some kind of consensus about the actual risks associated with cancer. That’s why it’s gotten so many headlines… I don’t think anyone eats bacon because they think it’s good for them. They eat it because they love it. But it sounds like you are saying it’s an important study and worth taking seriously. Yeah – and keep in mind, it’s more than a study, it’s a group of experts looking at the available evidence. It really did resonate with people. They said, Yeah, it really is bad for us. I don’t know if they were holding out hope that it was okay. But the headlines have been incredibly alarmist. So my message is to look beyond the hype and ask, What is this study really saying? And the message for me is really a story of moderation. We don’t all have to ban bacon from our kitchens. On the contrary, it probably shouldn’t be your go-to meat product. The study made some claims not just about processed meat but about red meat – the claims were not quite as pronounced. One thing about this study: We have to be careful about not mixing up relative risk and absolute risk. If you’re looking at an increased chance of getting colon cancer of 17 percent – that sounds really grim. But, it’s one of the more common forms of cancer, your chance of getting it over the course of a lifetime is about three or four percent. So you’re talking about an increase of a relatively rare event. So it’s a 17 percent increase on three or four percent? Yes – often these are read as, “That means there’s a 17 percent chance we’re gonna get it.” No, it’s not that at all. So often that’s left out of news stories, and it confuses thing. It’s a nice message – eat healthy, eat in moderation, whenever possible try to eat real food. This feels like part of a pattern of health scares. What are the most garishly distorted or misinterpreted study or report? A case where a scientific study came out and the media or general public took it wrong. Oh God, there are so many. You get, “Red wine is good for you.” Then, “You know what? Maybe antioxidants aren’t so good for you.” Or, “Eggs are terrible for you.” Then, “Maybe eggs aren’t so terrible for you.” The one I love is chocolate – “Chocolate is good for you.” Often you get studies that are correlation studies that suggest something that is either good or bad for you, and that study is blown up to a truism. We do it with macronutrients too. In general, when you’re talking about nutrition, you should be very skeptical toward anything that demonizes a certain food group, or makes any kind of food a super food. There are no super foods. I’m fascinated at how this is all presented. The fact that this study has resonated so much. How have you seen the report be misread and how do you think it will continue to be misinterpreted in the media? The headlines have [mostly]been extremist: “Bacon causes cancer.” That is an over-interpretation of the conclusions. Keep in mind: Everything causes cancer. You look at that World Health Organization list, and it’s long, and it has a lot of things on it we’re exposed to throughout the day. It’s not that bacon causes cancer – it’s that bacon has been associated with cancer. The other thing to follow going forward is how the information will be polarized. You’ll get the vegan and vegetarian community using this in their arsenal of why we should avoid meat. And to be fair, there are more arrows in that quiver. And you’ll see people who love their meat and love their bacon cherry-picking, saying it’s all just one study. It will be interesting to see that polarization, because it’s certainly happened in the past. What should the informed person take from this report? It’s the boring story of moderation. This is more evidence that eating a lot of processed meat is probably not a good idea. But it doesn’t mean you have to avoid it altogether. This increasingly suggests we should view it as a treat, and it looks like that’s increasingly true of red meat. But look, red meat has nutrients in it – it’s not a completely unhealthy product. And moderate means what, a burger once or twice a week? Yeah I think that’s fair to say. And also probably leaning toward meat that’s not as processed. But you can watch this story unfold. Look, nutrition research is really hard. That’s why we get these conflicting stories. You get these big cohort studies, they’re almost always association studies, and it’s often very hard to control for all the variables that are relevant. Some people have criticized this study and the alcohol-is-good-for-you study that they are really proxies for living a different kind of lifestyle. So if you eat a whole bunch of processed meat, there’s probably some other stuff going on in your life. And if you are drinking two glasses of red wine a day, maybe that’s a market for living a moderate lifestyle. It’s really hard to control for all those variables. So you’ve got to look at the whole body of evidence. These experts have tried to do that. And they’ve come to the conclusion – taking in all the biases – and come to the conclusion that bacon and processed food probably is associated with cancer to some degree. Finally, how does this distortion and panic fit in with the celebrity-worship you describe in your book? Does the cult of Gwyneth and other health-and-lifestyle gurus contribute to this kind of problem? For sure that’s the case. Pop culture generally serves as a polarizing source. They use these studies to promote whatever kind of lifestyle they’re promoting, whether eating raw food, or promoting whatever kind of product or agenda a celebrity is pushing. But I always say, There is no magic lifestyle. It’s all about the sensible stuff we’ve long known. So don’t believe the hype – don’t believe these messages that tend to flow out of celebrity culture. There is no magic diet. We’ve long known that lots of fruits and vegetables, nuts… It’s the stuff in general that most of us have known for a long time, and the research continuously backs that up. This study just confirms that – it really us about moderation.

Continue Reading...

David Vitter lurches toward a humiliating defeat: A record of scandal and hypocrisy finally catches up to him

I wrote a few weeks ago that Louisiana, a solidly red state, was primed for Democratic victories thanks in part to Bobby Jindal’s tragic tenure. While the initial results of this weekend’s election were mixed, it appears the political winds are indeed shifting. This is especially true of the gubernatorial race, which pitted frontrunner David Vitter against two other Republicans as well as the Democratic candidate, John Bel Edwards. Louisiana employs a peculiar election system known as a jungle primary, which means all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, compete on a single ballot. If no one gets a majority, the top two candidates compete in a runoff election. On Saturday, Edwards carried 40 percent of the vote to Vitter’s 23 percent (almost a complete reversal of the polling data from a year ago). This means the Edwards will face Vitter in a runoff next month. And Edwards, depending on whom you ask, is now the favorite. For months, David Vitter was the prohibitive frontrunner. He has name recognition, political clout, a plethora of cash, and a state whose demographics increasingly favor conservative Republicans. But this is a unique political climate. Jindal, one of the worst governors in the history of the state, has made toxic everything he touched, including the Republican brand. Running as a Republican gubernatorial candidate after Jindal was always going to be tricky. In addition to that, Vitter, as James Carville told Salon recently, is “one of the most flawed candidates in American politics.” Calling Vitter “flawed” borders on charitable, in my view. The man’s political resume is shot through with sin. There’s the famous D.C. Madam Scandal of 2007, which exposed Vitter's extramarital peccadillos with sex workers (an unfortunate finding for a family values conservative). Miraculously, Vitter managed to recover from this and was poised to win the governorship. But things have spiraled out of control for Vitter in the last month so, with one fiasco after another, and now his entire campaign has cratered. First there was a story published by Jason Berry, an investigative reporter who writes for the blog, American Zombie. Berry interviewed Wendy Ellis, a former prostitute in New Orleans, who claims to have serviced Vitter between 1998 and 2000. She also alleges that Vitter requested that she have an abortion after he impregnated her, a claim Vitter vehemently denies. Berry’s story has since unraveled, but there’s enough smoke to sway voters, particularly those who are familiar with Vitter’s philandering past. Vitter’s follies continued last week when a private investigator his campaign hired, a man named Robert Frenzel, was caught clandestinely recording a conversation between a local sheriff, a state senator, and a lawyer with ties to the Democratic Party. The PI was promptly arrested, after which Vitter released a vacuous statement about his intent to spy on the lawyer, not the sheriff. However you spin it, writes Lamar White, a prominent Louisiana blogger, it seems “David Vitter hired and paid someone $130,000 to spy on John Cummings, a private citizen, because David Vitter is absolutely terrified about what John Cummings knows.” No one knows for sure what Cummings knows, but it’s not hard to imagine what it’s about (hint: prostitutes). On the same day his PI was arrested, Vitter was involved in a minor car accident. What’s interesting, though, as Manny Schewitz first reported yesterday, is that the driver of Vitter’s vehicle was Courtney Gaustella Callihan, a woman linked to Vitter’s Super PAC. Schewitz writes:

The driver was 36-year old Courtney Gaustella Callihan, the wife of Bill Callihan, a director at Capital One Bank. Their home address is also listed as the address for Fund for Louisiana, the Super PAC backing Vitter…So it would make sense that David Vitter would want to leave the scene, due to the fact that Mrs. Callihan is possibly connected to a Super PAC that is supporting his gubernatorial campaign. News reports list her name as Courtney Guastella, but fail to mention her married name which ties her to her husband.

This matters because, if it’s true, Vitter may be in violation of federal election laws. Regardless, though, it’s more of the same from Vitter, a man now irremediably tainted by scandal and hypocrisy. Trying to predict what will happen in the runoff election is difficult. Bob Mann, a columnist for The Times-Picayune in Baton Rouge, LA, thinks Edwards has the advantage:

Edwards should start this runoff with a floor of about 43 percent or 44 percent of the vote, maybe a point higher. That means he must pick up only an additional 6 or 7 percentage points from the combined 34 percent of Angelle and Dardenne [the two Republicans who didn’t make the runoff] – I’m already giving him about 4 points of that vote, i.e. the Democrats who supported the two other Republicans. If a fourth to a third of Angelle and Dardenne voters are truly unwilling to vote for Vitter (a not-unreasonable assumption), Edwards may have all the votes he needs.

Mann’s assumptions are more than justified. Mike Henderson, a researcher at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University, analyzed the favorability numbers of Angelle and Dardenne and found that a majority of their supporters are unsure about Edwards, the Democrat, but positively dislike Vitter. Edwards can easily swing enough Republicans to win the runoff, in other words. It’s possible that Vitter could still win the race, but it’s looking increasingly unlikely. Bobby Jindal didn’t help, but much of this is about Vitter, whose record – personally and politically – is now so objectively awful that Republican voters are running away from him. An Edwards victory won’t make Louisiana a blue state, but it’s a step in the right direction for Louisiana Democrats, many of whom have suffered long enough under the confused and corrupt leadership of unaccountable Republicans.I wrote a few weeks ago that Louisiana, a solidly red state, was primed for Democratic victories thanks in part to Bobby Jindal’s tragic tenure. While the initial results of this weekend’s election were mixed, it appears the political winds are indeed shifting. This is especially true of the gubernatorial race, which pitted frontrunner David Vitter against two other Republicans as well as the Democratic candidate, John Bel Edwards. Louisiana employs a peculiar election system known as a jungle primary, which means all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, compete on a single ballot. If no one gets a majority, the top two candidates compete in a runoff election. On Saturday, Edwards carried 40 percent of the vote to Vitter’s 23 percent (almost a complete reversal of the polling data from a year ago). This means the Edwards will face Vitter in a runoff next month. And Edwards, depending on whom you ask, is now the favorite. For months, David Vitter was the prohibitive frontrunner. He has name recognition, political clout, a plethora of cash, and a state whose demographics increasingly favor conservative Republicans. But this is a unique political climate. Jindal, one of the worst governors in the history of the state, has made toxic everything he touched, including the Republican brand. Running as a Republican gubernatorial candidate after Jindal was always going to be tricky. In addition to that, Vitter, as James Carville told Salon recently, is “one of the most flawed candidates in American politics.” Calling Vitter “flawed” borders on charitable, in my view. The man’s political resume is shot through with sin. There’s the famous D.C. Madam Scandal of 2007, which exposed Vitter's extramarital peccadillos with sex workers (an unfortunate finding for a family values conservative). Miraculously, Vitter managed to recover from this and was poised to win the governorship. But things have spiraled out of control for Vitter in the last month so, with one fiasco after another, and now his entire campaign has cratered. First there was a story published by Jason Berry, an investigative reporter who writes for the blog, American Zombie. Berry interviewed Wendy Ellis, a former prostitute in New Orleans, who claims to have serviced Vitter between 1998 and 2000. She also alleges that Vitter requested that she have an abortion after he impregnated her, a claim Vitter vehemently denies. Berry’s story has since unraveled, but there’s enough smoke to sway voters, particularly those who are familiar with Vitter’s philandering past. Vitter’s follies continued last week when a private investigator his campaign hired, a man named Robert Frenzel, was caught clandestinely recording a conversation between a local sheriff, a state senator, and a lawyer with ties to the Democratic Party. The PI was promptly arrested, after which Vitter released a vacuous statement about his intent to spy on the lawyer, not the sheriff. However you spin it, writes Lamar White, a prominent Louisiana blogger, it seems “David Vitter hired and paid someone $130,000 to spy on John Cummings, a private citizen, because David Vitter is absolutely terrified about what John Cummings knows.” No one knows for sure what Cummings knows, but it’s not hard to imagine what it’s about (hint: prostitutes). On the same day his PI was arrested, Vitter was involved in a minor car accident. What’s interesting, though, as Manny Schewitz first reported yesterday, is that the driver of Vitter’s vehicle was Courtney Gaustella Callihan, a woman linked to Vitter’s Super PAC. Schewitz writes:

The driver was 36-year old Courtney Gaustella Callihan, the wife of Bill Callihan, a director at Capital One Bank. Their home address is also listed as the address for Fund for Louisiana, the Super PAC backing Vitter…So it would make sense that David Vitter would want to leave the scene, due to the fact that Mrs. Callihan is possibly connected to a Super PAC that is supporting his gubernatorial campaign. News reports list her name as Courtney Guastella, but fail to mention her married name which ties her to her husband.

This matters because, if it’s true, Vitter may be in violation of federal election laws. Regardless, though, it’s more of the same from Vitter, a man now irremediably tainted by scandal and hypocrisy. Trying to predict what will happen in the runoff election is difficult. Bob Mann, a columnist for The Times-Picayune in Baton Rouge, LA, thinks Edwards has the advantage:

Edwards should start this runoff with a floor of about 43 percent or 44 percent of the vote, maybe a point higher. That means he must pick up only an additional 6 or 7 percentage points from the combined 34 percent of Angelle and Dardenne [the two Republicans who didn’t make the runoff] – I’m already giving him about 4 points of that vote, i.e. the Democrats who supported the two other Republicans. If a fourth to a third of Angelle and Dardenne voters are truly unwilling to vote for Vitter (a not-unreasonable assumption), Edwards may have all the votes he needs.

Mann’s assumptions are more than justified. Mike Henderson, a researcher at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University, analyzed the favorability numbers of Angelle and Dardenne and found that a majority of their supporters are unsure about Edwards, the Democrat, but positively dislike Vitter. Edwards can easily swing enough Republicans to win the runoff, in other words. It’s possible that Vitter could still win the race, but it’s looking increasingly unlikely. Bobby Jindal didn’t help, but much of this is about Vitter, whose record – personally and politically – is now so objectively awful that Republican voters are running away from him. An Edwards victory won’t make Louisiana a blue state, but it’s a step in the right direction for Louisiana Democrats, many of whom have suffered long enough under the confused and corrupt leadership of unaccountable Republicans.

Continue Reading...

One man’s junk is another man’s paintbrush: Meet Pricasso, the world’s foremost penis artist

Tim Patch, a British artist living in Australia, has been painting exclusively with his penis, testicles and buttocks for several years now. Pricasso, as he’s known in professional circles, has recently been invited to perform at London’s Sexpo this November. It will be the first time he’s had the opportunity to showcase his work in his home country. Though portraits are his specialty, Patch also dabbles in pottery and poetry, having created thoughtful verses like “Blow Up Doll” and “Sex Change.” As expected, Patch is a bit of an eccentric. On his official site, you can find photos of him stark nude, save a pair of bright, hightop boots and a top hat to match. He also has a permanent tattoo of his website on his upper back. When he’s not participating in major lifestyle exhibitions, Patch is available for private parties, club performances and most other events (kid's birthday parties are probably off the table). “You can hire me…for the same cost as a stripper but when I leave you will have as many portraits as you want with their own DVD of them being painted. I will also travel, just buy me a flight and I'll be there and can easily paint 20 portraits per day,” he writes on his site.

Continue Reading...

My life in the cult: How “serving God” unraveled into sex abuse, child neglect and a waking nightmare

I left the Children of God in the early 2000s. It took a long time to come out of the haze of those 30 years, but when I did, I was appalled by my former self. One of the most common questions people ask is: How could you be part of such a thing? And how could you stay? For years — as I came to grips with my own guilt, remorse and shame — I asked myself the same things. In 2003, my eldest son, then an adult, sent me a link to a thorough three-year investigation into the COG as part of a child custody case filed with the High Court in England in the early 1990s, and I learned that, according to these court records, I was not alone in the horrors I'd experienced. 

I grew up in suburban Washington, D.C., the youngest of seven children in a comfortably middle-class Catholic home. We must have looked like the perfect family. My parents were leaders of the Charismatic group at their large church. Our house was clean – almost sterile. “Rake the rug after you walk through the living room to clear your footprints. Put a sheet on the sofa before you sit down,” my mother would chime. After my older siblings left home, I felt lost and alone. At 16, I fell into anorexia and depression. I spent my summer lifeguarding, swimming and dabbling in drugs.

Perhaps that’s why I began my spiritual quest, or perhaps it was just a symptom of the times. I was looking for meaning to life, to belong to something larger than myself. In my junior year of high school, I saw a friend reading a Bible at school. She had recently met the COG, and gave me one of their publications to read. I found it a bit strange, but it touched something in me. I went with her to meet the COG after school that day.

I was trying to find my path in life, and I thought this might be it. Here was a group of dedicated Christian young people determined to return to the pure roots of Christianity by living communally and sharing all things. I felt loved and accepted, and was welcomed into the fold as a new “babe” in Christ. Born again. I didn’t see this as a “cult”; I saw it as a chance to live an honorable life of service to God and others. And I was so young. What did I know about how the world worked? It would be another nine years before my frontal lobe was completely developed, the portion of the brain involved in decision-making that allows us to envision long-term consequences. I had no idea I was walking into a nightmare. I couldn’t see past the utter joy of the overwhelming love and acceptance I felt.

I took a new name. I cast off my belongings. If this abrupt change hurt my friends, I was blind to it. I lost contact with them. I was completely swept up in my zeal. In the atmosphere of the ’60s and early ’70s, when hippie communes were popular, shucking off your conventional life was an appealing idea. My mother took a hard stand: “Do NOT visit the COG commune.” But teens have a way of doing what they want to do. On my 18th birthday, I moved in to the local commune. What could they do?

I had no idea what a costly decision it would be — to burn bridges with everyone I’d been close to, to give up the only world I had known. Like St. Francis of old, I saw myself as a committed follower of Christ. I saw this as my “new family.” A lot of what happened next could probably be explained by my need to justify this stunning, impulsive first move — once I jumped into the deep end, I had to prove to myself that I could swim.

Life in the commune was tightly scheduled. Proselytizing took up most of our time, but I still fulfilled the daily requirement of reading two to three hours from the Bible as well as the group’s publications. As Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book on the mind, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.” Back then, I only knew it as my daily routine. We read thousands of Mo Letters, rambling talks written by the group’s founder, David Berg, and named after his pseudonym, Moses David.

Life was said to be “fair” and God “just.” Therefore if anything bad happened, we were to search for the reason it occurred. “Nothing happens by accident to one of God’s children,” we were taught. “Caught a cold? Seek the Lord and see why he is dealing with you,” we were admonished. “Then write a confession and ask for united prayer for deliverance.” The natural extension of this belief in a “just world” is conspiracy theories, of which COG publications were rife. The Illuminati were pulling the strings of world events behind the scenes, and evil persecutors were always after Berg and us, so we must be constantly vigilant about our security and he and his top leaders must live in utter secrecy.

We were taught that anything we heard had to be measured against “the Word” before we could accept it. Doubting was considered sinful, so if we ever had suspicions about anything in the group, we dared not mention them.

Take, for instance, the time David Berg prophesied the end of life as we know it in the U.S. He warned, “You in the U.S. have only until January [1974] to get out of the States before some kind of disaster, destruction or judgment of God is to fall because of America’s wickedness!”

Then nothing happened. But Berg, like all the other self-proclaimed prophets whose prophecies inevitably failed, found a way to both rationalize it and inflate his group’s importance. Comparing himself to Jonah in the Bible, he said nothing happened because the people repented. Since God’s children had done such a good job of warning the world to turn from their wickedness, God didn’t have to destroy America – yet. That was still to come.

It’s an awkward moment when a prophet has to explain his failed doomsday prophecy. I remember glancing around the room thinking, “Are you guys all OK with this?” But when everyone else seemed to accept the reasoning, I figured it must be all right.

I’ve since learned about the principle of social proof, in which people surreptitiously check to see what others are doing and then align their behavior accordingly, figuring those people know more about correct behavior than we do. That was the modus operandi in the cult. The sad truth is that in many cases, those other people were just as clueless as I was.

In 1976, I was taking care of the children of COG “Archbishops” in a secret Commune in Pennsylvania. In response to yet another one of Berg’s frightening prophecies of soon-coming nuclear holocaust and antichrist world takeover, we moved to “safer” third-world countries. I ended up in a country in the tropics. The heat, the poverty, the grime, the roaches – what a shock it was to me.

After a year of constant fundraising and childcare, the green light was given to all COG members to begin to “live the Law of Love,” which until then was only practiced in secret by the top echelons of COG leaders. This stated, “Anything done in love is perfectly lawful in God’s eyes.” Free sex was now the norm in Communes (as long as it was done with “sacrificial love” as its motive), and sex with outsiders – Flirty Fishing (ahem, prostitution) – was now the preeminent “witnessing tool.”

When I joined the COG, there was a strict rule against sex before marriage; suddenly that was turned upside down. But I swallowed my “old bottle” ways (COG term for those who don’t embrace the new teachings) and soldiered on. At 20 I lost my virginity Flirty Fishing a Middle-Eastern gentleman – all for the cause of Christ, of course.

Not long after, I was invited to help care for another leader’s children, this time in a secret Commune. These leaders were unlike anyone I had met before in the group. Gone was the veneer of righteousness and spirituality. These people were funny, good-natured and kind. Since their Commune was secret, they had little contact with other COG members – a safe haven from the rampant sexual promiscuity.

I stayed with this family for over four years, caring for and schooling their children, cooking, cleaning and falling in love with all of them.

To fulfill the duty of “caring for the [sexual] needs” of the people in his home, the man of the house spent time with me every few months – with his wife’s blessing. When I got pregnant with his child, I wondered if God was telling us I was now part of their family. (“Everything happens for a reason,” you know.) A man with two wives was not at all unusual in the COG – Berg had a harem.

When my son was a toddler, though, the family was abruptly whisked away to live with Berg, and I was left to join the mainstream group, emotionally shattered and never to see my son’s father again.

In contrast to my former quiet room with peaceful, well-behaved children, I now found myself sharing a large bedroom with many children and a newly “mated” couple. (“Mate” was the preferred COG nomenclature for “marry.”) Their big double-bed can be referred to as nothing if not the centerpiece of the room, with the children’s and my beds arranged around the sides. This couple thought nothing of having uninhibited sex daily during our mandatory “quiet time” (two hours of rest after lunch), and I wanted nothing more than to escape the cringe-worthy awkwardness of the situation.

I would take my son for walks around the neighborhood as much as I could to get away from that overcrowded, oversexed home. Hopeless, deserted and alone, that was my time to cry.

Should I have left then? But what would I have done? In the COG, we were not permitted to hold jobs. We were told any future planning was taboo and considered a lack of faith in God’s power of provision. What would my skills be? Where could I go? My parents had both died of cancer shortly after I left for the commune. I felt alone in the world — but I was still not going to “turn my back on God’s work.”

By the following year, desperate for companionship and desperate to have a father-figure for my son, I met a rare single man in the group, and within six weeks we were “mated.” After the initial two months of newlywed bliss, I felt he had lost all attraction for me. Clinging desperately to what we initially had, I persevered for years, hoping in vain he would be the man I believed him to be. (I can only imagine the stress he must have felt living with me.) We never outright fought, but rather played passive-aggressive games. Our poor children.

The much-feared “persecution” of the COG came. The leader I worked with was among those named as cult leaders in a front-page newspaper story. We needed to move immediately. We fled to a new country. Once again, culture shock. Our unvaccinated children came down with whooping cough, and then later measles, rubella and mumps. After months of quarantine to contain the spread, the leader moved her children away. During more than six years with them, she had become my pseudo-mother figure, and overnight she was torn away from me along with her children, whom I dearly loved. More emotional damage.

Berg’s “law of love” had given license for all manner of lechery, as well as abuse of children through severe corporal punishment, which he promoted (“spare the rod, spoil the child”), as well as sexual abuse heaped most abundantly on those nearest to him. The new push of enormous “School Homes” began to perfect the physical punishment of children, especially adolescents, through spankings and “silence restriction,” where a child would be made to wear a sign warning others not to speak to them.

We were to treat the children in the group as all “our children,” according to Berg’s teaching in his Letter “One Wife.”  If ever a parent tried to come to the defense of their child, they were labelled as “favoring their children” — a serious sin in the cult. Many teens also lived away from their parents – some lived on opposite sides of the world. I did my best to protect my children, but mainly I lived in denial. I thought abuse happened elsewhere, not where we lived. It was easy to remain in the dark. We lived in a vacuum, after all: No books, no TV, no magazines and of course, no Internet.

Meanwhile, the desperation of the average member brought on by scarcity and poverty drove a constant scramble for survival. Members were either out on the streets selling pamphlets or cult products, approaching businesses for donations of money or goods, or taking care of the ever-growing number of children, as free sex and no birth control were seen as the only way to please the Lord. No time was allowed for thought. If things ever began to ease up, a new “push” would inevitably come in the next directive from Berg, and our “witnessing” hours would increase, putting the children’s already scanty education further onto the back burners and increasing stress all-around.

The stress, the constant submission, the daily struggle, the lack of meaningful mental input – it was as if I had undergone a spiritual lobotomy. I was effectively brain-dead.

Berg died in 1994 and his mistress, Karen Zerby, took over the leadership of the COG. Although Ff'ing was no longer allowed, new strange doctrines arose to take its place. We were to “make love to Jesus,” i.e., pretend Jesus was our partner when we had sex with someone and say words of endearment to him.

Then came the innumerable spirit helpers and guides. These imaginary ghosts provided all sorts of services. Many people received “stories” from them; some even wrote whole novels supposedly channeled from great authors of the past.

This all was getting a little hard to swallow. I don’t know which was more offensive — the poorly written novels, or the bizarre “spiritual truths” that Zerby was proclaiming.

But I’d put so many years into the group. Longing to stay true to my initial commitment to “serve the Lord,” I continued clinging to my delusion. Loss aversion is very powerful. But eventually, even that fear can be overcome.

When my eldest son reached adulthood living far from home, he left the group. He told me he thought Zerby was a lunatic and sent me a link to the custody case with the High Court in England. Reading that opened my eyes. The group I had devoted 30 years of my life to was a house of horrors.

I left immediately.

My mind was in a fog. What a psychological jolt! All the regret and apologies I can muster will never turn back the clock. My older children’s childhoods can never be relived. Since then, I’ve struggled to understand what allowed me to remain so gullible in the first place. The more I read about cults, the more I realize how universal the experience, from Jonestown to ISIS. Isolated and alone, in unfamiliar surroundings, members’ sense of “normal” behavior gradually becomes more bizarre, and even morally repugnant. Stanley Milgram, who conducted famous experiments on obedience in the 1960s, summed it up well when he wrote, ”Often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.”

Now that I am old, it is all-too-easy for me to replay with deep remorse the horrors of those wasted years. Nevertheless, I am heartened by the forgiveness shown to me by my children and other young people whom I taught in the group.

As for me, I still have hope. Having missed out on years of learning, there are not enough hours in the day for all there is to learn. I study all that I can about neurology, psychology and behavioral economics. I listen to courses on history, science, language. I want to keep traveling and learning. I’m interested in most everything – except Christianity and new age groups. I’ve had my fill of those.

I left the Children of God in the early 2000s. It took a long time to come out of the haze of those 30 years, but when I did, I was appalled by my former self. One of the most common questions people ask is: How could you be part of such a thing? And how could you stay? For years — as I came to grips with my own guilt, remorse and shame — I asked myself the same things. In 2003, my eldest son, then an adult, sent me a link to a thorough three-year investigation into the COG as part of a child custody case filed with the High Court in England in the early 1990s, and I learned that, according to these court records, I was not alone in the horrors I'd experienced. 

I grew up in suburban Washington, D.C., the youngest of seven children in a comfortably middle-class Catholic home. We must have looked like the perfect family. My parents were leaders of the Charismatic group at their large church. Our house was clean – almost sterile. “Rake the rug after you walk through the living room to clear your footprints. Put a sheet on the sofa before you sit down,” my mother would chime. After my older siblings left home, I felt lost and alone. At 16, I fell into anorexia and depression. I spent my summer lifeguarding, swimming and dabbling in drugs.

Perhaps that’s why I began my spiritual quest, or perhaps it was just a symptom of the times. I was looking for meaning to life, to belong to something larger than myself. In my junior year of high school, I saw a friend reading a Bible at school. She had recently met the COG, and gave me one of their publications to read. I found it a bit strange, but it touched something in me. I went with her to meet the COG after school that day.

I was trying to find my path in life, and I thought this might be it. Here was a group of dedicated Christian young people determined to return to the pure roots of Christianity by living communally and sharing all things. I felt loved and accepted, and was welcomed into the fold as a new “babe” in Christ. Born again. I didn’t see this as a “cult”; I saw it as a chance to live an honorable life of service to God and others. And I was so young. What did I know about how the world worked? It would be another nine years before my frontal lobe was completely developed, the portion of the brain involved in decision-making that allows us to envision long-term consequences. I had no idea I was walking into a nightmare. I couldn’t see past the utter joy of the overwhelming love and acceptance I felt.

I took a new name. I cast off my belongings. If this abrupt change hurt my friends, I was blind to it. I lost contact with them. I was completely swept up in my zeal. In the atmosphere of the ’60s and early ’70s, when hippie communes were popular, shucking off your conventional life was an appealing idea. My mother took a hard stand: “Do NOT visit the COG commune.” But teens have a way of doing what they want to do. On my 18th birthday, I moved in to the local commune. What could they do?

I had no idea what a costly decision it would be — to burn bridges with everyone I’d been close to, to give up the only world I had known. Like St. Francis of old, I saw myself as a committed follower of Christ. I saw this as my “new family.” A lot of what happened next could probably be explained by my need to justify this stunning, impulsive first move — once I jumped into the deep end, I had to prove to myself that I could swim.

Life in the commune was tightly scheduled. Proselytizing took up most of our time, but I still fulfilled the daily requirement of reading two to three hours from the Bible as well as the group’s publications. As Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book on the mind, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.” Back then, I only knew it as my daily routine. We read thousands of Mo Letters, rambling talks written by the group’s founder, David Berg, and named after his pseudonym, Moses David.

Life was said to be “fair” and God “just.” Therefore if anything bad happened, we were to search for the reason it occurred. “Nothing happens by accident to one of God’s children,” we were taught. “Caught a cold? Seek the Lord and see why he is dealing with you,” we were admonished. “Then write a confession and ask for united prayer for deliverance.” The natural extension of this belief in a “just world” is conspiracy theories, of which COG publications were rife. The Illuminati were pulling the strings of world events behind the scenes, and evil persecutors were always after Berg and us, so we must be constantly vigilant about our security and he and his top leaders must live in utter secrecy.

We were taught that anything we heard had to be measured against “the Word” before we could accept it. Doubting was considered sinful, so if we ever had suspicions about anything in the group, we dared not mention them.

Take, for instance, the time David Berg prophesied the end of life as we know it in the U.S. He warned, “You in the U.S. have only until January [1974] to get out of the States before some kind of disaster, destruction or judgment of God is to fall because of America’s wickedness!”

Then nothing happened. But Berg, like all the other self-proclaimed prophets whose prophecies inevitably failed, found a way to both rationalize it and inflate his group’s importance. Comparing himself to Jonah in the Bible, he said nothing happened because the people repented. Since God’s children had done such a good job of warning the world to turn from their wickedness, God didn’t have to destroy America – yet. That was still to come.

It’s an awkward moment when a prophet has to explain his failed doomsday prophecy. I remember glancing around the room thinking, “Are you guys all OK with this?” But when everyone else seemed to accept the reasoning, I figured it must be all right.

I’ve since learned about the principle of social proof, in which people surreptitiously check to see what others are doing and then align their behavior accordingly, figuring those people know more about correct behavior than we do. That was the modus operandi in the cult. The sad truth is that in many cases, those other people were just as clueless as I was.

In 1976, I was taking care of the children of COG “Archbishops” in a secret Commune in Pennsylvania. In response to yet another one of Berg’s frightening prophecies of soon-coming nuclear holocaust and antichrist world takeover, we moved to “safer” third-world countries. I ended up in a country in the tropics. The heat, the poverty, the grime, the roaches – what a shock it was to me.

After a year of constant fundraising and childcare, the green light was given to all COG members to begin to “live the Law of Love,” which until then was only practiced in secret by the top echelons of COG leaders. This stated, “Anything done in love is perfectly lawful in God’s eyes.” Free sex was now the norm in Communes (as long as it was done with “sacrificial love” as its motive), and sex with outsiders – Flirty Fishing (ahem, prostitution) – was now the preeminent “witnessing tool.”

When I joined the COG, there was a strict rule against sex before marriage; suddenly that was turned upside down. But I swallowed my “old bottle” ways (COG term for those who don’t embrace the new teachings) and soldiered on. At 20 I lost my virginity Flirty Fishing a Middle-Eastern gentleman – all for the cause of Christ, of course.

Not long after, I was invited to help care for another leader’s children, this time in a secret Commune. These leaders were unlike anyone I had met before in the group. Gone was the veneer of righteousness and spirituality. These people were funny, good-natured and kind. Since their Commune was secret, they had little contact with other COG members – a safe haven from the rampant sexual promiscuity.

I stayed with this family for over four years, caring for and schooling their children, cooking, cleaning and falling in love with all of them.

To fulfill the duty of “caring for the [sexual] needs” of the people in his home, the man of the house spent time with me every few months – with his wife’s blessing. When I got pregnant with his child, I wondered if God was telling us I was now part of their family. (“Everything happens for a reason,” you know.) A man with two wives was not at all unusual in the COG – Berg had a harem.

When my son was a toddler, though, the family was abruptly whisked away to live with Berg, and I was left to join the mainstream group, emotionally shattered and never to see my son’s father again.

In contrast to my former quiet room with peaceful, well-behaved children, I now found myself sharing a large bedroom with many children and a newly “mated” couple. (“Mate” was the preferred COG nomenclature for “marry.”) Their big double-bed can be referred to as nothing if not the centerpiece of the room, with the children’s and my beds arranged around the sides. This couple thought nothing of having uninhibited sex daily during our mandatory “quiet time” (two hours of rest after lunch), and I wanted nothing more than to escape the cringe-worthy awkwardness of the situation.

I would take my son for walks around the neighborhood as much as I could to get away from that overcrowded, oversexed home. Hopeless, deserted and alone, that was my time to cry.

Should I have left then? But what would I have done? In the COG, we were not permitted to hold jobs. We were told any future planning was taboo and considered a lack of faith in God’s power of provision. What would my skills be? Where could I go? My parents had both died of cancer shortly after I left for the commune. I felt alone in the world — but I was still not going to “turn my back on God’s work.”

By the following year, desperate for companionship and desperate to have a father-figure for my son, I met a rare single man in the group, and within six weeks we were “mated.” After the initial two months of newlywed bliss, I felt he had lost all attraction for me. Clinging desperately to what we initially had, I persevered for years, hoping in vain he would be the man I believed him to be. (I can only imagine the stress he must have felt living with me.) We never outright fought, but rather played passive-aggressive games. Our poor children.

The much-feared “persecution” of the COG came. The leader I worked with was among those named as cult leaders in a front-page newspaper story. We needed to move immediately. We fled to a new country. Once again, culture shock. Our unvaccinated children came down with whooping cough, and then later measles, rubella and mumps. After months of quarantine to contain the spread, the leader moved her children away. During more than six years with them, she had become my pseudo-mother figure, and overnight she was torn away from me along with her children, whom I dearly loved. More emotional damage.

Berg’s “law of love” had given license for all manner of lechery, as well as abuse of children through severe corporal punishment, which he promoted (“spare the rod, spoil the child”), as well as sexual abuse heaped most abundantly on those nearest to him. The new push of enormous “School Homes” began to perfect the physical punishment of children, especially adolescents, through spankings and “silence restriction,” where a child would be made to wear a sign warning others not to speak to them.

We were to treat the children in the group as all “our children,” according to Berg’s teaching in his Letter “One Wife.”  If ever a parent tried to come to the defense of their child, they were labelled as “favoring their children” — a serious sin in the cult. Many teens also lived away from their parents – some lived on opposite sides of the world. I did my best to protect my children, but mainly I lived in denial. I thought abuse happened elsewhere, not where we lived. It was easy to remain in the dark. We lived in a vacuum, after all: No books, no TV, no magazines and of course, no Internet.

Meanwhile, the desperation of the average member brought on by scarcity and poverty drove a constant scramble for survival. Members were either out on the streets selling pamphlets or cult products, approaching businesses for donations of money or goods, or taking care of the ever-growing number of children, as free sex and no birth control were seen as the only way to please the Lord. No time was allowed for thought. If things ever began to ease up, a new “push” would inevitably come in the next directive from Berg, and our “witnessing” hours would increase, putting the children’s already scanty education further onto the back burners and increasing stress all-around.

The stress, the constant submission, the daily struggle, the lack of meaningful mental input – it was as if I had undergone a spiritual lobotomy. I was effectively brain-dead.

Berg died in 1994 and his mistress, Karen Zerby, took over the leadership of the COG. Although Ff'ing was no longer allowed, new strange doctrines arose to take its place. We were to “make love to Jesus,” i.e., pretend Jesus was our partner when we had sex with someone and say words of endearment to him.

Then came the innumerable spirit helpers and guides. These imaginary ghosts provided all sorts of services. Many people received “stories” from them; some even wrote whole novels supposedly channeled from great authors of the past.

This all was getting a little hard to swallow. I don’t know which was more offensive — the poorly written novels, or the bizarre “spiritual truths” that Zerby was proclaiming.

But I’d put so many years into the group. Longing to stay true to my initial commitment to “serve the Lord,” I continued clinging to my delusion. Loss aversion is very powerful. But eventually, even that fear can be overcome.

When my eldest son reached adulthood living far from home, he left the group. He told me he thought Zerby was a lunatic and sent me a link to the custody case with the High Court in England. Reading that opened my eyes. The group I had devoted 30 years of my life to was a house of horrors.

I left immediately.

My mind was in a fog. What a psychological jolt! All the regret and apologies I can muster will never turn back the clock. My older children’s childhoods can never be relived. Since then, I’ve struggled to understand what allowed me to remain so gullible in the first place. The more I read about cults, the more I realize how universal the experience, from Jonestown to ISIS. Isolated and alone, in unfamiliar surroundings, members’ sense of “normal” behavior gradually becomes more bizarre, and even morally repugnant. Stanley Milgram, who conducted famous experiments on obedience in the 1960s, summed it up well when he wrote, ”Often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.”

Now that I am old, it is all-too-easy for me to replay with deep remorse the horrors of those wasted years. Nevertheless, I am heartened by the forgiveness shown to me by my children and other young people whom I taught in the group.

As for me, I still have hope. Having missed out on years of learning, there are not enough hours in the day for all there is to learn. I study all that I can about neurology, psychology and behavioral economics. I listen to courses on history, science, language. I want to keep traveling and learning. I’m interested in most everything – except Christianity and new age groups. I’ve had my fill of those.

Continue Reading...

Deliver me from “Deliverance”: Finally, a Hollywood movie gets Appalachian people right

When the film "Big Stone Gap" premiered earlier this month, it did something no other movie ever has: showed Appalachia as a place of both diversity and intelligence. This certainly flies in the face of how most folks are used to seeing this place and its people. Less than a year after I was born, the film "Deliverance" premiered in the summer of 1972 and has had a profound impact on my life ever since. The first time I realized this I was 18, when my family and I made our first trip to the beach. There, in a store where we were buying floats and sunscreen, a teenaged cashier overheard our mountain accents and remarked to another clerk: “Watch out, boy, you shore do have a real purdy mouth.” She was paraphrasing a famous line from "Deliverance" uttered by a nasty, toothless mountain man as he prepares to rape a city-slicker tourist. The implication, of course, was that since we were clearly from Appalachia, then we were most likely similar to that character: the violent, stupid, subhuman products of inbreeding. She didn’t even have enough respect for us to say any of this under her breath. People all over the world think they know something about Appalachia because they’ve seen "Deliverance," which is a well-made but terribly stereotypical thriller portraying hillbillies as soulless, illiterate and mean-hearted villains. And Appalachians have been judged by these standards ever since. "Deliverance" may have had the biggest impact, but it is certainly not the first or only perpetuation of Appalachian people as horrific or backward. In fact, some of the earliest films were explorations of this misunderstood place, and they proved to be popular. Hits of the silent film era—from 1904’s "The Moonshiner" and 1905’s "Kentucky Feud" (1905) to 1916’s "Mountain Blood"—all reveal common “hillbilly tropes” that still have power today: feuding, illiteracy, oversexualization, laziness, fear of the outside world. These stereotypes have remained constant for more than a hundred years and Hollywood has laid them on as thickly as possible. In 1989’s "Next of Kin," contemporary Appalachian people—embroiled in a bitter feud, of course—are shown wearing clothing of the late 1800s; children play with wooden toys and guns; a man slaughters a deer and stores its carcass in his kitchen refrigerator. In 2003’s "Wrong Turn" and its four sequels, the last of which appeared in 2012, the Appalachians are inbred cannibals intent on nothing more than devouring the flesh of city people. When it premiered last month, Eli Roth’s film "The Green Inferno," about a group of social justice activists who are eaten alive by an Amazonian rainforest tribe, was met with boycotts and much controversy. Yet none of the many Appalachian-exploitation films have received any organized protest. The outcry doesn’t exist because for many people the words “Appalachia” and “poverty” are synonymous. And for even more, poverty equals powerlessness. Apparently, it’s okay to make fun of and dehumanize Americans who don’t have power. That’s certainly always been the case with film. Two of the first novels to sell more than a million copies in our nation were about the region and written by John Fox Jr. His novels "The Little Shepherd of Kingdom Come" (1904) and "The Trail of the Lonesome Pine" (1908) are now considered fairly sentimental portrayals of the Appalachian people, but the books’ film legacies are perhaps more ingrained in the public consciousness. At least four films were made of "The Trail of the Lonesome Pine," one of them by Cecil B. DeMille, and each showcases mountain people as illiterate, violent and in need of an urban savior. Ironically, Fox lived most of his life in the same Virginia coal-mining town that is now giving its name to the film that is revolutionizing how Appalachian people are portrayed on film. "Big Stone Gap," a new movie adapted from the bestselling novel by Adriana Trigiani, stars Ashley Judd as a middle-aged Appalachian woman whose quiet life is disrupted by a death and a sudden revelation. The film features an African-American woman who is neither servant nor Magic Negro, a gay man who is not ostracized once he comes out, and a main character who is not only Italian, but also intelligent and even bilingual. In fact, many of the characters—including a lovable librarian and a tough coal-miner—love to read. References are made to "Jane Eyre" and "Wuthering Heights." Michelangelo is quoted. The film even showcases a couple of Melungeon characters, a tri-racial isolate that most Americans don’t even know exist because they’re rarely taught anything about this region’s culture or history. Furthermore, the film is set in 1978 and the characters actually dress like it’s 1978 — not as if they’re 30 years behind in fashion and lifestyle. These may seem like small victories, but for Appalachian people, this portrayal is revolutionary. Even in our best films we are rarely shown as diverse, intelligent, or modern. "Coal Miner’s Daughter" is one of the region’s most beloved films because it showcases Loretta Lynn, a hero to many Appalachian people because of her pluck, determination, and authenticity. Yet even this complex portrayal of the region is not without fault. Lynn herself had complaints, among them that her mother was portrayed as always wearing dowdy gingham dresses and a haggard expression when, in fact, she “was anything but drab,” according to Lynn, who insisted that her mother wore “bloodred lipstick” and blue jeans in the 1950s. Over and over, Appalachians have been made to be representative of the past on film. Of violence and illiteracy. In 2004, a three year-old child was killed when a half-ton boulder was pushed off an illegal mining operation and crashed through three walls to stop atop his body—just a few miles from the town of Big Stone Gap. The media barely blinked; in fact, there was no national coverage of the event. I believe that’s because to most people, Appalachians are invisible. We’re throwaway people. Films have led us to believe that Appalachians—like my family on that beach trip—are so backward, mean and toothless that they’re not worthy of respect. Last year, when the water supply for more than 300,000 West Virginians was contaminated by a chemical spill, it was one of the worst drinking water disasters in history. Several people told me the people there “deserved it” because they were “stupid hillbillies.” When county court clerk Kim Davis became internationally famous because of her backward thinking on marriage equality, her stance was most often blamed on where she was from instead of what she believed in, despite the fact that polls showed that most Kentuckians did not agree with her. Movies have taught us that all rural people are racist, homophobic and misogynistic. Films play a large part in the way the wider world views a culture, and they’ve done quite a number on my homeland. In a world riddled by public massacres in our schools, movie theatres and churches, this may seem like a small problem. In a world frightened of ISIS and other forms of religious fundamentalism, these complaints may seem unimportant. But one of the fundamental problems in our world today is a lack of respect for others. Unfair stereotypes lead to that kind of widespread negation of an entire people and their way of life. Appalachia isn’t the only place that is stereotyped on film, of course. Native Americans, African-Americans, Asians, even New Yorkers and those from Fargo, North Dakota, all have specific stereotypes that have been created by films. But few other cultures have been so consistently portrayed in this way with so few examples of getting it right. Luckily, "Big Stone Gap" does. I hope that that Myrtle Beach cashier—20 years older now—will see it and learn something new.

Continue Reading...

Welcome to the new Jim Crow: Michelle Alexander is right — our justice system doubles as a racial caste system

In the second installment of this 2-part series, Sean Beaudoin and Meg Worden discuss the prison system in America in a broader sense, looking at incarceration as a highly intentional system of control, as well as a rarely-examined political philosophy. Meg Worden spent 2 years in a Federal prison camp for conspiracy to distribute MDMA. SB: We could spend this entire interview talking about all the ways in which America is a fantastic place to live. Instead, we’re here to try and grapple with the fact that our country also operates what is essentially a for-profit penal gulag. Even worse, it exists, without pretense or apology, in the midst of a populace that is indifferent toward, or entirely ignorant of it. MW:  Yes. I suppose. I’m not sure I’m firmly in the camp of fantastic, and more precariously in the camp of feeling so inundated by freedom propaganda in the face of a rising police state.  I believe in holding on to hope, however. The ignorance is waning. We have the ability to communicate across a huge platform with immediacy. Our technology allows us to look into locations and lives where we ordinarily would never have access. We finally had a president visit a prison (outrageous that it has never happened before) and he made some compelling and compassionate statements about the need for changes in the system. Seeing leadership give the situation a nod, versus a tone deaf and myopic tough-on-crime stance, was hopeful. We still have a very long way to go to get to humane institutions that protect and rehabilitate without regard for class or race. Perhaps the insane costs of our penal system is tipping the scales towards reformation. SB: I’d like to avoid statistics as much as possible, if only because everyone seems to have their own set, but before we go any further, we need some baseline context. Depending on your source, (mine, for sake of non-partisanship, is the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, or BJS), we have the world’s largest prison population (more than China and Russia combined), as well as the highest per-capita incarceration rate. We have somewhere around 2.5 million people incarcerated in Federal and State prisons. There are around 75,ooo juveniles also incarcerated. So, somewhere around 1 in 100 Americans are currently in jail, a vast majority for non-violent offenses. MW: Yes. These statistics are pretty accurate to what I’ve read also. And it’s not like they’re hidden in the depths of some university research facility, they’re all over the Internet, often with infographics, videos, and lists that put us above countries we consider being “Third World.” There are so many facets feeding this system, from economic imbalance, lack of quality available healthcare and housing, underfunded schools, and unreasonable drug laws, it’s hard to know where one could even find an inroad into change that wouldn’t collapse in on itself. In addition to the problems for the people in the system, the people outside of it are taught that it is working and they don’t need to pay attention. There’s a lot of “don’t look at the man behind the curtain” going on. Unless it touches a person personally, or someone a person personally knows — and many times stigma keeps those people silent about their experiences — it is easy not to think about. They imagine it’s working fine, that it’s a problem politicians will effectively solve. I think at our core we still believe someone up there has our well-being at heart. SB: We have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its inmates, which should lead us to conclude that American Exceptionalism turns out to be about the high quality of our criminal underclass. Or that, as a culture, we have officially fetishized punishment. MW: Or we have fetishized victimization and normalized isolation. Barring actual personal responsibility to protect citizens, the definition of justice seems to have morphed into the near-obsessive need to hold someone accountable for each and every grievance. The promise to the “victim” is that the incarceration or death of those responsible will eradicate the pain of their loss – a fact actually proven erroneous. This functions to the such an egregious extent that an entire race and class of people (white, wealthy) has set themselves apart from the “criminal element” in order to isolate from the perpetrator paradigm and retain power by maintaining assumed victimization. It’s myopic and nonsensical, and so deeply entrenched into the “white lie” that it’s invisible to the children being raised with the narrative of entitlement. “You can do or be anything you want if only you work hard enough” just doesn’t apply across the board. SB: I just read a statistic that there are more black men in prison right now then there were enslaved in 1850. African Americans make up 13.6 percent of the population, but account for 40.2 percent of all prison inmates. I don’t see how it’s possible for any rational person not to conclude that prisons in America are part of a calculated system of social control, and that system is motivated by hierarchies of race and class. MB: The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Not long ago I read the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander which makes a compelling case for the organization of our justice system as a racial caste system. The War on Drugs particularly targeted unemployed, inner city inhabitants who are primarily of color. There is ample evidence that drug usage and crime is not skewed heavily towards any particular race of people, while drug sweeps, patrols, random searches, and use of force absolutely are. SB: The influx of drugs that mysteriously flooded the inner cities during Vietnam, combined with a huge upswing in arrests and changes in sentencing laws effectively dismantled the black and Latino political movements of the 70’s. The inequity in the sentencing structure between crack and powdered cocaine in the 80’s continued a premeditated and highly effective system of social control of a potentially volatile community, while also meting out absurdly long sentences for a particular underclass, simply because they couldn’t afford a higher-quality drug. Decades of injustice later, these guidelines are finally being amended by the Obama administration. MW: The inequity of the sentencing guidelines between different drug classes absolutely has a history of racism. The result of guidelines that put sentencing for crack at virtually one hundred times that for powder cocaine was the product of runaway populism around politicians vying to appear toughest on crime. Somewhat related: I didn’t know until the recent legalization of cannabis in my state that even the name “marijuana” is a name made up by the U.S. to sound Mexican. It isn’t even a Spanish word. Just a tool to blame a population of people for corruption and remove their rights, particularly as a voting block, but also as neighbors, business and property owners, and community members. The oppression of people of color is epic, and so very tired. SB: Since 1989, 1,655 convictions have been reversed nationwide, a great majority of them for black and Latino males. Either it’s a massive coincidence that bad convictions are disproportionately levied against people of color, or our justice system is intentionally levied against people of color. MW: At this point it’s pretty hard to argue that the disproportionate amount of convictions period are levied against people of color. There are far more people of color incarcerated for crimes that are equally, or often less, prevalent in their communities than white communities. The real difference is the amount of police surveillance, random searching, and arrest quota motivation in certain neighborhoods. SB: Given that the fifteenth Amendment (passed just after the end of the Civil War) precludes convicted felons from voting, and having a record makes it extremely difficult for any former convict to get a decent job, the American penal system has very deliberately rendered many African American men non-citizens. MB: Considering the importance of democracy, ownership, family, and the ability to earn a viable income as markers of relevant personhood in our culture, the penal system has actually rendered many African American men non-human. Targeted as “dangerous” from their teen years, swept into the system, rendered powerless to care for themselves and their families, they are then crucified in the media as absentee fathers, creating unstable family units that breed more crime. It’s truly horrifying, how the human psyche can be so blind when their own lives are not at stake. The consequences of standing up to this kind of injustice makes people appear to favor violence and corruption versus peace. Everyone wants to belong to the side of right. Social acceptance is at stake and it holds great weight. SB: The Reagan administration, along with the Republican party at large, managed to de-fund and essentially gut the national mental health care system during the 80’s, dumping thousands of severely mentally ill onto the streets. Many of these people ended up in prison, forcing the prison system to act as de-facto institutions warehousing people with psychological problems, without addressing any of their theraputic or pharmacological needs. Which in turn forces guards to interact with people they are untrained to diagnose or respond to, as well as forcing inmates to deal with unpredictable and highly unstable presences in their midst. MW: Years ago I was in a writing group with one of the chief psychiatrists at a men’s federal medical facility — famous for being the place where John Gotti died. There were inmates there assigned on the basis of their proximity to family, but was also a place where the elderly came to die, and the severest cases of mental illness were warehoused, really. Like you said. His stories could have been fictional horror, these people, inadequately cared for, suffering invisibly behind a landscaped facade because of a legitimate lack of alternatives. Even in the camp where I was, the need for mental health care was overwhelming compared to the staff available to treat inmates, rendering much of the efforts superficial. I was one of the very few fortunate people to access private therapy and I got really lucky. My psychologist was enthusiastic and compassionate. But again, I was able to seek out a thing that I was aware of, a thing I understood how to pursue. There were only a small handful of us getting this kind of care. SB: One of the memes of the 80’s that still hasn’t left us, along the lines of “bomb them back to the stone age” or “America: love it or leave it” was “Lock ‘em up and throw away the key.” It has always seemed bizarre to me that the notion of endless incarceration is never rebutted by a very simple statistic: 90% of all people convicted will eventually be released. At no point is any consideration given to the fact that locking someone in a cage with other desperate people for years on end, with no attempt to address issues of education, addiction, abuse, or rehabilitation, in many cases means returning convicts to society in worse condition than they entered, a very real threat to those who think mass incarceration makes them safer. MW: And, in fact, the increased crime rate and detriment to society that comes along with 700,000 people being released each year, who, on account of their unemployability will either remain unemployed, or return to crime to support themselves. Often, because of the time nonviolent offenders spent with violent offenders, the nature of the crimes increase rather than decrease. The penal system is creating a need for itself with a proven record of inefficacy. Our brains love to grab hold of a narrative and promptly forget to stay awake to its truth. “Lock them up and throw away the key” is a handy way to exist in a precarious world where there is more to gain from distancing oneself from the actions of a perpetrator, than finding a connection, and doing the far more complex work of curiosity, compassion, and integration. Empathy is completely absent in a culture that deifies the material successes of the individual. SB: I have started to think of myself of a determinist, by which I mean, I don’t believe in Free Will. I think all of us do exactly what we would have done in any particular circumstance, based on a combination of our genetic makeup, personal history, and physical characteristics. When I’ve expressed this notion in the past, those that disagree invariably say that acknowledging a lack of Free Will strips us of personal responsibility, which is the first step to the eventual breakdown of society. For one thing, I think the perception that we have Free Will acts as an emollient, probably evolutionary, that protects us from immediately choosing a nihilistic path. Second, I still believe that we are all responsible for the genetic and environmental (sometimes lucky, often neutral or unfortunate) hand that we have been dealt, regardless. I bring this up because it obviously has great implications in terms of the criminal justice system. Being born into poverty, or amid constant violence, or with neural deficiencies in impulse control, compassion, or aggression, will vastly increase the chance that you will spend a significant part of your life in a cage. MW: I am not one who is going to argue with your determinism. It is a fact that while our prisons house a few people who are legitimate perpetrators whose incarceration protects others, the majority of its inhabitants are, themselves, victims of a significant structural failing of support systems. It is also a fact that, on account of the unequal rates at which some communities are imprisoned versus others, those communities with higher rates of arrest have come to accept the inevitability of serving time, and in that acceptance, they relax their standards of ethics as well as create something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prison time is even a right of passage now for some of the more heavily targeted populations. In order for prison to be an effective deterrent to crime, one has to believe that the system works, that imprisonment is avoidable, that it is something to be avoided. SB: Alright, tell me what you think of the death penalty. MW: I think the death penalty is a barbaric act of hubris. It’s expensive, requires decades of housing before it’s enacted, and proven to provide little to no solace to victims. And, of course, death row is populated disproportionately by poor people of color. One of my favorite things I’ve ever had the opportunity to do is to hear Sister Helen Prejean (most well known for the portrayal of her anti-death penalty activism in the movie Dead Man Walking). I cried through the whole talk. SB: I certainly think there are people who commit such heinous acts that they have basically forfeited their right to continue breathing. So in that sense, I am pro-death penalty. Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance, did not need to continue breathing air. Neither did Timothy McVeigh. The problem is that I also don’t believe we are capable, either as individuals, a society, a culture, or as arbiters of punishment, to always make the correct decision about who should or shouldn’t be tried under death penalty statutes, or how that death should be administered. And I don’t think we ever will be. In that sense, I am 100% against the death penalty, mainly because we cannot be trusted with it. How many death penalty cases has Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project overturned through the use of new DNA testing technology? How many poor men of color were put to death unjustly over the last sixty years because this technology didn’t exist then? I think the death penalty should be abolished immediately, or at least until we are technologically generations ahead of where we are now. MW: The ability to decide who lives and who dies is inherently fraught, and the reality of the death penalty, even when “deserved,” is decades of being housed on death row before execution. The current format is inefficient and ethically problematic. SB: Most countries view solitary confinement as torture. We use it randomly and widely as a systemic method of control. Were you ever in solitary? Did others you served time with view it as an unbearable punishment? Did you happen to read about Robert King, who was part of the Angola Three, who spent almost thirty years (!) in solitary confinement, only to have his sentence eventually overturned? MW: Yes. I heard about him. Solitary confinement is uncontested in the world of psychology for it’s irreversible and detrimental effects on humans. Babies that don’t get held will die. Humans need contact. It’s also incredibly disturbing to me that I can’t find an actual statistic on how many inmates are in solitary confinement right now in our country. The numbers range from 25,000-80,000. That seems like way too vague of an answer, with way too great a portion of our population enduring irrevocable damage to their psyche. I didn’t experience solitary confinement. Our low security prison camp sent women to the county jail for segregation and punishment. I stayed out of trouble and, after moving through county jail on my initial journey to prison, didn’t go back. While I was in county jail, we were on nearly complete lock down. I’m sure it’s better to have other humans around when you can’t see or go outside, but being in constant close proximity to so many other people has its own set of challenges. Once a week, we went to a small, filthy concrete room that had vents instead of glass windows, but we still couldn’t see out. That was our recreating time. One hour a week. I called that room the “Pet Carrier.” I really don’t know how people survive solitary. Or, if they really do. There is just so little reformative structure in the experience of incarceration. SB: Rape in prison continues to be a punchline in books and comedy routines and certain types of films, a sort of shrugging admission that sexual assault, or the fear of it, is an unspoken component of any given sentence. What conclusions have you drawn about sexual violence as an element of control, and the role of gender in single-sex environments? MW:  Some of the same people are able to decry rape culture on campus and, in practically the same breath, casually laugh at prison rape. It’s definitely more common when talking about men’s prisons where it is also more of a problem, and carries a greater stigma where male homosexuality is concerned. As if the people it happens to are weak and deserving of such a thing — the absolute loss of power and control over life and body. Female prison sex seems to end up being the stuff of pornography. Clearly, a different vibe. Not less dangerous, but possibly considered more consensual? Less about power and violence? The threat of rape in my prison was negligent, but the desire of inmates to partner intimately and in a sexual fashion was high. It was fascinating to watch the fluidity of gender in the single-sex environment — the way that relationshipping as both a basic human need, as well as a coping mechanism for co-dependence, was activated for different people. It was a spectrum of choices just like on the outside, but women only, so deviations in people’s gender identities were, perhaps, further pronounced in a place where there was less distraction or judgement. Of course, when we start talking about human sexuality and gender identification anywhere the conversation is consistently individual. Prison seemed to distill and isolate this phenomena, as it did so many things about human interaction. This topic could easily be a book-length conversation. I wish there was more awareness. It’s really hard to bear the rape jokes. Those men/people have feelings, fears, often a fragile sense of self, and they are the sons, brothers, fathers, and friends of people just like anyone else. No one deserves to be raped. Rape is never, ever, okay. SB: The case could be made the prisons are a perpetual self-sustaining machine that actually provide zero deterrent effect. In other words, crimes can be identified and prosecuted to fill every cell, and the actual number has no relevance–cells will be filled regardless, because profit can be made regardless. MW: This is an excellent summary of the current prison system. The inclusion of prisons in a capitalistic economy is inhumane and oxymoronic. The current model of crime deterrence is sustained by continued crime. I feel like we could draw parallels here to healthcare in the U.S. as well. Iatrogeny at its finest. SB:  Can you tell us in terms of your personal experience about the long-term psychological effects of incarceration, punishment, stigmatization, and regret– how these things are taken into effect as it relates to a particular crime, and what the price for that crime ultimately ends up being? MW: I stand by the notion that it is miraculous when someone makes it through the system and is able to function at all. For the first few months out of prison I couldn’t sleep in the bed (I slept on the floor because it was harder), go into large, brightly lit stores, hear the sound of keys, or stop feeling like I was constantly being watched. Even a decade after release, I have sensory input sensitivities, symptoms of PTSD such as nightmares, anxiety, memory loss. I am irrationally nervous in government buildings, around law enforcement or security officers, manage depression, and the constant threat of re-stigmatization every time I have to fill out an application for a rental property or professional license. This is one of the primary reasons I am self employed. I struggle regularly in ways that are directly related to the (relatively) short time I spent inside, and I have a lot of privileges not afforded to others. I feel both incredibly lucky, and also incredibly sad. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about the people that don’t have even a sliver of a chance at sustainable freedom. The powerlessness is oppressive to the point of defeat. SB: Okay, let’s conclude by talking about rates of recidivism, and the huge number of obstacles –against all logic–placed in front of people who have served time successfully reentering society. MW: I can’t seem to find much past a 2005 study which might be indicative in itself, but can’t imagine there has been a decrease in rates considering the bulging inmate population nationwide. From the Bureau of Justice website: In 2005, when 404,638 prisoners in 30 states tracked after their release from prison, the researchers found that: Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year. Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders. And concerning the huge number of illogical obstacles, they are countless and enmeshed in every single activity of the day, which most people take for granted. From the near impossibility of finding realistic sources of income, to the crippled ability of many to organize their own time in a world that is wildly chaotic compared to prison. The expectations of integration are out-sized, unsupported, and appear to serve the revolving door business model of prisons versus the health of individuals that should be allowed to care for families, neighbors, and contribute to the economy and the direction of our country’s government. We have more of our citizens incarcerated per capita than any other nation in the world. And somehow we still call ourselves free. [image error]

Continue Reading...

The real genius of “Sweet Jane”: The 2 little letters out of Lou Reed’s mouth that say so much

"Loaded," the Velvet Underground’s fourth album, released in November of 1970 and getting the grand box set treatment next Friday to mark its 45th anniversary, was the last to feature Lou Reed. It was also the last Velvet Underground album I bought and listened to on my quest — 15 years after its original release, and in the flush of my teen rock-geek years — to own every note this band every recorded. For some reason, "Loaded" was the hardest one to track down. (I know it’s difficult to imagine not being able to locate a record these days, but it was 1985.) I knew as I scoured the bins that "Loaded" was the original home for a pair of Velvet Underground songs that had already taken on legendary status by the '80s, “Sweet Jane” and “Rock and Roll.” But the only version of “Sweet Jane” I'd heard at that point was the one off Lou Reed’s live album "Rock n’ Roll Animal," which was widely acknowledged as a way to place the irascible star back on the charts after he chose to follow up his breakthrough "Transformer" — which David Bowie and his late guitarist Mick Ronson crafted into a glitter-era sensation — with the dour, Bob Ezrin-produced "Berlin." Recorded at the Academy of Music with a shit-hot band around Christmas of ’73 and released the following February, "Rock n' Roll Animal" was indeed a big hit during an era when rock radio DJs had no fear of playing really (really) long songs. That live version of “Sweet Jane” comes with an extended intro — if you happened to turn in before those chords smashed down, you might think you were listening to Yes. But then there’s a wave of applause and Reed strolls onstage, and begins to sing in his tough monotone. He’s got bleached blonde hair and never takes off his extra dark aviators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4VuH... Some years later I happened to hear the Jim Carroll Band’s version of the song which is (although I adore and once dyed my hair orange to emulate Carroll …) pretty weak. Worse, Reed appears in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yerFI... "Catholic Boy," it ain’t. Even the mighty Mott the Hoople did another anemic version in ’72: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5UHI... I’d heard Jane’s Addiction’s slurry, meandering, percussive version of “Rock n’ Roll” before I ever heard the Velvets. But when I finally found a copy of "Loaded" in college, I realized what I had been missing. “Rock n’ Roll” was clear-eyed and true. Lou, his alter ego “Jenny” (not to mention Perry Farrell and me, too) were all misfits from Long Island where there was “nothing going down at all.” Despite all the complications, we could dance to the rock and roll (and the disco and the hip hop) station. I loved “Cool It Down”  and “New Age” (which reminded me of Sylvia Miles and Joe Dallesandro’s affair in the Paul Morrissey-directed Warhol film "Heat"). “Lonesome Cowboy Bill” was kind of a throwaway, as was “Train Going Round the Bend,” but “I Found A Reason,” a gentle doo wop (later covered by Cat Power) and “Oh Sweet Nuthin’" (which has since found its way onto several soundtracks, including Stephen Frears’ "High Fidelity" and Sam Mendes’ "Away We Go") were stunners. But it was almost immediately clear to me what I had been truly missing all these years. “Sweet Jane” is the second song on the album, after the bubblegum sweet “Who Loves the Sun” (a showcase for Doug Yule, who replaced the more avant John Cale), and it begins with a guitar squiggle followed by those steady, wave-like chords (unmistakable in any version), and just like in the live "Rock n’ Roll Animal" version, Lou sings: “Standin’ on the corner, suitcase in my hand. Jack’s in his corset, Jane is in her vest and me I’m in a rock and roll band… Ha!” What makes the "Loaded" version life-changing and revelatory after such a long wait is that “Ha.”  To me, that "ha" is everything: New York City, the art demimonde, the fact that most rock and rollers don’t hold down jobs too long except for those in rock and roll bands (and sometimes not even those), the fact that “standin’ on the corner” is cooler than anything you are doing, even if the suitcase is full of used books to sell at the Strand on Broadway. “Ha!” Where had you been all my life, “Ha”? If I asked Lou, he’d probably say … “Ha!” In fact, I’d had some occasion to ask Lou … two interviews. One in person where I, starving, had to watch him eat some kind of sauce-covered cutlet slowly while we discussed "Berlin." His manager was there — ask any rock writer  (if you can find one these days) whether they want managers, publicists, record company people, wives, husbands, anyone who is not the rock star anywhere near the interview and see what they say. He would never admit to me where the “Ha” came from. He didn’t even fucking know where the “Ha” came from. Did he write it?  Did he plan it? No. I don’t think so. “Ha!” “Sweet Jane” is not the same without it. The Velvets are not the same without it. Rock and Roll after 1970 is all about the “Ha.”  Punk, new wave, reggae, outlaw country, is the “Ha!” I don’t care what you do, but me, (honey) I’m in a rock and roll band. The young today, I hope they know what to do with the “Ha,” since it’s so easy to hear and use now. It’s like cocaine. You used to have to know someone; now all you need is a code. Smack, you used to have to take a walk in the dark, and now you can have it sent over like a taco plate (I’ve heard). “Ha!” in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. “Ha!” in my hands was a friend. That “Ha” and I are nearly the same age. It’s been there my whole life, waiting for me. And when I found it, my life was saved … by rock and roll. I can’t defend the author of that “Ha” or what it made him do. It’s been documented before and it’s about to be, now that he is gone, documented again and again in books and inevitably films. Lou was “a monster,” a bad man, a crank, a grouch, a sharp tongued, cranky, short-fused bastard — the Lou I met anyway, and apparently the Lou a lot of other people met, too — but I can’t help but think the “Ha” is his better and not his darker angel. He’d been chasing the “Ha!” He admitted as much. If he could have written “Sweet Jane” every time, he surely would have.  Instead, he did "Metal Machine Music" and a bunch of hit and miss albums until 1989’s "New York," which landed him on the cover of Rolling Stone. Then he got pretentious again. I once attended a benefit show that advertised Lou, and I saw him get up, mumble some Poe and then shuffle off stage. “Ha!” Good cause, I guess, who can complain. I should probably also put in a word for the lost bridge. The “heavenly wine and roses…” bit that was as gorgeous as “Candy Says” and “Femme Fatale” but was inexplicably cut for space? (“Ha!” to you too, Lou, the label seemed to say.) The Cowboy Junkies' version was heroic in its restoration of that bridge, and they were rewarded with a big hit that college kids used to put on mix cassettes for each other in hopes of having sex. (Well, this college kid … “Ha!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4XVJ... There is also an utterly batshit version of "Sweet Jane" on the live "Take No Prisoners" album, in which Lou rails against rock critics and the hipster scene and just about everything else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAnJb... The album is more of a stand-up routine than a live document, but as such it’s a lot better than most UCB grad bullshit. Lou was a lot of things, and one of them was seriously funny — Listen to “Ferryboat Bill” or “Andy’s Chest” if you doubt me. So happy birthday, "Loaded." Happy birthday, “Ha!” And rest in peace Lou, Jack, Jane, Jim … all the protest kids and, I don’t know … Taylor Mead. I hope you’re all tooling around in your Stutz Bearcat somewhere in the sky, high above the Empire State Building and the city and all its empty ghost corners. [image error]"Loaded," the Velvet Underground’s fourth album, released in November of 1970 and getting the grand box set treatment next Friday to mark its 45th anniversary, was the last to feature Lou Reed. It was also the last Velvet Underground album I bought and listened to on my quest — 15 years after its original release, and in the flush of my teen rock-geek years — to own every note this band every recorded. For some reason, "Loaded" was the hardest one to track down. (I know it’s difficult to imagine not being able to locate a record these days, but it was 1985.) I knew as I scoured the bins that "Loaded" was the original home for a pair of Velvet Underground songs that had already taken on legendary status by the '80s, “Sweet Jane” and “Rock and Roll.” But the only version of “Sweet Jane” I'd heard at that point was the one off Lou Reed’s live album "Rock n’ Roll Animal," which was widely acknowledged as a way to place the irascible star back on the charts after he chose to follow up his breakthrough "Transformer" — which David Bowie and his late guitarist Mick Ronson crafted into a glitter-era sensation — with the dour, Bob Ezrin-produced "Berlin." Recorded at the Academy of Music with a shit-hot band around Christmas of ’73 and released the following February, "Rock n' Roll Animal" was indeed a big hit during an era when rock radio DJs had no fear of playing really (really) long songs. That live version of “Sweet Jane” comes with an extended intro — if you happened to turn in before those chords smashed down, you might think you were listening to Yes. But then there’s a wave of applause and Reed strolls onstage, and begins to sing in his tough monotone. He’s got bleached blonde hair and never takes off his extra dark aviators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4VuH... Some years later I happened to hear the Jim Carroll Band’s version of the song which is (although I adore and once dyed my hair orange to emulate Carroll …) pretty weak. Worse, Reed appears in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yerFI... "Catholic Boy," it ain’t. Even the mighty Mott the Hoople did another anemic version in ’72: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5UHI... I’d heard Jane’s Addiction’s slurry, meandering, percussive version of “Rock n’ Roll” before I ever heard the Velvets. But when I finally found a copy of "Loaded" in college, I realized what I had been missing. “Rock n’ Roll” was clear-eyed and true. Lou, his alter ego “Jenny” (not to mention Perry Farrell and me, too) were all misfits from Long Island where there was “nothing going down at all.” Despite all the complications, we could dance to the rock and roll (and the disco and the hip hop) station. I loved “Cool It Down”  and “New Age” (which reminded me of Sylvia Miles and Joe Dallesandro’s affair in the Paul Morrissey-directed Warhol film "Heat"). “Lonesome Cowboy Bill” was kind of a throwaway, as was “Train Going Round the Bend,” but “I Found A Reason,” a gentle doo wop (later covered by Cat Power) and “Oh Sweet Nuthin’" (which has since found its way onto several soundtracks, including Stephen Frears’ "High Fidelity" and Sam Mendes’ "Away We Go") were stunners. But it was almost immediately clear to me what I had been truly missing all these years. “Sweet Jane” is the second song on the album, after the bubblegum sweet “Who Loves the Sun” (a showcase for Doug Yule, who replaced the more avant John Cale), and it begins with a guitar squiggle followed by those steady, wave-like chords (unmistakable in any version), and just like in the live "Rock n’ Roll Animal" version, Lou sings: “Standin’ on the corner, suitcase in my hand. Jack’s in his corset, Jane is in her vest and me I’m in a rock and roll band… Ha!” What makes the "Loaded" version life-changing and revelatory after such a long wait is that “Ha.”  To me, that "ha" is everything: New York City, the art demimonde, the fact that most rock and rollers don’t hold down jobs too long except for those in rock and roll bands (and sometimes not even those), the fact that “standin’ on the corner” is cooler than anything you are doing, even if the suitcase is full of used books to sell at the Strand on Broadway. “Ha!” Where had you been all my life, “Ha”? If I asked Lou, he’d probably say … “Ha!” In fact, I’d had some occasion to ask Lou … two interviews. One in person where I, starving, had to watch him eat some kind of sauce-covered cutlet slowly while we discussed "Berlin." His manager was there — ask any rock writer  (if you can find one these days) whether they want managers, publicists, record company people, wives, husbands, anyone who is not the rock star anywhere near the interview and see what they say. He would never admit to me where the “Ha” came from. He didn’t even fucking know where the “Ha” came from. Did he write it?  Did he plan it? No. I don’t think so. “Ha!” “Sweet Jane” is not the same without it. The Velvets are not the same without it. Rock and Roll after 1970 is all about the “Ha.”  Punk, new wave, reggae, outlaw country, is the “Ha!” I don’t care what you do, but me, (honey) I’m in a rock and roll band. The young today, I hope they know what to do with the “Ha,” since it’s so easy to hear and use now. It’s like cocaine. You used to have to know someone; now all you need is a code. Smack, you used to have to take a walk in the dark, and now you can have it sent over like a taco plate (I’ve heard). “Ha!” in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. “Ha!” in my hands was a friend. That “Ha” and I are nearly the same age. It’s been there my whole life, waiting for me. And when I found it, my life was saved … by rock and roll. I can’t defend the author of that “Ha” or what it made him do. It’s been documented before and it’s about to be, now that he is gone, documented again and again in books and inevitably films. Lou was “a monster,” a bad man, a crank, a grouch, a sharp tongued, cranky, short-fused bastard — the Lou I met anyway, and apparently the Lou a lot of other people met, too — but I can’t help but think the “Ha” is his better and not his darker angel. He’d been chasing the “Ha!” He admitted as much. If he could have written “Sweet Jane” every time, he surely would have.  Instead, he did "Metal Machine Music" and a bunch of hit and miss albums until 1989’s "New York," which landed him on the cover of Rolling Stone. Then he got pretentious again. I once attended a benefit show that advertised Lou, and I saw him get up, mumble some Poe and then shuffle off stage. “Ha!” Good cause, I guess, who can complain. I should probably also put in a word for the lost bridge. The “heavenly wine and roses…” bit that was as gorgeous as “Candy Says” and “Femme Fatale” but was inexplicably cut for space? (“Ha!” to you too, Lou, the label seemed to say.) The Cowboy Junkies' version was heroic in its restoration of that bridge, and they were rewarded with a big hit that college kids used to put on mix cassettes for each other in hopes of having sex. (Well, this college kid … “Ha!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4XVJ... There is also an utterly batshit version of "Sweet Jane" on the live "Take No Prisoners" album, in which Lou rails against rock critics and the hipster scene and just about everything else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAnJb... The album is more of a stand-up routine than a live document, but as such it’s a lot better than most UCB grad bullshit. Lou was a lot of things, and one of them was seriously funny — Listen to “Ferryboat Bill” or “Andy’s Chest” if you doubt me. So happy birthday, "Loaded." Happy birthday, “Ha!” And rest in peace Lou, Jack, Jane, Jim … all the protest kids and, I don’t know … Taylor Mead. I hope you’re all tooling around in your Stutz Bearcat somewhere in the sky, high above the Empire State Building and the city and all its empty ghost corners. [image error]

Continue Reading...

Who’s burning America’s black churches?

After the June killing of nine at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, six predominantly black churches in the South were burned. Now, months later, intentional fires have been set at seven predominantly black churches in the St. Louis area in the past three weeks. While it is unknown if the attacks are racially motivated, there is a deep history of terrorism against black churches in America. Watch the video below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/BlackC..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/151017...] [image error]After the June killing of nine at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, six predominantly black churches in the South were burned. Now, months later, intentional fires have been set at seven predominantly black churches in the St. Louis area in the past three weeks. While it is unknown if the attacks are racially motivated, there is a deep history of terrorism against black churches in America. Watch the video below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/BlackC..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/151017...] [image error]After the June killing of nine at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, six predominantly black churches in the South were burned. Now, months later, intentional fires have been set at seven predominantly black churches in the St. Louis area in the past three weeks. While it is unknown if the attacks are racially motivated, there is a deep history of terrorism against black churches in America. Watch the video below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/BlackC..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/151017...] [image error]After the June killing of nine at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, six predominantly black churches in the South were burned. Now, months later, intentional fires have been set at seven predominantly black churches in the St. Louis area in the past three weeks. While it is unknown if the attacks are racially motivated, there is a deep history of terrorism against black churches in America. Watch the video below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/BlackC..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/151017...] [image error]After the June killing of nine at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, six predominantly black churches in the South were burned. Now, months later, intentional fires have been set at seven predominantly black churches in the St. Louis area in the past three weeks. While it is unknown if the attacks are racially motivated, there is a deep history of terrorism against black churches in America. Watch the video below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/BlackC..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/151017...] [image error]

Continue Reading...