[WARNING: THE FIRST TWO LINKS BELOW ARE POTENTIALLY NSFW!]

These guys do. So do these chaps. And this fellow. Not to mention him.

They’re far from alone, too. Me? I can’t help but find the whole situation amusing in the extreme, especially as commentators on both sides of the divide seem to be equally pissed off without having any ostensibly-valid reasons for their ire.

For those of you who have been lucky enough to avoid this farrago as it played out over the past few days, permit me to offer a summary thereof.

Once upon a time, there was a woman named Jennifer Aniston who had a leading role in a little show called Friends. Jennifer, being a rather attractive lady, soon had her share of male admirers, many of whom would have given a kidney (or, in some cases, two) in order to see her sans vêtements.

Fast-forward almost 18 years. Ms. Aniston’s new movie, Wanderlust, is mere days away from opening at theaters across North America, when disaster strikes! Early test screenings had included a much-vaunted nude scene involving the star, who had previously shunned all offers to partake in such shenanigans; however, pre-release showings of the final cut did not feature said sequence.

The tragic news spread across the Internet like wildfire, starting with blogs and forums before spreading to more legitimate outlets.

Perhaps the most galling thing of all, from the perspective of Aniston’s admirers, is the sense of déjà vu which surrounds these proceedings. It’s not the first time this has happened, after all; indeed, last year’s Horrible Bosses also teased her fanbase with the prospect of a breast-baring scene, only to include no such spectacle upon its release.

On one side of the spectrum are angry, embittered horn-dogs whose responses to this travesty range from vituperative message-board posts to personal boycotts of Wanderlust, not to mention all of Aniston’s future projects. On the other sits an array of finger-wagging puritans, each of whom seems unable to comprehend why red-blooded males the world over would want to see a naked celebrity in the first place.

“Nudity-dodger! Prude!” howl the former. “Get a girlfriend! Buy a copy of Playboy!” retort the latter. Meanwhile, the globe has the audacity to keep on turning.

Permalink

"Normal service", whatever that is, ought to be resumed next month. For now, please enjoy the following musical presentation. While I can't claim the credit - or, if you prefer, the blame - for uploading this video,* the 63-minute track in question certainly constitutes one of the weirdest, heaviest and most gloriously insane albums I'm lucky enough to own.

* That honor belongs to a YouTube user by the name of TheeUnidentified. Thank you, kind sir/madam.

Permalink

Believe it or not, there are still people in this world who favor intelligence over ignorance, integrity over inconsistency, reason over superstition, irreverence over piety, gallows humor over po-facedness and bravery over cowardice. Yesterday, we lost one of our own.

Rest in peace, Hitch. You certainly earned it.

Permalink

Are there really 31,000 people in the U.K. who didn't know that Jeremy Clarkson is a complete prick prior to his recent appearance on The One Show?

Permalink

He said the most wonderful thing about writing that song. He went down and hung around on skid row in L.A. because he wanted to get stimulated for writing this material. He called me up and said, "I went down to skid row... I bought a pint of rye in a brown paper bag." I said, "Oh, really?" "Yeah - hunkered down, drank the pint of rye, went home, threw up, and wrote Tom Traubert's Blues [...] Every guy down there... Everyone I spoke to, a woman put him there."

-- Record producer Bones Howe on Tom Waits. (Source: Wild Years, The Music and Myth of Tom Waits, Jay S. Jacobs, ECW Press, 2000.)

--------------------

While I've no intention of consuming these in one fell swoop and making myself sick in the process, I wanted a change from my once-rigid bourbon-only drinking habits. Indeed, I've been thinking of broadening my scope for quite some time and rye seemed to fit the bill perfectly.

So why now? Well, there are several reasons behind said decision, with most of which I shan't bore you, but I will admit that a recent encounter with this product played a prominent role:

Although it is often derided as the corporate face of American whiskey, and gets its fair share of criticism as a result, I'm usually disinclined to pick upon Beam Inc. in situations such as these. For one thing, it's far too easy to throw rocks at the big guys; for another, they actually make some pretty decent products if one can put aside one's puritanism long enough to judge them on their own merits. Even so, their decision to produce a flavored bourbon (as opposed to a bourbon liqueur) struck me as kinda disenchanting.

The most disappointing thing about Jim Beam Red Stag - which will soon be available in two new variants, Honey Tea and Spiced - is that it's been designed solely to appeal to people who don't like whiskey in the first place. From a business perspective, I can't exactly fault the folks at the distillery for trying to broaden their appeal and make more money in the process, but couldn't they have focused upon improving and extending their existing range without being seen to pander to the lowest common denominator of alcoholic beverage consumers?

Think about it like this: If Quentin Tarantino attempted to remake Reservoir Dogs in a bid to ensnare those who abhor cursing and violence, replacing scenes which feature one element or the other with lavish musical numbers, his core fanbase would be pissed off to the point of desertion and the (few) converts he made wouldn't even be the kind of viewers he'd want in the first place. What, then, would be gained? Nothing whatsoever! One step forward, one step back.

No doubt there's a certain hypocrisy in decrying snobbery and being snobbish in concurrent paragraphs. To paraphrase the late, great George Carlin, if the above causes you any cognitive dissonance, you're just going to have to work that shit out on your own.

Anyway, I'm now a rye drinker... At least, until some company or other produces a bubblegum-flavored rye and offends my delicate sensibilities in the process, whereupon I'll probably switch to vodka. Erm, hang on a second...

Permalink

Never again will I go public with my views on incipient legal proceedings!

Before y'all all get carried away, let's remember that O.J. was found "Not Guilty" back in 1995. Moreover, the Italian Supreme Court - the Cassazione - will almost certainly be asked to examine this case before it's put to bed once and for all, so there's always a chance that the defendants will be re-convicted in absentia.

Then again, perhaps I was just plain wrong from the get-go. It'll be interesting to read about the appeal court's reasons for freeing Knox and Sollecito when its report is published in early 2012, that's for sure.

Regardless of the terminology deployed by the presiding judge this evening, my guess is that the defense teams did just enough to establish reasonable doubt... Which is, of course, all they needed to do in order to spring their clients from Capanne prison.

Perhaps the one thing upon which we can all agree is that the Kercher family deserves everyone's heartfelt sympathy right about now.

Permalink

Permalink

"If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench. It could mean jail. It could mean derision. It could mean mockery--isolation. Isolation is the gift. All the others are a test of your endurance, of how much you really want to do it. And, you'll do it, despite rejection and the worst odds. And it will be better than anything else you can imagine. If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is."

-- Charles Bukowski, Factotum, 1975. Blatantly pilfered from a post made by Joe Cardamone on the official website of The Icarus Line, sometime last year.

--------------------

If I'd known six years ago just how accurate* Chuck's remarks would turn out to be, would I still have set off down this path? Probably. More fool me, I suppose.

* At least, the "isolation" part thereof. I haven't yet reached a stage wherein the second half of the quote might become applicable!

Permalink

Steven Paul "Elliott" Smith, August 6, 1969 – October 21, 2003. Nearly eight years gone and still sorely missed.

[The song below is taken from Elliott's debut LP, Roman Candle.]

Last_Call.mp3 Listen on Posterous

Permalink

On the one hand, Johnny Knoxville and his Dickhouse cohorts were quick to chastise Roger Ebert for posting a trenchant, albeit somewhat ill-timed, tweet about drink-driving in the wake of Ryan Dunn's death; on the other, it seems as though half-assed wisecracks about the recent events in Norway are fair game.

To wit:

"If you must insist upon it though, let's just say that Priya has face value for days with her outstanding track record for being very, very jumpy. Like scream-bloody-murder-summer-camp-killing-spree jumpy."

This remark isn't necessarily as crass as it seems to be at first glance, though. After all, there's no need to assume the existence of malice when simple ignorance will suffice as an explanation. Even so... Really, guys?

Permalink

One of the main reasons why I took the decision to scrap my old website and start over, as opposed to simply altering its focus, was the dawn of my new-found apolitical nature. This change didn't happen overnight - if anything, it was a long time coming - but when it struck, it struck hard.

Simply put, the UK Parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 irrevocably killed my interest in all things political, thereby rendering my site completely irrelevant. Although I knew I wanted to maintain an Internet presence of some sort, and my abject hatred for social networking sites meant that a stripped-down blog was always going to be the best way forward, the days of getting pissed off over something Bush, Blair, Brown or Obama thought, said or did were well and truly over.

Nowadays, the closest I get to paying attention to what's going on in the realm of politics, on either side of the proverbial pond, involves watching Real Time With Bill Maher; even so, I couldn't help but take a perverse sense of delight in watching the whole News International debacle unfold over the past few weeks.

Can it really be long before the Cameron-Clegg house of cards comes tumbling down around their ears? Here's hoping. Will the loathsome Piers "Morgan" Moron lose his comfortable CNN job over allegations that he, too, was involved in this unsavory practice during his time with Trinity Mirror? Fingers crossed. Are Rupert Murdoch's salad days really numbered? Let us pray (metaphorically, of course).

Sure, for every self-serving, cretinous little weasel who's forced to commit figurative seppuku over this fiasco, a dozen more lie in wait, ready to resume the current status quo as soon as the dust has settled. We'll never get 'em all, but it sure is fun to try every now and again.

Permalink

This is the third (and final) re-uploaded post from my old website.  It consists of yet another interview, this time with the fine chaps behind Screw Loose Change, conducted in the halcyon days of September 2008.

Now, as was the case when I first published this piece, hate mail is welcomed, albeit not actively sought; however, please be advised that I reserve the right to publish any such correspondence for all to see, so do think twice before you click “Send.”

--------------------

Hot on the heels of last month’s spiel about 9/11 conspiracy gibberish, I’m pleased to be able to bring you an interview with two of the most prominent debunkers out there. James Bennett and Pat Curley started the Screw Loose Change blog back in May 2006, since when it has developed into a veritable hotbed of rational analysis and kook-baiting commentary, and they very kindly agreed to answer some questions pertaining to the events of September 11,  2001, conspiracy theories in general and the future of their site.

Let’s clear up this old chestnut right away: do you have any links to the Bush administration which would serve to classify you as “disinfo agents”, “COINTELPRO”, “stooges”, “shills”, etc.?

JB: Unfortunately not, I could use the money. The closest I could come is I am actually a member of the Army National Guard, although as I stress that has absolutely no connection to my blogging activities. The few people that I have mentioned my blogging to actually think the conspiracy subjects are too silly a subject to discuss.

PC: No. I am a Republican, but not a particularly conservative Republican, and I don’t get money from the government; the checks go the other way.

Mark Roberts was very clear about the catalyst which turned him from an interested skeptic into a full-blown debunker, courtesy of a crass and insensitive post made on the Loose Change forum. Was there a similar moment of epiphany which spurred you to open the SLC blog and devote a portion of your spare time to undermining the cranks’ claims?

JB: I had been following conspiracy theories for a little while, and was interested in how they could believe the things that they believed. Loose Change came up in an e-mail thread at the university I was studying at, and even in the local paper, then Pat did a post on his blog on the Truthers and the film United 93. I suggested that this would be an interesting topic for a blog, and suggested we do something joint. I originally thought it would be a minor sideline, never thought it would grow well beyond any personal blogging I have ever done.

PC: As a person and a blogger I have long felt that one of the problems with society at large is that we have ceased to celebrate our heroes. So most of my blogs are, in some way or another, dedicated to promoting heroes. My moment of epiphany was when I saw Loose Change’s treatment of the passengers on Flight 93, denying that they were heroes. Like many people I had a tough time in the aftermath of 9-11 and it was largely through focusing on the heroic efforts of Beamer, Bingham, Glick, etc., that I managed to get through it, so I was pissed that these kids were mocking their last phone calls and saying they were done through voice-morphing.

From what you’ve seen and learned during your time as debunkers, what percentage of the “Truth” Movement’s figureheads – Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, etc. – do you believe to be sincere in their beliefs, as opposed to those who are knowingly attempting to hawk snake-oil to anyone who will buy it?

JB: I don’t know if any of them is consciously being deceptive, rather they are being self-deceptive. They believe things so fervently that they will ignore any beliefs which do not support their view. It is an interesting psychological phenomenon.

PC: They all believe/believed it at some level. Avery’s pretty much out of the movement from what I can see; he wants to make movies and only occasionally pops up in a video from the San Diego branch of We Are Change.

Many of your blog postings are politically-conservative in nature, but (to your eternal credit) you frequently acknowledge that 9/11 kookery isn't limited solely to anti-Bush liberals. How do you account for the propensity of these theories to cross political boundaries in such fashion, creating a situation in which right-wing pundits such as Alex Jones and Mark Dice are aggressively pro-conspiracy while left-wing onlookers, including Bill Maher and Noam Chomsky, have excoriated the Truthers and, in that sense, defended George W. Bush from the kooks' attacks? Is there any real pattern to the madness that you've been able to discern?

JB: I have long maintained that the far-left and far-right ideologies circle around to meet each other. My undergraduate degree is in Russian and East European studies, and I was perplexed how Communism was regarded as left of center, while Nazism was right of center, when they really represented the same essential thing. Paranoia and fear really know no political boundaries.

PC: Yes. They’re all mad. More than anything else, you have to look at the underlying issues. Many of the left-wing Truthers are using 9-11 “Truth” as a way to deny the need even for the Afghanistan war, while the libertarian/survivalists like Jones are mostly upset about the Patriot Act. It’s a way of waving away the arguments pro and con on both those issues, by saying they’re irrelevant because 9-11 was an inside job.

Several of the recent posts on your blog have been devoted to the declining traffic at 9/11-related websites, both on the conspiracy and debunking sides of the fence. Do you think that the “Truth” Movement is finally dying a death as practical entity?

JB: That depends what you mean by “practical.” I think they will always live, as there are still large numbers of JFK theorists, or even the Da Vinci Code types regarding the early history of the Catholic Church. After the election, though, it will probably continue to drop off, especially if Obama wins.

PC: At least in terms of having significant growth, yes. In 2006 when we started our site I don’t think all that many people had been exposed to the “Truthers” and because they had a line of BS down, their case could seem compelling. Just about everybody’s heard of them by now and their BS has largely been exposed.

Given that so many of the “Truth” Movement’s theories seem to be predicated upon their proponents’ personal dislike of Bush and his administration, what do you think will happen to it following the impending presidential election?

JB: Well, as I said previously, it will probably drop off, although not die out entirely.

PC: The election process has already killed them. A lot of their activists are general political activists to begin with, so their loyalties and time have been divided. The idea of Truthers as a movement is already over. They’ll still exist like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists exist, but the idea that they are going to have any broad-based support is a fantasy.

The closest the Kool-Aid Contingent came to fielding a mainstream candidate in the election was Ron Paul, whose affiliation with Alex Jones made him something of a cause celebré in the eyes of the conspiracists in spite of his frequent public denunciations of their beliefs. Do you believe that Paul is a secret Truther, despite his denials, or was he just too reliant upon their support to sever that link once and for all?

JB: I don’t believe so. Paul knows he needs the support of the fringe, and has been all too happy to enjoy the support of the tax resistance and anti-Semitic crowd for years. Truthers are just another flavor.

PC: He’s popular with that particular sect of the Truthers because they like his politics even if they don’t agree with him on 9-11 “Truth.” I don’t think he’s a closet Truther; he’s being frank and when he says they agree with him, he doesn’t agree with them.

What sort of impact do you think documentaries such as the BBC’s recent WTC7 special have upon neutral viewers? Is there an inherent tension between exposing the ludicrous nature of the Truthers’ claims on one hand and giving them a mainstream platform from which to air their views on the other?

JB: I think they have a major impact on neutral viewers, although not the conspiracy theorists themselves. The CTs merely expand the conspiracy to include the news organization covering them, ironic in this case considering the BBC is hardly the most pro-Bush network out there. There is a debate even within the debunker community (for lack of a better term) as to how much of a debate and conversation there is on this. I don’t believe it is harmful though to expose their illogic in a setting such as this. Arguing with them in their environment (radio shows, forums etc.) is pretty pointless though, and serves little than giving them prestige, which is what they want.

PC: It is certainly arguable that the focus on the Truthers has been extreme, perhaps driven by a few polls that seemed to show widespread support for their nutty theories. But the BBC show was really quite good, and I would not knock it for giving the kooks a platform.

Has any piece of conspiracist “evidence”, adduced at any point over the past seven years, made you stop and wonder whether the nutjobs were onto something?

JB: I don’t know if I would go that far, but I think there are actually two legitimate questions that they have raised. The first is the NORAD timeline, which changed several times, the second is the actual technical reason WTC7 collapsed. Where they go wrong though is thinking that the fact that something is complicated or unexplained gives them the right to make up anything they want to explain it. In terms of the creation-evolution debate, this is the “God of the Gaps”, where you inject faith into an unexplained area.

PC: Barry Jennings’ testimony was very interesting before I started comparing it with other accounts and realized he was just wrong on the times that things happened. Initially I was intimidated that somebody with Steven Jones’ credentials believed in the conspiracy theories, perhaps because I started out as a physics major in college and couldn’t cut the higher level classes.

Your new logo reflects the expanded scope of the site, which for some time has analyzed the “Truth” Movement as a whole instead of focusing solely upon Loose Change and its creators. At what stage did you realize that you’d drifted away from the page’s initial purpose, i.e. debunking the claims of Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas and Korey Rowe, toward a broader theme of dissecting all 9/11-related conspiracy theories?

JB: We actually realized this long before we changed the logo. Mostly because even with the eventual release of Loose Change: Final Cut, the movies died out as a subject, and it is hard to discuss them independent of anything else. One phenomenon which we have noted lately is the scope creep of the Truthers, as they expand well beyond 9/11, even on 9/11 specific sites, to other subjects such as the NWO theories, the banking crisis, anthrax, JFK etc.

PC: After they missed their first deadline of 9-11-06 for Final Cut we pretty much had to focus on something else, which was a good thing since they didn’t release LC: FC until 14 months later.

Why do you think the evident connection between believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories and believing in other forms of tinfoil-hat kookery (the JFK assassination, chemtrails, the Apollo moon landings, etc.) exists?

JB: Well, it is part of their worldview. It is tied into the view that there is some secret powerful entity behind everything, as well as a distrust of the economic and political system, technology, communication etc. 9/11 is just another subject for this cultural subset. It reflects their anxieties about a complicated world that they don’t really understand, but that they create these connections in an attempt to help it all make sense. Also there is a bit of an ego connection, it that they think they are one of the chosen few who is smart enough to figure it all out, unlike the “sheeple” who follow mainstream beliefs.

PC: Same reason there are so many LaRouche people in the movement; if you’re stupid enough to fall for one intellectually-presented scam, you’re probably stupid enough to fall for another.

Speaking of such correlations, there is also a well-established link between 9/11 Trutherism and Holocaust Denial; that’s not to say that all Truthers are anti-Semites, of course, but there are certainly enough Holocaust Deniers on the conspiracy side for the association to be made. How do you account for this?

JB: The same as the last question. They need there to be some secret power pulling all the strings, “the Jews” are the ultimate historical example of that. They think that they alone are smart enough to see through the secrets of history.

PC: Many of the early Truthers were anti-Semites for obvious reasons; they wanted to blame it on the Jews and anybody but the Arabs who were involved.  Over time more reasons came to deny 9-11 (Iraq War, Patriot Act) and so others were drawn to the cause.

It has often been pointed out that conspiracy theorists cling to their beliefs with a blind faith akin to that of religious fundamentalists. Richard Dawkins’ website features a section entitled “Converts’ Corner”, containing testimonies from former believers who have since changed their minds; amid all the correspondence you’ve received since the blog was created, have you received any words of recantation or contrition from one-time conspiracy devotees?

JB: Yes, although it is not exceedingly common, the most famous being Mikey Metz. We get blog posts and e-mails from people who have given up on their conspiracies. Some of the debunkers actually have been people who have bought into other conspiracies in the past.

PC: We have gotten quite a few thank-yous over the last few years, although admittedly only a few from real converts to the cause; we’re more likely to get it from family members and friends who say “My son/brother/buddy said to watch Loose Change and check out the facts for myself, and I found your site…”. But we do have one spectacular success story: Mikey Metz, who started the Truth Movement at the University of Albany, recanted after seeing Screw Loose Change (not done by James or me) and Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and then reading our blog and other websites, realized that he’d been fooled.

As a result of this pseudo-religious outlook, which is hardly conducive to an open and reasonable exchange of views at the best of times, have you ever been tempted to throw your hands in the air, exclaim “The hell with this!” and shut down the blog, despairing of being able to make your average Truther critically examine his beliefs for even a nanosecond?

JB: I haven’t considered shutting it down, although I have considered spending less time on it. I don’t focus my efforts on the Truthers, having realized long ago that it was pointless to try and argue with them directly. I have become more interested in this as a social phenomenon, rather than trying to debate the minutiae of the events.

PC: There are some arguments I know I will be hearing on my deathbed – eight or seven or nine or all the hijackers are still alive, for example.  But I don’t lose much sleep over it.

It seems as though Mark has received more than a small amount of vicious hate mail as a result of his efforts in the debunking community. Is this something to which you’ve also been subjected, given the high-profile nature of your site within the skeptics’ corner of the Internet?

JB: Well Pat handles the e-mail, so he gets most of this. This happens though.  I have had conspiracy theorists threaten me, as well as try and find out my “secret identity” even going so far as to post my phone number and address on forums. Rather humorously they found a paper I co-wrote in business school on the use of RFID technology in retail and posted that as an example of my NWO credentials. Oh, well, I got a 3.9 on that paper if I remember right. They also posted a picture of a high school teacher in Washougal who shares my name, claiming that they found me.

PC: I got one or two death threats and a fair number of hostile e-mails, and of course we get tons of abuse in the comments. But I’ve got a pretty thick skin where it comes to Internet jerks. I have never had a seriously negative experience in person with Truthers even though I have ventured into their midst a few times.

Back in 2006, around the fifth anniversary of the attacks, it seemed as though the “Truth” Movement was gaining some genuine momentum: South Park produced an episode which lampooned the conspiracy believers, thereby giving them their highest-ever level of exposure; Loose Change: Final Cut was rumored to be on its way, with a mooted appearance in movie theaters across the globe; “celebrity” Truthers like Charlie Sheen were touting their views on national talk-shows; and so on, and so forth. How do you explain the precipitous decline of the kooks’ cause within a mere two years?

JB: Actually I think South Park had a huge part in this. It is one thing when the news and scientific reports criticize you, it is another thing when you become a punch-line in popular culture, alongside Scientology and George Michael. Other than that the thing that has hurt them the worst is all the splintering into various factions, and an inability to come up with any coherent argument.

PC: They did not have a case that stood even ten seconds’ examination on Google.  In the pre-Internet age somebody could publish a book like New Pearl Harbor and even if somebody debunked it, who would hear about it?

Although I don’t believe in them myself, some of the JFK-related conspiracy theories don’t seem all that far-fetched at first glance: After all, only one more shooter would need to be identified in order to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. On the other hand, 9/11 conspiracy theories seem to rely upon the involvement (and continued silence) of dozens, hundreds or possibly thousands of plotters in order to be in any way viable. Has any Truther, to the best of your knowledge, managed to explain away this remarkable improbability?

JB: They usually try to avoid this subject. The closest they come to it is comparing it to the Manhattan Project. Which is false in that the project was involved in attacking our enemies during war time, not our own citizens, and in fact it was not kept secret after the fact, and even leaked to the Soviet Union while it was still going on.

PC: They claim compartmentalization, that everybody followed orders from above without seeing how their cooperation allowed the plot to proceed. It’s not like there was a stand-down per se, just that planes were diverted so they couldn’t intercept. Others have said well, the whole thing happened by Arab terrorists but the highest levels of the government knew about it and let it happen.

I took a break from reading about the Truthers during 2007. When I returned to the subject at the start of this year I was struck by two facts: a) I hadn’t come across anything “Truth”-related in that entire 12-month period, much less met a Truther in real life, and I’d hardly been living in a cave the whole time; and b) not a single “theory” being put forward by the combative cranks at JREF (or debunked by SLC) was in any way new. Firstly, do you think the “Truth” Movement is, to quote Mikey Metz, solely “relegated to a discussion on the Internet”, and a pretty localized one at that, or have you actually met Truthers in your day-to-day lives outside your work on SLC?

JB: I was commenting on this the other day, in that the only time I have ever met a Truther in real life was when I went to a Michael Shermer book signing, and I primarily went because I knew they would be there (I made a YouTube video of the thing). They are largely an Internet phenomenon. It is no coincidence that they took off about the same time as YouTube, Google Video etc.

PC: I was in my office one day (which I shared with several other real estate people) and heard two of the guys talking about Loose Change, and the size of the hole in the Pentagon. I gave them the link to 9-11 Myths and the next day one of the guys who had been interested in the theories admitted they were bunk.

Secondly, can you remember the last time a genuinely new theory was advanced by the loons, rather than a lazy rehash of the same old crap?

JB: Hmm, good question. Really the only new stuff, as in newer than the last couple of years, is the crazy stuff like space beams or explosives built into the World Trade Center. Everything else is really just a variation of the whole remote-control planes/hijackers are still alive/thermite theories.

PC: I think the last major new theory was the thermite/thermate one advanced by Steven Jones, but even that's gotta be three years old now.

To what extent do you think that Willie Rodriguez’s relentless self-aggrandizing, encapsulated within his infamous “I am 9/11!” remark, has undermined the courage he showed in helping people to escape from the Towers amid the chaos of that day? Does he have any credibility left?

JB: I have not really paid much attention to him, as I consider him to be a tragic character. He never really added much to the argument anyway, as his bombs-in-the-basement argument is pointless.  OK, please explain to me why they were blowing random items up in the basement, ten seconds before the planes hit?

PC: I don’t worry much about Willie. He gets a bit of a pass because of what he did on 9-11 but his conspiracy theory claims have been well-debunked by Mark Roberts.

As alluded above, many Deniers show a lack of interest in, if not outright disdain for, the victims of 9/11. Which of their “mainstream” theories – "No plane hit the Pentagon", "Flight 93 was shot down", "The WTC towers were destroyed via controlled demolitions", "The phone-calls were faked", etc. – do you find to be the most egregiously offensive, and why?

JB: Probably the phone calls, as this was the last time the family members heard from their loved ones, and they are claiming it was fake. Of course no family members, the people who would actually know, claim this. You can go to the Web and listen to some of the calls. Not surprisingly no conspiracy theorist has ever played the recording of flight attendant CeeCee Lyles and then tried to argue it was fake.

PC: The phone calls, easily, for the reason outlined in response to the first question. It’s a way of completely denying the event.

Assuming that the absolute death of the “Truth” Movement is simply too much for which to hope, for how much longer do you intend to maintain SLC?

JB: Good question, as I mentioned I have considered cutting back. And in all practical terms I haven’t been posting nearly as much. Even Pat, who posts significantly more than I do, has been posting less. As I mentioned earlier, I have been focusing on this more as a cultural phenomenon, than discussing the minutiae of the events. Although, with the recent release of books and reports on the subject, there is still some of that left.

PC: I’ll keep posting there for the foreseeable future, as I’m sure James will, although it may be more haphazard than in the past.

Lastly, to borrow from the JREF’s monthly “Stundie” competition, what’s the most downright stupid thing you’ve heard, seen or read from a Truther?

JB: That is a tough one. Sofia’s “clunkity-clunk” is pretty much an all time favorite, in fact I think it won quote of the year. Richard Gage’s box demo is up there for laughs. Also he has said some pretty bizarre, albeit more subtle things about disappearing mass and such. Judy Wood has said some weird things, although she almost seems mentally ill, so they are so bizarre as to not really seem funny. A personal favorite of mine is just Alex Jones’ inability to pronounce “Uzbeakistan” properly.

PC: So many possibilities there. I still love Richard Gage’s box demonstration. It’s not the dumbest thing a Truther’s done, but it’s high on the list especially considering his position in the Movement. Truth Burn was a fiasco, where they were supposed to demonstrate how you can cut a vertical beam with thermite and instead burned a little thermite in a pot. The guy who used the stackable office trays to demonstrate how the towers should have fallen, or Sofia with the “clunkity-clunk” analogy.

--------------------

Many thanks to James and Pat for taking the time to participate in this interview, and to Pat for providing the SLC logo you see above.

Permalink

This is to be the second of three re-uploaded posts from my old website. The last one will be along in due course; in the meantime, I urge you to cast an eye over this interview with the one and only Henry Rollins, conducted back in February 2008.

--------------------

Henry Rollins: singer, songwriter, poet, television presenter, author, actor, publisher, spoken word artist, political activist and “aging alternative icon” (his words, not mine). A Jack of all trades and a master of most, Rollins has come to mean many different things to many different people since he first entered the public consciousness in 1981 as the new frontman for seminal Californian punk outfit Black Flag.

Maybe you remember him from Rollins Band, his post-Flag collective which produced a well-known single – and MTV favorite – called ‘Liar’, among others. Perhaps you’ve caught his television show on the Independent Film Channel, which blends Rollins’ trademark cutting social commentary with live in-studio performances from artists such as Queens of the Stone Age and The Mars Volta. Horror buffs may recall his recent turn as a retired Marine Corps officer in the direct-to-DVD slasher sequel Wrong Turn 2: Dead End, while fans of the Jackass franchise are likely to recollect his memorable guest appearance in the first feature-length movie starring Johnny Knoxville and his band of merry miscreants. And so on, and so on, and so forth.

Ultimately, it matters not how you know him. The important part is that you probably do have some awareness of the man and his work, one way or another, and the prolific nature of Rollins’ output means that he’s never far from the public eye. When his heavily-tattooed forearms and muscled physique are taken into account – traits which serve to make him more recognizable still in an era which increasingly emphasizes style over substance – it’s hard to see him as anything other than a bona fide renaissance man for the 21st century.

On the off-chance that you’ve never heard the name “Henry Rollins” before today, however, it may prove edifying to know a couple of things about the man before you continue reading this interview. For instance, he has undertaken a series of tours with the United Service Organization in order to meet and entertain American troops who are stationed abroad; this willingness to put aside personal politics, which encompass a vehement dislike of George W. Bush and opposition to wars of all kinds, grants him membership to a small club of left-wing USO supporters which includes comedian (and would-be senator) Al Franken, as well as actor Robin Williams. He is also an outspoken advocate of gay rights, while being a staunch heterosexual himself, and he spent his formative years in a Maryland military school, which almost certainly helped to shape his strong work ethic.

Never one to rest on his laurels, 2008 is already shaping up to be a manic year for Henry. In January, he completed an 18-date European spoken-word tour before jetting off to South Africa in order to perform in Johannesburg and Cape Town. A North American jaunt occupies the bulk of February and March, before more shows in Europe beckon; furthermore, he also has another book in the pipeline and is endeavoring to pre-record as many episodes of his radio show, Harmony in My Head, as possible, in order to keep the program on the air during his grueling touring schedule.

Despite having all of the above projects on his plate, and probably several more besides, Mr. Rollins was kind enough to spend some time answering my questions. Due to the nature of this website, combined with Rollins’ recent inclination towards social and political commentary over and above his musical activities, the bulk of the enquiries pertain to matters such as the War on Terror, George W. Bush’s perennial misbehavior and the forthcoming US general election; nevertheless, Black Flag, the state of the music industry, modern technology and workout tips also cropped up during the course of our tête-à-tête.

Without further ado, then…

Your dedication to your work, and to striving toward making the world a better place, is laudable indeed; however, do you sometimes feel as though you’re fighting a losing battle when you read the news and visit war-torn regions across the globe? After all, Bill Hicks warned us all of the dangers posed by the Bush dynasty, religious fundamentalism, censorship, intolerance and the ‘War on Drugs’ a long time ago and, listening to his work now, I can’t help but feel saddened to think that we’ve ostensibly learned nothing in the fourteen years since his death. Or, conversely, do you think we’re making some genuine headway on these fronts?

As soon as you give up, when you say they have won, then you give them all they want. In fact, you finally letting off is factored into their equation. They know that there will be a certain amount of people who will stop questioning and stop rousing rabbles, so to speak, and that’s why you can never relent. It’s that simple. I do think many things are getting better. I see improvement all over the place. There are millions of people in America who are pushing for change and trying to make things better. How can you turn your back on that?

As an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, who has nevertheless put his feelings on the matter aside in order to tour military hospitals and meet those who have been most directly-affected by the conflict, what’s your general understanding of the troops’ attitude to the situation? Are they as angry as Michael Moore would have us believe, courtesy of Fahrenheit 9/11, or do they still stand behind President Bush and his war in spite of the horrors they’ve seen and suffered? WMD or no WMD, do they generally feel that the invasion was legitimate and necessary?

I don’t think you can paint them all with one brush. I get letters from soldiers of all branches all the time and it’s everything from dissatisfaction with Bush and the occupation of Iraq to them trying to convince me that they are doing the right thing. I think as this awful [conflict] drags on, and these guys and gals go into their 4th and 5th rotation, you will see things start to fray. They are, after all, just people. The troops, I like. This war, I don’t.

There has obviously been a lot of ire directed at the Bush administration over the last few years, particularly since the contentious invasion of Iraq, and many – myself included – would say that the bulk of this criticism is well-deserved indeed. However, it seems to me that much of Tony Blair’s culpability with regard to the War on Terror has been buried beneath an avalanche of anti-US sentiment, leaving Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and co. to bear the brunt of the  world’s odium alone. From what you’ve seen and heard on your travels, do you get the feeling that Blair’s role in supporting the war is being remembered accurately?

His role isn’t buried around my place by a long shot. I call him the “Ass-Vacuum of George Bush”, Bush, of course, being the “Butcher of Baghdad.” Tony Blair will get his whuppin’ via history. It will take a while for the dust to settle for everyone to fully understand what a little coward he turned out to be. It’s the end of an age. John Howard out, Blair out, Bush out. Things will change.

George W. Bush now has less than a year in office before he retires to his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Is there anything he could do over the next 11 months to redeem himself in your eyes and right some of the wrongs for which he’s been responsible since the year 2000?

Telling the truth and reporting to jail, that would be a start. Past that, no. He’ll sell the ranch at some point, he’s a city boy like me.

Several left-wing commentators, including Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen, have provided vocal support to the War on Terror despite their liberal leanings. Their reasons for so doing are varied, but a common theme was that of opposition to Saddam and the Taliban which, they felt, was perfectly congruent with their leftist distaste for tyranny and oppression. Have you ever found it difficult to reconcile your opposition to the WoT with the unpleasant nature of the Ba’ath Party and the Taliban, whose policies towards dissidents, women and social minorities (especially homosexuals) seem to fly in the face of your own liberal proclivities?

Not at all. The WoT is one thing. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is another, so is the exacerbating of Iran. The Taliban is fucked and they destroyed what was left of Afghanistan and they are truly bad guys. As far as Saddam, if the Iraqi people couldn’t take him out, they deserve him like we deserve Bush. It’s not for us to remove him. If we’re going to be the clearing house of whoop-ass then let’s go to the countries with no oil, like North Korea. The truth is, the Bush administration and their apologists don’t give a fuck about the Iraqi people. They want them to hurry up and submit so America can go in there and do business. If Bush was in Iraq to liberate those people, he would have gone in with an exit plan. There wasn’t one because there was never going to be an exit. 

Some of the "allies" we in the West have made during the War on Terror – especially President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan – are somewhat less than savory in themselves, and we also seem happy to maintain a close friendship with the thoroughly-unpleasant leaders of Saudi Arabia. Is this “Better the devil you know…” attitude a fair stance to adopt in troubled and complicated times, or is it redolent of ill-disguised hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans and New Labour?

We do business with motherfuckers all the time. Our strange-as-hell relationship with Pakistan and their ISI isn’t new but it sure is curious. If a country has oil and they submit to America, then they have a chance of fair treatment as slaves. If they rebel or arm-up to protect themselves, then they are a rogue nation and a threat to all the good peoples of the world. It’s pretty glaring, the hypocrisy of all this.

On February 11, 2008, the Pentagon confirmed that it plans to charge six Guantanamo Bay inmates with crimes relating to the 9/11 attacks. These trials will probably be held before military tribunals, as opposed to civilian courts, and prosecutors apparently plan to seek the death penalty for the defendants. Given the grave nature of the allegations, not to mention the potentially-severe punishments if the accused are found guilty, shouldn’t transparency and legitimacy be the key goals of any legal proceedings which ensue? Is the Pentagon’s mooted plan to hold the trials behind closed doors at all defensible in your view?

I think it would be best for full disclosure, of course, but they will never allow that. So, no, I can’t stick [up] for that at all and have to wonder about the guilt of these people, such is my distrust of my government.

Given that the confessions of some of the prisoners in question, including those pertaining to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, stemmed from the use of infamous interrogation tactics such as waterboarding, it seems likely that the issue of torture will be brought to the forefront of the international debate once more. What’s your view of such procedures, and do you think they’re ever justifiable?

I am not a fan of torture. I believe the experts that say you don’t get good results. These guys just like to maim motherfuckers, that’s all. They should just cop to it.

Little over a year has elapsed since the highly-controversial execution of Saddam Hussein. Now that the dust has settled and most of the raw emotion subsided, how do you feel about the way in which the dictator was treated by his captors? Would you rather he’d been imprisoned instead of being killed, and do you think his trial would have been fairer if it had taken place outside Iraq?

I was in Dubai when that happened. I watched it online. I feel now the same way I felt then. I think the Shi’a blew it. They could have shown the world they were for peace and the future by giving him life in prison. I think the death penalty is despicable. I don’t know much about the actual trial itself as to its fairness, etc. 

With a general election looming just around the corner, what are your hopes for the next administration, be it Democrat or Republican? 

We have to get out of Iraq, really look at who hates us and ask why and not just heap bumper-sticker rhetoric at it, stop this destruction of the very foundations of America and stop the borrowing. Easier said than done, but that’s what has to happen. The current brand of capitalism is very, very destructive. It should have died with Milton Friedman.

As a long-standing supporter of equality for gays and lesbians, does it disturb you to note that Democratic forerunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both refused to come out in favor of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples? Do you think there’s any credibility in the reasoning used by both candidates – essentially, that the country “isn’t ready” for such a move – especially as one could argue that, in the not-too-distant past, many Americans wouldn’t have been ‘ready’ for a black or female President either?

They’re politicians. That makes them at least mostly full of it. If either one was to come out in favor of gay marriage, they would lose votes, it’s as simple as that. It’s pathetic that so many people are stuck in the Stone Age. I don’t know what else to say about it. It’s a damn shame they lack the courage to say ‘No’ to this bullshit. I guess I’ll have to do it for them.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cites a 1999 Gallup poll which “asked Americans whether they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman (95 per cent would), Roman Catholic (94 per cent would), Jew (92 per cent), black (92 per cent), Mormon (79 per cent), homosexual (79 per cent) or atheist (49 per cent).” He also points out that “[t]he state of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago.” After eight years of George W. Bush’s rule, during which the insidious effect of the Christian Right has become all too apparent, do you think that these pro-religion and anti-atheist tendencies are so deeply ingrained within US politics that we’ll never get rid of them? Do you think we’ll see an openly-atheistic president within our lifetimes?

That’s a good question. I don’t think a person could get elected if they were openly not pulling for some god. For myself, religion has always been for the weak-minded, but that’s just me. I don’t think there ever needs to be a mention of anyone’s religion in an election. It’s really no-one’s business. I am sick of people making their religion my business. I think in the last eight years, the nutcases have been ruling the roost, but that’s going to end and they will have to go back to their television studios and sell their protein powder to their broke-ass flock.

Black Flag are now viewed as forebears of the hardcore punk movement which blossomed in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the post-grunge era of the mid-1990s, which saw bands such as Green Day, Rancid, NOFX and Blink-182 – most of which played up their "punk" credentials – achieve global success, have the original ideals of punk rock been buried beneath a landslide of studded belts, spiked hair and smudged eyeliner or do they live on elsewhere? Which, if any, of today’s better-known bands are carrying the torch for artistic integrity and unfettered creativity?

When I hear these bands, I hear a lot of derivative music. Since no one makes me listen to this stuff, I really don’t care what they get up to. I think there’s a ton of really amazing bands out there making very interesting music. Dax Riggs, Bark Bark Bark, the Mae Shi, Deerhoof, Wolf Eyes, Yellow Swans, etc. This is the kind of music I listen to from the ‘new’ bin. People who call themselves ‘Punk Rock’ kind of lose before they start. Just play and don’t worry about what it is. Of those bands you mentioned, I think Tim Armstrong of Rancid is a really good songwriter, I think he’s coming from something real. Not to say that the others are not, but it’s very obvious with him.

On a related note, what do you make of the Sex Pistols’ sporadic reunion tours? Are they a justified cashing-in on the part of the genre’s godfathers, reaping the rewards that Malcolm McLaren denied them at the time, or, on the contrary, do they represent the money-grubbing acts of four people who have sold out their past by turning a once-important movement into a pantomime charade?

Justified? What law are they breaking? Who made you go to their show? Who gives a fuck what they do? If you want to go, go. If you don’t, do something else. Johnny Lydon doesn’t care either way! He would probably tell you the whole thing was only a charade. All these things are elective, you can do what you want as far as attending and in that, long may it wave. I know [Steve] Jones: for him, it’s probably just a laugh. It’s nothing I would ever want to be a part of if the band I was in wanted to do some awful reunion.

In this age of pre-release leaks and widespread BitTorrent downloading, combined with decreasing record sales and bands like Radiohead seeking to break the mold by striking out on their own (at least to some extent), what do you think will happen to the standard contract-record-release-tour pattern? Does it have a future?

That’s a good question. I don’t know. I think in the lower ranks, little acts, like me, will always tour and release records but, for the more corporate elements, it could be all downloads and pay-per-view. I think there will always be an interest in live music and bands who want to get out there and hit it. It’s just too great an experience to go away altogether.

You’ve said that you have no objection to illegal downloading of music, on the basis that you’d “rather be heard than paid.” Does the same principle apply to the use of video-sharing sites such as YouTube, upon which footage from your spoken-word shows can be viewed by millions without any money changing hands? How about sites which stream full-length Hollywood movies, including your own, free of charge? You’re in something of a unique position as a musician, actor and spoken-word artist in the sense that all three of the standard avenues for broadcast of your work – record stores, movie theatres and DVD vendors – are potentially under threat as a result of the all-pervasive influence of modern technology.

For myself, I don’t care. What others do, I don’t know. For myself, I would rather buy the band’s record or buy a DVD rather than steal it. That’s just how I am wired. Sales of all my stuff is just fine so if there’s downloading of my stuff, I think it’s mainly bootlegs, which to me are really cool. My problem is when the guy films me and then sells it on DVD-R on eBay for a lot of money, and some kid gets a crappy shaky-cam product with bad audio and some guy makes money off someone he treats like an asshole. 

How gratifying were the positive reviews for Wrong Turn 2, especially considering that horror movie sequels – and particularly those of a direct-to-DVD nature – are usually derided by critics? Would you have liked to see the film given a theatrical release or were you happy for it to remain low-key?

I don’t give a fuck how the critics like it. I didn’t read any of the reviews. I never, ever read anything written about me. For me, it was a good job. I was happy for the work and hope the director Joe Lynch uses me again. I have a copy of it on a shelf of my office. I did a lot of press for that film because Joe asked me to and I really like the guy so I did it. Past that, I didn’t think about the film at all after we wrapped out. I usually just buy a used copy of the films I’m in used on Amazon.com or at a truck stop.

How much time does it take to prepare each episode of Harmony in My Head?

Hours and hours. I give that a lot of attention. I really like putting that show together. I could do it in less time but it wouldn’t be the same. I just put together two that I will do from the road very soon, they are going to rock!

Are you still as keen on working out as you once were? How do you find time to stay in shape while you’re on the road? Are there any exercise tips you’d like to pass on to those who are keen to get fit but don’t know where/how to begin?

I work out much differently than I used to. I go for more reps and a higher heart rate. Gyms are all around. I don’t know what to advise though, everyone’s different.

Your early days with Black Flag were noted for a certain level of onstage intensity, and, looking at some footage from your recent spoken-word shows, it seems as though your anger and frustration haven’t dimmed with the passing of time. Do you feel happier and more relaxed as a person these days, or do you find it hard to step back from your work when there are still so many things in the world which piss you off?

I am not, and never have been, a relaxed or happy person. I am just not wired that way, I guess. I can’t step back from the work. I am the work. I see no separation.

--------------------

Many thanks to Henry for taking the time to answer my questions, especially in such thoughtful and verbose fashion. The photograph above was taken by Ziv Koren during Mr. Rollins' trip to Tel Aviv for his Uncut From Israel television special.

Permalink

Those of you who remember my old WordPress blog will probably also recall a post made thereupon which pertained to Oakland rockers Victory and Associates. I didn’t bring it with me when I transferred to Posterous, purely because I never felt as though the piece represented my best work, but that sense of overriding fondness for Conan and Co. remains undimmed.

Coming back to the present day, V&A are running a Kickstarter campaign to fund the recording and distribution of their debut LP, These Things Are Facts. At the time of writing, they’ve raised $3,735 from their target of $5,000. There are only 39 hours to go, though, so if you have any cash to spare – and even a measly $1 will get you a digital download of the full LP, fer chrissakes! – please go here and toss a few bucks into the pot.

After all, as the band keeps reminding us, “You can’t stop the signal, you can’t stop the noise.”

Permalink

Okay, I admit it: One of the primary reasons I chose this particular brand was its name. (You are, after all, reading a blog written by a guy who’s in his late twenties and can’t order Knob Creek in a bar without giggling like a fifth-grader in Sex Ed class.)

The magnificent moniker wasn’t my only motive, though. For one thing, Fighting Cock is made by the Heaven Hill distillery, the institution that’s also responsible for Elijah Craig and Evan Williams Single Barrel, both of which I’ve enjoyed immensely in recent years; for another, it’s strong (to the tune of 103 proof) and, as none of my recent purchases have broken the 100 mark, I figured it was high time I went for something that’d offer a little more bang for my buck.

I’m not going to attempt any of that “Floral notes, intermingled with hints of cinnamon and a soupçon of guava” stuff, mainly 'cause I think the vast majority thereof is latent nonsense, but I will go so far as to describe this particular whiskey as “Pretty damned good.” Consumed neat, it has a pleasantly spicy kick and a long finish, while a couple of ice cubes allow its subtleties to become more apparent and may even render it palatable to the fashion-following Jack Daniel’s crowd.

When one drinks a particular beverage almost exclusively – bourbon, in my case – it’s important to get out of one’s comfort zone every once in a while. Mission accomplished.

Permalink

Now please, switch off the television set, put away the confetti and do something interesting, productive or otherwise enjoyable with your day, instead of squandering it by watching the nuptials of two people who wouldn't take the time to hand you a bucket of water if you were on fire.

Permalink

This is to be the first of three re-uploaded posts from my old website. The others will be along in due course; in the meantime, please enjoy this interview with comedian, writer, actor and all-'round good guy, David Cross.

--------------------

Victoria Station, Main Concourse. Thursday, June 21, 2007. 4:59pm.

I’m getting decidedly nervous. The crowd on the concourse seems to be swelling with every passing moment, courtesy of signal problems which have resulted in widespread delays to all southbound trains, and the mass of bodies jostling for position in front of the departure boards is hardly helping to alleviate my already-fraught frame of mind. As the station’s digital clock display changes to 5:00pm, I wipe my sweaty palms on my trousers for the umpteenth time and begin to scan the multitudinous faces before me once more.

Let’s rewind to approximately 24 hours earlier. I’d just arrived at the 100 Club on Oxford Street, and had been politely – indeed, sweetly – informed that, due to an unfortunate and unforeseeable chain of events, the interview for which I’d arrived would have to be rescheduled for the following day. Later on, at 10:45pm on the 20th, I was introduced to my prospective interviewee, who genially suggested that we meet at Victoria, an hour-and-a-half or so before my coach was due to depart, where we’d find somewhere to have a chat.

So it came to pass that I found myself waiting by the flower-stand in the aforementioned station, fidgeting nervously and sneaking endless sideways glances at the clock as my eyes searched the throng of irritable commuters.

Before I have time to register the fact, he’s standing before me: David Cross, actor and comedian extraordinaire. You may know him from his critically-acclaimed stand-up work, or perhaps you’ll remember him as Tobias Fünke, the latent homosexual never-nude from Arrested Development, the best sitcom to emerge from American shores since Seinfeld. Maybe you’ll recognise him from his roles in the Men in Black movies, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Scary Movie 2, or you may never have heard of him at all. If you fall into the final group, seek out one of his live CDs (Shut Up, You Fucking Baby! or It’s Not Funny, both of which are out on Sub Pop Records) before buying all three of the Arrested Development DVD sets. You can thank me later.

Within five minutes we’re sitting in the food court above the station, bottles of water – and, in David’s case, a bagel – sitting amid the tangled dictaphone wires on our tiny table.

So, David, it’s been three years or so since you were last in London. Are you pleased to be back?

Yeah. I mean, I’m glad to be back doing it the way I’m doing it, too. There’s a lot less… I don’t want to say "pressure", but it’s less work and more fun for me because it’s a looser line-up and I do less time. It’s also a club, as opposed to a theater, so it doesn’t have that feeling to it. It’s more fun this way.

Have you ever got a handle on how British audiences have become aware of your work, seeing as Mr. Show [Cross’s cult sketch program, which ran between 1995 and 1998 on America’s HBO channel and was co-written with Bob Odenkirk] was never screened on these shores?

Well, I think initially it’s just the comedy community – people who are comedy nerds and are way into it.  If you ask most hardcore comedy fans in America about British comics, they’ll know people that the rest of the country has never heard of and never will. They seek out that stuff, and people show them tapes and things. So initially that way, and I’m sure Arrested Development has a lot to do with it too.

The shows you’re doing at present are billed as David Cross and Friends: How did they come about? Were they your idea?

No. I’m the least proactive guy with my career! Both this time and last time [I was over here], it was a case of somebody else saying “Hey, you want to go to England and do some shows?” “Okay!”

So did you pick the acts with whom you wanted to appear?

The comedians? Yup.

Are they people with whom you’re friends? Have you worked with them in the past?

Yeah. They’re all from New York, or live in New York, and we do shows together all the time over there. I mean, not just the four of us, but we’re a part of the community which is always going around the same six or seven shows.

There are four of you performing each night, plus different a special guest for each show. How did the guests get involved?

That was Olivia Wingate, who’s promoting it. We’re trying to get Daniel Kitson down here, but he won’t commit; the New Pornographers are playing tonight. Just various people, really.

According to the Internet Movie Database, you have seven film and television projects due for release later this year or sometime in 2008. Are you putting comedy on the back-burner for a while, or are you doing tours and shows alongside your acting commitments?

Again, that’s part of the proactive thing, or lack of it. When I did the tours in the States that resulted in the CDs, that was somebody else putting that together. I was always… This is nothing I’m proud of, I’m not bragging about it, but I have no… I really should get off my ass and figure something out! But, once I get a new hour, I think I’ll be pretty happy about touring. I mean, it’s fun, and I really like this particular format, too.

It’s also been three years since It’s Not Funny came out, so is another album likely to follow when you finally get back out on the road?

Yeah. Nothing is in the works at present, but I just came from the Bonnaroo Festival – a big festival in the States – and that was the first time I’d done forty-five minutes of material for a while. I’m glad I did that, to get ready for these shows, and that’s just the nature of it. Especially the way I write onstage, and I don’t sit down at home; it’s almost exponential, where you start off with a little bit and just build up your material, and if I continue working at it when I go back home I imagine I’ll be ready to go back out in the Fall.

So a new record may come from that?

Yeah, maybe.

Do you tape every show on a tour and cherry-pick the best ones for inclusion?

Yeah, exactly. The first one [Shut Up, You Fucking Baby!] was part of a tour that was, like, twenty-one cities, I think, and I took 95% of the material from two different shows, one in Portland and one in Atlanta. You’re kind of stymied by the sound quality too: the shows sound different, and you have to pick the ones you want to go with. The second CD [It’s Not Funny] was pretty much one show. I think I did four shows at The Improv in Washington, D.C., and there wasn’t much editing for that one.

The most infamous recent event in the stand-up world was Michael Richards’ onstage meltdown late last year, which saw The Laugh Factory outlaw the use of the word "nigger" when performing at their club. They also imposed punishments, including fines and bans, for performers who break this rule. What do you make of this kind of censorship?

Well, I think it’s silly. It’s reactionary, it’s not thoughtful… It’s well-meaning, but ultimately it’s stupid and childish. I can understand if the club-owner was particularly offended and can see him making some sort of rule based upon that, but the idea that… I mean, if I said it in a different context would that be allowed, or would I be fined?

From what I understand, context doesn’t matter.

That’s ridiculous. It’s the intent behind the word that counts. It’s language!

Do you think that "clean" comedy albums, sanitized for sale in Wal-Mart, can really be far behind?

I think it’s already happened. Not necessarily just in Wal-Mart, but Best Buy, Wal-Mart, a lot of those huge chains will not carry certain things. They won’t carry certain videogames because of their content, there are certain TV shows they won’t carry.

So does that constitute a certain kind of censorship in itself?

Well, not really. I wouldn’t call it "censorship", because now – with the Internet – you can pretty much get anything you want anyway.

Do you think American comedy is starting to get more politicized again, after an initial post-9/11 lull?

Not that I can see. Do you mean stand-up?

Yeah.

No, not really.

Even George Carlin announced a vague "truce" with Bush after 9/11, leaving you as one of the few comics out there who was still pushing that kind of material.

Well, that’s the thing: I’m not anymore. I haven’t made any jokes about Bush or the Bush administration in maybe two years. It wasn’t a calculated decision. When I was initially doing it, there was a sense of urgency and outrage that I, for various reasons, don’t have anymore. You become inured to it. Maybe on some conscious level I thought “Enough’s enough.” I mean, I’ve said it already. I’m certainly happy that I was on record as saying it in 2000 and 2001, but now – especially when you have Lewis Black, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Bill Maher – you have people who do this every night. The voice is out there.

The run-up to the invasion of Iraq saw many public American figures – the Dixie Chicks being a prime example – excoriated for speaking out against Bush. Did you ever fear a similar backlash amid the atmosphere you once described as “flag-waving, cheerleading bullshit”?

No! I’d have welcomed it.

Really?

Yeah, because it would have meant that I was on the radar. I’m actually kind of under the radar, so no-one really gave a shit.

Courtesy of certain right-wing factions within the Stateside media, one almost got the impression that 1950s McCarthyism had returned, with any criticism of Bush being immediately dubbed "anti-American" or "unpatriotic." Was this really the case?

Well, I think that impression is a little exaggerated, because McCarthyism found people being accused of something they weren’t and losing their jobs and livelihoods as a result, without any ability to reconcile that. What we had was a small minority of people who were very loud and happened to have a public platform from which they could say the same things [about the need to support Bush] over and over. It helped people! I mean, Bill Maher lost one show but he went and did another one. Phil Donahue lost a show, but I don’t know anybody who was really… There was no fear, like under McCarthyism. It was just annoying more than anything else.

During your spat with Larry the Cable Guy, you said that the country was in the grip of “vague American values and anti-intellectual pride.” This was a couple of years ago: Has the situation improved at all?

I think it has, yeah. The biggest news was the 2006 election, and Congress swinging back to the Democrats, which – if nothing else – means that things will be investigated where they wouldn’t have been before. I’m sure news will be dripping out for the next eight to ten years about some of the heinous things that happened and were covered up. The President’s popularity is historically-low, and he’s completely ineffective. That’s a massive change from 2004.

Do you think the Democrats stand a chance of taking the next national election?

I do, but not because they’re going to be particularly effective. I think the Republican slate is just doomed. I mean, it’s terrible. Their knight in shining armor is Fred Thompson – the guy’s a former lobbyist – and it’s gonna be ugly. It’s the Democrats’ to lose, and they could lose it. I’m not particularly excited by any of them, although I do like [John] Edwards and [Barack] Obama.

Who would you like to see on the Democratic ticket, ideally?

Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.

Ha! I was going to follow that by asking if you’d ever consider campaigning for your preferred candidates…

That’d be weird. But yeah, sure!

Among the American Left, there seem to be two basic opinions with regard to Ralph Nader: firstly, that he offers a genuine choice at the ballot by campaigning for issues that the Democrats won’t touch; and, secondly, that he splinters the left-wing vote and helps to hand victory to the Republicans. Do you fall into either camp?

I think he’s… I admire what he’s trying to do, but I also think he’s arrogant. He certainly has an ego. He feels like he’s an incorruptible truth-teller, but he’d be a terrible president. I don’t think he’s diplomatic at all, and my guess is that even the most altruistic and well-intentioned left-winger – such as Dennis Kucinich – would find that things work a certain way, y’know? We need oil!

As a final politics-related question, it was reported in the news this week that Bush has agreed to reinstate Palestinian aid if the new cabinet is confirmed to be Hamas-free. Doesn’t this undermine his constant use of "democratic" principles to justify everything he’s done since 9/11?

Yes, that is true, at least in theory. Again, though, he has never done anything that he’s said he was going to do. He hasn’t accomplished anything. As quickly as they announced their ‘Road Map to Peace’ – or whatever the fuck they called it – it was abandoned. And with everything that’s going on in Lebanon, and all the saber-rattling with Iran, he pretty much has to [get Palestine onside].

Right, moving on! You’re doing a residency at the 100 Club, perhaps best-known for its 1976 punk festival which featured performances from the Sex Pistols and The Clash. Were you ever a punk fan?

Oh, yeah. God, yeah. Absolutely. There were the two you just mentioned, the Buzzcocks, The Stranglers, The Damned, the Ramones, West Coast punk…

So is it meaningful for you, in that sense, to be playing there?

Well, it’s not something I consciously think about, but you do walk in and go “Cool!”. It’s not like I walk in and feel imbued with the spirit of Joe Strummer, though.

You’ve been very outspoken in the past in your criticism of manufactured rock bands, including Staind and Creed. Do you think the music industry’s in a healthier state now?

I think that, literally every month, there’s another really good album out from a band which may not be reinventing music but is still putting out strong, interesting stuff. The last Modest Mouse album is great, Arcade Fire… I was just at Bonnaroo, and every band I saw just got better and better. I didn’t get to see that many because of my schedule, but I did see The Little Ones, Black Angel, The Roots and Tool. That was a really good festival.

You also performed at All Tomorrow’s Parties over here last year. Would you ever curate one of these events, if they asked you to?

Oh yeah, sure. I have a lot of friends in bands. Absolutely. I sort of did one at South by Southwest this year, a day-long thing with two stages and had a bunch of bands playing. It was good.

Given the current tendency for bands to reform in search of their glory days, are there any groups or artists you’d try to reunite for a festival appearance?

I’d like to get Scott Joplin and George Gershwin together to collaborate!  Actually, I tell you who I’d like to see: The Cavedogs. I saw a couple of their reunion shows and they were great. Who else? Maybe the Sex Pistols? That would be funny. It would be anathema to their ethos, though.

It’s generally something of a mess when they get back together, from what I’ve seen.

Yeah. Weren’t they supposed to do shows, and they cancelled?

I think some shows may have been discussed for later this year, as it’s the 30th anniversary of Never Mind the Bollocks in October. If memory serves, they last played over here about five years ago when they did a mini-festival called "Pistols at the Palace." It was… Interesting, in a train-wreck sort of way.

I can imagine!

Are you interested in directing music videos at all?

I actually directed a video for The Black Keys, for ‘10 A.M. Automatic’, which I like. They’re really funny in it, and it’s good. I also had an idea for …Trail of Dead, which I really liked: it was inspired by La Jetée, the French film which inspired Twelve Monkeys. It would all be photographs – or stills, should I say – and I think they misunderstood my intent. I think they thought it was going to be really violent and bloody, but it absolutely wasn’t.

Judging by your rant on the Season Two DVD set, and from reading interviews with your co-stars conducted around the time of the show’s cancellation, there seemed to be a lot of resentment and anger at the way Fox treated Arrested Development.

Oh, yeah. Here’s the big, dark secret nobody talks about: Fox didn’t like the show. They didn’t like the fact that it kept winning Emmys and being mentioned as one of the ten best shows on TV. It was expensive, they didn’t get along with the producer, they didn’t like the politics of it. It didn’t do anything for them. That show stayed on only as a result of Emmys, Golden Globes and other awards like that. They really didn’t like it. And – I swear to God, although it sounds like I’m making this up – I don’t think Rupert Murdoch liked it. I don’t know that for a fact, of course. There were a couple of people [at Fox] who championed it but, outside of those people, the network simply didn’t like it.

The show almost ended on a positive note for its fans, with the implication that a feature film adaptation may follow. Is that still a vague possibility?

I would underscore "vague", and make it in bold letters, with an asterisk. Then, when you look at the asterisk, you scroll down to the bottom of the page and it says “extremely vague”. I don’t think it’s going to happen.

But if they called you up and said “We’ve got the green light”, would you sign on?

Oh, fuck yeah. Absolutely.

There seemed to be a lot of camaraderie between the cast members…

Yeah, there was. Absolutely. It was fun. The other problem we faced is an antiquated and ineffective ratings system that doesn’t truly reflect [modern trends]: TiVo and DVR, lots of people watching in a room as opposed to one, and so on. People don’t watch TV in the same way they did in 1972, and yet they’re using the same ratings system.

What do you make of the trend towards watching TV shows online or downloading episodes via the Internet? Do you think this will have an adverse effect upon shows like Arrested, which receive critical claim but lower ratings than the networks would like?

I don’t know. That’s going to be the new way in which you figure out what your market is, and I’m sure someone in Hollywood right now is being paid a lot of money just to figure out how to make money from the Internet.

So it’ll end up being harnessed by the industry in the same way music downloads have been?

Probably, yeah.

At the end of It’s Not Funny, you told an anecdote about meeting Scott Stapp [the one-time Creed vocalist, about whom Cross has been particularly critical] at a celebrity poker tournament. In the same vein, what was it like working with James Lipton on Arrested?

I’ll preface this by saying that working with him was quite fun, and I think he did a great job. However, it was also awkward. Mitch Hurwitz [the creator of Arrested] mentioned the idea and was like “Wouldn’t this be great?” and then, when the day came, I was kinda nervous. I mean, I really shit on him in my stand-up, and I have nothing but absolute, utter contempt for what he does. It saddens me, it’s disheartening. It’s upsetting to me to watch somebody so pandering, to people who are marginally talented at best. And what they’re talented at is being successful! A celebration of this… I mean, he’s had really good people on there [Inside the Actors Studio, Lipton’s series on the Bravo cable channel], but he’s also had fucking Ben Affleck, you know? It’s a joke. It disgusts me, just on a human level. And so I went to his trailer – and we had tiny trailers, literally tiny, for the first season – and he’s sitting there, facing the mirror, which is by the door. Just sitting there, which was odd. I came in, like “Hey”, whatever. I never said anything, never alluded to the fact that I’d said these things during my stand-up, I had no idea whether he knew or not. And we sat there for a good twenty minutes or so and had this sort of chit-chat about nothing. He kept talking about his plane – he flies – and he talked about flying a lot. I was just sitting there going “Oh. Wow. Really? Uh-huh. Mmmm. Okay.” But it was fine in the end.

Is this something which occurs with greater frequency now, as you become more successful, meeting people you’ve attacked onstage?

Yeah! It happened just recently, in fact. These guys were super-cool, though. Very recently, maybe three weeks ago, somebody somewhere posted an audio-clip of a show I’d done years ago in Austin, Texas. Literally, it must have been five or six years ago. In the middle of it, somebody heckled or something – I honestly don’t remember doing this riff – and I guess The String Cheese Incident must have been playing, because I started going off on them and then I started talking about hippies, and hippie bands. Somebody posted it, and then The String Cheese Incident posted it on their website, which shows that they have a really good sense of humor. I’d said, like “I’ve never heard their music, but I imagine it’s terrible” and just went off on that. And I ran into those guys at Bonnaroo, and they were totally cool! They asked me to introduce them on the Main Stage, which I couldn’t actually do because I had my own show at the same time, but they were really, really cool. They were awesome.

There was a rumor going around that Zach Braff wanted you to reprise your role as Tobias during the sixth season of Scrubs. Now that Scrubs has been renewed for a seventh – and, apparently, final – season, is this still a possibility?

You know, you’d really have to ask them. I haven’t talked to them or investigated it further. It’s really not my place to, either. I think it’s a funny idea, and hopefully the script will be good.

Are you still into drugs as much as you once were?

No. I’m still into the fond memories I have [of doing drugs], but I haven’t done hallucinogenics in… Well, I did mushrooms with my girlfriend about two years ago but otherwise, no. I’m forty-three now.

A few years ago you were writing on your website about your plans to buy a club in New York. What happened there?

Yeah, we were getting close to it, my friends and I. It fell through because of our own naïveté. I mean, we didn’t know what the fuck we were doing! I’m kinda glad it didn’t happen, because it would be a big headache, but I’m still with the same group of people and we’re still looking to do something.

Every time I read anything about you in the media, the same two names crop up: Bill Hicks and Lenny Bruce.

That’s because they’re recycling the press release! That’s all. It was written once and now everyone’s recycling the same thing.

Do the analogies mean anything to you, or do they just represent lazy journalism?

I think it’s lazy journalism. I don’t think I’m like Lenny Bruce at all, because the [societal] context is completely different. I’m probably closer to Bill Hicks, but I’m not nearly as good or articulate or economic with my ideas as he was. We have the same ideas about things, but he’s a better comic.

Were you influenced by either of them?

Absolutely. I was definitely influenced by Bill Hicks. Well, maybe less ‘influenced’ than ‘inspired by’. When I first met him, I was doing stuff that I do now, so maybe I wasn’t directly influenced by him. But he was certainly inspiring.

Are you still enjoying living in New York?

Oh, I love it. I love it.

So when job opportunities arise in Los Angeles, do you hesitate to accept them given your oft-voiced dislike for the place?

Well, no. The thing is, I don’t actually have to move. I wouldn’t do another series, unless it was Arrested Development, as that was very special. TV means you live there pretty much six months of the year, but when you shoot a movie that’s three months at most.

You wrote an article for New York Magazine once, in which you gave advice to people on approaching celebrities, and pointed out that criticizing the celebrity’s friends is never a good idea. Does this really happen?

Oh, yeah! I mean, it doesn’t happen all the time, but I’ve had a number of people who will make fun in that way. Like “Hey, man you’re fucking funny, but what’s up with The Strokes, though? How come you hang out with those guys?” Or “What’s up with Janeane Garofalo? She’s not funny at all.” Just shit like that. I mean, why do it? They’re friends of mine! Obviously I disagree with you, and I think they’re good musicians or good comedians, depending on whom they’re talking about. Yeah, I get that. Again, it doesn’t happen a lot.

In another interview from a few years ago, you said that one of your long-term goals is to do some directing. Is this still on your agenda?

At some point, yeah.

Do you write your own screenplay material, or would you rather helm someone else’s project to start with?

Erm… Either way, really. I’ve written my own stuff, which never got made. I got close to finishing a script, but now I’d have to completely rewrite it.

So your experience with Run, Ronnie, Run [the Mr. Show spin-off movie Cross wrote with Odenkirk, which was butchered by New Line Cinema after spending two years in development hell] didn’t put you off?

Oh, no. I wish we’d directed that, man. We’d have made it a lot better. And funnier.

You’ve spoken of your admiration for Greg Palast, and also said you enjoyed reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. What are you reading at the moment?

Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett. I’m about halfway through it. It’s really interesting: He’s a philosopher, and it’s about the idea of religion as a natural phenomenon, studying that. It’s great, really good.

Lastly, one of the most popular David Cross videos on YouTube shows you dancing onstage with Jim Belushi, courtesy of the Chunklet guys. How did that come about?

I was in Martha’s Vineyard with some friends of mine, and on the ferry over there we saw that he was going to be playing and were like “Oh, shit! We’ve got to go to this!” We went to this little club, roughly the size of the 100 Club, by the airport. That motherfucker had the audacity to charge $40 a ticket to see his shitty cover-band. And then my friend had a little camera, and I was like “Okay, get ready!” I got up onstage and got kicked off twice.

It looked as though they threw you out at some point.

Yeah, after the second time they kicked me out of the club.

Thanks a lot for coming out to do this, David. It’s very kind of you.

No problem, man.

--------------------

Many thanks to Claire Walker for helping to arrange the interview, the guys at Drowned in Sound for allowing me to schedule it under the aegis of their site and, of course, David himself for taking the time to answer my asinine questions. Oh, and the photograph which accompanies this piece is a Sub Pop promo picture.

Permalink

Amanda Knox was back in court in Perugia yesterday (Saturday, March 12), although you wouldn’t necessarily know as much if you cast but a fleeting glance at the mainstream media websites over the course of the weekend. Sure, the Japanese earthquake understandably bumped all other stories from the headlines – aside from the impending arrival of yet another child for “Posh” and “Becks”, of course – but there’s rather more to it than that.

Let’s face facts for a second: The journalists who once swarmed around every tidbit of Knox-related news like flies to feces have turned into rats, and they’re rapidly deserting a sinking ship. No longer does her every pronouncement result in a deluge of column inches dedicated thereto. The days when a simply flutter of her eyelashes could set editorial hearts a-quivering have long since disappeared.

As you may have deduced from the tone of these opening paragraphs, my feet are firmly planted in the camp that believes in the guilt of both Knox and her ex-boyfriend-slash-co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, with regard to the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher; that having been said, I don’t begrudge either of them the right to appeal against their convictions and, if the initial verdict was indeed erroneous, I’ll gladly eat humble pie as these former lovebirds walk free. I just don’t see what they hope to gain from the process… Realistically, anyway.

See, neither Knox nor Sollecito have instructed their lawyers to adduce any substantial new evidence at this appeal. There’s no magical “Get Out of Jail Free” card here, folks, regardless of what Knox’s parents would have you believe as they continue their never-ending series of laps around the interview circuit! Instead, the defense teams seem to be basing their entire case upon an (oft-stated but never elaborated upon) assertion that the lower court simply got it wrong.

The chief problem with this approach is two-fold:

1. The court of first instance was unanimous in its conviction of the dubious duo and its final report was similarly unequivocal, leaving little or no wiggle-room to exploit this time around;
2. The Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome, Italy’s court of last resort, has already accepted that three people committed the crime in its affirmation of Rudy Guede’s sentence. (Guede, for those of you who have been fooled by press reports into thinking that this entire case revolves solely around Knox, is the third person to be convicted of Kercher’s homicide and, because he opted for a fast-track trial from the very beginning, has already exhausted both appeals to which he’s entitled under Italian law.)

Things look pretty bleak for Knox, then, and it seems as though she’s finally starting to realize the dire nature of her predicament. The giggly, flirtatious girl who seemed to relish the spotlight back in 2009 has all but disappeared, replaced instead by someone who projects a more somber demeanor and whose recent sartorial makeover seems less egregiously inappropriate for a high-profile murder trial.

We won’t know for sure how this appeal is going to pan out until September or thereabouts, by which time some of the relevant DNA evidence will have been re-examined. Even if this process pans out in Knox’s favor, though – which seems massively unlikely in and of itself – she’ll still have to explain away a plethora of inculpatory facts, including (but not limited to) her inconsistent alibis, the odd behavior she displayed in the aftermath of the offense, the obviously-staged crime scene and the false accusations she repeatedly leveled against her former boss, Patrick Diya Lumumba.

While the ever-dwindling Knox bandwagon continues on its inexorable path, the Kercher family’s quest for justice, not to mention some long-overdue peace for Meredith’s memory, is being waged with the same quiet dignity they’ve deployed since the get-go. Just compare John Kercher’s calm, restrained articles on the case to the shrill evasiveness of Edda Mellas, Knox’s mother, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that the latter doth indeed protest too much.

Like mother, like daughter, huh?

Permalink

"That this Blog notes with sadness the 17th anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks, on 26th February, 1994, at the age of 32; recalls his assertion that his words would be a bullet in the heart of consumerism, capitalism, and the American Dream; and mourns the passing of one of the few people who may be mentioned as being worthy of inclusion with Lenny Bruce in any list of unflinching and painfully honest political philosophers."

-- Shamelessly plagiarized from Mr. Stephen Pound, British Member of Parliament for Ealing North… Or at least, it was, before he kindly approved my request to reproduce it here. Picture taken from Bill's official website, also with permission.

Permalink

One of the hardest things about writing original television scripts – as opposed to specs, wherein you place your material into someone else’s pre-existing framework – is striking the right balance between creativity and marketability. On the one hand, you want to let your muse run riot, unfettered by the strictures of form, function and even, where applicable, good taste; on the other, being able to sell your completed teleplay is of paramount importance, so commercial considerations can never be permitted to stray too far from your mind.

That’s not to say that specs represent some kind of magical gateway to instantaneous Hollywood success, of course. (Believe me, they don’t.) It does, however, make them quite a lot easier, not to mention significantly more pleasurable, to write… And herein lies the problem.

See, the incentive to create something innovative and unique will always, to a certain extent, be obviated by the desire to succeed via the line of least resistance, especially when attempting to climb the notional ladder in such an intensely competitive industry. When we make it difficult for up-and-coming writers to meld unfettered inspiration with realistic sales prospects, we thereby put the brakes on artistic progress.

In choosing to begin work on a spec, one already knows that the viability of the relevant show’s format is not in question, so a large part of the battle has been rendered moot before one even puts fingers to keyboard; however, this hardly seems like the best way combating the surfeit of atrocious “reality” programs by and for those who favor scripted entertainment, a necessary move if we wish to secure said medium’s survival at a very difficult time.

Then again, perhaps I’m just a cynical old bastard, embittered by years of toil and rejection, whose output is simply no good and who has been forced to publish lengthy, self-justificatory screeds on the World Wide Web in order to rationalize his so-called existence. Anything’s possible!

On a slightly tangential note, the nominations for the 83rd annual Academy Awards were announced this past Tuesday and, as ever, more of the post-game analysis is centered around notable absences than those who were lucky enough to be honored.

In many ways, this is an inevitable consequence of the Internet giving a voice to every douchebag with access to a computer, this one included, but it does make you wonder at what the Academy folks are playing when every year, without fail, there’s a high-profile casualty before the red carpet has even been removed from storage. Are they just professional contrarians, when all is said and done?

The common consensus seems to be that this year’s biggest loser is poor Christopher Nolan, as he once again failed to snag a Best Director nod from the powers that be; I, however, am saving my ire for whomever decided to snub Mila Kunis, whose absence from the Best Supporting Actress shortlist is little more than a travesty.

Lastly, and on a completely unrelated note, could whomever has been sticking pins into a voodoo doll shaped like yours truly please stop? My back is freakin’ killing me.

Thanks in advance.

Permalink