Book Review: The Huge Book of Hell

Before there was The Simpsons, there was Life in Hell, a dark comic strip drawn by Matt Groening.
As Groening has become famous for the great television series he created, he has continued drawing this weird but hilarious strip. There are several Life in Hell books with names like School is Hell and Childhood is Hell. I recommend reading Work In Hell when you are frustrated with your job and checking out Love Is Hell when love just ain't coming your way and you want to wallow in that.
The books are much darker and more philosophical than The Simpsons. The drawings are raw and crude.
The humor can be quite self-deprecating. For example, Groening draws most of his characters as bunnies, only to have some characters ask if they are drawn that way because of the cartoonist's artistic limitations.
But the writing more than makes up for the weak drawing. His book, The Huge Book of Hell, for example, has suggested magazine covers: Annoying Performance Artist magazine, not to be confused with Annoying Street Lunatic magazine.
The imaginary publication features such articles as "The Gentle Art of Scab-Pulling" and "Is It OK to Yell 'I'm On Fire' In a Crowded Theater?" Gross? Sure. Silly? Well, sometimes. High-brow? Maybe.
And there is even a special book guide within the book. Yes, just like Oprah's book discussion group, Groening provides "A reading group guide to The Huge Book of Hell."
The guide includes such discussion questions as: "How would you characterize the cartoonist's own attitude towards society? Does it change as the book progresses? Will it ever? Why does the cartoonist refuse to change? Have you read any of his other books? Is it any better there? What the hell is wrong with this guy?"
My favorite cartoon panel in the book — perhaps because it hits close to home — shows a young character lying awake at night asking questions:
Do animal crackers feel pain when you bite their heads off? Why do flies land on dog manure? Don't they know it's dog manure?
How can anyone eat something called rump roast?
Is it possible to have so many questions flying around inside your brain that you can never go to sleep and eventually go insane?
The final, inevitable panel shows the character finally sleeping. Groening is great, no matter what the medium. Read and enjoy.

DVD Review of Jonestown: The Life & Death of Peoples Temple

I have always been fascinated by cults. One of the best comments in the documentary Jonestown: The Life And Death of People’s Temple, is that nobody joins a group thinking it is a cult.
"Nobody joins a cult. Nobody joins something they think is going to hurt them. You join a religious organization, you join a political movement, and you join with people that you really like," said Deborah Layton, a Peoples Temple member who wrote a book about the experience.
People join groups because they think the cause is good and just or they want the camaraderie it provides. I once asked a Civil War reenactor whether he thought the camaraderie he gets with his reenactor buddies is much different from the camaraderie gang members get.
The reenactor did not like or understand my question so I changed the topic. But I maintain I was on to something: We all want to belong to something. There is nothing like the feeling of being accepted into something bigger than ourselves. For some of us, that bigger something is our family. But for people with broken families or families with members in jails, members will seek out other groups.
I think a major reason why people join gangs is so they can have that feeling of being part of something. The gang also provides sort of a replacement family.
What does this have to do with cults? I see joining a cult as being like joining a gang. You join a group because it is doing something. You don’t think it will end, as People’s Temple did, with more than 900 members dead in a mass suicide on a compound in Guyana on Nov. 17, 1978.
But with street gangs you can, hopefully, point out to gang members the physical and legal dangers they will face because of the connection between many gangs and crime and violence.
In contrast, many cults are not breaking any laws (initially, though many seem to later on) and in fact often preach that they are working for justice.
This documentary focuses on the Peoples Temple, the cult run by Jim Jones, but it can teach lessons far beyond that one specific group.
The movie is powerful, moving, engaging, disturbing and educational, a real emotional roller coaster.
The directors treat the subject with empathy rather than sympathy. Instead of just making us pity those killed, and the few who survived, the Jonestown massacre it helps us understand – and better appreciate and learn from – what actually happened.
The first step, of course, is understanding who exactly Jim Jones was. He had a frightening, disturbing upbringing, providing funerals for dead pets, for example. But the important thing I learned was that he was charismatic and very passionate on the subject of racial harmony.
The second step is getting us to understand that it functioned in almost every way as a traditional black church with much passion, singing, emotion. The fact he was white was ignored or explained because he understood and spoke like the black members, members said.
The movie’s best draw is that it has interviews with people who were long-time members of the church and survived the attacks and they are able to walk us, the viewers, through the growth of the church, the church’s movie from the Bay Area to the jungles of Guyana and the ultimate massacre.
We learn, for example, that Jones was not above some common tricks such as having a member pretend to be crippled so he can “heal” her. Sometimes it’s not enough to be charismatic, the cult leader needs some extra edges and a few fake miracles help with that.
As with many cults, there is a weird sexual element. In this case Jones claims that everyone was homosexual except him. While forbidding all members to have sex with each other, calling it selfish and irrational, he had sex with male and female members.
The movie reminded me of the time I wrote some feature stories on a college friend who was a straight-edge punk guitarist who was also a member of the Los Angeles sect of the Hari Krishna. I went with him to two services. I was never interested in joining but I was interested in understanding its appeal. And in a way I did: The appeal there, like the appeal of People’s Temple, comes from believing you are part of something beautiful and true and just and you are working to improve the word. Who, believing those things, would consider what they are doing as bad?
But what happens when some decide this is far from the utopia Jones portrayed it as and instead there is sexual assaults, drug use, welfare fraud, etc and they want to leave? But Jones did not want anyone to leave, he saw it as a personal betrayal, and that’s when things get problematic.
People's desire to leave the group is part of what led to its sudden demise. The move to another country was sparked by negative media reports of strange things going on within the group. That led Congressman Leo Ryan, in November 1978, to take a fact-finding mission to the temple.
The most chilling parts of the movie come, as you might expect, when you watch the footage (including new audio footage) of Jones and others at the temple during their final hours. Members at first tell Ryan that they are happy with the group. At first things seem fine. For a minute you think maybe this won’t turn bad after all.
This footage is intercut with interviews with two survivors who escaped. One of them suspected things were going to get violent. In one of the more disturbing memories shared the survivor said he told Ryan that he needs to be careful. Ryan told him that there was a shield around him, since he was a congressman, and nobody would harm. Talk about bad foreshadowing.
We are reminded that Jones had previously distributed juice to all members, had them drink it and then told them they had all been poisoned. After the members began to freak out he told them it was just a loyalty test. But apparently as Ryan arrived they began to bring out the juice again. Incidentally it's often referred to as Kool-Aid as in the saying, "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" but it is actually Flavor-Aid.
Anyway, so at first Ryan’s visit is going fine but then some began to speak about wanting to leave. Jones is adamant that nobody will leave. Footage is shown of one woman screaming about being separated from a child who is leaving.
Things unravel fast and after a man ties to attack Ryan. the congressman and his group leaves but is attacked, ambushed really, at a nearby airport. The congressman and others are killed.
About 45 minutes later, as those who did the attacks at the airport return to camp, Jones tells those assembled at a meeting that the congressman is dead. Then the really ugly business of poisoning them - first the babies then the adults - begins.
Jones can be heard saying, "Die with a degree of dignity! Don't lay down with tears and agony! It's nothing to death. It's just stepping over into another plane. Don't, don't be this way," according to a
PBS transcript. He is later heard saying, "Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Where is the vat? The vat, the vat...Bring it here, so the adults can begin."
Ultimately, all but four are killed by the poisoned punch or, in a few cases including Jones himself, gunshots. Two survivors brought me near tears as they told about escaping from the camp after watching family members die.
Indeed, both families – their direct families and the larger family of the cult – had died.
There is an intriguing semantic issue that arises late in the movie: Is it appropriate to call it a mass suicide when some were babies and some just didn't know what they were doing?
Jones put it this way: "We laid it down...we got tired. We didn't commit suicide. We committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world."
Tim Carter, one of those I mentioned who escaped after watching his family die, said: "We were just @!$%#ing slaughtered. @!$%#ing slaughtered. There was nothing dignified about it. Had nothing to do with revolutionary suicide, nothing to do about making a [expletive] statement, it was just senseless waste, senseless waste and death."
I’m sure some of you may hesitate to rent this because you see it as “a piece of history” or “something depressing” but this is much more than that – this is a glimpse into a part of life and society most people don’t spend enough time contemplating or discussing.
I encourage you to rent this and then join our discussion of the movie at Newsvine.
Incidentally, the DVD has some great extras, including longer interviews with the survivors and relatives of some of those killed.
I want to leave you with the contents of an anonymous note found at Jonestown:

To whomever finds this note. Collect all the tapes, all the writing, all the history. The story of this movement, this action, must be examined over and over. We did not want this kind of ending. We wanted to live, to shine, to bring light to a world that is dying for a little bit of love.
There's quiet as we leave this world. The sky is gray. People file by us slowly and take the somewhat bitter drink. Many more must drink.
A teeny kitten sits next to me watching. A dog barks. The birds gather on the telephone wires. Let all the story of this Peoples Temple be told.
If nobody understands, it matters not. I am ready to die now. Darkness settles over Jonestown on its last day on Earth.".

I wanted to include that quote and this last one to remind readers that these people killed were at least trying to do something, which is more than many of us can say.
Eugene Smith, a surviving member, said:

We were people that -- we wanted to make a change. It's a shame it didn't happen. It might not never happen. But one thing I can say, at least we tried and we didn't sit back and wait on the laurels for somebody else to try it. Yes, we tried it. Yes, it was a failure. Yes, it was very tragic. But at least we tried.

DVD Reviews: Johnny Cash Concerts

Johnny Cash is one of my musical heroes. He led quite a life and left behind a bunch of wonderful songs.
I consider him a man of great integrity who really knew how to sing about the life of the underdog. I like him for some of the same reasons I like Steve Earle and Billy Bragg — they say what they think and do not pull punches.
He also left behind some underwhelming concert films, which I have been watching lately.
A few months ago I had the idea of doing some preparation work for reviewing Walk the Line, when it came out on DVD.
I knew that Netflix had a few concert films by him so I decided to rent those. Bad idea.
I had listened to his two excellent live albums — Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison and Johnny Cash At San Quentin — but I could not find versions of those concerts.
So instead, I watched and reviewed these:
Johnny Cash - Live from Austin TX
This is one of the best of the bunch, I think, because it is the most recent. You can see how he has aged physically but remains as giving to the audience and grateful for their support as when he was singing the same songs 25 years earlier.
As with the rest of this bunch, there are no extras, no special features, beyond the concert itself. I was disappointed about that.
I give it an 8.
Johnny Cash: Live at Montreaux (1994)
The highlight of this concert is having his wife, June Carter Cash, and son, John Carter Cash, join him in singing "Will the Circle Be Unbroken," the great song originally sung by the Carter Family.
There is also a a quick but moving aside where Cash tells the audience how he stole the drummer Carl Perkins used when he sang "Blue Suede Shoes," and the drummer is still with him today. The drummer bows.
I give it a 7.
Johnny Cash: A Concert Behind Prison Walls (1977)
I think he was trying to replicate the success of the Folsom Prison and San Quentin albums here. With those films he seems to be trying to work on the level of the prisoners, joking about the warden and the quality of water.
With this film he moved in the other direction. I mean, it's one thing to
bring his wife, June Carter Cash, along to sing songs as he did with all of these. But Linda fricking Ronstadt? The pacing and flow is off at this concert. While not intended as a comedy, the best part of this concert video is the way they dressed. Those 70s clothes kill me every time.
I give it a 5.
Johnny Cash - Ridin' the Rails: The Great American Train Story (1974)
This isn't a concert, but rather a documentary, in which Cash talks about his love of trains. It's sort of weird and very 70s. Contains reenactments of important railroading moments, which is cool if you dig that scene.
I give it a 6.
Ironically the best of the Cash DVDs I watched was one that just contained the video for "Hurt," his cover of the Nine Inch Nail's song. It remains one of the most moving songs ever — not to mention disturbing lyrically — and the video's portrayal of Cash's life and career say more in five minutes than the movie probably does in two hours.
So take it from me, a fan of Cash (both the singer and the Newsviner), if you want to hear what he sounds like rent the Folsom Prison CD and skip the live videos.

Thoughts On Paper Moon and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Saw both of these last nite at my church movie night. I had seen the latter before but it was more than ten years ago so by the end I'd forgotten exactly what happened and was as much on my edge of the seat as the first time. The writing and acting on this movie are just breath taking.
Paper Moon was great. I see now why some have spoken so highly of Tatum O'Neals tour de force as the lead actress at age 7 I sort of cringed each time she'd be shown smoking not because I thought it was real I am not that dense) but because it made me think of how much it would freak out the anti-smoking folks if that were to happen in a movie today. It also reminded me how much I love the book and movie of Thank You for Smoking.
It was interesting to see Madeline Kahn in a serious role (previously I only see her in comedies and satires like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein) -and had no idea she'd also played straight, serious roles as well.
This morning I read the Wikipedia entries and Roger Ebert's reviews on both movies because I like to hear the trivia stuff and compare opinions with my favorite critic.
However, I think Ebert completely missed the mark in his review of Butch Cassidy, which he says

You can see, in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," the bones of the good movie that could have been made about them.
But unfortunately, this good movie is buried beneath millions of dollars that were spent on "production values" that wreck the show. This is often the fate of movies with actors in the million-dollar class, like Newman. Having invested all that cash in the superstar, the studio gets nervous and decides to spend lots of money to protect its investment.

Ebert does get one thing right – the criticism of the ending:

And then the violent, bloody ending is also a mistake; apparently it was a misguided attempt to copy "Bonnie and Clyde." But the ending doesn't belong on "Butch Cassidy," and we don't believe it, and we walk out of the theater wondering what happened to that great movie we were seeing until an hour ago.

BTW, if you have not seen Bonnie and Clyde you need to – it's one of the best early attempts at the type of stylized violence that thanks to directors like Quentin Tarantino are so in vogue these days
A few trivia tidbits: Director Peter Bogdanovich wanted to change the name and after hearing the song "It's Only a Paper Moon (by Billy Rose, Yip Harburg, and Harold Arlen)" had an idea. Wikipedia then says:

Seeking advice from his close friend and mentor Orson Welles, Bogdanovich listed Paper Moon as a possible alternative. Welles responded — "That title is so good, you shouldn't even make the picture, you should just release the title!"

The Simpsons referenced the movie in an episode, according to Wikipedia

"it is referenced by name when Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson try to trick Ned Flanders into receiving a fake Bible by saying that his deceased wife, Maude ordered it before she died. This prompts Ned to say after a few moments, "Wait a minute, this sounds like that movie Paper Moon...".

Switching movies, according to Wikipedia,

Goldman's script, originally called "The Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy,""was purchased by 20th Century Fox for $400,000. The two starring roles were originally given to Newman and Steve McQueen, but McQueen left after failing to come to an agreement about which actor would receive top billing. Warren Beatty was considered for one of the lead roles, and Marlon Brando, who at the time had minimal box-office draw, was considered at one point due to his role in an earlier Western, One-Eyed Jacks. At one point, Max Olsen and Paul Newman were expected to star, and they discussed using the new "staggered but equal billing" later introduced for The Towering Inferno. Eventually, Newman and Robert Redford were chosen, but initially Newman was to play Sundance and Redford Cassidy. 20th Century Fox did not want Redford to play the part, but director George Roy Hill insisted. Redford later noted that this film catapulted him to stardom and changed his career forever.

My god, can you imagine Brando in one of those leading roles? I sure can't.

In the scene where a railroad car is blown up, the railroad car was built for the scene out of balsa wood and toothpicks. The budget only allowed for one take, and therefore an unusually high amount of explosives was used. The explosion was huge, and the line "Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?" is reported to be an ad lib, according to locals who observed.

From Wikipedia:

" In the US version of The Office, the character Dwight (in a moment of comedy) compares Michael Scott to Mozart and himself to Butch Cassidy (who he says are legendary friends).

All in all, both are great movies, worth checking out and this was a good example of a time when I got more out of it after reading the Wikipedia trivia.

Documentary Movie Review: Bus 174

Bus 174 - This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen, about an event most Americans have probably never even heard of.
It is also a fascinating look at live television coverage and makes me wonder how this would
have been covered had it happened here.
The movie is about a June 2000 bus hijacking in Rio de Janeiro that was carried live on television. (And no, I won't spoil it here by telling you how it ended.)
What's excellent about the movie is that it does more than just explain what happened on that bus and how things went awry, with reflections and commentaries from many of the people involved in the incident, both people in the bus and cops and reporters outside.
No, the movie takes the important step of looking back at the horrid life of the hijacker, Sandro di Nascimento, which included seeing his mother murdered while he was a child and later living on the streets.
He also spent time in prison.
By taking this approach the director not only puts the way the police handled the hijacking up for public scrutiny but he also makes people think about how we treat the lower class.
Footage shot in the prisons horrifies the viewer while also making one think and reflect.
It's been said - most recently about Katrina - that you can judge the quality of a society based on how it treats its poor and helpless.
In both cases society was found wanting.
I give it a 9.5.
Note: I suggest not only watching the movie but also checking out the DVD extras for a fascinating, inspiring interview with the director about his reasons for making the movie and how he went about it.

DVD Reviews: Millions and The Motorcycle Diaries

The first question I suspect you are having, as you read this headline, is what the heck is the connection between these two movies? And, yes, a commonality does exist.
Millions is about a British boy who finds 265,000 pounds and has to decide what to do with it.
The Motorcycle Diaries is based on the book by Argentine-born Ernesto Guevara de la Serna - better known as Che Guevara.
In 1951 Guevara, 23, and his good friend Alberto Granado, 29, a biochemist, took a trip across South America.
Guevara, a Marxist revolutionary and Cuban guerilla leader, died Oct. 9, 1967, almost exactly one year before I was born.
So what can these two movies possibly have in common?
The answer: Both are morality tales of a sort.
Both involve two main characters who are young men - literally brothers in the case of Millions and two best friends in The Motorcycle Diaries.
More importantly, money not only plays a key role in both movies but leads to arguments between the two main male characters in each movie.
In Millions, Damian, 7, wants to give the money to the needy. Anthony, 9, thinks the money should be spent on extravagances.
While Damian buys pizza one day for everyone claiming to be poor, Anthony wants to buy expensive, cool products for himself.
His older brother can be seen as representing the average materialistic person.
I would hope most people would want to use the money to help others, even if they do not have as clear a moral compass as the younger brother.
But the cynic in me thinks most people would use the money to buy cars, stereos and other treats for themselves.
When the brothers realize the money is loot from a brilliant robbery, the decisions of the two become still more difficult: Should they tell their dad about the money? Should they turn the money in? And what should they do about a man who has been following and watching them, probably looking to take their money?
The situation prompts the best line in the movie, from Anthony:
"It isn't the money's fault it got stolen."
Throughout the movie Damian is visited by saints, who encourage him to continue using the money for good causes.
Overall, the movie, directed by Danny Boyle, is a charming, fascinating, visually colorful tale.
In The Motorcycle Diaries, money plays a more minor role but can be seen as symbolizing the difference between the two men. While both are kind-hearted, Guevara is more selfless.
Granado wants Guevara to use his money for personal extravagances. Guevara, though, resists Granado's pushing, ultimately using it to help others needier.
During the trip both men make a fascinating, inspiring journey together, not just geographically but of conscience as well.
As they travel they meet people truly suffering due to the government, private companies and other causes.
During the trip Guevara becomes increasingly focused on helping others, especially the poor and the sick, often at his own peril.
For example, Guevara gives his asthma medicine to a sick woman, leading to problems when he has an asthma attack.
So was his act of charity short-sighted or selfless or both?
That is just a sample of the many questions the movie prompts in viewers, especially as the men reach their intended final destination: A leper colony.
While nuns insist everyone wears gloves when working with the lepers, these two reject that rule. What seemed like insubordination to the head nun, meant something much different to the lepers who are shocked, then moved, that non-lepers are actually touching them.
This movie has its share of detractors but the critics' beef is usually not with the film itself but rather what the movie leaves out.
Through the course of the movie the viewer watches Guevara change from a medical student to the communist leader who will become so famous that you can still see his image on shirts, hats and buttons, often worn by people born long after he died.
It is well and good that Guevara rejects a system where a person's lifestyle is tied to how much money they have, these critics say. But the movie does not explore those injured and killed as Guevara, Castro and others fight for change.
However, that all came later in Guevera's life and the movie ends earlier than that.
I think it more appropriate to review what is included rather than what is excluded. And what there is here is a fascinating portrayal of a man's political evolution.
Both movies are good thought-provoking films that can spark good discussions. I used both movies for that exact purpose.
Both movies also have good extras on the dvds, including interviews with the lead actors

Movie Review: Dixie Chicks Shut Up & Sing

This documentary about the Dixie Chicks, Shut Up & Sing, provides a fascinating look at a high-profile free speech fight. And this time the good guys - well, the good women - win.
In 2003 the band was riding high and they were receiving critical acclaim for their music. Their concert tour was popular.
And then it happened. During a concert in London lead singer Natalie Maines said, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." It was one of those short remarks that changed everything.
At the time she made her comments the band had a hit song, "Traveling Soldier." But as soon as she made her comments, the Free Republic Web site and other right-wing groups quickly organized boycotts of the band and many radio stations refused to play their songs anymore.
The movie captures the whole uproar and controversy but from the perspective of the band. Some of the best scenes come as the band reacts to the vicious and hateful emails, letters and other responses to Maines's comments.
One band member - it might have been Maines herself -is quite right in pointing out that many of them probably had no idea what exactly Maines' comments were and might be less angry if they actually stopped to think about her remarks. But the witch hunt was on and on it went.
The most intriguing scenes revolve around how best to respond to the negative publicity and the hateful remarks Handlers suggested major changes but band members say they would rather keep going and fight the good fight. And so they do.
The first time I saw this movie I was underwhelmed because I had followed the story closely as it happened and at first glance it did not seem to be telling much I did already know.
I knew about the hateful letters and read the Entertainment Weekly cover story in which they appeared naked but with insults and other hateful words written on their bodies.
But I had a much greater appreciation for the film on my second viewing as I noticed things I missed the first time around and enjoyed learning more about some details of the controversy.
Also interesting was concern about how the public would react to the band's appearance on the Entertainment Weekly magazine cover. One person is shown expressing concern it will make them look even worse.
I'm not crazy about the Dixie Chicks music but I respect them for standing up for what they believe in. Each time I watch the movie my admiration for them grows.
They could have taken the coward's way out and backed away from the statement or said the singer was not speaking for the whole band.
Instead they stuck it out and in a bit of poetic justice their next album contained a hit song which was about the criticisms and death threats.
While they were still targeted and criticized for their 2003 remarks the album sold well.
Since the movie came out the band won Grammy's for Best Album, Best Record, and Best Song. If that is not poetic justice, I don't know what is.
If you are interested in fights about free speech, watch this movie. If you want to know what was really said by the singer and how people reacted to her comments, check out this film.
And me? While I probably won't be supporting the band financially I am cheering them on in my own way, through this review.

Road To Guantanamo" Reviewed - George, Please Watch This

To: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
From: A voter
Re: Guantanamo Bay
Hey, guys, I just saw a movie that you need to see. It is about the "Tipton Three," three Muslim British citizens held without charges for two years at Guantanamo Bay before being released in March 2004.
Warning: You may not like what you see. But that seems fair to me since I have not liked a lot of what I have seen happen during the last six years in the name of the war on terror.
The movie, The Road to Guantanamo, is part documentary and part dramatization as it alternates between interviews with the three men and re-enactments of what they went through. The film is not officially released until June 23 but I'm sure with all your secret wiretapping and espionage and tracking of activities online, you can find a way to see an advance screening. Or you can go see it in a public theater when it is released.
Now, you may get spat on or heckled by moviegoers who despise you for your attacks on civil liberties. Your intentions are good, I hope, but the road to hell, they say, is paved with those. If anyone does spit on you, consider this: anything that happens to you will pale compared to what was done to those who were tortured.
Speaking of the torture, I wrote recently about the censorship of a promotional poster for this movie. The original poster showed someone with a hood on their head, a common practice in Guantanamo Bay if news articles, and this movie are to be believed.
But the Motion Picture Association of America rejected this poster for not meeting its standards. So the poster was changed to be less provocative. While I hope a wide range of people from the whole spectrum of political views goes to see this movie, my concern is it will only draw those who already abhor torture. You guys, especially George, like to paint the world in black and white. Thus you are either for fighting terrorists, or against it. You are either for the troops, or against the troops. I run into people using that logic when we discuss the "terror suspects" at Guantanamo Bay.
The logic goes like this: They would not be being tortured, let alone in prison, were they not guilty of something. And that, in a nutshell, is why this movie is so important, and why it should be viewed by people on all sides of the torture and war debate.
This is the story of three people whose crime, if you want to call it that, is being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The three were heading to a wedding in Pakinstan when they were captured.
The weakest part of the movie is the first 30 minutes which chronicles their travels from Britain toward Pakistan. They are in Afghanistan during bombings and that is when they are apprehended.
Those first 30 minutes are important to provide context and an explanation for their location but they could have been tighter. But once they are held as terror suspects the movie becomes truly horrifying, more disturbing than most horror movies.
I often thought of mice in cages as I watched the prisoners – these three and others – being treated like trash and punished if they did anything they were not supposed to do. Move in order to pray? Punished. Put a blanket on your head to battle the heat? Punished. Try to talk to another prisoner? Punished.
At times hoods were put on them, making me think about the movie poster controversy. Some explanation would have been helpful to explain what the intent was with the hoods and other actions by the guards and interrogators.
The interrogators are shown doing the kind of good cop/bad cop trickery that is so often done on television programs. Only this time you know the guys are innocent and nobody seems interested in their claims to that effect.
What's that? Oh, you don't want to pay to see a movie that brings to life the worst case scenario of innocent people being tortured and held in military prisons? I'm sure Amnesty International would pay for your admission to this movie, especially if it will help clarify issues in your mind.
If not I'm sure you can find people at this human rights site who would gladly help ensure this movie is seen by you and others.
This movie will blow your mind but in a good way. See it.

Book Review: A Man In Full by Tom Wolfe

Tom Wolfe reminds me of a good, focused, studious portrait artist - he can draw an excellent picture of whatever it is that he sees before him.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the problem with his tome, "A Man in Full."
No doubt about it, Wolfe is an excellent journalist: he describes all of the nuances a reader might want to know, from how a room looks to how characters enunciate their words.
That works just fine in non-fiction or "new journalism" because than you can blame the subject matter if it is boring or uninteresting to the readers.
But this book is fiction and parts of the story seem so forced, so artificial, so contrived, that it's quite saddening, really.
In "The Bonfire of the Vanities" Wolfe told a fascinating story. Maybe it was because the timing was right for a story capturing elements of 80's society. Or maybe it was just great writing. Either way, the story about the greedy stockbrokers and the people he called the "masters of the universe" captivated many people, including this reviewer.
And so, after almost a 10 year wait, readers looked forward to Wolfe's second novel. Perhaps there was no way it could meet the hype, the anticipation, the tons of glowing reviews from fellow journalists. It hasn't.
The book centers on Charlie Croker, an Atlanta millionaire in arrears. Poor Croker has knee problems, perhaps stemming from his glory days as a college football star. He's also a racist bigot but he genuinely seems to want to do the right thing. It's just that his idea of the "right thing" involves helping himself and his problems.
When offered to do that one thing - help stop a potential race riot in Atlanta - he has a dilemma. If he speaks out in support of a cocky black running back for the Georgia Tech football team accused of date-raping a white woman than Croker can quell some potential problems. In return, the Atlanta mayor will pull some strings and the companies trying to collect on money owed by Croker will suddenly become much less aggressive.
However, Croker is friends with the millionaire father of the alleged rape victim and does not want to go back on his word. What to do?
Seems a bit over the top, right? More like a soap opera than a Wolfe novel?
It gets worse. One of the other plot lines involves Conrad, a down on his luck young man who gets fired from his job in a Croker Global Foods warehouse in Oakland when Charlie decides to downsize.
Without giving too much away let me just say that Conrad goes to jail over some misunderstanding, providing Wolfe a chance to try to describe prison life.
Eventually, of course, Charlie and Conrad become friends and Conrad explains that he has found peace in his life due to a book he received in prison about the Stoics.
Weird, yes? Believable? Ha! But there it is in a nutshell. And the ending is even worse.
There are some scenes which are fascinating and show glimpses of Wolfe's talent and brilliance but they are few and far between.
I like Wolfe. He's fascinating to read about and I love reading interviews with him but this book needs something, maybe a trimming of at least 100 pages or a replacement of entire plot lines.
If you're trying to decide whether to spend a month or two reading this 742-page book, I'd advise against it. If you want to read a good book dealing with news and race relations, check out Richard Price's "Freedomland" instead.
Otherwise, you may well find yourself reading each page wondering if it is going to get better only to find yourself increasingly disappointed.

My Rant/Review of Andrew Keen's Cult of The Amateur

Interview with this author is here

But now I'm going to say what I really think of this book.
By page 100 I really wanted to throw this book across the room and the only thing stopping me was that I don't want to be one of those people you see on tv interviewing authors without reading the book. Plus I set up a group to discuss the book so I should see if others read it and get as angry about it as I did.
So I got through the last half by listing out the lessons I think I'm supposed to be learning from this book provided that I drank the Flavor-aid. (See, I almost said kool-aid, as the author did, except that it is no factually accurate – what was really consumed by Jim Jones was not Kool Aid but Flavor Aid
You know how I found that out? Fact checking. It's an interesting process – Keen might want to try it sometime.
10 Things I Learned (?) From This Book That I'm Pretty Sure Are Not Accurate
1. The Internet destroys lives – making people into compulsive online gamers, break laws (downloading music) and generally becoming jerks. "These days, even the clergy are turning into plagiarists." (Page 140).
2. The Internet is single-handedly responsible for newspaper layoffs and drops in circulation. Journalists looking to do a class action suit against the Internet should, I suspect, contact Mr. Keen immediately via his own blog
3. It's ok to make huge generalizations like this one: "There is no way for a band to become the next super-group." (Page 109)
4. People are stupid and can't tell the difference between a blog, MySpace and news sites (page 3)
5. Wikipedia Has Replaced Traditional Encylcopedias and Has No Editorial Control Despite what You May Have Read About the Site's Editorial Controls in the New York Times recently.
6. Kevin Kelly of Wired Apparently Wants To Destroy Books Which Is Odd Considering Both Kelly and Keen (sort of) Write Books
7. Slate's media critic has changed his name from Jack Shafer to Jack Shafter, unless they made a typo.
8. Matt Drudge "is the poster boy of the citizen journalism movement, flashing his badge of amateurism as a medieval crusader would wield a sword." (Drudge actually has about as much credibility in the citizen journalism movement as Tony Snow)
9. The Internet has destroyed television. "So, instead of the newest drama from Dick Wolfe or Aaron Sorkin, all we'll soon have to watch will be the Paris Hilton channel, cheap knock-offs of existing sitocmes, reality television, or clips from Sam Waterson's video blog." He leaves out that he has his own show on the Internet called, appropriately, AfterTV.
10. Oh god do I have to go on? Ok, final one: People Are Using Fake Names On MySpace! I know, shocking. But it's ok, he has a plan – The site should have tougher security. Oh and he suggests this: "all photos sent to or from minors should be screened for sexual content." Problem solved!

Interview With Andrew Keen, Author of the Cult Of The Amateur

Review of it here

This interview – and a subsequent rant/review that will follow shortly – has been one of the most difficult I have done in several years. This is because it was hard – okay, nearly impossible – to separate the subject matter of how the Internet negatively affects our culture from the fact that I was doing the interview for the very type of site he criticizes.
In preparation, I set up a topic on Newsvine to solicit questions. What was notable this time was seeing how many negative reviews and comments were generated about this book by bloggers and others colleagues I respect. A notable exception was a glowing review in The New York Times from the famously brutal critic, Michiko Kakutani.
But some, like popular blogger Jeff Jarvis, even went so far as to ask readers to ponder whether it was even worth appearing with him due to the implied credibility it gives him - not to mention the publicity it provides. Many suggested that to write about him at all was to help him, and I struggled with that.
As you might guess, I have many thoughts and criticisms to share about this book but I'll save that for next week. I thought that in order to be fair I would keep those opinions separate from the interview today.
So let me begin by saying a few nice things about Mr. Keen. When I emailed him, after reading about his book in Newsweek or Time a few months ago, he quickly arranged to have a copy of the book sent to me and agreed to an interview. Then, after I started reading it, my opinion of him dropped considerably and my questions and attitude toward the book became more negative. He could have easily pulled the plug at that point but didn't.
Additionally, he relented over an important issue. Citing time constraints, he wanted to do the interview by phone and have me transcribe it.
I balked,I told him that I had stopped transcribing interviews when I quit working as a paid journalist. He would be the first, out of more than 100 I've done since leaving journalism, who refused to work via email. I think email interviews work best for both parties. He relented.
So thank you, Mr. Keen, for agreeing to do the interview this week.
Who is Andrew Keen? When I asked him for some biographical information he pointed me to his blog:

The San Francisco Chronicle recently wrote that "every good movement needs a contrarian. Web 2.0 has Andrew Keen." Andrew is indeed the leading contemporary critic of the Internet.
Andrew hasn't always been a contrarian. In the mid Nineties, he was a member of the pioneering generation of Silicon Valley visionaries who first "got" the Internet. He founded Audiocafe.com in 1995, and, securing significant investment from Intel and SAP, established it as one of the most highly trafficked websites of the late nineties.

Somewhere along the line, his opinion changed. It's not totally clear from the book what happened. These days, Keen hosts an Internet chat show called afterTV and writes for various publications.
Scott: Were you surprised by the response to the book by writers like Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law School professor, lawyer, author ? Lessig blasted the book, citing errors and generalizations.
Andrew: Not surprised. Think of Lessig as the equivalent of an all-powerful papal authority (he has the nasality and bald pate of a supreme prelate). As Victor Keegan of The Guardian wrote today, "I'm the Martin Luther of the Internet. And I've got more hair than Lessig and a much sexier voice."
Scott: What was your goal with this book? Bloggers on panels with you have said you have likened the book to a grenade intended to annoy as many people as possible. Is that an accurate assessment of your goal with this book? Is there anything you wish you had done different with the book?
Andrew: It's certainly meant to challenge the assumptions of bloggers. But there's a much more serious goal of the book too. This is a book written for a mainstream, non technophile audience -- parents, teachers, librarians, editors, lovers of the arts, musicians, IP lawyers, writers, college professors, all professionals in fact -- who are troubled and confused by the Web 2.0 revolution. That's my real audience. These are the people with whom this book is resonating.
The one thing I wish I would have added is a chapter critiquing the worst elements of mainstream media. I think that the most troubling thing about mainstream media is that it itself has fallen under the spell of the cult of the amateur. Thus, reality TV and call-in radio are one step away from the cultural anarchy of the blogoshere.
Scott: You spend a lot of time in the book pointing out problems, or what you perceive as problems, on the Internet yet you have a blog to promote the book, you blog on Amazon (which you also criticize in the book) and we have exchanged numerous emails. How is that not hypocrisy? What are the three best things about the Internet, in your opinion?
Andrew: I'm not against blogs as self-marketing tools for the sale of physical products such as books. Instead, what I object to are amateur blogs as a substitute for reliable journalism and newspapers. Nor do I ever criticize email, which I think is a very valuable communications tool. In fact, I'm anything but a Luddite. I own four computers, spend hours on the Internet everyday and couldn't have written Cult without either the Internet or a computer.
Three best things about the Internet: email, professional podcasts (BBC, NPR) and Soccernet.com
Scott: You make a bunch of what I'd call leaps of logic. For example, you attribute the problems of newspapers (lay-offs, ad revenue cuts) directly to the popularity of the Web. Isn't that a bit simplistic? You dismiss blogs as being too partisan and quoting too many extremists while seemingly ignoring that television shows do that all the time?
Andrew: I don't think that the only reason for the decline of newspapers is the emergence of the Internet. But it is one important reason. Newspapers would certainly be in a healthier state without Craigslist. They would also be more read if we weren't all engaged in writing and reading narcissistic and irrelevant blogs.
I don't think mainstream shows like Meet the Press, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer or Face the Nation are too partisan. Nor is BBC's Newsnight or the discussion shows on C-SPAN or many other news shows on local stations (although they tend to be a bit inane). And, in comparison with many blogs, even shows like Crossfire and Hannity and Colmes – which I find politically repulsive -- appears relatively restrained.
Scott: On what are you basing these two assertions?

These days, kids can't tell the difference between credible news by objective professional journalists and what they read on joeshmoe.blogspot.com . For these Generation Y utopians, every posting is just another person's account of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the facts

And do you have any proof to back that assertion up? The closest thing I saw to proof was a study cited regarding Google ads which is a much different issue. Same question for this assertion: "For the sad fact is that while Dr. William Connelly may be able to discern the misinformed ravings of moonbats from the wisdom of experts, the average Internet user cannot" '
Scott: On what are you basing these two assertions?
Andrew: a) Blogs aren't edited, they aren't fact checked, they are often authored anonymously. That's the difference between their content and the carefully edited and fact checked content on professional media. This is enough proof for me. b) The problem with sites like Wikipedia is that they are seductively authoritative. Kids in particular uncritically believe what they read on them. This assertion is based on conversations I've had with many teachers as well as my own experience as a college professor.
Scott: I read a great question to which I'd like to hear your response. This is from blogger Steve Boriss:
Most who write for Old Media are professional journalists, but amateurs in the topics they write about. By contrast, most of the leading, elite bloggers are experts in their specialized topic areas, but amateurs in journalism. Is the public really better off reading amateur-grade information from journalists rather than professional-grade information from non-journalists? More to the point, will they prefer it?
Andrew: Don't agree. Who are these elite bloggers? The intellectuals I pay to read (Christopher Hitchens, Slavoj Zizek, Jurgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, Robert Fisk, Martin Amis, Don Delillo, Howard Jacobson, Joan Didion) don't blog. They continue to sell their work through traditional channels. Once guys like Hitchens, Delillo and Zizek start blogging (ie: giving away their valuable content for free), then maybe I start taking blogs more seriously. But, for the moment, it is generally the refuge, at best, of failed or second-rate print journalists and writers.
Scott: Some, perhaps most famously Jeff Jarvis, have hesitated to do interviews or panel discussions with you because they think you are just taking a position in order to irk people and sell books. How do you respond to that assertion? What do you think of them referring to you variously as a troll, a talk show prostitute and a curmudgeon?
Andrew: Never heard of the word "troll". Yes, I'm a professional author and my business is selling books. That's how I pay my bills. Thus I'm more than happy to appear on the media (and in this exchange) with the goal of convincing people to pay cash for my book.
Scott: Are you as critical of newspapers, books, and television as you are of the Internet? Did you let those mediums off scot-free because you did not want to clutter your premise? Because I read, for example, "Not a day goes by without some new revelation that calls into question the reliability, accuracy, and truth of the information we get from the Internet" and I'm thinking the same statement could be said about the "mainstream media." Are you playing with the facts some to make your points?
Andrew: The main weakness in Cult is that I'm not sufficiently critical of the political bias of some of the mainstream media (see #1). However, I do think that mainstream media, even at its worst (Fox), is less susceptible to corruption than the blogosphere. Even at its worst, mainstream media has gatekeepers and the creators of its content can't hide behind anonymity.
Scott: I am doing this interview for Newsvine and Blogcritics. Now you refer to sites like these on the Internet this way:

They are the digital equivalent of online gated communities where all the people have identical views, and the whole conversation is mirrored in a way that is reassuringly familiar. It is a dangerous form of digital narcissism; the only conversations we want to hear are those with ourselves and those like us.

I'm sure the readers of these sites, who are of all political, racial, ideological stripes, who often find the most popular debates are over controversial and contentious issues, would like to know what makes you sure your description of them is better than mine. Did you actually visit some of these sites and participate in them before dismissing them?
Andrew: I didn't visit Newsvine, but I did look at Reddit, which is particularly inane and dangerous. Just looked at it - Newsvine. It appears interesting, although I'm troubled by the fact that a number of the suggested articles are recommended by a certain Scott Butki. Who is this Butki? Why is he giving away his labor for free? And why should I trust him?
Thanks again to Mr. Keen for the interview. This is that Butki guy signing off.

Thinking About Comedian Bill Hicks: An Unorthodox Review of A New Documentary About Him As Well As Some of His Performances

I have been on a Bill Hicks tear for the last two weeks, ever since deciding to see - and then being pleased and impressed with - a new documentary about him called American: The Bill Hicks Story. It was the North American premiere of the documentary made by two British men. Hicks was more famous and celebrated in the United Kingdom than in the United States for reasons I'll get to shortly.
While somewhat familiar with this cerebral comic who used to describe himself as "Noam Chomsky with dick jokes" I wanted to get to know his work better before pronouncing a judgement on the documentary.
You can read some of his material directly here. A personal favorite:

* You never see a positive drug story on the news. They always have the same LSD story. You've all seen it: "Today a young man on acid...thought he could fly...jumped out of a building...what a tragedy!" What a dick. He's an idiot. If he thought he could fly why didn't he take off from the ground first? Check it out? You don't see geese lined up to catch elevators to fly south; they fly from the @!$%#ing ground. He's an idiot. He's dead. Good! We lost a moron. @!$%#ing celebrate. There's one less moron in the world.
Wouldn't you like to see a positive LSD story on the news? To base your decision on information rather than scare tactics and superstition?, perhaps? Wouldn't that be interesting? Just for once?
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

I decided to see what I could find of Hick's performances via Netflix and the Austin Public Library and, Austin being Austin, the library had more of a selection than Netflix. Both had two DVD's by him but the library also had some of his cd-only releases.
So in recent days I have been watching these dvds and listening to these albums while pondering
the documentary.
I have struggled with how best to present this piece and have decided to provide a mini-bio followed by mini-reviews.
Part of the problem is he only had four years from the time he was getting quite popular to the time he died, killed by an illness almost nobody knew he had. He was still touring in between chemo treatments
Who was Bill Hicks?
For those of you under 30 your first exposure to Bill Hicks may have came last year when David Letterman made a big deal of apologizing to Bill Hick's mother for refusing to air a Hicks comedy routine he did in 1993. Had it aired it would have been Hicks final tv performance before dying of pancreatic cancer. Hicks had been on Letterman on 11 prior occasions.
The controversy is explained well here
and you can see the Letterman apology about it all starting here. They show the routine and Letterman said he does not know why he blocked it looking back. Some suggest it did not help that Hicks material was so risque. I often think of Hicks when I see crucifixes because of a bit he did, included in this famously censored routine, where he wonders if crosses are really what Jesus Christ would want to see if he were to actually return.
I also found a youtube of Hicks talking about the censorship here
But let me begin at his start.
Hicks grew up in Houston and started experimenting with comedy as a teenager. He and a friend
- and this is depicted brilliantly in the new documentary about Hick's life - snuck out of their
homes to perform at a nearby Comedy Workshop.
Hicks moved to L.A. where he perfored alongside then unknown comics including Jerry Seinfeld, Jay Leno and Gary Shandling. He would later mock mercilessly Jay Leno, something skipped over in the documentary; He felt Leno had sold out by doing commercials for Doritos - his rant about it is here. Ironically it was Leno who first helped Hicks get on Letterman. Another comedian starting with L (Denis Leary) would later cause another rift in Hicks life.
The documentary illustrates, both with clips of Hicks performance and interviews with friends and colleagues, problems Hicks had with alcohol and drugs over the years. Some of his later material would make fun of the media portrayal of people on drugs.
He made the difficult decision to go drug-free and to do so he needed to get away from his friends and colleagues who were still using. He moved to New York City and it was at this point when he really become good. As one person in the documentary said the "real" funny Bill Hicks first occurred around this time.
This is when he began getting even more serious and political.
His first comedy album was called Sane Man. The album, recorded live in Austin in 1989 included early variations of some bits he would finesse. Sane Man is one of the two dvds available via Netflix. His first comedy album, Dangerous, was recorded in 1990. Mini-reviews of both are below
He toured during the 1990s, often playing 250 to 300 shows.
In 1990 he performed at two big comedy events, the "Just For Laughs" Festival in Montreal and the Edinburgh Comedy Festival. This latter event is what led to him becoming well known in the United Kingdom.
He recorded his second album, Relentless, in 1991. In 1992 he filmed the "Revelations" performance. That and other performances were hard to get for years but is on the other dvd I found via netflix titled Bill Hicks: Satirist, Social Critic, Stand-Up Comedian Live. This also includes the Relentless show. This dvd also includes a featurette titled "Just a Ride" (the name taken from one of his most famous and oft referenced rants) and this includes testimonials from Brett Butler, Jay Leno, David Letterman and others.
It is hard not to listen to this material and think of Denis Leary who he and others believe essentially stole some of his material regarding smoking. They had been friends but after Leary's No Cure For Cancer album Leary ended that. He once told an interviewer, "I have a scoop for you. I stole his [Leary's] act. I camouflaged it with punchlines, and to really throw people off, I did it before he did."
This is from Wikipedia:

During a 2003 roast of Denis Leary, comedian Lenny Clarke, a friend of Leary's, said there was a carton of cigarettes backstage from Bill Hicks with the message, "Wish I had gotten these to you sooner." This joke was cut from the final broadcast.^[31]
In a 2008 interview, Leary said "It wouldn't have been an issue, I think, if Bill had lived. It's just that people look at a tragedy and they look at that circumstance and they go, oh, this must be how we can explain this."^[32]

In 1993 his popularity was growing - he was even opening for the band Tool - and he was getting closer to finally making it big in American and THAT is when he was diagnosed with cancer. He didn't tell anyone right away and kept on touring despite weekly chemotherapy treatments. It was during this time that he went on Letterman the last time and even though his comments had been approved ahead of time he was called later to be told his performance would not air.
He died in Feb 1994 at age 32.
Mini-Reviews
American: The Bill Hicks story
During a question and answer session after the screening of this movie in Austin his brother, Steve, was asked if Bill ever speculated to him on why he never made it big in America.
Steve said he preferred to turn the question around to ask why he was a success in England but not in the United States. The difference, he said, was that in England they would show his entire 90-minute show uncut whereas in the United States he would have to work in six minute or less segments on shows. That fragmentation just did not do his type of performance and style - full of intricacies and momentum - justice. After watching these performances, I agree.
Steve said Bill's family (their mother was also at the premiere) answer his fan mail and are sitting on more than 100 hours of video footage and another 100 hours of audio footage of materials. More will come out in the fall, Steve promised.
This documentary did an impressive job doing two difficult things at once: telling Bill's life story while also showing clips from performances. I'm sure it would have been easy to do too much of one or the other but this balanced it perfectly. The directors used fascinating techniques to tell about his life without making it too traditional, perfect for such a non-traditional comedian.
I would definitely recommend seeing this documentary when it is officially released. I'll return to post details as it gets closer to a real release date.
Meanwhile here are two full reviews of the documentary - here and here - and this is a good article about Hicks and the movie that ran in the Austin Chronicle recently.
Sane Man - This performance includes a few of my favorite jokes that were also in the documentary, from a great rant about the anti-intellectual movement in American to jokes about being pulled over while high, along with many other items.
Here is his anti-intellectual joke

I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country; since about 1980, oddly enough. … I was in Nashville, Tennessee, and after the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, but I was hungry. And I'm sitting there eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, so I'm reading a book. The waitress comes over to me like, [gum smacking] "What'chu readin' for?" I had never been asked that. Not "What am I reading?", but "What am I reading for?" Goddangit, you stumped me. Hmm, why do I read? I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, one of the main ones being so I don't end up being a @!$%#ing waffle waitress.

Very funny material. After one particularly dark rant he added, "I AM available for childrens' parties."
Oh and he suggests Dick Clark is the real Satan. But there are jokes and stories that just don't work too.
Dangerous - He tells the Wafflehouse story again.
Includes this:

* We live in a world where John Lennon was murdered, yet Barry Manilow continues to put out @!$%#ing albums. God-dammit! If you're gonna kill somebody, have some @!$%#ing taste. I'll drive you to Kenny Rogers' house.

Some parts are funny but it's clear he's still not gotten a rock solid performance
Bill Hicks: Satirist, Social Critic, Stand-Up Comedian Live - This dvd is a must have if you like Hicks. It includes his Revelations performance, his Relentless performance as well as the alluded to featurette with testimonials.
One bit on the dvd

They tell us "Rock'n'roll is the devil's music." Well, let's say we know that rock is the the devil's music, and we know that it is, for sure... At least he @!$%#in' jams! If it's a choice between eternal Hell and good tunes, and eternal Heaven and New Kids on the @!$%#in' Block...I'm gonna be surfin' on the lake of fire, rockin' out.

People say to me, "Oh, Bill, leave them alone. They're so good, and so clean-cut, and they're such a good image for the children." @!$%# that! When did mediocrity and banality become a good image for your children? I want my children listening to people who @!$%#ing rocked! I don't care if they died in pools of their own vomit! I want someone who plays from his @!$%#ing heart! "Mommy, the man Bill told me to listen to has a blood bubble on his nose." SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO HIM PLAY!
If you are not familiar with Bill's style of comedy these performances are a great starting place.
However, the best part of this dvd is the "It's Just a Ride" feature, a documentary about Bill that includes comments from a variety of folks. New Yorker writer John Lahr refers to Hicks as an "@!$%#-kicking comedian," the most important type, which is spot on. Bill's mom said she told him his style is close to preaching and he corrected her and said he IS preaching.

DVD Review: Alice's Restaurant

One time I watched Easy Rider with my father. Now, my late father was a square guy, the kind of guy who was studying while hippies were doing hippy things in the 60s. So when we got to the scene in the classic movie where the characters trip out on drugs and the movie goes appropriately trippy, we looked at each other. He wondered what was going on. It was a foreign experience. I was just a teenager then and I had no idea either. How was I to know if it was accurately depicting what it's like to trip on drugs?
I remembered that experience as I was watching the movie Alice's Restaurant (1969). Who am I say whether this movie accurately depicts the feel and mood of the 60s? I know there were times when I wondered if it would make more sense to me if I were stoned. Perhaps it would have helped if I had been older than one when the movie came out.
I'm not sure what I was expecting from this movie but I can say what I saw was much darker, creepier, and more sad than I expected. I anticipated lots of depictions of free love and people flashing the peace sign and the younger generation egging on the cops. I was right on that count. Far out!
I knew parts of the song would play a role in the movie but I was disappointed that the movie did not really add anything to the events that unfold in the classic song. What I was not expecting was a sad drama with a funeral and a dysfunctional marriage. Maybe it is because I find the song funny and sort of inspiring — silly me! — that I thought the movie would be funny and aspiring as well.
Instead, I found the movie dragging at times. Perhaps this is an unfair assessment but I found myself liking Arlo Guthrie less after watching the movie and listening to his commentary.
There are, I suppose, a few people who are unfamiliar with the song, its background, and history. Wikipedia has a good summary of the background and of the evolution from a song to a movie.
In short, the song (while up there in length with another great tune, "American Pie") tells a fascinating story. Actually it tells two stories. One story is about the time Arlo, after eating Thanksgiving dinner, thanked his hosts, one of whom was named Alice Brock, by trying to throw away the trash. Only the dump was filled (whoever heard of a dump being closed?) and so he littered and got busted for it by Officer Obie.
The second is when Arlo is called to the draft board. While they consider him a great candidate for a solider after he acts bloodthirsty and says he is ready to kill, he is ultimately rejected because he was a litter bug.
The song does a great job of tying the two events together. In a later version of the song, he updates the material to include the possibility that the 18 ½-minute song is the true explanation for the 18-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. The song is fascinating and entertaining. My hope was the movie would fill in some gaps like, what happened between those two events and what was it really like at the induction center sitting with the criminal element?
Is the acting good? Yes. Does Arlo do an especially impressive job? Definitely. But is it clear why the song had to be stretched into a two-hour movie that seems more of a drag than a joy? Not really. It does not help that this movie just has not aged well. What may have seemed authentic at the time — like characters flashing the peace sign — just seems clichéd or a stereotype today.
You know it's a bad sign when the bits of the movie you are most excited about are the cameos — folk singer Pete Seeger singing in one scene, the real Alice in another. Officer Obie plays himself, after reportedly telling Newsweek that if he was going to come off looking like a fool he'd rather do it himself. The judge also plays himself.
The DVD comes with an audio commentary by Arlo Guthrie wherein he explains about the history of the song and the movie. It is interesting and entertaining, perhaps more so than the movie itself. He says the movie seems too sad. While people have fond memories of the movie, the reality is, it's full of dramatic, sad material.
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant," the song says. Yes, I'd like to order a listening of the song, but hold the movie please. As an historical footnote, it is interesting. But as a movie, it does not stand up well on its own.

Interview with Charles Wilson, Co-Author of Chew On This

(2007)

I knew before I read
Fast Food Nation https://thinkingandtalkingandacting.blogspot.com/2017/09/book-review-fast-food-nation.html that it would change my life, particularly my eating and buying habits, and it did. What I did not realize was what an amazing piece of writing this is. A friend who teaches English has used this book as an example of persuasive writing and that totally makes sense, as this book manages not only to convince you that fast food companies do not have the interests of their employees — and sometimes their customers — in mind when making decisions, but also explains every important issue involving fast food, without coming off as redundant or preachy.
Reading that book, and this one, you don't feel you are being lectured so much as educated. Reading these books — along with watching Super Size Me -- made me a much more educated consumer.
When I heard about the book Chew On This: Everything You Don't Want To Know About Fast Food, I was delighted. The idea was to take some of the content from Fast Food Nation and rewrite it for a younger audience. The book was co-written by Charles Wilson and Eric Schlosser.
I was excited to ask Wilson some of the questions about the book and the fast food industry. This is my first two-part interview, done because the material is so important and interesting.
Scott Butki: How'd this book come about?
Charles Wilson: I have a friend who is a children's book editor at a New York publishing house; she mentioned to me casually that it might be a good idea to try to adapt Fast Food Nation for a younger audience. These were the people that the fast food companies were targeting most heavily with their advertising, she said, and it would be nice to present a message different than the one they get every day in fast food ads. I talked to Eric about it. He thought it was a good idea and asked me if I'd be willing to write it with him.
Scott: Who is the target audience - kids, parents or both?
Charles: We wrote it with middle-school readers in mind. At the same time, we hope it is a book that adults can also read as well as their children - and that people of both ages might get something out of it. We tried hard to create a narrative voice that was simple and direct without being glib or condescending.
Scott: If someone has already read Fast Food Nation, will there be new information for them in this book or is it just presented in a different fashion, like a bookish value meal?
Charles: About 80% of the material is new, but it is built upon the foundation of research that Eric did in Fast Food Nation. We decided from the outset that we wanted to ground Chew On This almost exclusively in the stories of young people, and the new reporting reflects that. We tell the story of a 12-year-old Alaskan girl who fights to get the soda machine out of her school and a 16-year-old boy who is struggling with obesity. We follow young teenage workers who are behind the counter at a McDonald's and two sisters who are trying, along with their mother, to hold onto their family ranch. I don't feel the book is so much "dumbed down" as re-imagined in a different way.
Scott: What is the most disturbing thing you learned about fast food in preparing this book?
Charles: For me, it was perhaps the extent that the demands of the fast food industry have changed animal husbandry practices. In order to create chickens with ample breast meat for chicken nuggets, for instance, chicken breeders engaged in a form of "single-trait engineering" that produced a chicken that had an unusually large chest. In time, however, this single-trait engineering had negative consequences for the chickens themselves. You saw chickens that were so top-heavy that it put too much pressure on their legs; many had trouble walking.
The pressure for speed and efficiency in the broiler chicken industry today means that many chickens go from hatching to slaughter in as little as 36 or 37 days. They have been bred to become extremely plump very quickly; one estimate suggests that if you applied the current breeding and feeding practices of chickens to people, it would be the equivalent of making a child weigh 286 pounds by his 6th birthday.
Scott: How do you guys define fast food?
Charles: Good question. We don't look in our book at the rising fast-casual industry (restaurants like TGI Friday's or Shoney's), though they have also been a large part in recent years of the colonization of Interstate off-ramps and edge cities outside of historic downtowns … We focus instead on the business model that was pioneered by in Southern California and extended across the country by Ray Kroc and McDonald's. We take a detour into the soda industry and the flavor industry - though they do not exclusively serve the fast-food industry, their growth was dependent on the growth of the fast food model.
I asked Mr. Wilson if he wanted to add any context to this excerpt I wanted to share about the stark reality of life for the animals that become our fast food meals:
"These cattle don't wander the prairie, eating fresh grass. During the three months before slaughter, they eat special grain dumped into long concrete troughs that look like highway dividers. The grain is designed to fatten the cattle quickly, aided by growth hormones that have been implanted beneath their skin."
Wilson added, "Cows weren't intended to be industrial commodities on this scale. E. coli O157:H7 is almost non-existent in cows that eat grass off the prairie. This strain is thought to have evolved in the acidic rumen of cattle that are fed grain and corn in commercial feedlots. The recent outbreak of E. coli poisoning in spinach is thought to come from cow manure from an industrial farm adjacent to the spinach fields that cross-contaminated the produce. It's another lesson that when you manipulate nature, there are generally unintended consequences."
Scott Butki: With some exceptions like the McLibel suit in England, why do you think the news media doesn't do many stories about some of the outrageous things done by fast food companies like McDonald's lying for years about whether its French fries were vegetarian? The company said it was soaked in pure vegetable oil when it actually contained some beef for "flavor enhancement," to use the company's language.
Charles Wilson: I have been encouraged recently by a willingness on the part of the media to challenge the fast food chains — particularly on the issues of marketing to children and the quality of their ingredients, such as man-made trans-fats. I think the benefit of Eric's Fast Food Nation or books like Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma is that they've helped foster a public awareness that the food we eat now is profoundly different than the food we ate a few generations ago.
For years, the fast food companies never had to answer questions about their supply chains, for instance. With the recent cases of E. coli poisoning, there have been more stories about how the centralization of the fast-food supply chain allows outbreaks that can spread across several states — instead of within just a single town or a family picnic. The closer the media's scrutiny, the greater potential that these companies can be persuaded to change practices that are not beneficial to public health.
SB: You do a good job of articulating the history of school lunches and how it has changed over time from something positive – providing food for hungry students so they can concentrate – to something problematic, namely a place where some get soda and fast food. Aren't there currently some states, including my own, Maryland, passing legislation that would effectively eliminate the sale of fast food in school cafeterias? Do you think such a trend will gain traction?
CW: I am hopeful this will gain traction. I feel like schools should take a page from the Olympics; they should be completely free of commercial advertisements. For years, school districts turned a blind eye to the issue, partly out of necessity; many schools were desperate for money and found easy solutions by turning to soda companies and fast-food companies, who were all too eager to come inside. We need to invest in farm-to-school programs and reform the federal school lunch program so that kids actually want to eat the meals, and we need to kick these fast food companies out. Because the fast food in school cafeterias is generally sold a la carte, it does not need to meet any nutrition requirements, and it most often doesn't.
SB: There seems to be two fundamental questions at the core of the movie Super Size Me , the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and this one, namely, "Do fast food consumers want to know where the food and drinks they get comes from?" and "Should they know the origin of the food?" Am I correct in guessing that you and Eric would say yes to the second question but what's your take on the first question?
CW: On our trips to schools, one of the things the kids are the most fascinated about is that little cochineal bugs are ground up and often used to color their strawberry milkshakes. It's not necessarily bad for you, we tell them, but it's a clear sign that the food we're eating now is profoundly different than the food that their parents or their parents' parents ate. Young people are usually intrigued by it.
A lot of the kids don't want to know where their food comes from at first, but they usually seem grateful to have some more information after they've read the book. Little more than two generations ago, a book like ours wouldn't have been necessary because young people were generally already acquainted with where their food came from. Only 2% of Americans farm or fish for a living now, and by the time a processed fast-food comes to our mouth, it has been through so many stages of production that it is more of a highly-manufactured good than a foodstuff.
SB: Do you think to many fast food consumers ignorance is bliss about the source of their food?
CW: Yes. The subtitle of our book is "Everything You Don't Want To Know About Fast Food." In the $3 billion plus you see in fast food advertisements every year, there may not be a single advertisement that shows in a direct, candid way how the fast food is made, and I don't see anyone clamoring for one.
SB: You have some truly alarming statistics in this book, such as that the consumption of soda by the average American teenage boy has doubled in the past 30 years and that 20 percent of American children between ages 1 and 2 drink soda every day. What was the most shocking statistic that you encountered?
CW: For me, it was when we did the math and realized that if you lined up all the hamburgers Americans ate every year, it would circle the earth 32 times. Recently, I was driving down a 100-mile stretch of Interstate 81 and imagined lining up burgers along the whole way — and realizing that such a line would only represent a small fraction of the total amount.
SB: Are you suggesting that the rise in obesity is connected to the rise in fast food consumption? I'm sure fast food companies would try to refute that argument.
CW: Eric and I both believe very much in personal responsibility and that people must hold themselves responsible for what they eat — and what they choose not to eat. We also believe in corporate responsibility, and that these companies are responsible for how they market their food, who they market it to, and the quality of the food they sell. We feel they shouldn't aggressively market hamburgers and milkshakes to children who are forming taste preferences that will stay with them for life — and that these companies should not aggressively market to low-income communities unless the products are healthful, particularly in the wake of the growing prevalence of Type II diabetes in many of these communities.
Thanks again to Charles for the interview.