From Russia with Trump

DONALD J. TRUMP is such a singularly lousy candidate—and, indeed, such a singularly lousy human being—that finding any single point of attack against him has proven difficult. So much slime emanates from Jabba the Hutt that it’s hard to get a good grip. He is a serial sexual predator, a hater of Muslims and immigrants, a racist and sexist, a non-payer of both federal taxes and independent contractors, a cruel narcissist who lacks even a baseline trace of empathy: all of these things are true, but all of them speak only to his character, such as it is. By now, even his supporters recognize that he is a piece of shit, something that should have been obvious to anyone with a functional search engine and wi-fi months ago. And they don’t care, because in their minds, Hillary is even worse.

What’s troubling to me, more than any other entry in the veritable Montgomery Ward catalogue of awfulness that is Donald J. Trump, is his coziness with Russian president Vladimir Putin. This has been played as a joke on late-night TV for so long now that we tend to laugh it off as yet another nonsensical personality quirk, but the relationship between Trump and Russia is deeply disturbing.

This is not just a bromance; this is a national security issue.

First, there are the many public expressions of admiration for Putin. Then the strange he’s-my-friend-I-met-him-in-Moscow/Putin-I-don’t-know-Putin flip-flops on their relationship. The anarchist and rapist Julian Assange has used his Wikileaks as a weapon against Hillary Clinton, and even the embattled director of the FBI knows damned well the Russians hacked the emails and fed them to Assange. Trump at one point (how quickly we forget) solicited Russia’s help in locating the 30,000 “missing” Hillary emails. Thanks to the leaked tax form, we know Donald Trump declared almost a billion dollars in losses in 1995, but it’s entirely possible that that’s missing the bigger story—recent returns may well show him considerably in hoc to Russian banks, as we know that US banks wouldn’t lend the guy a dime. Maybe this explains why his company allegedly had a dedicated server to communicate with a big Russian bank. We know about his shady business associates in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic with strong ties to Russia; is he also pals with Russian crime figures?

The point is, Trump is in bed with Putin, figuratively if not literally (although if the alleged sex tape of the orgy he allegedly participated in while in Moscow does in fact exist, perhaps this will also turn out to be literal). With so much to hold over The Donald, Putin can call the shots. This means that a major American presidential candidate is, as Hillary smartly averred at the last debate, a potential Russian puppet.

Think about what that means if Trump takes the White House. An American president, compromised by Russia! Forget about all the character issues, odious as they are. Trump is a potential Russian mole! He rants and raves about ISIS, but Russia is a far graver threat to the United States than the motley hodgepodge of derangement that is Islamic State.

The math here is very simple:

  1. Russia is bad.
  2. Putin prefers Trump to Hillary Clinton…
  3. …so much so that he’s going to great lengths to swing the election.

We waste a lot of ink on endorsements. Paul Ryan’s endorsement, John McCain’s endorsement, Ted Cruz’s endorsement…well, what about Vladimir Putin’s endorsement?

Forget everything else you know about the candidates. Is it in our collective interest to elect someone who is compromised and thus controlled by our greatest enemy of the last half-century? Or someone whom said enemy clearly fears?

Trump’s wish is to put the country in a time machine and send us back to 1953. But at least the John Birchers, the alt-right of the Eisenhower era, hated the Soviets. Donald Trump says he wants to make America great again. Maybe there’s another country he wants to make even greater, nyet?

Some genius made this on Zazzle.

Some genius made this on Zazzle.

 

 

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Thom Jones: The Pugilist at Rest (in Peace)

tj2

i.

HERE’S THE THING about clean-up hitters: they strike out a lot.

Then again, consider some of baseball’s most prodigious home run champions: Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth, the top three, had career batting averages of .298, .305 and .342, respectively. In baseball terms, excellent, but that also means they didn’t hit safely about sixty-to-seventy percent of the time they stepped to the plate. And these are the best of the best. Making a career at writing is not dissimilar to becoming a big league ball player: a hit every third attempt might enable you to remain employed, to call yourself a professional.

Thom Jones, in this umpire’s opinion, struck out a lot. He was a fast ball hitter, and when he saw a meatball down the middle, he could get hold of it. Epilepsy, punch-drunk boxers and wounded men battling addiction (to drugs, to drink, to bloodshed) comprised his sweet spot, and he returned to it often, albeit with increasingly diminished returns. When he stepped outside his comfort zone, the results could range from embarrassing to unreadable, and those moments occur with distressing frequency in his second (Cold Snap) and especially third (Sonny Liston Was a Friend of Mine) collections.

With very few exceptions, no honest (or sane) writer would quibble with a publishing history that confirms every third or fourth story is generally regarded as a home run, a minor classic, or even one worth remembering. Indeed, a great many writers would be perfectly content with every third or fourth story being an extra base hit. And then there are the thousands (millions?) of undiscovered writers who would trade years of their lives for a solitary single.

No sane or honest writer would ever want to be measured by their batting average of every published piece, over the course of a career.

You write often, as well as you can, and pray that, with a ton of practice and a little bit of luck, you manage to knock one clean out of the park. Mostly you just hope to make contact; to not strike out. Most of these failures, at least, don’t offend any audience; they languish—half-finished drafts, false starts and unattainable visions—in desk drawers or recycling bins.

Most writers, aware of the long odds and erratic whims of both publishers and potential readers, do their best to craft honest work that is more or less within the bounds of conventional taste, trusting the material is at once sufficiently unique and, for lack of a better word, straightforward. That’s to say, most writers (and it could be argued whether this applies more to obscure authors or established, even famous ones) are singles hitters. This is at once a function of the way publishing works (or doesn’t work—another topic altogether), and the internal battle most genuine writers wage that weighs originality vs. acceptance.

Note: I’m not talking about writing publishable work; writing that, for practical purposes, constitutes a single. I’m referring specifically to writers who, through ego or ability or ambition—or a combination of all three—set out to transcend cliché and write something unadulterated, that breaks some type of mold and becomes a new standard of sorts; something inimitable that itself will be emulated by future writers.

ii.

Thom Jones, like many famous writers, resists easy interpretation. A good chunk of his work is redundant, repurposed rather than convincing variations on a theme, and his penchant for stilted dialogue and ham-fisted histrionics mars some of his output. (Considering the publications he appeared in and the editors he worked with, it’s at once amusing and appalling to count the clichés throughout his three collections.) Another good chunk is serviceable, solid: a string of singles and the occasional double. He even hit a triple or two (These are recorded in Cold Snap; Sonny Liston Was a Friend of Mine is extremely tough going; taken on their own, the stories are underwhelming; compared to the previous collections they are somewhat excruciating…it can be debated that Jones burned out, lost his edge or, for any number of documented health reasons, couldn’t produce like he once did). But what separates him, and makes him worth celebrating, is that he had the audacity—and the skill—to make contact in historic fashion. We’re talking home runs like Carlton Fisk in ’75, Kirk Gibson in ’88 or Joe Carter with the walk-off World Series shot in ’93.

As it happens, all of these occur in his game-changing debut collection The Pugilist at Rest. A remarkable effort that deservingly became a National Book Award Finalist, it established Jones as a writer who, like Roy Hobbs, seemingly came out of nowhere, fully formed as a superstar. The title story’s publication is every writer’s dream; that one-in-a-billion fantasy: rescued from the slush pile and published by The New Yorker. That feat alone would more than satisfy most aspiring authors, but Jones, having alternately labored in obscurity and deferred his dream with years of substance abuse and self-sabotage, was ready for the big call-up. Unlike his next two books, there’s not a solitary stinker in the bunch. More significantly, of the eleven stories, (at least) six of them are no doubt dingers. Sabermetrically speaking, that’s well over .500, enough to ensure Jones legend status, one of the seminal debuts in the second-half of the 20th Century.

(To belabor the Hobbs metaphor, had Jones simply produced Pugilist, at 48, and then strode off into the sunset, he really might be considered the Wonderboy of short fiction.)

Opinions will—and should—vary, but in this critic’s estimation, six of these stories could be anthologized and might be studied by anyone hoping to ascertain what makes fiction memorable; what makes it resonate, what makes it work. The aforementioned title story, “Mosquitoes” and “Rocket Man” (allegedly Jones’s personal favorite) all clear the fence and will impart joy and delight (and envy) upon repeated readings.

With “A White Horse”, Jones manages to shoehorn Dostoyevsky, Hunter S. Thompson and the New Testament into a compressed tour de force—as well as any other story, this one best captures the outcast-in-search-of-epiphany. As a metaphor, the wealthy but unsettled protagonist shelling out hundreds to save a dying horse he encounters (à la Nietzsche) in the slums of Bombay seems at once familiar and surreal—Jones deftly combine pathos and desperation in the service of a postmodern parable, and cuts it (crucially) with humor.

Another masterpiece, and grand-slam, is the story of a dying woman entitled “I Want to Live!”. Older (but not that old), semi-estranged mother dying, alone, of cancer. Sound familiar? It’s to Jones’s considerable credit that he takes a potentially hackneyed subject that’s too often played for crocodile tear aesthetics, and deals, indelibly, with the heaviest—and trickiest—of issues: dread of death, longing for love, fear of a life wasted, et cetera.

Her friends came by. It was an effort to make small talk. How could they know? How could they know what it was like? They loved her, they said, with liquor on their breath. They had to get juiced before they could stand to come by! They came with casseroles and cleaned for her, but she had to sweat out her nights alone.

In less than thirty pages, Jones modernizes “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”, without the lugubrious sermonizing and melodrama Tolstoy, even at his best, struggled to suppress. It’s an unflinching, albeit harrowing tour of a helpless but not entirely hopeless woman’s death courtesy The Big C. In addition to merely working, as literature, it can console one with intimate experience with the disease, or prepare uninitiated readers for something too many families are forced to confront.

“The Black Lights”, a novel in miniature, could work as a longer piece (the writing is so unsullied, the characters so memorable, the recurring tension so concentrated), but illustrates the curious, often ineffable magic of the short form. There’s enough backstory related through flashback to provide a sense of who the narrator is, but the action occurs in the present, and we have no idea what the future holds, nor should we. In one of many astonishing passages, a Vietnam veteran stuck in a neuropsych ward to recover from his anxiety-induced epileptic seizures describes his first experience in a straitjacket (after driving the fellow patients to distraction with his paranoia that a large homicidal rabbit is lying in wait beneath his bed):

I forced myself to lie still, and it seemed that my brain was filled with sawdust and that centipedes, roaches, and other insects were crawling through it. I could taste brown rabbit fur in my teeth. I had a horror that the rabbit would come in the room, lie on my face, and suffocate me.

Finally released, months later, our anti-hero exits the base in one of the more memorable—and satisfying—endings of any modern short story. A bit of dialogue he exchanges with a fellow Marine typifies Jones, at the height of his powers:

“…You want to know something?”

“What’s that?”

“I stole this fucking car. Hot-wired the motherfucker.”

“Far out,” I said. “Which way you going?”

“As far as five bucks in gas will take me.”

“I got a little money. Drive me to Haight-Ashbury?”

“Groovy. What are you doing, man, picking your nose?”

“Just checking for cockroaches,” I said weakly.

This is a story that does everything the best writing aspires to do: it stays read, and changes the way you read, and understand, subsequent work. (In terms of Jones’s work, he arguably set the bar too high to approach that level again himself, but in the final analysis what matters is that he ever got there in the first place.)

iii.

To once again invoke Tolstoy, it could be said that all writers are unhappy, but each writer is unhappy in his or her own way.

Thom Jones, by any benchmark, had a difficult life before, during and after The Pugilist at Rest was published (1993). An absent father who later committed suicide in a mental institution, Marine boot camp, boxing injuries resulting in epilepsy: these themes, which recur like grisly hallucinations in his fiction, all derived from his actual life. Indeed, by the time he was twenty, he’d already experienced the trauma and tragedy that would inform his best work.

Like Raymond Carver, Jones excels at depicting the seedier side of life, black and blue faces with blue collars as opposed to suits and suburban existential howling. Like Charles Bukowski, it’s not difficult to detect a clear line connecting the characters, situations and the person writing about them. Like Tim O’Brien, it’s not so much that his personal history serves as impetus but rather, the obsessions of memory, pain and regret are at once a unifying theme and creative cul-de-sac.

(Put another way, he was the anti-Updike; it is both refreshing and a little heroic that his work bulldogged its way into The New Yorker, unapologetic—but indubitably worthy—turds in that pristine literary punch bowl.)

Jones circled around these washed up palookas, chemically-altered outlaws and quiet nobodies in search of a rock to crawl under because he knew them; he was (or had been) one of them himself. His most compelling pieces seem unforced and unfettered because, while undeniably autobiographical, Jones used fiction as exploration, not therapy. In “The Pugilist at Rest”, the narrator invokes Theogenes, “the greatest of gladiators”, who fought—and won—fourteen hundred and twenty-five life and death battles. The statue commemorating this fighter (an image of which decorates the front cover) becomes the central metaphor not only for this story, but the entire collection. Indeed, the notion of a scarred and skillful brawler being called into the ring, yet again, to provide a spectacle, a distraction or voyeuristic pleasure, is an appropriate allegory for Jones’s career.

Jones once remarked that “in the act of writing I’m not Thom Jones. And it’s such a relief to not be Thom Jones.” How inspiring, how refreshing, how sad. It doesn’t seem a stretch to imagine that Jones had a strenuous life, even after 1993, and the inability to retain his title simply means he’s more Jake LaMotta and less Sugar Ray Robinson—not a one-shot wunderkind but a career scrapper who banged back at a world intent on beating the shit out of him. Whether or not he had a great deal more to write, the only fact that matters is that he took his one shot and made it count. Hopefully he redeemed a great deal of disillusionment with that triumph, but regardless, he had to know he’d escaped the most ignoble fate: obscurity.

His refusal to quit and unwillingness to sentimentalize his past is a testament to his character (that he didn’t need to sensationalize his past is testament to the extraordinary obstacles he overcame). That he plugged away, before and after he was famous, and that he turned his vocation into one long battle is a testament to his resolve, and artistic integrity. And while he wrote about manly men doing macho shit, Jones was the anti-Hollywood writer in the sense that he understood the sadness and futility of fighting, boozing, womanizing and hatred directed inward or outward. He learned how to write the way he learned how to survive: the hard way, with no short cuts and few excuses. His ability to craft unforgettable tales of otherwise forgettable people will endure as the ultimate testament to his distinct talent and warrior’s heart.

tj1

Posted in Appreciations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

An Interview with Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild

HE IS AT THE HELM of a major American city a mere 60 miles from the Mexican border, but Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild still regards immigration as much more an opportunity than a threat. In 2011, Rothschild left a successful law practice to lead a city in a deep recession and (in the popular narrative) under siege by illegal immigrants. Looking back on his six years in office, the avowedly left-leaning Rothschild has charted a successful middle path between his city’s economic, cultural and infrastructure imperatives, bolstering support for job generators like Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Raytheon, while working with the business community to bring Caterpillar and Monsanto to the Tucson region. He also recruited hundreds of volunteers to tutor Tucson kids in reading, reached out to help solve the homeless veterans crisis, and traveled extensively in Mexico with a message of friendship. Weeks away from the most divisive national election in recent memory, the Mayor addresses what he judges to be the realities of the immigration issue, and explains why he is working hard to carry Arizona for Hillary Clinton.

mayor-jonathan-rothschild-350px-199x300

TLB: Good morning, Mr. Mayor. What in the world led you in 2011 — having never before run for office — to step into one of the toughest positions possible, at a time when Tucson was in a recession?

Rothschild: Well, I have to say, I didn’t really appreciate the challenge at the time. I had a very successful life, I thought I knew a lot about public affairs, and I read the local newspaper. And honestly, after reading the paper day after day, I said – probably like many of us – “I can do better than that!” And I had the good fortune of having lived here my whole life. My work as an attorney had me out and about in the community. I volunteered on nonprofit boards and the like. So, I knew a lot of people.

Once I was elected, I found out everybody has opinions, but not everybody has the facts on which to base those opinions. A lot of what I’d been reading and hearing about city government just wasn’t true. Some was absolutely the opposite of true. The city had taken some hits that were unfair. Not that there wasn’t work to be done, but there was already a lot of good work going on.

The other thing that motivated me to run was the re-election of President Bush in 2004. Oddly enough, I’d met his brother Neil when I was a freshman at Tulane. We were acquaintances. I was not a supporter of President Bush, so when he was re-elected, I thought, “This is my generation, and this is not what we set out to be.”

I mean, I understand. It’s hard for everybody. You have ideals but you’ve got to make a living and you raise a family and you lose touch with what’s going on in your own community. But after President Bush was re-elected, I couldn’t stand on the sidelines any more. And I was already at an age – I wasn’t a 28-year-old trying to get into politics. I was born here. I knew the city. There was going to be an open seat. So I said, “I’ll run for mayor.”

 

TLB: You went after the mayoral seat because you thought your community was in trouble. And because you shared a national disappointment in George W. Bush’s presidency, which took us into Iraq and whatever else.

Rothschild: I don’t want to give him all the credit. It was a recognition on my part of, well, you know, if I don’t step up, who’s going to?

 

TLB: Getting into your term as mayor, the immigration issue has been huge for you. As a city 60 miles from the Southern border, you find yourself at the vanguard of a divisive issue which his metastasized into utter toxicity the past year. Some believe in building a wall. What do you believe in? And what have you done?

Rothschild: I took office in 2011. SB 1070 had just been put into practice. SB 1070 was the state legislature’s bill that authorized local and state police to enforce federal immigration law. And that immediately became a matter of national concern. The city of Tucson – before I became mayor – filed a brief to set that law aside. Ultimately, much of it was set aside – but not all, unfortunately.

Immigration is an opportunity, not a crisis. Furthermore, at least as of last year, more Mexicans left the United States than entered the United States. They’re going back to Mexico because there’s work there. There’s a culture there and a welcome-ness there. And partly those numbers have gone down because Mexico’s improved its own economy. In Tucson, within the city limits, we’re 43% Hispanic. We’re 60 miles from the border. It’s not a homogeneous population; it’s a heterogeneous population. What I mean by that is there are families that have been here for 400 years, and there are families that have been here for 4 weeks. When you live here, you recognize that these aren’t numbers, these are families. These aren’t numbers, these are friends. What I realized as mayor was, when you’re 60 miles from the border – as Tucson is – your economic success is going to be tied in no small part to the economic success of your nearest neighbors. In our case, that’s Mexico, not Phoenix.

But Phoenix realized this too, the importance of Mexico to Arizona’s economy. And so Greg Stanton, the Mayor of Phoenix, and I would take regular trips into Mexico, to say to Mexican officials and business owners, “What you’re reading about and what you’re seeing is not Arizona.” We had to do that. And we did.

So do I believe in building a wall? [laughs] Of course not. Walls have never worked anywhere. When I was a little kid – and it was a different world, I’ll grant you – we’d go down to Nogales, and there was a fence, but it was like a ranch fence. It wasn’t even barbed wire. It was just a wire fence. And people would cross all day long. People would live in Nogales, Sonora and work in Nogales, Arizona. Or vice versa. The world has changed, clearly, but building a wall? That’s nonsense.

 

TLB: There’s so much talk that we hear in the presidential campaign, from Mr. Trump and others, about crime along the border. What are the facts about that? What burdens do border related crime place on Tucson’s police and Tucson’s court system?

Rothschild: I can tell you that we see very little crime as it relates to the border. Now, that’s not to say there isn’t drug trafficking that runs north. And that’s not to say there isn’t gun trafficking that runs south, from the U.S. into Mexico. There has not been, in my opinion, the kind of cooperation there needs to be at the federal level between Mexico and the United States to share information. But as a local community? We’ve experienced very little effect.

Now, as far as the policy of stopping people and picking them up for their undocumented status, our federal court system is very busy on a daily basis, taking people through a cattle chute of a process called Operation Streamline. If we had comprehensive immigration reform, that problem would go away.

 

TLB: And yet certain individuals tell is that these undocumented individuals could be murderers and rapists. What has been your experience and Tucson’s experience with the Mexican people?

Rothschild: Well, as I say these are families, these are friends. They come here to shop. Sometimes they come here for medical purposes. They come here as tourists – to enjoy American culture, just like we go to Mexico to enjoy Mexican culture. Now, again that’s not to say there aren’t some who come and commit crimes, but I can tell you, I’ve lived here my whole life and there was a lot more crime in the 1970s.

 

TLB: How important do you think the 2016 election is to the American southwest, and who do you support and why?

Rothschild: I’ve gone around publicly saying that if Donald Trump is elected president, the state that will be hurt the most is Arizona. Because I’ve seen it before, with SB 1070. And I’m convinced of that. I happen to support Hillary Clinton. I support her because she has great experience. She’s been Secretary of State. The first President Bush had a lot of foreign policy experience and it made him a better president. She’s been a United States Senator. She lived in the White House for 8 years with a man who I believe was – in my lifetime, at least by results – our best president so far. And the candidate who the Republican Party put up – I think it was the New York Times that said he’s the single worst candidate a major political party has nominated in the country’s history. So that makes my decision pretty easy.

 

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

More Human than Human or, Do Atheists Dream of Electric Sheep?

blade-runner-roy-batty

 i. “I am the business.”

Rick Deckard: is he, or isn’t he, that is the question. Human or android? Blade Runner or replicant?

Inexorably, fans’ perspective on this matter will radically inform their interpretation of the film. To an interesting degree, it may also offer insight into their philosophy regarding morality, and even existence.

It should be acknowledged that while Blade Runner, naturally, owes a considerable debt to the novel it’s based on—Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?—the two have significant differences and should be considered as separate entities, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

The central disparity between novel and film is that in Dick’s version, Deckard is unquestionably a human being. In the film, of course, the matter is decidedly more ambiguous; indeed, the concern of how one construes his “true” identity provides the film’s enigmatic tension, and its enduring resonance.

Complicating things further was the decision—at the studio’s insistence, after tepid audience reaction during initial screenings—to have Harrison Ford add hackneyed narration throughout the film, ostensibly to clarify important plot elements (read: to tell less discerning viewers what to think). This unfortunate concession effectively ensured that Deckard was, in fact, to be viewed as a human protagonist.

The movie didn’t do especially well upon its release in 1982 and, with hindsight, seemed almost predetermined to become not merely a cult classic, but an archetype of sorts even within that refined category. Its ostensible flaws as commercial fare remain a credit to its intelligence and ambiguity—two attributes that don’t typically portend box office success. More, what begins as a standard action/detective story gradually expands to become a thoughtful meditation on morality, a tour de force of existentialism.

The 1992 Director’s Cut (which, aside from the insertion of one brief but crucial scene, is actually the unfettered original version) makes a compelling, even incontrovertible case that Deckard’s a replicant after all. Harrison hated the narration and, in fact, hoped by delivering it in a fashion somnolent even for him, it would be discarded. He should have known never to underestimate the judgment and intelligence of studio bosses. Ridley, on the other hand, has remarked that while he too loathed the narration, he felt it was sufficiently obvious Deckard was a replicant. (His sardonic, if refreshing take on the matter: “If you don’t know you are a moron.”)

The pertinent issue, then, is not so much whether Deckard is human; it’s how this cognizance clouds—or clarifies—the sublime climax of the film, where Deckard’s prime target, the replicant Roy Batty, after overpowering (and outsmarting) him, saves his life—then allows him to live. And, while overt comparisons between Batty and Christ might seem banal on a superficial level, it’s his actions and not his character that accords Blade Runner an ethical gravity not found (or necessarily intended) in the novel.

 

ii. “Wake up! Time to die!”

Of the many questions this film poses, the ones that loom largest involve Deckard’s identity. If, for instance, Deckard’s not a human being, how does this complicate his actions and reactions (and, an implicit question for the audience: how does our knowledge of his true identity color our impression of his actions—and the reactions of others, human and otherwise)? Also, assuming Deckard is a replicant, does it not mitigate the import of Roy Batty’s ultimate decision to liberate him? (Answer: no.)

Batty discerns he’s about to die (or, expire), and harbors no illusions he’s human and that—for him, anyway—there’s an afterlife. He has been made to acknowledge, with certainty, nothing but nothingness awaits him; that existence is not merely arbitrary (a fundamental human dilemma) but, for him, fabricated. Nevertheless, he saves the life of a police officer paid to “retire” him. This act abundantly, if ironically fulfills Batty’s purpose of being “more human than human”. His decision, in this light, to act unselfishly despite recognizing there will be no reward, should be viewed as heroic, and not a little inspiring.

“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave,” Batty says, resignedly, to Deckard. As we’ve seen, these replicants have been created solely to serve the pleasure of the men (gods?) who created them. Earlier models, it’s explained, were indeed used for slave labor; these Nexus 6 prototypes, led by Batty, are endowed with advanced physical and mental abilities. As such, they come to realize—despite being implanted with human memories—that their lives are predetermined, and very brief.

One can understand why they rebel. The revelation that they’re fanciful and expensive experiments is capable of making even nihilism seem quaint, beyond the ken of even the most smugly despondent post-structuralist. Or else a case study of detached deconstruction, taken to extremes that might make even Derrida blush: always-already aware that your reality—and utility—was carefully planned long before you ever assumed consciousness.

This comprehension, with good reason, generates dismay amongst the Nexus 6 replicants, and should arouse empathy from the viewer. How interesting (peculiar, even) that these same parameters, adjusted for aesthetics, are precisely what oblige the faithful to find value and consequence in their lives. Or, put another way, one can imagine even the most reflexively staunch believer appalled by the notion that there is a God, but life nevertheless ceases at death. Cynics can—and do—point out that a totalitarian dynamic based in fear is the very nature of organized religion. If we are, by decree, slaves compliant to our creator here on earth, we’ll be redeemed forever, in Heaven. This is the tacit covenant that makes belief agreeable, if bearable.

It’s inevitable to surmise, with the contextual evidence on offer (via the Director’s Cut), anyone still insisting Deckard’s a human is not unlike one who asserts—often with the self-righteous assurance of the zealot—that without the concept of God (and eternity) there is no grace; no reason for benevolence. This, of course, is merely cowardice disguised as faith: the need to believe says much about the individual and little about the ethos.

As such, we can conclude that because Batty’s act is witnessed and, more, received, it has meaning beyond the gesture: affirming life, and saving a life while one’s own life is ending. Batty’s deed is not an act of rescue so much as one of redemption. It underscores the hopes and fears of every sentient—or at least sensitive—being: What was I? What do I leave behind? What will I become? By living, Deckard keeps Batty alive; by remembering, he ensures Batty’s sacrifice has significance aside from the act itself. Of course, it would have meaning, in the metaphysical sense, even if it was unrecorded.

 

iii. “All those moments will be lost in time…”

The notion of doing good for good’s sake is an ideal articulated in the writings of difficult artists ranging from Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky to Melville and Poe. In the 20th Century, after the events that preceded and accompanied World War II, it’s remarkable that poetry, prose, music and movies continue to reinforce a defiance of despair as opposed to a begrudging—or lethargic—acknowledgment of life’s meaninglessness. Put more plainly, ample evidence supporting altruism exists that’s not contingent upon religious faith; indeed, much of it actively eschews dogma.

As humans we create meaning, even if we ultimately resolve that life is meaningless. Our outlook is still the result of deliberation, however dejected. It is, in fact, those insisting only God can imbue meaning (since He created everything) who argue that the absence of God obviates meaning. This position, inculcated by rote, isn’t merely flawed intellectually; it’s defective, morally. The correlation between religious fanaticism and the violence it can inspire—and provide cover for—is well-documented. Disturbingly, the thin line between faith and desolation is reason enough to be grateful many would-be sociopaths are compelled by their belief, or suspension of belief, to determine there’s actual value (or, again, meaning) in their own existence; there’s motivation to choose amity over annihilation.

It is, then, with Batty, that the film turns typical theology upside down.  The redeeming (and, redeemed) character is, in a sense, dying for the sins of others, but will receive neither reward nor restoration. Not for nothing does Tyrell, after confirming Batty’s worst fears, declare him to be “the prodigal son.” Certainly, one could make a career out of the religious imagery invoked throughout the narrative (the nails in the palms, the brutal beating he suffers, the futile entreaty to his creator, etc.).

On a purely practical level, if one reckons that the ends justify the means, the notion of using Christ as a model is commendable, particularly when it results in the pursuit of reconciliation over aggression. Indeed, the idea that organized religion was designed as a self-perpetuating (and quite effective) system to organize and supervise the masses is unoriginal enough to be dismissed as cliché. And yet, considering the ultimate objective of Christian fellowship is to inspire conduct sufficient to earn everlasting life, it’s difficult to argue which is more disingenuous: the self-serving ecclesiastics or those who see through it, yet utilize it for personal gain or to consolidate control.

The figure of Christ is enduringly appealing, as a literary figure, for His acts of kindness and care. But concerning the biblical moments of transcendence, the miracles distance Him from us; whereas Batty’s final gesture is made with the understanding that he’ll gain no favors, here or elsewhere. As such, it would cheapen his sacrifice to give Christianity unearned credit and declare this an act of Christ-like mercy; rather, it’s an enduring gesture of human grace. As such, it remains a persuasive and provocative advertisement for what we’re capable of when we’re most fully human or more, when we transcend our inherent (see: selfish) human limitations. Blade Runner remains the ultimate paradox: a movie about the impermanence—even the construction—of humanity, yet it makes one of the greatest cases for compassion and charity.

 

Posted in Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Pop Music Goes Dark: An Interview With Mark Brooks

What weird and winding path could possibly lead from the caustic roar of Slayer to the dreamy, confectionery bliss of synth pop? A road that not only exists, but that boasts a star-spangled parade of cultish icons like William Shatner, Glen Danzig and that gorgeously-narcissistic animated band of death metallers, Dethklok. The connector? Mark Brooks.

8669653637_36188b2c89_bA dyed-in-the-wool music industry lifer, Brooks has carried amps for Pantera, played in punk bands up and down the West Coast, befriended the guys in Nirvana, shot music videos for the likes of Slayer, Eminem and the Melvins and he even directed William Shatner in a feature film. In recent years, Brooks earned the enduring love of Planet Earth’s heavy metal legions when he began directing episodes of Adult Swim’s late night comedy juggernaut, Metalocalypse, Brendon Small’s animated saga of a five-piece international death metal band and the secret international tribunal out to stomp them.

Despite this surly, dues-fully-paid rock pedigree, you’d be wrong to write Brooks off as just another jaded, beer-swilling Motörhead freak. In recent years, he has rededicated his creative energies to exploring the sultry British synth pop of the early-80s through Night Club, his two piece band with his songwriting collaborator, vocalist and muse Emily Kavanaugh.  Not only have they released a pair of EPs but last year they composed the original score for the animated Rob Lowe show Moonbeam City – a groovy 80s homage with brooding, yet immensely-danceable Miami Vice-style production. This year sees the duo release their long-awaited debut, Requiem for Romance –  a gorgeous clutch of stupidly-infectious electro pop that feels like Ladytron holding Nine Inch Nails at gunpoint while making them run through Depeche Mode covers. We sat down with Brooks to talk about the state of music and why the best pop music is always dark and disturbing.

 

Let’s cut to the chase – is modern music dead, dying or thriving?

You know, I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and I think that music is thriving. It’s like a weed breaking through the concrete – it’s strong, it’s going to live and do amazing things, but it gets no respect. You say, “It’s no match for that concrete.” But it can’t be stopped.

Does the music industry of today – a far cry from the juggernaut of the 70s – help or hurt its growth?

The music industry has given up, just as a whole lot of musicians have given up. But I’ve been playing in this band now for the past four years and from my view from the trenches, I’m seeing a lot of music being made. A lot of very cool music being made. The people who are motivated by profit are missing out because there’s a cultural thing happening right now that’s extremely cool. It reminds me of the emergence of punk rock in the late-70s. I’ve worked with guys like Danzig and the Slayer guys and it’s the same thing happening now. Glenn Danzig didn’t start the Misfits to make money, he started that band because he hated fucking Journey and all the shitty album-oriented rock that was dominating the airwaves. He wanted to make the music that he liked and I think that’s what’s happening right now. There’s all this amazingly cool stuff bubbling up in all genres of music right now and I’m honestly more excited about music now than I was when I was a kid.

night-club-wide-%282016%29Thanks to user-friendly software like GarageBand and ProTools, anybody can record an album in their bedroom and consequently we’re seeing an avalanche of self-produced albums flooding the Internet. We can deride the old model of gatekeepers all we want, but has this dilution of quality subverted the music business just as much as something like Napster?

One hundred percent. Look, not everybody should be making a record. (laughs) But not everybody should be a five-star chef, either. That’s life. Some people are better at some things than others and that’s what life is all about — finding your strengths and your passions and making them work together. I love that if you really have a passion for music, even if you’re a completely talentless loser, you can still do it! You can put out your album and five people will listen to it and it will last forever. That level of freedom is amazing.

So what about pop? If you’re listening to the mainstream, that music has all been scrubbed a certain way and given a certain level of production and polish that you’ll never get on a DIY project. Does all that studio magic render the music disposable or is mainstream pop as vital now as it was in the 80s?

What’s different from today’s pop music than the mainstream pop of the 80s is that mainstream in the 80s would have maybe two writers who would produce a song and put it out. Now you’ve got maybe nine writers, a producer, an A&R guy and a lot of other cooks in the kitchen. So it’s not really the same thing because there are so many people working on it that it dilutes the originality, vision and personality of a single person. Night Club is very different in that regard — Emily and I write everything ourselves. We don’t run anything by anybody and we don’t test market any of that stuff. We make the music we like to make and to me, regardless of how it sounds to people, is way more punk rock than most indie rock bands.

How so?

Indie rock bands have to run the new stuff by their fans to get a sense of whether it’s cool enough or not, and then they have to see if their label’s cool with it and then if their PR guy can work with it. The reality is that when Emily and I sit down and make music, we ask, “Do you like it?” “Do I like it? Cool, then let’s put it out.” And I can’t think of anything more punk rock than that.

Now that Moonbeam City has ended, you’ve had time to regroup. What have you been up to this year?

You know, coming out of directing Metalocalypse and doing stuff like my projects with Slayer and Danzig, I renewed my interest in electronic music, which was so much of where my musical tastes originated; like Gary Numan and Ultravox and that early, early English new wave from the late-70s. So Emily and I got hooked back into this synthy electronic music and somehow we got tagged as a retro thing. That wasn’t necessarily what we were trying to do, but because that’s where our interests were, it led us into that classification. I don’t necessarily think that’s accurate, particularly because I don’t think Emily’s voice is very retro but as far as the music goes, I could see how people might view it that way.

So where do you fit in?

We always wanted to come across as Suicide-meets-Blondie-meets-Ultravox. But when the soundtrack for Moonbeam City fell on our laps, we got pulled into that 80s thing but ultimately I think we were independent of that scene because if you listen to even our early stuff, it very much has a punk, rock and even metal core. Even though we use synthesizers, those elements come across in the performance and in the attitude. For the new record, we realized we needed to break away from the pack and to make a darker, heavier record that reflected what we do live – a little more sordid, a little angrier, a little more heartbroken…  Hopefully we hit that on the new record. In a lot of ways, it’s a very metal album, it just doesn’t have any guitars. (laughs) But its attitude is very metal – it’s basically a gigantic “Fuck you,” to everyone.

8669659937_d83cf301df_zHow does such a bright and energetic pop record absorb such darkness?

The record devolved from our starting point, where we were happy, confident and things were working really well, but then things spiraled into us being mad at the world. I mean, just look at 2016 – it’s a complete clusterfuck. How can you not be influenced by this year? It’s a crazy fucking year. People might listen to Requiem and say, “Oh, this is straight pop music,” but when you dig in, it’s much more – it’s heartbreak, it’s anger, it’s back-stabbing and it’s a lot of things that actually happened to us in the past year. Everything on this record comes from a real feeling and a real experience either in our personal lives or the world. And ultimately, that’s the best kind of pop to me – you can sing along to it, it’s catchy and the themes are universal enough that everybody can relate.

Where can we hear that on the album?

To me, the pinnacle of the record is Dear Enemy. I don’t want to rag on who it is, but it’s about having friendships with people who care for you and then suddenly they’re not there for you. In fact, they’re actually against you. People might give it a cursory listen and write it off as just some pop song, but the stuff is actually really dark. Emily and I went through a really shitty year and the music reflects that, but we can’t not write pop songs! We love really catchy music and to me, that’s my favorite kind of pop music. Bright music with this really weird undercurrent. Nirvana was a great example of that. I mean, that guy was a mess, but those are great pop songs!

So where do you see this record landing? What sort of audience do you envision embracing this?

You know, I stopped even thinking that way because it just fucks with your mind as a creative person. I can’t predict what it’s going to be. I just can’t. Look at dance music- most dance music sucks balls. It’s awful. There’s Skrillex – he’s really good. Diplo – really good. The others? Not so good.  You can break metal down like that and there’s no way to predict how it’s going to be embraced. I just know that I have a really strong sense of what we’re doing and I know that Emily does as well and we just look at it as literally a committee of two. “Do you like it?” “Yes.” “I like it, too. Let’s put it out.” If we don’t like it, it’s not coming out, and I can’t think of anything more DIY or more punk rock than that.

OK, let’s end with five yes or no subjects. I’ll give you the topic and you give us a yes or no.

Burning Man?

No. I don’t like hippies.

Streaming music?

Yes, because the more you get stuff out there, the more people can listen to it and I think that’s a good thing.

Facebook?

Ugh. Yes for bands, because you have to advertise and promote yourself. No as a person, because I don’t need to know that much about anyone. (laughs)

Point Break, the original film?

Never saw it! I can’t even say. And I’m not gonna see the new one either, man.

New Metallica?

Eh. No, I’m a Slayer guy.

Posted in Rock and Roll Coffee | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shocked GOP Leaders: “Trump Can’t Say That About White Women!”

ALTHOUGH TOO MANY prominent Republicans continue to endorse the sexual predator Donald J. Trump, a number have (at long last) begun to rescind their endorsements. As others have pointed out on Twitter, it’s noteworthy that it took The Donald disparaging and denigrating a white woman to get the GOP to take notice of his long-known and well-documented odiousness. Trump was allowed to be Trump when insulting blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, the disabled, and Venezuelan beauty queens. Only when he talked about sexually assaulting white women did the GOP take umbrage.

Here are responses by prominent Republicans to the #TrumpTapes, copied and pasted from PBS…with the modifier “white” before the word “women,” so we don’t forget who they really care about (and who they don’t).

trump-zucker-bush

~

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R, Wisconsin
Response: “I am sickened by what I heard today. White women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for white women than this clip suggests.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R, Ky.
Response: “These comments are repugnant, and unacceptable in any circumstance. As the father of three daughters, I strongly believe that Trump needs to apologize directly to white women and girls everywhere, and take full responsibility for the utter lack of respect for white women shown in his comments on that tape.”

Reince Priebus, RNC Chairman
Response: “No white woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever.”

Sen. John McCain, R, Arizona
Response: “There are no excuses for Donald Trump’s offensive and demeaning comments. No white woman should ever be victimized by this kind of inappropriate behavior.”

Rep. Bradley Byrne, R, AL
Response: “Donald Trump’s comments regarding white women were disgraceful and appalling. There are absolutely no circumstances under which it would ever be appropriate to speak of white women in such a way.”

Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush, R, Florida
Response: “As the grandfather of two precious girls, I find that no apology can excuse away Donald Trump’s reprehensible comments degrading white women.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R, Florida
Response: “Donald’s comments were vulgar, egregious & impossible to justify. No one should ever talk about any white woman in those terms, even in private.”

Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney, R, Mass.
Response: “Hitting on married white women? Condoning assault? Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters and corrupt white America’s face to the world.”

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Trump is a Piece of Shit, and This Disqualifies Him From Being President

LAST NIGHT, in the wake of the so-called #TrumpTapes, we caught up on some Colbert episodes from last week. There was the bespectacled late night host last Friday, riffing on Trump’s violating U.S. law by attempting to do business in Cuba. In a normal election, this alone would have hung the candidate. Unlike Hillary Clinton, and despite protestation to the contrary from the alt-right, The Donald had broken the law.

By last night, I’d forgotten all about it.

And that’s what boggles the mind about the reality star-cum-GOP-nominee: there are so many gaffes, it’s hard to keep track of them all. We’ve moved beyond his Cuban embargo violation. And his fat-shaming of one of the most beautiful women in the world. And his billion-dollar tax loss. And how he routinely created a hostile work environment on the set of The Apprentice by constantly saying inappropriate things about women. And the older charges, like how he routinely stiffs contractors, and how he isn’t actually a good businessman at all, and how he doesn’t give money to charity even though he claims to, and on and on.

I’ve read numerous articles attempting to classify which mental disorder he suffers from. Here is a less clinical, but more accurate, term: Trump is a piece of shit. After the TrumpTapes, his shit-piece-ness is incontrovertible. The mountain of malodorous evidence is as deep as it is steamy. Like a piece of shit, Trump attracts flies: Giuliani, Christie, Bannon, Ailes, Coulter.

Running for president is like going on the ultimate job interview, and it should be, because being president is the ultimate job. In human resources, there is something called a BFOQ, or bona fide occupational qualification. If you don’t have it, you can’t even be considered for the job. Running backs need to be able to run, truck drivers need to be able to drive, piano movers need to be able to lift heavy objects. A pre-requisite for the job of President of the United States is a functional moral compass. You have to be able to tell right from wrong, you have to have great empathy, and you use this BFOQ to make decisions that literally mean life and death for millions of human beings.

Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during World War II are the exemplars of this quality, but every president, even the bad ones, has possessed it to some degree. George W. Bush believed that going to Iraq was the right thing to do in the wake of 9/11; in hindsight this appears dunderheaded, but both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton agreed with his assessment at the time. The point is, Bush didn’t invade Iraq to promote a hotel he was building there, or some Bush-branded line of steaks. He had, and has, the moral and ethical capacity to make the decision. Even George W. Bush possesses some baseline amount of empathy.

Trump, however, has no such moral compass. The last six months have made clear that he is a mercenary animal who cares about nothing but his own enrichment. He wants more money, more pussy, more fame, more adulation. Empathy is foreign to him. Because he is not in possession of this BFOQ, he is disqualified from the job. Period, full stop. His policy ideas are moot. Even if he was a radical liberal whose views I completely agreed with, I would not want him in the White House. Because, again, he is a piece of shit.

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, and her husband is even less so. But no one can accuse her of lacking empathy (actually, plenty of people accuse her of this, but those people haven’t bothered to look beyond the alt-right attacking points and absorb her full biography), and the latter is not running for office. Plenty of people, regular working people, have told stories about Hillary helping him, caring about them. Where are these stories about The Donald?

On the tape, Trump brags about the supposed droigt de signieur that permits him to grab women by the “pussy.” Per Dana Bash at CNN, Trump didn’t think he did anything wrong in the TrumpTapes. His advisors had to sit him down and explain to him why contrition was compulsory.

This is only necessary when the candidate has no moral compass, and no empathy of his own.

When the candidate is a piece of shit.

When the candidate is Donald J. Trump.

GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, in happier times.

GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, in happier times.

~

Other notes from last night:

If Paul Ryan was truly “sickened” by the video, why does he not withdraw his endorsement? Why doesn’t John McCain, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the GOP? Isn’t the Republican party supposed to be about family values?

The Russians have hacked into the DNC servers, and now John Podesta’s emails. You know what they didn’t hack? Hillary’s private email server. Just sayin’.

If Hillary Clinton was really the criminal mastermind the alt-right portrays her to be, the mass murderer accumulating a Rambo-level body count, don’t you think Julian Assange would be floating in the Thames by now?

I read that the TrumpTapes came out because Access Hollywood was inspired by the AP story on Trump’s sexual harassment on the set of The Apprentice to dig into its archive. Kudos to my former employer.

That deposition given by Ivana Trump about her then-husband’s sexual violence towards her…can there be any doubt that this is true?

David Fahrenthold should be given the Pulitzer, the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a lifetime supply of Trump Vodka for killing it this year. He is a true American hero.

Ana Navarro is similarly awesome.

First Skittles, now Tic Tacs.

 

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , , , | 11 Comments