“If you got good people having weapons, then it’s a good thing. If you have bad people having weapons, then it’s a bad thing. In countries that have outlawed guns around the world, it’s a proven fact that only outlaws have them.”

Years before the most viral video of all time, KONY 2012, slammed Joseph Kony into the global consciousness, Sam Childers was cruising around with soldiers from the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army hunting him down and protecting those he sought to capture.

As Childers puts it, “I was helping Sudanese rebels before helping rebels was cool.”

Thirty years ago, he was known by those closest to him as a rough, tough, lost-cause. He was a drug addict and a violent man who had served time behind bars.

.

Today, the Pennsylvania native, is an ordained minister who goes by the name of “The Machine Gun Preacher.”Armed with his AK-47 and a calling from God, he works to protect, at all costs, the vulnerable women and children of Sudan, Uganda, and Ethiopia. What started as a mission to fend off the LRA has grown beyond the borders of Sudan. Some have referred to him as “a bizarre mash-up of Rambo and missionary.”

How did Childers’ go from American reject to an African freedom fighter?

Here’s how.

It all started one Sunday night when his wife Lynn, a former stripper, pulled Childers to a church service. He had a Christian background but his faith had, long ago, faded from the center of his life. That night a missionary from South Africa was speaking. During the service he called Sam out and told him that God wanted to “consume” him. He was right. Sam recommitted his life to God and agreed to visit Africa with the pastor to help build a roof.

In 1998, a changed man, he visited the Sudan. Not content to just build a roof, Childers ventured deep into the war torn nation. He witnessed first hand the devastation of the LRA. Most notably, he came across a young boy who had stepped on a landmine. He would never be the same again.

Seeing this child pushed Childers to devote all his energy to protecting these children. Childers gut-reaction was to use his knowledge of weaponry to fight fire with fire. It also involved selling off his construction business in the States and dedicating all his time and resources towards building his Children’s Village orphanage in Nimule, South Sudan. The orphanage was a place the women and children could come for protection.

Since 1998, he has provided armed security at his orphanage as well as food and medication for 300 children. He has since expanded his operations to include three orphanges in Ethiopia and others in Uganda.

.

While many see Childers as someone saving these children, he tells everyone who will listen, “I didn’t rescue the children of Africa, they rescued me.”

On average Childers spends 7 months a year in Africa and 5 months travelling elsewhere, with three months reserved for preaching and fundraising.

Childers story is now well documented. First, in his 2009 memoir, “Another Man’s War: The true story of one man’s battle to save children in the Sudan.” Second, in the Hollywood re-telling of that book, 2011′s ”Machine Gun Preacher” starring Gerard Butler.

Both have boosted Childers’ public profile. He tours around to churches all over the world telling his story and raising funds for his orphanages.

With this newfound celebrity, however, has come a great deal of scrutiny.

How is violence on top of violence solving anything? Why is he meddling in the affairs of another country? How many people has Childers killed in Africa? What’s really going on at his orphanages?

These tricky questions surround Childers’ story.

With a wild story involving Eastern and Central Africa, there is much I WANNA KNOW about Sam Childers.

I reached Childers via phone from his office in Washington, D.C.

From KONY 2012, to gun laws in America, to the AK-47, to the criticisms surrounding his work, to his friendship with Uganda’s president, we cover it all.

. . .

(LISTEN/DOWNLOAD INTERVIEW ABOVE, OR READ THE ILLUSTRATED INTERVIEW BELOW)

Ryan Kohls: How has the current tour been going?

Sam Childers: You know it’s been doing well. To be honest with you, I’m never really concerned with money. Because of my faith I do the best I can. So it’s up to God to make things work. I never really look at the money part. What I look at is the lives that are changed. So far on this tour we had nearly a thousand peoples lives changed. I’m talking about people that never went to church, people that never had any faith. So, in order to have a thousand lives in this day and time change in three weeks, buddy, that’s good.

RK: You’ve been talking to crowds for many years now, and it continues to resonate. What do you think it is about your story that continues to, as you say, change lives?

SC: I’d have to say the thing that’s changing everybody’s ear right now is how bad Sam Childers was thirty years ago. I carry a message of hope that no matter who you are or what you’ve done you can change, but it’s all up to you. You know, some people want to let on that Jesus or God is this genie in a bottle that you rub and it pops out and fixes problems. You’ve got to remember, that’s not how he works. If you’re living a life that is not a life good life, you have to make up your mind that you’re done living that life.

Childers speaking to an audience.

RK: You’re travelling around the states telling your story, but it seems like it must be a tense time to be talking about guns. 

SC: Yes and no. I’m 100 per cent for guns laws. And what I mean 100 per cent is that we should have the right to bare arms. In some states you can have a protection permit but you don’t have to qualify on a shooting range, and I’m totally against that. I believe that any American that is going to have a protection permit to carry a gun throughout a city, throughout a shopping mall, that they should have to qualify under the same restrictions as a police officer. Some people are against me saying that but that’s how I believe. I believe in the rights to bare arms, and that every home should have a firearm.

RK: So you’re telling me that even with the moniker”The Machine Gun Preacher,” you haven’t been attracting any heat? 

SC: No. To tell you the truth I just left a church outside of Columbus, Wednesday night. There were 1,300 people and I would have to say at least 95 per cent of the people were firearm people. Most of America are for the right to bare arms you know. But I will say that when I speak out about  how I think about firearms there are a lot of people that don’t believe that way. It is our constitutional right.

I have many gun courses under my belt. I’ve had many gun trainings. I’m a professional with a firearm. I can shoot with either hand and I’m getting ready to take another course. I believe that training is something you never have enough with when it comes to firearms.

RK: Do you have a gun on you right now?

SC: Absolutely. I have a security company in the U.S. I do security work and I carry one legally. If I go into a state where I’m not licensed, I don’t carry a firearm on me.

RK: The AK-47 is your weapon of choice. I’ve also heard it referred to as the real weapon of mass destruction. How do you reconcile loving a gun but also knowing it’s responsible for killing the most people in history?

SC: I would say just about anything could be the same way. Look at how many people are killed in automobiles. You’ve got to also remember how much peace did the AK-47 bring to other countries. You know, there has never been peace anywhere in the entire world without a war. There’s always been war. So, I’d have to say that I don’t really have a problem with that. I would say myself that the AK-47 is probably the most dependable firearm that is out there. I know it’s the weapons of choice through many militaries as well as terrorists. A weapon is not bad it can only get bad with the hands that actually grab a hold of the weapons. If you’ve got good people having weapons then it’s a good thing. If you’ve got bad people having weapons then it’s a bad thing. Countries around the world that have outlawed guns, it’s a proven fact that only outlaws end up having them.

.

RK: Let’s talk about the man who has been the target of your AK for a long time: Joseph Kony. A lot has changed in the last few years. The LRA has diminished and Kony was brought to the attention of many people through KONY 2012. What was it like for you watching that campaign explode and then fizzle? 

SC: I do a lot of work in Uganda and I have businesses there. KONY 2012 hurt the economy of Uganda. I’m not going to knock on the boys who did because I don’t like people knocking on me, but let’s be for real they were six to seven years too late on their story. The story should have been brought out a little different so that it wouldn’t put the country under a threat. It is a known fact that the tourism in Uganda dropped out of sight. There were millions of U.S. dollars lost in the country of Uganda because of KONY 2012. If people don’t want to take that from me just do a little research on the internet or speak to the government of Uganda. It should have been done differently.

What people have to realize is that Joseph Kony never was a threat to Uganda. Joseph Kony never was a threat to Sudan. He was a pest to those countries. Even now, he’s not in those countries, he’s actually in the Congo. But, the big thing is that he needs  to be brought to justice. I believe that they need to keep hunting for him and they are. There’s still a big problem in Sudan and for the surrounding countries and it’s the President of Northern Sudan, Bashir.

Jason Russell of Invisible Children.

RK: The wave of criticism that hit the KONY 2012 creators was huge. What did you make of Jason Russell’s public breakdown? 

SC: You know I felt bad for the guy. I didn’t see it and to be honest I don’t really want to comment on it too much. I can tell you one thing, it’s pretty sad that America can’t be more forgiving. I knew the guy and he really in his mind thought he was doing something good. But, he was mislead somewhere along the way. What they did was really good, no one can take that from them. They went viral. What they should have done was involve the country of Uganda.

RK: I listened to an interview with Jason Russell where he said the forces of the LRA have declined dramatically since the campaign. So, how big of a threat do you think they still are?

SC: OK, to start with, I don’t think that video helped to shrink the LRA. The UPDF, the government of Uganda, are the ones who are fighting and hunting down and pursuing the LRA. That video had nothing to do with the LRA getting smaller. It’s the work of the country of Uganda. If he took credit, he’s wrong to do that. I’m telling you what I know, and the government is pursuing him. I would say that if there’s one child’s life threatened, or one village, there’s still a serious problem. These warlords, or what ever you want to call them, need to face justice.

RK: Are the days of being a travelling, fighting solider, over for you? 

SC: No, man. I’m fifty years old now, but no. I believe that if there’s a cause to stand up, I’m still going to stand up. I believe my struggle will go on until the day that I die. I’m always going to have a concern for children.

Childers with the SPLA.

RK: But, is the Sam Childers driving a Land Cruiser hunting the LRA a thing of the past? 

SC: You know, no. I can say this much, if he would come back into the areas I’m working I would absolutely pick up an arm and start working again. Keep in mind that I’m not going to do anything against any government, or anything I wouldn’t be authorized to do. Let’s put it like that.

RK: When your biopic came out it heightened your public profile. With that exposure came a great deal of criticism and scrutiny. I just wanted to go over a few of the biggest ones. First, what do you think when the press frames you as a terrible international development idea? And, as a man with a white saviour complex who is fighting violence with violence?

SC: I don’t have a problem with that at all. I’ll tell you why. I’m a man of freedom and I’m a man who thinks every man or woman should have the freedom to say their own beliefs. If I were to criticize against that than I’m criticizing against how I believe. So, everybody has their own right to believe the way they want to.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that back when Kony was attacking a lot of people, my food truck was running food and medicine for the Red Cross. So, there was a lot of people that came after the movie and criticized, but what about the ones who used me and hired me during the effect  of the civil war?

RK: Another thing that keeps circling your story, and I’m aware you don’t like to talk about it, is the number of people you’ve killed. A Vanity Fair profile quoted you saying, “More than 10.” Do you still deny that?

SC: The man that wrote that article, Ian Urbina, did a very good job but he took quotes from other people in the bush, OK. So, I have never to this day and never will talk about taking a life or harming a person because it does not glorify Jesus Christ. If I’m going to boast about anything, it’s going to be about what he’s done for me. Violence does not glorify Christ, so I’m not even going to comment on it. The Vanity Fair article was not an article done just by me. The man who did the photography for the article is in my office right now. He’ll tell you that half of that more than half of that article was hearsay from other people.

RK: But if you have a belief that there’s a time to kill, how is it not, in your opinion, something worth valuing? 

SC: I’m not going to comment on it anymore. I don’t believe anything that glorifies violence is something to boast about.

Childers with children from his Nimule orphanage.

RK: OK. In 2011, Christianity Today did a large investigation into the state of your orphanage. They implied that things were not going so well and locals were not happy. How do you respond to those criticisms? 

SC: Something just developed from the Christianity Today that you don’t even know about because the email just came. The guy that did the article is no longer with them. He was sent away and not on a happy note either. The other thing is that he corrected himself. He did almost four pages of trashing me and then on two lines he wrote, “We sent in a CT reporter and could not find any evidence of any of this.” So, I mean, I have never talked about the whole article and I’m not going to do. I’m going to ask Christianity Today, why was it written? If you send a reporter in that investigated everything, why didn’t they report what the reporter reported?

My people in Hollywood told me, “Sam, bad press is good press.” And, if anyone reads the article they correct themsleves. But, I was upset because the journalist that was sent in to investigate it came directly to us and we didn’t even know him. He was upset because they didn’t write what he had found. Do you know that to this day, we are the highest recommended NGO in South Sudan? And, we have letters to prove it.

.

RK: There is also a lot of confusion about your relationship with the SPLA. There are letters online from SPLA officials claiming that they have nothing to do with you, and others that say the opposite. What exactly is your relationship?

SC: You’ve got to remember that the SPLA has how many hundreds of thousands of soldiers. I don’t know them all, but I can tell you that some of the biggest men there know me well. So, there again there’s always going to be some Lieutenant Generals that don’t me but there are a lot of them that do know me.

I carry a membership card in my wallet, it says SPLM/SPLA membership card. I believe if you look on the internet you’ll find a copy.

Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni

RK: Another thing that is problematic is the people you endorse and vice versa. For example, on the back of your book the President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, writes his support. Some people might cast him as a war criminal. 

SC: There again we’re going back to other people’s opinion and I can tell you this much, I wish we had a President with morals and values like President Museveni. You can quote that I said that. He loves the people. I know Museveni personally. I’ve met with him a few times. I’ve got pictures with him. The man is a good man. There again, we always go back to other people’s opinions and just like right now, some people are for Obama some are for and others are not. No matter who the President is you’re always going to have someone knocking them. The values I have seen over fifteen years, President Museveni is a good man.

Childers and Gerard Butler

RK: When the history is written on Museveni there is obviously going to be a lot of shady things in there. 

SC: The Bible says that no man is without sin. If we say we are than we call God a liar.

RK: In “Another Man’s War” there are some incredible tales of when you believe God protected you from danger. Why do you think God protected you, when others may have been shot in the head the first time?

SC: You know it’s kind of hard to. I believe I already lived my time. If anyone would ask me, I believe I’m living on borrowed time. I have never questioned death. I have never been afraid of death. To be honest, I probably have more fear of living than dying. I don’t think of things like that.

RK: Your father, Paul, was a boxer. Tell me a little bit about your dad’s boxing life.

SC: My dad was a champ boxer. Back in those days the boxers didn’t make a lot of money, usually it was the guys who set them up. My dad was also a Marine. The one thing my dad always taught us, and I preach about it quite often, is we need to learn to stand up for people when the odds are against them. I speak a lot of this in high schools. You have so much bullying going on, kids need to learn to stand up. It’s not about fighting with your fists. It’s about standing up for what’s right and saying, “Look I can’t allow this to go on.” My dad always taught us that no matter what the odds are, if you know something is wrong, you need to stand up for what’s right.

RK: Did you ever get in a fist fight with your dad? If so, how did that turn out?

SC: (laughs) No. There were a few times I said some words I shouldn’t have, and he straightened me out real quick.

RK: You have a lot of supporters, but many who cannot get behind your message and story. What’s your final word for them?

SC: You know there have been people writing bad blogs on me, and I’ll tell you what I told them: If you’re not able to come to Africa with me, check out when I’m around the United States and come visit me at my church, or my bike shop. Hang out with me and see what kind of person I am. Then write your stories or blogs.

RK: Finally, if you came face-to-face with Bashir, what would you say to him?

SC: (laughs) I don’t think I’d be doing a lot of talking. Bashir needs to pay for his war crimes.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SAM CHILDERS:

1) Go here: www.machinegunpreacher.org

2) Follow on Twitter: @machgunpreacher

3) If you live in the GTA or Ontario, Sam Childers will be giving a talk in Woodbridge on May 10. Tickets are $120. More more information or to purchase tickets, contact John Sopta – john@thesoptagroup.com - 905-761-3383

“For a kid, having a Halloween birthday really makes you feel unique, and being a red-head, you are unique…From the time I could think about who I was, I felt that I was not like everyone else.” 

Only Halloween could birth one of history’s most successful red-headed writers.

With a knack for quirky, sub-culture subjects, Susan Orlean has embraced her Halloween origins and written her way to the top of the literary food chain.

Born and raised in a small suburb of Cleveland, Orlean, who never made it past 5’2, has lived a life of grand proportions.

After avoiding the once inevitable trip to law school, Orlean pursued her passion for long form journalism. Following early stints at publications in Portland and Boston, she moved to New York and everything changed.

.

Since 1992, Orlean has been a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine, where she’s produced a wide range of features and built a dedicated readership. Her stories have ranged from a New York cab driver who doubles as an African King, a profile of the American male at age 10, and a man obsessed with painting colorful patterns in Wal-Mart. Throughout the years, Orlean’s “brand” has congealed around these types of story selections. Her niche is transforming the obscure, and potentially mundane, into compelling narratives.

One of her former employer’s, The Willamette Week, may have said it best when they described her as, “a tiny woman who has the power to see big things in everything.”

Magazine features are just the beginning of Orlean’s literary work. She’s also authored several best-selling books. Most notably, The Orchid Thief, a book about an obsessive Orchid lover named John Laroche. The book was a smash and provided the basis for the bizarre, Oscar- winning film, Adaptation. Orlean was portrayed by Meryl Streep, a fact that will, gladly, follow her for the rest of her life.

Most recently, in 2011, Orlean released Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend, a complete history of the famous dog’s television and film career. Orlean spent 10 years, on and off, researching and writing the book. It’s a fascinating look into the tumultuous, but overall triumphant, life of Rin Tin Tin. It also explores the extreme human connections with canines. Completing a book of such size and scope exemplifies some of Orlean’s strongest attributes: focus, passion, and never ending curiosity.

Today, Orlean continues her work at The New Yorker, provides daily entertainment for hundreds of thousands of twitter followers, and remains continually curious.

There is much I WANNA KNOW about one of America’s finest writers.

From the decline of the book review, to obsessive characters, to Truman Capote, to the impact of being born on Halloween, we cover it all.

. . .

RK: Congrats on your latest New Yorker piece, “Walart.” Every time you write a story, people are always curious where you found the subject. So, how did you come across Brendan O’Connell and his Wal-Mart paintings?

Brendan O’Connell

SO: It was a little unusual for me because generally I don’t know the people I write about before I write about them. In this case, I knew Brendan and one day as he was telling what he was working on I just said, “Oh my God, this is a great story.” Somebody should write about it. At first I was thinking who should he suggest this to and suddenly I thought, “Why can’t I do it?” Even though I knew him already there was no question about objectivity being an issue because it’s not that kind of story. So, the minute that dawned on me that I was clear to write about it without any sort of ethical issue. I just said, “I want to do this.”

It struck me as such an unlikely, interesting, odd, relationship with Wal-Mart. It was interesting how he had navigated from a persona non grata in the stores, to being embraced by the company, which was so interesting. And, I really liked the art, so it was very easy for me to think, “Gee I’d like to write about it.”

RK: Brendan O’Connell represents a character with an obsession, an unstoppable passion. I’ve heard you talk before about why these stories seem to resonate and provide a compelling narrative. From your experience, is it fair to say that obsession is at the core of most people’s stories?

SO: Yeah, I think that’s pretty accurate. It’s not the only organizing principle that exists, but it’s certainly the case that a very singular devotion to something makes for an interesting framework for writing about something. It also allows you to see people in an interesting and dramatic way, when they really have a fanatic consistency to what they care about.

RK: Your latest book, “Rin Tin Tin” also profiled some very obsessive people, like the dog’s owner Lee Duncan. His journal became a primary source, but he clearly embellished a lot of stuff, and you acknowledge that in the book. Do you find it difficult to trust a source when they seem so obsessed about something?

SO: I think you have to factor that in. In many cases people with that kind of devotion no longer have objectivity. By definition they no longer have objectivity, the subject matter has become so central to who they are and what they care about. You have to take that into account. I think journalistically it’s really interesting to maintain some distance from it, and appreciate how un-objective they are. That’s of course the challenge about writing about obsessive people, to connect with them enough to have a sympathy for their obsession, and at the same time keep that distance from it so that you can observe it with some distance. That’s what makes it interesting. That’s a good challenge.

Lee Duncan and Rin Tin TIn

RK: There’s this great scene in “Rin Tin Tin” where you go looking for screenwriter, Jane Murfin’s, house. You arrive at the house and are completely unimpressed by the place, you thought it was going to be a mansion. Eventually, you discover you were standing in her dog’s house, and her mansion was up the street. Is it moments like these that get you excited to write your story?

SO:  Yeah, definitely. You feel that little tingle of thinking, “Oh my god, I scored.”. It’s funny, that was something where on one hand I was feeling like an idiot because I was thinking, “This isn’t what I expected it to be, it’s not very glamorous.” I was a bit down and then it was hilarious to have the whole thing turn on itself and become far more wonderful. When you’re writing I think you do get that feeling that it’s great and a keeper. What a wonderful feeling that is.

RK: In the back of “Rin Tin Tin” there are discussion questions for book

.

clubs.  As an author, is having a group of people sitting around discussing your work the ultimate honor?

SO: Completely. As many times as it might happen, it’s thrilling. I know that many people have read my books and I still find it absolutely thrilling. A book club having a discussion and debate, and people really arguing in a passionate way about their perspective of a book, makes you appreciate that the book is its own creation. It’s become an entity unto itself. That’s really thrilling. It’s like seeing a kid grow up. Your baby is now a doctor, or a grown person, and that’s remarkable. I don’t think you’d ever get tired of it. It’s so gratifying and never gets old.

RK: When you’re writing, the lede is obviously so important, but often the hardest part. “Rin Tin Tin” had another great lede: “He believed the dog was immortal.” It seemed to capture the essence of the book in six words. How many drafts did you go through to come up with that lede?

SO: A billion. Literally. That was not an easy lede, I tell you. I revised it repeatedly because the challenge of the book was that is was such a sweeping time period, which was huge and very tricky. At the same time, I didn’t want to begin just by saying, “Rin Tin Tin was born” I really felt like I had to do something that got me more emotionally into the book, rather than chronologically. I worked on that for an extremely long time, almost to the point where I worked on it longer than any lede I can think of.

When it finally worked it was thrilling. I thought, ‘Wow, I’ve got it right.”

RK: How do you know when you’ve got it right?

SO: The minute you write it, it feels like it was the way it was always supposed to be. It’s intuitive, that feeling that it’s the right lede. There might have been twenty different ways that book could have begun, but there’s no question when I wrote that I knew it was it. That was after many false starts. I certainly went around and around.

.

RK: I’ve heard it said that some literary judges can assess the quality of a book, or writer, in the first eight words. Do you think there’s some truth to that statement?

SO: I would hesitate a little, only because even though I believe that lede’s are very important, there are books that start very quietly and very simply. I don’t think there’s ever been a great book that had a bad lede, but there are lede’s that are quieter than others. And, they may not immediately strike you with the full impact.

RK: You used to be a music critic at the Willamette Week. You stopped because you loved music and didn’t want to spend all that time tearing it down, or building it up. Should the same logic apply to the culture of criticism around literature? 

SO: That’s a tough thing. You experience books in so many different ways. I think book reviewing has declined as an intellectual form unfortunately. I often read book reviews that are more just telling me what the book is about, and it’s very annoying and tedious, because all it says is “This happens, and then this happens.” I’m not really sure if it’s just a synopsis so I can discuss it at a dinner party, and I don’t have to read it. I don’t know what they accomplish.

I don’t think it takes away the pleasure of reading. And, I’m not a big reader of book reviews. It’s not a form I enjoy all that much. I love talking about books, but after I’ve read them, so I can be a part of the conversation.

RK: But, do you think that the culture of criticism is unjustly tearing down people’s creative work? Do we need it?

SO: I think that a culture that encourages thinking and talking about literature is wonderful. I think the process of saying this is lousy, don’t read it, or this is good, read it, is different than encouraging conversation. Yet, I also think that we are besieged by a huge number of books being released all the time, so it’s a consumer service to say, there are 100 books that came out this week and these are good and these are not as good. You need really good smart critics to make that meaningful, of course.

RK: You’ve received great access to fascinating sources over the years. What do you make of Janet Malcolm‘s statement that, “Every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible”?

SO: I think that it is a brilliant, and perhaps exaggerated, but important revelation. I think she was identifying something really important about the relationship between a journalist and subject. While you may not look at it as cynically as she does, her point is accurate. You need to acknowledge the reality of the relationships, which is often mutually exploitative. That is the nature of the business. As a writer, and frankly as a reader, you need to be sure you’re paying attention to the moral implications of what you do. I happen to think it’s a significant, and largely accurate thing that got a lot of people riled up.

Orlean with the main character in The Orchid Thief: John Laroche

RK: Do you have a method while reporting to ensure that you don’t cheat your source, or at least provide a more mutually beneficial outcome?

SO: I think about it all the time because I so often write about people who aren’t selling anything. Put aside my recent Walart story, and I’m writing about people who have no benefit by being my subject. I’m very humbled by it, and I think about it all the time. I think it’s important to have some perspective on the experience of being a writer, and the experience of having people read your work, and what it means in terms of responsibility. So, I just think that statement is a really important one.

RK: Do you keep in touch with any of your sources? And, do you have a personal policy about the post-story relationship?

SO: I don’t have any kind of policy. The reality is that most of the people I write about, once I’m done writing about them, their lives and mine have no overlap. There isn’t any natural way we would remain in touch. If I have occasion to catch up with them I’m thrilled. But they certainly have no obligation to keep in touch with me.

There are people I’ve written about and never heard from, whether they hated it or loved it. That’s O.K. They don’t need to tell me how they liked the story. It’s just reality. They’re most often people I didn’t have contact before we became connected through the experience of me writing about them. When I’m done they go back to their life, and I go back to mine. It’s natural.

.

RK: What did you make of the Wall Street Journal article that provides evidence of erroneous information in Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood”? 

SO: I was bummed. Is it shocking? No. I’m still not sure I understand what the reality is. It’s funny because I was just having a conversation with someone who said that Joseph Mitchell, who I idolize, composited a lot of his characters and invented some characters. I was so depressed. I just thought, “Oh no, are you kidding?” There was a thing in Slate about this whole phenomenon. I was distressed by what seems like an endless stream of people these days being accused of impropriety. There is a long tradition as eminent as Truman Capote, and H.L. Mencken, and you think it’s terrible.

It doesn’t change my feeling about what I think is right, at all. In the case of those particular people, my only possible way of trying to make it less disappointing is to think they were working in a newer world of fiction vs. non-fiction. I still think it’s not the right thing to do, even if Joseph Mitchell and Capote did it.

The thing with Capote is that he wrote a lot fiction, and he came to his writing not as a newspaper man, the way A.J. Liebling did. So for them I’m more disappointed.

It still does affect my sense of Capote and his book, but I give it more latitude because he was someone coming from the world of fiction.

RK: More recent high-profile cases of fabrication (i.e. Jonah Lehrer or Stephen Glass) tend to turn up an argument about too much pressure and expectation to perform at that high level. Do you think too much is asked of young journalists at top-tier publications? 

SO: No, I don’t. I think the temptation to achieve more is greater. In Joseph Mitchell’s day, writer’s didn’t become wealthy and have T.V. shows. I think what exists now is a little bit more in terms of temptation. I suppose you could say people are under more financial pressure, but I don’t know if I believe that. Those other people lived through the depression. Those people had plenty of pressure, and in many instances were married with children. If you look at the list of many of those accused of fabricating stories today, many of them are single men. It’s the incredible temptation of being a celebrity that is a part of what goes on now. That didn’t really go on back then.

RK: Well, let’s just hope the next big scandal doesn’t involve Joan Didion.

SO: Oh, God. Actually that would be devastating for me. I would be done.

.

RK: You’re known for these quirky, “slice of life” stories. In most, if not all, the stories you rarely put yourself in personal danger while reporting. How much would you be willing to sacrifice to tell a story? 

SO: Well that’s an interesting question because there was a point when I really wanted to go into some relatively dangerous places and I was discouraged strongly by some people at the magazine who just felt that I didn’t quite appreciate how dangerous it really was.

So, I’ve been in situations that weren’t comfortable and I’m very willing to be uncomfortable, if that makes sense. I’m a mother, I have a kid, I feel like I look at personal danger a little different now that I’ve got a person that depends on me. But, I don’t look for stories with the idea that I want to be comfy, or want to be somewhere that’s fun and pleasant. Actually, I’m frequently not.

RK: You grew up in Shaker Heights, Ohio. A large number of successful creative types emerged from that small suburb (i.e. Paul Newman, Michael Symon, Molly Shannon). What do you think it is about Shaker Heights that produces so many artists?

SO: Well, it is a community that really places a huge premium on education and it’s also unusual in that it’s both an affluent and a diverse one, which you rarely see in the world. It doesn’t surprise me because there is this atmosphere that’s intellectual, and also, as I said, a surprising amount of diversity that I think always fosters creativity.

A Halloween Birthday: The best of both worlds

RK: Do you think being born on Halloween impacted your life in any meaningful way?

SO: Absolutely. It’s interesting you ask that. There were two things: Being born on Halloween and being a red-head. Before I had a sense of myself I thought I was special, not in some obnoxious way. For a kid, having a Halloween birthday really makes you feel unique and also being a red-head you are unique. People respond to you as sort of special and not just like everybody else. There were times when I didn’t like that, when I wanted to like everyone else, but I think from the time I could think about who I was I felt that I was not like everyone else.

RK: Wait, so did having a Halloween party ruin your birthday or double the party?

SO: It was an extra special thing because you’d have a party and then go trick-or-treating. I lived in a neighbourhood where everyone knew it was my birthday so at every house I would usually get double candy. So, from the get go it made me feel special. It still does. It’s not like having a birthday on Christmas where everyone goes, “This is sad.” This was a wonderful thing. I think those things add up in your life and sense of your self. As silly as it seems, I think it matters.

RK: That’s interesting you mentioned being a red-head because my next question was, do you think you’re the most successful red-head writer ever?

SO: (laughs) Well, I don’t know about that and I would hesitate to make that assumption.

RK: Do you still listen to a lot of African music? 

SO: Yes. I absolutely love it and recently just discovered to my great excitement that on YouTube you can find a bunch of videos of some of these musicians who have never come here or passed away. That was a real thrill.

My favorite artists come from the Congo, and the musician who I love is named Franco. He’s just amazing. There are some videos of him performing on YouTube, which was extremely exciting for me.

.

RK: You’re a huge animal lover. But there really is something special about the dog. Are your dogs your favorite animals?

SO: I love dogs and I think our relationship with them is the most intimate. If I had to pick, sure. If I could only have one animal I guess it would be a dog, but I have to hesitate because I have cats now. I certainly never thought I’d be a big fan, but I actually really love my cats.

There are all sorts of animals I love but don’t have, like a horse, that I think I’d be attached to. I guess, it’s safe to say that I just love animals.

RK: You get paid to observe intently. You must have developed some strong pet peeves.

SO: Littering and bad grammar. I’m very dorky that way.

It’s funny because my husband and I joke about it all the time that if I was on a first date and they littered, it would be a deal breaker.

Roger Ebert’s winning caption.

RK: I don’t want you to get in trouble for insider trading, but what advice can you give me about how to win the New Yorker Cartoon caption contest?

SO: (laughs) You will not be the first person to have asked me that. I wish I could tell you that so I could get a kickback from you. I have no idea. I’m sorry.

Roger Ebert did it every week for years and he finally won. That’s just my way of saying that the fix is not in.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SUSAN ORLEAN:

1) Go to www.susanorlean.com

2) Follow her on twitter: @susanorlean

“I’m happy to have been a pre-computer kid…There was a whole lot of down time when we had to entertain ourselves, and I think that’s what helped me think of these stories.”

An awkward edge around love interests. A wild imagination. A desire to fit in. A penchant for adventure.

There is something we can all relate to in the character of Doug Funnie.

Perhaps this is why the animated series Doug, now passing its 22nd anniversary, still resonates with viewers.

Doug’s camaraderie with his best friend Skeeter, his never-ending mission to woe Patti Mayonnaise, and his quest to avoid the wrath of Roger Klotz are firmly cemented in cartoon folklore.

This world – the people, places, and scenarios – is largely the creation of one man: Jim Jinkins

Jinkins, 60, was born in Richmond, Virginia and from an early age began to incessantly “doodle.” With the help of his friends, and a supportive teacher, he continued to sketch and foster his artistic side.

He didn’t steer far from his early passion and chose to study animation and filmmaking at Ohio State University. Straight out of school he began to work behind the scenes in the children’s programming industry, beginning at PBS.

Things really started to take shape, however, in 1991.After years in the animation industry, Jinkins got his big break. Nickelodeon was rearing to expand its presence in the cartoon market. They were looking for original, creator-driven, projects. Jinkins stepped up.

He’d been working on a character – originally named “Brian” – now named “Doug.” It was based on him and the name was chosen to signify the most normal, common, person one could think of. Previously, Jinkins had used the character, along with his sidekick dog Porkchop, in a Florida grapefruit commercial.

.

Nickelodeon bought into Jinkins creation and a show was developed around its lead protagonist.

Jinkins went to work and created a detailed, expansive, world in the fictional town of Bluffington. Doug, his family, friends, enemies, were based on real people from Richmond, Virginia. The theme of the show developed to reflect Jinkins childhood memories of what it was like growing up, and all the lessons learned along the way.

The show debuted alongside Rugrats and Ren and Stimpy and effectively launched Nickelodeon into the cartoon world with its Nicktoons lineup.

It’s now been 22 years since it debuted, and the history of “Doug” is largely written. What started as a simple sketch eventually made its way to the silver screen and into the hearts of millions of kids. It spawned six seasons of original episodes for both Nickelodeon (1991-1994) and Disney (1996-1999). It achieved the McDonald’s merchandise badge. And, developed a generation of fans and followers.

For Jim Jinkins Doug was only the beginning of his creative career. From that starting point he crafted and helped produce a variety of other successful series including: PB and J Otter, Stanley, Allegra’s Window, and Pinky Dinky Doo. 

Today, Jinkins continues to create new characters and shows at his studio and production company, Cartoon Pizza. 

There is much I WANNA KNOW about the creator of my favorite childhood cartoon.

I reached Jim Jinkins via phone from Georgia.

 From the enduring success of Doug, to his extensive cartoon career, to the early days of Nickelodeon, to his desire to visit the Congo, we cover it all.

. . .

Ryan Kohls: You’ve surpassed the 20-year mark since Doug first aired. What do you think it is about that character, and show, that has maintained its relevance and resonance?

Jim Jinkins: Well, it was certainly something intentional on my part and on the teams part. We talked about it. I would say to our writers and our designers and all that, “I want this show to be relevant in 30 years.” In terms of the references made, or the kinds of things we did, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t so inside the 1990s that it didn’t make sense anymore. Some of it is by design. The rest just has to do with, hopefully, making up characters and stories that people resonate with and care about.

RK: Do you remember the first time you sketched Doug? 

An early sketch of Doug

JJ: The very first time, wow. No one’s ever asked about that moment. It was very unselfconscious. It was not like, “Hey, I’ll create an alter-ego. Here we go.” It was really as simple as always doodling. As a little kid having to sit quietly in church, you pray there’s a little blank spot on the bulletin to draw on. So, drawing Doug was just something that came naturally. The idea of him expressing my twisted points of view and all that, that just sort of gathered momentum when it got started.

RK: What’s the origin of the full name, “Doug Yancey Funnie”?

JJ: Yancey is my grandfather’s middle name. But the thought of giving him a middle name that he’d be embarrassed about, or wouldn’t want anyone to say out loud, was inspired by a friend of mine from when I was a kid – I think his middle name was Gillman – and he just hated it. I just thought that was funny. Speaking of funny, the last name was a bit more self-conscious. We were getting ready to make a world and a series, and I don’t know, I just loved the double entendre of calling the series “The Funnie’s”. I’m thankful that the executives at Nicktoon’s steered me back towards the original name I was working with, Doug. I give them that credit.

RK: You based a lot of the characters on people from your childhood. Did you tell these people they were about to be characters in a cartoon?

JJ: I did. The most fun, I guess, was Patti Mayonnaise. There was a Patti in my high-school, and middle school, life. I sent her a card that was printed up to announce the premiere of the series. I wrote on the card, pay particular attention to Patti, you were her inspiration. That kinda stuff makes your heart beat a little faster. I hadn’t spoken to this person since high-school. She said later she was very nervous, but she was very pleased. It regenerated some connections to my past. We get Christmas cards for her and her family. Or, if they happen to be coming through, we have a visit.

The Skeeter character, his real name is Tom. It really got us back together. We stay in touch. He was my best friend for many years, just like Doug and Skeeter.

Roger was the one I wondered about. But when the Doug Movie came out we did the premiere in my hometown of Richmond, Virginia, I reached out to Roger and said, “I hope you don’t beat me up for the character.” He laughed and said, “We always had someone older who was a little further along, and little bit forceful.” He told me he had bullies in his life, which I’d never thought about. He’s a good guy.

Skeeter. Patti. Roger.

RK: There is still a great deal of discussion that goes on about Doug. I saw a thread recently on Twitter, started by Mara Wilson, where people were talking about the race of the characters. It makes sense that Doug was white, because he was based on you. But, what did the colors of the other characters signify for you?

JJ: I had no idea heading into it that Doug would be the success that it was. So, you just think about what’s going on inside of your own mind.When it’s time to start colouring in your line drawings – and I picked out all the predictable/traditional colors of flesh –  you sort of look at the rest of your markers and look at all those colors and think, “I can do anything.” As the creator of that world, it can be anything. It was a moment of inspiration I guess you’d call it because what comes behind that is something more philosophical about color that says, ”It doesn’t matter what color you are on the outside, it’s what you are on the inside.” And, I wanted to get that message out there.

I’m thrilled that people think about it. I read stuff where people are convinced that Skeeter is African American. It’s great that they have an opinion and are making these characters what they think they are.

RK: It seems like getting to develop Doug was really a fateful, and largely lucky, occurrence. The idea of original cartoon programming was generally thought of as too risky. What made

Nicktoon’s surrounded by their peers – (via electrokami.com)

Nickelodeon decide to take a chance with Doug?

JJ: It’s phenomenal. That is a moment in history that may never repeat itself. It’s just lightning in a bottle. I give a lot of the credit to an executive that came to Nickelodeon and made a Thanksgiving special.  I think it really began the process of inspiring them to get into animation. I had worked at Nickelodeon before it was called Nickelodeon. I worked on their first show, Pin Wheel. That was twelve years earlier. The return on animation is so slow because it’s got to go through the world, and sell in a lot of places. It’s a complicated business. But, Vanessa Coffey is who I give credit for this vision. No one else was doing it. It was Ninja Turtles and Where’s Waldo?, stuff that came from somewhere else, a pre-sold idea. And she really convinced the executives at Nickelodeon to do the opposite and find these creator driver, original properties, and for Nickelodeon to own those. That to me is phenomenal. I don’t see much of that happening even now.

The other part of that, which seems impossible now, is that they said not only are we taking Doug to pilot, but were picking you up and letting you be an independent company, Jumbo Pictures. Now companies are vertically integrated and they have their own animation studios. But that was a moment in time where we were able to be an independent production company and deliver those shows. To me, those are miracles.

 RK: Do you think the quality of cartoons has declined since then?

JJ: Quality, that’s a hard word to define. Mainly, I’m trying to listen to the stories. What are they trying to say? What is the purpose? When it really drives on sarcasm, or some sort of nihilistic darkness, it makes me sad. There are other ones that are surprising, surreal, and funny. The answer really is: It’s a huge playground. There’s a ton of stuff out there compared to when we started.

Some of it I wish never got made, others are phenomenal. It just depends on who’s driving it and their vision.

RK: You’ve always aimed to maintain a certain quality control. It’s says on your website that “the goal of your company and your cartoons is to entertain, challenge, and inspire children. How do you think your cartoons are tailored to do that? 

JJ: I think the first thing is to never take for granted that we were given this voice and chance. We wanted to tell stories that would go around the world. So we had to think, what are you going to do? What are you going to say? So, we put a lot of time in the schedule for writing the episodes, and spent weeks and weeks working with our writers. I always asked that the writer put at the top of the script, what’s the issue you’re trying to deal with? And, what does Doug learn? So, when we work on the script we’re always working on the same mission, the same purpose. And, to make sure we’re not being too repetitive and challenging ourselves to keep it fresh. It’s a lot of work and there was a lot of arguing back and forth about what constitutes a good story.

.

RK: There’s always been a strong moral element to all your shows, but with the creation of “HoopDogz,” you’ve created a cartoon with a clear, explicit, Christian message. What fuelled that decision? 

JJ: Well, both myself and my business partner, David Campbell, both grew up in very spiritual families. We were both going to church. I think that’s always been an important part of who we are. It’s definitely not all of who we are, and neither of us have a desire to get into doctrinal specifics. But, the idea is, what are the universal things? Those are the stories we like to do. In HoopDogz, they’re based on the principles of the Ten Commandments. Our legal system is based on them, and I think the Ten Commandments come to being as close to universal as it gets. So, it seemed like it was different than anything we had done, and would hit a market different than anything we’d had a chance to directly go at. It was a big challenge, but it’s been a lot of fun to work on.

RK: Having grown up in the church, was it ever hard to balance being subtle with expressing your opinions in a mainstream, primetime, cartoon?

JJ: Ah, yes. (laughs). It was very hard. We got into arguments. There’s a whole lot of writing that’s about lying. It’s a simple, basic, way of setting up a comic situation. You think about I Love Lucy, “If Ricky finds out blank, then I’m going to get in a whole lot of trouble.” The story is spun on a deception. I just tried to be funny, entertaining, and real, but not drive the plot on a deception or lie. Or, if you do that, then you pay for it, that’s the whole point of telling the story. It’s amazing how much agony we put ourselves through to avoid pain, that sort of theme was in there a lot.

I think that’s how we challenged ourselves about having a moral center, instead of going into some specific belief thing.

Forever Young

RK: Picasso once famously said, “Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.” Doug was only the beginning of your cartoon creations. How did you maintain that inner child to create shows that children could relate to? 

JJ: I’m very immature for my age is my first, snappy, answer. Really what you find is that when you have a studio, you’re surrounded by childlike people. Hopefully you don’t get the childish ones. But, you get a lot of child like people. We all feed off of that. Hanging out with that crowd is inspiring. Having my own kids – and I didn’t have kids when Doug started – that inspired me.

I also made it a point to have an outreach thing to what we were doing. I would go to scout camps, or schools, anywhere I could go to do workshops. I could have animation workshops, but the main reason would be to be around kids. To hear what they like and don’t like, how they talk and dress. That was very much apart of twenty years of making these shows.

RK:  When did you first realize you were an artist and wanted to create?

JJ: Hmm, that’s a great question. I guess it was never not there, I just never took it that seriously. I always called myself a “doodler.” The notion of calling yourself an artist felt very highfalutin, and possibly pretentious. So, I steered away from that.

My best friend Tom, the Skeeter character, he was an artist and still is. We would draw together and do projects. We fuelled each other. We were best friends from second grade through high school. We had that creative energy.

I had some teachers who would yell at me for doodling and humiliate me in front of everyone. And there were others, certain teachers, like Mrs. Wingo, who shows up in the Doug series. She was the best teacher I ever had. She recognized something in me and wanted to bring it out. So, she would make me the cartoonist of the class newspaper. It made me feel special. I appreciate those kind of mentors along the way.

RK: What role did growing up in Richmond, Virginia play in your creative development? 

JJ: I’m so glad you asked that. That’s really a great question. In most ways, just like in Doug, it was normal. What I mean by normal is there was nothing exotic or anything that drew attention to itself. But, it was surrounded by history. I love history and I think part of that is I had great history teachers that made the stories come to life. But also our field trips were to all these amazing places right around where our country changed, like Jamestown and Williamsburg. Those were neat places that I just loved.

I’m also just happy to have been a kid pre-computer. And now, I’m on the computer a lot. But, we got booted outside. It was, go outside and play. So, we would go into the woods or play kick the can, or whatever, and we would make up games, stories, and put on plays. All this stuff, I think has been supplanted with kids retreating to their virtual worlds. I’m not down on computers, I think they have their place for sure. There was a whole lot of down time when we had to entertain ourselves, and I think that’s what helped me think of these stories.

Mrs. Wingo. Jinkins favorite teacher, portrayed on the show.

RK: How did you find your own creative voice? 

JJ: It’s the classic thing that teacher’s tell you, and it’s true, write what you know. For me, instead of going to some alternate universe as the base of what you were doing, it’s root what you’re writing in something real. I’m talking about how characters react, how they make a joke, how the plot unfolds. Those things have to be real. I’d always typically think about a group of people and listen to how they would talk and react. That helped all of our writer’s to keep it real.

RK: How do you generate ideas? Is it possible to explain your process?

JJ: When I fan out the shows I’ve been able to create, they come from all kinds of places. I’ll say this, my favorite way creative things happen is in that unexpected way. Pinky Dinky Doo, that show came out of me making up bedtime stories for my two kids when they were 3 and 5 years old. When a kid says, “Daddy, can you tell me a story?” it can be terrifying because you want to deliver. Sometimes you fail miserably, and every now and again it clicks. And, I started a little series of bedtime stories called, Pinky Dinky Doo, and they just laughed and thought it was funny. I feel like it’s a gift when it comes that way. I love it when that happens.

.

RK: Cartoons are perhaps our first glimpse at creativity as children. Most of your shows, especially Doug, Stanley and PB and J Otters, are all about creative characters and finding inspiration. Do you think cartoons play a positive role in starting a child’s creative journey? 

JJ: Absolutely, yes. For us, we always want to show simple ways you can express yourself or express creativity. It’s not somebody who’s a super millionaire rockstar who flies around in a saucer, it’s more basic and showing the tools that kids typically have around them to express creativity. 

RK: Is there any one character or show that holds the mantle as your favorite creation? 

JJ: That would be very predictable. Doug was always my sort of twister, exaggerated, memory of being a kid. Also, it was the first. It changed my life. Doug will always have an incredible place for me.

There are other shows, PB and J, was the first time I had kids, so I see those characters and think of my kids.

RK: It says in your bio that you originally wanted to move to the Belgian Congo. Did you ever make it there?

JJ: (laughs) I want to get there before it changes names again. When I was a kid it was the Belgian Congo, then it became the Congo. I would love to get there. I’ve travelled a lot but not there. I’ve never been to Africa. Nature is such a central part of me now that I would love to go there and see all that stuff. One day.

RK: Music was a big part of “Doug,” and you created the fictional band “The Beets” in the show. They were based on your favorite bands: The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin. What music are you listening to these days? 

JJ: What I find myself listening to these days is pretty quirky stuff, mostly world music. A lot of it is ambient music, movie scores, those kind of things. When I go running, I have all these play lists. I like all the scoring because it makes you seem like you’re doing something epic.

Incredible.

RK: Other than your creations, what do you rank as the best cartoon series of all time?

JJ: Wow. In my more recent life, I think Spongebob did something amazing, and did it for a long time. As far as telling stories, and making me laugh out loud, that was amazing. In my childhood it was all about Charlie Brown. They were incredibly influential to the character Doug.

I think, also, that the Incredibles is a perfect movie. When the credits started rolling, I actually teared up because I knew in that movie I had just watched a perfect story. Every time I watch it I go, “How did they do that?” I’ve had the honor of meeting John Lasseter, and he is committed to strong characters and story telling. Putting that effort, painful effort, into making sure a great story is something they always do.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON JIM JINKINS:

1) Visit: www.cartoonpizza.com

 

“What people love about (the film) is that’s it’s so real and authentic…People who have never seen that life now understand it.”

 

Nairobi really is a tale of two cities.

On one hand, it’s an economic power house and a business hub for the region. It boasts super highways, pristine shopping centres, and a vibrant arts and culture scene. There are many opportunities and successful people in the city.

On the other hand, it’s a city of extreme inequality, poverty, and crime. Its particularly high levels of crime have led many people, inside and out, to dub the city “Nairobbery.” According to the U.S. State Department, the city averages about 10 vehicle hijackings each day.

This dichotomy is now the subject of a fantastic new film called Nairobi Half Life. The film tells the story of a young Kenyan named Mwas who dreams of leaving his small rural village and moving to Nairobi to become an actor. He’s warned that “evil” lives there, but he goes anyway in faith that he can achieve his dreams. Upon arrival in Nairobi, the plot twists with ups and downs as the young actor gets involved with a gang in Nairobi, acts in a local play, and sees the true horrors that take place on daily basis. It’s perhaps as realistic a snapshot of life in Nairobi that’s ever been portrayed on film.

Check out the trailer below:

Since its release in July 2012, it’s gone on to become the most successful local film ever in Kenya, its won numerous film festival awards around the world, received glowing reviews from critics, and been selected for an Oscar consideration – the first time in Kenyan history.

I first heard about the film in the New Yorker, where its director, Tosh Gitonga was named as one of the most fascinating Africans of the year. The film is Tosh’s directorial debut and it’s got many in the industry and around Africa buzzing about his future in directing.

As a young African filmmaker making a splash in the film world, there is much I WANNA KNOW about Tosh Gitonga.

Recently, I had the chance to meet up with Tosh Gitonga in Nairobi and discuss the project.

From the origins of the film, to the challenges of filming on location, to his Oscar hopes, we cover it all. 

. . .

 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TOSH GITONGA:

1) Follow him on twitter: @ToshyKin

“L. Ron Hubbard does not have the neurological excuse for the declining quality of his work. I think it can only be attributed to the fact that he was a colossal asshole.”

Cory Doctorow attended four universities but never completed a degree.

Today, the Toronto native is a wildly successful sci-fi writer, journalist, and public speaker.

What’s the motto of the story? I’m not sure.

What is certain, however, is that much of Doctorow’s success is unconventional.

Doctorow is a leader of the “copyleft” activist movement and a huge supporter/user of Creative Commons licenses. He simultaneously sells physical copies of his books while posting them for free online, and touts this as a successful business model that other authors should follow. It’s an unusual recipe that has worked wonders for his bank account.

In a 2006 article in Forbes Magazine, penned by Doctorow, he says, “I’ve been giving away my books ever since my first novel came out, and boy has it ever made me a bunch of money.”

Sounds cocky, perhaps, but when you believe in an idea, go against the grain, and achieve success it’s fitting to brag a bit.

His militant belief that copyright needs to be more liberal, and that people are better off sharing, is best understood by this statement from Doctorow: “It’s very hard to monetize fame, but it’s impossible to monetize obscurity.”

With that ethical mindset, Doctorow’s success has spread across multiple platforms. He writes regular columns for The Guardian, co-established the popular website Boing Boing, and publishes his thoughts raw and unedited on his blog Craphound. He is also a prolific author, having started writing at 17 and publishing his novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, at 32. His new novel Rapture of the Nerds, co-written with popular British author Charles Stross, was released Sept. 4.

.

Throughout his prolific and diverse career, Doctorow has established himself as a distinct and influential voice on all things related to technology, the Internet, and copyright. His opinions are often radical enough that’s he’s labelled an online activist.

His writing style, equally so, is characterized by his own brand of wit and humour. His opinions are sharply expressed and resonate with thousands around the world.

With an eclectic catalogue and many counter-cultural views, there is much I WANNA KNOW about Cory Doctorow.

I caught up with Doctorow in Toronto on September 19th, 2012, when he was in town for the Glenn Gould Variations.

From sci-fi writing, to the limits of science, to L. Ron Hubbard, to fan fiction, we cover it all. 

. . .

.

RK: Your latest book “Rapture of the Nerds” is receiving glowing reviews. There is often some mention, however, of how inaccessible the language and references can be. Do you worry about your work alienating a certain audience? Or, is crafting a challenge read part of the thrill?

CD: Science fiction has always been written as kind of a riddle for the reader to figure out. The whole point is to stop the reader and force their imagination to conjure up something that would otherwise take thousands of words to describe. But even more so today we live in the age of Google. So writers should feel free to add in references that provide richness and depth to readers who take the time to look them up.

For example there’s a sequence in Rapture of the Nerds where Charlie wrote a reference to Hilbert’s hotel. We’re talking about an infinite simulated hotel that has been created by turning all of the moons of Jupiter into giant computers that are used to simulate it. I know Charlie wrote that because I’ve never heard of Hilbert’s hotel. But if you look it up as I did later, it’s rather funny. If you don’t look it up, it’s just a thing that your eye passes over. It’s just there for the reader who wants to find it.

RK: You co-wrote this book with Charles Stross by sending chapters back and forth and continuing each other’s plot lines. This is the third book you’ve done together like this. What was that process like this time?

CD: I’d say that the first one was very easy in cycle. The second one was more difficult and a bit argumentative. This is where we kind of stalemated on each other’s edits. Like, “I don’t really see where you are going here.” That happened a lot more partly because we inherited the first story so we then had to write a piece that followed on naturally from that first story. And the third one I think was smooth again in part because we did more outlining for it and in part because we’d come a long way since then. We’d both written a lot more, we’d both collaborated a lot more.

RK: You once said that “science fiction writers don’t predict the future (except accidentally), but if they’re very good, they may manage to predict the present.” A lot of your writing presents a world where technology will blend with everything (singularity). Is this a reality you can actually imagine occurring soon?

CD: Well, I think it’s more like we’re trying to expose the kind of historical and spiritual underpinnings of singularity thinking. Singularity looks like a response to technology and its acceleration. But, it can also be understood as a continuation of eschatological thought that has been going on for a very long time.

RK: Do you think there are limitations to technological invention?

.

CD: There are some limitations we understand very well. We’ll never get to the end of Pi. There’s a whole class of problems that are called NP-hard and NP-complete that involve things like the shortest route for a travelling salesmen to take among a bunch of cities, or the most sufficient way to pack a bag full of irregular objects. Both of those are considered insolvable problems above a certain level of complexity.

There are even things like chess games where even if you wrote a piece of software that played every possible game of chess to find all the winning ones so anytime someone makes a move the computer knows all the possible moves that will result in a win. We’re pretty sure that’s not possible because there are more possible chess games than there are hydrogen atoms in the universe. Storing all those chess games would require figuring out a way to store chess games in something that is smaller than a hydrogen atom.

There are a whole bunch of things that human beings do well, like coming up with approximately best solutions to packing objects in a trunk. We don’t have any way of getting machines to do particularly better.

RK: Are there technological advancements that you think can go too far? For example, cloning.

CD: Gosh, it’s hard for me to imagine that someone would say we shouldn’t try and understand the genome, unless of course that person was an actual technophobe; someone who has an irrational, pathological, fear of technology. Understanding the genome is not a bad thing in and of itself. My feeling is that when we try to predict the ethical dimension of those sorts of discoveries we tend to overestimate the extent to which it could magnify the problems we have today and underestimate the extent to which it will create new problems.

We worry about things like sex selection in societies that have very large advantages for families with male children, like China and India. The more we understand about genetics the worse that gets. And, it’s probably true but those problems don’t need major technological advancements to be problems, they’re already problems.

The really gnarly problems with genetics are whether or not we are interested in hybridizing the human genome, or discovering behavioral queues in our genomes so we can shape society to a eugenic program. The mistakes we make are probably more interesting that the things we get right.

“You can’t clone this.”

RK: So, what you’re saying is that if we can clone Rob Ford, we should?

CD: Cloning Rob Ford wouldn’t tell us anything one way or another, unless you brought him up in the same way, you wouldn’t get Rob Ford. I’m way more worried about Rob Ford being in charge of anything to do with education or town planning. That’s way more likely to give us more Rob Ford’s than merely cloning his genome. The really scary way that Rob Ford perpetuates his ideas is the same way Mike Harris did when he gerrymandered the districts in Toronto so that people like Rob Ford could be elected by the suburbs even as the downtown core voted overwhelmingly against him.

RK: You have a very defined literary voice. How did your writing style evolve?

CD: I don’t believe in talent, I believe in practice. Talent gets you so far and no further. In the writing workshops and programs I went through there were lots of very talented writers who ultimately didn’t go anywhere with their writing careers because they decided it wasn’t worth the effort. They got far enough along to see it was going to take a lot of work to get themselves up to speed to the point where they were working professionally. But, seeing that it wouldn’t pay very well and take a lot work they concluded, and I think correctly, that if can stop writing you probably should. It’s not really a very good career choice. It’s a satisfying artistic location, but as a career becoming a writer is about as reliable as saying I’m going to be a professional lottery ticket buyer. If you someday plan on supporting a family don’t become a writer. While there are some writer’s who support families, most who set out to become a writer never make enough to support their families. Have a Plan B.

“I am the greatest of all-time.”

RK: Where would you rank L. Ron Hubbard in the echelons of sci-fi writers?

CD: He wasn’t a very good writer. He wrote one moderately good book called Fear. The rest of his novels are very bad and they got worse the older he got. Robert Heinlein’s novels got worse the older he got, but then they found a benign tumor that was reducing the oxygen to his brain. After they operated on him his books got better. As far as I know, Hubbard does not have the neurological excuse for the declining quality of his work. I think it can only be attributed to the fact that he was a colossal asshole.

RK: You have always been a supporter of fan fiction. Creative commons helped establish the ability for writers to legally do this. Do you see the explosion of Fifty Shades of Grey as a step in the right direction for the movement? 

CD: Sure. Every novelist borrows from Cervantes who invented the Western novel. We say, “It’s not unoriginal to write a novel,” even though Cervantes invented it. The thing he did was kind of like plumbing.  The thing you’re doing is like art. Inventing the form is just engineering and here we are adding art to it. I think what he did was magnificently creative, and I think what people do when they write a novel is magnificently creative. That creativity is best understood by understanding the aesthetic experience of the reader. If the work makes the reader pleased, or moved, then something artistic has been added to it. We are inclined to say that all the stuff people currently get paid for is the artist part, and all of the stuff we don’t pay for is the plumbing part, and so we say writing the novel is art and fan fiction is not. Generally speaking the commercial and cultural definition of art is to follow the money and now that this lady has presumably made a whole lot of money we’ll once again be able to consider it as art again. We know that fan fiction is art, of course it is. West Side Story is art. My Fair Lady is art. These are all fan fiction.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CORY DOCTOROW:

1) Check out his website at www.craphound.com

2) Check out his publisher’s site and profile at http://www.tor.com/bios/authors/cory-doctorow

 

“I got messages, threats, delivered two or three times. You never take those seriously. The people who are going to kill you don’t send messages, they send bullets.”

Patagonia, Arizona boasts one the best bird watching experiences in the world.

It’s a place American writer Charles Bowden loves to frequent.

When I reach him by phone for an interview, he’s sitting outside in Patagonia, watching blue-throated hummingbirds and an array of other creatures.

Originally, Bowden just wanted to write about nature — and in fact, he started off a fine writing career doing just that — but a sordid world of death and destruction sucked him in and it won’t let him go.

.

Now bird watching is much more than a recreational activity, it’s an escape from reality.

That reality consists of two distinct subjects Bowden has reported on: (1) He spent three years reporting sex crimes for the Tucson Citizen in the 80s, and (2) Beginning in 1995, he began writing about the Mexican drug war, with an eventual focus on Ciudad Juarez.

Sex crimes pulled him into a world of injustice, but now it’s the drug war, for better and worse, that is his expertise.

For decades, Bowden has dedicated his life to this world. He’s tried relentlessly to uncover the truth that so often escapes the mainstream media.

Ciudad Juarez is consistently rated as one of the most dangerous cities in the world, and Bowden has been a prime source of information flowing from the city.

When few dared to write, or try and uncover what was really happening, he worked around the clock to unearth the truth. With the constant help of friend and researcher Molly Molloy, he’s been exposing the twisted world of corruption that has perpetuated and punctuated the violence.

Admittedly, Bowden knows that his white skin, and American passport have kept him safe. Coupled with a sworn secrecy for anyone willing to tell their story, he has become a magnet for murderous confessionals.

Drug dealers, killers, they all find and confide in Bowden. He’s a journalist, he’s a therapist, and his mind is full of countless hours of horrific stories.

Heads being chopped off, families slaughtered, drugs on the move, it’s just another day on the job.

Bowden’s reputation and determination, thankfully, has spawned numerous acclaimed books on the subject. They include: Down By The River: Drugs, Money, Murder and Family (2002), A Shadow In The City: Confessions of an Undercover Drug Warrior (2005), Murder City: Lessons of the Dead in Mexico (2010), El Sicario: The Autobiography of a Mexican Assassin (2011).

Over the years, Bowden’s work has also been published in Harper’s, GQ, Mother Jones, National Geographic, and Esquire.

The subject matter is haunting and often surreal and it reflects in Bowden’s writing. His prose is poetic, and has been described by reviewers as dream-like. The work has landed him several top literary awards and a Pulitzer Prize nomination.

These days Bowden calls Las Cruces, New Mexico home. It sits 78 km’s from Ciudad Juarez and serves as a perfect place to access Mexico while remaining at a comfortable arm’s length.

At times, the sacrifice for Bowden’s reporting seems to be too extreme. It has literally and mentally bankrupted him. But, then again, who else is willing to do this? If we believe that the stories he tells are important — and I do —then his work is essential.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from one of journalism’s most sincere and fearless voices.

From Juarez and drugs, to bird watching, to Steven Spielberg, to the price of journalism, we cover it all.

. . .

RK: For those who haven’t really researched the Mexican-American drug war, how would you break it down for them?

CB: There is no drug problem. There’s a government policy creating misery. The U.S. government decided it could repeal a market economy. You can’t. If people want drugs they’ll get them. So they created this murderous black market.

I’ve been giving the same speech for years: any society that can live with alcohol can live with anything. You’ll never find a woman with a black eye because the old man had a joint on Saturday night. Then they say drugs aren’t good for you. Well, neither is pizza. What the fuck is government about? Making sure everything is good for me? It’s ridiculous. Obviously, far more crime in our society is created by alcohol than any other source.

Drugs

RK: Is legalization the best way forward in stopping the violence?

CB: Well, look at it, the only possible solution is legalization. Making it illegal is a bigger problem. Obviously, no society is going to be functional if everyone is high on drugs. We have to decide who we are. The war on drugs is a failure. It’s now perpetuated by people who profit off the war on drugs. There are three key groups who are against legalizing for their own interests: the prison industry, the police industry, and the drug dealers.

Mrs. Clinton said she has problems with legalization but never said what her problem was. None of the press asked her.

RK: Why wouldn’t drug dealers want it to be legal?

CB: Because they could never do anything in a thousand years that would earn them money that selling illegal drugs does. What do you think? If they legalize it they’re going to go into banking? They’d be helpless. They’re terrified of legalization. There wouldn’t even be a market for marijuana because an absolute idiot could grow enough on their window sill to support their own habit.

When you get to the other drugs they’re dirt cheap to produce; heroin, cocaine are not expensive. What’s made them expensive is making them illegal. There’s a company in New Jersey that supplies all the legal cocaine in the U.S. for ophthalmologists. The last time I checked they were producing it and making a profit of 4 or 5 dollars a gram. That’s what it’s really worth. You could be a bum on the street and feed your habit from change. That’s what would happen. Alcohol would be almost free without the taxes.

.

RK: So, with Obama back for a second term, any hope for improvements with the drug war?

CB: I’m glad Obama won, but it’s not going to matter for the things that matter to me. There will be nothing on immigration or drug law reform, and no change in our foreign policy. Except we’ll regret having to kill all these sons of bitches.

It’s a lose-lose deal with him. During the 30s FDR didn’t do a single thing on civil rights because he needed Southern votes to get his economic reforms through. Whatever chips Obama has, he’s not going to squander them on the drug war. I think he’d like to fix immigration as a personal matter, but there’s no votes. Illegal people aren’t allowed to vote. If you can’t vote, they don’t take care of you. There’s nothing he can do.

RK: How often do Mexican police want information from you?

CB: Never, they know I’m not going to tell them anything. I have relationships with cops. We have drinks and talk about things, but they’d be dumb to think I’d give up someone. In the case of the Sicario, they don’t want to know, he’s dangerous for their careers. He knows too much. He knows people in the FBI and DEA that are on the organization’s pay roll.

You can’t be moving billions of dollars of contraband across the border without the help of the law enforcement. They have corrupt members, and they don’t want anyone to know it.

.

RK: Speaking of the Sicario, you knew him but didn’t turn him in. Doesn’t he deserve to be brought to justice? 

CB: I won’t give him up to the authorities. I’ll go to jail first, that’s the deal you make. I’m not a PR person. My job is to make people look good or bad. He knew that. I told him that.

He is a creation of government. This is not Jack the Ripper. This is a state police man in Mexico. This is the Mexican government. Finally, someone told the truth. Now whether he should be punished for telling the truth isn’t my job. My job is to keep my word. If he talked to me I wouldn’t help anyone try and find him and I’ve kept my word. It’s a little late to talk about punishing him. That’s the cowardly act governments do. That’s why they attack whistle blowers instead of attacking the problem the whistle blower told them about. That’s the pathology: to kill the messenger instead of listening to the message.

All the people the Sicario murdered, and there were hundreds, are already dead. He stopped killing. I don’t know how you get justice for hundreds of dead people from one guy. In fact, he doesn’t think there’s any way for him to ever make good on the evil he’s done. He doesn’t think he can ever be forgiven. He thinks he’s literally beyond redemption. Maybe he is. He still has nightmares all the time.

He used to fascinate me because I could see him studying me. He would pick up any sign of weakness because it’s his nature. I wrote a book on a financial wizard, Charles Keating, who eventually went to jail. He reminded me of the Sicario. They were both born predators. They were very observant.

 

RK: You’re reporting from one of the most dangerous places in the world. People die every day. Why do you think you’ve been so lucky?

CB: I’m white. My passport is bulletproof. I’ve never had the same risk. They know it, and I know it. Mexican reporters can be “disappeared” and no one cares. I get “disappeared” and it’s an incident.

The Mexican press is hunted and slaughtered. They’re the one’s who are the real heroes. Not boys like me from the U.S. who go down for a visit.

RK: Have you ever come close to dying reporting from Juarez?

CB: Never. I never thought I was going to get killed. I had an AK shoved in my gut, but that was in Sonora. I’ve been threatened that way. I got messages, threats, delivered two or three times. You never take those seriously. The people who are going to kill you don’t send messages, they send bullets. Those were just efforts to stop me and scare me.

RK: Is Juarez still as dangerous as ever?

CB: The murder rate is lower than it was in Murder City. The killing is still high, but the actual media is in retreat because of repression.

When they killed a photographer at a paper in Juarez in September of 2011, the paper published a front page editorial asking what they were expected to do. What do you want us to do so you’ll stop killing us? We’ll do it. I have my criticisms of the Mexican press, but they take far more risk and pay a far heavier blood price than anyone like me ever does. They’re the ones who are heroes. There hasn’t been an American reporter killed during all this violence, except for one in Oaxaca who was almost certainly killed by the state police during a demonstration. The U.S. press is bullet proof, it causes too much trouble.

Bowden immersed in Mexico

RK: If I were to go to Juarez today, would I be at risk?

CB: Tourism has collapsed there because of the killings. You wouldn’t be at a risk because you’re a white Canadian, you’d be at risk because you were worth robbing. (Laughs). It’s a poor and violent city. Nobody goes there anyway. College kids used to go there to get drunk, but it’s not a very attractive city.

Molly was there one day when they killed twelve or fifteen people. She was running around the city doing this and that, and she didn’t even know the killings had happened until she got home.

RK: What’s your favourite part about Juarez? Is there anything fun to do?

CB: No. it’s not very pretty or full of fun. I think the population is clinically depressed because of the poverty. My attraction to Juarez was to learn something, that’s it. You do make friendships, but I’d rather be where I am now, sitting by a creek watching birds, than Juarez. It’s kind of wonderful to be in December and still have hummingbirds.

RK: You once said that you wanted to do what was “right” and get paid for it. Do you see your reporting on Juarez and the drug war like that?

CB: I see myself as a witness. I’m trained as an historian. I used to teach in a University before I decided I didn’t want to be that way. I’m still writing history, just on the fly. I’m creating what’s happening for two audiences: those who read now, and those who come later.

I started recording in 2008 the massive surge of murders in Juarez. No newspaper or magazine was reporting it. It took me eight months to get anything published, because no one thought it was true. My goal was simply to record it. Two years later it became official that is was the most dangerous city in the world.

I don’t want to be the reporter who discovers the Jews are getting killed in 1945. I want to be the guy who reported it in 1939.

.

RK: What have you learned from reporting these stories?

CB: I was seeing barbarism. I used to think bad people did bad things. I soon learned you can get almost anyone to do bad things. I also just wanted to record this explosion of violence in the 80s. Once you get in that world you learn that you only get one side is from the perspective of law enforcement so I started dealing with drug dealers. I drifted into the undercover world of narcs. The information kept coming.

I did a book Down by the River it took seven years of my life. It’s so hard to get information in that world. It consumed me. It bankrupted me. I had over 80 grand jacked on credit cards. I became obsessed. I wanted to get it down, so I did.

RK: In some ways you sort of stumbled into the dark worlds you’ve reported on: sex crimes and the drug war. When did it all begin? 

CB: I took a job at a newspaper because I needed money to buy a new racing bicycle. I walked in and lied, I had no credentials. I thought, if I work here for two or three months I can buy a bike and get back on the road. I wasn’t there very long until I had to go write about child murders, and it changed me. I didn’t leave. I spent three years there because I was learning so much.

I got trapped in it because most people won’t cover sex crimes, most people can’t get people to talk. I was hired to be a fluff writer and I discovered that almost anyone would tell me anything.

I wasn’t raised in rough circumstances, and this stuff horrified me. I burned out after three years.

RK: Do you see yourself as a watchdog against power?

CB: Well, I think it’s part of the obligation if you get into this business, to defend the weak and annoy the powerful. They’re one of the few people who will confront power. I get in this argument with reporters when they say they don’t want to cover something, and I say, “Get the fuck out of this business. You’re using up space.”

RK: Some days do you feel like you’re more of a therapist than a reporter? 

CB: Any decent journalist is a therapist. It’s innate in sharing intense experiences. If you are willing to listen to people it benefits them. It’s like exorcizing demons. I’m not trying to achieve that, but it certainly happens. I’m in touch with the cop in Dallas (from A Shadow in the City). They don’t go away because there’s no one else they’ve ever had that intimacy with. I’d still be in touch with the Sicario if he hadn’t run away to save his life. He had no one to talk to. He can’t just tell someone he killed hundreds of people, cooked some of them alive, then go grab a beer. He had never spoken to anyone about what he’d done. If he had before, he would have been murdered, or if he had talked to someone outside he would be admitting heinous crimes. Once he started talking, he couldn’t stop, because it felt so good. He went on for days and days.

Most human beings are looking for two things, someone they can trust, and someone who will find out their real secrets and not reject them. Like the Sicario. At the end of the day he wanted to unburden himself, and he wanted to be heard and not have them turn their backs on him. I don’t have a problem doing that.

The Sicario confesses in a hotel room

RK: You insert yourself in your writing, and sometimes it seems like maybe you’re exercising your demons. Is your writing therapeutic for you? 

CB: I put myself in the material in place of the reader. I’m like an invention or foil. I guess I need therapy too. When I finished doing sex crimes, I went off into the mountains and wrote a book about mountains. I was a wreck, I needed to detox. In sex crimes, nobody wins. Homicide is easy. It normally happens between consensual adults. It’s easier to handle, you know it’s dangerous. You have a raped child and there’s no way to deal with it. No one can.

My plan in life was to write about nature, I just got side tracked. That’s probably where I’d spend most of my time, if I didn’t have all these pesky dead people bothering me.

RK: Was bird watching something you got into before you became a writer?

CB: Yes and no. They sort of came together. I’ve been watching birds for over thirty years. I do it every day.  It happened once I got deep into newspapers, there was nothing left for me but bird watching. You don’t have time for anything. You can’t have a hobby at a newspaper where you have to travel to do it. It has to be something you can do anywhere, anytime. Bird watching is convenient.

RK: Is it now a means to escape the harsh realities of what you see and report on?

CB: Yes, that’s precisely it. I’ll make it simple. I write about death but I look at life. Birds are positive. Murders are not. There’s never been a murder that hasn’t been a failure of a society and individuals. You need an antidote, I chose birds. I also like to study plants and other things. Otherwise, you’re going to go under. Every cop on the street learns they need to take precautions or they’ll be destroyed by what they’re living through. The kind of stuff I write isn’t different.

RK: You write a lot about religious people and seem to find inspiration in them, but you don’t claim any personal faith. How would you describe your feelings towards religion or God?

.

CB: That’s a fair question. I’m not religious, I just lack the energy to be an atheist. In fact, during my lifetime the three great moral points I had to face: The Vietnam war, the Civil rights movement, and the slaughter in Mexico, the only people that consistently stepped up to the plate were a bunch of goddamn ministers, priests, and nuns. Without exception. You couldn’t know the civil rights movement without knowing that a bunch of black ministers were risking their lives down there to get civil rights for everyone.

In the Vietnam War I was stunned by some of the Catholic clergy and the Quakers in the anti-war movement. They were the strongest people in my opinion. I was a secular lefty, but they impressed me.

The same thing is happening now on the border. The only people standing up and speaking out are the religious, both Protestant and Catholic. Everyone who looks into it finds that out. You don’t know that because they’re not self-publicizing people. They think moral behaviour is more important than ego.

I had an experience a couple days ago. We gave a talk to a bunch of religious people – pastors and nuns – in El Paso. All these priests and nuns belonged to different orders but all believed in liberation theology. They’d all had their lives threatened and were lucky to be alive. And, they were all old. They had actually taken the preaching’s of Christ and not only lived them but risked their lives trying to live them. I thought, I don’t know if I’ll ever live long enough to have a moral record as good as the people in that room.

I was dealing with a priest there who had been expelled from Chile under Pinochet because he would repeatedly go in front on the government palace and hold up a sign that said, “Stop the Torture.” That’s a better record than Henry Kissinger and other pieces of shit can ever claim. People like that inspire me, increasingly my colleagues don’t.

RK: You’ve said music and bird watching keep you sane. What kind of music do you like?

CB: I listen to a lot things. Most of the time I listen to classical, and it varies depending on my mood. I’ve been listening to Tchaikovsky to calm down. But, when I’m feeling good – not insane – I’ll listen to Beethoven. When I’m really sane I listen to Bach because it’s like listening to mathematics. I listen to lots of popular rock. I am absolutely uninterested in rap and hip-hop, that could just be an age thing, but the idea of sampling to me is dumb. I am appalled what has happened to music. I go to any city and hear hits from when I was twenty on the radio. It’s like, “What the fuck? This wasn’t supposed to be forever.” I heard Hotel California and thought, “Isn’t there anybody out there doing anything?”

Neil?

RK: Has anyone ever mistaken you for Neil Young?

CB: I’ve had Mexicans tell me that. But, no I haven’t gotten free tickets for anything.

He wrote a song called “Down by the River” which was one of his anthems. I expropriated the title for the book because it fit.

RK: I noticed William Langewiesche wrote a blurb about your work. Are you friends?

CB: I’ve never met him but I talked to him on the phone. He was deeply embedded in Iraq. I asked him, “How long is this going to go on?” He said, “I’m a reporter, I don’t do prophecy.” I think they should put that on the wall at journalism schools.

I think he’s done some extraordinary work. That book he did on excavating the World Trade Center (American Ground), that is like an American hymn. Everything that was done was an act of improvisation; like a jazz ensemble.

He wrote a story years ago called “The Shipbreakers” which I think is the literal parable of the third world. Because of the pollution laws in the US, every ship that gets decommissioned sails around the world to one beach in India where a bunch of people wearing diapers crawl all over it and tear it apart with their bare hands. It’s a great story.

He’s a great reporter. He’s especially gifted at describing mechanical things because of his pilot and engineering background. He loves machines. Anyway, I’m a fan. I think Atomic Bazar should be required reading.

RK: Who are some of your favorite writers or inspirations? 

CB:  The greatest American novelist was William Faulkner. When I was younger I thought he was shit. But, I read him again five years ago and I was wrong. I hadn’t been around enough blocks to realize what he was doing. The trick is that he’s famous for his quirky prose, long sentences. All you have to do is listen to it and it all makes sense. It’s all oral. It’s a voice talking to you.

.

I believe that all American writing begins with Lincoln’s second inaugural. The brevity of adjectives, the direct sparse language, is what modern writing is. It’s a startling piece of writing. And, I think he helped invent modern writing, as opposed to British writing which will apparently be paralyzed until the end of time by a love of semi-colons.

You have to read Lincoln’s second inaugural speech. It’s a brilliant piece of writing. What he does is list the terrible carnage of the civil war, which killed 600,000 Americans out of population of 30 million. He says, “maybe more have to die, maybe every drop of blood has to be spilt for 200 years of human slavery.” Can you imagine a leader saying that to a population now?

RK: Are you going to go check out “Lincoln”, the new Spielberg movie?

CB: I’m a Lincoln fan, but I don’t like going to movies. I don’t like Spielberg either. I consider him a mush-headed director and I was appalled by the racism inherent in his Indiana Jones stuff. Look, I’m no fan of the Middle East except for the cooking, but it’s preposterous to have a scene where some Bedouin doesn’t know what a pistol is. That’s nonsense. What it was was a stereotype of those “dumb motherfuckers.” He’s done that repeatedly. When he made Schindler’s List he said he didn’t know how bad the Nazi’s had been. You’re too fucking dumb to breath if that’s how you learn about the Holocaust.

I’m sure the film is good. Lewis is just an extraordinary actor.

RK: Do you think your writing style was influenced by the second augural? It’s often very punchy.

CB: Well, actually that’s not true but I understand your point. I sometimes have sentences that go on for two or three pages, but I believe in American language, which is a living language. There is no need for semi-colons. American language is based on rhythm. It’s heavily influenced by African-Americans. If black people hadn’t come here we’d still have to listen to shit like Yankee Doodle. American writing is rhythmic. Marie Austin, a minor writer, long dead, thought you could never understand Lincoln’s prose unless you knew that in his former years he’d been a rail splitter. The rhythm of the Gettysburg address are the rhythms of a man swinging an axe. I thought that was a rather insightful thing.

 

.

RK: How would you describe your literary rhythm and voice?

CB: I’ll save you time. I come from working class people. My father got a law degree, but basically they were lower class whites. The way people held the attention of others was their ability to tell a story. I believe there are two streams in American literature: One is people raised orally like me, and the second is people who never heard a story told in their life.

I used to try and teach writing before I gave up on it. I would say, “If you’re in a bar and you turn to the person next to you and you tell them a story and they keep listening, that’s exactly what you’re going to do when you write a story for a newspaper or magazine.” That’s how you edit it. You edit it to make them pay attention. You only write it because you think it matters. But, the way you structure it is to get them to pay attention.

The trick in a book is to get them to turn the page. Once you get them inside, it doesn’t matter; they’ll go the distance. In a book, you have to own the reader in the first 3 or 4 pages.

RK: Writing has taken a tremendous toll on you. Why is it worth it? 

CB: It’s not worth it anymore. I’m trapped. People come to me and they won’t talk to other people. I think this stuff has to be recorded, but I’d rather write about birds. I can’t get away from this. I would be morally derelict if I walked away and tried to have fun. That’s why I relate with these religious people. They’re not dour. Old nuns and old priests are kind of a jolly lot. They’ve run their race, they’ve seen a lot, and they don’t think they’ve wasted their lives. They did something they believe in. Most people can’t make that claim.

Most of the people I deal with are losing, they’re being crushed by a society. You’re not doing a favor if you break down, you just need to record it, so people can learn.

“When everybody laughed at me for wanting to go to Africa and live with animals, my mother always said, ‘If you really want something and never give up you’ll always find a way.’”

Every time Jane Goodall delivers a speech she always begins with a chimpanzee greeting.

Regardless of her audience – it could be world leaders or young budding environmentalists – the call bellows out.

Each time, the crowd is reminded that chimps are voiceless and unless we speak for them, no one will.

It makes sense that Jane Goodall would feel entitled to speak on behalf of the chimpanzees. She’s devoted the majority of her life to studying and protecting them.

In case you’re a bit rusty on the Goodall journey. Here’s a brief recap:

Goodall speaks in Toronto. Photo: Jenny Sung

•  Goodall was born in London, England, in 1934.

• In 1957, at age 23, she travels to Kenya after a long brewing passion for the continent and its wildlife.

•  In Kenya, a chance meeting with Louis Leakey opens up an opportunity to research chimpanzees in Tanzania.

•  In 1960, Goodall and her mother board a ship and sail to Tanzania to begin research.

•  52 years later, Goodall has fundamentally changed our understanding of chimps: she discovers numerous human similarities, uncovers their use of tools, and witnesses their dark, violent nature.

•  Along the way, she obtains her Ph.D from Cambridge (becoming only the 8th person to achieve this without any previous post-secondary education), writes a slew of books, and wins a load of awards.

• In 1997, Goodall launches the “Jane Goodall Institute” to work towards improved research, education, and conservation of wildlife. The Institute focuses on its Roots and Shoots program for inspiring future generations of conservationists and environmental activists.

At 78, Jane Goodall understandably no longer lives in the wild studying chimpanzees. This, however, is no indication of her slowing down.

These days, Goodall spends upwards of 300 days a year traveling and speaking around the world.

This unbelievable drive is precisely the reason I saw Jane Goodall speak twice in the span of several weeks.

First, I witnessed her launch a new organic coffee line – “The Jane Goodall Institue Blend” – at Loblaws in Toronto.

Two weeks later, at the Royal Ontario Museum, I again watched Jane Goodall impart her wisdom on a captivated crowd.

Both times it was evident where her strength lies: stories.

Goodall is a masterful orator and possesses the ability to move any audience. It doesn’t hurt that she has a plethora of incredible tales to tell.

When she speaks she uses no notes, has no prompts, and barely breaks eye contact with the audience. Thus, her words come off as genuine and warm. Goodall and her research are essentially one and the same, permanently intertwined within.

Jane Goodall, of course, is not without her critics. Books and academic papers have been written to counter her research. Even The Simpsons, and Gary Larson’s The Far Side have taken playful jabs. Despite her adversaries, Goodall is relentless in her mission and welcomes dialogue with anyone who will listen.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from such a remarkable and passionate person.

I met up with Dr. Jane Goodall at the ROM several hours before her talk.

From her new coffee line, to the state of African wildlife, to her faith in future generations to solve the world’s problems, we cover it all. 

. . .

RK: There is a lot of talk these days about Africa’s economic boom. Do you sense that this development will negatively impact wildlife?

JG: Oh, it definitely will and is, and also it’s widening the gap between the successful business people and the people who have nothing. The poverty is increasing.

RK: Have you seen any signs of this or heard any stories?

JG: There are so many stories. For example, the last one I heard was in Malawi where people are moving further and further into lion country and the lions are getting more used to people. There have been a couple of cases where lions have killed people, so now lions are automatically shot.

Where people are moving into chimpanzee forests and cutting down the trees, the same thing is happening. Chimpanzees are moving into the villages and being killed. So, it’s happening everywhere.

Interviewing Goodall at the ROM. Photo: Jenny Sung

RK: You just launched a coffee line exclusively at Loblaws. This is your attempt to bridge that gap between human needs and wildlife needs. How can a coffee from Jane Goodall do that?

JG: Well, it’s a lovely story actually. It became very obvious to me when I flew over the whole area of the Gombe National Park that the people were struggling to survive. There were more of them than the land could support; all of the trees had gone. It was a desolate scene.

.

How could we even begin to protect the chimps in this little oasis of fertile soil? So, we started this take care program, very holistic, improving the lives of people with food, reforestation, and water sheds. But, they chose. It was listening to them and what they wanted and we tried to fulfill those needs to start with.

And, then we found there was really good coffee in the slopes around Gombe but the farmers couldn’t get it to market very well. We persuaded coffee roasters to come over and they said it’s fabulous coffee. Now, the farmers get a higher price, they get assistance with learning how to use one area to produce two or three, or even four, times the yield. They’ve all got management plans for the village. They can’t suddenly take over all the land for coffee. That’s not allowed. Of course, it’s shade-grown coffee; that’s what everyone wants. This is good for the soil, plus they can’t really afford fertilizers anyway. The trees are coming back and the particular coffee in Canada that you get sends two dollars to our Africa program that is dealing with children’s education and so forth. This particular program has one aspect of it where the shade grown coffee isn’t habituated or burned so that every place you used to crow coffee the village puts aside that much land of forest untouched.

RK: You decision to partner with Loblaws seemed a bit odd at first. Many believe supermarkets are responsible for our unhealthy food system. Do you see this as your way to work within the system to change the system?

JG: Yes, because if you don’t work with people it will never change. After all, the amount of space given to organic food has hugely increased and that’s because people demand it. So, it’s a mixture of educating the public and helping them understand that yes it might cost a bit more but then you’ll waste less and you’ll treat it with more respect. We don’t value our food enough, or clothing, and don’t think about how it got there and things like that. At the same time, the store is gradually realizing what people want and they change the way they are marketing things and buy more of what people want. It’s all integrated like everything else on this planet.

Face in the Crowd

RK: Several African economies are dependent on wildlife tourism (Rwanda, Kenya, etc.). Where do you draw the line between this being a beneficial practice and one that negatively impacts the lives of these animals?

JG: It very often hurts the environment. In the Ngorongoro crater, for example, it’s not as it used to be at all. So, you have to find this balance, and of course for a government that’s always trying to make more money, and for local people who are trying to profit, if eight people going to see the gorilla’s makes this much money then it leads to “Let’s bring 16.” That’s the danger. It has to be very strict with awareness and education amongst the Africans, not the white people going in and saying we’re going to stop the local people from making money from tourism. It’s got to start within Africa. That’s why our “Roots and Shoots” program is so important.

RK: When you went to Tanzania in 1960 Africa was referred to as the “dark continent.” When you travel in 2012 do you sense that people are better educated now?

JG: I think it’s totally changed. When I went it was full of mystery and we didn’t know much about it. When I first went out there, there were animals everywhere. It wasn’t just the national parks. I landed in Nairobi and driving up to the white highlands there were animals on the road, there were aardvarks. The first night I was there I was told in the morning, “Come see a big leopard.” There was also still the signs of apartheid and that’s something that has changed that was horrible. It was dark in so many ways: the slave trade and apartheid were linked. So, we now know so much more.

.

RK: I still hear a lot of people referring to Africa as a county. When you hear that does it annoy you?

JG: I always say Africa is many countries and the attitude to wildlife differs from country to country. It is not one country. It’s like South America or Europe.

RK: A large part of your success is due to your unwavering determination. Do you credit that quality as the recipe for your accomplishments?

JG: It was having an amazing mother, so that when everybody laughed at me for wanting to go to Africa and live with animals, my mother always said, “If you really want something and never give up you’ll always find a way.” When I finally got there – and Louis Leakey offered me this incredible opportunity to study chimpanzees – I was a young girl with no degree, straight from England, and they wouldn’t allow me to be alone. So who do you think volunteered to come with me? It was that amazing mother. So, it was in the family. It wasn’t just my mother. The whole family was supportive and helped me to make me who I am.

Dr. Jane Goodall and Roots & Shoots members plant trees at the Shanghai Zoo in China.

 RK: You place a lot of faith and hope in future generations to protect the environment. What makes you so hopeful that they will not make the same mistakes?

JG: I think we’ve made so many mistakes and so many young people see that and are completely horrified. There’s also so much more information available now. The Roots and Shoots program became so important to me because I met so many young people who’d lost hope for the future; thoughtful high school students, people working their first jobs, university students. One of the reasons is you feel helpless when you learn the big problems and you do nothing. Roots and Shoots is to give young people hope. They choose their projects, roll up their sleeves, and get out there and they take action. If you take action about a problem you think is important and you see success and then realize young people in 131 countries are doing the same thing that’s much more hopeful.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON JANE GOODALL:

1) Check out her foundation at www.janegoodall.ca

“Political art, or any art, that has a message isn’t going to fix anything, but it might remind people that these things are out there.”

Few artists get to toggle a line between working for the man and working against the man.

Photographer Jill Greenberg, however, has built a career around exactly that acrobatic feat.

Greenberg, a.k.a. The Manipulator, is a seasoned artist who, as one of the earliest adopters of Photoshop, created her own style of surreal photography. This allows her to feed the too-good-to-be-true world of commercial photogrpahy, while simultaneously contorting images to make defiant statements.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

After decades in the business, Greenberg’s portfolio is loaded with magazine cover shots of the who’s who in Hollywood, to conceptual political/feminist series that have drawn international attention.

So, on the same day you walk into a bookstore and see a flawless picture gracing a magazine cover, you could also flip on the evening news to learn about a photographer who made children cry to show her frustration with the Bush administration.

The commerical work of Greenberg is excellently executed, but it’s the conceptual stuff that really grabbed my attention. Here are some of the highlights:

2006 – Jill Greenberg creates a series called “End Times.” It features close-ups of children crying. It stirred up a great deal of controversy because in order to capture the image the kids had to be prodded to cry. The children, however, were volunteered by their parents and even included Greenberg’s kids.

2008 – Greenberg is hired to photograph presidential hopeful John McCain for Atlantic Magazine. After getting the shot she needs, she takes a few more pictures in a “sinister” light and uses them to reveal her politics: she’s not a fan of the Republicans.

2012 – A series called “Glass Ceilings” is released. It depicts women wearing high heels swimming with their heads cuts off by the water’s edge. It represents Greenberg’s frustration with the continual barriers and restrictions placed upon women in society.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

Along with her political/feminist catalogue, Greenberg has also created a fantastic series of animal portraits. Since 2006, she’s compiled portrait collections of monkeys, bears, and now horses.

On October 2, 2012, she will release her latest collection simply, but accurately, entitled: Horses. This time the collection presents a critical and historical reflection. It’s not just a pretty picture book of one of nature’s finest creations. It’s a look at the treatment of horses over time and how that mirrors the experience of many women.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from Jill Greenberg, and I caught up with her over the phone from her home in Los Angeles.

From her new collection of horses, to the infamous pictures of McCain and crying children, to the paradox of her photography, to Larry David, we cover it all.

 . . .

Ryan Kohls: Congratulations on your latest collections of photographs: Horses. This is the third in a series of animal portraits. You refer to horses as your first muse in the book’s introduction. What led you, after all your other work, to do a collection of horses now?

Jill Greenberg: They came up because my daughter had just started riding, so I was spending time around horses. It reminded me of how much I love horses, or they way they look at least. And, I was also thinking I may stop shooting animals, so I wanted to shoot horses before that.

RK: In your other collections of monkeys and bears I know you faced some particular challenges with photographing them. Were there any new challenges with horses? 

JG: Horses were the hardest to photograph. They’re afraid of you and they’re really big and powerful. Some of the animals I’ve shot are predators, like we are, so if you are pretty cool with other predators they can be cool with you, but if you’re trying to get a prey animal to be comfortable it’s difficult, they think you’re going to kill them at any point. So, they’re really, really dangerous. Also it was hard to get some of the high-end million dollar horses I wanted because their owners didn’t want them to get hurt.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: I noticed that unlike the other collections you photographed the horses in their natural environment as well, was that in part due to their size and temperament? 

JG: No, I just wanted to have more variation in the book. This book has 120 images, the other books were about half that.

RK: How much of your trademark manipulation was done to the horses in this book?

JG: There was a lot more done in post-production. I’m starting to show the painting, the hand coloring aspect of Photoshop, more. Some of them you can really see the stripes and lines I’m drawing in on the horse. You can see a lot of the colors that I’m painting in. It’s like digital painting. I didn’t do much with the monkeys, and a little bit with the bears, but I have painted the most onto the horses.

RK: I love the shot of the horse flipping its hair. It seems to capture that “humanness” that your other collections did. Were you at all trying to portray the horses in a human light in this collection? 

JG: Well, this isn’t all about the personalities of the horses. It’s much more about the form than portraiture.  If the other animal series were like portraits actors, then these horses are more like supermodels. They were chosen for their physique and shape, and less so about their personality.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: Right, and what I found interesting about this collection is that at first glance it appears to be a book of glossy horse photos, but there’s also an underlying message. Specifically, you tackle a very interesting gender bending perspective on horses. Can you explain what that main paradox is with horses and gender?

JG: I think some of the horse images are more conceptual than others, but it’s a study of an animal that turns out to be both masculine and feminine. In culture the horse is treated in many ways like the woman is treated, as property, to be owned, traded, harnessed and ridden, Their necks are incredibly phallic, their musculature is toned and strong like a man’s. I think it’s also interesting the way that women really worship horses. I think horses are a complicated animal. They’re symbolic of many things and represent many things. The book was a means of exploring that.

RK: One of the more provocative things you discuss in the book is the connection between the bit (used to control horses) and an old medieval tool called the
“Scold’s Bridle” (used to control women). How did you make that discovery and draw that connection?

JG: I actually made that discovery while searching on a special search engine someone told me about. I really felt the bits were bondage for the horses, but you can’t really Google horses and bondage because you get all this fetish stuff. So, I found this search engine and I was trying it out and discovered the “Scold’s Bridle” which I hadn’t heard about before. I found a British academic who compared the horse’s bit with the Scold’s Bridle for women. A writer in England, Gavin Robinson.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: Thankfully the Scold’s Bridle isn’t used anymore, but you draw a comparison to the high heel shoe as being, in some ways, a similar tool of control. Is that correct?

JG: Yes, I do think it’s related. Women wear a lot of fashion that’s restrictive and uncomfortable. Women are oppressing themselves. Of course they look good, but we are socially conditioned to think they look good. But, they’re incredibly uncomfortable and make it so you can’t run if you were being chased. And if you have a clutch purse, you have the use of only one hand. Contemporary fashion seems to act to literally hobble women,

RK: Do you feel like this collection has a deeper message than the other ones?

JG: I think this has gone further with its conception. The monkey pictures were more accessible,

Photo: Jill Greenberg

playing on the studio portrait, the tradition of the portrait. The monkeys and apes reminded us that we are animals. The bears were supposed to be just scary and channel the rage and vitriol I felt directed at me in reaction to my “End Times” work, but then I ended up finding all these cute little bears that were too compelling to ignore. With the Horse series, I felt like it was going to be important for me to do some real digging with the subject of the horse because it can be really trite. Horses are gorgeous animals and therefore people have photographed and drawn horses since the beginning of art.

RK: Your early education in photography was at the Rhode Island School of Design. You did your thesis called “The Female Object,” a powerful slideshow with a soundtrack and narration which explored women’s perceptions of their bodies. Is this when you discovered you could use your photography to spark conversations about issues that were important to you?

JG: Yes, definitely. I was doing drawings in high school that also explored gender politics. I arrived at art school thinking that all these male fashion photographers were really cool – like Helmut Newton – and then suddenly realized that they were objectifying women. I discovered the power dynamics in image making. I studied semiotics at Brown University and took a class called “Discourses in Pornography” at RISD. I was very keen on learning all about this stuff. It was an awakening.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: Your “Glass Ceiling” exhibition also happened this year. This was a provocative look at societies limits and expectations on women. What was the main message you were trying to drive home with these images? 

JG: Well,  I do commercial work many of photo agents have told me, “Of course you’re not going to work as much as a man.” Is there any doubt that we are still living in a “Man’s World” ?

But political art, or any art, that has a message isn’t going to fix anything, but it might remind people that these things exist.

RK: You were in the news recently because of a guerilla art show that projected video of laughing white men at a popular steakhouse in Tampa. The project, which happened during the Republican

Photo: Jill Greenberg

National Convention, was launched by “Wake the Beast” and video with a soundtrack of laughter was provided by you and aimed to be a “direct critique of the Republican Party and the merciless role of money within partisan politics.” How did this collaboration come to be?   

JG: I have these themes that I keep revisiting. When I was at RISD, in senior year, I was making these little figurines out of clay, and then I would photograph them. They were disgusting little men. There was one bust of a guy, and he basically looked like the “Entitled” video. He was this older white guy with no arms or legs and a suit and tie. I also made a little sculpture of a guy trying to fellate himself, he rocks and rocks and cant ever reach. I’ve always been interested in mocking men. As a woman, no matter how successful I get, I’m never going to be on the outside . Men are the ultimate privileged players in our culture. And, they’re the ones who go around saying things like, “I’d hit that.”

Basically, I wanted to do something again with old white men. It was a project I did and I really needed somewhere to show it. Initially i wanted to project it at events like the 99% rallies, so I was looking for politically engaged people in Los Angeles. I met Wake the Beast and we planned to project my video on a steak house for the RNC. What I like, also, is that it was a counterpoint to the kid’s crying series. Listening to the laughter of the men makes you laugh along with them, but then you realize they’re laughing at you. Then you think, why am I letting them laugh at me when they have all the power and don’t care about anyone else? I’m happy with that project.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: The last time there was an election, you made quite a splash with your freaky, manipulated, picture of John McCain. I was wondering, if you had a chance to get your hands on Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney would you like to try a picture of them?

JG: It was a one-time thing. People didn’t seem to understand it. Myself, I thought of it as “the artist Jill Greenberg appropriating the commercial photographer Jill Greenberg’s work”. Others steal my work, and images, all the time for various political messages. No one seemed to get I wouldn’t ever do that to a celebrity. In my mind, he’s a well known high-profile politician and civil servant so I should be able to create my own version of a political cartoon like everyone else.   It’s also part of the reason the glass ceiling came up and the Scold’s bridle: there’s not much tolerance for women to speak out and have an opinion. We’re supposed to know our place. But if people continue to be “business as usual” nothing is going to change. And, there is so much more insane stuff going on that we need to put ourselves out there a little more, its just hard when the economy is like this, we are all just trying not to rock the boat too hard. I cant totally resist, though

RK: There was a huge risk taking that photograph.  When that story went viral were you worried you might have hurt your career?

JG: Honestly, I was surprised at the reaction. I thought it was overblown. It was merely a political cartoon like all the others. Interestingly,  I’ve been assigned by prominent magazines to make my subjects look like murderers at their behest. Writers routinely misleadtheir subjects in for interviews. They say they’re going to write about one thing and then write about something else. You think it’s going to be a positive portrayal but it turns out to be negative. I think, too, the power of the image is partially to blame in this situation. But  I think if a manhad done it they would be like, “high five awesome.” But a woman doing it? You’re a bitch and you should be taken down. It’s pretty plain to me.

RK: The risk seems to have paid off in terms of respect, I would say, but has it hurt your workflow?

JG: Um, unfortunately, I think it might have hurt my work I’m still working though. You may have noticed the climate and culture has gotten increasingly fearful of making strong statements. Most art is so self referential and safe as a result.

RK: So overall, do you think it was worth it? 

JG: That’s a hard question.

RK: I’ll interview you again in five years, and ask you then. 

JG: OK.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: Now, another one of your famous works, the portraits of crying kids, remains a relevant conversation starter. Recently in Spain, they were displayed on the side of buildings for an art instillation. Not to retread on old territory, but the controversy seems a bit exaggerated to me. Kids cry all the time over nothing and it’s not like you were poking them with a spear to make them cry, were you?

JG: Of course not, obviously I didn’t touch them or speak to them. Their own parents were the ones who gently coaxed them to cry. But it’s the look of the image-; the photographs overdramatize the emotions , the viewer thinks something horrible is happening. You have to take things away from a child as part of bringing them up. You can’t let them go around playing with matches, so you take them away and they start crying. It’s part of raising children. It doesn’t mean they’re going to be scarred for life if their mother gives them a lollipop and takes it away.

RK: You have also, people should know, taken “normal” photographs of kids playing and laughing. What do you enjoy most about children as subjects?

JG: I do love photographing children. Their emotions are 100 percent honest. Their expressions are super authentic and I just love their innocence and beauty. They have perfect skin and are so beautiful.

RK: We’ve discussed the gender/political side of your work, but a lot of people know you for your glossy celebrity photographs. Considering that you clearly have a passion for conceptual art, what do you get out of your commercial work?

Photo: Jill Greenberg

JG: It’s fun to meet people in popular culture. Every so often, there’s someone I’m a fan of. It’s fun to discover projects through meeting them in person. I don’t necessarily become best friends with celebrities, but sometime I’ll meet writers or musicians and other artists.

It is a living and it’s fun to have my pictures be on billboards and magazine covers.

RK: In some ways, though, do you see it as the cash cow? Would you rather just focus on your conceptual art if you could?

JG: I think that at this point I wouldn’t mind if I could make a living doing fine art. I wouldn’t mind just doing that. If I had unlimited money then sure. I do advertising and all different things that are fun, but I think the photo industry is getting more competitive, its so amazing to be able to take pictures and get paid for it, so young photographers are underbidding and fees continue to get eroded year by year. so I wouldn’t mind doing less of it.

RK: Some might see a bit of a paradox in your work. You advocate for women’s rights and condemn the stereotypes but then your photo’s set an unrealistic, and socially defined, expectation of women and their bodies. This, of course, leads many women to feel insecure about themselves. Why are you OK with being apart of that?

JG: It’s never been a problem for me. I don’t look at people in magazines and think, “Oh my god, I don’t look like that. That’s really upsetting.” I think it’s really stupid and crazy. Painters and artists have always created what their idealized version of beauty is. They want to capture beauty, so do photographers. We’re only going to present an image that speaks to us and is communicating a certain beauty. We’re going to make the image so it looks right for us. In our culture it is a specific thing. Yes, our culture values youth and beauty, but it always has.

RK: It’s amazing that you don’t seem to be affected by the images in magazines and on TV. But, there are millions of men and women who are. Do you ever feel a little bit guilty about promoting that unrealistic ideal?

JG: I think people need to be educated. You should be as healthy as you can for yourself. I think people are born with the bodies they are going to have. They shouldn’t get too obsessed, especially women. They are wasting their time. I feel like the representation of women is a symptom of all this stuff rather than the cause of it. It’s circular.

RK: It must be a tough position to be in. You might not want to promote it, but you just have to.

JG: I think there’s also a certain element that because it’s an unattainable beauty – super long legs, 18-year-old face, 8-inch heels – which it’s like that’s a backlash against women. It drives women crazy and makes them think they should be something they can’t be.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: The difficulties of being a female photographer might be vast, but it seems like there are some benefits for you. You once talked about having a great photo-shoot with Arnold Schwarzenegger because he was very flirty with you. Does that aspect of gender relations play in your favor when photographing men?

JG: I don’t know what my life would be like if I wasn’t a woman, so I can’t really tell you, but sure, women can flirt if the situation is appropriate for such behaviour. I don’t think it’s necessarily advanced my career.

That said, I’m not a very flirty person. I generally want to be taken seriously. I do joke around non stop though.

RK: These days it seems anyone can take great looking photographs. Whether it’s touching up photos in Photoshop or using apps like hipstamatic. In your opinion, has this technology taken away any of the art/skill required to produce quality photography? 

JG: I think it’s easier to take good photos, but it’s hard to consistently deliver amazing photos. Sure, if someone is going to continually take great photographs with their iPhone, then maybe they’re a great photographer. It’s possible that every so often people take great photos but if people are going to be hired for a job they need to know what they’re doing so they won’t screw it up.

That’s a reason, though, why it’s become much more competitive; everyone has a Canon and Photoshop. Complaining about it would sound Luddite and like sour grapes. It is what it is. The Internet is great. I can email people from around the world, but then my pictures are also stolen from around the world. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Its complicated but technology continues to evolve, there is no stopping it.

Photo: Jill Greenberg

RK: There are a lot of videos on YouTube that unpack the “Jill Greenberg Effect,” and teach viewers how to create similar images. I know that you also do a lot of important lighting work before the photographs, so does it annoy you that people think you just rely on after effects? 

JG: It’s mostly lighting. And, you know what, a lot of things annoy me. (Laughs). People tell me I’m supposed to be flattered that everyone is copying me, but I don’t really like it. Nevertheless, I’m continuing to work on new approaches. I was doing something totally different in the late 90s and people told me I should do something new because people would think it was all I did. You have to continue evolving.

RK: You took a picture of one of my heroes: Larry David. What was that experience like?

JG: He was cool, super cool. I just remember at the end he said, “Goodbye, Jill Greenberg.” It so was funny the way he said it.

RK: Do you like to be in front of the camera?

JG: I really don’t. I don’t like other people doing it. I was thinking I might do some self-portraits before I get too old. (Laughs). I’ll take pictures of myself when I’m having a really good hair day.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON JILL GREENBERG:

“The best artists work out of the desire to produce beauty, otherwise it’s not real and something else. This intertwining of money, power, and status is a corruption of purpose.”

You may not recognize the name Milton Glaser, but you would most certainly recognize his art.

In 1975, Glaser created what is, perhaps, the most famous and ubiquitous design in contemporary history.

Its message is simple and so is its presentation: I ♥ NY

The year that logo was created New York was in a state of chaos: high crime rates coupled with a bankrupt economy. And so, the city’s government looked to revamp its image and provide hope to residents and hesitant visitors.

Milton Glaser was approached and commissioned with the task to create an image that included the words “I Love New York.” He accepted the challenge of helping the city he grew up in and loved, and through several redesigns, delivered the now famous logo. He was paid nothing for his design (a stipulation he gladly agreed to) and there was, and remains, no copyright on the logo as it was designed to be used by anyone to spread the positive message.

Originally it was meant to be used for a short, three-month, campaign, but the image caught on and spread like wildfire. It permeated New York and then exploded across international borders. Today, the image is just as popular and rakes in an estimated $33 million dollars every year; appearing on t-shirts, key chains, you name it. It’s also widely mimicked and used to promote multiple places and things.

.

In preparing to speak with Mr. Glaser, I became acutely aware of the logo’s global dominance. In Toronto alone, within the span of two observant days, I saw: an I ♥ NY t-shirt and bracelet, an I ♥ You sticker on a suitcase, and an I ♥ Toronto sweater. On Facebook I saw, an I ♥ PTBO t-shirt, and an I ♥ Mom shirt. On YouTube, Kendrick Lamar graced an I ♥ NY hoodie in his A.D.H.D. music video. It was everywhere – and the more I looked for it, the more it appeared.

However, this logo is only the tip of the iceberg in the Milton Glaser story. The image may be his calling card but it’s only one of many brilliant designs and artistic achievements. And although he receives no royalties for his biggest selling product, fret not, he’s created a prolific amount of other works that make his business plenty profitable.

Born in New York City in 1929, Glaser has been creating commercial art for more than five decades. He cut his artistic teeth studying at Manhattan’s LaGuardia Arts High School and furthered his education studying under the minimalist master, Giorgio Morandi, in Bologna, Italy. He is the founder of PushPin studios, the co-founder of New York Magazine, and since 1974 the owner and operator of Milton Glaser studios.

Throughout his vast career he has flexed his creative muscles in a variety of ways, designing: album covers, posters, book covers, restaurants, beer labels, grocery stores, and various other brand logos.

Here is a brief look at some of his designs, many of which will likely be familiar to you:

art_is-2310

books_mag_fortune500-6300

Lightnin_Hopkins_cover-8401

Nina_cover_2003-9547

organize-3521

windows_invite-7020

dc_bullet_logo-150x150

BrooklynBlogo-3704

Dylan Poster.

That modest assessment of his method has not gone unnoticed, and others see his artistic contribution much more profoundly. In 2004, Glaser was awarded a lifetime achievement award from the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum and in 2009 Barack Obama awarded him with the National Medal of Arts (past recipients include: Bob Dylan, Maya Angelou, Johnny Cash, and Meryl Streep, to name a few).

Not only has Milton Glaser continued to deliver original designs for multiple platforms, he is also a professor and board member at the School of Visual Arts and is the author of numerous books about art and design.

He is such an accomplished artist, and important American graphic designer, that his life and work prompted a 2009 documentary called “Milton Glaser: To Inform and Delight.”

There is much I WANNA KNOW from one of the world’s greatest graphic designers.

I caught up with Milton Glaser over the phone from his studio in New York City.

From the iconic I ♥ NY logo, to the importance of failure, to the Jonah Lehrer scandal, to the London Olympics logo, to art and spirituality, we cover it all. 

 …

Ryan Kohls:  Congratulations on your latest book. It seems many artists either don’t want to, or are unable, to adequately talk about their art. For you, it appears to come very easily and comfortably. Do you enjoy unpacking your designs and articulating their meanings? 

Milton Glaser: Well, sometimes I do enjoy it. There are some things you can’t say about your work because the experience of seeing things and talking about them are not necessarily congruent activities, but I’ve been teaching for so long, over 50 years, so you have to learn to talk about visual things. So, after a while you develop a vocabulary. If you don’t do it often it’s hard to do, but if you do it frequently you discover a way to grapple with the subject. Sometimes talking about it is a way of aiding the subject. I don’t mind talking about it as long as I understand there is a universe for looking, and a universe for talking, and they are not necessarily the same universe.

RK:  I’ve come to realize that all the greats in any field have a long history of failure and rejection. You addressed yours in a section in your new book called “The Client Didn’t Get It.” What’s the biggest lesson your failures have taught you? 

.Outside the studio.

MG: One must assume that failure is the way we learn in general. My favorite notion is that certainty is the closing of the mind. The possibility to fail is one of the means by which we have to develop ideas, and to explore possibilities. Once you’re certain of what you’re doing the possibility of change and exploration begins to diminish. So, the idea of being an amateur constantly is an old idea for artists, particularly those who want to continue learning things they don’t already know. The idea of professionalism, which means you achieve a certain kind of success by repeating things over and over until you lose interest in them, is something that has always been frightening. What you see is people who attain a certain proficiency and then repeat that until they lose interest and the game is over.

I guess my model for this is Picasso. He was willing to give up everything once he learned how to do that. It’s always interested me that you can become proficient and once that happens the best thing to do is abandon what you know.

RK: Now that you’ve attained such a high level of success, you must be able to pick and choose the jobs you want to do. Have you been able to completely avoid the “12 Steps on the Graphic Designer’s Road to Hell” in recent years? 

MG: (laughs) I wish I remember what they were. You never have the complete opportunity to reject work that comes in or you always have the opportunity to reject work that comes in. It depends on your state of mind and your consciousness. You can always reject work that a) you think is harmful or b) you think is bad to do, or you never have that opportunity. People feel, because of their economic situation, that they can never turn work down because they have to put food on the table. Or they can say, I’ll wait until another job comes along.

I have a question that I ask students and practitioners that’s very fundamental. Pick one: would you rather a) be highly respected for the work you do and make very little money? Or, b) do mediocre work and make a lot of money? You discover by asking that simple question a very different character formation in people’s lives. Some people would rather do mediocre work and live in a big house and others would be very happy doing excellent work and living modestly. That’s a very, very significant difference in people’s personalities and objectives in life.

RK: Well, let me test you to see where your principles sit these days. If Mitt Romney were to walk into your office today offering you a lot of money to design his next campaign slogan and posters, what would you say?

MG: I wouldn’t work for Romney because one of my other principles, which can be simply expressed, is do no harm. I think Romney is a man who would create enormous harm if he was elected. On a political level, he’s simple-minded and I don’t think he knows what he’s doing. He’s a dangerous figure. The other thing about that is of course that you’re not usually smart enough to understand the consequence of your own actions, so you have to be careful about that. When people ask me, what is a designers responsiblity? I say,”To do no harm.” You can be very arrogant about what that phrase means because in life you think you’re doing good but it turns out that the act you performed was negative and you hurt people. It’s not that easy. In a conscious way I’m fully convinced that Romney is a negative personality who has no concern about others and whose interest is ego centric and driven by power. He’s not suitable for the job as far as I can see, so I would not work for him.

RK: I’ve heard you numerous times explain the trajectory of great artists: They learn to draw realistically for years and years and then have to deconstruct all that knowledge to create something relevant. When do you think that transition took place for you?

MG: I don’t know. What occurred to me early in my development was to do distinctive work. That was always something very important for me. I don’t know when that started to happen. Back in high school I tried to do it. I don’t think you become aware of when your work becomes distinctive. All I knew is that I had the persistence, willingness, and energy to pursue it. I can’t say that one day I woke up and said to myself, “You know, Milt, you really got there.” I don’t have that sense that it occurred over night. I do know that all my life the work has been at the centre.

I could say that I have received my share of awards and honors. The one that has convinced me more than any other was an individual award that President Obama gave me; the National Medal of the Arts. I could say that not too many people get that in life, so I guess I’m doing alright. But, what you realize is that it’s not what people say externally, it’s what you are critically aware of when you compare it with the best of its class and it can still hold up. It takes a long time and I’ve been around a long time.

Glaser receiving National Medal of Arts from Obama

RK: On your website the first words that pop up are “the good is the enemy of the great.” What does that phrase mean to you? And, how does it influence your daily work? 

MG: “The good is the enemy of the great” is a general condition that exists, but you have to be conscious of it in professional life. Professional life is all about the good and always references what exists. When you do something that people understand, the client is always looking backwards, they’re always looking at what has already succeeded, and using the clues from the past to develop what is done in the present.

Well, artists, and people who are interested in changing ideas, don’t do that. What they do is look for the emerging ideas. The emerging ideas are dangerous, and if the reason you are doing things is for profitability, as with business, you are very careful about what is new and different. The impulse in professional life is to do things that are guaranteed and that reside in the existing history that people are familiar with. So, you can see immediately that the impulse to create something new is a contradiction in terms of what business wants to do. Business wants guaranteed success. Those two things are in contradiction.

RK: If you don’t mind I’d like to jump on the “I ♥ NY” train for a minute because the story of how you came up with the final “I ♥ NY” logo exemplifies overcoming the good to create the great. Is that fair to say? 

MG: I did a logo and it was accepted by the state and I was in a cab afterwards and said, “I’ve got a better idea.” It just occurred to me that there was a simpler, more direct way, of doing it. I made a little sketch of the “I ♥ NY” which wasn’t what my original idea was – it was originally just two lines of typography in lozenges. And, I called up the assistant commissioner of commerce who had given me the job, Bill Doyle. I said, “Bill, I think have something better.” He said, “Don’t bug me. I just met with the commissioners and they approved it.” I said, “this is really better and I’m going to bring it over for you.” I brought it over and he said, “Yeah, you’re right, it is better.” He called up the commissioners and they agreed. So, that “I ♥ NY” thing which was already going to be institutionalized, turned out to have almost never come into existence except for my own persistence and feeling that there was a better way to do it. So, something that became the most familiar thing I ever did almost vanished without a thought except I intuitively felt there was a better solution.

Sketched in the back seat of a cab: The original design

RK: You of all people understand how ubiquitous the logo has become. In preparing for the interview I couldn’t escape the logo, whether it was the original or an altered version. Everywhere I looked there it was. After so many years living with the design, how do you feel about it today? 

MG: You know, you very rarely in your life get to do anything that is so pervasive and effective that millions of people see it and are moved by it. How would you ever dream that in every country on earth there is some manifestation of this silly little thing. You can’t go anywhere without seeing “I ♥ Something.” Who could have dreamed that would have happened? I still don’t understand it. It’s as universal a mark, or image, as you could find anywhere. So, it’s an absolutely miraculous thing. Functionally, it had something to do with the recovery of the city, and when I did in it ’77 the city was in really bad shape, you wouldn’t think about going out on the street at night because there was so much mugging and the city needed an affirmation that it was a great place to live. It was part of the effort to transform people’s perceptions of the city and the state. It was a pro-bono job, but it really made me feel like I had accomplished something in my life that wasn’t just selling another can of beer. That you could actually do something useful and important with the skill you had really made me feel great.

.Heartless rebranding attempts.

RK: You’ve been in the news recently because there’s a campaign to change the logo and rebrand it. What was your initial reaction to that?

MG: I think they started using it. It’s an advertising campaign that substitutes animated images for the heart. I think for a campaign it’s OK. When they first called me on it they said they were going to change the identity and I thought that was silly to change, what turns out to be, one of the most powerful images of our time. But that wasn’t the fact. The fact was that it was an advertising campaign that was going to last a few months and then go back to the original campaign.

RK: After 9/11 you redesigned the logo to read “I ♥ NY More Than Ever.” It occurred to me that you had designed a restaurant in one of the World Trade Centres called “Windows on the World.” Was that the first time your artwork was ever destroyed?

MG: I suspect, yes. Certainly so dramatically. I never thought of that. I have to say that it wasn’t part of the trauma for me. The artwork it doesn’t have that meaning to me. Doing it is significant for me. The artwork itself, I don’t have that kind of attachment with it.

RK: The first place I heard your story about creating that logo was in Jonah Lehrer’s book “Imagine: How Creativity Works.” I’m sure you’ve been following his recent plagiarism scandal. What did you think when that news broke and did you go back and look at your quotes? 

MG: Well, it was so odd the whole thing. First off, I felt so sad for the poor guy. Here he was, his future

.

guaranteed, top of the world working for the New Yorker, writing a book that had already sold 200,000 copies, and he shot himself. How could he have done that knowing it was inevitable he would be discovered? What kind of madness? Why would anybody do that? The self-sabotage to that degree was incomprehensible. I looked back at what I had said and half of it I know I didn’t say. Substantially nothing in there was false in the sense of being true, and generally the things are right, even though they are not in terms of spirit and details correct. The vernacular wasn’t right. It was just another case of people screwing their life up. If you had modest intelligence, why would you set yourself up for the disaster of your life that would ruin your life forever? He will never recover from this.

RK: Yeah, it’s definitely a crazy story. Speaking of other crazy things, the price of art is incredible. Munch’s “The Scream” just sold for $120 million, and you have a sketch by Giorgio Morandi that you bought for 60 dollars that is now probably worth $35,000. In the past you’ve been outspoken about how the high price of art has tarnished its reputation in the eyes of the casual onlooker. Is art worth the high price some people pay, and is this debate worth continuing? 

How much?

MG: It’s a great subject because, as you know, art is not a commodity. Its value has nothing to do with commodity values. So, you say, what is the relationship with art and money? In theory there should be none. And then you ask what is the relationship of beauty and money? And, what does pleasure have to do with money? And, what happens to the brain when all those neurons are stimulated and people derive pleasure from beauty? And, what is the correlation between what you are willing to pay for beauty? And what is the relationship between beauty, money, and status? It’s a fascinating topic. How do you get someone to pay 12 million dollars for a stuffed shark? All those issues about the peculiar nature of money, power, status, pleasure, the brain, are certainly worth talking about. But, what I do know is that there’s some crazy relationship between all those things and art that no one talks about. Who in the world goes to these parties and buys a painting for a hundred million dollars? Who are these people? What do they want? And, what are they buying? It’s a most mysterious world in that sense.

RK: You’ve always claimed that you didn’t want to make art to sit in someone’s house. You wanted to make public art that served a purpose. So, in that sense does artwork being sold for that price and for that purpose bother you in any way?

MG: Well, I have to say that one of the great things in life for people who want to be artists is the joy and pleasure of creating beauty. Every once in a while you create something that’s beautiful and you want people to share in that and you don’t want to receive the reward of money for it. That isn’t your primary motivation. What you want is being in the presence of something that elevates the soul. That is the great contribution you’ve made to the members of the human race. If you’re obsessed with money as your motivation it separates a mind state that will be your life. The best artists work out of the desire to produce beauty, otherwise it’s not real and something else. This intertwining of money, power, and status is a corruption of purpose.

RK: In evaluating your catalogue of designs I noticed that you often use the circle. Many of your logo’s are accented with circles (e.g. Brooklyn Brewery, DC comics, etc). Is there something about that shape that works well in design?

MG: That’s an interesting question because over the last couple weeks I’ve realized I do that too. I guess it’s one of the most fundamental forms. I do use it a lot. I’m a child of modernism. I grew up in response to the Bauhaus and the discoveries of the modern area. There you reduced everything to geometry: squares, circles, rectangles, and so on. This might be the residue but that’s an interesting observation.

.

RK: What was your take on the London Olympics logo? It took a lot of flak from audiences and the media. 

MG: Boy, do I not understand that. I have to admit, without besmerching a colleague, that it is the strangest logo I’ve ever seen. I have to say on one hand I must defend it. It deviates from the accepted form and it is so peculiar that my instinct is to say that because it violates my expectation it must be good. On the other hand, when I look at it I think, “What in the world is that?” It does not, for me, and I feel very awkward saying this, make me happy to look at.

RK: What other logo’s do you look at and think of as works of genius?

MG: The cross.

RK: What about the golden arches. Do they work for you?

MG: No, I wouldn’t call it a work of genius partially because in a physical sense it doesn’t set off those neurons in my brain. But, you’ll realize that many things through simple repetition become so imprinted on you that you think they are memorable. Sometimes they’re just memorable not because of some intrinsic uniqueness but simple repetition, that’s what I think is true of the golden arches. They would be equally memorable if there was only one or three arches.

RK: You co-founded New York Magazine in the late 60s, but then left when Rupert Murdoch took over. You’ve since said some unflattering things about the man in the press. Over the last several years he’s had a lot of negative things exposed about his practices. What do you think about what’s been happening to him? 

MG: The only thing about it is that I think he’s a dangerous man to be in journalism. I think he’s willing to distort anything to accomplish his goals which are not journalistic, but are goals of power. His instincts are on the right and to support power. I’m very happy when his power is diminishing.

RK: You’ve said every drawing is miraculous. The word miracle often has a spiritual connotation. How would you describe your religious or spiritual self? 

.Straight Shooter.

MG: The brain is a very spiritual thing. The neurons are a spiritual occurrence. You can’t understand the nature of thought. You can’t understand the nature of anything. As I said in the book, everything is miraculous. You just have to accept that. There is no reality except for the one you create in your brain. I don’t know what isn’t spiritual.

RK: Do you believe in God?

MG: I don’t really believe in anything. I think the great goal is not to believe and to accept. I mean, I accept the miraculous as a fact of my life. I accept a miracle a day or more when necessary. I don’t believe in any conception of God that I’ve heard. The idea of an old bearded guy in the sky, isn’t an idea I find acceptable. An image of God as expressed in any religious thing that I’ve eve seen is not acceptable. The fact that there is a connection between all the things in the universe is certainly acceptable.

RK: In your BigThink interview you were asked what worries you, and you said, in a seemingly embarrassed way, that you don’t worry about anything and you’ve had a great life. Having lived such a fulfilling and happy life, where do you find empathy for others in suffering? 

MG: There’s a beautiful quote that I frequently repeat that Iris Murdoch said, “Love is the very difficult understanding that someone other than the self is real.” I think that’s life’s struggle to understand that others are real. Narcissism and self absorption pulls you away from that so you never think others are real. When you love someone you are suddenly aware that they are not just an extension of your needs but they exist and they have their own needs and own existence. Life is a struggle for awareness and attentiveness and it’s very hard. If you’re not aware that others exist, what is life about? Then it becomes a masturbatory exercise about you, your feelings, your needs, and it’s a very barren experience. The search in life is your connectedness to everyone. I think being in the arts helps and finding an expressive context helps in that regard.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MILTON GLASER:

1) Check out his website at www.miltonglaser.com

“I used to play until my hands would bleed… It got to the point where I had to warm up on a concrete wall, or a surface that was very strong, so that I could numb my hands before I went on stage because it was that painful.”

Her hands are bloody, her back is sore, her schedule is gruelling: it’s the life Sheila E. can’t live without.

It’s taken millions of beats, but Sheila E. (born Sheila Escovedo) has established herself as one of the greatest percussionists in the world. Many see her as one of the greatest female drummers of all-time, but she ranks anywhere regardless of gender.

When I watch great drummers play I often think the same thing, “No matter how much I practice, I will never be able to do that.” It seems like some people can accomplish the impossible when it comes to music. With Sheila E., though, you can catch a glimpse at how one obtains that musical je ne sais quoi. For her, rhythm is a second language, she learned to understand the beat in the same way you and I learn to speak our mother tongue.

Before Sheila E. was able to walk, she was studying music and learning how to keep time. Born in Oakland, California in 1957, Sheila E. is part of a grand musical lineage. Her father, Pete Escovedo, is a master percussionist from Mexico who once fronted the successful Latin fusion group, Azteca. He used to play with Carlos Santana, and has toured the world with Stevie Wonder. Her godfather is one of the most famous percussionists ever, Tito Puente. And, numerous brothers and uncles are highly skilled players. Sheila E. spent her formative years growing up around constant music being played by incredible musicians. She soaked it all in, joined in, and developed in to a formidable player.

At age 15, she made her live debut when her father’s conga player fell sick. Sheila E. filled in for the tour, fell in love with playing live, and everything spiralled from there.

E.

Since the late 70s, Sheila E. has accomplished a great deal in the music industry. From that first live performance she would go on to play on numerous recordings and tour with the likes of George Duke, Marvin Gaye, Herbie Hancock, Ringo Starr and Diana Ross.

Perhaps her most definitive collaboration, however, has been with musical icon, Prince. After a concert with her father’s band in 1978, the pair met and decided to work together. At that time Prince was also an up and coming artist and the two began to collaborate and developed a dynamic musical chemistry. Sheila E. went on to record with Prince during his Purple Rain album and tour. In turn, Prince also helped Sheila launch her own solo career. He helped her transition from a just a player to an all around performer.

In 1984 Sheila E. released her debut solo album “The Glamourous Life.” The album’s title track became a top 10 hit and propelled Sheila E. into the spotlight.

Sheila E., the artist, is known for playing in decadent outfits, rocking high heels on the drums, and creating a show full of sexy swagger.

Several other hits followed, along with other solo records, and albums with her family (called the E. Family). Sheila E. continues to leave her mark in the industry to this day.

She’s also expanded beyond music and acted in films like Krush Groove, and appeared on various TV shows. She’s committed to being an all round entertained.

Like most great artists, words cannot do justice to what they do. You have to watch to understand. Below is a clip of Sheila E. performing a drum solo in 2011 as part of David Letterman’s drum solo week.

Currently Sheila E. is playing a string of solo shows across the world and is prepping a new solo record and autobiography for the near future.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from one of time’s great keepers. I reached Sheila E. by phone from her home in California.

From playing drums in high heels, to what it means to be an entertainer, to playing a glass bottle on a Michael Jackson record, to gender and music, we cover it all.

. . .

Ryan Kohls: Before we discuss the music, I just wanted to talk about something that happened recently that’s been on my mind. And, that’s the fight between Amir Khan and Danny Garcia. I saw you tweeted about that. What did you think of the fight? 

Sheila E.: I really wanted Khan to win, only because I look at him as a good fighter; his morals and how he expresses and composes himself. He’s a good fighter and has a good heart. Not that Garcia doesn’t, the part that makes him bad is because of his Dad, which is just unnecessary. It’s association and is a reflection of him.

RK: So, you’re a legit boxing fan aren’t you?

SE:  Yeah. I watch some of the fights because of my Dad.

The E. Family

RK: You’ve been touring all over the world for your recent gigs. What have been some of the highlights so far?

SE: Definitely being able to play some countries I haven’t played in a very long time. The response has been overwhelming. A lot of people told me they hadn’t seen me since the 80s. So, I put together a show that played a lot of the old music and every single song it was great to hear people singing along.

RK: You’ve played countless shows in your career. Is the thrill still there for you every night? 

SE: Oh, absolutely. Every time I perform it feels like the very first time I’ve played. I’m that excited. I have that much passion in my heart to still play. I’m excited, I’m nervous, I get butterflies, all of the above. I look forward to being able to share the gift that God’s given me. I haven’t done a record in so long, so to be able to last this long and play all over the world still, it’s pretty amazing.

RK: Is playing music live something you couldn’t live without?

SE: I like performing live, but the great thing about my life is that I’m able to do a lot of things at the same time. I’m in the music industry and business, so my hands are in something all the time, whether it’s in the studio or putting projects together. It would be hard not to play live, but there are times when I say it’s going to be challenging to continue to do this, at this rate, when I forget how old I am. Sometimes after a show I go, “Ow, that hurt.”

Sheila E. and George Clinton. Extensive Jam Session.

RK: You were tweeting recently that you jammed too long with George Clinton the other night. Is that the kind of overplaying you’re talking about?

SE: Yeah, you get excited, you start playing, you get in the zone, and you forget what happens. A lot of times I don’t even remember I’m playing in front of a live audience. With that show, we were at a place where we were on a stage in the middle of a lake. After awhile you don’t see anybody and have a great time. I think that’s what makes it so cool. I’m having a such a great time, and I think the audience feels that as well.

 RK: A review in Variety from the Playboy Jazz Festival said you, “expended the most sheer physical energy of anyone to rouse the crowd” Your show is clearly action packed, but what do you want the audience to experience when they see you live?

SE: Well, I definitely like to entertain. I’m an entertainer in the sense that I’m not just a musician, I like to entertain. That means, overall, a little bit of everything. One of the people I really looked up to as an entertainer was Sammy Davis Jr. He was able to do everything. He’d go onstage and talk to the people and do impressions. He was able to play different instruments, he did movies, TV shows; he did it all. I like to do that. My family kind of grew up doing that. We grew up performing in front of the family and it’s a huge family, so it was always like a big huge party. We put on the music and entertained each other with different art forms like music and dancing. The entertainment value is very important to me, to not only play the music, but visually you have to see something is going on. What I try to get across is that I enjoy doing what I do, and I’m so excited people come to support me and enjoy the pleasure that I get. There’s so much music in me, so many genres I grew up playing, and it never gets old. I joke and say I’ve played everything but Polka, but that’s actually not true, I’ve played that as well.

.

RK: Why do you place so much value in using your life to be an entertainer? 

SE: I don’t know anyone that doesn’t love music. I know that God has given us all different gifts and talents and if we use it to make people happy. That’s part of my mo to bless someone every day, at least one person, and make them smile. That’s what we’re supposed to do.

RK: Part of becoming a great performer involved stepping on a few toes and treating people in ways you’ve had to since apologize for. How do you balance between being a perfectionist and a friendly person to work with? 

SE: It’s still challenging. It will always be that way. I used to think I was in control and I was a perfectionist. After a while I realized I’m not in control, God is in control, and he’s given me every ability I have. At this point, it’s like, somethings don’t happen and now I think maybe they weren’t supposed to happen. I can sit here and say I thought of everything myself, but it’s not true, I have a team around me.

I said that I was a diva back in the day, and I think there should be a different definition now where it’s seen as more divine as opposed to being evil. I can demand things, but demanding could be looked at as a way of asking instead of telling. It’s just the way you change the words and speak.

RK: A big part of Sheila E. the entertainer was being able to play drums in your 6 inch high heels. That choice led to some health problems for you and forced you to stop wearing them on stage. I noticed, however, that you were wearing them again when you did your solo on David Letterman. Have you developed a way to wear them and not damage your body?

SE: I play the timables standing up in my heels, but when I sit down and play drums I have to take them off because I messed up my back. But, on the David Letterman performance I did wear the heels for that show.

It’s not healthy to wear heels, but Dave asked me to come play that show, and you’ve got millions of people watching, and you’re the only woman, I had to represent and show the guys.

.

RK: Speaking of that solo. I’ve always wondered what is going on in the mind of a drummer during a solo like that. When you riff are you improvising and feeling the groove, or is each stroke calculated beforehand? 

SE: The funny thing about that solo was I just sent 16 bars from one of the songs my family plays to Paul Shaffer and said I’d like to play this and we’ll figure it out when I get there. The day of the show we were doing soundcheck and we ran the 16 bars, and I said let’s loop this, stop here, and then I’ll just go for it. I told them to just let me know when there was two minutes left and I’d just end it. That was it.

And, mostly everything I do is spontaneous. Nothing is written out.

RK: I’ve played drums for a long time now, and I find it to be deeply satisfying, but it’s still hard to articulate why. How, if you can, would you describe the emotions you feel when you play drums?

SE:  In the second grade there was a band that used to play near our house. They used to play a lot of James Brown songs, and I love James Brown, and I remember every time I heard the drummer play a beat and I heard the snare drum, I thought, I want to play drums. There was something about it. When I was younger I used to listen to my Dad play. When he used to have his band come over, I loved the percussion, and I finally got to jump on the drums when my Dad’s band would take a break or something, I’d get on it for two seconds, play something, and then leave. When I really first started playing I was so excited because it made me happy. I loved the sound of it. In playing drums, if I thought about what I was playing I’d probably mess up, but it was something that I could express myself in a way that I could unite with the band and be a part of something that became one. And, I was the one responsible to take everyone to the different sections. I counted everyone in, and I had that responsibility of getting into these grooves, in the pockets of Latin and Funk. I just loved it. It really is hard to explain though other than saying I knew it was something I was destined to do.

RK: You play three different percussion instruments – the drum kit, the timbales, and the congas. What is the main difference in playing each of those?

SE: They’re completely different, but each of them are very demanding physically. On the drums you’re using all four of your limbs, and for me I sit down and sing at the same time. When you’re playing the congas it’s all physical. You’re using your legs because you’re holding the drums and you have to play with passion and power. You are the time keeper, especially in salsa bands. You’re almost the drummer. With timbales it’s very similar and demanding.

.

Growing up playing with George Duke, and playing congas and percussion, I used to play until my hands would bleed. We played every single day but it didn’t matter. It got to the point where I had to warm up on a concrete wall, or a surface that was very strong, so that I could numb my hands before I went on stage because it was that painful. But to me, the pain after awhile you kind of forgot about it until we played a slow song and I wouldn’t play for a few songs and then I’d go back to play and you’d hit something and it would feel like your hand was an open sore. That was demanding and it took a lot and a lot of people don’t know that. You have to build up calluses on your hands. And, I had to adapt to play congas in a different way. I play with my wrists as opposed to playing with my arms. These are things I did automatically because I never took a lesson, I just learned from watching.

RK: Would it possible to pick one of the three as your favorite to play?

SE: No, they are equally as important depending on what music I’m playing.

RK: When you first started playing you received a lot of negativity from male musicians. They didn’t think a woman should be playing drums. Do you still think there’s a lot of repression towards female musicians? 

SE: Yes, I do. I think it’s changed a little bit, but I still talk to women who are musicians, and not just drummers, and they all say to me it’s still a struggle for them. They feel they have to do more, try harder, for people to accept them and say, “Hey, it’s not that she plays good for a girl, she’s just a great musician.”

RK: We both play the same brand of shiny grey DW drums. I know you have a sponorship with DW, and may be obligated to say so, but do you think they’re the best drums in the world? 

SE: Absolutely. I’ve only been with two companies. The first company was Yamaha, I love Yamaha drums, and when I switched to DW I loved them to. I think they’re both incredible. I have drummers that play different drum brands and I love their sound as well, but when I sit down it creates my sound. I think it’s to each their own though.

E. Family and the Obama’s

RK: You’ve had the pleasure of playing with some of the all-time greats. Perhaps one of your lesser known collaborations though was playing a glass bottle on Michael Jackson’s “Don’t Stop Til’ You Get Enough” record. When you re-listen to the track for that, it’s actually a hook on the song. Can you tell me about how that collaboration came to be?

SE: I don’t really say that much about it because I’ve known Michael’s family for a very long time. I’ve known them since the late 70s. When I finally did this record I was very excited about it but then they took me off some of the stuff and ended up replacing some of my tracks. It’s because it took so long to do it, and every time they added something the whole song changed, and they ended up forgetting to put my name on the record, that was like, “really?”

RK: Along with all the success you’ve had in your life, there have also been some very challenging low points. The creation of your foundation “Elevate Hope” seems to be your way of giving back to young people who have experienced similar forms of abuse. Can you tell me a little bit about the organization and what you’re trying to accomplish with it?

Elevate Hope Kids

SE: My friend and I, Lynn Mabry, started that foundation about fifteen years ago because we were playing a bunch of shows and everywhere I went I wanted to give a donation to foster care facility there. So, we ended up making a legitimate company and started the foundation. What we do is raise money and use music and arts as therapy to help the kids. We figured that there are so many public schools where music and arts are being taken out, it’s horrible. But for the kids in foster care they have even less than those in public schools. So, we started going to different places and sponsoring teachers, or giving them instruments, from violins, to drums, to guitar. We helped gut rooms and build full blown studios for them. It’s been great because a lot of the kids have told us once they graduated from these facilities that if we didn’t help them they would probably be dead. That’s the biggest compliment ever . It’s even just saving one child at a time makes a difference. It was hard to say no sometimes because we couldn’t do it all at one time. It takes a lot and we’re always going to need help and donations.

RK: You have an extremely accomplished and eclectic resume. Is there anything else you’d like to achieve professionally?

SE: There’s a ton of stuff. My bucket list is huge. The great things about it is that I keep checking stuff off, and every time I do I add a few more things. But, I do have a book coming out next year called “From Pain to Purpose.” And, I do want to do some movies and television. There are some things in the works. I could have the best plans in the world, but then God could steer me in a completely different direction.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SHEILA E:

1) Check out her official webiste at: www.sheilae.com

2) Check out her Elevate Hope foundation at: www.elevatehope.org

“I’ve come close to the possibility of getting killed occasionally…I’ve been mortared, I’ve had a house destroyed by rockets, I’ve been chuck bombed, I’ve been shot at. But whatever, it’s not very frightening. ”

William Langewiesche is a very lucky man.

Not because he’s escaped death countless times, but because he was in the line of fire by choice doing what he loves the most: witnessing the wild events of our world and then writing about them.

For more than 20 years, Langewiesche (pronounced: long-gah-VEE-shuh), has carved out a formidable career writing for two of the world’s biggest magazines, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair. 

.

Not only does he write for some of the best magazines, he has managed to do it on his own terms.

He has, in many eyes, an enviable setup: he can choose to go wherever he wants, write about whatever he wants, take as long as he wants, and all the while make a comfortable living.

These days, only a rare breed of journalists are afforded such luxuries, but through quality work Langewiesche has earned the trust and respect of his editors and been awarded this privilege.

He’s taking full advantage of his lucky opportunity.

During his time with The Atlantic (1991-mid-2006) and since then international correspondent for Vanity Fair, he’s reported on a diverse set of fascinating, and often volatile, subjects: gangs in Brazil and Italy, the war in Iraq, how to build an atomic bomb, terrorism in London, and the World Trade Center clean-up.

He’s also written a great deal about flying. Langwiesche spent most of his childhood flying in planes with his pilot father, Wolfgang. By the age of 14, Langewiesche was steering the plane and developing a deep love for the sky. Eventually he became a commercial pilot and flew during and after university. He eventually navigated his skills to the literary world and wrote a lot about his time in the sky, including his many adventures purposely flying into storms.

All in all, Langewiesche’s literary catalogue has garnered multiple magazine awards and produced several best-selling books.

.

One fine example of Langewiesche’s work is his acclaimed and controversial book, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks Langewiesche was sent on assignment by The Atlantic to cover the event. Through blind luck, Kenneth Holden, the man in charge of the clean-up process was a huge fan of Langewiesche and gave him unparalleled access to the site. For the next six months straight Langewiesche reported on the scene at Ground Zero. The result was a one of a kind glimpse into the culture that emerged: the tension between the police and firefighters, the discovery of survivors, the fate of the rubble. The story was initially written as three massive features for the magazine and then turned into a book.

The book shocked many readers for remaining completely apolitical and refusing to explore the grief surrounding the event. There is not one mention of George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden in the entire book, nor his encounters with emotionally distraught loved ones. It was, however, a revealing look exclusively at the clean-up process. As such, it lives as a stand-alone account of that history.

American Ground is the perfect glimpse at Langewiesche’s writing style: It’s painstakingly researched, it delves into important and controversial subject matter, and it’s dense in imagery and characters.

Langewiesche’s most recent piece follows his signature style and is called “The Camorra Never Sleeps.” It’s about the infamous crime organization in Naples. It featured in the May 2012 edition of Vanity Fair and can be read by clicking HERE.

There is much I WANNA KNOW about one of journalism’s most accomplished and fearless writers.

I caught up with William Langewiesche from Kourou, French Guiana, where he is currently on assignment with Vanity Fair.

From the Camorra in Naples, to a discussion on fear, to alternatives to state government, to the power of luck and rejection in the writing world, to teenage girl music, we cover it all.

…

Ryan Kohls: When did you decide you wanted to write a story about the Camorra?

William Langewiesche: Some years ago I was in Italy at a literary festival and there was a guy there named Roberto Saviano who wrote a book about the Camorra called Gomorrah – they made a movie out of it.  We appeared on a stage together where we were talking about “Reporting from War Zones.” I was coming in from Baghdad and so I had some idea of what that was. He was coming from Naples. So, I thought, that’s really strange. Why is he calling Naples a war zone? The audience really ate it up. This guy was playing the war correspondent from Naples. That was my first close encounter with the subject. At the time, I thought what he was saying was fake and indeed it was fake, at least as I see it now. He was overplaying the drama of his own personal risk and the situation.

So, some years later when the subject of the Camorra came up, I thought it was inherently interesting. Over the years I’ve been writing a series of pieces on alternatives to state power. It was clear to me, and still is, that the Camorra is such an alternative.

RK: That’s interesting you say it wasn’t as dangerous or frightening as it was made out to be. Reading the piece, it seemed like a place to avoid. 

WL: Of course not. You would have to know how this guy made it out to be. I tried to read the book, but as a reader I couldn’t get through it. It was overwrought after three or four pages, and I put it down. As far as claiming that this is the cancer that will spread the chaos, I don’t buy it all. It’s a long-standing alternative to what we would now call traditional government. In fact, it’s much older than the government there itself.

RK: So, were there any times during your reporting in Naples that you felt in danger or unsafe? 

WL: No. Not at all. It’s funny because when I was there a newspaper ran a piece about me being there, which is kind of weird to begin with. When journalists write about journalists we’re getting into strange territory. In this piece, there were scenes that didn’t exist. It was written that I had been in the northern suburbs, where the Camorra are strong, and that the police had come up to me and warned me that I was in danger. None of that happened. There was zero problem in Naples.

Look, the Camorra is not interested in anything but pursuing its own business. It wants to commit as little violence as possible and the violence it does commit is related to power struggles within the Camorra. So, obviously I wasn’t at risk. One of the predictable aspects of Naples is that the nieghbourhoods in which the Camorra are strongest are, for the casual pedestrian like me, the safest.

Naples

RK: In the story you say, “Silence is a Neapolitan birthright.” Was it difficult to get sources to talk with you?

WL: Yeah. The people are very reluctant to talk. They don’t know what a journalist is, or if they do, they don’t know what it is that I do, which is different than standard newspaper reporters. The silence and fear of talking was a very real operational concern for the piece. I spent roughly two months in Naples to try and crack through and find a narrative structure that would work. For instance, one of my early thoughts was that I knew of a certain barber in Scampia, the ground zero of the Camorra. I made an approach through a friend of mine to see if I could write about him because he knows of everything going on. My friend told him what I wanted to do, that I would protect him, that there was no risk for him, and the barber told my friend, “I don’t remember what I had for dinner last night.” So that was the end of that conversation.

RK: The character that ended up providing the narrative structure was former Camorra leader Paolo Di Lauro. How did you land on him as the main subject? 

WL: I chose Paolo because of the problem of silence. The negative side of choosing him as a subject is because it’s history. Di Lauro is in jail, and will be in jail for the rest of his life. I kind of regret that, but that’s reality. In a way, it would have been better to describe the Camorra by finding a narrative structure that is not historic, and is active. To some degree Paolo did accommodate that but to a lesser degree than I would have wanted.

As a counterexample in terms of writing, I would turn you to a piece I wrote in São Paulo called “City of Fear” (Vanity Fair, 2007). It’s a very similar subject. That was a piece that was active. There was a history of the gang in the piece, but it was dominant when I was there and I did end up talking to one captain in that gang. In the case of Di Lauro, his gang had lost power when I arrived. If I had spent years there I could have found something more current, but it wouldn’t have been worth the time. The story as told in Vanity Fair did answer the need for information about what is going on in Naples and Italy.

Paulo Di Lauro

RK: A recuring idea in the piece is that the Camorra, despite its obvious flaws, is actually doing a better job of  goverance than the Italian state. Is that a conclusion that you personally arrived at?

WL: One doesn’t want to become too extreme but I think it’s worth asking the question. With all the handwringing that goes on about alternatives to state power, whether it’s American state power or Italian state power, you have to ask yourself: what is the difference? If you look at the Italian government in the last few years, and in general, and see what they do and don’t do for the people, and what an institution like the Camorra does, you get into grey areas. It’s not obvious that the Italian government is superior, nor is it obvious that the Camorra is something to be feared.

To extrapolate beyond that, what about the chaos that is perceived from Washington, D.C. in the world? Is that chaos actually so frightening as George Bush and Hillary Clinton believe it to be? Or, is it a pattern that can be accommodated by people that our leaders believe? These are questions worth asking, especially in the United States, because we go to war based on this kind of stuff.

So, the question is, what are the alternatives to government? What is it like to live within those alternatives? And, must we really fear those alternatives to the extent that we’re told we should? That’s the common denominator of what I’m doing right now. I’m trying to calm down the rhetoric.

RK: Many of the stories that interest you, and that you end up writing about, involve going to conflict zones. Does any of that attraction have to do with the thrill or adrenaline that comes with this kind of reporting?

WL: Not at all. In fact, I don’t even know what “adrenaline rush” means. I’ve never felt an increase in heart rate in conflict zones during the rare moments of acute problem — when someone is shooting at me, or mortaring, or I’m being chased by car. The heart rate doesn’t go up and I don’t know why or care. Therefore, it can’t be seeking an adrenaline rush because I don’t feel it. I actually don’t think that has defined my writing or the life that I’ve led. I’m more just curious about how things work, that’s about it. If it was that way my work would be more transferable into movies, but that’s not how I write or feel about the world in which I move.

RK: The fact that you don’t get scared, or feel adrenaline in those situations is surprising. Where do you think that calm comes from?

.

WL: In all honesty I don’t know, and I don’t want to pretend to be macho. I don’t really have a way to answer that other than this. When I was a kid, the war in Vietnam was going on, then there was the draft, and the possibility existed that I could get drafted to war. At the time — I’m talking 12 years old — that was an unimaginable nightmare. I couldn’t imagine you could endure something like that. I have not been in a war like Vietnam, though as a journalist I have been in situations that may be more dangerous. Very early on in my professional life as a writer, which was in my 30s, I found myself in conflict zones like Algeria and I was surprised that it wasn’t frightening at all. There was nothing that scared me about being there and doing my job and the possibility of being killed. I don’t know to what extent that’s a common experience, but I suspect that is it.

The fear of these things comes largely from a lack of familiarity with them. When you do become familiar they become less frightening. I think that’s the most honest answer I can give you. There’s a strong incentive for other writers or soldiers, who go through those experiences, to act as if it’s terrifying. I’m sure that it is at times terrifying, especially for civilians, but for those of us who choose to be there I suspect there is a social incentive to play it up as being more terrifying, or to believe it is more terrifying. This might come from people telling you you should be terrified.

RK: Most people would be terrified in those situations. So, I’m wondering what does scare you?

WL: Well, I really hate heights. Cliffs scare me.  (See “Storm Island,” The Atlantic, December 2001, where Langewiesche crawls close to a steep cliff’s edge in a raging gale on Ile d’Ouessant, off the coast of Brittany.)

From a more practical point, the thing I find most difficult in my work is dealing with the secret police. The power of the state frightens me more than the power of the insurgent. It’s much stronger and it’s very difficult. I really hate being in a situation, where I have been many times, where the state is going after me typically on accusations that I’m dealing in inappropriate information or represent a threat to the line of propaganda they’re pushing out to the world. This happens on a regular basis and that’s really frightening. You’re alone, you have no back-up, and there is no such thing as back-up. The American government in terms of that is a joke. You are completely at risk of being accused of all sorts of things, detained, and jailed. That’s the worst thing.

RK: There’s a scene in your book, Sahara Unveiled, where you’re left in the desert and it seems like you’re going to die. Would you say that’s the closest you’ve come to losing your life on an assignment?

.

WL: I don’t think I came close to death in that case. I suspected those people would come back, and they did.

I used to teach people acrobatic flying, stunt flying. There were times when teaching pilots how to do those manoeuvers where they would lose control and there were a few times where I felt I might have to go to the parachute. In each case, I recovered and didn’t have to jump out. I’ve come close to the possibility of getting killed occassionally. I can’t really name the one time. I’ve been mortared, I’ve had a house destroyed by rockets, I’ve been chuck bombed, I’ve been shot at. But whatever, it’s not very frightening.

RK: Even though you don’t seem to fear some of the places you write about there is still an inherent danger and amount of sacrifice to do your job. What motivates you to keep doing this?

WL: I do, in the end, love the final product. I hate the process, like everyone else. I’m lucky because I work with one editor in particular, Cullen Murphy, who encourages the time and expense of doing things deeply and not superficially. I’m motivated by the desire to live up to the opportunity that people are giving me to do this kind of work. It’s not because of my inherent qualities; it’s luck and chance. I also love to be out in the world because with this job you can go anywhere and you can pursue a subject anywhere on earth at whatever investment of time, and you can ask questions to anyone. You have a carte blanche to ask questions. You have a platform and excuse and I love being able to do that and listen to people very, very, carefully and understand the world in which we live.

RK: People often explain your style of writing as detached and unsentimental. This, for example, was used a lot to describe American Ground. Is it fair to say that you don’t like to have your opinion shine through in your work?

WL: No, I think my opinion shines through quite a lot. The detachment is a different thing. Maybe the detachment allows for my opinion to come through. For example, I still think that the emotionalism associated with the 9/11 attack was overwrought and destructive. That’s an opinion and it permeated the work that I did on that subject at the time. The opinion does come through, and that’s what pisses people off. People wanted to wallow in the grief, and celebrate that moment, which I thought was wrong. I thought it was a tragedy, but shouldn’t be celebrated.

As far as my detachment, I think I’m deeply empathetic to the people and situations I’m writing about. If they’re overreacting to something, like during 9/11, I’m even empathetic to that. I’m not cold, as one New York Times reporter once said I was — I’m rather emotional about these subjects. Right now I’m writing about the Foreign Legion. These guys are not French, they’re foreigners who give their lives for this military organization and die on a regular basis. These are guys who leave behind their earlier lives in a most radical way, they assume new identities and are protected by the legion in that. I look at these people and feel enormous warmth and admiration. My attitude is not at all cold. People who know my writing, like editor Cullen Murphy, know that. They know my writing embraces the human condition. I don’t hold myself to be superior or anything like that.

RK: Would you say you carry an emotional baggage from your past stories?  

WL: Well, it’s a very emotional thing to always be writing. The period of actually writing is a deeply consuming process. I can’t answer emails, answer the telephone, or do anything other than write the piece. This may go on for months. Seven days a week, forget about it. Forget about shaving, forget about being a normal person. I’m into it. That’s the writing process.

Now, as far as the people I meet. One of the worst things about this job is that I meet all kinds of people and develop very close relationships with my subjects. I have to and I’m allowed to because I’m given the time. I really like the people that I’m writing about. I fundamentally like, listen, and kind of love them in a way. When it’s all said and done, I walk away. Why? Because I’m busy, I’ve got to go off to the next one. That’s really a hard thing. People don’t often understand that, but you establish a close relationship. It’s not like a standard friendship between the writer and subject. Over all the years I’ve written, and people I’ve known, there have been a few cases I’ve managed to maintain a relationship afterwards. But I couldn’t hold on to everyone or I’d become a full-time relationship manager. You do have to let some of it go.

Mouloud Sihali

RK: It seemed like you had a close connection with Mouloud Sihali from your story “A Face in the Crowd.” Is that someone you’ve kept in touch with?

WL: I don’t, but that would be a classic example. That was a beautiful thing. The piece itself was a mix because half was about British anti-terrorism policy and it shouldn’t have even been in there. But the other half about him was beautiful. When we went through the fact checking in that piece, there was a scene where he’s in prison and he’s been accused of being the number one terrorist in the U.K., and being held in an Orwellian nightmare. Of course, he was not a terrorist and he’ll be in prison forever. He learns to deal with it by travelling with his mind. I spent a lot of time with Sihali and at some point as a narrator I put myself in his mind and took a mental walk with Sihali through the streets of London.

We have this rigorous fact-checking process at the magazine — they check every word — and the fact checkers on that piece balked at it. They said, “How can you get in Sihali’s mind?” First, I said the reader knows this is me, so there’s no problem there. The reader knows I’m imagining this. They said it wasn’t good enough, and our legal council said we have to check this with Sihali. We called up Sihali from the offices and I said this is the problem we’re having: I went inside your mind and we have a verification process and our fact checkers are having a problem. So, we read it to him and asked him how accurate this mental walk was and he began to cry. So how close is the relationship? It’s fucking close.

 

RK: There’s an often quoted line from Janet Malcolm that reads, “Every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.” Based on what you just said, is it safe to assume you wouldn’t agree with her?

WL:  I’d say it’s bullshit. To say it’s morally indefensible is an easy thing to say, but it’s ridiculous. As far as being conmen, there is an element of that. That’s an operational description because you need to make friends with people and persuade them you’re not going to fuck them. They need to trust you. Now, if you persuade someone that you’re not going to screw them over, and then screw them over, you were a conman. But if you persuade someone that you will not screw them over, and you write something they approve of, were you a conmen? You tell me. It’s bullshit.

RK: When I spoke with Gay Talese he described the process of writing as torture. He spends an incredible amount of time drafting his work. How would you describe the writing process?

WL: I take a lot time because I write very, very, slowly and agonizing over every comma. So, especially in the opening where you’re coming at the reader from nowhere are difficult. So, it’s normal for me to spend two weeks on the first page.

There’s really no difference between the first and last line in the sense that you have to come at the subject strong and not let up. If you let up the reader gets off the ride. How well can you do that without insulting the reader? That’s the problem. If you’re willing to play cheap tricks it’s relatively easy. For example, we heard the hoofs of the oncoming cavalry before we could see them, the firefight grew more intense, this kind of shit. That’s an insult to the reader. How do you retain the dynamic of the piece without insulting the reader? In that case there’s no difference between any line. The problem gets a little easier as you go because you’ve built up information and knowledge and relationship with the reader. But it’s a bitch and it’s really hard.

RK: If you examine the back stories of several successful magazine writers there seems to be a trend of starting out late in life and sort of stumbling into writing. You didn’t start writing seriously until your mid-30s. Why do you think this tends to happen?

WL: The beauty of writing as a profession, and this might be the only thing, is that you get better with age. I’m sure of that. Until you become senile and as long as you can fend off all the anxieties of life, like the IRS, you’ll improve. I only know from my own experience, and I haven’t met many writers because I don’t hang out in literary salons. How the hell am I supposed to know?

William Whitworth

I do know this. The man who gave me my first real opportunity was William Whitworth at The Atlantic. This would have been in the early ’90s. He is a grand man of literary journalism. At some point a new owner bought the magazine in Boston and it was time for Bill to leave, a new editor was coming in. When Whitworth was leaving I went to Boston to thank him for having done for me what he did, which was give me a chance. I was a pilot, just a fucking pilot. I said to him, “What are you going to do now?” He said, “I’m not sure. I’m going back to Little Rock.” He told me that some university had offered him a position teaching long form nonfiction. I said, “Well great. That sounds like it would be fun and nice and gentle.” He told me he declined and told me that in all of his career — which was long and important — he had never seen a single writer coming out of these schools who could hack it and produce what he needed as an editor. I wouldn’t take that as a general, or absolute rule, but I thought it was interesting. The best, he said, came from unexpected angles. I think that academics and professors who try and teach how to write has been the death of fiction. The reason nonfiction is riding high, compared to fiction, is that fiction has been so much relegated to Master’s degrees and workshops, whereas literary nonfiction is not often taught.

RK: I’ve heard many times that to be a great writer, you have to read great writing. What do you make of that?

WL: (Laughs) It’s probably true, which is why I’m not a great writer. I don’t read other writers. I understand the logic why people would say that. Who’s going to challenge you on that? Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not.

But, what is a good writer anyway? I’m thinking in more practical terms. Like, what is a good soldier? I’ve been thinking about that lately. What does it mean? I understand what it means to be a great boxer like Muhammad Ali. But, to be a great soldier? What does that mean?

RK: In terms of being a great writer, I’m starting to think it has something to do with determination and not giving up. For example, the process you endured to produce American Ground was unbelievable. I know I would have given up somewhere along the journey. So, perhaps being great means not giving up.

WL:  You’re so right. How do you not give up? What are the terms of giving up, and what does that look like? In my case, I was very lucky in two ways. One, I was a pilot so I had this standard. Early on in my life I was exposed to the slick New York magazine world. It was shit and I swore after three years there I would never write shit. Therefore, I left and started flying again. I was able, therefore, to pay my rent and continue to have these very high standards of writing what I thought was good. And by the way, I failed for something like twelve years. But, the point is that you have to be lucky in order to not give up. Most people are not pilots, and even if you have the ambition I have, they still have to write for the shit magazines. What else are they going to do for a living?

The other thing is purely chance. You have to keep at it long enough for the possibility of good luck to occur. Aside from skill and ability, it’s not just that, which is why people who are successful and rich in America and Canada think they deserve to be rich, but they discount the element of chance. The one thing is that is if you keep at it long enough you allow the chance that maybe you could win.

Lucky Langewiesche

RK: Like you mentioned, you’ve faced a great deal of rejection in your career. You even had fully written books rejected by publishers. How did you deal with that rejection early on?

WL: I wrote a novel that Robert Loomis at Random House told me to write. I wrote the novel and he rejected it. It took me two years to write it, and I was working as a pilot at the time. When he rejected it I thought, you know what, he’s right. I spent another two years writing it, now we’re four years in, and I sent it to him again and he said, “It still stinks.” I thought, you know what, he’s right. So, the one thing I could boast about is that when I was rejected I didn’t say, “They’re fucked up and I’m a great genius.” I truly thought, I’ve got to be better, this isn’t good enough.

RK: You mentioned the importance of chance and luck. Which part of your career do you count as being the most lucky?

WL: The real luck was sending something off to The Atlantic and having Bill Whitworth and Cullen Murphy respond to it. I was a pilot and I sent off a very short thing, which I intended for the New York Times. I didn’t know what The Atlantic was, I’d hardly read it. I went to a magazine stand and said, “Who am I going to send this crap to?” I basically chose The Atlantic out of thin air. That’s luck.

RK: What kind of music do you listen to?

WL: You know what, I don’t know how to tell you this but I have a taste in music that is kind of unusual for someone of my age. My daughter, who is 19, accuses me of liking teenage girl music.

Thanks, Will.

RK: So you’re saying if Justin Bieber came on the radio you wouldn’t change the station?

WL: Well, I don’t mean like that bad.

RK: Besides Rhonda Shearer, do you have any pet peeves you’ve developed over the years?

WL: (Laughs) I don’t have a problem with Rhonda Shearer. I’ve got so many pet peeves I can’t even tell you about it. Of course, one passes judgement on all sorts of things, but silently, and if you’re not an egomaniac you try and keep it under control.

In terms of language, the term “the reason is because” instead of “the reason is that” is a question of logic. When I hear people say, “The reason I went to the store is because I was hungry,” I have to fight the impulse to say, “You didn’t go because you were hungry, the reason was that you were hungry.” I have a friend in Singapore who understands my problem and said to me one day, “William, you’re being very pedantic. All sorts of people who are very smart say this.” He told me to get off my pet peeve, and I agree with him.

“If I don’t stand and fight for change,

then I’m part of the tyranny that’s taking place. I refuse to succumb to
being a second class citizen…You can’t whitewash what God has planned for me in my life.”

The separation of sports and politics is a widely accepted norm. But some athletes refuse to play by these rules. John Carlos is one of the brave few, and he’s paid a heavy price for using sports as a platform to demand racial equality.

Born in Harlem, New York in 1945 Carlos was blessed with a natural sporting ability. Despite his amazing athleticism – he virtually could have succeeded at any sport – his career has been defined by struggle: The struggle to be accepted, the struggle to make ends meet, the struggle to stand up for black/human rights, and the struggle to survive when it felt like the whole world was against him.

Yes, on paper, Carlos has a fantastic sporting career: He’s won Olympic medals for running, he’s played in the NFL and CFL, and he very well could have been a professional boxer or swimmer. All that, however, will remain as merely a footnote in his history because John Carlos was born at a time of extreme racial segregation in the United States, and instead of accepting the system, he fought to change it.

Before Carlos made history, his life set him on a crash course to athletic activism. His childhood in Harlem exposed him to racial oppression in America; he experienced nasty racism, but found clever ways to demand and achieve dignity. As a teenager he learned of his ability to run extremely fast by stealing from trains and delivering food and clothes to his poor community; he considered himself the local Robin Hood.

Not only was Carlos discovering that you had to stand up for yourself to get respect, he was fortunate enough to be educated by some of the most influential black activists in history. As a young man, he had the opportunity to hang around and learn from both Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. John Carlos’ upbringing prepared him to use his athletic prowess to do something important. And, that’s exactly what he did.

It was 1968 at the summer Olympics in Mexico City. John Carlos was at the height of his athletic career. He was, at that time, considered to be one of the fastest men in the world. He had dreamt his whole life of running at the olympics – it was the pinnacle of success for any athlete – and he was finally there.

Norman. Smith. Carlos.

He was victorious: in the 200m sprint he claimed the bronze medal, while his teammate, Tommie Smith, took the gold. As Carlos and Smith stood on the podium to collect their medals it should have been a time of great celebration and excitement. But instead, they used this moment in front of the world to make a deafening statement: in silence, with their heads bowed, they raised their black-gloved fists in the air to protest the extreme amount of racism in America.

The symbolism of the moment is complex and highly misunderstood. 1) The black fists in the air didn’t represent black power but human rights; the clenched fist stood for unity and not aggression, 2) they wore no socks to represent the poverty amongst black communities in America, and 3) they wore beads around their necks to protest lynching.

The moment on that podium was a twist of fate. Leading up to the games, Carlos and Smith had been seminal members of the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR). The goal of this organization was to “expose how the United States used black athletes to project a lie about race relations both at home and internationally”. Their plan was to encourage all black athletes to boycott the Olympic games because, as their mission statement said, “why should we run in Mexico only to walk home?” To avoid the boycott they had three demands: 1) exclude apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia from the games, 2) restore Muhammad Ali’s heavyweight boxing title, and 3) remove the overtly racist Avery Brundage as the head of the International Olympic Committee. The project crumbled when Dr. Martin Luther King, who had backed the movement was assassinated, and South Africa and Rhodesia, on a separate occasion, were disinvited to the games. With the backbone of the movement in shambles the athletes decided to go. This set Carlos and Smith up for their opportunity on the podium.

the race.

The backlash for the podium protest was immediate. Before the national anthem had stopped playing the crowd of over 50,000 began to reign down boos, and things were thrown at the athletes as they left the field. From that moment things spiralled into chaos: Carlos and Smith were kicked out of the Olympic village, the international media sharply criticized their actions, they received death threats, and their loved ones were thrust into a hateful limelight.

These days, Carlos and Smith are hailed by many activists and athletes as heroes. Their courageous stand in Mexico is remembered as a triumphant moment in American history. They’ve won awards for their activism, and continue to thrill crowds around the world with their story.

In 2011, John Carlos along with sports writer Dave Zirin, captured the moment and the history in the book The John Carlos Story: The sports moment that changed the world. Although the book details how John Carlos was a part of history and even, to a degree, changed history, it expresses clearly that he continues the struggle for racial equality to this day. Progress has been made, but the race is not yet won.

There is much I WANNA KNOW about John Carlos’ struggle for equality.

I caught up with him from his home in California.

From the 1968 Olympics, to growing up in Harlem, to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, to politics and sports, we cover it all. 

Ryan Kohls: Long before 1968, you had a vision about what was to come. Can you tell me about that?

John Carlos: I must have been about seven or eight years old. Early one morning, my walls just lit up like a big screen, right across my wall. It showed me in a forum where there was a whole bunch of people, and I was standing on a box. Everybody was excited and happy. By the time it dawned on me that I was the one they were applauding for I raised my hand to wave. It was like someone snapped their finger and all the sunshine and joy and happiness that was around me turned to anger and venom, to the point where they started throwing things, using bad language, and spitting at me. It scared me so bad, and the whole day I was in a state of shock.

I recall going to dinner that night and I remember my Dad asking, “What’s wrong?” I said, “Dad, I was in a movie. Everyone was happy about something I did then they got mad at me.” My father looked at my mother as he was embracing me, and said to her, “Looks like God has something special for this kid. We’ll have to wait and see what it is.”

Fifteen years later I’m on that victory stand and exactly what happened in that vision happened in that stadium.

RK: I want to get back to that moment, but before that I want to talk more about your upbringing. How did growing up in Harlem in the 1950s and 1960s shape your education of racism in America?

Harlem. 1960s.

JC: I would have to say it probably started in the late 40s. By the time I was five years old and running around my fathers store, I was noticing who was in the environment I grew up in. In my estimation it was like a soup bowl, everybody was there: there was white people, black people, hispanic people. By the time I hit 7, I recall standing in my father’s doorway one time and I saw two winos, one black and one white. They were out partying that Friday night and were now lying on the ground. On Saturday ayoung white cop came up to them laying on the ground, and when he went to the white fellow, he banged his stick on the ground and the guy didn’t move, so he poked him, and told him to move on. Then he moved over to the black guy, in my head I thought I was going to see the same thing again. He tapped the stick on the ground, and the guy didn’t move, so he went down to his feet and took the nightstick like it was a baseball bat and wore the bottom of this guys shoes out. I saw this guy levitate off the ground and lay in a horizontal position, and he almost got killed trying to run across the street. It put me into shock. I think that was the first time that I ever saw any race relations, not knowing it was classified as that. I asked my father, “Why did he do that?” He said, “All people are not treated the same in this life we live.” I think that subconsciously triggered my mind to start looking for the differences from that experience there.

RK: The hardships of your early life in Harlem led you to a phase in your life you refer to as the “Robin Hood” days, when you and your screw stole from trains and brought the goods back to the community. Do you think the ends justified the means in those days?

JC: I think it was something that was necessary to do. Robin Hood was a guy that impressed me because he realized there were two laws of the land: the Sheriff of Nottingham’s (Man’s Law) and God’s law. He chose to realize that God put this land here for all its inheritants. Those who were less fortunate didn’t know how to take care of themselves. Robin Hood took it upon himself to say I’m not concerned about man’s law and repercussions, I’m concerned about those who are less fortunate. In my mind, people who might have been living in low-income communities and ghettos would fall in love with Robin Hood.

I took it to the next level though when drugs came into the neighbourhood. They used to have a thing called King Kong liquor (bootleg liquor). You can equate that to PCP; you drink that liquor and go to the roof thinking you can fly, then jump to your death. I went to bed one night and King Kong was gone and heroin was the drug of choice out of nowhere. Many individual’s parents were disillusioned and many fathers became missing in action. There were many mothers raising kids on their own, plus they had their own vices. There was no food in the ice box – remember we didn’t have any fridges. And, a lot

Trains near Yankee Stadium

of them didn’t have clothes. So, these freight trains were coming in near Yankee Stadium everyday. Me and my partners went over there to explore what these trains were carrying. We started breaking in and realized they had clothes, frozen foods, and goods that people in the community needed real bad. I remember telling my buddies at the time that we weren’t going in there for our own self-interest. I remember one of them said to me, “We’re going to be rich!” I said, “No. This ain’t for our pockets, this is to help the people in our community.” They got into it as much as I did just to see the smile on somebody’s face when you give them something.

RK: Before you became an influential individual, you were influenced by some of the most revered thinkers in modern times: Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. First, what was it about Malcolm X that captivated your imagination as a teenager?

JC: I think first of all it was the vision he had. Before I laid eyes on him I heard him on the radio. He had such a strong emotion and vigor about his delivery in what he was talking about. He was talking about learning your history, respecting yourself, fighting for your environment, educating yourself, and standing up for your rights. These are the types of things I heard as a young individual and I was so encouraged. There wasn’t many talking in that vein, in terms of saying “I am somebody.” I was just impressed that a guy could be on the radio talking that strong, and encouraging black people to start pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

X

When I went down and had the opportunity to see him I was in a state of shock all over again.  I anticipated him being a dark-skinned individual because of how he was talking about black people. But, when I saw him I called him a red-bone. I just had that much more pride in him: I was fair-skinned and he was fair-skinned. There was a connection there. When I saw in person how laid back he was, how self-assertive he was, and how he was trying to bring the people together as a unified race of people, I was enthralled. After the second or third time I saw him speak, I stuck around after and asked him if I could go with him from one location to the next. He asked me why, and I said because I have questions and I want to learn. He smiled – he had this dimple in his chin that I’ll never forget – and said to me, ‘Sure son, you can come with me. Can you keep up?” I didn’t understand what he meant at the time, but when we got out there I realized he was a fast walker.

RK: And, how influential was Dr. King in your life?

JC: He was very influential in terms of what happened in Mexico City. He was like a symbol in my household. My mother and father had the highest level of admiration for Dr. King based on his non-violent activities, and based on his strong voice in terms of standing for those who couldn’t stand for themselves. There was a difference between Dr. King and Malcolm X. Malcolm was more concerned about his people, black people. Whereas Dr. King was more concerned about all people, and had a clear vision of how to reconcile these issues so that we could all prosper in this life.

When I met Dr. King it was a unique situation. I just left East Texas University and I came back to New York. Professor Harry Edwards called me and told me about a meeting. My mother encouraged me to go, and it was in the old Americana Hotel, near the old Madison Square Garden. I felt outta my zone there, and I was nervous. I was feeling like, what I’m doing here? They tried to relax me, and then twenty-five minutes later, Dr. King walked in. That was like God walking into my living room. I didn’t look at him as God, but I looked at him in that sense. In my household my mother used to preach that Dr. King was God’s first lieutenant he sent to this earth. When he entered that room two things jumped on my brain. The first thing was, man my momma need to be here right now – she needs to be a bug on my lapel, or rock in my pocket. The second thing was, wow, I’m in the room with Dr. Marin Luther King.

King

What I remember most about him that day was how comedic he was. He cracked jokes to relax everyone, and then we discussed why we all came together. We were there because he had taken a vested interest in the Olympic Boycott. We didn’t know he was going to come out full-blown to support it. He didn’t want to take control, but be second in command. He also said in that meeting that he was sent a bullet in the mail with his name on it. At the end of the meeting he asked if anyone had any questions. I naturally had a few questions. The first one was: Why would you join this movement? Did you even play sports? He said, “I can’t even shoot pool.” I laughed and said, “Why would you get involved?” He said, “John, imagine being in a rowboat and you roll out to the middle of a lake, and you pull the oars in and wait for everything to be still, and you grab a rock and drop it in. What happens?” I said, “It creates vibrations.” He said, “Absolutely, it creates waves. When those waves move out it lets everyone know that something is not right. This boycott is that rock.” That was a powerful statement. He said it will bring attention worldwide about the plight of black people in America with a non-violent statement.

The second question was, “Why would you go back to Memphis with your life threatened?” He said, “John, I have to go back to Memphis and stand for those who won’t stand for themselves, and those who can’t stand for themselves.” That right then split the pea in my mind that there were people who could but won’t stand, and those that want to but aren’t allowed to. When he said that I felt like my life had come full circle. I’ve always stood for those who wouldn’t or couldn’t stand for themselves.

RK: You were with Dr. King days before he was assassinated. What do you remember about that day you heard he was killed?

JC:  First was the hurt and sorrow because he knew he was going to lose his life. At the same time I realized that he made a statement to me that his life was not as important as the job at hand. He said he could die, but he would never die in terms of the spirit in which he stood for. That made me, in Mexico, understand that they could take my life, but not what I stood for and was reaching out to society for. He lived stronger in death than he ever did in life.

RK: At the time of the 1968 Olympics, you were considered one of the fastest men in the world. What’s it like to be able to run that fast?

.

JC: It’s a blessing by God that you might be the best in any given profession. The blessing, for me, is that I was able to take it and share it with the spectators. I was never a standoffish athlete, saying look what I have and you should envy me. I used to take it in the stands and talk with the people and say, “I’ll be back in 9 seconds,” and then come back and hang out with them. I wanted to give the people a good show for their money. I got that theory from a white fella that used to come to the Savoy Ballroom, Fred Astaire. We used to perform outside and he would flip us a silver dollar, and told us that he did that because we put on a good show.

RK: So, when you got on that podium, did you remember your vision as a child?

JC: I remembered the vision as soon as those people started the booing and chanting. From that point on that vision was on my mind to the point I said, “Oh shit, this is what that vision was about.” The only difference was I had two others on the box with me, and I had to understand what was taking place.

RK: You’ll forever share something with the two other people on that stand. Tommie Smith was your teammate and won the gold. Your relationship after the games, however, suffered. Was it because of all the scrutiny?

JC: It’s not the scrutiny. It’s a situation we had long before Mexico City. Mr. Smith is an introvert, and I’m an extrovert. Yet, God put us in the same venue in the same event. Every athlete wants to be on the top of the hill. I’m willing to share, Mr. Smith wants to be independent. That’s the attitude he has. I tell him we’re joined at the hip – now, you don’t hear about Jekyll without Hyde, or Abbott without Costello, and you don’t hear about Carlos without Smith. He seems to think that he can be independent. We’re still competitive to the point that he said some things in his book that wasn’t so flattering.

RK: What’s your relationship with Tommie like today?

JC: I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mr. Smith.

Carlos. Smith. Norman.

RK: The other person on the stand was Australian runner, Peter Norman. He took a lot of heat for his participation in that moment. How much did his support mean to you and Tommie? 

JC: Peter Norman was a godsend. We could have went through 10 million white individuals, and 9,999,999 would never have attempted that, let alone do it. Peter was like a piece of clairvoyant paper. There was no color with Peter. It was about his spirit, his heart, and his vision of what could happen in society when people come together to do something creative. I’ll always have respect for Peter, more than Tommie, because Peter was genuine from the day we met to the day he died. When you sit back and think about what happened when we left the victory stand and returned to our home countries, there was two individuals in America and one in Australia. If they decided to whip up on John Carlos they would do it until I was tired, then move to Tommie Smith. In Australia – and remember in the late 60s it was parallel to South Africa in terms of its abuse to people of color – Peter Norman stood up and said he believed in justice and equality for all people. When he went back, just because he put a button on his shirt, they beat Peter 24/7. There was no spin-off on Peter. At the same time, the more they beat him the stronger he got to his committment. He never said one negative thing about us, and stayed strong to his death. He had nervous breakdowns, got into alcohol, his marriage broke down, and they didn’t even acknowledge him at the 2000 Olympic games in Australia. All of these things were taking place, but Peter never changed his views and values, and I’ll always have respect for that long after I leave this world.

.

RK: Do you think the Olympics salute is still misunderstood as representing black power and not human rights?

JC: You have to take into account that at the time right-wing media was the only media out there. They wanted to make it more of a black power demonstration to intimidate the people. They wanted to bring the end to us by saying that we were a black militant group that was going to come in and blow up the Statue of Liberty and destroy America, which was so far from the truth. Then at the same time, Black people were clinging to it and saying it was. But, if you think about that fist with the glove on. Before it was a fist it was five fingers representing all races – they are all individuals until they unite – and when they become unified they become a powerful force. These things were never revealed, so everyone had their own interpretations from what the right-wing media was putting out there for them to eat.

RK:  You detail in the book that the FBI was following you after the Olympics and harassing your then wife with pictures of you with other women. Have you ever received an explanation or apology for that?

JC: (laughs) I don’t think anyone has ever received an explanation or apology from the FBI.

RK: Is that something you want?

JC: Let me just say this. We’re not looking for apologies, we’re looking for justice.

RK: How do you anticipate receiving that justice?

JC: We’re fighting for it, brother. We’re standing tall. It’s like this: If I don’t stand and fight for change, then I’m part of the tyranny that’s taking place. I refuse to succumb to being a second class citizen, and not being able to go the university of my choice, or live in this community. I refuse to always be the
doorman, or the guy who cleans the toilets. You can’t whitewash what God has planned for me in my life.

RK: You talk about God a lot, how would you describe your spirituality? Are you a Christian?

JC: I wouldn’t say I’m Christian. From the time I was a little boy I’ve always gone to religion to fill that void in my life. I was a Catholic, I was a Muslim, I was Protestant. I was all religions. My consensus is that I know there’s a God in the sky, and I relate to God himself. I don’t follow no one religion. I follow my spirituality. Relative to what happened in Mexico, it dawned on me that God had a special plan for me. Not just on that stand, but the way my life was led up that moment, and continues to this day.

RK: People always want to ask you how you think racism in American has changed since 1968. I’ve heard you say that some things certainly have gotten better, but we all know racism is alive and well. Why do you think it has such a stronghold in America?

JC: It has a stronghold in America because we refuse to deal with the race issues. We prefer to sweep it under the carpet instead of putting it on the table and having some serious discussions about what’s going on in this society. Even in the schools he haven’t figured out how to deal with this. Until we start to deal with these issues we are going to be in a position to self-destruct because we can’t deal with the most prevalent thing that’s destroying the society.

RK: Throughout your life you have often told people they had 48 hours to deal with the problem, or you’d do something about it. If you could tell one person that today who would it be and why?

JC: I would probably tell it to the people in the educational system. I think that what happens relative to young individuals, we have the responsible to educate them on the various cultures, ethnicities, and economics we deal with. It’s like, if you have money you have reputation and power. Those that have the power are concerned about the power players. In the election right now with Mr. Romney, he’s dealing with the power brokers and has no concern for those who are less fortunate. How do the power brokers thing they’ll have a good situation if they have people trying to find a job and health care? The society can not continue like this without the bottom falling out. And, where do we get the chance to put this on kid’s minds?–the institution of education.

Smith educating the youth.

RK: You spend the bulk of your energy today working with the youth in America. Are you seeing positive signs that the youth are motivated to make a change? Or, do you think this generation is apathetic and doesn’t have the fire your generation had?

JC: I think it’s sporadic. It’s not a steamroller where everyone’s on the same page. When you think about the youth of today, they don’t have the self-knowledge we had in my day. We had a concern about family, education, community, and safety. All of those things are no longer in existence today. They don’t teach kids about values and morals in schools no more.

RK: Do you think the kids today have it too easy?

JC: Our kids don’t get up to turn the channel no more, they sit in a chair and flip the remote. Our kids don’t go to the library and do research, they go and push one button. They’ve made it so simple that kids don’t want to do it. What was the TV originally invented for? It was based on education. Somebody then said, “The hell with education, we’re going to use this shit to make some money.”

RK: At the end of your book, sports writer Dave Zirin challenges the sports world and athletes to become more political. Do you think this needs to happen? 

JC: Let me ask you this question. Do you think they’re outside of the human race? No. They come from the same community. Why wouldn’t they have a vested interest in what’s happening morally, and politically? They’ve been co-opted, and we have a tendency to be afraid to offend our oppressors.

Carlos and Smith receive their Arthur Ashe Award with Steve Nash.

RK: Are there any positive examples you’ve seen lately of athletes speaking up for a cause?

JC: I think the Pittsburgh Steeler’s coach Mr. Woodsen is admirable for speaking up about social justice issues.

Steve Nash in Phoenix. He has a concern for the hispanic people down there. He’s an individual who grew up in apartheid South Africa, and then left for Canada. Based on him dealing with those issues, he has no reservations about his vision for society. He’s not afraid to stand up and speak on the issues. Do other athletes have the tenacity to do this? Only time will tell. You may have your 15 minutes in the bubble as a professional athlete, but your mom isn’t in there with you, and your community isn’t either. I chose not to walk away from society. Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, and many others did the same thing, and said, “Hey, I’m a sportsman, but I’m a human being first.”

RK: What musical artists have provided the soundtrack for your life of triumph and tragedy?

JC: I got so many of them and most of them are in the jazz field. Thelonious Monk, Miles David. Max Roach was my man. Nina Simone, Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown. It’s a collage of them. I’m into the old school.

RK: In your teens you were on your way to becoming a professional boxer until your mother discouraged you from fighting. Do you think if you would have pursued it further you could have beaten George Foreman? 

JC: I used to tell people who George and I should fight in an exhibition match. People would always tell me George would kill me in the ring. I’d say, “That’s your opinion. My opinion is that he’d have to catch me first.” That was one of my ambitions to become a boxer. I used to tell my mother I didn’t want to box as much as I wanted to make a million dollars. I told my mom I’d be alright. All I wanted was some start-up capital and that was the quickest way to do it. My idea as a youngster was to take care of my family and make sure they were secure. My mom stopped that and tried to protect me. She said, “Johnny, I’m afraid it’ll break your face up and hurt you.”

RK: In the book there’s a quote: “the fight for social justice is a marathon and not a sprint.” Do you have hope that the marathon will end one day?

JC: They say the Lord will come back, so I think when He comes back we will see love and harmony between all the people on this planet.

For more information on John Carlos:

1) visit his website: http://www.johncarlos68.com/

“Mahatma Gandhi said it, ‘I like their Christ, I don’t like their Christian.’ Unfortunately, when Christendom has been hijacked and made into a state religion or a power institution it gets abused… Christianity is a commitment of surrender, not of power over humanity.”

The intellectual pursuit of truth and meaning is a global phenomenon. Whether your truth is that there is no meaning, or that all meaning is found in a metaphysical truth – everyone believes something.

The quantity of time and effort devoted to this pursuit, however, differs widely. For some it is a passing thought or an infrequent activity, but for others like Christian apologist and author, Ravi Zacharias, it is the all consuming purpose of their lives.

The word “apologist” has nothing to do with being sorry. In fact, it has everything to do with thinking one is right. Originating from the Greek word apologizesthai, meaning to “give an account” it refers to “a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial, typically a theory or religious doctrine.”

Ravi Zacharias has dedicated close to 40 years of his life writing, lecturing, and debating about his belief that the Christian faith is true, and can provide all the answers you seek.

Ravi Zacharias

In 1984, he founded the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The organization now has offices around the world and provides theological training and education through a staff of travelling apologists. Their slogan is: “Helping the thinker believe. Helping the believer think.”

A large part of Ravi Zacharias’ time has been spent creating 20 books, including Jesus among other Gods, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus talks with Buddha, and Can Man Live Without God?

.

His latest offering, entitled Why Jesus?: Rediscovering His Truth in an age of Mass Marketed Spirituality, is an examination of the rising popularity of Eastern religion in the West. Zacharias calls the movement “Weastern,” a combination of East and West philosophy. In the book, Ravi argues that the New Spirituality fails to answer fundamental questions regarding meaning and human nature. He juxtaposes these teachings with Christianity and argues that the former rationally fails against the latter.

Following in the footsteps of Christian intellectuals like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, Zacharias has positioned himself in the rocky sea’s of religious academia. But that’s exactly where he wants to be: “a classical evangelist in the arena of the intellectually resistant.”

Ravi Zacharias does not shy away from the difficult questions and finds a way to answer with dignity and respect for any audience. Billions wholeheartedly agree with his message. Billions strongly disagree. It’s making for some fantastic debate and stimulating conversation.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from one of Christianity’s sharpest minds.

I spoke with Ravi from his office in Atlanta, Georgia.

From Ravi’s criticisms of the New Spirituality, to Deepak Chopra, to the great intellectuals of our time, to televangelists, to the character of the Biblical God, we cover it all.

(listen/download as a podcast above – or continue reading below)

Ryan Kohls: You coined the phrase ‘Weastern’ spirituality in your new book. What did you mean by that? And, why did you feel now was the time to write a book about this subject?

Ravi Zacharias: There’s a proverb in Hindi which is not the kindest way to refer to a person who is local but acting foreign: Desi murghi pardesi chaal  – this is a local chicken with a foreign walk. We used to use that term when somebody had gone abroad and come back and all of the standards, and expectations, changed. When I look at the manifestations of Eastern spirituality in the West, it’s really the reverse. It’s a foreign bird with a local walk. It’s the pantheistic worldview given a Western dress. When you look at Eastern pantheism in the days gone by there was renunciation, there was austerity, there was the retreat from the hustle and bustle of life, and sitting at the foot of a guru – now it’s in the thick of luxury. But, it’s got all the underpinnings of pantheism made more palatable for the West.

The timeliness of it is because so much of it has been mass marketed by the media we now see, and very often in America we absorb ideas without examining the rational or irrational basis for it. So I felt the time had come to respond to these ideas.

.

RK: You don’t believe that the New Spirituality stands up to rational scrutiny. What do you see as the biggest contradictions in the movement?

RZ: The biggest contradiction I see is a genuine violation of the laws of reason. Now, the laws of logic are not comprehensibly able to explain everything in the universe, but one of the ways of testing a system is if it’s logically flawed systematically, then you have to question whether it’s true or not. It leads you to a relativistic ethic, it leads you to a dehistoricization of all the other worldviews. You have to dehistoricize Jesus, the Qur’an and all the other Monotheistic religions, and put them all into one happy mix. You end up deifying yourself. If this view is right, all the other views are wrong. Both of them can’t be true at the same time, using the same terms and in the same sense.

That’s the first thing. The second thing is that, in the process of self-deification, they totally ignore what is the most obvious glaring reality – the depravity of the human heart. You live with it, I live with it, we all wrestle with it regardless of what we might speak doctrinally. We know our own hearts and how vulnerable they are to self-centerdness, hate, and pride. I think the New Spirituality ignores the most empirically verifiable fact about human experience.

RK: In the book you write that Christianity centers around relationship between God and people, while the New Spirituality ignores this. In your opinion, is the hunger for relationship in humans one of the most convincing proofs of God?

RZ: I believe existentially speaking, yes. I don’t know how we escape this. I think a classic example is in the recent sad death of Whitney Houston. Why is that these icons who have gained and accomplished so much, and that we look to and celebrate, are themselves empty on the inside and seem to pursue something other than their gains and accomplishments? This means the existential search for meaning and relationship is very real, both in pain and in pleasure. God has fashioned us as beings in search of relationship. I remember C.S. Lewis’ conversion story, “I thought I’d come to a place, I found out I’d come to a person.” I think that says it well.

Deepak Chopra

RK: You talk a lot about Deepak Chopra in the book. He’s become a very influential thinker in the New Spirituality movement. However, you believe he’s preaching something very dangerous. Could you elaborate on your opinion of Chopra? 

RZ: Deepak Chopra is a fascinating person. Before anything else needs to be said, he is brilliant and methodologically very clever. He knows exactly how to poison the wells when he’s trying to debunk something, and how to defend what he is supposedly defending. For want of another word, the word is epistemology. How do you arrive at the truth measurement of a philosophy? When he writes his book on Jesus, it’s very cleverly done. He calls it the Third Jesus. He says there are three Jesus’: the first is the Jesus of History, he says we know nothing. How do you like that statement? The second, he says, is the Jesus manufactured by the Church. So in other words, the Jesus of Christian orthodoxy is a manufactured one. So he creates the Third Jesus, the Deepak Chopra Jesus. This is the Jesus who is the guru who came into this world searching for nirvana and ultimately attained it. How does he know that? Quoting hundreds of verses taken out of context from the New Testament. But wait a minute, that’s the source he already debunked doing away with the historical Jesus. Where it conveniently suites him he takes passages out of context and make it a pretext to support his point.

The second thing is that he has run a foul with many Hindu scholars themselves. For example: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who obviously dealt with issues of temper and competition, Deepak Chopra says there are three Maharishi’s too. He loves this three thing. He says there was the ill tempered Maharishi and also the peaceful one who lived in communion with the impersonal absolute. Aseem Shukla, who is also a medical practitioner from Minnesota takes him on saying, “Why are you playing these word games? What you are doing is nothing short of Hindu philosophy dressed up in Western garb.” And the response of Chopra if not so serious would be quite hilarious. I think Aseem Shukla gets the better of him in that debate. So, what does Chopra do? – hide behind a new term: Sanatana Dharma – the pure religion, the eternal religion. Who in the West is going to learn how to pronounce that, let alone debate it?

RK: In “Why Jesus?” you write that Jesus is an Eastern man, and that the Bible is an Eastern text. Do you think that reality is often ignored in cross-cultural debates?

RZ: I think it’s a huge gap. I think it’s the biggest gap in hermeneutics* today. I think about it so often. You see this misunderstanding so often in the New Testament criticism’s. For example, if I read in the New Testament that “all Jerusalem went out to hear him.” I’m from India, and if I read that in the newspaper I know that doesn’t mean that every man, woman, child, dog, and elephant came out to hear him – it means a large crowd turned up for him. The way the Western critics scrutinize the parables, and Eastern texts, reveals a total lack of understanding of how Eastern wisdom and metaphor is used. This is not to take away from the authority of the scriptures, it’s just to help people understand that when generic terms are used we take them that way. Nothing demeans or takes away the person of Jesus Christ. Kenneth Bailey, who is probably one of the finest scholars of our time, has written this massive volume called Jesus through Middle Eastern eyes. It’s a powerful book and so well sustains the argument I’m making here.

(* – hermeneutics is the science of interpretation – in this case the biblical interpretation)

Statue of Buddha

RK: In many of your lectures, Ravi, you often quote great thinkers like Nietzsche, Buddha, and Stephen Hawking. You clearly have an intellectual respect for these people, but how far does that respect go if you believe that they are fundamentally wrong in their thinking?

RZ: What I like to think about with great thinkers, like Buddha and so on, is that few people are in total error. There are elements of truth in their thinking, but they often go into assumptions that are unsustainable and create a systemic failure. Respect does not mean celebration. Granting someone the credentials of being an intelligent person doesn’t mean that you therefore agree with everything they are saying. I think it is not fair to demean them because of their flaws. I take from them what is rationally sustainable, existentially undeniable, and those aspects I see in the Christian faith anyway. So any elements I see in them I have in my faith already, plus the systemic coherence that their systems do not have

RK: You believe that there are actually some elements in the New Spirituality that Christians would be wise to adopt and prioritize. Could you explain that?

RZ: Good point. Great question. I think it’s very important for the Church and leaders to understand this. We seem to think that worship equals noise and activity. You walk into some churches and it’s deafening for protracted periods of time. I ask you, how easy is it to draw away from the hustle and bustle of life if that is the diet you are going to feed on before you prepare to worship? Many times in the Bible you see Jesus going into solitude to pray. He sat aside to pray and be quiet. If the Lord himself did this while in total communion with God, how much more we need to do it in our distance and in our hustle and bustle of life trapped by materialistic enticements.

So, I think the New spirituality teaches us three things that are good. One, solitude and quietness. Two, meditation. The mistake they make is it is all inwards meditation. The Bible tells us to meditate on things that are beautiful. In other words, it’s an other focus not an inward focus. The third thing they look for is harmony on the inside. That is what true worship is all about: a coalescing of all the disparate ideas within you and bringing that unity into diversity in the worship of the living God. So their hungers are very legitimate, they don’t ultimately point in the right direction.

 RK: Television has been an extremely powerful medium for spreading ideology. The Christian faith, however, is arguably one of the largest abusers of the technology – names like Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn come to mind. How much damage do you think televangelists have done to Christianity?

RZ: Well, I think what you have here is a medium that’s cold. We think of television as a powerful medium, but let’s not forget that in and of itself it’s a cold medium that needs to be warmed up, you need something exciting. If you see two children in front of a television set and all or a sudden you see two people going into a fist fight, the child will stop whatever they are doing in order to watch this. I think what happened with many who have taken the medium for the propagation for their message, they’ve just made it as a marketing means. They’ve taken a form, abused the substance, made themselves icons in the process, and I think the gospel they’ve presented was so far off from what the gospel actually is. I think they’ve basically cost Christianity immensely because that’s the caricatured version the critic actually sees. And then, the abuse of people. You go and take this message to a place like India, where a hundred thousand people can show up from the villages – the poor, the downtrodden – and they are longing just to come to the front to get a touch of you and be healed. This enticement that is thrown into them only for it to be squelched in the process, I’ve seen it with my own eyes and it’s pathetic what is done. There’s big money and publicity in this and in the end often times people and the gospel are abused in the process.

Leap of Faith

RK: Do you believe that God still works through people who preach for the wrong reasons?

RZ: You know one of the greatest movies on this – and Hollywood produces some great films – is the Leap of Faith with Steve Martin. It’s a fantastic movie about a faith healer. He’s using people – the whole thing is fake. Sometime in the last few minutes of the movie an amazing miracle takes place to his own shock, and he doesn’t know how to deal with it. He’s been messing around with this and fooling people. He gets into this trailer and he’s driving off as the rain is beating upon the windscreen. There is so much power in that simple story at the end. Yes, I’ve seen healing take place. In my own life, my own voice, when I was in the my 20s living in Toronto I was told to give up preaching because my vocal chords were not made for it. I believe God healed me. I’ve struggled with my back and in some ways God has provided restoration, and in other ways I’m completely dependent on him. I have seen people healed. But, the shenanigans that go on in order to see this come about, I think is where I have problems with it. The Bible tells you to call the elders of the church, or to call those who are devout, and to have them lay their hands on you to pray. This way the glory goes to God, and experience of healing takes place. What’s going on with these mass-healings and so on, I have serious questions about it myself.

RK: You are also subject to similar trappings: you have a following and a substantial amount of power. How do you ensure that you don’t fall into the same traps and work for the wrong reasons?

RZ: I’ll tell you what, this is the hardest thing. It is the most difficult thing to do. I wish sometimes that fame and popularity and success didn’t come with all these things. There was something very beautiful about the calling in the ministry when it was simple, and just a small town type thing. But with all these growth and successes came so much other terrain to cover – so many people listening and watching and they make you into what you are not. It’s a very discomforting thing. The most important thing to bare in mind always is that the very voice you have is a gift of God, he can take that away from you. Humility is the key to be involved in a successful ministry. I don’t believe 90 per cent of what people say to me about who they think I am, I just go back home and I know my kids are much more honest and tell me where my failings and shortcomings are. You proclaim the beauty of the message, not the beauty of yourself, and pray everyday that God keeps you from stumbling so it doesn’t not reflect upon the message. People make you into what you are not and it actually hurts you.

.

RK: One of the subjects you discuss frequently is the problem of pleasure. Many people see pain as the primary problem we face, but you think pleasure might be the more difficult feeling to understand. Can you explain that further?

RZ: That’s a firm conviction I have. I remember when I was writing my book on Oscar Wilde called Sense and Sensuality. When I saw his massive gravestone in Paris – with a phoenix and wings – the verse he selected to put on it is from the book of Job. The book of Job is hardly known for pleasure, it’s known for pain. The verse had something to do with “my friend saw my misery and wept.” Why would a hedonist choose a verse like that? On his deathbed he looked at his lover and friend, Robby Ross, and he said, “Did you ever love one of those little boys for their own sake?” There’s a clue, and it’s a brilliant question. Why did a hedonist believe love ought to be for it’s own sake and not as a means to an end? How can loving someone for his or her own sake be the best thing, unless we are created out of love? So, when pleasure becomes a means to an end it disappoints. When love becomes the ultimate goal as defined by God himself, it takes you to greater and greater fulfillment, and what I call “perpetual novelty.” The story of Dorian Grey tells of a man who lived for pleasure and ultimately shattered every dream. Pleasure is a good thing as a means, but not as an end, for nobody can remain perpetually infilled with the delights of pleasure without being disappointed in it.

 RK: There seems to be a growing number of people who believe all religions should peacefully co-exist. Recently Rob Bell released a book called “Love Wins,” and it essentially argued that truth would reveal itself eventually. What do you make of these arguments?

RZ: That’s a multifaceted question. The first part of it is a practical one. Can’t we all get along with our differences? The answer to that is absolutely and we should. Jesus himself came into a pluralistic culture, the whole nation of Israel was under the heal of the Roman. Jesus told them if the solider is asking you to carry his arms one mile, why don’t you walk the second also. That’s peaceful co-existence, that’s not resorting to arms to overthrow something, that’s winning through the triumphant nature of love. That’s the first part.

The second part is that just because you give a person a right to believe something doesn’t mean that what the person believes is right. Some beliefs are clearly and plainly wrong and in the marketplace of ideas we need to be able discuss and disagree but not do so disagreeably.

Rob Bell

Thirdly, justice is an important virtue. Justice is not vice, it is not vile. If justice were not a virtue why do we have our courts? Why do we have our police force? Why do we bring someone who has committed a violent crime to the court so that due justice is done to him? Justice is the firmest pillar of government said Plato. We need to have that. The question is who is the instrument of that ultimately? That is God himself. So, for Rob Bell to suddenly think that it all works out and that there is no justice, he is actually taking away what the virtuous necessity of life and eternity is all about. If he wants to say, “let God be the final judge.” I’m all for it. He’s made it clear in his word that they that are on the side of truth. “Listen to me,” said Jesus to Pilate. But, Pilate replied, “What is truth?” and walked away not wanting to hear it. So, I believe that learning to get along, learning to disagree without being disagreeable is a good pursuit, but justice is a virtue and God alone is pure in his justice and he will deal with those who have chosen even to spend eternity without him. For God to override that is to violate the most sacred thing he has given them which is the prerogative of their will. So for a reason who rejects God even heaven will become hell if they don’t want the presence of God.

One fundamental mistake Rob Bell makes in his book is that he doesn’t seem to understand the biblical concept of salvation. You see in every religion of the world, salvation is earned through works, whether it’s Hinduism, whether it’s Islam, all of them, and they will not deny that. In the Christian faith alone you have a sequence of three: redemption, righteousness, and worship. You can never be righteous without being redeemed, you can not worship without being redeemed and righteous. That is both a logical and chronological sequence. So for him to talk about good people is to miss the heart of the Gospel. You can never be good until you’re first redeemed.

RK: A major criticism of the Christian God is his character in the Old Testament where he both murdered, and claimed to be a jealous. In most societies those are two unambiguously negative qualities. How do you rationalize that behaviour?

RZ: The first question is the problem with the question: how do they all know that it’s so bad? Without any transcendent point of reference, what is so bad about being jealous? What is so bad about taking a life? The only way they can justify that is if life is intrinsically valuable. If jealously is not a good trait, as they define it, but there is no essential goodness without God. That is their view of it. Why is their view correct and someone else’s view incorrect if there is no objective view of reference? So the question actually self-destructs unless there’s an objective point of reference for morality, and the only way we can have that is if God exists.

G.K. Chesterton

The second thing is they misunderstand the term jealousy. As G.K. Chesterton said, “there is no such thing as free love. It is the nature of love to bind itself.” A pure and a true love has built in exclusivity to it. You can not look at the wife of your youth and tell her you love her purely, and love her with total commitment when you’re distributing the same level of consummate relationship all over the place. The wife will seriously question whether you really love her, or whether you’re really using her. Jealousy in the context in the purity of love is a necessary aspect, and the purer the love the more exclusive it becomes. So, they misunderstand the term. They’re using the term as a self seeking motive, that’s not what God is saying. What God is saying that if you really want to enjoy love it will be guarded. There is no way to love without protecting it. Love has four terms in Greek: you have agape (God’s love), you have philia (friendship love), you have storge (parental love), and you have eros (romantic love). Only in marriage do all these four come together. Eros without agape is a prostituted love. So love will always be not just romantically legitimate in and of itself, it has to have the love of God in it for purity.

The final thing is that when we talk about God taking life there’s a difference between when God takes a life and when I take a life. I cannot restore it, but God can. The second thing is take it in the context in which it is given. When dramatic revelation is given to people the entailment is equally dramatic in judgement. If, for example, I say to you God suddenly came through the ceiling int he middle of a meeting where 5000 people were present and he warned them not to go out and hurt humanity or judgement would severely come upon them. If that dramatic revelation is incontrovertible and materially demonstrated to the person and they go out and trample on the foot of the poor person and judgement comes immediately upon them can they blame God for the equally dramatic judgement that was proceeded by a profound revelation? So, you have to take it in the context of what was revealed and his capacity to restore life. When you put those two components in it changes the nuance of the question.

RK: It seems to me that, despite all the other things you’ve mentioned here, Christians themselves often do the most damage towards Christianity. Do you agree with that?

RZ: Mahatma Gandhi said it, “I like their Christ, I don’t like their Christian.” Unfortunately when Christendom has been hijacked and made into a state religion or a power institution, any time power gets put into it, it gets abused. Christianity is a commitment of surrender, not of power over humanity. It’s about power over your own struggles and you’re own temptations and how God leads you through the things you battle. When you live a life in violation of your fundamental claims you’ll hurt them, and the biggest roadblock in the Christianity faith is the way it’s been lived out. But, this is not only true with the Christian and the world, the tragedy is the way we even treat our own fellow believers. If a person stumbles, or a person fails, the cruelty with which we deal with them is such a far cry from where even the world seems to be a little more understanding. I think it has been the biggest apologetic obstacle to the propagation of the gospel inside and outside the church. It’s a point well taken, and a warning and a caution to the Christian. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men that they will see your God works and glorify your father who is in heaven.” That’s the purpose of living a Christian life, that men and women will lift their praise to God and not us.

.

RK: The title of the book is Why Jesus?. So, I ask you: despite every other option, why Jesus?

RZ: I give six reasons. Three ceremonial: he is greater than the temple, he is greater than Solomon, and he is greater than Jonah.

The temple give you fear or geographical sense where you will be alright. In Jesus you come into a relationship with a person.

In Solomon, you saw platitudes, words of wisdom, but no power to live them out. In Jesus, you hear not only the beautiful, and platitudes and words of wisdom, but you see the one who lived them out perfectly, and allows you to live them out within.

In Jonah, you see hate. He hated people and wanted them to be judged. God instead took him to proclaim a message of love and repentance. Jonah himself could have been destroyed inside this big fish, but God protected him. He’s the author of life, and he’s the author of love. So these three great things I see in Jesus.

Then I see him going to the needy of the world. The woman of the well, five broken marriages and shattered, yet he gives her the drink of water that would give her eternal life. He sees the woman with the alabaster ointment who comes having made her living in all the wrong ways and says, “wherever the story of the gospel is told, there shall the story be told of what this woman has done to me.” Imagine elevating the repentance of a woman with that kind of a past to a point where the gospel will be preached? When he was asked to describe the kingdom of heaven he didn’t take a philosopher, he didn’t take a religious leader, he took a child and put that child in the middle and said, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” These are some of the ideas I use to show the beauty of Christ, and the relationship he offers to every one of us. He gives you all the hungers of the spiritual pursuit and gives them in the relationship of him from which we get our objective moral framework as well.

RK: Finally, what’s on your iPod Ravi?

RZ: (laughs) You know what, to be honest, I never track that. I don’t even know what’s being shown on that. I don’t use one myself. I just use my blackberry and my cell phone. I hardly get into this technologically savvy age. I hope I ever remain ignorant of all of this, my goal is to really proclaim Christ and if people are blessed I’m extremely honored in the process.

FOR MORE ON RAVI ZACHARIAS:

1) Visit his website: http://www.rzim.org/

“When you’re wearing a great suit you don’t feel it, it fits you so perfectly because it’s measured again and again to achieve a finality. That’s what good writing is, it’s well tailored.”

For the past 50 plus years, Gay Talese has been meticulously and painstakingly fashioning hundreds and thousands of words together. The result: one of the most accomplished and acclaimed writing portfolio’s in journalism.

Since his early 20s, Talese has been honing his craft writing articles for the New York Times, magazine features for Esquire and the New Yorker, and several best-selling books.

His subject matter has ranged from the underbelly of New York City at night, to the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, to boxing champions Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, and Floyd Patterson.

Along the way, Talese and his contemporaries (Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, and Joan Didion, to name a few) have been responsible for ushering in a new era and genre of journalism: the New Journalism. This is commonly described as non-fiction that reads like a novel. This group of writer’s brought non-fiction back to life by creating exciting scenes, including dialogue, recording minute details and gestures, and using the third-person point of view. For most this required a heightened level of involvement with the subjects.

El Padron of New Journalism

Like most great New Journalism writer’s, Talese has evolved into a charismatic figure with a defined voice and style. This has been accomplished through great sacrifice and commitment to his work.

First, it is the process of researching that underlies Talese’s style of writing. In this regard, he is a staunch traditionalist: he doesn’t use a tape-recorder and he refuses to interview over the phone. Instead, he prefers to implement his now infamous technique: the art of hanging around. This involves developing close relationships with his subjects and spending an extraordinary amount of time with them. These countless hours of observing people in multiple environments and situations allows Talese to develop the breadth of character necessary to produce a detailed and realistic piece of writing.

Second, by demanding such an intimate relationship with his subjects Talese surrenders to the task at hand and devotes his life completely. This was most apparent when he wrote his best-selling book, Thy Neighbour’s Wife. He spent close to nine years researching and writing the story of the changing sexual climate in America. The process was intense: he owned and operated seedy massage parlors, lived at a nudist camp, and almost destroyed his marriage. Whether one supports this type of methodology or not, it has produced some phenomenally detailed accounts of history.

.

Of all his literary achievements one piece has garnered the lion’s share of attention: His 1966 feature article for Esquire entitled Frank Sinatra has a Cold. This piece centered around Sinatra as he approached his 50th birthday. At the time Talese was writing the piece, Sinatra had come down with a cold and it transformed the mood of everyone around him:

“Sinatra with a cold is Picasso without paint, Ferrari without fuel – only worse. For the common cold robs Sinatra of that uninsurable jewel, his voice, cutting into the core of his confidence…A Sinatra with a cold can, in a small way, send vibrations through the entertainment industry and beyond as surely as a president of the United States, suddenly sick, can shake the national economy.” ( excerpt from “Frank Sinatra has a Cold”, 1966)

The Sinatra piece was voted as Esquire’s best feature ever, and is credited as one of the most influential and popular of its genre.

Talese has also developed a reputation as one of the best dressed men in journalism. Born the son of a tailor, Talese adopted from an early age the strategy of dressing for success. Without fail, when Talese is out reporting he dawns his trademark outfit: a suit, hat, and tie; all perfectly tailored of course. The strategy has worked well.

At 80, Talese is still going strong.

There is much I WANNA KNOW about one of journalism’s most experienced and celebrated writers.

I spoke to Gay Talese over the phone from his home in New York.

From the process of writing, to Thy Neighbour’s Wife, to his philosophy on writing and life, to his dream interviews, to what it’s like when he has a cold, we cover it all.

Ryan Kohls: You’ve often described the process of writing as agony. What makes it worth it for you?

Gay Talese: Well, the final result, if there’s any gratification, is when you’re done it and it’s finished and it’s in print and you can read it and say, “I couldn’t have done any better than I did.” So it’s the gratification in work done as well as you can do it. It’s a very personal thing, how well can we do what we do? We only have the energy and time, and guidance that is available within us. So, that’s all it is. It’s just a matter of doing a job, and doing it well. As old as I am, I haven’t changed from when I was very young. Meaning, when I started working as a professional journalist at 22 for the New York Times, I always wanted to do the very best. That continued through my 40s, 50s, until now in my 80s. I bring my same expectation that I have to do the best I can, and I don’t make excuses.

Talese

RK: The process of researching your stories also seems to require a great deal of sacrifice, Thy Neighbour’s Wife as an example. Do you think that great journalism requires extreme sacrifice?

GT: Well, it is certainly not a convenient profession. You do have to put yourself out. Thy Neighbour’s Wife took me the better part of nine years to do. The better half of it is the research, and then after the research is a long period of organization. After that, when you know where you’re going and have some sense of direction, then you have to write it. How do you go from point A to point B? How do you direct your readers through what you write? How do you end? All this is plotted much like a ballet is plotted by a choreographer.  You have to take certain steps. There’s an opening, a middle, and an end.

RK: When you wrote They Neighbour’s Wife you spent a lot of time in Toronto operating a massage parlor. What do you remember about those days?

GT:  I did spend a lot of time there. It was an age of openness at that period. For example, in the early 70s I once went to the Four Seasons Hotel in Toronto and the deck of the hotel was for nudists. We’re not talking about a side street brothel here; we’re talking about a major hotel. And on the roof people who hang out naked. It was amazing. People who go there now can’t imagine that, but I was there so take my word for it.

In 1971, the masseuses were educated women, they were earning extra money in parlors for endevours that had nothing to do with the parlor. They were making good money towards a degree in psychology, or to support being an actor. They wanted to earn money, and it was a way to earn a lot of money on your own hours. Now I think the women are not as well educated, and are more desperate.

RK: As much as you’ve written about iconic figures, you also tend to write untold stories, or the stories of the underdog. Why has that always been so important to you?

GT: The pieces that I think are really challenging for writers are where you’re writing about a person that is not really well known, and you’re writing a magazine piece for the general public. That’s where the challenge is. Where I met that challenge most successfully, I would think, is “Mr. Bad News.” There’s where I write about an obituary writer. Nobody knows the persons name, except for a few people. To be able to write for a general interest magazine, it was Esquire at the time, and not have a famous person, but to just describe this “Mr. Bad News”, Alden Whitman was his name, that was a very interesting way of writing non-fiction. That’s very difficult.

RK: You style of writing is often grouped in as “New Journalism.” Essentially, it’s non-fiction that reads like fiction. What is the biggest challenge of this form of writing?

GT: I feel that it calls upon the writer of non-fiction to bring to the work what a fiction writer brings without making it up. A fiction writer of a short story they imagine a character, or fashion it out of characters they’ve known. It could be a beautiful woman, or a grouchy man. What does it matter? It’s a character. When you’re writing non-fiction you can’t just dream it up, but you have to choose your real, living, character, and write about them so that it brings them into the imagination of the reader in ways that is creative in storytelling but not fabricated. The reason it seems as if it’s a made up story is because the research was so deeply done, so patiently composed that the writer looks as if they made it up because it’s a wonderful story. But it’s not: it’s the result of digging deeply and taking a lot time. That’s the art of non-fiction. It’s better than fiction because it’s real.

Hanging Out

RK: You have never used a tape recorder when doing interviews. Why do you avoid the tape recorder? And, why do you think it’s important to not quote people verbatim?

Floyd Patterson

GT: Most people, the younger people I would think, use tape recorders and grew up with them. I was in my mid-career when I heard about the tape recorder, and I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now. But, if you have a tape recorder and you get people to answer your question and you type what they tell you, they might be telling you something they hadn’t thought of before, and they answer the best they could under the circumstances. What you have is their answer. You have it verbatim, as a record. It’s what they said, and no one can argue about it because you have it on tape. But, just because they said it, and even if it’s very interesting, it might not be what they mean. People say things and don’t always mean what they say, and in retrospect wish they wouldn’t have said it that way or said it better. What I always do after I get to know the people well enough, when we’re talking and they tell me something I think they might be sorry they told me, is I take as a courtesy before I publish to call them up and say, “By the way, when I asked you this and this and this. I was thinking about that and was wondering if you still feel that way.” They might say that it’s right or tell you something more interesting, or enlarge upon what they’ve said.

For example, there’s a piece I wrote called The Loser, it’s about the boxer Floyd Patterson. He used to be the heavyweight champion. One of the questions I asked when I was seeing him was, what’s it like to be knocked out? He gave me an answer, I scribbled it down, and I read it back to him, and he said, “Well, there’s a little more than that.” So we talked some more. I went home that night and I wrote up my notes, and went back to him the next day and showed him what I had and said, “Tell me more.” What I had done is trigger in his own memory what it is like to be knocked out because a question like that you might get a different answer on a different day. When you’re talking to a person with a tape recorder you’re only giving them one opportunity to answer a question, and you’re stuck with it. It’s not finished. It’s not literary. You’re trying to write with a writer’s voice, and yet the quote is just off handed, and that’s why I don’t like to use quotes unless I’ve gone over them with a person, and they’re fully realized.

RK: You have a very polished and tailored style of writing. You also dress in a similar fashion. Is there a connection between the way you like to look, and the way you like to write?

GT: I think that’s fair. The way I write it holds together. It’s like a great suit; there’s a lot of stitches in a great suit. When you’re wearing a great suit you don’t feel it, it fits you so perfectly because it’s measured again and again to achieve a finality. That’s what good writing is. It’s well tailored. It doesn’t fall apart, it hangs with grace and a real dimension of design. There’s something wonderful about something designed like that. Language itself is designed that way. I work on that, and it’s art and craft. I never hand in my first draft, it’s often the fifteenth or twentieth draft when I’m done.

RK: When you write, you write with great detail about characters: good or bad. Is there ever a sense of guilt after you expose things that might not be too flattering about a person?

GT: I don’t think I expose. I do reveal something about the characters, and sometimes about myself as well, but I don’t recall in more than 60 years of publishing anybody that I wrote about that I couldn’t write about, or speak to again, because they were mad about what I wrote. I’m not a person who does “hatchet jobs.” It’s so hard to write well, I labor at it. It’s something I do with great difficulty and I’m not going to expend all the energy and effort on someone I don’t have respect for. Having said that, I’ve written about gangsters and sexual pornographers, but I still had respect for them. I’m writing now about a very good person, a very religious person, who happens to be the manager of the Yankee’s, Joe Girardi. He’s modest, not a braggart, not a superstar athlete, but a good manager. I’ve taken a long time to research this, and I have the same challenge to do this as when I was 40 years younger doing Frank Sinatra.

Talese and Ali

RK: In order to write a successful piece, you need your subjects to open up completely and share intimate details. Do you find it difficult when people ask the same of you?

GT: No. I feel almost that I have to do it. If you’re calling me from NBC news or your site in Canada, it doesn’t matter. Because I’ve called so many people asking for interviews, I feel I also have to make myself available. I would respond to a high school student working for a school paper, as much I would from a person from the New York Times or Washington Post. I don’t make distinctions. I know that there are people, especially students of non-fiction writing, who want to ask questions because I’m probably part of their classroom discussion.

RK: You don’t use a tape recorder, and you don’t have a cell-phone. But, technology has become a major player in today’s journalism. Do you think advancements in this regard (iphones, twitter, etc) have helped or hurt journalism?

GT: I don’t think it’s helping. It might be hurting it more. I don’t have a cell phone because I don’t want to be walking down the street and have my phone ring and talk to them while I’m on the street. And, I don’t like it when I call someone up and they answer on a cell phone; I can hear the sound of traffic, or they’re doing something else while they’re talking with me. I like direct conversation and I like to do it in person. I don’t like to use the phone. I don’t want to denigrate what I don’t know much about, but what I know about research is that I go to the place, I see them, and I interview them. I can’t imagine getting this information by ‘Googling’ someone. I might Google someone to find out a phone number or something like that but I would never conduct an interview through technology.

RK: So, you hardly use the Internet in preparation for interviews?

Tied up since 1953

GT: Right now I’m doing Joe Girardi. I could go the Internet and find out something about him, but I’m not sure how accurate it is. I would never write about someone I didn’t spend time with. I have to have my own take. I need to look in the eyes of the people. I need to see them in their own setting. When I was doing Joe Girardi, I went to the baseball games, but I also wanted to see him at home. I wanted to meet his children and see him in a non-baseball environment. I like to see natural situations.

This is not easily done and people always wonder, how do I get my foot in the door? You have to develop trust from a young age. When you first approach a stranger, you have to approach them with good manners. My own personal opinion is that you have to look presentable, and dress for the story. I don’t own a pair of blue jeans. I don’t dress down for anybody, I always dress up. I’m always wearing a jacket and a tie and a suit and a hat. I’m dressed up because I think what I’m doing is very important, and I think the people I’m talking to are very important. I wear the same thing if I’m going to a wedding, Bar Mitzvah, a funeral: it’s shows respect to the other people that are there. Ever since I was a cub reporter at the New York Times I’ve always done that. I see reporters in the press box, and they’re dressed very casually. They look comfortable, but I don’t think you should be dressed like you’re going to a tailgate party. I think it’s disrespectful. I even dress up for construction workers, as if I was interviewing the Mayor of New York.

RK: You have a well-defined writing and researching philosophy. Do you have a more general, every day, philosophy you live by?

GT: I only had one full time job my whole life, that was at the New York Times. It only lasted ten years. I started as a copy boy in 1953, I went in the army and came back in 1956, and then worked until 1965. I’m now 80. I haven’t had a full time job since 1965. But, what I always had was a belief that what whatever I did, I wanted it to be worthy of being read after I died. That’s something of a religious nature. Religion is really about life in the here and hereafter. I think that good work has to have a life after death. The great composers, like Beethoven, or the modern songwriters, like Gershwin, their work has lived beyond their lives. That’s like religion. People seek to live the good life, but have a life after death. That’s religion and it’s also art. Whether it’s a great violin player, or soprano, or a singer like Sinatra, they live after they’re dead. Great actors are still alive, you see their films.

RK: So you don’t ascribe to a particular religion?

GT: I was reared a Catholic, but I’m not a church going Catholic. I do respect religion, and I’m now learning a little bit about Christian’s who are born again. One of them is Joe Girardi. They are very religious, and Christian people. As I speak to you now there is a basketball player who’s very Christian, Jeremy Lin. There’s

.

Tim Tebow from the Denver Bronco’s. And, Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens. Religion means a lot to all kinds of people. I find that very endearing for people to have faith. Sometimes they’re down on their luck, and they’re depressed about it, and they look to their faith and see it as the will of God, and there’s a lesson for them. If you have it, it’s a very enhancing, and fortifying quality to imbue. You have something within yourself that gives you strength when you feel you’re at your weak moment.

RK: If you could choose one person, dead or alive, that you could write a feature on, who would it be and why?

GT: (pauses) There’s so many people. Let’s see. I could take a person like Fidel Castro – forget the politics – and just as a man he would have been a great subject. If I could have hung out with Castro when he was younger, it would have been better.

If I were to go now to Russia and to do Vladimir Putin, that is something I would like to do. Putin is a great character.

RK: Any historical figures that you would have loved the chance to interview?

Talese and DiMaggio

GT: The great people who shaped the world like Mao Zedong. Hanging around Mao would have been something. Or, Nathaniel Hawthorne, or F. Scott Fitzgerald. Even today there are people I wish I knew better like Madonna. She’s had such a long history as a performer and I don’t know anything about her. I know a little bit about Lady Gaga. I was in her presence a few times writing the Tony Bennett piece. She’s a more interesting person than anything I’ve read about her.

There;s so many people I wish I knew. And, there’s so many people I wrote about I wish I could have spent more time with like Joe DiMaggio.

RK: Having spent so much of your life examining people, and human behaviour, are there any general comments you can make on the commonality of human nature?

GT: I’m reading a wonderful book by the great actor Frank Langella. It’s not going to be published for two months. It’s about famous people. He knew so many famous people. He knew Paul Newman and Charlton Heston. He knew so many people. If you read this wonderful book called, Drop Names: Famous people as I knew them – it sounds like I’m plugging this book, and I guess I am. To read this book is to read about people we all know because they’re so famous but the way he writes about them you learn things you never knew. You often learn that they didn’t know that much about themselves. So, the projected image they’ve managed to distribute to the world is not necessarily who they are, but who they would have you believe they are. He knew these people because he worked as an actor with them, he had an insight because he spent time with them on equal terms. He wasn’t a reporter with a pad and pencil. I realized that what you think you have isn’t what you have. What you have is what they choose to give you. If you spend enough time there’s an entirely different character behind the character. It’s like the Wizard of Oz. Behind every rambunctious person is often someone timid. There are so many variations on the theme of fame, and what’s behind the personality. These are forces you have to explore deeply to get to the truth of that force. People are so many people within people. Whether people are famous or not, there’s always a story there.

With the right wig, I could see it.

RK: When Hollywood eventually makes your biopic, who would you like to play you?

GT: Well, I can’t imagine who would be like me. It depends on what age I’m at. If I wanted to have a good actor, a wonderful actor, it would be Stanley Tucci. I think he’s one of the great versatile actors. Look at Frank Langela, he is someone I would also like. He’s such a great performer.

RK: When Gay Talese has a cold, how does that transform the world around him?

GT: Fortunately, it doesn’t affect the ones around me because I don’t have to sing. If I have the flu I can’t do my work because it involves going outside. I want to see. I can’t do my work over the phone or Internet. It’s like being a performing athlete. I am a performer, a performing writer. I have to be in condition. I go to a gym to stay in shape, and do the best I can with my 80-year-old body, and it moves around pretty well.

For more on Gay Talese:

1) Visit his website www.gaytalese.com

artwork by Carl Christensen

 ”They don’t have any scruples on that, just like any other thief or burglar. A thief doesn’t look at a house and think to pass it up because the family has just suffered a recent tragedy. No, he goes in and robs it anyway.”

 

James Randi is a magician by trade, but let’s get one thing straight: he does not believe in magic. 

For over 40 years, “magic” was Randi’s bread and butter. He performed around the world as The Amazing Randi. Along the way, he wowed thousands, and even broke several of Houdini’s records (i.e. longest underwater submersion).

For Randi, being a magician was a feat of great showmanship. It was a theatrical illusion with big entertainment value. It was, however, nothing less and nothing more.

Magic by definition is “the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” As an illusionist Randi could not help but rationalize claims of “magic.” He knew full well that everything he did was a trick; there was no paranormal activity. Other magicians, however, were claiming that their acts were supernatural. Randi was not about to stand by and keep quiet.

Beginning in 1972, Randi began to take a stand against those claiming to have supernatural powers. He made international headlines when he challenged the work of Israeli magician Uri Geller on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Geller was famous for bending spoons, and other metal objects with his mind. Following the advice of Randi, Johnny Carson presented Geller with metal objects that he had never seen or held before: Geller panicked and could not perform the tricks. Although this infamous late-night TV moment drew a lot of skepticism on Geller, he continued to perform around the world. 

Randi’s claims against Geller were convincing because he could duplicate Geller’s trick and explain how he was doing it. According to Randi, all of Geller’s spoons were pre-bent and already weakened. 

At the age of 60, Randi retired from the stage and began to dedicate all his time and energy to investigating the claims of the supernatural. 

In the late 80s, he took on faith healers. He had one particularly successful investigation against televangelist Peter Popoff. Popoff was raking in millions hosting healing crusades and pandering miracle water that could heal all illnesses. Randi immediately saw through Popoff’s act; he was using the oldest tricks in the book. And so, he decided to “demystify” the man and his claims. Popoff claimed to hear God’s voice, but in reality it was his wife talking to him through an ear piece. She had screened people coming into his crusades, learned of their illness, and relayed that to Popoff. It was a scam. Randi presented his findings on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Popoff soon vanished, but eventually came back, stronger than ever.

In 1996, James Randi established the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). It continues to be the headquarters for his paranormal investigations and research. It is essentially an organization of skeptics who publicize claims of the paranormal and work to debunk the claims. 

The cornerstone of the organization is the $1 million prize. JREF offers anyone who will demonstrate a paranormal feat, under their test conditions, $1 million. Thus far, many have tried and all have failed. The money is still sitting in a bank account. 

Today, James Randi is 83 years young, he continues to investigate the paranormal, and he is as busy as ever.

There is much I WANNA KNOW about James Randi. I spoke with him from the JREF headquarters in Florida.

From the million dollar challenge, to Popoff and Geller, to religion, to the James Randi Educational Foundation, we cover it all. 

Ryan Kohls: As recently as May of 2011 Peter Popoff was in Toronto “healing” and collecting money. Why is this man not in jail after all these years?

Geller is just one of the thousands around the world who consistently ignore the million dollar offer that has been around all this time. They say they can easily take it, but they decide to ignore it.

JR: They’re all different. They all want to make money. They all want to make a living. They find an easy way to do it, and it’s so easy that the money just pours in. If you found that you could go in your backyard and find gold-nuggets by digging around you would do it. That’s exactly what they’re doing. Unfortunately, they’re taking other peoples money and making them suffer. They don’t care about that though. They don’t have any scruples on that, just like any other thief or burglar. A thief doesn’t look at a house and think to pass it up because the family has just suffered a recent tragedy. No, he goes in and robs it anyway.

JR: Well, it would change it considerably. I’d pay the million dollars and I’d find more about it. I’d probably get a Nobel Prize for studying the thing, so I don’t care.

artwork by Carl Christensen

“I believe that it is my responsibility to use the attention I get to fight against the continuing practice of FGM. I don’t know if you can call that spirituality, but I feel physically connected to every single girl on this planet that still has to suffer because of this cruel practice.”

Waris Dirie is a woman on a mission, and she seems hell-bent on completing it. 

Her goal: to fight for women’s rights and eradicate the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). 

These days, she is in full-blown activist mode. Her journey to this stage in life, however, has been a long and winding road.

It all began for Waris Dirie in the Somali desert. Born into a nomadic family in the 60s, Dirie’s childhood was marked by injustice. At age 5 she experienced FGM – a practice widely believed to be torturous and de-humanizing to women. It intends to ensure the woman will marry as a virgin, but in the process it robs them of any future sexual pleasure. Its horrific procedure also ends up psychologically damaging many women. At age 13 she was arranged to be married to a much older man. Dirie never made the alter. Instead, she embarked on an epic journey out of Africa. 

Beating all odds and obstacles, Dirie arrived in London, England and began a meagre life in the service industry. She began working as a housemaid for her relatives who worked at the Somalian embassy.  When war broke out in Somalia the embassy closed down and her family left, leaving Dirie alone in the country. The only job she could find after that was at McDonald’s. 

As Dirie began to slowly re-build her life in England, fate prepared to intercede and take her on an unimaginable journey.
 
At 18, while working at McDonald’s, Dirie was spotted by fashion photographer Terrence Donovan. From this initial sighting, Dirie’s life would never be the same. 

By 1987, Dirie was gracing the covers of fashion’s most prestigious magazines, walking the runways of the world, and appearing in ads for brands such as Levi’s, Revlon, and L’Oreal. She even made an appearance as a Bond girl in The Living Daylights. 

Dirie was now a million miles from where she began. She transcended her past: she was wealthy, famous, and in control of her life.  Her new lifestyle was a dream, but she could not forget her nightmarish past. So, in 1997 she began to speak out about the practice of FGM. That same year she was appointed as the UN Special Ambassador for the Elimination of FGM. This began Dirie’s work as an activist.

In 1998, with hopes of further spreading awareness of FGM, Dirie told her life’s story in the book Desert Flower: The Extraordinary journey of a desert nomad. The book captured the imagination of millions and propelled Dirie and her message.

In 2002, she took her mission a step further and established the Desert Flower Foundation. This continues to be Dirie’s project to empower women and fight against FGM.

Throughout these years Dirie continued to release new books, won multiple international awards for her humanitarian work, and kept modelling  for various agencies. 

Dirie’s journey reads like a Hollywood script, so inevitably her story has been transported to the silver screen. In 2009, a movie adaptation of her book Desert Flower was released. Ethiopian supermodel Liya Kebede plays the part of Dirie. 

Despite the massive amount of energy Dirie has committed to educating the world on FGM, it remains as ubiquitous as ever. Her mission is far from over, but she continues to soldier on. 

There is much I WANNA KNOW about Waris Dirie, and her fascinating life. 

From the horrors of FGM, to the Desert Flower foundation, to the flaws of the fashion industry, to the plight of Somalia, we cover it all. 

Ryan Kohls: It was a big year for you and the Desert Flower Foundation. Despite the growing awareness of FGM the issue still persists. For those unfamiliar with the issue of FGM, why is it so problematic? And how widespread does the practice remain in Africa, and the world?

Tools of FGM

Waris Dirie: Female genital mutilation is a practice in which parts of a girl’s vagina are being cut off, often under very unhygienic conditions and using very basic materials such as razor blades or even glass or stone. In some areas, such as in Somalia where I come from, the vagina is then sewn shut to ensure that a girls enters marriage as a virgin. It is an extremely painful, cruel and of course dangerous procedure, and many girls die of infections, shock, loss of blood etc. Those who survive suffer the consequences of FGM for the rest of their lives – both physical and emotional. FGM is very widespread in East Africa, in some countries more than 90 % of all women are affected, but also in West Africa, and Southeast Asia. Migration has spread the problem all over the world since immigrant communities continue to practice FGM abroad. You can find details information on different countries on the website of my foundation, www.desertflowerfoundation.org.

WD: There are several aspects to this. Education is important, because it enables us to teach people about the dangers and consequences of the practice. Working on projects to empower women is even more important, because that’s what enables them to take their own decisions and make different choices for their daughters. This is what my foundation is working on right now with several new projects in Africa.

RK: At the center of Desert Flower’s mission is women’s rights and empowerment. What do you think remains the biggest roadblock to women’s rights?  

WD: Poverty is a big obstacle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to convince a woman not to mutilate her daughters if this is the only way to marry them and hence support the family financially. Poverty makes it very difficult to use common sense in many areas of human rights abuse, and I believe that all attempts to end such abuse must address the issue of poverty, too.

unofficial Human Rights Logo

WD: There are logos for everything these days, and some logos have become really powerful and are known worldwide, such as the logo for solidarity with people affected by HIV / Aids. Logos do not need language, everyone can understand them and they are easy to share and to use to show one’s own attitude and perceptions. This is why a logo for human rights is so important. It is a problem that affects every single person in the world and should be understood without words.

RK: What inspires you to commit your life to these issues? Is there a spiritual side to your mission?   

WD: Well, of course there’s my own experience of being mutilated as a little child. Having gone through this cruel practice and all the long-term consequences that come with it, I just cannot sit back and watch it being done to thousands of little girls every year. I believe that it is my responsibility to use the attention I get to fight against the continuing practice of FGM. I don’t know if you can call that spirituality, but I feel physically connected to every single girl on this planet that still has to suffer because of this cruel practice. World Social Award – 2004

WD: I am not a religious person, so for me personally, it does not play a big role. But it is something that needs to be addressed in the fight against FGM, since many people wrongly use religion to justify what they are doing. Let me point this out: FGM has absolutely nothing to do with religion and is not demanded by any religion.

RK: You have been the recipient of a multitude of awards for your humanitarian work, if you had to give out some awards to people you believe are doing amazing work for human rights, who would you give them to and why?

WD: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, because I admire his strength and commitment. Nelson Mandela for his achievements for the people in Africa. And to every single woman in Africa for their strength and the hard work they perform every day to take care of their families. Women are really the backbone of African society and they are not nearly valued enough for it!

WD: I wouldn’t say detrimental, but there is very little contribution to important issues we are facing in this world today coming from the fashion industry. There are some exceptions where people try to bring attention to issues such as human rights abuse, poverty or environmental protection, and I would really like to see this trend continue. I am myself working on projects related to fashion that help bring awareness on FGM to Africa while at the same time securing fairly paid jobs for African women. Fashion can be used for good causes and I would like to see more of that!

WD: Of course, and I think that continues to be a big problem throughout the entire fashion industry!

RK: MEY is a group you are working with, how do you ensure that the products are made with fair wages and proper labor conditions?

WD: Mey products are produced in Germany. The products that we produced in Africa together with MeY came from a small group that I chose myself. It is based in Ethiopia, and I travelled there last year to see it myself.

WD: The fashion industry gets a lot of attention that it could use for good causes. I don’t think it uses that potential yet, but hopefully that will change in the future.  

Dirie and Kebede

RK: Your home, Somalia, remains one of the most troubled places in the world. What is your hope for the future of this country? What do you believe must be done to ensure the sustainability of Somalia’s future?

WD: Somalia is facing so many problems, I don’t even know where to start. In the current situation, it is very difficult for foreign NGOs to work in Somalia because it is so unstable and dangerous. I really hope that my country will one day rise out of this mess and reach the potential it has. This includes the fight against FGM, but even before, there must be an end to the violence in Somalia.

WD: We all can see what foreign aid has achieved in Africa in the past 60 years. Exactly – not much. It is going to the wrong people, it is supporting violent regimes that exploit their own citizens, and it does not help build sustainable economic structures that Africa need to really overcome poverty. Every child knows that giving a homeless person on the street a coin will not change his life for good. Giving him a job however will. Unfortunately, we do not see to be able to apply this simple logic to foreign aid for Africa yet.

RK: You’ve travelled around the world, where are some of your favorite places in the world? 

WD: My favourite place in the world will always be the Somali Desert where I grew up.

WD: I love listening to African music. In the morning, I put some music on and dance through the house with my children. I also love spending time outside in the nature, whether it’s in a forest or on the beach. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON WARIS DIRIE:
1) Go to her foundation’s website: http://www.desertflowerfoundation.org/en/

artwork by Carl Christensen

 “Celine Dion has a huge international following…So, it isn’t surprising that a Senegalese man would know of, and admire, her. But, to have this come from an Al-Qaeda captor in the Sahara Desert, some weeks into our captivity, was so bizarre.”

Anyone who can use the words “Celine Dion,” “Al-Qaeda,” and “captivity” to describe a moment in their life must have experienced something extraordinary. Robert Fowler has a tale to tell and it is, indeed, extraordinary.

As a senior diplomat for the Canadian government for 38 years, Fowler had experienced his share of thrills. With posts including the Canadian Ambassador to the UN, and the personal representative to Africa for several Prime Ministers, Fowler honed his skills and interest on the continent of Africa. Whether it was trips to war-torn Somalia, Darfur, or the Congo, he was often in danger.

From his time with Al-Qaeda, to life after the ordeal, to his return to Africa, to Celine Dion, to his assessment of the region today, we cover it all.

Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure greets Louis and Robert

RF: I’ll never know the answer to that question, but there is absolutely no doubt that it would have been enormously more difficult, and it was difficult enough as it was. So, I think Louis and I were extremely important to each other. Certainly he was hugely important to me. In the book, I mention that we were separated for three days during an interrogation phase, and that was among the more difficult periods simply because we were separated and couldn’t rely on each other, or talk with each other.

AQIM members

AQIM members

Africa loves Celine

Robert and his wife, Mary, on vacation before the ordeal

RK: On the other hand, how has it shaped your general perception of the religion of Islam, and specifically its fundamental factions?

Fowler photographed shortly after his release

AQIM continues to roam the Sahel

Kenyan police comb a beach in Lamu for a kidnapped tourist. 2011.

Fowler unveils the Will to Intervene campaign with Romeo Dallaire and others

artwork by Carl Christensen

“How could someone be so stupid to say (Mike Tyson) could be the greatest? He had no character. He didn’t have the ability to overcome controversy like Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis. They overcame personal issues…Tyson didn’t have that ability.”

Born in Staten Island, New York in 1956, Teddy Atlas has dedicated the majority of his life to fighting, teaching people to fight, and analyzing fights. Love him or hate him, as one of boxing’s most knowledgeable ambassadors, he deserves to be heard.

Teddy Atlas’ journey in boxing began in his early teens when he was training and fighting in organized amateur bouts. Outside the ring, however, he lacked discipline and direction. As a result, he constantly found himself in trouble with the law. He was involved with several crimes, and spent some time on Riker’s Island for his role in an armed robbery. Perhaps the most lasting example of his rebellious years is the large scar that runs from his forehead to his chin. In the midst of a street fight Atlas was slashed with a knife and required 400 stitches. 

The turning point for Atlas came while he awaited his trial for armed robbery. At that time, local boxing trainer and friend Kevin Rooney invited Atlas to come and train in Catskill, New York with Cus D’Amato. D’Amato was a legendary trainer in the area and he took Atlas under his wing. After D’Amato spoke for Atlas at his trial, he was released into his custody and they both returned to operate his boxing gym in Catskill. Although Atlas wanted to train as a fighter, he experienced some major back problems and shifted his focus to training.


For six years Atlas ran the gym with D’Amato and was involved with the training of several legendary fighters. One fighter, however, stands out above the rest. It was during this time that D’Amato took on a young 12-year-old protege named Mike Tyson. Together with Atlas, Mike Tyson was transformed into one the most dominant, and feared boxers in history. Their relationship, however, took a major turn for the worst when Tyson sexually harassed a female relative of Atlas’. In what is now an infamous moment in boxing history, Teddy Atlas put a gun to Tyson’s head and threatened to kill him if he ever touched anyone in his family again.

Needless to say, after that event, Atlas moved on from Tyson’s career and D’Amato’s gym. By this point though he was an accomplished trainer with a breadth of knowledge and experience, and that allowed him to continue training championship fighters. Since his time in Catskill, Atlas has trained many champions including Michael Moorer, who twice won the Heavyweight belt under his leadership.

In 1998, Atlas made a transition from a full-time trainer to a boxing analyst and commentator. Hired on by ESPN, he became the regular voice of their Friday Night Fights broadcast. He was also the official commentator for boxing in the Sydney, Athens, and Beijing summer Olympics. His work as a commentator has further established him as an outspoken, and passionate individual. His ability to consistently keep it real, and honest, has made him a fan favorite. Not everyone agrees with Atlas, but they still pay attention.

From the Klitschko brothers, to Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, to corruption in boxing, to his opinions on Mike Tyson, to the Dr. Atlas Foundation, we cover it all.

Povetkin knocks out Boswell in the 8th round

The Klitschko Brothers: Wladimir and Vitali

We got offered the Klitschko fight two years ago, and we turned it down. I got vilified by all these creeps on the internet who know nothing about boxing. They were saying, “Teddy took him out of the fight. He turned down $2 million, and ruined his career.” If I would have left him in that fight, I would have ruined his career. He didn’t have the experience at that time. He only had 17 fights then, Klitschko had 50. I didn’t think he was ready for it, and with more time he could be. I thought he hadn’t reached his peak yet, and he was still finding out what that was. The $2 million payday included 200,000 for me, by the way. I thought he deserved the time to get better. I know boxing well enough to know that the landscape of boxing changes like the weather. I decided it was best to be patient, and it paid off when we fought Chigaev a year and a half later.

TA: I saw it in Russia. I watched it at six in the morning. Hopefully my eyes were wide awake enough to know what I was watching because what I think I saw was Marquez winning the fight. I think I saw what the sweet science allows you do: finding ways to even the playing field when someone has advantages in speed and power. There is always a way in the sweet science to even this out by being smarter, and using different things to counter those physical advantages. Marquez used this. From what I watched, Marquez negated the speed and took away those advantages by using timing, he timed him on the way in and out. I thought he was landing clean, effective punches by doing that. He may not have been that busy, but when he led with punches he led at the right time, and didn’t leave himself out in space to be taken advantage of. When he saw Pacquiao’s feet moving that’s when he got his punches off.

Mouthy and American

RK: Many people are also saying that Pacquiao’s recent performances make him much less of a favorite against Floyd Mayweather. Do you think he still stands a chance if that fight does happen? 

There’s no separation in this sport. The officials and those running the show are too close. There is nothing that buffers them. Do you know how many times I’ve been in Europe and the US and I go out to a good restaurant, and I see all the freakin’ officials and judges for the fight the next night being hosted, at an expensive dinners that costs thousands of dollars, by the promoter! Are you kidding me? It’s ridiculous. They’re sitting there in a restaurant having wine, lobsters, champagne, and everything else, and it’s being hosted and paid by the people that they’re supposed to unbiasedly the next day administer rules. Their decisions ruin and prosper careers in the same night. You can see it anytime if you go to the right place. At the very best it’s got the look of impropriety, and the very worse it is impropriety. What are we idiots here? Are we morons?

And, just to make a parallel to that and make a comparison in another sport. You take the New York Yankees and the Steinbrenners. Could they, the night before a World Series game, be found with the official umpiring crew of the game the next day having dinner? No. It could not happen because baseball would not allow it to happen. It would destroy the integrity of the sport. So, why does it happen in my sport? Because nobody gives a shit, it’s the wild west. We don’t have a central organized body that is a national commission in place to make sure it doesn’t happen.

TA: Yes, I do. I’m going into dangerous waters here. I’m not standing here giving you a smoking gun, but again, there is no separation. The problem with boxing is that the landscape that exists begs to be corrupted. It screams out to be corrupted, it asks you to corrupt it. You have no policing, no watchtower, and you have people in close proximity to conflicting situations. When you put human beings in that situation for long enough they’re tempted. I’m sorry. They might be decent people but all of a sudden they have a chance to make an extra thousand dollars, they do it. After awhile when there’s no accountability or threat of being caught, they start to think there’s no risk, and they validated it in their minds. For some people it’s about taking care of their families, but it shouldn’t be justifiable. It doesn’t always have to be like the movies and be hard cash in an envelope either. It can be so many other different forms and ways that are still corruption. It could be the referee getting a first class plane ticket, a ticket for his wife, or another extra day or two on site. It can be all those things.

Atlas working the corner

 

Cus D’Amato

TA: He was a guy that was dedicated to one thing: boxing. He never got married or had a family. His whole relationship was with boxing. Everything revolved around boxing. He was a man who was different, he walked to his own drummer. He thought of things differently, and there was a big emphasis on the psychological part of the game, and being exciting. It was about understanding how to be good and exciting, to make money and get people’s attention. It was also about the technical stuff with Cus, the rudiments of boxing, the fundamentals. If you have good fundamentals, it’s the foundation of a house, once it’s up it’s always going to be there no matter the weather. You need that good floor plan. I learned that from Cus, and that’s I think I try and do with my fighters. There’s so many subtleties, and not many people learn these things.

Young, Lean and Mean

TA: First of all, I started with him when he was 12. I trained him for the first four years, Rooney was nowhere near him. After I left, he moved into that gap. Anyway, he was 12 and 195 pounds with no fat. He was an extraordinary physical specimen. On one hand, you could say I had good material. Yes. But on the other hand, what’s not as easy to observe, is that it was not good material mentally. He was emotionally weak, he was always insecure. He was fractured and crooked in a lot of areas. You had to work with that, and understand that, and try and supplement that and work around it. He got help with that to a certain degree.

Another thing is that although he was very fast, and very powerful, he had to be taught how to use those physical abilities. The car was good, but you still had to have a good driver to make sure that car didn’t go over the cliff the first time it went out. So, we got the benefit of good material, no doubt about it, but he also got the benefit of being somewhere where people taught him the right way for him. We taught him how to make a guy miss and then exploit that with his speed and strength. If he wasn’t taught those things he would have just been another strong guy. There was plenty of strong guys out there, he wasn’t unique in that way, but they didn’t come heavyweight champion of the world because they didn’t get the benefit of this training.

Cus and Tyson

I happen to know what Tyson was, and where he was heading when Cus was alive. He was already doing things that were wrong, but they were being covered better. Jim Jacobs and Cus were doing a good job with the press, but he was doing terrible, horrible things. A lot of the things that came to light later, he was already doing, you just didn’t know about it. I’m giving you an informed answer. When I say nothing would have changed if Cus had lived longer, I know because Tyson was already headed that way before he died.

Atlas training Povetkin

RK: Teddy, is it fair to say that you’re a man who wears his heart on his sleeve, and is not concerned about the popularity of his statements?

TA: My father was a committed doctor. He took care of people and believed you took care of people whether they could afford it or not, and most of them couldn’t. He believed everyone deserved that opportunity. He went into the projects in the middle of the night, he did house calls till he was 80. He didn’t charge for most of them. Sometimes they would make him a cup of tea, or give him a piece of cake because it would make them feel better. He knew it, so he let them give it to them. He didn’t want them to lose their pride. You can’t help somebody if they don’t have pride. 55 years he took care of people. He founded a hospital called Sunnyside with 22 beds to care for those who couldn’t afford treatments. Those beds were almost always full.

When he died I thought to myself, someone who does that for 55 years should be remembered. So, I started this foundation, the Dr. Atlas Foundation, 15 years ago, and I said were going to do what he did. We’re taking care of thousands of people who have nowhere else to go. We have people who can’t afford cancer treatments, and we take care of it. We’re flying a family out next week for a treatment. Other organization’s that have way more money than us are recommending us because they won’t take on people who can’t afford treatments. It’s scary sometimes to figure out how we’re going to keep going, but we have our fundraisers and we’ve lasted 15 years. But, I’m blessed because the right people at the end of the day are coming to us, and we’re taking care of them. That’s what matters. I can get frustrated, but it’s working out the right way.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TEDDY ATLAS:
1) Check out the Dr. Atlas Foundation – http://dratlasfoundation.com/

artwork by Carl Christensen

Born in the small Kenyan town of Kakamega to Rwandan parents, Shadrach Kabango (a.k.a. Shad or Shad K) has been heavily shaped by his upbringing. Though he moved to Canada, and was raised in London, Ontario, he remains a global citizen, concerned with global issues.

Before entering the music industry, Shad was an undergraduate business student at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. However, after he entered and won $17,500 from “The Beat’s Rhythm of the Future” talent competition, Shad decided to independently finance a debut album.

In 2005 he self-released “When This Is Over.” It was met with widespread buzz, and praise. The album cemented Shad as not only a brilliant wordsmith, but also a man with a message. One standout track on the album called “I’ll Never Understand” was about the Rwandan genocide, and included excerpts of his mother, Benadette Kabango, reading poetry about the tragedy.

From this initial introduction, Shad’s career has steadily risen to new heights. Since 2005, he has released two full length studio albums, 2007′s The Old Prince, and 2010′s TSOL. Both of those albums were nominated for the Polaris Prize (Canada’s most prestigious music prize), as well as various other sought after industry awards. In 2011, his latest album, TSOL, won the Juno (Canada’s equivalent of the Grammys) for rap recording of the year, beating out Drake’s Thank Me Later. 

Instead of attempting to explain what Shad does, it’s best you just listen, and watch, for yourself. Below is a cut from TSOL called Rose Garden. I believe it encapsulates all the best qualities of Shad’s music: clever wordplay, smooth flow, great production, and meaningful lyrics. 

As well as carving his own lane in hip-hop, Shad has also been keeping his mind sharp. In June of 2011 he completed his masters degree in liberal arts from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from one of the most inspiring and talented artists in music. I was lucky to catch up with Shad while he was in Toronto attending the Canada Reads launch party at CBC headquarters. 

Big thanks to Tendisai Cromwell for helping set this up. And, thank you to Shad’s amazing manager, Gaurav Sawhney, for graciously fitting me into Shad’s hectic Toronto schedule.

From literature, to Rwanda, to the global Occupy movements, to faith and hip-hop, to Drake, to Shad’s masters degree, we cover it all. 

Shad and other celebrity panelists. CBC studios - Nov. 23,2011

Shadrach Kabango: It’s incredible because every two pages you remind yourself that this is someone’s true story. In summary, the book is a personal memoir, a coming of age story of a girl becoming a woman in these really unique circumstances. Her parents were part of the resistance movement in Chile, and they moved to Canada as exiles when she was a kid. When she was still very young she moved back to South America, and lived there as part of the underground resistance.

RK: It seems like the empowerment of women is an issue that you are keen to promote. You had a great track about women on “TSOL” called ‘Keep Shining’. Do you think you were drawn to this book at all by your desire to promote women who have stories that need to be told?

Shad live at Kigali Up Music Festival

RK: You were recently in Rwanda playing a show. How often do you get to visit?

Rwanda Genocide Memorial - Kigali

RK: Romeo Dallaire’s “Shake Hands With The Devil” was shortlisted for this year’s Canada Reads, but it was not chosen. Seventeen years later, how well do you think the story of the Rwandan genocide is known, and understood outside of Rwanda?

Occupy Vancouver

SK: My perceptions of the movement, and what I tried to get across in that Vancouver Sun article, is that there seems to be a lot of confusion obviously, because it’s not your typical protest where it’s about a specific thing, with a specific outcome that people want. This, to me, seems like a movement that’s about a general awakening around inequality and important issues that at this particular point in history are no longer acceptable to a lot of people. That is what the movement is about to me. Really what I tried to do with that blog post was get that statement of unity out there in front of at least a few more people, so they could see how entirely sensible it is. That’s all I was really trying to do. I think everybody who feels connected to it, in someway, relates to it in their own way.

Tents removed at Occupy Toronto - Nov. 23

SK: I think so. It’s a peaceful protest. Hopefully, some things have been accomplished by this. Specifically, that politicians know that their citizens are concerned with certain issues. I do think there are good politicians out there, and they need to know that there is a base of support out there if they want to advance certain ideas.

RK: Your faith also plays a big part in your music. Do you feel that you still face any adversity as a Christian/religious rapper?

Shad wins rap recording of the year. Juno's 2010

RK: I recently did an interview with Malice from the Clipse, and we spoke a lot about his spiritual conversion, and his desire to distance himself from the drugs-and-money lifestyle he once endorsed. The same thing happened to Mase years ago. I’m wondering if you think that it’s inevitable that rappers who reach that level of success will ultimately crash and burn? 

SK: Well, what I applaud about Drake is that he’s got good taste. Second, I think he’s talented. And, thirdly he’s always gone after his own lane. He’s not just at the top of hip-hop, I think he’s also at the forefront in a lot of ways. Creatively he’s pushing a lot of boundaries in mainstream hip-hop. So, I respect him for what’s he’s doing.

Ian Kamau

SK: I first heard Kamau when I was doing my undergrad, and he was touring with K-OS. He was amazing. So, I was a fan of him before I was even doing anything. He’s deep in the scene and community in Toronto. He’s super talented. He just dropped an album called “One Day Soon.” Check it out if you get a chance, it’s real music. He’s hands-on in every aspect, there’s a 32 page booklet that comes with the CD with all his designs, and lyrics, and everything.

Shad receives his Masters Degree

SK: One of my last papers was about Canadian hip-hop actually, and new cultural identities. If you take the artists we spoke about – Drake and K’naan for example – those are new cultural identities being expressed. So, Somalia refugees that have come here since the 90s. That’s a new cultural identity in Canada, and K’naan is the face of it. Drake is that kid from north Toronto, grew up with hip-hop and other cultural influences. That is something unique to Toronto, and new in this time. I think that’s why he’s connected so well to the culture. They all grew up in the same area listening to hip-hop.

Artwork by Carl Christensen

“The higher, more distant, level of patriarchy is capitalism. This is what is represented by corporate truth. You don’t see a man beating a wife, but there’s a fictitious man beating all the women, children and people of the world.”

In a world full of powerful agricultural corporations that control biased global trade agreements, bully governments, and systematically claim the lives of thousands of Indian farmers, one woman dares to stand up and fight. She is organic farmings best friend, apathy’s greatest enemy, and a hope in harrowing times. She is India’s very own, Vandana Shiva.


Labelled as an ecofeminist, and environmental activist, Vandana Shiva is a globetrotting warrior for oppressed farmers, and women around the world. Though trained as a philosopher, Vandana Shiva has morphed her expertise from the abstract to the every day. Spurred by her shocking discovery of the bloodshed in India from the industrial agricultural revolution – a.k.a the Green Revolution – Shiva has refocused her energy on fighting against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), bio-piracy, and the patenting of intellectual property rights. Collectively, these three elements have been embodied by the corporate food giant Monsanto, and have thus become Shiva’s public enemy number one. To this day, Shiva monitors Monsanto’s work closely, and strives to undermine their mission of owning everything they can get their hands on. 

Her flagship operation in this fight is her organization called “Navdanya,” which means “nine seeds.” The organization is a network of seed keepers and organic producers spread across 16 states in India. Navdanya protects seed varieties, educates farmers, and supports markets for organic products. Its membership is over half a million farmers.

Shiva has also contributed a vast amount of literature and research to the field. She has authored over 20 books, and 500 academic papers. She frequently travels around the world speaking at universities, and engaging in academic debates.

For her prolific work she has been rewarded accordingly. She is the recipient of a number of esteemed awards, including: the Right Livelihood Award (known as the Alternate Nobel Prize), the Sydney Peace Prize, the Save the World Award, the Calgary Peace Prize, and many others.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from a woman with so much passion and purpose. Her knowledge of agriculture is astounding, and her desire to fight injustice is inspiring. 

I spoke with Vandana Shiva over the phone from her office in New Delhi. She was gracious to answer all my questions.
 
From Occupy Washington, to farmer suicides, to Monsanto, to Wangari Maathai, to her memories of Canada, we cover it all. 

. . .

Gandhi being channeled at Occupy Washington

Navdanya Store - India

Navdanya Seed Bank

The third thing we do is massive training. Farmers come to our school, and we have up to five interns at a time. I called it the school of the seed. It’s my inspiration on how to be free.

Leo Saldanha

Last year, they tried to introduce a GM eggplant. We mobilized against this, and fortunately we had an enlightened foreign minister who at the hearings heard the people and said, “nobody wants this, let’s put a moratorium.” Monsanto always claims that they are creating every trait in what they create. They engage in bio-piracy. In the case of the eggplant they basically stole native varieties. A former associate of Navdanya, Leo Saldanha, found this out from the farmers, went to the bio-diversity board of his state, which then complained to the national bio-diversity board. The recent environmental minister has announced they are starting the proceeding because we do have a bio-diversity act. It says no one can use bio genetic material without permission. In the case of farmer varieties, they need the farmer’s permission.

VS: Yesterday, the government data came out saying that there has been a quarter million farmer suicides. We’re not even talking about how many have been displaced. You could see this coming. Fortunately, the farmers we work with, which is a network of nearly 500,000, have their own seeds, do their own farming, and are never in debt. They don’t have to commit suicide. Their incomes are five times higher than any GM farmer, or chemical farmer.

The widow and children of a Indian cotton farmer who killed himself

The widow and children of a Indian cotton farmer who killed himself

Arpad Pusztai

VS: No I’m not because our studies in India, with our kind of farming, show that if everyone farmed the way we do – ecologically, with bio-diversity, with zero external inputs, with farmers having autonomy, and with food and seed sovereignty – we’d double food production. The United Nations report this year has shown that the world can double food production in three years with agro-ecology. The IAASTD has said that the only way to increase food production is through agro-ecology not through the green revolution, not GMOs. That is what the science is telling us. So, humanity has increased its population, but humanity has constantly innovated farming. Genetic engineering is not a technology to increase production because you spray around it and decrease food. Producing more commodities of a toxic kind is part of the food crisis. You can’t rob the lands of India and Africa to solve that problem.

Wangari Maathai and Vandana Shiva

Women members of Navdanya

Vandana Shiva protesting in Ottawa

artwork by Carl Christensen

 ”My motto is: never let fear determine who you are, and never let where you come from determine where you are going. That’s what I preach, and what I talk about. I would love to be able to give that back, and share it with anybody. I don’t care what part of the world it is.”

Dewey Bozella’s journey to the ring that night was over three decades in the making, and for many it culminated one of the most inspiring stories in recent memory. Because before he could fight in the ring, Bozella had to fight to clear his name, and regain his freedom.

In 1983, at the age of 24, Dewey Bozella was sentenced to 20 years to life for the murder of 92 year old Emma Crapser. The case had taken six years to reach a trial and verdict, and the murder which had happened in 1977 was seemingly closed.

Throughout the entire trial Bozella had maintained his innocence, but it made no difference and he was sent to Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York. 

For most, jail signals the end of the road. Dreams disappear, and hope fades. But for Dewey Bozella it was just the beginning of his life. After a rough start, he was encouraged by some inmates to make the most of his time. He took the reins thereafter and excelled. He discovered the sport of boxing and became the Light Heavyweight Champion of Sing Sing. The sport brought him back to life; he found purpose. He also began to study, and would go on to attain his High School diploma, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and 52 other certificates. 

All the while, Bozella maintained his innocence and sought freedom. On several occasions, beginning in 1990 – when a failed re-trail ended in another guilty verdict – he was offered parole if he would just admit he had committed the crime, and explain how he did it. He refused each time, and further increased his jail time. 

Bozella’s steadfast commitment to the truth, and his innocence eventually payed off. After five years of writing a letter every week to the Innocence Project – an international not-for- profit organization that uses DNA evidence to free wrongly accused prisoners- they finally took on his case. In a whirlwind of events, the Innocence Project, in collaboration with lawyers at WilmerHale, began to dig up the original evidence from the case. After hitting several dead ends, a chance meeting with the police officer that arrested Bozella changed everything. Then retired New York Police officer, Arthur Regula, had kept Bozella’s original case file, and when further examined it clearly proved that he was innocent. The only evidence against Bozella had been two eye witness accounts from men known to be criminals in the neighbourhood. The uncovered evidence proved that they had lied in their testimonies.

In October of 2009, Dewey Bozella was taken back to the courtroom where he had pleaded his innocence 26 years ago, and was set free. Following his release the story began to spread across America. In July 2011 it culminated with ESPN honoring him with the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage at the ESPY awards. 

The award dignified Bozella’s journey, but there was one thing left to accomplish that he had dreamed of for years: a fight on a professional boxing card. That dream came true October 15th, when Dewey fought four rounds of boxing on the Bernard Hopkins/Chad Dawson undercard. He was victorious in what was to be his first, and last fight. 

He accomplished his dream of fighting professionally, and now he is moving on to a higher calling: teaching Youth the art of boxing in an attempt to instill morals, discipline, and hope.

There is much I WANNA KNOW from a man with a story so inspiring, and so full of courage. 

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dewey Bozella – and briefly, his wife Trena – from their home in New York. 

From the fight at the Staples Center, to the call from Obama, to life in Sing Sing, to his relationship with his wife, to his future plans, we cover it all.

. . .

From Sing Sing to Staples Centre

Sing Sing Light Heavyweight Champ

I learned this from older, wiser brothers who stopped me and said, “Listen, what do you want to do? You want to sit around and get high, play basketball and waste time? Or, do you want to make this a university of learning?” So, I decided to make it a University of learning. That was a decision I made, and I ran with it. Don’t get me wrong because for the first year and a half I was running around like a chicken with its head cut off. I was mad at society, I didn’t know how I was going to do my time. When I finally made a commitment, I never looked back.

Bozella attends the premiere of 'Conviction' with Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell

Trena Bozella (left), Dewey, Daughter Diamond and friend at ESPY Awards

Trena and Dewey leave court. 2009.

Bozella receives the Arthur Ashe Award from Keifer Sutherland.

Artwork by Carl Christensen

 ”Who wants to do this? I never wanted to put out  my story like this … but I was so convicted by this experience I knew it was a must. I’d much rather look cool to the public, but I had to take my cool off and say, “this happened to me.”

Hailing from Norfolk, Virginia, Gene Thornton Jr, popularly known as Malice, is one half of the critically acclaimed rap duo Clipse. The other half of the group is Malice’s younger brother Terrence Thornton (a.k.a Pusha T). Since their formation in 1993, Clipse have released three highly touted studio records: Lord Willin’ (2002), Hell Hath No Fury (2006), and Til The Casket Drops (2009). Backed mainly by the production of fellow Virginia superstars the Neptunes, they have carved a sizable niche for themselves in Hip Hop. Though there have been some major up’s and down’s in their musical career – including constant problems with record labels – they have attained a steady level of success and credibility.

When Malice comes in during the second verse he responds:

“Am I my brothers keeper for himself every man?/ I have been your reaper, there’s blood on my hands/ Except me as your keeper, there’s been a change of plans/ Be careful of what you speak of, I’ve come to understand.”

Although Malice frequently raps about his faith in God on Clipse records, there was little to substantiate this outside of music. He may have been conflicted, but that never stopped him for indulging in his success, or continuing to push the cocaine branding of Clipse.

Everything began to change April 28, 2010. It was on this day that the Clipse manager, and friend, Anthony “Tony G” Gonzalez was arrested and charged with leading a 10 million dollar drug ring. In January of 2010, he was convicted and sentenced to 32 years in jail.

This event had a tremendous impact on Malice, as the consequences of the lifestyle he promoted finally caught up with his circle. Following the arrest of Tony G, a spiral of events began to change Malice. Most significantly, he began to experience what he describes as the Furnace of Affliction, a Biblical event where God seeks to purify a person. These experiences radically changed Malice’s life, so much so that he decided he needed to step out of music, and tell his story.

Enter, Wretched, Pitiful, Poor, Blind, and Naked, a book that tells Malice’s complete life story and spiritual transformation. If anyone was shocked that Malice decided to do this, it was him. He writes on his website that, “I was trying to be a rapper, not an author. Never would I have ever imagined that I would have to share a story so personal and of such magnitude with the entire world.” The recently released book is now in stores across America, and available online.

While Malice has decided to write this book, his brother Pusha T has embarked on a solo project for the time being. It has been highly successful already: he’s signed with Kanye West’s G.O.O.D. Music label, and preparing to release a full length album soon.

The Clipse, as a group, are not finished and will return, but in the meantime Malice is consumed by the need to tell his story to all those who will listen.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Malice over the phone while he was in the midst of an American book tour. He kindly answered all of my questions.

Malice: Well, reason being was I just felt like this was a story that I know wasn’t solely meant for me. I knew that it was a story meant to be shared with the people that have followed me, and supported me, and were fans of the music. I thought it was only fair to share both sides of this multi-dimensional lifestyle that I’ve lived. 

M:  For those who have not read the book – how could I sum it up? – it’s about how everything is not always what it seems. I think it is an eye opener, and helpful. It puts an end to fallacies, false hopes and dreams. It makes you pay attention to things that are real, relevant, and matter, as opposed to a superficial lifestyle.

I feel that people should really read this story, especially the youth and anyone who is aspiring to be a rapper. I feel like everyone is trying to be a rapper these days. I’m from Virginia, and literally everyone wants to rap. It’s not impossible to get into this industry, but you must have your foundation, and you must have your morals and principles established because once you get in this industry it can be a whirlwind. A lot of things can come your way, and if you’re not routed in something you will sway every which kind of way. 

My point is not to tell anybody how to be, but to just share what I have been through. I think the story is very enlightening. With the Clipse, I think our fans are so in tune with us because our music is very genuine, and it’s very real. I think our fans identify with that. I think what they will walk away from this book is the full gambit, the full perspective, the in’s and out’s, and how everything is not always what it seems. Defintely, they will be able to witness the true living power of a very present God.

RK: In the book, you speak about the Furnace of Affliction. Can you explain that to me in a little bit more detail what that is, and how you feel you experienced it?

M: This thing happened over time. When you get in to this Furnace of Affliction it’s not a one day, one night thing. It is definitely a process. You can liken it to the silversmith, and how he takes a piece of silver puts it into a fire and burns all the impurities out of it. That is really what happened to me.

Blow to Books

Without preaching, but I must say what I know, the Bible says we do not call on God, or think about him, until there is a problem, or some sort of calamity or suffering. When your bills are paid, and you have money, and you are out here doing what it is you want to do, there is no way that you’re even thinking about God. Period. It is his desire that none shall perish, so if He has to get your attention He will. That is exactly what my Affliction was about. My lifestyle was very unsavory, and he gave me the chance to really correct a lot of the things that I was doing, and I believe it was not soley because of my lifestyle but because of the people I had the chance to influence. After I found out about this Furnace of Affliction I began to do research, because I had to know who else went through this kind of thing. In my research it even said in the Furnace of Affliction that a lot of times these people had the capacity of reaching a lot of people, and I knew it was that after reading that. 

The Furnace of Affliction is a very, very real thing, and I had the luxury of experiencing it. I heard a preacher on TV say, “I don’t care if you’ve been pastoring, or ministering, for 50 years, if you have not experienced the Furnace of Affliction there is not too much that you know.” I felt that that statement coming from a Pastor was very profound, because what I went through the Bible definitely correlates to that. 

I feel very lucky to have put out a total of three albums, and a fourth you can get online, that gave the public a chance to know me and to value me for being credible. If you followed me in the group at all, I wouldn’t just do something like this. I am very surprised, and still in shock, through this. If you believe anything I said before, you can still trust and believe me now.

RK: You mention your unsavory lifestyle. Money seems to play a big part in your story. In the book you talk about money issues, and I was wondering, how do you think rap/drug money changed you?

M: Listen, when I was reading about Furnace of Affliction I realized that ever since the first album (Exclusive Audio Footage) I made some sort of reference, that album had a song called “The Prayer.” It was an interlude to the album, and every song on every album after that there is some mention of God. With that being said, I would mention that I believed in God, but you would not be able to tell from how I lived. I wasn’t a good representative. As I read about the Furnace of Affliction, God said “How can I let myself be defamed?” What I got from that was, as much as you mention God, He responds, “you mention me too much, you’re gonna live up to that. You’re going to represent me as much as you say my name.” He will not be defamed, and I swear that He’s talking to me and saying, “since you want to say my name so much, I’m going to put it on you!” (laughs) And, he put it on me, and I don’t want to paint the picture of perfection. Trust me bro, there is nothing perfect about me. But, I do know that I definitely have a tremendous love for Jesus Christ. Definitely.

M: I feel that it was part of a divine plan, bro. I feel like I can’t deny it because my music is real. What maybe I should not have done was make it look like it was the way to go. We had so much, and when were in the studio, or would be on the tour bus, brainstorming and talking about things we had done, we’d come up with a line that everybody who had done what we did, or everyone in our circle, would see as a magical line. It is so much fun, and it gives you chills. You can’t wait to get it out on that record. You know who your audience is, and you know all the streets people will be with that, and you know you captured that moment. It was such a great feeling. You’re having fun with it, but you’re not thinking about the damage it’s causing. 

The Clipse and Kanye West.

M: (laughs) Hey, listen. Imma tell you my thoughts. I feel like on all our records my job was always the clean up man. What you witness on the Clipse albums when you witness me is someone who was in conflict with themselves, because I knew better. I knew, “yeah, this is good,” but I always gave a perspective where I tried to couple it with a reality of it as well. That did not omit me from throwing my ignorance on that. You know what I’m saying? I really did. I think the Clipse is the flash of Pusha, and the intellect of me. I also believe that the end justifies the means. So, I do plan to continue with the Clipse, and our music will be done totally different. I’m going to do the perspective I did, but I’m going all in. You will not here me rap about any drugs, that is dead for me. I don’t dare speak for my brother. We’ll just go and see whatever is left standing, and whatever falls off the map falls off the map.

The Clipse with Rick Rubin.

M: Yes, I do. You see the thing about entertainment is you can be whoever you want to be, and paint whatever picture you want to paint. If you go through hardships you don’t have to mention that. You can be what it is you choose to be.

It’s been my experience that people are looking for, and hunger for a reality. It’s unfortunate that people get caught up in different artists, and look for them to be the answer. If I am one of your favorite artists and you look to me, I’m going to give you what’s real. I don’t have to know you personally to know that I want you to have a nice life. I want you to do well. 

M: No. I’ve already done it. It’s already in stone. I am sold out for Jesus. To tell you the truth, no one wants to face me in a conversation. I’ll do it lovingly of course, and I don’t want to turn any people off. I’m not telling you you have to be me, but I do have a right to express myself, and this is who I am. With the fear of God you no longer care what the world will say, what your peers will say. You don’t know what it’s going to do to your fiances when you make a move like this, but that is truly the fear of God because if I did not revere God I wouldn’t do it. This isn’t an act that I hope will get me anything. This is what I find to be my truth, and that’s just it. Nobody can’t tell me nothing. 

When I was going through what I went through nobody had the answers for me. Not my Mom, not my wife, my friends, girlfriends. No one saved my life, or healed me. When you’re faced with that you realize who you call on. You realize. I’m unashamed, bro.

M: There is so much more to this story, and I’m still experiencing things as late as October the 3rd. I have so much more to write about.

Also, my manger and I (Tony G) are working on a book called 32, in reference to the number of years he got in jail.

M: He’s doing well. As good as expected. He’s holding his head up. He has a great support system. I mean, he is in jail. Thanks for asking. I think he definitely wants to bring awareness, so that’s why we’re writing the book.

Pusha T

RK: What has it been like watching your brother (Pusha T) achieve so much success this year?

M: Oh my God. I’m not surprised at all. We’ve been touring together forever, and I know the star that he is. I think that it’s great that more people get to witness it with the new platform he has. Long as his faith is strong, and his soul is right, I expect to see a lot more.

M: You know that’s not a fair question, but if I could name a few I’d mention: The groundbreaker which was Grindin’, Cot Damn featuring Ab Liva and Roscoe, Momma I’m So Sorry. How bout’ P.U.S.S.Y. (laughs). There’s quite a few them. 

M: Oh man, I forgot her name. She was one of Pusha’s friends. She’s definitely one of the home girls from out this way, from Norfolk, Virginia. I can’t even believe I forgot her name. But yeah, she was crazy, and said the part funny. That’s really her personality. 

M: There’s been a lot. Definitely traveling everywhere, traveling overseas, being able to see foreigners sing your songs; especially in Japan and Norway. Just watching people really root for you that you don’t know, or feel like you have much in common with, is definitely a highlight.

Justin Timberlake ft the Clipse at the MTV Video Music Awards.

Also, the VMAs with Justin Timberlake was huge. Source awards for Grindin’. 

I think the biggest though man is when you look back and you just look at us as little kids coming from Virginia, and you look back at riding the BMX bikes and rapping/freestyling, and then deciding you’re going to make demo’s, and then you just see it take shape, and look at your accomplishments. I remember just hanging out with Chad and Pharrell, and Pharrell had dreadlocks and cutoffs and goggles. Hanging out with Timbaland, and hanging out at his house making music and having to kneel between his two twin beds, because the mic chord wouldn’t reach far enough, and trying to rap. Remembering all that stuff just cuts me deep.

Pusha. Pharrell. Malice.

M: When Teddy Robinson came to Virginia in the late 80s, early 90s, he really put a battery in everybody’s back. That was the first time we were witnessing Lamborgini’s, and all kinds of cars driving down Viriginia Beach Boulevard. You knew that it was Teddy Robinson from Harlem. He breathed so much life into our city. When he allowed us to hang out at his studio whenever we wanted to, it was like, “this is how I want to do it.” He showed us how. 

Our circle – Neptunes, Clipse, Missy, Timbaland – we all knew each other and had the same friends. We were fortunate to really be apart of it. Now, we have carried that torch and inspired a lot of other people, and everybody in Virginia is a rapper or a singer, and trying to do something. It’s definitely a Mecca of talent.

Drizzy

RK: In Toronto, the biggest name right now is Drake. In several interviews, I’ve heard him shout out Clipse as being highly influential to him. What do you think of Drake?

Big Daddy Kane

RK: If you had to pick, who are your top MCs of all time?

M: Man, that’s what it is. I had a conversation yesterday with our partner Doug Life, and we were just talking about how well Play Clothes is doing, and how impressed we are with the fall line. We’re just very happy with it, and what I really like about Play Cloths is that it’s not quote on quote “rapper fashion.” It’s for everybody. It’s nostalgic. It’s fresh. This isn’t just a sales pitch, I just really enjoy Play Cloths. 

In Toronto, you can get it at Livestock.

For More Information on Malice:

1) Read his book Wretched, Pitiful, Poor, Blind, and Naked.
Order it online at: www.thorn10publishing.bigcartel.com or www.amazon.com
2) Check out his personal website: www.mademylifechange.com

“The day I start believing that what I have to say is much more important than the people who I learn things from, I will be crossing a dark line.”

 

Raj Patel is many things: an author of two successful books, an academic with degrees from some of the world’s most prestigious schools, a public speaker who addresses audiences around the globe; but first and foremost, he is an activist desperately fighting against social injustice.

All before the age of 40, Raj Patel has made a profound impact on the discourse surrounding social justice, and international development. Of the many causes he supports, two stand out as the most prominent: 1) the global food movement to secure food sovereignty, and 2) the fight against the current workings of market capitalism.

These particularly dense, and big topics have been captured in Patel’s two books: 2008′s Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World’s Food System, and 2010′s The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy. 


Stuff and Starved was my first introduction to Patel’s work, and it was enlightening to say the least. The book primarily unpacks the evolution of the global food system, and highlights the main reasons why the food we consume now is so unhealthy, and politically loaded. One statistic that was especially shocking was that as of 2008 the number of obese people had, for the first time in history, surpassed the number of malnourished people.

His second work, a 2010 New York Times best-seller, The Value of Nothing unpacks the ills, and injustices of the current capitalist market system. Inspired by Oscar Wilde’s famous quote, “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing,” Patel details the extreme costs of our current economic system, and how many remain oblivious to the damage we are actually inflicting in the process. For example, he calculates that every Big Mac from McDonald’s, though you pay about $4, is potentially costing $200. This includes the environmental damage, hidden subsidies, slave wages for those who are picking the tomatoes, and so forth. 

I seem to have caught Raj Patel at the perfect time for a chat on the issues he is most involved with. Days before we sat down for our interview a selection of events transpired: 1) the Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York, and 2) India filed a bio-piracy lawsuit against the corporate food monolith, Monsanto. Big things are happening, and they all relate to Patel’s theses: the financial and food systems as they currently operate are not sustainable, and people need to wake up and do something about it. 


With an extensive knowledge on all things markets, food, and social justice there is much I WANNA KNOW from Raj Patel.  

It was an honor and pleasure to sit down with Raj Patel and discuss his work and current events as he traversed through Toronto. A big thank you goes out to Professor Haroon Akram-Lodhi for facilitating this conversation, and providing a pleasant array of Thunder Bay cheese.

From Michelle Obama and Wal-Mart, to the Occupy Wall Street protests, to Monsanto vs. India, to Patel’s love of M.I.A and gaming, we cover it all.
 

Ryan Kohls: There is an actor that I feel perfectly bridges both Stuffed and Starved, and your latest work, The Value of Nothing: the recession proof, cheapest place to find food, Wal-Mart. What kind of impact is Wal-Mart having on the global food economy? And, if you had to put a price tag on the future damage of this corporation how high would it be?

Now, that’s a sting that a lot of people in the progressive food movement feel is justifiable, because a lot of the Slow Food stuff is quite bourgeois. As both a means to genuinely further the cause, and deflect some of the flack that they are getting from critics who are saying organic food is only for the rich, Michelle Obama and Wal-Mart partnered. She was photographed in front of the logo announcing she was very excited that Wal-Mart was making cheap organic food available. The vision there is that what everyone needs to be doing is still going to Wal-Mart but be buying the organic foods so that they to can be sharing the White House garden dividend. This achieves a number of things for Wal-Mart: it drives people into the stores, but it also helps push Wal-Mart further into being able to set the terms of a debate around organic food, and standards not just in the US but globally. 

Michelle shelling for Wal-Mart

Occupy Wall Street. 2011.

Protester arrested during Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.

Amartya Sen

RP: India, like most countries, has legislation that says, “If a company comes into this country and would like to access the bounties of our genetic biodiversity they have to enter into a profit sharing agreement with the sovereign.” A lot of countries have that, but few countries have the spine to say anything. Monsanto has been trying to get permission to do field trials of genetically modified eggplant. So, the Indian government noticed that a lot of the gene’s in this eggplant came from ones that were native to India. They noticed also that Monsanto didn’t have an agreement with India to do that. Last year, there was a huge outcry about genetically modified eggplant. A lot of Indians didn’t want GM eggplant because it was a hugely important crop, and they had been successfully persuaded of the dangers of cross contamination, and the loss of biodiversity if Monsanto were to be allowed. What the Indian government has moved on to is an aggressive stand against it.

Jeffrey Sachs

World Bank Headquarters. Washington, DC.

M.I.A.

Philip Glass

RP: I think people would be surprised to find out that I think that gaming is interesting. I recently played Bio-Shock, which I think is a masterpiece. I think it rises the level of literature, and if only I had enough time I would write why I think that is the case. At some point I will. I think computer gaming, for people who scorn computer gaming, is worth a second look. I know that there are Call of Duty fans out there who will hate me for saying this but I couldn’t give a toss about that. But there’s some incredible storytelling and politics in something like Bio-Shock. It was a surprise to me how much I enjoyed it, and how much I would recommended it to other people.

“‘Use a condom’, and ‘Don’t eat any salads’. I think that’s the best advice you can give anyone in Africa. “

After nearly 19 years reporting on some of the most dire situations in Africa, it’s great to see that British journalist and author Michela Wrong still has a sense of humour. 
 

As a journalist for top-ranked news agencies such as Reuters, the BBC, and the Financial Times, Wrong has covered a significant part of the world. However, and quite by accident, she has developed into an expert in East African affairs. She’s covered: war and politics in the Congo, corruption in Kenya, a post-genoicde Rwanda, and the oft-forgotten small nation of Eritrea; amongst many other stories, and countries.

The outcome of Wrong’s extensive coverage has led her to author three critically acclaimed books:

1) In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in the Congo (2001)

2) I Didn’t Do It For You: How the world betrayed a small African nation (2005)

3) It’s Our Turn to Eat: The Story of a Kenyan Whistleblower (2009) 

All three books were influential, and important for African history. The first, In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz won Michela Wrong the PEN James Sterne award for non-fiction, and advanced the analysis of the DRCs complex history. The second, I Didn’t Do It For You, told the story of the tiny, and generally ignored country of Eritrea. She was, and still remains, one of the only people to write a comprehensive history of the nation. The third, It’s Our Turn to Eat, told the story of John Githongo, a Kenyan man who exposed corruption high up in the Kenyan government. This book has continued to educate the world on the problems that still exist in Kenya regarding corruption.

In May of 2011 I had the privilege of speaking with John Githongo, and knew then that I would love the opportunity to speak with the woman who had the courage to tell his story. 

With a wealth of knowledge on key African issues, there is much I WANNA KNOW from Michela Wrong. 

I had the pleasure of speaking with Michela Wrong from her home in London, England. 

From Eritrea, to the controversy her work has created, to being a female journalist, to the misconceptions of Africa, to a warning about salads, we cover it all. 

Ryan Kohls: You are one of the few journalists/authors to write a book on Eritrean history. Can you tell me a little bit about the journey that led you to writing; “I Didn’t Do It For You?”
 

Michela Wrong: Yes, it’s a fairly specialised interest. When I was researching it the only book on Eritrea I could find in ordinary bookshops was Dan Connell’s “Against All Odds” – and that came out in 1993. There was also a book by Justin Hill, who had been a teacher in Eritrea, and that was it at the time.
 

The reason I decided to write that book was that I had been to Eritrea reporting for the Financial Times and I found it peculiarly intriguing and gripping and compelling, in part because I’m half Italian and Italy’s colonial imprint can still be felt. But the book was really conceived as a reaction to “In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz”, my book about Congo, which was pretty dark. I wanted to find a more optimistic story to tell about Africa and at that time, Eritrea looked like the polar opposite of Congo. This was a country that had a very clear sense of its own destiny and knew exactly what it didn’t want to do. The Eritreans had turned their backs on colonial and superpower influences. They didn’t want to play the aid game. That all seemed very refreshing after writing about Mobutu.
 

While I was researching the book, Isaias Afewerki began arresting his critics in government and the slow slide began and I realised that because I’d been out of the country I hadn’t fully registered the importance of changes taking place. So you could say that the book was the result on an original misapprehension.

But I’m very glad I wrote it, and I remain as engaged as I can be with what’s going on in Eritrea, given that the last time I applied for a visa I wasn’t granted it. The book is not sold there, you can’t buy it in Asmara.
 

RK: There was quite a strong reaction to the book. Many Ethiopians seem to believe you supported a very pro-Eritrean side of history, and disagree with your analysis. What kind of reactions have you encountered?

 

MW: I’ve had varying reactions from Ethiopians, actually, and I was very intrigued recently to discover that it’s on sale in a bookshop in Addis Ababa, which I hadn’t anticipated.

But that reaction doesn’t dismay me. Prior to writing that book I had gone to SOAS, and looked up all the books in its library on the Horn of Africa. And all of the ones I could find, dating back to the 19^th century, the Empire, and Haile Selassie, were written from an entirely Ethiopian perspective. I was quite consciously writing a history that was trying to right that imbalance. I wasn’t trying to be even-handed, because I don’t think history has been even-handed with Eritrea. I think it was about time to see that opposing perspective, which is what you get in Eritrea. I didn’t see too many places – apart from Connell – where that was recorded. If Ethiopians say it’s vision is biased towards Eritrea, well, that was exactly the point.

 

RK: Eritrea seems to be in a tragic place in its history. Many in the media are beginning to call it a “failed state.” Do you agree with this analysis?

Eritrean President Isaias Afeworki. He’s been in power since Eritrea’s independence in 1993.

MW: I would never use that phrase to describe Eritrea. I think it’s a state that functions very efficiently, it just happens to be police state very few of us would want to live in. There’s currently speculation over whether there has been any famine in Eritrea, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if people aren’t going hungry, because this is a very efficiently run country. There’s been a huge amount of work put into the roads, dams, bridges and hospitals; the government oversees the distribution of basic commodities. The country is run on a very tight rein. But hundreds of thousands of young Eritreans don’t want to live there, because they don’t have any personal freedoms – aren’t free to decide, for example, what to do when they finish school, it’s all decided by the state. When I hear the phrase “failed state” I think of places like Somalia where you don’t have anything approaching effective government, in Eritrea you certainly do.

 

RK: A lot of Eritrea’s post-colonial destiny has been shaped by the leadership of Isaias Afewerki. Do you see him as a benevolent dictator, or do you believe he is willingly leading his country to ruin?

 

MW: I think the phrase “benevolent dictator” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. I don’t think dictators can be a benevolent. They may seem that way to the West for a bit, but in the long term it’s another matter. I think Afewerki has run a pretty destructive foreign policy for Eritrea. To meddle and support the rebel groups  active in all your neighbouring states and to be seen as the friend of terrorist organizations is not good diplomacy. Supporting rebel movements with Islamic affiliations was always going to alienate America, so that was a major mistake. He’s isolated his country, made a series of blunders, and the population is paying the price.

 

RK: I had the pleasure of speaking with John Githongo recently, and heard about his trials and tribulations since leaking the corruption scandals in Kenya. I was wondering what impact the book has had on your personal life in terms of safety and ability to travel?

 

MW: This book created a furore I hadn’t anticipated when writing it. I was very aware that most of the book’s content was already in the public domain. The revelations about Anglo-Leasing had already been in the newspapers in great detail. I was taken aback by the fuss, amazed to find out that the book can only be bought under the counter in Kenya. I think it’s an exaggerated reaction, especially since John Githongo is living back in Kenya, which shows there’s nothing in the book that’s going to bring down the regime. But I think certain books just acquire an aura of being hot, controversial and dangerous. 

Githongo and Wrong in London

A number of people told me it would not be good for my personal safety to travel there immediately after publication, so I stayed away for a while and when I did go back I did the sensible things: stayed with friends, kept moving around. When I spoke at a book festival in Nairobi people in the audience said they had assumed I’d been declared persona non grata. But I’ve been granted a visa there twice in the last six months and I’m sure I won’t be denied it in future. In the eyes of the public it will probably remain a “hot” book, however. I don’t think any Kenyan would want to be seen reading it in public.

 

RK: Despite the overwhelming evidence of mass corruption in Kenya, little progress has been made. Why do you think the publicly known, large-scale corruption is only getting worse?

 

Kenyan Anti-Corruption Commission’s Director, Patrick Lumumba.

MW: You’ve got to look at who’s running the country. You have a transition government that was set up after extremely violent elections as the result of a deal done between two political elites. These are not fresh politicians who came in with the goal of changing things.There’s no interest in clearing up corruption. The Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission’s recent dissolution was absolutely predictable. It was clear that its director, Patrick Lumumba, was going through the motions when it came to the big corruption scandals.

 

The people who run Kenya now are preparing for the next election, during which they hope to win power for a considerable number of years, and they are looting the economy, building up their war chests, in preparation for that contest. I don’t see anyone in a political position having any interest in do anything about corruption.

 

RK: That’s quite discouraging.

 

MW: Yes, it is. There’s no traction at the moment. You can have people stand up and denounce corruption, but you still have a very ethnically polarized contest for power that hasn’t changed since my book came out. When politicians denounce corruption what they’re really doing is denouncing corruption by other, rival ethnic groups.

 

RK: Can you tell me a little bit about your journey that led you into journalism?

 

MW: I had a very classical journalist career in that I did a journalism postgraduate course in Cardiff, Wales. Then I joined Reuters. They were always interested in people with foreign languages and I spoke French, Italian and Spanish so that made me someone they were interested in.  I worked for them for nearly 10 years, in various foreign postings.

 

RK: I’ve read that you sort of got into African journalism by chance. Is that true?

 

Michela giving a talk for TED in 2009.

MW: Yeah, it was a slow burn. You hear of situations where people say, “I went to Africa, and I fell in love and knew I was going to spend my life working there.” I had no idea I would be spending as much time as I have working on Africa. It was really just another posting. It’s been an unexpected turn in my career.

 

RK: Now that you’ve had a lengthy career living, and working in Africa, what do you believe are some of the biggest challenges reporting from the continent?

 

MW: One of the biggest challenges is almost always language. I was lucky because I had French; which worked in places like Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Ivory Coast. The basic tool of journalism is communication, so if you can’t talk to people, you can’t get their story. So I was glad to have the languages I had, but other ones, like Swahili or Portuguese, would have been very useful too.

 

RK: Are there any restraints you’ve encountered as a female journalist?

 

MW: I have done some work in the Middle East: the border between Turkey and Iraq and in Pakistan, briefly. I found it very difficult to work in those circumstances because you constantly have to watch what you wear, who you speak to, how you behave, remind yourself not to shake hands with men. I found it really tough.

 

That really hasn’t been an issue in many of the African countries I’ve worked in. As a woman you’re pretty free to work wherever you go. I think that’s partly why a disproportionate number of Western female journalists end up in Africa.

It’s really, really irritating to work in place where you have to cover your head, because a whole load of other things go along with covering your head. I found it oppressive.

 

RK: When I spoke with Al-Jazeera reporter, Peter Greste, he discussed tribalism as being the biggest misconception coming out of Africa. He saw it as a tool being used to simplify and misrepresent many of the problems facing Africa. What do you think is the biggest misconception outsiders have towards Africa?

Bob Geldof.

MW: I agree with him that it’s often done in a simplistic way, but I think you can also get distorted reporting when you try too hard to eliminate the tribal issue, too. The BBC is often very politically correct and tries to eliminate this element from its stories but in the process it removes a key characteristic. You’ll see a report from the slums which presents a clash as being rich vs poor, whereas it’s really about Kikuyu landlords and Luo tenants. If you take that bit out and say it’s rich vs. poor you’ve completely misinterpreted the story.

 

What I would single out for criticism is the Western vision of Africa as a continent it has to save. It’s a perspective shaped by aid agencies, by the Bonos and the Geldofs of this world, acting with the best of intentions, but it’s very unhelpful and extremely patronizing. I think we’ve got to stop thinking that’s it’s up to rich Western people to save Africa.

RK: Do you believe that the job being done by major news sources on Africa is sufficient? What needs to be improved?

 

MW: Well, there is a lot of great journalism coming out of Africa, particularly in Kenya and South Africa. Nigeria’s media is not bad, either. But there is still a problem of a failure of confidence. And funding. A Kenyan newspaper will use Reuters, AFP or AP when they run items about other African countries, even if it’s news from their next-door neighbour. Africa isn’t covering itself yet; it’s relying on Western agencies to do that. That comes at a price, because what you then get is the viewpoint of Western journalists.
 

If you pick up a South African newspaper they won’t have anything about corruption in Kenya, for example, in their foreign news section. They’re far more interested in what’s happening in London, Switzerland, Washington and Israel. That’s a legacy of Africa’s colonial history. Africa has to find its own voice, it shouldn’t be looking at events through the eyes of CNN. Al-Jazeera is producing some really great coverage of Africa at the moment, but a lot of its English-language correspondents originally came from the BBC. There’s still not enough African coverage of Africa.
 

RK: Your job and the places you choose to cover are very dangerous. Do you find yourself feeling in danger often?

 

MW: The people who are exposed to the real danger – and I have lost some friends and colleagues – are always cameramen. They take the risks. I was lucky enough to be working for the Financial Times in Africa and they weren’t interested in frontline reports of bullets flying, they wanted analysis. That suited me just fine. I would never describe myself as a war correspondent.

I think I’m pretty cautious and careful. I have had the odd hair-raising incident; mostly in Kenya, bizarrely enough.

RK: What advice do you have for journalists who want to cover Africa?

 

MW: I would say: ‘Brush up your languages if you have any’.

 

What else would I say? ‘Take your malaria pills’, ‘Use a condom’, and ‘Don’t eat salads’. I think that’s probably the best advice you can give anyone in Africa.

 

RK: I hear you’re currently working on a novel. What’s the progress on that?

 

MW: Yeah, I’m doing that at the moment. I’m about half way through.

 

RK: Are you still reluctant to reveal what it’s about?

 

MW: (laughs) It’s set in the Horn of Africa, that’s as specific as I want to be.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MICHELA WRONG:
1) check out here personal website: http://www.michelawrong.com/intro.html

artwork by Carl Christensen

Demonstrations in Massachusetts. 2004.

Michael Coogan: Well, I wrote it for a couple of reasons. One is because I was teaching for many years, and kept getting many questions from students. Also, as a resident of Massachusetts, when same sex marriage was approved, I was both amused and troubled how both sides of the debate, and other issues of so called family values, were able to quote the Bible in support of their contradictory positions. So, I wrote the book, in a way, to set the record straight, and lay out for a non-specialist audience exactly what the Bible says, and what it doesn’t say, and set out the larger issue of what kind of authority the Bible should have in such contemporary social discussions.

RK: When you began compiling this book, and doing additional research, was there anything you discovered that surprised you, or caught you off guard?

MC: There were several issues that surprised me in a way. I’ve been doing this stuff for a long time. One is that it’s possible to interpret the Garden of Eden story with a sexual component. The man and the woman eating the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were at some level, and since it’s literature it’s capable of several different levels of meaning, having to do with sexual activity. That surprised me.

Also, I think as I started going into it I was intrigued by the notion of “divine sexuality.” People think of God as an abstract, ethereal being, but for the Biblical writers God is described often in very sexual terms, and I found that somewhat surprising.

Creation. Michelangelo.

MC: Well, that’s a great question. I think that when both Judaism, and especially Christianity, began to adopt Greek philosophical ideas, they began to understand God in more abstract, and in some ways, less personal ways than the Biblical writers described him. I think as philosophical theology developed you don’t want God to be too human because that means he shares our foibles and limitations. So, God became more removed from this idea that we are, like Genesis said, made in the image of God, and if we look at ourselves we can see what God is like. That metaphor became a little uncomfortable for theologians.

MC: I think that based in part by what some biblical writers say, many Christians think that sex is something bad, dirty, and not good. I think that has been a sorry part of Christian interpretation, since the time of Paul at least, who’s own attitudes towards sex are less than positive.

MC: I don’t think we can amend the Bible. We’re stuck with the Bible we have for better or worse, but I think we need to interpret it. In interpreting it we’re doing what the Biblical writer’s themselves do. One of the examples I use in the book is God punishing children for the sins of their parents down to the fourth generation; that’s enshrined in the Ten Commandments. Yet, the prophet Ezekiel disagrees with it strenuously, even though it’s in one of the most important legal texts. So, the Biblical writers themselves were always interpreting, and trying to apply older words to their own changing circumstances. I think that’s what Jews and Christians have been doing, not just when the Bible was being written, but since these assorted books became the Bible.

The American Constitution

RK: The vast amount of inconsistencies in the Bible tend, in my opinion, to stunt constructive theological debates. How can we best mediate this problem, in your opinion? 

MC: I think we have to recognize that the Bible is not a single book by a single author, but as the bible itself makes clear, a collection of books from writers who lived at different times, and had different points of view. It’s too easy to find something in the Bible that supports a position you’ve already arrived at. I’m trying to argue against that. I think you need to take the Bible as a whole – in all it’s messiness, complexity, and inconsistency – and try to go behind the individual words and see if there’s a more compelling message.

One of the analogies I use at the end of the book is the American Constitution, which is a foundational text. It was a product of the time, and it has since been amended, and interpreted, and applied to very different situations of which its writers intended. Some legal scholars argue that it’s not what the words say, but the ideal behind words, and I would argue in a similar way for the Bible.

MC: I wouldn’t presume to know what God had in mind, but I believe that many of the Biblical writers, mainly men, were reflecting the values of the society in which they lived. Until relatively modern times those values were accepted by societies at large. I think what’s important is that in many modern societies, in the West especially, we have gone beyond the teachings of the Bible, and rejected the subordinate status of women. There are still some conservative Jewish and Christian groups that would argue that women are subordinate, and so forth, but I think the vast majority of people would say that’s no longer true. It may have been the way people thought two or three thousand years ago but we don’t have to think that way anymore, and in fact, we shouldn’t think that way.

MC: (laughs) My friends all like it.

I have had some critical reviews. I had an opinion piece done by CNN, and at time.com, and there were a lot of negative reactions. I’ve had emails saying that I’m from Satan, and that I’m doomed to hell, but that goes with the territory.

RK: You talk about polygamy in your book, and refer to the Mormon church. As a Biblical historian, I was wondering what your take was on the Book of Mormon. Do you believe that the claims of the book – Jesus came and lived with the Indigenous people of America – have any historical probability?

MC: I think that the fundamental thesis of the Book of Mormon, that Jesus came to the New world, and that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, is historically impossible. That being said, Mormonism is now a major world religion, and though from a non-Mormon perspective you may think of it as a cult, all major religions were started in a way that we may call a cult; that’s true of Judaism and Christianity as well.

MC: Truth is a difficult word. I think Joseph Smith thought it was true, and was able to convince other people the revelation he received was true. I don’t find it compelling, but much of the Old and New Testament are not historically accurate; they’re not history books. So, I think to interpret it as such is a bit misguided. What makes a book inspired is whether it inspires people. The Bible has done that, but so has the Book of Mormon.

MC: That’s a good question. I wouldn’t say there’s a moment where that happens, it’s a continuum. The farther away we get from the original culture, the more foreign, and alien the culture seems, especially in regards to language, and vocabulary, and in terms of values. We have that experience in travelling as well, cultures are different.

MC: By the time the New Testament was written, Judaism had become a very formally monotheistic religion. The idea that there were other gods was emphatically rejected by Jews, and the first Christians. There’s a debate in New Testament circles whether Jesus ever thought of himself as divine. I think it’s unlikely, and I’m not alone in this position.

I should point out that lurking behind the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity is a form of polytheism, expressed in the form of angels, devils, and especially Satan. Who is this Satan? Why does God give him power? If God is all powerful, why doesn’t he squash Satan once and for all? There is a kind of polytheism that arises from a fundamental problem in monotheism, which is how to explain why bad things happen to good people. In a polytheistic system the world is a kind of arena in which good forces and bad forces are constantly battling. Sometimes the good forces win, and sometimes they lose, and you can explain natural disasters, and disease, as at least, a temporary coming to power of the bad forces. When you have a strict monotheism where there are no other God’s there’s a kind of inconsistency: if there’s only one God who is all powerful, he is responsible for all kinds of bad things. You want the all powerful God to be all good, so in order to resolve that dilemma, Judaism, followed by Christianity and Islam, came up with this idea of another force in the world: a Satan who is responsible for all the bad things. To my view, at least, that undercuts a strict monotheism.

MC: I’ve devoted my life to studying the Bible. I’ve found it immensely challenging, but immensely rewarding, and inspiring. The more I study it, the more I learn. It gets me, in a sense, closer to the divine I suppose. I also, through studying other religions, recognize that the Biblical way of thinking of God – is God male or female? personal or impersonal? – are all metaphors. No single metaphor should be thought of as exhausting the meaning of God.

MC: I think from the perspective of the Biblical writers, he was their God, and on their side, so from a very simplistic ethics, whatever he did to their enemies was fair enough. I should also point out that the New Testament is not absent of violence, and the God of the book of Revelations is extraordinarily violent.

I think it’s an over simplification to say that the God of the Old Testament is a God of vengeance, and the God of the New Testament is a God of love. Both aspects of God appear in both parts of the Bible.

MC: I think they should use the whole Bible, because the whole Bible is for Christians the inspired text. I think it is all too easy to take parts of the Bible that you find comfortable, and ignore the rest. If you take the Bible seriously, you should read and study the whole thing, and not say “this is the Old Testament and it doesn’t work anymore.” The Old Testament was the Bible of Jesus, and Paul. Christianity adopted the Old Testament as part of its Bible, so it’s a terrible mistake to think it doesn’t apply anymore.

MC: Here’s a provocative question: if God had a plan to save the world through his Son, as the New Testament suggests, why did he wait so long? Why did he have to wait thousands of years? Why couldn’t he just solve it immediately?

MC: I think the Christian understanding of Jesus as God’s ultimate plan for redemption raises the question: why is the plan really drawn out? If God wants people to be ‘saved,’ to use theological language, why doesn’t he do it sooner?

MC: That’s a biographical question. I was raised Roman Catholic, and was a Jesuit for 10 years. Like many Biblical scholars, I became interested in the Bible because of my belief system. I also had a facility for languages, and enjoyed learning them; I learned Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

My beliefs have changed dramatically since I first began studying the Bible, but I have, like I said earlier, found it to be a very challenging, and rewarding book to devote my time to. Most people have to carve time out of their schedules to think about the important issues of the human condition, and their relation to God. I spend everyday reading about what great writer’s have said about those issues, and I consider myself extremely fortunate.

MC: Well, when I teach, I try to teach without persuading people to believe something, or stop believing something. At Harvard especially, I have people who come from different religious backgrounds, and I want to speak to them all. After teaching a course one year, a student at Harvard asked me, “So, are you Christian, or Jewish?” I took that as a compliment because I had not been trying to insist on one particular perspective.


FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MICHAEL COOGAN:
1) Pick up his book God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says
2) Check out his Stonehill University profile at http://www.stonehill.edu/x9176.xml

artwork by Carl Christensen

“You break down every major conflict on this continent, and you’ll find at the very root of it the same thing. I think that’s one of the things, collectively, journalists have let the world down in. It’s been lazy, cliche journalism that has led to some gross misunderstanding of what’s going on here.”

 

No, this is not the checklist of an army commander, or high profile drug dealer; it belongs to a journalist reporting from the most dangerous places in Africa.

International journalism is increasingly becoming a dangerous profession, especially when you decide to cover the stories where few dare to tread. Peter Greste has chosen this fate, and in doing so he continues to put his life on the line to bring the world stories that may otherwise be lost. He is sacrificing everything to bring you the news.

As a freelance writer for the last 16 years, first with the BBC, and currently with Al-Jazeera, Greste has been reporting on some of the most fascinating, and tragic events in recent history. He’s covered the emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the subsequent war in 2001, civil war in Sudan, civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, bombings in Uganda, and much more. 

In January of 2011, I had the privilege of meeting with Peter Greste downtown Nairobi. I had stumbled upon Greste while searching for BBC correspondents in Africa, and I was eager to learn about his job, and how he got where he was. When we met up I asked Peter if there was anything he was doing that I could voluntarily partake in, or help out with. He flat out told me “no.” He said he was about to begin work on a project, but it was so dangerous that he couldn’t even tell me what it was about. I was disappointed to say the least, and continued to wonder what exactly this mystery project was. As of two weeks ago, I found out. Peter Greste was about to travel to the most troubled place in the world, and film a documentary. He was headed to Mogadishu, Somalia. In finding this information out it immediately became clear to me why I was not invited, and why he couldn’t even mention any of the details. 

Greste (center) covering Somalia. 2011.

Going to Somalia is no small feat. In fact, Peter Greste is one of the first Western journalists to enter the heart of Somalia in a very, very long time. One of the last journalists to attempt a news story from Somalia was actually Peter Greste in 2005. Unfortunately, the story ended in tragedy and never got finished. Greste’s producer, Kate Peyton, was gunned down while getting into a car shortly after arriving. Not to be defeated by this, Peter Greste has soldiered on, and his return to Somalia in 2011 marks a triumphant accomplishment of what should have been completed years ago. 

Currently, Peter Greste is reporting from East Africa on the famine that is ravaging the land. Many aid agencies, and publications are calling it the worst drought/famine in 60 years. Things are very serious, and desperate there right now; millions of lives are on the line. When I got in contact with Peter for an interview he was up in Wajir, Kenya at a massive refugee camp for the drought. He took some time from his busy schedule to speak with me live from the scene. Miraculously, our skype connection was able to hold on long enough to speak in length about Greste’s work, and the current situations he was covering.


Here is a clip from Al-Jazeera of Peter Greste reporting from a refugee camp in Ethiopia.

As one of the most influential, and inspiring people I’ve come across, there is clearly much I WANNA KNOW about Peter Greste. I believe his work is enormously important, and beneficial for this world, and I was thrilled to speak with him. 

From the current famine in East Africa, to what it’s like to report from Somalia, to misconceptions and misrepresentations of Africa, to the importance of journalism, we cover it all.

Ryan Kohls: You are currently up in Wajir, Kenya covering the drought. Can you describe the scene up there right now?

A woman watches her camel die in Wajir.

Peter Greste:  Well, it’s pretty desperate. This area is what the aid agencies are calling ‘ground zero’ for the crisis. Although you have to be careful because the aid agencies have a tendency to inflate crises. There seems to be a bit of a Western agency bias to get more attention, but it’s really serious here.

Wollo. 1984.

This is probably more than what we saw in Ethiopia in 1984. Ethiopia set a new benchmark, the standard for what an African famine should look like, but that was also the result of very unique circumstances. It was undergoing a war that had kept the region cut off from the rest of the world, and had pushed a lot of people into very concentrated areas, and we saw not only a very dramatic famine, but one place that was particularly dramatic (Wollo).

PG: There’s no denying the weather. There’s a drought, and it is what it is.

There has been a very serious drought, but this food crisis is as much about political, and economic factors, as it is about natural factors. There’s food out there. You drive through the markets, and you see food, but it’s way too expensive, and beyond the means of most of the people out here. Only the richest can afford it. So, it’s not just because there’s a shortage of food, but because of poor infrastructure which makes it difficult to deliver food. It’s also a factor of high grain prices because of shortages elsewhere in the world. It’s a factor of high fuel prices. It’s a factor of political neglect in the case of Kenya and Ethiopia. It’s been aggressive neglect in Ethiopia because it’s happening in the Ogaden region, which is an area where the Ethiopians have been fighting a separatist movement.

Somalia itself is all about politics and conflict. Al-Shabaab has banned international agencies from operating in there. All these factors come into play.

Al-Shabaab soldiers

RK: Do you think the drought will soften Al-Shabaab’s reluctance to let Western aid agencies into Somalia?

PG: It’s a very difficult question to answer. I just don’t know. They did say last week that they would allow aid agencies to operate, but I know that two Somali aid agency workers went in, and were kidnapped. That was resolved, but it raises all sorts of questions about just how serious Al-Shabaab is about following through with their promise. Having said that, it is deeply embarrassing for Al-Shabaab to have literally hundreds of thousands of people walking out of their area of control because they’re starving.

Former BBC producer, Kate Peyton.

PG: I’ve been wanting for a long time to do a film on Somalia; Mogadishu in particular. For many reasons. On a professional level, I felt that the story had been woefully neglected because it is an incredibly difficult place to operate in. It’s hard to get any story, except for what the officials want you to see. The state narrative from the African Union peacekeepers, and the transition government is that the fight is going well, they’re expanding military control, they’re winning the political battle, and that security is improving. I wanted to test that claim because all of the statistics suggested the opposite; that Al-Shabaab was expanding its control, and that security was deteriorating, and that things were going from bad to worse.

On a personal level, I thought I owed it to Kate’s memory to finish off the story that we originally came to make. As I said in the film, I felt pretty bloody minded going back. I looked for the opportunity for a very long time, and finally it popped up. I found someone who was able to get me in, and move me around, and do it safely. I pitched the idea to Panorama, and they went for it.

PG: It’s a hellishly dangerous place, and after going through Kate’s shooting all those years ago, it was difficult. I was acutely aware of what it might mean, and just how anarchic the place really is.

The fighting was far more active on this last trip, than it ever was when we were there. In fact, the reason we went back in 2005 was because things had stabilized, and the country looked like it might have a fighting chance for some period of stability. So, this was anything but, and it was very difficult, and dangerous, but we were very well prepared. I made sure that the people we went in with were very, very experienced and capable. I had enormous amounts of respect around the place. I felt confident that around the bounds of what was possible we had made the trip as safe as we could reasonably make it.

I never felt entirely comfortable, and there were moments I was generally afraid, but at the same time I felt that we had the situation under control.

PG: Me, and my crew. That’s it. We did two trips one with AMISOM (African Union Mission in Somalia), and one independently. With AMISOM we went in with an NPR journalist, but that was it.

RK: What did you learn, and see this time that really shocked you, and that you weren’t expecting to see?

The rubble of Mogadishu.

PG: I was really shocked by the situation for a lot of the internally displaced people’s (IDP); the people who’ve had to flee from their homes. It was absolutely shocking to see the conditions these people are living in. These are people, a class like nomads if you like, who’ve been forced to drift around the city. They are vast in numbers. They are very downtrodden, and unrepresented. They tend to come from marginalized clans, with little support networks to help them out. They’re very weak, and so, they are in absolutely desperate situations. I found that very shocking indeed.

PG: (laughs) Um, yeah I think we did. Initially you flinch at every crack, but after awhile it becomes part of the background, and you learn very quickly what’s safe, and what’s not; what’s a distant battle, and when things get a bit too close for comfort. I don’t think I ever got used to it, but adjusting is probably a good word.

PG: For my money, yes. I think it’s probably the most dangerous place in the world. There are more active front lines, and you could arguably stick yourself in the middle of Kandahar, and you’d probably find yourself in trouble, or the front lines of Libya right now and find yourself in strife, but I think overall it’s hard to imagine any city in the world that is quite as anarchic, and as dangerous, and out of control as Mogadishu is right now.

Even though we were in Villa Somalia – which is a collection of government buildings including the Prime Minister’s office and the ministry of information – the most secure place in the country, our minders wouldn’t let us walk 100 yards from the ministry of information to the Prime Minister’s office. Instead, we had to put on full body armor, and get inside an armored vechile to drive those 100 yards. That’s how crazy it is.

PG: That’s a good question. It is a governance thing.

Clearly the Somali’s have an awful lot to answer for themselves. They’ve got the responsibility to sort out a lot of the problems, but I think the environment we see, is to a large extent, the product of Somalia’s history; that has been a history of a lot of interference from Western powers. The war really erupted as a result of Cold War battles between the Said Barre regime, which was backed by the Russians, and the rebels that were backed by the West.

Ethiopia has long interfered in Somalia, as has Eritrea. Those two countries have fought their wars by proxy in Somalia. Eritrea supports Al-Shabaab, and the Ethiopians have been supporting those who are fighting Al-Shabaab. So, a lot of it has to do with external powers.

Sheik Sharif Ahmed and Hilary Clinton.

I think also the West, which didn’t create Al-Shabaab, should take some responsibility. If you go back to the history of this, the Islamic Courts Union emerged as a result of the anarchy the war lords had plunged the country in to. It was a generally home grown Islamist movement that was trying to stabilize the country using the only form of law, and order, they knew how: shariah Law. The West, George Bush in particular, branded the Islamic Courts Union as a bunch of Islamists, which is true, but with the war on terror Bush was looking for an excuse to marginalize those guys, and it was very effective. That pressure forced the Union to split. There was the Djibouti Conference to try and hammer out some form of lasting government. The leader of the Union, Sheik Sharif Ahmed, was eventually nominated as the national President, but the militant wing of the Union broke away and formed Al-Shabaab. What we failed to do was recognize the legitimacy of the Islamic Courts Union, instead of branding them as Islamists radicals, and enemies of the West.

I’m not saying we’re to blame for what’s happening there, but what I am suggesting is we certainly made a bad situation a hell of a lot worse. I think the West has a responsibility to get more actively engaged in Somalia, and to help sort out the problems. There are all sorts of deeply complicated ways in which it could be dealt with. The main thing that it needs is serious diplomatic muscle, and consistency in the fight to get Somalia sorted out. The fact is the solution is long, round about, and indirect. I don’t think we should give up, because frankly it will bite us. Many aid agencies believe we’ll see Al-Shabaab inspired terrorism in the streets of the West if we’re not careful.

PG: No, I’m not worried. There are other elements to the story we could have told, that could have changed that situation. We felt the story we told was the one that needed to be told at that time. There’s certainly more work to be done on Somalia. I’m not afraid of that work, and the pressure of offending people. I think under the circumstances we needed to go back to Somalia 101. I suspect Al-Shabaab won’t be too impressed, but I don’t think they’ll come after me personally.

PG: Well we’ve already gotten permission. We had to make a few personal representations to the information minister, Bereket Simon. It seems as though for this story, they’ve decided it’s in their interest to allow us to come in. Also, now that I’m with Al-Jazeera, and not the BBC, it’s changed the dynamic a bit

RK: I was wondering, what inspired you to get into journalism in the first place? What motivated you?

Having made that choice, I have absolutely on regrets. I think it’s the best thing I could have done.

PG: I do it because it’s a license to indulge a curiosity. It’s a license to stick your nose into other’s peoples business, without always getting your nose punched. People want that information, and I think it’s a part of why societies work.

Peter reporting along the Omo River, Ethiopia

I also believe in what we do. I believe in the value of journalism. Obviously, there are various types, and approaches to this business, but I believe in the intergrity, and importance of what we do. I take pride in being able to do a job that has the potential to make a difference. You can’t always make a clear connection between a story you do, and a specific outcome, but it doesn’t work that way. Collectively, we draw attention to problems, to crises, to inconsistencies, and we contribute to the public debate on these issues. That’s why I took the risk to go to Somalia because I felt it needed to be discussed. I know for a fact that some public servants in Somalia are showing their Minister’s my film, but I think it’s presumptous to think it will change anything substantial on its own, but if it nudges the debate in the right direction, I think it will have been worth it.

PG: Oh God, you’d know this. It’s logistics. It takes forever to get places, it’s expensive as hell, it’s physically often very hard work, it’s hot and dusty. The logisitics are just very challenging.

Post-election violence in Kenya ≠ tribalism

PG: That’s an easy one: tribalism. Too often on this continent, journalists and writers dismiss the difficulties they see as rooted in tribalism. Tribe is clearly a factor, and issue in Africa, but the conflicts you see are often never about tribe. There is nothing inherently incompatible between tribes. It’s a form of journalistic shorthand that seems like it explains everything, but when you think about it it explains nothing of what’s going on. Invariably, it’s very lazy journalism. What these conflicts are all about is something much deeper. It’s always about a fight over resources, money, land, water, power, whatever. It’s too complicated to dig into those issues, and explain to people. It’s much easier to dismiss what happened in Kenya as tribal conflict. It did take on an element of tribe, that’s true, but that’s because the people that were trying to grab the land, and money, were using tribe as a tool. It wasn’t about tribalism, but about the politics. I asked someone then about tribalism, and they said you only need to look at when we’re fighting: during elections.

If you look across Africa you see that time and again. In Rwanda, it wasn’t about tribe, it was about access to land, and political power. In South Africa, it wasn’t about tribe, it was about control of power and resources. You break down every major conflict on this continent, and you’ll find at the very root of it the same thing. I think that’s one of the things, collectively, journalists have let the world down in. It’s been lazy, cliche journalism that has led to some gross misunderstanding of what’s going on here, and has allowed some of these conflicts to simmer on.

PG: Of course it does. All the stories that you do, that you think are going to change the world, the one’s you think are grand investigations into corrupt practices, or you expose some hidden truth; none of those amount to anything. You do one thing that seems inconsequential, and it can change many peoples lives. The story of Owen and Mzee has had a tremendous impact. It touched a nerve in a way that no other story I’ve done has. The story went viral on the internet, people responded to it. I think people responded because it spoke to them in a way they could identify with.

The children’s book we produced went on to sell over a million copies, and spent nearly 50 weeks in the New York Times bestseller’s list. I don’t think it was anything I did, it was just a story that people could interpret and connect to. That’s a pretty profound lesson for anyone in this business.

PG: I write because I need to write for work, I enjoy it obviously, or I wouldn’t do it. I get a lot more satisfaction out of the creativity of taking pictures. It’s a hobby. I do it because I don’t have to do it for work. I enjoy losing myself in the image. It’s a different part of this business, but to me it’s much more closer to art than the turning out of television news stories that I have to do. I enjoy trying to use that to create not just dramatic events, but creating visually powerful images. I’m not concerned with whether people want to buy them, so I take photos more for myself than anyone else.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PETER GRESTE:

1) Follow his Al-Jazeera blog at http://blogs.aljazeera.net/profile/peter-greste
2) Watch his documentary from Somalia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fiFrJxzI5c

“My prolific and deeply flawed utterances over the decades may have perhaps found a resonance with others who can sift through the run-on sentences, and tense inconsistencies to dig where I am coming from. Perhaps they can see that they are not the only one who feels frequently out of step with the rest of the world.”

There are few people out there who can comprehensively converse on topics as broad as Southern Sudanese Independence and hardcore music; Henry Rollins is one of them.

The old adage “don’t judge a book by its cover” was designed specifically for people like Henry Rollins. As a kid, my first introduction to Henry Rollins was the video for his song Liar, with the Henry Rollins band. Essentially, he gave off the vibe of the picture to the right. I recall being quite terrified of him, and thinking he was probably some lunatic, devil worshiper. Unbeknownst to me, Henry Rollins was actually in the process of becoming one of the most diverse, and well accomplished professionals I may ever come across.

Black Flag

Unpacking just who Henry Rollins is takes a fair amount of explaining, and context. Inevitably, one must first look at music. For most, Henry Rollins is the tough, charismatic, and headstrong lead singer of Black Flag. Many consider Black Flag to be one of the first, and most influential hardcore rock bands in history. For five years Rollins toured, and sang with this band: it was an intense experience to say the least. The aggressive nature of the band led Henry into countless on-stage confrontations, and he was apparently “stabbed with pens” on several occasions. Following his departure from Black Flag, Henry Rollins took creative control of his career, and formed The Henry Rollins Band. Both projects were highly successful, and led Henry Rollins to Grammy awards, and world-tours.

Music is certainly a large part of Henry Rollins legacy, but there is much, much more to his story. A shortlist of his accomplishments outside of music is sure to impress anyone:

1.  Actor (TV, and Movies)
   
2. Radio DJ (KCRW, Indie 193.1)
   
3. Documentary Filmmaker (‘The Warrior Gene,’ “South Africa’)
   
4. Author (with his own publishing company he has written over 20 books)
5. Spoken Word Artist
6. Activist (World Hunger, LGBT Rights, War)
7. TV Host (The Henry Rollins Show)

All totaled this has led many, particularly the press, to label Henry Rollins as a renaissance man. Admittedly, I wasn’t exactly sure what that meant, so I looked it up. The definition and comparison definitely makes sense. A renaissance man is “a present-day man who has acquired profound knowledge or proficiency in more than one field.”

I’m sure if you asked Rollins how he felt about this tag, however, he wouldn’t necessarily accept it. You see, despite Henry Rollins success he retains a strong affinity with his roots, and is highly self-deprecating about his accomplishments. Often citing the fact that he became famous on accident – he was managing a Haagen Dasz ice-cream store in Washington before he joined Black Flag – Henry Rollins still considers himself to be a white collared, working man. 

Having just turned 50 this past February, Henry Rollins has achieved so much in his life already, and shows no signs of slowing down. Considering he is extremely well versed in a lot of areas that interest me greatly, it’s no surprise he was worth trying to contact for an interview. Although currently filming for National Geographic, Henry Rollins was gracious to take some time out of his hectic, and eclectic schedule to correspond via email with me, and answer some of my questions.

From his diverse career, to Nickelback, to global poverty, to his infamous fight on stage, we cover it all.