So, like, you might assume that interviewer Hank Plante would ask about this mysterious absense from all his official events, and his unannounced, Mark Sanford-style trip to Hawaii. But Newsom just wants to grin and laugh the soulless laugh of a cornered Scientologist, and talk about the budget deficit. It is a terrible, terrible interview, with the rictus smile and the mirthless laughter. And it ends with Newsom removing his mic and bitching, off the record, about how mean it is of journalists to ask what the hell is up with him.

And then the Wall Street Journal reported that Newsom was going to quit politics and go back to his winery. Newsom called the reporter to deny it, but there's no way in hell this guy's remaining in office until 2012.

I don't know how many rappers (or black guys, period) Spitznagel's interviewed, but surely he doesn't talk to all of them like this, seriously or not:

During the 90s, you were rapping about "Money, cars, bitches, and drugs." What have you cut back on because of the recession? The cars? The bitches? The drugs?

All that been cut out of my lifestyle. I'm not really trippin' on that shit anymore.

Surely you keep a bitch or two around the crib just for old time's sake.

It ain't like that. You get older and realize you gotta mature....

But hits without bitches or one of them bouncy cars, doesn't it feel kinda hollow?

Naw, man, it's played out. I got four kids and one kid on the way.

Could it get worse? Yes, it could. And it does:

From Madoff to AIG, it doesn't seem like there's anybody we can trust. In this financial climate, does it make more sense to invest in Citigroup or the Crips?

Oh, hell no! Invest in the Crips? That's crazy, man!

So you think the Bloods are a better investment?

Neither one of them! You don't wanna get involved in any of that!

As Rap Radar succinctly put it: What kind of asinine question is that to ask a father of four? But Eric seems to develop a nice rapport with Mr. G, as evidenced by a dumb joke at the end involving sounding out "bleach" like "bleeotch" and Warren G supposedly laughing at it. Better question, though: what kind of answer is this for someone who's supposed to be, you know, as an artist: progressive?

I mean, I ain't against the gays or nothin'.

Wait, what? You had me until the "I ain't against the gays" part.

I ain't against gay people. I'm just against it being promoted to kids.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What does the recession have to do with gay propaganda?

I know people that's gay. My wife's got friends that are gay. I got family that's gay. Cousins and shit. He cool as fuck. He cool as a motherfucker. He's my homie. I just mean that on some of these TV shows, they got dudes kissing. And kids are watching that shit. We can't have kids growing up with that.

So you've got a "pot leads to heroin" theory about Hollywood homosexuality? Today there are men kissing on network TV, and tomorrow Grey's Anatomy is all about mouth rape?

I know it happens, but let's keep it behind the scenes. Ain't nothin' wrong with it if that's what two dudes wanna do. Cool. But that's not bring that out into the world, where the kids can see that. We don't want all the kids doing that. ‘Cause that ain't how we was originally put here to do. Like I said, I ain't got no problem with the gays.

Ah, well then: Gays are fine, so long as we keep them "behind the scenes." Like, African Americans—who also didn't choose the color of their skin—are fine, so long as we keep them "behind the scenes?" Yeah, that would fly. Like all the weed you smoked on the Up In Smoke tour? Or any number of the shady criminal activities you've rapped about being involved in? Whatever. Rappers are still homophobic. Funny, because it's been long spoken that one of the most revered amongst their ranks—and one especially close to Warren G—swings the other way. Easy-E seemed to think so.

Eazy-E accused Dr. Dre of homosexual tendencies, calling him a "she thang", and the music video for "Real Muthaphuckkin G's" shows promo pictures of him wearing make-up and a sequined jumpsuit.

So did Tupac:

I could care less whether or not Dr. Dre's gay. He's still the best rap producer alive, and could still kick the shit out everyone I know. But I guess the rap community would, or does.

No punchline. It just sucks. Here's a good Warren G song:

• "We made this movie for the same reason that we create all of our art; because we love it"
• "There is no number or level of success that would make me think, 'Wow, I didn't think that was possible.'"
• "My writing is authentic and whatever happens in my life is what I write about."
• "Now, I'm more like a smart missile."
• "We also wanted to make it feel realistic."
• "everyone just assumes it's going to be a success."

Tucker gives Bitter Lawyer an exclusive sneak peek of his own opinion of his own movie about him:

BL: Do you feel like the hilarity of your written work translated well into a movie?
TM: Fuck yes. The movie is absolutely drop-dead hilarious. Wait until you see it, you will laugh your ass off.

There you fucking have it. Tucker also notes that he cast the actor that plays him based on his "likability and redeemability," for unexplained reasons.

An actual non-Tucker review of Alcohol and Fruit of the Looms Go Together Like Grilled Cheese and Mail Order Brides, TK.

[Previously: The script of this shitty movie, Parts One and Two. Pic: Flickr]

All in all, a pretty great interview. Pitt knows he's walking on somewhat dubious ground going on Maher's show. "You are known as someone who uses your celebrity to raise awareness for worthy causes that the media overlooks. Is that why you're on this show?" Maher asks. "I'm not sure why I'm on this show," Pitt happily mumbles back. Maher makes the case for Pitt's seeming inability to do anything for Americans to dislike him, and it's true: he's quiet, calm, and somewhat reserved in his speaking style, and also - maybe strategically - just self-depreciating enough. Typical Pitt. Also, this, on America's religious zealots:

To the three who are watching, I just say you have to, you really have to check what country you're living in because the freedom that allows you to practice religion is the same freedom you're stepping on. That's not right....And I want to add... if there was a nation of gay married couples that were telling you you couldn't practice your religion, I'd be speaking up for you, too.... So, let's stop the nonsense.

And when confronted on his perfect joint-rolling form: "I'm an artist." And a movie star. Definitely, maybe one of the last. But definitely a movie star. Pitt, giving Maher some great interview, below. Catch it before HBO pulls it from YouTube:

• ABC: 3-1. Barbara Walters? Hello? She was made for this.
• CBS: 4-1. Madoff could easily fall prey to the charms of Katie Couric; then at the last minute CBS could swap her out for the 60 Minutes people. Maybe all the 60 Minutes people, at once, hurling questions at Madoff press conference-style, as he squints into a bright spotlight, confused. That's good solid television.
• NBC: 5-1. They have the resources of a network, but who are they really going to send in there, Stone Phillips? Heh. NBC's correspondents would all seem to wear too much hair gel to be considered top-tier contenders.
• CNBC: 9-1. They could appeal to Bernie like so: "Those other networks just want to make you look like a monster in front of an audience of unsophisticated, bloodthirsty, oafish Americans. We can make you look like a flawed but intriguingly brilliant financial genius in front of an audience of slightly more sophisticated, bloodthirsty, greedy investors, who are more than willing to suspend moral judgment if you toss off a few stock tips." Then they can send Jim Cramer to do the interview and just imagine how fun that would be.
• Fox News: 12-1. Hey, Republicans respect self-made millionaires. Plus they could agree to send Bill O'Reilly to interview him and talk only about how New York was a better place when white guys lived in Flatbush.
• Youtube: 18-1. This is what Madoff would do if he was really smart. Get a flip cam, start his own YouTube channel, and do the interviews himself. All the networks would be forced to run them anyhow, and he wouldn't have to tolerate one god damn second of Steve Kroft's mock-surprised look.
• PBS: 25-1. Charlie Rose or Jim Lehrer are both incapable of showing outrage on their faces, which would serve Madoff well, PR-wise.
• CNN: 30-1. Were Larry King to be the guy chosen to conduct the first Madoff interview, the public outrage when the interview devolved into two guys trading stories about women and baseball could potentially get CNN's headquarters burned to the ground.
• NY1: 80-1. Bernie's been transferred out of Manhattan jail now, but still. Roger Clark and Bernie Madoff, on roller skates, at the Central Park Zoo, feeding the sea lions. DO IT.

On almost no notice, Palin convened a late-night press availability in a remote fishing village in western Alaska for NBC News, CNN, ABC News, and Fox News in order to further obfuscate her already thoroughly inscrutable rationale(s?) for quitting her shitty job as governor of some crap state that's not even connected to the real America.

The interviews were a postmodern clusterfuck of epic proportions—a governor and her family on a desolate beach in the Alaskan wilderness, wearing waders and a lapel mic, surrounded by camera crews and sleep-deprived network news personalities. ABC News' Kate Snow got in Mitchell's shot at one point. Even though the sun was shining, it was really 10 p.m. in Alaska, because time doesn't work there the way it does in the real world. The gambit guaranteed that between the travel and time spent editing and doing live shots for the morning shows, the reporters didn't get any sleep last night.

Palin is shaping up to be something like The Joker of the political-media complex: Turning up at unexpected times with bizarre stunts designed to make everyone extremely uncomfortable, and then cackling a lot and speaking in riddles. It seems clear that last night's interview was just a dry run to see if she could get folks to fall for a trap—next time it's a hostage crisis.

So what did we learn this time around?

• "One term was enough." Too much, Sarah. One term was too much.
• "[Fishing] teaches the kids not to be divas." That one was offered without prompting. She's like an 8-year-old who thinks she can trick her parents into buying her a pony or something.
• People who don't understand why she quit "might not be fully aware of all the conditions" of her job. Like how hard it is.
• "You know why they're confused? I guess they can't take something nowadays at face value." Sarah Palin's "career" thus far represents the triumph of convincing people to take things at face value. It's the only value she has.
• "Most public officials, they get to look into a camera and they say, you know, 'You better leave your hands off my kids!' And I haven't been able to say that." Because David Letterman is still statutory-raping your daughter, Sarah, as we speak.
• "The fish slime and the dirt under the fingernails—the stuff that is me." Well put!

I first interviewed Christian Lander when few knew his name: the L.A. Times was breaking the "who's behind the blog-sensation 'Stuff White People Like'" story the same day as me. But it was an interesting vantage point at the cusp of a media explosion; a few weeks and a million blogs later Christian would have a huge book deal, and be subsequently cut-off from further media exposure. The book would be rushed to print, and despite throngs of critics predicting a quick crash-and-burn, would go on to list as one of the smartest publishing "gambles" of the year. All of that, from blog-to-bestseller, happened in less than a year ('08).

Now in 2009, I thought I'd check in and see if Christian's postpartum depressed or riding high or just trucking along or what. So here we go:

The Assimilated Negro (TAN): So you've posted, like, a handful of times in the new year. Quite a contrast to your torrid pace to start the blog. What are we thinking: burn out? too busy? end of the SWPL road? f the small internet people? something else?

Christian Lander (CL): Part of it is definitely a burn out. I try to make sure that the posts and the topics are still accurate and funny, I have no interest in updating just for the sake of updating. I also just finished the Page-a-Day Calendar which is actually a lot more work than it sounds like and leads to an enormous burnout on talking about white people.

TAN: So I see the tour ended a month or two ago: Much success? How many stops did you make? Good consistent turnout?

CL: There were actually three tours- Summer 2008, Fall 2008, Winter 2009. I've lost track of how many cities were there, but I feel like I hit almost every big city in America except for New York (who knows why). Every stop had an amazing turnout and it stayed consistent the whole way through.

TAN: There was some backlash at the time of the deal, but I do feel SWPL has sustained as a go-to reference for white liberal types. Thoughts on your bid for permanent relevance?

CL: It would be great if it sticks, but I never in a million years expected it to become as popular as it has. So if it completely fades away, that's just fine with me.

TAN: any networking with your offshoots (stuff blacks/asians like ... etc.) any word on if any of those blogs turned to books?

CL: I have nothing to do with the off-shoots, Stuff Midwesterners Like was published and Stuff Christian's Like is also going into publication soon.

TAN: What's been a bigger deal for you: getting the money or developing the platform?

CL: It's been absolutely amazing to have developed the platform. I still can't get over the popularity and it's been so much fun. Not to sound too pretentious but it's been a lifelong dream to have a book on the New York Times Best Seller list, to have achieved that is just incredible and it still blows my mind.

TAN: Are you earning out your deal? Is that a concern? You hear stories about books being successes but the size of the deal becoming an albatross.

CL: The book is doing very well.

TAN: What's one thing you have learned from the experience, that you could not have anticipated?

CL: Hard to say, I don't think I had any expectations going into this so I'm not sure what has been a surprise. I think I just never anticipated how big it eventually became and it's still strange how often I meet someone and when they find out that I wrote the blog/book, they are impressed. That's still pretty weird.

TAN: Other projects, future plans etc?

CL: The book has been optioned by Imagine Entertainment to become a TV show and I'm working on that along with a few other TV projects that I'm really hoping will pan out. But immediately next is a talk show this summer with Microsoft and Crispin, Porter Bogusky. It's going to be on-line, so it won't be the biggest thing in the world, but it's going to be a lot of fun.

Thanks, Christian.

Stuff White People Like still available at an Amazon near you.

We arrived at Watters' house, nestled on a lovely suburban cul-de-sac deep among the winding byways of Huntington, N.Y., bright and early at 6 a.m. Your blogger was accompanied by Gawker video editor Richard Blakeley and P.J. Vogt, a producer for WNYC's "On the Media" who had asked to shadow us for a segment the show is preparing about ambush interviews. We'd traded in the beat-up 1998 Saturn station wagon festooned with Obama bumper stickers that we'd driven on our previous outings for a rental SUV with tinted windows, which was less likely to attract attention in Watters' neighborhood. We parked in a spot down the street from Watters' house with a good vantage point, and waited.

At about 8:45 a.m., Watters walked out on to his driveway with his wife, Noelle, and we hopped out to talk to him. When Watters ambushes people, he rushes at them in a deliberate attempt to rattle them, and asks hostile questions. Not being complete dicks, we decided to approach it differently. We introduced ourselves, said hello, and calmly approached him. He got in his car and drove away. We could have engaged some of the tactics that Fox has used in these situations—by say, running to meet him at his car and positioning ourselves so that he couldn't close the door—but we didn't want to, because we weren't trying to engineer a confrontation. We were trying to engineer an interview.

Even though Jesse didn't submit to that interview, we did get one answer: His hurried departure leaves no doubt in our minds that his ambush tactics have nothing to do with the answers he claims to be seeking from O'Reilly's enemies and everything to do with the theater of humiliation that Fox News thrives on and the us-against-them "culture war" that his boss believes he is waging. If Watters honestly believed that people like ThinkProgress blogger Amanda Terkel and the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg—two targets that he ambushed without even inviting them on O'Reilly's show first—have an obligation to answer for the things they do and say in the name of journalism, he would have recognized that obligation in himself. If he honestly believed that people ought to defend themselves to his cameras, he would have been happy to defend himself. And if he honestly believed that stalking and ambushing is a noble pursuit, he would have treated his own ambushers with professional courtesy and let us use his bathroom. (OK, we wouldn't have let us use the bathroom either.)

But Watters doesn't believe that—he believes the people he stalks are the enemy, to be attacked or evaded as necessary. His segments are just partisan shitfights and grist for Fox's enraged audience. Watters is unconcerned about the accusation that he can dish out ambushes but can't take them, because he knows perfectly well that his ambushes are assaults and not, as Fox's bullshit PR would have it, attempts to get answers. And why would he just sit there and let himself be attacked? So he drove away, like a coward.

We'd been trying to talk to Watters for two months, because we wanted to ask him some questions about his job. Watters stalks and sneaks up on unsuspecting enemies of Bill O'Reilly and peppers them with questions so that his boss can air footage of them appearing to be flustered and confused. He did it to Terkel, a who wrote something O'Reilly didn't like, after tailing her for two hours on a weekend getaway. He did it to Bill Arkin, an NBC News analyst and Washingtonpost.com columnist who wrote something that O'Reilly didn't like, in front of his children after following him for 90 minutes across state lines. And he did it to Hertzberg by laying in wait outside his New York apartment.

Watters has applied the same technique of leaping out of nowhere with a camera, a microphone, and a barrage of tendentious questions to dozens of others, from mayors to judges to governors to members of Congress, all of whom have crossed O'Reilly in word or in deed. When he caught Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, in his bathrobe and slippers outside his home, he later said he thought it was funny. When Watters ambushed Meyera Oberndorf, the mayor of Virginia Beach, Va., at her home and her husband tried to grab his mic, he thought it would make "great TV."

Watters and O'Reilly justify these tactics by saying that because their targets won't submit to interviews, they have no choice but to seek them out: "If they don't come to us," Watters has written, "we'll go to them." That is, as we've noted before, a lie: Neither Terkel nor Hertzberg ever received an invitation to appear on O'Reilly's program.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.In April, the New York Times ran a story on Fox's penchant for ambush interviews. Watters declined to be interviewed for it. We found his refusal cowardly beyond measure, given that his job is to force people who don't want to be interviewed to submit to his questions. We called him up to see if he'd talk to us, and he again refused. We decided that if he wouldn't come to us, we'd go to him. So we drove out to Long Island a couple times to pay him a visit, but because we were a) gentlemen enough to give him fair warning of our intentions and b) fairly incompetent when it comes to stalking people, we whiffed. But we met some of his neighbors, who despite calling the cops on us were very friendly. We also met some representatives of local law enforcement, who despite pointing their service weapons at us were very friendly, and who wished us luck when we told them why we were there.

Though we'd still love to actually ask Jesse questions about why he does what he does, and how he does it, we're done with the 4 a.m. wake-up calls to drive out to Long Island and sit on his house. We've made our point. But that doesn't mean Jesse shouldn't have to answer for what he does. So if you ever happen to run into him—maybe on the streets of downtown Huntington, N.Y., or on the Long Island Railroad into Manhattan from Huntington, or around the News Corp. building at Sixth Avenue and 48th St. in Manhattan, or near his parents' summer home in Pemaquid, Maine—don't be afraid to politely and calmly walk up to him and ask him why he stalks people.

Let us know what he says.

Hannity has a terribly newsworthy interview with the always-reclusive Queen of the Frontier. And Mr. Drudge has a scintillating excerpt! Here are the probing questions our man Hannity asked:

HANNITY: What do you make of – look at the state of the economy now...
HANNITY: You know but it goes back - It does go back a little to the campaign. I mean, ‘spread the wealth, patriotic duty…'
HANNITY: Well, is that how you feel?
HANNITY: Socialism?

You can probably just make up all the answers yourself, and make more sense and be less enraging than Palin. The 2012 campaign is coming along nicely!

I know, I know, what Lux says is true (internal: do I have to nsfw tag fleshbot links?): It's totally difficult to come up with a fresh angle on Sasha Grey. Even before the movie hype-machine shifted another gear, Sasha was giving out a lot of interview. And now profiling the smart-alternative-philosophical-fuck-machine has become just another media gang-bang that offers nothing new or stimulating.

But surely there are bigger and better questions to ask! Queries with more girth, if you will. Sasha's persona as it comes across through, uh, interviews is one of a straight-shooter who's not afraid of tough questions. Even better: She's deep. There's a feminist streak to her brand of self-possessed sexual liberation. So, myself an oversexed philosophy major, I was excited for thoughtful conversation with the candid Miss Cum Buckets #8.

Alas, as Vanessa Grigoriadis wrote in her Rolling Stone profile, "there is something about Grey that is hard to reach, like talking to a woman behind glass." And I'm here to report: It's true! Even over e-mail!

What follows is my interview with Sasha Grey. But instead of treating it like a straight Q&A we're going to deconstruct along the way, in search of answers, but perhaps finding only more questions.?.?

TAN: Do you think you can be seduced via email interview?

Sasha Grey (SG): No.

TAN: I haven't seen any of your movies (Really! Well, except for The Girlfriend Experience which I just saw — ed: these Q's were sent beginning of May.) What am I — and others out there — missing from the purely-visceral-porn side of your oeuvre? Do you consider yourself as having an "oeuvre"? I did read about you being asked to get punched in the stomach, and everyone loving that: is that something recommended, or strictly for professionals?

SG: That was sorely taken out of context; it never happened.

ed: Google says otherwise?

TAN: Everyone talks about how smart you are! It sort of feels like when Obama/black people are celebrated for being "clean and articulate." Are porn stars all idiots or something?

SG: I don't believe so, unfortunately there are people that perpetuate the stereotype but it doesn't mean we all fit into that category.

TAN: Are you familiar with the 10,000 hours theory, via Malcolm Gladwell and others? It suggests that masters/geniuses of their craft become so by somehow someway diligently working at their craft for 10,000 hours. Do you think you've hit the 10,000 hours mark for fucking? Are you a "fucking genius"? Are there masters of porn/geniuses of the craft of sex? Sexual "outliers." If one fucks for 10,000 hours will one be a genius? how would a layperson identify this sort of talent?

SG: That's just a belittling question.

I find this response telling *strokes chin*. I mean, there's an attempt at a humorous tone to my question, but the theory is real. And fucking for 10,000 hours, for pornstars at least, is real. So why the copout response? When I sent the questions these (amongst others that got cut) were subhedded as "About the Porn Industry". From the interviewer perspective, the questions are the opposite of belittling and represent a few different approaches to trying to get her to talk about work that others find controversial, but she takes very seriously. It's one thing to not answer, and be a Deniro, but "belittling"?

TAN: You often discuss the psychology of porn/sex. How that enhances the experience. Can you discuss why this is the case, and what is the best way to turn someone on psycho-sexually?

SG: I say that because many people come to set with a premeditated routine, I enjoy being able to break them out of that frame of mind, and get an animalistic response out of my partner. I don't think there is any one way to turn someone on, whether it be psycho-sexual or not, because we are all different. Everyone is turned on by something different, just as everyone likes a different color, genre of music, film, or taste of ice cream-it's such a simple fact but it's often quite overlooked.

TAN: In your Twitter-interview w/ Black Book, you mention ?uestlove being the one who got you on to Twitter (now 1,666 updates and counting!). Coincidentally, I'm in the process of trying to get The Roots more integrated into the Gawker comunity. Why do you love ?uesto, and/or The Roots?

SG: I've been a fan since I was probably eight years old or so. Their music is never disposable; you can actually listen to an entire album and enjoy all of it. The fact that they are a live hip hop band, a real band, is so rare in that "genre", they never phone shit in, and are always true to their "Roots".

TAN: On the same thread, the challenge of integrating The Roots with an audience that isn't a hip hop crowd, is similar to the challenge of being a pornstar with mainstream aspirations. There's this fighting of "the system" of American demographics. People are resistant to change, so even open-minded folks need lubing up to get comfortable with doing something out of their comfort zone. How do you handle the challenge of audiences/consumers being so fractured and niche, and yourself having such a range of interested and ideas/impulses? Seems the Artist Business Model in America is about consolidating and focusing your energies. But to cater to the "intelligent" crowd, for example, means to alienate another crowd, the "Maxim-loving frat-boy" crowd maybe, but that's an equally valuable crowd for you. Do you think about these things?

SG: I cater to many different people, partially just because of my individualism, it's never been a conscious decision of which audience I'm going to try and market myself to. If I only concentrated on one thing, I would limit myself in life. So, fuck the "system" I subscribe to my own way of operating.

TAN: You're young. Just recently turned old enough to drink, yet have obviously done and seen more than many your age. How do you feel about mortality, and getting older? It's a minor theme in the movie — how in this business you need to be extra conscious of looking good — so do you feel yourself getting jaded via the business?

SG: No, do you feel jaded being a blogger? I mean, would you ask anybody else this type of question that's not in the adult business?

Huh? Well, actually, yes, there is some jadedness to being a blogger. And, yes, I would ask anyone else in most lines of work that question. The existential influence of our mortality affects everyone, so far as I know, everyone gets older and tired and bored etc., and so I can't help but feel another door that leads to actually advancing the conversation has been closed. And very gruffly at that.

TAN: The maxim "youth is lost on the young" (or something like that) comes to mind: You're very self-aware etc, how do you handle the challenges of being a mature business-woman yet not squandering your youth and indulging it?

SG: By being very self aware and focused, you just said it yourself:) I don't waste time partying and worrying about petty things; I work hard while I have the energy.

A smile! It's not all bad. Can't wait to tell my boys about this! Still, not much meat to the actual answer. Admittedly, not my finest question ever, but I'm just trying to get in. This is the "backdoor of youth" attempt!

TAN: Finally, most view porn stars as abused or having dysfunctional issues. I saw an interview where you talk about having a healthy bond/relationship with your mother, despite her disapproval of your career choice. But you also mention a father who flew the coop. We often romanticize artists as being broken and such, that dysfunction being the fuel for their craft. Do you think we make too much of it, or is it a real thing? Are the best artists great because they're trying to fill an emotional void? Can you make art that grips you, has that fire, and be emotionally stable?

SG: Yes, I have a healthy relationship with my mother; and no my father didn't "fly the coop", my parents were divorced and I don't talk to my dad much-he has since remarried and had another kid. Sometimes too much is made of it, such as in my case...people enjoy making horror stories about the upbringing of "porn stars" so many details I've given in interviews have been looked over, and misconstrued.

The whole "trying to fill an emotional void when it comes to the best artists" is a loaded question; I don't like to generalize groups of people because everyone's an individual. I don't think any human being/artist is 100% emotionally stable, based on the human condition and our emotions that relate to it. Are you asking if I can make that kind of art, or can artists?

Here our interview ended, and fittingly with a question. There wasn't enough time to do any more exchanges. And, from what we have here, you couldn't feel certain it'd be worth the effort; I guess one could say any question asked is "loaded".

Sasha's young, and doing a lot of publicity, and kindly answered my questions. (Thank you!) But the responses, especially framed within the entire Sasha publicity complex, feel like another take of the same Experience. I mean, sure, her getting Carson Daly to stumble because she used the word "cum" on television feels like it adds to her legend, but not her narrative. Everything you read about this girl indicates there's more there. But when anyone probes, they get the glass wall. Or worse. I don't know, maybe she's just a girl who likes to fuck. And the rest is cinema.

image: via

So yeah, I used to blog for The Roots and okayplayer, and about a month ago I did this long interview with them. Turns out they're fans of Gawker, and traffic to their website, and with the band making the mainstream America move with Jimmy Fallon, I wondered if maybe we could do something similar here in blogland. Make them the unofficial quasi-sorta house band of Gawker, on the weekends, in my afternoon slot.

What follows is a little over a minute of ?uestlove talking about that initial transition to the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. In it Ahmir describes the band as slaves with three masters (or in his words, a band with three demographics). One of them being Lorne Michaels.

What is a slave with three masters to do? I'm thinking the Gawker commenter community is the best source of advice on the subject. This is just a whim of an idea, so there are no specific rules. But the band holds a weekly residency at the Highline Ballroom, and we can arrange for whomever provides the best advice on the matter to get free tickets and meet the band backstage etc. Perhaps, even discuss how to handle it when Lorne pops in.

Here's the clip. If this sounds good, fire away. If it sounds retarded, let me know other ideas. And we'll try and do better next weekend.

Talking with The Roots (pt. 1) from weekendvids on Vimeo.

So, yeah, I love the Vice magazine angle on this story. Did you know you can score a job — a legit job, in a recession! — at a popular magazine by just being cute and charming? That's some tangible real-world lesson shit for the kids right there. If you're in the market, you might want to lose the paper printouts and get your résumé tattooed on your chest! Cooooool.

So I sent some of the Vice editorial staff a blind email on the matter, but no response (probably too busy doing background checks on the rest of their staff, understandable). But I did hear from former heart-and-soul of Vice, co-founder Gavin McInnes. He shared his unique perspective:

I realize hindsight is 20/20 but how awesome would it be if you knew a chick was a hipster grifter but didn't let on and dated her anyways? She'd fake cry during intercourse and tell you she wants to have your babies and you'd be all, "I know Kari. I've never loved anyone this much." How intensely dark and fucking weird would that be!?

You'd have to constantly avoid situations where you give her cash and you'd have to sleep with your credit cards up your ass but, as we've learned from seducing strippers, the more dough you put out the more you're seen as a dolt. She'd actually appreciate the challenge. Oh what a heavy thrill it would be watching her out of the corner of your eye, trying to predict her next hustle. Anyone with a junkie roommate knows how challenging this can be. You'd have to keep your laptop at work and all your CDs would need to go into storage but cheating a cheater must make you feel like God. I bet your hands would shake at the end of every encounter.

If you don't find this kind of idea exciting, you are precisely the sort of pussy hipster grifters prey on – and you deserve it.

Gavin McInnes founded Vice Magazine in 1994 but recently left to start Street Carnage with another assimilated negro.

Ha. Yeah, that's right you labia-lobotomized hipsters. Suck it.

Well after being enlightened to the edgy alternative universe perspective, I wanted to get grounded again in the reality of what's happening on the streets. So I talked to Doree, the journalist who broke the story, AND former Gawkette:

TAN: Will you be staying on top of the Grifter beat for the New York Observer? This story brings to mind Season 5 of The Wire, when they "surrounded" the homeless story once it got sensational enough. There's probably an entire subculture of grifters and aspiring-grifters out there waiting to be exposed?

Since the story ran I've heard tales of other grifters people have had the unfortunate experience of coming into contact with. They're certainly an intriguing group of people, but you just feel like at some point it starts just being sad more than anything else—the grifters themselves seem to have some serious mental health issues and the people they target are so emotionally and often financially drained from the experience. My (armchair) analysis is that it's partly the need to feel loved and taken care of (see Kari's constant hospitalizations under questionable circumstances) but taken to an unhealthy level. Connected to that is wanting to have power over people (Kari's suicide attempts and "pregnancy" scares, tellingly, seemed to come when it seemed like a guy was about to leave her, or when he was on tour with his band—she would make it so that he "couldn't" leave her). I think people with these kinds of issues are also deeply, deeply lonely; in one of my follow-ups to the original story I told about how she made up intricate lies to get someone to go to a concert with her. Many of her victims also said that she always seemed to have something to offer people, and I would bet that she did that because she was nervous about being alone.

But I think there's also the thrill of getting away with it all; knowing they have the power to manipulate people to such a degree must give grifters a kind of high. Kari knows she comes off as friendly and personable, which is why she's able to manipulate people so skillfully.

True that. Well here's hoping Kari reaches out to Doree, it'd be nice if they could work together on giving us this full story.

Finally, after those updates I'm thinking business now. And if you're a blogger, that means book deal. Many of the commenteratti think there are some big-time royalties to be earned on this story. Are they right? I asked a big-time book editor if they're hot on the meme:

As we say in the business, "there's no there there." Girl meet boy, girl dupes boy. Girl has bitchin' tats and boy possibly has Asian fetish. Boy loses girl, money and self-respect. The End.

Sounds kinda like an Ethan Hawke novel, now that I think about it. Which is the first sign publishers should stay far, far away.

And who would write the thing anyway? Kari? Yeah, because she's exactly the kind of person you can trust to honor a contract and a cash advance. So...no. Not gonna happen.

It's also worth pointing out that there have been a bunch of juicy stories that have gotten major play in the NY media fishbowl recently that have yielded exactly ZERO book deals. Anyone remember the DABA girls? They managed to dupe the NY Times into writing a serious trend piece and then released a statement saying "Oh, it was satire! Totes jk, y'all." But of course, right after they were "exposed" a story appeared in Fashionista saying they had a book deal—and sites like Jezebel jumped all over the book deal story. Now, no book deal was ever made—it was a classic case of getting a little notoriety and then planting some leads in the hopes that a publisher would bite. No one did. The agent still has not sold that b.s., nor will she. Ultimately there was no there there, and while someone might have taken a flyer 5 years ago when we were more flush, these days, publishers are a lot more wary about throwing real money around. Kari will just have to find some other sucker to fund her hipsterness. And really, I have complete confidence she will.

A senior book editor who prefers anonymity considering the sensational nature of this story

image: via

So funny, huh? Well, we're still getting acclimated to the weekend guest-hosting and sometimes to buy time you have to use older — but timeless! — material. What follows is two minutes of extra time from my interview for The Daily Beast with Larry Wilmore, Senior Black Correspondent on that Comedy Central show that's sort of like what Chocolate News used to be. His book is called I'd Rather We Got Casinos and Other Black Thoughts. It's cool when the brothers hang out like they're in the barbershop and whatnot, so enjoy being a fly on the wall as Larry and I talk about "blacklash," Obama's chances if he had a white girlfriend, and if The Daily Show salary will afford Mr. W the chance to father a black Paris Hilton.

Larry Wilmore from weekendvids on Vimeo.

If the beloved and ever-so-slightly over-exposed MSNBC host was going to give in and buy a TV, this was the way to do it without losing too much cred: According to an interview in an upcoming issue of Dossier, Maddow got wasted on classic cocktails (see, don't you just want to hang out with her?) and made one of those regrettable weeknight drunk trips to Amazon.com.

Cole: On a lighter note, people love to talk about the fact that you are on television and yet don't actually own a television.

Rachel: Oh no, I got drunk last Thursday and ordered one on Amazon! (Laughs) Susan and I ordered take-out Chinese and I made cocktails and then somehow it just happened. I mean, it wasn't like we were on some total bender or something—it was a weeknight—but I woke up the next morning and there was the confirmation email stating that we had indeed bought a $400 television. Of course, since we were drunk, we had it shipped to the wrong place, so now we have to get this giant box all the way to NYC from our place up in Massachusetts and figure out how to install it. Neither of us have had a TV in years and years. The last time I lived in a house with the TV was in 1990, when I moved out of my parent's house to go to college. Now there's a giant box with a TV sitting in Susan's art studio waiting for us.

Yeah, Rachel, that's how we ended up with the 2-disc unrated edition of Live Free or Die Hard and NFL Football Follies. And you know what? We regret nothing.

But now someone has to ask her if she's actually getting cable. It's nothing but American Idol and Hell's Kitchen out there otherwise. Of course, if she wants to borrow some DVDs, you know, we have a lot of good stuff.

[Dossier]

Rosenblat, as you saw in the earlier clip, is basically like "No it didn't actually happen in reality, but it's not a lie, because I believe it happened in my imagination, okay." And various other pablum showing himself to be a man with no remorse whatsoever. The official GMA clip has two nice bonus parts: first, the producer of the upcoming movie based on Rosenblat's lie is constantly interrupting the interview, and gets in the front of the camera to offer his own defense; and at the very end, poor Diane Sawyer simply cannot believe the story she has just heard. And she just got back from Appalachia, so she's seen a lot! Watch it all here.