Actually, Louis C.K. was right about Common Core — Ravitch

Louis C.K. (Gus Ruelas/Reuters )

 

Louis C.K., the multi-talented entertainer, has suddenly found himself in the news for an unlikely reason. It has nothing to do with any of his projects but, rather, his comments on Twitter and the “Late Show With David Letterman” about how standardized testing and the Common Core State Standards are affecting his daughters, who attend public school in New York City. Not at all well, he has made repeatedly clear.

Suddenly, Louis C.K. is being written about in the New Yorker, Newsweek and on plenty of blogs (including this one). It started with a series of tweets (you can see them here), including one that said: “My kids used to love math. Now it makes them cry. Thanks standardized testing and common core!” On “David Letterman” on Thursday night, he said that his daughters, ages 9 and 12,  were undergoing standardized testing during the week and that it was traumatic. Asked by Letterman about the consequences of the testing, Louis C.K. joked:

Well, the way I understand it, if a school’s kids don’t test well, they burn the school down. It’s pretty high-pressure.

Letterman responded that ” a lot of pressure” was being put on kids, and Louis C.K. continued:

…. And the tests are written by people nobody knows who they are. It’s very secretive…. They [teachers and students] prepare for these tests for a long time. A lot of the year is about the test. Teaching to the test they call it.… my kids kind of panicked, which is okay.… My mother was a math teacher and she taught me that the moment where you go ‘I don’t know what that is,’ when you panic, that means you are about to figure it out. That means you let go of what you know and you are about to grab on to a new thing that you didn’t know yet…. I am there for them in those moments. I go, ‘Come on, just look at the problems.’

And then he related one:

Bill has three goldfish. He buys two more. How many dogs live in London?

It was made-up and funny, but he’s making the same point that a lot of educators have made: Many of the questions seem nonsensical.

As it turns out, some Common Core supporters were upset with Louis C.K. for saying what he said. Alexander Nazaryan, a senior writer at Newsweek, took him to task in this piece and then, apparently, asked education historian and activist Diane Ravitch, the leader of the growing anti-corporate school reform movement, to critique what he wrote.  Unfortunately for Nazaryan, she did, on her blog, and what she wrote is worth reading. Here it is:

By Diane Ravitch

I received a tweet from Alexander Nazaryan, the author of the Newsweek piece rebuking Louis C.K. and defending the Common Core standards, asking me for a substantive critique of his article.
OK, here goes.

He begins by saying that Louis C.K. has a professional habit of being angry, which I suppose is meant to scoff at his anger and say that he should not be taken seriously.

But then we get into Alexander’s views about Common Core.

The Common Core is “loathed” by Left and Right alike, for different reasons. This is true.

Then he makes the claim that the teachers’ unions oppose the Common Core, which is untrue. Both the NEA and the AFT accepted millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation to promote Common Core, and both have been steadfast supporters. The leaders began to complain about poor implementation only after they heard large numbers of complaints from their members about lack of resources, lack of professional development, lack of curriculum, etc.

Alexander goes on to say that educators oppose the Common Core because they fear they “will be judged (and fired) if their students don’t perform adequately on the more difficult standardized tests that are a crucial component of Common Core.” Here is where Alexander betrays an ignorance of research and evidence. Surely he should know that the American Statistical Association issued a report a few weeks ago warning that “value-added-measurement” (that is, judging teachers by the scores of their students) is fraught with error, inaccurate, and unstable. The ratings may change if a different test is used, for example. The ASA report said:

 Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.

Alexander also seems never to have read the joint report by the American Educational Research Association and the National Academy of Education, which spelled out why it is wrong to judge teachers by student test scores because of the many factors affecting test scores that are beyond their control.

Alexander says that some critics of Common Core are “conspiracy theorists who deem the whole project a massive payout to test maker Pearson.” That may or may not be true, but Common Core is certainly creating a huge national marketplace for Pearson and McGraw-Hill, as well as vendors of software and hardware (all Common Core testing is done online, which is diverting billions of dollars from school budgets). Perhaps Alexander has heard of the regular conferences for entrepreneurs devoted to the subject of monetizing the education industry and cashing in on the opportunities presented by Common Core. One such conference was held just last week by Global Silicon Valley in Scottsdale. The purpose of national standards was to build a national marketplace for entrepreneurs. Joanne Weiss, who directed Race to the Top and then became Secretary Arne Duncan’s chief of staff, predicted that this would be the outcome of national standards when she wrote on the Harvard Business Review blog:

“The development of common standards and shared assessments radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. Previously, these markets operated on a state-by-state basis, and often on a district-by-district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best products can be taken to scale.”

As a historian of education, I can say that this is the first time to my knowledge that the U.S. Department of Education encouraged the development of national standards in order to increase the involvement of the private sector in supplying goods and services to the schools.

I am a supporter of national health insurance, so I don’t accept the analogy between the Affordable Care Act and Common Core. The difference between them, which may be unknown to Alexander, is that the U.S. government, including the U.S. Department of Education, is prohibited by law from taking any action that would direct, control, or supervise curriculum or instruction. Now we know that Arne Duncan regularly says he is doing none of the above, but it would be hard to find a teacher who would agree that neither Common Core nor the federally funded online tests has any effect on curriculum and instruction. Common Core and the related testing has had a dramatic effect on both. And, so, at risk of being called a name by Alexander, I would say (having worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Education) that the federal encouragement of Common Core and the federal funding of the Common Core tests directly conflicts with federal law.

You are right that it is far too soon to judge Common Core’s efficacy. But that is the fault of those who wrote it. In 2009, when I met at the Aspen Institute with the authors of the Common Core, I urged them to field test it so they would find out how it works in real classrooms. They didn’t. In 2010, I was invited to the White House to meet with Melody Barnes, the director of domestic policy; Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; and Ricardo Rodriguez, the President’s education advisor, and they asked me what I thought of Common Core. I urged them to field test it. I suggested that they invite 3-5 states to give it a trial of three to five years. See how it works. See if it narrows the achievement gap or widens the achievement gap. They quickly dismissed the idea. They were in a hurry. They wanted Common Core to be rolled out as quickly as possible, without checking out how it works in real classrooms with real teachers and real children.

Are we judging Common Core too quickly and too harshly? Consider the first Common Core test results last year in New York. The passing mark was set so high (artificially high) that 97 percent of English learners failed; 95 percent of children with disabilities failed; more than 80 percent of black and Hispanic children failed; statewide, 69 percent of all students failed. Maybe there wasn’t enough time for teachers to learn and teach the secrets of Common Core, but why set the bar so high that children were doomed to fail? Is this supposed to increase equity?

Are our kids left behind by China, South Korea and Germany? Not really. Maybe not at all. It is true that we get mediocre scores on international tests, but we have been getting mediocre scores on international tests since the first such test was offered in 1964. We were never a world leader on the international tests. Most years, our scores were at the median or even in the bottom quartile. Yet in the intervening fifty years, we have far surpassed all those nations–economically, technologically, and on every other dimension– whose students got higher test scores. Basically, the test scores don’t predict anything about the future of the economy. Should we worry that Estonia might surpass us?
The fact is that our international scores reflect the very high proportion of kids who live in poverty, whose scores are lowest. We are #1 among the rich nations of the world in child poverty; nearly one-quarter of our children live in poverty. Our kids who live in affluent communities do very well indeed on the international tests. If we reduced the proportion of children living in poverty, our international test scores would go up. But in the end, as I said, the international scores don’t predict anything other than an emphasis on test-taking in the schools or the general socio-economic well-being of the society. We would be far better off investing more money in providing direct services to children–small classes for struggling students, experienced teachers, social workers, counselors, psychologists, and a full curriculum–rather than investing in more test preparation.

Alexander, I frankly do not understand your faith in national standards. There is no evidence that national standards produces higher achievement, nor that they reduce achievement gaps. They certainly do not overcome the burdens of homelessness, hunger, lack of medical care, or overcrowded classrooms. You express contempt for public school educators, so it is hard to understand why you think that they will magically be transformed into great teachers by national standards. This may come as a surprise, but most nations in the world–without regard to their standing on international tests–have national standards. When I visited Finland, which has an excellent school system, I read its national standards, but I also saw well-prepared teachers who shaped the curriculum in their classrooms and schools and who had a wide degree of professional autonomy about how they taught. I did not see or hear anyone express the hostility that you feel towards classroom teachers; teaching is a highly selective and highly respected profession, unlike here, where every legislator and pundit is considered an expert because they went to school.

I actually wrote a book about national standards, but I saw them as aspirational, not as a common script for teachers across the nation. I saw them first of all as voluntary, not mandatory. I saw them as standards for states and districts, requiring them to provide the resources for students to aim for standards. I never thought that standards meant that everyone would meet them (a la No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top). Example: for male runners, a four-minute mile is the standard. But very few male runners have ever reached that standard. It inspires all runners, but some will never come close. Education is not a race. It is about full human development of every human being. Education is not about winning or losing. It is about having the chance to develop one’s talents and abilities to the fullest.

Unlike you, Alexander, I see no advantage in “having a teacher in Alaska teach more or less the same thing as a teacher in Alabama.” What’s the point of that? If the teacher in Alabama is passionate about the work of Flannery O’Connor, let him or her teach it with passion. If the teacher in Alaska is fascinated with the arctic tundra, teach it. I assume you have not read the study by Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution, who pointed out that the Common Core standards were likely to make little or no difference in achievement. After all, states with high standards have wide variations in achievement, as do states with low standards.

I see no value in the arbitrary division between literature and informational text prescribed in the Common Core. I know where the numbers come from. They were instructions to assessment developers of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (I served on its governing board for seven years). The ratios were not intended as instructions to teachers. This is balderdash. English teachers should teach what they know and love. If they love fiction, teach it. If they love nonfiction, teach it. Why should a committee with no classroom teachers on it in 2009 tell reading teachers how to apportion their reading time? I doubt that teachers of math and science will spend any time on fiction anyway.

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

Your belief in using test scores to hold teachers accountable has no research to support it, nor is there any real-world evidence. Many districts have tried this for four or five years and there is no evidence–none–that it produces better teachers or better education. The ratings, as noted above, are arbitrary, and say more about classroom composition than about teacher quality. Nor is there any evidence that education gets better if teachers everywhere are using a common script. Doing well in school depends on family support, student motivation, community support, adequate resources, class sizes appropriate to the needs of the children, experienced teachers, wise leadership, and students who arrive in school healthy and well-fed.

Frankly, I don’t understand why you oppose “joy” in the classroom. Why should school be so “hard” that it makes children cry? It is true that some assignments are hard; some books are hard to read; some math problems are hard to solve. We learn from doing things that are not necessarily joyful, but that engage us in work that stimulates us to think harder, try harder, persist. When we are done with hard work, yes, it is a joyful feeling. Maybe it is because I am a grandmother, but I want my grandchildren to approach their school work with earnestness and to sense the joy of accomplishment, the joy of learning. I want my grandchildren to love learning. I want them to read books even when they are not assigned. I want them to go to the Internet to find things out because they are curious.

And, yes, Alexander, I agree that kids like yours and Louis’s and my grandchildren will be fine. We will read to them, we will talk with them and introduce them to vocabulary, we will take them on trips to the museum and the library, we will listen to them as they read the stories they wrote for school. Other kids are not so lucky. But why should they be punished by being deprived of joy? Why should they be subject to endless testing and test prep? Will that free them from poverty and homelessness? Will that vault them into the middle-class?

Alexander, you assume that national standards, holding teachers accountable for test scores, more high-stakes testing, more rigor, and privately-managed charter schools will cure poverty. There is no evidence for what you believe. The Common Core has some good ideas in it; I doubt that it will do harm, although I believe that subjecting little children to 6-8 hours of testing to see if they can read and do math is harmful, physically and mentally, to them. Long ago, educators were able to find out in tests lasting 50 minutes how well a student could read or do math. Why is it now an ordeal that lasts as long as some professional examinations? For heaven’s sake, we are talking about little children, not candidates for college or a profession!

Read More

What Happened to the Weird 'Louie' of Last Season?

Last October, shortly after an expletive-laden rant against ISIS fighters (“Oh, fuck you, ISIS. Sincerely please fuck each other in the mouth with forks.”), Louis C.K. deleted his Twitter account. He hasn’t publicly discussed why; he was an intermittent Twitter user to begin with and some of his most praised comedy routines are about the pernicious effects of technology and social media. (Not to mention that, unlike less famous comics, he doesn’t need the publicity.) Though C.K. had never tweeted anything remotely as dumb or troubling as the Trevor Noah “jokes” that created a kerfuffle last week, I have to imagine he was relieved to have already unplugged. The overwhelming message from comics these days has been that Twitter is where comedians go to get in trouble. And if the first four episodes of the new season of “Louie” are any indication, C.K. has lost his appetite for controversy.

“Louie,” which starts its fifth season Thursday night on FX, is still funny, sad, and ungainly. But it’s massively scaled down from last year’s messily ambitious season. (That’s true literally—seven episodes versus last season’s fourteen.) Last year, “Louie” offered two serialized narratives, a 90-minute film about Louie’s childhood in which C.K. barely appeared, and episodes that took place largely in Hungarian.

It was made-for-thinkpiece television, with C.K. diving right into the Problematic. In the second episode, Louie punched a skinny young model in the face. In the third, an overweight woman gave an impassioned—and, in my mind, condescending—speech about how hard it is to date as a fat girl. Then there was an attempted rape, or something that looked like it, including the unforgettable line, “You can’t even rape well.” By the end of the season, critics were asking if C.K. was trolling the Internet, or if “the Internet has a ‘Louie’ Problem.” Did the character have a problem with consent? Was the show condoning Louie’s actions?

While the show had been provocative before—the first season included an extended discourse on the word “faggot”—it relied on the audience to extend him the benefit of the doubt, and for the most part, we did. That’s Louie. He’s a good guy, he’s a single dad, he’s the self-aware white guy who “gets” race. We can trust him. C.K. had taken two years off to create the season, and he may not have realized the ways that the Internet of 2014 differed from the internet of 2012, how the economy of instant opinions had metastasized. The whole experience was troubling and thought-provoking and kind of exhausting.

Certainly C.K. seemed exhausted when he promised industry reporters in January that the upcoming episodes would be more “laugh-centric funny than season four.” The sign that we should expect something different of “Louie” this season comes within the first few minutes: a New York subway station, a slice of pizza, familiar jazz. The opening credits, which went missing last season, have returned. The show has gone back to something resembling an actual TV show— something simpler, more straightforwardly funny.  

At times, “Louie” seems to be self-consciously apologizing for the excesses of last season. Instead of Louie as a potentially threatening, lumbering man, he’s a wuss, berated and domineered by strong women. His sort-of-girlfriend Pamela (Pamela Adlon) sets the terms of their relationship. A bulky lesbian suggests he cut off his dick and eat it. In the fourth episode, a small blonde woman actually beats Louie up. Aggressive women are everywhere, and there is Louie, standing by and reassuring them that he poses no threat. The idea that this man might be dangerous is like a bad dream.

In January, C.K. released a new comedy special, accompanying it with a long, wistful note to fans explaining why he chose to film at a comedy club, not an arena. It’s a long ode to the glory days of comedy clubs, where comics can gather and “say wicked, crazy, silly, wrongful, delightful, upside-down, careless, offensive, disgusting, whimsical things.” The letter is full of nostalgia for a time when he was under less scrutiny, when it was easier for him to go up on stage and bomb, and then move on. No one would remember that misguided comment or offensive joke. Season five of “Louie” is his new experiment in moving on.

Read More

Louis C.K. Slams Trump: “The Guy is Hitler,” “We Are Being Germany in the ’30s”

Louis C.K. at the 2016 Vanity Fair Oscar Party in Beverly Hills, California on Feb. 28, 2016.

 

Adrian Sanchez-Gonzalez/AFP/Getty Images

In case you were wondering, Louis C.K. is no Donald Trump fan. In fact, the comedian is a tad bit frightened at the prospect that so many Americans want to elect an “insane bigot” who is “dangerous.” In an email to fans announcing the sixth episode of web series Horace and Pete, C.K. includes a postscript that amounts to a 1,400-word rant against Trump.

“P.S.  Please stop it with voting for Trump. It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the 30s. Do you think they saw the shit coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all,” C.K. writes.

The comedian says his fans shouldn’t think he’s writing against Trump because he wants Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders to win. Actually, C.K. will have you know he wants the next president to be a conservative. Why? “Because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance,” he writes. “And not because I particularly enjoy the conservative agenda. I just think the government should reflect the people.” But conservatives and liberals can only have sensible debates if there is “a good smart conservative to face the liberal candidate so they can have a good argument and the country can decide which way to go this time.”

Louis C.K. talks directly to conservatives at one point. “If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him,” C.K. writes. “Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you.”

Although he understands the instinct of voting for a candidate that amounts to “a big hit off of a crack pipe,” C.K. notes that “American democracy is broken enough that a guy like that could really fuck things up.” C.K. then returns to the Hitler reference: “That’s how Hitler got there. He was voted into power by a fatigued nation and when he got inside, he did all his Hitler things and no one could stop him.”

Despite his rant, C.K. doesn’t want you to think Trump is “evil or a monster. In fact I don’t think Hitler was. The problem with saying that guys like that are monsters is that we don’t see them coming when they turn out to be human, which they all are.”

Read the full, 1,400-word anti-Trump screed after the jump:

P.S.  Please stop it with voting for Trump. It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the 30s. Do you think they saw the shit coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.  

And I'm not advocating for Hillary or Bernie. I like them both but frankly I wish the next president was a conservative only because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance. And not because I particularly enjoy the conservative agenda. I just think the government should reflect the people. And we are about 40 percent conservative and 40 percent liberal. When I was growing up and when I was a younger man, liberals and conservatives were friends with differences. They weren’t enemies. And it always made sense that everyone gets a president they like for a while and then hates the president for a while. But it only works if the conservatives put up a good candidate. A good smart conservative to face the liberal candidate so they can have a good argument and the country can decide which way to go this time.  

Trump is not that. He's an insane bigot. He is dangerous.  

He already said he would expand libel laws to sue anyone who "writes a negative hit piece" about him. He says "I would open up the libel laws so we can sue them and win lots of money. Not like now. These guys are totally protected." He said that. He has promised to decimate the first amendment. (If you think he’s going to keep the second amendment intact you’re delusional.) And he said that Paul Ryan, speaker of the house will "pay" for criticizing him. So I'm saying this now because if he gets in there we won't be able to criticize him anymore.

Please pick someone else. Like John Kasich. I mean that guy seems okay. I don't like any of them myself but if you're that kind of voter please go for a guy like that. It feels like between him and either democrat we'd have a decent choice. It feels like a healthier choice. We shouldn't have to vote for someone because they're not a shocking cunt billionaire liar.

We should choose based on what direction the country should go.  

I get that all these people sound like bullshit soft criminal opportunists. The whole game feels rigged and it's not going anywhere but down anymore. I feel that way sometimes.  

And that voting for Trump is a way of saying "fuck it. Fuck them all". I really get it. It's a version of national Suicide. Or it's like a big hit off of a crack pipe. Somehow we can't help it. Or we know that if we vote for Trump our phones will be a reliable source of dopamine for the next four years. I mean I can't wait to read about Trump every day. It's a rush. But you have to know this is not healthy.

If you are a true conservative. Don't vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him. Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you.

In fact, if you do vote for Trump, at least look at him very carefully first. You owe that to the rest of us. Know and understand who he is. Spend one hour on google and just read it all. I don’t mean listen to me or listen to liberals who put him down. Listen to your own people. Listen to John Mccain. Go look at what he just said about Trump. "At a time when our world has never been more complex or more in danger... I want Republican voters to pay close attention to what our party's most respected and knowledgeable leaders and national security experts are saying about Mr. Trump, and to think long and hard about who they want to be our next Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world.”

When Trump was told what he said, Trump said "Oh, he did? Well, that's not nice," he told CBS News' chief White House correspondent Major Garrett. "He has to be very careful."

When pressed on why, Trump tacked on: "He'll find out.”

(I cut and pasted that from CBS news)

Do you really want a guy to be president who threatens John McCain? Because John McCain cautiously and intelligently asked for people to be thoughtful before voting for him? He didn’t even insult Trump. He just asked you to take a good look. And Trump told him to look out.

Remember that Trump entered this race by saying that McCain is not a war hero. A guy who was shot down, body broken and kept in a POW camp for years. Trump said “I prefer the guys who don’t get caught.” Why did he say that? Not because he meant it or because it was important to say. He said it because he’s a bully and every bully knows that when you enter a new school yard, you go to the toughest most respected guy on the yard and you punch him in the nose. If you are still standing after, you’re the new boss. If Trump is president, he’s not going to change. He’s not going to do anything for you. He’s going to do everything for himself and leave you in the dust.    

So please listen to fellow conservatives. But more importantly, listen to Trump. Listen to all of it. Everything he says. If you liked when he said that “torture works” then go look at where he took it back the next day. He’s a fucking liar.  

A vote for Trump is so clearly a gut-vote, and again I get it. But add a little brain to it and look the guy up. Because if you vote for him because of how you feel right now, the minute he's president, you're going to regret it. You're going to regret it even more when he gives the job to his son. Because American democracy is broken enough that a guy like that could really fuck things up. That's how Hitler got there. He was voted into power by a fatigued nation and when he got inside, he did all his Hitler things and no one could stop him.

Again, I’m not saying vote democrat or vote for anyone else. If Hilary ends up president it should be because she faced the best person you have and you and I both chose her or him or whoever. Trump is not your best. He’s the worst of all of us. He’s a symptom to a problem that is very real. But don’t vote for your own cancer. You’re better than that.

That's just my view. At least right now. I know I’m not qualified or particularly educated and I'm not right instead of you. I’m an idiot and I'm sure a bunch of you are very annoyed by this. Fucking celebrity with an opinion. I swear this isn’t really a political opinion. You don’t want to know my political opinions.   (And I know that I’m only bringing myself trouble with this shit.) Trump has nothing to do with politics or ideology. He has to do with himself. And really I don't mean to insult anyone. Except Trump. I mean to insult him very much. And really I’m not saying he’s evil or a monster. In fact I don’t think Hitler was. The problem with saying that guys like that are monsters is that we don’t see them coming when they turn out to be human, which they all are. Everyone is. Trump is a messed up guy with a hole in his heart that he tries to fill with money and attention. He can never ever have enough of either and he’ll never stop trying. He’s sick. Which makes him really really interesting. And he pulls you towards him which somehow feels good or fascinatingly bad. He’s not a monster. He’s a sad man. But all this makes him horribly dangerous if he becomes president. Give him another TV show. Let him pay to put his name on buildings. But please stop voting for him. And please watch Horace and Pete.

Read More

Review: With 'Horace and Pete,' Did Louis C.K. Con Us Into Paying For a Two-Act Play?

This weekend Louis C.K. surprised his fans with a new TV pilot available directly from his website. But what exactly did you get for your five bucks? 

 

Louis C.K. in "Horace and Pete."

 

Is "pulling a Beyonce" the official term for when a creator suddenly drops a new work on his or her unsuspecting fanbase? I like it, if only because comparing Louis C.K. and Queen Bey isn't something you get to do too often. But this weekend, we had the opportunity to do so thanks to the surprise release of "Horace and Pete" Episode 1, which C.K. launched directly to fans online for $5 a pop.

Written and directed by Louis C.K., the hour-and-seven-minute episode stars C.K. and Steve Buscemi as brothers operating a 100-year-old Brooklyn bar that bears their names. Set almost entirely in said bar, we meet bar patrons as well as Horace and Pete's extended family, coping with secrets revealed as the fate of the bar itself comes under debate.

Given that C.K. has a tight relationship with FX and, in general, a sterling reputation as a television creator, the initial instinct is to question why, exactly, he chose to go the self-distribution route with this project. But once you start watching, it's pretty clear why Louisck.net was the home he chose for it. Between the unconventional runtime, the deliberately simple execution and what was clearly a shoestring budget, "Horace and Pete" feels like something that was very dear and precious to C.K. and thus something he wanted to maintain complete control over.

Alan Alda in "Horace and Pete."

 

And he was able to assemble an incredible cast. Beyond the always delightful Buscemi, Alan Alda, Edie Falco, Aidy Bryant, Rebecca Hall and Jessica Lange play significant supporting roles and get plenty to work with opposite C.K. and Buscemi. It's a character piece, through and through, and Falco, as Horace's determined sister, is especially fun to see in action opposite Alda, who leans heavily into a cranky old man schtick that lacks much depth. However, it's Alan Alda. Half-decent Alan Alda is better than an awful lot of things.

The problem is that "Horace and Pete" is more fun as an idea than it is as something you want to watch. Thanks to the limited locations, minimalist execution and muted pacing, the ultimate sense is of watching a stage play — hell, there's even an "intermission" halfway through. It's unusual as hell, and hearing C.K. explain where the idea came from and how this was produced in relative secrecy will be fascinating. But am I chomping at the bit for Episode 2? Honestly, not really.

There's something about "Horace and Pete" that lacks real spark. Maybe it's the obsession with tradition or the extremely talky nature of the scenes, but the most novel thing about the episode is the distribution model. C.K. was an early pioneer of video self-distribution, and the clean, simple approach to selling his work and making it available for download must be applauded. The only hangup in me acquiring the episode was waiting for my slow home internet to download the high-quality MP4 file. On a technical level, everything here is working perfectly.

Steve Buscemi and Louis C.K. in "Horace and Pete."

 

The catch is that all we potential buyers had to go on — before reviews started filtering in — was the fact that Louis C.K. had made a thing, and as humbly stated on his official site, "We hope you like it." No trailer, no further information. As someone on Twitter put it, "This is the content equivalent of a trust fall."

Would we care about "Horace and Pete" if C.K. wasn't behind it and it didn't feature this level of cast? I'd honestly bet not. A hundred independent series get released online every month but never draw an audience, and many of them have more to offer viewers, in terms of a unique perspective or interesting message. They're all fighting for even the slightest bit of attention. C.K. doesn't even bother courting it. As our own Ben Travers pointed out, if C.K. plans to produce a full season of "Horace and Pete" and release it in this fashion, that could mean spending in the neighborhood of $50 to 65 to watch it. I don't know how much it costs to have Paul Simon do the music for your show (and compose the title theme song!), but I'm pretty sure C.K. doesn't need the money.

"Horace and Pete" is quiet and intimate when it's at its best, but in so many ways it feels like indulgence. And that's fine. If you're operating at Louis C.K.'s level, I guess you get a few of those. And it never stops being exciting to see a creator unafraid of experimenting — a creator who honestly seems to live for those opportunities. I don't begrudge "Horace and Pete" for existing, and I don't begrudge C.K. for Beyonce-ing us all.

That said, for me, Episode 2 is going to be a much harder sell.

Read More

Louis C.K.'s Warning About Donald Trump

Over the weekend, comedian Louis C.K. made news for telling his fans in an email that Donald Trump is like Adolph Hitler. And that’s a bit much, isn’t it? Doing The Apprentice for NBC while selling ties is rather unlike attempting a coup in Munich, being imprisoned, and blaming the Jews. The Art of the Deal isn’t exactly Mein Kampf.
I say that as someone who abhors Trump’s nakedly bigoted campaign tactics. He’s the only person who could ever cause me to vote for Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio.
Ugh.
Still, I get why folks intending to vote Trump would delete the Hitler email or dismiss the news stories about it. And yet, if they looked beyond the lazy Hitler comparison to a short section at the very bottom of C.K.’s email, they’d find a far more persuasive criticism, one that stands out from what most pundits, celebrities, Mexican government officials, and undecided voters are saying about Trump.
Here it is:

Trump is a messed up guy with a hole in his heart that he tries to fill with money and attention. He can never ever have enough of either and he’ll never stop trying. He’s sick. Which makes him really really interesting. And he pulls you towards him which somehow feels good or fascinatingly bad.

If Trump voters reflected on that criticism with an open mind, at least some might concede that he does seem like a man who tries to fill a void in his heart with money and attention. Some might agree that he can’t get enough and won’t stop trying.

Is electing that kind of man president worth the risk?
C.K.’s analysis dovetails with comedian John Mulaney’s more lighthearted take on Trump:

Donald Trump is not a rich man, he's what a hobo imagines a rich man to be. It's like Trump was walking under an underpass, and he heard a guy say, "Oh, as soon as my number comes in, I'm going to put up tall buildings with my name on them. I'll have fine golden hair. And a TV show where I fire Gene Simmons with my children." And Trump was like, "That is how I will live my life." When he makes a decision he must think to himself, "what would a cartoon rich person do? Oh, run for President."

And it isn’t inconsistent with comedian John Oliver’s take, which I noted last week:

Now, I know I’m biased, being willing to support almost any candidate over Trump  (even though I don’t particularly like most of them, either). But Trump fans, shouldn’t you be worried that all these comedians are so ardently against your guy? Comedians aren’t, after all, a politically correct community. These are people who delight in traveling from town to town, grabbing a mic, and violating all taboos.
They dislike the establishment as much as you do—and mock it mercilessly.
And they’re in show business. There is no better candidate for the comedy business than Donald Trump. He’s larger than life, endlessly entertaining, great for ratings, and Trump jokes almost write themselves. There are so many reasons for comedians to pray for eight years of a pompous Donald Trump in the White House.
Yet they all seem to be warning that he’s a dangerous jerk. Even apart from my own opinion of Trump, that makes me nervous. Maybe if Trump wins, the novelty of presiding over the oldest democracy will wear off and he’ll leave the U.S. for a younger, Eastern European nation.

Read More

Louis C.K. Compares Donald Trump to Hitler: ‘He’s an Insane Bigot’

A.M.P.A.S/REX/Shutterstock March 5, 2016 | 09:21AM PT


Louis C.K. is the latest public figure to criticize Donald Trump, calling him an “insane bigot” and comparing him to Adolf Hitler.

In a Saturday morning email blast announcing the sixth episode of his web series “Horace and Pete,” C.K. included a lengthy postscript urging readers not to vote for Trump.

“Please stop it with voting for Trump,” C.K. writes. “It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the ’30s. Do you think they saw the sh-t coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.”

Later in the email, C.K. implores his conservative readers to vote for a different GOP candidate.

R

George Clooney Calls Donald Trump ‘a Xenophobic Fascist’

“We shouldn’t have to vote for someone because they’re not a shocking c— billionaire liar,” C.K. writes. “We should choose based on what direction the country should go… If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him. Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you.”

C.K. added, “Trump is not your best. He’s the worst of all of us. He’s a symptom to a problem that is very real. But don’t vote for your own cancer. You’re better than that.”

See the full postscript below:

P.S. Please stop it with voting for Trump. It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the 30s. Do you think they saw the shit coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.

And I’m not advocating for Hillary or Bernie. I like them both but frankly I wish the next president was a conservative only because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance. And not because I particularly enjoy the conservative agenda. I just think the government should reflect the people. And we are about 40 percent conservative and 40 percent liberal. When I was growing up and when I was a younger man, liberals and conservatives were friends with differences. They weren’t enemies. And it always made sense that everyone gets a president they like for a while and then hates the president for a while. But it only works if the conservatives put up a good candidate. A good smart conservative to face the liberal candidate so they can have a good argument and the country can decide which way to go this time.

Trump is not that. He’s an insane bigot. He is dangerous.

He already said he would expand libel laws to sue anyone who “writes a negative hit piece” about him. He says “I would open up the libel laws so we can sue them and win lots of money. Not like now. These guys are totally protected.” He said that. He has promised to decimate the first amendment. (If you think he’s going to keep the second amendment intact you’re delusional.) And he said that Paul Ryan, speaker of the house will “pay” for criticizing him. So I’m saying this now because if he gets in there we won’t be able to criticize him anymore.
Please pick someone else. Like John Kasich. I mean that guy seems okay. I don’t like any of them myself but if you’re that kind of voter please go for a guy like that. It feels like between him and either democrat we’d have a decent choice. It feels like a healthier choice. We shouldn’t have to vote for someone because they’re not a shocking cunt billionaire liar.

We should choose based on what direction the country should go.

I get that all these people sound like bullshit soft criminal opportunists. The whole game feels rigged and it’s not going anywhere but down anymore. I feel that way sometimes.

Louis C.K. Surprises Fans With ‘Horace and Pete’ Web Series Co-Starring Steve Buscemi

And that voting for Trump is a way of saying “fuck it. Fuck them all”. I really get it. It’s a version of national Suicide. Or it’s like a big hit off of a crack pipe. Somehow we can’t help it. Or we know that if we vote for Trump our phones will be a reliable source of dopamine for the next four years. I mean I can’t wait to read about Trump every day. It’s a rush. But you have to know this is not healthy.

If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him. Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you.

In fact, if you do vote for Trump, at least look at him very carefully first. You owe that to the rest of us. Know and understand who he is. Spend one hour on google and just read it all. I don’t mean listen to me or listen to liberals who put him down. Listen to your own people. Listen to John Mccain. Go look at what he just said about Trump. “At a time when our world has never been more complex or more in danger… I want Republican voters to pay close attention to what our party’s most respected and knowledgeable leaders and national security experts are saying about Mr. Trump, and to think long and hard about who they want to be our next Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world.”

When Trump was told what he said, Trump said “Oh, he did? Well, that’s not nice,” he told CBS News’ chief White House correspondent Major Garrett. “He has to be very careful.”
When pressed on why, Trump tacked on: “He’ll find out.”

(I cut and pasted that from CBS news)

Do you really want a guy to be president who threatens John McCain? Because John McCain cautiously and intelligently asked for people to be thoughtful before voting for him? He didn’t even insult Trump. He just asked you to take a good look. And Trump told him to look out.

Remember that Trump entered this race by saying that McCain is not a war hero. A guy who was shot down, body broken and kept in a POW camp for years. Trump said “I prefer the guys who don’t get caught.” Why did he say that? Not because he meant it or because it was important to say. He said it because he’s a bully and every bully knows that when you enter a new school yard, you go to the toughest most respected guy on the yard and you punch him in the nose. If you are still standing after, you’re the new boss. If Trump is president, he’s not going to change. He’s not going to do anything for you. He’s going to do everything for himself and leave you in the dust.

So please listen to fellow conservatives. But more importantly, listen to Trump. Listen to all of it. Everything he says. If you liked when he said that “torture works” then go look at where he took it back the next day. He’s a fucking liar.

A vote for Trump is so clearly a gut-vote, and again I get it. But add a little brain to it and look the guy up. Because if you vote for him because of how you feel right now, the minute he’s president, you’re going to regret it. You’re going to regret it even more when he gives the job to his son. Because American democracy is broken enough that a guy like that could really fuck things up. That’s how Hitler got there. He was voted into power by a fatigued nation and when he got inside, he did all his Hitler things and no one could stop him.

Google Chrome Filter Blocks Donald Trump From Your Internet

Again, I’m not saying vote democrat or vote for anyone else. If Hilary ends up president it should be because she faced the best person you have and you and I both chose her or him or whoever. Trump is not your best. He’s the worst of all of us. He’s a symptom to a problem that is very real. But don’t vote for your own cancer. You’re better than that.

That’s just my view. At least right now. I know I’m not qualified or particularly educated and I’m not right instead of you. I’m an idiot and I’m sure a bunch of you are very annoyed by this. Fucking celebrity with an opinion. I swear this isn’t really a political opinion. You don’t want to know my political opinions. (And I know that I’m only bringing myself trouble with this shit.) Trump has nothing to do with politics or ideology. He has to do with himself. And really I don’t mean to insult anyone. Except Trump. I mean to insult him very much. And really I’m not saying he’s evil or a monster. In fact I don’t think Hitler was. The problem with saying that guys like that are monsters is that we don’t see them coming when they turn out to be human, which they all are. Everyone is. Trump is a messed up guy with a hole in his heart that he tries to fill with money and attention. He can never ever have enough of either and he’ll never stop trying. He’s sick. Which makes him really really interesting. And he pulls you towards him which somehow feels good or fascinatingly bad. He’s not a monster. He’s a sad man. But all this makes him horribly dangerous if he becomes president. Give him another TV show. Let him pay to put his name on buildings. But please stop voting for him. And please watch Horace and Pete.

Read More