I heard a rumor last night, but today The Laughing Squid confirms that Paul David Addis has pled guilty to arson in the burning of The Man at Burning Man last year. I guess he and his lawyer realized that the whole cutesy story about a covert operations group, which Addis concocted out of his Hunter S. Thompson fantasies, wasn't going to cut it in front a jury. Now he's looking at one to four years in a Federal pen (because he committed the crime on Federal land), and has to fork over $25,000 in restitution.
Update: Apparently the charge Addis pleaded guilty to was not arson, but destruction of private property.
Showing posts with label Paul Addis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Addis. Show all posts
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Paul David Addis Pleads Guilty to Misdemeanor Charge from Grace Cathedral "Arson Attempt"
Reality seems to finally be catching up to Paul David Addis, who pleaded guilty on Friday to a misdeanor charge in connection with his being caught outside Grace Cathedral with a bag full of fireworks after having previously told someone that the cathedral "wasn't going to be there anymore." Addis is still facing trial for his burning of The Man at last year's Burning Man. I wonder how this conviction is going to work for him in that instance?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
SFWeekly Digging the Dirt on Paul Addis
You know, it's sometimes really nice to take a stand about something, and then be vindicated. In my case, it was coming out and saying that I thought Paul Addis was a narcissistic jerk playing out his Hunter S. Thompson fantasies when everybody else I knew seemed to think that he was a provocative performance artist. When he was busted for his alledged attempt to "blow up" Grace Cathedral I felt a little pang of satisfaction, and now Sucka Free City in the SFWeekly has dug up some really interesting information about this local "hero;" first the restraining order placed against him for allegedly threatening students at Grace Prepatory School, and then charges of harassment and unlawful use of a weapon when he got pissed off with a hotel clerk in Seattle after his American Express card was refused. The paper wanted to talk with Addis about these past events, but his jailers have - quelle surprise - judged him "mentally unfit" to sign the waivers necessary to talk with the media. So, Chicken John, what do you think of your hero now?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Paul Addis At It Again: Caught Trying to Torch Grace Cathedral
Wow, that Paul Addis sure loves to burn things down; this time he was nabbed in an alleged attempt to burn Grace Catheral. Perhaps all the praise heaped upon him for his Burning Man "prank" gave him an inflated sense of his own abilities and status. In any case, this "hero" now faces four pretty serious counts here, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if his $25K bail from Nevada got revoked (nice way to pay back all those folks who helped you out, Paul).
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Paul Addis Arraigned on September 25
So two days ago Paul Addis, "alleged" arsonist of The Man, was arraigned in Pershing County District Court. According to this interview in Wired (which further confirms just about everything I've thought about the man to this point - hey, did you know that all us folks who go to Burning Man and have tech jobs don't do *anything* creative when we come back to the city?), he planned to plead "not guilty." I've not been able to track down any accounts of the proceedings yet, but will doing my best to dig it out. Since there were eye witnesses, and no one is going to take his blarney story about "Black Rock Intelligence" seriously, I think he's digging himself into a big hole, but that's his business. Let's see how well his Hunter S. Thompson act flies in state prison.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Paul Addis at Substance at The End Up this Saturday
Word comes to me that Paul Addis will be "holding court" at Substance at The End Up this Saturday. Maybe this will encourage you to go, maybe it will encourage you to go elsewhere, maybe it will inspire the prankster in you - all I'm doing is relaying the information, it's up to you to do with it what you will.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Ethics of Destruction
Judging by comments I've started to receive from my post below, I've aligned myself with the "uncool kids" by thinking that there was something wrong with the actions of Paul Addis at Burning Man. I considered responding in depth in the comments, but given that today marks the anniversary of another event that provoked world discussion through the destruction of an iconic structure, it seems that this might be a great opportunity to discuss the ethics of destruction.
Let me state my position clearly: I think what Paul Addis did was wrong because it was an action filled with contempt for the work of others, that it was nihilist rather than artistic, and because it threatens the principle of mutual respect that makes radical community possible. This is completely separate from what I feel about Burning Man as an event (which I recognize has issues it must deal with), what I think of Larry Harvy or the Burning Man organization (with which I have had only slight interaction), or how I feel about "The Man" itself as one iconic structure among the many in the world.
Let's start by talking about The Man as an object. Though others obviously disagree, I see it as something that was created by a group of people, who invested their labor into it, and who had an intention for it. You may try to argue that it was a "craft" and not "art," and you may argue that, because it is serially reproduced year after year, it is also not art. This is all pure semantics, and has no bearing on the fact that people worked to create it, invested it with intention, and saw it, in some way, as a personal expression of what they were giving to the community. Those who created the man were acting as participants, which, supposedly, is what is most valued by all members of the Burning Man community.
This object, however, is also imbued with iconic meaning. For many, it is a negative icon, symbolizing everything that they think is wrong with Burning Man. For years people, mostly those who see themselves as part of the older, more authentic Burning Man experience, have talked about burning it early in a symbolic act of defiance. So after many years of talking about destroying this symbol, someone does it, and is instantly acclaimed "a hero" by people like Chicken John Rinaldi and others who consider themselves part of the original Burning Man experience.
Those who find this act praiseworthy seem to take the position that what Addis did was an act of radical self-expression, that the intent was to make a statement about art, about the corporate nature of Burning Man, about the loss of spontaneity at the event, etc. But all of this ignores the nature and intent of the act itself. I can do many things that are provocative and make a statement about something - I can blow up a building, paint swastikas on a church, or slash a painting in a gallery - but just because they provoke a discussion and make a statement doesn't make them ethical. The consideration of the ethical dimension of Addis' act is what has been completely left out of all these discussions, as though the intent justified the means.
It is obvious from Addis' various statements, most notably the one that appeared on Laughing Squid, that he holds all those who are not part of the original Burning Man experience in contempt, an attitude shared by many others. It is also obvious, from his action itself, that he holds the work invested in the object of The Man in contempt - it is something worthy only of being destroyed. Thus it seems to me that Addis acted out of a general contempt for the experience and work of others. In my view, this makes his action unethical.
But what about it as a prank, about it being in the spirit of the original Burning Man experience? For me, a prank is like what John Law did with The Man in 1997, the year of the Smiley Face. John Law also has taken a very critical stance toward Burning Man, and wanted to make a statement about it. His statement was to *create* something of his own that commented on Burning Man - in other words, he created art. And this is where Addis' act is completely different, in that it was only about destruction. Destruction isn't art, it's nihilism.
Finally, what did Addis' action accomplish? Judging from the commentary on this and other online forums, it has only caused even more polarization and factionalizing in the Burning Man community, a hardening of already opposing positions that will now be even more difficult to resolve; thus, instead of bringing about a synthesis, of provoking dialogue between these various factions, Addis has only succeeded in breaking apart the community even further.
When our community begins to hold someone like Paul Addis up as a "hero," I think we have truly lost our way, because it means that our heroes are nihilists who are incapable of creation, only destruction. Addis' action may be seen as an act of "radical self-expression," but it is self-expression that is completely devoid of any respect for the labor of others, their intents, and their expression. If that's our hero, then we are deep trouble, and I think that the values of our alternative community are no longer viable, because we have lost the main quality that makes community possible: mutual respect.
Last night the boyfriend pointed out to me how ironic it was that this is all taking place during the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love, another moment in time when it seemed that the alterative community was poised to make real changes in the world. But that moment collapsed for many of the same reasons that the Burning Man community now seems to be collapsing, a victim of its own success, with in-fighting over issues of authenticity, how to manage a community that has grown well beyond its original members, how to keep its values alive when they are being disseminated on a massive scale. What has been most striking to me in all of this is how whether or not you agree with Addis' action seems to have become the mark of whether or not you are an authentic Burner, whether you are part of the despised establishment or can count yourself as a true participant, one of the heads. I think that what David Addis did was wrong because it was unethical, because it did not respect the labor and intent of others, and because it was based on a general contempt for all those not part of an in group; if that means I'm not an authentic Burner, I can live with that.
Let me state my position clearly: I think what Paul Addis did was wrong because it was an action filled with contempt for the work of others, that it was nihilist rather than artistic, and because it threatens the principle of mutual respect that makes radical community possible. This is completely separate from what I feel about Burning Man as an event (which I recognize has issues it must deal with), what I think of Larry Harvy or the Burning Man organization (with which I have had only slight interaction), or how I feel about "The Man" itself as one iconic structure among the many in the world.
Let's start by talking about The Man as an object. Though others obviously disagree, I see it as something that was created by a group of people, who invested their labor into it, and who had an intention for it. You may try to argue that it was a "craft" and not "art," and you may argue that, because it is serially reproduced year after year, it is also not art. This is all pure semantics, and has no bearing on the fact that people worked to create it, invested it with intention, and saw it, in some way, as a personal expression of what they were giving to the community. Those who created the man were acting as participants, which, supposedly, is what is most valued by all members of the Burning Man community.
This object, however, is also imbued with iconic meaning. For many, it is a negative icon, symbolizing everything that they think is wrong with Burning Man. For years people, mostly those who see themselves as part of the older, more authentic Burning Man experience, have talked about burning it early in a symbolic act of defiance. So after many years of talking about destroying this symbol, someone does it, and is instantly acclaimed "a hero" by people like Chicken John Rinaldi and others who consider themselves part of the original Burning Man experience.
Those who find this act praiseworthy seem to take the position that what Addis did was an act of radical self-expression, that the intent was to make a statement about art, about the corporate nature of Burning Man, about the loss of spontaneity at the event, etc. But all of this ignores the nature and intent of the act itself. I can do many things that are provocative and make a statement about something - I can blow up a building, paint swastikas on a church, or slash a painting in a gallery - but just because they provoke a discussion and make a statement doesn't make them ethical. The consideration of the ethical dimension of Addis' act is what has been completely left out of all these discussions, as though the intent justified the means.
It is obvious from Addis' various statements, most notably the one that appeared on Laughing Squid, that he holds all those who are not part of the original Burning Man experience in contempt, an attitude shared by many others. It is also obvious, from his action itself, that he holds the work invested in the object of The Man in contempt - it is something worthy only of being destroyed. Thus it seems to me that Addis acted out of a general contempt for the experience and work of others. In my view, this makes his action unethical.
But what about it as a prank, about it being in the spirit of the original Burning Man experience? For me, a prank is like what John Law did with The Man in 1997, the year of the Smiley Face. John Law also has taken a very critical stance toward Burning Man, and wanted to make a statement about it. His statement was to *create* something of his own that commented on Burning Man - in other words, he created art. And this is where Addis' act is completely different, in that it was only about destruction. Destruction isn't art, it's nihilism.
Finally, what did Addis' action accomplish? Judging from the commentary on this and other online forums, it has only caused even more polarization and factionalizing in the Burning Man community, a hardening of already opposing positions that will now be even more difficult to resolve; thus, instead of bringing about a synthesis, of provoking dialogue between these various factions, Addis has only succeeded in breaking apart the community even further.
When our community begins to hold someone like Paul Addis up as a "hero," I think we have truly lost our way, because it means that our heroes are nihilists who are incapable of creation, only destruction. Addis' action may be seen as an act of "radical self-expression," but it is self-expression that is completely devoid of any respect for the labor of others, their intents, and their expression. If that's our hero, then we are deep trouble, and I think that the values of our alternative community are no longer viable, because we have lost the main quality that makes community possible: mutual respect.
Last night the boyfriend pointed out to me how ironic it was that this is all taking place during the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love, another moment in time when it seemed that the alterative community was poised to make real changes in the world. But that moment collapsed for many of the same reasons that the Burning Man community now seems to be collapsing, a victim of its own success, with in-fighting over issues of authenticity, how to manage a community that has grown well beyond its original members, how to keep its values alive when they are being disseminated on a massive scale. What has been most striking to me in all of this is how whether or not you agree with Addis' action seems to have become the mark of whether or not you are an authentic Burner, whether you are part of the despised establishment or can count yourself as a true participant, one of the heads. I think that what David Addis did was wrong because it was unethical, because it did not respect the labor and intent of others, and because it was based on a general contempt for all those not part of an in group; if that means I'm not an authentic Burner, I can live with that.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Chicken John on Paul Addis: "[He's] a hero"
Steven Jones gives Chicken John some press in this San Francisco Bay Guardian article on Burning Man that centers mostly on the Paul Addis' arson of the man and reactions to it. Jones explains how Chicken John and Addis have known each other since 1995, and that CJ even kicked Addis out of his Odeon bar a couple times. No surprises there, since San Francisco is a small town, and the core of old-skool burners is even smaller. But then there's this lovely quote from Chicken John:
"[Addis is] a hero. He did the thing that we've been talking about doing for a decade," Rinaldi said. "No matter how misguided he was, his intention was to facilitate art."
Umm, how does that work exactly, facilitating art by destroying something that someone else has created? I guess I'm just a grump, but I don't see where Addis' action is facilitative, helpful, or even a good prank, because it involved the destruction of something created by someone else. To me, it's akin to burning a book, destroying someone else's creation because you don't like what it represents (and no, it's not the same as that iconic gesture of flag burning, because a flag is a reproduction, not an original work - how would we feel about some slashing a Van Gogh to make a statement?).
In an earlier post I talked about why I have trouble with Chicken John's campaign, but now we have someone who is holding himself up as a guardian and supporter of the arts commending Addis as a "hero" for destroying someone else's work. Does Chicken John think it's okay to destroy art if you don't agree with it? Is that how he's going to improve the condition of the arts community in San Francisco?
"[Addis is] a hero. He did the thing that we've been talking about doing for a decade," Rinaldi said. "No matter how misguided he was, his intention was to facilitate art."
Umm, how does that work exactly, facilitating art by destroying something that someone else has created? I guess I'm just a grump, but I don't see where Addis' action is facilitative, helpful, or even a good prank, because it involved the destruction of something created by someone else. To me, it's akin to burning a book, destroying someone else's creation because you don't like what it represents (and no, it's not the same as that iconic gesture of flag burning, because a flag is a reproduction, not an original work - how would we feel about some slashing a Van Gogh to make a statement?).
In an earlier post I talked about why I have trouble with Chicken John's campaign, but now we have someone who is holding himself up as a guardian and supporter of the arts commending Addis as a "hero" for destroying someone else's work. Does Chicken John think it's okay to destroy art if you don't agree with it? Is that how he's going to improve the condition of the arts community in San Francisco?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Thoughts on the Burning of the Man
Last night my friend Kitty and I had an interesting conversation about the premature burning of the Man - his first comment, via email, was "The Burner in me is pissed, but the asshole is laughing," a comment that really encapsulated the whole incident for me.
In thinking about this and dicussing it, there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out - the individual actions of Paul Addis, the "comment" he made about Burning Man, the attitude of the former in-crowd (as exemplified by Addis' letter to the SFWeekly in 2002, the general moanings of the Piss Clear crowd, and many of the comments on SFGate about the story), and the general rise of Burning Man from a freakfest in the desert to what has now become an institution backed by a non-profit. My own take on all of this is that a) Addis is an asshole playing through on his Hunter S. Thompson fantasies b) his action nonetheless was insightful, provocative, and an accomplished bit of performance art c) the old-skool crowd will hold him up as a hero even though his actions will not, in any way, substantially change the things that they like to gripe about d) Burning Man has not, as so many would like to believe, "jumped the shark," but it is is facing some very serious questions about how it will configure itself going into the future. Let's break these down a bit, shall we?
A) Paul Addis is an asshole playing through on his Hunter S. Thompson fantasies
Everything Paul Addis has put into the public sphere - his 2002 letter to the SFWeekly editor, his account of messing with the cops and emerging triumphant in the SoMa literary review, his one-man show about Hunter S. Thompson, his statement on the Laughing Squid blog - lead one to the conclusion that he is simply another would-be macho stud in possession of an outsize ego that leads him to believe that he's the righteous one and all the rest of us are dunderheads. I'm sure he's the sort who would read Nietzsche and think that he's an ubermensch. That would probably be tolerable, if it wasn't for the fact that he basically destroyed something that had been created by other people, and for which they had other intentions. It might be perceived as an radcial act of self-expression, in, say, the manner or the Dadists or anarchists, but, in fact, many of those people were, at the personal level, assholes as well. Let's put this in the perspective of anarchism, however, since that's what so many people associate with Burning Man. Even in that perspective, he's an asshole. In The Temporary Autonomous Zone by Hakim Bey, the touchstone work for events like Burning Man, Bey draws an analogy for the TAZ with a dinner party, an analogy set up by another anarchist writer. The idea is that you create a space for people to come and interact in whatever way they choose, but a certain degree of mutual respect governs the proceedings. Now imagine that someone came to your dinner party and broke all the plates as "an act of radical self-expression." Maybe it would be a statement, but he would still be an asshole.
B) Despite being an asshole, Addis pulled off a provocative piece of performance art
Addis has single-handedly gotten everyone, here, there, and everywhere, to talk about the meaning of his action. That's the point of performance art, and in this respect, Addis has pulled off something significant. However, it was only through the destruction of something held dear to many other people that he accomplished this. I'm reminded of Stockhausen's comments on the destruction of the WTC: it was Satan's greatest work (I'm paraphrasing). Blow something up and people will talk about it; that doesn't mean it's a laudable, or ethical, undertaking.
C)All the old-skool people will hold him up as a hero, but it won't make any real difference
As I said originally, you can burn the man but you can't burn Burning Man. For years now the "original" people have been bitching and complaining about how Burning Man is now corporate, has all these rules, is filled with "outsiders," blah blah blah, and everybody points to 1997, the year of the smiley face, as the watershed year. Well, you know, you can't keep it all closed system forever, people, and when you tap into the the unconscious of the American people and provide them with a place to live out their fantasies once a year, they're going to come in droves. And when somebody dies at your event (as has happened on at least three occasions I know of), you realize that you need to protect yourself from getting the pants sued off you; hence, you form a Limited Liability Corporation. As an LLC it's also a lot easier to deal with government entities, like the BLM, with whom Burning Man is in a constant struggle for control. As for the rules, there are ten of them, and I don't see anything in here that prevents anybody from expressing themselves in whatever way they want, save for no guns, no driving, and no dogs. All the rest of it amounts to "don't be stupid and don't fuck things up." All the old-skoolers lament that they can't shoot guns, blow things up, or drive fast across the playa anymore; in short, they can't act like macho assholes anymore. Somehow I don't feel much sympathy for that position. What is perhaps most galling, however, is that what this all boils down to is the loss of insider, special club status for these people - they had somethign exclusive, and now they don't have it anymore. Yeah, there are a fair number of yahoos who show up every year, and I don't like them either, but there are also lots of people who work all year to come out there and do something special, and to reduce them all to "weekend hippies" is just bullshit. In many ways, the event is really a catalyst that brings people together for those other 51 weeks of the year - my own camp starts working in January, and it's that experience of working togther, and creating something out there on the playa, that is the essence of Burning Man for me. You can burn the man early, but that won't take away the experience that I, and so many others, have had.
d) Burning Man now faces some tough questions about its future
I think that this may be the event that serves as the break between the BM of the past and the BM of the future. You could already see that in the attempt to bring a socially active focus to the event this year. This seems like the last attempt on the part of the old-skool to make a statement about what they feel BM has become, and after this I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the guns, tits, and bombs crowd defect in a mass way - after all, now that one of their own has been busted and charged with felony arson, that would have to be seen as the biggest sell-out of all. It's a philosophic conundrum, and the BM organization doesn't have an easy way out; I'm pretty sure they don't really have a say in whether or not Addis is charged and tried, but they will be seen as violating their own tenet of radical self-expression when he is prosecuted. On the other hand, if Addis isn't prosecuted, they run the risk of opening the box for a beast they already barely have under control. I dunno what the solution is; it's going to require taking a very nuanced position, but I don't think the Hunter S. Thompson afficianados are really about nuance.
Meanwhile, check out the comments over at Laughing Squid.
In thinking about this and dicussing it, there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out - the individual actions of Paul Addis, the "comment" he made about Burning Man, the attitude of the former in-crowd (as exemplified by Addis' letter to the SFWeekly in 2002, the general moanings of the Piss Clear crowd, and many of the comments on SFGate about the story), and the general rise of Burning Man from a freakfest in the desert to what has now become an institution backed by a non-profit. My own take on all of this is that a) Addis is an asshole playing through on his Hunter S. Thompson fantasies b) his action nonetheless was insightful, provocative, and an accomplished bit of performance art c) the old-skool crowd will hold him up as a hero even though his actions will not, in any way, substantially change the things that they like to gripe about d) Burning Man has not, as so many would like to believe, "jumped the shark," but it is is facing some very serious questions about how it will configure itself going into the future. Let's break these down a bit, shall we?
A) Paul Addis is an asshole playing through on his Hunter S. Thompson fantasies
Everything Paul Addis has put into the public sphere - his 2002 letter to the SFWeekly editor, his account of messing with the cops and emerging triumphant in the SoMa literary review, his one-man show about Hunter S. Thompson, his statement on the Laughing Squid blog - lead one to the conclusion that he is simply another would-be macho stud in possession of an outsize ego that leads him to believe that he's the righteous one and all the rest of us are dunderheads. I'm sure he's the sort who would read Nietzsche and think that he's an ubermensch. That would probably be tolerable, if it wasn't for the fact that he basically destroyed something that had been created by other people, and for which they had other intentions. It might be perceived as an radcial act of self-expression, in, say, the manner or the Dadists or anarchists, but, in fact, many of those people were, at the personal level, assholes as well. Let's put this in the perspective of anarchism, however, since that's what so many people associate with Burning Man. Even in that perspective, he's an asshole. In The Temporary Autonomous Zone by Hakim Bey, the touchstone work for events like Burning Man, Bey draws an analogy for the TAZ with a dinner party, an analogy set up by another anarchist writer. The idea is that you create a space for people to come and interact in whatever way they choose, but a certain degree of mutual respect governs the proceedings. Now imagine that someone came to your dinner party and broke all the plates as "an act of radical self-expression." Maybe it would be a statement, but he would still be an asshole.
B) Despite being an asshole, Addis pulled off a provocative piece of performance art
Addis has single-handedly gotten everyone, here, there, and everywhere, to talk about the meaning of his action. That's the point of performance art, and in this respect, Addis has pulled off something significant. However, it was only through the destruction of something held dear to many other people that he accomplished this. I'm reminded of Stockhausen's comments on the destruction of the WTC: it was Satan's greatest work (I'm paraphrasing). Blow something up and people will talk about it; that doesn't mean it's a laudable, or ethical, undertaking.
C)All the old-skool people will hold him up as a hero, but it won't make any real difference
As I said originally, you can burn the man but you can't burn Burning Man. For years now the "original" people have been bitching and complaining about how Burning Man is now corporate, has all these rules, is filled with "outsiders," blah blah blah, and everybody points to 1997, the year of the smiley face, as the watershed year. Well, you know, you can't keep it all closed system forever, people, and when you tap into the the unconscious of the American people and provide them with a place to live out their fantasies once a year, they're going to come in droves. And when somebody dies at your event (as has happened on at least three occasions I know of), you realize that you need to protect yourself from getting the pants sued off you; hence, you form a Limited Liability Corporation. As an LLC it's also a lot easier to deal with government entities, like the BLM, with whom Burning Man is in a constant struggle for control. As for the rules, there are ten of them, and I don't see anything in here that prevents anybody from expressing themselves in whatever way they want, save for no guns, no driving, and no dogs. All the rest of it amounts to "don't be stupid and don't fuck things up." All the old-skoolers lament that they can't shoot guns, blow things up, or drive fast across the playa anymore; in short, they can't act like macho assholes anymore. Somehow I don't feel much sympathy for that position. What is perhaps most galling, however, is that what this all boils down to is the loss of insider, special club status for these people - they had somethign exclusive, and now they don't have it anymore. Yeah, there are a fair number of yahoos who show up every year, and I don't like them either, but there are also lots of people who work all year to come out there and do something special, and to reduce them all to "weekend hippies" is just bullshit. In many ways, the event is really a catalyst that brings people together for those other 51 weeks of the year - my own camp starts working in January, and it's that experience of working togther, and creating something out there on the playa, that is the essence of Burning Man for me. You can burn the man early, but that won't take away the experience that I, and so many others, have had.
d) Burning Man now faces some tough questions about its future
I think that this may be the event that serves as the break between the BM of the past and the BM of the future. You could already see that in the attempt to bring a socially active focus to the event this year. This seems like the last attempt on the part of the old-skool to make a statement about what they feel BM has become, and after this I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the guns, tits, and bombs crowd defect in a mass way - after all, now that one of their own has been busted and charged with felony arson, that would have to be seen as the biggest sell-out of all. It's a philosophic conundrum, and the BM organization doesn't have an easy way out; I'm pretty sure they don't really have a say in whether or not Addis is charged and tried, but they will be seen as violating their own tenet of radical self-expression when he is prosecuted. On the other hand, if Addis isn't prosecuted, they run the risk of opening the box for a beast they already barely have under control. I dunno what the solution is; it's going to require taking a very nuanced position, but I don't think the Hunter S. Thompson afficianados are really about nuance.
Meanwhile, check out the comments over at Laughing Squid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)