Download The BCRadio Podcast!
A special treat on this week's show as BC Foreign Correspondent #2 Aaron Foley shares his interview with Paul Oakenfold.
We also have Dawn Olsen discussing another Scientology embarrassment, and Eric Olsen on Kate Moss (not literally) — he manages to cover the subject in under six minutes (after all, Kate only weighs 23 ounces... or was that the amount of blow she had at the time?).
Then Matt Sussman joins the masses taking whacks at Ben Roethlisberger and Mark Saleski, and I talk "Geezer Rock."
Finally, Joan Hunt brings us big news in the world of BC on the Blues.
Give the show a listen and join us for a continuation of the conversation in our comment thread below.
Article comments
1 - DJRadiohead
What did everyone think of the Oakenfold interview? Where is everybody? Scientology is gay, Roethlisberger did something boneheaded, Saleski still loves the geezers...
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Saleski still loves the geezers..."
Way better than loving the little children of the world.
3 - DJRadiohead
Sussman, you so crazy.
4 - djfreq
Haven't listened yet but 2 things right off the top.. 1) the Oakenfold interview is awsome :)
2) 47min? are you feeling ok
5 - DJRadiohead
47 minutes is an intermission around these parts. That's just the band getting warmed up.
6 - Mark Sahm
Good thing you learned how to downsample those 47, DJR.
I'll try to listen tonight. I can only hope the Oakenfold interview wasn't recorded in a pool hall.
7 - DJRadiohead
All right, wiseasses, talk like this is going to cause you to have to take over this monstrosity.
8 - Mark Sahm
Oh contraré, my friend. No other podcast gets plugged in the company newsletter other than yours... so you have to take your lumps.
9 - DJRadiohead
Shit, son. I'll take lumps in equal number of the dollars I get for doing this gig. By that standard, I'm in the whole so I'm the only one who gets to hand out the lumps.
10 - Mark Sahm
Of course, I would like to experiment just once on remixing one of your segments... maybe a DJR/Saleski conversation on the state of remixes. Heh.
11 - DJRadiohead
Now that would be funny and I would move it to the front of the show!
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
Just so we're clear, Ben Roethlisberger does not wear a football to work.
13 - DJRadiohead
That was my favorite moment of the week, Suss.
14 - Matthew T. Sussman
I didn't even know what I said wrong at the time, knowing me I just assumed I didn't say "wearing a helmet" and would later found out just how badly I misspoke.
It sounded right in my head when I said it, as is the standard in Rural America.
15 - djfreq
Don't worry Mark the there was no pool hall insight... just me, paul, a $15 mic and skype..
16 - DJRadiohead
I keep waiting for Sussman to make a Canadian currency joke. He must have had to go back to work.
17 - Joe H.
Interesting podcast! I particularly liked the blues piece on Ballinger. But regarding the final item on Scientology and Scientologist celebs, I have a couple confusions & issues. First, references are made about these people giving every last penny to their church-- however, Cruise & Travolta seem to exceed the stereotypical "lifestyles of the rich & famous" image, with all their personal airplanes, jets, lavish homes, etc.
Regardless of how much Scientologists donate or tithe, they don't seem to exhibit selfless, self-sacrificing spartan lifestyles. I understand that the average Scientologist isn't a mega-wealthy super star celeb, but the references were directed to Cruise, in addition to comments about Jenna Elfman giving her body to the church because she "no longer has a career". Easy to go for the cheap laughs, but can we at least keep it somewhat real?!
Secondly, a comment was made in reference to Travola's "...two idiot children...". I totally missed the context and purpose of that remark.
These people and their church don't need me to defend them. My point is that if you're gonna bash them, at least be focused about it and don't contradict the obvious. These people are filthy rich, with lots of STUFF, and they ENJOY extremely opulent lifestyles, regardless of how much they may contribute to their religion and in spite of comments to the effect that their church is bleeding them of every last dollar.
I would find it hard to believe that there are too many homeless, shopping cart pushing, cardboard sign holding, unkempt looking citizens, representing the Scientology membership out there.
But maybe I just have a warped perception and am in need of Dawn Olsen's clear & objective journalistic guidance.
Lastly, why not just leave the kids out of it. Why Travolta's kids are slammed, with no rhyme or reason, totally escapes me. What's up with that, anyway?
An otherwise good podcast pgm, is tainted by an undue & exaggerated level of criticism against a religion, a couple individuals and even their, too young to defend themselves, children. That's getting kind of mean wouldn't you say.
Yeah, it's very hip to trash Scientology and Tom Cruise these days, but you guys can do better than the bandwagon. There are plenty of cooler topics to cover-- and worse people to bash. It's not like Cruise pounced upon poor little Brooke, with a bomb strapped to his chest, or Jenna Elfman is knee-capping guys for wearing the wrong t-shirt.
I hope Tanya Harding feels safer knowing that nobody's ever accused her of being a Scientologist. The Church is probably likewise grateful for this.
If I were to wear a "Ben Roethlisberger is Retarded" t-shirt on the streets of Pittsburg, I'd have a helluva lot more to worry about than any damage Jenna Elfman could inflict upon a grown man, even if HE were a gay man.
Please excuse any insensitivity on my part.
18 - DJRadiohead
Joe, fair points. The two idiot children comment was mine and perhaps was a bit harsh. It was supposed to be in the context of some of the brainwashing activities Scientology has been accused of. I didn't lay a foundation for that and if someone didn't connect those two things I would see where that would be on me. Bad host.
In fact, I take a lot of the responsibility because the segment didn't maintain the focus it could have. The segment was about Dawn's story about the way Elfman and her husband went apeshit when they saw someone wearing a shirt that insulted Scientology. From there, the interview careened all over the place in part because the antics of Cruise have been in the news and have actually been discussed on BCRadio before (sort of an inside joke, if you will).
You also make a good point in noting that Travolta and Cruise live pretty fancy lifestyles despite their affiliation with Scientology. I have heard and read, and no I don't have specific links, that Scientologists do have a confiscatory policy when it comes to collecting cash. That these two icons have plenty of money leftover doesn't necessarily mean Scientology doesn't exert a lot of pressure for big donations (nor would they be the only "church" to do such a thing). Besides, some of the money references were made tongue-in-cheek.
As to our "bashing" of celebs... most of it is meant in good humor. Sometimes I do go for the cheap laugh- I admit it. Let me also say this in mine and Dawn's defense because a lot of people have piled on her for her celebrity columns. There are a ton of celebrities who never seem to get these kinds of columns written about them (podcast segments dedicated to them) because they are like the rest of us: they do their job and go home. Tom Hanks. Robert De Niro. They make movies and go home. Other celebrities go on national television and do bizarre, stupid things and wonder why the world talks about them. Hey, Tom- if you don't want people to think you're a loon then just sit on the fuckin' couch like a human being. Most of us would put a child in timeout for jumping on the furniture or at the very least ask them to stop it. I don't accost every person on the street who wears a t-shirt expressing viewpoints that offend me or with which I might disagree. I move on. When you do dumb things in public, people will talk. When you do dumb things in public and you're a celebrity, people will really talk.
19 - DJRadiohead
Joe, I had a few problems posting so I didn't get to add this: I do want to sincerely thank you for listening to the show and offering some alternative viewpoints to those expressed in the show. I appreciate your time and appreciate you presenting your thoughts in a mostly civil tone. It's unfortunately all too rare in the blogosphere and this did not go unnoticed. The show can't be all things to all people but I hope you found some things you like and that you will continue to listen to us.
20 - JoeH
DJR, Thanks for your reply. I do understand that controversy makes for a good blog, and that from a marketing standpoint, there's no money in the middle-- you gotta have either love or hate because there's no passion or excitement in between. Keeping it civil, or establishing a standard for civil is up to you. What makes running a blog easier and perhaps better than running a forum site, is the more intimate nature and control aspect.
Celebrity topics are fun and create an entry point for strangers to get together and share viewpoints about society & culture. Media spin and public perception of celebrity situations can be both very intriguing and twisted at times. But that's what creates traffic and pays the bills.
Those perceived as generally "wholesome" usually get the most flak and sensationalism when they "deviate". For example, the Michael Jackson story wouldn't have been such a media event, if instead, the incidents involved Snoop Dog or even Prince. Obviously , people wouldn't have been nearly as shocked, thus, no big media event. The same holds true for the Kobe Bryant case. If it were Allen Iverson instead; no story. If Kathy Griffin were to jump on Oprah's sofa, I'm sure we'd chuckle, but a day later, it would be forgotten, not because she's only on the D-list, but mostly because she's irreverant. Robin Williams could jump on that sofa too. No big shock there.
A very few people can survive both sides. Little Richard remains a beloved Rock-n-Roll Icon regardless of whether this week he's a sanctified minister and next week, he's a gay drug abuser. Woman love Oprah whether she's fat or slim. And as it turns out, Martha Stewart still has a career. So does Hugh Grant. Then there's OJ, but let's not go there.
I just pray that Tiger Woods never deviates from his current image-- because that would make for yet another disproportionate media frenzy.
What puzzles me these days is that when celebs in talk show interviews, stand-up comedians and musicians trash the drugging & labeling of school children, or generally poke fun at shrinks and the pharmaceutical industry, they are well received by audiences. But let one of those celebs be a Scientologist, and they seem to catch flak for it.
What's up with that? Maybe the general perception is that if you represent a religion, any religion for that matter, you gotta turn the other cheek, because that's a religeous stereotype. Only individuals representing themselves, their politics or their sexuality are allowed to express an opinion or defend it.
I even have this strange idea that if Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Sean Connery, Stallone or Bruce Willis had advised Brooke to get off the anti-depressants, take her vitamins and get outside & play, more people would have said, "Yeah girl, do like he says!" But any celeb connected to a religion had better stick to discussing the weather or they're apt to get slimed.
Tom Cruise's two hour interview on Inside the Actor's Studio is probably the fairest representation you're gonna get on the tube. I couldn't find anything to disagree with. He had a lot to offer the audience of future actors and film makers, and was very well received by them.
But here's a question for everyone. Since the paparazzi and tabloids have now proven that Jessica Simpson really has celulite, Could Kirstie ask her, "Have you called Jenny yet?!", without getting trashed for her religion?
If that sounds ridiculous, at least I'm in good company.
21 - Mark Sahm
I'm sure your sonic casserole would taste much better with some Hamburger Helper, DJR. J/K... I know it's tough dealing with limited equipment, but you do a good job with presentation. Besides, technology is on your side--- in due time, we'll all be crystal clear in cross-state recordings and no one will ever have to wear a football to work again.
22 - DJRadiohead
You know, Joe, you can cry the alligator tears for the poor Scientologists. I don't get it myself but you're free to do it.
23 - Mark Sahm
You'd cry too if you got swamp water in your eyes. That stuff is loaded with harmful bacteria. Of course, I have no idea what that has to do with Scientology.
By the way, I think Dawn Olsen should start a church. It would balance the forces of evil within the known universe.