Pheaturing Thom Yorke

 

Hey there, kids, how are you doing? Welcome to the Phile for a Thursday. Will 2021 be the year we finally see justice for Britney Spears? Fans of the pop star have pushed for years to "free Britney" from the conservatorship under her father, which garnered mainstream attention earlier this year after the release of the Framing Britney Spears documentary. Despite claims from her family that Britney has been free to leave the conservatorship at any time, newly-released court docs shared yesterday by the New York Times paint a much different story. The docs, obtained in 2016 and released ahead of Britney's important court hearing yesterday, seem to confirm what many Britney fans have long suspected: the pop star has been quietly trying to overturn her "controlling" conservatorship for years. The Times revealed that, according to court records, Spears has for years tried to resist the conservatorship, of which her father Jamie Spears maintained control, and which "restricted everything from whom she dated to the color of her kitchen cabinets." "She articulated she feels the conservatorship has become an oppressive and controlling tool against her," a court investigator wrote in a 2016 report shared by the Times. "She is 'sick of being taken advantage of' and she said she is the one working and earning her money but everyone around her is on her payroll." Spears reportedly told the court in 2019 that she felt she had been forced "against her will" to perform, as well as to complete a 30-day stint in a mental health facility after taking an "indefinite work hiatus" since early 2019. In November 2020, her attorney Samuel D. Ingham III reportedly told the court she intended to stop performing for as long as her dad had control of her career, because she was "afraid" of him. Britney's dad took on the role as her conservator in 2008 after she went through a mental health crisis, exacerbated by negative media attention. In a 2014 hearing that was closed to the public, Ingham told the court that Spears wanted her dad removed from the position due to a "shopping list" of issues that included his drinking. Jamie, 68, is also the co-conservator of his daughter's $60 million estate with Bessemer Trust Company, the bank that Britney originally requested to oversee her finances instead of her dad. I think I speak for all of us when I say, #FreeBritney, bitch! 

Bring It On, all the way to the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 ruling that might almost have you thinking for a hot second that SCOTUS Justices are cool, the Supreme Court ruled that a school district in Pennsylvania violated the First Amendment when they punished a cheerleader for swearing on Snapchat. The surprisingly high-stakes drama started back in 2017, when then-freshman Brandi Levy failed to get promoted from the junior varsity to varsity cheerleading squad, she did what teens do and posted to Snapchat. She posted a picture of her and her friend flipping the bird and wrote, "Fuck the school... Fuck cheer, Fuck everything." The school called that "disruptive behavior" and suspended her from the junior varsity team. Levy and her parents took it to court, saying the school had no right to punish her for swearing at a Starbucks. A federal appeals court agreed with her, but the school board in Mahanoy, Pennsylvania appealed, and the case went all the way to the Surpremes. "We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Justice Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances." That's legalese for "'Fuck the school... Fuck cheer, Fuck everything' is free speech covered by the First Amendment." Levy is now in college, and is bringing the entire political spectrum together in saying "fuck yeah." The fact that this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court is a solid reminder that this country was literally founded by Puritans. 

It's completely natural and fine to notice basic patterns in who you're attracted to romantically, many of us have personality traits and even physical traits that draw us in. However, it's a different thing completely to have preferences that stereotype and exclude whole groups of people. People online are discussing the issue of dating exclusion and stereotypes after a national survey of 60,000 people revealed as many as 44% of Australians wouldn't date a bisexual person. According to the survey, 75% of people older than 75-years-old said they were definitely not interested in being in a relationship with someone attracted to multiple genders, while 84% of people between 18-24 had no problem with it. Which is to say, in this specific survey, there was a clear generational divide in preferences. Still, the overall percentage of 44% against dating bisexuals merited a lot of reactions from frustrated people on Twitter. It was pointed out that a lot of people associate bisexual and pansexual people with polyamory, and there are stereotypes doubting the ability for bisexual partners to stay faithful. A few people pointed out the fact that a lot of people have likely dated someone who was bi without even realizing it. While others noted that the generational difference is telling, and likely a holdover from the homophobic fearmongering that went on during the AIDS crisis. Plenty of bisexual people pointed out that there are many Australians they'd rather not date as well. While who you date is obviously a personal choice, immediately rejecting entire diverse groups of people means you can miss out on a lot of potential connection.

Bad news for loyal fans of Subway's sandwiches, but apparently it's not only the bread that isn't actually bread... The fast food sandwich chain is no stranger to scandal considering former spokesperson Jared Fogle's criminal record and recent reports that their bread is so sweet it's technically classified as cake. Subway's flour recipe contains 10% sugar, which explains why their healthiest whole wheat option still tastes like an oatmeal cookie with some lettuce inside. Now, their tuna is under investigation leading many customers to ask: did anyone think Subway's tuna was actually fish in the first place? That perfectly circular ice cream scoop of mayonnaise and something resembling the texture of tuna already left many people questioning the ingredients, but a New York Times study dared to delve deeper. With curiosities sparked by a class-action lawsuit in the state of California over Subway's tuna being "complete bereft of tuna," journalist Julia Carmel gathered sixty inches of Subway tuna sandwiches and sent them to a lab. Eventually, she received an email that said, “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA. Therefore, we cannot identify the species.” "Cannot identify the species?" Is it... even.... fish? Subway, of course, has denied any "fishy" behavior (sorry), as a spokesperson's email to the New York Times stated, “There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California. Subway delivers 100 percent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests.” Still, people weren't impressed with this discovery about Subway's mystery seafood sandwiches. 

The canon series of "Loki" veered away from the usual Time Variance Authority office setting into another place and time, the title of Episode 3 itself, "Lamentis." This is where Loki accidentally transports himself and Sylvie as they were trying to escape Judge Renslayer. But first, what is this place and its significance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Though there is not much information about the place, the planet was first introduced in an epic Marvel crossover comic in 2007, Annihilation: Conquest Prologue #1. It is part of the Kree-controlled space, just near the edge of it. It did not play an important role in the story there but that just proved that the place can be used somewhere else like in Loki and it could lead to something big possibly being set up in this phase of the MCU. In the series, Lamentis-1 is a habitable moon that has a mining community where there is the typical divide between the rich and the poor just like in "The Falcon and The Winter Soldier"’s Madripoor. The said place is meant to face an apocalypse in 2077 as the fragments of a nearby moon enter the atmosphere of the place before its collision resulting in its total destruction. Sylvie explains to Loki that of all the apocalypses set into her TemPad, Lamentis is the worst of all. There were literally no survivors as the planet broke down into pieces and not even the wealthy who can afford to secure a chance to survive made it because the ark that was supposed to take them away from the annihilation was hit by falling debris. Looking back at the comics, although the place did not much play a part in the story, it hints at threats much larger than Thanos. While Kang the Conqueror has been confirmed as a much-awaited villain in Phase 4, Lamentis faced two powerful forces: the Annihilation Wave led by Annihilus which has a full armada of ships and weapons able to destroy various worlds, even facing Galactus and the Celestials, and the Phalanx, a collective consciousness in a cybernetic hivemind taking down planets and killing off civilizations. The Annihilation Wave is connected to the Fantastic Four while Phalanx is to X-Men. In Loki, Lamentis is meant to crumble and its timeline is ending real soon. But with Loki and Sylvie still in it at the end of Episode 3, the two better find a way to survive the impending doom that the apocalyptic event has set in stone. 

Any stroll through a store would have you believe that "pink is for girls" and "blue is for boys" are the associated gender roles are the very backbone of our society. Products from nail clippers to hand lotion are assigned genders when last time I checked, inanimate objects don't have gender identities. Like this laxative for example...

Same price, same ingredients but you get 5 less in the "woman's" packet. If you're looking for a graphic design job, you may want to contact whoever employed the people responsible for this following design fail. They are most likely hiring. 

Jesus  Christ. Do you watch that "Antique Road Show" show? You never know what you're gonna see on it. Check this out...

Hahahahaha. Okay, today's guest Thom Yorke is the lead singer in the band Radiohead. Well, when I saw this book I was slightly confused...

This book looks old and they wrote a book? It looks cool though, right? Okay, so, while it's always nice to save money for family, things can get complicated when loved ones feel entitled to your cash... If you don't have children of your own and are able to save money for your niece or nephew's education or future needs, that money should be treated as a gift, not a right. Kids and teenagers are naturally curious, consequence-averse hurricanes of impressive destruction, and punishing someone's future for one morally divisive mistake can be a difficult choice. However, the decision about whether or not to give a significant amount of money to someone is ultimately up to the person giving the money, and if petty thievery is a major deal breaker, that needs to be respected. Pro-tip: don't steal from people, but if you're going to, maybe don't choose your aunt or uncle with your college fund, dummy. So, when a financially savvy person decided to email the Phile about whether or not they were wrong to deny their nephew of their college savings based on his questionable behavior, I decided to offer a verdict.  

"Am I wrong for refusing to pay for nephew's schooling after he stole from me? My nephew doesn’t know that I have some money saved away for his schooling. Not a ton about 40k. It’s not a college fund just some mutual funds I have. My brother and I agreed not to tell him until he graduated college because we wanted him to work hard and get scholarships rather than rely on the money. I don’t have any children of my own so this is my way of looking out for him since my brother hasn’t been able to save up much. Well,  until he started stealing from me. This summer he comes back home and stays with me occasionally to be closer to work. He would steal from my wallet whenever he came over and steal 20-$40 dollars. At first I didn’t notice but then I withdraw exactly $200 and the next day after he came over $40 went missing. Some of my jewelry also went missing and I realized what might be happening so I installed a hidden camera off Amazon and saw him stealing from my wallet. I contacted my brother and let him know what was going on and that I’m no longer paying anything towards his loans. My brother is furious with his son and at first he tried to deny it until I sent them the recording and he admitted he needed money. I’m pissed at my brother because he revealed I was planning to give 40k to him and am no longer doing so due to the stealing. He begged, sent flowers, asked grandma (my mom) to ask me for my forgiveness. I’m firm and tell him no. Am I wrong for not giving him the 40k now that I caught him stealing?" Here's what I'm sure happened. Your brother confronted your nephew about the stealing and demanded he make it up to you. The nephew couldn't care less and think what he did was fine. At that point, your brother probably brought up the money you had saved up and the nephew realized he was screwing himself out of 40k so then he suddenly wanted to make it up to you. He wants the money, he is not genuinely remorseful. Think of it as free money and treat yourself. He's only sorry that he got caught. He's not sorry for betraying your trust. Keep the money, put it towards your retirement. He should be thankful you aren’t pressing charges. He’s very obviously only “apologizing” to get the money, he’s not sorry. If he truly was so desperate for money, why didn’t he just ask? It’s not like it’s embarrassing to be broke in college. You can always change your mind at some point in the future, nothing really changes from his perspective. It’s money that he never actually knew about. He’s not sorry he did it, he is sorry he has to face the consequences of his own action. So, there you have it! You're not wrong at all to deny your nephew of money you planned to put toward his education as his behavior was unacceptable and disrespectful. Good luck, everyone! If you have. problem you want my advice on then email me at thepeverettphile@gmail.com. 

Hahaha. If you spot the Mindphuck let me know. Okay, my son and I were talking about how we used to watch "Sesame Street" together when he was little. That show sue has changed since then and now it's on HBO. 

The Count's credit card has been declined so he summons his magic Jew powers to foreclose on Grover's home. Jokes on him, Grover rents a trailer with four other roomies and a crack addict named Pete.

On hospital bills...

Okay, let's take a live look at Port Jefferson, New York shall we?

It looks like a vey beautiful day thee today.

The 153rd book to be pheatued in the Phile's Book Club is...

I am so excited. Seth will be on the Phile in a few weeks. It's Thursday... do you remember what that means?

Yuck! Ugh!

Phact 1. Jacques Préval was Haiti’s first elected head of state to serve a full term in office since its Independence in 1804. 

Phact 2. In the history of the World Series of Poker Main Event, the Champion has never won the title with Pocket Aces. But the runner-up has had Pocket Aces twice during the final hand and lost. 

Phact 3. Home Alone is the most popular Christmas movie in Poland. The 1990 movie was one of the first American Hollywood movies to reach a mass audience in Poland after the fall of Communism, and today, Polish TV airs it repeatedly every Christmas. 

Phact 4. Los Angeles consumes the same amount of water today as it did in 1970, with 1 million more residents. The city consumes approximately 123 gallons per capita, per day, which is the best in the entire nation. 

Phact 5. The original surveyors of Mount Everest lied and added 2 feet to its height to make it 29,002 feet because they didn’t think people would believe them if they said it was really 29,000 feet high.

Today's guest is an English musician and the main vocalist and songwriter of the rock band Radiohead. His latest solo album "Anima" is available on iTunes, Amazon and Spotify. Please welcome to the Phile... Thom Yorke.

Me: Hey, Thom, welcome to the Phile. How are you? 

Thom: Great to be here, Jason. 

Me: Okay, before we start I have to tell you I have two minor Radiohead stories... I lived in Oxfordshire and I believe I went to school with Philip Selway, Radiohead's drummer. The other story is in 2000 after my dad passed away, he was the lead singer in the band Foghat, I went to New York to help work on a Foghat concert VHS we were putting out and I was in the studio in New York City and you guys were next studio over working on something. I was able to pop in and say hi real briefly. Oh, I also saw you guys open for REM in Orlando somewhere. Anyway, you are now doing shows as a solo artist, what is that like? 

Thom: It's taken me a long time to get used to it to be perfectly honest. 

Me: Why did you decide to go solo? 

Thom: It was one of those things that started off an experiment originally just as an electronic DJ show and we were doing kind of rave type gigs. We realised after a while playing to a bunch of guys and gals on ecstasy was was possibly the best way to get our point across given what else was going on. So we moved into theatres and then it became something quite different. 

Me: What's the biggest difference with playing with Radiohead and your solo shows? 

Thom: The main thing for me is not having a live band behind me and having machinery being operated by Nigel and myself and Tarik is odd but I got my head around it now. 

Me: So, do you like doing this kinda thing? 

Thom: It's actually liberating in an odd sort of way. It's very different. People do this type of stuff all the time now it's not big deal in the pop world. But for me it was quite a leap. It came about in a sort of certain way and having enjoyed messing with the expectations with what the audience might expect me to be doing, because I longer have a guitar around my neck or anything as authentic or as awesome as that. 

Me: It must have been odd to play to Radiohead fans in big stadiums to playing to sketched out teens at two in the morning, am I right? 

Thom: Yeah, it was a bit of an element of confusion going on in all parts. There were some spectacular moments as well, there was one where we came on stage in Houston or something and the bass bins were directly under the stage and the computer that's operating the main loop system just flew off the stand into the audience at the same time I think I was berating someone with a luminous tambourine. There's been some odd nights. 

Me: You mentioned someone named Nigel, Thom, who is that? 

Thom: Nigel Goodrich, Radiohead fans would know him as an unofficial member of the band. 

Me: Ahhh. Cool. Do you remember the first time you met Nigel? 

Thom: Well, he was picking the pieces up a lot of the time during "The Bends" session. So we met him when we were working with John Leckie and he was operating the tape machine and he was a renowned experienced engineer at RAK Studios. And then we basically when John Leckie had a couple of days off we did some B-sides and just realised wow, we just hit it off with him straight away. He worked very fast and just made things happen. He was our age and so at the end of the thing, the record, I took him aside and said, "Do you think you'd maybe like..." And it went from there really. The first thing we did was we gave him a load of money and said we want him to build us our own studio. So he went in and constructed this personal studio system that we used to do "OK Computer." 

Me: What do you think is the secret ingredient with him working with you guys? 

Thom: I don't know, he's always been around. He's, as I say, is the best thing because he's just there ready to finish stuff. It could be awkward when I don't know what the hell I'm doing and he wants me to finish something. But I need that pressure. 

Me: So, why did you throw a brightly lit tambourine at the audience? 

Thom: I actually was berating someone else for shaking it while I was trying to concentrate. Actually, that's not a bad idea. Maybe I should do it the other way round. 

Me: Then I'll take 10% and we'll be fine. Ha. So, you have such a unique voice, Thom. Did it always work the way you wanted it to or was it a process? 

Thom: I think I only started to get comfortable with my voice towards the end of recording "OK Computer." Up until that I was struggling with trying to sort of not get engaged with the emotional of what I was doing. That might sound a bit daft but I would get really nervous when I had to do takes. So I had the odd relationship with my voice where I had a concept of what it would be and it was never that. So because I wasn't really confident with myself I was I need to keep trying until it's that. 

Me: Could you say what you wanted it to be? 

Thom: It was just not being confident in ones own voice. So I kind of referenced other singers, or I didn't think it was emotional enough. A lot of the time as well because we were doing a lot of live shows I expected it to be more ruckus. And when I got into the studio it was actually it shouldn't be that ruckus. I used to get really out of it and then try to sing and wonder why it didn't work. 

Me: So, why did you get out of it? 

Thom: Because I wanted to get into the zone, man. But I was wasting my time with that stuff because it's about being in the moment and I think I discovered soon after that record when we started doing "Kid A" that being in the moment and singing is exactly the point regardless of warts and all, if I'm there right with it it's gonna work. So just relaxing with my own identity. 

Me: How do you take care of your voice on the road? 

Thom: I'm a good boy, I warm up and I wound down and I don't try and get into trouble. Nowadays. Not so much in the past. 

Me: That's good. So, its different now than it was in the 90s? 

Thom: Yeah, it's quite a place. Can I remember that far back? 

Me: What was backstage like? 

Thom: It seems in the early days we hadn't figured out that we had to get rid of people backstage. Then we went the other way, Then we discovered we should get rid of people and it was like a ghost town backstage. There was nobody allowed at all, even after the shows. 

Me: And now how is it? 

Thom: Now it's kind a bit relaxed, it's not crazy whereas when we used to tour with REM on the tour you saw us on I'd be sitting and talking to Michael and he'd say, "Oh, got to go on." He'd grab a glass of wine and just walk on. I was like is that it? 

Me: Hahahaha. Sounds like my dad a bit. Mick Jagger runs backwards on a treadmill before a show I think. 

Thom: He does a lot of work that guy. He's extremely skinny. 

Me: Ever see the Stones in concert? I saw them one time. 

Thom: Yeah, I saw the Stones. They did a whole record in L.A.... "Sticky Fingers," back to back, the whole thing. 

Me: Oh, wow. Cool. How was it? 

Thom: It was absolutely amazing. I was really surprised how great it was. Have you ever interviewed any of them, Jason? 

Me: Not. Yet. But I did interview Paul McCartney and Ringo so I am sure I can one day interview one of the Stones. Sticky fingers crossed. Hahaha. Fun fact: my mum went to school with Mick Jagger and she dated Brian Jones. Anyway, Brexit and climate change seems to be a hot topic in the U.K. I think. Climate change is a big thing over here in the states. How do you see the role as an artist in a time like this? 

Thom: Hm, well, I guess everybody is angry. And everybody is polarizing though my tendencies to get too angry about these things so I try to take a step back. Probably not done very well. 

Me: Do you pay attention with the news? 

Thom: Yeah, I read a lot. I have been obsessed with the stuff going on behind. The forces that are moving around behind the scenes to me are the same in America, the same in Britain and I can't help feeling the reason that we're being distracted with a couple of clowns on either side is directly because certain people want us to be focused on a concept of our own self destruction rather than looking out and thinking there's a much bigger problem here. We're arguing about who said what to whom while ice sheets are melting, while alarm bells are going off. I can't help thinking that's deliberate. I've come a collision that this does not happen by accident. I really don't believe it happened by accident. I think probably in a years time we'd be looking back at this period and hopefully these particular monkeys will be out back in their cages. We'll be seeing the people behind them, the little puppeteers or the rather large dark puppeteers and realising the reason we'd just been through all of this is because they wanted us to pull way from what we really need to do which is to act. 

Me: Do you have kids, Thom, and if so are you anxious and nervous for their future but also inspired by their generation? 

Thom: I am but I also don't want to disappoint them because we're the ones that actually have to do something about it. It's going to be too late if it's them in charge. 

Me: Good point. Okay, so, I loved your song "Creep" when it first came out then all the other songs and albums all sounded different. How do you not navigate to nostalgia? 

Thom: I don't really feel that we've turned into a nostalgia outfit. There are things that I enjoy about it. We did three or four shows in a row at Madison Square Garden and we did pretty much a different set every night, and we still managed to keep everybody interested. That really was quite an amazing experience. It was really fun. It was really challenging because we're throwing songs at each other and we're looking at each other going, "Okay, what happens now? Do we get to the bridge yet? Wait, what happens here?" It's quite on edge because we had like 66 or 70 different tunes we were playing on that tour. So there are some elements of nostalgia that I really enjoy. I'm also fascinated to look back on what we've done, and try and remember who the hell it was who wrote that, or who the hell it was who played it. Because oftentimes, we're halfway through the song, and I'm asking myself, "How on earth did we get to this point? How did we find this?" Because I don't remember it... I'm looking at it from so far away. I don't remember the process. 

Me: Do you still like being in Radiohead and playing that music? 

Thom: There's things I still like about it, yeah. I guess I'm still working and doing new things all the time, we all are, so it doesn't really bother me. If we were touring endlessly, playing the same stuff, then you'd be talking to a different person right now. 

Me: Okay, so, I was told to ask you about the song "My Iron Lung" which apparently was Radiohead's reaction to "Creep." Wikipedia says, "The song's caustic, self-reflexive lyrics used the iron lung as a metaphor for the way 'Creep' had both sustained the band's life and constrained them. Can you explain? 

Thom: Ummm, I was taught to be analytical. I was taught far to well in fact I had to jettison it. I did three years of literature in university and I didn't wan to be analytical in my life but I ended up seeing things in a certain way I guess. I was analytical about a big hit and the way fans looked at our art. 

Me: So, I don't know if you want me to talk about this but you lost your friend and drum technician, Scott Johnson in a death at a show I think. That was in Toronto, Canada I believe. You played back there since, so how was that and what happened? 

Thom: I think we made our point. We feel we know who's responsible. They know who's responsible. There are people who haven't been held to account... we know that will happen at some point... and at the same time, the emotionally generous thing to do is to move on and register it and not allow the anger of it. Believe me, words cannot describe the feelings that went along with it for us and our crew, but on the act of going and playing in Toronto, and standing in silence, I hope and think that our silence is our last word on the subject. I felt that our silence was a bell that sounded very loudly and I hope people heard it, for Scott's sake and for his family. We don't want to punish the people of Canada for this because it wasn't their fault. We know exactly whose fault it was and they'll be held accountable at some point. So it's all right. 

Me: That's good, I appreciate you talking about it. So, when you go back to Radiohead after doing your solo stuff does it feel kinda new again? 

Thom: I'm sure as hell. I'm quite excited to see what happens next to be honest. 

Me: That's cool. Thom, thanks for being on the Phile. My sister Leila says hi by the way. Take care and come back again soon. 

Thom: Hi, Leila. Cheers, man.

That about does it for this entry of the Phile. Thanks to Thom for a fun interview. The Phile will be back on Monday with country singer Meghan Patrick. Spread the word, not the turd. Don't let snakes and alligators bite you. Bye, love you bye.

Give me some rope, tie me to dream, give me the hope to run out of steam, somebody said it could be here. We could be roped up, tied up, dead in a year. I can't count the reasons I should stay. One by one they all just fade away...