Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Partying Like it's 1899
At the risk of hastening my degeneration into a full-on Kristologist, I found the latest New York Times effort from Mr. National Greatness to be yet another fascinating example of bizarre Victorian longing, this time in the form of Bill Kristol selectively quoting George Orwell's famous essay on colonial writer Rudyard Kipling in an attempt to defend modern Republican foreign policy. Excerpt:
[Orwell wrote that] Kipling "identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition."
"In a gifted writer," Orwell remarks, "this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality." Kipling "at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like." For, Orwell explains, "The ruling power is always faced with the question, 'In such and such circumstances, what would you do?', whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions." Furthermore, "where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly."
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell's argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
"Vulgarize" is the word. Read the whole source essay, which is both a defense of Kipling against charges of fascism and an arm's-length attempt to understand his enduring literary qualities, and you'll see that in the same paragraph Kristol quotes from, Orwell describes Kipling's worldview as "false," his political judgment as "warped," and his emotional sell-out "to the British government class" as the factor that "led him into abysses of folly and snobbery." Some other choice Orwell verbiage about the "vulgar flagwaver":
It is no use claiming, for instance, that when Kipling describes a British soldier beating a ‘nigger' with a cleaning rod in order to get money out of him, he is acting merely as a reporter and does not necessarily approve what he describes. There is not the slightest sign anywhere in Kipling's work that he disapproves of that kind of conduct - on the contrary, there is a definite strain of sadism in him, over and above the brutality which a writer of that type has to have. Kipling is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting. It is better to start by admitting that, and then to try to find out why it is that he survives [...]
Kipling belongs very definitely to the period 1885-1902. The Great War and its aftermath embittered him, but he shows little sign of having learned anything from any event later than the Boer War. He was the prophet of British Imperialism in its expansionist phase
Is there any rhetorical minefield as deadly to the political commentariat than digging up useful bon mots from the former Eric Blair?
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Wasn't Kipling the inventor of the phrase "White Man's Burden?" I do know he wrote a loathsome poem in favor of racial segregation; something about "keeping all wheat of one sheaf, and all grapes of one vine, lest the children turn their teeth on bitter bread and wine" or some such bullshit.
Elemenope|2.20.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Wasn't Kipling the inventor of the phrase "White Man's
Burden?"
Yup, that's the asshole.
|2.20.08 @ 2:06PM|#
This one makes me chuckle grimly:
Awake! Young Men of England
by Eric Blair (George Orwell)
1914
OH! give me the strength of the Lion,
The wisdom of Reynard the Fox
And then I'll hurl troops at the Germans
And give them the hardest of knocks.
Oh! think of the War Lord's mailed fist,
That is striking at England today:
And think of the lives that our soldiers
Are fearlessly throwing away.
Awake! Oh you young men of England,
For if, when your Country's in need,
You do not enlist by the thousand,
You truly are cowards indeed.
Cognitive Dissident|2.20.08 @ 2:08PM|#
[McCain] is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting. It is better to start by admitting that, and then to try to find out why it is that he survives
|2.20.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Tis a shame that a man with such a fine and full mustache was such a simpleton racist. He should have been forced to shave.
Abdul|2.20.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Though I've belted you and flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Elemenope|2.20.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Some think that the poem in question was satire.
Those people tend to be confined to the group that has never read
anything else that he wrote or said about politics.
Kipling makes himself pretty clear (repeatedly, and with feeling)
that he believes in the superiority of White Folk (and more
specifically, British White Folk) and that any obligation those
folks owe to any other would be out a sense of noblesse oblige, and
never a transaction amongst equals.
|2.20.08 @ 2:29PM|#
"Some other choice Orwell verbiage about the "vulgar
flagwaver"
The flag that Kristol waves is the 5 pointed Star of David
flag.
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Kipling makes himself pretty clear (repeatedly, and with
feeling) that he believes in the superiority of White Folk (and
more specifically, British White Folk)
The world would be poorer without all the chavs.
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Elemenope,
Kipling makes himself pretty clear (repeatedly, and with
feeling) that he believes in the superiority of White Folk (and
more specifically, British White Folk) and that any obligation
those folks owe to any other would be out a sense of noblesse
oblige, and never a transaction amongst equals.
Oh my god! It almost sounds like Kipling lived in the late 1800's
and early 1900's and like everybody of the day, Western and
non-Western alike held his own culture superior to that of others.
Worse, it sounds like he suffered from that particular form of
racism shared by virtually the entire length and breadth of Western
society of the day!
Oh, wait.
Kipling's reputation has suffered the same fate all others who fell
out of favor with Leftist intellectuals. His actually words are
hidden, he is taught without context and the unstated assumption
that the progenitors of Leftist thought in the day felt assumption
remains unexamined.
Episiarch|2.20.08 @ 2:54PM|#
The world would be poorer without all the chavs.
Well somebody has to buy Burberry.
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Standards of the time are indeed important. That's why I only ever criticize Americans who owned slaves after 1865.
Fluffy|2.20.08 @ 2:55PM|#
The problem with the claim that Kipling was an unalloyed racist
is, of course, the poem Gunga Din, where Din is a better
man than any white and is proclaimed to be so, or the poem
Fuzzy Wuzzy, where he marvels at the men who broke a
better-armed British infantry square.
Kipling was an imperialist because he believed in the lies the
imperial regime told to justify itself. That makes him better than
Kristol, who helps to invent the lies that an imperial
regime is telling to try to justify itself. Kipling is more like
someone who supports the Iraq war because they think we're
sincerely trying to help the Iraqis. Think of him as an RC Dean,
not as a Norman Podhoretz.
|2.20.08 @ 2:58PM|#
"Some other choice Orwell verbiage about the "vulgar
flagwaver"
The flag that Kristol waves is the 5 pointed Star of David
flag.
Kim is code for "jew"
|2.20.08 @ 2:59PM|#
A belief that enlightened white people have a duty to rule the
rest of the world by force in order to improve it, and a pre-WW1
romantic image of war as a Great National Project.
Yup, I can see how Kristol would go for Kipling.
|2.20.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Worse, it sounds like he suffered from that particular form
of racism shared by virtually the entire length and breadth of
Western society of the day!
Good point.
So what's your excuse?
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Matt Welch,
Well, I suppose you will purging from all your writings any
observations from say Washington, Jefferson, Newton, Lincoln or
pretty much every human being who came of age before, say 1920?
After all, they were all racist, cultural chauvinist etc as well
and as such can not possibly have any insight into universal human
social dynamics such as the conflict between those who do and those
who talk.
Your myopia about the war blinds you to the fact that the dynamic
that Kipling described is the same that makes people who never had
any responsibility for running a business nevertheless are
passionately convinced that they could do a much better job. People
who do not actually have day-to-day responsibility in any area,
never have their ideas tested and are therefor given to flights of
fancy.
We only really learn by empiricism. No responsibility means not
experimentation and experimentation means no reliable information.
It just that simple.
Matt Welch|2.20.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Kipling's reputation has suffered the same fate all others
who fell out of favor with Leftist intellectuals.
Has it really? I think Orwell's much more savage toward him than
most folk are nowadays, and I for one enjoyed his work growing up
without anyone telling me I wasn't supposed to. But then, I'm not
remotely familiar with literary academia.
Fluffy|2.20.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Well, I suppose you will purging from all your writings any
observations from say Washington, Jefferson, Newton, Lincoln or
pretty much every human being who came of age before, say
1920?
Well, to be fair here, I actually would not take advice
from any of these men on the issue of race relations.
That means that it's perfectly OK for me to state that while I find
Kipling entertaining, the fact that he heartily endorsed the
practices of a racist empire means that I might not want to look to
him for advice about our own foreign policy. Unless, of course, I'm
in the market for a racist empire. Now I know that you are probably
in the market for that, but I'm not.
|2.20.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Kipling's reputation has suffered the same fate all others
who fell out of favor with Leftist intellectuals. His actually
words are hidden, he is taught without context and the unstated
assumption that the progenitors of Leftist thought in the day felt
assumption remains unexamined.
The reality of Kipling is that his views on race are more in line
with Joe's view and the Democrats then he would care to
admit.
Joe sees himself as the savor of the lower races. Kipling saw
himself as the same.
The left do not like Kipling because he was not a leftist...not
because he was a racist.
Matt Welch|2.20.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Well, I suppose you will purging from all your writings any
observations from say Washington, Jefferson, Newton, Lincoln or
pretty much every human being who came of age before, say
1920?
Huh?
|2.20.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Shannon Love,
People (including fellow Britons) during Kipling's own time
criticized him for his social and political attitudes.
Well, I suppose you will purging from all your writings any
observations from...
Who exactly wrote anything about "purging?" I certainly won't be
getting rid of my copy of Kim.
Ken Hagler|2.20.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Not everyone learns (by empiricism or otherwise). Witness
Maximum Dear Leader Comrade Bush's speech a few years ago praising
the conquest of the Phillipines and holding it up as an example of
what Iraq would be like.
Incidentally, Kipling wrote "White Man's Burden" explicitly to
encourage Americans to engage in the oppression and mass murder of
Filipinos at a time when there was a debate here on whether to
_actually_ liberate them, having just fought a war with the Spanish
using that excuse.
Episiarch|2.20.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Look, let's all just admit that Kipling's era was a great time to be alive...if you were a white male. Can't fault him for living it up, right?
|2.20.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Kipling's era was a great time to be alive
Especially if you had a bustle fetish.
T|2.20.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Look, let's all just admit that Kipling's era was a great
time to be alive...if you were a white male.
A rich upper class white male. Which, come to think of it, still
holds true today. No wonder he still has admirers.
|2.20.08 @ 3:25PM|#
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market
Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and
fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them
all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in
turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly
burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of
Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March
of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market
Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word
would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had
gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of
touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even
Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had
Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these
beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual
peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the
tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our
foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you
know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller
Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his
wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and
faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is
Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for
all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money
could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you
die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued
wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it
was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make
Four-
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once
more.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man-
There are only four things certain since Social Progress
began:-
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her
Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the
Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world
begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his
sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter
return!
[Some people wonder why the Left doesn't like Kipling. Well, it's
for the same reasons they don't like Ronald Reagan, or Milton
Friedman, or James Dobson, or George W. Bush - it's because they're
clear-headed, common-sense men who tell the truths that liberals,
in their Communist-utopian fantasy lands, don't want to hear. I
particularly recommend the verses about gun control, socialism and
the decline of the traditional family. -ed]
In A Gadda Stravinsky|2.20.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Kristol is fucking clown shoes. The Peter Principle in
action.
W is a "clear-headed, common-sense man who tells the truth"?
I want some of whatever you're smoking...
|2.20.08 @ 3:35PM|#
"Well, it's for the same reasons they don't like Ronald Reagan,
or Milton Friedman, or James Dobson, or George W. Bush - it's
because they're clear-headed, common-sense men"
Friedman - yes
Reagan - to a certain extent
Dobson and Bush clearheaded? Nooooooooooo!
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 3:44PM|#
I should note that this type of temporal bigotry gets under my
skin because it is exactly the same kind of argument that
creationist use to try to discredit evolutionary theory. They point
to the views of Darwin and other 19th scientist that would
undeniably qualify as racist today and from that fact claim that
therefore evolutionary theory is inherently racist.
The fact that theist of the day advanced the idea that negros
sprang from the union of cain and an ape or that they had ordered
lifeforms and human races into a "Great Chain of Being" with the
blackest at the bottom and the whitest at the top is never
mentioned.
It just like Marxist never like to admit that Marx was a passionate
advocate of colonialism because he thought it would speed the
predestined evolution of all human cultures to the same communist
universal culture.
Unlike his modern critics who wallow in ignorant romanticism about
non-Western cultures, Kipling saw first hand the horrors of tribal
and ethnic warfare, the tyranny of kings and the poverty of
medieval economies. He thought colonialization brought peace, law
and development. Looking at post colonial development patterns. He
was probably correct.
Today of course we would rather stand back and let a genocide like
Rwanda happen rather than be accused of racism or interference. We
let despotic kleptocrats loot counties to the point of starvation
rather than stand so accused.
I doubt future generations will hold us in any better favor than
many today hold Kipling.
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Matt Welch,
If you, or Orwell, is going to discredit a single discrete
observation of Kiplings simply because he had other ideas of which
you disapprove, I think you well have to do the same for other
historical figures you might quote or borrow from.
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 3:49PM|#
I doubt future generations will hold us in any better favor
than many today hold Kipling.
Based on didoes like our Iraq adventure, I doubt future generations
will have any reason to.
|2.20.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Shannon Love,
Do you realize that the Bolsheviks in part justified their various
methods of terror based on the abuses and ugliness of the various
colonial regimes?
He thought colonialization brought peace, law and
development.
What sort of peace, law and development did the mass starvation (by
millions) suffered by the Indians in the 1880s bring to India? What
sort of peace, law and development was fostered by the genocidal
practices in the Belgian Congo in the 1890s?
If one is going to defend colonialism and imperialism then one
better be rather prepared to defend the deaths of millions at the
hands of metropole policies and dictates.
Shannon Love|2.20.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Ken Hager,
Incidentally, Kipling wrote "White Man's Burden" explicitly to
encourage Americans to engage in the oppression and mass murder of
Filipinos at a time when there was a debate here on whether to
_actually_ liberate them, having just fought a war with the Spanish
using that excuse.
Actually, the debate was whether America had acquired
responsibility for the Philippines by defeating Spain or whether we
could just leave them to be colonized by Germany.
I guess in fantasy land being a colony of Germany or descending
into brutal ethnic warfare would have been better than being a
protectorate of the US but back in the real world probably
not.
Also, I don't really see the phrase "mass murder" in "White Man's
Burden". I think you might be projecting a little there.
|2.20.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Shannon Love,
It just like Marxist never like to admit that Marx was a
passionate advocate of colonialism because he thought it would
speed the predestined evolution of all human cultures to the same
communist universal culture.
It is well known that Marx thought that colonialism was part of the
historical process by which the colonized were granted the benefits
of the Enlightenment. Indeed, he makes arguments like that in
The German Ideology if I am not mistaken. What that has to
do with this discussion I cannot say (particularly since I doubt
that there are many Marxists witnessing this discussion).
Jennifer|2.20.08 @ 4:01PM|#
What sort of peace, law and development did the mass
starvation (by millions) suffered by the Indians in the 1880s bring
to India? What sort of peace, law and development was fostered by
the genocidal practices in the Belgian Congo in the
1890s?
To understand this, you need to read "The Big Bad Wolf," written
sometime in the 20s by the late Don Marquis. An excerpt:
it is no wonder that the edible animals
are afraid of wolves and love men so
when a pig is eaten by a wolf
he realizes that something is wrong with the world
but when he is eaten by a man
he must thank god fervently
that he is being useful to a superior being
it must be the same way
with a colored man who is being lynched
he must be grateful that he is being lynched
in a land of freedom and liberty
and not in any of the old world countries
of darkness and oppression
|2.20.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Shannon Love,
I guess in fantasy land being a colony of Germany or descending
into brutal ethnic warfare would have been better than being a
protectorate of the US but back in the real world probably
not.
So basically there is no way Aguinaldo could have succeeded in
creating a viable government there?
|2.20.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Isn't it our nature to fight each other? We are 6 billion + so
we have to thin the herd somehow. Disease is not handling us fast
enough. War is what we do. It seems like it is part of survival of
the fittest, but we use our brains (to build weapons) and hatred
instead of quickness, strength, and hunger.
We're doomed.
Paul|2.20.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Good catch, Matt.
I found this interesting, though:
substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition
I think most libertarians like republicans [a little] better when
they were the opposition.
|2.20.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Kipling was a straight up racist bastard. But the bastard could
spin a rattling good yarn.
Kristol is just a bastard. Fuck him.
Oh and Bookworm, you know the Star of David has six points right?
Or did I miss something?
|2.20.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of Kipling, my problem
is with Kristol's appropriation of Orwell's argument that the party
in power has to act and take responsibility, while the opposition
doesn't. Taken to its logical conclusion, such an argument could
serve to justify any action of the party in power, wouldn't
it?
So, when Hillary put together her national health care package back
in '93, that argument could have been used against the Republican
opposition, right?
|2.20.08 @ 4:20PM|#
i think it's good to have Kristol as an NYT columnist. let him
freely air out his nonsense for all to see.
many Leftists, both romanticizing western ones and indigenous che
guevara types, over-reacted against colonialism and imperialism in
word and deed, giving ammunition to colonialist apologists
everywhere. just like how overweening, holier-than-thou,
fear-mongering environmentalists' exxageration of facts and
advocacy of unworkable statist schemes led right-wingers to ignore
for many years the more sensible arguments about industrial
humanity's damaging effect on its environment; throw out the
message with the messenger, or guilt-by-association. this sort of
approach always obscures the facts at hand.
which are: colonialists came to places like India explicitly to
exploit the land and workforce there, to expropriate whatever they
could by force, not primarily to bring the light of Christianity or
whatever, and this was reflected in the treatment the indigenous
land and people received. just because the natives in some areas
may have been engaged in tribal warfare or other backwards
practices does not justify violent outside take-over! (although it
certainly enabled it.) it takes true moral relativism to justify it
in that way.
|2.20.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Oh and Bookworm, you know the Star of David has six points
right? Or did I miss something?
Maybe he has them confused with the Wiccan Homeland.
|2.20.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Kipling should be read in context, naturally, and of course one
can still appreciate his writing - it's usually a good thing to
hold moralizing judgement of distant others in realistic check -
but that doesn't mean the guy was essentially right about
White Man's Burden. Look at the history, and get a grip.
Chris Potter, good point. This shows how much of a pure
authoritarian Kristol and his ilk are. Bereft of ideas.
|2.20.08 @ 4:26PM|#
The Wiccan Homeland is a dangerous place to visit, what with the Zoroastrians claiming right of return and all the suicide-baptists hosing down innocent pagans in the streets.
|2.20.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Joe sees himself as the savor of the lower races
Rest assured, joshua, no one will ever make the mistake of thinking
you wish to address racial oppression.
T|2.20.08 @ 5:06PM|#
I know I've asked this before, but have there ever been any
really good people?
Of course. Me. Send a small donation to cover shipping and handling
and I'll send you proof.
Matt Welch|2.20.08 @ 5:25PM|#
If you, or Orwell, is going to discredit a single discrete
observation of Kiplings simply because he had other ideas of which
you disapprove, I think you well have to do the same for other
historical figures you might quote or borrow from.
Right. Well, I didn't do that, so we'll leave Jefferson be for the
moment. Despite his total Louisiana Purchase.
economist|2.20.08 @ 6:11PM|#
I used to claim to like Kipling's work because I know how much it pisses off leftists. Now I just tell them (truthfully) that I like South Park. Not quite as effective, but it's getting there.
|2.20.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Rest assured, joshua, no one will ever make the mistake of
thinking you wish to address racial oppression.
Regulating the guns, property, businesses, schools and lives of
minorities and minority communities into poverty is not racial
oppression?
Sorry Joe it is you and your party that fail at addressing racial
oppression.
DannyK|2.20.08 @ 7:14PM|#
I, for one, would love to see William Kristol subside into a weird Neo-Victorian dotage -- explaining each week why a different dusty author proves the superiority of Republicans. WFB is getting old, after all.
|2.20.08 @ 8:48PM|#
The Man Who Would Be King (at least the movie version) always struck me as a veiled slam against English imperalism.
Russell|2.20.08 @ 10:35PM|#
If Kristol's caught out on Afghanistan's plains
Lacking a rifle as well as some brains
He'll just file his column and dine at Elaine's
The Times is no paper for soldiers.
Mad Max|2.21.08 @ 1:53AM|#
"I used to claim to like Kipling's work because I know how much
it pisses off leftists. Now I just tell them (truthfully) that I
like South Park. Not quite as effective, but it's getting
there."
Ah, yes, Southpark. Now *that's* art. And it doesn't have any
racially insensitive material or anything else offensive.
Mad Max|2.21.08 @ 1:55AM|#
I liked the movie version of *The Man Who Would Be King* when Sean Connery tried to play a Cockney.
economist|2.23.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Mad Max
I would point out that most of the "racially insensitive" material
in South Park is making fun of racists. The rest is making fun of
people who consider "insensitivity" the most heinous of crimes.
While "the Death Camp of Tolerance" was a little hokey, I can
believe the parts about people preaching "tolerance", when they
really mean "unquestioning, uncritical acceptance" being complete
douches. I've met them, and I really do hate them more than there
counterparts on the right.
|2.25.08 @ 10:44AM|#
I am waiting for Kristol's article on why Obama is bad for Israel and the Jews. It's bound to come.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245