Wayne Kramer, according Rolling Stone, is one of the top 100 guitarists in the world. Heck, Activision featured him in their Guitar Hero: World Tour video game. Starting in 1967 with the politically active MC5—aside from being Detroit’s most ripping proto-punk band, they were co-founders of the White Panthers—Kramer has been longstanding intermediate on the divide between music and politics, driving his involvement in the U.S. branch of Jail Guitar Doors, Billy Bragg’s initiative to provide new guitars to prisoners willing to find rehabilitation in music.

After MC5 disbanded, Kramer went into a tailspin, culminating in a three-year stint in a Kentucky “Narcotic Farm” prison (1976-78). There, he met Red Rodney, a member of the Charlie Parker Quintet, who took him under his wing, and Kramer found that music helped him rehabilitate into the world. Nowadays, Kramer is a career musician with 11 solo albums, scores to several films, television programs, and theme songs to his credit, but much of his time is devoted to Jail Guitar Doors.


Recently, Kramer made two trips to the California State Prison in Lancaster. One trip was to support Honor Yard, a program that inmates have organized themselves, eschewing gangs and drug use in exchange for the ability to study and play music, despite the prison’s shoddy equipment. Then, at the beginning of July, Kramer went with a cadre of musicians to perform for the prisoners, a project that was a few years in the making due to budget restraints—the prison couldn’t afford overtime for guards. GOOD chatted with Kramer about the state of the penal system, and what we can do to change it.

GOOD: Did you get blisters on your fingers from that solo for ‘Kick Out the Jams’?

WAYNE KRAMER: Not on the left hand, but on the right hand.

GOOD: You spent time at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lexington for dealing cocaine. You’ve said, “I wasn’t in prison when I was playing,” because you were in the clouds of bars and chord changes and melodies and rhythms. Do you still get transported when you’re playing?

KRAMER: I do. Playing music is one of the most CPU-intensive activities that humans do, way more than language or any physical activity, because music is so complex. First, you have to be conscious of what you’re playing, and what you’re going to be playing in a few seconds, and the timbre of your instrument, the chord progression, the melody, the harmony. You have to consider the other musicians. What are they playing? Your brain is processing how you’re interacting with them. And if you’re singing, you have to deal with the lyric, the timbre of your voice, the melody. There is nothing else in human experience that uses up that much brainpower.

GOOD: I agree that it’s really complex—I tried to play guitar when I was a kid and failed miserably. You had access to guitars when you were in prison. Did you find that there was less access in today’s prison system?

KRAMER: Without a doubt, but with some exceptions. In general, for the last 30 years, the focus in American corrections has been on punitive incapacitation, not on rehabilitation. When I arrived at the FCI at Lexington, the focus was on rehabilitation. The staff encouraged you to get involved in all the programs that they made available, things like RBT (Rational Behavior Training), or PMA (Positive Mental Attitude), or Transactional Analysis (they were featuring Dr. Berne’s ‘I’m OK, You’re OK’ as a therapeutic mode for insight into our anti-social behavior), encounter groups, group therapy, and college courses. I saw the programs go away during my almost three years at this facility. When I left, the place was filled with bunk beds in the hallways because of the escalating ‘war on drugs.’

If we don’t try to help someone to improve themselves while we have them, then we’re jeopardizing our own safety. If your car breaks down, you don’t beat your car; you fix your car. Maybe we could try that with human beings? The trouble is, they’ve spent all the money on building more/bigger/secure prisons, that they can’t afford rehabilitative programs. California’s prisons were at one point 200 percent over capacity. The courts have ordered them to lower it down to 110 percent, but they haven’t met that standard yet.

GOOD: You presumably see the prison system as completely messed up beyond repair.

KRAMER: People who deal with prisoners day in and day out understand that these are human beings, and that 95 percent of them will be released one day. There’s an institutional status quo that has to be fought against. There’s a component in the American psyche that is looking for revenge and retribution. It’s ugly. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be held accountable. I believe in the rule of law, but I don’t disagree with my brothers and sisters of Critical Resistance [an international movement that opposes prisons] that there probably is a better idea than prison.

GOOD: The penal system has fallen off the political radar. Why is it something you’ve glommed to?

KRAMER: Right now, there’s about 12 million ex-offenders alive in America, most of whom are disenfranchised, who cannot participate in the political process, who are barred from many jobs and licenses. It’s hard enough finding a job in the first place, let alone after being branded a convicted felon—who has paid his or her price—and continues to be segregated outside the mainstream.

GOOD: Music is one of the only fields that doesn’t discriminate against ex-convicts. You can really make your own way, and possibly even market yourself as the rehabilitated ex-convict.

KRAMER: I don’t disagree with you. But of all the careers that I would recommend to someone, there are many things that have fewer stumbling blocks than professional musician. Generally, most professional musicians do something else to supplement their income, because there are so many really accomplished musicians and so few jobs available. The idea of becoming rich and famous, I put the odds, realistically as 100,000 to one. Just about the same as your chances of becoming a wealthy professional athlete.

GOOD: What’s the best song you’ve heard come from a prisoner?

KRAMER: At the Northern Nevada Correctional Complex, they’ve got a program there for geriatric prisoners called ‘True Grit.’ True Grit has about nine bands on their yard, and one of the bands is a country band, and this fellow got up there and he sang this song he wrote called ‘Bottles and Cans’ about being a homeless guy, and how his life was reduced to collecting bottles and cans.

GOOD: How can musicians get involved with Jail Guitar Doors?

KRAMER: A local band that wanted to be of service could organize a benefit at a club in their district, get their friends in bands to all come and play, raise some money, buy their own guitars, and take them into their own local prisons where their friends and family are serving time. We can help with how to deal with authorities, how to buy the guitars, and we can give them key art.

GOOD: I’m sure some of the newer guitar players get blisters on their fingers. How do you tell them to get through it?

KRAMER: They actually go away after awhile. The nerve ends in your fingers adapt finally.

  • Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’
    Photo credit: @midnightchef_amir on InstagramAmir Jackson's late night cooking is going viral.
    ,

    Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’

    A 15-year-old cooking late night snacks is inspiring the Internet.

    One night in Apple Valley, California, Morgan Graham rose in the middle of the night. A smell had woken her up. It was pleasant, but at 11:28 p.m. she wasn’t expecting to smell delicious cooking. She went down into the kitchen to see her 15-year-old nephew, Amir Jackson, baking cookies.

    This was the first of several viral videos of Graham’s nephew cooking up a storm late at night. Jackson, who has been staying with his aunt during the summer, is taking advantage of her kitchen to whip up some sumptuous snacks.

    Birth of a Midnight Chef

    Nearly every night, Graham wakes up around midnight to the smell of cookies, cornbread, tacos, or whatever her nephew wants to prepare.

    “I don’t care,” said Graham in the initial video. “He’s very responsible. He’s not gonna burn the house down, so therefore, cook whatever you want.”

    Graham further explained in the video that Jackson looks at recipes daily. He also rummages through her pantry during the day to search for ingredients for his nightly cooking fest. 

    “In his world, he’s having the time of his life. In my world, I just want to stop waking up close to midnight to the smell of food,” Graham joked.

    Graham’s videos featuring her nephew have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram. The commenters soon bestowed the nickname “Midnight Chef” upon Jackson, to general delight. In another video, Jackson explained he liked the peace and quiet of the night while preparing his dishes.

    “I was like, ‘Man, I could go for some cookies right now.’ I saw they had cookie dough, so I started just making them, just randomly,” Jackson told TODAY. “I was trying to make sure nobody was up. My thought process was just like, ‘Man, why not?’”

    Graham is encouraging her nephew to keep cooking even though it wakes her. In fact, Graham set up Jackson’s own Midnight Chef Instagram page for him to post his latest recipes.

    “I just want to experiment while I still got the chance to experiment. I’ll maybe like branch into different fields,” said Jackson. “Explore what I can do while I still got time to.”

    Why do we indulge in late night snacking?

    Jackson’s popularity has brought up a commonly asked question: Why do we crave food randomly in the middle of the night?

    Well, there’s actually a bit of science behind it. Turns out that late night snacking is a result of our circadian rhythm system. As part of our now-defunct survival mechanism, our ancestors would eat large meals at night to store energy in times of famine. This is also why most midnight snackers crave foods higher in fat, salt, and sugar compared to what they’d usually eat during the day. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with late night snacking, it could curb certain health goals if a person is trying to trim down.

    If you find yourself getting up in the middle of the night with a hankering for a snack, it may be worth taking a peek at Jackson’s videos. Who knows what kind of late night cooking it can inspire? Perhaps you’ll become a Midnight Chef yourself.

  • European Union enforces ban on destroying unsold fast-fashion clothing by major companies
    Photo credit: CanvaThe European Union hopes to reduce fast-fashion waste.

    A new rule adopted by the European Union is intended to reduce landfill waste while holding major clothing manufacturers accountable.

    Starting July 19, the EU prohibits large companies from destroying unsold clothing, accessories, and shoes under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). The regulations will expand to cover medium-sized companies in 2030.

    Fast fashion has become a major environmental concern. As retailers rapidly cycle through trends, unsold clothing often ends up in landfills or is destroyed to make room for new inventory. Many garments are made from synthetic fibers that can release greenhouse gases as they break down and shed microplastics that may contaminate soil and waterways.

    What’s the ban’s purpose?

    The ban is intended to reduce the amount of unsold clothing that large manufacturers dispose of. According to the European Environment Agency, between 264,000 and 594,000 tonnes of unused textiles are destroyed across Europe each year.

    Instead of destroying unsold clothing, companies will need to find other ways to keep those products in use. That could mean selling excess inventory at a discount, donating it to charities or social enterprises, or preparing it for reuse through repair, refurbishment, or remanufacturing. When those options aren’t feasible, the materials can be recycled.

    While the regulation is primarily focused on reducing the fashion industry’s environmental impact, the EU also hopes it will strengthen the economy by encouraging more sustainable business practices. The ban incentivizes companies to design products that are more resource-efficient, durable, reusable, and easier to repair or recycle. In turn, consumers should benefit from higher-quality products that last longer and generate less waste.

    Companies may destroy unsold clothing and footwear only in limited circumstances, such as when the items are damaged, unsafe, counterfeit, infringe intellectual property rights, or have been rejected by charitable organizations. Businesses relying on these exemptions must provide supporting documentation, such as test results or other records, to justify the destruction. Even then, they must follow the EU’s waste hierarchy, which prioritizes reuse and recycling over disposal. Companies are also required to publish annual reports detailing the unsold products they have discarded.

    National authorities will enforce the ban and may impose fines on companies that violate its requirements, including failing to maintain records for at least five years to support inspections. To help reduce the administrative burden, businesses may use existing customs and logistics codes when reporting the products they discard.

    Why recycling isn’t enough

    Recycling clothing can be a complicated and labor-intensive process. It often involves separating fabrics, dyes, synthetic fibers, and natural textile materials before they can be reused. That’s not to say it isn’t worthwhile. Instead of ending up in a landfill, recycled textiles can be turned into new clothing, home insulation, carpet padding, and other products.

    Still, recycling isn’t a cure-all. The EU hopes the new ban will encourage companies to keep usable clothing in circulation for as long as possible through resale, donation, reuse, or refurbishment before recycling becomes necessary. In doing so, the regulation aims to create a more circular economy rather than allowing piles of unused clothing to continue growing.

    This movement hopes to encourage clothing manufacturers to produce higher-quality products and reshape the industry as a whole. Making clothing from higher-grade materials with durable stitching that’s easier to repair can help reduce waste. While critics argue that doing so could reduce the number of garments sold each year, many say better-made clothing is worth the higher price—especially if consumers end up buying fewer replacement items over time.

    What can you do with old clothing?

    There are plenty of things you can do with old clothing around your home. If an item is too damaged to donate, its fabric can be repurposed for crafts or used as cleaning rags. And if you’re handy with a needle, there are countless ways to upcycle old clothes into new outfits, accessories, or other useful items with a little inspiration from the Internet.

    Giant corporations and everyday people alike can do their best to make the most of the materials they have, helping save money and reduce waste.

  • European Broadcasting Union offers guide to reduce sexualizing camera angles of Olympic women athletes
    Photo credit: CanvaA new guide has been introduced on how to respectfully broadcast woman athletes.

    Being an athlete is tough, especially if you’re an Olympian. They sacrifice their time and bodies in order to achieve peak physical condition. There is also the mental pressure to compete against the best. The last thing they should worry about is being objectified and sexualized online. 

    With this in mind, the European Broadcasting Union wants to help. They offered a booklet to broadcasters titled Raising the Bar: Guidelines for respectful media coverage in women’s athletics. The 23-page guide shows how camera placement choices and editing could potentially compromise an athlete. It also offers broadcasters guidelines for how to set up camera shots and show slow-motion replays that won’t sexualize or present athletes in undignified poses. 

    athletes, infographic, olympians, guide
    Screenshot

    Focusing on the sport, reducing harassment

    These guidelines come as multiple stories about women athletes being harassed online have surfaced. Many misogynistic posts about athletes have come from slow motion footage focused on certain parts of the athlete’s body. 

    “The sexualization of women athletes through selective camera angles and editing choices continues to be a significant concern across many sports broadcasts,” wrote Glen Killane, executive director of EBU Sport in the booklet. “Lingering shots on bodies, low-angle cameras that capture revealing views, and excessive slow-motion replays that serve no technical or storytelling purpose are among the issues observed in the media coverage of women’s athletics competitions today.”

    These new broadcast guidelines and suggestions are backed by Serbian long jumper Ivana Španović, British Olympic pole vaulter Holly Bradshaw, and Croatian high jumper Blanka Vlašić. Vlašić has spoken out regarding the equal visibility of women’s sports. Bradshaw has spoken out against the discomfort and sexualization of Olympic women athletes due to their tight-fitting uniforms.

    “I first-hand have received social media abuse and witnessed inappropriate videos online of myself and colleagues when slow motion content of us competing is captured,” wrote Bradshaw in the guide. “Athletes want to enjoy themselves doing the sport they love without feeling uncomfortable or anxious about the footage being shown live. Many athletes, myself included, have been in competitive scenarios where they are more focused on the cameras instead of their own performance.”

    What the guide provides

    The guide provides visual aids for broadcasters along with insights from the athletes to explain why certain shots would be preferred. Broadcasters are requested to avoid tight shots from the back of athletes. They’re also asked to avoid low camera angles from underneath. They recommend shots above the pelvis or ones that don’t linger onto commonly sexualized areas of the body. They recommend wider shots so the audience can see the technical ability being displayed by the athlete. Overall, the point is to focus on the athletic performance rather than close-ups of the athlete.

    Currently, there is no enforcement of these guidelines or penalties if a sports broadcast doesn’t adhere to them. However, there is value in knowing which broadcasts will focus on the athletic contests rather than an athlete’s appearance. This will help the competitors focus on how they do rather than how they look when the cameras are on.

Explore More Culture Stories

Fashion

European Union enforces ban on destroying unsold fast-fashion clothing by major companies

Film & TV

European Broadcasting Union offers guide to reduce sexualizing camera angles of Olympic women athletes

Culture

The summer concert state rankings: Which states pack more festivals, shows, and tours in 2026

Internet

The church fathers of early Christianity are showing their swag – on TikTok