Vox and Robbers

5/31/2006


Now you’re talking!

I have been hearing much passionate debate over the last couple of weeks between many concerned citizens. In the subway cars, there is talk of voter fraud. On the elevators, there is outrage over illegal election results. Throughout the cubes, loud heated arguments about performance are bellowing through the air.

I have to admit, the vibrant aura was exciting and I immediately tried to join in. I agreed that it was an outrage that the current Administration started a war on false pretenses. I said that I was dismayed that the Republican controlled legislature suspended the right of Habeas Corpus. And most recently, the Atty. General is debating with lawmakers legislation that will give the government power to prosecute and imprison journalists and reporters if what they write is deemed detrimental to our “National Security.” What is detrimental to our National Security, of course, will be determined by the government.

I think Nixon used this argument when he tried to hide the Watergate Tapes.

No matter. What is particularly disturbing is that the idea of targeting journalists is actually being contemplated although the Bill of Rights clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It’s the first one.

Come to think of it, every other element of that paragraph is being trampled on so why the hell should I care?

When I voiced these opinions, instead of the "right on" fist pumps or "fuck you" facials, I was met with mostly dull glances and mouth agape disinterest. After panning the disengaged or annoyed faces, and a few uncomfortable seconds of cold sweat and crickets, I realized what my error was:

They weren’t talking...well, yelling actually...about the Government. They were shouting about the Fox Network talent contest American Idol.

I better get with the program!

So, in that vein, here is an article that was forwarded to me about my pop-culture du jour, Bono of U2. I know I am beating a dead horse here but I promise this is the last time I will bring up the Lucky Charms Leprechaun on this Blog.

I feel that this incident/interview illustrates perfectly what my objections are to the self proclaimed humanitarian:

Bono hails Cohen genius

U2 singer Bono has proclaimed Leonard Cohen as the "original rapper" and has confessed to stealing lyrics from him.
The Irish frontman made the comments at a preview of the forthcoming film 'Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man', which offers an insight into the life of the acclaimed poet, novelist and songwriter.

Bono said: "He's an extraordinary talent, and anyone who's interested in music has got to be interested in him.

"He's the original rapper, you know, if you're interested in hip-hop. He's a sexy man who made sexy music, who made music asking questions about God and girls and everything."

The singer also admitted to stealing the lyrics to U2's 1991 hit 'The Fly' ("It's no secret that a conscience can sometimes be a pest/ It's no secret ambition bites the nails of success") from Cohen's 'Everybody Knows'.

"I think the obvious one is 'The Fly,' " Bono admitted. "It's a couplet device from Leonard. There's many more that I would never admit.

"I feel all kinds of unusual feelings in his company - like humility and modesty.

"Very few people walk this particular piece of ground that Leonard Cohen walks, and I'm aspiring one day to get close. I know I'll never get there."

from - Virgin Music News

A friend of mine, after reading this, made a very good point. He asked why Mr. Vox did not make his theft ("the obvious one") of Cohen’s lyrics known at the time. That was in 1991 and U2’s popularity was reaching a crescendo. If Bono truly thought, "(Cohen is)...an extraordinary talent, and anyone who's interested in music has got to be interested in him." Then why did he not want to turn on his millions of fans to his music? Not only were these fans probably uninterested, but they possibly never even heard of Cohen. What a grand opportunity for the pied piper to use his fame to shine a light on a much deserving artist and possibly making the world a better place in the process.

But that, of course, didn’t happen.

Instead of giving Cohen credit, Bono accepted all the accolades and awards for the critically acclaimed and extremely popular song. Instead of sharing the spotlight with the song’s co-creator, Bono spent his time amassing obscene piles of cash and "...counting them dollar bills…ONE HUNDRED…TWO HUNDRED!!!" Instead of showing any emotion remotely, "...like humility and modesty," Bono’s transparent lust for adoration sang from the highest mountain tops and echoed in the deepest valleys.

It is the epitome of selfishness.

(By the by, did you notice how I did not take credit for someone else’s idea up there? How quaint!)

But also, the crux of my complaint is Bono’s whole tone. Although he uses very deferential words when describing Cohen, if you read between the lines, Bono makes it sound like Cohen should almost be grateful for the "homage" or at least he does not have a hint of "guilt" when discussing what is essentially a crime.

Instead of being honored, I’m picturing Cohen’s reaction upon hearing of Bono’s "tribute," back in 1991 to be something like:

THAT COCK SUCKER DID WHAT!?!

Interestingly enough, U2 started out as a Christian rock band back in the late 1970s and early 1980s before taking a more mainstream turn. There still is a definite Christian thread running through their work. With lyrics like "You broke the bonds/loosed the chains/carried the cross on my shame/on my shame/but yet I'm still running" the single I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For off The Joshua Tree album is the most obvious example.

Bono Vox and The Edge (center, bearing cross)
and Adam Clayton (left, with cat and nine tails)
with groupies at the 'Joshua Tree' album rap party
Malibu, CA - 1987

So I have no doubt that Bono and definitely The Edge, possibly even the drunk and the other guy, believe there is a Heaven and all of the great dead artists that he mimics, compares himself to or blatantly rips off, are looking down on him and giving their approval.

Believe me if there is such a place, artists like Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, Billie Holliday, John Lennon, George Harrison, Bob Marley even Frank Sinatra are not glowingly giving a nod to the rape of their legacies. They’re more likely patiently waiting. Waiting for Bono’s arrival.

When that time comes, this group will stand at the Pearly Gates. John Lennon will be the first soul to greet the dearly departed. He will shake hands and keep eye contact. After these pleasantries are exchanged, John will casually mention that he once heard the U2 classic "God Part II."

And then Lennon is going to take it out of Bono’s hide.

The pummeling will continue for a long time with the only sound being the reinforcing cheers of “Go Johnny! Go Johnny!” from the rest of the bunch...along with the soothing melodic plucking of a distant harp.

Or as my father use to say,

You’re going to reap just what you sow.

Made it up himself.
At least that’s what he told me.
Larry

Maybe He's Amazed

5/22/2006

I’m really disappointed that during a very difficult and emotional time for both Heather and myself, there are certain people in the media who are writing things about Heather that are plain not true. It's been suggested that she married me for the money, and there is not an ounce of truth to this. She is a very generous person who spends most of her time trying to help others in greater need than herself. All the work she does is unpaid so these stories are ridiculous and unfounded. I’m very sad to see that some insensitive people would choose a moment like this to spread these vicious rumors.

Paul McCartney
A statement he posted 5/17/2006
on - PaulMcCartney.com

Don’t fuck with me Saul...DO NOT fuck with me!!! Tell me HOW MANY ZEROS does that one-legged bitch want?

Paul McCartney
Same night on the
phone with his lawyer.

And exactly why was Yoko bad again?
Larry

Poetry in Motion

5/17/2006

Score one for the MTA

Here in New York, The Poetry Society has been running a program called “Poetry in Motion” for the last ten years. In conjunction with the MTA (Metropoplitain Transit Authority) the society has been placing standard size advertisements, for lack of a better term, all over the buses and the subways. These posters instead of a photo of a beautiful model, an expensive automobile or a bottle of liquor, feature poems from various poets. It is an attempt at providing “culture” to the masses of people who are riding these concofinous metal tubes to their own personal dance floors they call their jobs.

I have been following this program since its inception and usually, I have to admit, I think the poems are awful or, at least, I just don’t get them. On the same token, I don’t “get” most poetry that does not start off, “There once was a man from Nantucket...” so I am probably not the best person to judge the quality of the prose.

With that being said, on the Number 1 Train this morning, this latest entry caught my eye:

Out beyond ideas of Wrongdoing and Rightdoing
There is a field
I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass
The world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, and even the phrase “each other”
Does not make any sense.

My initial reaction was overwheming:

Who wrote this new age hippy claptrap? Was it one of those “secularlist” left wing liberal professors of Berkley trying to destroy Christianity by suggesting that the idea of “rightdoing” and “wrongdoing” are only ideas and not God’s law? Was it the ACLU who have been fighting a war against Christmas and everything good since their inception? I am so fed up with these weirdos spreading their bullshit! I wish we could go back to a time when “morals” and “faith” ruled supreme, before those 1960s long haired ungrateful spoiled brats started complaining about stuff. These lefties should try that in Russia and see what happens to them. Elitist bastards!!! I HATE THEM! I HATE THEM! GOD DAMN IT!!!

I was furious that MY TAX DOLLARS was paying for this “program” that obviously was immoral and anti-Christian. I wanted to know the name of this “poet” who was so arrogant to write this filth. I decided when I arrived at work I was going to write a scathing post slamming this bearded jerk who has the audacity to question. I was going to put that pampered little college grad where he belonged: Licking the boots of real men.

So I looked at the bottom of this trash that these people call “art” and found the author’s name.

Rumi (1207- 1273)

Ummmm...that was a long time ago.

With minimal effort, this is what I found these various statements that were applied to him:

"If there is any general idea underlying Rumi's poetry, it is the absolute love of God."

from - Khamush.com

"Rumi is still read today, and his followers, whirling dervishes (holy men), still perform their elegant, hypnotic dances to express the idea that God can be experienced in manifold ways."

from – Life Magazine

"Here it is important to remember that while Rumi was informed by numerous sources of ideas, on his journey he seemed to leave many of his contemporaries behind—his love and compassion flowed like the waters of the world’s oceans; so much so that while continuing to live physically among humans, he managed to become ever closer to God."

from - Whirling Dervishes.org

For a more “objective” or “secular” look at this guy you could check out Rumi's Biography or, for a straight timeline of his life poetseers.com

Very interesting stuff.

Although Rumi wrote about 800 years ago, his work seems to get closer to what the actual essence of being is than anything I have heard from anybody over at The 700 Club or The Pope or any Aayatollah or Grand Rebbe in my lifetime.

The shit I hear at PNAC sucks too.

Oh well.

And for all of you reading this who feel isolated or alienated because you feel that there is more to the world than consumption. For the people out there who feel that THEY are strange because they feel compassion yet everywhere you turn you see imbeciles telling you to fear what you don’t know. For the ones who have empathy although all you see are inhuman blow hards rattling their sabres convincing you that you should despise what you don’t understand.

For anyone out there like that, don’t let ANYONE tell you you’re “crazy” “evil” or “silly” because your philosophy of life takes you beyond our borders and ideas while they straight jacket themselves to two dimensional thinking. Thinking that is leading us all to an unrecognizable state. Do not ever apologize for your inquistiveness and be wary of those who want you to.

In fact, for some, the ideology doesn’t even go beyond their own feeble mind.

There are more things in heaven and earth...
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- William Shakespeare

To the ones who continue to strive for understanding.
Who continue to give a damn.
I say…
You are not alone.
Larry

All I Need is a Tall Ship and a Star to Guide Her By

5/15/2006


I read my Daily News Horoscope today.

LIBRA


Salary talks should go exceptionally well and conclude by Wednesday. The stars are on your side, so you might ask for even more than you think you can get. If you are self-employed, a new client or other lucrative form of income is likely to head your way. Generous benefits, like health insurance, vacation and keys to the executive gym, could also be part of the package.

Now that would have been cool.

Larry

Truth In Advertising

5/8/2006


On the subway the other day I saw this poster for Captain Morgan's spice rum. I am still trying to figure it out.

Happy...and Peppy... and Bursting with Love!!!

I am actually being facetious. I know exactly what these poison peddlers are doing. They are saying if you drink Captain Morgan, you will all of a sudden transform from a docile wallflower into a lean mean party machine. The girls will be all over you and the fun will never end. A wild foursome with incredibly good-looking people is not only probable, but almost guaranteed.

And The Captain will observe the whole scene, coolly pull on his cigarette and nod knowingly. For he knows, it was he who has opened the doors for you. He has led you to the Promised Land of self-confidence and euphoria. It was the pirate who has shown you how to make a true "Club Sandwich."

I'm thinking about switching from whiskey!

But we all know this is mostly bull shit, right? For once I wish they would run an accurate campaign. One where the makers of this swill show their clientele, and judging by this poster mostly 18 to 25 year olds, just how many of them actually end up.

Something like this:

Oh so true.

And not to just pick on the buccaneer, how about a persuasive poster from one of their competitors:

What it is really all about.

Maybe I am being to hard on the purveyors of liquor. By appealing to kids and young adults, and directly targeting their inexperience, lack of discipline and lust, they're only trying to make a living. They're just businessmen. Who can blame them?

How about this poster aimed at a much older crowd:

All of our dreams really do come true!

Don't worry about eating responsibly. Pound down that absurdly large Porterhouse. Use the whole bottle of Tabasco. Pound of Bacon...no problem! Smear that extra glob of butter all over your toast. Deep-Fry...well...whatever the fuck you want to deep fry because Prilosec will protect you!!!

As you might have noticed, all around the ridiculously delirious Richard Mulligan look-a-like, there is all kinds of fine print which is hardly legible in my reproduction. I have taken the liberty of blowing up what it says and putting it on a more suitable photograph.

Here's what it says:

Reality

Self-medication is an American tradition. We look to potions and chemicals for our answers. If only we took this or drank that everything will be OK.

Why exactly is Marijuana illegal again?
Larry

Give the Governor a Hu-Rumph!

5/4/2006

The Washington Post's Richard Cohen

In the spirit of being "fair and balanced," I am reprinting this opinion piece which appeared in The New York Daily News today. It is the Washington Post based syndicated columnist Richard Cohen's reaction to the Stephen Colbert performance at the White House Correspondent's Dinner on Saturday. He was not there and watched it on TV.

Cohen writes:

First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" - as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. The rest is commentary.

The commentary, though, is also what I do and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian, but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility not to strike back or, worse, rise with a huff and leave. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.

Colbert made jokes about Bush's approval rating. He made jokes about Bush's intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. "We're not some brainiacs on nerd patrol," he said. Boy, that's funny.

Colbert took a swipe at Bush's Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the press corps for purportedly being nothing more than a steno service. He referred to the recent White House staff changes, chiding the press for supposedly repeating the cliché "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" when he would have put it differently: "This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."

A mixed metaphor and lame as can be.

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert? I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders - and they are all over the Blogosphere - will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences - maybe even death in some countries.

But in this country, anyone can insult the President of the United States. Colbert just did it and he will not suffer any consequence. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and for his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

On his own show, Colbert appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness. In Washington, he was playing to a different crowd and he failed dismally. He had a chance to tell the President and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the Blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.

He also wasn't funny.

So now we know how the "insiders" will react.

I would like to say that I always liked Richard Cohen and I always look forward to his articles whenever they appear. He is intelligent and reasonable which, as anyone with eyes and ears knows, is a very rare thing these days.

At the risk of sounding like one of those "blogosphere Colbert defenders" I firmly believe that in this case, Cohen is completely WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

I find Cohen's charges of "rudeness," "alienating others" and being a "bully," as patently absurd. What has this administration been doing for the past five years? Were they having cordial détentes with the opposition or just doing whatever the fuck they wanted and anyone who opposed their agenda was fired, exposed, slandered or ridiculed with all the subtlety of a cum shot?

Besides, Colbert doesn't need any defending. His act WAS a political act of courage. One that NONE of the Press has emulated in a long time. By denigrating it, Cohen is kind of "defending"...well...Richard Cohen. He supported the war whole heartedly back then and now, like many of his silent brethren, claims to have been misled. Even so, he still pulls his punches whenever criticizing.

YOU WERE NOT MISLED...YOU FUCKED UP!!!

Either out of laziness or fear or both, you guys went into the tank. You WERE the stenographers that Colbert compared you to. You printed anything these clowns told you and completely ignored anybody or anything that contradicted the party line. Do a mea culpa already and move on because you are a good journalist. Knocking Colbert for pointing out these obvious notions is not helping out your credibility. Don't shoot the messenger.

And implying that the blogosphere is inconsequential is completely bourgeois. Who does Cohen think writes these things...JD Salinger? No, just average people expressing their opinions. I hear the term "The People" used all the time by politicians and media types with no understanding of its meaning. I think blogging is one venue where (The) People can actually have their say. Not only is that cool, but in a corporate controlled media world, it has become vital in understanding what, why and how people think.

Yes, I know there is a lot of horse shit out there. (In fact, I can picture someone reading THIS entry right now saying, "Boy, you got that right!") But hiding between the bitter Cubs Fan Diary and the tedious ramblings of an alienated 14 year old girl who has a crush on some cast member of "Lost," are fresh ideas, valid points of view and eloquent dissertations that, at least, has the possibility of expanding one's mind. So please, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And isn't THAT attitude the problem with this whole administration anyway? Isn't it painfully obvious that Bush and the boys take no advice that is not their own and dismiss all others as if they do not know what they are talking about? Why isn't Cohen hammering THAT disastrous reality instead of giving Colbert etiquette lessons and comedy critiques?

Cohen would have sounded more relevant if he said, "Let them eat cake."

New Face At The Post?

I still like Richard Cohen and will definitely read his next column, but I was very disappointed after reading this opinion. So much so that I cried for an hour.

Okay, I didn't really.
But you know what I mean.

Larry

Colbert and the Corps.

5/1/2006

Satirist Supreme

If you have not seen Stephen Colbert's totally ballsy speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, April 29, 2006, I implore you to click this link.

The Video

Or if you are like me and are at work and the boss does not allow access to streaming video, then you can read

The Complete Transcript

Courtesy of The Daily Kos.

Take your time, but not too long, because I am sure something this good will be pulled from circulation real quick.

My own comments on the material are irrelevant because Colbert's shots speak for themself but I would like to reprint what I saw in The New York Daily News this morning. The "Lowdown" section, which is their "Page Six" facsimile, was dedicated to the dinner. After several paragraphs of who was there and what weird combos were created (For example the rapper Ludacris and Judge Scalia shaking hands) this is what they had to say about this scathing monologue:

As for the after-dinner entertainment, the conventional wisdom was that Bush killed with his self-mocking routine - "The President was fantastic," gushed staunch Dem. Patricia Duff - while the hired talent, Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert, bombed badly. "It was an insider crowd as you'll ever have, and he didn't do the insider jokes," said BET founder Bob Johnson.

Did The President "kill" and Colbert "bomb badly"?

I did not see The President's routine so I will take their word for it and judging by the video I just watched Colbert was not well received. "Uncomfortable" is probably the best way to describe the dignitary crowd's reaction to the severely pointed barbs that were being hurled at them. So I have no complaint about "the accuracy" of this reporting.

But is this solid journalism?

No, it is not.

Now I know this is from the Daily News but something tells me that this will be the angle that most of the more respected mainstream media will take in their coverage of this event. That is if they cover it at all.

I only found out about it because my friend sent me the above link.

So their headline will read:

COLBERT BOMBS

MY Headline would read:

WITH GREAT WIT AND STYLE, STEPHEN COLBERT POINTS OUT CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND EVENTS INVOLVING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE DIRECTION THEY ARE TAKING US, THAT MILLIONS…LITERALLY MILLIONS…OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PISSED OFF ABOUT FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS BUT NEVER HAD ANYONE…NOT ONE SINGLE VOICE… IN THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" TO AMPLIFY THEIR OUTRAGE

I believe that's the REAL story here and the fact that Colbert didn't waver from his material, even when it was becoming obvious that the lion's den was not particularly happy about it, made the situation even more compelling.

Call me weird but I believe that true journalists are more than just stenographers.

I think that was Colbert's point the whole time.


Larry