Sunday, March 7, 2010

o.k., so i did at least listen...

well, that celebrity crime scene: john lennon came on while i was typing. since i wasn't really lookng at the screen (and seeing john), i decided to listen.... sort of...

here are a few things i thought were especially weird...

dude who shot john lennon (i am not allowed to say his name, but his initials work out to 13-4-3) had $2,200 on him. this is super weird to me.

also, the doctor who attended john lennon said after they tried everything they could (they thought perhaps they could save him even though he died in the police car on the way to the hospital) that they had to be particularly careful afterwards. first, he wanted to make sure EVERYTHING related to john's treatment was packed up and destroyed (no souvenirs) particularly the linens they'd used. i think he may have personally attended to that detail, so that makes me wonder if someone was really trying to get their hands on something. also, he had to make sure that no one talked about john.

even after all of these years, he did not say very much about john. i don't think that is a bad thing. unless there is a VERY GOOD reason for things to be told, john has a right to privacy.

the police said the guy who shot john didn't act much like the usual homicide suspect, but they felt he was "trying to set up an insanity defense." he even made it sound at one point that he was just supposed to shoot someone, other times specifically he was supposed to shoot john. in fact, he put it off earlier that day because john had been really nice to him. (so sad)

the police believe this guy is definitely the shooter and not a patsy. that is one way to do the manchurian candidate thing, there's a patsy and a real shooter. this just seems to be a one-man operation. i read that sean lennon thinks his father was killed by someone other than the person who pulled the trigger, so to me, that says a lot. he's heard much more evidence than i ever will. even though he's been raised by yoko's crazy ass, i'm sure* he's reasonably intelligent (*note: this is a figure of speech, i don't actually know this, haha, perhaps i should have said "i hope"?) and wouldn't be saying such things if not for a good reason.

anyway, hopefully one day there will be justice for john lennon. may he rest in peace.

14 comments:

A.Jaye said...

You're sure Sean Lennon is "reasonably intelligent"?

por que?

shampoo said...

not really, i just thought it was possible. his dad seemed to be...

A.Jaye said...

Naw. His dad was a populist. He also espoused the 'benefits' of weed and LSD. A lot of young minds went crazy 'cos of his endorsements. A modicum of intellect would have tempered his public enthusiasm.

shampoo said...

a.jaye, i really only know so much about it. growing up with baby boomers makes you not know too much about some things because they will not shut it. but that was a big agenda at the time. any entertainer who espoused it would get more attention, i think. but, you're right. those drugs have done a lot of damage...

i wonder if the people who pushed that agenda (the people way above john lennon in the scheme of thing) were satisified with whatever they were trying ... be it human experimentation or social conditioning...

Allen the Duck Guy said...

sorry, but no. lennon was a pretty smart guy. the innovative quality and personal insightfulness of his lyrics and music argue his intelligence. he could be an arrogant dick sometimes and, when coupled with yoko ono, pretentious as hell, but given the hype he lived among for years on in, that's to be expected.

as for his espousal of drugs... i've never read nor heard of such. he used them and spoke frankly of his use, but i've encountered no endorsement. in fact, at one point in the big RS interview he claimed that the bad trips became so bad that he quit (he later resumed the use at the behest of a studio exec and yoko). not exactly a ringing endorsement. he did endorse alternative religions, but that's pretty much the extent of his quackery. unless you believe that peace is quackery- he was most outspoken on that topic. i know, i know, many were (it was in vogue in those days) but it seems very likely that he was sincere about it.

bands like the rolling stones and pink floyd were much more the poster children for endorsing drugs. the beatles' music really only reflects drug experiences- not endorsements- and then only on about two albums. the rest of the time they were singing more about politcal beliefs or personal feelings.

as for being a populist... when did it become a sign of ignorance to support the common man's right to exist and to eschew the elites' frequent tyranny? more than one country's entire system of beliefs is based on that principal.

besides, what would one expect from a guy who came from no wealth or influence, who rose to the pop-culture top of the world? seems to me he simply recalled from where he came.

as for sean lennon's intelligence... it's hard to say. i know next to nothing about the guy. however, i know very, very few people who do not believe that john lennon's murder was more than it was advertised as. and some of those people are intelligent indeed.

if you don't like the beatles and you don't like john lennon, that's fine, but, please, there's no reason to run him down. respect that he was a musical genius, though probably not a emotional one. after all, i think the blues/r&b of b. b. king is monotonous and dull, but i can acknowledge that he is a gifted musician who has exerted profound influence on modern pop culture. i don't think he's an idiot just because i don't like his music.

shampoo said...

if anyone can slog through it, here's the interview john lennon and yoko ono gave to playboy. http://www.whale.to/b/lennon1.html

it's from 1980 and, toward the end, he talks about lsd. i only read parts of it. this is possibly the last interview where he would've mentioned lsd.

unfortunately, i started all of this with the phrase "reasonably intelligent". to me, this isn't the same as saying someone is a smart.. just that they are at least of average intelligence, possibly more. which, i kind of assume for anyone unless it's proven otherwise. just to clarify that point.

i have no idea how smart john lennon actually was. clearly, he made some mistakes. but, he had used lsd and been hypnotized. if you want your thinking screwed up, that's a great way to make that happen. i'm just saying.

supposedly, he was "slipped" lsd the first time. this was very common back in the day, so that's probably the truth. of course, the subsequent use is on him.

a key element in behavior modification, is to screw around with someone's perception (lsd) or try to cause selective amnesia (hypnosis). each of these can make a person more suggestible. this is in regard to the interview more than anything.

conspiracy people think, from what i gathered, that this interview got john whacked. congressional hearings had already been done in the 70s on lsd's role in mkultra (causing the cia to, supposedly, shut it down). so, john isn't really revealing anything new about that.

A.Jaye said...

Hi Shampers. Stand back and you wont get hurt.

Allan the duck fuck. What on earth is your problem? This is the second time you've contested my comments. The first one was more insidious but I ignored it because this is cyberspace. In the real world you'd better back yourself up with reasonable argument or reasonable fighting skills. Online you can continue to be an anonymous dick in the safety of your own monkey spanking room.

Re your comments on my commments about John Mayer. You exposed yourself as a white supremacist piece of trash - a terrorist (albeit legal in your country)! Stay away from my comments. I like this chick Shampoo and I support her. You get in the way of that then you're a scaly skinned devil prick (as opposed to a scaly skinned devil).

Re John Lennon's intellect. Who asked you your opinion about BB King? Does your unmarried mother even care? There are plenty of sites you can go on and espouse such views and be applauded. They'll even make you a Knight of the Order of the White Trash is Always Right sleeper cell. Then you can tea bag the dude next to you.

Listen idiot. I'm from Manchester. Liverpool is closer in distance to me than the tip of your beak to the back of your brain. That's the spludge in your head that doesn't work. If you ever get to meet your father/grandfather ask him why you don't have any.

Re the Scouse dopehead: You don't know what you're talking about - 'where he's from'. I know where he's from.

I understand Lennon may be a sacred cow to you people. Ergo the simpleton will want to endow him with the intellect of an A.Jaye. The fact is Lennon at al pilfered and stole black music. The man was a plagarist and a thief. De riguer for accepted success within the racist community. I haven't got an agenda against Lennon. He's par for the course as far as I'm concerned but the fact that a celebrity publicly uses drugs is the endorsement you fucking moron. Stick to your own level. Intellectually you're on a par with a duck billed platypus.

However I do bid you congratulations fucker. It took you two goes to bait me. Well done. You got what you wanted but bear this in mind. It doesn't cost that much to find out your IP address and where exactly you're hunched over. As of right now I've got better things to do with my time. But try pushing me to that point. Prick. Now fuck off and go fiddle your cousin.

See you Shampoo.

Allen the Duck Guy said...

i'm not contesting you. you made interesting comments that i disagreed with so i threw in my disagreements and the reasons why. that is a discussion. or it was.

while i believe any meaningful discussion at this point is unlikely:
i'll start with my former post: my points were: isaih washington did more than say fag. he choked a dude while screaming it in front the cast and crew. initially, i was going to agree with you-- it was my belief that katherine heigl got him fired whilst in full on diva mode. she has that rep. however, the facts were in conflict with that opinion.

as for john mayer- my point was that he got in NO trouble. imus got in a little trouble. mayer has been mildly inconvenienced. i also said that half the gang of idiots at fox news are racist douchebags-- who never get in trouble at all. my point was i don't know why some in the media are punished- like imus, mel gibson, and that guy from seinfeld (all of who deserved worse than they got)- and why some in the media appear to be bulletproof. i was not supporting this.
finally, i pointed out that the rap community and robert pattinson got passes for their raging misogyny. in fact, they are considered cool in spite/because of it. i listed snoop dogg and kanye west as example because they are particularly bad about it whilst being celebrated as icons. again, i chose them for their actions and pop culture status, not the color of their skin. however, eminem is just as bad, as are the rolling stones and brett michaels. my point, however, is this: why is misogyny okay? why is it NEVER called out?
i believe that you either believe in respect for everyone who is different from yourself- including differences of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or opinion- or you do not believe in respect for anyone.

Allen the Duck Guy said...

now my music post-
b.b. king- i chose him particularly because i do respect him as an artist, not because of the color of his skin. my point was that my like/dislike of someone's music does not stand in the way of appreciating their skill- i don't like blues/r&b (just not my thing), but i have tremendous respect for b.b. king. i would be a moron to deny him his place in music and pop culture history. the reason i mentioned him was as a contrast to your obvious despise of lennon (and appearantly all rock n roll). the contrast was meant to show that it is possible to respect someone's accomplishments in spite of disliking their art.

where john lennon is from- i realize he is from liverpool. i was talking about his socio-economic status. as far as i know he was neither wealthy nor influential growing up. the exact geographical location was not in dispute. nor mentioned.

stealing black music- influence and theft are different things, but i suppose that could be simply a matter of perspective. the black music community was then, and continues to be now, a massive influence on the world's music. (they have hip hop in japan!) what is not a matter of perspective is that the beatles came along in the second or third generation of rock n rollers- the theft, if that is how you see it, by that point was done. guys like elvis had already done any robbing. the beatles were influenced by them- though they did admit to a black beat (you can't beat it).
later, they were influenced by indian music and melodies thanks to harrison's love affair with it. the white album practically resonates with indian influences. or theft, if you prefer.

lennon himself- i admit that i am a fan of the beatles and john lennon, though i still think george harrison was a better solo artist. however, i don't worship the band as a sacred cow. they aren't even my favorite band. i like their music. i like the optimism and humor of their lyrics. i respect that they are probably the best rock n roll band of all time (though not the most influential). why that is so offensive i cannot imagine. why you have an opinion on it at all, i cannot imagine, since you seem to despise rock music on principal. i don't think any of them are stupid (well, maybe ringo, but he's a nice guy and pretty funny), and lennon least of all. it is plain from the quality of his lyrics that he is not stupid at all. however, the biggest thing i respect about lennon is that he seemed sincere about his beliefs- a rare thing in the world of fame.

drugs endorsement- if you think that use is endorsement, then that is your opinion, and i can definitely see where you're coming from. but i still maintain that the beatles did not glorify drugs the way other bands of the day did-the rolling stones, pink floyd, the doors, and csny were far more 'yay drugs'-- it is a dominant theme of their music. that is what i meant by an endorsement.
but, honestly- don't all pop culture musicians from pretty much all genres do drugs???

agenda against anyone- that was neither stated nor implied. though you do seem you have a few anger issues. however, that is your right.

shampoo- i'm glad you like her. she's very cool, very intelligent, and very funny (and i have known her for a decade).

myself- i'm not sure why you took my posts so personally. no personal offense was meant. as for your insults against me- you are welcome to think, write, and behave in any way you feel represents you best.

A.Jaye said...

Duckface

You're pushing my buttons here. However, due to the fact that I'm a humanitarian I'm going to give you the benefit of a response. First of all let me clarify something; I don't talk race/racism issues with your kind. That's like the farmer going to the foxhole to bitch about his slaughtered chickens.

Dumbass your ignorance is splattered all over this post. Liverpool, Manchester and the whole of the north of England isn't just a geographical location its a socio-economic group. Dickhead. I'm from the same place those dumbass Beatles are from. Working class poverty. Every other white person in Liverpool and Manchester is Irish descent. My parents were Nigerian immigrants. We all drank from the same piss pot. So when the likes of Lennon talks I don't need an interpreter. Nor do I need to take off a pair of awe-tinted glasses.

What's this crap about me despising rock n roll? You're very presumptious. Here's something I wrote earlier over at my blog:

http://thrillfiction2009.blogspot.com/2009/04/depeche-mode.html

And don't try leaving a comment. I'll whiteball your arse as soon as you press 'I'm sorry'.

I concede that you can type a grammatically correct sentence - so what? You're a moron. How do I know this? You can't form a coherent argument. If according to you I do despise Lennon then where's the quantum leap to despising the whole of rock n roll? Son, you're lucky I'm responding to you. Pearls before swine.

Yeah. It's not theft it's influence. And Elvis did it first. You moronic apologist. I expect no less from someone who accuses hip-hop of misogyny but doesn't mention Hollywood or every other white dominated industry. Hardcore porn is legal in your country right? Listen fuckface your whole culture is theft. Now get lost and go bail out another bank.

In other news I'll give you a pass on the drug endorsement. Indeed they're all at it. Including your 'best band in the world' hypocrites (Sir Paul McCartney).

As far your diagnosis of my anger issues are concerned be aware. I take it personal when arseholes talk/write shit about me. That's the kind of man I am. And before you pretend to take the moral high ground remember something when it comes to respect: I'm not part of a people who state sponsored terrorise their own citizens with a burning cross under the aegisis of democracy and a perversion of christianity.

As for Shampoo, I agree that she's intelligent - but I'm not taking your word for it. And as far as you knowing her for a decade - those were probably the worst ten years of her life.

Allen the Duck Guy said...

a. jaye- you are being very rude and harshly judgemental to someone who has been neither to you. a very strange humanitarian indeed.

liverpool- why is this so contrversial? all i said is that lennon did not appear to have forgetten his background as a poor, uninfluential type. i have said it 3 times now.

despise of rock n roll- okay, maybe i did jump the gun. however, you DID say they were all thieves and plaigerists. i assumed that meant you disliked the whole on principal.

hip hop mysogeny- um, is robert pattinson in hip hop? and i did point out the racism in several 'white dominated' areas- politics and the news media being the two biggest.

my country's questionable practices- yeah, well, i think you need to your research- but that doesn't appear to be your strong suit. you have a lot of bizarre ideas about america. perhaps, as a writer, you should stick to what you know...?
that aside, i do not support many of my government's present or past actions. however, i have no real say in it. perhaps your own government has never done anything you disagree with?

that kinda man- be any kind of man you feel it appropriate to be. i have not attacked you personally even a single time in my posts. that is the kind of man i am.

shampoo- out of respect for her, i will not continue in this pointless line of discusion.

shampoo i'm sorry. i normally do not respond to trolls, but i didn't know this guy was a troll.

A.Jaye said...

A troll is an instigator who falsely pleads his innocence.

Don't comment on my commets again.

shampoo said...

this thread makes shampoo sad.

Allen the Duck Guy said...

again, shampoo: i am sorry. as i said repeatedly, i was not out, nor ever attempted, to get into a flame fest. as a rule, i try to avoid things like that and people who start them.
but you should not be sad since you had nothing to do with any of it.
if it upsets that much, please feel free to delete my posts. it really isn't that important to me.