Thursday, August 28, 2003
ROLLING STONE THROUGH THE YEARS
I've really caught this culture wars bug, and I'm going to keep harping on it, if only for the simple reason that I don't have much else to do these days and sometimes it's fun, like when I decided last week to pore over microfilm of old Rolling Stone magazines and compile a list of artists featured on the cover at various points in the paper's history. I was hoping to prove something based on what I saw on the covers, but as usual with these things, it didn't turn out quite like I had thought it would - I thought that probably rock and roll acts dominated in the early days, while becoming less and less of a factor over time. As you will see, this is simply not the case. But I've decided to show the lists going back in 10-year increments all the way to 1973. It's still a gas to see just who was big when, as you will see.
1973
James Taylor & Carly Simon, Tom Wolfe, Diana Ross, Bette Midler, Rolling Stones, Dr. Hook, Truman Capote, Mark Spitz, Alice Cooper, "Death in the Wilderness" (article by Joe Eszterhas), "Infiltrating the Jesus Army" (feature article), Rod Stewart, Paul Newman, Tatum O' Neal, J. Geils Band, Elton John, Dan Hicks, Sen. Sam Ervin, Richard Nixon portrait by Ralph Steadman for feature Hunter S. Thompson article, Art Garfunkel, Gene Autry, Daniel Ellsberg, Grateful Dead, Allman Bros, Hugh Hefner
1983
Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Jackson, Stray Cats, Jessica Lange, Dudley Moore, Joan Baez, Prince, David Bowie, Sean Penn, Christie Brinkley (feature article on Health Clubs), Men at Work, Eddie Murphy, Star Wars (article on George Lucas), John Travolta, Sting, Jackson Browne, Eurythmics, Chevy Chase, Sean Connery, Boy George, Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson/Paul McCartney (feature article "MTV - Selling Out of Rock and Roll")
1993
Spin Doctors, Neil Young, Nenah Cherry, David Letterman, U2 (Bono), 10,000 Maniacs, Garth Brooks, Metallica (James Hetfield), Eric Clapton, Dana Carvey, Sting, Whitney Houston, Laura Dern, Seinfeld (Cast of show), Soul Asylum, Beavis & Butthead, Jerry Garcia, Janet Jackson, Dr. Dre/Snoop Dog, U2 (the Edge), Pearl Jam, Blind Melon, Shaquille O'Neal, Bill Clinton, Cindy Crawford
2003
Shania Twain, Beatles, Phish, Avril Lavigne, 50 Cent, Lisa Marie Presley, Good Charlotte, American Flag (just the flag), Ashton Kutcher, Metallica (summer rock tour recap), Justin Timberlake/Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Eminen, Angelina Jolie, Ruben Studdard (note: couldn't find 1/23 issue - if you know, send it along)
What does all this mean?
Well, either nothing or something a little above nothing. Not much probably. If I wanted to make a case that rock and roll has lost the culture war based on Rolling Stone covers, then it is apparent that it was lost, but way back in the early 1970's. So there goes that theory out the window. Even in '73 RS was tossing sensational new pop stars (Bette Midler) and movie stars (Tatum O'Neal) on the cover, and that part of it has ne'er changed.
Still, 10 years is eons in the culture game, and there are noteworthy items about each individual year. For example, in 1973 Rolling Stone had been long established as the industry standard bearer (realize in those days there was no comp - no People, no ET, none of that type of stuff) in the culture wars. You could almost say they reinvented it. Dr. Hook is on the cover on the basis of the hit song "Cover of the Rolling Stone", which should tell you all you need to know. Beyond that, however, RS had not yet totally succumbed to big money PR foolishness that now dominates the industry. I mean Truman Capote does not quite equal Clay Aiken. In fact, the one striking thing about RS 73 is the amount of covers given to authors, and not your flash in the pan types either. Tom Wolfe was on the cover because he was serializing "The Right Stuff". Hunter Thompson was at the peak of his "Fear and Loathing" fame. And the fact that they would give covers to completely non-sexy topics such as drug and religious wars sort of makes up for an Art Garfunkel or two (Art was "back" at the time, ready to release his LP "Angel Clare"). Also, RS devoted three covers to the ongoing Watergate hearings. Contrast that with the amount of covers in 2003 on the war in Iraq (none, unless you count the flag) and you can see that it was a different editorial culture at that time. Plus, come on, Dan Hicks for crying out loud. There is no one, outside of 40+ stoners like me, who even know who the hell Dan Hicks is.
By 1983, as you can plainly see, RS had completely converted into a People style hot-topic PR driven machine. It was a big controversy at the time, as I recall, switching from primarily a music and politics dominated mag to a somewhat glitzy movie star mag. Note that Paul Newman is on the cover in both 73 and 83! The thing is, and I have to research this furthur since all I did was look at the covers, the editorial content inside may not have been much different, but it was obvious that RS was either gearing for new readership, or they were responding to the fact that their audience was much older now, or something. Really I think it is just a reaction to the early 80s box office surges and new found blockbuster/mega-star power in the entertainment industry. I mean, look at the bands that did make the cover - Men at Work, Stray Cats, Boy George. Outside of Prince 83 didn't seem to produce too many enduring commercial figures, but you'll note that the majority of the movie stars are still really big movie stars (the Travolta cover, by the way, shows him in his early 20s in a thong). Also, the MTV dig comes pretty early in the ballgame, no?
And by 1993, once again it's a whole new ballgame. Music is back to dominating the covers and there appears to be a concerted effort to highlight the hottest new rock acts. There's Spin Doctors, 10,000 Maniacs, Soul Asylum, Pearl Jam, Blind Melon. However, there's also Garth Brooks, Janet Jackson, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dog - all fairly new to scene themselves. This is where it gets a bit tricky. Outside of the already established acts (Neil Young, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Sting, Jerry Garcia, U2) you'll find that most of the hot rock bands of 93 are no longer with us, save Pearl Jam. But Garth Brooks and Dre/Snoop Dog and Janet Jackson are still big huge stars today, frankly even bigger. If ever there was a "smoking gun" for my culture war theory, that might be it. Rock and roll was still top cat in 93, but it was the country, pop and rap genres were already muscling in on the territory. Hell, even Shaq and Bill Clinton are bigger stars today than ten years ago.
Which brings us to 03 which finds RS spreading out the covers to accomodate all of the entertainment genres (except for, notably, authors) it has promoted for all these years. For the record, the only new rock band of note making it on the cover this year is Good Charlotte, a band that I got to personally needle on the 2001 Warped Tour (I told the singer we had been introducing ourselves as "Bad Charlotte" and it took him a while, he really gave me a thorough looking-over, before he said, "That's cool.")
The one thing that became easily apparent to me as I compiled these lists is that covers, although very important, are only one marker by which you can measure a culture. Another major factor is advertising. And in Rolling Stone's case, who paid for advertising in what year is a much more revealing look at what type of magazine they are throughout their history. When I take this subject up again, we will look at the ads!
I've really caught this culture wars bug, and I'm going to keep harping on it, if only for the simple reason that I don't have much else to do these days and sometimes it's fun, like when I decided last week to pore over microfilm of old Rolling Stone magazines and compile a list of artists featured on the cover at various points in the paper's history. I was hoping to prove something based on what I saw on the covers, but as usual with these things, it didn't turn out quite like I had thought it would - I thought that probably rock and roll acts dominated in the early days, while becoming less and less of a factor over time. As you will see, this is simply not the case. But I've decided to show the lists going back in 10-year increments all the way to 1973. It's still a gas to see just who was big when, as you will see.
1973
James Taylor & Carly Simon, Tom Wolfe, Diana Ross, Bette Midler, Rolling Stones, Dr. Hook, Truman Capote, Mark Spitz, Alice Cooper, "Death in the Wilderness" (article by Joe Eszterhas), "Infiltrating the Jesus Army" (feature article), Rod Stewart, Paul Newman, Tatum O' Neal, J. Geils Band, Elton John, Dan Hicks, Sen. Sam Ervin, Richard Nixon portrait by Ralph Steadman for feature Hunter S. Thompson article, Art Garfunkel, Gene Autry, Daniel Ellsberg, Grateful Dead, Allman Bros, Hugh Hefner
1983
Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Jackson, Stray Cats, Jessica Lange, Dudley Moore, Joan Baez, Prince, David Bowie, Sean Penn, Christie Brinkley (feature article on Health Clubs), Men at Work, Eddie Murphy, Star Wars (article on George Lucas), John Travolta, Sting, Jackson Browne, Eurythmics, Chevy Chase, Sean Connery, Boy George, Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson/Paul McCartney (feature article "MTV - Selling Out of Rock and Roll")
1993
Spin Doctors, Neil Young, Nenah Cherry, David Letterman, U2 (Bono), 10,000 Maniacs, Garth Brooks, Metallica (James Hetfield), Eric Clapton, Dana Carvey, Sting, Whitney Houston, Laura Dern, Seinfeld (Cast of show), Soul Asylum, Beavis & Butthead, Jerry Garcia, Janet Jackson, Dr. Dre/Snoop Dog, U2 (the Edge), Pearl Jam, Blind Melon, Shaquille O'Neal, Bill Clinton, Cindy Crawford
2003
Shania Twain, Beatles, Phish, Avril Lavigne, 50 Cent, Lisa Marie Presley, Good Charlotte, American Flag (just the flag), Ashton Kutcher, Metallica (summer rock tour recap), Justin Timberlake/Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Eminen, Angelina Jolie, Ruben Studdard (note: couldn't find 1/23 issue - if you know, send it along)
What does all this mean?
Well, either nothing or something a little above nothing. Not much probably. If I wanted to make a case that rock and roll has lost the culture war based on Rolling Stone covers, then it is apparent that it was lost, but way back in the early 1970's. So there goes that theory out the window. Even in '73 RS was tossing sensational new pop stars (Bette Midler) and movie stars (Tatum O'Neal) on the cover, and that part of it has ne'er changed.
Still, 10 years is eons in the culture game, and there are noteworthy items about each individual year. For example, in 1973 Rolling Stone had been long established as the industry standard bearer (realize in those days there was no comp - no People, no ET, none of that type of stuff) in the culture wars. You could almost say they reinvented it. Dr. Hook is on the cover on the basis of the hit song "Cover of the Rolling Stone", which should tell you all you need to know. Beyond that, however, RS had not yet totally succumbed to big money PR foolishness that now dominates the industry. I mean Truman Capote does not quite equal Clay Aiken. In fact, the one striking thing about RS 73 is the amount of covers given to authors, and not your flash in the pan types either. Tom Wolfe was on the cover because he was serializing "The Right Stuff". Hunter Thompson was at the peak of his "Fear and Loathing" fame. And the fact that they would give covers to completely non-sexy topics such as drug and religious wars sort of makes up for an Art Garfunkel or two (Art was "back" at the time, ready to release his LP "Angel Clare"). Also, RS devoted three covers to the ongoing Watergate hearings. Contrast that with the amount of covers in 2003 on the war in Iraq (none, unless you count the flag) and you can see that it was a different editorial culture at that time. Plus, come on, Dan Hicks for crying out loud. There is no one, outside of 40+ stoners like me, who even know who the hell Dan Hicks is.
By 1983, as you can plainly see, RS had completely converted into a People style hot-topic PR driven machine. It was a big controversy at the time, as I recall, switching from primarily a music and politics dominated mag to a somewhat glitzy movie star mag. Note that Paul Newman is on the cover in both 73 and 83! The thing is, and I have to research this furthur since all I did was look at the covers, the editorial content inside may not have been much different, but it was obvious that RS was either gearing for new readership, or they were responding to the fact that their audience was much older now, or something. Really I think it is just a reaction to the early 80s box office surges and new found blockbuster/mega-star power in the entertainment industry. I mean, look at the bands that did make the cover - Men at Work, Stray Cats, Boy George. Outside of Prince 83 didn't seem to produce too many enduring commercial figures, but you'll note that the majority of the movie stars are still really big movie stars (the Travolta cover, by the way, shows him in his early 20s in a thong). Also, the MTV dig comes pretty early in the ballgame, no?
And by 1993, once again it's a whole new ballgame. Music is back to dominating the covers and there appears to be a concerted effort to highlight the hottest new rock acts. There's Spin Doctors, 10,000 Maniacs, Soul Asylum, Pearl Jam, Blind Melon. However, there's also Garth Brooks, Janet Jackson, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dog - all fairly new to scene themselves. This is where it gets a bit tricky. Outside of the already established acts (Neil Young, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Sting, Jerry Garcia, U2) you'll find that most of the hot rock bands of 93 are no longer with us, save Pearl Jam. But Garth Brooks and Dre/Snoop Dog and Janet Jackson are still big huge stars today, frankly even bigger. If ever there was a "smoking gun" for my culture war theory, that might be it. Rock and roll was still top cat in 93, but it was the country, pop and rap genres were already muscling in on the territory. Hell, even Shaq and Bill Clinton are bigger stars today than ten years ago.
Which brings us to 03 which finds RS spreading out the covers to accomodate all of the entertainment genres (except for, notably, authors) it has promoted for all these years. For the record, the only new rock band of note making it on the cover this year is Good Charlotte, a band that I got to personally needle on the 2001 Warped Tour (I told the singer we had been introducing ourselves as "Bad Charlotte" and it took him a while, he really gave me a thorough looking-over, before he said, "That's cool.")
The one thing that became easily apparent to me as I compiled these lists is that covers, although very important, are only one marker by which you can measure a culture. Another major factor is advertising. And in Rolling Stone's case, who paid for advertising in what year is a much more revealing look at what type of magazine they are throughout their history. When I take this subject up again, we will look at the ads!
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
A ROCK AND ROLL CIVICS LESSON
DESPERATION SQUAD AT 51 BUCKINGHAM W/A BUNCH OF OTHER BANDS - SATURDAY, AUGUST 30 - 9:00 PM - 301 W. SECOND ST, POMONA - (909) 629-3665 - $5 COVER - 21 & OVER
Did I leave anything out? I mean besides the other bands that are playing this show with us? That's because the (51) website is down and I don't have a car which means I haven't been able to get posters or flyers or nuthin' like dat dere, but I promise you there are at least three other bands playing including Kenyon from Rhino Records' band and Nathan from Rhino Records who will be DJ-ing inbetween sets.
What did I leave out? Oh, yes - the exact moment and time that we, D-Squad, the so-called greatest rock band of all time, take the stage and make loud electric noises that resemble rock and roll. The answer is -I DON'T FUCKING KNOW!
Satisfied?
Look folks, this is happening more and more lately and you just have to deal with it. When I send an invitation for a gig out, the time I select is generally the time the doors open at the venue. The idea is to get people to come out, not just to see us, but to see other bands that we are playing with. Chances are they might be darn good themselves. Is there a problem with that? Believe it or not, back in the good old days, that's what people did, they came out early and stayed all night. It was called, this is a really old term and saying it makes me feel like a square but here goes, it was called a "scene". "Scenes" are things that develop when a place is "happening". Not just one night, but many nights, week after week, month after month, and they develop when consumers realize that a certain venue is always a great place to go, no matter who is playing. It's called "faith".
Oh, yeah, sure, duh Mr. P, we knew that, what is this, kindergarten or something? Shall we all take naps now on our folding mats?
Well, sorry to be so pedantic (look it up, fool), but frankly I'm a bit sick when we play gigs and the first thing out of someone's mouth is "I thought you were playing early!" or "I thought you were playing late!" or "When is this band going to be done? When are you going to play?"
The truth is - you never know. Last week we played first, and fooled a bunch of folks who assumed we were going to play last, even though the info I sent them said the show started at 9:30 (we went on at about 10:15). It was a great night of music, with the Groovy Rednecks.
This week, as far as I know, we play last, which is almost a freakin' death sentence. The last time we played last was at the Liquid Den and, since most people had never heard of us, less than 10 people stuck around to watch us. Can you say "demoralizing"? Even then we still had someone tell us we were the greatest band they had ever seen (tip o the hat to D-Cup). Why not? Even if it is an unquestionable tank gig, you still give your all, am I right?
My point is, there is too much polarization in rock and roll today. One band brings their threadbare following, play, leave - the next band, same thing - and never, apparently does the twain meet. Bands that play together are more and more like neighbors that you never meet even if they live next door to you because "who has the time?"
I'm getting clocked by people who tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that rock and roll is not the UPN of popular music, that there are more great rock bands out there than I could possibly know, but judging from gigs that we have played, who ever takes the time to find out? Even at successful venues, like the Glass House, I always see mounds of kids outside waiting, from the looks of it, for their band to go on, like going in and seeing an opening band is "uncool" somehow.
So we're playing at 51 Buckingham again, it's Joe's birthday, and the last time we played there I accidently smacked the bar lady with a tortilla and she said she was going to "cut my fingers off." So you can bet I'm really fired up to return. But it looks to be a really good show, which we apparently "headlining" (because no one wants to play after us, I guess). But if you come, just pencil in the whole night, okay? Don't rush up to me in the anxiety-riddled moments before we play and bitch at me about set time. I will be there early and stay there late, and probably need to get a ride home later, and the whole goddamn time I'm going to be looking over my shoulder to make sure some psychotic beer-server doesn't have a meat cleaver in her hands, ready to chop me up.
Jason vs. Freddy indeed.
God bless you Wesley Willis, R.I.P.
DESPERATION SQUAD AT 51 BUCKINGHAM W/A BUNCH OF OTHER BANDS - SATURDAY, AUGUST 30 - 9:00 PM - 301 W. SECOND ST, POMONA - (909) 629-3665 - $5 COVER - 21 & OVER
Did I leave anything out? I mean besides the other bands that are playing this show with us? That's because the (51) website is down and I don't have a car which means I haven't been able to get posters or flyers or nuthin' like dat dere, but I promise you there are at least three other bands playing including Kenyon from Rhino Records' band and Nathan from Rhino Records who will be DJ-ing inbetween sets.
What did I leave out? Oh, yes - the exact moment and time that we, D-Squad, the so-called greatest rock band of all time, take the stage and make loud electric noises that resemble rock and roll. The answer is -I DON'T FUCKING KNOW!
Satisfied?
Look folks, this is happening more and more lately and you just have to deal with it. When I send an invitation for a gig out, the time I select is generally the time the doors open at the venue. The idea is to get people to come out, not just to see us, but to see other bands that we are playing with. Chances are they might be darn good themselves. Is there a problem with that? Believe it or not, back in the good old days, that's what people did, they came out early and stayed all night. It was called, this is a really old term and saying it makes me feel like a square but here goes, it was called a "scene". "Scenes" are things that develop when a place is "happening". Not just one night, but many nights, week after week, month after month, and they develop when consumers realize that a certain venue is always a great place to go, no matter who is playing. It's called "faith".
Oh, yeah, sure, duh Mr. P, we knew that, what is this, kindergarten or something? Shall we all take naps now on our folding mats?
Well, sorry to be so pedantic (look it up, fool), but frankly I'm a bit sick when we play gigs and the first thing out of someone's mouth is "I thought you were playing early!" or "I thought you were playing late!" or "When is this band going to be done? When are you going to play?"
The truth is - you never know. Last week we played first, and fooled a bunch of folks who assumed we were going to play last, even though the info I sent them said the show started at 9:30 (we went on at about 10:15). It was a great night of music, with the Groovy Rednecks.
This week, as far as I know, we play last, which is almost a freakin' death sentence. The last time we played last was at the Liquid Den and, since most people had never heard of us, less than 10 people stuck around to watch us. Can you say "demoralizing"? Even then we still had someone tell us we were the greatest band they had ever seen (tip o the hat to D-Cup). Why not? Even if it is an unquestionable tank gig, you still give your all, am I right?
My point is, there is too much polarization in rock and roll today. One band brings their threadbare following, play, leave - the next band, same thing - and never, apparently does the twain meet. Bands that play together are more and more like neighbors that you never meet even if they live next door to you because "who has the time?"
I'm getting clocked by people who tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that rock and roll is not the UPN of popular music, that there are more great rock bands out there than I could possibly know, but judging from gigs that we have played, who ever takes the time to find out? Even at successful venues, like the Glass House, I always see mounds of kids outside waiting, from the looks of it, for their band to go on, like going in and seeing an opening band is "uncool" somehow.
So we're playing at 51 Buckingham again, it's Joe's birthday, and the last time we played there I accidently smacked the bar lady with a tortilla and she said she was going to "cut my fingers off." So you can bet I'm really fired up to return. But it looks to be a really good show, which we apparently "headlining" (because no one wants to play after us, I guess). But if you come, just pencil in the whole night, okay? Don't rush up to me in the anxiety-riddled moments before we play and bitch at me about set time. I will be there early and stay there late, and probably need to get a ride home later, and the whole goddamn time I'm going to be looking over my shoulder to make sure some psychotic beer-server doesn't have a meat cleaver in her hands, ready to chop me up.
Jason vs. Freddy indeed.
God bless you Wesley Willis, R.I.P.
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
IT'S WHERE I GET ALL MY NEWS
The Sunday Paper costs three times as much as the daily paper, so you damn well better believe that I read every damn resource-hogging insert they throw in those suckers (except for the days when those crooks at the LA Times conveniently leave out an insert or two in their newstand editions; I'm convinced this a covert effort to get people to subscribe but I can't prove it), including Parade magazine, which has so many swell features - Fresh Voices, Ask Marilyn, In Step With (By James Brady), Laugh Parade featuring Howard Huge - but my favorite of them all is Walter Scott's Personality Parade. You read it enough and you begin to wonder how average readers instinctively know to send in a question concerning some obscure or forgotten talent that, by the merest of coincidences, has a movie or book coming out the very same week. For instance, this week someone asked a question about pro golfer John Daly and his ongoing efforts to combat alcoholism. Turns out, gee whiz what a coincidence, that Daly has recently teamed up with Willie Nelson to record songs Daly wrote while rehabbing at Betty Ford! You'd be amazed at how often that happens in Personality Parade.
Anyhow, occasionally there are non-celebrity questions asked, because as we all know, if you have a question about the War on Terrorism, who better to ask than Walter Scott? Here is from this week's column:
Q - After all this time, why haven't we been able to catch Osama Bin Laden? V.K., Louisville, KY
A - Because he's very likely dead.
This isn't the whole answer. This response is based on the expert opinion of Bernard Lewis, a professor at Princeton University and talk show pundit who has written a couple of books on the subject of Islam. Really, it's just a manufactured question to plug the book somehow but my interest was only in the assertion that Bin Laden was dead, and that I read it first in Parade Magazine and why the hell hasn't any other news outlet picked up this piece of news and reported it. Is the liberal media covering this up?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Well, I was going to post this yesterday but I ran out of time. However, I was over at the Atrios website, which I read religiously, and I was reading a post entitled Revisionism, which contained a commentary on Afghanistan, and in the comments section there was a spirited discussion about the whereabouts of Bin Laden and other such matters. And I thought to myself, "Gee, these people really should what I know." So I sent in my own comment, first time I've ever done such a thing. Here is what I wrote:
"Obviously nobody reads Parade Magazine because if you had read this week's issue you would know that Osama Bin Laden is "likely dead". That's the answer given by Walter Scott in the Personality Parade column when asked by a concerned reader. I have no reason to doubt Walter on this. He has never steered me wrong on national issues."
I felt good about it. I had to leave but an hour or so later I got on the computer again, just to see if my comment inspired any feedback, and I was shocked. I managed to start a mini-tempest in the middle of an otherwise intellectual (and boring) dialouge of United States international relations. Here are the responses to my comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osama Bin Laden is "likely dead". That's the answer given by Walter Scott in the Personality Parade column when asked by a concerned reader
And that would contrast sharply with Walter Scott himself, who is definitely dead.
BriVT | 08.25.03 - 2:23 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's that smart ol' American public in action again - asking a gossip columnist for the lowdown on Bin Laden. Hard to know what to say to that.
pie | 08.25.03 - 2:27 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Osama Bin Laden is 'likely dead'. That's the answer given by Walter Scott in the Personality Parade column when asked by a concerned reader."
And that would contrast sharply with Walter Scott himself, who is definitely dead.
Then who would know better???
fair and balanced dave | Homepage | 08.25.03 - 2:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of previous post for those of you who don't know: Walter Scott died over a decade ago. The "Walter Scott" column was then purchased and now written by Ed Klein, a former magazine publisher who is also a GOP/Bush family hack.
BriVT | 08.25.03 - 2:33 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, it ended there, with that spoilsport's know-it-all explanation, but it was nice, for the 15-20 minutes or so, to cause at least a ripple of controversy on a very popular blog. I was hoping that someone would take the time to email me something or check out my website but, alas, nothing like that happened. I will continue to soldier on in obscurity. I have learned something quite valuable, however, and that is - apparently I am the only one who looks to Parade magazine (and other publications like the LA Express) as legitimate sources of news.
I'm carving out my own niche!
The Sunday Paper costs three times as much as the daily paper, so you damn well better believe that I read every damn resource-hogging insert they throw in those suckers (except for the days when those crooks at the LA Times conveniently leave out an insert or two in their newstand editions; I'm convinced this a covert effort to get people to subscribe but I can't prove it), including Parade magazine, which has so many swell features - Fresh Voices, Ask Marilyn, In Step With (By James Brady), Laugh Parade featuring Howard Huge - but my favorite of them all is Walter Scott's Personality Parade. You read it enough and you begin to wonder how average readers instinctively know to send in a question concerning some obscure or forgotten talent that, by the merest of coincidences, has a movie or book coming out the very same week. For instance, this week someone asked a question about pro golfer John Daly and his ongoing efforts to combat alcoholism. Turns out, gee whiz what a coincidence, that Daly has recently teamed up with Willie Nelson to record songs Daly wrote while rehabbing at Betty Ford! You'd be amazed at how often that happens in Personality Parade.
Anyhow, occasionally there are non-celebrity questions asked, because as we all know, if you have a question about the War on Terrorism, who better to ask than Walter Scott? Here is from this week's column:
Q - After all this time, why haven't we been able to catch Osama Bin Laden? V.K., Louisville, KY
A - Because he's very likely dead.
This isn't the whole answer. This response is based on the expert opinion of Bernard Lewis, a professor at Princeton University and talk show pundit who has written a couple of books on the subject of Islam. Really, it's just a manufactured question to plug the book somehow but my interest was only in the assertion that Bin Laden was dead, and that I read it first in Parade Magazine and why the hell hasn't any other news outlet picked up this piece of news and reported it. Is the liberal media covering this up?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Well, I was going to post this yesterday but I ran out of time. However, I was over at the Atrios website, which I read religiously, and I was reading a post entitled Revisionism, which contained a commentary on Afghanistan, and in the comments section there was a spirited discussion about the whereabouts of Bin Laden and other such matters. And I thought to myself, "Gee, these people really should what I know." So I sent in my own comment, first time I've ever done such a thing. Here is what I wrote:
"Obviously nobody reads Parade Magazine because if you had read this week's issue you would know that Osama Bin Laden is "likely dead". That's the answer given by Walter Scott in the Personality Parade column when asked by a concerned reader. I have no reason to doubt Walter on this. He has never steered me wrong on national issues."
I felt good about it. I had to leave but an hour or so later I got on the computer again, just to see if my comment inspired any feedback, and I was shocked. I managed to start a mini-tempest in the middle of an otherwise intellectual (and boring) dialouge of United States international relations. Here are the responses to my comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osama Bin Laden is "likely dead". That's the answer given by Walter Scott in the Personality Parade column when asked by a concerned reader
And that would contrast sharply with Walter Scott himself, who is definitely dead.
BriVT | 08.25.03 - 2:23 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's that smart ol' American public in action again - asking a gossip columnist for the lowdown on Bin Laden. Hard to know what to say to that.
pie | 08.25.03 - 2:27 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Osama Bin Laden is 'likely dead'. That's the answer given by Walter Scott in the Personality Parade column when asked by a concerned reader."
And that would contrast sharply with Walter Scott himself, who is definitely dead.
Then who would know better???
fair and balanced dave | Homepage | 08.25.03 - 2:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of previous post for those of you who don't know: Walter Scott died over a decade ago. The "Walter Scott" column was then purchased and now written by Ed Klein, a former magazine publisher who is also a GOP/Bush family hack.
BriVT | 08.25.03 - 2:33 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, it ended there, with that spoilsport's know-it-all explanation, but it was nice, for the 15-20 minutes or so, to cause at least a ripple of controversy on a very popular blog. I was hoping that someone would take the time to email me something or check out my website but, alas, nothing like that happened. I will continue to soldier on in obscurity. I have learned something quite valuable, however, and that is - apparently I am the only one who looks to Parade magazine (and other publications like the LA Express) as legitimate sources of news.
I'm carving out my own niche!
Sunday, August 24, 2003
ALMOST FAMOUS
The Truth Laid Bear is blog traffic monitoring system (among other things) that issues weekly rankings of the most viewed sites on a listing called the Ecosystem. So if you want to save yourself time by looking only at popular and established blogs, this is a good way to do it. Of course, to be ranked you have to sign up to be in the Ecosystem, and one method they have of encouraging new members is a weekly Blogosphere contest, where you pit your three-months old or less blog against others. The winner is decided by what site has the most link-ups to other blogs and, to make it somewhat interactive, all weekly contestants are required to vote for three themselves.
So I threw My Completely Random Life out onto the blog universe. It wasn't a very hard choice to make. I figured someone would be forced to read this and that's better than nothing. Besides, if I had waited even one more week, the blog would be older than three months, and no longer eligible.
So the blog has been out there for a few days, for everyone to be dazzled by, but initially I had no linkers and I remained stuck in 999th place (out of a possible 30). However, today I was delighted to find out that I had exactly one link, which catapulted me into 14th place! Well, that's way better than nothing too, even if that's the best I can do. I mean, the first place blog has exactly three, so it's not as if there's anyone running away with this thing. In fact, it seems to indicate that very few contestants are fufilling their contest requirements, or they are waiting until the very last minute. There are at least 28 blogs competing, which means there should at least be 74 links, and currently there are 21 links.
So there's hope for yours truly yet.
But I have to get off my ass and vote too, so I spent the afternoon perusing the entries and I found many that were pretty good. But I can only vote for three, and here they are:
LEFT I ON THE NEWS
There were quite a few media style blogs and they all deserve a look. I liked this one the best because the post identified discrepancies between a print article and an online article. This stuff happens all the time and it's good that there are people around to call the media on it. Plus, Left I seemed to stumble upon the story randomly, and I can always appreciate that.
THE MINISTER OF MINOR PERFIDY
The Minister read my blog, understood my blog, linked my blog and I was going to vote for him for just that reason. Why not? Now I read, courtesy of the Minister, where the eclectic, mesmerizing "folk artist" Wesley Willis has died and I am immediately saddened. D-Squad opened for Willis at Al's Bar back in 2000 or so. Despite being a bit unnerved by the frat boy yahoos who were there just to yell "nut case" at him, I really liked Willis and he liked us and I may never know if his promise to write a song about us was ever carried out. Probably. The other thing that impressed me about Wesley Willis was the fact that he set up a table right in front of the stage and sat there all night and sold CD's, even as the other bands played. Rock on Chicago, Be a Pepper - Drink Dr. Pepper. So for reporting that piece of news, I would have voted for Perfidy anyway.
LIVING IN THE FUTURE IS COOL
There are blogs that provide media analysis, blogs that provide insights on how to live better, there are blogs with great graphics and much to recommend them. Then there is the story of this guy and his penis. Really, it shouldn't get any votes at all, the guy doesn't even bother to nominally spell check. But, you know, when I read the post about how the guy got laid banging his "soon to be ex-wife" I realized this was about the blog equivalent of D-Squad, and I couldn't resist.
So there you have it. The Red Sox blog is good stuff for Baseball Abstract junkies, but it's in first place and besides, I hate Boston. Colorado Luis' post on the differences between the terms Hispanic, Latino and Chicano was good (Hey Luis, I once wrote a song called "Hispanics On TV"). Notorius B.L.O.G., Don't Be A Hero and Naw are all media-related that provide good links.
I have done my duty. Now all you other laggards - get to work!
The Truth Laid Bear is blog traffic monitoring system (among other things) that issues weekly rankings of the most viewed sites on a listing called the Ecosystem. So if you want to save yourself time by looking only at popular and established blogs, this is a good way to do it. Of course, to be ranked you have to sign up to be in the Ecosystem, and one method they have of encouraging new members is a weekly Blogosphere contest, where you pit your three-months old or less blog against others. The winner is decided by what site has the most link-ups to other blogs and, to make it somewhat interactive, all weekly contestants are required to vote for three themselves.
So I threw My Completely Random Life out onto the blog universe. It wasn't a very hard choice to make. I figured someone would be forced to read this and that's better than nothing. Besides, if I had waited even one more week, the blog would be older than three months, and no longer eligible.
So the blog has been out there for a few days, for everyone to be dazzled by, but initially I had no linkers and I remained stuck in 999th place (out of a possible 30). However, today I was delighted to find out that I had exactly one link, which catapulted me into 14th place! Well, that's way better than nothing too, even if that's the best I can do. I mean, the first place blog has exactly three, so it's not as if there's anyone running away with this thing. In fact, it seems to indicate that very few contestants are fufilling their contest requirements, or they are waiting until the very last minute. There are at least 28 blogs competing, which means there should at least be 74 links, and currently there are 21 links.
So there's hope for yours truly yet.
But I have to get off my ass and vote too, so I spent the afternoon perusing the entries and I found many that were pretty good. But I can only vote for three, and here they are:
LEFT I ON THE NEWS
There were quite a few media style blogs and they all deserve a look. I liked this one the best because the post identified discrepancies between a print article and an online article. This stuff happens all the time and it's good that there are people around to call the media on it. Plus, Left I seemed to stumble upon the story randomly, and I can always appreciate that.
THE MINISTER OF MINOR PERFIDY
The Minister read my blog, understood my blog, linked my blog and I was going to vote for him for just that reason. Why not? Now I read, courtesy of the Minister, where the eclectic, mesmerizing "folk artist" Wesley Willis has died and I am immediately saddened. D-Squad opened for Willis at Al's Bar back in 2000 or so. Despite being a bit unnerved by the frat boy yahoos who were there just to yell "nut case" at him, I really liked Willis and he liked us and I may never know if his promise to write a song about us was ever carried out. Probably. The other thing that impressed me about Wesley Willis was the fact that he set up a table right in front of the stage and sat there all night and sold CD's, even as the other bands played. Rock on Chicago, Be a Pepper - Drink Dr. Pepper. So for reporting that piece of news, I would have voted for Perfidy anyway.
LIVING IN THE FUTURE IS COOL
There are blogs that provide media analysis, blogs that provide insights on how to live better, there are blogs with great graphics and much to recommend them. Then there is the story of this guy and his penis. Really, it shouldn't get any votes at all, the guy doesn't even bother to nominally spell check. But, you know, when I read the post about how the guy got laid banging his "soon to be ex-wife" I realized this was about the blog equivalent of D-Squad, and I couldn't resist.
So there you have it. The Red Sox blog is good stuff for Baseball Abstract junkies, but it's in first place and besides, I hate Boston. Colorado Luis' post on the differences between the terms Hispanic, Latino and Chicano was good (Hey Luis, I once wrote a song called "Hispanics On TV"). Notorius B.L.O.G., Don't Be A Hero and Naw are all media-related that provide good links.
I have done my duty. Now all you other laggards - get to work!
Archives