home bioshowscontactpressimageslistendiary

 

Welcome to Page One of the Diary Archive

 

 

 

NO, ISHMAEL REED, YOU’RE THE UNCLE TOM

COLUMNIST ISHMAEL REED DISGRACES THE LEGACY OF RICHARD PRYOR AND ATTEMPTS TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF BLACK-INSTIGATED SEGREGATION

The SF Chronicle from December 19th, 2005, opinion column from “poet”, “essayist”, and “novelist” Ishmael Reed.

The title itself is enough to make any fan grimace:


“Richard Pryor—comic genius who let Hollywood use him.”


In a nutshell, Ishmael Reed lays forth in twelve sniveling paragraphs his view that Richard Pryor was a comedic genius who was used and abused by a "white" Hollywood which he characterizes as a “landscape strewn with black casualties”. According to Reed, black people still can’t seem to get dignified roles in Hollywood, citing examples such as Dorothy Dandridge and Stepin Fetchit. I’m not sure if Reed just awoke from a coma, but quite a few years have passed since Dandridge and Fetchit. As far as a minstrel show, I think the most recent one to come out of Hollywood was called Bamboozled directed by Spike Lee.

Mr. Reed apparently was an acquaintance of Richard Pryor when Pryor was living in Berkeley many years ago. According to Reed, it was him who warned Pryor about the evils of “white” Hollywood. Of course, Pryor did not heed the warnings and went on to achieve immortality as one of the major comedic figures of the 20th century while Ishmael Reed did. . .well, whatever it is that he does besides write these columns.

To jump ahead to the work’s conclusion, Reed speculates:

“I suspect that if Pryor had remained in Berkeley instead of ‘trying to get over’, he’d still be alive, perhaps writing poetry and performing from time to time at the Black Rep, a venue where black playwrights and actors can present their material, uncut.”

Of course he’d still be alive. After all, it’s impossible to suffer from multiple sclerosis in Berkeley.

And of course, as a comedian, he should be writing poetry.

And the Black Rep—that would have really put him on the map. What was Pryor thinking going off to “white” Hollywood?


After reading this sad excuse for an opinion column, Ishmael Reed has me asking myself, is Denzel Washington really wearing blackface? Why have I never witnessed Don Cheadle do a soft-shoe and sing “Swannee”?


And also, why do we even have a holiday to celebrate Martin Luther King when this kind of segregationist line of thought still runs rampant in—of all places—San Francisco? Is it because white society is forcing us to celebrate the memory of a man who didn’t want to erect a huge wall between whites and blacks? Is it because Martin Luther King didn’t advocate victimization and plantation rhetoric? Or maybe it’s because Martin Luther King, working in tandem with Whitey, was unwilling to label successful black people Uncle Toms.


Let me just say here that Richard Pryor was definitely one of the main—and one of the few—figures from my childhood who made me want to get into comedy. The man was unarguably one of the most brilliant monologists I have ever heard. My penchant for personification was definitely an influence from him and anytime I stay in a single character for a prolonged duration, I imagine his hypothetical approval. On top of all this, unlike any other black comics to follow him, he was able to take vulgarity to the level of intellectual absurdity--thus creating his own genre.


But the bottom line for Reed is his contention that Pryor’s comedy shouldn’t have been available to white folks. To that I say—too bad, asshole. I’ve still got his records. I’ve still got his films. And nothing can eradicate his influence on me at this stage. Looks like his legacy might be a little too color-blind for Reed’s taste.


Reed essentially trivializes Pryor’s life by condensing it into three cookie-cutter stages: 1) Pryor plays to black audiences, 2) Pryor “sells out” to “white” Hollywood and plays to both black and white audiences and therefore 3) “White” Hollywood contributes to Pryor’s demise.


According to Reed, in the last conversation they had together, Pryor told Reed that he wanted to “get over” in Hollywood. Guess what? I’d like to “get over” in Hollywood, too. I heard there’s a lot of money there. I’m not sure if Mr. Reed was planning to pay for Pryor’s food and rent had Pryor chosen to stay in Berkeley but apparently Reed did try to “. . .persuade him not to go, because I’m one of those who believes that Hollywood is no place for a black actor or writer.”


Jesus, I wonder if the same holds true for BET?


What a caring and supportive friend Mr. Reed must have been.


In the following passage, Reed lays down what were apparently the only two choices for Richard Pryor:


“There was also a time when many black intellectuals and writers were torn between an anti-white brand of black nationalism and integrationism. Pryor tried, but he made a poor black nationalist. . .”

Here, Ishmael Reed lays the rhetoric on thick—ironically in black and white—referring to a split between the anti-white black nationalism (for that, read black-instigated segregation) and integration. At which point, he casually sums up the man and the genius of Richard Pryor by implying that there was something bad about Pryor not succeeding at being a black nationalist. To confirm this, in the following sentence he states that Pryor’s “. . .dim view of humanity prevented him from siding with any group.”


The choice of the word “dim” here is very telling. Added to the end of the previous sentence, the implication is that if Pryor did not have a “dim” view of humanity, then the obvious thing for him to have become was a black nationalist. Under this line of thinking, Martin Luther King could also be classified as “dim” because he wasn’t advocating a militant black stance. But again, I keep forgetting, integration was just a dream. Thank goodness Ishmael Reed is there to prevent us from wishful thinking.


If individuality can be construed as a “dim view on humanity”, then maybe Pryor did have a dim view on humanity. As far as not taking sides—since when did limiting your perspective to a single and isolating viewpoint constitute enlightenment?


Becoming a black nationalist—whether that be Black Panther, Black Muslim, or what have you—would have been the worst thing for Pryor. Pryor’s talent, unlike that of Ishmael Reed and any other black nationalist went light years beyond race. In Mr. Reed’s view, Pryor “sold out”, in my view, Pryor “gave to”. I think what we’re really looking at here with Mr. Reed is a case of sour grapes. Pryor became extraordinarily successful while a lot of boo-hoo professional victims like Ishmael Reed did not.


Under Reed’s black nationalistic perspective, “Hollywood didn’t kill Richard Pryor, but it certainly contributed to his demise.”
I’m not quite sure if Ishmael Reed was really the close friend of Richard’s that he claims to be here. Regrettably, I never had the chance to meet Richard Pryor, but I was aware—as was any fan of his—that he had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. It’s my hunch that this is probably what contributed to his demise and not “white” Hollywood. Unless “white” Hollywood somehow magically gave Pryor the disease in some vast far-reaching conspiracy to keep the black man down.


Reed asserts that Pryor only did “one good movie”, an excellent film called Which Way Is Up? But after that, he contends there’s nothing in Pryor’s entire filmography of any value.


“Like Whoopi Goldberg, he won over white audiences by creating a list of black underclass characters. . .”


One of those black underclass characters was in the drama Blue Collar in which he and Harvey Keitel both played working class factory employees trying to provide for their respective families. Stellar performances from both leads. Not once is race mentioned. A color-blind movie dealing with the class structure in America. What was Richard Pryor thinking when he agreed to this role? Didn't he realize he was BLACK!


In the next sentence, Reed reveals he has arisen from the coma which struck him sometime after Stepin Fetchit just in time to watch the evening news from a few days ago.


“But unlike the vile, cruel and sick portrait of the black homeless woman on the infamous police video, both Goldberg and Pryor endowed their underclass characters with humanity.”


That’s probably because they're working with scripts in a lead role. I’m not sure you can get a well-rounded three-dimensional character if your only job is to be run over by a police car. But as far as current events go, why not seize the day to make your point? Everybody hates cops anyway. Especially the white ones.


What follows next is an embarrassing example of Ishmael Reed’s clumsy handling of the race card. Don’t worry, you won’t miss it—it’s far from covert:


“Remember The Toy, the film where Pryor was cast as a white kid’s ‘toy’? No wonder he turned to freebasing.”


If Mr. Reed wishes to ascribe lack of choice and a victim mentality to somebody, he should have jumped on the Tookie Williams bandwagon from a few weeks earlier. Leave that pathetic line of reasoning to professional con men like Tookie with a penchant for tweaking the political left. Pryor was a man of dignity who emerged from his drug experiences a survivor who blamed no one but himself. As he says in the opening of his New Orleans concert videotape: “I fucked up!” He then repeats this three or four times afterwards, as if to hammer home the idea to anybody in a similar situation that the choice to do drugs and the choice not to do drugs were both made entirely of his own volition.


Pryor was not a product of society. Pryor could hold his own. He was a true artist, and was therefore bigger than a hypothetical “black nation”. Mr. Reed obviously is not. And Mr. Reed, like others of his ilk, is an insult to his own cause because his rhetoric implies that his skin color is not his strength, it’s his weakness. The color of his skin only serves as a source of problems. And there’s your black and white thought process.


I view race as neither a strength nor a weakness. It is incidental because it involves no choice. Therefore, it must be transcended. So we can integrate.


Pryor transcended. And for that, he was a greater man than anyone looking to pin their mishaps on larger entities like “white” Hollywood or a “racist” judicial system. In addition to this, Pryor released his biopic film Jo-Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling, three years after The Toy and again, Pryor admits the mistakes he’s made in his life without ever once pinning it on Whitey.


I ask you, Mr. Reed, is Richard Pryor blaming himself for freebasing here because “white” Hollywood is forcing him to make that declaration?


It’s also important to note that it was around the release of The Toy that Pryor actually decided to stop and not start freebasing. He set himself on fire in 1980—years before he even took a look at that script.


Finally, on a purely aesthetic level, if he can’t appreciate the powerful comedic chemistry between someone like Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor —I’m not sure if Mr. Reed should be qualified to give a judgment on any type of comedy.


Mr. Reed, why don’t you submit some of your little ideas to The Final Call? They’re always in the market for bullshit.

 

 

SAVE THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE

www.wm3.org

Finally, a cause I can believe in.

If you don’t know anything about the case of the West Memphis Three (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, Jesse Misskelley), check out a couple of movies called Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost 2. And visit the website—once again, it’s www.wm3.org.

A quick summation:

In May of 1993, the bodies of three 8-year old boys were found in a secluded grove of trees behind a truck stop in West Memphis, Arkansas. One of the boys was castrated. Not a drop of blood was found at the scene.

In June, three teenagers, Damien Echols (18), Jason Baldwin (16), and Jesse Misskelley (17), were charged with the murders. No physical evidence, no motive, no connection to the victims, and no murder weapon were ever used by the prosecution to make a case against the three. The state's evidence consisted primarily of notebooks owned by Echols that contained quotes from Alistair Crowley and a few pentagrams, the fact that Echols had dark black hair and often dressed all in black and the testimony of two little girls who claim Damien was bragging about the murders a few nights afterwards—which Echols denies. As far as Jason Baldwin, there is absolutely no evidence against him other than that he was best friends with Echols.

And as for Jesse Misskelley—which is where the West Memphis police started in their investigation—the police interrogated him for twelve hours, denying him parental contact or legal counsel, only choosing to record forty-six minutes of the conversation. The transcripts of this alleged confession from Jesse—which led to the conviction of himself and the other two—contains numerous errors in which Jesse consistently gets the time and other specifics of the murders wrong whereupon the police remind him of the facts and he simply agrees. On top of this, Jesse has an IQ of 72. Keep in mind, he’s seventeen years old and has been interrogated by the police for twelve hours. According to Jesse, he concocted a story in which he subdued one of the victims while Echols and Baldwin committed the murders in the hopes that the police would finally let him go home and talk to his parents, get a lawyer and try to straighten everything out.

Using this blatantly forced confession from Misskelley, a few notebooks from Damien Echols, and a bunch of wild talk about a Satanic ritual sacrifice—the prosecution managed to get Damien Echols a death row sentence, Jason Baldwin life without parole, and Jesse Misskelley life plus forty years.

Having grown up a few hours away from West Memphis, I understand the type of small-town backwoods idiocy which can lead to a corrupt incarceration like this. As you can see in the documentaries, it didn’t take much talk about a possible “satanic” influence to the murders to get the town riled up enough to put away three teenagers because one of them wore black. Yes, people really are that stupid in Arkansas.

One of the problems is that Damien Echols—(the supposed ringleader of this non-existent cult)—is too smart for his own good. On the stand, he attempts to explain the differences between Wicca and Satanism. Unfortunately, for a jury of twelve Arkansas Christians, knowledge about Wicca and Satanism translates into an admission of guilt.

I can’t get into the side story of Mark Byers—the stepfather of one of the victims, Christopher Byers (the only child to be castrated)—but let’s just say he figures in very prominently as a possible—and infinitely more plausible—real killer. However, by the time evidence began to emerge in mid-1993 which pointed towards Mark Byers’ guilt (most importantly, a bloodstained knife which defense forensic scientists state might have been used in the castration), the trial against the West Memphis Three was at the halfway point. So it’s understandable that the judge, the chief of the West Memphis police, and the prosecution weren’t interested in stopping proceedings to examine other suspects. Had they done so, the West Memphis Three might be free today. As to the bloodstains on the knife, they were somehow lost by the police's forensic team.


Here you have a small-town backwater community like West Memphis filled with mostly fundamentalist Christians who still believe fervently in this entity called Satan and the "powers of darkness". You then have bloodthirsty cries from the community to find the killers—(led of course by the morbidly insane stepfather Mark Byers)—and the police are in a hurry to wrap this thing up. This case was chief of police Gary Gitchell’s last case before he retired, so he himself had a strong motive to “solve” the case quickly and end on a “winning” note. Furthermore, you have a judge who allows ridiculous items like a pentagram written on a notebook to be entered into evidence. And lastly, you have a prosecution team who incredulously has no problem with the fact that there is not a single drop of blood found at the crime scene—which would seem to indicate that this was not a sacrifice in which three children were led out to the woods and ritualistically murdered, but that somebody had murdered the children in a different location, washed away the blood and dumped the bodies afterwards. Yes, this was a cult killing—and the cult was Christianity.

The West Memphis Three have been locked away for twelve years. In ’99 Echols appealed his conviction, asking for a new trial. Sadly, the same judge from the original trial was presiding over these proceedings. Despite new forensic evidence indicating a bite mark on one of the victims which none of the bite impressions from the three defendants match—(coupled with the fact that Mark Byers even had his own teeth removed sometime after the killings)—the presiding judge determined there was not enough reasonable doubt to demand a new trial.

That judge, David Burnett—as well as the local law enforcement and the prosecution—DO NOT want this case to go to a higher court. They are doing all they can to keep it internal to West Memphis. Why? Because anybody on the outside looking in can see that the West Memphis Three are being unjustly held.

Once again, it’s www.wm3.org.

Now--back to sarcasm. . .

 

MORE LETTERS OF HOPE FOR TOOKIE

Dear Governor,

I am an inner-city high school English teacher. My children hate to read anything that does not have to do with drugs, sex, and gang violence. Thanks to Mr. Williams, now they're at least reading something. And those who aren't reading his books are at least watching the movie Redemption starring Jamie Foxx. Please let this man live so I don't have to teach.

Barbara Something

 

Mirster Govonor

in shool i don lik to red but then i red tookies book about gang and now mabe i lern good in shool to gradute

Tookie Williams, Jr.

 

Dear Governor,

I would not be alive today if it were not for Tookie Williams. Three months ago, doctors found a tumor on my left lung. After reading Tookie's Book Gangs And Secondhand Smoke Twenty Feet From A Business, the cancer is now in remission.

The man is a messiah,

Jane Enough

 

Dear Governor,

As a native of Austria, you should know that Tookie Williams is not a Jew and therefore deserves to live.

Otto Himmler

 

Dear Governor,

I am the word "redemption". Since Tookie discovered me on death row, my popularity has been at an all-time high. Please let him live so that people don't use those bullshit Christian synonyms like "salvation" or "forgiveness".

Sincerely,

Redemption

 

 

BLACK CHILDREN NEED MENTORS!

Rethinking Race in the Age of 50 Cent and Eminem

by Mary Caucasian

Dr. Random Arbitrary, African-American Studies For Whites

November 23rd, 2005

for "Tookie"

I. IN THE FILMS WITH 50 CENT

I don't think it's fair that 50 Cent's film Get Rich Or Die Tryin' is being compared to Eminem's 8 Mile. These two films are worlds apart.

True--both films do deal with an arrogant, ignorant and illiterate piece of shit without any pretense to talent who somehow arbitrarily manages to get a bunch of money thanks to the communal retardation of the modern media and today's youth.

However, if you look closely when watching these two films, you can see that 50 Cent is undoubtedly blacker than Eminem.

I don't know if the people reviewing these films are color blind or what, but I sincerely believe that 50 Cent has a much darker skin tone. It's not surprising that the majority of these advance reviews are coming from white people--for it's common knowledge that white people don't know anything at all about the black experience including the ancient African-American tradition of being born with black skin.

Eminem and his earlier incarnation as The Beastie Boys along with other white hip-hop artists (if I may use the word "artist" loosely--in fact, as loosely as possible--in fact, so loose that it loses all its original meaning) have pilfered enough from the African-American experience. For four hundred years, throughout slavery and Jim Crow, black people have survived by splicing together loops of other people's music and rattling off endless streams of randomly conceived freestyle rhymes. In Get Rich Or Die Tryin' 50 Cent is attempting to reclaim for Africa-America a sense of pride in the principles of greed, misogyny, gluttony, and a gross reward for minor achievements that are the hallmarks of black history.

True--both Get Rich Or Die Tryin' and 8 Mile have a poignant moment where the lead characters realize they should probably be going to trade school and learning how to repair simple appliances whereupon this realization serves as the catalyst for them to learn how to use a drum machine and make use of words like "gat" and "nigger"--yet 50 Cent manages to have his epiphany with a more obsidian pigmentation.

That being said, I cannot overstate the importance for inner-city African-Americans (or "niggers" as is the common parlance in their native ghettos) to take a day off from McDonald's and go see Get Rich Or Die Tryin'. Undoubtedly, they could learn some very important lessons from 50 Cent. The sad truth is, black people have enough role models who are professors of literature, noted physicists, and neurosurgeons. Where are all the rap artists, basketball players, and ex-gang members like Stanley "Tookie" Williams who are willing to step up and give back to the community?

II. ON DEATH ROW WITH "TOOKIE"

Let's take Stanley "Tookie" Williams for example. Here is a guy who murdered four people in 1979, has written books telling children not to murder people like the four people he murdered in 1979, and currently has numerous celebrity activists like Snoop Dog rallying for his life because he murdered four people in 1979.

I would much rather have black children learn from Stanley "Tookie" Williams than a black person who never murdered anybody.

The fact is, every single black child will grow up and join a gang and murder somebody at least once in their lives. Luckily, Stanley "Tookie" Williams has been there to tell black children not to murder anybody--or if they do, to write a book about it and be a mentor for other black children who may want to murder somebody in the future. There's a potentially booming market in mentoring for future black murderers. As "Tookie" has demonstrated, the fact that a black person has violently murdered somebody doesn't necessarily preclude someone from living a fulfilling and useful life up until they are humanely put to death at the hands of the state.

I don't think I'm generalizing at all when I say that black children learn best from death row inmates like "Tookie" Williams. In an ideal world, I believe that the faculties of inner-city schools should be composed entirely of death row inmates. How can we expect black children to learn anything if the person teaching them isn't some asshole in a doo-rag and wife-beater with at least two murders under his belt?

There's not much in today's overly-censored media that portrays black people in an illiterate, gangsta thug, death row light. Sure, there have been a few brave souls unafraid to push the boundaries like Dave Chappelle who were among the first to portray crack addicts on television--therefore transmitting the much-needed message that, yes, even black people can do drugs. But that's about it.

Fuck Rosa Parks. Who did that bitch kill? No one. And black children are supposed to learn from her? You might as well have white people teaching black children. That's no way to integrate.

In conclusion, I believe that Stanley "Tookie" Williams not only deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I believe he should also be freed from prison, knighted by the queen, sainted by the Catholic Church, and given the key to the city where he murdered his four victims. This isn't much to ask for somebody who did, after all, murder four people in 1979.

God I hate my skin color.

I'm the problem.

I wish "Tookie" would have killed me instead.

 

 

 

CAFE DU NORD: CALENDAR OF EVENTS:

November through December, (Monday through Sunday):

A bunch of indie bands, probably a DJ or two, overpriced drinks, a ridiculous cover charge, empty-headed yuppies, and a pool table.

All of January 2006:

More of the same.

February 14th, 2006:

Celebrate Valentine's Day at the Du Nord where we'll have a bunch of indie bands, probably a DJ or two, overpriced drinks, a ridiculous cover charge, empty-headed yuppies, and a pool table.

Coming in March, 2006!

A new pool table!

April 20th, 2006:

Local up-and-coming upcoming new edge edgy indie alt-rock scene band Hitler's Birthdaytakes the stage with a fusion of fusion and grunge-alt-dropkick trance hop with a side order of breaking new ground and creating a new genre aftershave at 9pm. At 9:15 pm, stick around for the sweet sounds of a bunch of indie bands, probably a DJ or two, overpriced drinks, a ridiculous cover charge, empty-headed yuppies, and OUR NEW POOL TABLE!

April 21st, 2006:

SPECIAL TRIBUTE NIGHT! Join Cafe Du Nord as we celebrate the memory of our old pool table with a bunch of indie bands, probably a DJ or two, overpriced drinks, a ridiculous cover charge, empty-headed yuppies, and OUR NEW POOL TABLE!

April 22nd, 2006:

POLITICAL NIGHT! Local dreamboat Matt Gonzalez stops by to kiss the girls, talk about why he doesn't wear a necktie, and address the fact that his last name qualifies him as an authority on immigrant day labor.

ONGOING:

Weekdays, 10:18am to 10:20am:

Happy hour! All drinks 1/24 off!

MUSICIANS!

If you are a local musician and you would like to play at the Cafe Du Nord, move to another city and THEN ask us if you can play so we can put "Direct from. . . ." on all of our marketing materials on the offhand chance that we say yes.

If you do not wish to relocate, you may send us a CD but be aware that we will not listen to any CD unless you have big tits.

Please include a photo of yourself with your big tits on the cover of your CD. Make sure that the CD is shrink-wrapped and has fold-out liner notes and is available for purchase internationally.

Also, please be aware that owing to our hectic schedule, we are unable to book anybody with talent.

Anyway. . .

At the Safeway in the Castro--just a couple of blocks down from Cafe Du Nord--there are currently some petitioners outside who are lobbying for yet another tax to be placed on cigarettes--with the provision that all proceeds from said tax be donated to breast cancer research.

I'll repeat that.

. . .all proceeds from said tax be donated to breast cancer research.

What is it about this cause of breast cancer that is driving the kids wild? First Elvis, then the Beatles, then all that other shit from 1970 to the present--and now Breast Cancer!

"I'm just absolutely mad for all the folk music!" --Tabitha Tabithason, 23, Social Chiropractor, Long Island

"Well, the ribbons are to die for!" --Joshua Eastmeetswest, 52, Leader Of The Berkeley United Front For Individuality, Ivory Towers, California

"Lung Cancer is so. . .you know. . .working class!"--Norma Rockwell, 27, Cunt, Palo Alto

And from the pages of The Daily Victim, Wednesday the 7th of the Month of the Moon Goddess in the Year of the Doormat--

THE UNENLIGHTENED: Don't you find it strange that you're not asking for taxes on cigarettes to go to lung cancer research?

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: No, for Breast Cancer is all and all is Breast Cancer. The cause of Breast Cancer flows within us and without us. Flonase--proud sponsor of Breast Cancer Research.

THE UNENLIGHTENED: So you don't consider any other causes to be of a higher concern?

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: No, for the first and primal cause is Breast Cancer according to St. Thomas Aquinas. In the beginning, there was the cause and the cause was Breast Cancer. No other cause manages to kill germs and fight plaque as well as Breast Cancer. Listerine--proud sponsor of Breast Cancer Research.

THE UNENLIGHTENED: Why not stand outside Victoria's Secret and ask for an excise tax on bras?

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: Because bras aren't evil. Victoria's Secret--proud sponsor of Breast Cancer Research.

THE UNENLIGHTENED: Bras could be evil if you strangle somebody to death with one.

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: But they'll never be as evil as cigarettes. Phillip Morris International--proud sponsor of Breast cancer Research.

THE UNENLIGHTENED: Where did you learn that word--evil?

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: I grew up in the evil Midwest where the evil Christians taught me about the evil good and the evil evil. That's what happens when you come from a red state. Crayola--proud sponsor of Breast Cancer Research.

THE UNENLIGHTENED: So what do you mean exactly when you say that cigarettes are evil?

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: Well. . .come down here with me and I'll tell you. . .

 

One time, I was walking to my car after a show and just as I was getting ready to open my door, I was attacked by a cigarette wearing a ski mask. The cigarette put a knife up to my throat and told me that he would kill me if I said a word. And then he raped me. After the cigarette was done raping me--almost as if to add evil on top of evil--he lit a cigarette and walked off.

THE UNENLIGHTENED: I think you're confusing rapists with cigarettes.

THE FOLK SINGER ON THE HILL: Well, you're just in denial.

This interview has been a proud sponsor of Breast Cancer Research-

Breast Cancer Research--a proud sponsor of itself.

 

THE DREAM OF LARS I


FADE UP:

We are looking at a snow-covered peak in the Alps. At the top sits a young man, Lars I— head in his hands, sobbing into his mittens. Presently, his friend, Lars II appears from around a bend—with a big grin, he gives Lars I a pat on the back only to see a note reading “I’m very sad today, don’t ask me to turn around.”

LARS II : “Hey, Lars I—what’s the matter with you? You look sad.”
LARS I: I am, can’t you read?
LARS II: What’s going on?
LARS 1:
Music was better in the past because people had royalty to impress.

When an individual is purported to have been hand-selected by The Divine One to rule with absolute authority, the need to impress is greater than ever.

Now that anybody can become a king or queen—
Form is meaningless, there’s no need to exert any effort—
For nobody is divine, says this new
indie rule.

WE are all divine. Always have been. Always will be. No matter what life you try to sell us.

"Come on," said Lars II--"you can't fool me. I'm your best friend, Lars I. What's really going on?

After a hearty sigh, Lars I BEGAN:

LARS I: Last night, I was visited by a dream. I don’t have dreams like other people. I’m visited by them. They appear at the foot of my bed, night after night, cloaked in some dark-colored quilt. They stay curled up in their blanket, standing over me anonymously for a few minutes.

At which point, like clockwork, I arise and say “who are you?” Even though I already know from years of experience, that it is a Dream. It’s in this script, you see, this unseen script—my line is always “who are you?”

And it always responds, “I am a Dream”, in a voice not unlike my own.

Last night this happened again. I was visited by a dream. It stood over me. I asked its name and it said “I am a Dream”. . .

And the Dream revealed itself to me, and it was thus:

The Dream showed me the outspoken leader of a well-known feminist organization down on her knees, performing oral copulation on the male CEO of a major multimillion dollar corporation in exchange for his lending of that company’s brand name to be associated with the fight against breast cancer.

“I’ll give it to you! I’ll give it to you!” he moaned as he neared climax.

The next day, all around town, banners were unfurled—the newspapers all bore the legend which read:

“MAJOR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION JOINS FORCES WITH THE FIGHT AGAINST BREAST CANCER!”

There was a photo beneath which showed the CEO shaking hands with the feminist organization leader.

LARS I: And then the dream took a turn—

The CEO began to have other amatory interests besides the feminist leader. Jealous, she vowed to expose him to his wife and children. She threatened him with a sexual harassment lawsuit even though she never officially worked for him.

The CEO panicked.

CEO, PRINCE OF DENMARK
A PLAY IN FIVE ACTS BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

SETTING: Corporate account penthouse in Midtown Manhattan.

ENTER CEO:

CEO: Blither and dither and what-be-gone! Indeed she threatens—with what whistles she intends to blow as once she did blow me! But soft—what secrets were once locked away let keep locked! (Aside) Indeed, my coffers still o’erflow though not as once was—perhaps money shall silence her flappish lips!

(LARS I (with italics): Even though his company has been spending millions per year in the fight against breast cancer already, he vowed to give even more if she remained silent concerning his affairs both past and present. And they lived happily ever after. . .or did they?)

LARS I (without italics): And then the Dream switched channels. They do that sometimes, these dreams—you think they’re going to follow a storyline, you know, just some simple basic narrative—and then wham! You’re smack dab in the middle of another hypothetical!

On this different Dream channel I saw a made-for-TV movie about the Lashaun Harris case. NBC, FOX, ABC, MTV, and VH1 Classics had all been apparently scrambling for the rights to her story no less than twenty-four hours after she had dropped her three children in the San Francisco Bay. In the end, MTV won out above all the others because—

a) as the television station preferred by today’s troubled youth, MTV was able to sell Lashaun Harris on the idea that MTV was the network that would most accurately portray schizophrenia in a positive light.

b) similarly, as the home to many of today’s emerging rap and hip-hop artists, MTV writers would be able to differentiate between ebonics and schizophrenic word salad when drafting the screenplay

and

c) they were offering the most money.

 

LARS I (CONT'D): So here I was in the context of this Dream, watching the MTV made-for-TV movie about the Lashaun Harris case. I don’t know why I was watching MTV—oh, wait, I remember why—it’s because Fox News Channel told me to watch MTV.

So there I was, brainwashed by Fox into watching MTV. And nothing’s running on MTV all day long other than the Lashaun Harris movie.

The name of the Lashaun Harris movie was Can’t You Hear Me Falling? It featured an all-star cast of first time actors including Penelope Dumpling (Three Strikes Are The Limit, Don Quixote) Roger Infestation (Go Tell Momma The Shoe Shop’s On Fire, Weightstone) and Oprah Winfrey (Bigger Than Rosa Parks, Look How Much I Care) as Lashaun Harris.

I thought Oprah’s performance was especially believable until I found out that she wasn’t playing herself.

A little trivia I found out about this film during the Dream--

1) The film was the first made for TV movie to be shot entirely in retro. Over four thousand giant Afro wigs were used on the set. Howard Davidovich, who composed the score, had to work around the clock twenty-four hours a day for twelve weeks to make sure that the music stayed just bad enough to be good. A completely retro television film was unprecedented in the history of Herstory.

2) However, it was never intended as a retro film by Director Heath Bronnewaker according to this interview below by TV Guide (LARS I:which I had a chance to read as the Dream and this movie within the Dream seemed interminably long. And as anybody can attest to, what seems in our dreams is usually real (real in the context of the Dream). So presuming that this seemingly long passage of time really was a long passage of time, I decided in the context of the Dream to pass it by flipping through a nearby TV Guide dated October 4th, 2006)

MARLON BRANDO: Heath Bronnewaker. . .this film. . .what was. . .your intent. . .with this film. . .on a razor’s edge. . .like a slaughtered pig. . .?

BRONNEWAKER: Well, I wanted to tell the story of Lashaun Harris in a way that was true to the way that I wanted to tell it.

STEPHEN HAWKING: Tell. Us. About. The Afro. Wigs. What was. THEIR. PUR. Pose?

BRONNEWAKER: Well, even in my earlier films like Tarantino and Tarantino: The Myth, The Legend, I was a big believer in getting actors to wear big Afro wigs and bell bottoms. It adds an authenticity to the film that modern-day dress just wouldn’t accomplish.

CRISPIN GLOVER: But she threw her children in the bay just a year ago.

BRONNEWAKER: Fortunately, that’s not the way I saw this film. Because if you look at the footage of the film—we actually have a little DVD extra on the making of Can’t You Hear Me Falling!—you see that the actors are all wearing bellbottoms and Afros. So we wanted to be faithful to the film as I made it.

CATHY FROM THE COMIC STRIP “CATHY”: Well, let’s go ahead and take a look at a clip from Can’t You Hear Me Falling!

(editorial note from LARS I: At this point within the context of the Dream, the TV Guide which I had been reading had morphed into a daytime television talk show hosted by Cathy from the Comic Strip “Cathy”. I was later informed by the Dream himself (or herself, I don’t know), that there never was a TV Guide in the first place but that we had simply gone from a commercial break after MTV showed the titles to Can’t You Hear Me Falling! to that brief interview between Cathy and Bronnewaker and then back to the film. I’m not sure if I believe the Dream in this regard. I’m sure that copy of TV Guide exists one year in the future and once I get there—(only 365 days left)—I’m gonna get my hands on a copy just to prove that Dream wrong. At any rate, the film soon started—we dimmed the lights—and me and my dorm roommates (oh, yeah I was a female college freshmen at this point in the dream—even though the Dream denies that as well) grabbed a tub of popcorn and some Kleenex and prepared to weep at the sad, sad, sad tale of Lashaun Harris and her children.

TITLES:

Primordial Pictures Presents

A Bronnewaker/Individualistic Stamp Of Approval From Society Moving Picture Production

In Association with MTV 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and MTV Liftoff, MTV Kids, and MTV Infants.

Can’t You Hear Me Falling!

Based on the novel Can’t You Hear Me Falling? with a question-mark instead of an exclamation point at the end by Stanton Riveria Garcia Lopez.

Starring: Oprah Winfrey and Co. Booksellers Ltd.

Penelope Dumpling

Roger Infestation

PAGE ONE

“The world will be a better place when everybody throws their children in the bay”
--Dr. Lee Meredith Compassion, social worker, freelance psychiatrist and legal adviser to Lashaun Harris, 2005.

FADE IN.

Camera on LASHUAN HARRIS. An African-American woman who looks older than her twenty-three years because of the actress playing her. Nevertheless, she has on a giant AFRO WIG and is lying in her queen-size bed, covered up with a STAR WARS BLANKET. We are in the private bedroom of her homeless estate. She snores peacefully as we look down from above. Suddenly, there is a BRIGHT SHAFT OF LIGHT which SHINES DOWN UPON HER followed by a CLAP OF THUNDER. Lashaun AWAKES:

LASHUAN: Who is it?

We hear (and we hope you hear too as you read this screenplay) the SOUND OF THE VOICE OF GOD. It is a BOOMING and THUNDEROUS VOICE which does not contain any LISP or any other sort of SPEECH IMPEDIMENT. It is a CLEAR HETEROSEXUAL VOICE PLEASING UNTO ITSELF--ezekial 19:86

VOICE OF GOD: Listen to me. I am the Voice Of God. You will do exactly as I tell you! Do you understand?

LASHUAN:Yes.

VOICE OF GOD: This Wednesday, you will go to—do you have a pen and paper—?

She GETS a PEN and PAPER from her night. . .STAND

VOICE OF GOD (CONT’D):You will go to Pier 7 along the Embarcadero—the one by the big ferry building out there, I think Muni goes near there—take your three children Joshoa, Taronta, and Treyshun, and throw them into the Bay! Do you understand?

LASHUAN: No sweat.

Lashuan arises and throws on a very, very, extremely retro HOOP SKIRT, CORSET, AND VELVET BONNET OUTFIT and rushes out the FRENCH DOORS

CUT TO:

EXT. NIGHT. FRENCH COURTYARD VISTA OVERLOOKING THE SEINE

LASHAUN AND HER THREE CHILDREN Joshoa, Treyshun, and Taronta, are being helped into their CARRIAGE by a PORTER.

AFTER a PAUSE, the carriage driver BEATS the HORSE and they LEAVE

CUT TO: EXT. NIGHT. PIER 7.

LASHUAN IS STANDING WITH HER THREE CHILDREN, joshoa, treyshun, and taronta,on Pier 7. She has already UNDRESSED them and is preparing to THROW THEM INTO THE BAY. IN the BACKGROUND, we can see the CARRIAGE DRIVER still BEATING the HORSES. Behind the carriage driver, we can see an eyewitness getting ready to SEE SOMETHING.

LASHUAN:Most merciful and gentle lord in heaven, here I stand with the fruit born of my womb intent on sacrifice in your name.

VOICE OF GOD (OFF-SCREEN): Good. Now throw them into the Bay.

In one SWIFT MOVEMENT, Lashaun swoops her three children UP with ONE ARM and THROWS THEM INTO THE BAY

LASHUAN:And I ask now, Lord, what shall I do? For you know all, you see all.

VOICE OF GOD:Actually, I don’t have a clue. I’m not God.

For ONE FRAME of the FILM, Lashaun suddenly TURNS INTO GARY COLEMAN FROM DIFFERENT STROKES. AND SPEAKING FAST ENOUGH TO FIT INTO ONE FRAME, THE FOLLOWING LINE IS COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND CAN ONLY BE DECIPHERED BY SLOWING THE FILM DOWN BY AT LEAST 50 PERCENT)

GARY COLEMAN:Whatchyou talking ‘bout, you’re not God?

VOICE OF GOD:I’m just the Voice Of God.

And in this NEXT FRAME, Gary Coleman turns into Kirsten Dunst for thirty-four FRAMES, just enough time for HER to SAY THIS:

KIRSTEN DUNST:Well, where’s God?

VOICE OF GOD:There is no God. There’s just the Voice Of God.

And now KIRSTEN DUNST becomes IMMANUEL KANT, author of THE CRITIQUE OF PRACTICAL REASON. He can take as long as he wants to SAY THE FOLLOWING:

IMMANUEL KANT:So God is just the Voice? Astounding. And so those of us who hear this voice within us can claim to be our own Divinity and therefore operate by our own individualistic conception of morals. Yet could this not lead to pure anarchy?—or at least a soulless moral relativism? No—this cannot be. We must embrace the categorical imperative as a means by which a great number of people may be united under a single moral law that does not preclude its own inherent subjectivism.

All of THE PRECEDING TEXT IS SUBTITLED:

SUBTITLE: So as the Voice Of God, do you have any special powers?

At this point IMMANUEL KANT has transformed back into OPRAH WINFREY who has never quite transformed herself into LASHUAN HARRIS.

OPRAH WINFREY/LASHUAN HARRIS: So as the Voice of God, do you have any special powers?

VOICE OF GOD: Well, as the Voice of God—not to blow my own horn or anything—but I have been known to get people to do some pretty stupid things.

LASHUAN HARRIS (OPRAH’S GONE):Do you mean like getting people to throw their own children into the Bay?

VOICE OF GOD: Yeah, something like that.

He gives a LOUD GIGGLE and with another CLAP OF THUNDER, he DISAPPEARS even though we never SAW HIM.

CLOSE-UP ON LASHUAN’S FACE. She SLAPS her hands to her FACE like the WHITE BOY in HOME ALONE.

LASHUAN HARRIS. . .NO MORE OPRAH IN THE BIG HOUSE:

Uh-oh. I made a boo-boo.

CUT TO: PIER 7. DIFFERENT ANGLE

We WATCH the CHILDREN FALL into the BAY. They have been FALLING since their MOTHER threw them a few MINUTES before. Apparently, it’s a pretty TALL PIER. The children are NOT REAL. They are COMPUTER ANIMATED by PIXAR, a LOCAL BAY AREA COMPANY. They FALL in SLOW-MOTION, but they SPEAK like they’re FALLING at a REGULAR SPEED

TARONTA: Hey Treyshun, what do you think is going to happen when we hit that water?

TREYSHUN: How am I supposed to know? I’ve never been in a Bay before. Why don’t you ask Joshoa?

JOSHOA: Leave me outta this. I’ve gotta think.

But it’s TOO LATE.

SOUND CUE: There is a LOUD SPLASH

CUT TO: UNDERWATER IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY

PIXAR-DISNEY has now TAKEN OVER the creation of the FILM from MTV, but PIXAR-DISNEY has AGREED that MTV will still be permitted to air the film on television simultaneously with its THEATRICAL RELEASE THIS JUNE ONLY IN SELECT THEATRES.

We are in a COMPUTER-ANIMATED UNDERWATER GROTTO. There are a lot of MULTICOLORED COLORS AND SWIRLING STUFF. Suddenly, we can SEE taronta, joshoa, and treyshun SINK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE GROTTO. But they’ve DEVELOPED GILLS through the MAGIC OF DISNEY.

TARONTA, TREYSHUN, JOSHOA (UNISON): Whoa! Cool!

FLAPPY, a FLOUNDER, stands up on his HIND LEGS and WALKS OVER to taronta, treyshun, and joshoa.

FLAPPY (PLAYED BY GILBERT GOTTFRIED):Okay, guys, let’s get one thing straight—my name’s Flappy. And this here is my Bay and I don’t want you guys eating any underwater potato chips and getting crumbs all over my underwater carpet if you’re going to stay here or I’m gonna be pretty underwater-mad!

The boys START TO CRY, but stop when FLAPPY SAYS:

FLAPPY:Say, do you guys want to play some Underwater Sony Playstation?

TARONTA, TREYSHUN, JOSHOA (UNISON, WITH EVEN MORE OF A TWINKLE IN THEIR EYES): You bet! Way cool!

We see the COMPUTER ANIMATED children go with the COMPUTER ANIMATED FLOUNDER to his UNDERWATER REC CENTER where they will play UNDERWATER COMPUTER ANIMATED SONY PLAYSTATION DISNEY GAMES FOR ALL OF ETERNITY.

TARONTA, TREYSHUN, JOSHOA: (UNISON, WITH A HINT OF RESIGNATION AT THEIR NEWFOUND UNDERWATER ETERNITY)

Thanks, Mom!


FADE TO BLACK:

CREDITS

LARS II: Wow, Lars I. That sounds like an amazing dream!

LARS I: Wait, you haven't heard the best part!

LARS II: What is it?

LARS I: I woke up. It was all a dream.

. . .or was it. . .?

FADE TO BLACK AGAIN

 

WHEN WORKING CLASS ELEMENTS AND UPPER-CLASS LIBERALISM COLLIDE

 

QUESTION: According to the American Cancer Society, Lung Cancer is the leading cause of death among both women and men. More women die of lung cancer each year than breast cancer. Despite this, the National Cancer Institute will spend an estimated 605 million dollars on breast cancer research in 2005--whereas lung cancer is estimated to receive 297 million. Why?

ANSWER: A disease that affects both men and women is, quite simply, not interesting. Breast cancer is a specialized killer--like a renegade sniper--it's much more dramatic. Also, since it tends to kill mostly women, it has the extra edge of being considered a "minority" disease, therefore more easily enabling celebrities to rally behind it in a show of televised empathy. Finally--and perhaps most importantly--a good portion of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. Consequently, the attitude towards lung cancer deaths has been--"fuck 'em".

QUESTION: Why "fuck 'em"?

ANSWER: The upper-class liberal attitude (see Berkeley Hills, page 42) embraces diverse traits that characterize minorities and alternate sexualities. They do not, however, embrace traits that characterize different classes. Smoking is predominately a working-class trait. The upper-class liberal (which can encompass anybody from the bumper-sticker leftist suburbanite, the spoiled UC Berkeley student, to the folk-singing celebrity activist) will not acknowledge a class struggle or even a disparity of class because to do so will inevitably call into question the specifics regarding their own upper-class position. One of the common tendencies of the upper-class liberal is to deflect all public conversation away from a discussion of class and to keep it rooted instead in sexuality and race. Consequently, smoking has been portrayed as a voluntary immoral act rather than an addiction affecting predominantly lower classes.

QUESTION: How does the rule of "no smoking within fifteen feet of a public building" fit into this agreed-upon ignorance of the class struggle?

ANSWER: "No smoking within fifteen feet of a public building" is the hypocrisy and insanity of the upper-class liberals made manifest. It is George Orwell's "2 + 2 = 5". In this logistically twisted schemata, the concept of "outside" becomes null and void as the concept of "inside" is extended to include the "outside", therefore rendering everything "inside" and under the jurisdiction of this insane logic. In my own life, I have seen some of the most flagrant cases of what I refer to as "shared communal insanity" in regards to the upper-class liberal attitude towards smoking--some of the more memorable ones include:

1) An obese man in a pizzeria (La Val's on Euclid) is drinking a pitcher of beer by himself at 11 in the morning. I am outside having a cigarette. The man walks over from one end of the pizzeria to the other and opens the window to tell me that my smoke is bothering him. After refusing to put out the cigarette, he informs me that he is now going to call the police. He pulls out his cell phone, fuming. After waiting on the phone for quite some time, he gives up and--with an aristocratic flourish--promptly dispatches the Latino busboy to tell me to put the cigarette out. The busboy comes out--we share a moment complaining about what an utter twat the fat man is and we share a cigarette.

2) After being in town for a week, I go to Cafe Roma in the fashionable College Avenue area of Berkeley/Oakland. On a windy day, every exhale is blowing the smoke away from the other people outside. Despite this, a concerned citizen walks a good twenty feet over to my table to say that the smoke is really bothering him.

(At this point, I should say that it is not the smoke itself that bothers these people, rather it is the concept or idea of smoking and smokers that bothers them, for it conjures up images of a working class element infiltrating their idyllic upper-class liberalism. On paper, these liberals would be sympathetic to the plight of the working class. In practice, however, they would rather not be bothered with their particular idiosyncrasies. Everybody should be able to afford the patch, hypnosis, or whatever means they endorse to quite smoking. It does not occur to them--or more aptly, they psychologically prevent it from occurring to them that not everybody shares their wealth. Class is the hardest topic for an upper-class liberal American to discuss, because that is the topic that will burst the balloon. Their stances on race and sexuality can always be altered to fit their ideological needs (they pay their Mexican gardner a little extra each month, they have a gay hairdresser or best friend, they might be a female doctor, a woman should have the right to choose, free Palestine, et alia)--but a discussion of class necessitates a thorough examination of their lifestyle which would place them in a Marxist framework father to the right than they would ever want to admit. Their very conception of themselves as "free-thinkers" would disintegrate and they would lose all sense of self as liberal citizen.)

QUESTION: Talk about prescribed ethics.

ANSWER: Prescribed Ethics is what happens when another's view of how one should live one's life is transferred from an individual to a communal doctrine. By not allowing people to smoke outside of a public business, a certain type of "ethical" behavior is being enforced at a municipal, state, perhaps even federal level. The destructive implication of laws such as these is that there is a singular ethical way for one to behave in regards to what that person does with his or her own body. (See also "seatbelt" law). I shudder to think that many of the same people who are quick to voice the refrain "Keep Your Laws Off My Body" would also be the same people perpetuating many of these prescribed ethical behaviors.

QUESTION: How do prescribed ethics stand theoretically in the face of the Kantian categorical imperative?

ANSWER: Kant's basic premise behind the categorical imperative is that one should only endorse a law provided that the person endorsing the law could conceive of that law becoming universal. Because of the disparity in the worldwide class structure, it is doubtful that "no smoking within twenty feet of a business" or even "no smoking indoors" as a law could become universal without some sort of fascistic elements being involved. Working classes not only in America, but throughout the world, are most likely going to be at odds with such a universal law dictating what they should feel about smoking. (On a side note, the same could be said of animal rights lobbyists, when one considers the vast amounts of people in Asian and European countries for whom meat and dairy are staples).

QUESTION: Elaborate on the "fascistic elements" which could make a law universal on paper, even though not necessarily ontologically.

ANSWER: First, let us say that there are different scopes of universality. Whereas the Bay Area is quick to protest a universal federal government and imperial colonization--there is nevertheless a strain of "municipal universality" particularly in Berkeley. "No smoking within twenty feet of a business" is indeed universal within the confines of that city. Consequently, with Berkeley, you have one of the most insipid forms of fascism. A city denounces the federal government in a show of independence--yet its citizens themselves are anything but independent. So there is a municipal enslavement which the citizens themselves perpetuated by voting such a measure into being. In New York State, indoor smoking was also banned--but there it was done via a fascistic edict which was sent down to the people from the government in Albany. I find it highly improbably that the citizens of New York would have voted that measure into effect.

QUESTION: Why do you consider it improbable that New York citizens would have voted an indoor smoking ban into effect?

ANSWER: Take the city of New York itself. To be sure, Manhattan has its share of the type of armchair upper-class liberals that comprise Berkeley--but the outer boroughs are still largely working class. And the working classes, since they have very little else in life, are perhaps the greatest proponents of individual freedom. Since Berkeley has no working class--the population being divided largely between--

a) Upper-class liberals

b) Academics

and

c) Immigrants who commute from Oakland to serve "a" and "b"--

--it is therefore all the more easier to reach a consensus on how an individual's life should be lived.

QUESTION: And god have mercy on the true individual who wanders into that consensus?

ANSWER: Absolutely.

 

 

 

KATRINA: IN THE WAKE OF AN AFTERMATH

How does one deal with the wake of an aftermath like the aftermath that was left in the wake of Katrina? Is it possible to just pick up the pieces and go on or is it simply enough to pick up the pieces and stand still for awhile? Does picking up the pieces necessarily entail a movement away from where you found the pieces? What if the place where you picked up the pieces is the place where you want to be anyway? For many residents of the Gulf Coast, the pieces are right there in their place. But the place is in pieces. Tonight on the program--

KATRINA: PUTTING THE PIECES IN PLACE

What was the real motive behind Hurricane Katrina? Who or what is to blame? Index fingers are getting itchy in the Gulf Coast. It's not poison oak or body lice--it's the need to point the finger. But at who? Why was President Bush getting an avocado facial wrap and an eyebrow wax when Katrina hit? If not who, then what? Or when? Is time to blame? If Hurricane Katrina weren't to happen for another five years, would I even be writing this? In a situation like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, everybody wants to blame somebody--very few just want to fix the problem. The problem is somebody needs to be blamed. Is it enough to blame the people who don't want to fix the problem? Or should we point the finger at Katrina herself? How much of a natural disaster should be held accountable in times of natural disaster? And if nature truly is to blame--which nature? Natural nature--or human nature? Tonight on the program--

KATRINA: NATURE VERSUS NURTURE

An age old psychological question is being asked tonight in the Gulf Coast. Was it the environment that destroyed thousands of homes across the South? Or were the residents of New Orleans genetically predisposed to cram themselves together inside the Superdome with little food and water? A recent study revealed that twins separated at birth, living in completely different neighborhoods in New Orleans, both had their homes destroyed by Katrina even though only one of the twins lived with the biological parents. Yet in another study, five out of six hurricane victims on rooftops were successfully trained to salivate every time they heard a helicopter. In even another study, the topic of Hurricane Katrina wasn't even mentioned. I think it had something to do with successful ways to lower one's cholesterol. People study all sorts of things--and not all of them have to do with Katrina. It's easy to lose focus with so many other topics being studied. Tonight on the program--

KATRINA: KEEPING FOCUS IN THE EYE OF THE STORM

News programs, televised benefits, celebrity appeals and ribbons have all done their part to keep Katrina in the forefront of our minds--but are they enough? The truth is--people are still thinking about other things at an alarming rate. Last week, a man in Boise, Idaho wondered who drank all the orange juice. Two days later, a woman in Chesterfield, Missouri couldn't stop talking about the Kohl's one-day-only half-price sale on all red-tag items. And the very next night in Cleveland, Ohio, a young man couldn't decide whether to dump his mother's body in the lake or chop her up in his bathtub and bury her in a shallow grave. Is it possible to cleanse the human mind of all other thoughts but Katrina? Eastern spiritual leaders have endorsed the use of color-weather radar maps as mandalas for adherents to meditate upon. According to the Dalai Lama himself, if practiced diligently, this exercise--combined with a strict diet of rainwater and downed power lines--can help interested seekers attain a state of Total Katrina. But Western science may soon introduce a more convenient means of Katrina-focus in the form of a tiny microchip to be placed in the forehead or right hand. Without this chip, it will be impossible to buy or sell anything without first saying, "Isn't that a shame what happened to all those people? Really makes you think, huh?" It will come to be known as the mark of the beast and will remind the faithful of God's promise to destroy poor black people with a hurricane.

 

 

THE TRAGEDY OF SUCCESS: DAVE CHAPPELLE SPEAKS


I recently caught up to the nation’s most notorious lost and found comedian, Dave Chappelle, at an alleged performance at an alleged comedy club--the San Francisco Punch Line. Chappelle, the 31-year old alleged comedian has allegedly slightly resurfaced after a harrowing and tragic ordeal with success.

Chappelle was initially reluctant to talk until I informed him that I was with the media. Now, almost one month to the day of Chappelle’s disappearance, in this exclusive interview that is only being told to members of the media, Chappelle speaks out about how fame and fortune threatened to keep him well-known and stinking rich.

TIME: First off, Dave, on behalf of Time, Newsweek, Comedy Central, NBC, ABC, Fox News, US News And World Report, Ebony, and Jet, let me say thank you for having your publicity agent pencil us in for thirty minutes today. We realize how brave this must have been if it was brave. So, you’ve had you’re diaper changed and you’ve got a fresh bottle, let me start by asking--who’s my sweet little baby boy?

DAVE: Goo-goo, ga-ga.

TIME: Make a tunnel for the choo-choo train. Good little baby boy.

DAVE: Ga-ga. Goo-goo.

TIME: First off, let me say that I can’t imagine the heartbreak that this must have put you through--a 50 million dollar television deal on a cable network, the best-selling DVD television series of all time, and numerous motion picture offers. When did you realize that the time to run away to South Africa and have all the press make a big deal about you was approaching?

DAVE: Let me just say that my running away to South Africa had to do with principles and beliefs. Beliefs that I have a lot of principles about. Principles that I believe in.

TIME: Tell us about these beliefs and principles.

DAVE: One word: Race. That’s the most difficult topic to talk about.People are afraid to discuss this topic. People small talk all the time about incest and rape, but when you say the word “race” people either put on a klan hood or join the Black Panthers. It’s an issue that forces people to choose sides. And that’s one thing that my show dealt with: race. When I impersonated Rick James and Samuel L. Jackson, I was blazing new ground. You see, I have a race. Rick James and Samuel L. Jackson both have a race. And the three of us are all the same race--except for Rick James because he’s dead, but I believe his soul is still black. And his body might be, too. Maybe he’s got black bones. But the point is, we’re all black. And that’s what my show did by using--what’s that big word everybody says I do?

TIME: Satire?

DAVE: Yeah, satire. With my satire, I was illustrating a point about race. For example, Samuel L. Jackson is black. So am I. So when I impersonate Samuel L. Jackson, I’m basically saying that it’s easier for me to impersonate another black man because of my skin color. But a white man can’t do that unless he uses black make-up. And is that right or wrong? And so when I ran away to South Africa to this lovely coastal city of Durban, that’s what was on my mind throughout the entire first class flight. I just kept thinking--”I’m a black man eating filet mignon and afterwards a stewardess is going to come around and put a hot towel on my face.” You see, where I come from, black people like us don’t have anything. We have to eat mud. We sleep on broken glass and razor blades. We’re not allowed to buy anything without money. And here I am, a black man wearing a twenty-four karat gold Sean John T-shirt and a platinum Fubu codpiece. Half of me is thinking “This is great. I really like this” and the other half is thinking “This is really great. I really, really like this.” So I had to go to South Africa to find out if I just thought it was great and really liked it or if I thought it was really great and I really, really liked it. After fourteen minutes spent in spiritual solitude, I realized that it was neither. I had to face the truth: I thought it was really, really great and I really, really, really liked it.”

TIME: Some people have called you the Chris Rock of 2003-2005. Those same some people have called Chris Rock the Martin Lawrence of 1997-2003. Some people have called Martin Lawrence the step-n-fetchit Amos and Andy minstrel show for the multicultural generation. There are some people who have called Eddie Murphy the Richard Pryor of Richard Pryor Plagiarism. And many people are now calling Bill Cosby the only respectable black man in showbusiness. Where do you see yourself in the history of comedy?

DAVE: There’s a history of comedy?

TIME: There was until you, Dave. Now it all begins and ends with you, Dave. You’re our god, Dave Chappelle. Lenny Bruce is dead, Dave! Richard Pryor is in a wheelchair, Dave! You’re going to have to do. Let me quote from an article I actually wrote from the May 23rd issue of TIME. According to me, “Chappelle has emerged as the most revered comedian among the youth of America, with a fresh, satiric--

DAVE: Wait, now what’s that word? I hear that a lot, too.

TIME: It’s the adjective form of satire.

DAVE: And what’s that again?

TIME: It’s what you do.

DAVE: That’s right. I knew that sounded familiar. Go ahead.

TIME: “. . .a fresh, satiric take on race, sex and pop culture that’s often profane, sometimes profound, always provocative--and incredibly popular.” Now, I look at this quote a little over a month later and I wonder, did I mean that? Or had I been smoking some of that crack cocaine that you talk about in 92 percent of your material? At any rate, let me ask you--profane, profound, provocative, popular--which adjective out of that alliterative cluster would you be if you could only choose one?

DAVE: Well, that’s where the conflict comes in. The part of me that is Dave Chappelle would want to be popular. But the part of me that isn’t Dave Chappelle wants to be profound. You see, I’m Islam. I mean, Muslim. I’m one of them. Maybe both. I believe in Muslim and I’m a practicing Islam. Anyway--the Islam part of me says I want to be profound. And because I believe very heavily in my religion, that’s why I went to South Africa where Muslim was invented. I was confused. Comedy Central was offering 50 million dollars. The Dave Chappelle in me wanted it. But the Muhammad Ali in me didn’t. So I came out here to get a different type of Islam. See, I was involved in religious Islam. But out here I got introduced to financial Islam. Now I can have the same great taste of money without the calories of guilt.

At this point in the interview, Dave pauses as a director yells cut and brings him a check.

TIME: Besides the 50 million dollars, Comedy Central was also giving you complete creative control over every aspect of your show. As an artist, this must have completely destroyed you.

DAVE: It almost did. I went into the meeting like I had done for the past two years and they said “Dave, here’s 50 million dollars and we want you to have complete creative control over every aspect of your show.” And that really was the last straw. I said, “Man, I don’t want complete creative control. Here, some of you guys take over some of the control.” And then they started to take away some of my control and then it wasn’t complete anymore and at that point, I just had to put my foot down and say, “Hey! I want complete creative control.” And they gave it to me. So I went from complete creative control to incomplete creative control back to complete creative control. I ended up with complete creative control in the end, but there was a time there where I told these Comedy Central guys that I had principles and unfortunately they were starting to believe me. I had to lay down the law and say, “No! I don’t mean that!” And I meant that.

TIME: Let’s talk a little bit about your comedic innovations. Before you, no black comedian had ever done a bit about a black president except for Richard Pryor, Red Foxx, Dick Gregory, Chris Rock, Moms Mabley, Eddie Murphy, Garrett Morris, Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence, Nipsey Russell, and the entire cast of “In Living Color” except for the talented one. What’s it like to look in the mirror every morning and think “I’m one of the many hundreds of black comedians working today who make a living talking about being black?”

DAVE: How’d you know what I think when I look in the mirror?

TIME: White people score higher on telepathic SAT tests. Let’s jump ahead and then back a little bit and then let’s make a big jump backwards and stay there for a second. When you performed on the streets in Washington Square Park in New York City, you worked with another stand-up named Charlie Barnett, a crack addict who died of AIDS. According to you, Charlie once told you “if you fight change, you’ll end up like me.” Looking back on your own career, do you think he was right?

DAVE: Absolutely. I fought change all my life and then I got addicted to crack and died of AIDS--I forget in what order. After I rose from the grave and went to rehab I decided never to change ever again. And that was a big change for me.

TIME: Looking back to the moments right before your dramatic flight from success, you mention in some other news magazine, maybe this one from a couple of months ago, that you were taping a sketch for the third season of your show in which you played a black pixie who wears blackface and tries to convince blacks to act in stereotypical ways. Not surprisingly, Dr. William J. Burling, professor of Restoration and 18th-Century Satirical Literature at Oxford, makes no comparison at all between this sketch and any of the works of Alexander Pope or Jonathan Swift and claims he’s never even heard of you. Which leads me to my next question: In much the same way that the words “poetry” and “art” have been redefined to include such items as poetry slams, rap, drum circles, and hemp necklaces--do you see a similar trend happening with a redefining of the word “satire”?

DAVE: There’s that word again. Is that the thing they’re paying me 50 million dollars for?

TIME: Tell us about that sketch. You initially found it funny. However, during taping, you mention that you were disturbed by the fact that a spectator--a white man--laughed particularly loud and long at the character of a black stereotype. According to your memory, the white man’s laughter struck you as wrong and it concerned you that instead of sending up stereotypes you were merely reinforcing them. In your words, “When that white man laughed, it made me uncomfortable.” Why the discomfort?

DAVE: That’s easy. When a black person laughs at a black stereotype, we’re saying to one other “Hey, brother, I’ve been there. We’ve walked down the same road. We’ve shared the same experiences. Let’s laugh at this and learn together how we can prevent racial bigotry.” When a white person laughs at a black stereotype, he’s basically saying--”Here, let me tie you to the bumper of my pick-up truck and drag your black ass around the parking lot so you won’t rape any of our white daughters.”

TIME: Isn’t that a generalization?

DAVE: No, it’s a hate crime. And I think a moving violation, also. It’s the same with the word “nigger”. When black people use the word “nigger” around each other, “nigger” becomes an orthopedic pillow or a heating pad that takes away the aches and pains of 400 years of unsightly oppression. When a white person uses the word “nigger”, the two “g”s in the middle launch tactical nuclear missiles while the “n” and the “i” release poison mustard gas and the “e” and the “r” cover the rear by excluding Terry McMillan from the Norton Anthology Of American Literature.

TIME: Last night, you allegedly played a secret sold-out show at the Punch Line here in San Francisco. Is it safe to say that your spiritual quest is over and you’ve decided to accept your success and money and fame as a sad, but unalterable fact of your life?

DAVE: I’ve had to. It’s like being a quadriplegic, but still being able to get laid whenever you want. It’s sort of like having breast cancer without everybody putting on Avon T-shirts and walking briskly across a city for you. It’s like having AIDS, but a lot of fun. Success is something that I just have to accept. I can whine about it. I can run off to South Africa about it. I can buy a new car about it. No matter what I do, I’m always going to have it. But the important thing is, I can still keep my principles and believe in my beliefs. For example, last night I made a whole shitload of money at the Punch Line. Three years ago, I was making a whole shitload of money at the Punch Line, but I was honest with everybody about how much money I was making. Now, after my spiritual quest adventure journey, I have beliefs about principles and so I’m able to tell people that I made less money than I actually did. It’s so easy to forget that in this business. It’s not about the money you’re actually making. It’s about the money you tell everybody else you’re making. If you can’t go out there and have the courage to tell people you’re making less money than you actually are, then you need to ask yourself “do I really believe in my principles or do I just want to go out there and tell everybody what I’m really making?” That’s fine for some people, I guess. But for me, because I have principles and beliefs, I don’t feel right unless I tell people I’m making less than I’m actually making.

TIME: What advice do you have for younger comics who might want to emulate you and be successful?

DAVE: Take it from me, it’s no fun. I know young kids watch me on TV and they say, “oh, I want to be successful. I’ll be rich and famous if I have a lot of money and everybody knows me.” Believe me, the first few times, it’s fun. But then you start to want to always be successful and next thing you know, you’re not failing anymore. My advice: stay in the open mikes. Go to the coffee shops. Wait at the Punch Line bar for six months. And then give up and get a regular nine to five job. And for god’s sake, please put aside some money from your first check and treat yourself to Chappelle’s Show: Season Two now on DVD.

TIME: Is there anything else my sweet and precious little baby boy would like to say?

DAVE: Goo-goo. Ga-ga.

TIME: Okay, now finish your applesauce and brush your teeth. It’s almost time for bed.

 

June 30th, 1:25pm

My wife and I are moving in a few days and so I've been cleaning out drawers and what-not and came across some old writings I thought I'd share with you all--

This first one I really like. I think it's from about three years ago, when my wife and I first met in Reno.

WHERE DO MY MANNERISMS COME FROM?

DR. KENNETH CHASTE

Dear Dr. Chaste,

Sometimes when I'm shopping, I forget to get a shopping cart, thinking that I only need a few items. It isn't too much longer before I realize that I should have gotten a shopping cart before I went in. Where does this mannerism come from?

Groceryed-Out In Idaho

 

Dear Idaho,

Your dad used to beat you.

 

Dear Dr. Chaste,

Sometimes when I find something strange or not to my liking, I'll say "whatever!" and kind of roll my eyes in disgust. Where does this mannerism come from?

Alicia Silverstone

 

Dear Alicia,

Your dad used to beat you.

 

Dear Dr. Chaste,

All my life I have lived in hermit-like seclusion--growing ever-terrified of the world around me as it progresses into a hedonistic orgy of technological fanfare and trite sentimentality. I am a devout Luddite and oftentimes envision myself as having come from another time and place--whose archaic overtones, most of which are the phantasms of my own convoluted psyche--seem to resonate with greater clarity than the mire in which I unfortunately find myself doomed to be immersed. Wherefore doth this mannerism arrive?

Kenneth Chaste.

 

Dear Kenneth,

You are the chosen one. You are an artist.

 

This next one probably comes from about five years ago, right before I left New York. I don't know where I was going with this or what it's overall purpose is. It seems to be broken up in four segments all dealing with the nature of dreams.

I. THE DREAM

I had a dream the other night that my feet fit every shoe in the world. Every shoe. Little girl's shoes, old men's shoes. . .and somehow in the dream that meant I had the power to change the world. But the shoes, in the dream, the shoes were feet and my feet were shoes, so I was really putting my shoes into everybody's feet--you know what I mean--In the dream, people were born with shoes where their feet would be and they went shopping for feet at Payless Foot Source and stuff like that. But in the dream, my shoes fit everybody's feet which meant my feet fit everybody's shoes. And that meant, for some reason, that the world was going to be a better place. So later on in the dream, this lady from the news station came to interview me and she said "Wow, I hear you have shoes that fit everybody's feet." I said, yeah. And then she asked if I could prove it to her by trying on her feet. I did and they fit. It was like my shoes would grow or shrink according to the size of the person's feet. So then she said "Wear my feet on TV tonight and you can be my special guest." So later in the dream, I was on NBC Nightly News or something or other and everybody in Times Square was watching me try on all the newspersons' feet on the big screen TV there. And then it was like four years later, like the dream jumped forward, and all these people from third world countries were sending me their feet to put on so I could bless them and then the world was starting to become a better place cause I was changing the world with my shoes. I was helping the world and helping myself at the samee time. I really liked this dream a lot.

II. THE COMMENTARY

(Note: At this point, looking back, I think I actually had this dream and must have written this the next morning in an attempt to turn it into a bit)

MAN: Thank you, Tony. You know, Tony's dream is not an isolated incident for either Tony or the rest of the world. This interview was recorded in 1974--approximately three weeks after Tony initially remembered having the dream. (In the tape you've just seen, you may remember Tony saying he had the dream "the other night" which just goes to show "the other night" to some people can mean "the other three weeks ago") But since 1974, Tony reported having the foot/shoe dream no less than 300 times. But Tony is not alone. In 1983, the American Association of Professional Psychiatric Psychologists and Licensed Clinical Social Workers reported a staggering 500 percent increase in reports of dreams containing the theme of a body part being able to shrink or grow to fit a piece of clothing worn by people of the entire world. Meg Clumps of Donney Hill Asylum also observes that "quote" dreams contain a universal push towards a grandiose, almost facistic belief that because the dreamer's body part can fit everybody's article of clothing that they somehow have the power to change the world. Clumps does not say whether this belief has validity or not, but the fact remains that the nocturnal trend towards dreams of morphing body parts and articles of clothing (head fitting hats, breasts fitting bras, arms fitting gauntlets) is clearly not waning. No, Tony's dream is not isolated. And just like Tony, the roles of body part and article of clothing are switched in the dream (feet become shoes and vice/versa)--what? I thought his name was Tony. Pedro? Where did I get Tony from?

III. THE TEACHER

TEACHER: Okay, I asked you all over the weekend to write one to two pages about a dream that you might have had. And a lot of you came up to me after class and I said, "no, get away, class is over, let me breathe, Jesus Christ, you kids. . ." But you persisted with your complaints and you kept at me and you cried "Mrs. Fennywaker, I don't have any dreams! What can I write about?" Well, if you're talking about dreams in the sense of having a hope for the future, I'm not going to argue with you there. Most of you are doomed to ghetto life, street gangs, crack addiction, prostitution, fast-food employment, winoism, and the ever-looming poverty. So I didn't grade down if your paper had hopelessness and despair in it. However, I did want to see a dream which all of us, the noble and the common alike, are capable of having while we sleep and I think a really good example of that is the one Anthony wrote about. Anthony, would you. . .?

IV. THE SALES PITCH

That's right! We've got to have our dreams! Without our dreams, there is no tomorrow. And let me tell you, folks, I'm big on today, but I'm even bigger on tomorrow. Now we have our days, don't we, we all have those days--those days where you sit in a diner by yourself and the waitress takes forever to remove your empty plate and you're thinking--"Hey, she must love me cause she wants me to stay here forever!" Or you just know that Steve Allen is going to call you up and say, "Look, I know we've never met and I know that I'm dead, but up here in heaven, I can see that you're a very bright and funny individual and I'd like to send you back in time to the 1950s and give you my spot on the Steve Allen show--cause you're great, kid!" We have those days, don't we? Days when we live in false hope, start believing things that can't happen, and eventually we get so wrapped up in these visions, we forget the basic things in life. We forget to close our pants after we've urinated and we forget how to clothe and clean ourselves. We forget things and that's what leads us to our demise. But I'm going to show you today, in just 78,418 steps, how you can start your life all over. Step one--get born again. And I'm not talking about that Jesus shit either. . .

 

 

June 8th, 4:26pm

David Glisser, c/o Starting From Scratch Productions to Brian Blairwood, c/o of Enigmatic Hollywood Film Movies.

Mr. Blairwood, I am hoping that you might be interested in the enclosed treatment for my new movie, Gangsta Van Beethoven. This is a story that I believe needs to be told. In the spirit of Lean On Me, Finding Forrester, and that one by Spike Lee, I believe this is a movie that could speak not only to the African-American community, but to the people that love them as well. Thank you for your consideration.
GANGSTA VAN BEETHOVEN
a film by David Glisser

Gangsta Van Beethoven is the story of an illiterate and violent African-American gang member from Compton named Marcus Anthony Jackson. After a drug deal turns sour when he tries to sell crack to an undercover police officer, Marcus reaches a plea bargain with the police. Instead of going away for twenty to life, Marcus must travel to Vienna and study musical composition with Joseph Haydn.

Joseph Haydn (ideally played by Sean Connery) is reluctant to take on the scruffy youth at first, but soon realizes that their differences are only skin-deep as Marcus demonstrates his prowess on the pianoforte. Yet when Marcus' old gang friends come looking for him in Vienna, Marcus, in order to save face, re-dedicates his Sonata Number 8 in C Minor (Pathetique) to Prince Carl Lichnowsky. Joseph Haydn is crushed when he realizes that Marcus has turned against him. When he tries to confront his pupil about this slight, Marcus reveals that his father used to beat him and all is forgiven as Marcus retires to the suburb of Heiligenstadt to begin work on his Symphony Number 1 in C Major.

At Heiligenstadt, Marcus realizes that he is going deaf and so he begins freebasing again. Comparisons of his first two symphonies to the earlier classical works of Mozart and Haydn fill him with resentment and he slips deeper and deeper into despair until he falls victim to a cocaine overdose. At the hospital back in Vienna, Marcus is visited by Napoleon (ideally played by Alfre Woodard) who tells Marcus to stay in school, stay away from drugs, and finish his Symphony number 3 in E-Flat Major and dedicate it to him. Marcus agrees. Yet when Alfre Woodard crowns herself Emperor Of France, Marcus tears up the dedication and begins freebasing again. His friendship with Napoleon is severed. But by tearing up the dedication, he is regarded as an urban poet warrior by the disenfranchised youth of Vienna and he becomes a star overnight.

Marcus begins his climb up the ladder of fame and riches. At the Theatre-an-der-Wien, he is surrounded by his bitches and pimped-up orchestra as he blasts through an evening of new music including his Symphony Number 6 (Pastoral), the concert aria "Ah, Perfido", two movements from his Mass in C Major, his fourth piano concerto, the Symphony Number 5, the Choral Fantasy, and two new songs added to his leider: "Bitch, Don't Need To Suck So Hard" and "Bitch, Try Sucking Harder".

Marcus can't enjoy his success for long, however, because his old gangsta friend, Poppa Cap Schiller has commissioned him to write a symphony about the joy of big asses and bling-bling watches. Marcus only has twenty-four hours to write this symphony or Poppa Cap Schiller is going to kill his daughter even though Marcus doesn't have a daughter. With his neck on the line, Marcus writes away and with only twenty minutes to spare, the symphony is completed. But as Marcus is leaving the theatre, Poppa Cap Schiller guns him down in cold blood because Marcus broke with tradition in making the scherzo (molto vivace) the second movement and the adagio molto e cantabile the third movement instead of vice-versa.

But just then, Bruce Willis comes scaling down the wall of the theatre with a grappling hook and a hand grenade and he throws it in Poppa Cap Schiller's mouth. Then we hear the sound of that one old classical song--that one that goes like--duh, duh, duh, dee dee dee dee dee, duh, duh, duh, dee dee dee duh--right when Poppa Cap Schiller blows up. And then Bruce Willis says any or all of the following:

a) "How's that for a finale?"

b) "Why don't you go blow yourself!"

c) "Well, why don't you explode about it, crybaby?"

d) "Don't go to pieces!"

e) "Now you can save money on these brand-name medications."

f) "Having trouble in the bedroom?"

g) "Kiefer Sutherland, how the hell are you?"

h) "Andy, I caught a fish."

i) "Give up? It's an anecdote!"

j) "Well, I never. . ."

k) "What time will he reach the Space Needle if he's leaving Portland at five?"

l) "Do you guarantee it?"

m) "I wandered lonely as a cloud. . ."

n) "In every voice, in every ban, the mind-forged manacles I hear"

o) "My gosh, yarn is that cheap here? I've got to come to Craft Barn more often."

p) "As you can see on this X-ray, your husband has a skeleton here and. . .here."

q) "As you can see on this X-ray, your husband has a skeleton here and. . .here." (English accent)

r) "Library of Congress, can I help you?"

s) "Where does a man go for titty-fucking in this parish?"

t) "If you're older than forty and younger than twenty, are you really?"

u) "I will gladly eat one hamburger today and pay you when I feel like it."

v) "Depression is a fact of life."

w) "You better not tell Jennifer about the results of that blood test."

x) "Seriously, you should tell Jennifer about the results of your blood test."

y) "What? I can't believe you told Jennifer about the results of your blood test!"

z) "It was a good thing that you told Jennifer about the results of your blood test."

 

 

May 19th, 10:53am
MAY 18th, 2005

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A NEW ETHICAL POSTULATION THAT PEOPLE DESIRE TO BE MORE OFFENDED THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR SENSE OF INNER DEPTH.

Dedicated To The "Very" Offended Person In The Mission Street Gift Shop Yesterday Who I Hope Is Reading This

There is only one race I would like to see carted off in boxcars and taken to forced labor camps: Sanctimonious and pretentious middle-class White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. That way, they could finally have the Holocaust that they've apparently always wanted for themselves--(Rabbi David Gershwinowitz, in his book Minorities Can Speak For Themselves, 2005)

I. THESIS: WHAT A GREAT SHOW

On May 18th, 2005 (a fancy term for "yesterday") I was doing some gift shopping in the Mission District. I walk into one of the many gift shops along Mission street and a man follows me in and says, "Don't I recognize you?" He's in his mid-thirties, possibly forty, an ordinary looking-clean-shaven fellow with black hair wearing a blue sweater and khakis. He goes on to tell me that he saw me in a show about six months ago and he can't remember the venue, but he remembers that he really loved the show. He asks me when I'm going to be playing again and he says that he'll definitely come check me out. Again, he says although he can't remember anything specific about the show, he just remembers he really loved it. I ask his name, give him mine, write down my website for him, shake his hand and tell him thanks, and he's off. I turn around and walk down one of the aisles in the gift shop.

II. ANTITHESIS: OH, WAIT. I REMEMBER. . .

Roughly thirty seconds go by, and I notice the man come back in the shop. "Oh, wait. I remember--" he says. What does he remember? Does he remember the venue? Does he remember the name of the show? Does he remember when the show took place? No. He remembers this--"You made some jokes about the Nazis." After the enthusiastic greeting which just took place, I was expecting him to tell me how much he enjoyed the jokes about the Nazis. Alas, this was not to be the case. Now, according to his recollection, the show really bothered him and he found the jokes deeply offensive. "Not cool," he says. "Just thought I'd let you know." And then he leaves.

III. SYNTHESIS: CONCLUSIONS

A. The "offense" must not have been that legitimate. In other words, I couldn't have made that much of a negative impact on him since--

i. He didn't come up to me after the show itself and mention he was offended.

ii. His initial recollection of the show was that it was enjoyable. Therefore, the mention of the "deep offense" was merely an afterthought--almost like remembering that you left your car lights on as you walk away.

B. Furthermore, if the offense was legitimate, then what happened yesterday was simply part of an elaborate plan to get back at me for this offense. For example--

i. He doesn't come up to me after the initial show and give voice to the offense, because he wants to give me a false sense of confidence that everything was fine with the show. He's thinking down the road a few months when he will--

ii. Purposely encounter me in a seemingly random location where he will tell me how much he enjoyed the show before he enacts the final, and most important part of this grand plan--

iii. After establishing that he has made me feel good about a show that he has seen me in, he will leave and re-enter, only to burst the bubble of my self-confidence by implying that I am an anti-Semite.

C. Given the preposterousness of this last scenario, it is more reasonable to assume that the first one is more accurate: Offense as afterthought.

IV. ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF OFFENSE AS AFTERTHOUGHT

A. The initial voice of outrage which usually (or at least should) immediately accompany a sense of offense is missing when the offense is delivered as postponed afterthought instead of immediately following the incident which supposedly inspired the offense. Thereby significantly reducing the legitimacy of the offense.

B. When the outrage is voiced long after the initial offending incident, the sense of being offended is a memory which has been conjured purposely. The temporal distance between the inciting incident and the voice of outrage at the offending incident is directly proportional to the legitimacy of the offense.

C. Consequently, two schematas of memory in relation to the offense emerge:

i. A memory of not being offended and a memory of being offended co-exist. Thereby depleting the legitimacy of the offense by making it an offense that exists in tandem with its alternative.

ii. Or a more linear pattern. A memory of not being offended exists alone. Only to be replaced in succession by a memory of being offended. The legitimacy is again depleted here--this time because the offense emerges from a prior memory of no offense.

D. Taking offense is an emotional and/or intellectual reaction to an offending incident. So, again, with a greater passage of time between the inciting offending incident and the claim of being offended, the inciting incident becomes a hazy memory and all potential future claims to being offended will be less reaction and more action. Or, to be more accurate, a claim of being offended that is in direct temporal proximity to the inciting incident will be involuntary and a claim of being offended that occurs long after the inciting incident will be voluntary. A voluntary claim to being offended long after the inciting incident implies the following--

i. The statement of being offended was a choice and not an emotional/intellectual reaction to the inciting incident.

ii. If the statement of being offended was a choice, then the subject could just as easily have chosen the alternative not be offended. In which case, where such an alternative is present, the offense can not have been legitimate--or the offense only exists in half-measures.

V. SPECULATION: POSSIBLE REASONS FOR CHOOSING TO BE OFFENDED

A. Power. The voluntary switch from non-offended to offended reverses the situation. Earlier, the performer is receiving congratulations from a past audience member. The performer, though humbled, is in a relative position of power--having been observed in the singular (on stage) by one in the plural (audience). After the switch, however, the performer is stripped of his power while the offended gains power. The performer thereby becomes a scapegoat--an anti-PC punching bag--whose only purpose is to pump up the pseudo-liberal attitudes of the accuser, providing the accuser with illusions both of inner depth and higher ethics. For example, the statement "You're an anti-Semite" is intended to simultaneously denigrate the accused while elevating the accuser to a perception of himself or herself as one of superior moral values.

or--

B. Guilt. The cliche of white Western male guilt, to be more specific. If not being offended gives way to being offended, further speculation might imply that the offense is more a result of some internal conflict within the accuser. By not being offended at an incident in which the accuser can see the potential for being offended, the future accuser begins to envision himself or herself as tacitly taking part in the initial offending itself. To rectify the sense of guilt incurred by this tacit approval, the accuser switches sides and claims he or she was offended. By way of giving voice to their sense of being offended, they reveal to themselves and others an unspoken desire to be more offended than they actually are. Though this is only a desire and not fact, they nevertheless believe this desire to be a sufficient form of atonement for what they see as a prior sin committed by themselves. But instead of being alone in their wrongdoing, they conveniently adopt a "devil-made-me-do-it" stance--much like the fundamentalist Christians who many of these "well-intentioned liberals" seek fashionably to distance themselves from.

For an example of a real enemy in our midst, please read the following:

IF CLEARCHANNEL WAS A PERSON:

By He Who Was Listed Black

If Clearchannel was a person, I'd try to reason with him. I'd say, "hey, you don't have to suck all the art and passion out of everything, do you?" I'd ask him if he really held the belief that money is everything. I'd ask him if he had any remorse when he went in and gobbled up independent radio stations or tried to kick a struggling comedy club out of town by blacklisting struggling local comedians who played there.

And if we got into a heated disagreement and Clearchannel stormed off, I'd stand up and say--"Where are you going, motherfucker? Talk to me!"

And if he huffed and puffed to his sympathetic corporate friends about how I refused to accept the reality of the situation--that he was going to be around for a long time, no matter what any group of disenfranchised independent-minded artists or the spirit of Bill Graham thought about it--I might start to feel like I was running out of options. I might wonder if words alone would be effective in dealing with such a powerful man like Mr. Clearchannel. Or I might just shrug my shoulders and think--"oh, well. Dat's sad. But Massah Clearchannel, he sho is de boss and I ain't gwyne tah ruffle no feathers. Dey mus' be a reason "

Or I could wait outside an alley for Clearchannel to walk down the street. And then, when the moment was right, spring out and start beating him over and over on his bulbous forehead with a ballpin hammer. Oh, how excited I would be at the very thought of hearing that dense skull of Clearchannel crack open in the midnight air!
But if Clearchannel was a corporation. . .I'd say, "Oh, well. That sucks. But what are you gonna do?"

 

May 11th, 10:29am

BEST OF WILL FRANKEN 2005 (31st YEAR)

PEOPLE AND PLACES

 

BEST WEEKLY

SF Weekly

www.sfweekly.com

There are many reasons to love the SF Weekly, but one of our favorite reasons is their proper use of superlatives. Consider their May 11th 10-Year Anniversary Best Of San Francisco issue in which they named Will Franken "Best Comedian" on page 13. This groundbreaking, yet completely accurate, epithet may mark one of the most beloved unions of the words "Best" and "Comedian" in a way that is anything but far from the truth. In fact, it's quite near the truth. In fact, according to the SF Weekly, it is the truth. Can you handle it? If you can, then get all the truth you want on page 13 of the May 11th 10-Year Anniversary Best Of San Francisco issue. Take our word for it: See the SF Weekly praise Will Franken now before they move off to LA to get rich and famous!

BEST PLACE TO BE IN SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO

We've all been to San Francisco in our dreams or in alternate realities (those of lucky enough to be able to astral project between worlds). Heck, some of us have even been to San Francisco in New York! But take it from us, when it comes to being in San Francisco, there's no better place to be in San Francisco than San Francisco itself. As much as our dreams or alternate modes of consciousness may try to approximate reality, nothing is quite as good as the real thing. While dreams tend to distort the shape of the Golden Gate Bridge or populate the city with giant talking butterflies, nobody can deny that the actual San Francisco itself is the real deal. In San Francisco, every shape and dimension you perceive, when corroborated empirically by a little over 700,000 residents, becomes a reality that gains much more tangible credence in an ontological worldview (Weltenschaung) than the solipsistic whims of an individual subjective interpretation of the city itself. Take our word for it: Go see San Francisco now before it moves off to LA to get rich and famous!

BEST WORST OF BEST OF DECISION:

Our Reversal On The Worth Of Lost In Translation

Last year, we referred to Lost In Translation as the "Best New Independent Film". Unfortunately, we wrote that before we saw the movie. As we left the theatre completely red-faced, we realized that our pick for "Best New Independent Film" was the worst of our "Best Of" decisions. In our "Worst Of" issue the following spring, we gave ourselves "Worst Best Of Decision" and because of this humility and honesty in recognizing our mistake, this year we're giving ourselves the "Best Worst Of Best Of Decision" for our "Worst Best Of Decision" the previous year. If only more people were like us and could recognize their "Best" is their "Worst", then we could all be the "Best". And if we were all the "Best", then "Best" wouldn't mean anything anymore and it wouldn't be any fun. And what better fun could there be than not having fun? Because by not having fun, you're more inspired to have fun. You must start with nothing from which something may flow. Within you, without you. Breathe in. Breathe out. Now tell me, why was her underwear in your refrigerator? I told you I don't know anything!

BEST RELIGION:

Christianity

www.ebay.com

Sure this world of ours has dozens of major religions. According to the oldest of them--Hinduism--all even lead to the same God. But you can keep your Ganeshes and Shivas and Vishnus. None of them quite shouts "rock and roll" to us like Christianity. Buddhists are lazy, Jews are greedy, and Muslims--well, they just blow up! But Christians know how to tickle our fancy. What other religion promises you your very own personal relationship with a savior who loves us all? And to know that Jesus Christ loved us so much that he was willing to die for our sins? After martyrdom like that, we're not going to be falling over backwards to chant "Om" or fly a plane into a building anytime soon! With thousands of churches worldwide, and almost as many denominations, the vast diversity of Christian religious leaders itself, from Baptists to Catholics, is sure to guarantee a healthy dialogue on issues of faith and a unilateral consensus on the concepts of right and wrong! Take our word for it: Praise Jesus now before he goes down to Hell and becomes rich and famous!

 

May 6th, 12:44am

THANK GOD (WHO I PREFER TO CALL "SHE") THAT SOMEBODY ON THIS CAMPUS HAS THE COURAGE TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT MARTIN HEIDEGGER'S OVERUSE OF MASCULINE PRONOUNS!

Honestly, it's times like these that I am so proud to be a UC Berkeley student. About twenty minutes ago, my wife (who I prefer to call "she") showed me a copy of Martin Heidegger's Basic Writings that she checked out from the library. Oh, no! was my first reaction, Here comes the old patriarchal philosophy of the dead white males!
But boy (who I prefer to call "girl") did I get a pleasant surprise! Some brave student, acting completely of their own volition, and facing potentially unspeakable repercussions for doing so, took it upon themselves to cross out all of the evil white corporate patriarchal masculine pronouns and replace them with gender neutral substitutes.
This is the kind of diligence in scholarship that makes me proud that I was able to get into this ethnically diverse and culturally fortified university with beta-carotene. Sadly, I don't know who this unsung hero (who I prefer to call "heroine") was. The due date sticker on the back of the book just shows the due dates. No name for this pencil-wielding justice deliverer. What I do know at the moment, going from the evidence before me, is that this brilliant finger in the face of dead white male (who I prefer to call "female") supremacy happened anywhere from May 5th, 1999 to February 6th, 2005.

As an English major for the past nine years, you literally have no idea how difficult it has been for me--literally drowning in a sea of these hateful and freedom-stifling pronouns! Literally! How can a person be expected to understand an author like Alexander Pope (who I prefer to call "Maya Angelou") or William Blake (who I prefer to call "Toni Morrison") or Jane Austen (who I prefer to call "Terry McMillan" or "Alice Walker" or "Amy Tan") when they constantly persist in using the S-less form of "he"? Or substitute the "-im" for "-er" ending in "H"?

When my she (who I prefer to call "wife") told me that she was going to write her thesis on "Heidegger And The Retrieval Of A Sense Of The Divine After The Death Of Metaphysics" my first thought was, Oh, my God (who I prefer to call "Allah", "Buddha", "Krishna", or "Ani DiFranco") what in Heaven's (which I prefer to call "Hell's") name is she going to do about all those phallic (which I prefer to call "Vaginal") pronouns?

Well, as it turns out, there was no need to worry. Thanks to the selflessness of an anonymous reader, her academic road has just gotten a lot smoother. The boulders of linguistic oppression, once strewn across the path of knowledge, have been cast aside by the shovel of the pencil.

Just look at what a vast difference this has made in my own understanding of the convoluted language of Martin Heidegger. The following are sentences as they first appeared in The Basic Writings Of Martin Heidegger before the conversion from masculine terms into gender neutral terms:

Language withdraws from MAN its simple and high speech. But its primal call does not thereby become incapable of speech; it merely falls silent. MAN, though, fails to heed this silence.

Now I read sentences like these with this masculine wording and my first thought is "Huh?" I so do not understand this. Is Heidegger saying here that women are supposed to stay barefoot and pregnant? Is he saying that females are simply sexual objects? Or is Heidegger basically saying in this passage that if a woman wears a certain outfit, she deserves to be raped? I can't relate to this at all.
But look at the difference that a few alterations can make in understanding this difficult text:

Language withdraws from PERSONS its simple and high speech. But its primal call does not thereby become incapable of speech; it merely falls silent. PEOPLE, though, fails to heed this silence.

Now I read this version and it's obvious that Heidegger is saying that even if we are not consciously aware of the demands that language makes upon us, nevertheless, when we use words, something of their innate essence breaks through and calls to us. To wit, Heidegger is imputing to language a certain kind of agency in that language makes demands on us rather than simply giving itself over to us as a tool by which we construct meaning!

Well, duh!

When I think about how many untold women, impoverished African-Americans, Latino immigrants, and disenfranchised Native Americans have been prevented from fully appreciating the works of Heidegger, Leibniz, Hegel, Kant, and other major German philosophers simply because of the careless use of antiquated, patriarchal, chauvinistic, George Bush, get me a beer, you burnt the roast beef, Superbowl XXIII, built Ford tough, I'll give you something to cry about, whose bitch are you?, leaving the toilet seat up, vicious and hurtful masculine pronouns--it makes me sick!

And it also makes me realize that, as a proud student here at UC Berkeley, I have a duty. Tomorrow morning, I'm going to get up very early, sharpen my pencil, and head straight to the library.

Amen! (which I prefer to call Apeople!)