Unless you live in a cave in some remote part of the world, you’ve probably heard that Michael Jackson passed away a few days ago. I take that back. You could probably walk deep into some cave in Afghanistan and the first you’d hear from some grotesque mountain man would be, “Hey, did you hear Michael Jackson died?”
So, everybody knows and with that comes the 24/7 round the clock coverage on every news channel, and tributes by everyone who ever had a piece of lint of MJ’s clothing land on him. Is it ridiculous? Yes? Is the news interesting? No! Is our cultural behavior fascinating? Absolutely.
Regardless of if you liked MJ or not (and I was definitely a fan in high school, and I could see how someone could like him as an entertainer but dislike him as a person), you have to be amazed by the sudden attention to his death. Just 2 weeks ago, he was a frail and wounded man, and no one cared if he was homeless on the side of the curb outside of a 7/11 store drinking cheap wine out of a paper bag. Now, everyone is interested in paying some sort of a tribute and discussing how sad it is. Jesse Jackson cannot wait to have the spotlight shine on him once again discussing the sad nature of this situation.
(For the international Audience, Jesse Jackson is a reverend who likes to get involved in politics, and turn everything into a race issue; particularly if he can grab the spotlight. He’d make a national racial case out of why your ordered the “Pinto Beans” as opposed to the “Black Beans” at a Mexican restaurant..)
There are two issues that are a bit alarming to me:
- Why do people insist on paying tribute AFTER someone dies?
- Why is there a need to lionize and praise someone after they pass away?
- The first issue: Tribute that’s too late.
Very rarely, you see tributes to living legends, but moving out of the scope of celebrity, very rarely do people take the time to appreciate someone else they care about. They make take the time to write great eulogy speeches but couldn’t take the time to make a phone call. This isn’t even about Michael Jackson. We’ll get to that later. This is about tendencies of human behavior.
My father was never big on funerals. If invited, sometimes he’d attend, and sometimes he wouldn’t depending on the circumstances. He always said, “If you have something nice to say to appreciate someone, say it when they’re alive. Once they die, let it go.” It seems like common sense but you don’t realize or comprehend the tremendous magnitude of it until you experience it personally.
I realized the effect of it personally when my friend Seth passed away back in March.. I didn’t feel a need to write a speech that’d wow everyone to no end. Sure, it’s nice to pay tribute and commemorate someone, and I am all for paying tribute. From a personal perspective, there is some solace in the fact that you said what you wanted to say to that person while they he/she was alive. While you can’t make up for the loss, there is a very tiny bit of catharsis in knowing that the person KNEW how you felt about him/her
It’s unfortunate that people don’t focus on that aspect of showing appreciation more. Upon hearing the news of someone passing away, people seem quick to want to offer a nice tribute, but the true impact would have been felt much more had the action been carried out while the person was alive.
Thus, you learn to show appreciation for people, as it difficult as it may be to verbalize your feelings out loud. Whether it’s a parent, another family member, friend, give them a call, take them out to lunch and tell them you appreciate them. OK, now that was the sentimental sweetheart part of the post.
- So let’s get to the 2nd issue: The emphasis on lionizing people after the die.
Paying tribute to someone is a nice gesture if words are congruent with your emotions. Whether it’s an acquaintance, a distant relative, or Michael Jackson, it’s common sense that you’d miss someone you genuinely liked. However, what if you didn’t like the person?
People often feel a need to say something nice about someone after the fact. Entire revisionist stories are written, and people suddenly develop selective memories about the events that occurred, or somehow they convince themselves to see the events differently. It often becomes ridiculous and if the person is remotely famous, the effects are that much more intensified.
My question is: Where do you draw the line? Seriously?
We know that people don’t have pleasant eulogies for those who commit genoiced or those who are mass murderers. Certainly, there is no positive tribute for Joseph Stalin, Hitler, or the Zodiac Killer. Where is the cut off line, however? Where is that arbitrary line where we decide to not champion somebody? If someone went on a rampage, stormed into a government building bent on going on a killing spree, but ended up killing dangerous escaped convicts, and in the process died himself, what happens then?
“Well, let us remember Bob Smith for saving the children who were playing outside while on a fieldtrip from the school. The children’s lives were spared from being slain by the dangerous convicts Bob shot. Of course, Bob went in to the building with the intention of just shooting random people, but by miracle, ended up taking out bad guys. God bless him.”
Where do we draw the line?
In the Michael Jackson case, the same media that vilified him is now paying tributes to him. Where is the consistency? Yes, I get that much of the media is a collection of whores who want to milk the story for what they can. They like to exploit what they can. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can see that pattern of behavior.
But then, even in the case of someone not famous, you see the same trend of behavior, the trend of lionizing what used to be a contemptible character. The guy who was an asshole suddenly is recalled with fond memories.
It doesn’t work that way. A prick is a prick, present or past tense. Joseph Stalin was a prick. We should be glad the motherf*cker is dead. Just because he dies, doesn’t make him a saint. Consistency!
That brings me to another point: Why is it sacrilege to rejoice when an asshole dies?
It makes no sense. It only makes sense to be sad when a good guy passes on. So, yes, I was pretty bummed out when I recently logged on the Internet to see the news that George Carlin died of a heart attack. It sucks! He was 71, but still, George Carlin is the kind of guy you’d want to see live to be a 100. I think he was a brilliant comedic mind, an astute social commentator, and a genius of an artist; plus an all around good-guy.
It makes no sense to mourn the loss of a prick. A few years back, ex-president Gerald Ford “Passed Away”. My initial gut reaction? One less scumbag on the planet! My second reaction? “Why couldn’t he die in 1963 during the Warren Commission, or before it?” Over all reflection on the situation: Just one less scumbag the planet.
All human beings die. When the ones whom we care about and admire die, then naturally we are saddened by it because we feel that void in our hearts. When a prick dies, then we ought to celebrate. Dick Cheney is one evil son of a bitch, and he is almost 70 years old. One day, Dick Cheney will die, as do all living creatures. You don’t hold a memorial service for an evil fuck like that. I think you should be allowed to rejoice in such instances. You ought to be commended for pulling out your old Van Halen CD (or MP3 now days) and cranking out LOUD the song: “Dancing in The Street”.
This is how it’d go:
Newsflash: Dick Cheney died today while Hunting. An Elk shoved his horns up Dick’s rectum puncturing his colon as well as his sternum. His loss is being felt, but we can’t figure out where.
Reaction: Happy People Start blasting Van Halen’s cover of “Dancing in the Street”…..
There’ll be swinging , swaying,
records playing
… Dancing in The Street…..
Whoaaaaaa,
It doesn’t matter what you wear,
Just as long as you are there,
Come on every guy, every girl, everywhere,
‘Round the world. They’ll be dancing.
Dancing in The Street.
It’ just an invitation,
Across the Nation,
A chance for the folks to meet,
There’ll be laughing, singing,
Music Swinging,
Dancing in the Streets……
There’ll be dancing in Chicago,
Down in New Orleans,
Up in New York City…
———————————————————————–
OK, I am getting sidetracked a bit. Back to the issue:
Anyhow, this phenomenon will continue. Granted there will be individuals who will sorely be missed by a lot of people. There will be various inspirational figures who will touched people through actions, art, or just every day personal interaction. Yet, there will be the Dick Cheneys of the World, despised by most of the planet, and when they pass away, you are assured of seeing round the clock tribute on CNN and every other news channel. The same people who couldn’t stand the guy will release a statement about the sad loss of having lost that person.
If there is anything to take away, it’s that when it comes to making statements about someone’s character, human beings are consistently inconsistent. They’ll attempt to mourn a Cheney type, when in fact, their true gut feeling would be to rejoice….. Speaking of celebration, here is Van Halen once again…..
Enjoy….
Hi Cameron,
I have enjoyed reading your blog from some time – generally you have the right approach to game and pick up however I have to take issue with this patronising and ignorant comment.
“For the international Audience, Jesse Jackson is a reverend who likes to get involved in politics, and turn everything into a race issue; particularly if he can grab the spotlight. He’d make a national racial case out of why your ordered the “Pinto Beans” as opposed to the “Black Beans” at a Mexican restaurant..”
WTF ?
Jesse Jackson is one of the best politicians to have emerged out of American in the past 30 years and that is why he is known, loved, admired and respected around the globe.
He is the true inheritor of Martin Luther Kings mantle (he was actually right beside him when MLK was assassinated) and he should have gotten the Democratic Party nomination in both 1984&88.
There was huge excitement in Europe at the time. was a kid and my parents were ecstatic at the prospect of Jesse being President instead of the fascist,war-criminal Ronald Regan and he had an Obama like effect however the US was not ready for a black man to be president.
Hence why they picked the vacuous and insipid Michael Dukakis in ’88 and the Dems lost when they should have won.
I remember him giving a very eloquent and passionate speech against the Iraq War in London in 2003. A criminal invasion which violated international law and resulted in 1,000,000 dead Iraqis and 4,500 dead US Soldiers.
What did *you* do to try to stop this crime from happening Cameron?
More than Jesse?
I doubt it! So get off your high horse and give him some respect.
He has done a lot to further the cause of progressives and in your own country he has done a lot to champion the cause of equality,justice, human rights and giving a voice to the voiceless.
Grandmaster Flash – a musical genius and legend even made a tune called Jesse in his honor!
That is the problem with Americans. You attack someone like Jesse Jackson and elect an idiot like George Bush. Sigh ………
At least you like George Carlin and rightly call Dick Cheney “evil” (which he is) so I can *almost* overlook your attack on Jesse.
Otherwise, keep up the blog as it is one of the better ones out there.
Now crank this tune out loud!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3IsCfMB0rk
How is Ronald Reagan a war criminal? He led to the defeat of the USSR and helped the US economy come out of its worst shape in the early 80’s. I know, I was a teen then and you could not even get a job at McDonalds it was so bad. The guy did get messed up in the Contra affair but then Kennedy did get us into Vietman, Clinton did not pursuit Bin Laden and Obama has never really done anything in his life beyond Teach College and act as a community organizer. I know. I live in Chicago and have followed his career since he was in the state legislature (where he never successfully passed any bills and his attendance record was less than 30% – a real low). No one is perfect.
You can say what you want about Cheney, but we were not attacked once after 9/11. Also if you look at his tax records he donates more per his income percentage to charitys (childrenes charities, heart association,ect) than any other politican. Look it up.
Gerald Ford was not a bad guy. He grew up fatherless for a while, was a WW2 hero, built himself up from nothing and along with Everit Derksen helped to pass the 1964 Civil Rights legisation. Little known fact (kept down by the liberal media) is that more Republicans voted for that act than Democrats. Johnson personally went to both of them to help get the legislation passed for he knew many southern party members would not pass it. So much for an evil prick – right?
As far as Jesse Jackson goes, he ran on a platfrom in the 80’s of taking public retirement money and using it for public housing. So a guy like this who robs from hard working Americans is to be exhalted? Sorry I work to hard for my money…
Just my two cents and read your history books more often…
Thanks and enjoy the 4th – you know the country that saved the world from two world wars, defeated the USSR…need I say more?
More on “the prick Ford”…you can look this up too…
In October 2001, Ford broke with conservative members of the Republican party by stating that gay and lesbian couples “ought to be treated equally. Period.” He became the highest ranking Republican to embrace full equality for gays and lesbians, stating his belief that there should be a federal amendment outlawing anti-gay job discrimination and expressing his hope that the Republican Party would reach out to gay and lesbian voters.[54] He also was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, which The New York Times described as “a group of prominent Republicans, including former President Gerald R. Ford, dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party”.[55]
On November 22, 2004, New York Republican Governor George Pataki named Ford and the other living former Presidents (Carter, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton) as honorary members of the board rebuilding the World Trade Center.
In a pre-recorded embargoed interview with Bob Woodward of The Washington Post in July 2004, Ford stated that he disagreed “very strongly” with the Bush administration’s choice of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction as justification for its decision to invade Iraq, calling it a “big mistake” unrelated to the national security of the United States and indicating that he would not have gone to war had he been President. The details of the interview were not released until after Ford’s death, as he requested
This just in from the US IRS….
Tax time means sometimes us mere mortals get sneaky peeks into politicians secret financial records. After much clamor, it turns out Obama gave about 6 percent of his income in 2006. That fraction was up from the 1 percent they gave in 2000-2004, which clocked in far lower than the national average.
How generous is Dick Cheney? Very! Cheney gave away a whopping 78 percent of his income in 2006. (For the mathematically inclined and curious, 78 percent=$6.9 million, so 100 percent=x. Come on cross-multipliers! I know you’re out there!) Do the wealthy like our friend Mr. Cheney give away the most loot? To see the surprising answer, read more.
It turns out, the working poor are actually the most generous givers when considering giving as a percentage of income. Studies show the folks who have the least to give tend to give away between 4 and 5 percent of their incomes, on average. The fabulously wealthy give away between three and four percent. Oddly both poor and wealthy give away significantly more than the middle class.
Why do you think those with less to give seem to prioritize it more than those who are more comfortable? Is charitable giving a fair measure of character?
Hey Terry,
Well, I didn’t think too many people internationally knew of Jesse Jackson. While, I am in full agreement that Bush is a certified idiot, I tend to disagree with about the galvanizing effects of Jesse.
I remember his speech at the 88 convention and thought he was far more charismatic than Dukakis. (I realize that’s not saying much considering a sleeping turtle could have outdone Dukakis.)
In the U.S, he has fostered a negative image for himself for turning everything into a racial issue and playing the race card every chance he gets. He does it to a point where even Black folk believe he hurts their cause.
He may be known in the UK, but consider that people in places Germany, Switzerland and Australia are generally unfamiliar with him, and yet there are readers from all of those places.
By the way, the mention of Ronald Reagan!! Now, there is a case for revisionist history that completely deserves its own Blog post. John McCain’s hero, and hero to most Republican politicians these days, Ronnie Reagan was vastly considered a dimwit in pop culture in the late 80s . As a high school kid to 20 years later, I watched Reagan be transformed from Jerk-off to “Hero.” Amazing, isn’t it?
Nevertheless, thanks for the feedback. Look at the bright side, the post inspired you to comment on the Blog. I am always pleasantly surprised as to the caliber of readers and their diverse backgrounds.
—————————————-
Karl,
Ummm, thanks for the lesson. Kennedy did not get us into Vietnam. He was getting us out. It’s what got him killed. As for Gerald Ford, well, while we are on the topic of “History Lessons,” you ought to read up on the “Warren Commission.” ;-)
Intellectually, Ford was considered to be not the sharpest tool in the shed, even by many people in his own party. Then again, you probably already know that since you seem to be a fan.
Leave it to my Blog to draw out the president of the Gerald Ford fan club. Agh
By the way, the point of the Blog entry was not regarding Cheney or Ford. It’s about how people have two different accounts of someone before and post their passing away. That includes cheney for most of us who don’t live in Fantasy land. ;-) Next, you’re going to invite me to go hunting with him…. No, thanks; in advance.
Instead of celebrating Dick Cheney’s death, the best way to deal with his not-soon-enough demise is not to cover it at all. The best treatment for assholes and douchebags like Dick Cheney is to collectively ignore them. Any sort of media attention will only embolden them and to encourage potential assholes to continue to do anything to garner our attention.
Hi Cam,
thanks for your intelligent response.
yeah, Ronnie Regan was seen as a joke in the 80s. This is from what I vaguely remember as a very young child and then what I read in subsequent history books. He was much like George W Bush – a simple man with the common touch who was actually a puppet for the dark forces of conservatism.
His image was re-habilitated as the Republicans desperately sought an icon to rival JFK and during the 8 years of Clinton they started looking back wistfully and decided that in comparison to Ford and Nixon, hey, Ronnie wasnt that bad afterall. Lets make him an icon!
Karl – your comments are not worthy of response and are beneath contempt.
Be a good little boy and go to the “history” section ( it begins with a H) in your local library or bookstore (if you dont know where to find one, try a google search) and read(you can read right) some history books.
When you have done so, then I may entertain your nonsense.
As a starting point, you could read how all historians agree that it was the USSR (not USA/UK) that defeated Nazi Germany as 75 percent of Wermacht troops were deployed to the Eastern Front. Compare the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942/43 with say D-Day/Battle of the Bulge/Market Garden in 1944. The war was won by then and those battles paled into insignificance compared to the sheer scale of Stalingrad and Kursk.
Regan – clearly you have no idea of the death-squads that the US ran in the 1980s in South America. In 1987 the World Court convicted the US and Regan of state-terrorism for the violence and war crimes they commited against Nicaragua.
Of course you have probably not heard of this so hey, its ok – I blame the corporate TV you probably watch!
And finally – Dick fucking Cheney.
LOL.
Read a book by the guy who was in charge of Conter-Terrorism in the US – Richard Clarke. It was called…….Against All Enemies. Great book.
Basically Clinton had regular meetings with him about Al-Queda – and there were no serious attacks on his watch.
Under Bush and Cheney, their dicks grew hard thinking about oil and oil only. Poor old Richard Clarke tried to warn them about Al-Queda and Bin Laden. Bush and Cheney didnt care – they just lusted after oil-fields.
So the US got hit by terrorists on 9-11. Wouldnt have happened under Clinton. The 9-11 commmission said as much.
Then Bush and Cheney pulled Special Forces away from the hunt from Bin Laden to find Saddam Hussein instead!
And of course lets not forget Cheneys fetish for tortue.
If there is any justicce in the world, just as Nazi war criminals swung from the gallows at Nuremberg, hopefully Cheny, Bush and the neo-c-nsevervative cabal that ruined your country, destroyed the global economy, sanctioned torture and killed 1 million Iraqis will all swing fom the galllows.
Thankfully Obama has been elected now.
I have read his two books – Dreams of my Father and the Audacity of Hope.
You could not wish for a more humane, intelligent leader. I wish he was the President of Ireland. I would then be proud to be Irish.
Relax. Your country is now in safe hands.
Also you can now travel anywhere in the world with your head held high with pride.
Under Bush – well, if you were American, you were better off pretending you were Canadian when travelling !
Keep Smiling,
JT
RIP Seth.
Wow! Where to start with all the ignorance floating on this blog entry. JFK did puss out on Russia, with the Cuban Missle Crisis. Gee the Russians withdrew missles from Cuba, but we withdrew missles from Turkey. That’s like getting a HB’s number, but failing to close the deal. JFK did lower taxes, he increased the troop levels in Vietnam to 100,000 and he even created the US NAVY seals. However, JFK couldn’t keep his dick in his pants, he cheated on his wife as so many dummy’s do both Dems and Repubs. But JFK did do Marilyn Monroe ;) Ronald Reagan was a great president. He caused two 49 state landslide voctories. He inherited an economy that had 12% unemployment. He cut tons of taxes he especially lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%. This caused the creation of 22 million new jobs from 1983-1988. Unemployment was 5% by the end of his second term. There were no US Death Squads! Once any Communist party took over a government it immediately fought any resistance and slaughtered the opposition. Stalin killed Millions of his own people in Russia. Reagan supported revolutions against the Communists. Whoever Juice Terry is, You better lay off the Juice bro it’s fucked your brain up. To Cameron, I enjoy your blog when it talks about attracting women. But when you try to sound intelligent on political matters you come off as an ass. Reagan was despised by the Liberal Media and Hollywood. He challenged them in his speeches and he spoke directly to the American people doing it. That’s why he won two huge landslide electoral victories. The only thing that is being revised is his legacy. Dimwits like you have attempted to rewrite history to besmirch him and hide the truth of his success. Now if your stupid enough to be brainwashed by the media, that’s your problem pal. Now Reagan was an Amazing speaker and very Charismatic. He could communicate Conservative principals to the people and they voted for him. It’s like us comparing lets say Mystery and Neil Strauss and You. Mystery taught his Method and went through alot of shit, but he taught alot of guys how to meet women. Neil Strauss also went through alot of shit to learn how to meet women. Now you have your own ways of teaching guys to meet women, but I also think based on some of your current posts that your extremely jealous of Mystery and Neil. Mystery has his own TV show, websites, products,etc. Neil is a journalist for the New York Times and a NYT best selling author. His book the Game was a best seller and influenced alot of guys on the seduction community..lol community is another liberal word. Anyway Neil sums up all the bozos and weirdos and losers who make up the PUA. Now you may have been David Deangelos ass wipe or Mystery’s bitch or whatever, but don’t attack these guys because you can’t replicate their success. If it wasn’t for them you would not have the success you claim to have with the ultra cheap website and what not. You charge a couple thousand for bootcamps but where does the money go? definitely not here on this piece of shit. Basically Mystery and Neil are the Reagans, the little liberals didn’t like them, but the people liked them aka the AFC’s. Your the Jimmy Carter and the Dukakis of the Seduction Community. Yeah you may score a little here and there, but after the STD’s nobody knows who the fuck you are, and you just lost in a landslide.
Humphrey,
Thank you for that wonderful contribution. You’re so wrong on the Cuban missle crisis and JFK/Vietnam that I’d have to start an entire NEW BLOG just to help you out. (By the way, the blog post was not about liberals or conservatives. Did you happen to catch that?)
In the meanwhile, glad you read the blog of a guy, of whom you have such a low opinion. I’d urge you to do what Ronald Reagan would want you to do: Support America, help the economy, and enable small businesses to grow.
Click on my sales page and purchase a copy of My Audio Course!
1. It’ll help you with women, and getting a girl, may lower your anger with me.
2. Most importantly, it is what Ronald Reagan would want you to do. Do it for “the Gipper!”
http://www.attractwomenanywhere.com/audiocourse.shtml