Martin Blank

the festival was in bethel originally was to be at woodstock but you know how that goes. dylan had been going up there for several years and staying at his manager's before he bought a place. Big Pink was up there. dylan couldn't handle the hippies he drew to Woodstock

don't forget JFK and LBJ's argument the morning of the 22 about taking connally out of the limo and putting yarborough, in his place which i believe was the original seating plan for the motorcade.

how can the adjective "great" ever fit punk?"

you make me laugh. metaphysical poetry is john donne, george herbert, etc. read it. learning won't harm you. they are 17th century english poets. again lol

Let’s start this comedy of errors with you. Your words appear in boldface in all instances. So true about layers of meaning in the Beatle lyrics, as in any good poetry. And you put it very well. You and Ron B. and Kirk G. are so helpful pointing in the right direction, giving me new sources. The right direction? That’s a good one, especially since you have not shown where the evidence exists in the lyrics to substantiate your claims. You have just sort of made bald statements and then talked around them trying to get us to accept your absurd positions on their face. To say that your way is the right way and by extension the only way contradicts and is contradicted by your claim that poetry includes things like layers and meanings and spoofs and myth-making. Sorry but you can’t have it both ways. Sounds like a bad case of megalomania to me. And for future reference when someone puts his or her opinion out there they should expect criticism and questioning especially if the audience includes people who really know what they are talking about. So before you take the step of putting your ideas out there for scrutiny you might want to put your big boy pants on thicken your skin, check your ego and paranoia at the door and try to learn something from the exercise. You can choose ignorance if you would like but that won’t get you very far. And just because you think it so or the voices tell you something is there, most people want evidence or some kind of proof of its existence before they make a leap of faith. There is no such thing as it is because I think it so. Though I tell ya, the more I look at different Beatle resources on the web and in books, the more I'm seeing that virtually NO ONE touches on what I see: TWA is all about America's slide into fascism. There may be a good reason for that. Pick one: o It just isn’t there o People aren’t crazy and are more discerning than you think o You overestimate your exegetical skills o You are delusional o You aren’t who you think you are o You type real fast and never review or edit your writing. Remember running off at the mouth gets you nowhere o All of the above o All of the above and more Oh wait a minute, we're not allowed to discuss things like layers and meanings and spoofs and myth-making. Oh sure you are especially if the discussion isn’t at a level so laughable as to be embarrassing to all concerned. (Please re-read paragraph 3.) I love a good discussion especially if it is carried out at a high level. . . .because that's like dissecting a rabbit or some other living animal, right Martin Blank? That's what your authority D T Suzuki says. If you can’t decipher such a simple thought you need to take some classes or give up. At the least read T.S. Eliot’s essay on metaphysical poetry, Shelley’s Defense of Poetry, Wordsworth’ Preface to Lyrical Ballads, and Cleanth Brooks’ Understanding Poetry. Here’s the exact quote in case you want to think about it some more: Remember a scientific approach to understanding poetry, in which a work of art is rationally taken apart much as one dissects a frog, only eviscerates it and makes it something less — and other — than what it is. D.T. Suzuki recognized the limitations of science in this respect, saying, “The scientific way kills, murders the object and by dissecting the corpse and putting the parts together again tries to reproduce the original living body, which is really a deed of impossibility.” I find those things you point out about Suzuki as deplorable as the next guy but they have no bearing on his views on poetry. Sorry. You got nothing on me. We are not allowed to ponder the beauty of culture. You bet that is what the not-see Nazis want. Clever pun you got there just like old JL himself. Sure you can ponder the beauty of culture any time and anywhere, that‘s what your mind is for. Don’t give up so easily. Peace.

that's much better.

or the words fits the scheme better. or they took the reference from their stay in Miami Beach in early 1964, where they taped an appearance for Sullivan

I believe she said: "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."

Freud said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Apple re-released Spector’s album in 1972. DYLAN: I do know what my songs are about. PLAYBOY: And what’s that? PLAYBOY: Oh and, some are about four minutes, some are about five, and some, believe it or not, are about twelve. Sorry, but I just don’t see any template for a coup d’etat in the album. Neither do I see where it’s about “the murder of our leaders who are for the people and general decency.” The same goes of for it being “about the murder of decency itself.” Ditto for it being about a Theory of Generations and a cycle of 72 or 80 years, and trying to break that cycle.” The only person I know of who “studied” the album to that depth was Charles Manson, and I didn't see any race war in the album either. The following is only sort of partly accurate: “Supposedly, Harrison randomly opened a book and put his finger on the words "gently weeps", then used the I Ching from there.” George Harrison wrote "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" after his return from India, where the Beatles had been studying Transcendental Meditation under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi during the spring of 1968. Inspiration for the song came to him when he was visiting his parents in Warrington, Cheshire, and he began reading the I Ching, or "The Book of Changes". As Harrison put it, "[the book] seemed to me to be based on the Eastern concept that everything is relative to everything else, as opposed to the Western view that things are merely coincidental." Embracing this idea of relativism, he committed to writing a song based on the first words he saw upon opening a book, which happened to be "gently weeps.” (Said book was not the I Ching.) Harrison continued to work on the lyrics after this initial writing session. In the following examples, I think you try too hard to mine meaning from the songs on the album and, as a result, your arguments do not hold water because they really aren’t in the song but are merely constructs of your own mind. In addition, the lyrics are stretched constructs that exist only in your own mind and not in the work itself · “love there that's sleeping" dormant, gone, for all purposes dead. · "floor...needs sweeping" lazy slackers can't take care of even the simplest tasks · "how someone controlled you" land of the greed, home of the slave, and we think we're so independent. · "they bought and sold you" America is a bunch of whores of the Military Complex · "you were diverted" from common decency; "perverted too" 'nuff said, what a shame; "inverted" i. e., reversed from our original goal of freedom and justice; "no one alerted you" = we're such dumb sob's that we have to be warned about the most simple, obvious things like a retarded child. "America, don't stick your hand in the fire." (wage an unnecessary war that will bankrupt us) You are trying too hard in a way that will never allow you to succeed in understanding poetry. To see an excellent example of what I am talking about see William Dowling’s brilliant essay "Ripple": A Minor Excursus” at http://artsites.ucsc.edu/GDead/agdl/dowling.html BTW all those musicians came close to equaling one Jerry Garcia. Just my opinion. Dark Star on Live Dead says it all. Peace and Happy Trails. Remember, poetry is not a puzzle to bone solved like some parlor trick

i am and i see mia farrow looking for her younger sister.

Not since Aesop's Fables and Reynard the Fox have beasts, birds, and pets shared and commingled their selves with ours so completely and revealingly. Jonathan Cott wrote this in the tenth anniversary issue of Rolling Stone and it is about all that needs to be said about the White Album. Remember a scientific approach to understanding poetry, in which a work of art is rationally taken apart much as one dissects a frog, only eviscerates it and makes it something less — and other — than what it is. D.T. Suzuki recognized the limitations of science in this respect, saying, “The scientific way kills, murders the object and by dissecting the corpse and putting the parts together again tries to reproduce the original living body, which is really a deed of impossibility.” save yourself some work and save us from the "treatise" Just listen

anyone hear/know anything about albarelli's new book – Coup in Dallas: Who Killed JFK and Why – that is due out next month. was very impressed his previous two books. thanks marty

almost immediately, i had problems with this: "Sirhan Sirhan’s bullets not only demolished the hope for a savior candidate who would unite a party so fractured that its incumbent, President Lyndon B. Johnson, had decided not to seek re-election." even if he had lived to win the election the powers of the presidency were no guarantee that he would have not been assassinated in office. after all, they hadn't done his brother much good. having lived through that period of american history, i find the what ifs to be useless. you know kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer; it feels so good when you stop. xxxxty as it is, this is the hand we were dealt and it's up to use to honor memories by doing the best we can with it.

can't seem to find list of ohio defectorr. can you point me. thanks

just a side note signifying nothing. he went to my alma mater kenyon college in ohio.

there was this one, too:

i liked guy gabaldon when i was nine. Hell to Eternity Guy Gabaldon (Jeffrey Hunter) is an orphaned Latino youth raised in Los Angeles by an adoptive Japanese-American family. With the dawn of conflict in the Pacific, Gabaldon enlists in the military as a translator. Fighting in the Battle of Saipan, he's horrified at the carnage. So, disobeying orders, he goes behind enemy lines and talks the Japanese into willful surrender, saving thousands of lives on both sides. The film is based on the true story of the decorated World War II veteran.

When you know the truth about who Robert and Lee Oswald really were, everything begins to fall into place and make sense, especially Robert's remarks about his brother. What Robert knew back then was something that he and very few other people in the world were aware of and this was that there were two (lookalike) “Lee Oswalds” involved in the assassination. Robert’s brother was LEE Oswald and he was the person who was seen in the sixth floor window and who may have fired shots at the motorcade. The other Oswald was HARVEY Lee Oswald, who was just what he told police he was – a patsy. He was the person who was arrested and murdered by Jack Ruby. He was also accused of killing Officer Tippet and was found to be the "lone nut” shooter by the Warren Commission. Robert said in an interview: “There is no question in my mind that LEE was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him.” Robert is telling you that it was LEE (his brother) not HARVEY who was involved in the assassination. Most people would take this as him convicting HARVEY. I think that’s an understatement. . . I would love to be able to say that Lee was not involved in any way whatsoever, or much less to the extent that I believe that he was. Again, he is talking of his brother LEE. Is someone going to take DNA samples? I beleive you will see no elation between Robert and HARVEY’s daughters John Armstrong wrote a great book about this called Harvey and Lee.

seriously, they didn't know Hill 875 was hamburger hill?

i'm pretty sure the name koch listed with supporters in the matter of what a coincidence: Admiral George Stephen Morrison, commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, was also the proud papa of one Jim Morrison, late of the Doors. Cue up: "The End" Here the two of them are sharing a moment on the bridge of the U.S.S carrier Bon Homme Richard in 1964. Wowzers, life is sure strange. Gonna break on through to the other side! I guess they can't count to 273 why would i think they could if they couldn't do 263?

that firing had nothing to do with vietnam. In 1968, (Ret.) General James M. Gavin stated: There has been much speculation about what President Kennedy would have done in Vietnam had he lived. Having discussed military affairs with him often and in detail for 15 years, I know he was totally opposed to the introduction of combat troops in southeast Asia. His public statements just before his murder support this view. Paul B. Fay, undersecretary of the Navy under JFK, stated: If John Kennedy had lived, our military involvement in Vietnam would have been over by the end of 1964. To Larry Newman, Kennedy said: “The first thing I do when I’m re-elected, I’m going to get the Americans out of Vietnam. Exactly how I’m going to do it, right now, I don’t know.” JFK also advised Robert McNamara: “We are not going to have men ground up in this fashion, this far away from home. I’m going to get these guys out because we’re not going to find ourselves in a war it is impossible to win. In 1963 Kennedy remarked to his aide Kenneth O’Donnell: In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a communist appeaser, but now I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m re-elected. So we had better make damned sure I’m re-elected. Senator Wayne Morse told the Boston Globe in 1973: There’s a weak defense of John Kennedy. He’d seen the error of his ways. I’m satisfied if he’d lived another year we’d have been out of Vietnam. Ten days before his assassination, I went down to the White House and handed him his education bills, which I was handling on the Senate floor. I’d been making two to five speeches a week against Kennedy on Vietnam. . . .I’d gone into President Kennedy’s office to discuss education bills, but he said, ‘Wayne, I want you to know you’re absolutely right in your criticism of my Vietnam policy. Keep this in mind. I’m in the midst of an intensive study which substantiates your position on Vietnam.’ The study which Kennedy alluded to was made known “through the Ellsberg Papers as the McNamara Study.” Volume 8 of this study details, according to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “Kennedy’s plans to extricate the United States from the Vietnam War.”

The pressure to use combat troops was most intense over Cuba (twice, in April 1961 and October 1962), Laos (spring 1961), the Berlin Wall (summer and fall 1961) and in South Vietnam (twice, November 1961 and October 1963)

they have McNamara doing it in 1962! Why not mention JFK unless you're trying to confuse