Dave Letterman, Bill Hicks, Truth & Reconciliation
Back in 1993, David Letterman cut a comedian's performance from his show. Apparently because the guy made some jokes about pro-lifers.
Last night, Letterman had the comedian's mother on his show, and he... apologized to her. Repeatedly. Talked to her for 10 minutes. Then showed the tape of the routine the comedian had originally done, which Letterman had once censored. The tapes keep getting yanked from YouTube, but the 3 parts are here, here and here. (If you can't see these links, please search for Letterman last night, with Mary Hicks.)
They had to show the performance on tape, because the comedian - Bill Hicks - had died back in '93, just a few months after the censoring episode. He'd been dying from pancreatic cancer at the time of the show (though Letterman didn't know that.)
Bill was 32.
It interests me how these two actions by Letterman signify how times have changed. The original show was due to air in October 1993, just months after Clinton had been elected, putting an end to Bush 43's (and Reagan's) onslaught. To compare, last night's show came just months after Obama was elected... putting an end to Bush 44's (and Cheney's) destruction.
Maybe it's Letterman's own aging, maybe he's in ill health & is just rethinking some things. But there's also the fact that when Clinton won, there was little sense that the cultural momentum of the Reagan right had been stopped. That Letterman could come on last night, apologize for what he'd done, and then show the entire clip - including the pro-life jokes - says something. In fact, Letterman said it himself, wondering why he'd censored it in the first place. Because, looking at it now, there seemed to be nothing wrong with Hicks' routine. That Hicks was likely just "ahead of his time."
In short, one small sign that perhaps times have changed. Maybe even that the Right is no longer ascendant culturally.
Something else that went through my mind is that what Letterman did, gave us a glimpse into how Truth & Reconciliation processes might work. Yes, yes, it was quite different than a formal process. But. Letterman sat Hicks' mother down, and talked with her, at length. About the fact that he had cut her son off (after 12 previous appearances on his show), and how that must have felt, with she & Bill already knowing he was dying of cancer.
And it was uncomfortable. Mary Hicks was still visibly angry. She stated, outright, what she felt. And a national icon had to take it, directly, publicly, from one he had harmed.
Letterman did extremely well, I thought. He had grace. He dealt with what he'd done directly, face to face. He replayed the whole original performance by Hicks. And he did this all (seemingly, at least) of his own volition.
It's worth watching, from beginning to end, just for a sense of the dynamic. How the audience initially doesn't "get it." The strain on Mary Hicks' face. Her strength in speaking up, telling Letterman what she thought. And for Letterman's own actions, how he handles this.
It's a crack, but only a crack, in the wall of wrongs that have been thrown up. But maybe it can show us a way to do some of what we know needs to be done. To right at least some of the wrongs of the past 8.... no, let's tell the truth here... of at least these past 28 years.
My friend Jack sent me the tape this morning. We're part of a group of 7 friends, who meet up for a weekend at least every year, who e-mail daily, who see each other whenever we can. We come from different places, work in different fields, have very different families. But one thing we agree on - Bill Hicks is the greatest comedian of the last 20+ years. And yet, most Americans don't have a clue who he is. This homegrown genius, a blow-the-roof-off voice from Texas, Bill Hicks was - his strength & his destruction - an utterly fearless truth-teller.
The fearlessness that made us cheer out loud was - of course - when Hicks went after our enemies. He savaged consumerism. He went after the viciousness & hypocrisy of the Gulf War with Iraq with a chainsaw. He was our rabid pit-bull on Reagan & Bush 43 and Rush & Jesse Helms. And perhaps because he was raised Southern Baptist, he went after militant fundamentalism with everything he had.
"It Seemed So Plausible." (4:27)
And yes, every clip has bad language.
The thing is though, Bill Hicks played no favorites. Hell, he'd tell you every weakness he had. He'd change his views, then he'd change them again. And talk to you about it. But what made us squirm was that he'd go after US. You & I. And not just occasionally. Every single night, he'd say stuff you really didn't want him to say. And he'd say it hard.
He wasn't just after the "bad guys." He was after YOU. You having children. Your anti-smoking views. How you treated your aging parents. Your voting for Bill Clinton. You as a man, as a woman, as a gay or lesbian, rich or poor, educated or dumb - he didn't give a rat's. Which is why some felt Bill was ultimately, just a misanthrope.
They were wrong.
The secret to why we loved him - even though he'd poke us in the eye, hard - was that he'd follow that poke by showing us a glimpse of something beyond our narrow views. He'd burst our bubble, make us unsafe, and then... if we'd hang in... show us there might be a better, deeper, view - beyond our old one.
For instance, he'd go after you for having children, for viewing them as special, for babbling about how important it was to take action... "for the children." Listen to that alone, and damn right you'd be offended. But then he'd swing 'round behind you, and spank you with the thought that love should have no age limits put on it. And that we'd better all love one another, now.
Or he'd do his routine where he'd suggest that terminally-ill seniors should be used as stunt doubles in action films. During which, they would be kicked to death by people like Chuck Norris. Which, as he admitted, sounds a bit cruel. You say that kinda thing, and you've pretty much barred yourself from ever getting a nickel from 80% of the population, right? Except, listen to him, and you can hear what he's really after. 1st, that the way we already let many of our seniors die is far worse than dying from a sudden kick from Chuck Norris. And 2nd, that the escalating violence on TV & in the movies was being deliberately made to make us fatter, and stupider. And that we were allowing it.
"Put 'Em In The Movies." (3:57)
A favorite of mine was when he'd go after any marketing or advertising people in the audience. And it was personal. He'd suggest that they should do the world a favor, and kill themselves. He'd spell out, graphically, how. And repeat it. Which again, when you first hear it, sounds somewhat harsh. Until he'd move into the part of the joke where he nails, precisely, the way advertisers themselves could distance themselves from his attack, analyze it, and then repackage even that anger and violence into... new ads.
"Marketing." (2:43)
If there was one thing Bill Hicks was about, it was passion. Passion for life. And especially, passion in music. Hendrix-style. He despised the musicians who sold themselves to advertisers, the manufactured music for mall-rats, and adored the ones who played with every fiber of their being.
"Play From Your Fucking Heart!" (1:36)
Did he make a difference? Well, he died 15 years ago. From smoking. Which seems pretty futile. Yeah, he made a difference for me, my friends & some others, these past 15-20 years. But still, that's a little thing. Maybe bigger is that he made a difference to Radiohead, because they became one of the world's great bands, and dedicated two of their albums to him. Still though, maybe comedy - even combined with music - doesn't matter.
But watching Letterman, I wonder. Because voices speaking truth, even when they're censored & suppressed, have a power. And last night, Bill Hicks just reached straight up out of his grave... and turned the dial for us. Just an inch. But it's one more inch toward freedom. Toward truth. Toward passion. And toward love.
And if you never heard Bill Hicks, well... here's the words he liked to use to close his shows. "Fear vs Love." (2:57)
And love, with not one human being excluded.
Good to have you back, Bill. (And thanks, Dave. Well done.)
Red Cross
Advertisement
Great post Q. Don't have time to watch all the vids right now, but will catch up after I've finished my 'chores'. My fantasy comical team is to have Bill H. and George Carlin locked in a room, (maybe throw in Lenny to boot), for a couple of hours and play back whatever they came up with riffing off each other.
January 31, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lenny & Carlin & Bill. Found some clips lining up the two, and their views on each other. Here's both on marketing.
And, each on the other.
I miss Sam Kinison too, and Andy Kaufman (and Belushi), but Bill was the man.
January 31, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for those links. Watched the videos. The Letterman videos were remarkable. An extraordinary grace, rarely seen in entertainment in this era of reduced public attention span. So much time has passed and there was no real reason Dave 'had' to do that, but he did. It speaks well for the man. And Bill was funnee that day.
The rest were permanent smiles for me. Grinning, when I wasn't belly laughing. Play from the heart... the only way.
January 31, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I see we're having 'nuther shit-storm of trolldom below. For those just arriving... Please! Please! Please do NOT feed.
January 31, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to stay here, trolling above the water. Good post, Quinn.
February 1, 2009 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you, Des. Mistaken identity seems to be the ultimate diagnosis. A few of us (self-included & especially) appear to have gotten too twitchy, post-troll. (I think the troll's suggestion yesterday of buying ammo, getting permits & gunning down gays kindof got people irritable for some reason.) Things should be cooling down now, sanity re-established. As long as we/I can live up to half of what we/I say we can.
Odd how that happens, eh? ;-) Argh.
February 1, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, things are really looking up!!
Illegitimacy rates skyrocketing!!, free clinics brimming with STD infections!!, more people on the dole than ever!!, literacy rates falling through the floor!!,
Now, if we could only do more to discredit those pesky goyim churches!!!!
February 1, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry fellas, I can't help myself. Hmmm, now what would be good policy to drive down those STD and "illegitimacy rates"? I know, why doesn't congress put about $200 million in the stimulus bill for condoms and family planning!
A whole lot of those dollars would go to your neighborhood renaye. TX and OK are the two states that have the highest rate of teenage out of wedlock births. Don't you folks have anything else to do down there besides drink beer and screw? Go read a book or play midnight basketball or something will ya?
February 1, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers!! To Bill of course, for all the insights, the laughs, everything. First and foremost to Bill. Cheers to Quinn and Letterman for acknowledging it all, in different ways. But a huge hug and some tears for Mary Hicks. The dignity and courage and grace and love. Some great clips, thanks for that too...
January 31, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people look at me askance when i suggest that Bill was deeply spiritual. (Hey, man who is goat boy if not a mystic?) But for those of us locked in the eternal battle between raging at the machine and being bound by the beauty, Bill was the man: he embodied the Sacred and the Profane. He made us "compassionate misanthrope's" feel like we weren't alone.
"Look at my furrowed brows of worry...look at my big bank account...this has to be real..." It's Just a Ride has never been more relevant for the times than right now. Very cool to see Lettermen acknowledge how well Bill's humour has aged. And yes, absolutely, Dave handled the entire situation with great grace, as did Bill's mother. A lovely bit of authenticity where we least expected it.
January 31, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Compassionate misanthrope"... maybe not a bad label for how each of us feels, going through these days.
P.S. Monday's are a major misanthrope day for me. Got a fave?
January 31, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But for those of us locked in the eternal battle between raging at the machine and being bound by the beauty, Bill was the man: he embodied the Sacred and the Profane"
My first response to Bill Hicks was that he was a deeply spiritual man, and brilliant and disturbing in the best sense of the word...and I could never find the words to describe it.
Your words put it better than I have ever been able to, so thank you Little Bear. That, and your Goatboy references sent me to youtube, and in the midst of one (or his only?) goatboy routines, I found a confirmation of his spirituality that I had never heard before. In the routine, he's contrasting himself from the "quaint" ways of traditional religious leaders and refers to himself as one of the evolved ones who sees as his purpose is to serve "the source of light that exists in our hearts."
Deeply spiritual indeed. And "bound by the beauty."
January 31, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is who Hicks wanted to be, at the end of his life. Goatboy. i.e. Pan. That was the routine he never got to fully play out. Shame.
However. I consider it a personal challenge to finish the task for him. Randy Pandy the Goatboy LIVES! ;-)
February 1, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm commenting without yet have watched all the videos here. (I promise to come back later.)
I think you've put your finger on something very important, quinn. Important for our task at this moment in history - which is to peer into the abyss that is bushco as well as the abyss of how this happened on our watch. And the other thing is the issue, we never really talk about, which is the huge pressure to conform in American society, the hesitancy to discuss things that provoke conflict, the sense of many that if others take a different view from their own that that will somehow totally undermine or disrupt civil society and some fictional stasis we're supposed to believe in. We need to break out of that conformity, confront it - not for the sake of simply disagreeing, I don't mean that. But to confront the pressure to conform. I don't think the Dems pressure as much, though some may. But this is a huge legacy of many years of suppressing dissent, of making dissenters appear to be traitors, instead of patriots. (that goes back at least to McCarthy... not just 28 years)
I hope I'm making some sense here. Because these are things your post brought to mind for me. What happened with Letterman. What needs to happen. What we must face as society, as a people. That we can't simply move forward. We have to do that after a fearless look at everything we've lived through... AS we are simultaneously moving forward.
It will take courage. Many will flinch. But if we do not have that courage, it will be at our peril, I strongly believe.
So, thanks quinn. For a thought-provoking and moving blog.
January 31, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've put your finger on something with the conform/confront question, Thera. For me, I see political discussion (not just in America, but in most countries) as having been squished down into skinny little "issues." And pressing in on that tiny inner circle is not just big money, or big media - it's the whole wider cultural scene. Too often, we liberals/left/centrists/greens/etc. have been thrown into defensive positions, trying to make sure SOMETHING gets done politically, or trying to make sure the outer boundaries of "free speech" are protected. Both worthy efforts...
... but in the broad cultural zone, the area in-between the small political issues circle, and the outer bounds of where our rights might end --- we've gone to sleep on a lot. For example, how we see wealth, consumption, ownership, the corporation. We've allowed myths to sweep over our minds, believing in things like "economy," "the market," "business." And the same again, with how we see family, relationships, children, community. Again, with learning and schools. Again with death and dying and medical care. Again with "the environment."
What I'm saying is that the way WE often see these things is deeply blinded. The environment, for instance, is an "external" thing to be kept "clean." Death & dying? Hell, we're willing to sacrifice wealth, the world, and our own lives to stave it off. We're happy to debate the "economy" through Krugman & Obama, but OUR OWN minds are locked into metaphors of circulating blood & reinflating it & stimulus and on & on.
Which is why I liked Bill so much. He did as good a job of opening our eyes as anyone I've known these past 20 years. Nice to see him step back on stage last night. And hopefully, it'll inspire us to carry the torch on a bit further.
January 31, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, quinn, I'm simply going to "lift" a comment I just put on another thread, a comment to oleeb's long comment - because I think it fits here too. First, here's the direct link:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/xpostfactoid/2009/01/the-gospel-according-to-obama.php#comment-3359555
And now that other comment. Which offers an interesting analysis of why we may be having such trouble understanding certain things:
I leave it to the reader to see how this fits with quinn's blog. But right now, I honestly think a group of us, even in spite of the disruptive efforts of "trolls" are doing important analytical work - to peer into the darkest deepest pits of our time while trying to hang onto our deepest ideals - seeking a way forward (like the shaman woman quinn wrote about).
And now I'm going to quote Larry to me(link below), because I think that connects with what quinn said above (at one point):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/rip-consumer-economy.php#comment-3356913
Honestly, I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like I am following a trail of pebbles or maybe making a trail on the basis of the pebbles I "sense" make a trail. And I'm deeply appreciative of this group - growing ever stronger, I believe, in the face of trollish opposition. (Like dumb bells you use to work out!)
January 31, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That 2nd link of yours, with you & J Lawrence Hinds (Larry) is quite something.
From the top. It seems to me the stresses between priest & prophet, people & King, come back again & again. If we're lucky, each time the wheel turns & we pass go - we kick it to a higher level. Make a spiral, not a circle - that's the aim. Right now, I'd say it's not just that the Republicans are top-down & tied to big money forces, but so too are is much (not all) of the Democratic Party. More widely, our financial & economic forces, media & cultural forces, hold enormous top-down power.
And how is the other side looking? The from-the-ground-up side? My sense is... not bad, actually. Just beginning larger-scale organization, just beginning to move some concepts out into the wider public. But the internet, as one example, is a wonderful beastie. I've wanted this thing since 1985, then 1995, and to have it - even in its present condition - now? A gift. That we've only begun to use.
As for your friend Larry's discussion of the economy, and how the corporation & the state are so intertwined, he hits it bang on. Which is why a complete Democratic dependence on state-led action worries me. I don't think the state CAN fix things the way we might like, and if it does, it will almost certainly be in league with the big corps. We need forces, and options, beyond these twin towers.
And when Larry began his riff from Nietzsche to the economy... ahhhh... man after my own heart. I've got Twilight of the Idols down for another read, and if anyone wanted a good teacher on how to write, think or blog their way through this - I can't think of anyone better than Nietzsche. Now if only I could learn to post in aphorisms.... ;-)
January 31, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry H. (as I used to know him... and he told me only yesterday!) is, in my mind, a brilliant political thinker. But again, in my mind, Larry likes to play a supporting role (unless he's playing a joke! - the one he played on me over a year ago - but even that was to "lead me on"). So Larry likes to feed information and see where it goes - that's my sense of him. He can "see" things and then wants to see where feeding that to someone leads. I love Larry! And wondered where he'd gone, but he was unable to get his old ID back when the Cafe changed over apparently and when upheaval led many to scatter for a time.
I love you too, quinn. You have a very agile mind - able to think "beyond" where the facts are and see connections.
Anyway - thanks for the prophet vs King idea. That is a very helpful image to me. Totally fits and shrinks it down to a usable image. Larry has been feeding me ideas since last week. I don't know if you followed up on that link to the a comment (by someone else) about the history of unions in the US versus how unions operate in Japan for example. That, to me, was also very educational and helpful.
You've put your finger, quinn, on what I've begun to think is where change will spring from now. Many people say it's technological change we'll have. But I'd describe it, as you did, in terms of grassroots. It's PEOPLE. Using technology. So people connecting via the web, exchanging info, strategy, insights. And I have a sense that something important is happening right here in the Cafe. (and can't help but wonder if some of the upsurge of trolls recently has to do with a recognition that this little group of us - shrinking and expanding like some kind of accordion, sucking in fresh air and exhaling ferment of ideas - constitutes a danger to the "powers that be").
We're like the ground shaking as people realize, hey we can make a new world here. And the people who own the buildings on the ground say.... Oh, no! This must be stopped!
February 1, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always watch Letterman and I went to bed early last night. Thank you for this. I remember him. I know I watched him on cable. There are some Texans who really are/were fantastic. I mix the verbs because Hicks, like others, stay alive on tape.
"Something else that went through my mind is that what Letterman did, gave us a glimpse into how Truth & Reconciliation processes might work."
January 31, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you come up with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission for your epic, Dick. The Hedgehogs are still pretty bitter.
January 31, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad this ain't Canada where you can spew your hate and venom without being challenged? Ain't it?
Boys I work with from out around Calgary tell me that crap's fixin' to change. One way or the other.
February 1, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right Thera. Fearlessness is the key. And I'm one to talk. Not. But Hicks was fearless and even on subjects such as sexuality, he'd push the envelope, force us to squirm, but also secretly identify - and thus liberate us maybe that one little bit.
Who said Speak Truth to Power?
January 31, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just looked it up. It apparently goes back to the Quakers and the 18th Century, though the first specific mention may have been in the 50's in this country. See:
http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html
January 31, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll do it "together," Little Bear.
Together we will have the strength and courage.
January 31, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, you are an amazing human being.
February 1, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Together we are amazing! :)
February 1, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to repeat myself, but we should have known we were in real trouble when Roth wrote a saccharine bestseller that began: "Love means never having to say you're sorry."
Absolutely not true. Love means not only having to say you're sorry, but wanting to say it, because the truth, even if only one person's version of the truth, in hindsight, begins to reset the scales of balance in our experience.
Thank you, Dave Letterman, for showing us a surprisingly graceful example of how it can be done, and why it should be done. And thank you, Quinn, for a glimpse of Bill Hicks, Mary Hicks, passion and reconciliation. Oh, and thanks for the laughs.
January 31, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey WW. Well... almost a perfect tribute post to Bill. Shoot-outs, deep thoughts, insults, threats, music and people saying they're sorry. Like me! Hope you're having a great weekend, and some cheer rolling in on the breeze. Best, q
February 1, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's some great stuff Q. I've never heard the answer to all our troubles put so succinctly than that last bit. And yeah I've found more than once that Letterman is very authentic, this case, his evisceration of McCain last fall and that first night back after 9/11 when I was wondering how in the world is going to make this funny?
January 31, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes on both counts, Mark.
Letterman impressed me, stepping up in ways I'd kinda lost hope he could do. And that last video by Hicks, where he just says, "Fuckit. I'm gonna say what I really think about life & humanity, even if it isn't that funny, or cynical." I watch it every few months. It's nice to see, when people break from all the cultural/political weight, and just... SAY it. Outright. Cheers.
January 31, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Quinn. I watched everything. Oddly, it reminded me of comedy that I watched in the 60's, so it surprised me every time he made a more contemporary reference. I had never heard of him, and so I appreciate just seeing these videos.
But your larger point is even more impressive. I watched the Letterman clips before I read your comments, and I had the same idea you did; that Dave may be looking at his own mortality and so this may be a reflection of that, which makes me sad. Maybe, though, he is just a decent man who was reminded about this and decided to do the right thing.
I will not guess further at his motivations; but I will applaud them -- it takes a big man to do what he did. He didn't have to do this; he didn't have to face Mrs. Hicks publicly. He could have done it privately and atoned well enough.
We need some sunshine on all the bodies that are buried in our country. Wherever it takes us. If no one goes to jail, so be it, but we need truth.
Good for Dave. I have admired him for years, but this puts it on a new plane.
Thanks again, Quinn.
Anyone here have some atonement to do? Unfortunately, I don't know how to find the person I owe an apology to. Someone I was mean to in high school. I sincerely hope she is hugely successful and wildly happy.
January 31, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, C'ville.
When you stop & think about people we've done wrong to - not just as a government, but in our own workplaces, houses, neighborhoods... the idea takes on more depth. Some of us fired people, or climbed over them at work in ways we shouldn't have. Some of us damaged our families when we chose to take a higher-paying job or flipped a house, and tore apart things that maybe mattered more. Some of us sold shit, that we knew was shit, and ripped the buyers of badly. some of us kept quiet and put our heads down at work, and allowed inhuman attitudes to spread. In short, between our own private "sins" that we all get told not to do (sex, drugs, etc.) and the government's actions, there's this weird cultural/social zone we may all need to think about.
But thanks for the comment, and I'm glad you got a chance to see Bill... and that we all got to see Letterman rise another step higher than the place he was in for too many years.
January 31, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder they turned them ships around. Bunch that got off the last one started selling pornography to kids before they got a good nights sleep!!!
February 1, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letterman can do whatever he likes, of course. It's his show.
And if it takes a bit of public humiliation to draw the younger crowd these days, so be it. But nobody has a right to do any particular joke on David Letterman's Show but David Letterman (and whoever he agreed to in his contract).
So I support the "censorship", or at least Letterman's action, and think Mary Hicks is a fool to be offended. That said, Pro Lifers can be very funny. Of course the same could be said of their opponents.
January 31, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
El P. I'll set aside the debate around censorship & who has what rights (which others can discuss far better than I), because I want to get at some other stuff.
1st, Did you really watch it & feel Letterman was offering up "public humiliation?" Seriously. Because that wasn't the vibe I felt at all.
2nd, An attempt to draw the younger crowd? Hicks died in 1994. So you'd have to be 30+ I suspect, to even have slightly remembered him. And to see Letterman talking for 10 minutes with the aging Mum of a dead comic? What I'm getting at is, did you really feel these were Letterman's motivations?
3rd, I'm not sure Mary Hicks was a fool to be offended. Her son had been on 11 times, and a relationship of sorts formed between Hicks & Letterman. And then, Letterman kills the performance on pretty iffy grounds? You know, if that happened at a local comedy club, or to a columnist - and I'm thinking beyond the simple legal "rights" - there's a personal level at which one can still feel something has been damaged or done unfairly, don't you think? In short, beyond the legal stuff... there are personal & cultural realities here, and doesn't damage to them count for anything?
January 31, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious. Do you have children? If you do, and you think that Mary Hicks is a "fool" to feel offended at what Dave admits was a judgement he made that negatively affected her dead son, I wonder why.
Her son was dead in a few months, and although you may not be aware, being on these late-night programs had everything to do with success or failure in a very difficult business.
I suggest you read (or better yet, listen to the audio book by Steve Martin, "Born Standing Up." It might give you some very needed empathy. It is amazing to me how comedians seem to have done the work that many people put off to put themselves out there. Steve Martin, for one, is someone we can all learn a lot from.
January 31, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We need some sunshine on all the bodies that are buried in our country."
What an odd an evocative comment. It's pretty great. Thanks Cville. Because sunshine expedites the natural decaying process - and brings needed peace and resolution.
Man...this goes back to the whole courage and fearlessness jag too. Forgiveness is divine for a reason. Because true forgiveness is goddamn difficult. We've all done shit we're not proud of, but taking responsibility for that and making amends is, well the grown up thing to do.
"Grace" has surfaced a few times here. As an "spiritual atheist" I'm particularly attracted to this concept. Whether biblical or not, it's a state I'd sure like to be more familiar with. And it seems to me that forgiveness and atonement are key here.
January 31, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
You've made a very cogent point . . .
Little Bear said:
Yes ... Although forgiveness also depends on repentance.
As Desmond Tutu stated:
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: El Presidente: Quinn, I think you're being far too diplomatic. El, what is your fucking problem? To parphrase Bill: Watch the clip again. Take a deep a breath. There's nothing about public humiliation, calculating behaviour or a mother out of line. It's real. Authentic. It happens. even on national syndicated TV.
If you can't figure that out, you got damage to deal with.
January 31, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what the big deal was. The "offensive" part of Hick's routine was ripped directly from the Church Lady, the character Dana Carvey popularized previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYa_ChYf4rw
Now, isn't that special?
January 31, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I think maybe the Church Lady ripped it off from him, since Hicks preceded Dana Carvey's time by a few years. But in SNL's defense, comedy is comedy, and the same joke can be told ten different ways and can be funny each and every way.
January 31, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. This Hicks clip was 1993 and no one presents old material on a national show.
The Church Lady was a recurring character in a series of sketches on the American television show Saturday Night Live, circa 1986–1992.
Hicks' face is doing exactly the same expression (which is the point of the joke) as Carvey's Church Lady, which had already been popularized. Check your facts.
To summarize:
a) Hicks was at least influenced by Carvey's Church Lady.
b) Hicks got tossed for something that Carvey's Church Lady was doing on national TV for years.
Now, isn't that special?
January 31, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies folks. Please do not feed the Spric... errrr Renaye... errrr Yikes.
January 31, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naw,
Lets just enjoy the moment patting each other on the back as we continue our search for the lowest possible degenerate human moral condition!!
Let's keep our eyes on the prize!!!!
February 1, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to fathom that,,,, as Hicks was already rolling his routines out by 1980, and on Letterman with them by 1984. While Church Lady wasn't created by Carvey until 1986, according to Wiki. I loved Carvey in Wayne's World and all,,, but Bill Hicks' take on things was pretty obviously different.
January 31, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking specifically about the pro-life bit. His face is virtually identical to Carvey's and Carvey was doing this as a routing for years before. You don't do old material on David Letterman, so Hick's pro-life jokes were "new" in 1993. And when you think about it, Hicks' pro-life routine's punchline WAS those faces.
January 31, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did Dave go back and recreate this schtick? If it was because it was copied, he never would have brought it back.
Let this go. You are being enormously petty, silly, small-minded, and no, I don't see the exact same face on both of them.
PS -- You need to get a hobby or something. Oh. Your hobby is Dana Carvey? Well, you need to get out a little bit more.
January 31, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville. For further background info, see: Spric & Renaye.
January 31, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with you? You keep claiming I am someone else. I'm not. I'm me. Now lay off!
January 31, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Math, dude.
Sorry.
January 31, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You only get credit when you show your work.
And why are you involved in this????? Butt out!
January 31, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like jerks that try to fool my friends.
January 31, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you are a bigger fool because no one is fooling your friends, Henny Penny.
January 31, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buttsects. Also.
January 31, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
go to hell
February 1, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't. You are stuck in the door, muffin man.
February 1, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
BWAAAAAK!
January 31, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you should ask why Dave brought it back, because I don't know. And unlike you, I won't be pompous and tell people what they are thinking.
I happened to like Bill Hicks. My point was that Bill Hicks got tossed for doing something that someone else was already doing.
PS Did you know who Bill Hicks was before this post? Or do you like arguing for the sake of arguing?
January 31, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point was wrong, whatever-troll-name you want today, Spric, Renaye, whatever. Doesn't matter.
I've seen & hard about 100 Bill Hicks routines. The idea that what he presented on Letterman was all new, is completely wrong. You say you know Bill Hicks? Then hit youtube & see if you can find him - doing the St Peter and smoking bit, the Jesus not wanting to come back to Earth because of the crosses bit, the not liking to dance bit, the lesbian book schtick, etc.
I get it that you like Carvey. So do I. You like Hicks, great. You wanna think he got it from Carvey, fine. We disagree.
'Nuff said.
January 31, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was wrong?
My point was the same as yours!
My point was that Hicks' pro-life joke back in 1993 wasn't a big deal. He was making fun of stick-up-the-piehole people and others were doing it as well. That's what the face is all about. Let's be honest: without the visual, the whole pro-life bit doesn't fly very well.
And Dana Carvey was doing the same face to make the same point.
I think OUR point is right.
And stop calling me a troll! It was other people who derailed your thread, not me. And many of them aren't even hip enough to know who Hicks was to begin with.
January 31, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who (else) highjacked the thread?
January 31, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok... You say, "My point was that Hicks' pro-life joke back in 1993 wasn't a big deal. He was making fun of stick-up-the-piehole people and others were doing it as well.... And Dana Carvey was doing the same face to make the same point."
If that's your point, then fine. Agreed. Who knows where the whole thing originated.
As for the troll thing, when you arrived on the site, within 42 minutes you dropped a comment on another blog about a troll, following on a reference to S, R and Y... by saying to me,
"You never struck me as the suspicious sort.
Bwahahahahahahaha."
Don't you think that sounds like someone who knows me, and what the letters for various trolls are? And why would you respond to a random mention of Y?
Could be you're buds of R, S, whatever. That's your call. But if you don't wanna be mistaken for R or S, then that should be simple enough. They like to crap on Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, Gays and another dozen groups. Avoid that, have a real conversation, and it's fine with me. Easy?
January 31, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh.... so you can be playful and I can't?
How many "Y"'s exist here?
I thought in America it was innocent until proven guilty?
No matter. Rush to judgment... just like a Republican would. See a new poster and claim he is someone else. How intelligent is that?
January 31, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, innocent til proven guilty, absolutely right. And yup, you have full rights to be playful.
And yup, my judgment can be wrong, and my intelligence is definitely limited.
Now, you wanna talk about trolls or Hicks?
January 31, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happened to like this blog, quinn.
If you will note, I have been beaten up today... and accused of being Republican.
January 31, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you like the post. You happened to land precisely when a certain virulent morphing troll disappeared for a bit... and on top of that, you then plunked down the "bwahahahahaha" comment right on a post concerning it. So people just figured you were them, in another guise, goofing around.
If you aren't them, or a close pal, then that's great. Play on. My bad. And whatever position you wanna argue, or story you wanna tell, or insight you got - bring 'em. Just avoid the stuff S & R were bringing - the pretty nasty bashing of particular groups - and I think the anti-troll mood around here will dissipate, as it always does.
q
January 31, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be honest, quinn: have any of my posts attacked any ethnic group?
C'mon!
Some here are trying to force the data into a conclusion that doesn't follow naturally.
So please don't lecture me to do things I wasn't doing!
January 31, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean:
Don't lecture me to not do things I wasn't doing.
January 31, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, no ethnic attacks so far. You've sure got the energy of a troll though. You seem to feed on jerking others chains then running away without having added anything substantive to the conversation. If this isn't you, then welcome. If it is, you'll be identified soon enough, and you can morph into your next troll persona. For now, I'm gonna think of you as SRY, till I'm convinced otherwise. Cheers!
January 31, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as elitist as anyone.
Guilty until proven innocent? And you claim that the Republicans trash the constitution!
Go check out the Marquis blog if you want to know more about me. There you can find that Marquis acted arrogantly, not knowing who I was or my circumstances.
I guess I popped some self-important bubble of many and they freaked out.
Funny how you chose a pig as an avatar.
January 31, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Yoo Hoo . .
Hey Sweet Cheeks.
Please pick up the white courtesy phone ... There's message for you over here.
~OGD~
January 31, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok.. I take back the welcome, sweetheart.
January 31, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh what a warm welcome, indeed. Full of innuendo and accusation. Until you are convinced. How open-minded.
January 31, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey ratchet jaw . . .
Your message is waiting . . .
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're an easy one to figure out. At 62, that doesn't say much for you.
Go on... upset I didn't reply? LOL!
February 1, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey bonzo...
Reply
moved
here...
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Oooooh?
Well ... your reply here and your ignorant opinion over there clearly underscores what an insecure twit you are. Keep up the great comments. Levity is in short supply 'round here, so you'll do.
Hahahaha...
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Q.
I have often tried to expand the conversation by pointing to the constant tension in biology between the individual and the collective, from bacteria up through birds or gorillas. The lesson of evolution is that there is no one way, only what works, and and that latter includes a large dose of kin selection and group action.
Hicks held all possibilities, and could poke fun at all. Letterman really manned up on that. Too late is better than never.
January 31, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tom. "Manned up" is normally a phrase I steer away from. But maybe if it can start to mean doing things with some grace & courage, like Letterman, it's worth retrieving. A lot of us have been too crap at this sort of thing for too long. Thanks, guy.
February 1, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the proof I am now watching the actual videos. Mr. TheraP comes to tell me (exact words): You sound like one of those laughing machines they use in the movies!
January 31, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they don't use laughing machines in the movies.
I want more proof!
January 31, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have highjacked the whole point of this thread, which is about reflection and atonement, and doing the right thing.
If you are too dense to get the point, I feel sorry for you, but I want to bring this back to Quinn's original point, which is that it is never too late to reverse a mistake.
I think this is really important. I am currently estranged from a segment of my family, but I don't feel that I did anything wrong. I do, however remember people from my past to whom I could have been kinder, and to whom I might have made a difference.
I also know that I have done some things I am proud of, and there is no way to know if my actions had long-term good consequences, but nonetheless, I know I made choices that were not always in my best interest, but that I beleived were the right thing to do.
Gee. Wouldn't it be great to find out about those things? Just out of curiosity?
On the other hand, I tell my kids the reason to do the right thing is because it is the right thing to do. Since I don't believe in heaven and hell, it gives me great comfort to know that the reason I do something is simply because I believe it to be the right thing to do, and that is its own reward.
January 31, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Project much?
Go back and re-read my original comment.
It had nothing to do with pissing on Hicks. It had everything to do with the fact that Hicks was doing something that others were also doing -- so why was he singled out by Dave?
It was totally in line with what quinn was talking about.
It was you, however, who jumped all over me... and without much in the way of facts, I might add. And then, when shown you were wrong, you want to play victim now.
Tell me: who really "hijacked" this thread?
January 31, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I "jumped all over you?" Could you please cut & paste an example? I am not going to take the bait beyond that because you continue to try to turn this whole thing around to you. But to "jump all over someone" usually involves some heavy hostility, and I don't think there has been any of that on this entire thread.
Projection? Did you just learn that word? It is a great way to deflect criticism if you know what to do with it.
January 31, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You started your little pompous post with "Um.."
And that's pretty arrogant. Especially when you couldn't back things up with facts.
I would call that hostility... or at least arrogance.
January 31, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! "Um."
February 1, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What struck me were Letterman's last words: "God bless you." Now, I don't watch late night tv, so I have no idea if he always signs off that way. But that says something about the man. I found that touching. Especially in the context of his wanting to atone in some way.
And I like CVille Dem's words, that we can all heed this. And that it has nothing to do with believing in heaven or hell. Or whatever. But that, in my view, it has everything to do with caring about people and wanting to right by them.
January 31, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He says it all the time and has for years.
He also says it when someone sneezes.
January 31, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks quinn, esq...
January 31, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers Bronx. Hope you enjoyed a few shots of Bill on a Saturday night. q
January 31, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And it was uncomfortable. Mary Hicks was still visibly angry."
Nonsense. You're projecting mightily, quinn.
It's a lousy foil for a discussion about T&R in a larger venue. If Letterman intended it as "reality follows entertainment" good luck to that. Your blog doesn't really go anywhere with the idea either.
I wasn't impressed at Hicks' routine, but the 1993 audience did laugh some. If I looked at earlier performances I wonder if I would think that #12 was a bit off. Did Letterman not really have a clue why he didn't air it, or is he conveniently forgetting now?
What was hard for the mother wasn't that her son had an appearance taken off the air, it was his death and the times around that in general.
January 31, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh... you must be a troll!
January 31, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't laugh at Hicks at all, but I like what Letterman did and I like this discussion. Especially between TheraP and Quinn. Thank you.- -Except for the silliness with Yikes! Why is he a troll because he has a different opinion?
February 1, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a joke. Apparently people get called trolls here unless they buy into the main line of thought.
quinn has since apologized for his pre-emptive naming of me, so it's all good between me and him.
February 1, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree with you on some of this eds. I may be projecting SOME of my discomfort onto her, but in that 2nd clip, from 6:40-7:45, where she's saying, "I had a lot of reasons not to come," etc. - there's clearly BEEN anger, some long-held bitterness, and though it isn't boiling out, you can hear it, see it. But yes, I've worded that too strongly in "visible angry."
And yes, in this last appearance, there's definitely something wrong with Bill - he's not as good as he was before becoming sick.
I DO think that Letterman canned it because of content though, whether under external pressure, or whatever. Because quality-wise, Hicks on a bad night, even dying, is pretty much the equal of a lot of comedians. Nor would Letterman have invited her back & gone through this if he'd canned the Hicks segment because it was sub-par. It had to be some reason he now doesn't feel too great about, eh?
The T&R thing is a bigger issue, and you're right - no, I didn't really run with it. That was deliberate. What I wanted to poke at is just this --- That right now, we have enormous focus on the brand spanking new President. And also, on the hyper-rich & the big bankers. In my view, those top-level things are important.
But if this economy is structurally really damaged, right down through to the ground, and if our own household "balance sheets" are shot --- then we're going to have to come to terms with that as having been (to some degree, not all) partly OUR doing. That is, a lot of us "bought in" to some shit that we now have to change. Economically, just as people have had to because they backed the Iraq war at the start, etc.
And that may involve a lot of us having to change things, backtrack, make things right - e.g. with family members or co-workers. And those processes are gonna be closer to the dynamics of Letterman's show than they will be to high court trials of the big dogs like Cheney or whoever. Truth & REconciliation at the micro-level. q
January 31, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self-reflection and [self-]forgiveness?
"if this economy is structurally really damaged"
Big "if" depends on how you define and measure "structural damage". But even without that, your general idea has merit. It doesn't matter if there was severe damage or just a glitch combined with a contraction.
Excess debt and excess emphasis on spending for the moment (materialism or not) both might require a backlash or adjustment. And if the economy was largely built on these poor foundations, perhaps it's structural. I don't get who needs to get straight with whom in terms of coworkers and family etc.
The deleveraging of Wall St. is mirrored somewhat by deleveraging of Main St. as millions of individuals shift from living by building debt to living with impossible debts they created largely for themselves (never mind about Greenspan, Bush et all pushing trash like Ownership Society, for now). The difference is that on Wall St. thousands of people were responsible for millions and perhaps billions of problem debt each, while Main St. is millions and perhaps billions of people responsible for thousands each.
The real leveraging is Government spending. That depends on taxes which depend generally on income and sales (and there are property taxes for States). In a contracting, or worse yet deflating, economy, G. is hit badly. So maybe Paulson was trying to bail out G. by keeping Big Business going? I've been toying with this motivation for a week or so...
I still don't agree with you about the mother's anger. She may have been upset, but "emotional" is all I will give you. And if she were angry, it would again have been at God taking her child or some such 15 years ago, not at Letterman.
I thought it was a nice segment, don't get that wrong, I just think you're trying to hard on several scores in this blog.
January 31, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moi? Trying too hard? ;-) Yeah. Most of my posts here are meant to get away from (my longtime schtick) which was all "Oxford Essay" in format - building tight links, marshalling evidence, policy/social sciencey, etc. That shift was partly driven by what you mentioned - the need to work out connections, motivations, imagine ways things can recombine, now that the decades-old structure seems to be exploding before our eyes. Aiming to "sniff out" pieces of bigger patterns. And yes, sometimes I try too hard, fair enough. But hopefully, this kind of post is just one tool in the box.
Of the economic pieces you mentioned, I was trying to get at an issue around the household side. Yes, it has more people, who leveraged less than an average banker/broker each. But we're gonna have a LOT of those people's lives, our lives, to knit back together, including their housing, jobs, pensions, health care. But as that occurs, each existing family is also going to be hit - as unemployment increases - by wider family members, friends, etc., who hit the street first, and harder, and land on their doorstep, or in their office. And the timing won't be good, because those being asked to help will already be stretched. And to hold society together, we can't afford to let too many of those families fall apart, or explode, turn to violence, extremism, etc.
And part of that pressure - say, of a sibling who shows up on the doorstep - is what I was referring to when I mentioned "getting straight" with family & coworkers. For instance, I just saw a figure that said for 25% of the homes bought in 2006, the PRIMARY reason was to make a straight-up property value gain (realized or speculative.) Since there were years of that, what we have now are tens of millions of families who moved out of old neighborhoods, left old friends, left old family... and made the play for cash. Trading off - and weakening - social ties.
Same thing happened at work. People played for cash, between & within firms, sometimes above board, sometimes not, and that left a trail of upset former friends & colleagues. What this translates into NOW, is real social strain, as those people get drawn back into contact with each other. As they say at work, "be careful who you step on, on the way up, because they may still be there, on your way down." Same in families.
The social worry that results as we are thrown back onto our own, and each others resources, is that we're going to have to sort this out. If we don't, we could see some pretty desperate people moved to do some destructive things. Arson. Violence against people. Violence against common infrastructure, etc. There's safety net beneath corporations & governments, and it's us.
Which means, well below the issues of what the politicians must do, or the bankers - we have our own work to do. Not just economic rebalancing/debt reduction, but also self-reflection & self-forgiveness.... and then one more... repairing those familial, friendship, neighbor, co-worker ties. That's the sort of Truth & Reconciliation level I was aiming to talk about. And.. here we are!
Cheers, eds.
February 1, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am confident you will "keep on truckin'"!
Yes, social side effects of prior greed might now "come home to roost" in new places, including as you suggest in criminal activity at several levels. I suppose arson is particularly tempting if the insurance policy covers a house not the current market or replacement value but some older inflated fixed price. But I also figure experienced insurance investigators know this all too well. So we shouldn't see AIG hit by bogus claims from Main St. as much as it was (in my view) from the likes of Goldman Sachs and others.
Beyond the economics, I don't know how to go about repairing the social ties you find important (and presumably actually in need of repair). We can of course be careful about what we project on other people, good stuff or bad stuff! :-)
If we all treated each other as ends instead of means, would that be close enough to work for social government? Of course one wo/man's humor is another wo/man's intellectual poison, so there will be no final solution to social conflict... even if we can stay out of the gutter of the commons.
Thanks for the chat!
February 1, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you eds regarding Bill's mother. She was obviously emotional, and I think upset when Letterman ditched him from the show, but appeared quite pleased to make up with him.
February 1, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sidenote, off-topic. Saw your comment elsewhere. Not sure you've seen this.
Worth a wander.
February 1, 2009 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm following now. :)
February 1, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She was ... I think upset when Letterman ditched him from the show"
Well, I didn't hear her say that in the current clip. There's no reason to think she would have been happy back then, so it's reasonable that she might have sympathized with any upset Bill felt at getting scrubbed for the first time after 11 appearances. But a professional doesn't take such things personally unless there's a reason to do so (even a made up reason). And I just don't see her holding a grudge about this tiny detail in her son's life, but maybe.
I think she got emotional because it brought up memories of her son and his passing. Not anger, just emotional.
February 2, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you possibly "know" these things?
As a mother I can tell you that it is possible to feel emotions about your children for more than one thing at a time.
Who the hell are you to say that? Based on what, exactly? Do you know what her son told her about how it affected him when Letterman cut him off? Do you know anything about what you are saying? I didn't think so.
I think you have serious dillusions, of the "grandeur" type.
February 1, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly have a chip on your shoulder, and a need to attack me personally instead of dealing with the topic, CVD.
February 1, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does not take a "shoulder chip" to call out someone who is making pronouncements about how someone he has never met, feels about David Letterman, or God, for that matter.
You said the things in the blockquotes, and you were correcting someone else's comments as though you KNOW what Mrs. Hicks was feeling and they did not.
And now, you diagnose a "chip on my shoulder" because I question your utterly ridiculous comment about how Mrs. Hicks REALLY feels about a TV entertainer who rebuffed her son years ago?
Your diagnostic skills are not enviable, and I truly hope you are not a professional in any field that deals with understanding people or their motivations.
February 1, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you do have a chip on your shoulder, still.
I have as much as any thinking feeling human to make inferences based on evidence and understanding about other humans. You're simply attacking me for stating the truth. You present no viable alternatives to what I said.
February 2, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because your pronouncements are not something that anyone except Mrs. Hicks would know. Why should I pretend to understand what she was thinking? You not only do that, you try to correct someone else for his thoughts about her feelings.
Never mind, you clearly don't get it. But you think you do. And you think you're the only one who does. Please don't call Mrs. Hicks and offer your "help."
February 2, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of my preoccupations of late has been the question of judgement. I've been wondering about the divisiveness of the judgements that we hold against one another. Mostly, though, I've been drawn to consider the snarl in my own life that my many self-judgements have created.
So, how do we live with the choices and decisions we've made, especially judgements we made that have harmed others, even if the broader intent wasn't to do so?
It's hard to improve upon the simplicity of Letterman's remarks - which in my own paraphrase are - "I made a decision. This decision says more about me as a man than it did about Bill and his work. Bill's work is brilliant and was undeserving of this decision. I am sorry for the pain I caused him and his family. I would like to try to make some amends after the fact."
The grace in this, is that there is no justification. No explanations. Nothing that detracts us with engaging in any debate about this judgement. The reasons for it. The conditions at the time. Nothing to debate.
But it awakes something in us, doesn't it? With no information, we supply our ideas of how we think it was, and is. With no information, we bring our own story to this one.
"It says more about me". I liked how Letterman said that. Because my guess is those five simple words there is a whole world of contradictions - the truth of which we many never know. Because within Letterman, there will be the part of him that has courage and the part of him that caves in, the part of him that admired Bill and the part of him that used his power to cut Bill's performance, the part of him that is a father and the part of him that is a son, the part of him...well you get what I'm saying here.
In the face of something so simple, we bring our own complex, justifying, judging minds to it. And we each write the Letterman script according to something inside ourselves, I suspect. Some of us see goodness, others will see opportunism, others will see regret, and still others will see him as a pawn of the network bosses.
Perhaps the truth is, none of us ever gets to be "good" (or wholly bad, for that matter.) Maybe, the best we can aim for, is to do our best to "do" the good that we have right in front of us to do.
This show spoke "good" to me, and the simplicity of the man's remarks, had a grace to them. So thank you Quinn. Thought provoking post. Again.
January 31, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this starwalker. You opened out what Letterman said, and also described precisely the immediate reaction I had. He stepped right over the whole justification, explanation, motivation, reasons & conditions thing - and went straight forward. And my (sad but automatic) response was to mentally race to FILL IT IN. Supply the reasons why he might have done it.
And while the reasons can be useful to look at, and we may hit the nail right on the head - the key thing in this instance was... to open the door, admit the wrong, extend the hand. There's time for the rest later, or elsewhere. And it's always, to some degree, a mixed set of reasons, right? But right now, upfront, let's make sure not to get the first step wrong.
Thanks again. A useful reminder to me, for the snarls I get into.
January 31, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Excellent subject here . . . Q
Not to get bogged down in more speculation and attempting to find a reason for Letterman's action, I'll stick to the core issue you've raised...
Before forgiveness there is a need for repentance...
See my post here up thread.
Oh and ... Bill Hick's laid it like I like it!
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd, Decoy... do you always self promote, cross posting threads to keep your replies looking "fresh"... and then reposting on the same thread because you didn't get enough attention above?
February 1, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hmmm . . .
Does this infant's mother know she/he is out running around the block naked without a diaper?
Sheesh!
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
And . . .
This fella also laid it like I like it . . .
And I know you like it too.
~OGD~
February 1, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. The Wicked. Could listen to him all night. Check this, funny enough, on Letterman.
And gotta have one from his yoof!
February 1, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kabitzing with some o’ me bros N of the border on your subjects. One of em personal with Mark Styen’s attorney. On to ye, methinks. Watch out…
February 1, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Renaye... First thing is, you need to back up quick, making threats and all. Second thing is, you need to grow up, and fast. Because you donno shit about where I'm from, what I've come through, what I am or who I work with - but you come on with this? These are words on a page. But somehow now you wanna threaten me in the outside world. You need to start telling the difference between the two.
Thing is, I grew up on a farm. Snow running into your bedroom & piling up every night - that cold. Feeding out the cattle, the hogs, plowing, haying, the whole god-damn thing. And 16 boys on the place. Too goddamn poor to have two sets of shoes. And the boys being all 6 foot to 6 foot 9 inches, Renaye - with me, just 5' 11". So I had to brawl, blood-brawl, every god-damn day of my life. You got that? I may have been smaller, but by the time I was 18 I was the goon. And eventually, I was the guy people called on when they needed someone to back 'em up in a fight. So don't go putting the big threat on me. I been to hell, met the personnel, and I'm still here. I don't scare. And since then, I've been face to face with the Mob, gangs in alleys, hired thugs, you name it. And note again, I'm still here.
You wanna think your life was tougher, or I'm some slicked up city boy liberal, you think what you want. But you'd be way wrong. I came up hard-ass Baptist, from the deep old heart of the Conservative world. And my world included bootleggers & incest & guns & shacks that I'd be happy to compare with yours.
And now you wanna threaten me? Why's that? Whatever world you're in, I've been there, and no word of a lie. You wanna get everybody here wound up, you go ahead. But I know REAL country people, REAL church-going people, REAL hard-working people, REAL military people, going back centuries, every damn generation. That's my family, my neighbors, my friends. And what they do that you're NOT doing right now is they show some respect. While you treat everybody here like they're from some foreign weird far-off land that has nothing to do with yours. Well, you're wrong.
So back it up. Rethink. And show some goddamn respect. Because if you talked to your neighbors or family or people in your congregation the way you talk here - well, they'd lay some country-style manners on you. I know they would. 'Cause that's my world.
As for Mark Steyn, don't even bother. 50 cents says I get him on the phone faster than you. I spent 10 years in Britain, and maybe you'd note that he did too. Small circles. And me, coming up Conservative. You'd be surprised the world I've moved through.
Now if you had any real manners, an really believed half the stuff you've said on these pages about right & wrong and all that, you'd apologize. But so far, you've shown no sign of it. Which is a shame, because you & yours didn't have to come here and be this way. But it's been your call.
So you have a good day.
February 1, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting enough history of Booker T & the MGs house band itself. Said after MLK got shot, couldn't hold it together anymore, too much mistrust around after that. Sad.
February 1, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's my childhood talkin' OGD. These guys played my high school. Stax/Volt vs Motown. I always came down on the S/V side of that equation.
February 1, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lucky bastard. I think we were maybe the 18,000th high school to have a Stairway to Heaven prom.
And no, you're not permitted to set up a Stax/Volt vs. Motown opposition here. I want both. the J5 & Stevie & Marvin AND Wilson & Sam & Dave etc. (Even though I maaaaaay be 1% more on the Stax side.)
In fact, sometimes the weird mix in music produces my faves. this isn't his best version, but it still sings.
The Reverend Al does the Bee Gees. How can a loser ever win?
February 1, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, quinn - for lots of reasons.
February 1, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Q, I had no idea who Bill Hicks until you started dropping his clips in your comments. The dinosaur bit made me laugh my ass off. Spent about an hour clicking on the next clip and the next one. He was brilliant. The "Play From Your Fucking Heart" bit made me think not about abandoning my move for prefab pop music (Timberlake music is staying on my iPod), but doing whatever it is you do with passion. Even if it makes others uncomfortable, even if folks don't "get it." Words to live by.
Dave's gesture was even more powerful because he fully owned up and took responsibility for his actions unprompted. Contrast that to GWB's good bye tour where he tried to diffuse blame everywhere but his direction. And he didn't just show the clip, he tried to engage in actual dialogue with someone he had harmed. Real reconciliation does not happen by sweeping stuff under the rug. It happens by acknowledging the past fully and publicly, saying mistakes were made, and making sure they never happen again.
February 1, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dij. Well, first & foremost, you'll never find me badmouthing good pop, whatever the source, however much glitz. But they gotta at least throw themselves into it a bit. Like this. Boy band. But the song is written by a frigging genius, the production is solid, and Ronan at least has enough sense to have a good time.
And George Michael is still God, as we both know. (My one point of deep disagreement with Hicks, who kinda got turned off him in the "white shorts" stage with Wham!)
The contrast between Letterman & GWB is a good one. Maybe we could contrast the two relevant comedians here as well - Hicks & Rush? ;-)
February 1, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink