John Lennon, No-Class Hero


Make text smaller Make text larger




I hear that my old friend (figure of speech, thank God) Sam Waksal has been indicted on charges of insider trading, bank fraud, forging a signature and destroying records to obstruct a federal investigation. Although I've been brought up to never kick a man who's down, I will make an exception in the case of this individual. Waksal has been trying to plea-bargain his way out, but this was before the new charges of bank fraud and signature-forging. Thirty years in the pokey and millions of dollars in fines should do very nicely, thank you, at least for this social-climber who didn't mind giving false hopes to cancer sufferers as long as his rotten company's stock went up.


And all this in order to hang out with... Mick Jagger and Martha Stewart. Never in the history of the world has a man risked so much for so little. I can see someone betting the farm in order to ensure not to have to hang out with people like Jagger and Stewart, but then I'm not clued in with today's celebrity culture. Mind you, I'd commit fraud any day if in return I could bed down, say, Renee Zellweger, or Juliette Binoche, but an ugly-as-sin rock star and a middle-aged lifestyle guru? What is the world coming to?


Well, on the old continent it's even worse. Over here it's the local authorities who are doing a Waksal. Just imagine, pun intended, a John Lennon Airport. Last month in Liverpool, the poor old Queen had to shake hands with the ghastly Yoko Ono while unveiling a statue in honor of this newly renamed airport. Lennon was the worst of the four Beatles, by his own admission as high as a kite for much of the 60s and 70s, a shrewd publicity-seeker who railed against the establishment throughout because it was the thing to do back then, not that he believed a word he said against it. He is the fellow who sent his MBE medal back to Buckingham Palace by chauffeur as a political protest, but who admitted it was because his record Cold Turkey was badly slipping down the charts.


Lennon protested the war in Vietnam purely because of the antiwar sentiment that prevailed, not out of conviction or anything resembling an opinion. He hated capitalism?again, because it was chic to hate it at the time?but took full advantage. He was a violent heroin user, and a rude lowlifer all around. But because some nut went and put a bullet in his back, we now have a statue and airport named after him.


Erecting statues and naming airports and buildings after rock stars has to be the ultimate barbarism. I accept a Louis Armstrong Stadium, or a Fred Astaire St. (I don't know if one exists), but no John Lennon Aves., please. The idea of a bronze, romanticized statue of Lennon similar to a Nelson, Wellington or Disraeli has to turn the stomach. Only heroes should have buildings, streets and public spaces named after them, not for Christ's sake drug-taking pop stars. Armstrong si, Lennon no.


But then, what can one expect from Blair's land? Britain's population is by far the worst-educated and most culturally debased of any industrialized country, its youth no doubt consuming more drugs and alcohol and having more teenage pregnancies than anywhere else on earth. There is more antisocial disorder in British cities than anywhere in Europe, and crime is far above that in America. Naming an airport after someone whose behavior typified what the Brits have turned into is, I imagine, the logical conclusion to Britain's barbarism.


Lies of The Times


On the subject of barbarism, this Paul Krugman fellow takes the cake. He is an ex-Enron consultant who is bending over backwards to connect George W. with corporate sleaze. In fact, he does more than bend. He outright lies and invents in his pathetic column in The Big Bagel Times. Here's a letter I read in the International Herald Tribune last week that nails Krugman's pathetic lies:


"Krugman says George W. Bush's investment in the Texas Rangers entitled him to $2.3 million from the baseball team's sale. But, Krugman adds, 'his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds?$14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift?' We were among Bush's partners. In 1989, when we bought the team, Bush became the co-general partner with Edward Rose. At that time, the two general partners were granted a 15 percent share in the investment, after each investor got back his investment plus interest. This is a standard limited-partnership structure.


At the time, Bush was a private citizen, not governor of Texas.


When we sold the team in 1998, Bush received his 10 percent share. This was not 'a $12 million gift' to 'a sitting governor.' Bush had a good idea and the ability to make it happen. He was a dedicated manager and investor, exactly what we hope for in our business leaders."


Signed Tom Bernstein and Roland Betts. So, not only has Krugman the liar been caught out, The New York Times has to be in cahoots. After all, Krugman surely knew that Bush was not governor at the time, but he threw it in anyway to give his lies a boost. Calling a standard business practice 'a $12 million gift' is further proof that Krugman is a person to be trusted, a la Marc Rich. Not only does this liar have no shame about his Enron connection?I wonder whom they learned all that constructive accounting from??he tries to libel President Bush as a tool of bribing businessmen. If the Times were not as desperate to destroy George W.'s presidency, Krugman would have been long gone. But it's never too late. The paper of false record has been caught in flagrante. Krugman should get a job in Hollywood, where bald-faced phonies and liars like him are considered Tinseltown aristocracy.


Friends Like These


Not everything is as bleak as having to write about Krugman and his gang. The Defense Policy Board, for example, did lift up my spirits. Exposing the Saudi "royal" family, all 24,000 of them, is a good thing, even if my hero Henry Kissinger does not agree.


Let's face it. Saudi Arabia does support our enemies, is the kernel of evil as well as the prime mover behind the Islamofascists and gets away with its balancing act through bribery and bullshit. With allies like the Saudis, we truly do not need enemies; in fact, it would be far safer for Uncle Sam to consider those towelheads enemies than to think they are our friends. With Sharon playing the United States as a patsy on one side, and the Saudis doing exactly the same on the other, no wonder we've decided to attack...Saddam Hussein. When in doubt, take it out on the weakest.


The House of Saud finances and preaches terrorism directly and indirectly, while Sharon's government is right on target to slowly ethnic-cleanse the West Bank and create Eretz Yisroel. Both want Saddam out of the way. I do too, but only after the Saudis have been made to pay for the terrorism they've financed for so long, and Israel is forced to stay within its borders and to dismantle the illegal settlements. Then let's go and get the son of a bitch, but only then.


Make text smaller Make text larger

Comments