I don't know much about Paul McCartney and always preferred John Lennon anyway. But I know he wears tee shirts opposing the use of land mines and the need to clear them up etc. He's a big "peace" fellow. But it sort of sickens me, his visit to Israel. I always figure that anyone that had an inclination to go to Israel should at least try to go to Gaza, the largest concentration camp in the world.
I noticed the other day that my third party phone calls to Israel are 2 cents, to Gaza, 25 to 32 cents, more isolation of the poorest people in the area.
If McCartney had any decency he would have contacted Hamas the elected government of Gaza, and offered to perform there for that population. That's what he should have done; John Lennon would have.
12 comments:
You're a doofus.
We were considering not allowing this comment, silly as it is but at least it isn't real nasty. We understand some Yiddish.
You get one more chance to explain in an intelligent way why you disagree with the comment.
Paul did go to Bethleham which is in the West Bank so I think you jumped the gun to judge Paul. He hand delivered a message of piece to the Palestinians and John wouldn't have gone to Gaza after they kicked thee
....I don't know much about Paul McCartney and always preferred John Lennon anyway
Preferred in what manner? Musically or politically?
If you don't know much about Paul why would anything really believe you know much about John either?
A tired clichéd comment about these guys, music or politics.
Such that it's either one or the other. Like if they were your own brothers...you'd make a definite choice
based on?
....If McCartney had any decency....
Any decency?
Come on! IF you had any decency.
Maybe if you'd show a bit of respect for the goodness given and received by this sincere person over a lifetime.
huh?
Basically whatever your 'bigger point', Some equal status or offer you feel should have been made.
Seems just your attention seeking. Trying to make a point using Paul as your fallguy.
Well,
THIS is why you are a doofus, silly as it is. Hardly worth a stronger term.
....what he should have done; John Lennon would have.....
See. There you go.
Attention for YOU.
Sure sure because you know all about John Lennon.
It's just amazing to me that you know exactly what John would have done.
Sara wrote:
"It's just amazing to me that you know exactly what John would have done."
I know one thing about John Lennon. He stood up for minorities by criticizing the British occupation in Ireland and calling for Brits out.
He wrote the song Working Class Hero. He wrote Sunday Bloody Sunday in commemoration of the Catholics murdered by the British. The album, "Some Time in New York City" is very political and almost totally about social issues of the day, and he wrote and sung about the uprising in Attica.
He was much different to McCartney in how they saw the world and their role in it.
He was a much stronger advocate for the oppressed and would be very vocal about the horrific treatment of the Palestinians by the Zionist regime and the abandonment of them by the rest of the world if he were alive today.
McCartney doesn't come close.
I disagree also with the John verses Paul thing. McCartney was more openly political in the 1960s. Lady Madonna is a song about single moms, when it was almost illegal to be an unmarried mother.Also Paul's pop song, Oblade, oblada (sorry about the spelling) was a love song about 2 Jamaican immigrants in London in response to the Conservative Enoch Powell's anti-immigrant "rivers of blood" speech. I also think he shouldn't have gone to Israel.
I don't have any objection to him going to Israel in itself. But I can't imagine going to Israel and not going to Gaza or at least trying to go to Gaza as the Israeli's control who can go and who can't.
Gaza reminds me of that film. Total recall. This is where the "rebels" air is controlled by the dictators. The Israeli's control all aspects of real life in Gaza, water, energy etc.
I listened to Biden and Pallin go on tonight about Israel. Pallin brings up the holocaust. What on earth do the Palestinians or their situation have to do with that other than it is used time and time again to justify the theft of their land?
The situation in Gaza is a massive stain on humanity
I seem to recall a McCartney & Wings song "Give Ireland Back to the Irish"
Fair enough, Sara. I accept I have been a bit one sided perhaps. Although Lennon took politics much more seriously and was further left than McCartney.
But with regards to Israel any celebrity that went there should go to Gaza. Anyway, how can anyone not raise publicly the brutal treatment of the Palestinians in that country.
Biden went on about Darfur and the US instituting No Fly zones to save people. But the US provides the military hardware and money that is used to deny the Palestinians basic rights in their own country.
It's amazing to me that this little blurb about an entertainer has received more comments than any other post on this blog. Funny how people's opinions about public figures generate more response than issues that potentially affect the lives of regular people. The media and entertainment--though necessary, unavoidable, and fun--can distract us from things that matter or could make a difference. If we are so distracted that we avoid discussing the "big stuff," then who is the doofus?
The original poster of this entry went out on a limb and expressed an opinion about McCartney. he is entitled to that opinion. The poster has also written here about the economy, capitalism, and other political matters. Where is the debate on those issues?
Whatever his politics, motives, or past charity work, Paul McCartney is a billionaire who will not be affected much by any of the economic crises that are being described in the blog posts all around this one.
If only people showed such passion about those types of issues...
Aftera hit the nail,on the head
Post a Comment