Oaf comments on the interview

L

LoafingOaf

Guest
Overall it was a decent interview. If I sound a little mean in parts of the below it's because I just don't understand why everything is being tainted and f***ed up by law suits and shit. It depresses me and I want it to stop.

> What makes this most English of Englishmen relocate to the most American
> of American cities?

Why does every Morrissey article have to obsess on this? I understand England is important to his music, but this is getting old.

> new life, new inspiration and an exotic new fanbase.

So if you're Mexican/Latino/a, you're "exotic"?

> Either you fell at the feet of this skinny, flailing individual, who
> tossed bon mots around like confetti and behaved as if popular
> acclaimation had elected him King of the North of England - or you thought
> he was a prancing nancy boy who deserved a slap, in which case the joke
> was on you because you were only encouraging him.

Well said!

>In The
> Smiths he had written about the private miseries of growing up in
> Manchester; as a solo artist, he'd ransacked everything from the Kray
> Twins to Brighton Rock to amateur boxing night at the York Hall gym in
> Bethnal Green for increasing violent characters to write about. Why on
> earth would he move to a place without history or human texture? Morrissey
> (rain, bleak humour) and Los Angeles (sun, cheery vapidity) seemed to be a
> contradiction in terms.

Um, how on earth can any place be "without history or human texture"?
We've got plenty of gangsters cooler than the Krays!!!

> But there are signs that Los Angeles has been good for Morrissey.

Still obsessing on Los Angeles. This was covered in the last 6 Morrissey articles.

> The Jag noses its way towards West Hollywood, where Morrissey lives, and
> below the rear-view mirror a silver cross and a Greek army dog-tag -
> thrown onstage by a fan in Athens - jangle against one another. Morrissey
> tells me he is "three dotted i's away" from signing a new record
> deal with the Sanctuary Music Group, home to Black Sabbath, Todd Rundgren
> and others of the never-say-die fanbase contingent. As a dowry, they are
> giving him his own label, the resurrected 60s and 70s reggae imprint
> Attack, along with the rights to its back catalogue and license to sign
> whomever he likes (this Morrissey finds especially delicious considering
> the stick he took in the late 80s for telling the NME that "Reggae is
> vile"). Recording of the album Irish Blood, English Heart should
> happen in the summer.

I almost believe it!

> As a curtain-raiser, Morrissey has assembled a compilation of the songs
> that made him who is for Under The Influence,

Well the track listing is ten million times more interesting (espeically for having Charlie Feathers!) than those Starbucks CDs where Sheryl Crow and the Rolling Stones did boring-ass compilations!

> Describe your typical day

*sigh* This guy is asking the same shit everyone asks him.

>Please don't
> imagine that I came to Los Angeles to surf or work out. I know it's
> happening here somewhere but I could never do any of that.

He oughta try surfing!

>In America you can't even talk about something
> you both saw on TV last night. There's too many channels.

We all watched Joe Millionaire though! (Why the hell did we watch that??)

> Many of the recent big hits on American television have been British
> imports, like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, The Weakest Link and Pop
> Idol.

> Quite so, and they're to the detriment of American society. Even the BBC
> America channel is positively vile. It shows Changing Rooms back to back
> for nine hours.

You got that right. We must end this British dumbing down of American culture.

> Father Ted? (Pained expression). Ugh. You see, I don't find humour funny.
> That's my problem. What I find funny is things like Alan Bennett, or Jo
> Brand, or Victoria Wood. In the early 80s she completely changed the face
> of television comedy, not just for women by for men too. I admire her for
> that. She was revolutionary.

Don't know what he's talking about.

> I was a very
> noisy child. I always stood in front of the television, I wouldn't go to
> bed, and then I discovered music at the age of six and played it loud,
> continuously, all day from that point onwards. I would sing, non-stop,
> which must have been unbearable. I was surprised they were so tolerant of
> me, to be honest.

Awww. Lil Moz.

> What does your father do?

> He does... certain things. Useful things. Let's leave it at that.

Hmm...we'd better get the investigative reporters on this!

> There are certain people in modern pop who I am very impressed with.
> People like Bono and Noel Gallagher.

*puke* at Bono.

>I like them enormously. I understand
> Bono and I think he is worth supporting. When you meet him, you can see
> why he is very good at that ambassadorial role. He exudes a great sense of
> ease and enthusiasm. That's a gift. I've met him a few times. The first
> time was when I presented an award to him in Belfast about six years ago,
> and we talked at length. You can see he's a very loving and decent person
> and actually not remotely pretentious.

That all may be, I'm sure he's a good guy, but his music blows. And I don't like the religiosity of it. "I think he is worth supporting." What does that mean? You either like the music or you don't. What, do people sit around going, "Hmmm, this song is pretty good, but now is this band member really WORTH supporting???"

> I don't work. I never really have. I don't consider what I do to be work.
> I just exist, and be.

This made me really f***ing envious. How lovely that sounds. I wanna find a way to a living that I won't consider work. Boy, what I do feels like unbearably tedious work every god damn f***ing day. = ( Feel sorry for Oaf, people!!!

> The received wisdom of how The Smiths made records was that Johnny Marr
> would create the music entirely separately from you, and you would then
> arrive with lyrics which had also been created in isolation, and you would
> often do it in one take.

> Yes, absolutely, and that is how it still goes on.

I find this bizarre and hard to follow how it can work so well. But it does indeed work!

> The music mystifies me, because I don't understand why I have the
> monopoly on the word "miserable". Both [Coldplay and Radiohead] sound very
> unhappy, with not a sign of a witty lyric. I might be wrong but I don't
> understand how they've escaped that accusation. I can't say I've enjoyed
> their records, no.

It's a good point. I love the second and third Radiohead albums, but they sure have gotten boring lately. Why would anyone listen to those last albums?
If you put one on at a party it's the surest way to kill that party. (Not that every album must be good for a party, mind you....)

> Robbie Williams is now your neighbour here in Los Angeles. Why do you
> think the Americans haven't taken to him?

Never heard of him.

> Personally I think
> that almost everything about Robbie Williams is fantastic... apart from
> the voice and the songs.

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

They're neighbors? Ouch.

> Did you hear TATU's version of How Soon Is Now?
> Yes, it was magnificent. Absolutely. Again, I don't know much about them

Yes it is magnificent, I quite agree. (Take that, Mindy.:>)

Although I felt like a dirty old man when somebody at class spotted their CD in my bag.

But the cover song and at least one other song are really good. It's about time some teenage pop had something going for it.

> Morrissey lives in Clark Gable's old house. Next door, Johnny Depp lives
> in Boris Karloff's old house -

Real good. This will ensure an uptick in stalker activity.

> Another room, however, is less sensually-inclined. It contains a
> flatscreen G4 Powermac and a giant plasma screen TV.

Ah, the computer on which he monitors this site for legal actions.

> The house, he feels, is a refuge. Friends visit often. In 2000 Kirsty
> MacColl, who'd sung on Interesting Drug and The Smiths' Ask and had been
> married to Morrissey's producer Steve Lillywhite, came over. She'd heard
> that he had been to Mexico - was it nice? Should she take the kids?
> Morrissey told her she absolutely must, must go. The day she arrived in
> Mexico she was killed by a speedboat which was in a swimming area.
> "She is irreplaceable to me," Morrissey says.

RIP Kirsty = (

> Fans, inevitably, have found him here.

Of course they have. You all but gave a map to the house.

>It said he was going to the Gulf and he must speak with Morrissey
> before he went. "What can you say?" Morrissey wonders. "Go?
> Don't go? Go but don't shoot anybody?" Again, there is nothing you
> can say that will make anything better."

I'd have told him: If you're morally opposed to what you're being asked to do, you simply cannot do it. However, one ought to have thought of this before joining the armed forces, rather than expecting to just take and not give back in an arrangement wherein volunteers get a pretty good deal. So, while he'd be a jack-ass for that...no, no one should fight in a war they oppose. I wish I could've gone in his place and been part of that history.

> Several of your new songs are about Mexican life. There’s The First Of The
> Gang To Die, where the typical Morrissey boy-hero is a gangster called
> Hector, and Mexico, about migrant workers. Isn’t this the first time
> you’ve written about people who aren’t British?

Is "First of the Gang to Die" about Mexican life? Just because of the name Hector? Wasn't that name chosen because it's both/either an English and a Spanish name?

> It’s about time isn’t it? I do like social observation and these seemed
> like natural subjects for my kind of songs. It is a fascinating culture,
> but also the Spanish-speaking audience is so valuable in America these
> days. Everybody wants the “Hispanic” audience.

He did NOT just say that! Am I reading this wrong, or is he saying he's trying to jump on a trend to help his career? I suppose he could mean the Spanish-speaking audience is important, so an artist should be in touch with them. Or I dunno.

But yeah, all Americans should learn some Spanish I think.
It's one of the languages of the land. In fact, some of our land was stolen from Mexico, of course. And several of our states were officially bilingual in the 1800s (take that, those in the Make English the Official Language movement!)

> The 90s were quite a hard time for you. You were pilloried as a racist for
> producing the Union Jack onstage at a Madness show in Finsbury Park in
> 1992, yet within a couple of years British pop culture had wrapped itself
> in the flag. Did you feel vindicated by Britpop?

Duh, this interviewer knows the answer to this, because he got this question by looking at other Morrissey interviews. Why do they bother rehashing the same questions. If you wanted to address the racism thing, it would've been far more interesting to talk about "Bengali In Platoforms," which I still don't know how I'm supposed to take.

> Why did you wave the Union Jack at the Madness show?

> Truly, honestly, I can’t remember. It was not a great choreographed plan,
> it was just there. I wasn’t making any statement.

> What, in front of Madness’s audience?

It's funny how waving a flag is such a big deal in England. They've been asking Morrissey about this one waving of a flag for how many years? 11 years?
Strange. Truly strange.

> What goes through you mind when you’re onstage?

> The joy of final human fulfilment. There’s nothing to touch it. It’s as
> good as life gets, and never more so than the last string of dates I did
> in Blackburn, Bradford and Glasgow. They were the best nights of my life.
> The audiences were so astonishing and I though, “There is nothing that
> life can give me that will take me beyond these night.”

I like to hear this. = )

> What is the current state of play in your legal dispute with Mike Joyce?
> [The Smiths’ drummer was awarded £1.25m in back royalties in 1996;
> Morrissey lost an appeal in 1998]

His whole thing on the Joyce case is rather sad. And, at least based on what I can gather from the appellate court's opinions, Morrissey's doing some serious spin control here.

> I think he knew it would stick with the media. Because his findings were
> so wrong and perverse, he had to make that extreme comment or people might
> have examined his judgement a bit more closely,

Pure rubbish. I guess he thinks the fans will believe it though, because when are they gonna hear the other side?

>and seen that his reasons
> for finding in favour of Joyce were non-existent.

That's a lie. The reasons were well stated.

*sigh*

If he really believes his whole line on that case, that's one thing. He'd be fooling himself, but at least sincere. Though I must say he seems far worse. Like a ridiculous liar when this subject comes up.

In my humble opinion.

> Are you well off?

> No, and I think that has propelled Joyce somewhat. When I signed to RCA
> and did the Southpaw Grammar album it was announced that I had signed a £9
> million deal. In truth I received £250,000. And when I signed to Mercury
> in 1996, Q magazine said I was in line to receive £21 million! People
> actually believe these things. What I got was a mere dusting of that
> amount. I mean, I can go on trips to Mexico, I treat myself to First Class
> travel and nice hotels, I have a reasonably nice car and I own this house,
> but I am not well off. I don’t see money from tours either. They are very
> successful but on the last two or three, I’ve had not a Mars bar to show
> for it at the end. That’s not why I do them, of course, but people think
> you are rolling in it and I’m not.

Lets see. He drives a Jag and...what was that other sports car? He drives those to his mansion, where Johnny Depp lives on one side and some famous British singer on the other. He goes inside and watches his plasma big screen TV. He doesn't have to do anything on any given day he doesn't want to do; he can just exist and hang out.

More power to him. But, honestly, how should one react when the rich pretend they are not. He may not not be "rolling in it," but what the hell are the rest of us doing? I feel rich and I f***ing live paycheck to paycheck and am barely middle class in a teeny apartment. BUT I FEEL WELL OFF. And this joker doesn't, living in his limosine Hollywood life.
It's laughable. "Yeah, I'm in the .01 percentile of wealth, but I'm not well off."

What is that about? Excuses for not paying people?

Proof he's not living in reality?

More power to the man for being rich; I wanna be too. But don't pretend otherwise. That's asinine.

> Again, disregarding the court case, did The Smiths achieve what you wanted
> them to achieve?

Yes, go back to better subjects. I don't wanna hear about that other shit any more. How about the music????????????

> There’s no doubt that The Smiths could have gone on and would have got
> better too. I thought it could have easily run to twenty albums.

DAMN YOU, JOHNNY!!!!!!!!!

But...eh, it's okay. The solo stuff pretty much rules too.

> In the driveway, he asked a favour. He wanted to modify a few of the
> things he said. “Please don’t have me say anything unpleasant about
> Coldplay and Radiohead,” he said “There’s no point to it, it just looks
> silly and mean. They’re perfectly good bands, they’re just not to my
> taste.”

> You called them Oldplay and Radiodead.

> “I know. But I say a lot of things I don’t mean.”

> And that was something I’d never heard from Morrissey before.

Heh.
 
> Overall it was a decent interview. If I sound a little mean in parts of
> the below it's because I just don't understand why everything is being
> tainted and f***ed up by law suits and shit. It depresses me and I want it
> to stop.

> Why does every Morrissey article have to obsess on this? I understand
> England is important to his music, but this is getting old.

> So if you're Mexican/Latino/a, you're "exotic"?

> Well said!

> Um, how on earth can any place be "without history or human
> texture"?
> We've got plenty of gangsters cooler than the Krays!!!

> Still obsessing on Los Angeles. This was covered in the last 6 Morrissey
> articles.

> I almost believe it!

> Well the track listing is ten million times more interesting (espeically
> for having Charlie Feathers!) than those Starbucks CDs where Sheryl Crow
> and the Rolling Stones did boring-ass compilations!

> *sigh* This guy is asking the same shit everyone asks him.

> He oughta try surfing!

> We all watched Joe Millionaire though! (Why the hell did we watch that??)

> You got that right. We must end this British dumbing down of American
> culture.

> Don't know what he's talking about.

> Awww. Lil Moz.

> Hmm...we'd better get the investigative reporters on this!

> *puke* at Bono.

> That all may be, I'm sure he's a good guy, but his music blows. And I
> don't like the religiosity of it. "I think he is worth
> supporting." What does that mean? You either like the music or you
> don't. What, do people sit around going, "Hmmm, this song is pretty
> good, but now is this band member really WORTH supporting???"

> This made me really f***ing envious. How lovely that sounds. I wanna find
> a way to a living that I won't consider work. Boy, what I do feels like
> unbearably tedious work every god damn f***ing day. = ( Feel sorry for
> Oaf, people!!!

> I find this bizarre and hard to follow how it can work so well. But it
> does indeed work!

> It's a good point. I love the second and third Radiohead albums, but they
> sure have gotten boring lately. Why would anyone listen to those last
> albums?
> If you put one on at a party it's the surest way to kill that party. (Not
> that every album must be good for a party, mind you....)

> Never heard of him.

> LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

> They're neighbors? Ouch.

> Yes it is magnificent, I quite agree. (Take that, Mindy.:>)

> Although I felt like a dirty old man when somebody at class spotted their
> CD in my bag.

> But the cover song and at least one other song are really good. It's about
> time some teenage pop had something going for it.

> Real good. This will ensure an uptick in stalker activity.

> Ah, the computer on which he monitors this site for legal actions.

> RIP Kirsty = (

> Of course they have. You all but gave a map to the house.

> I'd have told him: If you're morally opposed to what you're being asked to
> do, you simply cannot do it. However, one ought to have thought of this
> before joining the armed forces, rather than expecting to just take and
> not give back in an arrangement wherein volunteers get a pretty good deal.
> So, while he'd be a jack-ass for that...no, no one should fight in a war
> they oppose. I wish I could've gone in his place and been part of that
> history.

> Is "First of the Gang to Die" about Mexican life? Just because
> of the name Hector? Wasn't that name chosen because it's both/either an
> English and a Spanish name?

> He did NOT just say that! Am I reading this wrong, or is he saying he's
> trying to jump on a trend to help his career? I suppose he could mean the
> Spanish-speaking audience is important, so an artist should be in touch
> with them. Or I dunno.

> But yeah, all Americans should learn some Spanish I think.
> It's one of the languages of the land. In fact, some of our land was
> stolen from Mexico, of course. And several of our states were officially
> bilingual in the 1800s (take that, those in the Make English the Official
> Language movement!)

> Duh, this interviewer knows the answer to this, because he got this
> question by looking at other Morrissey interviews. Why do they bother
> rehashing the same questions. If you wanted to address the racism thing,
> it would've been far more interesting to talk about "Bengali In
> Platoforms," which I still don't know how I'm supposed to take.

> It's funny how waving a flag is such a big deal in England. They've been
> asking Morrissey about this one waving of a flag for how many years? 11
> years?
> Strange. Truly strange.

> I like to hear this. = )

> His whole thing on the Joyce case is rather sad. And, at least based on
> what I can gather from the appellate court's opinions, Morrissey's doing
> some serious spin control here.

> Pure rubbish. I guess he thinks the fans will believe it though, because
> when are they gonna hear the other side?

> That's a lie. The reasons were well stated.

> *sigh*

> If he really believes his whole line on that case, that's one thing. He'd
> be fooling himself, but at least sincere. Though I must say he seems far
> worse. Like a ridiculous liar when this subject comes up.

> In my humble opinion.

> Lets see. He drives a Jag and...what was that other sports car? He drives
> those to his mansion, where Johnny Depp lives on one side and some famous
> British singer on the other. He goes inside and watches his plasma big
> screen TV. He doesn't have to do anything on any given day he doesn't want
> to do; he can just exist and hang out.

> More power to him. But, honestly, how should one react when the rich
> pretend they are not. He may not not be "rolling in it," but
> what the hell are the rest of us doing? I feel rich and I f***ing live
> paycheck to paycheck and am barely middle class in a teeny apartment. BUT
> I FEEL WELL OFF. And this joker doesn't, living in his limosine Hollywood
> life.
> It's laughable. "Yeah, I'm in the .01 percentile of wealth, but I'm
> not well off."

> What is that about? Excuses for not paying people?

> Proof he's not living in reality?

> More power to the man for being rich; I wanna be too. But don't pretend
> otherwise. That's asinine.

> Yes, go back to better subjects. I don't wanna hear about that other shit
> any more. How about the music????????????

> DAMN YOU, JOHNNY!!!!!!!!!

> But...eh, it's okay. The solo stuff pretty much rules too.

> Heh.

if people want a real interview with morrissey, they should sick me apon him.....of course he wouldnt want to answer the questions i had to ask.
 
> Overall it was a decent interview. If I sound a little mean in parts of
> the below it's because I just don't understand why everything is being
> tainted and f***ed up by law suits and shit. It depresses me and I want it
> to stop.

> Why does every Morrissey article have to obsess on this? I understand
> England is important to his music, but this is getting old.

> So if you're Mexican/Latino/a, you're "exotic"?

> Well said!

> Um, how on earth can any place be "without history or human
> texture"?
> We've got plenty of gangsters cooler than the Krays!!!

> Still obsessing on Los Angeles. This was covered in the last 6 Morrissey
> articles.

> I almost believe it!

> Well the track listing is ten million times more interesting (espeically
> for having Charlie Feathers!) than those Starbucks CDs where Sheryl Crow
> and the Rolling Stones did boring-ass compilations!

> *sigh* This guy is asking the same shit everyone asks him.

> He oughta try surfing!

> We all watched Joe Millionaire though! (Why the hell did we watch that??)

> You got that right. We must end this British dumbing down of American
> culture.

> Don't know what he's talking about.

> Awww. Lil Moz.

> Hmm...we'd better get the investigative reporters on this!

> *puke* at Bono.

> That all may be, I'm sure he's a good guy, but his music blows. And I
> don't like the religiosity of it. "I think he is worth
> supporting." What does that mean? You either like the music or you
> don't. What, do people sit around going, "Hmmm, this song is pretty
> good, but now is this band member really WORTH supporting???"

> This made me really f***ing envious. How lovely that sounds. I wanna find
> a way to a living that I won't consider work. Boy, what I do feels like
> unbearably tedious work every god damn f***ing day. = ( Feel sorry for
> Oaf, people!!!

> I find this bizarre and hard to follow how it can work so well. But it
> does indeed work!

> It's a good point. I love the second and third Radiohead albums, but they
> sure have gotten boring lately. Why would anyone listen to those last
> albums?
> If you put one on at a party it's the surest way to kill that party. (Not
> that every album must be good for a party, mind you....)

> Never heard of him.

> LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

> They're neighbors? Ouch.

> Yes it is magnificent, I quite agree. (Take that, Mindy.:>)

> Although I felt like a dirty old man when somebody at class spotted their
> CD in my bag.

> But the cover song and at least one other song are really good. It's about
> time some teenage pop had something going for it.

> Real good. This will ensure an uptick in stalker activity.

> Ah, the computer on which he monitors this site for legal actions.

> RIP Kirsty = (

> Of course they have. You all but gave a map to the house.

> I'd have told him: If you're morally opposed to what you're being asked to
> do, you simply cannot do it. However, one ought to have thought of this
> before joining the armed forces, rather than expecting to just take and
> not give back in an arrangement wherein volunteers get a pretty good deal.
> So, while he'd be a jack-ass for that...no, no one should fight in a war
> they oppose. I wish I could've gone in his place and been part of that
> history.

> Is "First of the Gang to Die" about Mexican life? Just because
> of the name Hector? Wasn't that name chosen because it's both/either an
> English and a Spanish name?

> He did NOT just say that! Am I reading this wrong, or is he saying he's
> trying to jump on a trend to help his career? I suppose he could mean the
> Spanish-speaking audience is important, so an artist should be in touch
> with them. Or I dunno.

> But yeah, all Americans should learn some Spanish I think.
> It's one of the languages of the land. In fact, some of our land was
> stolen from Mexico, of course. And several of our states were officially
> bilingual in the 1800s (take that, those in the Make English the Official
> Language movement!)

> Duh, this interviewer knows the answer to this, because he got this
> question by looking at other Morrissey interviews. Why do they bother
> rehashing the same questions. If you wanted to address the racism thing,
> it would've been far more interesting to talk about "Bengali In
> Platoforms," which I still don't know how I'm supposed to take.

> It's funny how waving a flag is such a big deal in England. They've been
> asking Morrissey about this one waving of a flag for how many years? 11
> years?
> Strange. Truly strange.

> I like to hear this. = )

> His whole thing on the Joyce case is rather sad. And, at least based on
> what I can gather from the appellate court's opinions, Morrissey's doing
> some serious spin control here.

> Pure rubbish. I guess he thinks the fans will believe it though, because
> when are they gonna hear the other side?

> That's a lie. The reasons were well stated.

> *sigh*

> If he really believes his whole line on that case, that's one thing. He'd
> be fooling himself, but at least sincere. Though I must say he seems far
> worse. Like a ridiculous liar when this subject comes up.

> In my humble opinion.

> Lets see. He drives a Jag and...what was that other sports car? He drives
> those to his mansion, where Johnny Depp lives on one side and some famous
> British singer on the other. He goes inside and watches his plasma big
> screen TV. He doesn't have to do anything on any given day he doesn't want
> to do; he can just exist and hang out.

> More power to him. But, honestly, how should one react when the rich
> pretend they are not. He may not not be "rolling in it," but
> what the hell are the rest of us doing? I feel rich and I f***ing live
> paycheck to paycheck and am barely middle class in a teeny apartment. BUT
> I FEEL WELL OFF. And this joker doesn't, living in his limosine Hollywood
> life.
> It's laughable. "Yeah, I'm in the .01 percentile of wealth, but I'm
> not well off."

> What is that about? Excuses for not paying people?

> Proof he's not living in reality?

> More power to the man for being rich; I wanna be too. But don't pretend
> otherwise. That's asinine.

> Yes, go back to better subjects. I don't wanna hear about that other shit
> any more. How about the music????????????

> DAMN YOU, JOHNNY!!!!!!!!!

> But...eh, it's okay. The solo stuff pretty much rules too.

> Heh.

You really are the thickest ,goose-stepping American I have ever heard.
Why the f**k some right wing wanker like you ever latched on to Morrissey is beyond belief.
We are talking here of an Irish immigrant from a staunchly working class background.
We are talking about someone who has penned songs slagging off Thatcher and the Queen but yet you still didn't get it.
You STILL thought Morrissey would support a war in Iraq!! Are you really that dense ?
I notice you conveniently forgot to quote Morrissey;s comments on the war so allow me to do that for you-
"George W and Tony Bland(sic) are insufferable,egotistical,insane despots.It is unforgiveable of them to send people to Iraq and certain death".

Of all the people who have never quite grasped what Morrissey is about(virtually all of them Americans) you are by far the worst culprit.
USA is country where youi are virtually branded a Communist for joining a Trade Union.

I shudder to think what your translation for a song such as "Margaret On The Guillotine" is.

Is it Mrs Thatcher you are a tremendous leader and the way you tried to destroy the most neeedy people in Britain is fantastic ?

You are a prick of the 1st degree.
 
> if people want a real interview with morrissey, they should sick me apon
> him.....of course he wouldnt want to answer the questions i had to ask.

haha

What's the question at the top of your list?
 
> You really are the thickest ,goose-stepping American I have ever heard.
> Why the f**k some right wing wanker like you ever latched on to Morrissey
> is beyond belief.
> We are talking here of an Irish immigrant from a staunchly working class
> background.
> We are talking about someone who has penned songs slagging off Thatcher
> and the Queen but yet you still didn't get it.
> You STILL thought Morrissey would support a war in Iraq!! Are you really
> that dense ?
> I notice you conveniently forgot to quote Morrissey;s comments on the war
> so allow me to do that for you-
> "George W and Tony Bland(sic) are insufferable,egotistical,insane
> despots.It is unforgiveable of them to send people to Iraq and certain
> death".

I specifically decided to NOT comment on what he said about the war. And yet you attack me on that anyway! LOL! Everybody knows how much I completely disagree with everything he said on that topic...with the exception of the airport harassments and the police officers.

I don't believe Morrissey is an expert on Iraq. His is just another opinion like anyone else's. And I think he's wrong. *shrug* We didn't send people to certain death. We saved lives and have given a new future to Iraq. If Morrissey's gonna talk of "fascism," I suggest he look up what life was like in a truly fascist country run by an imperialistic aggressor - Iraq. And, IMO, Tony Blair (the man who I felt, along with Paul Wolfowitz, was the best leader in all of this) is being vindicated. As he was with Kosovo, which I supported for mostly the same reasons. I'm totally open about what I support, what I believe in, what I think a just policy is. Haven't quite worked out what people like you support, what your policy is. I just know what you oppose. And on this one, you opposed taking Saddam down. Congrats!

And I took my cue from Iraqi exiles, Kurds, and those who have studied the country for a lifetime. Not a pop star. So I don't know why it's supposed to mean anything to me that Morrissey thinks this or that about Blair. I guarantee you I've read more about Iraq than he has. I think he was saying the trendy line. His heart is in the right place (as you can see, he's NOT a knee-jerk anti-American dolt, like you are), but it's no better than the heart of a lot of the people who backed the war.

As I've always said, those who support and oppose the war came from across the spectrum in each category. My feeling was that those who focused on Saddam and his genocide/torture/aggression came out for the war, and those who focused on other things came out against it. My feeling also is that those who supported it were generally the idealists. Which doesn't make us right, but it does mean many us came to our view based on morality.

> Of all the people who have never quite grasped what Morrissey is
> about(virtually all of them Americans) you are by far the worst culprit.
> USA is country where youi are virtually branded a Communist for joining a
> Trade Union.

Morrissey is a man who calls his bandmates "lawnmower parts" when he doesn't wanna pay them their due. Morrissey is the man who apparently hasn't paid employees on his last tour, and when one of those employees takes his grievance to this web site, Morrissey sicks a lawyer on the owner of the site to threaten even CRIMINAL charges. Who's shitting who here? I can honestly say I treat people far better than Morrissey does.

> I shudder to think what your translation for a song such as "Margaret
> On The Guillotine" is.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about Thatcher. I don't get caught up in the domestic policies of Great Britain. I know of some bad things she did in fighting the IRA. I know of some good and bad things she did with respect to matters of foreign policy.

> Is it Mrs Thatcher you are a tremendous leader and the way you tried to
> destroy the most neeedy people in Britain is fantastic ?

> You are a prick of the 1st degree.

Do you know how young I was during Thatcher? And I've never been to Great Britain. I like TONY BLAIR. Got it? TONY BLAIR. That's not Margaret Thatcher, you retard.
 
Question number 1

> haha

> What's the question at the top of your list?

hmmmmmmm, ok

1.what did you say or do to piss off johnny marr?
 
>>We didn't send people to certain death. We saved lives and have given a new
>>future to Iraq.

The frightening thing is I think you actually believe this. You know, Osama Bin Laden claimed the attack on New York was an effort to liberate [the people of Palestine]. You seem to share some common ground.
 
BTW, I can't quite work out what is wrong with this statement by Thatcher last week:

"For years, many governments played down the threats of Islamic revolution, turned a blind eye to international terrorism and accepted the development of weaponry of mass destruction. Indeed, some politicians were happy to go further, collaborating with the self-proclaimed enemies of the West for their own short-term gain - but enough about the French. So deep had the rot set in that the UN security council itself was paralysed... Our own Prime Minister was staunch and our forces were superb....There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."
 
> The frightening thing is I think you actually believe this. You know,
> Osama Bin Laden claimed the attack on New York was an effort to liberate
> [the people of Palestine]. You seem to share some common ground.

Nonsense. First of all, you have no understanding of why Usama created al Qaeda, and I suggest you reasearch the name Sayyid Qutb as a start. A good book would be Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman.

Second, of course I believe we saved lives and IRaq has a new future. These are indisputable facts. You see the Saddam regime gone, yes? you see an interim government being formed, right? You see IRaqis and Kurds having meetings about the new future of their country, hmm? Doesn't mean it will be a perfect future. But a new future indeed it is. And no one can seriously argue that the average Iraqi won't have more political power and a beter standard of living. So lets be serious, please. This Iraq operation is far from complete and much can go wrong, but what I stated was simply fact.
 
Morrissey says Tony Blair is an insane despot. Could he respond to these points?

Yes, seriousness and consistancy can still count for something, as Blair has shown. This article pretty much rips Morrissey's comments a new butthole.

Hysterical would be what this author would call Morrissey's attack on Blair.

For those interested, have a read:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the Mirror:

WHY DO PEOPLE HATE BLAIR SO MUCH?
Christopher Hitchens

I THINK it's in That Uncertain Feeling that Kingsley Amis's narrator says to himself that he knows why he likes women's breasts, all right. What he can't quite explain is why he likes them so much.

This may seem like a strange way to begin a discussion of a 50-year-old male Prime Minister (though it got your attention, didn't it?). But I can quite see why some people don't care for Tony Blair.

What sometimes baffles me is the intensity of the dislike. Why, in other words, do his critics dislike him so much?

Clare Short's resignation speech, for example, accused him of being an authoritarian who cared increasingly and in a narcissistic way about his place in history.

Yet her speech, which was designed to call attention (yet again) to herself and her various moral agonies, was not the speech of someone who was fired, or dropped, or sacked - as I think she ought years ago to have been.

The ruthless despot kept her on. The people of Iraq, for whom Ms Short has done so much over the past year, will now just have to manage without her. But the recent events in Iraq are historic by any definition. Does one detect a note of animosity, even pique, nay envy here?

I've only met the Prime Minister twice and only when he was Leader of the Opposition.

On the first occasion I interviewed him in his office at the Commons and on the second occasion he kissed my baby daughter at a garden party in Hampstead. (I obviously forgive him for the second, though it's not something I normally allow adult male strangers to do. Professional capacity is professional capacity.)

I joined the Labour Party when I became old enough to do so, was kicked out of its student wing because of Vietnam and have had the usual love-hate fluctuations with it ever since. I am not in any way personally invested, I mean to say, in Blair's success.

Mr Alastair Campbell does not call me on my cellphone - and only partly because I don't possess one.

However, I do count myself among Blair's supporters and admirers. If I go into some lowly poolroom or dive in America, or to some loftier resort perhaps, I run into people who can tell that I am English and who say, basically, that they wish it was Mr Blair making the case about Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than Mr Bush.

This is an unforced tribute.

It's partly a tribute to the parliamentary system, which compels British leaders to argue on their feet. And it's partly a criticism of Mr Bush, who wouldn't last a minute at Question Time.

But I choose to think that it's a bit more than that. Ever since he spoke in Chicago in 1999, Blair has been saying, in effect, that co-existence with aggressive dictators is neither possible nor desirable.

There are second-order arguments, about weaponry and terrorism, and the technicalities that surround these discussions, but the point about the essential point is that it is just that - essential.

DESPITE endless obfuscations from people who think that co-existence with homicidal and genocidal psychopaths is possible (or desirable, or even profitable) such a basic statement has a way of sticking in the mind.

It's also, of course, a "moral" point. And there is something in the British character that shies away from moralism in politics, or at least in politicians.

And a good thing, too, I say - nothing is more suspect than a public figure who deals in piety.

When I interviewed Blair all those years ago, I asked him what was all this about being a "Christian Socialist"? It sounded like the most gruesome echo of Harold Wilson to me.

He didn't quite answer my question about Wilson - which made me suspicious - but he did say plainly that he despised politicians who employed religious rhetoric.

Thus it dispirits me when I see him acting all martyred and self-pitying, and it positively revolted me when I heard him reading a lesson, with sonorous intonations, at the funeral of the woman he had retrospectively baptised as "the People's princess".

Yuck, and yuck again. The same for the coy revelation that young Leo had been conceived during a moment of abandon on a conjugal visit to Balmoral. Talk about too much information. However, I think that this version of piety and family values is to be distinguished from the sort of genuine moral energy that is required to put up a fight.

Blair helped push a wavering Clinton into Kosovo and he was warning against Saddam Hussein when Bush was still campaigning for the isolationist vote against "nation-building". (By the way, for those with short memories, these two examples on their own will take care of the witless taunt about Blair being America's "poodle".) In both conflicts, there were brief periods - which must have seemed very long at the time - when things looked as if they might be going very badly.

It does require some character to put up with that. To be more exact, it takes one of two kinds of character.

Some leaders don't even break a sweat during periods of reverse and disaster, and remain convinced that they are infallible. They usually end up on trial.

Others, without giving way to panic, still betray signs of worry and unease. Better to have the second kind. I like the new haggardness of Mr Blair.

Incidentally, what has become of those who wanted to prosecute him for going into Iraq? Are they still at it? Do they, by any chance, meet my objection that there is something hysterical in some of the anti-Blairism one hears?

I am betraying my age again but for the whole of my conscious life, British politics has partly consisted of a stupid argument about whether the country belongs in an Atlantic alliance or a European one.

The Tories in 1956 thought that they could put two fingers up to President Eisenhower and invade Egypt on a whim. They later caused De Gaulle to veto British membership of a club that then had only six members.

WILSON fawned on LBJ throughout the Vietnam horror and wouldn't fight his own party on Europe. Callaghan grovelled to Kissinger and punted the Europe issue into the next parliament. Thatcher smooched Reagan and annoyed Brussels.

So it went, decade after decade.

Nobody seems to think it's worth mentioning but we now have a Prime Minister who thinks that this is a false distinction and that we need to be more internationalist in both directions. Culturally and politically, he comes from a generation that regards America as a natural second home but that doesn't think of the European mainland as "abroad" or "the continent".

Well, that's a relief. And long overdue. It may not hurt, either, that Blair can at least give a speech in French. As to the Commonwealth or "Third World" dimension of politics, one can't be so affirmative.

Blair did stick to the British commitment to Sierra Leone and prevented it from being over-run by a gang of hand-lopping child-molesters and diamond smugglers who had (it now turns out) commercial links to al-Qaeda.

And he has helped to prevent the Palestinians from dropping off the bottom of the agenda in Washington. It would be nice to see more being done about, in particular, Zimbabwe.

But in order to confront this nightmare, one would probably need a mixture of moralism and ruthlessness - the very qualities that Blair's critics most claim to abhor, even though many of them actually possess the same qualities in the wrong mixture.

I don't live in the United Kingdom any more, so I can't say from direct experience how "New Labour" feels on the ground.

I dislike what I hear about the National Health Service and, when I visit, I can't believe what I am seeing when I want to take a train.

And it's not enough to abolish the her-editary principle, one must oppose the idea of an undemocratic second chamber altogether.

Moreover, even if I don't care for fox-hunting and wish I could give up smoking, I detest the attitude of those who preach that they know what's better for others, or who engage in high-minded behaviour-modification. The Labour Party's embrace of New Orleans-type fund-raising also fills me with bile.

But I still have the feeling that when some people screech about this and other things (such as the now-irritating word "spin"), they aren't quite showing their true hand.

Do they believe that without Blair, politics would become squeaky-clean and immune to press-manipulation, or campaign finance? Obviously, they do not.

These are the elevated-sounding names they give to a more generalised, as well as more personalised, resentment. Let's agree that this is better than the low-sounding attacks that also float around.

I remember Tam Dalyell as a youngish and servile Parliamentary Private Secretary who actually used to polish the shoes of his fanatically pro-Israeli minister, Richard Crossman.

Now I've lived to see him become a veteran fool and to accuse Blair of being the prisoner of a secret Semitic cabal. Good grief. It's actually come to this.

In ancient Athens, there was a politician named Aristides, whose partisans and spin-meisters managed to get him called "Aristides the Just".

He got into difficulty and there was then a public vote on whether to impeach and condemn him.

ARISTIDES, in disguise, mingled with the crowd and, seeing a man drop his shell into the urn as a "yes" vote for impeachment, asked him why he had done so. "Because," said the disgruntled voter, "I can't stand him being called Aristides the Just."

Here, I think, we approach the point. If you are right in politics, you will be hated by definition. If you are righteous in addition, you will be hated all the more.

The hard-core anti-Blair forces don't get all that excited about the matters where he's been wrong or questionable, as on mad cows for example.

They reserve their spleen for the questions where he has been vindicated, from Milosevic to Saddam.

They hate him so much that they are willing, and sometimes eager, to make cheap excuses for the worst people in the world.

That's a form of unpopularity that is well worth earning and I hope - not knowing the man - that Blair has profited from discovering how empty and ephemeral are the rewards of the deft spin and the instant poll.

I cringe slightly when I see the pictures of the Ugly Rumours line-up and the long hair and the strumming attitude.

For my part, I have taken pretty good care, in case I still have a chance of bidding for supreme power, to ensure that few of my own Oxford pix and Polaroids survive.

But some years ago, it seemed me that my generation of Oxford quasi-radicals would be remembered principally because of the hirsute, hash-cookie ingesting, trash-rock figure of William Jefferson Clinton, of whom the ugliest rumours all turned out to be true.

So it cheers me up to think that we are not now stuck with that and that someone from post-war and post-Thatcher Britain has found his way past focus-groups, faced down silly and ignorant weepers and "victims" in TV studios, outperformed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope, and shown that seriousness and consistency can still count for something.

Now, if he could only dump the Archbish and the Pope....

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.
 
Re: Question number 1

> hmmmmmmm, ok

> 1.what did you say or do to piss off johnny marr?

That might annoy him, but probably not much. I guess you can't have him walk on the first question.

I'd like to ask him why he threw a baby tantrum and walked off stage in Cleveland when one measly person held up a pro-Joyce sign.

And I'd read his lawyer's letter to this site and ask him to explain.
 
Question number 2

> That might annoy him, but probably not much. I guess you can't have him
> walk on the first question.

> I'd like to ask him why he threw a baby tantrum and walked off stage in
> Cleveland when one measly person held up a pro-Joyce sign.

> And I'd read his lawyer's letter to this site and ask him to explain.

2.when steven street was on board, you had the world by the ass. why play switch a roo and mess with the dynamic?
 
Re: Question number 2

> 2.when steven street was on board, you had the world by the ass. why play
> switch a roo and mess with the dynamic?

He didn't initially pay Street for "Interesting Drug" and that pretty much ended the partnership.
I am sure if Street wasn't so keen on getting his money,
Morrissey would have been happy to continue working with him.

The story is old ...
 
Re: Question number 2

> He didn't initially pay Street for "Interesting Drug" and that
> pretty much ended the partnership.
> I am sure if Street wasn't so keen on getting his money,
> Morrissey would have been happy to continue working with him.

> The story is old ...

geezs, cant he pay anyone?
 
Re: Question number 2

> geezs, cant he pay anyone?

He did eventually pay, but only after Street threatened to delay
"Interesting Drug"'s release (Street didn't went through with it though, btw).
Morrissey stopped talking to him afterwards.
 
now i know

Now i know Loafing is an expert about Middle East conflict and he believe all the things he read and saw on Fox News

Choose your media and learn the truth are not in journalist hands, you must do a personnal effort for understand the world.
Use Internet for read the comments from foreigner analyst about this conflicts and spend les time to talk for nothing
 
"al Qaeda" exists because American fanatics like yourself exist.

>>Nonsense. First of all, you have no
>>understanding of why Usama created al Qaeda
 
Speaking of Bono

pic110356.jpg
 
> Paul Wolfowitz, was the best leader in all of this)

Okay, first let me say that you and I are never going agree on anything regarding Iraq, if you believe this. I am completely opposed to everything Wolfowitz believes, and hate that men like him have power in this country. I've always said the Ari Fleischer is the anti-christ, but if he isn't, I would vote for Wolfowitz next.

That said, I do have a couple of comments I can't stop myself from making....

> As I've always said, those who support and oppose the war came from across
> the spectrum in each category. My feeling was that those who focused on
> Saddam and his genocide/torture/aggression came out for the war, and those
> who focused on other things came out against it. My feeling also is that
> those who supported it were generally the idealists. Which doesn't make us
> right, but it does mean many us came to our view based on morality.

Morality? Where's the morality in lying to the world about your motives? Where are the chemical weapons? Where are the nuclear bombs? Are we safer today than we were two months ago? Not apparently from the events of the past few days.

"Those who focused on Saddam and his genocide/torture/aggression" are focusing on something other than what W and Powell kept telling us. We were told this was about the war on terror and weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't. That's a lie. That's immoral. (what W thinks this war is about, I shudder to think.)

Saddam was a terrible, cruel, amoral leader. There's lots of them left in the world. I don't believe it is in our capacity to remove these people and bring peace and democracy to the world through military action.

Peace.
 
> Nonsense. First of all, you have no understanding of why Usama created al
> Qaeda, and I suggest you reasearch the name Sayyid Qutb as a start. A good
> book would be Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman.

> Second, of course I believe we saved lives and IRaq has a new future.
> These are indisputable facts. You see the Saddam regime gone, yes? you see
> an interim government being formed, right?

Didn't we just announce the indefinite postponment of installation onf an interim government?

I see disarray and unrealistic expectations in Iraq.
 
Back
Top Bottom