Sinéad O'Connor's Birthday letter to the Bob...

[Bernie Woodham]

I read in in Huffington Post today. Truly makes your heart skip a
beat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sinead-oconnor/post_2053_b_866068.html?view=print

Dear Zimmy

It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

It is a fact that I wish to high heaven that my father's father had
met my mother's whatever-it-is earlier. Then I would have been old
enough to tell you all this in a more delicious setting. My beloved
brother Joseph, who introduced me to you, passed an invitation to me
from the Mail to write something about you because next Tuesday is
your birthday.

I said, 'But I'm a moron! What will I say?' He said, 'You could make
it like a letter to Bob. To say the oul' happy birthday'.

So... Bobby, or R.J or Ray, or Anything...Here is my birthday little
thing for you.

This week when everyone is writing and talking and thinking about your
birthday, they're all gonna go on about the usual stuff.

'Prophet'.

Blah blah.

'Voice of a generation.'

Blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah.

All true I'm sure... But no one ever says: 'Holy Mother of God! That
Dylan fellow is an extremely adjectival sexy adjectival m.a.n. so he
is for himself!'

It's about time all the ladies, and I mean ALL the ladies, need to
tell everyone exactly where it's at concerning the deliciousness of
Robert Zimmerman.

Drop. Dead. Gorge. Us.

Yes, sir! THE sexiest man that ever stalked the face of this earth.

'Tis lucky for you, boyo, that you're away over there in America. Sure
there's barely a woman in the universe who could keep her mitts off
you! Thanks be to God that flights are not cheap here in Ireland or
you'd be wise to run. And also to follow Gaddafi's example by
employing fake Bob Dylans, so no-one will know which one is actually
you. Incidentally, should you decide you want to follow Gaddafi's
example by employing all-female body guards, I hope you will consider
me. Please don't ask for a reference though. I wouldn't come up
looking very good.

I once worked with a lady who'd once worked with you. She said you're
just crazy about the ladies. I took her in my arms and danced with
delight. Hurray!

This means I'm not the only person on earth who thinks you're a ride.
Despite your main feature being sexeliciousness, you're also not a bad
oul' sayer of songs. And by the way, there's something the 13-year-old
me wants to say to you: Thank you for making Christian music sexy.
Poor God. Until you made Slow Train Coming, he was suicidal. From
listening to terrible religious music.

I mean, have you ever seen Irish dancing? It's the un-sexiest thing
one could see. We only dance from the knee down. Keeping everything
else tight as a board. Arms stiff at our sides. For fear we might slip
into the world of sensuality.

People say, and I hope it's not so, that you didn't 'stand by' Slow
Train Coming. I don't know what they mean exactly. And I don't even
care. Either way you could never have known what it was like in
Ireland before that album tore down the walls which separated God and
sex. You couldn't have known the effect the record would have. And
that's appropriate. Why should you know?

I was 13 the year it came out. Joe, my brother, brought it home.

I was just beginning to wonder what kind of person I wanted to be. And
what kind of woman I wanted to be. And what kind of artist I wanted to
be. There weren't many options open to a female like me. I would
either die or go to jail if I continued along the path that was given
me.

But when I heard you singing those songs on Slow Train Coming, and
when I saw the drawing of the train on the sleeve, I knew what I
wanted to do with my life.

So Rabbi, from you I know I gotta serve somebody. I know I'm a
precious angel. I know God believes in me. I know I'm gonna change my
way of thinking. I know I'm gonna make myself a different set of
rules. I know I'm gonna put my best foot forward, stop being
influenced by fools.

I saw you at Slane when I was like 16. I couldn't believe I would
actually see you in the flesh. I had a boyfriend at the time. Only
reason we were together was we were both obsessed with you. Sadly we
never did really anything but talk about you! Of course I could never
have dreamed of telling him you were way sexier than him. Am I bad? I
certainly hope so.

Santana played before you. When you came on you had on Oompa Loompa
orange make-up. So it wasn't only musically or spritually that you
were ahead of your time. You foresaw fake tan! And the dreaded RTE
make-up department. [C'mon, Ryan, man, let's just come out and admit
it, they've not been the Mae West over the years. Though I do grant
you they're not as woeful as TV3 - I'm forever tweeting Vincent
Browne's show over the make-up. They have him looking like Bob at
Slane.]

I think you also had on loads of black khol eyeliner. Very strange
sight. Gorgeous nonetheless, obviously. But strange.

Then I briefly actually met you twice. Backstage at two festivals,
there were loads of us playing. I must have seduced your manager with
sexual bribes, I can't remember, but there I was in your dressing
room. Just you and your tour manager.

You asked would I like a drink. I said yes, and though I can't stomach
alcohol I sipped away and pretended I wasn't suppressing the desire to
let you have a look at what I ate for lunch. You did a lot of pacing
up and down. I remember thinking 'Holy mother of the divine lord
Krishna, who could perform after drinking this?'

The third and final time our paths crossed was on that infamous
evening at your tribute concert in Madison Square Garden, an evening
which heaved with consequence. In the week or so before that show I
had done an incendiary acapella version of a Bob Marley (the other
'Bob') song called War on Saturday Night Live. I changed some words
and made it about child abuse instead of racism. And at the end of the
song I tore up a picture of the then Pope, JP2. No smirking please,
Bob - when mentioning 'the incident' one must always look very
serious.

Then, soon after that, I went shopping to find an outfit for your
upcoming show. The decision I made was so wrong - a turquoise jacket
and skirt suit which should have been worn by a very old woman...and
with a hideous gold thing on the jacket. Unforgivable. I look at the
footage of the show now and I am appalled. What was I thinking?
Perhaps I should have slipped you a note before the show, explaining
'the incident' to you, but in the terror of my image in my dressing
room mirror I guess I forgot.

So I walked on stage that night and half the audience cheered and the
other half booed. Was it the Saturday Night Live fallout or had I just
totally made the wrong wardrobe choice?

Seriously though, backstage afterwards, you looked at me confused as
if to ask me what I had done to upset people so much. Instead of
singing I Believe in You, as planned, I had screamed out the Bob
Marley song instead. But it felt appropriate for me to scream while I
had the chance. And I knew, if you understood, you wouldn't mind that
I used the stage you gave me to stand for the God you also gave me. I
hope your questions from that night have since been answered for you
by the various revelations concerning the spiritual condition of the
catholic church. In God's wide world. If I had simply sung I Believe
in You that night my voice would have been drowned in the noise of the
opposing spiritual forces in the room.

I had to do what I did in Madison Square Garden. Even if it meant
being treated like a mental case for years after.

The God I believed in was the one you brought off the pages of
scriptures into my life. Not the one those bored black-and-white-
wearing priests droned on about whilst flicking bits of dust off their
altars in the middle of the consecration of the Host.

Even if they showed me to the door. And said don't come back no more
cuz I didn't be like they'd like me to. Even if I walked out on my
own. A thousand miles from home, I didn't feel alone. Cuz I believe in
you.

I believe in you, even through the tears and the laughter. I believe
in you even though we be apart. I believe in you even on the morning
after. Though the earth may shake me, though my friends forsake me,
this feeling's still here in my heart.

Don't let me stray too far. Keep me where you are. So I will always be
renewed. And Lord, what you've given me today is worth more than I
could pay. And no matter what they say, I believe in you...

But, I digress, Bob. I only meant to tell you you're gorgeous. So have
seventy kisses for yourself on Tuesday.

Sinead

[really real]

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

whomever.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

(Versus: "You're 3 years younger than my father, who loves your
music." Where "who" is the relative pronoun for the subject of
"loves").

(And what the heck is the "subjective *voice*"?)

[RichL]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,

If I re-cast the sentence as:

"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",

the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

Post by Brother Jumbo
(And what the heck is the "subjective *voice*"?)

Case, perhaps? Nominative.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,
"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",
the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

But if you add those commas you change the emotional content being
added in the non-defining clause.

Allow me to alter it in the other direction:

"You're three years younger than my father (whom I HOPE HOPE HOPE
never reads

Post by RichL
this!)."

Brother Real asked "why" Sinead would opt for "whom" and my answer
explains the "logic" she appears to have followed (i.e. grammar is
descriptive). She treats "whom" as the object of "hope".

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo
(And what the heck is the "subjective *voice*"?)

Case, perhaps? Nominative.

English hasn't had such a case for centuries. I think he just meant
"surely the pronoun relates to a subject not an object" but tried to
sound grand.

[RichL]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,
"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",
the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

But if you add those commas you change the emotional content being
added in the non-defining clause.
"You're three years younger than my father (whom I HOPE HOPE HOPE
never reads

Post by RichL
this!)."

Brother Real asked "why" Sinead would opt for "whom" and my answer
explains the "logic" she appears to have followed (i.e. grammar is
descriptive). She treats "whom" as the object of "hope".

But is "whom" really the object of "hope"?

Would "I hope my father" make sense as a complete sentence? I don't think
it would.

So what's the grammatical structure of "I hope my father never reads this"?

It becomes clearer when you insert the implied "that":

"I hope that my father never reads this". Now it's clear that "my father
never reads this" is a subordinate clause. "Father" is the subject of that
clause.

"That" is optional, but the grammatical structure remains the same
regardless.

The original quote is a variation of the same theme.

"Who(m?)" substitutes for "father". "Never reads this" requires a subject.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,
"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",
the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

But if you add those commas you change the emotional content being
added in the non-defining clause.
"You're three years younger than my father (whom I HOPE HOPE HOPE
never reads

Post by RichL
this!)."

Brother Real asked "why" Sinead would opt for "whom" and my answer
explains the "logic" she appears to have followed (i.e. grammar is
descriptive). She treats "whom" as the object of "hope".

But is "whom" really the object of "hope"?
Would "I hope my father" make sense as a complete sentence?  I don't think
it would.
So what's the grammatical structure of "I hope my father never reads this"?
"I hope that my father never reads this".  Now it's clear that "my father
never reads this" is a subordinate clause.  "Father" is the subject of that
clause.
"That" is optional, but the grammatical structure remains the same
regardless.
The original quote is a variation of the same theme.
"Who(m?)" substitutes for "father".  "Never reads this" requires a subject.

Yes, I got all that from your earlier post. You didn't take my point.

A novellist submitting copy to an editor at some publisher, if they
used "whom" like that in an impersonal narration - the editor would
change it to "who", according to the grammatical rules you're using.
And the novellist might say "whatever" or "my bad" etc.

However, if the novellist used "whom" like that in dialogue, and the
editor wanted to change it because of "grammatical rules", the
novellist could say "I'm *describing* the way (some) people actually
talk."

Brother Real wanted to know WHY Sineaed used "whom".

I explained that she was treating "whom" AS the object of "hope". That
is "why" she used the grammar she used.

Grammar does not exist in an ideal universe. It is a descriptive
system.

[RichL]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,
"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",
the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

But if you add those commas you change the emotional content being
added in the non-defining clause.
"You're three years younger than my father (whom I HOPE HOPE HOPE
never reads

Post by RichL
this!)."

Brother Real asked "why" Sinead would opt for "whom" and my answer
explains the "logic" she appears to have followed (i.e. grammar is
descriptive). She treats "whom" as the object of "hope".

But is "whom" really the object of "hope"?
Would "I hope my father" make sense as a complete sentence? I don't think
it would.
So what's the grammatical structure of "I hope my father never reads this"?
"I hope that my father never reads this". Now it's clear that "my father
never reads this" is a subordinate clause. "Father" is the subject of that
clause.
"That" is optional, but the grammatical structure remains the same
regardless.
The original quote is a variation of the same theme.
"Who(m?)" substitutes for "father". "Never reads this" requires a subject.

Yes, I got all that from your earlier post. You didn't take my point.
A novellist submitting copy to an editor at some publisher, if they
used "whom" like that in an impersonal narration - the editor would
change it to "who", according to the grammatical rules you're using.
And the novellist might say "whatever" or "my bad" etc.
However, if the novellist used "whom" like that in dialogue, and the
editor wanted to change it because of "grammatical rules", the
novellist could say "I'm *describing* the way (some) people actually
talk."
Brother Real wanted to know WHY Sineaed used "whom".
I explained that she was treating "whom" AS the object of "hope". That
is "why" she used the grammar she used.

OK, I get it now. But it seemed to me at first that you weren't explaining
her reasoning but your own!

Post by Brother Jumbo
Grammar does not exist in an ideal universe. It is a descriptive
system.

It's all relative ;-)

[Jolene]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger
than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,
"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",
the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

But if you add those commas you change the emotional content being
added in the non-defining clause.
"You're three years younger than my father (whom I HOPE HOPE HOPE
never reads

Post by RichL
this!)."

Brother Real asked "why" Sinead would opt for "whom" and my answer
explains the "logic" she appears to have followed (i.e. grammar is
descriptive). She treats "whom" as the object of "hope".

But is "whom" really the object of "hope"?
Would "I hope my father" make sense as a complete sentence?  I don't think
it would.
So what's the grammatical structure of "I hope my father never reads this"?
"I hope that my father never reads this".  Now it's clear that "my father
never reads this" is a subordinate clause.  "Father" is the subject of that
clause.
"That" is optional, but the grammatical structure remains the same
regardless.
The original quote is a variation of the same theme.
"Who(m?)" substitutes for "father".  "Never reads this" requires a subject.

Yes, I got all that from your earlier post. You didn't take my point.
A novellist submitting copy to an editor at some publisher, if they
used "whom" like that in an impersonal narration - the editor would
change it to "who", according to the grammatical rules you're using.
And the novellist might say "whatever" or "my bad" etc.
However, if the novellist used "whom" like that in dialogue, and the
editor wanted to change it because of "grammatical rules", the
novellist could say "I'm *describing* the way (some) people actually
talk."
Brother Real wanted to know WHY Sineaed used "whom".
I explained that she was treating "whom" AS the object of "hope". That
is "why" she used the grammar she used.

OK, I get it now.  But it seemed to me at first that you weren't explaining
her reasoning but your own!

Post by Brother Jumbo
Grammar does not exist in an ideal universe. It is a descriptive
system.

It's all relative ;-)

Wave good-bye to grammar.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Jolene

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by really real

Post by Bernie Woodham
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger
than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a
head-
wrecker.

why would Sinead use "whom" here when it's clearly the subjective
voice?

It's a relative pronoun for the object of "hope".

Hmmmmmm,
"You're three years younger than my father (whom, I hope, never reads
this!).",
the error of your ways becomes readily apparent!

But if you add those commas you change the emotional content being
added in the non-defining clause.
"You're three years younger than my father (whom I HOPE HOPE HOPE
never reads

Post by RichL
this!)."

Brother Real asked "why" Sinead would opt for "whom" and my answer
explains the "logic" she appears to have followed (i.e. grammar is
descriptive). She treats "whom" as the object of "hope".

But is "whom" really the object of "hope"?
Would "I hope my father" make sense as a complete sentence?  I don't think
it would.
So what's the grammatical structure of "I hope my father never reads this"?
"I hope that my father never reads this".  Now it's clear that "my father
never reads this" is a subordinate clause.  "Father" is the subject of that
clause.
"That" is optional, but the grammatical structure remains the same
regardless.
The original quote is a variation of the same theme.
"Who(m?)" substitutes for "father".  "Never reads this" requires a subject.

Yes, I got all that from your earlier post. You didn't take my point.
A novellist submitting copy to an editor at some publisher, if they
used "whom" like that in an impersonal narration - the editor would
change it to "who", according to the grammatical rules you're using.
And the novellist might say "whatever" or "my bad" etc.
However, if the novellist used "whom" like that in dialogue, and the
editor wanted to change it because of "grammatical rules", the
novellist could say "I'm *describing* the way (some) people actually
talk."
Brother Real wanted to know WHY Sineaed used "whom".
I explained that she was treating "whom" AS the object of "hope". That
is "why" she used the grammar she used.

OK, I get it now.  But it seemed to me at first that you weren't explaining
her reasoning but your own!

Post by Brother Jumbo
Grammar does not exist in an ideal universe. It is a descriptive
system.

It's all relative ;-)

Wave good-bye to grammar.

Sorry, Jolene, it's always been that way. Not my fault or any other
"relativist"'s... I know you need your nobodaddy.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Bernie Woodham
I read in in Huffington Post today. Truly makes your heart skip a
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sinead-oconnor/post_2053_b_866068.html?...
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.
It is a fact that I wish to high heaven that my father's father had
met my mother's whatever-it-is earlier. Then I would have been old
enough to tell you all this in a more delicious setting. My beloved
brother Joseph, who introduced me to you, passed an invitation to me
from the Mail to write something about you because next Tuesday is
your birthday.
I said, 'But I'm a moron! What will I say?' He said, 'You could make
it like a letter to Bob. To say the oul' happy birthday'.
So... Bobby, or R.J or Ray, or Anything...Here is my birthday little
thing for you.
This week when everyone is writing and talking and thinking about your
birthday, they're all gonna go on about the usual stuff.
'Prophet'.
Blah blah.
'Voice of a generation.'
Blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah.
All true I'm sure... But no one ever says: 'Holy Mother of God! That
Dylan fellow is an extremely adjectival sexy adjectival m.a.n. so he
is for himself!'
It's about time all the ladies, and I mean ALL the ladies, need to
tell everyone exactly where it's at concerning the deliciousness of
Robert Zimmerman.
Drop. Dead. Gorge. Us.
Yes, sir! THE sexiest man that ever stalked the face of this earth.
'Tis lucky for you, boyo, that you're away over there in America. Sure
there's barely a woman in the universe who could keep her mitts off
you! Thanks be to God that flights are not cheap here in Ireland or
you'd be wise to run. And also to follow Gaddafi's example by
employing fake Bob Dylans, so no-one will know which one is actually
you. Incidentally, should you decide you want to follow Gaddafi's
example by employing all-female body guards, I hope you will consider
me. Please don't ask for a reference though. I wouldn't come up
looking very good.
I once worked with a lady who'd once worked with you. She said you're
just crazy about the ladies. I took her in my arms and danced with
delight. Hurray!
This means I'm not the only person on earth who thinks you're a ride.
Despite your main feature being sexeliciousness, you're also not a bad
oul' sayer of songs. And by the way, there's something the 13-year-old
me wants to say to you: Thank you for making Christian music sexy.
Poor God. Until you made Slow Train Coming, he was suicidal. From
listening to terrible religious music.
I mean, have you ever seen Irish dancing? It's the un-sexiest thing
one could see. We only dance from the knee down. Keeping everything
else tight as a board. Arms stiff at our sides. For fear we might slip
into the world of sensuality.
People say, and I hope it's not so, that you didn't 'stand by' Slow
Train Coming. I don't know what they mean exactly. And I don't even
care. Either way you could never have known what it was like in
Ireland before that album tore down the walls which separated God and
sex. You couldn't have known the effect the record would have. And
that's appropriate. Why should you know?
I was 13 the year it came out. Joe, my brother, brought it home.
I was just beginning to wonder what kind of person I wanted to be. And
what kind of woman I wanted to be. And what kind of artist I wanted to
be. There weren't many options open to a female like me. I would
either die or go to jail if I continued along the path that was given
me.
But when I heard you singing those songs on Slow Train Coming, and
when I saw the drawing of the train on the sleeve, I knew what I
wanted to do with my life.
So Rabbi, from you I know I gotta serve somebody. I know I'm a
precious angel. I know God believes in me. I know I'm gonna change my
way of thinking. I know I'm gonna make myself a different set of
rules. I know I'm gonna put my best foot forward, stop being
influenced by fools.
I saw you at Slane when I was like 16. I couldn't believe I would
actually see you in the flesh. I had a boyfriend at the time. Only
reason we were together was we were both obsessed with you. Sadly we
never did really anything but talk about you! Of course I could never
have dreamed of telling him you were way sexier than him. Am I bad? I
certainly hope so.
Santana played before you. When you came on you had on Oompa Loompa
orange make-up. So it wasn't only musically or spritually that you
were ahead of your time. You foresaw fake tan! And the dreaded RTE
make-up department. [C'mon, Ryan, man, let's just come out and admit
it, they've not been the Mae West over the years. Though I do grant
you they're not as woeful as TV3 - I'm forever tweeting Vincent
Browne's show over the make-up. They have him looking like Bob at
Slane.]
I think you also had on loads of black khol eyeliner. Very strange
sight. Gorgeous nonetheless, obviously. But strange.
Then I briefly actually met you twice. Backstage at two festivals,
there were loads of us playing. I must have seduced your manager with
sexual bribes, I can't remember, but there I was in your dressing
room. Just you and your tour manager.
You asked would I like a drink. I said yes, and though I can't stomach
alcohol I sipped away and pretended I wasn't suppressing the desire to
let you have a look at what I ate for lunch. You did a lot of pacing
up and down. I remember thinking 'Holy mother of the divine lord
Krishna, who could perform after drinking this?'
The third and final time our paths crossed was on that infamous
evening at your tribute concert in Madison Square Garden, an evening
which heaved with consequence. In the week or so before that show I
had done an incendiary acapella version of a Bob Marley (the other
'Bob') song called War on Saturday Night Live. I changed some words
and made it about child abuse instead of racism. And at the end of the
song I tore up a picture of the then Pope, JP2. No smirking please,
Bob - when mentioning 'the incident' one must always look very
serious.
Then, soon after that, I went shopping to find an outfit for your
upcoming show. The decision I made was so wrong - a turquoise jacket
and skirt suit which should have been worn by a very old woman...and
with a hideous gold thing on the jacket. Unforgivable. I look at the
footage of the show now and I am appalled. What was I thinking?
Perhaps I should have slipped you a note before the show, explaining
'the incident' to you, but in the terror of my image in my dressing
room mirror I guess I forgot.
So I walked on stage that night and half the audience cheered and the
other half booed. Was it the Saturday Night Live fallout or had I just
totally made the wrong wardrobe choice?
Seriously though, backstage afterwards, you looked at me confused as
if to ask me what I had done to upset people so much. Instead of
singing I Believe in You, as planned, I had screamed out the Bob
Marley song instead. But it felt appropriate for me to scream while I
had the chance. And I knew, if you understood, you wouldn't mind that
I used the stage you gave me to stand for the God you also gave me. I
hope your questions from that night have since been answered for you
by the various revelations concerning the spiritual condition of the
catholic church. In God's wide world. If I had simply sung I Believe
in You that night my voice would have been drowned in the noise of the
opposing spiritual forces in the room.
I had to do what I did in Madison Square Garden. Even if it meant
being treated like a mental case for years after.
The God I believed in was the one you brought off the pages of
scriptures into my life. Not the one those bored black-and-white-
wearing priests droned on about whilst flicking bits of dust off their
altars in the middle of the consecration of the Host.
Even if they showed me to the door. And said don't come back no more
cuz I didn't be like they'd like me to. Even if I walked out on my
own. A thousand miles from home, I didn't feel alone. Cuz I believe in
you.
I believe in you, even through the tears and the laughter. I believe
in you even though we be apart. I believe in you even on the morning
after. Though the earth may shake me, though my friends forsake me,
this feeling's still here in my heart.
Don't let me stray too far. Keep me where you are. So I will always be
renewed. And Lord, what you've given me today is worth more than I
could pay. And no matter what they say, I believe in you...
But, I digress, Bob. I only meant to tell you you're gorgeous. So have
seventy kisses for yourself on Tuesday.
Sinead

Thanks for this. Very interesting to read Sinead's thoughts on the
Madison thing after all these years.

[poisoned rose]

Post by Bernie Woodham
And the dreaded RTE
make-up department. [C'mon, Ryan, man, let's just come out and admit
it, they've not been the Mae West over the years. Though I do grant
you they're not as woeful as TV3 - I'm forever tweeting Vincent
Browne's show over the make-up. They have him looking like Bob at
Slane.]

I have no idea what she's talking about here, but it's clearly something
only British TV watchers will get. And even if I DID watch British TV,
I'm not sure that I would be able to parse the grammar of "they've not
been the Mae West over the years."

Boy, is she fixated on religion. Is Slow Train the only Dylan album that
connected with her?

[L Mossford]

Post by Bernie Woodham
And the dreaded RTE
make-up department. [C'mon, Ryan, man, let's just come out and admit
it, they've not been the Mae West over the years. Though I do grant
you they're not as woeful as TV3 - I'm forever tweeting Vincent
Browne's show over the make-up. They have him looking like Bob at
Slane.]

I have no idea what she's talking about here, but it's clearly something
only British TV watchers will get. And even if I DID watch British TV,
I'm not sure that I would be able to parse the grammar of "they've not
been the Mae West over the years."

Boy, is she fixated on religion. Is Slow Train the only Dylan album that
connected with her?



Mae West - best
Cockney rhyming slang

[poisoned rose]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Bernie Woodham
And the dreaded RTE
make-up department. [C'mon, Ryan, man, let's just come out and admit
it, they've not been the Mae West over the years. Though I do grant
you they're not as woeful as TV3 - I'm forever tweeting Vincent
Browne's show over the make-up. They have him looking like Bob at
Slane.]

I have no idea what she's talking about here, but it's clearly something
only British TV watchers will get. And even if I DID watch British TV,
I'm not sure that I would be able to parse the grammar of "they've not
been the Mae West over the years."
Mae West - best
Cockney rhyming slang

Ohhh. Thanks. :)

And....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Browne

[Will Dockery]

Post by Bernie Woodham
I read in in Huffington Post today. Truly makes your heart skip a
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sinead-oconnor/post_2053_b_866068.html?...
Dear Zimmy
It's your gorgeous birthday next week. You're three years younger than
my father (whom I hope never reads this!). That's a bit of a head-
wrecker.
It is a fact that I wish to high heaven that my father's father had
met my mother's whatever-it-is earlier. Then I would have been old
enough to tell you all this in a more delicious setting. My beloved
brother Joseph, who introduced me to you, passed an invitation to me
from the Mail to write something about you because next Tuesday is
your birthday.
I said, 'But I'm a moron! What will I say?' He said, 'You could make
it like a letter to Bob. To say the oul' happy birthday'.
So... Bobby, or R.J or Ray, or Anything...Here is my birthday little
thing for you.
This week when everyone is writing and talking and thinking about your
birthday, they're all gonna go on about the usual stuff.
'Prophet'.
Blah blah.
'Voice of a generation.'
Blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah.
All true I'm sure... But no one ever says: 'Holy Mother of God! That
Dylan fellow is an extremely adjectival sexy adjectival m.a.n. so he
is for himself!'
It's about time all the ladies, and I mean ALL the ladies, need to
tell everyone exactly where it's at concerning the deliciousness of
Robert Zimmerman.
Drop. Dead. Gorge. Us.
Yes, sir! THE sexiest man that ever stalked the face of this earth.
'Tis lucky for you, boyo, that you're away over there in America. Sure
there's barely a woman in the universe who could keep her mitts off
you! Thanks be to God that flights are not cheap here in Ireland or
you'd be wise to run. And also to follow Gaddafi's example by
employing fake Bob Dylans, so no-one will know which one is actually
you. Incidentally, should you decide you want to follow Gaddafi's
example by employing all-female body guards, I hope you will consider
me. Please don't ask for a reference though. I wouldn't come up
looking very good.
I once worked with a lady who'd once worked with you. She said you're
just crazy about the ladies. I took her in my arms and danced with
delight. Hurray!
This means I'm not the only person on earth who thinks you're a ride.
Despite your main feature being sexeliciousness, you're also not a bad
oul' sayer of songs. And by the way, there's something the 13-year-old
me wants to say to you: Thank you for making Christian music sexy.
Poor God. Until you made Slow Train Coming, he was suicidal. From
listening to terrible religious music.
I mean, have you ever seen Irish dancing? It's the un-sexiest thing
one could see. We only dance from the knee down. Keeping everything
else tight as a board. Arms stiff at our sides. For fear we might slip
into the world of sensuality.
People say, and I hope it's not so, that you didn't 'stand by' Slow
Train Coming. I don't know what they mean exactly. And I don't even
care. Either way you could never have known what it was like in
Ireland before that album tore down the walls which separated God and
sex. You couldn't have known the effect the record would have. And
that's appropriate. Why should you know?
I was 13 the year it came out. Joe, my brother, brought it home.
I was just beginning to wonder what kind of person I wanted to be. And
what kind of woman I wanted to be. And what kind of artist I wanted to
be. There weren't many options open to a female like me. I would
either die or go to jail if I continued along the path that was given
me.
But when I heard you singing those songs on Slow Train Coming, and
when I saw the drawing of the train on the sleeve, I knew what I
wanted to do with my life.
So Rabbi, from you I know I gotta serve somebody. I know I'm a
precious angel. I know God believes in me. I know I'm gonna change my
way of thinking. I know I'm gonna make myself a different set of
rules. I know I'm gonna put my best foot forward, stop being
influenced by fools.
I saw you at Slane when I was like 16. I couldn't believe I would
actually see you in the flesh. I had a boyfriend at the time. Only
reason we were together was we were both obsessed with you. Sadly we
never did really anything but talk about you! Of course I could never
have dreamed of telling him you were way sexier than him. Am I bad? I
certainly hope so.
Santana played before you. When you came on you had on Oompa Loompa
orange make-up. So it wasn't only musically or spritually that you
were ahead of your time. You foresaw fake tan! And the dreaded RTE
make-up department. [C'mon, Ryan, man, let's just come out and admit
it, they've not been the Mae West over the years. Though I do grant
you they're not as woeful as TV3 - I'm forever tweeting Vincent
Browne's show over the make-up. They have him looking like Bob at
Slane.]
I think you also had on loads of black khol eyeliner. Very strange
sight. Gorgeous nonetheless, obviously. But strange.
Then I briefly actually met you twice. Backstage at two festivals,
there were loads of us playing. I must have seduced your manager with
sexual bribes, I can't remember, but there I was in your dressing
room. Just you and your tour manager.
You asked would I like a drink. I said yes, and though I can't stomach
alcohol I sipped away and pretended I wasn't suppressing the desire to
let you have a look at what I ate for lunch. You did a lot of pacing
up and down. I remember thinking 'Holy mother of the divine lord
Krishna, who could perform after drinking this?'
The third and final time our paths crossed was on that infamous
evening at your tribute concert in Madison Square Garden, an evening
which heaved with consequence. In the week or so before that show I
had done an incendiary acapella version of a Bob Marley (the other
'Bob') song called War on Saturday Night Live. I changed some words
and made it about child abuse instead of racism. And at the end of the
song I tore up a picture of the then Pope, JP2. No smirking please,
Bob - when mentioning 'the incident' one must always look very
serious.
Then, soon after that, I went shopping to find an outfit for your
upcoming show. The decision I made was so wrong - a turquoise jacket
and skirt suit which should have been worn by a very old woman...and
with a hideous gold thing on the jacket. Unforgivable. I look at the
footage of the show now and I am appalled. What was I thinking?
Perhaps I should have slipped you a note before the show, explaining
'the incident' to you, but in the terror of my image in my dressing
room mirror I guess I forgot.
So I walked on stage that night and half the audience cheered and the
other half booed. Was it the Saturday Night Live fallout or had I just
totally made the wrong wardrobe choice?
Seriously though, backstage afterwards, you looked at me confused as
if to ask me what I had done to upset people so much. Instead of
singing I Believe in You, as planned, I had screamed out the Bob
Marley song instead. But it felt appropriate for me to scream while I
had the chance. And I knew, if you understood, you wouldn't mind that
I used the stage you gave me to stand for the God you also gave me. I
hope your questions from that night have since been answered for you
by the various revelations concerning the spiritual condition of the
catholic church. In God's wide world. If I had simply sung I Believe
in You that night my voice would have been drowned in the noise of the
opposing spiritual forces in the room.
I had to do what I did in Madison Square Garden. Even if it meant
being treated like a mental case for years after.
The God I believed in was the one you brought off the pages of
scriptures into my life. Not the one those bored black-and-white-
wearing priests droned on about whilst flicking bits of dust off their
altars in the middle of the consecration of the Host.
Even if they showed me to the door. And said don't come back no more
cuz I didn't be like they'd like me to. Even if I walked out on my
own. A thousand miles from home, I didn't feel alone. Cuz I believe in
you.
I believe in you, even through the tears and the laughter. I believe
in you even though we be apart. I believe in you even on the morning
after. Though the earth may shake me, though my friends forsake me,
this feeling's still here in my heart.
Don't let me stray too far. Keep me where you are. So I will always be
renewed. And Lord, what you've given me today is worth more than I
could pay. And no matter what they say, I believe in you...
But, I digress, Bob. I only meant to tell you you're gorgeous. So have
seventy kisses for yourself on Tuesday.
Sinead

Good Lord, I thought she might bust out with something on Bob Marley.

--
"Wobble", "She Came From Overseas" & "Crawford Road Crawl" by Will
Dockery & Friends:

[treadleson]

On May 25, 10:26 am, Bernie Woodham <***@insightbb.com> wrote:
---

Post by Bernie Woodham
The third and final time our paths crossed was on that infamous
evening at your tribute concert in Madison Square Garden, an evening
which heaved with consequence. In the week or so before that show I
had done an incendiary acapella version of a Bob Marley (the other
'Bob') song called War on Saturday Night Live. I changed some words
and made it about child abuse instead of racism. And at the end of the
song I tore up a picture of the then Pope, JP2. No smirking please,
Bob - when mentioning 'the incident' one must always look very
serious.
Then, soon after that, I went shopping to find an outfit for your
upcoming show. The decision I made was so wrong - a turquoise jacket
and skirt suit which should have been worn by a very old woman...and
with a hideous gold thing on the jacket. Unforgivable. I look at the
footage of the show now and I am appalled. What was I thinking?
Perhaps I should have slipped you a note before the show, explaining
'the incident' to you, but in the terror of my image in my dressing
room mirror I guess I forgot.
So I walked on stage that night and half the audience cheered and the
other half booed. Was it the Saturday Night Live fallout or had I just
totally made the wrong wardrobe choice?

History absolved her. Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Post by Bernie Woodham
Seriously though, backstage afterwards, you looked at me confused as
if to ask me what I had done to upset people so much. Instead of
singing I Believe in You, as planned, I had screamed out the Bob
Marley song instead. But it felt appropriate for me to scream while I
had the chance. And I knew, if you understood, you wouldn't mind that
I used the stage you gave me to stand for the God you also gave me. I
hope your questions from that night have since been answered for you
by the various revelations concerning the spiritual condition of the
catholic church. In God's wide world. If I had simply sung I Believe
in You that night my voice would have been drowned in the noise of the
opposing spiritual forces in the room.
I had to do what I did in Madison Square Garden. Even if it meant
being treated like a mental case for years after.
The God I believed in was the one you brought off the pages of
scriptures into my life. Not the one those bored black-and-white-
wearing priests droned on about whilst flicking bits of dust off their
altars in the middle of the consecration of the Host.
Even if they showed me to the door. And said don't come back no more
cuz I didn't be like they'd like me to. Even if I walked out on my
own. A thousand miles from home, I didn't feel alone. Cuz I believe in
you.
I believe in you, even through the tears and the laughter. I believe
in you even though we be apart. I believe in you even on the morning
after. Though the earth may shake me, though my friends forsake me,
this feeling's still here in my heart.
Don't let me stray too far. Keep me where you are. So I will always be
renewed. And Lord, what you've given me today is worth more than I
could pay. And no matter what they say, I believe in you...
But, I digress, Bob. I only meant to tell you you're gorgeous. So have
seventy kisses for yourself on Tuesday.
Sinead

[Will Dockery]

---

Post by Bernie Woodham
The third and final time our paths crossed was on that infamous
evening at your tribute concert in Madison Square Garden, an evening
which heaved with consequence. In the week or so before that show I
had done an incendiary acapella version of a Bob Marley (the other
'Bob') song called War on Saturday Night Live. I changed some words
and made it about child abuse instead of racism. And at the end of the
song I tore up a picture of the then Pope, JP2. No smirking please,
Bob - when mentioning 'the incident' one must always look very
serious.
Then, soon after that, I went shopping to find an outfit for your
upcoming show. The decision I made was so wrong - a turquoise jacket
and skirt suit which should have been worn by a very old woman...and
with a hideous gold thing on the jacket. Unforgivable. I look at the
footage of the show now and I am appalled. What was I thinking?
Perhaps I should have slipped you a note before the show, explaining
'the incident' to you, but in the terror of my image in my dressing
room mirror I guess I forgot.
So I walked on stage that night and half the audience cheered and the
other half booed. Was it the Saturday Night Live fallout or had I just
totally made the wrong wardrobe choice?

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though. A least I
didn't.

Post by Bernie Woodham
Seriously though, backstage afterwards, you looked at me confused as
if to ask me what I had done to upset people so much. Instead of
singing I Believe in You, as planned, I had screamed out the Bob
Marley song instead. But it felt appropriate for me to scream while I
had the chance. And I knew, if you understood, you wouldn't mind that
I used the stage you gave me to stand for the God you also gave me. I
hope your questions from that night have since been answered for you
by the various revelations concerning the spiritual condition of the
catholic church. In God's wide world. If I had simply sung I Believe
in You that night my voice would have been drowned in the noise of the
opposing spiritual forces in the room.
I had to do what I did in Madison Square Garden. Even if it meant
being treated like a mental case for years after.
The God I believed in was the one you brought off the pages of
scriptures into my life. Not the one those bored black-and-white-
wearing priests droned on about whilst flicking bits of dust off their
altars in the middle of the consecration of the Host.
Even if they showed me to the door. And said don't come back no more
cuz I didn't be like they'd like me to. Even if I walked out on my
own. A thousand miles from home, I didn't feel alone. Cuz I believe in
you.
I believe in you, even through the tears and the laughter. I believe
in you even though we be apart. I believe in you even on the morning
after. Though the earth may shake me, though my friends forsake me,
this feeling's still here in my heart.
Don't let me stray too far. Keep me where you are. So I will always be
renewed. And Lord, what you've given me today is worth more than I
could pay. And no matter what they say, I believe in you...
But, I digress, Bob. I only meant to tell you you're gorgeous. So have
seventy kisses for yourself on Tuesday.
Sinead

--
"Wobble", "She Came From Overseas" & "Crawford Road Crawl" by Will
Dockery & Friends:
http://youtu.be/_XyRCh0kj5w

[poisoned rose]

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again. Though I always thought she was a bit overrated from the
start. Particularly that second album.

I have five of her albums, but I can't really defend owning three of
them. Pretty weak. And I soon grew tired of how she always has her voice
produced/processed in that same wet, double-tracked style.

I don't know how rare this is, but I also have an early 12-inch where
one of her songs is remixed to include a really obscene, unhinged rap by
performance artist Karen Finley.

Oh, it's on YouTube. Check this out:

Skip ahead to about the 4:15 mark. Whoa. Still pretty harsh. I can't
imagine who thought this was a good idea.

[khematite]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again. Though I always thought she was a bit overrated from the
start. Particularly that second album.
I have five of her albums, but I can't really defend owning three of
them. Pretty weak. And I soon grew tired of how she always has her voice
produced/processed in that same wet, double-tracked style.
I don't know how rare this is, but I also have an early 12-inch where
one of her songs is remixed to include a really obscene, unhinged rap by
performance artist Karen Finley.
Oh, it's on YouTube. Check this http://youtu.be/ieLYS_Fdt9c
Skip ahead to about the 4:15 mark. Whoa. Still pretty harsh. I can't
imagine who thought this was a good idea.

Haven't thought about Karen Finley for three or four decades now, but
the mention of her name immediately conjured up images of yams.
Sadly, after a Google search, I discovered that I was the victim of
just one more tuber legend.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/3/21/214415/519

[treadleson]

On May 25, 8:51 pm, poisoned rose <***@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
--

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

Post by poisoned rose
Though I always thought she was a bit overrated from the
start. Particularly that second album.
I have five of her albums, but I can't really defend owning three of
them. Pretty weak. And I soon grew tired of how she always has her voice
produced/processed in that same wet, double-tracked style.
I don't know how rare this is, but I also have an early 12-inch where
one of her songs is remixed to include a really obscene, unhinged rap by
performance artist Karen Finley.
Oh, it's on YouTube. Check this http://youtu.be/ieLYS_Fdt9c
Skip ahead to about the 4:15 mark. Whoa. Still pretty harsh. I can't
imagine who thought this was a good idea.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by treadleson
--

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

I don't want to diminish the seriousness and extent of that abuse, but
I don't think widespread awareness of it dates from Sinead "exposing"
it.

Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

I don't want to diminish the seriousness and extent of that abuse, but
I don't think widespread awareness of it dates from Sinead "exposing"
it.
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

Sinead becomes an easy mark. She may not be the best spokesman, but
she did what she felt she needed to make the point. It doesn't
surprise me that an artist would use shock value.

The real question to your question is: is the best way for the church
to deal with the issue to simply deny it? Sweep it under the carpet?
Try to shift attention to something else?

Hard to blame Sinead for her technique when the church's technique was
no better. At least she was right.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

I don't want to diminish the seriousness and extent of that abuse, but
I don't think widespread awareness of it dates from Sinead "exposing"
it.
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

The real question to your question is:  is the best way for the church
to deal with the issue to simply deny it? Sweep it under the carpet?
Try to shift attention to something else?

No. But that doesn't automatically legitimize *all* "shock tactics".

[Bernie Woodham]

The real question to your question is:  is the best way for the church
to deal with the issue to simply deny it? Sweep it under the carpet?
Try to shift attention to something else?

No. But that doesn't automatically legitimize  *all* "shock tactics".

I don't understand. How was her shock tactic not legitimate?

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Bernie Woodham
I don't understand. How was her shock tactic not legitimate?

Because it defeated its purpose. See More's advice to Hythloday in
More's Utopia, re: criticizing institutions in a realistic manner.

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Bernie Woodham
I don't understand. How was her shock tactic not legitimate?

Because it defeated its purpose. See More's advice to Hythloday in
More's Utopia, re: criticizing institutions in a realistic manner.

So you can say it backfired, but I wouldn't say it was illegitimate.
For something to be illegitimate the claim she was making would have
had to have been false. And it wasn't.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Bernie Woodham
So you can say it backfired, but I wouldn't say it was illegitimate.
For something to be illegitimate the claim she was making would have
had to have been false. And it wasn't.

So as long as your claim is true, ALL tactics are legitimate? Whew.

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Bernie Woodham
So you can say it backfired, but I wouldn't say it was illegitimate.
For something to be illegitimate the claim she was making would have
had to have been false. And it wasn't.

So as long as your claim is true, ALL tactics are legitimate? Whew.

I didn't say that at all.

I don't understand why you're so hung up about her ripping up a
picture. It just doesn't seem all that severe to me. It's not like she
tore up a picture of Jesus.

It's almost as if you're equating tearing up a picture with
terrorism.

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate". You haven't
explained that.

[Brother Jumbo]

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.

Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by Brother Jumbo

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I see: the "appropriate" way to call out child abuse.

[RichL]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Bernie Woodham
I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate". You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

"Blessed be the performance artists".

Doesn't the matter of whether or not a given action is "appropriate" or not
invoke a degree of cultural relativism?

I think a more salient criticism is that it was ineffective. She didn't
rally too many people to the cause who weren't inclined to distrust Church
authority in the first place.

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

"Blessed be the performance artists".
Doesn't the matter of whether or not a given action is "appropriate" or not
invoke a degree of cultural relativism?
I think a more salient criticism is that it was ineffective.  She didn't
rally too many people to the cause who weren't inclined to distrust Church
authority in the first place.

Well, you know, everyone is talking as though she were some elected
spokesman who should have known better.

Imagine someone who just found out their 14 year old has just been
sodomized by a priest. And the priest had been discovered a few years
before in another area and the church just decided to move him to your
area to correct the problem.

Imagine how someone like that might react.

It could just be that O'Connor's outrage was real. Not everyone is a
cool and collected spokesman. And those cool and collected spokesmen
aren't always the people you can depend on to expose situations like
this anyway.

What is the "appropriate" way to call out child abuse within the
catholic church? I don't think there has been one. Because the abuse
goes on. And the church authorities claim it's been the focus of too
much attention!

In the United States the church opposes extensions of the statute of
limitations on sex abuse cases. Why?

In light of this nonsense, it's fair to say that there has been no
"appropriate" calling out of the sex abuse scandals.

[RichL]

Post by Bernie Woodham

Post by RichL

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Bernie Woodham
I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate". You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

"Blessed be the performance artists".
Doesn't the matter of whether or not a given action is "appropriate" or not
invoke a degree of cultural relativism?
I think a more salient criticism is that it was ineffective. She didn't
rally too many people to the cause who weren't inclined to distrust Church
authority in the first place.

Well, you know, everyone is talking as though she were some elected
spokesman who should have known better.
Imagine someone who just found out their 14 year old has just been
sodomized by a priest. And the priest had been discovered a few years
before in another area and the church just decided to move him to your
area to correct the problem.
Imagine how someone like that might react.
It could just be that O'Connor's outrage was real. Not everyone is a
cool and collected spokesman. And those cool and collected spokesmen
aren't always the people you can depend on to expose situations like
this anyway.
What is the "appropriate" way to call out child abuse within the
catholic church? I don't think there has been one. Because the abuse
goes on. And the church authorities claim it's been the focus of too
much attention!
In the United States the church opposes extensions of the statute of
limitations on sex abuse cases. Why?
In light of this nonsense, it's fair to say that there has been no
"appropriate" calling out of the sex abuse scandals.

Agreed.

[treadleson]

On May 27, 4:46 pm, Brother Jumbo <***@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
--
---

Post by Brother Jumbo

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I don't know. That condescending sigh belies the Brother in front of
your name.

Maybe you find her act of ripping up JP's photo to be illegitimate,
and maybe I find it to be poorly thought out. But this isn't an open
and shut case. She ripped up the Pope's photo while saying, "fight the
real enemy," and she was referring to the cover up of sexual abuse of
children inside the Church. I doubt that the people who were suffering
with the humiliation of priest sexual abuse at that time would have
called it "inappropriate" inasmuch as the Church hierarchy was
covering up for the abusers.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by treadleson
--
---

Post by Brother Jumbo

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I don't know. That condescending sigh belies the Brother in front of
your name.

Taken as condescending it does. But it wasn't meant that way. It was a
"sigh" meaning "come on, can't we understand how legitimate is being
used here without getting out the dictionaries (I didn't play the
technicality card re: absolution, after all - I thought it was a
friendlier discussion...))

This is how I would handle the current mess of a discussion (forgive
me if I seem to give advantage to my own side, tis only natural).

If Sinead were asked now: if you could go back in time would you do
the same thing? Or would you approach the issue differently?

If you think her answer would be yes! Power to the performance
artists! Anything goes in the name of a good cause! Who cares who you
offend! Fingers have to be pointed!

Then, I can see that you will consider her action absolved, in her own
(hypothetical) mind - which is probably what counts.

Obviously, I think her answer might be:

Actually, no. I would do it differently. Still call them on their
shit. But not in that precise way. It offended a lot of people who
otherwise would have listened (sooner).

That's why I think her action was not "absolved".

It's only my opinion, Brothers Woodham, Treadleson et al.

We can just agree to differ, surely?

[RichL]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--
---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Bernie Woodham
I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate". You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I don't know. That condescending sigh belies the Brother in front of
your name.

Taken as condescending it does. But it wasn't meant that way. It was a
"sigh" meaning "come on, can't we understand how legitimate is being
used here without getting out the dictionaries (I didn't play the
technicality card re: absolution, after all - I thought it was a
friendlier discussion...))
This is how I would handle the current mess of a discussion (forgive
me if I seem to give advantage to my own side, tis only natural).
If Sinead were asked now: if you could go back in time would you do
the same thing? Or would you approach the issue differently?
If you think her answer would be yes! Power to the performance
artists! Anything goes in the name of a good cause! Who cares who you
offend! Fingers have to be pointed!
Then, I can see that you will consider her action absolved, in her own
(hypothetical) mind - which is probably what counts.
Actually, no. I would do it differently. Still call them on their
shit. But not in that precise way. It offended a lot of people who
otherwise would have listened (sooner).
That's why I think her action was not "absolved".
It's only my opinion, Brothers Woodham, Treadleson et al.
We can just agree to differ, surely?

For what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturday_Night_Live_performance
______

In 1997 O'Connor called her SNL performance "a ridiculous act, the gesture
of a girl rebel", and said that she was "in rebellion against the faith, but
still within the faith". In a 2002 interview with Salon, however, when asked
if she would change anything about the SNL appearance, O'Connor replied,
"Hell, no!"
______

It's probably unrealistic to expect that she now has a philosophically
consistent view of the episode. And I dare say that people who were not
already fully aware of the abuse and O'Connor's cause would not have likely
responded any differently, regardless of how she handled it.

People who were sympathetic to the Church resisted any suggestion that child
abuse in the church was a systemic issue rather than being confined to a few
isolated instances. It took a multitude of independent accusations and
documented abuse cases to change that view, and some still adhere to it
(including certain quarters within the Church itself).

To insist that one individual could have changed that history simply by
means of a change in behavior flies in the face of what has occurred since.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--
---

Post by Brother Jumbo

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I don't know. That condescending sigh belies the Brother in front of
your name.

Taken as condescending it does. But it wasn't meant that way. It was a
"sigh" meaning "come on, can't we understand how legitimate is being
used here without getting out the dictionaries (I didn't play the
technicality card re: absolution, after all - I thought it was a
friendlier discussion...))
This is how I would handle the current mess of a discussion (forgive
me if I seem to give advantage to my own side, tis only natural).
If Sinead were asked now: if you could go back in time would you do
the same thing? Or would you approach the issue differently?
If you think her answer would be yes! Power to the performance
artists! Anything goes in the name of a good cause! Who cares who you
offend! Fingers have to be pointed!
Then, I can see that you will consider her action absolved, in her own
(hypothetical) mind - which is probably what counts.
Actually, no. I would do it differently. Still call them on their
shit. But not in that precise way. It offended a lot of people who
otherwise would have listened (sooner).
That's why I think her action was not "absolved".
It's only my opinion, Brothers Woodham, Treadleson et al.
We can just agree to differ, surely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturday_Night_Li...
______
In 1997 O'Connor called her SNL performance "a ridiculous act, the gesture
of a girl rebel", and said that she was "in rebellion against the faith, but
still within the faith". In a 2002 interview with Salon, however, when asked
if she would change anything about the SNL appearance, O'Connor replied,
"Hell, no!"

Fair enough. You don't quote rather a lot of other material, though,
which doesn't exactly scream "she did the right thing!"

It's probably unrealistic to expect that she now has a philosophically
consistent view of the episode.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophically consistent". I think
there's a chance she may have changed her mind. The stuff in the
letter to Bob about not knowing what she was thinking in dressing as
badly as she did... Sort of a coded hint that she distances herself
from "person".

 And I dare say that people who were not
already fully aware of the abuse and O'Connor's cause would not have likely
responded any differently, regardless of how she handled it.

Sure. But... wouldn't you say that there were not plenty of people (by
plenty I mean millions) who reacted in a kneejerk way precisely
because of what she did?

People who were sympathetic to the Church resisted any suggestion that child
abuse in the church was a systemic issue rather than being confined to a few
isolated instances.  It took a multitude of independent accusations and
documented abuse cases to change that view, and some still adhere to it
(including certain quarters within the Church itself).

No-one here has ever disputed any of that.

To insist that one individual could have changed that history simply by
means of a change in behavior flies in the face of what has occurred since.

I totally agree. Which is why the action now comes across as self-
aggrandizing and inappropriately aggressive.

[RichL]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--
---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Bernie Woodham
I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate". You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I don't know. That condescending sigh belies the Brother in front of
your name.

Taken as condescending it does. But it wasn't meant that way. It was a
"sigh" meaning "come on, can't we understand how legitimate is being
used here without getting out the dictionaries (I didn't play the
technicality card re: absolution, after all - I thought it was a
friendlier discussion...))
This is how I would handle the current mess of a discussion (forgive
me if I seem to give advantage to my own side, tis only natural).
If Sinead were asked now: if you could go back in time would you do
the same thing? Or would you approach the issue differently?
If you think her answer would be yes! Power to the performance
artists! Anything goes in the name of a good cause! Who cares who you
offend! Fingers have to be pointed!
Then, I can see that you will consider her action absolved, in her own
(hypothetical) mind - which is probably what counts.
Actually, no. I would do it differently. Still call them on their
shit. But not in that precise way. It offended a lot of people who
otherwise would have listened (sooner).
That's why I think her action was not "absolved".
It's only my opinion, Brothers Woodham, Treadleson et al.
We can just agree to differ, surely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturday_Night_Li...
______
In 1997 O'Connor called her SNL performance "a ridiculous act, the gesture
of a girl rebel", and said that she was "in rebellion against the faith, but
still within the faith". In a 2002 interview with Salon, however, when asked
if she would change anything about the SNL appearance, O'Connor replied,
"Hell, no!"

Fair enough. You don't quote rather a lot of other material, though,
which doesn't exactly scream "she did the right thing!"

Well, I'm not insisting that she did either the right thing or the wrong
thing. Earlier I argued that what she did was ineffective because it
appears she didn't change many minds. But upon further reflection, I
realize that it probably wouldn't have mattered much how she approached it.

Post by Brother Jumbo

It's probably unrealistic to expect that she now has a philosophically
consistent view of the episode.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophically consistent". I think
there's a chance she may have changed her mind. The stuff in the
letter to Bob about not knowing what she was thinking in dressing as
badly as she did... Sort of a coded hint that she distances herself
from "person".

What I mean is that she's probably still conflicted about it.

Post by Brother Jumbo

And I dare say that people who were not
already fully aware of the abuse and O'Connor's cause would not have likely
responded any differently, regardless of how she handled it.

Sure. But... wouldn't you say that there were not plenty of people (by
plenty I mean millions) who reacted in a kneejerk way precisely
because of what she did?

I guess the question would be, would those people have been sympathetic had
she presented the issue differently? That is, did the "kneejerk" people see
the Pope as a larger-than-life figure to begin with, one who should not be
criticized regardless of the approach?

Post by Brother Jumbo

People who were sympathetic to the Church resisted any suggestion that child
abuse in the church was a systemic issue rather than being confined to a few
isolated instances. It took a multitude of independent accusations and
documented abuse cases to change that view, and some still adhere to it
(including certain quarters within the Church itself).

No-one here has ever disputed any of that.

I simply mention it in the context of O'Connor's behavior and whether a
different approach would have made much difference in the outcome.

Post by Brother Jumbo

To insist that one individual could have changed that history simply by
means of a change in behavior flies in the face of what has occurred since.

I totally agree. Which is why the action now comes across as self-
aggrandizing and inappropriately aggressive.

Well, again I question "inappropriate" in this context. She may have
thought her action would be sufficiently startling to rouse action. The
fact that it didn't very much doesn't necessarily negate the good intention.

[treadleson]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--
---

Post by Brother Jumbo

I just don't see how her action is "illegitimate".  You haven't
explained that.

Sigh.
Well, legitimate in this context means "appropriate", as in, the right
approach to use. In that way, I think she dealt with the issue in an
inappropriate manner.

I don't know. That condescending sigh belies the Brother in front of
your name.

Taken as condescending it does. But it wasn't meant that way. It was a
"sigh" meaning "come on, can't we understand how legitimate is being
used here without getting out the dictionaries (I didn't play the
technicality card re: absolution, after all - I thought it was a
friendlier discussion...))
This is how I would handle the current mess of a discussion (forgive
me if I seem to give advantage to my own side, tis only natural).
If Sinead were asked now: if you could go back in time would you do
the same thing? Or would you approach the issue differently?
If you think her answer would be yes! Power to the performance
artists! Anything goes in the name of a good cause! Who cares who you
offend! Fingers have to be pointed!
Then, I can see that you will consider her action absolved, in her own
(hypothetical) mind - which is probably what counts.
Actually, no. I would do it differently. Still call them on their
shit. But not in that precise way. It offended a lot of people who
otherwise would have listened (sooner).
That's why I think her action was not "absolved".
It's only my opinion, Brothers Woodham, Treadleson et al.
We can just agree to differ, surely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor#Saturday_Night_Li...

--

In 1997 O'Connor called her SNL performance "a ridiculous act, the gesture
of a girl rebel", and said that she was "in rebellion against the faith, but
still within the faith". In a 2002 interview with Salon, however, when asked
if she would change anything about the SNL appearance, O'Connor replied,
"Hell, no!"

I guess this answers Fra Jumbo's question.

______
It's probably unrealistic to expect that she now has a philosophically
consistent view of the episode.  

--

And I dare say that people who were not
already fully aware of the abuse and O'Connor's cause would not have likely
responded any differently, regardless of how she handled it.

I think that this is an excellent and true statement.

May I speak personally for a second? I do remember seeing it. I
remember my reaction and I remember the general reaction. I also
remember that she was singing "War," but not that she had changed the
words to reflect Church child abuse. When she whipped out JP's photo
and tore it up, it seemed unrelated to the song and therefore without
context. I was completely unaware of clerical sex abuse of kids.

I thought it was outrageous and fucked up.

But that reaction pales beside the reaction I had when the scandal
broke. To me personally, it was kind of an end. And that saddened me
terribly because of all the lost souls the scandal had suddenly
created.

In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act. Today I'm pleased that
she did this if for no other reason than one person in the
entertainment world had the cojones to put it all on the line for
something a)unsafe and b) not about their career enhancement. And I
give props to Dylan for having her on his roster so soon after the SNL
thing.

That's me speaking personally.

People who were sympathetic to the Church resisted any suggestion that child
abuse in the church was a systemic issue rather than being confined to a few
isolated instances.  It took a multitude of independent accusations and
documented abuse cases to change that view, and some still adhere to it
(including certain quarters within the Church itself).
To insist that one individual could have changed that history simply by
means of a change in behavior flies in the face of what has occurred since.

[poisoned rose]

Post by treadleson
May I speak personally for a second? I do remember seeing it. I
remember my reaction and I remember the general reaction. I also
remember that she was singing "War," but not that she had changed the
words to reflect Church child abuse. When she whipped out JP's photo
and tore it up, it seemed unrelated to the song and therefore without
context. I was completely unaware of clerical sex abuse of kids.
I thought it was outrageous and fucked up.

I had a very different reaction to seeing it live. The Pope bit didn't
faze me at all, but I *was* offended by the performance. My collection
is that it was a braying, utterly tuneless, a capella vocal that didn't
even seem like televisable quality to me. Really horrible.

[Janice]

On May 28, 4:19 pm, treadleson <***@aol.com> wrote:
.

Post by treadleson
May I speak personally for a second? I do remember seeing it. I
remember my reaction and I remember the general reaction. I also
remember that she was singing "War," but not that she had changed the
words to reflect Church child abuse. When she whipped out JP's photo
and tore it up, it seemed unrelated to the song and therefore without
context. I was completely unaware of clerical sex abuse of kids.

.

Post by treadleson
I thought it was outrageous and fucked up.

I thought it was outrageous and right on (without even knowing the
backstory of child abuse in the Church), because the Church's
patriarchal dominion, and in fact the patriarchal presence in all
churches, and all other boys' clubs, was what was inappropriate and
shocking and anachronistic and damaging, and I was thrilled at her
courage. I couldn't have done it.

Activists are rarely appropriate.

Post by treadleson
But that reaction pales beside the reaction I had when the scandal
broke. To me personally, it was kind of an end. And that saddened me
terribly because of all the lost souls the scandal had suddenly
created.

And I saw it as the first glimmer of hope for the Church in decades...
to my mind, the only way the Church can renew itself and bring real
meaning to its doctrines & dogma in this day & age is to start over,
with a clean slate -- expose the corruption and decay to the light of
day. Persecution, crucifixion, are all the ingredients for
enlightenment and resurrection.

But more importantly, to me, I saw the scandal as the first truly
global confrontation with the issue of child molestation... as a
victim of child molestation myself (not connected with the Church), I
was hopeful that the Church would use the opportunity and this
platform to help us all to understand this confounding and painful
behavior.

If anyone was qualified -- by its legacy of Christ light & love -- to
put this issue in its proper perspective, to help realize the root and
the cure, and to educate victims on how to find closure other than
hate & shame & fear... it should have been the Church. I have to say,
I am sorely disappointed in what seems to be just more patriarchal
failings on this issue.

Break up the boys' club and let some light in, fellas.

What Sinead did was, to Catholics, unthinkable. But she was reacting
to what is considered by most civilized cultures as unthinkable -- the
violation of children. How could she have done any less?

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act. Today I'm pleased that
she did this if for no other reason than one person in the
entertainment world had the cojones to put it all on the line for
something a)unsafe and b) not about their career enhancement. And I
give props to Dylan for having her on his roster so soon after the SNL
thing.

Yes, I agree. She was all alone in this one. And I have to admit
that at the time I briefly entertained the cynical thought that she
did it to enhance her career... I was disabused of that thought in
short order.

Post by treadleson
That's me speaking personally.

Me too.

~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[treadleson]

On May 28, 5:39 pm, Janice <***@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote:
---

Post by Janice

Post by treadleson
But that reaction pales beside the reaction I had when the scandal
broke. To me personally, it was kind of an end. And that saddened me
terribly because of all the lost souls the scandal had suddenly
created.

And I saw it as the first glimmer of hope for the Church in decades...
to my mind, the only way the Church can renew itself and bring real
meaning to its doctrines & dogma in this day & age is to start over,
with a clean slate -- expose the corruption and decay to the light of
day.  Persecution, crucifixion, are all the ingredients for
enlightenment and resurrection.

That would be nice.

Post by Janice
But more importantly, to me, I saw the scandal as the first truly
global confrontation with the issue of child molestation... as a
victim of child molestation myself (not connected with the Church), I
was hopeful that the Church would use the opportunity and this
platform to help us all to understand this confounding and painful
behavior.
If anyone was qualified -- by its legacy of Christ light & love -- to
put this issue in its proper perspective, to help realize the root and
the cure, and to educate victims on how to find closure other than
hate & shame & fear... it should have been the Church.  I have to say,
I am sorely disappointed in what seems to be just more patriarchal
failings on this issue.
Break up the boys' club and let some light in, fellas.
What Sinead did was, to Catholics, unthinkable.  But she was reacting
to what is considered by most civilized cultures as unthinkable -- the
violation of children.  How could she have done any less?

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act. Today I'm pleased that
she did this if for no other reason than one person in the
entertainment world had the cojones to put it all on the line for
something a)unsafe and b) not about their career enhancement. And I
give props to Dylan for having her on his roster so soon after the SNL
thing.

Yes, I agree.  She was all alone in this one.  And I have to admit
that at the time I briefly entertained the cynical thought that she
did it to enhance her career... I was disabused of that thought in
short order.

Post by treadleson
That's me speaking personally.

Me too.
                        ~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[RichL]

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act.

Yeah, I think that would have helped. But I still wonder, given what was
known widely at the time (i.e., not much), whether it would have made much
of a difference.

You would think after all these years that the Church would place the
highest priority in turning abusers (and evidence of abuse) over to
authorities. But it seems to me that the Church still operates largely
under the delusion that it is entitled to deal with the matter internally.

[treadleson]

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act.

Yeah, I think that would have helped.  But I still wonder, given what was
known widely at the time (i.e., not much), whether it would have made much
of a difference.

--

You would think after all these years that the Church would place the
highest priority in turning abusers (and evidence of abuse) over to
authorities.  But it seems to me that the Church still operates largely
under the delusion that it is entitled to deal with the matter internally.

That is typical of all large, influential institutions. The press is
horrible about it.

[RichL]

Post by treadleson

Post by RichL

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act.

Yeah, I think that would have helped. But I still wonder, given what was
known widely at the time (i.e., not much), whether it would have made much
of a difference.

--

Post by RichL
You would think after all these years that the Church would place the
highest priority in turning abusers (and evidence of abuse) over to
authorities. But it seems to me that the Church still operates largely
under the delusion that it is entitled to deal with the matter internally.

That is typical of all large, influential institutions.

I can't imagine a modern parallel in terms of either the size of the
institution involved or the moral depravity at the heart of the matter.

Post by treadleson
The press is horrible about it.

???

The press covers up crimes committed by its members?

[treadleson]

Post by RichL

Post by treadleson

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act.

Yeah, I think that would have helped.  But I still wonder, given what was
known widely at the time (i.e., not much), whether it would have made much
of a difference.

====

Post by RichL

Post by treadleson

You would think after all these years that the Church would place the
highest priority in turning abusers (and evidence of abuse) over to
authorities.  But it seems to me that the Church still operates largely
under the delusion that it is entitled to deal with the matter internally.

That is typical of all large, influential institutions.

--

Post by RichL
I can't imagine a modern parallel in terms of either the size of the
institution involved or the moral depravity at the heart of the matter.

Post by treadleson
The press is horrible about it.

???
The press covers up crimes committed by its members?

Meaning that large institutions, like the press, believe they are
entitled to deal with cheating, sexual harassment, unfair hiring, etc.
internally. In the case of the press, it's journalistic ethics
violations, which sometime result in libel suits but often do not.

[RichL]

Post by treadleson

Post by RichL

Post by treadleson

Post by RichL

Post by treadleson
In retrospect, O'Connor absolved, but I only wish she had explained to
the audience exactly what was behind her act.

Yeah, I think that would have helped. But I still wonder, given what was
known widely at the time (i.e., not much), whether it would have made much
of a difference.

====

Post by RichL

Post by treadleson

Post by RichL
You would think after all these years that the Church would place the
highest priority in turning abusers (and evidence of abuse) over to
authorities. But it seems to me that the Church still operates largely
under the delusion that it is entitled to deal with the matter internally.

That is typical of all large, influential institutions.

--

Post by RichL
I can't imagine a modern parallel in terms of either the size of the
institution involved or the moral depravity at the heart of the matter.

Post by treadleson
The press is horrible about it.

???
The press covers up crimes committed by its members?

Meaning that large institutions, like the press, believe they are
entitled to deal with cheating, sexual harassment, unfair hiring, etc.
internally. In the case of the press, it's journalistic ethics
violations, which sometime result in libel suits but often do not.

Ah, but when no crime is committed, how can one deal with things like that
other than internally?

I guess I don't see the parallel with child abuse committed by priests.

[M. Rick]

Post by RichL
I guess I don't see the parallel with child abuse committed by priests.

Let’s say the institution in question is Bob Dylan Corp. One day, a
lawyer for Bob Dylan Corp. is taking a stroll around Dylan’s mansion
and spots the Chief Entertainment Officer digging a big hole in the
garden. Then he sees the CEO dumping a body into the hole. Now you
might think he’d call the authorities, but chances are he won’t.
He’ll keep his mouth shut and continue to cash the company checks.

[treadleson]

Post by RichL
I guess I don't see the parallel with child abuse committed by priests.

Let’s say the institution in question is Bob Dylan Corp.  One day, a
lawyer for Bob Dylan Corp. is taking a stroll around Dylan’s mansion
and spots the Chief Entertainment Officer digging a big hole in the
garden.  Then he sees the CEO dumping a body into the hole.  Now you
might think he’d call the authorities, but chances are he won’t.
He’ll keep his mouth shut and continue to cash the company checks.

It's why God created whistle blowers, boys.

[Jolene]

Post by treadleson

Post by RichL
I guess I don't see the parallel with child abuse committed by priests.

Let’s say the institution in question is Bob Dylan Corp.  One day, a
lawyer for Bob Dylan Corp. is taking a stroll around Dylan’s mansion
and spots the Chief Entertainment Officer digging a big hole in the
garden.  Then he sees the CEO dumping a body into the hole.  Now you
might think he’d call the authorities, but chances are he won’t.
He’ll keep his mouth shut and continue to cash the company checks.

It's why God created whistle blowers, boys.

What the hell are you doing intruding on my private anniversary, Phil?

[Jolene]

Post by Jolene

Post by treadleson

Post by RichL
I guess I don't see the parallel with child abuse committed by priests.

Let’s say the institution in question is Bob Dylan Corp.  One day, a
lawyer for Bob Dylan Corp. is taking a stroll around Dylan’s mansion
and spots the Chief Entertainment Officer digging a big hole in the
garden.  Then he sees the CEO dumping a body into the hole.  Now you
might think he’d call the authorities, but chances are he won’t.
He’ll keep his mouth shut and continue to cash the company checks.

It's why God created whistle blowers, boys.

What the hell are you doing intruding on my private anniversary, Phil?

Please go SUC an egg.

[treadleson]

On May 28, 7:04 am, Brother Jumbo <***@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
--

Post by Brother Jumbo
This is how I would handle the current mess of a discussion (forgive
me if I seem to give advantage to my own side, tis only natural).
If Sinead were asked now: if you could go back in time would you do
the same thing? Or would you approach the issue differently?
If you think her answer would be yes! Power to the performance
artists! Anything goes in the name of a good cause! Who cares who you
offend! Fingers have to be pointed!
Then, I can see that you will consider her action absolved, in her own
(hypothetical) mind - which is probably what counts.

I wouldn't pretend to know what she would do. I suspect she'd say
she'd do it the same way again. And particularly after all that's gone
down since.

But you're really stuck on the idea of her action being absolved.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. (To some Catholics I know, the action
would probably be absolved, but I've never discussed this actual
incident.) That wasn't my point, however. My point is that her anti-
cleric position has been absolved; it is now clear what she was
protesting and how serious the problem actually was. Had none of these
things been true, she wouldn't have been absolved.

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
Actually, no. I would do it differently. Still call them on their
shit. But not in that precise way. It offended a lot of people who
otherwise would have listened (sooner).
That's why I think her action was not "absolved".
It's only my opinion, Brothers Woodham, Treadleson et al.
We can just agree to differ, surely?

Nobody said we couldn't. That's why they have horse races.

[treadleson]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

I don't want to diminish the seriousness and extent of that abuse, but
I don't think widespread awareness of it dates from Sinead "exposing"
it.

Nooooooo. That isn't what I meeeeeeeeeean. I mean that she was ahead
of her time in calling public attention to it and that she turns out
to have been right.

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

Oh, I don't know that it's any worse than church cover up of these
continued crimes against children. I like to get things in
perspective.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

I don't want to diminish the seriousness and extent of that abuse, but
I don't think widespread awareness of it dates from Sinead "exposing"
it.

Nooooooo. That isn't what I meeeeeeeeeean.  I mean that she was ahead
of her time in calling public attention to it and that she turns out
to have been right.
--

Post by Brother Jumbo
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

Oh, I don't know that it's any worse than church cover up of these
continued crimes against children. I like to get things in
perspective.

I suppose one could have burned the US flag on SN Live in the early
90s and be absolved by Guantanamo...

I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

[treadleson]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
--

---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Will Dockery

History absolved her.  Big time. I remember that show, that face of
the mob in extreme horrifying close up.

Yeah... didn't see that much of her after all that, though.

Yes, I don't think she was ever "absolved"...her career was never the
same again.

---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
Absolved as in proven right about child abuse in the Catholic church.

I don't want to diminish the seriousness and extent of that abuse, but
I don't think widespread awareness of it dates from Sinead "exposing"
it.

Nooooooo. That isn't what I meeeeeeeeeean.  I mean that she was ahead
of her time in calling public attention to it and that she turns out
to have been right.
--

Post by Brother Jumbo
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

Oh, I don't know that it's any worse than church cover up of these
continued crimes against children. I like to get things in
perspective.

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
I suppose one could have burned the US flag on SN Live in the early
90s and be absolved by Guantanamo...

Are you kidding? The SNL audience would have LOVED that.

---

Post by Brother Jumbo
I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

I used to be like you. I used to give symbols a lot of weight.

But yeah--the hatred. The grotesque mob in all its grotesqueness and
ignorance. Heck--there wasn't a real Christian among 'em.

I tend to believe that had the child sex abuse revelations been as
widespread as they are today, she wouldn't have gotten the blowback
she got. Heck--the SNL audience would cheer her tearing up a picture
of Benedict. It would have gone into their greatest hits reel.

In light of all that's come out about the child sex abuse tradition, I
think what she did on SNL was almost quaint.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by treadleson

Post by Brother Jumbo
I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

I used to be like you. I used to give symbols a lot of weight.

It's not me or you giving the symbols the "weight", it's everybody
(including me and you). As I said, this is basically following More's
advice to Hythloday in the Utopia.

[treadleson]

--

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson

Post by Brother Jumbo
I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

I used to be like you. I used to give symbols a lot of weight.

It's not me or you giving the symbols the "weight", it's everybody
(including me and you). As I said, this is basically following More's
advice to Hythloday in the Utopia.

It sounds like my original point is being lost in the smoke. My point
is that history absolved her re: the point she was making. Her tactics
are separate.

[gemjack]

On Fri, 27 May 2011 06:30:40 -0700 (PDT), treadleson

Post by treadleson
--

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson

Post by Brother Jumbo
I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

I dunno, maybe she wasn't direct enough. I can't think of another
organization so full of pedophiles as the Catholic church. Why just
the other day:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072613,00.html?xid=rss-world

"The latest sex-abuse case to rock the Catholic Church is unfolding in
the archdiocese of an influential Italian Cardinal who has been
working with Pope Benedict XVI on reforms to respond to prior scandals
of pedophile priests.
Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-year-old parish priest in the village of
Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, was arrested last Friday, May 13, on
pedophilia and drug charges."

Talk about the fox watching the henhouse!

Post by treadleson

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
I used to be like you. I used to give symbols a lot of weight.

It's not me or you giving the symbols the "weight", it's everybody
(including me and you). As I said, this is basically following More's
advice to Hythloday in the Utopia.

It sounds like my original point is being lost in the smoke. My point
is that history absolved her re: the point she was making. Her tactics
are separate.

Not being the superstitious type, I didn't understand the degree of
oppression of the Catholic church at the time she tore it up, I
thought it was a protest of religion in general.

-gj

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by gemjack
On Fri, 27 May 2011 06:30:40 -0700 (PDT), treadleson

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

I dunno, maybe she wasn't direct enough.  

Exactly. At last some sense on the issue.

She could, for example, have just go into horrifying detail about her
personal experiences on SNLive, or somewhere equally public, to get
the issue addressed.

Then if people had still booed her, we could now say "well, history
absolved her".

Instead, we are patting her on the head (bald or not, like who cares)
for being in the right but stupid.

[treadleson]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by gemjack
On Fri, 27 May 2011 06:30:40 -0700 (PDT), treadleson

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
I don't know. I think she could have found a way of making her views
known that wouldn't have drummed up so much useless hatred.

I dunno, maybe she wasn't direct enough.  

Exactly. At last some sense on the issue.
She could, for example, have just go into horrifying detail about her
personal experiences on SNLive, or somewhere equally public, to get
the issue addressed.
Then if people had still booed her, we could now say "well, history
absolved her".

---

Post by Brother Jumbo
Instead, we are patting her on the head (bald or not, like who cares)
for being in the right but stupid.

I think we're at the root of the confusion you're a-feelin'. This
isn't about patting her on the head (not for me, at any rate). It's
about saying her cause was just even if her tactics were poorly
thought out.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by treadleson
This
isn't about patting her on the head (not for me, at any rate). It's
about saying her cause was just even if her tactics were poorly
thought out.

Yes. Her tactics have not been absolved.

Exactly.

[Brother Jumbo]

Post by treadleson
It sounds like my original point is being lost in the smoke. My point
is that history absolved her re: the point she was making. Her tactics
are separate.

By that logic she could have gunned down 10 Catholics at random, and
said, I'm really really ANGRY that the Church won't listen.

And then, when it all came out that, yes, there was a lot of child
abuse going on, we could let her out of prison saying "Our mistake, my
dear, history has absolved you."

Of course the tactics are exactly the point at issue.

[Bernie Woodham]

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
It sounds like my original point is being lost in the smoke. My point
is that history absolved her re: the point she was making. Her tactics
are separate.

By that logic she could have gunned down 10 Catholics at random, and
said, I'm really really ANGRY that the Church won't listen.

Ridiculous. You ARE equating the tearing up of a picture with
terrorism.

Post by Brother Jumbo
And then, when it all came out that, yes, there was a lot of child
abuse going on, we could let her out of prison saying "Our mistake, my
dear, history has absolved you."
Of course the tactics are exactly the point at issue.

YOUR tactics are becoming an issue to me.

[treadleson]

---

Post by Brother Jumbo

Post by treadleson
It sounds like my original point is being lost in the smoke. My point
is that history absolved her re: the point she was making. Her tactics
are separate.

By that logic she could have gunned down 10 Catholics at random, and
said, I'm really really ANGRY that the Church won't listen.

I don't know whether you're being willfully blind to my point or have
some ax to grind.

This murder analogy is preposterous. It puts murder and tearing up the
Pope's picture on the same moral level.

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
And then, when it all came out that, yes, there was a lot of child
abuse going on, we could let her out of prison saying "Our mistake, my
dear, history has absolved you."

Whether or not you like the way she called attention to the sex abuse
situation in the Church, she did call attention to it, and she did it
at a time when it was not on the national radar. Now us outsiders know
how serious the situation really was and so the stand she took is now
understandable.

In your scenario, she never would have been let out of jail. Morally,
her crimes would be as bad or worse than the crimes she was
protesting.

--

Post by Brother Jumbo
Of course the tactics are exactly the point at issue.

This is missing the forest for the trees.

[Janice]

On May 26, 5:10 am, Brother Jumbo <***@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
.

Post by Brother Jumbo
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

Actually, she did it during a broadcast of Saturday Night Live, and to
quote Lorne there was dead silence and "the air went out of the
studio."

It apparently upset Madonna more than anyone else, whose media blitz
for her newly released album was totally upstaged in the media by
O'Connor's actions. Madonna attacked Sinead, said she looked like
she'd been run over by a lawn mower, was as sexy as a venetian blind,
and said, "I think there is a better way to present her ideas rather
than ripping up an image that means a lot to other people."

Which is all pretty shocking in its own right, considering Madonna's
attacks on belief systems launched her career.

I think what really upset people, especially men, was the fact that
Sinead shaved her head. She confronted sexism & gender-bias by
stripping herself of what is uniformly considered a feminine crown --
her hair. And if you remember what women's hair looked like in the
80's ... it was a real statement, loud & clear.

http://www.hairstylesdesign.com/gallery/marie_osmond_2932.php
http://www.hairstylesdesign.com/gallery/natasha_bedingfield_2595.php
http://www.hairstylesdesign.com/gallery/lydia_hearst_2346.php

Culturally, women throughout history have shaved their heads or cut or
pulled out their hair in times of great loss, monumental change,
shame, and/or profound revelation. In the last couple decades a
woman's shaved head has continued to represent trauma as a side-effect
of chemotherapy.

So she didn't just confront the Church on its patriarchal
authoritarian abuse of power, she confronted both men and women on the
continuing gender stereotyping of women and beauty. I think that had
she had a full head of hair when she tore up the Pope's picture, the
reaction would have been more confused and less hostile.

She made everyone uncomfortable, even (I think) Bob. I hope Bob read
her letter and understood the spirit it was written in, and
understands that like it or not, claim it or not, his music is
motivation for personal as well as global change.

And it's too late to stop now.


~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the blood of Eden we have done everything we can
In the blood of Eden, so we end as we began
With the man in the woman and the woman in the man
It was all for the union, oh the union of the woman, the woman and the
man

[treadleson]

Post by Janice
.

Post by Brother Jumbo
Also, the question re: "absolution" should be: is the best way to deal
with these issues to appear on a chat show and tear up pictures of the
Pope?

Actually, she did it during a broadcast of Saturday Night Live, and to
quote Lorne there was dead silence and "the air went out of the
studio."

---

Post by Janice
It apparently upset Madonna more than anyone else, whose media blitz
for her newly released album was totally upstaged in the media by
O'Connor's actions.  Madonna attacked Sinead, said she looked like
she'd been run over by a lawn mower, was as sexy as a venetian blind,
and said, "I think there is a better way to present her ideas rather
than ripping up an image that means a lot to other people."
Which is all pretty shocking in its own right, considering Madonna's
attacks on belief systems launched her career.

True. And even more idiotically, she tore up a picture of Joey
Butafuoco and said, "fight the real enemy," a total trivialization of
what the whole thing was about.

I would agree that when I saw O'Connor ripping up JP2's picture (and I
liked him a lot), I was confounded. It wasn't clear. And Madonna
absolutely didn't bother to find out what it was all about with her
whole marketing-of-bad-Catholic-girl schtick.

--

Post by Janice
 I think that had
she had a full head of hair when she tore up the Pope's picture, the
reaction would have been more confused and less hostile.

You do?

Post by Janice
She made everyone uncomfortable, even (I think) Bob.  I hope Bob read
her letter and understood the spirit it was written in, and
understands that like it or not, claim it or not, his music is
motivation for personal as well as global change.
And it's too late to stop now.
                      ~`~
http://youtu.be/dA_lmSTqet0
In the blood of Eden we have done everything we can
In the blood of Eden, so we end as we began
With the man in the woman and the woman in the man
It was all for the union, oh the union of the woman, the woman and the
man

[gemjack]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 17:51:44 -0700, poisoned rose

Post by poisoned rose
I don't know how rare this is, but I also have an early 12-inch where
one of her songs is remixed to include a really obscene, unhinged rap by
performance artist Karen Finley.
http://youtu.be/ieLYS_Fdt9c
Skip ahead to about the 4:15 mark. Whoa. Still pretty harsh. I can't
imagine who thought this was a good idea.

that's hilarious!

-gj