Frank Zappa on Crossfire Circa 1986 Defending the Use of “Words” to Three Dipshits

Published on July 17th, 2007

Posted by John C Dvorak in Video

This is almost unbelievable.

found by Martin Higgins

67 users responded in " Frank Zappa on Crossfire Circa 1986 Defending the Use of “Words” to Three Dipshits "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 dwright said, on July 17th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Kind of digging way back to generate some controversy, aren’t we?
Seeing Frank reminds me, get your prostate checked.

# 2 glenn said, on July 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pm

“are you an anarchist?”
3 dipshits who think they’re scoring debating points with their lazy thinking listeners.
And yet, Novak continues to embarrass himself on Sunday TV 20 years later.
Look how young and presentable my hero Frank looks.

# 3 Ian said, on July 17th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

This clip is classic! Witness the birth of the neo-con movement.

# 4 Wayne Bradney said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Zappa vs Novak, even with backup, is just a horrible mis-match.

# 5 SN said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm

I had no idea that the “problem” of incest increased in the 80s to such dangerous proportions and that the cause of it was rock and roll. Seriously, when my mom was a kid her mother told her that rock and roll caused polio. I guess some things never change.

And Ian is right, the guy advocating for censorship was not a Conservative by any normal definition, he was a neocon. But back then we called them members of the Moral Majority. They wanted government out of their wallets, but on everyone else’s back.

# 6 mxpwr03 said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:37 pm

#3 & 5 – No actually Ian is wrong. You two need to do some reading (I would start with the Weekly Standard, and you’ll notice they do not support censorship) so you’ll actually understand where, and in what context, the neo-conservative movement was established, along with what the ideology supports as acceptable policy for domestic/international relations. The founders of neo-conservatism do not support censorship, to say so highlights one’s own ignorance. Actually, they were liberals in the true sense of the word.

And before you launch into a “President Bush does this …” a lot of neo-conservatives have several objections when it comes to his policies.

# 7 Wholly said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

God Bless Frank.

It’s a shame God wanted him for that party he threw in 1993. Too bad he didn’t take Milli Vanilli.

# 8 Jerk-Face said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

6. No actually mxpwr03 is wrong. He needs to do some reading (I would start with the the hairs on my ass and he’d notice they do support censorship) so he’d actually understand where, and in what context, the neo-conservative movement was not established, along with what the ideology supports as unacceptable policy for domestic/international relations. The founders of neo-conservatism do support censorship, to say no highlights one’s own knowledge. Actually, they were incestuous rapists in the true sense of the word.

And before you launch into a “Weird Al Yankovic does this …” a lot of neo-conservatives have no objections when it comes to his parodies.

# 9 John said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Brilliant, just brilliant. We miss you Frank! I wish he was around still to help us with these trying times.

# 10 Raff said, on July 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

This is a classic.. and one I love.. Zappa was one of the greats.. what else can you say?

# 11 Mister Mustard said, on July 17th, 2007 at 8:00 pm

>>The founders of neo-conservatism do not support censorship,

Ha. Hahahah! Hahahahahahahhahaha! Will be be seeing you on SNL or Leno later this month? Last Comic Standing?

That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this blog!!

# 12 Mr. Fusion said, on July 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

#6, mxpwr03

It must be rough being such a personal failure. And I know you are still wondering who Frank Zappa was.

Frank was the intellectual superior of all of them combined. I cherish the memory of him in concert in 1977. He was my introduction to jazz guitar.

# 13 mark said, on July 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

I was at the gym tonite and over the PA system they were playing songs from Zappas’ Joes Garage. I couldnt believe it as this is a community family gym. And yet somehow, I was pleased.

# 14 flyingelvis said, on July 17th, 2007 at 8:06 pm

words are cool. i like words.

# 15 bobbo said, on July 17th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Well, the issue was whether or not censorship of obscene lyrics should be passed by congress?

I am guessing the result was the ratings system we have today? Good compromise between two valid competing interests.

I googled Lofton, seems he is still around, reformed in some way, not interested enough to dig out the details.

# 16 BubbaRay said, on July 17th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Zappa is Pure Genius. Is that like putting Einstein in a room with some sugar hyped ten year olds? I’ve still a pristine copy of the very first “Mothers of Invention — Freak Out” double vinyl album. Not many here who would know about Suzie Creamcheese. Who could imagine? Nullis Pretii.

Kudos to Martin Higgens.

For those who remember the greatness:
http://www.zappa.com/

# 17 sdf said, on July 17th, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Ah – Chief Dipshit Robert Novac – the first words out of his idiotic mouth are a ridiculous strawman, naturally.

# 18 bobbo said, on July 17th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

17—Nope. Novaks first question was completely legitimate as was Franks response. If by straw man you mean confusing videos with music, I think thats what made the discussion valuable==the WORDS of music versus the images of videos. A difference there, good to tease out the relevant issues.

# 19 CowDefender said, on July 17th, 2007 at 10:36 pm

They called it when they said the industry should take the job.

Incest? Government should intervene? He is an Anarchist because he wants a strict interpretation of the first amendment, just reading the words instead of fantasizing about what the founders might have been thinking?

I still hear that kind of garbage (no the incest stuff, however). We don’t have to look at who the founders were, just the document, that was their accomplishment. It’s the idea, not the men who make it, if the inventor of penicilin ate babies that wouldn’t make penicilin less quality.

Bah.

# 20 RBG said, on July 17th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Smart guy that Frank Zappa was. Too bad he’s wrong here. And any discussion above that cowers from the inclusion of children in it can’t be taken too seriously.

But then my words don’t rhyme and aren’t set to acoustical notes, nor do I move my body parts in sync on a public stage, so what do I know?

RBG

# 21 bobbo said, on July 17th, 2007 at 11:05 pm

19–Pretty much true, but you do kinda have to go back to the founders to find out what ideas were meant by the words that were written.

No modern American with a current dictionary has a clue as to what “pusuit of happiness” means. For that, you have to plumb the minds of the authors, as best we can. More often, you are right, the founders are just props for whatever loopy position someone wants to justify.

# 22 mgabrys said, on July 17th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

LOL – 4:40 – FREAKIN’ GODWINS LAW was even in this thing. I’d seen the start of this video on previous searches for Zappa but didn’t notice the lamest of the lame-duck arguments thrown into it. Mostly because these kinds of lame “talking points” shows are boringly repetitive. Pitty the “law” hadn’t been coined or widely bandied because that was a groaner moment of the highest order.

# 23 stew said, on July 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

I currently have Franks” shut up and play your guitar” cd in my car player. Frank was a musical genus. A brilliant lyricist. But a flawed philosopher.My favorite example was his sitting holding a cigarette in one hand and a cup of coffee in the other all the while expounding on not doing drugs,

# 24 bobbo said, on July 18th, 2007 at 12:06 am

23—Whats your point? Coffee and cigarettes vs LSD and cocaine are exactly the same because they are drugs? Is that your point?

# 25 Jess Hurchist said, on July 18th, 2007 at 12:16 am

I always thought that I had something in common with a lot of the people here. Never occurred to me that it was Frank Zappa.

# 26 chris said, on July 18th, 2007 at 4:07 am

I have kids, I love them and want to protect them. I want to protect them from people who want to keep ideas away from them. It burns me up to hear some of the crap in music these days, but I’d never want anything to suppress the ideas and words in that music, unless it were just plain old lack of demand. Zappa, definitely right!

# 27 Dauragon88 said, on July 18th, 2007 at 4:54 am

I think the most disturbing part of this is when Zappa said he gives hope to kids by telling them to vote and be active participants in government, and the Washington Times guy treats that like total hogwash. If telling young people that they can make a difference to society isn’t giving them hope, then what the hell is?

# 28 Cinaedh said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:01 am

If they ever wrote a law banning certain words, wouldn’t they have to publish those words in a public record and then tell everyone what words they weren’t allowed to say? How would they do that if the words were banned?

Just wondering…..

# 29 Man of Leisure said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:03 am

Adam and Eve were incestual. Lonely siblings on a farm in the middle of nowhere (say, Nebraska) may have no one to experiment with when those urges start emerging as teens. Is incest wrong in that case, especially if parents shove down their kids throats that sex is bad, and that they must wait until after marriage. And on top of that, masturbation will lead to blindness? I think incest might be right in those circumstances. Albert Einstein had sex with his first cousin. Where there is incest there is certaintly a trouble of people getting not out more often. This is where religion is wrong. Religion and society want to preach morality but every behaviour is relative to situations. Instead of demonizing incest partners they should be made aware of a world that is out there of potential mates. But then, they don’t teach mating, courtship and dating in highschool which I think is a HUGE mistake. They teach sex ed, but they don’t teach the process to get to mating.

Words are a reflection of reality. “Water is wet” are words to reflect that reality. True, they are just words in the sense that they are CODE. But code makes reality– from DNA, to the alphabet to the number system to ASCII. If that code is distorted in any of those mentioned, a parallel reality will also be affected. Thus, words are not merely words. John Lofton is absolutely correct in saying that word connote ideas. Zappa is wrong in this case. I don’t think Zappa would call his son “asshole” as a nickname. It’s just a word– name your child schmuck. All words are transmissions. It is my world being transmitted to your world. As long as we are going to accept this CODE we might as well use the code respectfully.

# 30 bobbo said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:19 am

29—Respect? Why don’t you respect anyone elses freedom to say and hear about things YOU want to keep from them? The RESPECTFUL response to bad ideas is not censorship but MORE SPEECH.

I thought this was well understood by people that could read and write? I guess the price for freedom really is eternal vigilence.

# 31 Shubee said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:23 am

This video reminds me of a certain philosophical interpretation of the three evil powers (the dragon, beast and false prophet) that are to dominate the world just before the end of everything in the book of Revelation. The spirit and chief preoccupation of those who embrace the dragon philosophy is to be free of all restraint, including believing in and having respect for God. Then there is another great evil power that strives against all that the dragon stands for. The false prophet uses coercion and deception to compel the world to engage in pretended reverence, false worship and to pay homage to antichrist.

# 32 bobbo said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:47 am

311—The beast is against everything the dragon stands for? And the dragon is against God, so the dragon is for god? Why is that evil?

# 33 YetAnotherDave said, on July 18th, 2007 at 7:08 am

Certain words are banned from these very comments you know. Words? Let’s ban sticks and stones!

# 34 LCargill said, on July 18th, 2007 at 7:34 am

{Too bad he’s wrong here. And any discussion above that cowers from the inclusion of children in it can’t be taken too seriously.}

What? Children are not born knowing how to participate
properly in a discussion. And if you don’t discuss the ugly
parts of human behavior with your kids (you’ll know when),
the kids are free to make up any story they like about those
ugly parts.

# 35 Roc Rizzo said, on July 18th, 2007 at 7:45 am

I miss Frank Zappa so much.
He was a genius in his music, as well as his intellect.
It showed in his music, which I listen to quite frequently.
I saw him in concert many times, and never was let down. He never did a bad show. Even on stage, he was a genius.

Too bad there aren’t more of him.

This interview, though old, shows his genius shining through.

# 36 Shubee said, on July 18th, 2007 at 9:08 am

#31. #32. The dragon is Satan. The “beast” is antichrist. The “false prophet” is the religious right. All these powers are evil. The antichrist power is in the middle of the war between Satan and apostate Christianity and offers himself as a mediator and controller for the two extreme opposites.

# 37 hhopper said, on July 18th, 2007 at 9:10 am

John Lofton makes my skin crawl.

# 38 RBG said, on July 18th, 2007 at 9:55 am

37. Lighten up, they’re just ‘words.” Words. What’s that?

34. Or instead listen to cool people who’s words are set to cool music. I have it on good authority that even adults get sucked in on that one.

RBG

# 39 Bigby said, on July 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am

Zappa’s prophecy: America is moving toward a fascist theocracy – how true and obvious that seems today.

# 40 ECA said, on July 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm

I liked the part about hitler, using WORDS…
Hitler also SHOT alot of people to make THEIR words GO AWAY.
Dissenting words, are always there, and if not heard…Its like reviewing products…There is a PRO and a CON…nothing is perfect. As long as it does WHAT I want, I dont care what it DONT do.

# 41 octar said, on July 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

dvorak, you are awesome for posting this up. it’s funny to watch zappa in this context.

31 et al – you guys should read up on apocalyptic literature of the first century and you’ll find this all a bit differently.

39- yeah, that made me laugh.

# 42 simplesimon said, on July 18th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Compare these two groups, each of two phrases:
“Wow, that was bitchin’!” and “F*#^%in sweet!”

“You horrible nasty slug of a woman!” and “I had sex with a goat”.

Which statements are the more damaging, unpleasant, or what you’d want to protect your kids from? (The author makes no claims for or against sexual activity with goats — that is for another discussion)

That said, if there was to be any regulation or censorship, I’d rather see it protect against messages than against certain lexical tokens which can be (and already have been) replaced with others that convey the same meaning. However, this would then spark the debate of whether people should be able to voice their thoughts and opinions regardless of how damaging they are — that idea, as the goats, is for another discussion as this discussion is simply in regard to the censorship of words.

I think if we would all pay more attention to what we were really saying — rather than hiding behind the more convenient idea that we can say anything as long as it avoids certain character strings — we’d all be a lot better off. This can be done without government intervention.

That said, I also believe that using words traditionally labeled as “bad words” should be avoided when around crowds of people, particularly the elderly, who obviously object to them. It is not because the words are bad but merely a matter of respect, putting them before yourself, desiring to spare them the mental jarring that comes with being so blatantly and casually offended.

+ 2c

# 43 Jägermeister said, on July 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Zappa was a bright man who died way too early.

As for John Lofton, Washington Times… a newspaper that was founded by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church. No wonder mr. Lofton is a little bit twisted.

# 44 bobbo said, on July 18th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

42—You think certain “idea” should be censored rather than the words used to express those ideas?

Other than screwing ugly women, what other ideas should be banned?

# 45 RBG said, on July 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

44. How about
[content violation - ed]
Or
[rules violation - ed]

and 42, simplesimon, you’re nothing but a little
[content violation -ed] with your [content violation - ed] in Mr. [rules violation - ed] Fusion’s [really bad content violation -ed].

The world can just [eeeewww - ed] as far as I’m concerned.

RBG

# 46 ECA said, on July 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I like the guy TRYING to make the WHOLe thing about Zappa and HIS morals, rather then debateing WORD content.

I would have also let him understand that the AGE of consent and marriage WAS about 12 years old…NOT to long ago.

# 47 BertDawg said, on July 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Trouble Comin’ Every Day – the more things change, the more they stay the same. Way too many people who TALK about freedom without actually THINKING about it.

# 48 mark said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pm

45. Sheesh, I’m more interested in what RBG had to say now. Its just WORDS ya know?

# 49 BertDawg said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Me too

# 50 BertDawg said, on July 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

What happened to the “uncensored” part of Dvorak Uncensored? It’ll be interesting to see if this makes it through…
[C'mon BertDawg, that's just flat out gross. - ed.]

# 51 hhopper said, on July 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

That was RBG playing around.

# 52 RBG said, on July 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

45. You all know me. You all know what I stand for. And I say we shouldn’t stand for this shabby treatment of our liberties, the erosion of our natural rights, and antediluvian annulment of our freedoms of expression by the mandarins and fat cats and the self-appointed censors who run this blog. Sure they got me, but who’s to say who’s next?

In the words of a great American… “They’re just words…” And words are all I have. To take your heart… away.

All I know is that you’ve got to get mad.

You’ve got to say, “I’m a human being. God Dammit, my life has value.” So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out, and yell, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Don’t tread on me! Resistance is Fertile! If we don’t hang together, we’ll hang separately! Alright, men. Over the top! Let’s get these bums!

RBG

# 53 mark said, on July 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

52. Lol , well done.

# 54 bobbo said, on July 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm

29–Speaking of words, and the eternal quest to plant seed, the following has worked for me, but not in NYC (tough crowd up there!)

“Sticks and stones can break your bones, but only words can break your heart.” Say this in front of a mirror until you don’t laugh or smirk, and it will work with 90% of any divorcee you meet.

# 55 simplesimon said, on July 19th, 2007 at 5:07 am

44, bobbo -

I never said that I desire the censorship of ideas. Let me try to rephrase what seems to have come across wrong:

I said that if there would have to be any censorship — if I had to choose something — then I’d prefer the censoring of [negative or damaging messages] rather than the [futile] attempt to ban [an arbitrary and variable list of "wordy dirties"].

I also said that the idea of censoring those negative or damaging messages is then an entirely separate discussion from whether to ban a list of words. Yesterday, and still today, I would refrain from having that discussion in this environment. I don’t think that either side can express a decent shot at their argument without starting a flame war, nor could either side likely do a good job explaining their view succinctly enough for blog comment standards (even this is getting lengthy). It simply would not go anywhere.

Having clarified that, I will answer your question anyway. If it were to come about that something had to be censored, there are certain messages that I would hope everyone could agree on. For example, the unprovoked killing of random strangers. However, just because that’s on my list and I hope everyone would agree, who is to say? This would bring about yet a third discussion in regard to who could be appointed to construct the list and be trusted not to let personal opinion, culture, and religion have influence? Also, would it mean that fiction writers would have to stop writing dark stories where the villains do or advocate the banned messages?

It’s important to treat separate discussion separately, even when there is a relation. You can’t say that the answer to one discussion being difficult or even impossible counts for or against another. It’s perfectly valid to come to a conclusion that something would be beneficial, even if another line of reason shows that it is impossible. It’s also valid to conclude that something would be detrimental or neutral in effect even if someone could do it.

So let me just rephrase my previous comment, in regard to the primary discussion (ban a list of words?), without the confusion of secondary or tertiary arguments sprouting out of it:
The big F word that everyone gets so crazy about can be used to provide encouragement, express awe, enhance sexual experience (come on, you know that some of you like that kind of talk), and a variety of other positive uses despite its social stigma.
The word “chair” can be used to express violence, and the word “hump” can be used to describe a variety of practices that most would find offensive regardless of their culture or religion.
The banning of a certain list of words would be futile, since the same harm can be done with any variety of “good words”, and now that I think about it, even with a carefully crafted dirty look.
Therefore, maybe the key is for each person to take a personal interest to watch what they say, not necessarily which words they use.

As an aside, my personal experience has shown that the concept of “bad words” seems to do little more than (1) vilify those who choose to use them (or even let them “slip out”) and (2) give people the impression that it’s OK to belittle someone or spread hate, just so long as they use the right vocabulary. (1) is not so bad but (2), I think (personally and without trying to insert it into mass adoption or advocating that it influence government or cultural guidelines) that it is a dangerous notion.

# 56 bilzebub said, on July 19th, 2007 at 5:33 am

#5,6,8
Actually the neo-con movement, as an intellectual thang, dates back to Leo Strauss at the Univ of Chicago in the 1950s. His pupils and followers, on finding it tough to break into the liberal academic establishment, went instead to Washingtonin the 1960s. They believed that liberalism is ultimately self-defeating, as it [like Socrates himself perhaps] only criticises existing knowledge and “builds without a foundation”, essentially leaving America without a moral foundation. They were idealists in the sense that they thought that liberal ideas, rather than capitalist economics, was eroding the “social consensus” that made America a unified thing. So they proposed, after their mentor’s teachings, that a “Noble Lie” could unite the country again, and help them undo the damage that pragmatism a la Kissinger was doing to the country. That lie was religion, and in 1979 they hooked themselves up to Reagan’s campaign, persuaded him to court the Christian evangelicals (who had largely never before voted because gov’t was unredeemable) and the neo-con mass movement was born. The Straussian neo-cons themselves (Wolfowitz, Perle etc, who had no mass following of their own) were just using the religious right as ’soldiers’ to make America ‘whole’ again, inculcating fear of moral ‘evils’ wherever possible to try to change mass public opinion. They got Rumsfeld and Cheney along on a coat-tail power trip ride. Reagan himself was lukewarm to much of their concerns, even to the notion that the USSR was an ‘evil empire’ — it took a lot of cajoling to get him to abandon the Kissinger line that had dominated since Johnson’s time.

# 57 Geoffrey Knobl said, on July 19th, 2007 at 5:51 am

#6 is both right and wrong. This isn’t the birth but it is one of the first signs of neocons raising their ugly head. This is just one of many examples during the the RayGun era.

On the other hand, to say that neocons don’t believe in censorship and to say that they are liberals is both ridiculous and a lie. It also either displays one of the chief techniques neocons use – saying the opposite of what is true boldly and assertively, just like Machiavelli advocated – or is woefully ignorant of reality. So, either you are and simpleton who is in need of education or you are a neocon continuing the neocon lies.

Zappa identified one of the chief concerns we should all have paid attention to back then with his fascist theocracy line. Where he failed was that religion is just a tool and not really followed by the chief fascists in our government. But that is a small failure. If you look at Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler and many others, they all use some type of religion in a similar manner. With Stalin it was veneration of himself, as in a cult of personality, that worked very handily as a substitute for radical christianity. And he extended this in many ways. But it’s all really the same thing.

# 58 BertDawg said, on July 19th, 2007 at 5:53 am

#50 – (ed.) – Perhaps, but the message (to censors everywhere) WAS, at least, succinct – until YOU censored it.

The trouble with that is that coprophelia (like any other offensive thing) doesn’t cease to exist just because you censor it.

I’m with Frank Zappa (and George Carlin, et al) on this. Words (and ideas, or paintings) are just means of communication, but I guess we as a society prefer to communicate with missiles, bullets and bombs. It’s a little depressing. Our nation was built on the principles of freedom, including freedom of speech.

A few relevant quotes:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Voltaire

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Goethe

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” ~ Voltaire

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” ~ William O. Douglas

Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~ Lenny Bruce

# 59 Man of Leisure said, on July 19th, 2007 at 6:05 am

#54, a gun pointed to the head works 100% of the time.

# 60 bilzebub said, on July 19th, 2007 at 6:50 am

#57 ["to say that neocons ...are liberals is both ridiculous and a lie"]
Well, neocons ARE liberals in the classical sense of the word: they advocate free markets, at least as they understand the term ‘free’. They are not Liberals in the post-new deal sense of welfare liberalism or optimism about the perfectability of Man. They are caught in one of the classic contradictions of capitalism, though: markets, as they churn ineluctably ‘forward’, eat up all stable social formations in their path. So it is pointless to try to impose the stability of social norms via this kind of censorship, etc; it’s just p*ssing in the wind (can i write that word?!).

# 61 RBG said, on July 19th, 2007 at 8:06 am

59. A gun? It’s just atoms, people. Atoms. Why are you afraid of atoms? It’s atoms. Atoms. Atoms. Atoms. That’s all. Atoms.

56. I wonder if ordinary people from the ’40s, ’50’s & ’60’s knew they were neocons for disagreeing with Zappa’s premise?

58. Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~ Lenny Bruce

No, it just means instead you have to back up your talk with reason instead of just intimidation.

To quote another American:
@#%*%, you %$#@*!!!! – 7 year old Timmy

RBG

# 62 bobbo said, on July 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am

55–You cut a fine line between advocacy and being irrelevant.

59–Thats not speech, or “words” the theme of this thread.

# 63 Mr. Fusion said, on July 19th, 2007 at 9:56 am

#61, RBG,

To quote another American:
@#%*%, you %$#@*!!!! – 7 year old Timmy

Well said. In fact, I’m quite sure I know that kid. Not quite in the same league as Voltaire or Franklin, but damn, some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth.

# 64 bilzebub said, on July 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

61, “I wonder if ordinary people from the ’40s, ’50’s & ’60’s knew they were neocons for disagreeing with Zappa’s premise?”
Ummm, I imagine “ordinary people” believe(d) a lot of different things, but I’m not sure what your point is — ordinary versus what? Extra-ordinary?! Egghead? A lot of what ordinary people think is and has been manufactured for them by elites (“1940s. 50s?”check out HL Mencken), or otherwise by “received wisdom” (misquoting Einstein: common sense is the sum total of prejudices acquired to the age of eighteen). But anyway, “ordinary people”, wherever they get their political phlosophy from, have a philosophy, even if it’s inarticulate or unexamined. The only way to understand it though, is to link it to wider, historical intellectual trends. I’m an ordinary person and wouldn’t think that I understood , say, contemporary art, without bothering to look into some art history.

# 65 RBG said, on July 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

My point is that you can ascribe the anti-Zappa feelings to some sinister “neo-con” movement if you like but clearly these attitudes have been a discrete part of American society for a very long time. Where Americans got this from is irrelevant to my point as is the exact statistic on such things.

RBG

# 66 pedro said, on July 20th, 2007 at 9:29 am

I finally got to see the video and what I have to say is that it shows a conversation going nowhere in 2 seconds flat.

Each position more stupid and indefendable than the other. The only point I give Zappa is for foretelling the future of the US.

And Novak and the other guy playing both Zappa & the glass-eyed man like bulldogs in an arena. And succeeding at it.

You can see Zappa’s distress/frustration at the whole conversation just as much or even more than the other guest’s.

# 67 Mark D said, on July 24th, 2007 at 8:13 am

Whatever you think of Novak, both he and Braden ended up with pretty much the same (logical) viewpoint.

In the years since, Lofton (no longer with the Times) has been relegated to the fringe position where he hates both the neo-conservatives and the liberals. His viewpoints include the notion that women and non-christians should not hold public office. He is, for all intents, irrelevant.

And of course, Frank Zappa (whose views sounded very libertarian to me…which is pretty much where I fall in all this and that makes me happy) will always be known for his groundbreaking music and his extraordinary mind–so I’d say all is well.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!