Scatalogical humor seems to prevail here.
Silly, Childish, Sick.
Incoherent ramblings of an overworked computer geek who rarely has the sense to keep his mouth shut!
As Paul Perry, one of his biographers put it: "He rides the edge at high speed while engaging in a mix of raucous verbal and gestural antics: hoax, legerdemain, gargantuan exaggeration, buffoonery, conscious alteration, threat, insult. ... He gets people hooked on him because he's fun, irresistible, liberating, infectious."
But once the fun was over, Thompson often made clear, he wasn't going to stick around and watch the janitors sweep up.
In George Plimpton's "Shadow Box," he imagines meeting death in a flaming car crash. In the introduction to his collected works in 1978, he jokes about leaping from a 28th-floor office window.
In a BBC documentary included with the "collector's edition" of the "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" DVD, he discusses plans for a giant monument on the back 40 of his ranch in Woody Creek, Colo. A hundred feet tall, it would include a cannon to fire a canister containing his ashes out over the valley.
All to the tune of Bob Dylan's "Mister Tambourine Man."
Perhaps his last truly great piece of writing ran in Rolling Stone's 10th-anniversary issue in 1977. Titled "The Banshee Screams for Buffalo Meat," it was a tribute to Oscar Acosta, "the Brown Buffalo," whose life had unraveled after the Vegas adventure with Thompson.
Rather than the "old, sick and very troubled man" he saw in the latter-day Hemingway, many will remember Thompson with the epitaph he bestowed on Acosta: "Too weird to live, too rare to die."
And always, dancing beneath the diamond sky, with one hand waving free.
What else could anyone say?
DON'T BLAME ME
Floating around the Internet these days, posted and
e-mailed back and forth, are a number of writings attributed to me, and I want people to know they're not mine. Don't blame me.
Some are essay-length, some are just short lists of one and two-line jokes, but if they're flyin' around the Internet, they're probably not mine. Occasionally, a couple of jokes on a long list might have come from me, but not often. And because most of this stuff is really lame, it's embarrassing to see my name on it.
We like pieces such as "The Paradox of Our Time" because they summarize all the problems of modern society into a neat laundry list of "What Has Gone Wrong" while presenting possible solutions by way of juxtaposition. The pairing of "We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values," for example, implies that increased affluence is responsible for a decline in morality and carries the underlying implication that if we turn our backs on the almighty dollar, our kids will no longer murder one another.
Clear-cut cause-and-effect pairings provide far more comfort than does accepting the harsh reality that we live in a world of no assurances at all, a world where bad things can happen at any moment, to anyone, for no discernable (and thus no preventable) reason. Our ancestors coped with that feeling of powerlessness by inventing myths about petty, lust-filled, vengeful gods who, even if they were capricious in their actions and insensible to the human misery their warring caused, were at least tangible entities who could be identified as the cause of otherwise unfathomable catastrophes. Our sophistication has loosed us from our belief in those myths, leaving us vulnerable to a sense of a world careening out of control.
Those intent upon taking inspiration from "Paradox" should consider the following: during Bob Moorehead's tenure as pastor of Overlake Christian Church, seventeen members of his congregation reported that he had sexually assaulted them. These allegations, which surfaced in 1997, prompted his resignation in 1998. After a year of publicly supporting Moorehead the church elders withdrew their support, their own investigation into the charges having led them to conclude their pastor had indeed been guilty of molesting a number of male churchgoers.
Take a close look at the commercial.
If you watch our commercial closely you will notice that what you see is no worse than what you might see while walking down the street on most summer days. For example:
1. Candice (the actress who performs in the commercial) is completely clothed. It’s true that she’s wearing a tank top. No part of Candice’s breasts are showing and it’s difficult to see any cleavage.
2. There were no close-ups of Candice that bared anything.
3. Candice made no suggestive moves during the commercial.
4. Candice said nothing during the commercial that was suggestive.
5. Anyone who takes a trip to the mall will see far more skin bared than what is seen in our commercial.
6. When one of Candice's spaghetti straps pop at the beginning the commercial, she catches it instantly and *nothing* is bared as a result.
7. Close-ups of the Philadelphia cheerleaders, right at the end of the 1st quarter, bared far more and were far more suggestive than anything that took place in our commercial.
8. There is nothing in our commercial inappropriate for a child to see.
What we are guilty of?
Here’s what we’re guilty of:
1. We selected a very attractive, well-endowed, 26 year old woman for our commercial.
2. We indirectly (by having her right spaghetti strap snap at the beginning of the commercial) referred to the Janet Jackson episode.
3. Our commercial was a parody of the censorship we are seeing today, and that’s something that certain people do not want in the public light.
Again, suppose that you are trying very hard to be objective, whatever you think that means. How do you do it? Reporting of necessity requires that a reporter make choices. Any choice constitutes a slant.
Do you write pleasant home-towners—boyish young Marine relaxing in the compound and remembering his high-school sweetheart waiting in Roanoke? Do you focus on the alert courage of our young men as they patrol the mean streets, etc? On the sniper who says he likes to shoot a man in the stomach so that his screams will demoralize the enemy, before maybe finishing him off? On the Marine with his eyes and half his face gone because of a roadside bomb? The twenty-seven Iraqis killed by a car bomb downtown? Beheadings? Where do you put your emphasis?
Usually journalists turn against wars. Why? Consult the foregoing paragraph. It is not because they are Commies. It is because they are there. After a few weeks on the ground, you will find yourself acquiring pronounced opinions about things. This is inevitable. No one short of a diagnosable psychopath remains emotionally remote.
Mon Jan 31, 7:20 AM ET
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.
The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.
Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little.