GONE BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN

[RocDoc]

that's doyle the guitarist's dad, innit?

and i never knew of jackie leven until i googled him just now....and the news there is bad.
he did die.

both in thei
r early 60s....along with wurzel.

[maarts]

Damn....well, according to his website he was ill for quite some time.

A Scottish singer-songwriter with a damned, poetic soul.

[maarts]

The great Andy Tielman passed away last week at the age of 75 years.

Andy and his three brothers and one sister started their band the Tielman Brothers who were considered one of the hottest bands in the Netherlands in the 50s and 60s. Their incendiary liveshows were the first real taste the Dutch had of what rock 'n roll and surf could bring. Starting their musical careers in the late 40s in their native Indonesia where they played for occupational Dutch forces and Soekarno alike they migrated in 1957 where they started to play local clubs- getting noticed for their antics onstage- playing guitars with their teeth, synchronized movements and acrobatic acts involving bass and drums. Their first record, Record Hop was even considered too rough' for Dutch radio!



Later on they infused more of their native Indonesian musical styles into their music, marrying it with rock and what crooners like Elvis, Bobby Rydell and Perry Como did to a Krontjong 'n Roll-style that appealed to expat-Indonesians and Dutch rockers alike. Their shows appealed to masses of young rockers in the 60s, influencing the Hague-scene. Oddly it was in Germany where their quality and success where appreciated even more, they signed record deals there and played many festivals. Andy, who was the main focus of the band was like an indo-Gene Vincent, magical and amazing onstage guitarplay. The band scored not too many hits, the last one, Little Bird was in 1967 but by that time they had gained a respectable status as one of the forebears of the burgeoning rock 'n roll-scene.

Andy kept on going strong, releasing solo-albums in the 90s and naughties and performing live well into this year, at 75 years of age, still entertaining.




Andy passed away November 10, cancer slayed one of the foremost Indonesian/Dutch musicians with an impressive musical creer spanning 63 years! RIP mate, you have been inspirational.

[Ayinger]

I've seen clips of these guys (believe it was old b&w footage)! Yow -- soooo right in your descriptions Maarts....they served it up piping hot! The shame is that I doubt if I would've even recalled his name at first and associated it with the music he made....criminal that the likes of his goes too often by the wayside.

[maarts]

One of the best footballers I ever had the pleasure to watch- the mighty Brazilian team from the early 80s. While not as successful as the Pele-era team it was a sublime pleasure to watch this gifted football player in a team that boasted so many great players- Zico, Eder, Falcao..... I still remember that epic match in the '82-World Cup against Italy that they lost 3-2 and where he scored the opening goal (still one of the best matches I ever watched- Socrates looked like George Best in appearance, his lanky frame ever so easily moving up the field!).
Even though they had some great players in years to come to take out the World Cup in 1994 and 2002, the teams they had ever since the legendary early days never seemed to have the same contingent of quality like they had in those days. I grew up adoring the style of play and Socrates, the playmaker was one of the best in the business.

He died today of an intestinal infection in Sao Paulo, aged 57. RIP to one of the true greats.

[RocDoc]

whoa, definitely a magician with that ball...those couple of goals shown here where he was right in front of the net, catches the ball on his chest, lets it roll down his body spins around and bangs it in, with TWO defenders on him.
and the bunch of blind passes they showed, man he sure played.

[RocDoc]

Christopher Hitchens died - ouch.

i guess the suffering needed to finish, poor guy.
62. he should have done better if there was any justice.

i salute his wonderful spirit and i will sorely miss his fully-reasoned political opinions.

Rest In Peace Mister Hitchens.

[JACkory]

Why "ouch"?

He was a good writer. I don't know that I'd consider hes political opinions "fully-reasoned" and I certainly don't agree with his hostile stance toward religion in general, but he was talented. Not much of a debater, IMO, but I don't think he was cut out for the stage. He wrote a couple of articles in Vanity Fair a couple of years ago in which he examined his health situation and it's consequences in light of his atheism. He wanted no pity and loathed the thought that someone would "pray for him" in the hour of his need. Even so he maintained friendships with believers who did just that. He was every bit as "stubborn" with his unbelief as Billy Graham is with his belief.

At any rate, he's left behind a legacy. We shall see whether it stands or falls as the years roll on.

One last thing...I guess it's in the way you look at it, but I don't think of cancer as if it were an injustice. It's a terrible thing and it cuts people down in their prime (my dad died of cancer), but it is not a vehicle of judgment.

[RocDoc]

oh boy, why man? why?
everything's fair game for this prick.
mournfulness, eulogizing, nothing's off the table.

no jac, no experience with cancer in MY life ever so you sure own this based on your Dad, certainly.
why, congratulations! YOU WIN!
[ / sarcasm ]

what, are you stupid? (...however large an effort i SHOULD make to just not respond to these categorically idiotically mean-spirited point a through c insipidness - ah well)

but no, i won't becasue everyone else that's ever been here thinks this shithead oughta be just left to his devices -

what, are you fucking stupid?

look joan de arc, recognize and fully understand that no-one escapes cancer affecting their friends or families these days, period, so where intF you got the balls to say this i don't know - you got to be a blithering fool to NOT understand that i've seen it up close and personal in my OWN family and in countless families i'm close to...and that nearly every godblesset person in any population center in the U.S. has.

i knew he was sick; i knew it was cancer - i read him, i've followed him for years.

and i was nowhere near saying it was the cancer BEING the 'injustice', just that ANY good compassionate mind (the likes of hitchens' especially, no matter wtf axe you're attempting to grind here) being stilled at 62 fucking sucked.
a dropped 2 ton anvil, a sudden coronary?
ALL 'injustices', ALL of them, at 62 how about?

'why 'ouch'?'
what a stupid asshole - read what i wrote.

you write 'why 'ouch'?' and then YOU question whether the sum total of someone else's opinions (a dead guy's to boot) are 'fully reasoned'? and without blinking?
shit, the light of self-recognition SHOULD light NYC for a month.
you freaking ass.

[JACkory]

Damn, Doc. Maybe you should read what I wrote another 50 times until you get it through your thick head that there was nothing in it that warranted such a fiery scree. Why don't you settle down a little bit and actually THINK about what you've just read instead of whipping out such displaced self righteousness on the spur of the moment.

[RocDoc]

Dec 21, 2011 22:00:07 GMT -5 JACkory said:

....there was nothing in it that warranted such a fiery scree.
...

'why 'ouch'?' was your header - as in 'why the fuck does hitchens death possibly bother you?' then you proceed to minimize him through your (here unreliable) mental filters.

and then perhaps your complete misreading (shoulda read it again yourSELF jac) of whether i thought 'cancer' as an entity was the injustice in hitchens' case.

which i fully explained within my screeD, and which your usual 'what did I do?' disingenuousness mean whatever substantive there IS to comment on in what i wrote, ideas you actually COULD choose to say something about (basically the ones pinning your bullshit down) MUST remain ignored out of some sort of 'i'll just ignore it and besides no-one else will say a word ANYway, so in my fantasy, i'll remain 'righteous' not him.'

good god, i mean what is 'but I don't think he was cut out for the stage.' supposed to mean when a guy is as unflappably erudite in ANY situation as hitchens was, if NOT just another (here it's yours) way of saying 'yeah and he was ugly too'.

yeah i DID just read what you wrote again and sorta missed that one.

you chose to shit me AND a dead guy on multiple levels and just say 'wha?'...and that no-one wishes to add comment of course makes you assume it guarantees you the floor here.

~

<sub>Requiem for a contrarian

Clarence Page

December 18, 2011

Only once since my foolish adolescence do I recall actually feeling fortunate to be a smoker, a truly insidious addiction that I have since kicked. It was the slightly chilly Washington evening on which I was joined during a smoke break at a friend's birthday party by Christopher Hitchens, one of the few people who can be called a journalist-intellectual without it sounding like a punch line.

How ironic that memory now seems upon hearing the news Thursday that the simultaneously celebrated and vilified curmudgeon had died at 62 after a long, highly publicized bout with esophageal cancer, an ailment that his smoking certainly didn't help. Yet, how like Hitch it was for the famous self-described contrarian to remain a symbolic last-man-standing, even against clean air.


This was the author, after all, of numerous books and essays, most recently for Slate, Vanity Fair and the Atlantic Monthly, taking on such varied targets as Henry Kissinger, Princess Diana, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore and even — Gasp! — Mother Teresa.

Yet, while admitting he brought it upon himself, he was constantly irritated by those who mentioned those high-value targets without noting what he criticized them for. For example, he went after Mother Teresa for among other things, "her warm endorsement of the Duvalier regime in Haiti." Even so, Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter told NPR that the magazine received hundreds of complaints and subscription cancellations, including from some members of his staff.

Although I frequently disagreed with Hitchens I admired his courage, his exhaustive research and his relentless logic. As much as you will read elsewhere about his addiction to against-the-current, in-your-face arguments and polemical put-downs, he was quite the opposite in my brief encounter with him.

And he was full of surprises. It seemed at first that he had refused or forgotten the host's request to bring, instead of gifts, a poem to read at the party. But when his turn came, he smoothly recited a touchingly appropriate work by William Butler Yeats without hesitation or a hint of uncertainty. This brought applause and a request for an encore, which he granted without the blink of an eye. He seemed to have a library of literature in his head.

A mutual friend who had been one of his editors later told me that "Hitch" had a photographic memory. He also had a talent for doing remarkable things without sleep.

Such was his legend. He was admired by fellow Washington scriveners in the way that other raconteurs like Hunter Thompson were admired, although fortunately without the same streak for self-destruction.

Yet Hitchens also was vilified. He parted company with the liberal The Nation magazine after expressing support for President George W. Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, and the later invasion of Iraq.

He refused to be a lackey for the left or the right, despite concerted efforts by both sides. Unlike the abundance of popular commentators who predictably take one ideological side or the other, he courageously surprised everyone with his eloquent independence, even when it cost him friends.

How did he respond to criticism, some of it quite inaccurate? "The brief answer is that I have become inured without becoming indifferent," he wrote in "Letters to a Young Contrarian," a 2001 book. "I attack and criticize people myself; I have no right to expect lenience in return."

That's good because he didn't get it, especially when he took on the almighty himself with his atheist polemic, "God is not great." Many people asked him, he said, whether he was having second thoughts about God and the possibilities of an afterlife after hearing that his own life was about to end. Did he feel, as the old joke goes, like he was all dressed up with no place to go?

No, he dismissed such a possibility that personal emotions might overwhelm his rational side. He remained consistent, working hard and turning out more provocative prose until his end, including some poignantly brilliant insights into such symbolism-rich developments as the loss of his speaking voice. He never lost his spirit, as far as I could tell, as he turned out prose that stands as a lasting gift to those he leaves behind.

Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/pagespage

[e-mail]</sub>

[JACkory]

Well, oh prescient one, you could not be more wrong as to what I meant when I asked you to explain what you meant by "ouch"...and note that I DID ask you to explain it. There was no second guessing or implied insult. "Ouch" could have meant a lot of things, but interpreting it as some kind of statement about the qualifications necessary for you to be bothered by his death is pretty damn far off the mark.

I figured you were just saying, in effect, this is where the rubber hits the road, you know. The man without beliefs finally gets to find out if he was right or wrong. Like, "ouch, either way that's gotta hurt". That's how I read it, at least. And I knew it was most likely that I'd read it wrong, but I thought I'd ask because it looked like it might could be an interesting subject and who knows but that we might have an enlightening discussion.

But hey, forgive me. I had no idea that you were so close to Christopher Hitchens' death.

Secondly, I DID NOT MINIMIZE HITCHENS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM...I don't know how the hell you got that. I said I didn't agree with his hostile stance on religion...where's the minimalization in that? His stance on religion was about as hostile as it gets. I didn't agree with it. Where's the belittling? I said that, IMO, he was not much of a debator and I said this because I have watched him debate William Lane Craig on more than one occassion about the origin of the universe. From my perspective he never won any of those debates and who knows but that he's won many, many others against different opponents but I can only base my opinions upon what I have seen. The articles I mentioned were quite well written and his words were thought-provoking enough to prompt me to contemplation. Okay, so far...where have I slandered him? I said he was staunch in his non-belief and yet had the good graces to cultivate friendships with people who practiced religion (which, you have to admit is kind of ironic because the New Atheists mission is to eradicate religion completely). I gave him credit for holding fast to his ideals and compared him to Billy Graham as they both displayed integrity in their respective "faiths". Or maybe you read the word "stubborn" and thought I was saying he was bull-headed? What's wrong with you, Doc? And it's for THIS that I deserve such damnation in your "response"?

I said Christopher Hitchens left behind a legacy. Surely we can agree on that (then again, you probably agreed with everything I said in that post, you just didn't know it). As I see it, his legacy is not confined to his letters and published works. His legacy is the prime motivating factor in his life, and that was the proselytization of atheism and the mission call to wipe out even the concept of religion from the face of the planet. So...will that legacy stand, I ask you? Will it fall? Time will tell. Is this what has so offended you?

I don't have a problem with Christopher Hitchens. If I was going to slag him in death I would certainly have not have been transparent about it. I wouldn't do that. I didn't agree with him but I respect his right to believe what he wanted to believe without judgment.

I won't apologize for my comment about cancer. I'm positive that you've mis-read it, too, but I will concede that you're probably viewing from a different angle than I am.

If God is our judge, and for some reason I was under the impression that you believe this as well as I (forgive me if I'm wrong), then you have to concede that He judges us using the same yardstick. We aren't given time as a reward or punishment for transgressions, as we are all guilty, God is no respecter of persons, and there is no sin that is any better or worse than the other. Therefore God doesn't use cancer, or AIDS, or any terminal illness as a vehicle of judgment. Christopher Hitchens, for example, has not been judged any more severely than the 99 year old in the nursing home who dies of natural causes BASED ON THE MEANS OF THEIR PASSING. If it were so then you would have to conclude that there is NO justice.

I'm sure you'll let me know, in no uncertain terms and with the most venom possible, whether or not you agree with me on that. Hopefully you read this post with a bit more diligence than the last, not so ready to pounce, but if you still think I'm of the mind you seem to think I am, well...what am I gonna do? Insult you?

Pah.

[JACkory]

Oh, and you could have saved the time c&ping the Hitchens memorial or obituary or whatever it was. I'm quite familiar with Christopher Hitchens...were it not so I would not have written anything about him on this board.

[RocDoc]

pah indeed.
the fucking pretense of again repeating MY supposed misinterpretation of cancers with respect to 'justice', trying AGAIN to squeeze my initial statement into your own chosen narrow definition - 'God doesn't use cancer, or AIDS, or any terminal illness as a vehicle of judgment'.
i mean wtf's wrong with you?
in my statement, i did not give a fuck about 'god's' justice like you're harping on about; nothing there was about it, c'mon man. READ motherfucker.
OK perhaps (like your disingenuousness...or stupidity, you pick it) your thought processes didn't pick it up on the initial reading of my first completely innocent post (beginning with 'ouch'), you asssuming i was 'cleverly' skewering him for his antitheism EVEN THOUGH my 2nd to last line made eminently clear (to a logical mind) that i wasn't up for skewering ANYone there.
and you start in with a 'well why the fuck 'ouch' big guy?'
you idiotically took up this 'fight', on your own, BEGAN it - i then explained myself again, the non-god, non-EARNED aspects of CH's death as i'd expressed it....and you of course need to write another 10 paragraph rejoinder filled with even MORE blatant misinterpretations to see if 'ha, well doc's gonna keep right on going now ain't he?'...oh well, another thread blown while you poke away, eh?
ah, in caps yet, that you'd not minimized hitchens, not in the least, writing anything you did - your act of merely verbalizing 'well, why the fuck 'ouch' then? hitchens wadn't shit - my pastor licked 'im. and he AIN'T no public speaker neither!' - that's some tasty bile, period...it sure as fuck was a good start, even with such token 'fair-minded' backpedalling you subsequently attempted.

the C&P was an anecdotal remembrance by one of the masthead editorialists at the chicago tribune, with the idea of showing the fairness and peacemaking qualities hitchens was capable of, in that people disagreeing with him saw LOTS to admire as well, which you did mention in a pro forma 'well he wasn't ALL bad'-manner.

as a pretty areligious person, i'm also FAR from anti-religious either and HATE liberals whitewashing religions especially x-tianity/catholicism down the line as a fully corrupt evil, and still i liked his manner and his reasoning in 99% of his writings, because i see a healthy cynicism as, well, healthy .

i saw LOTS to admire.

~

countering with opinion to neutralize your bile (via wiki):

<sub>Reactions to death

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "Christopher Hitchens was a complete one-off, an amazing mixture of writer, journalist, polemicist, and unique character. He was fearless in the pursuit of truth and any cause in which he believed. And there was no belief he held, that he did not advocate with passion, commitment and brilliance. He was an extraordinary, compelling and colorful human being whom it was a privilege to know."[181]

Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford and a friend of Hitchens', said, "I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants including imaginary supernatural ones."[181]

Norman Finkelstein, an American political scientist and author, wrote, "When I first learned that Hitchens was diagnosed with an excruciating and terminal cancer, it caused me to doubt my atheism. The news came just as Hitchens was about to go on a book tour for his long-awaited memoir. It was as if he was setting out on his victory lap when the adulating crowds were supposed to fawn over him and—wham!—his legs were lopped off at the kneecaps. The irony could not be more perfect: the god that the vindictive but witty Mr. Hitchens made a career scoffing at turns out to be...vindictive but witty. When I heard that Hitchens was dead, I took a deep breath. The air felt cleaner, as if after a 40-day and 40-night downpour." Finkelstein also added, "I get no satisfaction from Hitchens’s passing. Although he was the last to know it, every death is a tragedy, if only for the bereft child—or, as in the case of Cindy Sheehan, bereft parent—left behind.[182]

Sam Harris, an American writer and neuroscientist, wrote, "I have been privileged to witness the gratitude that so many people feel for Hitch’s life and work—for, wherever I speak, I meet his fans. On my last book tour, those who attended my lectures could not contain their delight at the mere mention of his name—and many of them came up to get their books signed primarily to request that I pass along their best wishes to him. It was wonderful to see how much Hitch was loved and admired—and to be able to share this with him before the end. I will miss you, brother."[183]

Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health and the former head of the Human Genome Project who helped treat Hitchens' illness, wrote, "I will miss Christopher. I will miss the brilliant turn of phrase, the good-natured banter, the wry sideways smile when he was about to make a remark that would make me laugh out loud. No doubt he now knows the answer to the question of whether there is more to the spirit than just atoms and molecules. I hope he was surprised by the answer. I hope to hear him tell about it someday. He will tell it really well."[184]

British columnist and author Peter Hitchens, who had a tumultuous relationship with his older brother Christopher, wrote that he and Christopher "got on surprisingly well in the past few months, better than for about 50 years as it happens," and praised his brother as "courageous."[185]

Irish-American political journalist Alexander Cockburn, founder of the left-wing[186][187][188] political magazine CounterPunch wrote an obituary critical of Hitchens, criticizing his support for the Iraq War, criticisms of Mother Teresa, and criticisms of their mutual friend Edward Said and concluded, "I found the Hitchens cult of recent years entirely mystifying. He endured his final ordeal with pluck, sustained indomitably by his wife Carol."[</sub>


well, 6 out of 7, not bad.

[JACkory]

Okay, doc. Fine. It's your world.