Comments on: Comments on 18179

Post number 18179

i_cola — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 03:35:49 -0800

Shoot the Dog, George Michael's latest release, will be accompanied by an animated video which lampoons the relationship between George Bush & Tony Blair. The UK Prime Minister appears as an obedient poodle and the video also features Mr Michael's attempts to get jiggy with the PM's wife, Cherie. Clips viewable via this Sky News report

'It could get slated, it could land me right in the shit, but I hope it just gets people debating because there's never been a more important time to talk than now' says the man who is no stranger to controversy following his dalliance in an LA toilet.

Here are the ABC & Reuters/Yahoo versions of the story but Lileks isn't impressed [scroll down a little] and offers a curmudgeonly run thru the lyrics.

This brings up the old chestnut of pop stars as political commentators and further questions regarding the US-UK-EU-RoW relationships, dissenting voices in these various times and, of course, whether the song is actually any good? And what does Bono think?

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 03:50:49 -0800

Pop is politics, i_cola. Nah, thanks for the fun and intelligence!

By: riviera

riviera — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 04:25:45 -0800

Can we ask Lileks to do a sarcastic run-through of this one too? Actually, let's not: he'd only be getting above himself.

By: kerplunk

kerplunk — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 04:27:26 -0800

A return for George Michael to the biting political commentary of his early work, Wham Rap.

By: grabbingsand

grabbingsand — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:06:18 -0800

hmm. haven't heard it, which is not surprising given that i haven't heard his last single on any radio since i last visited london in february.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 06:13:00 -0800

At least Bono puts his money where his mouth is. It's neither easy nor rock-star-glamerous to lobby congress and give press conferences on debt relief. George Michael, on the other hand, is just spouting off. I see no reason to give his opinion any more weight than your average Joe on the street ("opinions are like assholes...") Those who already agree with his opinion will continue to do so, and those who don't won't be convinced. A perfect wash, accomplishing nothing.

By: Faze

Faze — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 06:19:49 -0800

I got this cool idea you could have this like video and have like George Bush and Tony Blair jacking off in this public mens room and that would show what scummy assholes they are and no one would ever take their political opinions seriously ever again because the kind of people who jack off publicly in public toilets are just about the scum of the earth in just about anybody's opinion, so if you had like George Bush and Tony Blair jacking off that would like show you what assholes they were and that they had no right to tell anybody else what to do ever. This would be a pretty cool video, I think and would be shocking and controversial and probably get a lot of attention to whoever did it if anyone ever had like the guts to stand up to the CIA or whatever and like actually do it.

By: jeff-o-matic

jeff-o-matic — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:30:51 -0800

Brave Mr. Lileks takes on George Michaels. Riveting. Lilek has some interesting design and content on his site, but his 'Bleats' are exactly as billed - bleats. He's a boring middle class man who's overly used to having folks listen to him. He comes off as self-absorbed as George Michaels, and on an updated-daily basis.

By: insomnyuk

insomnyuk — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:33:02 -0800

It's interesting to note that Lileks is middle class. Would he be more boring or less boring if he were not middle class, or were you just mentioning it as a point of order?

By: jeff-o-matic

jeff-o-matic — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:45:27 -0800

I mention his status level because he contantly makes reference to being middle-class. His creaky old house, his kid(Gnat-how cute!), his car, etc.

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:52:10 -0800

He comes off as self-absorbed as George Michael, and on an updated-daily basis. When Lileks starts "waxing the dolphin" in a public restroom or creating bottom of the barrel pop music, I'll stop reading him. Until then, I'll dig his boringness. George Michael? He's still alive? Still relevant? Could have fooled me.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:00:59 -0800

In the article George says: "I've been advised that radio stations that rely on Government licenses might ban it - but I want it heard, not banned." Well then, if the goal is to have it heard, and not to turn it into an opportunistic cash cow...put it on the web, no?

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:07:37 -0800

George Michael? He's still alive? Still relevant? No, he's not. Which is exactly why we're hearing about how "controversial" he is. jeff-o-matic, sounds like you read Lileks an awful lot for someone who finds him so "boring."

By: shagoth

shagoth — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:09:57 -0800

Why are the sexual habits of George Michael even pertinent to the conversation? What's the point of projecting that on George and Tony? Metafilter forums often drag unrelated details into the discussion simply because they are sordid. I can't say as I get it.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:12:09 -0800

When Lileks starts "waxing the dolphin" in a public restroom or creating bottom of the barrel pop music, I'll stop reading him. Until then, I'll dig his boringness. Strange criteria for readability, surely. Why are the sexual habits of George Michael even pertinent to the conversation? Because they make immature people titter, of course!

By: insomnyuk

insomnyuk — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:26:23 -0800

"Why are the sexual habits of George Michael even pertinent to the conversation?" I guess for me, it just drops George Michael's credibility a few notches, you know, to the level of an average politician. It also makes his arguments easier to ignore.

By: i_cola

i_cola — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:32:24 -0800

If we're being accurate, shouldn't it be 'waxing someone else's dolphin'? Anyhow, back to the video pop pickers...

By: brownpau

brownpau — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:36:46 -0800

Faze's comment r0><0r3d my 50><0r2 in an all-your-base kind of way.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:03:05 -0800

(Dumb anchor link didn't work. Sorry.) I really don't understand why George Michael would, um, wax the dolphin in a public restroom just to come to the realization that he's bi. Likewise, I fail to see what kind of profound political message he could be trying to transmit with this latest bit of pop sophomorism; this seems more like a musical dolphin-waxing than anything else.

By: jeff-o-matic

jeff-o-matic — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:30:29 -0800

pardonyou?: I've read Lileks a few times, usually after he was referenced in a thread on Metafilter. Having liked some of his humorous archive of memorabilia, I read some of his bleats and found his common-man, aw-shucks-let's-return-to-1960 essays to be cringeworthy. In the same way The Family Circus and Bob Greene are cringeworthy. I return to him occasionally, the way your tounge returns to a sore on the inside of your mouth, even though it hurts. Okay, back to waxing the dolphin.

By: Jos Bleau

Jos Bleau — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:17:28 -0800

George Michaels' rants remind me Martina Navratalova's (and others) recent ones about the end of democracy and the stiffling of dissent. These are all very wealthy and priveldged people. I'd bet that these people live in 'gated communities' - not just physically, but pshycologically, in the sense that everyone in their world thinks and act and looks very much like them. But after 9/11 that changed - people in their little world actually disagreed with them, and said so. This has got to be quite shocking to someone who hasn't had to deal with it for a long time. So they react by ranting about how the neighborhood has changed for the worse. And saying how 'we need to understand those that hate us' without ever trying to understand or engage with those arround them who meerly disagree with them. Rich people who say they are oppressed usually aren't.

By: arielmeadow

arielmeadow — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:00:19 -0800

I'm confused: did George Michael claim to be oppressed? I thought he was just railing against policiticians, which rich people are allowed to do, just like us po' folk.

By: anildash

anildash — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:26:11 -0800

creating bottom of the barrel pop music I'm betting you haven't heard any of his recent stuff. His work the past decade, especially the past half-decade has been exceptionally good. Probably part of the reason he doesn't sell as well in the U.S. anymore. He's still as popular as ever overseas, which is saying a lot. And, yeah, he's being sensationalist. I think it's intriguing that pop stars get criticized for (1) not writing things of substance and (2) not knowing their place and trying to write about larger issues. For what it's worth, the sentiment he's expressing is actually quite conservative, he wants the U.K. to be more free of American influence just as the conservatives here don't want the U.S. to obey the jurisdiction of the international court. I'm not surprised nobody wants to discuss that idea and its merits.

By: jeff-o-matic

jeff-o-matic — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:29:20 -0800

"George Michaels wrote a dumb song. James Lileks wrote a dumb article. These top stories, along with complete footage of tonight's planned 'Sunset' tonight at 11."

By: rushmc

rushmc — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:44:56 -0800

George Michaels' rants remind me Martina Navratalova's (and others) recent ones about the end of democracy and the stiffling of dissent. Oh, I see, wealthy/famous people won't be affected by the end of democracy and the stifling of dissent, and therefore shouldn't comment on it.

By: mark13

mark13 — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:56:29 -0800

Ignore George Michael and he'll go away. Hey! It worked!

By: Jos Bleau

Jos Bleau — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:01:38 -0800

rushmc: The fact that we can freely read about the opinions of wealthy celebrities is exhibit A for them not being repressed, and that their dissent is not being stiffled. Remember, repression isn't when George Michaels isn't 'consulted' about British foriegn policy, as says in the Beeb article, it's when he gets put in jail for saying so. And then you only hear about through samizdat, not a government sponsored media outlet. Ans dissent isn't being stiffled just because others disagree with you publicly. Like I said, it just feels that way when you are not used to the intellectual monoculture of your community being challenged by some of those inside it, rather than by outsiders. Sure, its possible for dissent to be supressed in Western nations, and for people to be deprived of their public voice - but when it happens, it's not to the rich & priveldged whose complaints make the front pages.

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:16:03 -0800

No offense Anil but I'm just not a big GM fan. Probably that whole Wham thing threw me. I do appreciate your passion for the music however. rushmc. The less I hear pop stars speaking out on issues the better. More personal preference than anything. Hell, I wouldn't even have known he was still around had he not brought up the Bush/Blair issue in his own special little way (although I've read about in oh, 500 other places).

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:55:33 -0800

Jos Bleau, I wasn't suggesting that celebrities had been stifled or forbidden to dissent; I was simply commenting upon the attitudes of some that they should be. rushmc. The less I hear pop stars speaking out on issues the better. More personal preference than anything. I can certainly understand your reasons for feeling this way. However, at the same time, I think that there is some responsibility for those with soapboxes sufficient to get them into the public attention to use them. Responsibly. It's worth noting that George Michael's little statement has gotten more attention from more people worldwide than anything either you or I ever have said or ever will say, for example. That's power of a sort. What he does with it, of course, is up to him.