Good. Those with your hands raised may stay; the rest of you, get the heck off my website!!!

Only kidding. I realize that even the most die-hard Beatle fan can be a bit tardy on getting their new works. I also realize that some people want to wait for the reviews, to see if the releases are any good. Well, if you're interested (And I'm sure you are), here is MARY JANE'S take on the latest Beatles releases:

Perhaps the most controversial of the new Beatles releases is the de-Spectorized version of the Beatles' last (well, sort of) album, Let It Be. Let It Be...Naked, as it has been dubbed, is a stripped-down, de-mixed and re-mixed version of the album, which fully removes the infamous "Wall of Sound" administered by producer Phil Spector. For years, Paul McCartney has been barking about how Spector supposedly ruined the album and his songs by drenching them in orchestras and choirs. And, given that this album was originally supposed to be a "back to basics" approach to record-making, I can kind of see his point. However, for the most part, I never had much of a problem with Spector's production, except on "Across the Universe," which he (in my opinion) destroyed. But overall, I thought it was a fine album.

Now, after thirty-some years of listening to McCartney squawk, we finally get to hear how Let It Be, was "supposed" to sound.

And--surprisingly--it sounds pretty much the same. Go fig. With the exception of a few tracks, Let It Be...Naked is nothing more than a remastered version of Let It Be, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. When I first heard the opening rhythm of "Get Back" (Yes, "Get Back" opens this version), I was reminded just how well the Beatles could rock and roll. Now, here's a track-by-track analysis of the album, followed by some overall impressions of it:

• "GET BACK" - Basically the same as the original. The crisper sound is a definite pro, however a MAJOR con is the abrupt stop; the new producers (Paul Hicks, Guy Massey and Allan Rouse--see if you can remember any of those names tomorrow morning) cut the ending off the song, and that's a BAAAD thing. I definitely don't like this track, if only because of that weird ending.
• "DIG A PONY" - This is exactly the same as the original, and that's a good thing. A definite pro, but nothing really to write home about.
• "FOR YOU BLUE" - Another song that benefits greatly from the remastering. However, like "Dig a Pony," this one is exactly like the original.
• "THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD" - Okay--NOW we get to see something different!! "The Long and Winding Road" on this album has been majorly altered, and the removal of the Wall of Sound creates a striking difference. Can't say that I like it better than the original, but at best I like it just as much. The original was a sort of touching farewell, whereas this version is much more intimate and mournful. I like the little flute-like solo in the middle, which (if I'm not mistaken) sounds like it probably came from Billy Preston's keyboard. Another interesting thing about this version is that it really is a different version; it's a completely different take, with Paul altering some of the lyrics. As intriguing as it is to hear alternate takes, I cringe whenever anyone alters Beatles lyrics--even the Beatles themselves. Overall, though, it's a good track, but given that I've heard the original for so long, that's still the version I'll go to in the future.
• "TWO OF US" - This song is a very special one to me, and I'm very pleased to hear it in its newly-remastered form. Like much of the previous tracks, it's identical to the first version.
• "I'VE GOT A FEELING" - Unless I'm mistaken, this sounds like at least a couple different cuts edited together, one of which is the original, and the other...well...isn't. For the most part, it sounds identical to the original.
• "ONE AFTER 909" - I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, but this is another one which mirrors the first Let It Be, with one exception: After the lyric "I begged her not to go and I begged her on my bended knee," you can hear what sounds like either John or Ringo shout, "Yes I did!", which was clearly not there in the original. That leads me to believe that Phil Spector's production drowned it out originally, and I personally think it's pretty cool to finally be able to hear it. However, like "Get Back," it ends a bit too abruptly.
• "DON'T LET ME DOWN" - Now, when they re-did this album, they juggled the tracks around, deleted a couple of tracks, and added the B-side "Don't Let Me Down." The version here is much different than the single; it is (I believe) a couple of live versions done on the roof of the Apple building that have been spliced together. Nice alternate cut; interesting to hear. But not up to par with the original, and not really a Let It Be song.
• "I ME MINE" - Being a Harrison-head, I was chiefly interested in how they'd present his "I Me Mine," a favorite track of I, me and mine. ;) This version struck me right away: it's cleaner, and the background noise has been removed, leaving a much more raw sound. This sounds good for awhile...but the purist in me gets to missing the original mixing after a bit. I found it interesting that they did the same edit that Phil Spector originally did--doubling the bridge and last verse to make it longer--but they did it so that George says "All through your life" before the edit, as opposed to the original "All through the day." I realize you probably didn't care about that useless bit of trivia, but I felt like mentioning it.
• "ACROSS THE UNIVERSE" - As I said earlier, the only song on the original Let It Be that I found fault with was Spector's treatment of John's gorgeous "Across the Universe." After hearing the version on Past Masters, Vol. 2 without the doctoring, I was pretty sure Phil Spector was Satan for what he did to that song. He not only drowned the song in orchestration, but he also slowed down John's voice so that he sounded like some kind of ogre! The stripped-down version of "Across the Universe" is really the highlight of this entire album, presenting it in its simple, elegant original form. (However, I think I still like the version on Past Masters just a little bit better, if only because I'm more well-acquainted with it.
• "LET IT BE" - The title track closes out the new ("new") album, and in my opinion it sounds virtually the same as the original--which makes you wonder what McCartney was fussing about to begin with. I'm not really sure if this one is an alternate take or not, but George's guitar solo definitely sounds different (and arguably better!).

Overall, I think that Let It Be...Naked is hardly what McCartney and everybody else was building it up to be: some revolutionary new perspective on the album. Rather, with remixes and alternate takes, it seems more like an Anthology album for Let It Be--and if you look at it that way, it's a pretty darn good album. That's the way I see it; for I think most Beatles fans would probably agree that no re-mix and de-mix could replace the original Let It Be, in our hearts or in our stereos. I hope people appreciate the alternate takes and "Fly on the Wall" disc for what they are--basically stuff to add to the Anthology listing--and not just slam the album for not being as revolutionary as what it was hyped up to be.

Oh, and one more thing: the cover. I like it; it's the original photos from the Let It Be album, stripped back to the negatives, but there's one big problem: what's the deal with George's picture!? On the original album, he was looking up and smiling! Here, he's looking down and frowning! This is not anywhere close to being the same picture! What's the deal? Who can I sue? Huh? Huh? When can the litigation begin?

Well, I'm tired, so I'll review Lennon Legend and The Concert for George some other time. G'night! ;) And don't forget to get your copy of Let It Be...Naked!! We've gotta knock Britney off the charts!!

August 12, 2003 -
Well, did you hear the news? Did you hear the news about George Harrison's back-catalogue of albums being re-released early next year?

Olivia Harrison stated on the Official George Harrison website that they've finished remastering the tapes, and are getting ready to release them onto CD again! :):):) My happiness wells up inside me, spills over, and makes a really big mess!
And it was MY insightful posting on this website that was responsible for this!
No, really...it was! Really!
Don't I get money for this, or something?

CORRECTION - July 18, 2003 -
I would just like to take this opportunity to make a correction to one of my previous articles: In my May 29th writing, I printed a poem from John Lennon's poetry book In His Own Write called "Alec Speaking," and since this posting, I have been corrected on one of the statements I made in that article, which I now hope to rectify:

On May 29th, I stated that, beside the poem "Alec Speaking," there was a drawing of a large talking mosquito. However, my grandma not long ago corrected me on this.
She thinks it looks more like a frog with a beard.

Thus concludes this correction.

July 18, 2003 -
Here's a shout out to the folks in the recording industry: about this downloading stuff? You know what I have to say to you about that?
Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah!

Sure, it may sound a little mean-spirited, but the way I figure it, the record industry is getting what it deserves: You've made us waste our money all these years, now we're givin' ya' a taste of your own medicine!
Let me explain:

I used to download songs. USED TO. Stopped quite awhile ago, but I am open to admitting that yes, at one point, I was a downloading machine. But I stopped. I stopped because I realized that such an act was seriously hurting the recording industry.
And because I realized I might get sued.
Anyway, the reason I downloaded music was because it's very hard to find the music I like on CD. (LISTEN TO THIS, RECORD EXECS! LISTEN!)
99.9% of the music I listen to was recorded before the year 1980. A lot of them are one-hit wonders, or songs which were never very big hits. Because of this, I would have to go hunting like a rabid animal through mountains upon mountains of CD's for compilation albums that had a couple of the songs I wanted. This, despite being a major pain in the bum, is something that I am not completely above doing. In fact, as of late, I have begun searching for and buying albums with these downloaded songs on them. I am paying my debt back to the record business.

That being said, I have something else to add. Aside from the disgustingly high price of CD's and the difficulty in finding what I want, I have recently noticed yet another reason why I downloaded songs.
You ready for it?
THE RECORD COMPANIES STOPPED MAKING THE ALBUMS I LIKE!!

That's right--it's YOU! YOUR FAULT, record execs, it's all YOUR FAULT that I've been downloading songs.
My most-downloaded artists, so I've discovered, are the Traveling Wilburys, followed by George Harrison--two acts that have out-of-print albums. Many of Harrison's albums, such as Cloud Nine, 33 1/3, George Harrison, Somewhere in England and Gone Troppo are OOP, and have been that way for very, very many years; all of the Wilburys' material has been discontinued. Though I managed to find George's Cloud Nine second-hand for a reasonable price, an official (non-Russian bootleg) copy of 33 1/3 will run you anywhere from 80 to 150 dollars. The latter of those two figures is about a cheap as you can come by a copy of George Harrison or Somewhere in England, and as for Gone Troppo...

Well, let's not talk about Gone Troppo.
Let's don't ever talk about Gone Troppo.

So, record execs, it is YOUR fault--yes, YOUR fault--that I have downloaded "Blow Away," "Crackerbox Palace," "This Song," "True Love," "All Those Years Ago," and virtually the entire catalog of Traveling Wilburys. If YOU had kept on producing copies of these CD's, I would never have so much as looked at KaZaA. It is YOU who have driven me into madness--I WANT A COPY OF 33 1/3, I TELL YOU!! GIVE ME A COPY OF 33 1/3!!!

So, here's my advice to the record industry, on what would be a much-easier course of action (as opposed to personally suing every person in the United States):
1. Put ALL of George Harrison's OOP albums back in print. In fact, put every OOP album that has ever been discontinued back in production.
2. Lower your CD prices to 5 bucks. 8 if you're tightwads, but that's it.
3. Fire *N Sync, Avril Lavigne, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Good Charlotte, anyone who has ever been on American Idol, and virtually all the other new groups, and never allow them to make another album again in this country. Instead, lock them up in a safe at the Pentagon, and use them as our new weapons of mass destruction. (Threaten Osama and Saddam with them, and they'll come runnin' with their hands on their heads shouting, "We give up! We love America! Bush is Allah!")
And finally, the most-effective way to stop people from downloading:
4. Give me money.
No, really, I swear, it'll work like a charm!

July 16,2003 -
Okay, now anybody who knows me knows that there are a few things you dare not slander around me, and the Beatles are one of them.
(Others include family members, Jesus, and anything with the Pillsbury Doughboy on the box.)
Well, I was surfing 'round the Net (which is what I'm typically doing when I find something ticks me off), and I found this website, owned and operated by some group of (presumably) Southern grandmothers, who call themselves the "Dial-A-Truth Ministries" (sounds like a slick way to get people to send you money, doesn't it?). Anyway, I only breezed through the bits of it concerning the Beatles, and boy, I'll tell you, it got me worked up.

Now, don't get me wrong--I'm a Christian. I'm proud of my religion. I love Jesus. But give me a BREAK!! --the Beatles were the rock n' roll embodiment of LOVE! They were never--at any point--evil, demonic, or--to my knowledge--associated with the occult. They preached messages of LOVING one another, and as for things like the Manson murders, Lennon's crack about Jesus, and anything else un-priestly the Fab Four may have had any connection with...well, the Manson thing didn't have anything to do with the Beatles directly (listen to the words of the songs "Helter Skelter" and "Piggies" and you'll know there's nothing evil about them), and was just a crazy man's madness at work...John's comment about "We're more popular than Jesus" was TRUE, I'm sorry to say, and besides that, he wasn't saying anything bad about Jesus, but rather commenting on religion in England at that time. And as for anything else un-saintly they might've said or done...they were bloody human!! I mean, c'mon--Jesus said it himself. You remember that paragraph, right?

"Let thee among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

So what's the deal with Christians being so ridiculous about any little imperfections about a human being. "If you're doing something that's not praised in the Bible, you're going to hell!!"
When the heck did Jesus say that??

Honestly, I'm so sick and tired of those Bible-thumpers, shooting their mouths off and giving all us GOOD Christians bad reputations because of it. They think they're God, and pass judgment onto others as if they were. And, even concerning the Bible, I'm certain that some of those apostles changed select things around so that it reflected their beliefs, or the ideas of the time.

I worship God and Jesus...I don't worship a book.
Wouldn't that be worshipping an idol? And idle words are the devil's playthings.

On a final note, I would just like to ask this question:
HOW--tell me, please--can a band that wrote songs with the following lyrics be evil incarnate?

"Now I'll never dance with another since I saw her standing there."
(Faithfulness!)

"I don't care too much for money--Money can't buy me love!"
(The Dismissing of Material Objects!)

"I'm happy just to dance with you."
(Innocense! He doesn't wanna lay the girl--he wants to be friends!)

"Though I know I'll never lose affection / For people and things that went before / I know I'll often stop and think about them / In my life, I love you more."
(Fond rememberance of family, friends and things of his past!)

"Nowhere Man, please listen / You don't know what you're missin' / Nowhere Man, the world is at your command."
(Sympathy for a Hermit! Nuns do that kinda stuff too, right?)

"Sont des mot qui vont tres bien ensemble."
(Look! They're bilingual!)

"Let me tell you how it will be...there's one for you, nineteen for me..."
(Didn't the people in the Bible hate the taxman, too? I seem to remember that.)

"Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in a church where a wedding has been..."
(THEY MENTION A CHURCH AND A WEDDING IN THE SAME SENENCE!! How much more holy can you get??)

"We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine..."
(Aw, looky, they even did kiddie songs for the little ones! :) )

"Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?"
(Sympathy for the elderly--more Nun-like stuff!! SAINT THEM, already!!)

"Blackbird singing in the dead of night, take these broken wings and learn to fly..."
(Hope! And for those of you that don't know, this song was actually written to give support to the African-Americans during the Civil Rights turmoil.)

"You say it's your birthday? Happy birthday to you!"
(Aw...how thoughtful of those little gentlemen!)

"It took a long, long, long time / Now I'm so happy I've found you / How I love you."
(This song is about God, by the way!!)

"All together now...all together now..."
(Singing about unity! I love it!!)

"All you need is love, love, love is all you need."
(Yes, those Satanic Beatles. C'MON, people--the lyrics explain themselves! These blokes were GOOD for the world!!)

"When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me / Speaking words of wisdom, 'let it be'..."
(Have you gotten the picture yet?? 'Cause, really, I could go on.)

Now, granted, the Beatles weren't happy-go-lucky-let's-sing-and-braid-flowers-into-our-hair all the time, but they were never SATANIC.
GET YER FACTS STRAIGHT, PEOPLE! Before you go a-preachin' the Gospel, read it first!!

"And in the end, the Love you take is equal to the Love you make."
Makes sense to me. :)

June 25, 2003 -
Firstly, let me just start off by saying...LOOKY! I have a new background! I have a new background! [maniacal laughter]

And now we return you to our regularly scheduled editorial.

Ooooooohh-boy! Mary Jane, warm up yer keyboard, girl; There's LOTS to complain about today.

Okay, as owner, operator, proprietor, and typeinator of In My Own Write... I have to keep checking up on Beatles news now and again, for my Beatles News page. (Naturally.) Well, anyway, as of late, I've discovered some stuff that just really p....uh...cheesed me off.
God, I hate being clean-mouthed in my editorials, but the sites I get my adoptables from forbid me from cussing on my site. Well, @($*^(#@* them!!!

[Mary Jane takes deep, soothing breath, then bangs her forehead against the wall]

Ahh, how soothing. Anyway, here's a coupla things which have been BOTHERIN' me:

First off...have you heard about this group of kids that killed some friend of theirs? (yeah, I know--"be more specific") Geez, I can hear the news talking about this very thing in the background while I'm typing this: these four teenagers killed a 16-year-old named Jason Sweeney. I'll skip the gory details of the murder, because it's really awful to repeat...but what I can repeat is the song the kids listened to just before committing this heinous crime: "Helter Skelter," by--you guessed it--The Beatles.

WHAT THE HECK IS IT WITH MURDERERS AND "HELTER SKELTER"?? You know, of course, about the Charles Manson thing...but now these goons are pulling the same B.S.?? I just don't understand.

Anyway, I found the whole thing disturbing, naturally...and then I went searching on Google for Beatles stuff, and an article about the crime came up, titled "Beatles Song To Blame?" And that just made my blood boil!

How can anyone blame such a disgusting thing on a song like "Helter Skelter"? It has nothing to do with violence, nothing to do with crime, no "race war," as Manson claimed; it's perfectly innocent. Eminem sings things which are much more damaging, yet nobody kills people after listening to his songs...yet.

Why "Helter Skelter"? There are Beatles songs about murder, i.e., "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Run For Your Life"--but "Helter Skelter" is NOT ONE OF THEM. That just boggles my mind. Criminals must be just plain stupid.

You know what the song "Helter Skelter" really is about? I'LL TELL YOU! It's about--drumroll, please--AN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE!! That's right: McCartney decided he wanted to write "the nastiest, sweatiest rock song ever," and he chose to write it about an amusement park ride called the Helter-Skelter, which was--if memory serves-- a great big slide-type-thing, you read me? Examine the lyrics and tell me what you think:

"When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Then I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again."

THIS IS NOT AN EVIL SONG!! So what is it about these lunatics and the song "Helter Skelter"?? You simply cannot blame something like this on "Helter Skelter"; songs don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Ugh...I could just rant on all day about it, but I won't.
I'll rant on about something else instead:

GUESS WHO JUST DESTROYED THEIR CAREER!
I was--once again--searching through Beatles news at Google, when I came across an article about some UK prefab boyband called One True Voice. Anyway, seems that these bozos are saying they think they're an talented as the Beatles.

First of all, let me ask you this: if this is so, then why haven't we heard of ya in the States yet? But if you are truly better than the Beatles (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here--yes I am), we must see for ourselves. Let's see if you can't pass MARY JANE'S BETTER THAN THE BEATLES CHALLENGE!

Okay, for Challenge #1, you have to do the following:
1. Be able to play basically any instrument laid before you, including some native only to obscure parts of India.
2. Go on TV once, shatter TV ratings records, and hold that title for the next 40 years.
3. Make a cinematically brilliant rock film that even Roger Ebert worships.
4. Single-handedly revolutionize fashion, music and all other facets of popular culture.
5. Hold a bed-in.
6. Write and record over 200 songs--most of them hits--in less than 10 years.
7. Hold all five top spots in the Billboard record chart at the same time.
8. Change music forever.

Okay! That ends Challenge #1.
Now...about your hair...

June 18, 2003 -
Let me just start off by wishing Paul McCartney the happiest of 61st birthdays. Sixty-one?! How did that man get to be sixty-one? He's only--what--twenty years old!!
...what do you mean that was 40 years ago?! Good heavens... I need an aspirin...

Now, help me out here for a second: all those in the room who've heard of this movie Hulk, please raise your hand. Good.
Now, everybody raise their hand who have actually gone to see this film.
Good. Those with your hands raised, get the heck off my website!!

Look, I'm not bitter, but...well, okay, actually I am bitter...but either way, I just don't understand the new trend with doing live-action versions of old Marvel Comics cartoon stars. I get the feeling this had something to do with the opening of Islands of Adventure at Universal Studios, am I right?
I thought so.

Personally, it's hard for me to think of the X-Men, Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk as real-life people. Sure, they could pass for cartoons--but real-life people? Forget it. There's no human alive--no matter how much he needs to save the world-- that would go out in public dressed in an entire outfit made of the same thing Speedos are. How could Spider-Man climb a building dressed like that? Methinks his spidey-suit would ride-up so much that, after every few minutes, he'd have to kindly ask the villain to stop pummeling him long enough for him to fix his wedgie.
Forgive my babbling.

Incidentally, though, wouldn't it be neat to have these guys living next door to you? I mean, think about it: your can opener got busted? "Hey, Wolverine! Gimme yer claws a second," and--bam--the can is not only open, but it is also cut into five perfect slices.
Or, say some annoying neighbor has his Buick parked outside your driveway, blocking your exit. Just call the Hulk, and he'll have that piece of junk moved in no time; And, if you like, he'll squish it into a little paperweight for you to keep as a souvenir. Wouldn't that be fun?

Of course, being friends with super-heroes would have its disadvantages as well. Should you get into a fight with them--"Hey, Spidey, keep the heck off of my lawn!!"--then Storm would get mad and cause a freak mid-August blizzard, to take care of your precious lawn for good.
Yessir, it's tough being the philosophical one in the family...but somebody's gotta do it!

June 4, 2003 -
Is this funny to anyone but me? Tell me, is it really this funny, or have I just lost it?
Okay, last year sometime, Sir Paul McCartney put me (and countless other Beatles fans) through unbelievable headaches when he reversed the songwriting credits of Lennon/McCartney on his tour's Back In the U.S. album. (Not to mention Yoko--he totally cheesed off Yoko.)
Now, the big headache this caused me was this: I had to choose a side. Was I with Paul or against him in this decision? Well, okay, the first thing that comes to mind:

I'm with Paul. Paul's a good guy, nice fella. I like Paul. I see his point: John didn't write "Yesterday" or "Hey Jude" or any of that stuff on his tour, so why not give Paul top billing?

Then, right after this, I started to think about it a little, and came to an entirely new conclusion:

Paul's a jerk. He says that he's doing it 'cause young Beatles fans won't know who wrote what--that's a lie! I'm a kid, and I know more about it than most adults I know. What a dumb excuse! I'm against Paul!!

Then, I gave it some more thought, and decided:

Ah, what's the big deal? I understand it--Paul should have his say in the matter, after all, they're his songs.

Then I thought: No! It's a tradition--a trademark! It's always been Lennon/McCartney! It's how everyone remembers it!! Leave it be!!

Then I thought: But wait! It wasn't always like that, 'cause on their first album, Please Please Me, the songwriting credits were McCartney/Lennon! Paul's just puttings things back the way they used to be!!

Then I thought: But what would John think?

Then I thought: John wouldn't care. Paul switched the songwriting credits on a live album in the seventies when John was still alive, and he didn't say anything.

Then I thought: What will Paul change next? Is this change for the better?

Then I thought: Screw the credits, I need an aspirin!!

Eventually, I came to the conclusion I was happy about the new order of the credits. I'd fully adjusted to them, and was happy with them in the new order.
Now guess what I just read?
PAUL CHANGED THE SONG CREDITS BACK AGAIN!!

What, can't the man make up his mind? He gets into this huge fight with Yoko, upsets some fans, nearly gets taken to court over it (Yoko again), and NOW he's just gonna change them right back again??

[Mary Jane bangs her forehead violently against the computer desk.]

Now, I'm back to where I was in the first place. I've gone through all that mind-changing for nothing. MY BRAIN ISN'T POWERFUL ENOUGH TO TAKE THIS KIND OF ABUSE, McCARTNEY!!

But, really, it makes you wonder why he would go and put everything back after all of that grief.
My theory: Yoko made him an offer he couldn't refuse. You know what I mean: the most cruel, brutal punishment a human being can endure.
She must've threatened to sing at Heather's baby shower. [shiver]

Also May 29, 2003 -
It might seem odd to some (myself being one of the some) that I had gone and named my website after a John Lennon book without even having read the book. Well, doggonnitt, I finally got around to getting me a copy of Lennon's 1964 work, In His Own Write, which is described on the back of the book as being in the category of "Music/Poetry."
I'd heard a bit about the book, and--after having read some excerpts on the Web--became quite intrigued (particularly with "I Sat Belonely") with it, and decided to buy it and check out this book, of which I'd heard so much--yet so little--about.

Knowing John Lennon, I approached it warily, and was met with a style of writing I'll call....ah...some kind of cross between Lewis Carroll, and the noises your bathroom pipes make in the middle of the night.
Example: (and this is one of my favorites, at that):

"ALEC SPEAKING"

He is putting it lithely when he says
Quobble in the Grass,
Strab he down at soddieflays
Amo amat amass;
Amonk amink a minibus,
Amarmylaidie Moon,
Amikky mendip multiplus
Amighty midgey spoon.
And so I traddled onward
Careing not a care
Onward, Onward, Onward.
Onward, my friends to victory and glory in the thirtyninth.

And--believe it or not--there are actually poems in that book that make even less sense than "Alec Speaking." Incidentally, the picture beside the above poem is one of a man looking--in a confused way--at (what appears to be) a giant mosquito (whom I assume may be Alec speaking).
But, what's the point in trying to find a meaning to it all? I just enjoy the nuttiness of it. And you should, too! In my expert opinion, I give this book a half-trillion stars, and send it on its merry way.
Odd though it is, it's silly enough at times to be funny, so I recommend it to anyone who admires the bizarre, because as far as I'm conceived, this correction of short writty is one of the most wonderfoul larfs I've ever ready.
God help and breed you all.

May 29, 2003 -
Hey, so have you heard? The McCartneys are expecting! (and yes, I mean a baby!!) I'd heard a rumor the other day about it, but I wasn't sure I believed it. Yet, now, here it is, printed up on my Website, so--of course--it has to be true, then. (Why would I lie to you? By the way, wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge...?)
Anyway,it's safe to say that--when I heard the news--I coulda fallen right over. In fact, I think I did fall over...I'm not sure...that's about the time when the blackout started...

Hey, man, I love Paul and Heath........well, I love Paul as much as the next guy. And--really--I'm quite happy for the lucky couple, believe me. (I can get ya a deal on the Eiffel Tower, too!) But I'm just thinkin'...isn't he a little on the "mature" side to be havin' another kid? I mean, heck...do you realize that Paul will be in his late-70's by the time the kid is old enough to drive?
Kind of a scary thought, eh?

But, other than that, I'm very happy for 'em. In fact, I've decided to help the McCartneys out with one of the most difficult tasks a young ("young") couple faces when they're expecting: the name. Everybody's always worried about getting the perfect name for their little Bundle of Joy, and--as always--I'm here to lend a helping hand. I have carefully and painstakingly compiled the ideal list of Paul McCartney baby names.

If it's a boy...

Jojo
Maxwell
Rocky
Billy Shears
Jude

And I have an even better list of girl's names...

Michelle
Eleanor
Rita (if she's Lovely)
Sally (if she's Long and Tall)
Penny Lane (if she's a small street in Liverpool).......

But...sigh...it's just a shame they didn't wait till Paul is 64 to have this baby...then they could name it Veera, Chuck or Dave!! ;)

View Newer Articles

Get back, Jojo, to the Main Page!