> Treacherous waters.
Does anybody got more expertise than I to talk about Lenny Bruce 'talking
dirty' as a means of liberating the long suffering world public from the
more than occasional more than righteous dominant treachery extended by, one
assumes, the false, paranoid purveyors and protectors of otherwise variously
wonderful sacred sources, including, my own sense that democracy should
rightfully be considered among the sacred secular covenants (so currently
abused, as no doubt too well-known obvious combine quo
Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush-Rice, etc.)
I suspect, Randolf, in high or low Holy Places, it's not the water, its the
particular carriers - as in, don't confuse the message with the priests (or
whatever may be the liturgical cover for bad or "well intentioned" and/or
confused apples).
Consequently global publics have continuous a lot of work to do or - to
improvise on my buddy Thoreau - live lives of tongue tied, miserable
desperation, and/or die early.
I guess I lost the first question in my rant. How did Lenny Bruce deal with
it and is it appropriate now?
Stephen V
Blog: http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
|