Guestbook

The Von Cello Guestbook is unlike any other! Join the fun! But you must register to post. No spam allowed! Click here for old monthly archives. You can also search using the search button, or reading the back posts listed below.

  Hello Visitor
Register | Login
Von Cello 

Post No. 1904
05/12/2008 02:54 PM
  
Comments (0)
Exagalacerly

Exactly. The critics of Israel generally want Israel to allow itself to be attacked and even risk its destruction or else they are not happy. I heard Jimmy Carter interviewed the other day on one of the cable shows. He said no one wants peace for Israel more than him, and that he has spent his life trying to bring peace to Israel. I was rather surprised to hear him say that. Then, thankfully, the interviewer asked him a few more questions and Jimmy said that he felt that Israel had to allow the "right of return" for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Only then, he said, would there be peace! But, of course, anyone who really understands the situation knows that bringing hundreds of thousands of Arabs into Israel would make it a much more violent and dangerous place for Jews and would be a step in the direction of Israel's ultimate destruction. So basically Jimmy Carter is saying that if Jews in Israel want peace they have to be willing to be killed and to risk having their country destroyed. That is so cynical and manipulative that it gets me sick.

I guess after the Holocaust the anti-Semites can't call directly for the death of Jews, so they call for scenarios that would lead to the same thing and then accuse the Jews of not wanting peace if they refuse to lay down and die. If there is a hell, Jimmy Carter has a special place waiting for him. (Not that the current leadership is much better. After all, Bush was the first President to actually call for a Palestinian state, and many fear he is pressuring Israel to divide Jerusalem, which is like asking someone to slice his mother in half. And for what reason? Did the Arabs EVER have a capitol there? It's just another way to undermine Israel and try to make the Jews look bad if they don't commit national suicide.)
canarsie 

Post No. 1903
05/12/2008 06:41 AM
  
Comments (0)
100% is passing for jew

the point is we are expected to get 100% on the exam to pass. if we get 99 we fail. Everybody else needs 65 to pass. We must therefore swat away every X mark wheather its a real mistake or not. We cant allow any error ...Internally we can talk about it but in punlic we need to deny deny deny..because THEY hold US to an unfair standard. thus any critism of israel i think is antisemitic. it leads to israels DEATH..
Von Cello 

Post No. 1902
05/11/2008 11:33 AM
  
Comments (0)
Do as I say, not as I do.

Good point, and an interesting perspective. I think you are right, that Jews are very quick to defend against any negative comments about Israel because many people hold Israel to an unrealistic standard, a standard that they do not hold their own country to, or hold ANY other country to. Therefore, even if some of what they say is true, many Jews feel that they have to defend against it because it is not really true in light of the different standards being applied.

For instance, let's say two kids are having a fight in the street. If one punches the other you would normally say that that kid was wrong. But if the second kid is holding a knife, then you might excuse the first one from punching, because he has to try to disarm the other one or he will get stabbed. So, for instance, in 1967 when Egypt and Jordan were amassing armies on the borders of Israel, and the leaders of those countries were boasting about "throwing the Jews into the sea", Israel attacked first!

Now, many people to this day say that Israel was wrong in doing a "pre-emptive" attack. They say that goes against "international law", and that it sets a bad precedent, etc. But to most Jews, this argument is sick. What was the tiny country of Israel supposed to do? Wait to be attacked first and risk losing the war? Should they have respected "international law" and allowed themselves to be "thrown into the sea"?

Could you imagine the U.S., or any country, allowing its border nations to send armies to its borders, while the leaders boasted about destroying America and wiping it off the face of the earth, and just waiting like a sitting duck to be attacked? No country would give a damn about any kind of law, if it meant that it could be destroyed! So that is the double standard. Obviously then, most Jews, and many non-Jews, defend Israel's actions in 1967 as inevitable.

What I find is that many of the enemies of Israel, including Jimmy Carter, create these imaginary "peace" scenarios, where Israel essentially has to commit national suicide as the price for "peace". It's not going to happen. They know its not going to happen. So really, what they are doing is using the word "peace" as a weapon. That to me is about the lowest thing a person can do.
canarsie 

Post No. 1901
05/11/2008 08:55 AM
  
Comments (0)

antisemitism

imagine going to a party and everyone enters with guns drawn and aimed at you cause youre a jew.You dont know why but its like this.has been for centuries. Your slightest unintentional error will result in your death.they hold you to a different standard. Others can error but not you.You can insist on being held to the same just standard that they hold themselves to but they dont listen.You dont know why!has been like this for centuries
If accused of a mistake,you have to say the accuser is wrong on facts or antisemitic , biases on the facts.
Even if you are mistaken you must swat away any doubt and insist on being right because they stupidly hold you to an unfair standard but nevertheless they dont see it.
If you allow any neg criticism from a jew or non jew you are dead.

..so the solution is ..hold israel to the SAME standard that you hold every other country to..but if the world insists on holding israel to a standard thats unfair different, a guilty till proved innocent standard, that they dont even hold themselves to,then israel is forced to defend against any and all neg criticism from anybody..jew or nonjew.

jews have zero tolerance not on negative criticism but zero tolerance on dieing due to being held to unfair standards.
.
canarsie 

Post No. 1900
05/11/2008 04:34 AM
  
Comments (0)
is criticizing israel antisemitic?

imagine going to a party and everyone enters with guns drawn and aimed at jew. You dont know why but ita like this. Your slightest mistake even unintentional will result in your death. Others can error but not you.So if youre accused of making a mistake you have to say the accuser is wrong on facts ,he wasnt looking well enough or antisemitic thus looking well but biases on the facts.
If you allow any neg criticism from a jew or non jew you are dead.

..so the solution is ..if you want to allow criticism of israel from nonjews or even in public from jews, hold israel to the SAME standard that you hold every other country to..but if you insist on holding israel to a standard thats too high then israel must defend against any and all neg criticism from anybody..jew or nonjew.if your criticism is correct but nevertheless results in BANGBANG then your criticism must be swatted down any way possible..call it wrong on facts or antisemitic bias but swat it down anyway possible.

so jews have zero tolerance not on negative criticism but zero tolerance on dieing.
Von Cello 

Post No. 1899
05/10/2008 11:22 PM
  
Comments (0)
Ritzy

I played tonight at the Ritz Carlton at Battery Park in Manhattan. When I lived in Manhattan, Battery Park was a dump. Now it is a real estate developer's dream. There are thousands of units of housing and all kinds of park-like landscapes all along the Hudson River. The views are of the Statue of Liberty, the harbor, and the new New Jersey skyline. People are walking dogs, riding bikes, skateboarding... Lovers are kissing, kids are playing, old folks are talking... there is a whole new world going on at the bottom of the West Side. Quite amazing, especially when you consider that after 9/11 they could barely give away apartments down there!
Von Cello 

Post No. 1898
05/09/2008 12:12 AM
  
Comments (0)
Wow!

Live!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gEcqtWKpQs&feature=related

What happened to that spirit?
Von Cello 

Post No. 1897
05/09/2008 12:07 AM
  
Comments (0)
Good ole Rascals

The spirit of the sixties:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ntcMjYL7hc&feature=related
Von Cello 

Post No. 1896
05/08/2008 03:46 PM
  
Comments (0)
Ecstasy

Thanks for that link. So now I heard the actual lyric:

"Life would be ecstasy; you and me endlessly..."

Which I thought was:

"Life would be ecstasy; you and me and Leslie..."

Now I remember... I thought he was dreaming of the future because he said life "would" be ecstasy, if he and his girl had a child. I always thought it weird that he picked out her name in advance though. But I figured that it could be that he was a single dad, and he was dreaming of how good it would be if he married his girlfriend and the three of them could just groove around on a Sunday afternoon.

I know I am putting way too much thought into this!

By the way, that was a great link to the basketball game at Bildersee. Just change the colors and that could have been us back in the day. The people changed, but Canarsie stayed the same!
canarsie 

Post No. 1895
05/08/2008 04:48 AM
  
Comments (0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj3l6yzqzm4
canarsie 

Post No. 1894
05/08/2008 04:47 AM
  
Comments (0)
cut to the chase already

[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj3l6yzqzm4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj3l6yzqzm4[/URL]
Von Cello 

Post No. 1893
05/06/2008 01:40 PM
  
Comments (0)
Family Music

Yep, I thought it was a song about a guy who was married, and he and his wife would be groovin' with their daughter Leslie on a Sunday afternoon. I pictured them pushing a baby carriage in a park, walking slowly, listening to people playing music, maybe stopping to get a hotdog or a knish... sitting in a grassy nook, like the Sheep Meadow in Central Park... maybe playing a little frisbee... just groovin', playing with Leslie, petting a dog or two... hanging around reading a book or just staring at the clouds...

But NO, there was no Leslie! It was just the guy and some unknown non-descript entity. Just the two of them groovin'. What about Leslie? What about the idea of having a family and spending quality time on the weekend? NOOOO! Just self indulgent contemplation of one's navel. That's it! Hmmmphf!

Von Cello 

Post No. 1892
05/06/2008 08:52 AM
  
Comments (0)
And Leslie

How about "Groovin' on a Sunday Afternoon"? Usually on a Sunday afternoon I'm driving out to Long Island or Manhattan to play a gig.

It had a lyric that went, "You and me endlessly, groovin' on a Sunday afternoon." But he pronounced endlessly emphasizing the second syllable, so I always thought he was saying, "You and me and Leslie". I figured Leslie must have been their daughter.
canarsie 

Post No. 1891
05/06/2008 03:00 AM
  
Comments (0)

[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bPP3bswY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bPP3bswY[/URL]
canarsie 

Post No. 1890
05/06/2008 02:36 AM
  
Comments (0)

under the board walk was another
today youd be killed by a dealer or mistaken for a whore

the drive in movie?
another one

youd be seen as 2 terrorists having a meeting
Von Cello 

Post No. 1889
05/05/2008 07:01 PM
  
Comments (0)
Pink Annoyed (rhymes with Floyd)

Isn't annoying and annoying word? Just listen to the sound of it! Annoooyyying. It's one of the few English words that contain the oi sound, as in oi,yoy, yoy... or for those in a rush: oi!

Well now that I really look at these lyrics I find them annoying.

"You dreamed of a big star, he played a mean guitar,
He always ate in the steak bar. he loved to drive in his jaguar."

Okay, I guess steak bar and jaguar rhyme with star, but aside from that these lyrics are pretty pathetic. Who dreams of being a big star and eating in a steak bar. I mean is that such a big thing? And even driving a Jaguar... is that what a young aspiring musician thinks about?

I thought this song was about a 1984 scenario, as if we are all controlled by a world government with constant surveillance, which it seems like we may be moving towards, that the song calls "the machine". But I guess it was really about the music industry.

Kind of a let down, no?
Von Cello 

Post No. 1888
05/05/2008 01:26 PM
  
Comments (0)
Gray Floyd

Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? its alright we know where youve been.
Youve been in the pipeline, filling in time, provided with toys and
scouting for boys.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
And you didnt like school, and you know youre nobodys fool,
So welcome to the machine.

Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream? its alright we told you what to dream.
You dreamed of a big star, he played a mean guitar,
He always ate in the steak bar. he loved to drive in his jaguar.
So welcome to the machine.
Von Cello 

Post No. 1887
05/05/2008 07:52 AM
  
Comments (0)
Sittin' in the Starbucks on the Bay

Just doesn't have the same ring to it. It's funny but back when that song was cut, in the '60's, for all the oppression people used to scream about, at least you could sit on the dock of the bay and waste some time without some cop comming over to tell you to move on to the Starbucks. Actually today you would probably be on a security camera the whole time!

Perhaps a more appropriate song for today is "Welcome to the Machine" by Pink Floyd. My favorite line is, "Where have you been? Don't worry, we know where you've been."
canarsie 

Post No. 1886
05/05/2008 07:05 AM
  
Comments (0)
dock of what bay?

today just walking onto the dock costs 3 bucks and if you just sit there a cop will stop you and ask you what youre doing there.If you say wasting Time he will take you in as a terror suspect.

sittin on the dock of the bay is dangerous.Better to sit in the starbucks of the bay.
Von Cello 

Post No. 1885
05/04/2008 01:32 PM
  
Comments (0)
Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay

Just heard that song. This is one song that seems to last forever... and as long as you haven't heard it in a while, it is always welcome. Kinda like an old friend...

Now, many musicians do not have much to say about politics. In fact, many musicians are just into music and not much else. And then you have musicians who are very politically aware but keep away from it for various reasons. I suppose in many cases it could only hurt ones career to be too vocal about any particular political point of view. In my case, one of the main reasons I wanted to become a musician was to create a platform from where I could share my ideas and express my point of view.

Maybe that's why I like the guestbook. Although it's been a little boring lately. Sometimes I feel like I'm a justa sittin' on the dock of the bay, wasting time

.
Von Cello 

Post No. 1884
05/02/2008 07:35 PM
  
Comments (0)
Ukelele

TJ, you must be talking about this dude:

http://www.mta.info/mta/aft/muny/bios_samples.html?l=810786441

Believe it or not, we were in a band together for a while managed by the manager of Poppa John Creach of Jefferson Starship fame. He was always very good with a crowd and so he started playing in the subway. I tried to play on the street a few times and it just didn't work out for me. Not that I minded all that much.

The funny thing is my mother in law used to complain to my wife about me saying, "What is he going to do for a living play ukulele in the subway?" So, once I was married there was no way I was going to play in the subway even if they paid me a salary.

My ideal venue is an outdoor summer music festival.
TJ 

Post No. 1883
05/02/2008 09:32 AM
  
Comments (0)

The audio link of the story linked below mentions someone who plays blues-cello busking in the NYC subway.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90090455
Von Cello 

Post No. 1882
05/01/2008 09:26 AM
  
Comments (0)
Solataire

Hey, good point Von Cello! But when you think about it, a surgeon and a traffic cop do things that are not seen by the general public. I guess the cop is public, but he is only seen by the people on his beat, and no one knows what he thinks about anything. Same with the surgeon, and even the architect. We see the building and that gives us some idea about the asthetic of the person, but we don't know their political views. I guess the musician is in a more public platform than most other people except for politicians and actors. So why is the actor not as influential as the musician? Because in most cases they don't write the script.
Von Cello 

Post No. 1881
04/29/2008 08:49 PM
  
Comments (0)
What is a musician?

Actually, when you think about it, why is it that musicians have any political impact at all? We take it for granted that a John Lennon would sing anti-war songs, that Dylan would write about revolution in the air, that Casals would ring the church bell above his town even though the Nazis banned it, that Beethoven would refuse to get off the street to let nobles pass, that Benny Goodman would cross the color line and have blacks like Lionel Hampton in his band.

Why do people who play music become social catalyst? Why not people who design buildings, or people who perform surgery, or people who direct traffic? Why the musician?
Von Cello 

Post No. 1880
04/29/2008 09:25 AM
  
Comments (0)
Musician of the Century

I kept thinking if there was another musician who would have been a better choice for musician of the century. Hendrix was a great guitarist, Parker was a great saxophonist, Heifitz was a great violinist, but Casals had more influence politically. His opposition to the dictator of Spain was open and vocal. And his boycott of most of the world was legendary. Did any of these other musicians have such impact and take such risk?

But then one musician stuck out in my head who could rival Casals. Do you know who? John Lennon! We forget about the influence he had, and also the risks that he took. In fact, many people believe he was assassinated (like JFK and MLK). So maybe he should be the musician of the century.

It could be argued that he was nowhere near the instrumentalist that Casals was. Surely he could not play a Bach sonata or a Beethoven concerto. But then again, Casals could not compose a melody with anywhere near the grace and beauty of some of John's.

What do you think? Who would you nominate as the "Musician of the Century" for the last century?

Back to Top

 
Home | About Von Cello | Upcoming Gigs | Recordings | Compositions | Store
E-Mail List | Interact | Video Clips | Pictures | Links | Trademark | Musicians Only

Von Cello is incorporated in the United States of America. This web site and all its content is copyrighted. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Click here for copyright, terms of usage, and legal statements.