Blogger O.V. Hawkins made the following observation:
Paul McCartney wondered musically forty years ago, "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm Sixty Four?"
Paul turns 64 this weekend.
His wife has filed for divorce.
So apparently that answers THAT question.
PAD
OUCH!
Maybe with a little luck he can help it out. Y'know, he can make this whole damn thing work out.
The estimates I've heard for McCartney's net worth were somewhere in the vicinity of 1,500,000,000 dollars. I was tempted to switch to scientific notation, which tells me how big a numbers were are talking about. That's 1.5 x 10^9.
I feel bad for his romantic ends (guess money CAN'T buy him love), but I'm sure a quick roll in his money will cheer him up ;).
I bet Magneto and Titaium Man had something to do with it.
harsh.
but yeah, I give ie 3 months before he's got a new 20-something on his arm. 35 y.o. max.
You know, I had thought the very same thing when I first heard about the divorce.
Shaggy's right, though. The guy's got billions and is still reasonably good looking for his age. He'll have no trouble finding a new trophy, er, loving wife.
But if he does pick up a twentysomething, think on this: Not one wouldn't she have been born since he was with the Beatles, but she wouldn't even have been born since he played with Wings!
i just read your father's "chicken soup for the soul" entry. it's very sweet. :) and i like your stuff too.
Help! He needs somebody's help! (And not just anybody's help.)
Hey, Paul's spousal unit said she was embarrased that he didn't want to look better for her (or so I've "heard"). He was looking old. Well, he certainly looks better than Mick Jagger or any of those old Stones....
One of the British newspapers had the headline on the day the split was announced a couple of weeks ago:
"WILL YOU STILL FEED ME, WILL YOU STILL NEED ME, WHEN I'M 64? er, no..."
I don't know what sucks worse--knowing that you TURNED DOWN her offer of a pre-nup or having to endure journalists cannibalizing every song you've ever written, like the lead in this story: "When he's 64, Paul McCartney may well be on a
long and winding road -- through the courts -- in one of Britain's most expensive divorce cases."
When a 64 year old over the hill multi-millioner musician and his 35 year old wife can't make it, who can? What hope is there for the institutio of marriage?
The walrus was gay? Huh? Now I'm just confused...
TWL
whose parents are also both 64
A pity for certain, but calling this woman a "trophy wife" is a mistake. She might be a looker (she was a model) but she is also missing a leg due to a weird accident with apolice motorbike. It is not impossible that and agin, loaded singer would choose a crippled activist as "trophy" but highly unlikely in the opinion of this humble cynical.
To be fair, the woman wasn't even born when he recorded the song. No Ex Post Facto love songs here...
If I understand ElhombreMalo correctly... You're implying she's unworthy of being "trophy" because of a missing leg???
Frankly, if the media had never mentioned it, I would have never known she lost a limb.
Regardless the specifics to her private life, I believe Mrs. McCartney has proven how noncrippled she really is. Anybody that continued a social lifestyle, designed a clothing line and was politically active certainly does more than most people I know.
I'm not at all sure if he married her for a trophy though, but for another reason. The man was married for a lifetime to his first wife. I think that says something for his character.
Thinking about it...
Ozzy and Sharon have been married for a few decades too... So maybe that's not a good character reference after all. *grin*
The mention of "trophy wife" and "wife with missing leg" summons, against my will and taste, an image of the lamp that's a central part of "A Christmas Story." I also can't help but think that if McCartney had a prosthetic leg, and the divorce took its usual course, his ex-wife would be the one to get the leg and turn it into a lamp.
We are being unfair toward McCartney. This marriage is less deserving of mockery than most other celebrity marriages. It had little of what usually draws condemnation. |There was an age difference, but she was not a chiild and he is not yet senile. They use their relationship to publicize movies, or appear on reality TV, or make fools of themselves, or engage in a dangerous lifestyle, or anything else bad that I can think of.
on a partially related topic, it seems that musicians from that generation have the worst life expectancy. Even ones who made it past the drugs, sex and rock years have died prematurely.
"Didn't she lose the leg after they got married?"
Her leg was amputated after a motorcycle accident in 1993. She didn't marry Paul McCartney until 2002. So, no.
Let me rephrase my first statement; a man so shallow as to seek a trophy wife, is unlikely to choose a woman with one limb missing. Personally, I would have to really care for someone to oversee that detail when in the wetter areas of marriage.
And about the clothing line...isnt that Paul's daughter?
I am sure he'll get by with a litte help from his friends.
At least he's got nothing to hide, just like me and my monkey!
its obscure, but i hope it still works...
Everybody's got something to hide 'xcept for me and my monkey...
Maybe I am partial towards this guy 'cause I learned a lot of english from Beatles' lyrics when I was a kid, and I know for certain many people did the same.
wow!!!! how long did it take you to come up with THAT one????
Y'know, I think it was incredibly romantic and optimistic for him to insist on no pre-nuptial agreement. Sometimes things don't work out after all, but that's not necessarily evil, they just don't work out.
Some newspapers claim she'll get as much as $250 million in a divorce settlement...which will leave him with an estimated $1 billion, 115 million. How many lifetimes of normal income would he have to lose before he was merely middle-class?
And the thing is, he's honestly and ethically earned every penny. He became the richest Beatle because he never stopped working, never took multiple years off the way the others did. There's a lesson right there.
And his music has contributed to the happiness of an entire planet: I would conjecture to say that there is no place on Earth where there is electricity where you can't hear his music.
There are worse legacies to leave.
Maybe Paul should have written it to go "...when I'm ninety four?"
Mike
"The estimates I've heard for McCartney's net worth were somewhere in the vicinity of 1,500,000,000 dollars. I was tempted to switch to scientific notation, which tells me how big a numbers were are talking about. That's 1.5 x 10^9."
If I'm not mistaken not only did he earn a lot of that through his own music (Beatles, solo & Wings) but at one time he owned the rights for every college fight song in America. (and that brought a lot of change...)
But that being said I still don't see why ANYONE has the rights to ask for and get monies made from someone, not only before they were married, but before they met or even before they were born!!!
Was in Vegas over the weekend with a group of friends, one of whom is an in her 40s female with a long time crush on Mr. McCartney.
Now, imagine the look on such a person's face when you tell her Friday evening you'd heard on tv that Thursday night Paul was in Vegas catching the Cirque du Soleil show based on the Beatles' music. Along with the realization that he might still be in town....
[Turned out he'd left Friday]
I knew something like this was gonna come up. Especially since as soon as I hear the news it went through my head, and I usually only have half an active brain cell. Feel bad for both of them, but
Oh, for crying out loud. I was just about to type "life goes on" without even realizing it.
And as for her missing leg, I found it ironic since on the last album he released before they wed, what was at the top of the cover? A bunch of naked legs.
Now that you're older, dyeing your hair,
Many years from then.
Yes, we'll still be sending you a valentine.
Birthday greetings, bottles of wine.
If you drop by at quarter to three,
We won't lock the door.
Yes, we'll still need you,
Yes we'll still feed you
Now you're sixty-four.
We're all older, too.
And if you say the word, we'll be there for you.
If you ask nicely, we won't refuse
Now your wife has gone.
We can knit you sweaters by the fireside
Sing along to "Ticket To Ride."
Back in the garden, smoking some weed,
Who could ask for more?
Yes, we'll still need you,
Yes we'll still feed you
Now you're sixty-four.
Every time you tour we'll buy tickets each and every night
if it's not too dear.
We shall scrimp and save.
Go with kids on our knee,
Hoping they'll behave.
We'll send out postcards, drop you a line
Stating point of view.
Indicating everything we'd like to say
Wishing you a Happy Birthday.
Here is our answer, a filled-in form,
Yours forevermore.
Yes, we'll still need you,
Yes we'll still feed you
Now you're sixty-four!
(Whoo!)
Yes, all very amusing - a successful man is getting a divorce. Well, I can't imagine that has ever happened to anyone active on this site: Certainly not to anyone starting the topic. Does the subject of glass houses have any relevence?
"Yes, all very amusing - a successful man is getting a divorce. Well, I can't imagine that has ever happened to anyone active on this site: Certainly not to anyone starting the topic. Does the subject of glass houses have any relevence?"
I don't know: How about the subject of people being assholes? How's that subject do ya?
No one ever said it was "amusing"; merely ironic. In my own case, I'm not 64, I didn't write the song, and you also pissed off my wife with your post, so thanks for that.
The only vaguely relevant aspect is that, despite my attorney's advice, I likewise didn't seek a prenup when I remarried, even though Kathleen said she'd be willing to sign one. My attitude was that I couldn't hedge my bets. A prenup is a preparation for possible divorce. To me, "Until death do us part" had to mean something, or else the whole ceremony meant nothing.
PAD
So your wife didn't realize either that you were a success or that you had been divorced? From where did she think your first three daughters came? More likely she didn't like my hardly veiled accusation that you were a hypocrite. As to "being an asshole," I admit that you need no tuition from me.
It's rather thin skinned to object to being called on your derision of a man who is going through what you have also. To be fair, your career and Paul McCartney's have significant differences, but I would "(be) an asshole" to enumerate them. You are very much like an old professor I had, decades ago, who enjoyed making cruel jokes but was appalled, appalled, I say, whenever he was called on it or became the target of it.
Being serious for a moment, how would you have responded if someone had taken some part of your previous work as a humorous comment on your divorce? In your place, I would have considered it both cruel and pathetic. In fact, I am certain I would think that person was "being an asshole." If this comment offends your wife, I will admire her loyalty - There is much to be said for wanting to see one's spouse in the best light.
It's rather thin skinned to object to being called on your derision of a man who is going through what you have also.
Well, we can see who around here has a sense of humor and knows irony for what it is, and who doesn't.
Being serious for a moment, how would you have responded if someone had taken some part of your previous work as a humorous comment on your divorce?
1) Sir Paul is among the best-known and most recognizable public figures on the planet, and his wife didn't exactly go out of her way to avoid publicity either. As such, I think it would be absurd to expect the divorce to go without attention or remarks.
2) I don't consider Peter's original observation particularly cruel. You really should look up the definition of "irony"; just don't use Alanis Morissette as a source.
3) I wouldn't be too surprised if the scenario you describe above DID happen at some point. In fact, given the variety of material Peter's published, it would probably be difficult for people to avoid.
I'm not sure whether you're being hypersensitive about divorce or about Paul McCartney. If the former -- as someone whose parents divorced a quarter-century ago, I can sympathize and appreciate your compassion, but I think you're taking it too far here. If the latter -- the "Sports Fans" thread is down the hall and to your right.
TWL
Jeffrey,
You're acting like a dick. Stop.
PAD's comment wasn't insulting to Paul. And even if it had been, the zoo-like atmosphere of this particular divorce certainly makes it a target for comment.
There's also the factor that it's ome thing to comment on someone who will never hear the comments but quite another to be rude to their face. Me, I don't think Peter was being rude to begin with but the same cannot be said for you.
If you've been through a divorce, as Tim said, one can cut you some slack. I have. It's soul killing. But that's no excuse for unfounded attacks.
To be entirely clear, I am not particularly interested in Paul McCartney, nor have I been touched by divorce. Rather, I am disgusted by the presumptuousness and hypocrisy of Peter David.
Bill Mulligan's comment above will certainly draw me away from PAD's character toward a more extreme example: Bill Mulligan. "There's also the factor that it's ome (sic) thing to comment on someone who will never hear the comments but quite another to be rude to their face," he says. Well, that is certainly true. "Commenting on someone who will never hear the comments" can be described more succinctly: "cowardice." "(To) be rude to their face" - and of course the rudeness of such action is debatable - may be ill-mannered, but it at least confronts the person being attacked, rather than skulking about. Bill, do you really think your defense does Mr. David any good at all?
Tim Lynch: It's hard to respond, because you don't seem to have a point. If it is true that someone somewhere has used PAD's past writings in some way to ridicule his divorce or another part of his life, I must ask: Didn't he think that was cruel and inappropriate? I can't speak authoritatively on his reaction, but I suspect he would not have liked it, so you have made no case for any argument at all. I can say this, however: When I quoted his own words in another string some time ago, establishing (to my own, if very few others', satisfaction) that he had spoken hypocritically, he was quite perturbed. I assume that means he does not like criticism and mockery - and this is no great shock. Most of us feel exactly that way. Those who are not hypocrites can take that as a model: Perhaps it is not appropriate to snipe at others and feign surprise when this is criticized.
On "irony," there is no irony in PAD's post or anything concerning Paul McCartney's divorce. The song in question asks whether a lover will still love and care for the singer when he is 64. I can imagine only two answers to that question: "yes" or "no": There is no irony in either outcome. Here is an entirely analogous example. 1. "On Friday, I will either be in Maryland, or I will not." 2. On Friday, as it turns out, I am not in Maryland. 3. "Oh, wow, how ironic, Jeff isn't in Maryland!! Isn't that just amazing?" No, it isn't amazing, neither is it ironic.
What IS "irony"?
1.a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
1.b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
1.c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit.
2.a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" Richard Kain.
2.b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See usage note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.
What is "Dramatic irony"?
The dramatic effect achieved by leading an audience to understand an incongruity between a situation and the accompanying speeches, while the characters in the play remain unaware of the incongruity.
What is "Socratic irony"?
Profession of ignorance and of willingness to learn as one interrogates another on the meaning of a term.
Source: "The American Heritage Dictionaries"
Please, where is there any irony in PAD's or anyone else's about the McCartney divorce? I would most particularly deny that "Socratic irony" has any part in it; Mr. David does not seem very fond of this technique, or indeed of ever considering that he is ignorant of anything.
Tim Lynch: It's hard to respond, because you don't seem to have a point.
Fine. Here's a new one for you.
Your name rang a bell, so I decided to do a little digging.
You've posted here before, and every single time it's been to pull this same kind of shit: in the name of "clarity" or "avoiding hypocrisy" you post endless personal attacks tied up in so much verbiage that you make Strom Thurmond's epic filibuster look like a performance by Marcel Marceau.
I don't know whether you're serious or a troll. I also no longer care -- since it's evident that you either won't or can't learn from past experience, I'm removing myself from the conversation and encouraging both Bill and PAD to do the same.
Bye now.
TWL
"I don't know whether you're serious or a troll. I also no longer care -- since it's evident that you either won't or can't learn from past experience, I'm removing myself from the conversation and encouraging both Bill and PAD to do the same."
Yeah, I'm in agreement. Kath likewise did a search on him and brought to my attention that, in the past year, his entire presence on this board has been limited to attacking me (the one exception? He liked my brother's photographs.) I simply don't understand the mindset that compels someone to go to a board of someone they clearly don't like for the sole purpose of attacking, attacking, attacking.
But once one realizes that's what he's doing, the mindset that compels someone to bother with him is even less comprehensible. Which means that I am likewise done with him.
PAD
Outstanding, Tim, your new point is pretty clear, but what was your initial point? (You know, the one you seemed about to make which would establish that I was wrong, PAD was infallible and it was mean spirited to criticize him.)
By the way, when you encouraged me to look up "irony," did you have something like its definition in mind, or did you just think you had proved something by suggesting that you knew what it was?
My God, PAD needs more intelligent lackeys than you.
Jeffrey, I was all set to come to the defense of my friend Bill Mulligan, as well as that of Tim Lynch and Peter David, neither of whom I know well enough to be friends but both of whom seem to be rather decent fellows.
But I thought about it, and I realized that really, you're not saying anything of substance whatsoever. So instead, I will respond to you in kind: with nothing.
Good day.
Bill Myers: It's too bad you won't come to Bill Mulligan's defense, because he does need some defending. I would be interested to read a justification of his belief that it is better to attack people who will never know about it than to confront them directly. We could agree to disagree on just how bad is anonymous sniping, but I am at a loss imagining any rationale for believing it is actually preferable. If you had such an explanation, it would be intriguing, but the fact that you haven't offered it suggests you do not.
Sigh. I now prove myself to be several orders of magnitude less intelligent than I ought to be by responding to our trollish guest. I know, I know...
But I'm not going to waste much time. Regarding my comment on the difference between being rude in person or to a person's face--I have stated in the past that I think that Bill Clinton is a seriously flawed human being (to say the least). No problem; it's the right of every American to insult the President. If I were to speak that way to him at some fundraiser my parents brought me to...I'd be like Jeffrey Frawley. And probably have as many friends.
That's just common sense and decency, which is not to say that everyone has it (as we now know). But you go on pretending your rotten personality is a manifestation of your courage.
And now I'm done with you. Whatever possibility there was that you were honestly looking for a debate vanished with your reply to Tim; "...PAD was infallible..." Wow, straw-man much? And then "My God, PAD needs more intelligent lackeys than you." Heh. You really believe that? I'd point out the obvious but it might give Tim a swelled head which he'd use against me the next time we argue politics.
Now is where you can claim that your scary intellect has driven us from the field of battle. Normally I don't like the "I'm not going to respond to you any more" kind of thing because it gives the troll the last word but in this case having the last word is far far more important to you than it could ever be for me. So fire away. But please regard any further lack of response not as evidence of an inability to respond. It's more likely an inability to give a rat's ass.
Craig-
I don't think they are going to the world series this year. And currently I am dubious about the play-offs.
How about those Detroit Tigers? It can't be assumed that AL East will have both the winner of the division and the wild-card this year.
Kath
As politeness is very much valued here, I will just say this: Bill Mulligan's argument still makes no sense at all. Gosh, I hope he isn't traumatized by reading that!
As to Kath's entry - She is showing excellent judgment in steering clear of ugliness.
There, PAD, I just said something more or less positive about somebody in your family who isn't you - again. Whatever could the subtext of THAT be? I imagine your delicate psyche will find something terribly disturbing about that.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at June 29, 2006 07:50 AM
If you had such an explanation, it would be intriguing, but the fact that you haven't offered it suggests you do not.
Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait.
If you don't have an explanation, that's fine, but why did you bring it up? A well reasoned response would not leave you vulnerable to my insidious evil - It's people who claim it is more honorable and acceptable to attack people who will never know about it than to confront them directly, allowing them a chance to respond, who bare their necks for the axe.
Jeffrey, I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear before. I'll try again.
I don't feel vulnerable to your "insidious evil." Moreover, I do not fear your metaphorical axe.
You are a little person trying to cover up your feelings of inadequacy by spewing bile at others. That's why you don't simply walk away from this blog, hosted by a man you ostensibly so detest -- because you can't. You need this blog in order to feel important. If you stopped posting in forums like this, you'd have to face the gnawing emptiness inside of you.
I have no interest, however, in continuing to correspond with such an emotionally stunted person as yourself. I'm done with you. Interpret that however you wish. It won't change the reality of who you are: a frightened person who drives others away and is easily forgotten.
By the way, you're only that way because you choose to be. You could choose to be a much bigger and stronger person. But that's not my problem.
Have a nice life.