George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns

Born in 1943 and raised in squalor by a busdriver and a housewife, that Mr Harrison eventually transcended his humble origins is a tribute to strict parenting and family values.

George first came to fame singing for 'The Beatles', a 1960's popular music group of some repute. He played guitar for the band, but it was inevitable that he would leave them eventually, just as he had left the Quarrymen and Johnny and the Moondogs before.

In 1969 he left the pedestrian Beatles behind and hurtled towards a new destiny. At first he became a solo artist, touring with great success in America in the early 70's. But the success caused him to drift away from his wife Pattie Boyd, and before long his good 'friend' Eric Clapton eloped with her. Poor Harrison was at a new low.

Really, though, he was only just beginning. He soon shacked up with Olivia Arrias, a poor Mexican-Californian unlikely to leave him, and then formed quite possibly the most talented musical ensemble the world has ever seen - The Travelling Wilburys, a band consisting of Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, Roy Orbison and of course George himself. This new band wowed the world and made superstars of its members, with such hits as Tweeter and the Monkey Man and Heading for the Light. George had finally found the fame he had always longed for.

To appreciate the acclaim Harrison received in this period, one only has to note that a Minor Planet was named after him (4149 Harrison, a minor planet in a 4.35 year elliptic orbit at 12.9 degrees to the ecliptic plane, just as Harrison would have wanted). One has to wonder if he has possessed this celestial body now that he has passed away. Few people get deified in their own lifetime, and Harrison would be just the sort to enjoy the fame of being a Minor God.

After the tragic and distressing break-up of the Wilburys, Harrison became a broken man, He had achieved fame at last, but for what? He became a recluse, refusing to talk of his years in the Wilburys and living in Friar Park, an enormous Gothic mansion in rural England.

That he was sick of the fame he achieved can be seen in this quote:

"I'm really quite simple. I don't want to be in the business full-time, because I'm a gardener. I plant flowers and watch them grow. I don't go out to clubs and partying. I stay at home and watch the river flow."

Poor Harrison had come full circle, a life endlessly spent chasing fame, only to reject it and return to his Liverpudlian, working class hatred of recognition when he finally grasped the nettle and found that it stung.

The famous event in 1999 where he was stabbed in his mansion can really be interpreted as symbolic of Harrison's life. He wanted fame, desperately searched for it throughout his span, but when he finally achieved it with the Wilburys he rejected the consequences. The stabbing was his fame reminding him he can't just ignore it, take the good parts and ignore the bad. Fame demands its own terms, and when it reminded Harrison of this salient truth, Harrison was back on the road to spiritual recovery.

Really, we should all be happy he is finally dead, and that he has at last reached a sort of resolution - he has all the fame of a Minor Planet, but he can never be touched or molested now. He wanted fame without any consequences. Now he has it.

After his death, we see how his real friends react, and how his enemies try to capitalise on his posthumous fame:

I am devastated and very, very sad.
We knew he'd been ill for a long time. He was a lovely guy and a very brave man and had a wonderful sense of humour.
He is really just my baby brother.
Paul McCartney

This is really a shameless, despicable attempt to capitalise on Harrison's fame by a man long since eclipsed and forgotten. Note that Harrison's true friends from the Wilburys, such as Roy Orbison, have not been seen or heard in this trying time. They have kept a dignified silence, and not polluted the airwaves with such emotional rot as:

George was a best friend of mine.
We will miss George for his sense of love, his sense of music and his sense of laughter.
Ringo Star

Many Harrison songs are available here. Long after the Wilburys great rivals, the Rolling Stones, are forgotten, their music will live on, and you can help it live thanks to free software.

	58 is far too young to die (5.00 / 2) (#6)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 11:58:45 AM PST

	it's very sad, but I wonder what how much his marijuana addiction contributed to his cancer. A. Rightmann

	Addiction? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:17:47 PM PST

	Read the studies. Do the research. It's not addictive...I wonder how much all the damn shit they add to our food contributed to his cancer?

	"Our"? (none / 0) (#8)
	by tkatchev on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:21:42 PM PST

	What do you mean "our"? As far as I know, George lived in Great Britain. -- Peace and much love...

	True, but where did he die? (none / 0) (#17)
	by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:00:15 PM PST

	He died in Los Angeles, California according to the Salon article. True, it says he died at a friend's home...but he obviously spent a good amount of time here.

	Lots (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Right Hand Man on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:59:25 PM PST

	I'll avoid the needless swearing but I will agree that possibly his diet played some part in his early death. From what I know of drug addicts, they don't have the best nutritional habits. That, coupled with the fact that Mr. Harrison lived in England where the food is of considerably lower quality than the US, owing to their political nearness to Socialism and the resulting bread lines that always crop up when the government meddles with private industry, probably accelerated his demise. Had he grown a decent percentage of his own food and hunted for a good portion of his meat I'm sure he would have added a few years to his life. Of course just laying off the dope probably would have helped more. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Hmmm... (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 05:17:23 PM PST

	How much of your own food supply do you produce? For civilization to exist as it is today, a certain level of specialization is required. Some people serve society by growing large amounts of food, while others entertain those farmers. Today, if everyone had to produce a substantial portion of their food, our nation could not exist because people would be unable to concentrate exclusively on what they do best, whether that be making music or whatever you work at everyday.

	Well (none / 0) (#36)
	by Right Hand Man on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 05:55:53 PM PST

	How much of your own food supply do you produce? Quite a bit. Actually, God has blessed my garden with rather fertile soil and my woods with a good supply of game. I still buy basics like sugar, flour, oranges, etc., things I can't grow in Pennsylvania, but hunting and fishing supplies me with well over half of the meat I consume. Today, if everyone had to produce a substantial portion of their food, our nation could not exist Actually I think the nation would be better off if people were less dependent on others. Primarily it would help build back the sense of individual responsibility that has been eroded by the left leaning education system. If you know that if you don't get up off the couch and go pull some weeds you won't be eating much over the winter, you won't be as afflicted with sloth. This also fits with a long standing contention of mine that the federal welfare program should be replaced by a program that provides each destitute family with a small plot of land and reasonable quantity of seed. I'm no Libertaryan, I think government has its place in providing for the common defense and helping keep people on the straight and narrow, but generally the less we see of it in our everyday lives the better. My program would allow government to provide people with the means to be self sufficient to some degree, maybe even throw in a few small farming implements, but then require it to step back and let people get to work. Either you raise a successful crop or you end up seeking charity from the church. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Yes but... (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 06:24:34 PM PST

	Most people don't live anywhere near a hunting ground. The majority of the population of the United States lives in urban areas, where arable land is nonexistent and the game is restricted to pigeons and stray animals. They CANNOT provide their own food where they are, and would also be completely lost on a farm. Perhaps "getting back to nature" would be a good thing, but most people are simply unequipped to do so. The population can only get larger, and barring some extra-terrestrial settlement or a global disaster that significantly decreases the number of people, the surface of the earth will no longer be able to support the number of mouths it must provide for. Your solution would be wonderful, given unlimited or near unlimited land, but as things stand today, the notion of everyone farming for themselves is not feasible.

	Can you farm for yourself? (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:06:27 AM PST

	Imagine for a moment that our commercialism suddenly turned into a black hole and collapsed in on itself taking all those starbucks and blockbusters and walmarts with it. With around ~6 billion people and about 169,968,121,260 km^2 of land, assuming 1/3rd of the Earth's surface, every person could have 14,164 km^2, or a little over 5,400 sq mi. using only half the available space. If we could control our population and put all this technology to use automating all the systems that provide us with our lovely material possessions we might be able to give everyone their own home. Yes, this would require changing our fundamental beliefs. We would have to make quality homes and vehicles and products that don't break easily and are highly modular in design with things like upgradability servicability in mind. We'd have to leverage the power of our networks and information systems to organise the very data we currently organise to provide us with a constant supply of food to the local stores or mail our products. But when you talk about giving everything away like this, splitting it up between everyone all fair like, you're talking about communism or star trek. I don't know. I'd work for free if we all seemed to care a bit more about what's important, like the quality of life and our time. I don't remember the last time I worked for a company that actually cared about its products more than the money it could make from marketting wisely and cutting corners. Let alone its employees. Okay, how about this? Is it possible to launch an object into space using a maglev rail?

	Still not enough and more comments (none / 0) (#67)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:44:39 PM PST

	First of all, most of the land in those 5400 sq. miles in not farmable unless you are very lucky and get your parcel in the Ozarks, but if your tract is in the middle of the Swiss Alps, you are going to have a bit more trouble. Arable land is not spread evenly across the globe. Also the population is still going to grow no matter what anyone does. We as a species have defeated natural selection, and the weak and stupid are not weeded out before the propagation their genes. This is an unfortunate aspect of the generally good humanitarian movement that we all help further. Thirdly, if our cities and commercialistic institutions collapse and we use the land that they vacate as farm land, most of our higher industrialization will collapse as well, because we wouldn't have the concentrations of population that make them possible. And in any case, they would be too busy ploughing and planting to go off and join think tanks or construction gangs that would design and create the automatic production of our material goods. About Communism, I don't personally have anything against it, but it is a real hot button for most people on this site, and I am trying to keep away from that in this thread. And finally, about the mag-lev: I think that we have the technology to do so, but the design of the projectile would have to sustain phenomenal g forces, so I don't think that it is feasible for human transport. Also the power demands are astronomical. Again, technologically, this would not be possible in a world culture of large self-contained farms.

	Communism is great (none / 0) (#68)
	by nathan on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:59:52 PM PST

	As long as you don't mind the radical destruction of individuality through the reduction of the human organism to a conditioned, behaving bundle of responses. Communism is so laughable because the very concept of 'materialism' implies 'nihilism.' If all there is to a human being is conditioned, behaving chemicals, which is to say no possibility of personal meaning in life, then why should you have humanistic beliefs (which are purported to be the reason for Communism) in the first place? The answer is because they are socially desirable rather than morally valid. You go have fun in your test tube. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Yes. (none / 0) (#77)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 02:11:08 AM PST

	Though some sick indivuduals are trying to synthesize a religious brand of communism; that is, trying to graft communism onto some sort of religious doctrine. Good thing they haven't decided on the appropriate host religion yet. (Though personally, I think Muslim communism would work particularly well.) -- Peace and much love...

	Aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhh! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 07:06:32 AM PST

	You see, just mention the word "Communism" and anything else you say takes a back seat to an immediate bashing of the subject. I don't care about Communism on this thread, so if you want to debate it, go to the "Communism in the Workplace" (or whatever it is called) article. Now, if anyone has anything intelligent to say on the issue at hand (Hint: The establishment of a world farming community and its effect on world industry. NOT Communism) I would welcome your insights and counter-arguments. Thank you.

	the subject at hand (none / 0) (#84)
	by osm on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 07:56:52 AM PST

	is GEORGE HARRISON'S DEATH, you flaming socialist moron. if you want to spread your propaganda, go to kuro4uck.

	Shit (5.00 / 3) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:23:29 PM PST

	Read the studies. Do the research. Shit in food causes bloody diarrhea, not cancer. If you have any evidence of restaurant workers adding shit to food, please report it to your local health authority.

	Now that's a spicy meatball! (1.00 / 1) (#21)
	by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:32:55 PM PST

	That's funny shit. Of course, it was not meant literally, but thank you for taking it to it's comic conclusion. You get a star!

	Marijuana is addictive (5.00 / 1) (#27)
	by Stretch on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:10:11 PM PST

	Read the studies. Do the research. It's not addictive As someone who has carefully watched the studies and done the research marijauna is mentally addictive however there are no signs showing it is physically addictive. Those two types of addiction are significantly different and should be treated as such. Just ask any stoner with no stash. It is also unlikely marijuana contributed significantly to Harrison's death and perhaps even easied it.

	i agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
	by osm on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:16:02 PM PST

	as for harrison's brain tumor - it was a brain tumor wasn't it? personally, i wonder if it had something to do with the lsd.

	again? (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:24:38 PM PST

	you're ridiculous. you won't waste any chance you get to spew your rhetoric. If there is a God, then he cares about the important things, like how you treat other people. He doesn't care if you want to stick a dick up your ass or light up the product of a naturally growing plant.

	Well then, enjoy the following natural experience (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:30:12 PM PST

	Rake up a nice big pile of poison ivy leaves, prepare yourself a hemlock-belladonna milkshake with a side of stuffed amanita mushrooms, and lie down and enjoy your naturally growing plants. God made marijuana to be used for hemp, for ropes, cloth and paper. Some degenerates then proceeded to pervert God's purpose by breeding marijuana plants with an increased level of the insecticide THC; somehow finding it's dizzying, confusing effects enjoyable. A. Rightmann

	Poor Adam (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 06:13:01 PM PST

	Insecticide? Oh dear... (none / 0) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:31:44 PM PST

	Some degenerates then proceeded to pervert God's purpose by breeding marijuana plants with an increased level of the insecticide THC; Yeah, right. So, if THC is an insecticide, then why does our brain appear to have cannabinoid receptors from birth? Whereas other, harder drugs mess around with the dopamine level in the brain (very dangerous territory), cannabis seems to be designed for us.

	There's only one possible conclusion (none / 0) (#75)
	by pyramid termite on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 07:27:18 PM PST

	So, if THC is an insecticide, then why does our brain appear to have cannabinoid receptors from birth? We are actually insects. Our two extra arms are curled up under our armpits and our antannae are actually our eyebrows. George, being a Beatle and a dope smoker, knew the truth, of course and was part of the plot to liberate the sentient insect world of its opressive "humanity". Listen to Taxman, "declare the pennies on your eyes". Surely, knowing that "penny" is Scouse for antanna, it is clear that George was saying that it was time for us to unfurl our eyebrows and be the insects we are. There's more - "Flying" was an ode to the freedom of natural insect flight, "Obladi" was a popular Jamaican insecticide in the 60s, "now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall" is a reference to the liberation of the venue by hungry termites, and Mean Mr. Mustard was, of course, the owner of the Orkin franchise in Liverpool. The Walrus was Paul because he had Tuscany. Sniff this can of Raid and smoke a joint and you will understand everything. He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

	Have you ever read God's Word? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by nx01 on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:45:50 PM PST

	The Bible says "Do not get drunk on wine which leads to debauchery, but be filled with the Holy Spirit." That seems pretty clear to me. Not all substances are Good Things. Alcohol and other mind-altering drugs such as caffeine, "Mary Jane", XTC, Crack, and dangerous designer drugs such as "N-4-hydroxyphenyl acetamide acetaminophen" are clearly not to be used. If you truly love God, then you will not smoke the devil-weed. "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	but I don't love God... (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:17:20 PM PST

	and I never said I did. By the way, you know that just about everybody thinks that they're right, and the other person is wrong, don't you? At least I don't need some centuries-old manual to tell me the difference, and however off track I may be, at least I came by my opinions on my own. Of course, I'm waiting for you to say something about sinners who have poisoned my mind... There are a ton of religions out there, all claim to be right. What is their basis for this? 'Well, it says so right here', they say. You're no different.

	Oh yes. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:03:16 AM PST

	You are completely original and free-thinking, just like the other billions of atheists out there. -- Peace and much love...

	Oh, OK... (none / 0) (#90)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 11:04:33 AM PST

	So you came to your opinions on your own, huh? That must make them right... And by the way, no one can poison your mind but you. That's what free will is all about.

	see above... (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:19:43 PM PST

	by the way, I said 'God', not in reference to your sick Christian version of god. You are begging the question, assuming that I accept the Bible as God's word.

	Yes I have. (none / 0) (#33)
	by Stretch on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:38:25 PM PST

	The bible can, of course, be interpreted in many ways. There are other quotes that could be (and are) interpreted quite differently. Wine, to me, seems to be much different from marijuana in many respects and similar in few, if any.

	Fundamentalism is a plague. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:01:45 AM PST

	Our ancestors were actually much smarter then we are today -- in those days, you had to be smart to succeed in life; plus, proper diet and exercise were the norm in those days, not the exception. Our ancestors, the people who wrote the Bible, could understand metaphor, irony, symbolism, and many other arts which are, sadly, completely lost nowadays. Anyways, in those days there still existed something called "symbolism", which is a clever way of condensing long explanations into small, tidy packages without losing the emotional impact. In the above quote, "wine" means "a substance that is injested to provide fleeting pleasure, a mild, recreational mind-altering drug, used for entertainment purposes". You see? -- Peace and much love...

	That's right it doesn't have to be wine. (none / 0) (#53)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:28:52 AM PST

	That's exactly what I've been trying to tell people. But the priest at my local chapel refuses to substitute a quick bong toke for the more traditional sip of red. I'll explain to him about the symbolism next time.

	Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 03:53:58 AM PST

	For once, I agree with a liberalist. Although, you are missing something very important: the cultural context. European peoples have been drinking alcohol for millenia, they have the psychological, cultural, and even physical safeguards that prevent them from sliding into alcohol abuse. In short, we are used to drinking alcohol because our forefathers have done so. Marijuana, on the other hand, has appeared in Europe only in the second half of the 20th century. Before that, hemp was a plant that was strictly used to make cheap rope and burlap sacks! Since smoking marijuana is something completely new and exotic to Europe, it shouldn't be done. There is no telling what psychological and cultural effects it might have. -- Peace and much love...

	not quite accurate (none / 0) (#91)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 01:31:50 PM PST

	Cannabis 'fruit' has been found in archeological digs in europe dating back to 500-300 BC. The fruit, or flower portion of the plant is NOT useful as a source of fiber. The plant's stalk is what is commonly used to make rope and other material. The flower portion of the plant contains the most concentrated levels of THC (the chemical most often thought of as the one that gets you high). Although the intake methods were different back in these days, the results are nearly identical. Before flower smoking became popular in europe during the 20th century, the preferred method of ingestion was simply eating the flower. If you've ever experienced the high from smoking and the high from eating these flowers, you'll know that there are very subtle differences, but the effects are virtually identical. There is nothing new or exotic about marijuana intoxication in europe or anywhere else for that matter.

	Not true. (none / 0) (#92)
	by tkatchev on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 12:26:15 AM PST

	You have to realize that peoples inhabiting Europe in 500 B.C. were not European in any sense of the word. The culture that we currently consider to be "European" formed quite recently, probably somewhere after 100 A.D., by wiping out the original inhabitants of the sub-continent. (Though nobody knows for sure, since European culture was at the heart pre-literate.) Cannabis consumption was definitely not part of the culture in Europe, for one simple reason: back in those days, you had to consume alcohol to stay alive. As you know, water has tendency to "go bad" very quickly, and drinking stale water is extremely dangerous to your health. There were basically two solutions to this dilemma: either boil water every time you want to take a drink (which is problematic) or drink liquid with a low alcohol content. (Alcohol has an antiseptic effect on bacteria.) So basically, early Europeans drank alcoholic drinks instead of water. (Wine in the south, beer/ale in the north.) This is still reflected in European language -- in all European languages, there is no distinction between "consuming liquids" and "consuming alcohol". Obviously, to the early European, alcohol was the only drinkable liquid. Contrast this to cannabis consumption: there isn't one single European language that has a word for "cannabis". We have a word for "hemp", but obviously "cannabis" and "hemp" are two completely different concepts. Why is it that we need loan words from non-European cultures to describe cannabis? (i.e. "marijuana", "hashish", etc.) Your conclusion is obviously logically flawed. Sorry, but your statements are simply unfounded. -- Peace and much love...