Cos and Effect

Bill Cosby knew ...

Back in the day, on early stages, he would regale groovy audiences with tales of making girls like "Crazy Mary" go, "lhaaaahhhh", by slipping them some Spanish Fly.

Psychologically speaking, in that 3-minute comedy bit, are an analyst's wet dream ... a cornucopia of clues to the planting of seeds, and behaviors formed.

(He) has done this before.  In the past, he has probably even got some; like a dog that's been trained, poor cat just keeps on sniffing ...

No one else back then, back in the "innocent" yet heady days of drug overuse and casual sex, and the anecdotal public airings of pecadilloes by certain "underground", counter-culture and/or simply "Youth", as opposed to "Establishment" (established), voices ... was doing bits about Spanish Fly:  an alleged aphrodisiac, ancient Molly, if you will, which used to be advertised in the back of the "men's magazines" I would furtively jerk to ... but sadly, can actually lead to meloid poisoning, among other unpleasantness, in both women and men.

Still, some twenty years after the routine debuted, there was Bill Cosby again, baring soul and airing laundry, in the guise of publicity for his 1991 book, "Childhood".  Transcript from an interview with Larry King:

BILL COSBY: Spanish Fly was the thing that all boys from age 11 on up to death — We will still be searching for Spanish Fly.

LARRY KING: [laughs] That’s right.

COSBY: And what was the old- The old story was, if you took a little drop — It was on the head of a-

KING: Pin.

COSBY: -pin! And you put it in a drink-

KING: That’s right. Drop it in her Coca-cola — It don’t matter.

COSBY: It doesn’t make any difference. And the girl would drink it and-

KING: And she’s yours (emphasis mine).

If liquor's indeed quicker, as I've sometimes known it is ...

Writers write about what they know.  The basis of comedy is reality; there's truth in humor.

Bill Cosby knew.  And maybe he's been trying to let us know ... about patterns established.

Behaviors formed.

Is it ... ?

Yeah, Yeah ... No!

Recovering from the rush of "addiction" apologists -- falling over themselves, as they have been this month, to try and justify the high profile heroin overdose of Philip Seymour Hoffman -- it was refreshing to be distracted this past weekend by the The Beatles' arrival in America and appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show fifty years ago.

While I tended to prefer the Sex Clark Five growing up, to "ageing musician" Dave's bunch and the rest of the early British Invasion . . . like millions of people before me and after, I did grow up in a Beatles household.  Introduced to their music on old Scotch cassette tapes, which my dad had recorded for my mom back in the day, I was intrigued at first by the musical whimsy ("All Together Now", "I Am the Walrus") ... the overall happiness of their early sounds ... then the melodies and singability became apparent ...

I remember cruising around our backyard on a riding lawnmower once, singing "I Should Have Known Better", and our neighbor complaining about the noise.  "The lawnmower is fine," I remember him shouting.  "Just lower your voice!"

Later, the bash and steady beat of The Beatles' 'college music', as I used to call it -- "Helter Skelter", "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" and "Day Tripper"; those three, in particular -- would keep me hooked ... and ultimately, there were the lyrics.  John, the poet, as the cliche goes ... but there was George, waxing wise about "the space between us all", and deadpan singing, "Love me while you can / Before I'm a dead old man" ...

There you go:  whimsy and poetry!

For that matter, the Ringo line, "You were in a car crash, and you lost your hair", I always found to be hilarious (regardless of whether or not it meant Paul was dead).

So suddenly last weekend, it was 'fifty years ago today' ... and sadly, John and George could not make the party.  There was George's son, Dhani Harrison, on-stage, representing.  There was Yoko, instructed to dance, representing.  There was Sean Lennon, looking disturbingly like his father ... There was the new and latest Lady McCartney ...

But how cool would it have been to see Sir Paul's son, James, and Ringo's son, Zak, a part of things too?  If not to perform something together there, with Sean and Dhani -- because let's face it, "Sean, James, Zak and Dhani" (in fact, the Post-Fab Four roll call would need to be "Sean, James, Dhani and Zak" to align with "John, Paul, George and Ringo" in the 21st century) just sounds weird - and that's without them even playing a note together!  It certainly would have been unfulfilling musically, for everyone --

If not to perform, then at least to speak together, reminisce a little ... and let the evening, not to mention the legacy, embrace them.

Perhaps they didn't want to be embraced.  The legacy already instilled within them, what need do James McCartney and Zak Starkey have to show up anywhere - let alone to what amounts, for them, to be just another family reunion with, quite probably, annoying relatives?

That said, the biggest omission of Sunday night's Grammy Salute to The Beatles -- an omission too often made in the grand Beatles' scheme of things, I think -- was Julian Lennon.  John's first son, and, arguably, the most creatively gifted Beatle offspring ... deserving, if anyone, to be included; invited, to carry a legacy.

Where was he last Sunday night when they were all together?  He was a no show man (goo goo g'joob) ... Hey, Jude deserves the torch passed down!  Not to keep getting burned, kept at bay, from The Beatles' ongoing and present flame!

... But what do I know?  I'm not in the Beatles' realm, and certainly don't claim to know any internecine goings on there.  I just think it would've been cool, and a richer golden anniversary -- not the golden slumbers that we saw and heard, and which came and went with seemingly too little forethought -- if all of the relatives could've been in the same room.