I was watching some of the highlights on the new Joe Rogan experience with Mel Gibson. People on both sides of the ideological spectrum plucking video snippets and confirming their points of view, as if Mel's missing in life is to deliver truth to the masses.
When I was a younger lad, and still had a lot of simple ideas and ideals roaming about my head, I remember meeting for the first time ever someone heavily addicted to meth. In Phoenix Arizona, the place I called home, this drug was so readily available, the whole thing had become a pandemic, if you will.
I had starting dating this cute girl, and I thought meeting her parents was the responsible thing to do, since I believed at the time we were destined to get serious.
Upon meeting her mother, and even though she warned me, I walked away feeling like someone had put toothpaste in my pasta.
You see, her mom had been fighting her meth addiction for twenty plus years, and the "conversation" we had reflected this very much so.
All over the place for starters, but it devolved into paranoias, and world outlooks that made sense only if pipe sharing would have been the theme of the evening.
This conversation, Mel and Joe, reminded me of that awkward day...
Listen, I'm not going to sit here and defend the Catholic church, more so because if you know me, you are probably aware that I'm agnostic to begin with.
But, their conversation is just a tepid toe touching the bathtub water followed by head nods and a body language that says "we are in the know, we are special".
I wonder...
Not trying to be a jerk here, but as much as I may have admired Sinead for her talent, her obsession with, let's say, the spiritual corruption, lead her into real madness and I'm not being hyperbolic here.
There are old interviews available of Sinead explaining her world view, and even some after she turned to Islam to get away from the lies of the Church.
Hey listen. I fully support the right everyone has to follow the religion, the faith they desire. But, religions bashing each other is, intellectually, pointless and dumb.
Of course I believe Mel and Joe have the right to talk about anything they want. That is how freedom of speech works after all, but I can't help but to wonder why the questions.
Imagine this scenario...
I start a podcast, because why the hell not, and gain some momentum with it.
Next think you know I can get some really cool guests.
Through some personal relationships I manage to book Shaquille O'Neil.
Looking at him straight in the eye, I ask him:
"What say you about this flat earth, round earth debate?"
I sit back and record the train wreck for virality.
What I took from Mel's advice is that drinking clothe dye can help you with your stage 4 cancer. Yes, that is pretty much what was implied.
How does he know? I hear you asking.
He has three friends...
In other words:
"Trust me bruh"
When I have these conversations with people, more so when I'm attacking big pharma because they deserve it. I try to be responsible with the things I say.
In my own life, I've seen countless people hurting themselves big time for self medicating, and it's for this very reason I believe that if you have a loud voice (like Rogan does), you should care to be as precise as possible.
But of course, that makes a dull podcast...
It's obvious that Mel Gibson is making his Hollywood comeback, and the cynic in me is telling me that this whole thing is part of the plan to secure interest in his newest projects.
He seems to be working on a movie about the fight for the human souls, and if that's the case this podcast makes a lot more sense to me.
Great marketing built upon bad ideas, unpolished advice and questionable ethical judgments.
MenO
