Everybody wants to talk about cancel culture lately but no one wants to recognize the mother of this movement, Olivia Newton-John.
Yes, we're being facetious, but bear with us. It was Olivia who, in 1975's "Please, Mr., Please," tried to ban a song because "It was our song, it was his song, but it's over." From there, it's just a short skip or two in order to arrive at: Fire them!
People lose jobs or they're threatened with losing a job. It's gotten so bad that, as legal scholar Jonathan Turley has pointed out, they're even attempting to prevent any attorney working for Donald Trump's current campaign from being employed ever again. There are dangerous people like CNNs Asha Rangappa who run around doxing students and trying to get Jonathan Turley and others fired. That's the mind-set of so many: I don't agree with you so you should be fired.
It's interesting because last week saw Whitney Cummings speak about cancel culture to THE DAILY BEAST. Whitney starred in the sitcom WHITNEY, among other things, and we were among the few who praised that show -- during the first season. (See "TV: The perverts still drool over Shirley Temple" from 2011.) Season two was a disaster but that's another story. But there she was bemoaning this man or that man being cancelled. This is a woman, please note, who has seen two friends cancelled this past summer over assault. And there she was defending men.
She's denied knowing of either man's history. Although more than one victim points out that they were around Whitney during some of this. But she denies it. She defends them. She wants us to understand.
And you know what, we can get behind that. If it was ever sincere.
But it's not sincere.
Roseanne Barr suffered. No one has suffered from cancel culture the way Roseanne has. And Whitney can't defend her other than to insist she doesn't think Roseanne always means what she Tweets and that Roseanne's "a contrarian."
Roseanne Tweeted what she thought was a joke. It was mean spirited. It wasn't racist. Roseanne didn't know Valerie Jarrett was African-American -- like many, she assumed that, being born in Iran, Valerie was Persian. She Tweeted that Valerie was what happens if the "Muslim Brotherhood and PLANET OF THE APES had a baby." When some people immediately called it racist, Roseanne lectured back that "Muslim is not a race." She did that because she didn't realize Valerie was African-American.
She then went into silent mode because ABC asked her to -- a big mistake. Entertainers need to learn not to ever do that. April Oliver (CNN) and Mary Mapes (CBS) are two people who made that mistake before. They were in the news departments of their networks. Their networks betrayed them. Roseanne was lied to -- she was told by ABC executives that they needed her to be silent and that they would handle it. Roseanne offered to apologize. She offered to do a sit-down interview on GOOD MORNING AMERICA. She was willing to do anything to address the issue.
ABC pretended that they were addressing it but they were stabbing her in the back. On THE JIMMY DORE SHOW last week, journalist Glenn Greenwald explained to Jimmy Dore that Betsy Reed and others at THE INTERCEPT were too busy focusing on what their friends at THE NEW YORK TIMES and elsewhere thought and not enough time on doing journalism, that Betsy Reed needed to be liked by her peers in the industry and that she would kill stories -- such as his column about Hunter Biden's laptop -- because of that.
The same is true of the entertainment industry. ABC had a huge hit -- like they hadn't seen in years, like no network had seen in years -- with the ROSEANNE reboot. The stockholders were thrilled but certain people in power weren't. A lot of people were attacking the show. They lied to Roseanne and stabbed her in the back. Then things got really bad. Knowing Roseanne was a Socialist and pro-worker, they then began saying that she had put people out of work -- by cancelling her own hit show? -- and that if she'd signed a waiver, giving away her rights to characters she created, the show could stay on the air and crew members could keep their jobs. If she didn't do that, many would be unemployed because hiring had already taken place for fall shows and it was too late for the crew of ROSEANNE to find new TV series jobs.
Roseanne did what was best for the workers. In doing so, she was stripped of her right to profit from her own writing, from her own creation. Make no mistake, that show was her life. From the first episode ever broadcast, that show was based on her life. And now she wasn't to profit from it.
Whitney loves to pretend in interviews that she's all against cancel culture but it really appears that she's just against her male friends -- who abuse, assault and rape women -- excuse us, girls and women -- being held accountable.
If she truly was against cancel culture, she'd be defending Roseanne.
Roseanne's not a racist. We've said it before and we'll continue saying it. We know her. She was an idiot for believing ABC would have her back but we've all done stupid things.
Her Tweet was coming from someone who is strongly pro-Israel, someone who believes that Israel is under attack from many countries and persons around the world. We don't see what she sees and we're huge supporters of the Palestinian people. But we do understand where she's coming from.
She's also a Donald Trump supporter and we disagree with her on that. But it's okay. Life doesn't end because we don't support the same politician as you. She sees Donald as someone who disrupts the status quo -- he does do that, she is correct -- and as a defender of children -- she points to various moves by the Justice Dept against pedophiles. She also likes that he is seen as a friend to the current government of Israel. Roseanne is entitled to her opinion. She's entitled to express those -- and any other -- opinions if she so desires. And we can agree or disagree and the world keeps turning.
What we've just noted? Whitney Cummings knows this too but she won't tell you that.
She won't say it. She will make a lot of comments we can agree with but she won't defend Roseanne and, frankly, she won't defend any woman. But her two male friends and any other man? She'll rush forward to defend them.
Truth be known, we were only bothered by one issue in the ROSEANNE reboot and that was the issue of undocumented immigrants. We weren't bothered that Dan was struggling with the issue. We were more than willing to see how that would play out in the next season and where it would go. But we did cringe, watching Dan refer to "illegal aliens" in an episode. That bothered us watching the episode.
Maybe it bothered you?
Guess what, though? That wasn't Roseanne Barr's call. Whitney Cummings made that call and, in fact, she 'fessed up to that in 2019 to, yet again, THE DAILY BEAST:
Before the show premiered in 2018, Cummings said in an interview that she sometimes felt like she had to be the “PC police” in the writers room. “Ugh, that makes me hate myself,” she tells me a year later. “It was more that we just really had to be careful in terms of depicting how this family and these characters would actually talk and actually behave. And if we were going to be offensive, it was for the right reasons and on purpose.” She cites as one example a “big argument” they had over whether John Goodman’s character Dan should use the term “undocumented workers” or “illegals.”
“In the privacy of his kitchen, with his wife, sixtysomething years old, he probably would not say ‘undocumented workers,’” she explains. “But ‘illegals’ is not the PC term. It’s a tough one. And people got angry on the crew.” Cummings ended up having to defend the reality of the scene against the objections of those who found the term offensive. She says it was up to them to “get it right so we know how the characters get it wrong.”
Would Dan use that term? Maybe Whitney was right and he would. But are we the only ones seeing problems in her explanation? He'd say that "in the privacy of his kitchen, with his wife"? Isn't she saying Dan's racist? That's how we interpret that remark. Dan wouldn't use it openly but in the privacy of his kitchen he will? How else do you interpret Whitney's explanation?
Overall, though, we applaud Whitney's efforts and the efforts of Rosanne and everyone involved in the season ten reboot. It was a good show and that's why people watched -- why so many people watched. It's funny how, before the Tweet, a few TV critics were finally getting honest about it.
Season ten now airs on COZI and it's a hit with viewers. It speaks for itself.
Donald Trump is most likely gone from the White House by the middle of January. Can we finally get honest about Roseanne?
Louis CK, who is addressed in her latest conversation with THE DAILY BEAST, lost a job. Just like Roseanne, he lost a job. He lost his TV show. His film also got shelved. But that film and that TV show? He hasn't had to sign the rights to the characters over to anyone else. ABC didn't just fire Roseanne, they stole her creation from her.
Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti host the series RISING. They often speak out against cancel culture. Last week, Krystal spoke out against "identity politics."
For those who don't know, Kamala Harris is Black (via her father) and Asian (via her mother). She's bi-racial. Krystal insisted that Kamala did nothing to help Joe Biden get votes and that this demonstrated that identity politics is wrong.
There are so many problems with Krystal's argument.
First off, Kamala being bi-racial? Isn't it a bit short-sighted -- possibly even racist -- for Krystal to assume that Kamala's racial status would only appeal to African-Americans? There are a number of people -- including Asians, Anglo Whites, bi-racial people, etc -- who might have voted for the Biden-Harris ticket due to Kamala being on it.
Why does Krystal just think it was an appeal to African-Americans?
Second, how do you know that she didn't bring votes -- African-American votes or other votes -- to the ticket? You're talking about a man, Joe Biden, who many see as racist, as a longterm racist. How do you know his votes wouldn't have been much lower without Kamala on the ticket? You don't. There is no data on that. So Krystal's argument can't be demonstrated at present but didn't she think she was making some sort of a point.
Was her point to attack men of color and all women?
Generally, that's what the cry of "identity politics'' has been used for.
Now we don't expect Krystal to know the history of that term. But it arises from the student left of the sixties. Women, for example, start noting that whether it's student liberation, Black Power, or what, women are time and time again not included. The norm is "male" -- that is the default setting.
Which is why the feminist movement takes off among young women in the late sixties and early seventies. Betty Friedan's unsatisfied home makers are not the ones fueling the movement. It's the women decrying racism, decrying war, decrying campus oppression, etc, it's those women fueling the Second Wave.
Marlo Thomas has spoken often of the breakthroughs that were made by the Second Wave including the recognition of domestic abuse -- what we now call terrorism and wish others would as well, that is terrorism. Equally true, the work of Susan Brownmiller and many other Second Wave feminists are responsible for raising awareness on rape. A lot of work is still needed, obviously -- look how Tara Reade was treated this year.
In fact, that shows what Ellen Willis and so many other women railed against. Yet again, liberals have betrayed women. Rape is not important enough, some 'feminists' insisted, to be reason not to vote for Joe Biden.
That's a lesson we want to teach? That women and girls can be sacrificed?
Krystal is a woman who co-hosts a program that, each week, fails to bring on an equal number of women as guests. So maybe she's the last to lecture about ''identity politics"?
Equally true, it's not smart politics to put a woman of color on the ticket with a racist Anglo White man, according to Krystal. It's "identity politics.'"
What an incredibly ahistorical call.
To give George H.W. Bush 'youth' (and, they said, to attract women voters), Dan Quayle was added to the GOP's 1988 presidential ticket. Was that "identity politics"? To balance the inexperience of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Joe Biden and Dick Cheney were added to the tickets. Was that "identity politics"? Is Krystal aware that, back in 1992, some complained that the Democratic Party was making a huge mistake with the Bill Clinton and Al Gore ticket? That the complaint was both were from the south so there was no balance on the ticket? More typical was the 1988 Democratic Party presidential ticket where northerner Michael Dukakis was 'balanced' out with southern Lloyd Bentsen.
Is Krystal aware of any of that?
Why is it when people of color and/or women are used to balance a ticket, it's suddenly "identity politics"?
Cancel culture is about exclusion. It's saying that the public square can't take a free fight. It's saying that we can't defend our own opinions and beliefs so we need to silence others.
We don't agree with that. But we also don't agree with exclusion based on gender, race or sexual orientation. Most of the people who rail against cancel culture can't say the same.
J.K. Rowling keeps getting into trouble for her remarks about transgender persons. Now John Cleese has stepped into it with remarks that attack the trans community. He thought he was being clever but he wasn't. The problem with hiring non-trans performers for trans roles or, look at Sia's new project, non-autistic people for autistic roles? What roles are these actors going to play?
These are roles about their lives, their lived experiences. If they're shut out of these roles, what roles are they allowed?
We've called out LOVE, VICTOR. It's a dull and soggy HULU TV show but what's even worse is that they've cast an adult actor in the lead role and he's not gay -- or, if he is gay, he's not out of the closet. Why is that a problem? Their promotional material and the whole point of the TV show is that it's okay to be gay. We believe it is okay to be gay, to be a lesbian, to be transgender, to be bi, etc. But if the people behind LOVE, VICTOR believe it, why have they case a gay role with a straight actor?
Now what we just stated in the previous paragraph? E-mails will come in. They always do. "Ava and C.I., you didn't say straight was okay! You didn't say being straight was okay!" No, we didn't.
Nor do we have to. See, for centuries, the dominant cultural message has been that it's okay to be straight. No one needs reassuring of that. It's like when people whine that saying "Black Lives Matter" is saying that other lives don't. No, that's not what it's saying. "Black Lives Matter" is a needed cry in a world that has long maintained that White lives matter. "Black Lives Matter" is a slogan about inclusion about expansion.
And we believe in expansion and inclusion. That's how democracy remains vibrant, that's how societies grow. We debate in the public square. We make our argument, you make your argument, we hopefully find common ground.
We believe in free speech. A number of people today apparently do not agree with that. Say something someone disagrees with and you can be cancelled. Your entire life, your entire work will be disappeared.
We don't support that. We've been here for 15 years and counting and we've never praised the awful Bill Maher who we think is a sexist and a racist. We've called him out over and over. But, please note, we've said HBO needs to bring on other voices (they especially need to find a female host), we've never said, "Fire Bill Maher!"
We want more voices. That is always our cry.
But we don't get more voices and that's what's really sad.
Take that hideous 'gift' to women from TCM. TCM's airing WOMEN MAKE FILM -- a dull and boring, superficial look at the role of women in film. And we're supposed to be thrilled. Why? Fourteen hours 'dedicated' to women. Oh, honey, did we 'win' the vote?
We certainly didn't win anything with a documentary entitled WOMEN MAKE FILM when the documentary is directed . . . by a man.
Maybe it should have been titled WOMEN MAKE FILM BUT NOT THIS ONE?
Why is TCM unable to air a documentary made by a woman about women making film? There are plenty of them around and they don't have the smarmy feel that Mark Cousin's documentary does. For example, Rosanna Arquette's SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER from 2002 makes stronger points and does so in far less running time. There's Janis Cole and Holly Dale's 1988 documentary CALLING THE SHOTS, Amy Adrion's HALF THE PICTURE and there's Ursula Macfarlane's UNTOUCHABLE about the way the industry made nice with Harvey Weinstein for years while he used his power in the industry to harass, assault and rape women. Those are just four documentaries -- made by women about women in the film industry. And instead of giving women a voice, TCM is wasting fourteen hours with a project about women filmmakers as seen by a male director.
Again, we argue for inclusion. Over and over, that's what we call for. Actually, that's what we demand. And maybe that's the problem? That we think we have a right to demand? Men always think they have that right, after all. But women? We tend to ask and tend to do so nicely. After all, when Olivia issued her call for cancel culture all those years ago, she didn't demand, she begged, and she used "please" repeatedly -- "Please, mister, please . . ."
