Tuesday, June 04, 2019

This edition's playlist

mavis

1)  Mavis StaplesWE GET BY.


2) Dionne Warwick's SHE'S BACK.


3)  Chaka Khan's HELLO HAPPINESS.


4) Rhiannon Giddens' THERE IS NO OTHER.



5) Sam Smith's THE THRILL OF IT ALL.


6) Ben Harper's CALL IT WHAT IT IS.


7) Cat PowersWANDERER.


8) Mavis Staples' LIVE IN LONDON.



9) Janet Jackson's UNBREAKABLE.



10) Alicia KeysHERE.






Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.


"Troops in Alaska and Texas prepare to deploy to Iraq" -- most requested highlight of the week.


"Prok chops with corn relish in the Kitchen" and "Keto Low Carb Chocolate Cheesecake in the Kitchen" -- two recipes from Trina.

 


"netflix's 'what if'," "dynasty tries to be dallas on the season finale," "Nate Bargatze!," "FOSSE/VERDON, STAR"  and "Batwoman" -- TV coverage.


 



"5 great Sheena Easton tracks," "Music and e-mails," "If they asked Debbie, she could write a book,"
 "Carole King milks TAPESTRY again," "5 great tracks by Blondie" and "Music and science" -- music coverage in the community.



"Joe Biden is a racist," "Go, Joe, away -- far, far away," "Joe Biden leaves an impression," "The disgusting Senators Menendez and Coons," "joe biden is a failure," "creepy joe needs to keep his hands to himself," "No, Joe, just no," "Joe Biden's plagiarizing again!," "Wheezie Joe, who died when you didn't go?," "When the levee breaks," "Why Flynn was targeted? Terrorism," "Stand with Anita," "Shut up, Tammy!," "Wheezie Joe Biden used asthma to stay out of Vietnam," "Americans have already demonstrated they will vote for a female president,"  "Yet again, they smear Tulsi" and "John Stauber, Isaiah" -- political coverage in the community.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

TV: It's show runners, not show ruiners

What or if the wrong show runner was put in charge? It's a question that should plague NETFLIX and ABC.


3 JESS

For example, ABC won last Thursday night with the special THIS IS FARRAH FAWCETT but was it worth it?  Shoddy doesn't begin to describe it.  We had no problem with the friends and family remembering the late actress (one of us, C.I., was friends with Farrah).  We do have problems with 'experts' being brought on.  For example, a female 'expert' at one time in the special wanted you to know that Lee Majors was the star of THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN and Farrah was starring in the first season of CHARLIE'S ANGELS when the two got married and they were like Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, no, like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie!

You see the problem?

In March of 1976, the CHARLIE'S ANGEL two hour telefilm/pilot aired.  In the fall of 1976, the tv show premiered.  She had married Lee Majors three years earlier.  Before their marriage, she appeared on two episodes of his series OWEN MARSHALL (1971) and, after she married him, she'd appear four times on THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN.  She played Sue on eight episodes of HARRY O and, like fellow ANGEL Jaclyn Smith, she did an episode of MCLOUD.  That doesn't begin to cover her TV work before CHARLIE'S ANGELS but that covers a lot more than ABC's two hour documentary did.

We were shocked by the gross stupidity of 'expert' Chris Connelly.  First of all, he referred to TV movies as the graveyard.  THE BURNING BED, SMALL SACRIFICES, BETWEEN TWO WOMEN, NAZI HUNTER, POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL, etc were not the graveyard.  They were some of the strongest roles written for women during that time period and Farrah was excellent in the roles.  His snobbery belongs to another era.  Equally true, they really didn't explore her film career which included working with Robert Altman, Alan J. Pakula and many others.  Nor did they explain how she attempted to go on Broadway or what happened there.

They did provide Alessandra Stanley as an expert.

We've always been kind to Alessandra here.  We've assumed she'd stay in her own lane.  She strayed.  Go back and you'll see past pieces we've done where we referred to Alessandra without naming her.  She savaged Farrah in a review that left Farrah in tears.  So it's a bit hypocritical for her to show up as an expert on Farrah.  Her trashing of Farrah, in 2003, was during a period where Alessandra was known for trashing women for their looks.  Her most ridiculous piece, of that period, praised Don Johnson's looks (he's had a lot of plastic surgery though the word apparently never got passed on to Alessandra) while going to town on Melanie Griffith. After that, she pulled it back a little.  But she really hurt Farrah with her cruel review.

Now we've done cruel reviews here.  But you won't see us going on TV and pretending to be upset that someone's dead and that their work was important to us.

Back to the useless Chris Connelly.  Ryan O'Neal, Farrah's long time partner, was like Robert Pattinson after TWILIGHT was released, Chris offered as a tip.  What?  TWILIGHT was the seventh top grossing film of 2008.  LOVE STORY was the number one grossing film of 1970.  No, Ryan was not like Robert Pattison.  The correct point of reference would have been Leo when TITANIC came out.  It matters, especially if your sole purpose in the documentary is to provide points of reference.

Chris Connelly knows nothing.  Possibly he was educated at the same institution of higher unlearning that Jimmy Kimmel was?

ABC won another night last week, when they let Kimmel have his way with a live broadcast.

We have no problem with live broadcasts.  We wish there were more -- more like NBC's 1981 broadcast of Sally Field performing in the play ALL THE WAY HOME.  But whereas Sally Field looked to staging a Pulitzer Prize winning drama, for Jimmy, the 'classics' mean restaging bad TV.  Yes, boys and girls, fifty years from now someone may be hauling SUPERSTORE and AP BIO out of mothballs.

Jimmy pulled ALL IN THE FAMILY and THE JEFFERSONS out of the past.  Why?

Neither has managed to be a hit in syndication.  Neither is a show anyone really wants to watch today.  And the 'political' ALL IN THE FAMILY, as Norman Lear knows but never told the public, actually promoted racism among viewers -- as CBS polling demonstrated.  We've covered this before

THE JEFFERSONS was a poorly written show that was saved by a very strong cast.  ALL IN THE FAMILY was an offensive show that nothing saved.

But there was Jimmy, the believer, joining with the over-rated Norman Lear to pretend that the two shows could be brought back for one night just like they were then -- oh, not really like they were, ABC wouldn't let the n-word be used, thankfully -- though CBS had allowed it all those years ago.

Nothing about the broadcast made sense -- including that it was on ABC when both shows were broadcast on CBS.  Marisa Tomei came the closest to achieving anything but the two live 'shows' were mainly an SNL impersonation skit carried out way too long.

We did wonder what the hell Kerry Washington was doing playing Helen Willis?  Kerry's not known for comedy and the broadcast certainly didn't change that.  More to the point, though, if anyone was going to take on Roxie Roker's role, it should have been Zoe Kravitz.

Does Jimmy Kimmel not get how offensive Kerry Washington playing that part was?  Zoe is not just a talented actress who can do comedy and drama, she's also the granddaughter of Roxie Roker.  Why the hell wasn't she even offered the part?

As George Jefferson, Jamie Foxx struggled to stay in character and even broke it at one point when he flubbed a line.  But even worse was Wanda Sykes who, though only four years older than Foxx, seemed much, much older and also never seemed to grasp who or what Louise Jefferson was.

It was a waste of time and maybe, before Kimmel next stages a live production, someone could expose him to the actual classics or, barring that, at least to what passes for classic TV.  Hint, avoid the tawdry efforts of Norman Lear and look instead at the shows MTM produced -- THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, THE BOB NEWHART SHOW, WKRP IN CINCINNATI, NEWHART, etc.

ABC didn't air WHAT/IF -- NETFLIX is the network for that show.  But Mike Kelley finally found real success as the creator of REVENGE which aired on ABC.  One of the reasons WHAT/IF didn't air on ABC?  Kelley ruined REVENGE so much that before season two was completed, ABC had announced that he was leaving.

Mike had a problem with casting.  There were rumors involved on that topic but we'll just note that his idea of a man wasn't always ABC's idea of a man.

He still has that problem.

The average WHAT/IF review tells you that Academy Award winner Renee Zellweger is worth watching but no one else.

That's not reality.  The entire cast does a strong job except for one.

29-year-old Jane Levy plays the lead role, Lisa, and she's wonderful and more than carries her own.  She can't, however, also carry Blake Jenner who plays a bad actor playing her husband.  Or is he just a bad actor?  Yeah, he's just a bad actor.  He's also 26-years-old.  Three years younger than Levy.  More to the point, also younger than his character who is supposed to have graduated high school ten years prior.

Among other things, he's also a murdered a man, flamed out in professional baseball and much more.

But Blake Jenner has no experience -- life or acting classes -- to draw on.  He does have the worst sunburns since FOX tried to pursue the teen crowd.

Why is it that Mike Kelley hates men?

As ABC told him, stop casting tall boys as men.  It remains a problem for him.

And it remains a huge problem for WHAT/IF.

At one point, we're supposed to believe that not only is Jane Levy's character attracted to Blake Jenner but so is Renee's character.  It's impossible to believe that.  In an early scene, Renee orders a drink and asks Blake Jenner to have a drink with her.  He says it's against the rules.  It's much easier to believe it's against the law -- him not looking like anyone who's reached the age of drinking.

Repeatedly, he's referred to as "the boy" throughout.  You never raise your eyes over that.  The one time he's called a "man'?  That pulls you out of the show and back into reality.

Mike Kelley's concept of manhood was always a problem for REVENGE -- Danny, Declan, etc.  It's an even bigger problem here when Renee is toying with Blake -- toying with a child.

There's a laughable ten year high school reunion that takes place late in the mini-series.  Blake Jenner's surrounded by actors playing 28 and 29 year olds.  And they all look the part.  While he looks like one of the graduates brought along their kid. 

His acting is weak and awful.  Though he shows his naked ass repeatedly, he has zero sex appeal.  And he looks too damn young to play the part (and, in fact, he is too young to play the part).  This is one of the three principal roles and Mike Kelley has miscast it -- it is a ghastly miscasting.

As Mike ruined REVENGE -- as he became more interested in a new actor than he was in the show's main character Emily Thorne -- ABC repeatedly told him that he was destroying the show.  He didn't listen and that's why ABC removed him from the show.  The rumors swirling around Mike and the flavor didn't help either.  Post-REVENGE, the flavor has repeatedly attempted to find fame and failed -- maybe next fall on NBC will turn out differently?  (We would guess not.  But let's see.)

Mike Kelley should not be allowed to cast roles and that's why he's not with ABC.  NETFLIX continues to waste money -- their business model remains a failure.  They're also making stupid decisions.  WHAT/IF should have been a tight and addictive thriller.  Thanks to Blake Jenner (and Mike's misguided tastes), it's not.


The lesson for ABC and NETFLIX last week should have been that everyone is not a show runner, that show running is a skill.  And that before you hand over funds to someone who claims they can execute a program well, you use the best of your abilities to make sure that is the case.


Monday, May 20, 2019

Truest statement of the week

The objective fact that large numbers of the public accept that the U.S. can determine the leadership of another sovereign nation while simultaneously being outraged by the idea of a foreign power interfering in U.S. elections demonstrates the mindboggling subjective contradictions that exist in the U.S. For example – that an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez can assert that she will defer to the leadership of her caucus on the issue of Venezuela or that Barbara Lee can vote to bring Trump’s budget proposal out of committee or that Biden can proudly support Trump’s immoral backing of a neo-fascist opposition in Venezuela andthey will all get away with those positions – reveals the incredible challenge that we face in building an alternative radical movement for peace, social justice and people(s)-centered human rights. 
So, we must join with U.S. Peace Council and the other members of the Anti-war, pro-peace, and anti-imperialist communities in the U.S. to “resist and oppose this military attack on our communities, our livelihoods and our lives.” This is an urgent and militant first step in reversing the cultural support for violence and the normalization of war that currently exists in the U.S. Now is the moment to demand that Congress reject and reverse the Trump Administration’s military budget and the U.S. Government’s militaristic foreign policy. But now is also the moment to commit to building a powerful countermovement to take back the power over life and death from the denizens of violence represented by the rapacious 1%. 

-- Ajuma Baraka, "2020 Elections: Its Militarism and the Military Budget Stupid!" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).









Truest statement of the week II

The evil war mongers are very stupid but that it isn’t a cause for celebration. Unintended consequences have already lead to two world wars and millions of dead.  Unfortunately no one who ought to educate the public on this subject are doing what they should. The corporate media always support presidents at war. Even supposedly liberal outlets have spent years demonizing Russia, Venezuela and Iran. In so doing they have made the population ignorant and or blood thirsty. Democrats in congress are equally imperialist and will say nothing as the government plans a humanitarian catastrophe. At most they will mutter that Trump must ask for their approval before killing thousands of people. Instead they carry on the discredited Russiagate story but oppose none of the things that actually make the Trump administration so dangerous.

-- Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider: U.S. Wages War Against the World" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).






A note to our readers

Hey --

Monday evening.


Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following




The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?

Ajamu Baraka gets a truest.
Margaret Kimberley gets another truest.
Pay attention to who is really speaking out on this issue and who may be just offering lip service.
Ava and C.I. take on the garbage that was supposed to be a celebration of LAUGH-IN.
We respond to some of your e-mails.
Instead of a weekly poll of who's hot and who's not in the presidential race, we're going to try to do a weekly register -- a ranking of the candidates based upon who is addressing serious issues and who's just pandering and f**king around.
This NEWSHOUR interview was censored by GOOGLE NEWS over the weekend.
Dionne Warwick's "Tears Ago."
CBS NEWS is the only US broadcast network with a journalist in Iraq.
Throw a house party!
What we listened to while writing.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.


Peace,

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.














Editorial: No to expanding the Iraq War to Iran and no to candidates who don't call it out

Tensions rise in the Middle East -- as a result of actions by the US government.  RT reports:

          
As Washington and Tehran trade threats, a number of influential Iraqi Shia leaders have warned that a conflict between the US and Iran would be disastrous for Iraq, possibly destroying the country beyond repair.
A prominent Shia cleric, a leading politician and two militia representatives each voiced opposition to a possible war with the Islamic Republic on Monday, warning of apocalyptic consequences for their country.
“This war would mark the end of Iraq,” said Shia cleric and politician Muqtada al-Sadr, whose populist ‘Sadrist’ movement enjoys a large following. “We need peace and reconstruction.”
Any political party that would advocate such a war “would be the enemy of the Iraqi people,” al-Sadr said, arguing that Iraq would become “a scene for conflict,” caught between the warring powers.


Sunday, there was a rocket attack on the Green Zone.  Rocket attacks on the Green Zone are common.  REUTERS notes the most recent one was in September.  AP noted that the US State Dept was saying the rocket landed near the US Embassy.  With no proof, Carlo Munoz (WASHINGTON TIMES) rushed to insist the US Embassy was the target and to link Iran to the attack.  This was not just bad reporting, in the current climate, this was dangerous reporting.

There was no evidence cited in Munoz's 'report.'  And no evidence has been cited period.


If the United States has evidence of Iranian threats against the peace and specifically against the U.S. take it to Security Council, an action most "normal states" would pursue. But the U.S. is not a "normal state," it is a rogue state & threat to peace & international order.






THE ARAB TIMES reminds, "Last week, the US ordered the evacuation of nonessential diplomatic staff from Iraq amid unspecified threats from Iran and rising tensions across the region.  The White House has also sent warships and bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter the alleged Iranian threats. Iraqi military spokesman Brig Gen Yahya Rasoul tweeted Monday that the army command in Baghdad is working 'day and night; to guarantee the security of citizens, foreign missions and international and local companies."  Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Bassem Mroue (AP) add, "As tensions escalate, there are concerns that Baghdad could once again get caught in the middle, just as it is on the path to recovery. The country hosts more than 5,000 U.S. troops, and is home to powerful Iranian-backed militias, some of whom want those U.S. forces to leave."

The Iraq War continues and the US government is working to expand it into neighboring Iran.


US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard is an Iraq War veteran who is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Sunday she appeared on ABC's THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULUS:


GABBARD: The problem that I have seen is that across both Democrat and Republican administrations, and especially in this Trump administration where, right now, he is leading us down this dangerous path towards a war with Iran …
STEPHANOPOULOS: He says he doesn’t want it.
GABBARD: He says he doesn’t want it but the actions of him and his administration, people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, tell us a very different story. They are setting the stage for a war with Iran that would prove to be far more costly, far more devastating and dangerous than anything that we saw in the Iraq war, a war that I served in a medical unit where every single day I saw firsthand the high human cost of war.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, one of the actions they took this week was evacuating, as you know, our diplomatic posts in Iraq because they were concerned, based on the intelligence, that Iran may be looking to strike U.S. interests. You don’t buy it?

GABBARD: I don’t. You know, we heard conflicting stories coming from the British commander who is the co-commander of the fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda there in Iraq and Syria saying, hey, he hadn’t seen an escalation of tensions or threats coming from these Iraqi – or these Shia militias serving in Iraq. I think what we’re seeing, unfortunately, is what looks a lot like people in the Trump administration trying to create a pretext or an excuse for us to go to war against Iran, a war that would actually undermine our national security, cost us countless American lives, cost civilian lives across the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis in Europe, and it would actually make us less safe by strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. 




Friday, Tulsi Gabbard appeared on PBS' THE NEWSHOUR and discussed the possibility of war on Iran:



  • Judy Woodruff:
    Right now, there is a lot of attention being paid to whether the Trump administration is edging closer to some sort of military confrontation with Iran.
    What would you be doing differently?


  • Rep. Tulsi Gabbard:
    A number of things.
    I think, first, it's important to make sure the American people understand that a war with Iran would be far more costly and far more devastating than anything that we experienced in Iraq.
    What we would see is a devastating cost on our troops, my brothers and sisters in uniform, a cost on the civilians, people both in Iran and across the region, worst refugee crisis across Europe, as well as a strengthening of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida, further undermining our national security.
    So, it would essentially make the war in Iraq look like a cakewalk, when we look at the cost of going to war with Iran.


  • Not only do we need to oppose war on Iran, we need to register which candidates who'd like to be president are speaking out against such a move.  Strongly speaking out at this point?  Tulsi, US Senator Bernie Sanders, US House Rep. Seth Moulton and former US Senator Mike Gravel.


    We should also note that Senator Elizabeth Warren raised the issue.  Once in her Twitter feed.  On May 14th.  Six days later and she hasn't mentioned it again.  Her Twitter feed has added 20 Tweets since then and not one of them was about war on Iran.  Thanks for standing up -- that one time -- Elizabeth.

    TV: NETFLIX comes not to praise LAUGH-IN but to bore you

    This weekend, NETFLIX offered STILL LAUGH-IN: THE STARS CELEBRATE.  A more apt title would have been NETFLIX COMES NOT TO PRAISE LAUGH-IN BUT TO BORE YOU.  By going with the other title, they begged the question: What stars?

    3 JESS

    For those who don't know LAUGH-IN, the show ran on NBC from 1967 to 1973 and was actually titled ROWAN & MARTIN'S LAUGH-IN.  An hour long comedy, it featured blackout jokes, cutaways, skits, gags and much more.  It was not the second coming of comedy.  It was often funny.

    The funniest thing about LAUGH-IN was Goldie Hawn.  She was the breakout star and, while still on the show, landed her role in the film CACTUS FLOWER.  She became a movie star and an Academy Award winner.  Goldie's known for her good taste -- which goes a long, long way towards explaining why she didn't appear on the special.

    Actually, "special" is far too generous.  What Jon Macks wrote was often pedestrian and sometimes offensive.  He's not really a writer.  He stumbled into comedy via politics -- he's a writer for various Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren -- a politician never known for having a sense of humor.  We'd argue Macks and Warren are a good fit.

    Him and LAUGH-IN?  Not so much.

    Co-host Neil Patrick Harris made a running joke of himself about to perform a song.  It was all pointless but, for the record, LAUGH-IN frequently featured songs -- original songs performed by the cast.  And the special offered a song -- Rita Moreno and Rita Wilson . . .  doing what?

    Did they tape a rehearsal?  Because neither woman had any real dance moves.  LAUGH-IN had choreography.  It also had costumes.  Can anyone explain the outfits the two Ritas showed up in?  Nice street wear but nothing you'd perform a musical number in.

    Tiffany Haddish, co-host of the whatever, always dressed with style and provided some of the few actual laughs.  Few others could make the same claim.

    Lily Tomlin showed up with Ruth Buzzi and Jo Anne Worley.  The three had all appeared on LAUGH-IN.  For Buzzi and Worley, LAUGH-IN was the height of their careers in terms of visibility.  Lily, of course, would go on to films (including her Academy Award nominated role in NASHVILLE) comedy recording success (Grammy winner for her album THIS IS A RECORDING) and to success on stage (including her Tony Award winning performance in Jane Wagner's THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE) as well as to success on TV (seven Emmy wins -- and, for GRACE AND FRANKIE, four nominations).  Only Goldie Hawn has been more successful (Goldie became a movie star, at a time when few women emerged as film stars).

    The bulk of the cast over the years never achieved anything of prominence again.  (Richard Dawson did go on to successfully host the game show FAMILY FEUD and Teresa Graves would star in the single-season series GET CHRISTY LOVE.)  That's not really a surprise, George Schlatter never achieved much himself after LAUGH-IN.

    Who?

    Exactly.  A professional liar is all George is and it's about time we all faced that fact.  He had no real vision, he lucked in to LAUGH-IN.  He did variety shows and did them poorly -- like when he took over Judy Garland's CBS variety show.  George didn't even create LAUGH-IN -- Digby Wolfe did.

    "Who?"

    That's the question you'd ask if you saw the NETFLIX product.  By the way, it was produced by . . . George Schlatter.  So he's not only a professional liar, he's also a back-stabbing credit grabbing ass.

    Let's stay with that for a moment.

    Lily did a bit as Ernestine where her famous phone operator was now working for a healthcare company.  It was funny.  She also did a two-liner where she said President Donald Trump had created jobs -- in the special prosecutors office.

    Why?

    Why did Lily appear on this crap special?

    Chelsea Handler did a bit with Mary McCormack which would have been funny as a one liner but instead went on and on.  They spoke of LAUGH-IN's historic place in gender studies: in the late sixties, it dared to let men do comedy and took on the notion that men couldn't do comedy.

    Again, it went on way too long, but the bit did have a point.

    And we do as well.

    It's 2019.  Why the hell is Lily doing this crap ass special?

    In the series of the original show, 41 people get credit as writers -- George Schattler among them.

    Lily, dear, who created Edith Ann?

    You did.

    Who created Ernestine?

    You did.

    Where's your writing credit?

    Lily never got a writing credit.

    In fact, no woman ever got a writing credit on that show.  All 41 credited writers are men.

    It's 2019.  Any debt Lily owed George ended long ago.  And considering that Lily carried the show in its last two seasons, it's actually George who owes her.

    There's no reason for women -- and that goes to Chelsea and Mary as well -- to prop up men who did their best to hold women back.  And that's what George did and Lily knows that.  For every Lily hire (a comedy hire), ten women were hired to be scantily dressed.  Goldie broke through -- while other dancers on the show didn't -- by the sheer force of her personality.

    Women often have to use the sheer force of their personality to break through stereotypical rows.  Look at Tracee Ellis Ross.  An incredible actress with great comic timing who is trapped in a sexist and stunted role on BLACK-ISH but makes it more than it is on paper as a result of her personality.  In fact, BLACK-ISH has been one of the most sexist programs of this decade.  Jennifer Lewis also used her personality to make the one-note and minor role of Ruby Johnson entertaining and moving herself (in season two) into the actual cast.  Why are we the only ones who can point out sexism?  We've done it with BLACK-ISH, we did it the year the networks offered not one new series revolving around a woman.  Does no one else see the sexism?  Do they watch the first season of BLACK-ISH and somehow miss that Dre's co-workers are all men?  Was he working at PENISES UNLIMTED or was it that BLACK-ISH creator Kenya Barris is just a dick?

    It's the latter.

    And it's worth commenting on because Barris appeared on the show -- looking like a grossly obese Lucifer.  And clothes?  Did he wake up from his nap on the couch to rush to the stage?  Those jeans and that football jersey went to the fact that Barris is trash and always will be.

    That was even more clear as he used the supposed celebration of LAUGH-IN to praise himself, his supposed bravery, his supposed success.

    Kenya landed a diversity-hire contract with NETFLIX worth millions.  Don't mistake that for success.  Kenya does.

    Unlike Shonda Rhimes -- or even, to a lesser degree, Ryan Murphy, Kenya brings nothing to NETFLIX.  Shonda is responsible for TV success -- that's GREY'S ANATOMY and PRIVATE PRACTICE and SCANDAL.  Those were huge shows.

    BLACK-ISH?

    It's never been a hit.  To this day, it's ratings are awful.  Season one, the show was the 54th most watched series on broadcast TV during primetime.  That was the best things ever got for BLACK-ISH. For the fall 2017 to spring 2018 season, it was the 84th most watched series.  This week, the final new episode of the season airs and no one's watching anymore as the show churns out 2 million viewers the last two weeks.

    As Kenya stood on the stage praising himself endlessly, he may have provided the funniest moment -- however unintentionally.  Unintentional laughs were also provided when Billy Crystal walked onstage.  Was that a wig he was wearing?

    Regardless, there he was, film failure whose career made clear that people would pay to see popular concepts he was in but wouldn't pay money to see him in films.  This was especially true when Crystal tried to write a screenplay and, worse, when he tried to direct.

    His career dried up sometime ago.  But there he was, desperate for attention.  Doing stand up.  Stand up?  LAUGH-IN really didn't do stand up.  Nor did they do the political he was doing.

    Lily's joke about the special prosecutor was the type of joke that a LAUGH-IN might do.  It was quick, it was fleeting.  Billy doing a series of parody Tweets that a President Donald Trump might have Tweeted?  Not really funny and not really the sort of thing LAUGH-IN would have done.

    It wasn't political, it was partisan and it was really hateful and stopped the show -- not in a good way.  Can we get a safe space option where we can just enjoy what's supposed to be entertainment without Donald Trump being injected into it?  We get that the outrage culture has turned their lives over to Donald Trump but not everyone on the left is dying to hear about Donald.  We'd like to enjoy our evenings Donald-free. 

    A friend who writes for SNL called us and said he turned off the special in the middle of Billy Crystal's nonsense.  "What was that crap?" he asked us.

    We have no idea.

    We'd guess it's more garbage from NETFLIX which keeps throwing millions out to Barack Obama and his former administration officials.  No jokes were made about Democrats.  It's a one-sided, sort of hate-fest and, again, we're bothered that Lily participated.  Nothing she did was hateful but we really think it was a mistake for her to participate.  Again, good for Goldie Hawn for saying no -- a true class act.

    George's one-sided view was really amazing to us because we know George, we know what a piece of s**t he is and how close with Richard Nixon -- the cancer on America.  But it's his efforts to suppress an honest discussion about the assassination of John F. Kennedy that should really have Schattler railroaded out of polite society.

    He deliberately altered an interview with Jim Garrison for SPEAK UP AMERICA.  John Barbour was the producer and he was the one Schattler stabbed in the back, going around Barbour to have the interview re-edited and telling the editor not to inform Barbour that it had been done.  If news of the real George Schlatter -- piece of trash Schlatter -- is news to you, you can start your reading list with this interview with John Barbour.

    Schlatter ensured, as producer of the NETFLIX product, that Digby Wolfe, the real creator of LAUGH-IN -- and the only person ever professionally credited as a creator of the show, was erased.  Listening to lunatics like Kenya Barris claim George invented it all, we realized that if he didn't vanish Wolfe, he'd also have to admit that LAUGH-IN owed a large debt to the UK's THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS (which Digby wrote for).

    The NETFLIX product was an embarrassment. And watching it will leave you confused -- especially about the whole "THE STARS CELEBRATE" aspect of the show's title.  What stars?  Lily Tomlin and Michael Douglas?  Well they have NETFLIX shows, maybe they were forced to appear?  Other than those two though, where were the stars?  Like truth, they were absent from the program.





    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
     
    Poll1 { display:none; }