That's from Sunday and very accurate.
Carl Davidson on Progressive Radio with Matthew Rothschild.
Carl is 60s refuge that refuses to flush down. He's a liar and there was a hilarious article in The Internationalist in the February 2009 issue taking Carl and those like him to task. Nothing that they lie and that the lie repeatedly.
They glom on any kind of movement, as the magazine explained, because then they can proclaim, "See! Communism, it's hugely popular!" Or whatever else. Carl is in the same Circle Jerk with Tom Hayden and Toad Giltin. They are three prigs who were prigs back then.
I'm also realizing that all three weren't poor but looked down on those with money. I hadn't realized that until right now. They started off with huge class envy and never got over it.
Carl was lying like crazy to Matt. He was also exposing how out of it he is. Someone really needs to tell the Carls and Toms that they cannot speak for Occupy. They can offer suggestions but they're really not in the place to be 'the authority.' It is not their movement.
On movement, Carl had hilarious reasons for the political conditions today. Strangely, his refusal to stop trying to be a leader wasn't one of them. If you don't step aside and let the generations coming up take the leadership, you kill off the movement.
But Carl always wanted to be in charge. He was griping that people want to be activists today but in his day they wanted to be organizers. They need more organizers, he insisted, today.
But, of course, back in the day, he didn't want others to organize. He especially did not women to be organizers. He's among the pigs who felt women 'served' the movement by serving coffee (and putting out -- though even in the sexually free sixties, Carl had trouble finding partners -- for obvious reasons).
Listening, I wondered how many people he fooled?
Besides himself of course. FOr over forty years, he's been convinced he would seize control of the Democratic Party and get the policies he wanted. Never happened. If that time and energy had instead been used to form a real party, there might be a significant challenge today to the Republicrats.
But you cannot build anything with lies and that's all he has.
"TV: American Liars" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Joan Rivers didn't owe anyone her life or her first-born.
Not only was Joan on Jack Paar's The Tonight Show, she also did Ed Sullivan's show before Johnny took over The Tonight Show in 1965. She had a career, a thriving career. She was one of the few female comics that did. Her comic persona, like most personas, grabbed a social stereotype and expanded upon it. For Joan, that was the gossipy and bitchy woman. She made it very funny and imploded the stereotype. (Some accuse her of perpetuating the stereotype. As a comedy pioneer, Joan Rivers deserves credit that she's largely never given. She and Phyllis Diller are part of a wave that changed mainstream comedy.)
She was huge in NYC and was already playing to packed houses across the country.
Even if Johnny's show had been her first show, however, it's so very telling that Johnny's little flunkies feel she owes everything to him when Red Skelton so graciously refused to claim Johnny owed him a debt, stating he just put Johnny on TV, that the success and response was a result of what Johnny did.
Joan Rivers owed him nothing. When she appeared on his show in the 80s, he wasn't doing her a favor. As guest or host, she always brought with her a huge spike in the ratings. Carson was old hat and an old man. In the 80s, he was lost. His sniggering at gays and lesbians, really not that funny in the 70s and by the 80s more and more people found him obsolete. Joan Rivers had a large fan base including many gay people. She brought modernity to his otherwise creaky show that was honestly creepy as he continued to hit on young women on the air. (And more and more women were telling their agents they didn't want to sit across from Johnny.) With his bald spot and his 70s sideburns, Carson looked as ridiculous in the 80s as the soon-to-be forty Seth Meyers looks trying to do Weekend Update on the 'young people's show' Saturday Night Live.
Some will say, "That's your opinion." And it is. It is our opinion that Joan Rivers -- or any other guest (including those that slept with him) -- didn't owe Carson a damn thing. We don't believe, for example, that Elvis or the Beatles owe Ed Sullivan a damn thing either. And we can't recall ever hearing anyone make the claim that they did. So we're wondering why it is that a woman -- a successful one who carved a career by herself and has maintained one all these years when so many men couldn't -- is said to "owe" some man anything?
If Joan owed Johnny, if you accept that nonsense, then certainly he owed Joan. She was getting strong ratings -- better ratings, in fact -- when she would grab the show for a week of guest hosting. A detail that they like to skip.
(However, the 'documentary' loves to make absurd claims to inflate Johnny Carson including insisting that a 1969 broadcast had over 45 million viewers. No, over 45 million people didn't watch a late night broadcast. The local ratings don't prove that. And that's what you have to do, to get a figure, because there was no national rating released on that program by Nielsen. It was generally said to have been 21.4 million viewers in real time. Some have asserted the claim of 40 million but, in real time, the press reported 21.4 million. That was the accepted number for years. Tiny Tim's death prompted some to suddenly elevate the number to 40 million in the late 90s. Now we're upping it to 45 million? And no "85% of all viewers" did not watch the broadcast. 85% is the number for NYC only and NYC was its best market. These things are called "facts." Documentaries should include them.)
Why did Joan Rivers decide to do her own show? Fox was not her first offer for a late night show. Why did she decide to leave The Tonight Show?
If it was truly a program with integrity or respect for the truth, viewers might have learned that Johnny and NBC came up with a list of replacements for him for when he retired. Joan was now the permanent host. There were ten names on the list. These were who the network and Johnny could agree on. When this is noted today, those rare times, it's usually implied that it was all the network. No, Johnny had input too. He and the network came up with that list.
Joan was delivering ratings and was the permanent guest host. That she wasn't number one on the list must have been hurtful. That she didn't even make the list was outrageous.
Trust is a two-way street unless it's PBS and they want to trash a woman. Then they vanish that detail, they vanish the entire reason Joan Rivers was ready to leave The Tonight Show. And little liar Peter Jones goes around giving interviews claiming Joan Rivers betrayed Carson.
If there was a betrayal of anyone, the first betrayal was when Joan Rivers was not considered for permanent replacement host.
I was asked about the Joan Rivers things by many people. Mutual friends of C.I. and I called to ask why, after Rivers trashed C.I. in the 80s, C.I. was being kind enough to defend her? I would generally say, "Okay, remember in ___ when C.I. ___" and the person on the other end would respond, "Oh, yeah." Because C.I. has a history of fairness. She will go out of her way to give someone the benefit of the doubt. She will also go out of her way to make sure someone receives due credit.
That is how she is. I'll write more on that tomorrow but right now I will just note that I don't feel that need. I admire it in C.I. and think she's a much better person than I am. But I don't bother to defend or be fair to people who attack me.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):