Some recent tidbits of information which have landed in the World’s Laziest Journalist’s inbox indicate that it may be time to write a column about the possibility that Republican Party may soon need to redefine their stand on the Sanctity of Marriage.
Item no. one is the fact that after admitting that he had asked his wife for an open marriage, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina Primary.
Item no. two: Playboy magazine is about to begin marking the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Playboy Philosophy series.
Item no. three: A caller to the Norm Goldman radio talk show pointed out that the Republicans discredited Herman Kane because of clandestine love affairs, but the Republicans are giving Newt the old “See no evil” response for his request for an open marriage. The caller automatically accused the Republicans of being racist in their diverse reactions. It never occurred to that caller that the difference is the transparency of the need for diversity. Kane relied on deceit. Newt prefers the philosophy of openness and Swinging.
Item no. four: We found our paperback copy of Gay Talese’s book “Thy Neighbor’s Wife.”
Since a large portion of journalism in America these days is based on celebrity gossip wouldn’t a Swinging couple in the White House be a godsend to the Political desks in newsrooms all across the USA? Can you just imagine how enthusiastic the coverage of a visit by a Swinging first family to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s home would be?
Newt could elicit (not to be confused with the word illicit) comparisons to JFK by quipping to the press: “I’m the man who is accompanying Callista to Paris.”
Didn’t the wife of a Canadian Prime Minister generate extensive gossip and criticism of her husband by being a fan of the Rolling Stones band, a few years back?
Reality TV is very popular on cable these days. Perhaps it’s time for an adventuresome production company to make a deal with a swingers group? How about a series titled “Return to the A-Frame”?
If you think that despising the boss is a universal manifestation of a natural workers’ tendency then you have never talked with writers who have gotten a check from Larry Flynt Publications. Some Conservative Compassionate Christians may not (openly) agree with Flynt’s liberal attitude toward sex, but isn’t it remarkable when all of a fellow’s employees speak well of the boss?
Do people who get a chance to visit the Playboy Mansion brag about the experience or do they treat it as if it were a shameful incident which must quickly be forgotten? Who doesn’t want an invitation to visit there? Would Bishop Sheen have turned down such an opportunity?
Are Hugh Hefner’s employees inundated with requests for a chance to see their boss’ home? Is this year’s Playboy Mansion Halloween Party already booked to capacity?
Remind us to ask a former co-worker at the Independent Journal that question the next time we visit Santa Monica.
On page 220 of the Dell Book paperback edition of “Thy Neighbors Wife,” Gay Talese wrote: “The Berkeley Free Speech Movement in 1965, which forged its slogan from the initials of a four-letter word (“Freedom Under Clark Kerr”), as well as civil rights protests in the South, and the subsequent anti-war demonstrations and marches on Washington – the sit-ins, the teach-ins, the love-ins – all were manifestations of a new generation that was less sexually repressed than its ancestors and also less willing to respect political authority and social tradition, color barriers and draft boards, deans and priests.”
Wouldn’t the people who graduated in the Class of 1965, just now be getting to be Presidential Candidate age? What college did Newt attend? Could it be that the flower power generation is just now getting its chance to do what they said LBJ and Nixon couldn’t or wouldn’t do?
Is Newt just now getting ready to bring the party that once included George Romney, into the era of the Playboy Philosophy . . . or has Newt been “brainwashed”?
While we are on the subject, aren’t all the top Republicans encouraging the current field of candidates to tear each other apart? Crocodile tears? Where are the candidates spending their campaign funds? On ads, right? Who owns the newspapers and TV stations around the USA? Usually it’s conservative Republicans, eh? If the top Republicans are raking in the ad revenue stirred up by the continuing series of Primary cage matches and if the same media moguls plan to pull a fast one and substitute someone else as the candidate, then, metaphorically speaking, aren’t a lot of donors to the various Republican candidates “getting their ashes hauled” by the “three card Monte” style subterfuge?
We thought that all the boys in the One Percent Club had mutual non-aggression pacts with each other and the idea was to be relentless in squeezing every last dollar from every last bank account of the Ninty Nine Percenters.
If (hypothetically alert!) there is some kind of nefarious plan to put someone other than the fab four at the top of the ticket, then aren’t some members of the One Percent Club committing a fraud that will relieve some of their fellow club members of some serious amounts of money? Why donate to a fellow who is predestined not to get the nomination? Why should a candidate who is being cheated out of any fair chance to be nominated spend ad dollars to try to get spurious (if you don’t know what that word means ask a Fox News fan) votes?
It’s OK for the Republicans to fool Democrats into thinking that the Presidential elections (2000 and 2004 for instance) are not rigged, but wouldn’t it be dishonest for someone to rig the Republican Primary Election process? Isn’t there a secret “honor among thieves” clause in the Republican Party secret handbook that precludes such a fiendish double-cross?
On Monday, January 30, 2012, the New York Times featured a story on page one (above the fold), written by Jeff Zeleny, that drew attention to the curious fact that Jeb Bush, has remained curiously silent (above the fray?) about endorsing any candidate to help draw votes in Tuesday’s Florida Primary. Isn’t it intriguing that such an influential Republican who served as that state’s governor isn’t making an endorsement?
Is this an example of the B’rer Rabbit’s “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch” philosophy being applied to politics?
Haven’t Romney and Gingrich destroyed each other’s ability to represent the entire Party membership? Doesn’t that indicate that a spectator on the sidelines who didn’t get into the mudslinging free-for-all would be much better qualified to use the word “we” when giving an acceptance speech to the 2012 Republican National Convention?
Meanwhile returning to this column’s topic: Did Gingrich see and enjoy the heist flick “Bandits”? A trio of bank robbers had an unconventional love relationship. It sounds like just the kind of action adventure movie that would appeal to open-minded folks. What does Mitt think about that flick? We’d love to hear his review of “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.”
The other most likely person to get the Republican nomination is a fellow who belongs to a religion that permits polygamy. Either way, it seems that the Republican Party has to realize that if their candidate wins the Presidential race, the Grand Old Party is going to have to reconfigure its policy on the Sanctity of Marriage .
This column’s closing quote was provided by someone who shall be called “an anonymous source,” and was heard as it was uttered by the World’s Laziest Journalist. “When I saw a picture of my wife in her underwear, sitting on Mick Jagger’s lap, I knew my marriage was over.” (Wasn’t the Stones’ best selling single, “Angie,” written about David Bowie’s wife?)
Now the disk jockey will play Jimmy Buffet’s song “Let’s get drunk and screw,” the Beatles’ song “Let’s do it in the road,” and Francis Albert Sinatra’s album “Songs for Swingin’ Lovers.” We have to get back to reading a fabulous book titled “Velvet Underground.” As the leader of the rat pack would say: “Have a ring-ding-ding” week.
Bring on: “The Senator Al Franken and Bill O’Reilly show!”?
The summer of 2015 is notable for the game of musical chairs being played by the late night talks show hosts and since the lowest common denominator standards of excellence have precipitated an avalanche of pabulum flavored entertainment, perhaps it is time to beg Huge Hefner to bankroll a return to intelligent, thought-provoking, and civilized debate to counteract the tsunami of crap that is comprised of an infinite number of cloned talk shows that deliver results that remind some critics of an unattended kindergarten class on speed.
The first objection would be that appealing to a limited number of intellectuals might not attract the proper audience numbers to sanction the effort. Bullshit! If America is ready to endorse the idea that quality no longer trumps quantity, then why not let the screaming matches interrupted by crepitating and belching get some high-brow competition just for the S&G (Snide and Galling?) factor?
If cable TV networks can subsidize fictional TV series, why can’t they get their own talk shows? If “Mad Men” can exist without a home on the big networks, why can’t a talk show do the same? Wouldn’t most cable channels be willing to discuss the possibilities with Mr. Hefner?
Episodes of Edward R. Murrow’s “Person to Person,” such as the interview with Marlon Brando which started with a racist joke, are still drawing fresh viewers on youtube. Intrinsic quality can refute the short shelf life or grown stale argument.
Where the hell, in the talk show jungle, does a person go to see and evaluate new talent attempting to make a dent in the pop culture? [An internet acquaintance from Australia introduced us to the term/concept “Cultural Imperialism.”]
The trend to use talk show appearances to promote items such as a new album, book, or film has reduced the content to the level of a huckster’s sales pitch. The content of these sales pitches can accurately be called “promobabble.”
According to some experts the Tonight Show in the Jack Paar era fostered quality story telling. The need to go to a commercial break causes the (new word alert?) bumperstickerization of all topics. (For an example of a non-traditional talk show guest readers are encouraged to watch the film “American Splendor.”)
If, for example, some of Hugh Hefner’s picks for future stardom are given the chance to exhibit their inherent charm, then perhaps fame and fortune will arrive at their doorstep earlier than expected.
If some of Hugh Hefner’s long time friends are on a new season of “Playboy after Dark,” it would be interesting to see and hear them get the chance to tell some stories and anecdotes that last longer than can be successfully told in a three minute segment.
So what, if a review of “King Matt the First,” by Janusz Korczak (translated from the Polish by Richard Lourie) sounds a bit too arcane and esoteric? What parent doesn’t want to learn of he existence of a marvelous children’s book from 1920 that still appeals to adults? Even better if it raises unique topics such as “must children submit to kisses from adults approved by the parents (such as aunts and uncles) or should kids have the right to pick and choose who kisses them?”
Thanks to the internet, some laggards had the opportunity to watch the final episode of “Mad Men” during the week following its broadcast. This should refute any allegations that a talk show has to be seen live to work.
Yes the concept of having an episode where someone asks George Lucas if the C. L. Moore stories about Northwest Smith had any influence on him and his Star Wars films is a very esoteric topic, but, like seeing Brando tell a racist joke, it might have some appeal to film school student fifty years (or more?) in the future.
Don’t many folks who are not in the industry love to hear show biz rumors and gossip? Is it true that the next installment of the “Saw” movie series will be a musical comedy?
The modern day installments of pundits making a critical appraisal of the week’s events in Washington D. C. is supposed to be a chance to (metaphorically speaking) listen in on a WWII bull session featuring Morrow’s Boys, but the reality is that it is actually a melee of authors with competing egos who want to deliver either a scathing example of wit in action or a brilliant “Eureka!” sound byte that lays bare the crux of the debate.
Are the talking heads in the USA going to ask: “What gives America the right to arrest the officials in charge of Soccer and the World Cup competition?” Does Lichtenstein have a right to arrest George W. Bush for war crimes?
Will the talk shows discuss the idea that the Broward Savings & Loan scandal should be just as important as the finances of the Clinton Foundation will be during the Presidential Election?
Is it mere coincidence that in an era when it is being asserted that a conscious effort to “dumb down” the USA is being conducted, wit is disappearing? A clever and caustic comment has to be understood to produce a laugh as a response.
If news for voters in the USA is being carefully monitored, that might explain why the Sunday morning gabfests don’t draw attention to the fact the internet is buzzing with two related rumors. One is that a neutron bomb was dropped on Iran recently or that one was sold or given to Saudi Arabia to use in Yemen.
If Americans were being given quality talk show debates, the question “Will Baghdad fall?” would present advocates of both a “yes” and “no” answer. Have you heard anyone giving the hypothetical point of view that it will fall?
Did the USA ever figure out who mailed the anthrax shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center?
Do talk shows ask about the lingering questions about who profited from selling airline stocks short at the time the World Trade attack occurred?
Speaking of the broadcasting concept of a “hard break,” the World’s Laziest Journalist tries to maintain a self-imposed three e-takes limit for the column and that means that we can only scratch the surface of this topic and then recommend that readers who want more should make the effort to obtain and (at least) skim through a copy of the book “Entertaining Ourselves to Death,” by Neil Postman.
The World’s Laziest Journalist does see the pragmatic benefit of the trend towards using social media to get publicity which translates into bigger audience numbers. For example, if we casually mention that San Francisco Bay Area political activist Mike Zint iis expanding his reach by managing the Listen up Mayors page on Facebook and if he (coincidence alert?) shares the links to our column, then the number of hits will quadruple. What’s not to like about that?
Do the viewers of Bill O know what obstreperous and impudent mean let alone require those qualities from an interesting and entertaining talk show?
[Note from the Photo editor: Since talk shows seem to have skipped interviews with Occupy Activists, we thought an old file photo of one of those anonymous political advocates who were MIA from the (biased?) late night talk shows might be an appropriate illustration for this week’s column. How can a talk show claim to have a balanced approach if all members of the one debating team are snubbed?]
Closing quote? Did Andy Warhol say “In the future, everyone will be a world famous talk show host for 15 minutes?” Or did he say: “In the future everyone will be the host for a world famous 15 minute talk show?”?
Now the disk jockey will play “Talk to me,” by Sunny & the Sunliners,Doris Day’s “Pillow Talk,” and the song “talk talk” by a group called “Talk Talk.” We have to go watch (thanks to DVD’s) some TV episodes from 1968. Have a “Dahhh Da Dohnt Dahhh – ‘This is the city . . .’” type week.