Monday, April 2, 2018

Is This Latest Roseanne Barr Dangerous?

Ifelt like making a few observations about Rosanne Barr's pro-Trumpian reboot of her Bush I era show but didn't feel like going into it last week. 

Roseanne Barr is someone I never found funny, I don't find a collection of mental health issues in the form of a person and a show-biz career funny and there was never much more to her. 

I didn't find her funny in her previous incarnation that, from what I gathered from unavoidable mention of her and her then husband in the seedier edges of the media, crashed and burned in the bizarre series of feuds and accusations with her sister and other people unfortunately close enough to her to get dragged into her mountain of "issues".   That a lot of that was part of the 1980s-90s hysteria over child abuse leads me to think her "issues" tend to follow the lower ends of media coverage.  I didn't find her increasingly weird and creepy behavior in the shadows of limelight funny, especially such things as her Holocaust joke 

Image result for roseanne barr hitler moustache



Others, such as Desus and Mero have pointed out her infamous disrespectful and vulgar singing of the Star Spangled Banner with crotch grabbing at a baseball game and how it is apparently acceptable for a rich, vulgar White Woman to do that even as Black Men quietly, even respectfully kneeling to protest police murdering Black People is vilified.  

Then there were her racist rants against Barack Obama - tied somehow into her probably temporary attachment to militant Zionism, which inevitably seems to eventually ally itself to fascism - her vilification of Hillary Clinton and may other antics.   I wouldn't count on any of it being any more enduring than anything else has been with her.   She shares that with the demented Donald Trump, everything is stream of semi-consciousness, whether based in some kind of psychological shrinkery or drugs or, as some are speculating in the case of Trump, untreated STDs.  

I didn't watch but did read about her revamped show, now that she's decided to cash in on the cheapest and one of the most popular white whines in Hollywood, that has-beens can make money and get attention out of claims that Hollywood is controlled by liberals  and that's not fair!.  That's always been a lie, the liberals are generally not so much liberal as libertarians and they might constitute a good part of the actually talent in tinsel-town but they're as liable to being far from dependable.   

Only the less important question is how long Barr can milk this latest shtick, the answer to which is who know?   Will it last as long as her attention span for this latest costume change?   The only really important thing about it is if it makes money if Hollywood will go with it, possibly gulling enough TV formed idiots into prolonging Trumpian fascism and its rule.  Seeing the often clueless ability of even alleged liberals in Hollywood and show biz to aid previous efforts, such as those involved in the production of All In The Family,  the so-called liberal Phil Donahue helping to discredit liberalism by associating it with flakiness and ballot box poison positions, who can tell if it is dangerous or how dangerous it might be.   I hope she fails and goes down in the most unprofitable of flames but I wouldn't bet on that.   TV in the United States has resulted in enormous damage to egalitarian democracy, including much of what has passed as "liberal," nevermind the programming that promotes fascism, either with a scowl or a laugh track. 

7 comments:

  1. It has been pointed out that re-boots have created huge interest which falls off after an episode or two. I expect this one won't buck the trend.

    Never cared for the show, for reasons you outlined. The only reason to watch it is the work of Goodman, Gilbert, and Metcalfe. Barr, IMHO, is talentless. Not that that's an impediment to success.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "pointed out her infamous disrespectful and vulgar singing of the Star Spangled Banner with crotch grabbing at a baseball game and how it is apparently acceptable for a rich, vulgar White Woman to do that even as Black Men quietly, even respectfully kneeling to protest police murdering Black People is vilified."

    You've made it clear that you don't like sports, or Roseanne, but it literally took me all of 17 seconds to search for and find a 'WP' article from over two years ago by Geoff Edgers on her National Anthem debacle. From that piece: "President George Bush, on Air Force One, slammed her performance as 'disgraceful.' George Will called her a “slob” and referenced her misdeed along with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Keith Olbermann...offered an on-air editorial complete with cheap chubby jokes."

    Yeah, she was just embraced like an electric blanket on a cold day after that performance.

    Here's her take on the incident: "Do I regret that the next day all of my projects were cancelled and I had to have LAPD stand on my roof and protect my life and my kids for two years? Do I regret not being able to go out in public for about one full year without being spit on-in restaurants, 7-Eleven?"

    I don't know what your definition of "acceptable" is, but you might want to Google that term. It happened over 25 years ago, so if you wonder why it's not a big deal now, time is the answer.

    It's the same reason so many Democrats voted for an ardent Goldwater Girl for President.

    Also, you are just OBSESSED with race.

    "I didn't watch but did read about her revamped show"

    As per Barr's show, the Connor family were working class white people who lived in suburban Chicago. My sis-in-law is from that area. If you don't think those people are Trump voters...you're the reason he's the President.

    Actually, in the show itself, Roseanne explains to her very liberal sister that she voted for Trump because he "talked about jobs." Roxanne Gay, a writer for the 'NY Times' offered, "If we are to believe the circumstances of this character’s life, a few vague words about "jobs" was more than enough to compel Roseanne, with inadequate health care, with vulnerable grandchildren, and struggling to make ends meet, to vote for Mr. Trump."

    I don't imagine this woman has ever met a Trump voter, nor does she care to, because, clearly, she knows everything about them already.

    After 9/11, even trying to understand why the attacks took place was treasonous ("It's because they hate us!" was all I got) but now the Left has embraced that philosophy, and even asking if maybe working class people care more about jobs than pronoun usage and Halloween costumes makes you once removed from the KKK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that the Black Man who started the kneeling during the national anthem is going to ever be accepted the way Roseanne Barr has been, back into the lucrative embrace of network TV, Disney, no less. Certainly not if Trump and his racist power base has any say in it.

      Roseanne Barr is a psychotic, hate spewing crack pot who can turn on a dime depending on which drugs she's on and whoever attracts the very limited vocus of what's left of her mind.

      While there were people who got suckered into voting for Trump by the lies the same network who have revived Roseanne Barr's show and their media companions fed them, that was before he got a chance to prove that he's a traitor to the United States a tool of the Putin regime and domestic billionaire oligarchs. He's about to start a trade war which will impact the Mid-Western states that gave him a good part of his Electoral College margin and, as every Republican has done, will end up with pretty bad numbers on the economy. Let's see how much your "middle American" stereotype goes for him then.

      We certainly remember the aftermath of 9/11 differently. I certainly read and heard many analyses of what happened and why that that went beyond "because they hate us". Maybe you should read more widely. It was the Bush II line that embraced that narrative, your idea that was "the left's" analysis or that there was even just one of those is ridiculous.

      Your characterizations of things strike me as motivated more from feelings of resentment, envy and anger based on identity than any kind of careful observation.

      Your knowledge of "working class people" the people I live and interact with, economically encompassing every member of my family, including myself, is about as deep as that presented by Roseanne Barr or Norman Lear in the 1970s, it's something I've objected to from before I started writing blog posts. Since the working class includes many women who know they're discriminated against because of their class status (as I recall that's what the people behind Roseanne I presented her show as being all about) and lots of Black People, Latinos, People of Mid-Eastern heritage, etc. and lots of non-racist, non-sexist, White People, many of whom voted for Hillary Clinton, your focus is ridiculously and opportunistically narrowed.

      As to Roxanne Gay, she's from Omaha, Nebraska, got her undergraduate degree from the University of Nebraska, is of Haitian descent . . . It's the same mistake you made with Amber Ruffin (who you may remember also hails from Omaha) figuring that because of their color and since you know them from working in New York City that they're as isolated from your imaginary White Working Class mid-westerner. You should use the internet to look into the background of people before you characterize them. I didn't read Roxanne Gay's column and wasn't familiar with her before you mentioned her and I had no problem finding that out about her.

      Roseanne Barr is not once removed from the KKK, she's supporting Trump whose daddy was KKK and who memorably mentioned "good people" among the Nazis, including the KKK even as they were terrorizing people and committing murder in Charlottesville. The screw ball is a tool of the KKK and Nazis. Trump is the tool of the foremost sponsor of neo-Nazis and he's Roseanne Barr's current hero. Though I imagine if her ratings go south and her show gets cancelled she'll turn on a dime as she did as recently as six years ago. She should be in custodial care.

      Delete
    2. I had a few minutes to look into Roxanne Gay. Not only her undergrad degree, but her MA was from the U. of Nebraska at Omaha, she got her PhD from the Michigan Technological University, she taught at a teacher's college, Eastern Illinois University, and presently teaches at Purdue. I'd be surprised if she didn't teach Trump voters, work with Trump voters and daily interact with Trump voters from that very "middle-America" that Roseanne's show is aimed at. If someone is qualified to comment on it, it's Roxanne Gay who can see it from inside and outside.

      Delete
    3. "I doubt that the Black Man who started the kneeling during the national anthem is going to ever be accepted the way Roseanne Barr has been, back into the lucrative embrace of network TV, Disney, no less. Certainly not if Trump and his racist power base has any say in it."

      Well, probably not, because he's an athlete and not a comedian. A 50-year-old quarterback is hardly given the same career opportunities as a 25-year-old one. Also, how's this for dedication, when that Black Man was cut by his team, he released a statement saying that if another team signed him, he'd no longer protest the anthem, because principles are very negotiable when money is involved. Frankly, you're out of your element here, and to try to pretend Roseanne's behavior was somehow acceptable at the time is either ignorant or deceitful. Due to your apathy (if not hostility) towards athletic competition I am going to it is very like the former.

      "Roseanne Barr is a psychotic, hate spewing crack pot who can turn on a dime depending on which drugs she's on and whoever attracts the very limited vocus of what's left of her mind."

      I don't care for his comedy myself (and please, don't say it's because I have "a problem" with women) but, to repeat, she was not "embraced" after that incident. When George Will and Keith Olbermann engage in extreme hyperbole to attack you, you're quite the opposite.

      "While there were people who got suckered into voting for Trump..."

      You are conflating an explanation why something happened as a justification for it taking place. Knowledge of STDs is not encouragement to go out and catch them.

      "It was the Bush II line that embraced that narrative, your idea that was 'the left's' analysis or that there was even just one of those is ridiculous."

      No, what I said was that my attempts to ask that were often met by the Right as being traitorous just in asking the question. In other words, they were not interested in what caused the incident but just attacking those that did it. Today, I see that eagerly on the Left regarding Trump voters. They care little about why. And note, I did not and will not say, "all" of the left.

      "Your characterizations of things strike me as motivated more from feelings of resentment, envy and anger based on identity than any kind of careful observation."

      I am angry at the petty, prosaic tribalism that our media presents things through and many on both sides of the political spectrum embraced with uncritical consideration. Racism and prejudice are not just unacceptable because of "privilege." They strip people of their individuality and humanity. When a white woman is given a job as a curator for an African Exhibit and the response is not "what are her credentials?" but "what color is her skin?" I am as angry as when Sam Harris asks not "what are Francis Collins' credentials" but "what does he do on Sunday morning?"

      "Your knowledge of 'working class people' the people I live and interact with, economically encompassing every member of my family, including myself, is about as deep as that presented by Roseanne Barr or Norman Lear in the 1970s"

      1) Sitcoms are not deep.

      2) Just because I have a computer doesn't mean I'm not working class.

      Delete
    4. "Since the working class includes many women who know they're discriminated against because of their class status (as I recall that's what the people behind Roseanne I presented her show as being all about) and lots of Black People, Latinos, People of Mid-Eastern heritage, etc. and lots of non-racist, non-sexist, White People, many of whom voted for Hillary Clinton, your focus is ridiculously and opportunistically narrowed."

      You're confused. I am not saying all working class people voted for Trump. I AM saying that Trump tipped the election in his favor by selling a bill of goods to the working class people, and that to dismiss, as Ms. Gay does, the idea that jobs was not a HUGE reason he is where he is today is the wrong, wrong, wrong way to approach this.

      "It's the same mistake you made with Amber Ruffin (who you may remember also hails from Omaha) figuring that because of their color and since you know them from working in New York City that they're as isolated from your imaginary White Working Class mid-westerner."

      1) I gave Ruffin flack for talking about knowing how people in Alabama behave and think as she does if the melanin levels in their skin is the same, as if that offers some psychic connection between them. Nebraksa is not Alabama anymore than Seattle is Bakersfield or Lansing is Little Rock. I know a young lady from Georgia who is half-Chinese. Does that mean every person of Chinese descent in San Francisco knows what she thinks and how she votes? To Amber, probably. She's from Omaha, which is just like Atlanta and Frisco.

      As per Ms. Gay, I said she was isolated from working-class people because she writes about "jobs" as if that was an insignificant reason for anyone to vote for Trump. By their fruits you shall know them. I never brought up her race, background, etc. You did. I don't care about her education or appearance or whatever else is irrelevant to the fact that her dismissing "jobs" as being unimportant is far more revealing than she seems to realize.

      Michael Moore, an actual Midwesterner, called the election in June of '16, and he was dismissed at large by many of the Left. I have four nephews who are 10 and under. I don't want them to grow up in a two-term Trump world. One is awful enough. So, yes, I am angry at a political establishment that ignored warnings about how he could win because they didn't think he could and seems to think pushing their collective head further into the sand is just a great idea!

      Delete
    5. " I'd be surprised if she didn't teach Trump voters, work with Trump voters and daily interact with Trump voters from that very "middle-America" that Roseanne's show is aimed at."

      My friend's wife teaches theatre and dance in a high school in Southern California. I've been to a few of her productions. I do not enjoy them nor could I comment at length on any of them because I'm not interested in the art form. There is a world of difference between being around something and engaging with it to understand it. Plenty of people visited the Galapagos before Darwin.

      Delete