Monthly Archives: August 2017

A baby Chihuahua that wants to be a baby goat…

• Trump says he won't attend the Kennedy Center honors. He probably won't attend anything that honors someone who is not him.

A reader who asked me not to mention his name wrote…

I have a question about the Tonight Show reruns they have been airing on Antenna TV. Thanks to your heads up, I've been watching them regularly for some time now, and I know, as you've been pointing out, that they have to be edited somewhat because of certain music rights. But why is Ed McMahon's naming of the guests during the opening credits always edited out? We only hear him saying "Heeeere's Johnny" after the guests are silently introduced via onscreen titles.

For a while, I though they were doing this to more easily splice a few episodes together, but that doesn't seem to be the case and the episodes appear to be intact, apart from the edits in the musical numbers. Have the heirs of Ed McMahon somehow prevented his original voiceover introductions from being included in these reruns? Additionally, the opening montage that plays during these Antenna TV openings seems to be different from what I remember during the original airings.

I don't know anyone at Antenna TV but I'm sure it has nothing to do with Ed McMahon's family and probably everything to do with the fact that (a) they wanted to standardize the openings and (b) this show, rerunning old episodes of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson is not called The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. It's called simply Johnny Carson and they don't have clean audio of Ed saying the name of this program in a manner that sounds like he's announcing the name of the program. Also, a lot of the openings were done by Doc Severinsen or even other substitutes when Ed was off selling Budweiser or doing Star Search.

Doing it the way they do means they always have the same opening with the same performance of the theme music (which is probably a lot easier and cheaper for clearances) and they don't have the awkwardness of Ed or someone billboarding the guests but not saying the name of the program. I believe that when they started these reruns of Antenna TV, some of the 90 minute shows on the weekend had the original titles that called it The Tonight Show but that they then switched over to the newly-made opening that doesn't.

Thanks for your question, Reader Who Asked Me Not To Mention His Name. Your identity is safe with me.

Forty years ago today, Julius "Groucho" Marx died at the age of 86. His passing got way less notice than the death of Elvis Presley, who'd passed three days earlier — a source of great frustration to those of us who were way more influenced by Mr. Marx than we ever were by Mr. Presley. Then again, maybe it's understandable that Elvis's death at the age of 42 was far more unexpected and shocking and therefore newsworthy. Groucho, at more than double that age, had been in poor health for some time and was sadly past his performing years.

I met him three times and saw him perform (sort of) on stage once. I wrote about these brushes in this column and the one that follows it. A few years ago, I realized that I got the dates and sequence wrong and I've finally revised the columns so they're right.

The last encounter took place at Groucho's home on Hillcrest Road in the Trousdale section of Los Angeles. The visit was short — a friend and I were there about a half-hour — and Groucho didn't say much. It occurred a month or two after he showed up on the set of Welcome Back, Kotter when I was working on that show so it was around Christmas of '76. He was in such poor shape that I'm still amazed he lasted another eight months.

The friend who took me there had me along because he thought Groucho would enjoy being with a relatively young person (I was 24) who knew everything about his films and career. This seemed to be true. Groucho wasn't able to muster much in the way of answers to the questions I asked him but he liked that I knew all the names and all the films.

The most interesting thing I recall of that afternoon was that I got to see Erin Fleming in her native environment. She was the controversial actress (largely of the aspiring variety) who kept company with Groucho in his last years, doing some good for him and some bad as she attempted to do a lot of good for herself. She'd accompanied Mr. Marx to the set of Kotter where he was supposed to tape a cameo appearance but was too ill to do more than pose listlessly for some photographs. It was pretty obvious that the show's invite to appear was accepted not by Groucho, who couldn't have cared much less, but by Erin, who thought it might somehow lead to her making an appearance on a (then) hit TV show.

In Groucho's home, she stage-managed a series of celebrity drop-ins, getting stars (including Groucho) to get up and perform. At least during the thirty minutes or so I was at one of them, Groucho looked like he'd rather be in his bedroom, sound asleep. I suppose though there were times when he appreciated the company and attention.

That day, I did not meet a young man who worked in the house as a kind of secretary-archivist. His name was Steve Stoliar and if he was there, no one introduced us. A few decades later, we encountered one another and became good friends. If you're curious about what went on in The Last Days of Groucho, I recommend an utterly-accurate and quite entertaining book by Steve called Raised Eyebrows — My Years Inside Groucho's House. And if you're the kind of person who follows my recommendations — God help you — here's an Amazon link for it.

In a way, I wish my memories of Groucho stopped with the first time I met him. He was still lucid then, still able to stand on his own, still able to say witty things in a way that reminded you of the smartass in the movies and on the game show. That smartass was highly influential in a lot of our lives. He emboldened us. He inspired us. And he made us laugh to an extent that would make him a legend even if he hadn't emboldened and inspired us. He sure mattered a lot more to me than Elvis ever did.

Stephen Colbert's show for tonight was recorded last night but he recorded a new monologue for it today.

[UPDATE, LATER: I'm told he did record a new monologue for tonight's show — a show otherwise cobbled together from segments earlier in the week. But the new monologue was recorded last night so no mention of Steve Bannon's ouster or other developments from today's news.]

The Drudge Report and The New York Times are both saying Steve Bannon is out at the White House. When you get it from both of those sources, that's all the proof you could ask for. Stephen Colbert is probably upset that they recorded tonight's show yesterday and it wouldn't surprise me if they're scrambling to do something new and insert it. Bill Maher, on the other hand, is probably delighted with the timing. (Tonight, his guests include Al Franken, Penn Jillette and Gavin Newsom. If you're outside California and you don't know our lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom, you might want to get familiar with him. That man is going to be a serious contender for president some day.)

In light of Bannon's ouster, it is worth re-reading (or just plain reading) the Matt Taibbi column I linked to yesterday.

We have a busy day here so I'll be back later with…something. It'll probably be about why I still don't think Trump is a racist but it's getting harder and harder to believe that. Then I'm going to shoot for a Trump-free weekend on this site but it's getting harder and harder to aim the part of my brain that blogs at anything else.

The theme from The Bugs Bunny Show — as performed by a player piano…

Matt Taibbi insists that Steve Bannon has to go. According to Taibbi, Bannon is the guy who knows how to make racism work on a political level. A lot of people think the defense of Nazis we've heard out of Trump lately was put there by Bannon. Taibbi thinks it's the opposite; that it wasn't because Bannon would have made it work.

Fred Kaplan reminds us that Germany knows how to do war memorials that recall what happened without glorifying it. You know, there's another way to remove the reverence about most statues besides tearing them down. We could just release more pigeons into the vicinity.

Among the many leaders who rebuked Trump for his recent remarks were the chiefs of all four U.S. military services — the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines. Remember when Trump said that his main military policy would be to listen to the generals? Well, he's not listening now. Fred Kaplan (it's a two-fer!) tells us what it all means.

Trump keeps telling a story about General Pershing having terrorists executed with bullets dipped in pig blood. I guess the premise is that some people don't particularly mind being shot to death but they're really intimidated at the thought of being shot to death by bullets dipped in pig blood. That's when execution starts to be unpleasant. Anyway, Matt Yglesias notes that the story doesn't make a lot of sense and that historians seriously doubt it ever happened. Trump probably got it from a movie…you know, the same place Ronald Reagan learned history.

Donald Trump, the man who likes to get all the facts before he comments on anything, said that the counter-protesters in Charlottesville did not have a permit to march. Guess what.

David Letterman sat down the other day with Howard Stern…

So we're talking today about statues commemorating the Civil War and its leaders…and some cities are doing more than talking. They're taking down those statues, which prompted You-Know-Who to tweet, "Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments." Somehow, when he says they're "beautiful," I don't think he's talking about the artistry of the sculptors.

Frankly, I don't care that much as long as they don't pull down any monuments to Jubilation T. Cornpone. That's that beloved man a'sittin' up there on that even more beloved horse.

Kevin Drum has made a pretty good argument that those statues not of General Cornpone were erected to sell the idea that those who fought to preserve slavery were heroes. In some cases, the statues were kind of a rebuttal or pushback to civil rights gains. To that extent, great, fine, take 'em down. I'd rather though that those cities do more to improve the way their police officers treat minorities. Unless a statue of Robert E. Lee falls on a black guy, it can't hurt him anywhere near as much as a cop who is way too quick to use his gun or even a choke-hold.

My Trump Cynicism tells me that our Chief Exec doesn't care about any statues that are not of him. In saying what he does, he thinks he's pleasing those who bolster his popularity and wealth…and he may not be wrong about that. He's only wrong if he thinks that group isn't shrinking and wishing they had a leader who didn't keep shooting his own toes off.

I may start a daily feature here: "Today's Watergate Analogy." As I've mentioned here, there was a time during that scandal when an outta-left-field man — a rabbi named Baruch Korff — emerged as Richard Nixon's principle defender. The rabbi, who knew little about Washington and less about how to defend someone, got that "position" because no one else wanted it. Not a single Republican official or leader wanted to go on camera and defend President Nixon. This morning, I read this online…

Chuck Todd of MSNBC said all 52 Republican Senators turned down an invitation to appear on his show, while CNN's Wolf Blitzer of "The Situation Room" said his efforts were also unsuccessful.

"We invited every single Republican senator on this program tonight, all 52," Todd said. "We asked roughly a dozen house Republicans including a bunch of committee chairs, and we asked a half-dozen officials and none of them agreed to discuss this issue with us [Wednesday]."

They'll still vote with the guy. They'll still back most of his agenda because most of it is their agenda, and because they can vote as a crowd and there's safety in numbers. But very few of those lawmakers are going to stand up and lend whatever personal integrity they have to his cause. And it's not so much because they can't defend what he said yesterday as it is the fear of what he's going to say tomorrow.

In 1970, I saw a British-made comedy-drama called The Man Who Had Power Over Women, which starred Rod Taylor and Carol White.  I recall liking parts of it and not liking others but being really, really fascinated by the film.  It was about a man named Peter Reaney, a successful talent agent (or maybe a publicist) who doesn't understand women except in a very shallow, hormone-driven way. He also doesn't know much about personal morality except that it sometimes gets in the way of his profession and income.

Taylor, I recall, was wonderful in the role and whoever wrote it had a very wicked sense of humor. I left the theater wanting to see it again, if only so I could decide if I really loved it or really hated it.  I felt there was the potential for either verdict…or maybe even both.

So now it's 47 years later and I still haven't seen it a second time.  If it was ever on TV, I managed to miss it.  I did miss its brief release as a Beta tape and maybe on VHS.  I once asked on this site if anyone had a copy of it and a nice person mailed me a homemade DVD since I don't think there's ever been an official release.  Alas, it arrived at a time when I was busy and unable to give it my immediate attention.

The homemade DVD laid around on a table for a week or so before it was spotted by a lady friend who was visiting.  She asked what the movie was.  I told her more or less what I just told you.  "Oh, I love Rod Taylor," she grinned.  "Could I borrow it?  I'll watch it and get it back to you right away."  Somehow, she lost it and also the accompanying letter. Thus, I also lost the name and contact info for the kindly samaritan who sent it to me. If you were that person, thank you.

In January of 2015, shortly after Mr. Taylor passed away, I appealed to the folks at Turner Classic Movies to get it and run it. They're finally doing that this Friday evening and I'd like to think it just took them 32 months to get around to granting my wish. On my set, it'll be on at 9:15 PM. Check your guide if you want to record or watch it.

This is not really a recommendation since my mind's not made up as to whether I liked it or not…but I recall thinking it was full of very inventive scenes, including the one with the truckload of toilets. I won't tell you what happens in it but it was very…odd.

The film may interest some of you just because it's so rare and unseen, and I'm pretty sure you'll think that Rod Taylor is great in it. He was great in everything. I do not guarantee you'll like it. Heck, I can't even guarantee that I'll like it but I'll try to watch it before next weekend is over and I'll report back here.

• The Broadway musical of "Groundhog Day" is closing after 176 performances. The cast got tired of doing the same thing again and again…

Late night TV hosts were not kind to Donald Trump. They all had strong, funny responses — I'm even warming to Jimmy Kimmel — and it may be some measure of the depths to which Trump has sunk that he finally managed to radicalize Jimmy Fallon. My favorite may have been Jim Jefferies…

Trump just hit 58% disapproval in the Rasmussen Poll with 35% approval.  This is horrible.  Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama and the first Bush never got to 60% disapproval and it took the second Geo. Bush 1,756 days and taking us to war on false premises to do it.

Trump already set a world's record for a U.S. President achieving a negative approval rating in most polls less than two weeks after he took office.  But as I recall it, that was "fake news" to him even if he didn't use that term, because the Rasmussen Poll still had his positives above his negatives.  I don't think much of the Rasmussen Poll but Trump usually cited it because it leaned a bit more in his direction.  Well, now the poll he always cites has him at 58%.

That's based on polling from a few days ago.  He'll be at 60%, which is where some other polls have him, before he reaches his 150th day in office.

The 538 Aggregate, which is what we watch on this site, has him at 55% disapproval with 37% approval.  I'm sure if someone asked him, he'd insist that all those polls are fake and that his real approval rating is very, very high…the highest ever, some unidentified people tell him.  It's scary to think he believes he can sell that lie and even scarier to consider that he might really believe it.