Can We Talk

I’ve hesitated commenting on the death of Joan Rivers mainly because I’ve been trying lately not to dwell on the negative in life. These days, the snark, the crappy attitude; all come so easily on Facebook and other social media.

But when you think about it, Joan Rivers herself made not only a career but an industry out of that didn’t she?

The accolades have been rolling in, even from organizations that initially criticized her (rightfully so) for some of the straight up nasty shit that she spouted in the name of comedy. 

Let’s get this out of the way. She was, I suppose, a pioneer. I never found her that funny, but during her first round of fame, I think I was too young to care about the jokes she told (I was born in 1964). 



She talked about being a woman, about married life, and it was generally in a catty, admittedly self-deprecating way. I give her, Phyllis Diller, and women like her trying to be comedians at the time a lot of props. While a male comedian could joke, “My wife is so stupid…” a female comedian had to say, “I’m the wife, and I’m so stupid…” Definitely a double standard. And Joan played it. From what I understand she played it brilliantly.

By the time I was old enough to appreciate it, though, she’d sort of disappeared from the spotlight though not from comedy. After that whole thing with Jonny Carson and her talk show (and by the way, those who are furious at her for supposedly “stabbing Johnny” in the back, let’s be real. How many backs in the industry held Carson’s blade. And once he won and the prodigal daughter lost, there’s no reason he couldn’t have shown a little class and let the feud die), she didn’t just fade away. (And to her credit, a boycott started in which guests that appeared on Rivers' show were barred from Carson's show which might have affected people willing to guest her show. It's something that affected Dennis Miller's talk show and has continued on even today when Jimmy Fallon hosts the Tonight Show and the same threat exists. As a guest you are exclusive to us. 

Joan was out there humping, from what I understand paying off the debts that her husband (who eventually killed himself) racked up while they were trying to make the talk show a go.

Well, I don’t know if the debts were all of her husband’s racking. Again, let’s be honest. Or in the words of herself, “Can we talk?” It looked like she could rack up a pretty good bill on her own when she wanted to. Hairspray on its own had to cost a fortune.

Still, like Edie Adams who had to perform for decades to pay back the debts from her brilliant but spendthrift husband, Ernie Kovacs, Joan found herself out on the circuit, working like a dog, not only to pay back debts but to rebuild a career that had gone off the tracks (and it going off the tracks wasn't all her fault).

How can you not respect that? She also had a daughter that she had to support. (although an evil little part of me wants to say, “Welcome to real life, Joan. My mom had to pack staples for eight hours every night for a couple of decades to help feed and clothe four children because the jerk she was still married to wouldn’t give her enough to pay the bills.” Can we talk?)

So one can appreciate the hoops she had to jump through in life. But twice in her life she had reached a level of great influence and what did she decide to do? Well, during the first phase her comedy continued to be about denigrating herself (and others like her). (Come to think of it, I think that’s the other thing that turned me off about her even in the 80s. She had that creepy sort of “I hate myself” mentality). She had spent so much time singing that song to get ahead, that when she could start changing the tune, she didn’t. She was in no way an unattractive lady, but she spoke of herself as if she were nightmare. She obviously had some smarts, but you wouldn’t necessarily pick that up by her catty shtick which often slammed herself.

I don’t know, maybe her own self-hatred was so strong that it was too hard to see the power she had. 

By the time the second phase of popularity came about, perhaps she suddenly woke up to her own worth. Plastic surgery might have helped and I think anyone who can afford to change something they don’t like about themselves should go and do it. Especially when you’re someone in the limelight. I think the reality for most people, however, is that they don’t have the resources to do that, so ultimately the better thing is to accept your physical flaws and move on with life, cause you can waste a lot of your short time on earth obsessing over flaws that have no consequence to anyone.

Joan had a crapload of work down (can we talk?) and never apologized for it and people will point to her honesty about the work done to prove how real a person she was. And yet she was absolutely nasty to people who also had work done yet perhaps didn’t want it put out to the entire universe.

And she found some fame doing award show, red carpet commentary in the past decade which is perfect for the catty, snarky, basically nasty form of comedy that she apparently decided to stick with. 



In this form of comedy, you don’t really need to make a joke, all you have to do is make an observation and then be righteously indignant that someone might find the comment…well not very funny at all. “Can we talk” was replaced with a sort of “oh please!” followed by a weird open mouth “Give me a break” sort of posture as if to say, “How can you not find that hilarious.”

Oh…the ribs I break just thinking about it…

And that’s when the worm really turned for me and Joan. Cause even while I wasn’t a huge fan of her when I was young I could every so often spark up a smile over something she said. Like when she hosted the Tonight Show and her monologue could sometimes bring a smile to my face. But the past several years, all I saw was a woman slowly leaning on the crutch of snark (which again, anyone on FB can produce in bundles) to get through the routine. I didn’t actually see a clever joke or observation. Just a woman pointing out the obvious with that “oh please” after the audience expressed trepidation at the comment. 

Look, I don’t mind dark humor. I grew up on dark humor. If I wasn’t into dark humor I would have killed myself when I was twelve cause I had a dark life and humor was the only way I got through it(and I'm not just writing that for effect. I seriously considered ways to kill myself). Hell it was the only way the family could have a meal around the table. The morning this Beatle fan found out John Lennon had been killed, my first statement was, “Well I guess this means they’ll never get back together.” And in fact, I used the death in a fake news bit for a routine during drama class in which I reported that Mark David Chapman would be prosecuted for shooting the late star, “out of season” (yep, a little slap at our loose gun laws). I still remember the uncertain laughter of my classmates. At my brother’s wake (he died of cancer at 42), I was like a standup comedian; my whole desire to get people to laugh more and hurt less. And do you want rough trade? Imagine living with the mother who watched her son die of the same illness she herself was diagnosed with a year later.

So I know a lil’ something about laughing through pain (when called on her nastiness, Joan would bring up the fact that she joked about her husband’s suicide as if that made all the crummy comments she made about people okay). But I also understand how to pick targets and target topics. I’ve heard so many stories in which people called Joan Rivers “outspoken”. Well when is it being “outspoken” and when is it just being an asshole?

Look at her words against (and I use that word very specifically) the baby of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian: “That baby is ugly… I’ve never seen a six-month-old so desperately in need of a waxing,”

Number one, why attack the kid, fresh from the womb whose had no time to do bad to anyone? Secondly, bitch, really? The kid is actually cute. And I’m not someone easily impressed by babies. Joan, you take a look in the mirror recently? Five billion dollars on plastic and you still look like a crimped up hausfrau trying to be someone she’s not. The kid still has a shot at looking like a human, you lost your shot long ago.

Oh…I’m sorry, I’m just making a joke. No one should take it so seriously. I’m just being a comedian.

Now if Joan wanted to go after Kanye and Kim for being…well basically famous for celebrity (though at least Kanye has some sort of music career to lay a claim to fame), I’m fine with that. I mean Kanye is the pinhead who stated that he’s “…a proud nonreader of books.” As for Kim, outside of the strenuous work she’s done on her hair and nails, what has she actually done to gain the fame she has (and a prop to Joan, while Joan was on stage busting her octogenarian ass to make a living, Kim sent out a tweet and the collective eyes of the world all turned her way and she made millions. Of course, let’s not forget, the audience that Joan told that joke to is comprised of the very people who made Kim Kardashian a star).

But really? Now remember this is “a pioneer” of comedy. People will call her a genius, etc. And this is the best she can do? A lame ugly joke about waxing aimed at a baby who is actually cute and hasn’t done anyone any harm?

Again I ask, when does the line between outspoken and asshole become crossed? And should we be celebrating this? If any second rate comedian had made that joke, it would have garnered perhaps a slight titter of laugh (if the audience were intelligent they wouldn’t have laughed at all). Anyone else who made that joke would be called “heartless” or “asshole.” But because Joan Rivers made it, we’re reminded that “It’s just a joke. She’s a comedian. Don’t take it so seriously!”

To which I respond, if she is a comedian, if she’s this genius that everyone claims she is, then when aiming a joke at a helpless baby, why couldn’t she have had at least made a funnier joke? 

And here’s an exchange about Adele found on The Daily News regarding her calling Adele fat:

"Rivers first called Adele, 24, 'chubby' while visiting the 'Late Show' in February, chatting with host David Letterman about the award-winning singer's appearance at the Academy Awards.

"'She sang live and said, 'My throat, my throat, I don't know if I can swallow.' And I said, 'Oh, you can swallow,’' Rivers joked.

'What is her song, 'Rolling in the Deep'? She should add fried chicken.'

Weeks later, in an interview with HuffPost Live, Rivers didn't back down from her comments, though she revealed Adele confronted her about it. 'She's a chubby lady who's very, very rich, and she should just calm down — or lose weight!' Rivers said.

'She wanted an apology, so I took an ad out on her a--. I said, 'You are not fat.' And then I had room for a lot of other ads. Adele is beautiful and successful and has what, $100 million? Let's face reality: She's fat.'"

Here, by the way, is Joan's legendary commentary on Adele's weight: 

Forgetting for a moment that Adele went through a sort of condition that basically silenced Julie Andrew’s voice (yeah, that’s right pumpkins, she had polyps on her vocal chords that could have, at the age of 23, destroyed her singing career. I’m guessing that’s why she had an issue with swallowing), out of curiosity, what exactly did Adele do to deserve this negativity from Joan? Is Adele a mean person? Is she a vacuous person? We all know Adele is a bit chubby, so we don’t need that pointed out. So I guess because she’s beautiful and successful and makes money Adele shouldn’t be upset that entertainment’s resident bully was out there calling her “fat” in a weak attempt at humor to help prop up he own career. 

And of course Joan’s response is, “Hey, she’s got money. She should just calm down—or lose weight.” 

No Joan, you should just shut your pathetic pie hole if you can’t come up with something actually funny to say, which presumably is what people pay you for. How many fantastic foils are out there for you to take a shot at, and yet you, your genius self, choose…Adele! Good work, asshat!

Personally, if I was Adele, I would have just said, “What more can you expect from a third rate comedian for whom looks mean everything. I mean, what's with the creepy cat's eyes?”

Cause yes, sorry fans, but at this point, Joan Rivers became a third rate comedian. If this is the best she can do regarding jokes, well I mean, can we talk?

Even as a commentator on the human condition she sounded like an elderly aunt suffering from dementia who had no internal filter what-so-ever. Dig this comment on the latest skirmish between Israel and Palestinians:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/joan-rivers-palestinians-deserve-to-be-dead-9656554.html

Ultimately, this is why I can’t feel appreciation for her “so called” comedy or much sympathy for her passing. Her humor the past several years rarely reached the level of the average Facebook post. Her humor rarely rose above the level of the average school yard bully.

And I’m sorry but wrapping it in, “Oh it’s just a joke! I’m just a comedian!” doesn’t make it okay. First of all, judging by what she actually produced it’s hard to say that these are jokes stated by an actual comedian (to the reader: seriously, next time your son or daughter comes home crying because the bully at school was being mean to them, just tell them, “Oh they’re just being comedians, honey.”) The jokes aren’t all that funny. And in the case with Joan’s comments on Palestinians, you can’t just walk back from your comments and say, “Oh they were taken out of context.” Again, can we talk (or the more current “Bitch, please”)? Joan took an intricate issue and boiled it down to, the Palestinians who died, whether they were part of the insurgence or not deserved to die because, “You started it?” Well, one could argue that it was all started when Palestinians were cleared out in the 1940s to make way for the Jews that no other country wanted to take on. But really? She could support Israel all she wanted to. She could claim that the Palestinian authority is all blame for what’s going on now. 

But she couldn’t find any sympathy for innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire? Her response was… “you deserved it”? Really? 

And even more, she’s such a legend, such a genius, so astute, yet she didn’t have the sense to tell the guy chasing her for a comment on the situation, “Look, I’m a comedian. Go speak to someone in charge for a comment”?

Again, we can find this shit on any social media. What makes her game so special? Considering how many true louses there are in the world, why would she piss on people who have never pissed on her or anyone else? How clever is that?

Because to strike at those who deserved it would have taken talent. Talent she was either completely devoid of, or talent which had left her long ago. So she decided instead to go after the small guy. The easy targets. Joan became what she herself fought against most of her life: The jerk who thought it was perfectly okay to slam the downtrodden. For example: The woman trying to make it in showbiz at a time when it was ruled by men.

So you will see, as the days roll on, people claiming, “Well, we shouldn’t have taken her so seriously. She was only a comedian.” Like this piece from Time:

http://time.com/3270731/joan-rivers-dead-fearless/

The bottom line is that Joan wanted it both ways. Her rush to make her opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis known illustrates that she wanted to be taken seriously, even when her responses were either ridiculous or completely unfunny.  But then when someone asked her, “How could you say that?” her response was, “Oh come on, I’m a comedian! I should be allowed to say whatever shit pops in my mind no matter how offensive, disgusting, or pathetic that is.”

In my opinion she, or anyone else, doesn’t get that easy of an out. If you said something stupid, offensive, etc., then you said something stupid and you get to carry that weight, like it or not. Acknowledge it and move on, or excuse it and let it sink you.

Rivers had nearly 60 years in comedy. That means she saw a lot of societal change. Among them, she was witness to the Civil Rights Act, the woman’s movement, the effort to recognize the rights of the LGBT community, and ironically, the latest efforts to put a spotlight on bullying and the effects of bullying. She had all that time to grow as a person and use the comedic skills she supposedly possessed to making the world better. It wasn’t her responsibility, but she none the less had that shot. She chose instead to continue the crappy comedy that she was, in some respects, forced to do decades ago to achieve a career. She altered it, but not for the better. And that, to me, sadly, is Joan Rivers’ legacy. She had the chance to make it better, but chose instead to remain low class.

Ultimately that’s why I can’t mourn her loss. I can feel sad for her. Obviously she had a lot of energy and a lot of living to do (this fatal procedure seems to have been a slip up on the part of her medical staff). I don’t think this was someone who just gave up on life. I can feel bad for her survivors. But as far as comedy, her field, I can’t say that it’s lost that bright a star. I think it had the potential for a bright star, but that star chose instead to stay in the past milking a style of “comedy” that really didn’t serve it or anyone else.

As I stated, I wasn’t sure whether or not I should write anything about this. But then I thought…well, I will say this, Rivers herself would probably not have filtered her opinion on the death of someone. Why should I? 

But then there’s that part of me that answers, “Because you have more class.”

Who’s to say?

This is, by the way,  how the classy lady discusses the first couple of the United States. I'm sorry, it's hard to feel a loss of someone so willing to say something this stupid:

A Bully in Board Member's Clothing

So here's the deal:

I have in the past posted about my various digital battles on social media with the board member who has no use for the library (feels it is a waste of taxpayers money--he has used the term "entitlement", while I believe that the taxpayers get more than their money back). He was appointed by the mayor who also has no use for the library. Usually the posts are just quick and fun. To update my page (since so much of my life is about working that's often all I have).

This board member has a blog in which he details the evils of...well anyone who doesn't agree with him on how Park Ridge should be run. On this blog he regularly disses his fellow library board members, the director of the library and the staff of the library who he claims on his blog, in rather hyperbolic language, are using the library patrons as pawns in their political game to get more money from the city.

Little background: For several years now, the city has defunded the library even though the cost of doing business has continued to raise. It's primarily in an effort for the mayor and certain members of the council to look good in the eyes of the taxpayer (they can't find money for the library but have no problem finding money for other lil' projects of theirs). The library has been asked to tighten its belt, even when the bad economy brought even more people to the library. And it has tightened it's belt, doing away with certain amenities for the patrons, putting off certain projects (some important), cutting hours, even cutting staff. But last November, the director went to the council and basically said, we can't do it anymore. We're going to need more money. (Again, the cost of doing business has continued to rise). A five percent tax levy was requested. The council voted it down. So the library had to figure out how to cut even more to address the budget. We lost three more staff members (their last day was April 30, the last day of the fiscal budget for the previous year) and it was decided that after over a decade, the library would be closing on Sundays during the summer.

Some libraries are closed Sundays during the summer but the Park Ridge Library is very well used by the taxpayers all year round (which is why I don't think it was too much to ask to increase the levy: The taxpayers get that money back and then some).

So beginning Memorial Day weekend, the library will be closed which affects all the staff, including myself, for whom Sundays are a part of their weekly schedule. That decision was not an easy one for anyone on the board or the director to make. And no one on the staff (who have no say in it anyway) wanted to see it happen either. We all experience how important the library is to the patrons and how important it is for those who come to the library on Sundays. For some people that was the most convenient time to go to the library.

In January, in an effort to demonize the staff in the eyes of the taxpayers, this board member wrote on his blog that one of the reasons for the Sunday closings was to divert the money to raises for the staff. Now raises for the staff had actually been brought up in a board meeting along with actually cutting staff pay to make up the budget deficit. But I've heard nothing further on it so for me, it's one of those "believe it when it happens" sort of things. I can say that that wasn't the main imputes for the decision to close the library. What this board member doesn't mention on his blog is how rarely in the past decade the library staff has had raises, and that any proposed 1% raise would do little to make up for what someone like myself is losing financially by losing those Sunday hours.

Predictably, on that particular blog piece there were people expressing concern and outrage that the staff would be getting raises. I believe this was exactly the reaction the board member was going for. 

Now since I've in the past felt compelled to correct certain misinformation that he's put out there (such as when I wrote a letter to the paper asking why he called the Food For Fines program--a program that the community has known about and participated in for a couple of decades--"theft from the taxpayers") I decided to pop on his blog and clarify this raise issue for the outraged readers. I know I won't convince him of anything. But there may be some reasonable citizens who can be reached.

That's how it started. We've been digital pals ever since. Well, perhaps not pals. He apparently has a lot of time to maintain that blog, and he has such a problem with the library, that he's been slamming the board, director and staff pretty regularly. Continuing to insist that these entities are using the patrons as pawns. I know that most members of the board don't like the Sunday closings (though I wouldn't be surprised if he loves it, despite his claims, because it's allowed him to get his agenda out there). I know the director is not happy about it. She cares about the community. And as stated, I know the staff isn't happy. But what troubled me was his insistence in bringing the staff into his accusation. The staff has no say in any of this. I understand his goal: to further demonize the staff in the eyes of the patrons affected by this closing. But it isn't fair. And I felt it important to point this out. Continuously, because he was relentless in his response to comments made on this post, continuing to drag the staff into the fault of this decision.

And of course other posts have continued this harranguing of the staff. I've commented on many of his posts, at first using my initials cause it was easier to input after every comment, then when he decided I was trying to hide (the way some people hide behind the "anonymous" tag) I started using my full name. So apparently now, I'm fairly well known.

A week or so ago, a friend of mine attended a library board meeting and posted to my Facebook timeline something along the lines of her watching a board member scarf down the free chocolates. I think it was one sentence and mentioned no names (not that most of Facebook friends, many of whom are out of state and out of the US, would recognize a name used anyway). It was the sort of innocuous jokey post made on FB by any number of people every day.

Well, a few days ago my friend messaged me and asked me to take the post down. Apparently the board member and his friends were checking out my FB page. I checked for the post but couldn't find it leading me to suspect that since my friend deleted it off her timeline, it was deleted from mine.

If it hadn't involved her I wouldn't have bothered with it. I've been posting about that library situation for months. But she was skiddish because she's been the target of some social media bullying before.

A day or so later someone told me that indeed my name, my FB page and that post was mentioned in the comment section of one of the board member's posts on his blog. It was mentioned by someone using the tag "Anonymous" because they were too chicken to use their real name or identifying initials. It could have been the board member's close pal, the mayor. It could have been one of his alderman buddies. It could have been one of the people in the past who have harassed my friend. Whoever it was, mentioning it really had nothing to do with the post that the board member made. It was all a deliberate attempt to make me look bad.

Of course I put up a response (and as anyone who knows me knows it was a meaty one). The chief point being that since I post a lot of stuff on my timeline, someone would have had to (in my opinion obsessively) scan through a lot of stuff to catch this one line post. That in itself borders on creepy.

By the time I was able to post my response, however (I had to wait a day or two because of my idiotic schedule), Anonymous commented again stating that he/she went through my time line again and the post had been removed to which the board member piped in an accusation that I had white washed my timeline.

Which is what's led to this blog post. Had my friend not deleted this post, I may have per her request because it involved her. If it was just me, I would have left it on. After all, I wouldn't want the board member and his pals to think they scared me off.

After it was noted that the board member minions were trolling my FB page some people counseled me to make my status private. I especially won't now. Right now my FB page is for friendship and promotion. Perhaps I'll set up an author page but I haven't had the time yet.

But why should I give these trolls the benefit of trying to scare me into changing my status?

This board member and his pals are engaging in the sort of tactics 12-year old bullies use now to scare their targets at school. I've faced bullies all my life. Both outside and inside my home. When you have your own parents taking out their frustration out on you, a little bullying by a board member doesn't really register.

I have no doubt that part of the reason this comment was made on the board member's post was for intimidation purposes. "We're keeping an eye on you. You may get into trouble." That is, after all, what helps make people nervous about asking questions, or calling people on their BS.

But another reason I believe my FB page was brought up was so the board member could bring up certain things that he might not have had a chance (because they hadn't been raised) to bring up. For example, he commented on the "scarfing chocolates" observation with a long discussion about not having time to eat dinner when he takes the train downtown and heads to a 7 p.m. board meeting so he was feeling hungry (all because he had to hurry to the library board meeting and stand up for the taxpayer against the evil cabal: Look how he gives and gives to and protects the community--this last bit was implied). 

Again, no one on his blog would have known anything about this post had his pal not brought it up after surfing my timeline looking for trouble. And since names weren't given, my friend technically could have been talking about anyone. The board member rather outted himself on that one.

But this board member is a crafty one and he understands opportunities and he knows how valuable words are. You get the meme out there (oh...like we're closing on Sundays so that the staff can have raises; or the library personal are using the patrons as pawns) and it's out there causing all sorts of misunderstanding and trouble.

Or I've "whitewashed my FB page" because I'm scared of being found out about something.

That's why I'm putting this piece up on my blog and posting it to my FB page for my friends and his minions to see. I want them to understand that I'm not scared. If there is something I don't want people to see, I don't post it to social media. So what you see on my timeline that I post are things I have no problem with you seeing. And if I leave it on there after a friend shared it to my Timeline (provided I catch the post), then I'm fine with people seeing that. 

And that includes you, little minion who goes by "Anonymous" because, again, you're too "cluck cluck" to go by your real name. When you start having the guts to post with your real name, you can start talking to me about what I post on my social media pages.

And stay tuned, minion, cause I'm sure I'll be posting more stuff on the library. You'll want to keep your master informed.