There’s Johnny

perhaps there are many who are johnny fans by association by way of letterman. i am one, too.

i’m not sure about “dependable to stay just sober enough.” didn’t i pass you with a fifth of maker’s in your fist in monterrey?

If there’s a liberal conspiracy, where do I sign up to be a mindless drone of free-thinking? Will anyone give me air time? Air America is getting close to 50 markets, but the VRWC can rightly say, Whoop-de-doo, about that. Or is the second great cabal the commercial cabal that doesn’t care about your politics so long as you buy lots of stuff?

“The Melville reference,” a classic tale of one man’s tongue out of control. Hahah. Drinkage and computers don’t mix.
If you’re unqualified, Adam, then the ones that are must have eulogies written by Johnny himself. Very good.

Damn I’m old! I remember Jack Paar. I was a sophomore at the University of Florida when Johnny Carson took over “The Tonight Show.”

It was a different time. Adam is right about that. We had just emerged (mostly) from McCarthyism, although the lt. governor of Florida was on a crusade to root out the homosexual and/or communist profs at UF. And our incredible rush of hope hadn’t yet been murdered.

America was mostly an open place, there were no propaganda juggernauts, and intellectual development based on discernible facts and sound reasoning was still valued, even by the Southern Baptist parents I knew. Those threads are even stronger on the left today, even as they have become generally anathema on the right. What will save our asses is that the dominant right, resting on cheap myths and lies, is a majority only in its dreams. Common sense, science, and liberal American intellectualism cannot forever be boxed in.

A tribute to Floyd R. Turbo, because this is what Johnny Carson means to me, and to the people I know who used to watch Johnny Carson. Those characters were why we watched the show. The Great Carnack was salutatorian. And we knew we were hearing a humorist with more than just a sense of humor. Kinda like Adam.

I discovered Johnny thru my stepmom. If I rested quitely on the couch, I could stay up thru the monolog. I was hooked by age 9 (late 70s). I never really got into Letterman or Leno, but when the Daily Show hit the air, I was immediately hooked by the ‘tip of the hat’ toward the classic Johnny understated, sly, dry, midwestern humor (and as Craig Kilborn graduated from my neighboring highschool, there was also a certain affinity… ) I was prepared to hate John Stewart, but I think I like him even more. He has the wit and timing down pat, without the narcissism of Craig. He most reminds me of the classic Johnny…. especially when he delivers a ‘2 second delay zinger’ and just shoots that look to the audience.

Good bye Johnny. I hope you held an envelope to your forehead as you met St. Peter…..

I believe his name was Art Fern.

Off topic, where has Peter been? (both from the show and from the blog)

I actually stayed up to catch part of the “Tonight Show” last night as it was a tribute to Carson. What wonderful clips! Ed, of course, was on. The ultimate sideman. Then Bob Newhart and Don Rickles were on. What a flash back. I always enjoyed seeing them with Johnny- especially Newhart.

There is no one to replace Johnny but, then, who would want to? He was singular and influenced the present day comics. Thank Lobster for videotape archives

Landis,

Simplest accurate assessment of the mainstream media I have yet seen. Great response to Lynn’s question, which was no buzz killer. I think part of the point of FA is the ability to maintain two tracks, one humorous, the other deadly serious, especially because the former is so critical to facing the latter without losing one’s mind.

Although Johnny was older than the Boomers, his sensibilities seemed to mirror our own evolution. In the 60’s and 70’s it was all crazy and rat-packish — with martinis the drug of choice.

Then he got a little older and so did we. He seemed to return to his Nebraska roots as he became more comfortable with himself.

I don’t know why, but this has stuck in my mind for God knows how many years as a Favorite Carson Moment:

Tony Randall was on and they were discussing colorful collective nouns — parliament of fowls, murder of crows and the like. Randall asked, “What would you call a group of ladies of the evening crowding the sidewalk?”

Without blinking an eye Carson replied “A rasher of hookers?”

Still makes me giggle.

With a tip of the hat to the late, lamented Mr. Carson, I feel the need to dig in to the other important part of Adam’s post.

When it comes to the us-vs.-them mentality, I’m tormented by the knowledge that I’ve made that emotional investment. I’ve bought it. Drunk the Kool-Aid. “We” are proud, thoughtful, generous, empathetic souls who believe in honest and civil discourse. “They” are vicious, angry, small-minded, hateful and ‘contemptible greed-heads’ as Garry Trudeau put it. Oh, and there are the tools and toadys of the media. I know that reading lefty blogs just reinforces these prejudices.

What am I supposed to do? Is there a place that points out, honestly and fairly, the idiocies of the left, the right, and the lame-ass middle-of-the-roaders? Spinsanity tried, but there just seemed to be so damned much material from the right that their attempts at “balance” looked pretty weak. And now they’ve closed shop.

For all the satisfaction that comes from giving metaphorical slaps to our mendacious administration and the wingnuts who praise them, I’m still left with the disturbing feeling that Adam is more correct than not - his “two cabals” image shows how parallel the left/right positions and perceptions are.

Adam’s off trying to make what passes for an honest buck in TV-land. What do the rest of you think?

jackd -

Daily Howler seems pretty fair, and the Daily Show bops everybody pretty well, in spite of it’s rep. Media Matters for America is pretty fair. But balance is kinda hard; “they” are bent on winning, and we still think how you play the game counts. Or so I think.

Carson’s “class,” “kindness,” “wit,” and “grace”? In front of the camera, maybe (and still not altogether true). Off camera - otherwise known as real life - Carson was despised and feared by his interns and the other underlings who worked around him, drank and smoked like a sailor (the latter accounting for his death, of course), and had three different wives (not all at once Islamic style, though). His personal life was an utter disaster. Oh, but on screen, where he did little more than take over an already successful show, he was a first rate, personable and kind class act. So, consistent with the American way (i.e., the way of star-struck, entertainment-consuming dummies), let’s celebrate him! In the words of the actually great Ed McMahon, “Hi-ohhhhhhhh!!!”

David,

Exactly my point. Regular folks who liked him liked him for what and who he was on screen. So I find it amusing, and confusing, when those same folks eulogize him as if he in fact had been sitting in their living room with them each night, rather than standing behind the twice-used Zenith in neverland. It’s just plain corny and melodramatic, and more suited to Hollywood phonies for whom anyone famous they’ve ever bumped into at a cocktail party is a “great friend.”
All that said, I thought his on-air schtick was pretty beat, too.

Hossmaster -

Silly thing to get into a dispute over, but to say that Carson just rode Parr’s coattails (for 29 years !), is silly. Maybe I, who never met Carson, or worked for him, am presumptuous, to say he was an all right guy.

But he gave me lot of fun moments. He brought the US together, and gave us a bit of common culture. He reflected, on air, at least, the best of what we were during his tenure.

Jackd -

I have to say, again: Yes, it is hard to find a “fair” site. But to me, that is because the current administration are assholes! They have freaking ruined the economy for decades to come. They have set back science and science education a hundred years. They have and are trying to roll back 80 years of social progress. If it is hard to find a “fair” site that dings the Bush opponents, that is because they are just, simply, WRONG about what is good for this country.

Of course, I imagine many people have misgivings about his wearing a black merrywidow . . . ;D

Jerry has a very good point about the dilemma regarding “fair” sites.

The goals for a healthy society and its public discourse are facts as best they can be discerned, intelligent analysis, and the best efforts of honest minds in the collective pursuit of insight. And while not all voices on the left meet those criteria, the difference between the left and the right in this regard is stark.

Of course, there are ways in which the left-right bipolar disorder in America is simply inadequate to categorize free and open, honest inquiry. But as for which army comes closer to being the good guys in the battle for hearts and minds…

Murray’s post about heroes having feet of clay is something I’ve been thinking about a lot, especially over MLK day.

Dr. King may have plagarized when he was writing his thesis. He may not have been the most faithful husband. Does that diminish his contributions? I don’t think so.

I don’t need my heroes to be perfect. I think when we put people up on pedestals it somehow absolves the rest of us from trying to emulate them. It’s easier to assume they were somehow “special”, that what they achieved is beyond the capabilities of the rest of us.

When we’re forced to accept that they are humans like the rest of us, with the same human failings and foibles, then we realize that within all of us lie the same possibilities.

The next question is — What are we going to do with those possibilities?

Heros are a rare breed. They often are bitter, cynical and MEAN. And yet, they manage to do, through strength of character or something resembling it, the right thing. Most war heros are poor soldiers, they just did what was right when everyone else was either incapable of doing, or not willing to do.
MLK may have plagarized, but he didn’t hit his stride until well after grad school.
Johnny Carson was a really nasty person on the inside, yet he had a certain air about him that made him so great to watch.

Maybe we don’t appreciate possibilities any more as much as we need probabilities. Is that wrong? It feels wrong to me. Give me an airy-fairy, arty-farty possibility any day of the week.

As for Johnny : he was the first american comedian I can remember watching. Benny Hill was the first british comedian I can remember watching. Benny died, alone, watching the telly in his 1-bedroom flat. Maybe we should think of heroes (and most comedians, including dear Merry Widow-flaunting Adam) not as amazing humans with flaws, but amazingly flawed humans. There’s one possibility.