Dick Gregory On Bill Cosby Scandal~12/18/2014

Gee, with Howard Stern playing a clip from 2006 that established an unspecified issue about Cosby (did he exploit women coming out of rehab? Are any of the 20-30 accusers from rehabs?) and the re-circulated Tina Fey clip where she mentioned an accusation, as well as Bill Maher relaying a female friend's anecdote about the Cos hitting on her relentlessly and reacting to rejection by making a movie shoot hellish for her. . . we can get the idea that at the very least Cosby seems to have been not such a nice guy and maybe we develop a distaste for trying to defend him against the onslaught of allegations. That's where I was at until I listened to this 32 minute interview of Dick Gregory. Mr. Gregory mentions a few things that are excellent points and creepy on a grand scale. It has not been revealed in the media - despite all of the Cosby talk - that NBC still is obligated to pay him $50 million for the cancelled sit-com. IS THAT A FACT ? It is mentioned like insider information. And that Netflix will have to pay Cosby $60 million for the star-up show to being aired. WF ?? And he makes an excellent point about the financial hit the cast of the Cosby Show will take by losing the income they get from airings of episodes i syndication. But if you had the patience to sit through this whole thing Mr. Gregory's own experiences and the point-for-point about Cosby's history makes for a nasty conspiracy that perhaps should get more exposure. Before the gun death of his son Ennis, under those bizarre circumstances on the roadside, WAS Mr. Cosby poised to buy NBC ? And why indeed was he "not allowed" to advertise Jello after the tragedy? How does it reflect on him? Was Ennis getting help to change a tire from a woman in a fur coat? And is that model of car capable of repairing itself? At the 21:30 mark in this video below, Damon Wayans takes a more broad (and potentially insensitive in its frankness) view of the Cosby scandal(s) when asked about it: Ultimately, of course, on a ground-level there is the conflation of this high-profile case where rape is alleged and where it is under reported and under-convicted. Society is at least talking about those issues, but perhaps unwilling to examine the source. We say "consider the source" at any other time, except when to do so will be called "blaming the victim." Cosby may have made some enemies over the years. At least some people are asking questions. An affair can go sour and someone might want more of a leg up from a celebrity and resent expectations not being met. I'd argue against Maher's idea that there is nothing glamorous about stepping up as a victim of the demonized figure. It can mean either inspiration to some or fulfill a need for attention and importance. None of which would ever excuse an actual rape, let alone serial rape, which is one of the most loathed crimes. People are piggy-backing on celebrity scandals to such an extent that it can have the opposite of its intended impact. It might just remind us of the basics - these things have to be addressed in a timely fashion a) to limit the possibility of someone else being attacked, b) to gather evidence while it exists c) to establish a credible narrative. Right now, jumping onto a band wagon or joining a mob against a 77 year old man is an empty gesture, and if what Gregory says about financial compensation for cancelled shows is true then Cosby won't suffer at all. Canadian venues that drove Judd Apatow into a tweeting frenzy have established that it would be an expensive mistake to be the ones to cancel the space rental booking for Cosby's live performances in Ontario. I expect a security nightmare as Cosby shows up and either addresses the elephant in the room or does not. I'm not really interested in alienating people with a firm stand, but I think even coming in with a dissenting opinion on this may have caused annoyance on a par with that which I feel watching something complex be sold as something simple.