One that airs on NBC each Monday night during the last hour of prime time is Chase. This garbage comes from Jerry Bruckheimer and Jennifer Johnson -- demonstrating that hatred of women is a pursuit that is not confined to only one gender.
Disclosure, we first encountered the show when a friend called us to tell us about a bad, bad series she'd just turned down the lead in. It was appalling, she explained, worse than 24 in so many ways. She spoke of the cartoon nature, the gender issues, the hostility towards everyone "including the public" and much more but, honestly, she had us at "worse than 24 in so many ways."
She wasn't mistaken. What's aired fails as entertainment and 'works' only if the whole point is to further debase a society that's already seen enough attacks on the Constitution. The first episode that really stood out was when Daisy (Rose Rollins) and one of her colleagues encounter a psycho who thinks he's a federal marshal and is holding a man over the railing of a high-rise. They quickly take out the psycho but the man is left hanging over the railing, fearful and Daisy and her partner find it all so amusing and funny. Problem: Daisy and her friend are federal marshals.
Each episode apparently exists to shred the Constitution and to allow people to go to town with their hatred of women. What our friend realized that Kelli Giddish apparently didn't (Giddish was something like seventh choice for the lead role of Annie) was that the show was porn. Instead of seeing Annie's breasts, you see her being beat up repeatedly, so it's a form of snuff-porn.
Now a woman taking a punch and handing one out can be a good thing on TV. It can demonstrate women's strengths. But what you quickly notice with this show is that (a) it's always fists and (b) Annie's forever being beat up -- despite the fact that she never has any bruises.
Jesse Metcalfe and his shapely man boobs show up as newbie marshal Luke Watson, desperate to fit in. If you don't know who Metcalfe is, you can still pick him out as the new kid on the block. He's the one who, on one episode, ended up with a cracked rib and possibly a broken jaw from a fight with a prison escapee on a killing spree.
That episode's big climax -- word used intentionally -- was when Luke and Annie finally track the killer down to a hospital and then to the morgue's hospital. Annie tells Luke she'll take "the meat locker" and, right away, you're thinking, "That's where the killer is and he's going to be behind the door and attack Annie as soon as she steps in!"
And, in fact, you are correct. They begin exchanging blows until he gets the better of her and begins choking her. Then they're throwing things at each other. At one point, Luke's at the door but can't get in and is screaming for Annie to open it (earlier in the episode, Luke shoots out a tire on a moving vehicle but apparently didn't realize he could shoot the door open or just shoot through the door's glass window). For the already battered Annie to get to the door, she has to fight with the killer and be hurled to the floor, then stagger towards the door and be thrown around by the killer and then finally get it open but be attacked by him until Luke knocks the killer off her and then he's going after Luke and Annie's taking on the killer. Despite all of this and nearly choking her to death, Annie has no injuries. She's got no marks on her. That's how you know Luke's the newbie, he still bruises.
In another episode, they're on top of a building, Annie and marshal Jimmy (Cole Hasuer) confronting a criminal. He's punching Annie and then Jimmy shows up. He's still resisting so Jimmy hits him and Annie kicks him, knocking him down. Why didn't either marshal pull their gun and order him to freeze? (The same move was avoided when Luke entered the morgue.) Because that wouldn't allow them to beat up people?
After Annie's kick knocks the suspect out, she snarls, "Son of a bitch. Tore up my heel on your damn face."
It's always someone else's fault. And wasn't that the lesson last week as the crazies came out of the woodwork to attack two women who may have been raped?
On Tuesday, Julian Assange, the face of WikiLeaks, appeared in a London court where it was decided he would be handed over to Sweden so the government could investigate whether or not rape took place. Assange doesn't deny having met the women. His defenders insist that he had consensual sex with both women. Sweden says differently and states that one woman was asleep (which would be rape) while the other was forcibly held down (which would also be rape).
Last week, we defended Julian Assange and WikiLeaks from the trash Saturday Night Live smeared on them. We stand by that defense. We have no reason to attack WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. We also have no reason to lie for them or to try to destroy two women to 'save' Julian.
See we're not in need of the Super Daddy that so many on the left are. When you grasp their need for a Big Daddy to embrace them, you start to realize why feminism never took hold among so many on the left. There is a feminist-left, but it's a much, much smaller grouping of the left.
As critics of the patriarchy, the last thing we need, feminists on the left, is to start engaging in phallic worship. Which is why we avoid it.
Crazy Naomi Wolf isn't a feminist. Germaine Greer has rightly called out Naomi's Daddy worship. bell hooks has rightly called out Naomi's racism. Naomi's indicted herself with her own bad books. She showed up Tuesday to mock the women and to mock rape. It was disgusting. As Mary Elizabeth Williams (Salon) pointed out:
Nobody ever said feminism means the person with the vagina is always right and the one with the penis is always wrong -- unless I just didn't get that version of the Manifesto. And, indeed, throughout her career, Naomi Wolf has been wrong plenty of times. Like, say, this week, when she condescendingly dismissed a rape allegation by comparing it to a guy who "did not notice that his girlfriend got a really cute new haircut -- even though it was THREE INCHES SHORTER." Yes, sex crime and not giving sufficient props for your girlfriend's hairdo are exactly the same, Naomi Wolf. Also, can I just say, on behalf of every person, male or female, who has ever been sexually coerced, victimized or assaulted, one thing? Blow me.
Naomi Klein joined in attacking the women but -- such is the sorry state of Naomi's 'writing' these days -- she could only manage a Tweet. Poor pathetic Naomi Klein, how we did laugh at you when we saw you in the halls of Congress last week. How we did laugh.
The two women were not the only ones attacking the two women who may have been raped. Other notable attackers included Dennis Bernstein and gadfly and apparent Honeypot Ray McGovern.
On Pacifica show after Pacifica show last week, we experienced the non-joy of Ray McGovern who honestly seems to have some early form of dementia. We're not joking. He should get that checked out. When you mean "so far" but are saying "so for," for example, you're either dumb as dirt or you're experiencing some sort of a decay in your capabilities. We're not joking. And we're done "not joking," when it comes to Ray-Ray.
Listening to him babble away on WBAI, KPFA and KPFT about the "honeypot" and how the two women were CIA agents or assets who were honeypots, we suddenly realized why Ray-Ray couldn't shut up about honeypots. As The Progressive Forum, Flashpoints and Robert Knight informed you, Ray was CIA for many years -- presumably he's now retired and retirement isn't just a cover, but who knows?
What did he do all those years besides dabbling in the president's briefs? Of course, he must have been a honeypot. That's why he's so obsessed with the term.
And obsessed is the only word. He trashed the women repeatedly. He mocked them. He made fun of them.
Where have we done the same to Julian Assange?
We haven't.
Go back to the definition that appears at the top of Hitchock's Sabotage: "Wilful destruction of buildings or machinery with the object of alarming a group of person or inspiring public uneasiness."
Willful destruction. That's what these attackers did in 2008, you may remember. They savaged Hillary Clinton with lies, they ignored realities about Barack and they didn't care about truth. Their only concern was with destruction. They wanted to destroy Hillary and it didn't matter to them how they did it.
Around the time lefty crackpot Dave Lindorff surfaced last week attacking the women, it was a case of The Gang's All Here.
We do self-checks. We don't think we're absolutely correct 100% of the time. And one thing we were self-checking on was the issue of these 2008 whores. Were we, we wondered, wrong to demand that they come clean before they be allowed back in?
If last week demonstrated anything, it's that the Naomis can't be trusted, the Lindorffs can't be trusted, the Ray-Rays can't be trusted, etc. They learned nothing from 2008. Their unethical behavior installed a War Criminal, Barack, into the White House. They make noises today about grasping he is a War Criminal. They don't take accountability for their part in the selling of the Christ-child. And their refusal to take accountability goes to the fact, as demonstrated last week, that they don't regret what they did. They don't care that they won by cheating, they just want to win.
That's why they can't be trusted. More than their sexism and their hatred of women, more than the fact that they are so very, very wrong, is the fact that they have no standards. You can't trust them and you surely don't want to be seen in public with them.
On WBAI, Ray-Ray was riffing on his favorite theme (or maybe that dementia was setting in) and calling it a "honey trap" and declaring, "It's a travesty on justice." If we're wrong and he's not in the early stages, then someone explain to us how this sub-literate moron was ever given the task of the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) because talk about scary . . .
Scary is what they're after. Pill popping Naomi Wolf wants to scare you so you agree with her and Ray-Ray is playing the same fear card. Here's Ray-Ray playing a full house of crazy on KPFA's Flashpoints last week:
Ray McGovern: The idea, of course, is to get him to Stockholm where the Swedes have already acted as poodles on behalf of the United States government and he would automatically be shipped to -- if not Guantanamo at least back to the States where he would be subjected to the likes of of [Mick] Huckabee and [Newt] Gingrich and the others who want to put a bullet in his head.
Really? The US would hold Julian Assange in Guantanamo?
Unlike Ray-Ray (who was minimizing Barack's crimes on both WBAI and KPFT and offering that Barack was a victim), we don't like Barack. We don't care for the man at all. But we do not for one minute believe that there's even a chance that Julian Assange would be put in Guantanamo. Here's how Guantanamo has 'worked,' you take people that few know and that no one will know is in there and you destroy their lives by imprisoning them indefinitely. You know you can get away with it (whether your last name is Bush or Obama) because you scare people by referring to the imprisoned as "terrorists" and, since their real names and stories aren't known, it's real hard for a global defense to be mounted calling for their release. Putting Julian Assange in Guantanamo would most likely be the thing that finally closed Guantanamo.
Ray-Ray then paints a world where Newt and Mick strap on their six-shooters and mosey on down to whatever holding cell Assange is in before saying, "Eat lead, sucker."
We're not fans of either Mick or Newt. We can't stand either man. But do we, for a minute, believe that either would take a gun and shoot Assange?
No.
And no sane person does. But Ray-Ray wasn't discussing facts, he was trying to scare people, he was playing the fear card and trying to alarm people because, when you're in the midst of a panic, it's hard to think straight and liars only win when they throw you off balance.
The fear card is why Robert Knight solemnly declares, "Today, December 7th, was indeed Pearl Harbor Day for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange." Not since NBC's The Today Show referred to the press over a celebrity break up as a tsunami (while relief efforts were still underway to help actual victims of an actual tsunami) has someone so self-embarrassed.
Ray-Ray was all over and forcing us to yet again wonder exactly how a CIA agent got so far into the left? Seriously. The left is notoriously wary of the CIA -- its longterm ties to The Nation magazine, not withstanding. David Corn (who is not part of the CIA in any capacity) regularly has had to issue denials of CIA ties. So exactly how did this unapologetic member of the CIA get so tight with the left -- and in so short a time?
Ray-Ray's work, for those who don't know, does include Iran-Contra. That's apparently not a problem to Robert Parry who is, or pretends to be, obsessed with that story to this day but still manages to publish Ray-Ray. Ray's work, his entire body of work, provided you with the slaughter of a lot of people and he's never recanted or shared those stories.
Philip Agee was a hero to many on the left for whistle blowing on the CIA. That's understandable. That makes sense. What refuses to make sense is this notion that Ray-Ray is the left's 'trusted friend' and we're so lucky to have him. As he sneered at the two woman and expressed horror that they (supposedly) worked for/with the CIA, the obvious point is: "Well, you did work with the CIA and you've never recanted."
Not only has he never recanted publicly, he's proud of his CIA work and is proud of the foreigners that have been killed. You really need to listen to KPFT's Progressive Forum. Listen to him bemoan the Tet Offensive. Listen to him prattle on about how there were more Communists in Vietnam -- armed ones! -- than the military brass was willing to admit and 'brave' Sam Adams was trying to tell the truth and blah, blah, blah. Where in his glory telling is the fact -- the basic fact -- that Vietnam was under attack, that it was an illegal war and that Vietnamese were slaughtered throughout the illegal war? It's not. But the Tet Offensive is something that could have been stopped (which would mean the deaths of far more innocent Vietnamese in their own country) if only -- if only -- Sam Adams been listened to. (The Tet Offensive is, for many historians, the turning point in Vietnam. More Vietnamese died in the battle but it was the beginning of the end for the easy press and easy assumptions that came before. It was also a huge rallying point for the Vietnamese. Ray-Ray appears to be arguing that Vietnam could have been 'won' by the US if Sam Adams had been listened to.)
Do the freak squads on the left who want to assume leadership ever pay attention to what actually comes out of Ray McGovern's mouth? And, if they do, how do they reconcile holding hands with the man?
There isn't enough sanitary gel in the world for us to join hands, even for a second, with Ray McGovern.
And if it were just Ray-Ray, Danny Schechter, Dave Lindorff and assorted other male crazies attacking all rape victims in their efforts to save Daddy Julian, it wouldn't matter much. They'd be exposed as the liars and sexist they are. That was true in 2008 as well which is why they needed Queen Bees to hide behind. Without women willing to attack Hillary in sexist terms, the men would risk facing some strong critiques.
As it was then, so it is now with the Naomis providing cover for the men.
One male blogger felt the need to point to the Naomis and Nicole Colson and state that "feminists" were all for the questioning (inquisition) of the two women in Sweden. None of those women are feminists. Naomi Klein has a vagina. Doesn't make her a feminist. She's got nothing in her body of work that indicates she's a feminist and she harbors strong Kill Mommy desires towards her feminist mother. Naomi Wolf's feminism has always been rather loose as she's noted her distaste for lesbians and as she's revealed (see her third book) how she did her part to help her 'friends' (male) cover up a gang-rape which took place in the frat house she'd stayed the night in. In the last ten years, Naomi's had nothing feminist to write about. She's endorsed the veil and burqa -- which puts her on par with Pinochet (women in Chile were forced into a dress code immediately after the junta took over) -- and she's whined a lot about how having the perfect marriage (it collapsed) and more money then you knew what to do with (that's gone too) didn't make it any easier to find a good nanny to raise your child. Nicole Colson's a 'feminist' in that she writes about women from time to time . . . when she wants to attack them. You go, Girlie Bee.
But the men need these women to waive through their own sexism. These women make it okay, grant the men permission. If you ever doubted that, check out Naomi Wolf's Facebook page. There you'll find one man after another explaining how great and freeing it is to use sexism to take down a woman. One example will suffice:
Dean Scarpinato Again Naomi I applaud the stand you are taking! A true feminist recognizes that a woman should be accountable for her own actions, not get a case of buyer's remorse and yell rape. Legal rights require legal responsibilities.
Buyer's remorse! Head butt at the kegger!
At her Facebook page, Vince Pac explains the names of the victims and he also offers that Glenn Beck provides a great time line on the little 'bitches.' Yes, boys and girls, if you missed it, sexists on the right and left made common cause last week as they ripped apart two women. (In fairness to Naomi Wolf, we should note that she doesn't feel rape victims deserve to be anonymous to the public.)
Two little 'bitches.' Which brings us back to Chase. Jimmy and Daisy are angry about a psycho lesbian (who, evil woman, went and stole a straight gal away from her husband -- all to, you understand, get back at Daddy).
Jimmy: Son of a bitch.
Daisy: No, just bitch.
Jimmy couldn't have said it. But Daisy waives it through.
This psycho lesbian killer? She kills the straight woman's husband. The husband who's been beating her. Let's let Annie summarize it after she picks up a picture of the couple: "If I didn't know any better, I'd say little Mr. Camaro was a little rough with his lady. Gave her a good whack every now and then."
"A little rough with his lady" and "good whack"? This is how law enforcement speaks about domestic abuse? This is how a woman speaks about domestic abuse?
Hell no.
This is how a woman who hates women,and a man who's never seen them as anything other than whores team up to provide NBC with the sort of garbage that even CBS had the good taste to sneer at.
One way or another, it's all about sabotaging women. It's certainly not about facts. Julian Assange's attorney starts claims of a broken condemn, it's written up and the same piece is linked to over and over and, even after Tuesday's reading of the accusations, liars continue to pimp "it's about a broken condom!" It's why Ray McGovern's declaring, "Forty-one years ago -- forty years ago -- In 1971, you do the math, Daniel Ellsberg . . ." Ray-Ray, it's 2010. Ends in a zero. You really can't do the math on that? Really?
It's not about facts, it's about attacks. Attacks on women, attacks on our way of life. It's about savaging women to save Daddy. Mainly, it's the reason why the left is such a sorry state today: The lack of maturity, the need for a Daddy. Which, for the record, is the driving force behind Chase's Annie.