Some people's actions just invite scorn -- beg for it in fact. Seems like we were reminded of that over and over again last week.
Take APPLE+'s new TV series SEVERANCE. The Ben Stiller produced show has its own unique look and is filled with quirks and twists. What stands out the most for many is Patricia Arquette. She is made for this role, she's spent the last years becoming this role: A hateful and petty woman. She's not acting. That's obvious by the lack of anything to her character. She's got no range of emotions -- even when she's supposed to be furious -- she's just coasting on the hateful bitch energy she's put out for the last decade.
Most of us long ago gave up trying to explain her. She outraged millions with her Academy Award acceptance speech -- a speech many found racist. It's been downhill ever since. She's just an unahppy and pathetic individual who lashes out with garbage -- like when she wanted to nah-nah-nah to others that her family tree didn't include Confederate soldiers.
Yeah, she's that damn pathetic. Trashing people for what their foreberes did. She's that creepy.
Misery has left her alone. At least it's an improvement on all those years when she pretended to be with Nicholas Cage. And after how she abused poor Thomas Jane, it's good that she's alone. It certainly allows her more time to stuff her face. Watching her lumber around in scenes, you have to wonder how much damage she's doing to her heart?
She's hated and loathed as a person, so she works as the villain -- her off-screen personality supplying everything her increasingly dwindling talent can't. Few Oscar winners have faded so quickly, by the way and she's exhausted the patience of too many people to land another network show. But while her Q rating keeps the big networks away, she's turned to HULU, NETFLIX and now APPLE+ where it's known that she can't bring in viewers but hoped that she won't run them off.
Playing someone you root to fail, someone you actively loathe, Patty's found a new lease on life. Adam Scott's Mark works for the severe monster Patty plays -- and he does so at a company that requires its employees agree to be stripped of all work memories the minute that they leave the job. There are ethical issues at play and declaring that it's voluntary doesn't change that, nor does it excuse it. It's another story -- one that makes the point a little more clearly -- of how corporations exploit (and intimidate) their employees.
While SEVERANCE qualifies as much watch television, so much else doesn't.
For example, representation is way down in all areas. Let's focus on LGBTQs because GLAAD issued another one of their drippy and dippy 'reviews' of the media landscape. Even their eternal the-glass-can-be-filled optimism can't hide the sorry reality though "Where We Are On TV" certainly tries to.
Their definition of a 'regular character' is a joke but it does let them pretend that we have 637 LGBTQ 'regular characters' on TV shows. This year, they included DISNEY+, PEACOCK, PARAMOUNT, HBO MAX and APPLE+ along with the already included AMAZON, NETFLIX and HULU as well as broadcast networks ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and THE CW..
By loosely defining 'regular character,' they're able to claim 92 LGBTQ characters to 687 straight ones.
It's no surprise that THE CW has the best score on the number of LGBTQ characters. It's a network geared towards younger views and the most embracing of LGBTQ persons are the young. The least embracing is the old and elderly so it's no surprise that CBS ranks the worst on number of characters. They've been doing this annual report since 2005 and note that this is the first year that there have been more lesbians than gay males on TV as regular characters.
Well welcome to the party, GLAAD. We noted that reality last month.
Of the streamers, NETFLIX comes in first with the most LGBTQ characters (155) and APPLE+ at number eight with the least (six).
Here's some reality that GLAAD ignores: In the TV season that kicked off in fall of 2018, there were four lead male gay characters on broadcast TV. In the season that kicked off last fall, there are none. That's the sort of reality GLAAD always runs from as they rush to pass off and pimp piss for champagne. Two shows go off the air (WILL & GRACE and MODERN FAMILY) and the only male leading gay characters on broadcast TV disappear.
A real advocacy organization would be noting those realities and decrying them. GLAAD? It's an organization that's more then earned the scorn so many have towards it.
COUNTERPUNCH's Jeffrey St. Clair deserves more than a little scorn for this nonsense,"Spotify pays artists (or the corporations or hedge funds which own the rights to the music) about $0.005 per stream, which means Joni Mitchell’s 'Clouds' would have to be played 2,000 for Mitchell to make $10." Joni Mitchell has no song "Clouds." She did write "Both Sides Now," the song Jefferey's attempting to name. The song hit the charts in 1968 when Judy Collins had a top ten hit with it.
Are you grasping reality? The song is over 50 years old. And Joni's still making money from it? She should be on her knees offering thanks (the last major artist to record the song was Herbie Hancock in 2007). Copyright law needs to be going the other way -- not increasing the number of years something can be held but decreasing the number of years before it becomes public domain.
Excuse us for not crying over someone's online royalties when she's charging hundreds of dollars for archive recordings on vinyl. Archive recordings. The cost was already paid for recording. All they have to do is put them on a format. Her greed knows no bounds.
We told you that's what her beef with SPOTIFY was about. They're paying 1/6 less than traditional radio stations. And they're doing that for a reason, they reach a smaller audience. All listeners to our mythical landlocked radio station WCCP would hear Joni Mitchell's "Three Great Stimulants" when we played it. SPOTIFY is on demand. If one or two people listen to a song, that's not going to result in much. If Joni (or whatever artist) does something to be in the news, they can see a huge increase in their streams.
But, again, you did the song fifty years ago. You got a lot of nerve expecting us to feel sorry for you,having made millions from it, that all these years later you're being paid a nickel for every stream. She and Jeffrey are out of touch.
Let's not sob for the rich who are only getting a little richer instead of much, much richer.
Money, greed gives so much away.
Take the nonsense last week that Katie Halper, Krystal Ball, Marianne Williamson, Briahna Joy Gray and Julianna Forlano showed up to earn their scorn. And Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Coquette Campaigners" was quick to give them what they more than deserved.
It's February 2022 and the five women are doing their second, their second, broadcast this year on who you must vote for this fall.
If the women are teaming up for their second show on this topic, they must have done five already on Iraq, right?
No, the bitches don't cover Iraq. The bitches don't do much of anything but beg for your money.
Give your money to them and, now, give your money to them still but also give your money to these candidates they are telling you to vote for.
Give, give, give.
It's a one-way street, you may notice.
Worst of all was Marianne who was telling everyone they could give, even a little helps or give the maximum donation possible.
Is this the same woman who was decrying the Democratic Party as out of touch with the working class back in September of 2020? Who's out of touch now? It's a pandemic and people are still struggling economically but Marianne wants you to give 'till it hurts.
Even more worthy of scorn? The women's notion that we need big money campaigns. In what world is the most important act during an election the money donated?
Yes, big money elects awful candidates. You need big money for that. But if you have good candidates, ones who'll represent the people, what you're looking for is creating enthusiasm and the most important thing anyone can do for those candidates is to talk them up to their own circle, to increase the awareness of these candidates and their runs for office.
How sad that not only did the women accept the duopoly, they also accepted the corrupt system that the duopoly promotes.
A lot of people earned scorn last week.
Here are four videos of people who deserve credit for standing up.