Media: Theater of the Absurd

Absurd.

WEBSTER's defines it as "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate." TV used to define it as MY MOTHER THE CAR, anything guest starring Charo and crooked public figures trying to pretend otherwise (see especially interviews with Watergate crooks Chuck Colson, G Gordon Liddy and Richard Nixon).

Use to.

Not anymore. These days what was once rightly considered absurd is now passed off as normal.



You saw it with the Academy Award broadcast last week where actor Will Smith ran up on stage as Best Documentary was being presented (SUMMER OF SOUL would win) to assault Chris Rock and then, once he'd taken his seat, to scream (more than once) curse words at Chris. It was absurd and it was appalling. As was Will Smith not being ejected from the proceeding immediately.

That latter part grew even more absurd.

Former actress and forever pushy, big mouth Whoopi Goldberg decided to weigh in -- and goodness knows that woman throws around a lot of weight despite doctor's orders to reduce (she's diabetic). She threw her weight around, in fact, all last week on THE VIEW. Now it's not uncommon for Whoopi to lecture at length. Not uncommon at all. It's not uncommon for her to have her facts wrong. It's not uncommon for her to be an embarrassment. And she certainly managed to live up to her bad reputation. She was outrageous as she minimized Will Smith's behavior and she was outrageous as she failed to look into the camera and apologize to Chris Rock.

Apologize to Rock?

Yes. She's a blabber mouth and she elected to be one on this topic. She shouldn't have. She shouldn't have said one word about it. The Academy Awards has launched an active investigation into the incident -- which is what happened -- including the Academy's feeble response the night of the broadcast.

Why does Whoopi need to keep her mouth closed? She's a single term member of the Academy's Board of Governors.

We hard from many members as Whoopi broadcast more lies than even P-Diddy (who was also Team Will and also felt the need to lie repeatedly, but at least he's not serving on the Board of Governors).

With an ongoing investigation taking place, the last thing any member of the Board of Governors needs to be doing is discussing this incident. That could be seen as an attempt to manage/influence the outcome of the investigation.

And Whoopi is someone who could be called out in the investigation.

B-b-b-but she didn't strike Chris Rock!!!!

No, but she didn't act either.

Her duties include ensuring the safety of everyone present. That's what the Board is supposed to do. After Will Smith attacked Chris Rock, who knows what could happen next. Who might he go after next?

And just having an assailant like Smith in the audience was traumatic and triggering for many people in attendance.

Grasp that.

People who have been assaulted and abused (and both include Chris Rock) had to sit in the audience with a man who was too stupid and too unbalanced to grasp that you do not rush onto the stage ofa live event and assault someone because you didn't like the joke.

As an African-American director joked to us that night at an after party, "This ain't The Source Wards." Nor is it meant to be.

Artists often grow up bullied. They can be seen as different -- and that's not always seen in a good way.

They did not deserve to have the awards marred and, once they were marred by Smith's actions, they did not deserve to have to remain in the theater with Smith.

Again, it's Whoopi's fault.

ZBut she never told her viewers that, did she? She never took accountability for her own actions. And she nver apologized to Chris Rock.

That's something the Academy also failed to do on the night of the awards. They did Tweet about the incident. They did not apologize to Chris publicly.

And they owed him an apology. Which is why, since Whoopi was breaking all ethical rules by discussing the incident already, she should have, on behalf of the Academy, offered Chris a public apology.

This is the worst Board of Governors. That's the statement we heard all last week. When they should have acted, they failed to do so but then, afterwards, some like Whoopi could and did speak at length publicly without ever being aware of just how much to blame they were.

Whoopi early on last week (the day after the ceremony) announced that no one was going to take the Oscar away from him (later in the night, Smith won for Best Actor).

We don't know that this should be announced before an investigation is completed.

We happen to agree you don't take back the Oscar. It's an insult to the person it is awarded to after the fact. "Denzel, we didn't judge you the best but since the best was so awful in real life, it's your award now!" That's an insult to anyone who might recive Smith's award after the fact.

But a new rule needs to be made immediately. You get ejected if you initiate violence at the presentation. Not only do you get ejected but you are disqualified from receiving any award not already presented that night.

Price Waterhouse has officials present throughout the awards. They are responsible for doing the tabulation ahead of the votes. There was a mistake in 2017 that was handled in real time -(the wrong envelope was given to the presenters) and it was corrected in real time. More to the point, no one ever knows ahead of time who is going to win. Price Waterhouse has managed to maintain integrity with regards to the vote count. By the same token, they could have a list of the top two vote getters on site in case another violent act takes place.

Say Rhonda Smeal is up for Best Actress and she's not happy with a comment that Lady Gaga makes. Smeal rushes the stage and attempts to strike Gaga. Though she fails, she's initiated an act of violence and she is immediately ejected. Her conduct is unbecoming and Price Waterhouse checks to make sure that -- even if she had been the original winner -- she is not announced as one. In fact, it should even be stated when the category is presented, "We have four nominees for Best Actress. Earlier this evening, Ms. Smeal removed herself as a contender due to her behavior."

Instead of making excuses -- and pinning the decision of what happened on Chris Rock -- the Academy needs to making plans to ensure this never happens again.

And, please grasp, Chris was the victim of an assault. It is not fair to expect him to deal with that and to also make the call to eject Will Smith. That was the call the Academy should have made. And when the show's producer was too incompetent to make that call, the Board of Governors should have stepped in -- stepped in on site, during the presentation. They also should have immediately taken to the stage and formally apologized to the viewers, to those present and, most of all, to Chris Rock.

Will Packer failed as a producer and should never be allowed back. The failure was too big. He has created a stain on the Academy as a result of his failure to act and evict Will Smith immediately.

It was not fair to Chris who was the victim of assault (and had been assaulted earlier in his life), it was not fair to anyone present that they were forced to sit with a hothead (at best) among them who had demonstrated that he was prone to violence.

It was absurd and it was outrageous.

Absurd also describes the press -- especially the press of the last few years.

Remember Hunter Biden?

Isaiah noted him in "First Family Material?"  He's President Joe Biden's son.  And he's a problem and then some.

Jon Ward (YAHOO NEWS) reports:

  

Further proof emerged this week of a financial relationship between President Biden’s son Hunter, the president’s brother James and a Chinese company with reportedly close ties to that country’s ruling Communist Party.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that the Justice Department’s probe into Hunter Biden is gaining momentum. He acknowledged last December that federal investigators were looking at his taxes. But the New York Times reported in March that the Justice Department is also looking at whether he may have violated money laundering and foreign lobbying laws.

 Meanwhile, allegations that Russian disinformation may have produced or manipulated emails found on a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden at a computer repair shop in 2019 were debunked by the Washington Post.

 

 THE WASHINGTON POST debunked it?  Good.  But where were they in real time?  We know some outlets were  For example, we noted October 27, 2020 in "Media: NPR doesn't trust its listeners:"

He goes on to note NPR ombudsperson Kelly McBride's Tweet and we're going to ignore the Tweet -- it just links to the NPR newsletter -- and instead quote from the NPR newsletter she linked to where she writes:

Responding to the New York Post

Carolyn Abbott writes: Someone please explain why NPR has apparently not reported on the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden story in the last week or so that Joe did know about Hunter's business connections in Europe that Joe had previously denied having knowledge?

There are many, many red flags in that New York Post investigation. NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik detailed most of them here. Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight. Even if Russia can’t be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their report have not been altered. 

But the biggest reason you haven’t heard much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don’t amount to much. 

“We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel told me. “And quite frankly, that's where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.”

The handful of stories that NPR has produced about the NY Post investigation have been limited to how Facebook and Twitter are restricting distribution of the story or how families of those seeking treatment for addiction are impacted by the portrayal of Hunter Biden's struggle. — Kelly McBride

What a load of garbage but that is all Kelly McBride is really.  She's supposed to be about ethics.  That's why she's the ombudsperson.  But reading her nonsense about Nina Totenberg and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear that Kelly didn't get Nina's job or her own.  In the column, she repeats Nina's claim that her long friendship with RBG didn't influence her coverage.  Guess what?  That's not Nina's call.  Nina cannot both conceal the friendship in news reports and then be the one who determines that there was no conflict.  Listeners should have known, in every report in which she mentioned Ginsburg, that Nina was close friends with her.  They should have had that knowledge so they could evaluate the report.

Kelly should grasp that as public editor but it's clear that she doesn't.  It's clear not just in that report in Nina but in many reports -- reports where Kelly interjects someone from POYNTER.  Yes, Kelly discloses her relationship with that organization; however, she's there to serve NPR listeners, not to be part of a circle-jerk where she promotes the other organization she works for.  In fact, as public editor, she shouldn't be quoting anyone from POYNTER -- it doesn't come off fair and it doesn't come off impartial.  More to the point, since POYNTER is already helping the helpless Kelly by doing research for any column she writes for the listeners, they're already weighing in.  They don't also need to be quoted.

Kelly McBride, representing NPR declared the story nothing in October 2020.  Would she like to rethink that?

So NPR ignored the story and Kelly McBride defended that action. Should she really be teaching on campus? Is she truly qualified for that role or any other? She doesn't appear to grasp what journalism is.

B-b-b-but, Ava and C.i., people can make mistakes!!!!

Absolutely. And they can atone for them as well. Her mistake was huge. It requires a lot of atoning but, more to the point, it needs to start with a public admission that she made a mistake and a public reflection on that. Not a justification. Not a minimization. She was flat out wrong and she was the ombudsperson who is supposed to be making the hard calls. Her call was wrong and we have heard nothing from her about that.

She's far from the only one. But her role in this was especially egregious. The only outlet that might have been worse? THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Most people seem unaware of what that outlet did.

It was called out in an Iraq snapshot in real time and, yes, we remember:

 

October 16th, THE NEW YORK POST published a story.  The response has been outrageous and certainly not the standard for journalism.

THE NEW YORK TIMES, for example, runs an 'investigation' that's nothing but unsourced office gossip about one of their rivals -- conflict of interest.  Not only do they do that, they do it in a matter of days.

Remember their mini-culpa on Iraq?  That ran May 26, 2004.  Over a year and two months after the Iraq War -- a war they sold with lies -- started.  But to cover for Joe, the paper swings into immediate action?

As with the charges made by Tara Reade, the press is refusing to investigate what was revealed/alleged in/by THE POST.  Instead, it's attack anyone who questions Joe Biden.

Grasp that. Instead of investigating Hunter Biden, the paper elected to investigate THE NEW YORK POST -- a rival outlet -- and to smear them with unnamed gossips who may or may not have actually existed.

They owe THE NEW YORK POST an apology. That was outrageous on every level.

Somethings are intentionally absurd. And absurd can be used in the arts and used effectively. We were reminded of that while viewing PEACOCK's new series KILLING IT.

Early on, we see Craig Robinson's character Craig as a child. He took candy from a store. His father walks in with Craig and his other son and apologizes. They get outside the store and Craig says his brother stole a piece of candy as well. The father makes them wait outside and goes back in to apologize again to the clerk only to discover that the clerk is in fact a robber and this time the father gets shot and killed.

Craig carries a lot of guilt from that and the death also may make some viewers recoil. We honestly were taken aback. What kind of a sitcom offers that violence? And to an African-American at that? But if you hang in there, you realize this is a sitcom dealing with the absurd --- and what better term is there for America today? So Craig is being bitten by a snake and shoots it but hurts himself. Or he goes to his apartment only to find the guy he is BNB-ing to on all fours, nude (well a pale pair of flesh underwear, so nearly nude) in front of a camera as a woman pegs him.

Over and over, you're along for the ride and, no matter where the story turns, it's always absurd. And it's always entertaining. PEACOCK has tossed out a lot of offerings and most of them have not been worth watching. This is the third series they've offered that we felt has been worth streaming (the other two are MCGRUBER and ONE OF US IS LYING). That's a really sad average for a streamer that's about to hit the one year anniversary (April 15th). But at least they squeaked in with one more series before their first 12 months ended. Maybe that provides a little hope for their immediate future?

Back in the sixties, when MY MOTHER THE CAR briefly aired, the youth of America had visions of day-glow and a better world seemed so close. Today, that dream is pretty much smashed to bits which is how we get so much absurdity today. At least KILLING IT is meant to be absurd.

Roundtable

Jim: Roundtable time again. .  Remember our e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com but you can also use common_ills@yahoo.com and, in fact, should this week Participating in our roundtable are  The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.







Jim (Con't): What do we think of Ukraine?

Kat: Love the people, hate the government.

Cedric: Right. As a Black man, I especially won't be praising that government or, in fact, the people. Ann noted that at her site "Isaiah, Charmed, Sabby Sabs" and I agree with her and I'm glad Sabby Sabs reported on it.

Dona: We'll put Sabby's video in here but, Ann and Cedric, tell us about that.

Ann: My husband's pointing to me. The Peace Corps is warning their volunteers that there may be problems in Ukraine due to racism. The N-word may be used, for example, relics of racism here in the States may still be popular -- think something like Sambo dolls. You, if you're a person of color, will be under a microscope, etc. It is just not a fun place and not at all what the US media and the White House has been insisting it is.

Cedric: I don't know why my tax dollars are being used to fund a racist country where, in 2002, it is acceptable -- socially acceptable -- to call African-Americans the N-word. I find that appalling. They're neo Nazis. And we're giving them our money.

Trina: And doing so at a time when Joe Biden, the president, is telling Americans to prepare for food shortages.

Elaine: How is that not bigger news!

Trina: Exactly. I know C.I. worked it into a snapshot but is everyone else just like, "Oh, food shortages, sure, that's normal." Because it isn't.

Jess; But we're supposed to be prepared for them. If they happen, that's a failure of leadership and will reflect directly on Joe Biden. I cannot believe that the Green Party is not addressing this, issuing statements, etc.

Ann: I'll be silent to let others speak but can we please come back to me when we're done with this topic?

Jim: We will do that. Ty, any thoughts?

Ty: On Ukraine? We, the US government, have been agitating there since 2014. We had Victoria Nuland's infamous phone call that everyone seems to have forgotten. We interfered to destabilize the government in power. We created the chaos. We set the stage. And now it's, "Evil Russia!!!" No. Our hands are just as bloody.

Wally: So when Joe Biden screams "War Criminal!" he better be sure to look in the mirror.

Betty: We did not need to get involved in another war. The pandemic continues. The American people are tired and stressed. We do not have the money to waste on weapons for Ukraine. We need to be focused on helping our country. Joe Biden is a bit like a man who's too busy picking up the check for the table to impress others while at home his kids are eating spam sandwiches because Dad keeps blowing the budget.

Jim: I'd say that's a perfect description of Joe Biden.

Rebecca: Like Jude Law in that film THE NEST. We'll all be left homeless in the US because Joe Biden's wasting our money.

Elaine: I want to point out something here. Joe is using Ukraine as his justification for everything including inflation -- which had already soared before Ukraine took up all the media attention. What I want to point out is that if we have food shortages and he tries to justify it by pointing out what's going on in Ukraine, that's still his failure. No one forced him to get involved -- covertly or overtly -- he was always involved covertly. But if his skills are so poor that he could not see the trouble he was creating, that goes to him not being fit for the job.

Mike: Absolutely, hold him accountable.

Jim: On that note, I want to go somewhere else for a moment. Ann, I'm not forgetting you, I promise. Okay, Julian Assange and that's something Marcia asked that we talk about, so Marcia.

Marcia: Accountability. We need to hold Joe Biden accountable for the persecution of Julian Assange. C.I. made that point some time ago as people were being wishy-washy in their defense of Julian. They would say the US government or they'd complain about someone lower level. No, this is Joe Biden. Joe could end it at any moment. And maybe he would if he started getting just how many people are going to hold him accountable and if he gets how his continued persecution of Julian will shape Joe Biden's legacy.

Ruth: I agree with Marcia on this and we have spoken of it many times. We need to make it the anchor around Mr. Biden's neck and if he is willing to still do it, then he can sink as a result of his actions.

Kat: And I don't imagine anyone in the world doesn't know who Julian is but just in case, Julian is an Australian citizen. He is the publisher of WIKILEAKS. Joe is angry with WIKILEAKS because they exposed War Crimes, most infamously, they exposed War Crimes in Iraq. This is reporting, this is the sunlight that democracy needs. But Joe doesn't like sunlight -- look at how he covers for his crooked son, so he wants to bring Julian to the US where he can be tortured the way our government has tortured at Guantanamo. And please remember Joe Biden was in the US government when the bulk of that torture took place and unlike, for example Senator Dick Durbin, Joe never shed any tears for these victims of torture.

Wally: He's rather a cold hearted person.

Stan: I'd agree with that His jovial nature always felt forced to me. And now he just comes across like yuor angry and confused great grandfather. It's hard to watch. He's so clearly not up to the job. It seems like even he realizes that and it makes him more angry and a lot meaner.

Jim: Can we just, for a moment, entertain what it would be like if Bernie Sanders had gotten the nomination?

Mike: We would be so much better off. I know what you're saying JUim, Bernie's not a youngster either. But he's got a better heart and cares about people. He wouldn't have been perfect but he would have been better than Joe, much, much better than Joe. And that's not me saying Bernie should run again. He fake assed in the primary at the end. I don't have any use for you once you fake ass.

Rebecca: I think Bernie as president would have raised real issues. I think we would have raised issues about addressing climate change, for example, and addressing Medicare For All. And I think the corporations who were opposed to him grasped that he wasn't Joe Biden. Joe Biden couldn't get a group of ten people to rally -- even if he was giving out front row tickets to a Jay-Z concert.

Betty: I remember those rallies Joe had and how sparsely they were attended.

Rebecca: Exactly. But if Bernie had the nomination, he would have won and this is what scared the corporations, he would have been able to rally people. All the bought off members of Congress want to forget how they gave lip service to Medicare For All? Bernie gives a speech -- State of th Union -- and tells everyone to call their representatives and demand Medicare For All and you better believe that they would have done it and lit a fire forcing reps to support it or be voted out of office.

Elaine: Which was C.I.'s whole point in 2019 that Bernie wasn't the power, it was the people who were backing him.

Mike: Good points. Joe Biden inspires no one and speaks to no one.

Dona: That really is the case. He's a dull, boring, run of the mill and corrupt politician. I look back at the people who used their own image to try to sell him --

Kat: Cher!

Dona: Yeah, people like Cher and I have to wonder -- what's the song --

C.I.: Pretenders, "How Much Did You Get For Your Soul?"

Dona: That's it! I love Ava and C.I.'s saying that they've had for years now, rejecting this need to worship a politician, where they say -- Ava, you haven't talked this roundtable so say it.

Ava: We don't fall in love with politicians, we're not that pathetic.

Cedric: And it really is pathetic. To the young people out there, I'm not referring to you. If this is your first or second election, enjoy. But if you've seen a few elections already? Stop lying to yourself and others. I am so tired of these run of the mill politicians being hyped to the heavens with claims of how great they are and how they truly represent us on the left when they really don't.

Betty: Cedric, let's not leave it at politicians. Ketanji Brown Jackson does not represent me. Not politically. She's way to the right of me. But Hip Hop Nation -- which also doesn't represent me -- can't stop hyping her and trying to make it the most pressing left issue in the world. She's honestly not all that important. She's another corporatist who will vote center-left and we'll wonder, as Elaine's pointed out, why our Court tilts right. Because Dems no longer nominate leftists for the Supreme Court.

Cedric: You're right, Betty, you are exactly right.

Ann: And Elaine was right when she made that point.

Mike: Yep.

Marcia: I will give Joe Biden credit for one thing on Judge Jackson. He promised to nominate a Black woman and he did. He didn't go for biracial and try to pass her off as Black. There's nothing wrong with being biracial or multiracial or mixed whatever you want to call it. But don't pretend it's the same thing. There is a whole body of work on how the lighter your skin was, the easier you had it as a person of color in the US. Before he named his nominee, I wrote that he said Black and she better be Black. He kept his word on that. I'm not blown away by the nominee and I did not expect to be -- I said that before he named the nominee.

Betty: And that's a good point to make. As a very dark skinned person, I do agree with you 100%. I think passing has gone the other way in the 21st century.

Marcia: Oh, Betty, that is such a good point. It really has. I'm probably going to use that at my site at some point.

Betty: By all means.

Jim: Okay, dropping back to Julian Assange, what needs to be done with him?

Mike: He's a journalist. He needs to be released immediately.

Stan: I agree but am I the only one who pictures the US kidnapping him the minute's he's released.

Trina: I agree that's a possibility And that's all the more reason to call Joe Biden out now, to make sure he knows the world is watching him. Because the UK court could do the right thing, it could release him. And we need to make sure that Joe knows the world is watching him when it comes to the treatment of Julian.

Jim: We need to wrap up shortly. We never get to cover everything we want to or plan to but I did promise Ann we'd come back to her. Ann, the floor is yours.

Ann: Thank you. Jess is a Green and so I am I. Betty is Green statewide and may be one nationally.

Betty: I've voted Green in every presidential election since Cynthia McKinney ran in 2008.

Ann: So we've got a few Greens and I think that collectively we are a Green friendly community. I am getting so tired of the attacks on Howie Hawkins. He's not this, he's not that. Wah! Wah! Jesse Ventura, a conservative, could have been the Green Party's nominee. Could have been? He chose not to run for the office. He said he'd accept it f he was gifted with the nomination. That's not democracy. I have watched every one of my party's presidential nominees leave the campaign and either go on to something else or just fade -- but they retreated. Now they gave a lot of themselves and I certainly have tremendous respect for Cynthia -- I believe she went on to get her doctorate but I could be wrong on that. My point is Howie was the 2020 Green Party presidential nominee. That ended in November of 2020. Where has he been? Every week, he does a minimum of one YOUTUBE video discussing Green issues. We are never going to be a serious party until we learn to stay active every year and not just during the presidential election year. He was not my first choice for the nomination. He became my choice during the primaries because he was working for the nomination. My choice, was Dario Hunter. He and I aligned perfectly on every position. I switched to Howie because Dario wasn't doing a thing. He wasn't creating videos, he wasn't Tweeting at least once a day. I remember getting called out by readers and having to explain in posts, people, I'm noting him every time he Tweets, he's not Tweeting. As Greens, we cannot depend upon the corporate media to get the word out on us so we have to get it out on ourselves. Howie did that in the race for the nomination. I'm getting tired of Sabby Sabs and other non-Green slamming Howie when they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm getting tired of her and Jimmy Dore trying to argue that Jesse Ventura should be gifted with the Green Party nomination when there are people running for that nomination. I thought we were all appalled in 2016 when the Democratic Party worked to gift Hillary Clinton the nomination while blocking Bernie. All I'm asking -- asking Jimmy, Sabby and everyone else -- is that you apply the same standard. Don't have one when you're unhappy that a political party forced a nominee on the people and then turn around and be mad that a political party didn't force a nominee on the people.

Jim: Thank you, Ann. I don't think anyone here can disagree with that. You said that very well and I believe most of our readers will agree with you also. It's about maintaining your ethics. Agreed. On that note, we're going to wind down. This is a rush transcript. I've got some personal issues -- health -- to take care of this week so please just e-mail us at common_ills@yahoo.com if you have something to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim's World

 

 This week, Betty offered "This week's episode of THE THING ABOUT PAM " and Ruth offered "Episode four of THE THING ABOUT PAM" and Stan offered "THE THING ABOUT PAM."  They're covering THE THING ABOUT PAM, a series on Tuesday nights (NBC).  A limited series, actually.  Its only going to be six episodes (two more left to air).  You can catch it numerous places online including NBC's own webpage, YOUTUBE TV, PEACOCK and HULU.  

Ava and C.I. praised the series here several weeks ago ("TV: What wins out").  

What's interesting about THE THING ABOUT PAM is that it started out with X number of viewers and then, in a pattern for network shows today (as Ava and C.I. have repeatedly noted), the second episode saw less viewers.  But here's what's different about THE THING ABOUT PAM -- episode three?  More viewers than episode two.  Episode four (that aired last week)?  Again, more viewers.  THE THING ABOUT PAM is reversing the trend.  

And that's good because it's a good show and Renee Zellweger is delivering an incredible performance.  

But it had me thinking because THE THING ABOUT PAM is one of Dona and my favorite 2022 TV shows.  People like Ruth, Betty and Stan are getting the word out on it -- people like them online and people like them in their own lives with word of mouth.

We have so many offerings each week of content and it can be overwhelming and things can get lost.

I wanted to note five things (four series and one movie) that I've really enjoyed this year in case you missed hearing about  them or meant to watch them and then life happened and you forgot.

1) PEACEMAKER (Ava and C.I. noted it here and here).

This HBO MAX series has a strong cast led by John Cena and it's really worth catching.  There's some great stunts, some strong acting, some social commentary and a lot of jokes.  Dona said to note it might not be suitable for young kids.  For our kid, it is -- because with me for a dad, you're hearing far worse at the kitchen table then you will hear on screen.

 

It has been renewed for a second season.

2) NAOMI (Ava and C.I. noted it here).

This is a series that's fine for kids and it airs on THE CW (right after another favorite of mine, SUPERMAN AND LOIS).  A young teenager finds out that she's actually from space -- like her hero Superman -- and she's got powers which she's now training so she can use them effectively.  

3) REACHER (Ava and C.I. noted it here).

This is an AMAZON PRIME series and I love it even more than I loved THE BOYS.  Unlike THE BOYS, REACHER is probably okay for kids but there is violence (I think they can handle the shower scene that shows a butt).  I really enjoyed.  I liked the Jack Reacher films with Tom Cruise but I thought this series, starring Alan Ritchson as Jack, was even better.

 

It has been renewed for a second season.

 

 4) THE TOURIST (Ava and C.I. noted it here).

This HBO MAX stars Jamie Dornan and seems to have a similar vision or view as that of another HBO MAX series MADE FOR LOVE.  This one is set in Australia and revolves around a man who can't remember who he is and who someone is trying to kill.  Can he figure out who he is in time?

It has been renewed for a second season.

 

5) MORE THAN ROBOTS.

 

This one's actually a movie but we all enjoyed it and our kid has now watched it at least 20 times.  It's about a group of high school kids who are competing (as teams) to build a robot.  It's a documentary.  

TV: History betrayed, common sense assaulted

As March winds down, we find ourselves looking back at one of February's most laughable moments.  For those who don't follow the US calendar, March is Women's History Month and February is Black History Month.  DISNEY+ decided to 'honor' Black History Month by noting, among others, THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG.  Ah, yes, 2009's animated film about the struggles for equality, about the march on Selma and how Rosa Parks . . .

Wait.  The film doesn't focus on that.  It's about New Orleans and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how people of color were more likely to have been impacted by . . .

Scratch that.  But it is set in New Orleans.  And The Princess falls for Christina Applegate's lover interest in Jesse -- who, for the record, is neither African-American nor Black.  Well it's directed by a person of color so that's worth noting during Black History Month and . . . Hold that thought.  Turns out that it's directed by two White men.  Well an African-American man wrote it!

Or was tacked onto the project, if we're honest.  April 20, 2007, there was big pushback on the film.  The name ("Maddy") was said to be possibly racist (too close to "Mammy") and The Princess of the title had her name changed to Tiana.  Others things were done as well.  Oprah Winfrey was soon aired as a ''technical advisor" -- let's hope she was an expert on princesses because adding Oprah to the film did nothing to make the movie more accurate when it came to race relations during the time THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG was set in (see Sasha Panaram, Hannah Rogers, Thayne Stoddard. "Contemporary Film and the Black Atlantic").  A few months after Oprah became "technical advisor," Rob Edwards was added (August 13, 2007) as a writer alongside listed writers Ron Clements and John Musker -- two writers who also were part of creating the story and concept.  Unlike Clements and Musker, Rob Edwards is an African-American writer and he did end up working almost three months on co-writing the script.  Too bad the music couldn't come up with a new writer or a co-writer (Randy Newman once again rewrote the same animation score he forever offers in film after film). 

But with all the problems the film had before it started filming and all the problems it had after, as well as the fact that this is not a true story, count us among the many still rolling our eyes over DISNEY+ featuring this animated film as part of Black History Month.  

As Women's History Month winds down, we're not seeing a lot to point to without laughter from the streaming services.  AMAZON is offering NINE TO FIVE ($3.99 rental, $4.99 purchase).  Patricia Resnick came up with the story idea and co-wrote the script with director Colin Higgens.  Jane Fonda produced the film with then-business partner Bruce Gilbert. Dolly Parton wrote and sang the theme song. And the film starred Jane, Dolly and Lily Tomlin as working women oppressed by the work force system who get a chance to implement the changes that they and many other women would put forward (including on-site daycare and flex schedules).  So at least that had some sense of history and power.  

But too much of it was just misguided.  

Take the awful limited series THE PRINCIPLES OF PLEASURE which NETFLIX just started offering.  Using the theme of 'sex,' it did briefly skyrocket into NETFLIX's top ten -- and, then people watched and it quickly fell out.  But, hey, it made it higher than THE ANDY WARHOL DIARIES.  People want to watch sex, apparently.  At least until they see how badly it's pulled off.

Former MTV vee jay Niharika Desai doesn't have a lot on her cv ao having directed this series probably won't help her out too much since it's both dull and meaningless.  Michelle Buteau does a fine job hosting the three episodes.  But there's just nothing there.

 

The series wants to address -- or says it does -- the "orgasm gap."  No, not up there with pay equity or the second shift so many women put in each day -- the unpaid second shift of work where they not only have to work outside the home but then come home and work some more -- childcare, cooking, cleaning, what have you.  It's not addressing rape.  It's not addressing anything.

 

Michelle is a very funny comedian.  It's a shame she wasn't allowed to cut loose.

 

We'd love to hear her let rip about the so-called "orgasm gap" that supposedly finds "no one orgasms as much as the straight male."  Really?  Even more than two gay males in a relationship?  

 

Men may orgasm more (they may not) because of the fact that they start beating off long before their bodies are able to produce cum.  They're forever touching themselves.  We're not knocking it, we're not making fun of them, we're just noting reality.  

 

Our "orgasm gap," if it exists, is due to socialization, to be sure.  It's also about our bodies.  If a woman is excited and engages in sex -- solo, in a duo, in a group scene -- she may or she may not orgasm.  The bodies are set up differently.  The male?  If the penis goes hard and begins thrusting, it's going to reach orgasm unless a fire breaks out in the bedroom forcing a speedy evacuation.  

 

Some men (and a few women) also have no clue as to how to get a woman off.  None whatsoever.  And that's an issue.  

 

But these aren't huge issues.  In the end, we need to all be responsible for our own bodies.  And we may be doing something tantric -- delaying release -- and that's okay too.

 

It's not an issue that needed a documentary.  

 

Not the way that love needs one.  It would be great if the streamers could do something for girls and women about love in Women's History Month.  This is not our saying, "Women prefer love to sex."  That's not true of all women.

 

But we don't do crazy things for sex in most cases while we do really crazy things when we think we're in love -- think we're in love -- often we're not.

 

Evan Rachel Wood is a 34-year old idiot [see "TV: 'No one was looking after me!' (that includes you yourself)".]  She was with Brian Warner (Marilyn Manson) for approximately four years.  And she wants to whine, on HBO MAX, about all the things he did, things she insists were "essentially rape."  No, Evan, your boyfriend, your lover, making a music video with you and deciding he wanted to make the sex real is not rape -- essentially or otherwise -- when you did not tell him "no," when you did not stop him, when you did not try to stop him.  Take accountability.

Women do crazy stuff in the pursuit love.  Some men do as well but women really do.  We put on a pair of adult diapers to drive cross country -- tossing aside our NASA career -- because we're convinced that if we make it cross country. from Houston to Orlando, without stopping for a bathroom break, to track down our rival.  We do this why?  In part because we are conditioned to believe that being in love is the only validation that matters for women, that if we're not in a relationship, we are nothing.  We have moved a little, as a society, away from the notion that all women must be mothers but we haven't moved away from the notion that they must all be paired up like animals on Noah's Arc.  We place so much emphasis on this that we are willing to victimize ourselves.  

Evan wants to play like, "Woops! Four years later!"  No, you, idiot, stop lying.  You're not helping anyone.  You elected to start an affair with a newly married man.  That was your first bad decisions.  You soon learned he loved Nazis.  And you stayed with him.  That was your second bad decision.  He wrote "kill all Jews" on the wall above your side of the bed.  And you stayed with him.  That was your third bad decision.  Go down the list, Evan, you made one bad decision after another.

You had a very bad relationship.  But we're not seeing the assault you're claiming today.  You weren't raped -- as you describe it -- and the brief aside, single sentence, in the whole two-part 'documentary' where you suddenly insist that he would have sex with you while you're asleep is something that requires further elaboration from you before any sane person can comfortably say either "that's rape" or "that's not rape."  

You had a bad relationship.  Find a woman who hasn't and she must have been very lucky in life.

And we need to learn about bad relationship and learn from them.  

We need to learn how to stick up for ourselves to ensure that we're not losing ourselves in some romantic addiction that we try to pass off as love.  And if you're addicted to romance, hey, go for it.  But learn that's your addiction and stop trying to pass off bad dating as assault.  You're disappointed things didn't work out as you wanted and you're upset over the time you've wasted -- time lost now.  We get it.  But don't try to #MeToo it when you're not dealing with assault.

Evan Rachel Wood looks like the essence of White privilege.  She was a celebrity who didn't have to worry about money -- no going behind the counter of Taco Bell for her -- so she could follow her boyfriend, her lover, around the country as he gave concerts.  He didn't rape her.  Not as she reveals it in her 'documentary.'  Say Brain Warner hurt you.  Say he was a bad boyfriend.  Say many things.  But stop pretending that he did this or that to you.  You went along.  You were part of it.  You could have said no at any point.  Take responsibility.  

We get really upset that some women refuse to take accountability for their own actions.  

 

FRESH is Women's History Month's THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG and HULU is this month's DISNEY+.

 

The film is pure garbage, absolute garbage.  If Roger Corman had made this trash, we'd all be appalled.  But because Mimi Cave directed it and Lauryn Kahn wrote it, we're supposed to celebrate these two women as somehow empowering.

 

They're nothing to applaud.

 

They've made torture porn.  They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Torture porn.  A man woos a woman -- again, we need some documentaries on love to educate us all -- and then takes her away . . . to a human veal pen.  He's in the business of providing human meat and he's going to harvest her as he does other women.  The woman's best friend will try to rescue her and get caught to be harvested as well.  The woman will lose her butt when it's sliced off for food.  

This is garbage and Mimi has no excuse for directing it and Lauryn should be watched very closely by all who know her because not only is her theme disgusting but there's no redemption to it.

They claim it's a horror film -- it's torture porn -- but there's no Jamie Lee Curtis role.  

There's just pathetic Daisy Edgar-Jones. 

She really does hate women, doesn't she?  Fresh off PAMELA AND TOMMY LEE about Pamela Anderson who did not want anyone playing her or the project made, Daisy's now eager to do more damage.  Her bad acting ensures a lot of damage.  She's pathetic onscreen and you really want to root for Sebastian Stan's character after she whimpers and whines and is so pathetic that, on a first date at the beginning of the film, she can't even stand up to the man across the table who is insulting her and all women.  She's that pathetic so it's no surprise, when Sebastian's character emerges, that he's able to torture and victimize her.

If she were playing Sebastian's role, you might understand her taking the role.  There would be something to it, something to bite into.  But this is just a pathetic and generic victim role.  How desperate was she for cash that she took the role?  

Women's History Month will be ending soon and, with what the streamers served up, we can't wait for it to end.  But let's hope next year, for Black History Month and Women's History Month, the streamers offer some documentaries, series and films that really have something to say -- not fairy tales and torture porn.

 

 

 

Truest statement of the week

Last year, National Public Radio admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic and not Russian disinformation. It appears to have taken the New York Times even longer to move along that journalistic path of the Kübler-Ross process of grieving.

The Times has now expressly and unambiguously stated that the laptop was abandoned by Hunter Biden, contains authentic emails, and is part of the basis for the ongoing investigation of Biden by federal authorities.  Even with this admission against interests, the Times is downplaying the possible criminal charges in coverage strikingly different from its coverage of Trump officials charged on the same grounds.

For those of us who have written about the laptop for two years, it has been a constant barrage of criticism of spreading “Russian disinformation” or discussing manufactured emails.

Notably, the Biden family never outright denied that the laptop belonged to Hunter. They just kept repeating that it was Russian disinformation. It did not matter that recipients of the emails confirmed the authenticity of the messages detailing extensive influence peddling schemes by the Biden family. The Biden campaign assembled the usual list of experts to shut off debate by declaring that this was all false. It was a mantra from President Biden to a legion of reporters.

 

-- Jonathan Turley, "The New York Times Admits Hunter Laptop was Authentic and Possible Basis for Charges" (JONATHANTURLEY.ORG).

 

 

 

 

 

Truest statement of the week II

When Hunter Biden’s book came out, the media largely lionized him for his brave account of personal debauchery while largely avoiding questions about millions in alleged influence peddling with foreign interests. Reporters allowed Biden to claim, for example, that he had no memory of the long-night stand with Roberts despite emails contradicting that claim. They also did not confront him with his disgraceful and protracted litigation to refuse to support his child.

With the rising possibility of an indictment, the media has to try to clean up its long promulgation of this false claim. It is not, however, addressing what those now authentic emails say about the influence peddling schemes of the Biden family.

It is also refusing to address the fact that, even if influence peddling is legal, this is a pattern of gross corruption by the family in cashing in on Biden’s tenure as vice president. This allowed President Biden to repeatedly and falsely claim that “no one has suggested that My Son did anything wrong.”

The media is also avoiding the obvious question of why Merrick Garland (who pledged to be apolitical) has steadfastly refused to appoint a special counsel in the case.

As with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) and the 50 “experts” who pushed this false claim, there appears little interest in confronting those who assured voters that the laptop scandal was nothing more than Russian disinformation. It appears that spreading disinformation about Russian disinformation is not viewed as news when done in the name of a good cause.

 

-- Jonathan Turley, "White House Mum on Hunter Biden Story as DOJ Acquires Additional Financial Records" (JONATHAN TURLEY.ORG).

 

 

A note to our readers

Hey -- 

Still Sunday morning on the west coast. 


Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?

 

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• Editorial: How it turned 19
• TV: 'No one was looking after me!' (that includes ...
• Ty's Corner
• "Essentially raped?" (Dona)
• Music mix not to miss
• For years, we told you Amy Goodman was a fake ass

 

Peace.

 

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

 

 

 

 

 

Editorial: How it turned 19

The Iraq War, the ongoing Iraq War, just hit the 19th year mark.  How did that happen?

The same way it was sold -- thanks to a whorish press.

Remember THE NEW YORK TIMES 'mea culpa'?  Forced on them by the work of the then-public editor Daniel Okrent?

They promised in that little note that they would be exploring their 'errors' (lies) in the future.  They never really did.  Like a US politician, they made a promise and expected that when it all died down, they could slink away.

So it was no surprise that THE TIMES and the other whorish outlets that sold the Iraq War would ignore the anniversary of the war that they helped start and that they kept going.