2015, the Year in Television, Part III

Comeback of the Year:

Hell on Wheels



After seemingly spending the entire 2014 season punishing Common for leaving the cast, I had given up on Hell on Wheels. The Missus, being the wiser of us two, decided we should give it another chance. And it came back strong with a new plotline about Chinese railroad workers and their treatment at the hands of Union Pacific as well as a new love interest for Cullen Bohannon.
Welcome back, Hell on Wheels!

 Saddest sight on television:

The Simpsons

Watching what was once the best show on TV limping along for yet another season as if no one has told them that they haven't been funny in a decade is just depressing. It's Willie Mays with the Mets, it's Joe Namath with the Rams, it's the Rolling Stones recording "A Bigger Bang" in 2005. It's a travesty. And it's heartbreaking, considering what this show used to mean to a lot of us people of a certain age.

Most Important Show:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver


Well, this was a no-brainer since we lost both Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report.
In fact, watching Trevor Noah trying to fill Stewart's shoes on the Daily Show is a close second for saddest sight on TV.

Best Animated Series:

Archer

I don't think anyone else is even close. Not even Bob's Burgers. The writing on FX's Archer is just too good, too sharp, to have any serious challengers. And the V.O. talent is spectacular. H. Jon Benjamin, Aisha Tyler, Chris Parnell, the great Jessica Walter, and Atlanta's own Amber Nash and Lucky Yates (from Dad's Garage Theater Company in the Old 4th Ward. If you live near ATL, please check them out.) And has there ever been a better character than Pam? (NO. No, there has not.)

Best Drama:

Tyrant



 Narrowly beating out FX's The Americans, which pretty much makes FX the channel of the year.
I loved this show's first season, and the second got even better. Mainly because Bassam stopped being such a *ahem* "punk-ass bitch" and turned into a sort of bad-ass revolutionary. I already loved Jamal, the older brother torn between his desire to be a good and well-loved leader and the emptional damage that makes him listen to his bloodthirsty uncle and Lady MacBeth-esqe wife to become the titular Tyrant. But now that they've developed both Basam and Jamal's son Ahmed, as well as introducing an ISIS-style enemy army, it just gets better and better.

2015, The Year in Television, Part II

Second Best Surprise of the Year:

Scream Queens.




I was vaguely aware that there was a show called "Scream Queens," but I didn't really know anything about it until someone whose opinion I respect recommended it. So we started watching it On Demand. And loved it!
Scream Queens is a very funny show. I guess you'd call it a "dark comedy" seeing as it's centered on a series of murders, but the writing is very clever, and the cast is fantastic. Emmys all around, especially for Jamie Lee Curtis who is a revelation. I hadn't seen her in a comedy since Trading Places and I had no idea that the poop yogurt lady had these kinds of comedic chops. Of course it helsp that she gets to say lines like "I'm going to barf on your face if you don't get out of here!"

Dean Cathy Munsch: You are awful in bed! Are you aware? I mean, just the worst.
Chad Radwell: What-what? Did I not take you there?
Dean Cathy Munsch: Look what I've stooped to. Getting sex by blackmailing students on academic probation.

Chad Radwell: I'm in love with you.
Dean Cathy Munsch: Of course you are. Cuz that's the only way this situation could get more depressing. Please leave.
Chad Radwell: I will, but I'm gonna take a pair of your panties.
Dean Cathy Munsch: I'm gonna barf on your face unless you get out of here!

Also, Glen Powell, whom I'd never seen in anything, as the unbelievably conceited, self-absobed, but kinda nice in his own way Chad Radwell.



He's brilliant. Niecy Nash is hilarious, but we expected that from the Reno 911 alum. Oh, I almost forgot former SNLer Nasim Pedrad. She's hilarious too. Oh, and the unbelievably deadpam Billie Lourd who plays Chanel # 3. Seriously, if you haven't seen this show, you're missing out.


Best Uncomfortable Comedy:

Nathan for You



I didn't watch this show when it first came out, because the trailers didn't look too good. Turns out, it's not the kind of show that really lends itself to promos, there aren't any quick, sound-bite-ready jokes, s lot of the humor comes from the slow-building tension as the participants in the show get more and more uncomfortable.

Nathan Fielder is a comedian from Canada who poses as a free-lance consultant for small businesses. Everyone else in the show is a non-actor. They are actual business owners, employees and customers. Nathan somehow manages to keep a straight face while suggesting absurd schemes to the business owners which they invariably end up trying to sometimes surprisingly successful results.




Whether it's planting a large number of birds on an overhanging branch to drum up business for a car wash, hiring a stunt driver to work as a valet, or turning a local coffee shop into "Dumb Starbucks," Nathan plays it dead serious throughout and the schemes are actually put into practice. And if you enjoy Larry David / Ricky Gervais levels of uncomfortable humor, just watch Nathan audition an actress, having her say "I love you" to him over and over and over. . . I know I was squirming.




Worst development of the year:

The cancellation of The Soup.



How much can this show possibly cost to produce? It's basically just Joel McHale standing in front of a green screen for 22 minutes while they show clips of garbage reality shows for him to mock. And what else does E! have that's so important they had to cut The Soup to make room for it? Another show about idiotic young people who get drunk a lot and try to sex each other? Because, yeah, there sure aren't enough of those on E!

2015, the Year in Television, Part I

If you know me at all, and you certainly do NOT!, you know I love me some TV! So when I look back at a year like 2015, I look back on it in terms of what was good and bad on the idiot box. Here are some of my observations, take them for what they are worth. (hint: not much)


Surprise of the Year

The Grinder.



For some ungodly reason, Fox seems to want to sell this as a package with "Grandfathered," a show so bad I don't even have to watch it to know how bad it is. The fact that, in the promos,  they show John Stamos repeating to himself " I'm a grandfaaa--- I'm a grandfaa--" like the Fonz trying to apologize says everything I need to know about that turd of a show.

Anyway, after seeing the paired promos for the twin "handsome middle-aged guy is funny" programs, we thought "yeah, it looks like that 'Grinder' might be okay. (It helped that they had the always hilarious Kumail Nanjiani in the ad) So we checked it out. Oh my God. This show is soooo much funnier than I was expecting.

I knew Rob Lowe was good actor. And I liked him on Parks & Rec, but he wasn't the funniest one on the show by far. But in The Grinder, he is totally hysterical playing a full-of-himself former actor who thinks his career playing a lawyer on TV qualifies him to do actual legal work. Even more surprising is Fred Savage. I haven't seen him in anything since Working in the 1990's and I had no idea what a terrific comic actor he had developed into. He and Lowe have a great chemistry and timing as do Savage and Mary "the Waitress" Elizabeth Ellis who plays Savage's wife. The supporting cast is good, especially William DeVane as Lowe and Savage's well-meaning but air-headed father.


Biggest Disappointment:

 Fargo Season 2.




I know, I know, everyone says Season 2 of True Detective, but I wasn't so disappointed in that one as I wasn't expecting it to be good. After all, it had Vince Vaughn in it, how good could it possibly be?

Also, just annoying in everything since "Clay Pigeons"

But I really liked the first season of Fargo. Mostly due to the great cast. Billy-Bob Thornton, of course, and also Allison Tolman in the Frances McDormand role, Martin Freeman in the William H. Macy role and Colin Hanks in a role that probably doesn't have any parallel in the original movie.

The problem with Fargo, both the movie and the TV show, is that it's based so much on the idea that people from rural Minnesota talk funny. They have those Sarah Palin accents and they say things like "aw, geez" and "Oh, heck" and Ya, sure, you-betcha!" And the idea seems to be that setting a story of murder and mayhem against that background is some sort of clever juxtaposition or something, I don't know, but this year's cast is not enough to pull off whatever it is they're going for. And I thought it would be. I mean, Ted Danson, Jean Smart, Todd from Breaking Bad. . . I had high hopes. But somehow it just didn't work.



Best New Comedy

Tough call, but I'm going with Last Man on Earth over The Grinder and Big Time in Hollywood, Florida.,, which could get the award for "funniest show that no one watched."




I've always been a big Will Forte fan (I might be the only one who liked the MacGruber movie) and of course, Kristen Schaal just kills it in every scene she's in. If you gave up after the first episode which was almost entirely just Will Forte talking to inanimate objects, give it another try. January Jones, Mary Steenburgen, Mel Rodriguez and Boris Kodjoe arrive one by one to fill out the cast. Jason Sudekis shows up in season two.

Best Comedy:

Broad City



It's brash, it's loud, it's vulgar, it's perfect!

Abbi and Ilana may be the two funniest people working in tv at the moment. I can't really explain what's so great about this show, but if a show that has episodes entitled "Pu$$y Weed,"  "Fattest Asses," and "In Heat" sounds up your alley, you should definitely give this show a shot. Where else are you going to see Kelly Ripa get fucked up on moonshine and various drugs (she's hilarious, by the way) or see an episode based around "pegging?" (definition. Proceed with caution)

Most annoying trend:

The character who is arrogant, unpleasant and rude to everyone bit still somehow loved by other characters.

I first noticed this when the Missus started watching Bones to bore herself to sleep. The main character, Dr. Brennan, aka "Bones" is a brilliant scientist and basically a jerk. And yet, the handsome FBI agent played by David Boreanaz, falls head over heels for her. The other employees at the lab all seem to consider her a dear friend, one even wants her to be maid of honor at her wedding. This seems like an unrealistic response to someone who routinely says things like "I am much smarter than you."




I found a few quotes online:

Booth: You're brilliant.
Brennan: Of course I am! Why is everyone always surprised by that?

Fisher: Well I feel inadequate.
Brennan: You work with me, Mr. Fisher. I would have thought you'd be used to that by now.

Caroline Julian, in an attempt to motivate Bones to return to D.C.: We need you because you're the smartest.
Bones: That's true, I am the smartest.

Booth: You know, evolution is long, long process. It takes hundreds of years.
Brennan: Thousands.
Booth: Why do you always have to correct me?
Brennan: To help you evolve.

 Booth: You're a smart ass, you know that?
Brennan: Objectively I'd say I'm very smart, although it has nothing to do with my ass.


Now, I get that people would put up with her abrasive personality because, A) she's obviously on the spectrum, and b) She's a brilliant scientist who is needed to solve every murder in the DC area because the show takes place in a universe in which the FBI crime lab does not exist and a bunch of museum employees have to do all the CSI work on old bodies because no murder victim is ever found for at least six months and where else are you going to find someone who can glance at a half-buried skeleton and and say "from what I can see of the femur, the victim is a male, mid-thirties, probably caucasian. . ."  So, sure, people would put up with her. But no one would want to socialize with her, no one would want to be friends with her. certainly no one would fall in love with her, no matter how attractive you find intelligence to be.

And it's not just this one character. From what little I've seen of the Big Bang Theory, which is probably the worst show on any major network, the "Sheldon" character seem to be the same way.

Rude, dismissive, arrogant, and yet. . . friends! I think he might even have a girlfriend? It's preposterous. No one would want to spend five minutes with someone like that.

Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock is another. He's a total ass to everyone, which is fine because he's the best solver of crimes, so who cares that he's an ass, but why do Watson and the landlady love him so? It makes no sense. We may enjoy hearing these characters insult others on tv, but if you were one of those people on the pointed end of his verbal barbs, you would certainly not enjoy his company.

It's just stupid.

What the hell is Trump on about now?

What the hell does he think she was doing? Is he that creeped out by the idea that she might be peeing? Or Number-two-ing? Personally I think she might have been throwing up, she definitely did not seem to be feeling at all well that evening. Anyway, a grown man can not possibly be that horrified by normal bodily functions, so what is it he thought she was doing backstage?

Here now are the top ten things that Donald Trump thinks Hillary Clinton might have been doing backstage.


10. Sacrificing an infant to Moloch

9. A salute to Karen Finley

8. Eating baluts

7. Watching Japanese tentacle porn

6. Fart contest?

5. Some light cannibalism

4. Saw movie marathon

3. Some kind of Island of Dr. Moreau scenario

2. Colonoscopy festival.

and the number one disgusting thing that Trump thinks Hillary Clinton might have been doing backstage. . . .


Defending Bill Cosby !

World's most horrifying Christmas Card

What the HELL is this shit?














Someone named Hannah Hawkes, who is presumably a ladyperson, took this photo and posted it on-line as if it weren't sickening at all.

I know, it's supposed to be a joke but that doesn't make it any better. It might make it even worse, because presenting this type of misogyny as lighthearted, harmless fun just enforces the idea that it's no big deal to humiliate and degrade your wife and daughters.
Look, whatever this ass and his wife find amusing is their own business, they're both presumably consenting adults, but what do you think you're teaching those liitle girls? And what are you teaching that little boy? What kind of relationships do you think these kids are going to have once they're old enough to start dating? When they've been taught from an early age that females are annoyances who need to shut up or we'll shut them up, what chance do they have at developing healthy relationships? Is there any way this little boy doesn't grow up to be, if not an outright abuser, at least someone who disrespects and devalues women? And is there any way these little girls don't grow up with serious self-esteem issues?
And it's not just because of this one picture. This picture doesn't happen if this isn't the normal family dynamic in this household. But it's alarming that the father (and maybe the mother) are so comfortable with the family misogyny that they would use this as their Christmas card as if this is nothing of which to be ashamed.

So, does Hannah Hawkes have an explanation for this horror show?

She does!

Oh, surprisingly, she's smug, self-righteous and one of those people who think they're being bold and daring by saying "merry Christmas" (in all caps!)

So you don't support abuse or the degradation of women, you just document it?
It was taken by the request of the family? So what? If someone requests something offensive, you say no. It's easy. They say "Hey, Hannah, would you please take a photo of me drowning these puppies?" and you say "No. I would not like any part of that, for I am a decent human being."

This photo was taken with humor in mind? You think that makes it better? You think that the fact that you find this kind of disturbing tableau amusing makes it less offensive?

They are not abusive to their children in any shape or form? Um, except in that photo. I assume you mean that the little girls don't get beaten or molested by their parents, but in this photo of yours, they're clearly being told that they are worthless. That no one wants to hear what they have to say. And that they are absolutely less valued than the male members of the family.
Look at the picture:


Do the little girls look like they're in on the joke?
Do you think that they see the "humor" in it?
They look miserable. They look like kidnapping victims, sitting with their hands together as if bound at the wrists with tape over their mouths. It looks like exhibit A in an child abduction case.

And you're going to sit there and smugly assure us that "no one was harmed during the process?" Just because they aren't being physically harmed doesn't mean no harm is being done. They will bear the emotional scars for life.

Good Christmas Songs

Judging from the comments on the recent "Bad Christmas Songs" post, it seems like I have a few Grinchy McScroogeypants among my readers. Well, we can't have that. This is the Chaos Compound, not Communist China! So, to dispel any notions of "all Christmas songs are terrible," here are some good Christmas songs for your holiday enjoyment.

On Second Thought. . .

. . .maybe it's best that you don't show up to work at all, Marco.

Marco Rubio Pushes to Block Low-Cost, High-Speed Broadband

In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service

Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services.

Because conservatives really love local governance, ya know.
So a city, say Chatanooga, decides that it wants to offer its citizens low-cost broadband access. And it does and everyone's happy.

For less than $70 a month, [Chattanooga] consumers enjoy an ultrahigh-speed fiber-optic connection that transfers data at one gigabit per second. That is 50 times the average speed for homes in the rest of the country, and just as rapid as service in Hong Kong, which has the fastest Internet in the world. (source)

Rubio, and his fellow free-marketeers in the Senate's teabagging society, would like the state government of Tennessee to be able to step in and outlaw the city doing something good for its citizens.

Rubio, who notoriously has pretty much stopped showing up to work because he "hates it" there, decided that this was actually worth taking time away from his quixotic campaign for president and actually doing something.

For Rubio, it's not enough that he not do anything that might benefit people, he wants to prevent anyone else from doing anything that might be beneficial.

And, in true neo-Confederate fashion, he phrased his twisted logic in the language of "states' rights."

Rubio joined Sens. Deb Fischer, Ron Johnson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, John Barrasso, Michael Enzi, and Tim Scott in protesting the Commission’s interference in “overriding [Tennessee and North Carolina’s] sovereign authority to regulate their own municipalities.”

Hmm, suddenly you're all in favor of government regulations? How odd. I wonder why that might be?

Few candidates have closer ties to corporate telecom interests than Marco Rubio. AT&T lobbyist Scott Weaver, who works as the public policy co-chair of high-powered DC law firm Wiley Rein, is a close Rubio associate. Weaver, also assisting in litigation against the FCC to curb municipal broadband, is one of three lobbyist money-bundlers working on behalf of the Rubio campaign. He has raised at least $33,000 so far for the Florida senator.
Rubio has lived off AT&T’s generosity since his days in the Florida legislature, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, including $22,000 in personal expenses, on a state Republican Party American Express card that was paid each month with funds donated by AT&T and other special interest

 Oh, and here's the best part:

"The [Federal Communications Commission] is promoting government-owned networks at the possible expense of private sector broadband providers," the letter reads. "The FCC should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers in the competitive broadband marketplace."

Um, okay, first of all, in most places, the broadband market is not very competitive. How many choices do you have where you live for  broadband service? Here, we have Comcast, AT&T, and I'm not sure if Clear is still around, but it's not like shopping for shoes or something where there are dozens of brands to choose from. There are very limited options. And a municipal broadband provider makes the market MORE competetive. The more competing providers there are, the more competeitive the market - it's the definition of the word! And if the for-profit companies can't compete with the municipal provider, hey tough luck. That's how the market is supposed to work, right? That's what capitalists have been preaching since forever, survival of the fittest, right? Whoever provides the best product at the best price thrives while competing companies either adapt and improve or fall by the wayside.

Plus, people like this. If people don't like municipal broadband, they won't sign up for it and it will go under. Problem solved. But since people do want this, and the city is willing and able to provide it, how do you justify the big boot of government crushing the city's efforts under its heel? (that's capitalist talk, right? I'm sorry, I'm not really fluent.)

 So, seriously Marco. Just go back to your flailing, moribund presidential campaign. Don't try to govern. We're better off with you doing nothing.

Things that made me think of other things

1. Saw "Frozen" on an airplane.





It made me think of this:










2. Saw this cat video on Tumblr









It made me think of this:

Defeat ISIS with this one weird trick!

Okay, it's actually 7 weird tricks, but Dr. Ben Carson has the solution to defeating ISIS.

Ben Carson: Destroy ISIS with these 7 steps

Guaranteed to work! Just as surely as the pyramids are filled with corn!

Congress must formally declare war on ISIS.

Yeah, because all we're doing now is dropping bombs on them. If we get a formal declaration of war, which you probably wouldn't because the only way Congress can issue a declaration of war is if the President asks for one and if President Obama asked for a declaration of war against ISIS, Congress would probably pass the "Defense of ISIS" bill, but if we did officially declare war on ISIS, then what? American soldiers on the ground in Iraq? Again? Honestly, it's been done to death.

The U.S. should lead the formation of a military coalition in the Middle East.

 With whom? Which countries do you think are going to be up for yet another coalition of the sort of grudgingly willing to fight yet another endless war in the Middle East?

The U.S. coalition should establish a “massive” military force of Sunni Syrian men to take on ISIS.

You mean like the Iraqi army we've been training for the last 10 years? The ones who saw ISIS coming and thought "fuck it, this isn't even my home town," dropped their weapons and fled?

Granted, those were mostly Shia, because we kicked  the Sunnis out of the Army, leaving them to form ISIS, but sure, we'd probably get tons of Sunni men to go to war against their fellow Sunnis. You know, if Uncle Sam is the one asking. They'd be greeted as liberators!

A refugee safe zone should be established in Syria. 

How? How would that happen? Who would be establishing and protecting this "safe zone?" The Syrians? Their country is in shambles. If there was any zone that was safe, they'd be in it. How do you think someone is going to walk into the middle of the chaos of a civil war and say "hey, fellas? From now on, um, this section here is, like, off-limits for killing, mmkay?"

Congress should establish a war-time emergency visa and immigration policy.  

Um, "no vacancy" is not really an immigration policy. We actually have an immigration policy already. It allows for refugees to come in to the "safe zone" known as the US, provided they pass enough checks and jump through enough hoops. An emergency war-time immigration policy might be a good idea if that policy is "get these refugees in here, get them safe, then we'll sort things out," but I'm pretty sure you meant the opposite of that because you are afraid of  refugees because you are a coward.

Oh my God, they're terrifying!

U.S. military personnel should patrol the U.S. southern border and designated areas along the northern border.

Yes, we need to stop ISIS militants from storming over the borders from their strongholds in Guadalajara and Montreal!

Oh, God. Here they come!

The U.S. should designate the Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations as terrorist organizations, and fully investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Yes. Let's investigate the group whose goal is to improve relations between Muslims and the West. They sound pretty dangerous.
Also, you lost the right to do these kinds of investigations sometime between claiming that Huma Abedin was a Muslim Brotherhood mole and the fourth or fifth Benghazi sideshow.

Huma Abedin. The Muslim extremist with the Jewish husband. 

 

Horrific solutions to made-up problems

Made-up problem number one: Scary foreign types moving in to Georgia.

Georgia governor Nathan Deal was, of course, one of the governors who said that he wouldn't allow any of those shifty, treacherous refugees into his state, forgetting that the South lost the Civil war so he doesn't actually get to make his own immigration policy. So, anyway a Syrian family has been re-settled in the state of Georgia over his stupid, spiteful, pointless objections. But Gov. deal has a solution to this non-problem. He's gonna starve 'em out!

The state of Georgia won't process the application for food stamps and other state benefits filed by a newly arrived Syrian refugee family last week, the state Department of Human Services confirmed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday.

The Department of Human Services sent a memo in November ordering employees not to process the applications of Syrian refugees after Gov. Nathan Deal (R) issued an executive order telling all state agencies to stop any involvement with the resettlement of refugees from Syria.

You know, if you want to make sure that these newly-arrived guests in our country don't ever become radicalized and turn against us, the best way is to deny them food. No one ever did anything bad because they were desperate to feed their families. Except that prick Valjean, and I'll get him yet!

Seriously, though. Is this even legal?

The federal government has told Deal that he must roll back his executive order in order to comply with federal law. Jessica Shanin, associate administrator at the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, wrote a letter to the state in November warning that denying food stamps to Syrian refugees would violate federal law, noting that states cannot discriminate based on national origin or religion.

Oh, okay then. That's the end of that, right?

The state Division of Family and Child Services responded and said that they would continue to follow Deal's order. And the governor has said he won't budge on his decision not to administer food stamps to Syrian refugees.

Why? Why would you not change your behavior when it has been pointed out to you that said behavior is illegal? You're the governor of a state, you can't just go around breaking the law. I mean, apparently you can, because this is Tea Party America and federal laws are now optional and there's no Eisenhower to send in the National Guard to enforce them, but still. You shouldn't. You shouldn't break the law. Seems like that used to go without saying.



Made-up problem number two: Homeless people maybe having sex sometimes?

Women no longer accepted at homeless shelter after "sex problem"

That can't be right. that headline has to be misleading click-bait or something, right?

WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. (WYMT) - A homeless shelter in Williamsburg will no longer accept women as a way to stop people from having sex.

The director at Emergency Christian Ministries said people are having sex at the shelter and they cannot accept that.
"It seems like these last days it's getting worse ... the ungodly type," Director Billy Woodward said.

Really? Are people really hooking up at your homeless shelter? Really? Because I can't imagine that being homeless and in a shelter, a place with, I assume, very little privacy, is going to put anyone in the mood for love. I mean, being homeless has got to be incredibly depressing, I'm guessing taking care of basic hygiene is a difficulty, how is all this sexy funtime happening at a shelter?

“I don’t know if what’s happening, uh, if it’s a whole because they know it’s a men and women’s shelter, they say, ‘well, we’re homeless — maybe we can find somebody, a mate or something,” he explained, adding that “if they done it right, they’d be fine but they go overboard with it.” Woodward did not explain how they could “done it right.”

Um, I'm sorry. Are you saying that you suspect that people are using a homeless shelter as a singles bar? You honestly think people are going in to your shelter hoping to meet someone and get lucky? Is that really what you believe?

Okay, let's say you're right. Let's say men and women are sneaking into each other's dorms for a little un-sanctioned action. Why kick out the women? Because, A: I guarantee you if there is any funny business going on, it ain't the ladies who are initiating it. and B: Women are much more vulnerable on the streets. Way worse things can happen to them out there than can happen to men. Why kick out the women?

Oh, and children. You're also turning away children.

According to WYMT, Woodward said he would accept a male child “if his father and he were homeless,” but would not accept single mothers and their children because, in his words, “of the female factor.”

 

 You're seriously throwing women and children out on the streets - in December -- because you're that afraid that people might have some sex? Women and children!





You are putting women and children into a situation where they could die of exposure because you're afraid someone might get some. Think about what you're doing here. You'd rather put someone into a position where she could be raped rather than take a chance on her having consensual sex. That is horrific.

Bad Christmas Songs - Volume IV

Time for the Daily Irritant's fourth quasi-annual salute to Christmas songs with bad lyrics.


Previous editions here, here, and here.

To begin with, here's one I hadn't ever heard before this year.

The Happiest Christmas Tree

Nat King Cole

I'm the happiest Christmas tree
Hoo hoo hoo, hee hee hee
Someone came and they found me
And took me home with them


Really? You're happy about this? There you were, out in the forest, minding your own business when someone chopped you off at the ankles, tied you to the roof of their car like you were the Romneys' dog, and hung decorations on you so they could sit around you and sing carols while they watch you die. because, make no mistake about it, you are going to die in that house. No matter how much water they put into that dish that holds the stub where your roots used to be, you are going to slowly starve in front of this family and they will toss you out on the curb like yesterday's trash.

Being the happiest Christmas tree is like being the happiest Thanksgiving turkey. Nothing good is going to happen to you.




Our second entry is a song I have heard before, but never really paid attention to the lyrics.
I t starts out sounding kind of cloyingly cute:

I'm Gettin' Nuttin' for Christmas
(S. Tepper, R. Bennett, 1955)

Oh, I'm gettin' nuttin' for Christmas
Mommy and Daddy are mad.
I'm getting nuttin' for Christmas
'Cause I ain't been nuttin' but bad.

Okay, so far so good. At this point I'm thinking "what did you do to make mommy and daddy so mad? Get caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Stay up past your bedtime?" You'd think so, but holy fuck!

I broke my bat on Johnny's head;
Somebody snitched on me.

 What the fuck? You broke your bat over someone's head? Are you in the mafia?



 That's not cute. That's not funny. That's not being a mischievous child. That's being a psychopath. That's more Sammy the Bull than Dennis the Menace.

I spilled some ink on Mommy's rug;
I made Tommy eat a bug;


 Jeezus, this kid's the neighborhood bully. He's going to grow up to be a serial killer. This is a terrible song for Christmas. This should be a Halloween song.

 I put a tack on teacher's chair
Somebody snitched on me.
I tied a knot in Susie's hair
Somebody snitched on me.
I did a dance on Mommy's plants
Climbed a tree and tore my pants
Filled the sugar bowl with ants
Somebody snitched on me.

Good! Someone should have snitched on you. They should've done more than that. They should've called the police on you.  Johnny's probably dead now, you know. And you're worried that you're going to miss out on Christmas presents because someone snitched on you? What a little thug!


 


Our third selection is one that i hear every year and it drives me up the wall every year.

"The Holiday Season (Happy Holiday)"
Kay Thompson

It's the holiday season
And Santa Claus is coming back
The Christmas snow is white on the ground
When old Santa gets into town
He'll be coming down the chimney, down
Coming down the chimney, down

Why? Why the extra "down?" It makes no sense. "He'll be coming down the chimney" is sufficient. It's a complete sentence, it expresses the intended action, it doesn't need another superfluous word tacked on to the end for no reason. Adding the extra "down" on the end just ruins the sentence. It makes sense without it. With the extra word, it's nonsense.

And that might be forgivable (no, it wouldn't) if the rest of the lyrics weren't trying so hard to sound like a 1950's  North Beach hepcat with lines like:

It's the holiday season
With the whoop-de-do and hickory dock
And don't forget to hang up your sock


Geez, I can't believe the word "daddy-o" didn't force its way in.


Anyway, don't let the bad songs ruin your holidays. Here's a good one:

Terrible Ideas

Yesterday, the new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, summed up his House Republican agenda – vowing to pursue legislation that would frame a stark choice for voters in 2016.




“Our No. 1 goal for the next year is to put together a complete alternative to the left’s agenda,” he said.

Okay, that's how you know you have no ideas. When your entire agenda is "whatever they're doing, let's do the opposite."
Well, I shouldn't say "no ideas." Because Ryan does have a few terrible ones.

Although, to be fair, they're pretty much the same bad ideas that Republicans have been promoting since at least the 1980's.

Here are what Robert Reich calls "Paul Ryan's 7 Terrible Ideas"

1. Reduce the top income-tax rate to 25% from the current 39%. 

Because when your number one fake domestic concern is the deficit, the first thing you want to do is take in less revenue. Now, sure it's never worked, can't work and won't work, but that's no reason to stop doing it now!

You know, if Ronald Reagan couldn't make Reaganomics work, what the hell chance do you think you have?

2. Cut corporate taxes to 25% from the current 35%

See above.

3. Slash spending on domestic programs like food stamps and education for poor districts.

Well, the downside is that this would make life even worse for people who already have it tough. But on the other hand, it would do virtually nothing about the deficit.
Wait, what's the upside again? 


4. Turn Medicaid and other federal programs for the poor into block grants for the states, and let the states decide how to allocate them.

Even Florida?

5. Turn Medicare into vouchers that don’t keep up with increases in healthcare costs. 

Because fuck old people and their "medicine" and "doctors." 


6.  Deal with rising Social Security costs by raising the retirement age for Social Security. 

Sure, we could raise the cap, but wouldn't be easier to just make people labor into their seventies? I mean, what, they think they should be able to retire with dignity? Ha! Should have been born rich. Like, say, Paul Ryan.


7. Finally, let the minimum wage continue to decline as inflation eats it away.

Nothing makes a country great like having tons of working people living in dire poverty!

A disgusting response to a despicable act.

Erick Erickson may have had the most revolting reaction to the Planned parenthood terror attack in Colorado:

The Most Surprising Thing About the Colorado Springs Shooting

This past Friday, a lunatic who lived in a shack with no running water or electricity killed three people in Colorado Springs, CO. He wound up going into a Planned Parenthood facility. Three people were killed. None of those were abortionists or patients. A pro-life Christian preacher/police officer was one of the victims.

 And since the gunman didn't ask for identification to see who were the doctors and who were the patients and just shot at everyone who was in the Planned Parenthood clinic, clearly that proves that this had nothing to do with abortion. Guy just wanted to shoot people, I guess. Go figure.

 At 3:30pm on Friday, while the facts were shifting and things were still unknown, I was already getting emails from leftists blaming me, my rhetoric, RedState, talk radio, Center for Medical Progress videos, etc. for the killings. Again, at that time the facts were still unknown and even now a lot of facts are unknown. The man was neither a church goer nor a pro-life activist. He was a lunatic.

 He was a "lunatic" who said "no more baby parts" when being taken into custody. His motivation is NOT 'unknown." And he was clearly inspired by the fraudulent, deceptively-edited videos from "center for Medical Progress" and all the figures on the right who have been disingenuously bleating on about PP supposedly selling baby parts.

But the left had its narrative. It had been searching for a moral equivalence since Paris and could not resist the fundraising opportunity to claim pro-life Christians were even a bigger threat than muslims. After all, according to the left, if someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood facility, it is proof that all Christians are one degree away from a terrorist related rampage. But when a Muslim walks into a place screaming “Allahu Akbar,” it’s just workplace violence.

 No one said that. No one has ever said any such thing. No one has ever said that any of the many acts and threats of violence directed at abortion providers is any sort of indication of the temperament of "all Christians." Everyone knows that the set "All Christians" contains everyone from Scott Roeder and Tim McVeigh to Jimmy Carter and Mother Theresa. You are just lying.
And no one has ever claimed that acts of terrorism committed by Muslim fanatics are "just workplace violence." I know that's a thing on the right, to claim that Barack Obama said that about the Fort Hood shooting, but the thing is, he never said that. The official reports from the military classified the murders as "workplace violence" because they had to check off a category and there wasn't a box marked "killed by domestic terrorist" because that had never happened on an Army base before. No one was trying to downplay the seriousness of the Fort Hood murders. But you knew that, you're just being a lying sack of shitweasels again.


Oh, and also, there is a moral equivalence between gunmen who murder in the name of Allah and gunmne who murder in the name of Jesus. They're both twisted, depraved terrorists and this scumbag in Colorado does not represent Christianity any more than the gunmen in Paris represent Islam. No one has to "search" for a moral equivalence. It's right out there in plain sight. .



Now, up until this point this is just typical Erick Erickson right-wing dissembling bullshit. But now it's about to get really shocking:

There is one surprising thing about the Colorado Springs shooting at the Planned Parenthood clinic. It is that it is a rare event.

Um. . . rare?



(click for bigger version)

A) violent attacks on abortion providers really aren't all that rare, and
B) The rareness is surprising to you? Are you saying what it seems like you're saying? Are you saying "geez, given the constant incitement to violence being spewed out on right-wing airwaves and websites, it's really surprising that more members of our unhinged, unstable audience doesn't commit murder against the people we constantly demonize and vilify." Cuz that's the only reason I can think of that you'd be surprised by the relative rarity of these attacks.

 According to NARAL, there have been eight people killed and seventeen injured in attacks on American abortion providers in twenty-five years. And they have been getting rarer: this is only the second such killing – after the 2009 murder of George Tiller – in this century. In Chicago alone over Thanksgiving weekend, there were eight people killed and twenty wounded.

Okay, hold on a second here. You're saying 8 killed and 17injured. But those aren't the number of attacks, those are the numbers of casualties. According to the National Abortion Federation: "There have been at least 73 successful attacks on American abortion clinics since 1997. Forty of those acts of violence were arson attacks, including four in 2012. There have also been 20 attacks aimed at abortion providers themselves with different weapons, either shootings, stabbings, or acid attacks."  
So, even if your numbers are correct, they're intentionally misleading. Just because these "Army of God/Operation Rescue" types aren't very good at violent attacks doesn't mean they aren't trying them.

It really is surprising more Planned Parenthood facilities and abortionists are not being targeted. It speaks to the pro-life movement being faith based and turning to their better angels.

Surprising? You mean disappointing?
And which "better angels" told someone to throw acid at abortion doctors 19 times in three states in 1998? Which "better angels" came up with the idea to commit seven arsons in 1999? (source) If those are the better angels, I'd hate to meet the worse ones.

The left is desperate to compare the American pro-life movement to terrorists. They damn well better be glad Christians follow a faith that tells them to honor and pray for their leaders, follow the law, love everyone, and let the state and not the individual act as the sword bearer for God.

What the fuck?
Jeezus, I don't even know where to begin with this shit. Honor and pray for their leaders? You mean like the president of the United States? When has anyone in the "pro-life" movement, or in any of the subsets of the Conservative movement ever honored President Obama?
I know there have been some pro-lifers praying for him:

Christian Pastor Preaches For Death Of Obama And Calls His Mother A Whore

n 2009 Pastor Anderson told his congregation that his disdain for the President wasn’t because of Obama’s policies, but that he actually hated Obama himself.  He said that he prays every night that President Obama will die and go directly to hell.

“And I’m going to tell you something. I hate Barack Obama. You say, well, you just mean you don’t like what he stands for. No, I hate the person. Oh, you mean you just don’t like his policies. No, I hate him.”
“And you’re going to tell me that I’m supposed to pray for the socialist devil murderer infanticide who wants to see young children and he wants to see babies killed through abortion, you’re gonna tell me I’m supposed to pray for God to give him a good lunch tomorrow when he’s in Phoenix, Arizona. Nope, I’m not gonna pray for his good. I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to Hell…When I go to bed tonight, Stephen J. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to Hell.”

Kansas GOP speaker's prayer for President Obama's death

Wiley Drake Prays For Obama's Death

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 6/4/2009 4:39 pm

The other day I noted that Wiley Drake, Alan Keyes' vice-presidential running mate, had declared that George Tiller's murder had been the answer to his "imprecatory" prayers.

Now Drake has proclaimed that he is likewise issuing such prayers against President Obama in hopes that he also dies:

A former Southern Baptist Convention officer who on June 2 called the death of abortion provider George Tiller an answer to prayer said later in the day he is also praying "imprecatory prayer" against President Obama.

Oh, and "follow the law?" You mean other than the laws against murder, arson, assault, making terrorist threats, bombing, vandalism and blocking access to clinics? Other than that, yeah your movement is really big on law-following. Oh, and it goes without saying that you looooove everyone!

The pro-life movement is most typically represented by men like Garret Swasey, who though pro-life and Christian, worked as a police officer to save lives in Colorado Springs, CO.

No. No it is not. The "pro-life" movement is most typically represented by the people who block the sidewalk in front of clinics and scream "baby killer!!!" at women going in.

Cecile Richards is about the closest we have come in the United States to Joseph Mengele. Under her leadership at Planned Parenthood, doctors have been killing children and harvesting the children’s organs. In some cases, the children are born alive. In some case, whole children are born and then carved up.
This has all been caught on tape repeatedly. The media and left would prefer you ignore it. They’d prefer you believe the tapes were altered, edited, or fabricated. But we should not be ashamed of speaking the truth. It is the truth that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts and its employees were caught on tape talking about the value, the sale, and the altering of abortion procedures to preserve organs for sale.
Planned Parenthood butchers millions of children.

A) None of that is true. The videos have been exposed as fraudulent. Several red states have launched investigations of PP and none have been able to find any wrongdoing.
B) Comparing someone, anyone, to Mengele is the sickest type of character assassination imaginable. It's beyond despicable and maybe even slanderous.
and
C) this is the type of rhetoric that gets people like this Colorado Springs "lunatic" to act out violently.

Given the public light shed on the atrocities committed by Planned Parenthood and both the government and media’s turning a blind eye to it, dismissing it, laughing it off, or lying about it, it really should be surprising that Americans convicted of the need to stop the murder of children have not taken the law into their own hands.

But it's not the law. The law says that abortion is legal and donating fetal tissue to research facilities is legal. So when a pro-lifer commits acts of terrorism against Planned Parenthood, he is doing the opposite of taking the law into his own hands. Taking the law into your own hands is like hunting down the guy who shot your brother and killing him like in an old western. What you're talking about is just murdering people that have a different point of view. And the more that you say how surprising it is that there aren't more of these killings, the more it sounds like you're encouraging them.  Especially when you spin these lurid fantasies of children being butchered like the cover of "Yesterday and Today, " and tell your demented readership that the law is powerless to stop the alleged slaughter of innocents and boy, isn't it surprising that there aren't more people willing to stand up and fight these monsters? You have blood on your hands, you know it, and I'm guessing that you don't care.


PS for our younger readers:


PPS:
Going to California for a few days to visit family. Regular blogging should resume mid-week.