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.