Today in the pearls I clutch:

It took the zombies eight seasons
to get to the wall? G.R.R. Martin could
have written a whole book by then.
He didn't But he could have...

I do not care for Game of Thrones. That's not to say that I didn't watch it in its entirety, but I did so whilst actively disliking the characters, story, and pacing. Yeah, I'm not sure why I stuck with it either, nor do I fully understand why I watched the prequel show the other night. It, like the over-long, over-grim nonsense that preceded--succeeded? Prequels, amiright?--was full of unlikeable characters, gratuitous violence, and appalling wigs. And the part where--oh, wait, I'm going to spoil somethings now, so bail out if you care--still with me? Super.

Because holy shit, I looked away during Matt Smith's medieval cops crackdown scene where goon start hacking off offending limbs and nearly turned it off during the childbirth scene. Sorry to get all pearl-clutchy here but I mean, holy shit.

Defund the Gold Cloaks!

Don't even Arya me. She baked someone's
kids into a pie. They were dicks and deserved
it, but still, a pie. And she made him eat it.
That's some Titus Andronicus shit right there.

It's not the violence that bothers me, well, ok, it is the violence, but it's the cruelty maybe that bothers me more? Particularly because I presume someone here is supposed to be a protagonist. And it's just hard to root for someone who just summarily executed a bunch of suspects without trial or someone who made decisions about his wife's health and safety without consulting her, and then let her die without answering her incredibly reasonable questions about what was going on. And yet I kept watching it, so I guess this is all on me. Like, HBO tells us right off the bat that the show is rated TV-MA. 

Almost makes me miss Joe Lieberman
loosing his shit over Night Trap. Almost.

Which is weird because I also watched the second season of Only Murders in the Building, which was also rated TV-MA. And what the actual? How are these both on the same level? Look, I'm not disputing the utility of a ratings system. People can decide how much mutilation is too much mutilation for them and that's great. Whatever. But I think I have a problem with our stupendously screwed up priorities. Violence, Nudity, Sex, drug and tobacco use, and language seem to be the only criteria we're worried about, but shouldn't there be some, I don't know consistency?

The locker room at 24-Hour Fitness is
rated TV-MA for gratuitous wing-wangary.

First of all, I think it's preposterous that nudity results in a more or less guaranteed MA rating. People have hootenannys and wing wangs and if that sets you off, fine, but surely violence is more of an aberration in our culture (kinda), and if nudity was the only thing in House of the Dragon, I wouldn't be harping on this right now. Same same with the swears. I honestly don't know how one goes through live in twenty-first century America without uttering five or six "fucks" an hour and one certainly can't avoid words in public. If I'm not greeted with "Welcome to fucking Starbucks" when getting coffee, I don't even tip.*

But the repeated, relentless murder in House of the Dragon was just, I don't know, unsettling. And that's fine, I'm not saying don't make your dumb War of the Roses with Ice Zombies shows, I'm just saying that it's way, way worse than Martin Short saying fuck.  

Only in America is a septuagenarian swearing held on the same
level as Doctor Who castrating criminals on television.

*I'm kidding, I always tip. I'm not a monster.

Schadenfreude Shindig

No no no no no. No. Just, no. Look, I know we've all long-suspected that noted rich Elon Musk was kind of, you know, terrible--as a person I mean--but I mean, c'mon:

Lix Cheney was the left half of the Republican Party.

If you're trying to keep your MAGA leanings 
on the down low, maybe don't pose for selfies?

And he made this ludicrous claim after being outed as having attended Kevin McCarthy's garden party thrown in celebration of the defeat of Liz Cheney. And I mean, I'm not a fan of Cheney's politics, but at least she isn't a batshit lunatic like the rest of the GOP. And showing up at a celebration of the removal of the last Republican who can carry on a discussion without parroting Trump's deranged claims about the election or foaming at the mouth over his persecution complex is a public demonstration of support for the fascist shitshow the party has become.

Pictured: that time an actor convinced 
America of the good intentions of the 1%.

I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable people who are still clinging to the idea that one can be socially progressive but fiscally conservative. It's preposterous, but whatever. Fine. I mean, we're sitting here picking over the ruins of the American Century because people calling themselves social progressives/fiscal conservatives voted for Reagan in the 80's. Twice. A demonstrably disastrous choice, by the way, but sure, you do you. But that's not an option here. Not anymore. 

I'm not like an economist. I just have an internet connection and as such feel qualified to voice sweeping, and uninformed opinions, but the thing that allowed Republicans to get where they are today is an all or nothing mentality. You're either with Donald Trump or you're getting primaried out of your congressional seat. 

Above: the look of someone who just got run out of Crazytown
for daring to question the wisdom of leaning into the crazy.

Anyone else hearing strains of Sarah
McLachlan's "In The Arms of an Angel"
playing softly over a montage of sad Elon?

Evidently, Musk told attendees at McCarthy's Schadenfreude shin-dig that the country would be doing fine if Republicans would "stay out of people's bedrooms" and Democrats would "stay out of people's wallets." Great, world's richest man is butt-hurt over having to pay taxes like the rest of us. How novel. But since the only way Republicans get elected is by stirring up the religious right's homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny, that's not going to happen. Ever. This is who they are now.

Republican performative outrage over liberals and our vision of turning America into a socialist utopia of tolerance and gay stuff is what gets the MAGA goons out of their rapture bunkers long enough to toddle down to the polling stations, assault rifles in hand, to vote for actual fascists. They're not going to give that up because some rich guy who smokes weed and launches electric cars at Mars tells them too. They'll take his money, snap their selfies, and continue to dismantle democracy. 

This guy in Florida is running on a platform of shooting Federal Agents.
So no, Elon Musk isn't going to convince the GOP to change course.

Is it ghoulishly shameless or shamelessly ghoulish?

What the actual? How long has Murder House Flip been a thing? Well, ok, two seasons, but I think my question stands: what the actual?

"Hmm...yes. Yes, let's go with the logo where the house
is bleeding. It's perfect. So tasteful, you know?"

-A Roku marketing person who

might possibly be a sociopath

"Wait 'till you hear where they found
the torso, you're going to love this."

I ask because evidently someone, somewhere, saw the morbid fascination we Americans have with murders that aren't happening directly to us (yet anyway), and the equally morbid fascination with trying to afford housing and thought that these two great tastes would taste great together. And the result is Murder House Flip--which does exactly what it says on the tin: a show where two hosts, Sarah Listi and Mikel Wellch try to rehab house where gruesome killings have taken place. I wish I were kidding.

Well, probably not them, I mean, I think contractors usually do the actual work, but the hosts are also there. So they're kind of like the Property Brothers if the Property Brothers used UV lights to detect bodily fluids. Which I don't think they do, I don't watch TLC so who knows?

Look, if you're going to pretend to do the work at least dress like it.
Nobody's ever installed luxury vinyl plank flooring in a polo.

Unspeakable sure, but
what a deal!

Anyway, I watched an episode about a couple who bought the scene of a triple homicide and it's quite a thing watching people rationalize their decision to live with blood-soaked wainscoting. 

"We feel really sad about happened here and um, we feel sad for the neighborhood...like, it's unspeakable."

-Alex, speaking about it

"The right backsplash tiles can really
make you forget about the brutal slayings."

"The front yard is a metaphorical graveyard, obviously." Says Alex and I have to disagree with him there. Disagree and be super-pedantic. The front yard is where two of the victims were gunned down, not buried, so it's not a metaphorical graveyard so much as it is a literal crime scene. He goes on: "We're just trying to create like new memories that will help us replace all the trauma and everything that happened here." To which his partner Britt adds: "And just not have that one afternoon be like, the only thing that this house in known for."

I get that the housing situation in is brutal. And while I can blame Roku for making a show that exploits actual crimes, I don't really blame the people for overlooking a house's faults, even murder. But I'm sorry, because there is no backyard barbecue, elaborate annual Christmas lights display, or 70's style key party that will ever make this house not be forever known as the triple murder house.

Unless someone pulls off a quadruple murder down the street?
Which, this being America, isn't really a long longshot.

How Chris-appointing...

We've already discussed how sometimes critics and viewers can be kind of far apart on something and how just because critics by and large dismissed Chris Pratt's The Terminal List as a Right-wing wank-fest and-what? 

Relax, it's just an expression. Although I do believe conservatives
get sexual pleasure from watching TV shows about shooting terrorists.

Is it that people used to throw tomatoes at
poor performances? I don't see how rottenness
 comes into play. Like, a tomato's a tomato.

I'm paraphrasing, but for real, they also called it "incoherent," a conspiracy theorist's wish fulfillment, and "nonsensical." And that's just a lazy glance at the Rotten Tomatoes entry. Like, I didn't even do research. I'm simply not paid enough. Anyway, it's got a 39%. And yes, some critics liked it. That's fine, but the overwhelming majority of them, not so much. But whatever. Like Jack Carr, the writer whose book the series is based on said: "We didn't make it for the critics. We made it for those in the arena." 

I never understood regular football, so...

And then we all had a good laugh at Carr's use of the word area. Like he made it for gladiators or people who played that weird, late nineties arena football thing. So why are we talking about it again? Because Chris Pratt, that's why. I like Chris Pratt. His work I mean. I think he's very funny and I mean, Guardians of the Galaxy, right? Everybody loves Chris. Except you kind of have to ignore the homophobic Hillsong Church, which he doesn't belong to, right? 

Because he attends a different church founded by a guy who broke away from Hillsong, but also made a documentary about the evils of homosexuality. But fine, whatever. Chris Pratt's beliefs, whatever they are aren't on trial here. In fact, nothing is on trial here. Except maybe Pratt's less than well thought out instant grams.

Above: Pratt's response to critics for, you know, criticizing.

Beard: check. Gun: check. 

The actor evidently--I say evidently because I'm not on Insta that much. Wait, do the kids still call it "Insta?"I'm hopelessly out of touch. Where was I? right--like I was saying, he apparently leapt to the defense of his dumb guys with beards and guns shooting stuff show, which is understandable. A lot of people worked very hard on it and he, as a famous with a large following, should support the work. Even though lots of people whose job it is to evaluate artistic works find it, you know, unwatchable. 

They had to tell the entire story on the title
page back then. You never knew when you
were going to die of consumption.

But it's the way he defended it, you know? He posted an article entitled:

"The new Yellowstone: Christ Pratt's new Navy thriller 'The Terminal List' defies woke critics scathing reviews to shoot up ratings chart with 1.6 Billion minutes of streams."

-TheDailyMail.com's preposterously

 long title for an article

Wait, except there already is a new
Yellowstone. It's called 1883 and also
has guys with guns shooting things.

So, couple of things. For one, that's too much title. It sounds like an eighteenth century novel: The New Yellowstone, or Chris Pratt's New Navy Thriller Being a True and Fulsome Account of the Defiance of Yon Wokest of Critics Who Doth Disparage The Same. Secondly, I don't know how they do things at the Daily Mail, but we typically don't count the minutes streamed. I think it's something like 330 million views, which, I have no idea if that's good, but it sounds less impressive than 1.6 billion minutes. 

And yeah again, critics can dislike a thing that everyone else likes. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Look, I know it's not Chris Pratt's job to share our worldview, but I'm not going to pretend it wouldn't bother me if he's a secret anti-gay, Right-wing, Trumpy MAGA goon. And throwing out articles about how the woke libruls are hating on his guns, god, and glory streaming show that real America adores isn't helping. 

Just throw us a Tweet saying Trans Rights, or I stand with Roe v Wade
and we can all go back to looking forward to Guardians 3, ok?

Could have at least called it "Shmamilton..."

Look, I don't want to tell anyone how to sermonize--that's a lie, of course I do, everyone does--but seriously The Door McAllen Church? I almost admire the sheer, unmitigated hutzpah on display by this McAllen, Texas Church who not only put on and streamed an unauthorized production of Hamilton, but also changed the lyrics to shoe-horn in references to Jesus, but we'll get to that.

"Nobody needs to know...about our copy-write
infringing and unauthorized production..."

"I also dreamed the rights to Hadestown
and Cabaret, so remember to get your
season tickets before they sell out!"

How this went down, is that pastor Roman Gutierrez got permission to perform the play. Or at least he said he did. Or maybe he had a dream in which he secured the rights? Either way, the rights-holders later clarified that no, of course Gutierrez had done no such thing because they don't now, nor have they ever, licensed the rights to anyone. When word got out that the church had put on a production, the rights holders sent a cease and desist letter, but later grudgingly allowed them to finish provided they abide by some stipulations.

To be clear: they thought they'd rip-off an
incredibly popular and profitable musical about
a lawyer and not get sued for it?

Specifically don't stream it, don't post photos, and for the love of theatre god (Dionysus, I guess?), don't do this again. Ok, great. That's downright magnanimous. I've read that religious organizations can make use of some copyrighted material without permission if it's part of a larger service, although it's apparently dicey territory, legally speaking, and that exemption may or may not apply to plays, at least not in their entirety and certainly not if they streamed it. But maybe the church thought they were covered because they tacked on a sermon at the end? Who knows? Seems like if I could do a quick internet search and discover it was a bad idea, they could too, but here we are.

In any case, the rights holder's good deed--not suing the be-Jesus out of The Door McAllen Church--went swiftly punished.  The Saturday show went up as stipulated--that is, no video or streaming--but it was full of inserted references to Jesus and anti-gay lines which the production company was evidently unaware of when they agreed to let them finish the run.

"Excuse me, are you Aaron Burr sir? And have you heard the good news?"

-Hamilton, making Aaron Burr...uncomfortable

Pictured: that time the cast of Hamilton
called Mike Pence (who was in the audience)
out on the GOP's record of homophobia.

Which, couple of things. First of all, Hamilton as a production, is about inclusion and diversity and playwright Lin Manuel Miranda has been incredibly vocal about his support of LGBTQIA+ rights. So while nobody but Right-wing MAGA goons complaining about everyone's wokeness even uses the word woke anymore, Hamilton (despite glossing over slavery and straight up omitting references to the treatment of indigenous peoples) is, pretty famously, woke (or was, for 2015 anyway). Which makes it a somewhat odd choice to appropriate and shove in a bunch of anti-gay messages. 

"Willkommen, bienvenue, praise Jesus..."

-The Church, meeting

 the kids half way

But more importantly--and this is what I'll never get about American Evangelicals--why do they feel the need to be so, I don't know, sneaky? Like, if their message is such a good one, why do they need to hide it like a de-worming pill in the peanut butter of popular culture? The answer, I suspect, has something to do with plummeting church attendance and ok, that's fair. But do they really think that the youths aren't showing up because there aren't enough off-brand productions of Broadway shows? 

"Yeah, but if you close one eye and squint..."

-someone trying very, very hard to 

rationalize Christians with money

Because, if I may, I'd like to offer an alternative explanation: maybe the kids just aren't into hearing sermons about how gay and transpeople are going to hell? Particularly since the religious basis for these and a lot of the other things the Christian Right harps on all the time is dubious at best. Somehow a religion about being kind to one another and giving up all your money is presented as an excuse to be shitty to queer people and hoard wealth. Kids are smart, and they can smell a scam. Usually. I mean, explain Minions, but generally speaking, smart.

My sense is that Jesus, as a first century Judean and anti-capitalist would probably not care about intellectual property, so if that was this church's excuse, I'd almost give them a pass. But instead they took someone's--admittedly commercial--artistic work and tried to use it to sell homophobia to young musical theatre fans, and that just sucks. 

"Pastor Gutierrez, I'd like you to meet my client Jesus Christ.
He tells me you've been mis-representing him in your sermons..."

-Jesus's lawyer 

U-bend the rules, U-face the consequences.

But wait, it gets better. Or worse...depending on how you look at it. Anyway, photos of documents alleged to be records from the Trump administration which were flushed down White House toilets were published today on Axios.com.

You've got to admit, it would be incredibly appropriate if the 
thing that finally brought down Trump was the contents of his toilet.

Before Nixon, Presidents were
 free to flush all kinds of things.

The photos were apparently obtained by a former White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, who claims that former White House sources corroborate their authenticity. She also says that staff has told her that they would routinely find the toilets clogged with such fragments of documents which, if true, would be a crime. According to the Presidential Records Act of 1978 establishes strict procedures and rules for White House records and makes destroying them without the express, written permission of the National Archives and Records Administration a crime.

Pictured: that other classy moment
in which he mocked a disabled reporter.

Predictably, Trump stans--are the kids still saying stans? Doesn't matter, I'll go with goons--predictably, Trump goons were quick to call Haberman's publishing of the photos a fabrication and a "desperate" move. Back in February, when word of the photos begin to circulate, Trump called Haberman a "maggot" because he's nothing if not classy. And in fairness, Haberman does have a book coming out in October, so who knows, maybe she is trying to promote it with this. 

But that doesn't mean Trump didn't flush documents. And the suggestion that Haberman is desperate doesn't exactly hold up in light of today's FBI raid of Trump's incredibly tacky resort. A raid in which they are looking for exactly this sort of thing: evidence of documents he's either stolen or destroyed. And not for nothing, but do you have a difficult time believing him to be the kind of person who would tear up and flush potentially incriminated evidence in flagrant violation of the law? Yeah, me neither. 

What? I'm not wrong, it is tacky. Tacky and the scene of a federal crime.

Today in anhedonic schadenfreude:

Oh...oh yeah...that's the stuff...

I'm doing it again. I'm taking joy in the misery of another and I just want you to know, before you judge me too harshly, that that person is Donald Trump. You see, the FBI has raided Mar-a-Lago, the former sort of president's--what? If you lose the popular by three million votes, you're a sort of president. Anyway, authorities raided Mar-a-Lago in connection with documents from his sort of presidency which he's either stolen or destroyed. 

"How dare law enforcement enter a
white guy's house unannounced!"

-Donald Trump

In a statement on his website, the former star of Home Alone 2 and that Billy Bush tape where the two of them laugh about sexual assault, whinged:

"These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents. Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before."

-Donald Trump, surprised 

by his comeuppance

No president ever humped the flag
before either, so a lot of firsts I guess.

So, couple of things: first, dark times for our nation? Sure. Next, I went to public school, so take tis with some salt, but that's way too many commas in a single sentence. Thirdly, FBI raids are kind of to be expected when one absconds with classified documents and keep them in one's resort. And lastly, yes, nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before. There are probably instances in which it should have, but no previous president has been quite this combination of corrupt and inept, so here we are. 

At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
After he'd been caught and was facing the
possibility of prison, but still, he resigned. 

The rest of his statement/screed is just him accusing his political enemies of the kind of nonsense he literally build his presidency on. He even hilariously suggests that this was a reverse Watergate and demands to know the difference between Republican operatives breaking into DNC headquarters to copy documents and tap phones and the FBI executing a legal search warrant as part of a larger investigation into a corrupt former president. Which, I'm not a lawyer but one was a crime and the other was an investigation into crime, so...

Anyway, I do feel bad. For enjoying this I mean. But mostly I'm afraid to feel like something is maybe going our way. There was the Kansas ballot measure, and then Alex Jones's massive judgement, and then the climate bill, and mostly I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. A war with China, or maybe some other, even worse pox. Who knows? But for now, I guess I'll just be cautiously optimistic that maybe, just maybe someone responsible for so much misery and human suffering might actually see a whiff of a hint of consequences. 

What? What's so funny? Uh--oh, right, that thing I
just said. About the consequences. Yeah, I know...

Today in subtle, plant-based allegory:

Incidentally, Texas recently passed
a bill requiring elections to be held
exclusively in Cracker Barrel. 

They know they can just order the regular sausage, right? Who? What sausage? Good questions. I'm referring of course to the nontroversy (it's a controversy that isn't) surrounding Cracker Barrel, the family restaurant beloved by conservatives--what? If elections were held exclusively in Cracker Barrel, Trump would still be President and women wouldn't be allowed to drive--like I was saying, they're now serving plant-based sausages. The company posted about this on Facebook and now news sites have a new culture wars story to report upon.

Since you brought it up, why are
you eating in an old country store?

There're thousands of comments on the thread, a lot of them from people like me dog-piling on those who are angry about the meatless sausage, but here's a sample of one of those who are upset about it:

"We don't eat in an old country store fore [sic] woke burgers."

-someone with enough time 

in their day to comment on a 

restaurant's Facebook page

Is MAGA-dumbs better?

Ha-ha, meat-loving yee-haws are loosing their shit over wokeness. Whatever that is. Bo-ring, right? Yes, but they are. Loosing their shit that is. And the--Sorry? Oh, Yee-haws? People who shout "yee-haw." Huh? How can that be an offensive term? As far as I know, I just made it up and in my defense, they do shout yee-haw. And it's not like they have any room to complain about dismissing entire groups of people with--you know what? Fine. I'll be the bigger person. 

Star Trek had subtler allegories.

Where were we? Right, yeah, I don't care about the argument and obviously, I'm not above it and the requisite stereotypes of the yee-ha-Cracker Barrel patrons, but where this fits the exemplar of our cultural divide is the idea that anyone would get upset by the restaurant offering fake sausage. It's not like they only serve plant-based sausage, it's a menu option. You don't have to order it. So you can see where I'm going with all this. It's pretty obvious, I know, but doesn't make it untrue. Well, c'mon then, this parallel isn't going to draw itself.

Nobody's forcing anyone to get an abortion. Nobody's demanding anyone get gay married. I wouldn't have thought that the difference between the Left and the Right in America could be summed up by a country-themed breakfast chain, but one side wants people to be free to order the sausage that's right for them, whilst the other demands the right to live in a world where their sausage choice is the only sausage choice.

Of course, we could always just wait the culture wars out. I mean, with
that much chicken fried steak and gravy, it's only a matter of time...

Gone (Bat)Girl

First of all, let me apologize for the title. Secondly, did you see that the Batgirl movie just got, I don't know, what's the word? Cancelled? Shelved? Locked in a drawer? 

It'll be nestled securely between that unreleased Fantastic Four movie
someone made just to keep the rights, and the Arc of the Covenant. 

It's not a movie unless you're watching it in
a recliner with a thirty-two ounce sugar water,
and some asshole kid kicking your seatback. 

The point is Warner Bros, the studio that put out Superman Returns with a straight face, has decided not to release Batgirl despite the film being nearly completed. According to Variety--sorry, I know how I sound, I don't read Variety or anything, that's just where I saw this story--anyway, according to Variety, it's not because the movie sucks but rather it's because Warner Bros. decided that going forward, their DC movies should be "at a blockbuster scale." Batgirl, evidently, was going to be released directly to HBO's streaming service and so just doesn't fit their...I don't know, standards? 

And look, I don't particularly care about comic book movies, especially DC's comic book movies, but I'd have watched this. I like Batman and Batman-related things. Well, except for that Joker movie with Joachim Phoenix. I had no interest in that whatsoever. But sure, I'd watch Batgirl. I wouldn't care that it's not "blockbuster" scale, whatever that means.

He's the Joker, not Hamlet. I'm sorry, but I don't need a two hour psychological thriller
about a murder clown whose most interesting character trait is that Batman punches him.

Which, again, this is the same company
that brought us The Green Lantern.

Doesn't matter. What I want to know is, if it's not a question of quality, why not just put it out there? Like, it's done (or nearly) done, right? There are dozens of middling quality animated movies and TV series based on DC characters, what's one more? This is where I've got to think that maybe they're being less than honest and maybe the movie just isn't working. I'm not like a film industry person (I don't even read Variety), but I'd have to think that someone at the studio would have to be worried that the film's quality would somehow damage ugh...the brand.  

"Because Justice is Gray."

-subtle metaphor

It has to be that. Batgirl cost ninety million dollars. To just save it to a hard drive and lock it in a drawer forever seems like a tremendous waste of time, money, and effort. It would have to kill anyone who watches it within seven days for this move to make sense. Remember when they released the Justice League movie? And it bombed, so caving to internet pressure, they spent another twenty-five million to re-release it as an interminable streaming release which was a marginal improvement? At best? And then they re-re-realeased it black and white? They took three swings at it, but can't give Batgirl even one?

And beyond the financial investment, hundreds of artists and technicians worked on this thing for months. People's careers are affected. It was Leslie Grace's first big thing since In the Heights. It would have been Brendan Fraser's first film role in ten years. Even Micheal Keaton was coming back as Batman. All I'm getting at is given the quality of the DC movies to date, how much damage could it possibly do?

Warner Bros.' treatment of Batgirl is only slightly better than
DC's, so I suppose in some ways we should be grateful.