Utterly classless

Late night host buffoon Jimmy Kimmel apparently thought it would be fun to mock someone whose house burned to the ground because he doesn't like the guy's politics. This is a perfect example of why late night shows are dying. 

 

Spencer Pratt ran for mayor of Los Angeles and was hugely embraced across demographics. The videos he ran on social media were off the charts amazing and should be studied by future candidates. Whether or not Pratt lost the vote legitimately is another conversation. For now I'll just say California never had these issues when we voted in person. Both California and Los Angeles politics are absolutely corrupt and like many here, I have little to no faith in the security of our elections these days. I do think it would have been interesting to have seen what Pratt could have accomplished in the role of mayor. A lot of people seem unaware of this, but he has a degree in political science from USC, so he's not as unqualified as many seem to have assumed or claimed.

 

Pratt has said he'd leave the city if he lost the election and I have to say I don't blame the guy. After all, it isn't like he has a house to come home to here now. It burned to the ground in the Palisades Fire, which is a whole other issue in terms of if that had to be as bad as it was, and who might bear responsibility for that.

 

But the point is that Jimmy Kimmel, his producers, and his writing staff thought this would be hilarious:

 

“I know things might be tight right now, especially with the out-of-state donation money running out,” Kimmel said during his monologue. “Moving is expensive, so to help you out we rented you a U-Haul. Our staff spent the whole day decorating for you, and everybody will notice you and wave goodbye as you leave.” 

 

The image shared by Kimmel shows Pratt appearing to cry, plastered across a U-Haul with the phrase, “Just defeated.” 

 

This is what passes for "comedy" on network TV these days. But what Kimmel and company forgot in their cruel glee is that Spencer doesn't need a U-Haul to move. Why? Oh, yeah...

 

 

Oh right, the thing that prompted Pratt to get involved in local politics in the first place - he lost his home in the Palisades Fire! It wasn't that long ago, Jimmy. Nobody local has forgotten about it. It hasn't faded into the past. Heck, there's a family who lost their home in the Palisades now living just a couple doors down from my apartment. They're all over the place. And Jimmy Kimmel thought it was acceptable to poke fun at these victims. I wonder if he'd volunteer to provide U-Haul's for the other 6,836 families that lost their homes. Also, twelve people died in this fire. I'm sure Jimmy will eventually get around to making them fodder for his "comedy".  Maybe his staff could mockingly decorate some hearses for them.

 

Honestly, if I ran ABC, I'd yank him off the air for this and not let him back on until he made a sincere, on-camera apology. The 2025 Palisades and Altadena fires and the lack of rebuilding support has traumatized not just the victims in those communities, but all of Los Angeles and it's not a wound that's going to heal anytime soon. Kimmel's mockery of a victim of this is just disgusting.

 

Full California Post article is here.

Customer Service Fail, Magazine Subscription Division

I have a bunch of magazine subscriptions. I love hard copies; digital magazines don't do it for me. I also constantly receive urgently worded renewal notices that make it sound like my subscription is expiring RIGHT NOW, only to check and discover (more often than not) that I'm nowhere near the renewal date. I get why they do this - cash flow. If you renew early, they get their money sooner. I often wonder how many people fall for that. You must be in danger of having your subscription expire, because otherwise why would the publisher be sending you an urgent renewal notice, right? (Because $$$, that's why).

But the notice I got yesterday really blew me away with not only the harsh tone, which I found unacceptable from a customer service point of view, but also by the blatant deception. Check this out (caps and bold are theirs):

 

Melinda Loomis

This is your THIRD RENEWAL NOTICE

Melinda 

AVOID SERVICE

INTERRUPTION:

RENEW TODAY!

RE: SUBSCRIPTION STATUS: EXPIRING 

 

This is the THIRD NOTICE we have sent about your (name of magazine) subscription. We have yet to hear from you.

 

The next paragraph advises that, "Because time is now a factor..." they are generously offering a renewal savings deal. There's just a couple of problems with that.

First of all, am I being hypersensitive because I find this tone unnecessary and unacceptable? Seriously, who wrote this? Who thought it was a good idea to use address a customer like this. I have a customer service background, and I would NEVER have taken this tone with a client. EVER.

 

Second, and here's the real kicker: The reason they have yet to hear from me is because this magazine doesn't renew until OCTOBER. It is currently mid-May. I ordered this subscription last September. And this is the THIRD renewal notice they've sent me? And they have the nerve to state that my "subscription status" is EXPIRING? It is nowhere NEAR expiring. This is a blatant lie. But if I hadn't checked, I would have likely sent the check out the same day.

Another thing I noticed is that one thing they DIDN'T include on this extremely important notice is the actual subscription renewal date. You would think that would be worth mentioning. That they purposely omitted it just adds to the deception, and isn't how I want to be treated as a paying customer.

On the back of the notice there's information I hadn't been previously aware of. They have a money-back policy. "We guarantee you may write to cancel your subscription at any time, for any reason, and that you will receive a full refund for all unmailed issues". I've never cancelled a magazine pre-renewal, if I don't want it anymore I just let it go at renewal time. But after this notice, I'm thinking of taking them up on their guarantee. This is a lifestyle magazine, not something important like a writing magazine. I can live without it if I have to, and I'm giving serious thought to doing just that.

Typical politicians

Do as we say, not as we do. Also, billionaires are evil (not us, the other ones). 

 

Jerks.

 

I can't believe people actually fall for this.

Royal Pains: This time it's personal

Like many people I've watched the truly impressive train wreck that has been the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Show in the years since they split with the British royal family with a litany of complaints about the unfairness of their royal, privileged lives. I've previously blogged my feelings and observations here, here, and here.

 

Since then, they've had one fiasco after another. I don't need to get into all of them, but here's just a few examples: A failed podcast, a failed launch of a line of lifestyle products, a failed polo show, a much derided trailer for an upcoming cooking and lifestyle show that nobody asked for, a faked Princess Diana-style dangerous car chase, as well as numerous personal appearances that reeked of a desperate need for attention and fell flat every time.

Then, the other day, they showed up at the site of the recent and absolutely devastating Eaton Fire in Altadena. You know, to raise awareness in case there's anyone left who is unaware of the fiery hellscape that has been Los Angeles the past couple of weeks.

 

They spent all of 17 minutes making an appearance to show their concern (with cameras in tow, of course) before going out on a brief tour of burned out parts of Altadena that actual residents have not been allowed into yet (with cameras in tow, of course).

Residents haven't even been allowed back in yet (I know because I know one of them) yet these two idiots are allowed in to tramp all over the wreckage of countless lives so they can "assess" the need. You know who didn't need to personally "assess" the need with a camera crew in tow? These idiots. Thousands of Angelenos began donating food, water, clothing, and money before the fires were even out. We didn't need their royal lownesses to bring this need to our attention.

How do you think it made the victims feel that their tragedy was turned into a D-list celebrity photo op? I know I'd be livid if these self-important twits were walking through the wreckage of my former home, possibly damaging or destroying what little is left to salvage.

Also, I partially blame Victor Gordo, the mayor of Pasadena, who conducted the tour. Really, should he be wasting his time with this crap, giving celebs a tour of the carnage? You can't tell me he doesn't have more pressing issues at the moment. He should have told them to piss off and find a way to actually make themselves useful.

Then, Justine Bateman got on social media and rightfully ripped them as ambulance chasers and disaster tourists, and called their photo op repulsive. Check, check, and check. And then Meghan doubled down by showing up at a collection center the next day to hand out some more useless hugs and get more photo ops.

 

A number of celebrities have been shown helping out in a variety of ways, but they've actually been helping out, not "making an appearance" (with cameras in tow, of course).

Repulsive is right. As an Angeleno (who is fortunately not in a fire area) I find it ghoulish that they're exploiting this tragedy, something that will take us years to recover from. It's been mind-boggling how everything Harry and Meghan have touched since leaving the British Royal Family turns to shit, but just when you think they can't sink any lower, they prove me wrong. I wonder how much public mockery (and they're getting a lot of it, not just from Justine) it will take to get their useless selves out of the public eye, but apparently we haven't reached that rock-bottom yet. But I hope it's soon. It's one thing to make yourself look ridiculous trying to be a big-shot producer when you have no creativity or talent to offer, but it's another thing entirely to exploit victims of a tragedy the way they have with Altadena. 

Too bad we can't deport them back to England, but I don't think the Brits want them back.

You Know Who Works in mysterious ways, again

Don't try to tell me God doesn't have a wicked (tee-hee!) sense of humor: Drunk dumbass steals statue of St. Michael the Archangel, gets stabbed by angel's sword.

Eff around with an archangel, find out.

Poetic justice.

 

The guy was seriously injured. The sword got him in the neck. I love this final line in the article: The statue of St. Michael the Archangel was unharmed. Of course he was.

I noticed that this story is actually from January, but it just popped up on my social media feed for some reason. That makes me wonder - did the guy recover? Did it have an effect on him? Did he change his evil ways?

Pic snicked from linked article.

You Know Who works in mysterious ways

An oldie but goodie from icanhazcheeseburger

From The Babylon Bee: 

 

 From the article:

 

Ya think? Do check out the whole article at the link. In the meantime, here's what happened:

The Dodgers won the NL West with a record of 100 wins and 62 losses for a .617 winning percentage. Only the Atlanta Braves (104) and the Baltimore Orioles (101) won more games. And the differential of runs scored versus allowed was dominating: +207. Only Atlanta (+231) was better.

 

On the other hand, the Arizona Diamondbacks were a distant second to the Dodgers with a record of 84-78 for an anemic .519 "winning" percentage, which means they won barely more than half of their games. But it was good enough for a Wild Card spot in the playoffs.

I don't follow baseball that closely to have seen the predictions about this matchup, but I would bet most if not all heavily favored the Dodgers. And I'll bet no one thought there was a snowball's chance in Hell (see what I did there) of the Dodgers being swept by a clearly inferior team.

And yet yesterday, the Diamondbacks swept the Dodgers 3 games to 0 in the playoffs, eliminating them in the most humiliating way possible. The Boys in Blue go home in shame, while the DBacks will be taking on either Atlanta or Philly.

God's punishment? Who knows? But the Dodgers just took a trip to playoff Hell. Have a nice off-season, blasphemers. And oh, to be a fly on the wall at a Catholic church this weekend.

Loving the new Twitter, but there's still room for improvement

I'm one of those people who returned to Twitter after Elon Musk bought it last year. Regardless of what you think of Musk (or why) my personal experience since returning is  that it's a better, freer place since it came under new ownership.

 

I had actually been off Twitter for about a year and a half when I decided to give version 2.0 a shot. I had previously been on Twitter (and pretty much addicted to it) for more than ten years when I finally gave up on it in early 2021. It had turned from an amazingly open, informative and enjoyable experience into a slanted, toxic pit that just wasn't fun anymore. At all. Even more telling, I never felt like I was missing out on anything during the period I was gone. But Twitter is fun, interesting, and informational again.

However, there are still signs of the old, fun-adverse, truth-adverse Twitter. Somewhere along the line someone thought it was a good idea to give users a condescending "warning" when they post what some clearly objective (*sarcasm*) bonehead has decided is "potentially harmful or offensive language".

"Most Tweeters don't post replies like this" - Yeah, they post worse. Also, condescending much?

This was my response to a Tweet criticizing a protest outside of a McDonald's that had been organized to lambast the fast-food behemoth for not paying "living" wages. The original tweet pointed out the obvious, that burger-flipping is a job for unskilled teenagers (as I was when I worked there back in the day) and basically, I agreed. And yes, any idiot can be taught to do it. There's nothing harmful or offensive about pointing that out. It's the truth. McDonald's was designed that way. Unless you're the manager or franchisee, it's not meant to be a living wage career. It's a starter job, a pocket money job, it's not something you raise a family on. 

 

Expecting McDonald's to throw money at unskilled labor is like starting your career in a bottom rung, foot in the door job and never rising above that level, but expecting your salary to rise to the same level as someone who is actually moving up in the world. Basically, the protest is that McDonald's isn't paying high-skilled wages for menial, entry-level jobs. And that doesn't make sense. All that I and the original poster did was point out that obvious fact.

And in terms of the content of my tweet, there's the issue that you don't have to spend much time on Twitter to see much worse, to see posts that are genuinely vile, vicious, and at times even threatening. My tweet is one of the milder things you'll see on Twitter, which is much more open to a variety of opinions these days, but still retains some of its crazy, wild-west aspects from the old days. And I got a warning about (I assume) using the word "idiot"?

In case you're wondering, yes, I did hit the edit button, but not to edit my tweet. I added that the tweet had gotten the stupid Twitter warning and then posted it as originally written because no, there was nothing harmful or offensive about it.

And if you think that burger-flippers and other low-skilled workers deserve big bucks, there's these shining examples of the law of unintended consequences, but that's a conversation for another day.

As for Twitter, it's great to have it back, but there's still a little tweaking to do.

Showbiz roundup

In no particular order:

 

Dear Harry and Meghan: It's not an Emmy "snub" if your program was trash, a chunk of the viewership only subjected themselves to it to rip it in YouTube videos, and you're going broke because you really have nothing to offer to the world other than an accident of birth and shameless (albeit admittedly impressive) gold-digging/social climbing skills. The podcast sucked too, oh, and the word you were looking for was stereotypes, not archetypes. Maybe you shouldn't have tried to make a career out of trashing your families. Neither of you are special. Now go away. Also, future Queen Catherine is a goddess.

 

How to not read the room: After losing hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of viewers on woke flicks like Lightyear, Elemental, The Little Mermaid, and Indiana Jones 5 you would think Disney might have learned something about what audiences want and even more importantly, don't want. Nope! YellowFlash 2 on YouTube breaks it down.

As seen on DailyMail.com:

Snow Something.

1 Dwarf and 6 Somethings.

"The Multi-ethnic Portland Hipsters" (at 1:15). 🤣

The actors are on strike too!!! Where oh where will we get our crappy reboots/reimaginings? I'm not saying the studios aren't making ridiculous amounts of money off writers and actors and I'm also not saying that as co-creators they (especially writers) don't deserve a significant piece of that pie. In fact, even with its huge box office losses, Disney has extended Bob Iger's tenure as CEO (WHY???), so studios clearly have money to burn. But these things never seem to go well for the people put out of work for an extended period of time. I guess we'll see, but I think this is just going to be really ugly.
 

How about some good news for a change? It appears Oppenheimer, which opens July 21, is every bit as great as I was hoping. I've been eagerly awaiting this film since the first trailer dropped. To get an idea of just what amazing filmmaking this is, check out this video, which explains not only some of the technical aspects, but also the one hundred day theatrical window that director Christopher Nolan demanded - and got - from Universal. I hadn't heard about this and think it's fantastic. Things need to change in Hollywood and hopefully this will be the start of it.

Double Whammy: The season finale of "Yellowjackets" and the series finale of "Barry" (SPOILERS!!!)

Let's get Yellowjackets out of the way first, because I'm pissed about the fate of Adult Natalie and am officially hating Adult Tai and Adult Van. I also wouldn't miss Adult Lottie all that much if they lock her up in the loony bin and forget about her.

 

 

Part of my problem with the Taissa storyline is that she is a recently elected politician and yet episode after episode no press has been sniffing around despite the fact that she disappears for extended periods of time without question, plus the issues with Simone and Sammy, then the car accident, and yet she just comes and goes as she pleases without any interference or question. And her and Van calling off the psych intervention on their own was stupid even before it doomed Natalie, who had emerged (in my opinion) as the most interesting of the surviving adult Yellowjackets.

 

I'm also curious as to if and when the show is going to address the fact that a lot of what the Yellowjackets went through in the wilderness was due to Misty destroying the transponder. You have to wonder how much sooner they would have been rescued had she not done that. The adults clearly don't know, because if they did there's no way they would have anything to do with her. She would be persona non grata on steroids. I hope this is addressed at some point. I have enjoyed the development of Shauna's daughter Callie, who went from annoying sullen teen in the vein of Harrison Morgan to damn interesting and effective.

On top of all this, the fire at the end made for a terrific cliffhanger. When coach was lifting the matches, I thought it was to take them back to the cave so he could make a fire to warm himself. So did he decide that the girls had become so evil he was willing to burn them alive?

 

I also want to note that the actresses who play the teens have belted it out of the park this season. As their situation has devolved and survival at any cost has become their everyday struggle and reality, there hasn't been a false note in any of their performances. The actresses playing Teen Natalie and Teen Shauna especially, but the whole cast is just freaking amazing. 

 

Also, there's this: 

$200. If the economy wasn't so terrifying right now, I'd have already ordered this baby.

 

And never, ever, ask me to pick a card ever again.

 

The wonderfully offbeat (and increasingly dark) Barry came to an end tonight, and I thought they did a great job on the finale. The hitman turned aspiring actor did finally pay for his many crimes while seeming to have gotten some sort of redemption, Sally got a somewhat happy ending (although she appears to have understandable issues getting involved with anyone - I was really hoping that teacher at the end would be the man she deserved), and Fuches had his own redemption when he saved Sally and John. Of course, the one person who got totally screwed was Gene Cousineau. Having him kill Barry just as the former hitman was about to turn himself in, a move that would have straightened out the story of Detective Moss's murder and saved Gene, was just savage. 

And the film got made! Watching The Mask Collector with John, as the movie got everything about the story of Barry and Gene so wrong, was to me a sort of gleeful call-out of how Hollywood has so little relationship to truth. Fuches is completely absent in the movie - having left the Army and feeling rudderless, Barry gets off the bus in Hollywood and the first thing he sees is a theater that becomes his chance to have a purpose in life. Gene is presented as a suave, British-accented criminal mastermind using his acting school as a front for his nefarious activities with the Chechen gang. Showing him as the true murderer of Detective Janice Moss, and forcing Barry to help him cover up the crime was pure Hollywood bullshit. And the tag at the end of the film, that Gene Cousineau is now serving a life sentence for the murders of Janice Moss and Barry Berkman is an incredibly cruel fate for the one-time pretentious acting teacher and author of Hit Your Mark and Say Your Lines who loved Janice so much. Oh, and Barry Berkman was buried at Arlington Cemetery with full honors. Poor Gene, so close to being cleared...and then he's the architect of his own downfall. Just brutal.

Barry is one of those shows where happy endings for all the characters we've loved just isn't possible, but I thought it rang true. There was redemption, there was survival, there was some justice, and there was tragedy. Well done, Bill Hader and Alec Berg. There was some meandering this season, but it had a purpose and it all wrapped up the way it should. Also props to both the creators and HBO for understanding that this wasn't a show that could go for seven plus seasons, that it had to come to an end at some point, and that point needed to be sooner rather than later. Well done, everyone involved, and I'm looking forward to going back to the beginning and reliving it again.

 

RIP Barry, and Yellowjackets, you have some 'splaining to do.

 

That coveted blue check

I personally don't care about a Twitter blue verification check, but I'm also not part of the celebrity elite who like everyone to know how special they are. Also, I've heard it's $8 per month, not $5. But either way, we can't have our poor celebrities going broke to keep their blue checks. Case in point:

Imagine having LeBron money and not wanting to fork out $5 a month for a verified account. Poor baby.

I just thought the responses were funny. Because, yeah.

It's not funny anymore

Ladies and gentleman, the leader of the free world. If by free world, you mean clown world.

No joke. This is the text of Joe Biden's remarks on the school shooting in Nashville. I transcribed it myself, but you can see it here via ABC News starting at the 6:45 mark. It was like watching the guy warming up an audience for the headliner. How someone could joke and laugh at a time like this is inexplicable to me. Just sickening.

Applause. Biden at podium, smiling.

 

BIDEN: My name is Joe Biden.

 

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

 

BIDEN: I'm Dr. Jill Biden's husband

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: And I eat Jeni's ice cream, chocolate chip.

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: I came down because I heard there was chocolate chip ice cream.

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: By the way, I have a whole refrigerator full upstairs. 

AUDIENCE: Laughter

BIDEN (Grinning): You think I'm kidding? I'm not. Ben, how are you pal? One of the best guys in the United States Congress, Ben Cardin.

 

AUDIENCE: Whoops and applause.

BIDEN: Folks, uh, welcome to the White House. It's a delight to have you all here. And who are those cool looking kids back there? 

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: They're your kids, all four of 'em? Well stand up, guys.

KIDS STAND.

AUDIENCE: Applause.

 

BIDEN: Well, I want you to know, like you, I had two brothers, there were three in our family, three brothers, and one sister. My sister is smarter than all of us. 

 

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

 

BIDEN: Not a joke, she used to be three years younger than me, now she's twenty-three years younger than me.  

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: Yeah, she managed every one of my campaigns for office, even back when I was in high school. We went to the same university two years apart, she graduated with honors, I graduated.

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: And we had a simple rule in the family: listen to Val. 

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: My sister Valerie's incredible, so guys, be nice to your sister, your gonna need her. You're gonna need her, I promise. It's the same lineup. (POINTS) You're the oldest? Who's number two? (KID RAISES HAND) Number two? Who's number three? (KID RAISES HAND). You're twins, are you guys twins? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Okay, alright, this is how it was in our outfit. Well, I'm so glad to see you all, thanks for coming with mom, okay? Gotta take care of your mom. Dad's are much harder to raise, but you know...

AUDIENCE: Laughter.

BIDEN: Before I begin to speak, the reason I spent a little time with the kids, I just wanted to speak very briefly about the school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee...

Yes, two minutes and twenty seconds into his Comedy Store audition, he finally wants to speak very briefly about the school shooting. What a leader. And no, I don't care what was already scheduled, if you're the president, you don't joke around when something terrible has happened. I just don't know how someone can yuck it up when they're about to discuss something so awful. I came down here because chocolate chip ice cream. Jesus Christ.

Also, notice they turned off comments on the Biden video? Guessing I wasn't the only person appalled and offended by the jokester approach to a national tragedy.

We deserve better.

Those who forget the past...

First they came for Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming. Now they're after Agatha Christie. 

This reminds me of the "warning" on some of the classic Warner Bros. animation DVDs. For some reason they recruited Whoopi Goldberg to give viewers a condescending reminder that the cartoons are products of their time, like we're too stupid to know that. So we get this puerile lesson in how prejudice and stereotypes "were wrong then, and they're wrong now." No shit, Sherlock. But of course, they assume that us peasants can't see these things for what they were and we need to be lectured about things the average (non-elite) person actually knows instinctively and doesn't need to be reminded of every time we sit down to try and enjoy a damn cartoon.

 

The people who want you to believe that up is down, good is bad, morality is evil, and 2 + 2 = 5 don't think we can figure out for ourselves that things change, that the world was a different place when these cartoons were produced, and that for a period that world was embroiled in a devastating war. The difference back then, of course, is that Hollywood took the patriotic, flag-waving path in an attempt to unite the country and keep its spirits up, instead of trashing it.

Which brings us to the current trend of re-writing classic works for "modern sensibilities". 

Both Christie and Dahl lived and wrote in a completely different time and place. Any idiot who isn't focused on forcing their beliefs down the throats of others can simply and quietly understand that, and enjoy the works for their entertainment value.

Luckily, the comments section on the Deadline article linked above shows that this isn't a popular movement and that there is still some sanity in this crazy world:

 

 

THIS:

You know who tried to warn us about this? This guy. He wrote a book about it...oh, shit. Wait until the wokesters get a look at 1984.

You did, George. You called it. Unfortunately for those of us in 2023, you called it.

In a nutshell

Present day journalism summed up in one simple little illustration:

Via thenewcounterculture on IG.

The utter brilliance of "The Worldwide Privacy Tour" - It's funny because it's true.

So South Park decided to take on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and it was glorious!

It's been almost a week since what is, in my opinion, the best South Park episode since the pitch-perfect gentrification season. I've been wanting to blog about it, but the story keeps expanding, so every time I thought it was safe to hit "publish", more news would come out. But it's time. Let's go!

 

#1 - The episode itself.

The overall reaction is that this is one of the best episodes of South Park in years. Agreed. This episode was an embarrassment of riches. The dirty looks when they entered the cathedral for the Queen's funeral, culminating in the "Earl of Halifax" farting on the stupid wife (Is it even really South Park without fart jokes?) The world's greatest candle. The title of the "memoir" - it's called "WAAAGH", and how absolutely perfect was the delivery of that line? 

 

 

We see them flying all over the world in a private jet, which eventually gets parked in front of their new house in...not Montecito. In South Park, right across the street from Kyle, who is not happy to see them. The amazing attention to detail in the magazine covers which are only onscreen a few seconds (The Royal Rogue did a great cover-by-cover review on YouTube - it starts around the 5:50 mark). 

 

The cartoon frozen "todger" (apparently British slang for johnson). Seriously, dudes, for future reference, when writing your autobiographies there is no need to wax poetic about your bad boy and the trouble it brings. The madness of branding and how phony it is ("The problem with you is you want the results without doing the work.") Nice touch: each brand's list of attributes included "victim". The empty-headed echo chamber. And the fact that they were never identified by name, and yet no one, and I mean NO. ONE. has expressed any doubt as to who inspired this episode.

I also loved the Beatlesque Worldwide Privacy Tour logo, which is now the background on my social media accounts.

Missing: Elizabeth Arden. Harry's bald spot. The single, left-eyed tear. But not to fear, there may be future episodes featuring the Prince and Princess of Canada. God knows there's plenty more ridiculousness to be mined. It's only a half-hour show, they could only fit so much into one episode.

Lone whiff: The Queen in her coffin without a lid on it. Not cool. Not sure what the point of that was.

The episode was ultimately sympathetic to Harry, which I used to be. Initially I saw him as a besotted clod who was thinking with the wrong head. But after hearing multiple excerpts from his autobiography "Waaagh!", I mean "Spare", he revealed himself as a bitter, petty, boring, self-absorbed jerk with no appreciation for the unimaginable wealth and privilege he's spent his entire life in thanks to a mere accident of birth, and someone who is absolutely devoid of even the smallest shred of self-awareness. In his own way, he's as unpleasant as his grasping, entitled, gold-digger, and at this point equally culpable in the abuse they have heaped on his family, her family, the British people, and pretty much anyone who doesn't think they're the greatest things in the world.

Contrast the depiction of Meghan - I mean the Princess of Canada - in this episode with the description of the Princess of Canada in "Royal Pudding", which was inspired by the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton as the bride walked down the aisle: "Isn't she ravishing, so pure of heart, so strong in body, so hot in the face. She is indeed the living symbol of our great country. My God, she's beautiful." That's a long way from the hollow vessel that is the younger Prince of Canada's "Instagram-loving bitch wife".

#2: Public reaction

Like I mentioned earlier, this episode has received pretty much unanimous acclaim. I've yet to see anyone comment about it without raving and laughing about it. However, it seems there are a couple of people who weren't so impressed. Guess who!

#3: Pre-emptive strike attempt 

Prince Harry apparently tried to get the episode blocked! And was ignored! I was actually surprised to hear this. I hadn't heard a thing about it until they released the trailer just days before the episode aired. Apparently The Spare is a fan of censorship, as long as it doesn't extend to him blabbing about family members he knows can't respond publicly.

 

#4: Victimhood!!!

It's like the Underpants Gnomes: Step 1: Fuck up. Step 2: Get skewered by South Park. Step 3: Play the Victim! Just like it said on the show! Some people just never learn. They are actually having their lawyers looking into suing over the episode. I love how they blab unpleasant and personal stuff about other people, but fire up the legal system the minute there's a peep about them. Hypocrites. I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure they can't sue for satire. 

Nope, not just me.

 

Yeah, Meghan never struck me as someone who has a sense of humor about herself. I do wonder, how can one be "upset and overwhelmed" by something they claim not to have seen? Riiiiight. Let me guess, it's only okay when she and Harry publicly trash people.

 

I also love how Matt & Trey haven't said a word in response to all this. It's like they're taking a page out of the Royal Family's playbook - don't give the immature brats the satisfaction of a reaction. Let your actions speak.

South Park is a natural friggin' treasure. Also, fun factoid: South Park Studios is located just a few miles from where I live. Kinda makes you proud.

Matt & Trey vs. Harry & Meghan

I know who my money's on.

 

 

"Worldwide Privacy Tour". Heh.

 

Here's the too-brief trailer. We're going to have to wait until Wednesday night to see the whole royal smackdown.

 

"Some dumb prince and his stupid wife." South Park speaks for us all.

 

Dexter-mania. Sort of. Not really.

It was recently announced that Showtime Networks, which has had some damn fine original programming over the years (Dexter, The Tudors, Ray Donovan, Yellowjackets, and Billions, just to name a few) is being swallowed up by Paramount+ and being rebranded Paramount+ with Showtime. Beside the utterly lame new name, I'm surprised that parent company Paramount Global would let anyone mess with Showtime. It has to be one of the conglomerate's better performers. Conversely, I had Paramount+ for a couple months (to watch the South Park movies and the new episodes of Beavis & Butthead) and was less than wowed as a customer. Hence the cancellation after B&B's season concluded.

It hasn't taken long for the new Showtime to announce it's fresh new direction. As in, fresh off announcing the stupid new name comes word that they are apparently going the tiresome but predictable Hollywood route of rehashing previous titles for spinoffs and origins stories. There's other SHO properties getting the same treatment, but I'm going to address the news about Dexter because that was one of my all-time favorites and I'm less than impressed by what I'm hearing: Showtime Eyeing "Dexter" Prequel Series About Trinity Killer.

Actually, I could see a series about the early days of Trinity working well with the right casting and writing. However, this series is only under consideration at this time. Not sure why they put it in the title of the article, but whatever Deadline.

What the article is really about is that SHO has ordered two other Dexter series: Dexter: Origins, which takes up when Dexter Morgan has just graduated from college and joined the PD, and will feature younger versions of characters from the original series. Not sure I want to see other actors playing these iconic characters, as the original casting was so spot on. And Dexter's actual backstory - his mother's murder, his adoption by Harry, and Harry's attempt to funnel the kid's murderous tendencies into a more acceptable form while keeping him safe from detection - was already laid out in the original series. Which means this show isn't actually an origin story because Dexter was already formed by Harry by the time he joined the PD. He had to be - otherwise he couldn't risk joining the department while still in his training stages as it would have increased his chances of being caught. I'm just not able to get excited about this, as it sounds like they are just milking the concept at this point, rather than coming up with a new, interesting take on it. Can you just imagine that meeting?

Executive #1: "A Dexter origin series? BRILLIANT!!!"

Executive #2: "Think of the money we'll save on development! None of that pesky work creating something new, original, and exciting. God, I love this job."

Executive Buzzkill: "Uh, guys...we got a problem here..."

Executive #1: "I don't see a problem."

Executive Buzzkill: "Yeah, because you probably also haven't seen the original series. All of Dexter's background - from when he was a baby found by Harry at the scene of his mother's murder, Harry's discovery of his psychopathy, how he tried to direct that compulsion into only killing people who deserved it, to Dexter's first kill (and boy, how awkward was that) and all the while fine-tuning the skills he needed to pass as somewhat normal..."

Executive #1: "Exactly! I LOVE IT!!!"

Executive Buzzkill: "BUT THEY ALREADY DID IT IN THE ORIGINAL SERIES!"

Executive #2: "Whut?"

Executive Buzzkill: "They already showed all his backstory in the original series."

Stunned silence.

Executive #1: "Buzzkill, you're fired."

Executive #2: "Wait, how about this? We show him when he's just starting out at Miami Metro PD! That part hasn't been done yet!"

Executive Buzzkill (rises from chair, heads for door): "But we've already seen him at PD."

Executive #2: "Not the early part of it!"

Executive Buzzkill (opens door): "So it's Dexter, Crime Scene Investigator, The Early Years?"

Executive #1: "BRILLIANT!!! Buzzkill, you're hired!"

Executive Buzzkill (closes door, sits back down): "But what will we call it then?"

Executive #2: "CSI: Miami?"

Executive #1: "Don't be stupid, that's been done. We'll still call it Origins. The public is too stupid to know the difference."

Executive #2: "Brilliant. Love it."

Even worse IMO is that Showtime has also ordered what is being described as the "next chapter" of Dexter: New Blood, described as "the kinds of themes and scenarios seen in the original series but through a new lens". So basically, it's Dexter without Dexter. Also from the article, "Although not confirmed, based on the Season 1 finale, the new lens provided would be from Dexter's grown-up son Harrison...". And by grown-up son they mean the whiny, angsty teen who, outraged by a murder his father committed, murdered his father. Yes, the Harrison sequel that absolutely NO ONE was clamoring for. Welcome to the new Showtime!

Actually, based on this franchise's track record, they'll do a bang up job on these shows until the finale, where they'll totally eff up everything that came before and piss off pretty much the entire fan base.

He is the boss. You are the peons. Pay up. Or don't, he doesn't care.

Backstreets, the long-time Bruce Springsteen fanzine, has shuttered in protest over astronomic ticket prices for Springsteen's current tour. Aw, that's cute. You guys thought someone insanely rich and famous cared about you, the little people. Adorbs.

That was mean. I do feel for his fans. They've been devoted and bought into the "everyman" mystique for decades. Backstreets began publishing in 1980 and has been kept going ever since by the fans, for the fans, meaning a lot of people put forty years of time and effort into creating and supporting something in honor of someone they admired and probably in many cases, idolized. And guess what The Boss himself has to say about the pricing? From the Deadline article linked above:

Springsteen himself made no apologies for the rising prices. He told Rolling Stone that he typically told his handlers to align ticket prices with what “everybody else is doing,” then charge a little less.

But that changed. “This time I told them, ‘Hey, we’re 73 years old. The guys are there. I want to do what everybody else is doing, my peers.’ So that’s what happened. That’s what they did…. I know it was unpopular with some fans, but if there’s any complaints, they can have your money back.” 

Unpopular??? How nice. How about betrayed? We all know that that last statement is basically, "If you don't like it, stuff it. Stay home. Keep your filthy peasant money. I don't need it." And if that doesn't sting enough Springsteen faithful, keep in mind it's coming from a man with a net worth of about $650 million. He owns multiple homes. His daughter rides horses that cost more than some of his fans annual income. He hasn't been an "everyman", but a rich, famous celebrity for many, many years. Decades. A lifetime.

I went on TicketMaster to check out tickets and initially it looked like, at least in some venues, you can get in for a decent price if you buy the tickets directly from them, assuming you do it early on. But TicketMaster also has what it refers to as "Verified Resale", which is a boatload of the seats that aren't available for the venue's prices, and that's when the prices start to skyrocket into the high hundreds and even thousands of dollars. There's also something called dynamic pricing which seems to be involved in jacking up prices. Plus, they're selling tickets for seating behind the stage, which to me seems the epitome of greed. Who they hell wants to watch a concert from behind the stage? And some of those seats are a couple hundred dollars. That's crazy.

Oh, and let's also add in the fact that at least in the U.S. the economy is in the toilet, costs of basic needs like groceries, gas, and electricity have skyrocketed, and our dollars are worth way less than they were even a couple years ago. I can tell you from personal experience that many people don't have the expendable income, or faith in our financial situation and future to feel comfortable spending chunks of money that we would have, a couple of years ago. Just a friendly reminder not to vote for someone just because your favorite rock star told you to.

Apparently this kerfuffle started last July, when Backstreets published a piece called "Freeze-Out" about the sky-high ticket prices that included comments like this:

We're feeling old, listening to the outcries of fans feeling similarly betrayed by last week's ticket sales, and remembering that things were different a decade ago.

...when Ticketmaster's first U.S. onsales for the 2023 Tour left many Bruce Springsteen fans in a state of shocked disbelief.

 From our point of view, this so-called premium, algorithm-driven model violates an implicit contract between Bruce Springsteen and his fans, one in which the audience side of the equation appeared to truly matter...We believed it because he told us repeatedly it was true. 

Bruce Springsteen tickets have been historically and notoriously difficult to obtain. That's the nature of the beast, with so many wanting to witness the power and the glory of rock 'n' roll, and relatively few seats to hold them. But the issue has rarely been the money.

But the ideals of Springsteen's music put forward - they're still alive, aren't they? ...If one can't say yes - if only for a few hours every so often - then maybe the magic really is just tricks. 

Springsteen has been paid a king's ransom, and we've never begrudged him that, either. Not the reported $500 million sale of his life's work, which hardly fazed us, not the Broadway prices, not the Jeep commercial. We believe in the value of his music, his work; those other transactions and the arenas in which they take place feel beyond out purview. 

My research apparently didn't even scratch the surface - Backstreets included this image at the end of the post:

Jaysus. I can see why they're feeling crushed.

Just below this image is a post entitled "Dynamic Pricing: A Fucking Shitshow" if you want to learn more about that. I don't, this post is about the fans and the artist, not the business side of things. But apparently this is a tool to potentially jack up the cost to fans and in many cases, price them out.

It looks like Bruce feels secure enough in his financial security and legendary rock God status to not even work up the appearance of righteous indignation on behalf of the faithful. His response, via Rolling Stone? The aforementioned "keep your money" comment. Also, it looks like Deadline did a little bit of creative editing on his comments - here's how they actually read in RS (bold mine):

This time I told them, “Hey, we’re 73 years old. The guys are there. I want to do what everybody else is doing, my peers.” So that’s what happened. That’s what they did [laughs].

This is what's known as laughing all the way to the bank. I'm sure his devoted, long-time fans see the humor in that and hilarity will ensue.

But if there’s any complaints on the way out, you can have your money back.

Sure you can. Good luck getting your refund from TicketMaster or any of its "Verified Resellers" after the fact. He's basically telling his fans to pound sand.

All of which has led Backstreets to this. Some excerpts:

If you read the editorial Backstreets published last summer in the aftermath of the U.S. ticket sales, you have a sense of where our heads and hearts have been: dispirited, downhearted, and yes, disillusioned. It's not a feeling we're at all accustomed to while anticipating a new Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band tour.

Judging by the letters we've received over recent months, the friends and longtimers we've been checking in with, and the response to our editorial, disappointment is a common feeling among hardcore fans in the Backstreets community. 

When I revisit that writing now, it reads like a cry for help; most discouraging was that six month went by with no lifeline thrown.

These are concerts that we can hardly afford; that many of our readers cannot afford; and that a good portion of our readership has lost interest in as a result. (Bold mine - keep in mind these are some of Springsteen's most ardent, long-term fans.)

Whatever the eventual asking price at showtime and whether an individual buyer finds it fair, we simply realized that we would not be able to cover this tour with the drive and sense of purpose with which we've operated continuously since 1980. That determination came with a quickening sense that we'd reached the end of an era.  

Yes, you have.

"I spent most of my life as a musician measuring the distance between the American Dream and American reality." -Bruce Springsteen

Yes, you have.

And it's been pretty damn lucrative for you. But the difference between your American Dream and the reality of your fans - who have made you rich and famous - has become your greatest irony and hypocrisy.

My sympathy to the fans.

January Words of Wisdom

Quite the range this month. --Me 

I'll read my books and I'll drink coffee and I'll listen to music, and I'll bolt the door. --J.D. Salinger

Some people don't understand that sitting in your own house alone in peace, eating snacks and minding your business is priceless. --Tom Hardy

 

Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist. --Pablo Picasso

 

Beauty is quietly woven through our ordinary days. Everywhere there is tenderness, care, and kindness there is beauty. --John O'Donohue

Nobody can tell you if what you're doing is good, meaningful, or worthwhile. The more compelling the path, the more lonely it is. --Hugh MacLeod

 

I do my best thinking at night when everyone else is sleeping. No interruptions. No noise. I like the feeling of being awake when no one else is. --Jennifer Niven

 

Life without a design is erratic. --Seneca

 

In Greek tragedy, they fall from great heights. In noir, they fall from the curb. --Dennis Lahane

 

Don't be upset by the result you didn't get by the work you didn't do. --Unknown

 

Procrastination is like a credit card. It's a lot of fun until you get the bill. --Christopher Parker

 

You become what you give your attention to...If you yourself don't choose what thoughts and images you expose yourself to, someone else will, and their motives may not be the highest. --Epictetus

I think it's very important that you make your own decision about what you are. Therefore, you're responsible for your actions, so you don't blame other people. --William, Prince of Wales

Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius. --Fulton J. Sheen

Toxic people project their own character defects onto their victims. They do this by accusing the victim of the exact actions they themselves do but deny. --Shannon Thomas

 

 

 

And, as an addendum to yesterday's post...

This just popped up as a "sponsored post" ad on my Instagram feed.

Guess who went shopping for health insurance yesterday? Yep, -> this girl! <-

 

Also, L.A. Care - which I've never heard of before yesterday - seemed sketchy, so I went with another company. Just sayin'. Also, it wasn't free. Not even cheap. So they've got the truthiness in advertising thing going on as well.