SICKOFITRADLZ: 30 classic TV shows I love

Kat's "30 classic TV shows I love" and Stan's "Fatty McCain and her eternal whine plus 30 shows I love" inspired Ruth and me to do the same -- so be sure to check out Ruth tonight too.

1) Will & Grace

2) Girlfriends

3) The Nanny

4) Everybody Hates Chris

5) The Mary Tyler Moore Show

6) The Bionic Woman

7) Space 1999

8) Star Trek

9) Star Trek Voyager

10) How To Get Away With Murder

11) Land of the Lost

12) Deep Space Nine

13) Revenge

14) Nikita

15) Happy Endings

16) The New Adventures of Old Christine

17) What's Happening

18) Square Pegs

19) The Facts of Life

20) Sense8

21) Grace & Frankie

22) Fringe

23) The Secret City

24) Mindhunter

25) The Night Stalker

26) The Twilight Zone

27) The Carol Burnette Show

28) The L Word

29) Ellen

30) SCANDAL

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, December 5, 2024. Trump and his embarrassing nominees -- including the little bitty boy who needs to hide behind his Mommy.

Satan's set to return to the White House January 20th. He was supposed to be prepared and this was going to be a drama free transition -- or at least as drama free as mincing Queen Bone Spurs could manage. Project 2025 in hand, he was going to show something different. He even agreed to tone down the ridiculous orange foundation that had been his beauty trade mark for a decade or so. But just as the last weeks have demonstrated how old and tired Trump actually is, lessening his orange make up has also emphasized his age, revealing facial skin akin to Mae West in SEXTETTE. He's older -- 78 -- he's fatter -- 319 pounds -- and he's dumber.

And it's really showing.

Zac Anderson (USA TODAY) reports:

Under bipartisan pressure to clear the way for more extensive vetting of his administration picks, President elect-Donald Trump's transition team announced Tuesday they entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice for background checks and security clearances.

Of course he is. The people he says he's going to nominate when he's president are disasters. He won't be sworn in for his term for over another month and the whole world is laughing at him -- un gran idiota in Mexico. This is a way for him to try to spread the blame around.

Already, alleged sex trafficker and rapist Matt Gaetz has been forced to flee. Gong are his dreams of being Attorney General of the United States. There are others in peril but let's zoom in on one that is especially illustrative of just how deeply stupid Donald Trump is. Zachary Folk (THE DAILY BEAST) reported yesterday:

Sheriff Chad Chronister, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration, withdrew himself from consideration to lead the federal agency on Tuesday night, instead adopting to remain sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida.

In a statement post on social media on Tuesday, Chronister thanked the president-elect and called the nomination an “honor of a lifetime,” but said he was withdrawing his name from consideration.

Huh? What did this nut job do? His job. Ariano Baio (INDEPENDENT) explains, "President-elect Donald Trump admitted that he un-nominated Chad Chronister from Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) administrator after learning the sheriff publicly scolded and arrested a Florida pastor for hosting large church services during the pandemic." He probably would have been Trump's best nominee.

Notice just how stupid Trump is: He should have known this. His cult wasn't going to go for it. But no one did their damn work -- not fat ass, not any of them. So after his name is released to the press, they learn what they should have known already.

That goes to how stupid Trump is and it goes to how much danger he's already putting the country in. Nut job Tulsi Gabbard? Trashy Garbage, as Trina's dubbed her for years, has held hands and played footsie with Bashar al-Assad. She's a psycho nut job who can't be trusted with national intelligence -- let alone to become the Director of National Intelligence. While she was part of the DNC, it is rumored she leaked the Hillary Clinton data to WIKILEAKS. She didn't get her way in 2016 -- she backed Bernie -- so she leaked data to WIKILEAKS. That's that accusation.

She's going to be in charge of national intelligence. Someone credibly accused of leaking information because she didn't get her way?

Wow. Imagine how many times, as DNI, she might not get her way -- hint, that would be several times on a daily basis. If we're 'lucky,' she'll only be leaking to the press and only about employees and officials who've upset her. If we're not so lucky, she's on the phone with Putin or RT (they love her at RT) leaking national intelligence. Trump doesn't take her advice on bombing Generic Muslim Country That He Hates and she's on the phone to Russia to tell them a strike's about to take place.

How do you trust anyone like that -- anyone credible charged with leaking private documents?

The thing with crazy crooked Tulsi is, she wouldn't be confirmed if a vote were taken today. The cult is just too much. Republican senators are hearing from their constituents that 'this is a Christian nation and she's a member of a cult.' They can't fight for Tulsi. They'd also look like hypocrites because of them have used that very argument ('this is a Christian nation') as an argument for their vile and racist policies. I guess the party that's killing DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) now has a patch of road they can't cross when it comes to backing cult member Tulsi and 'guru' Chris who she owes everything too and has pledged to share everything with since he's the head of her cult. Everything. That would presumably include national security information. Guru Chris must be seeing the prospect of DNI Tulsi as a rainmaker and finally he can have the cult do something other than harass people at airports.

And then there's Pete Hegseth who Trump wants to make Secretary of Defense.

As Lawrence O'Donnell notes in the video above, in an attempt to rescue him, Pete's had to deploy his Mommy to go make the case for him.

A 44 year old man needing to hide behind Mommy.

Community member Sabina made a point in a roundtable we did Monday. She works for city government. There was a total loser -- F G -- that worked with her at the City of Dallas government. He wasn't married. He had multiple children. He was in his late 30s. He lived at home with his parents. (Not with any of his children living there, just FYI.) He blew every check on himself and he rarely came to work. When he did -- doesn't say a lot for the City of Dallas supervisors -- he'd disappear for four hours or more and he'd do that by transferring his calls to his cell phone so people didn't know he'd left. He scanned building plans into the system. And no one apparently ever checked on him. He was constantly just refusing to go to work. After he went two weeks without showing up, his mom came to the job to please with his supervisor not to fire him. He kept his job -- shouldn't have, but he did -- but he lost all respect in the workplace. People who didn't even know him before this went down heard about him as a result of Mommy going to his job to plead and beg with his boss not to fire him, to promise that she'd make sure he showed up for work.

That's really where we are now with Pete Hegseth.

An overgrown, immature boy who is hiding behind Mommy.

"I Won't Back Down" -- Lawrence notes that's the title of the column Pete Hegseth wrote for THE WALL STREET JOURNAL this week. I guess it's only a matter of days before Mommy Hegseth writes the follow up column "I Won't Let My Little Boy Back Down."

Secretary of Defense? He can't even defend himself.

Hiding behind Mommy his whole life. And he can't see the strength of women?

William Vaillancourt (THE DAILY BEAST) notes:

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin praised female members of the armed forces, while his potential replacement, Pete Hegseth–who has said women have no place in combat–tries to shore up confirmation support among Republican senators.

In a West Point address Wednesday, Austin recalled one experience while serving in Iraq in 2003, in which he positioned his command post near the action.

“I told my team, ‘Look, we need to win this fight, so I need to be at the front,’ Austin told the audience. ”‘I know what will happen to me if I’m captured. I have no intention of being captured, and I will fight to the last bullet. But the risks are serious. I am enormously proud of all of you, and that won’t ever change. So, if anyone here thinks that they can’t deploy forward, I fully understand, and no one will ever think any less of you.‘"

Austin continued: “The women and men of that incredible team looked at me, and finally one of the women popped up and said, ‘Sir, what are you talking about?’”

You know what I'm remembering too? In 2009, when then President Barack Obama nominated Tammy Duckworth to a VA position, not only did that Iraq War veteran get confirmed, she did it without ever asking Mommy to go on TV and to visit with senators to try to get her the job she was to weak to fight for herself.

Women are more than strong enough to handle the military.

It appears the weak sister here is Pete Hegseth and maybe that explains the many public episodes of Little Petey being drunk and maybe it explains how, at 44, you are now on marriage number three. That really doesn't indicate the stability required to be Secretary of Defense.

Mike's the main one covering Pete in this community:

Hegseth keeps hitting the fan

James Bond and super villain Pete Hegseth

The Hegseth has hit the fan

Last night, he noted that they're testing the waters to see if Ron DeSantis or Joni Ernst could replace him because that's how embarrassing Pete Hegseth has become.

We addressed Pete's 'qualifications' at length on November 19th:

Let's note Satanic Trump's unqualified nominees. Pete Hegseth is not qualified to be the secretary of any department. You didn't have to go left to find a qualified candidate. There are people serving in leadership of the military that could have been elevated. There are people in the Senate who are Republicans who would be qualified -- Joni Ernst, Mike Rounds, Roger Wicker, Bill Cassidy, etc.

They have the knowledge base. Hegseth doesn't have the knowledge base or the experience. What he does have is a sad and drunken assault. It was seven years ago. It is not the distant past. He was 37 years old. David Kurtz (TPM) notes:

More details emerged over the weekend about the sexual assault claim against Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of defense.

The WaPo was first with extensive new information about the circumstance of the alleged sexual assault, based on (i) a memo it obtained that was provided to the Trump transition team late Wednesday by a friend of the victim; and (ii) a statement from Hegseth’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore.

The woman later reported the alleged assault to police, but no charges were ever filed:

According to the police statement, the complaint was filed four days after the encounter, and the complainant had bruises to her thigh. The police report itself was not released.

Hegseth settled the woman’s claim for an undisclosed amount, and she signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Trump is standing by Hegseth in the face of the undisclosed settlement of the sexual assault claim.

That's reason enough not to confirm him.

But he's also not qualified for the job.

He shouldn't be confirmed. He shouldn't even be nominated. He's not fit to oversee the Pentagon -- he does not have the background. If the nomination was to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs, I'd have a few problems -- mainly around the issues of female veterans. And I would also question his ability to oversee any department because he just doesn't have that experience -- not in his military service and not in his civilian experience.

This is a huge department that is taxed with many, many duties including ensuring the US military is prepared.

What in Hegseth's past experience argues that he knows a thing about hiring or recruiting, for example?

The last Senate hearing on military readiness was eleven months ago.

At that hearing, US Army Maj Gen Johnny Davis spoke on a number of topics including the statements below:

Today's youth are far more likely to pursue education beyond high school. Currently,

high school seniors and recent graduates account for more than 50% of our annual

contracts. However, they only represent 15-20% of the labor market. We will transform

our prospecting to expand into a greater representation of the labor market and enter

the larger prospect pool. In addition to the high school market, we will target those with

more than a high school diploma, this includes a college degree, some college, or a

technical certification. By FY 2028, it is our goal for one third of new recruits to have

more than a high school diploma. We are growing our analytical capability to incentivize and position our recruiting force, tailor marketing based on segmentation, and place our recruiters in the right place with the right training, products, and tools. Our quarterly Industry Engagement Program allows us to identify new tools to improve operations across the enterprise.

As we transform how the Army prospects for talent, we will continue to innovate and

leverage data analytics, artificial Intelligence (AI), and Machine Learning (ML) to quickly

identify the right talent and provide tailored messaging to potential talent. We are

expanding our presence on both social media and digital job boards to communicate the

Army's Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Expanding our market is critical to

accomplishing the mission today and in the future.

What does Hegseth know about hiring practices, recruitment and retention? Nothing. Can he address, off the top of his head, the issue of evidence-based learning capability? Does he know what a command wide retention surge is? If so, does he approve or does he think it's a waste of time. Each of the four branches needs to be adequately staffed (the Air Force didn't make the goal in 2023). How does Hegseth plan to address this. Does he have an overall plan or is he going to propose piece meal strategies?

He wants this office why? How does he see himself delivering in this office?

Where does he stand on waivers?

Due to his plethora of body markings, I'd assume he is okay with tattoos. But what about age restrictions -- what his top end for someone serving in combat? On drug tests, what's his wait window on retesting -- 60 days, 90 days, less, more? And why? Drug testing does include testing for alcohol.

ESaR has been a semi-successful recruiting tool for the Navy (Every Sailor a Recruiter). Is that a policy Hegseth agrees with? Why or why not?

The Navy's "Make Your Name" series has been successful in recruiting -- noting women's roles and experiences serving in the Navy. It's a fairly inexpensive recruiting tool and it has been successful. Does he endorse this recruiting tool? If not, why not? If not, is it because he has a limited view of what women can do in the military?

Grasp that -- without him -- women have been moving up in the ranks in the military. Are these women going to hit a glass ceiling if he becomes the Secretary? How is he planning to address these issues? How is going to maintain the US military's competitive edge?

Guess what, those are very basic questions about basic duties and that's before we get beyond workforce issues. I see nothing in his background that demonstrates experience with those type of issues.

Again, we still haven't gotten to other issues that include oversight, combat, military exercises and partnering with the VA to improve the transition from veteran to soldier. On that last one? I don't think he has expertise but I think his experience -- personal -- could compensate for the lack of expertise. I do not feel that way about any other responsibility that he would be tasked with should he become the Secretary of Defense.

The US Army is supposed to be refocusing with an emphasis on LSCO (Large-Scale Combat Operations). That is one of the defined 2025 goals. Hegseth will pursue that how?

These are not minor details. And you can't learn it on the job, not as Secretary of Defense. That means being over the defense of this country so Americans are entitled to expect someone in that role to have actual experience.

Hegseth has none.

Again, this isn't a right-or-left issue. There are Republicans who are qualified for this post. Hegseth is not one of them. Any sitting senator on the Armed Services Committee is qualified for the post.

They would know the issues needing to be addressed before they were even sworn into office.

Hegseth doesn't know the issues, he's never overseen any workforce -- let alone a workforce as large as the Defense Dept -- and he would put military readiness at risk as the whole world had to wait for him to learn on the job and familiarize himself with tasks and concepts that he's honestly not suited for.

--------------

End of excerpt.

Hey, maybe if Trump puts US troops on the ground in another country and the losses mount, Pete's Mommy can go over there and beg for a do-over for her little boy?

Tuesday, the African American Policy Forum had a roundtable entitled "Views from the 92%: Black Women Reflect on 2024 Election and Road Ahead." Professor of law Kimberle Crenshaw observed at the start, "Conversations are going forward with us being relegated to a time out space." Black women were largely silenced before the election and this has continued. Now when it came to trashing the first Black woman to seriously run for president, DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE NATION, THE PROGESSIVE, IN THESE TIMES, COMMON DREAMS, etc. Along with Kimberle, the participants included THE WASHINGTON POST's Karen Attiah, iONE DIGITAL's Kirsten West Savali, Black Voters Matter Fund's LaTosha Brown, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and Convener of Black Women's Roundtable's Melanie Campbell, the National Council of Negro Women's Shavon Arline-Bradley, the Transformative Justice Coalition, Atlanta Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta's Fran Phillips-Calhoun and Higher Heights' Glynda Carr.

Excerpt:

Melanie Campbell: But the reality is that we've got to figure out how we build our political power in this country where we're not beholden to a party or to anyone else. The late Dr Ron Walters always used to talk about how we have to unite. We have to figure out how we fund our politics so that we're not beholden to those who pull the funding streams. The other thing is that we do write checks. There's got to be -- One of the things that's disturbing for me is that you don't see -- right now, we're talking about four people who they're talking about who are up for the position to be the head of the Democratic Party. Why don't we see a woman? Why is there not a Black woman? If we voted 92% for the [presidential] candidate, why are we not even seeing one Black woman in the running or in the discussion? So that's one of the things that I see that we have to address. And that's how we deal with our money and make demands because we do write checks, right? And the other has to do with how we find ways to fund our politics. Until we do that, I think we'll always be in that position.

Kimberle Crenshaw: Yeah. And thank you so much. This is also the-the recognition that we need to support our institutions, our own institutions. There was a lot of fund raising that was done, you know, by Black folks but it didn't necessarily target Black institutions that have greater capacity to reach our own people. So on that note, let me toss it for a moment to our correspondent Dr Kaye who's going to uplift some of the comments in the chat and also talk about Black institutions on Giving Tuesday. So, Kaye, take it away.

Kaye Wise Whitehead: Thank you so much, Kim. Like everybody, all I'm doing is hearting and thumbs up throughout the conversation. The chat has been absolutely on fire. People are really engaging in real moment. I want to lift up some of the things that people have said so far. Shirley said that this reminds us that like VP Harris said we aren't going back. If our detractors think that for one minute that Black women are going to hide under a rock, they've got another thing coming. Loretta followed it up and said look every White pundit denies the persistence of White supremist thinking while they blame Harris' campaign -- a blame the victim strategy they always employ. Suzanna came in and built on that and said that when the media says "working class," they mean White working class. Yes, Suzanna, absolutely. Kim, you talked about you're waiting for someone to call the boycott on Walmart [Walmart donated exclusively to Trump, donated to Project 2025 and announced the end of diversity int heir employment]. In response to that, Hermaine said look I like the idea of voting with our pocketbooks. We need to make sure we circulate all those companies we need to target and not support. And then Bonita, we'll end with her, she shared as Democrats we must demand changes in the Democratic Party from top down. Joy Reid's analysis shows us that our money -- their money -- went to big ad buys not to Black media and not to Black community organizations or organizers. So there has been some amazing comments to our very important and significant and heartfelt conversation that is only happening here thanks to the wonderful work that's being done by AAPF -- the African American Policy Forum -- and all the organizations on this call especially during these challenging times. This is how we build community. The work has never been more urgent. I'm happy we're here on Giving Tuesday, Kim, because what better way to move forward and plant those seeds is supporting all the organizations that we are hearing from tonight as well as supporting AAPF by donating so that we can continue to make good trouble. Alright, Kim, I'll toss it back to you.

Kimberle Crenshaw: Thank you, thank you, Kaye. And at the bottom, we are going to list all of the organizations that were part of this consortium -- research consortium -- that led to many of the talking points and efforts that if folks were serious about reaching Black voters we suggested from our research, this would be the way that they talk to them. So let me come back to Karen to talk a little bit as the sole Black woman op-ed writer at THE WASHINGTON POST. So one thing that stood out looking back at that reel [of coverage of sexist and racist tropes deployed throughout the lead up to the general election] in the face of that, THE WASHINGTON POST's decision not to endorse the first Black woman presidential candidate symbolize at least neutrality with respect to the misogynoir that we saw. Let's remember THE POST endorsed [Barack] Obama, the first Black man who won, Hillary Clinton the first woman. So now we have a Black woman running against Trump and having endorsed his opponents two times in the past, they flinched. So much like Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, we now see billionaires using their influence to effectively disable the fourth estate. As you wrote recently, "The way democracy dies in darkness, is if journalism is left to die in cowardice." So I want to combine two questions to you. First, how do you assess the damage that was done not only to Harris' campaign but also to democracy. And then, more importantly, what do we need to know now about the make up of the media, who's in it, and, more importantly, where are we in it -- so we have a sense of where we need to fight in our future.

Karen Attiah: [Laughing] What do I say without getting fined out? Obviously, the decision to -- and as I wrote in my op-ed -- as I joined my colleagues in the letter sent that we published with other columnists. The decision to effectively block the planned endorsement for Harris came as a media strike. Again, you know, and as I said, and as I said on Twitter, it was a betrayal and a stab in the back for many of us in the course of our jobs who put our reputations and, frankly, our safety and our lives sometimes on the line to be able to stand up to authoritarians. And so understandably with the outrage -- and I've seen it in the comments that there is -- this does not lead to trust in the media. Right? The flip side of this is an uncomfortable truth: It's that when people own the paper, they frankly can do what they want. Right? I think part of this is -- and I think that coupled with Elon Musk and Twitter, I think that back to back in a back to back shocking way perhaps laid bare the realities of raw power and oligarchy in our society. And there's been a reason why, for the longest time, from William Randolph Hearst to the big oligarchs, it's always been thus. It's just laid bare in real time for a lot of people. So what does that mean? That is going to mean -- and frankly, you know, in a city that has for so long been a majority Black city, Washington, DC, it is hard for me to see how the community, the Black community, the residents of Washington, D.C. would ever forget this.

Now let's note BLUESKY.

Danielle says it all about the nonsense attacks on trans people. On BLUESKY, Daniel Villarreal (LGBTQ NATION) reports:

The anti-LGBTQ+ social media account Libs of TikTok, run by Chaya Raichik, has allegedly been banned from the microblogging platform Bluesky.

The account — which has inspired death threats against children, educators, and medical professionals — is just one of several anti-LGBTQ+ accounts that have found themselves unwelcome on Bluesky. Progressive social media users have increasingly flocked to it as an escape from the increasingly right-wing site X, owned by transphobic Republican billionaire Elon Musk.

Yet another reason to abandon Twitter and move to BLUESKY.

The following sites updated: