More of the same Christian bashing content from Hollywood, people of faith feared after hearing the proposed show. The offensive show title was merely the icing on the devil’s food cake.

ABC blinked on the name controversy, switching it to “Good Christian Belles” before simplifying matters with “GCB.” But our first peek at the new series, which doesn’t debut until March, shows that the content will still rile Christians.

The initial “GCB” teaser above appears rather harmless, as a gaggle of Christian ladies stir up old hostilities toward a woman who once gave them fits in high school.

The new show peek, exclusive to The Huffington Post, paints a far less flattering portrait of the aforementioned “Belles.”

Star Kristin Chenoweth, an actress of faith off screen, quotes the Psalms in the show preview as a way to smite the bad girl from back in their day (played by Leslie Bibb). The clip’s big moment comes when we learn how Bibb’s character’s husband died. Suffice to say he was being unfaithful and suffered the painful consequences. Once the GCBers stop giggling over how he died Chenoweth’s character gets them back in line.

“Ladies, it is not appropriate to speak of such things on the phone. I’ll see you at church,” Chenoweth purrs.

It’s my guess that with the protests from GLAAD gearing up, ABC felt it would be hopeless to try and defend (note to Canada, you can probably take Detroit).

It also bespeaks a certain prejudice inside of GLAAD who has never said a word about Tyler Perry, Martin Lawrence or Eddie Murphy (who was once known to be quite transvestite-friendly despite his transvestite comedy). Of course, GLAAD has never been terribly courageous about confronting the black community. Political correctness forbids crossing racial lines.

This might reveal a hint as to why GLAAD felt empowered to attack “Work It.” The plot revolved around two men who are forced into women’s clothing just to get a job. Don’t they know that only women are discriminated against in the workplace (and only make three-fourths of a man’s salary)? Perhaps the writers’ ignorance of Women’s Studies 101 made GLAAD think it had been written by conservatives.

“Work It” seemed more of a rip off of “Bosom Buddies,” an equally forgettable sitcom remembered chiefly for launching the careers of Tom Hanks and the other guy, whose name I can’t remember (I think it was Andrew Ridgeley).

I don’t take issue with ABC for pulling the plug. Only half the audience from the show’s premier came back for the second episode (personally, I didn’t even make it to the first commercial). But that doesn’t mean transvestites aren’t funny; they have been a staple of comedy for generations.

I imagine that the first man in a dress routine predated Milton Berle, but that’s all the further back my ambition will let me research (Berle’s tag was the biggest thief in comedy, so I’m quite certain it wasn’t original). The memory of Uncle Miltie trying to walk in high heels, while smoking a cigar, still makes me laugh to this day.

I know that He-Shes were a very popular portion of Circus sideshows and would probably still be today if television hadn’t killed the freak show.

Some of the great movie classics were based on the gender reversal. “Some Like It Hot” saw Tony Curtis and Jack Lemon playing remarkably attractive women. Writers would often find an excuse to put Cary Grant and Bob Hope in women’s clothing, and who can forget Gilligan insisting that he’s not going to dress like a girl? (“You can’t make me, you can’t make me…”)

Probably the funniest cross-dressers were the cast of “Monty Python.” Originally excused by the performers as a means to keep the show under budget, the female characters played by the all-male troupe were some of the show’s most comical moments. It started a tradition in television that inspired other great comedies like “Kids in the Hall,” “Little Britain,” and “Portlandia” here in America.  Whereas the Pythons were farcical, modern men actually seem to have mastered the art of playing convincing women. Today, Eddie Izzard packs the theaters doing straight stand-up in full drag.

For the comedy geeks, the reason why drag is funny is because putting a man in a feminine role gives the performer the ability to illustrate the difference between the sexes. It is funny to the eye, but it also allows the performer to make a comic statement about how men and women are expected to act.

Ultimately, the Transgenders of America are tired of being laughed at. They think that if we raise enough awareness, a three hundred pound woman with an Adam’s apple will stop being funny. Unfortunately, it’s just not the case.

GLAAD is a cancer on all things free speech. They make the backers of the old Production Code  and those anti-Communist Blacklisters look like look like Marxist libertines.

The ABC comedy “Work It” doesn’t even premiere until Jan, 3, and already it’s invoking ire from rights groups.

The series has sparked anger from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign, who argue that the series could prove harmful to transgendered individuals.

The series stars Ben Koldyke (“How I Met Your Mother”) and Amaury Nolasco (“Prison Break”) as two friends and former coworkers who, unemployed and desperate, take to cross-dressing in order to get hired by a pharmaceutical company that’s looking for female sales reps.

The concept spurred an angry message from GLAAD, which argued that, while the show “does not explicitly address transgender people, many home viewers unfamiliar with the realities of being transgender will still make the connection. ‘Work It’ invites the audience to laugh at images of men trying to adopt a feminine appearance, thereby also making it easier to mock people whose gender identity and expression are different than the one they were assigned at birth.”

GLAAD took particular offense to a print ad for the series, in which the two main characters stand side-by-side at a pair of urinals, while dressed as women.

“Not only does it inadvertently further notions that transgender identities are humorous or artificial, but imagery like this are one of the first things anti-LGBT activists resort to when trying to deny transgender people protections against discrimination,” GLAAD argues.

Oh shut up, you fascist, un-American crybabies.

Because GLAAD believes that anyone who falls under an LGB or T should somehow be immune from satire, these bullies attempt to make the absurd claim that obvious humor will turn into bigotry.

And of course, spineless, gutless leftist Hollywood always falls right in line.

When this squeak qualifies as pushback, all is lost.

The Five for Fighting singer/songwriter is teaming up with celebrated ‘Wicked’ songwriter/lyricist Stephen Schwartz for ‘Someone Like Me,’ a new, music-driven drama for ABC, according to Variety:

[The show] explores the lives of two sisters. One is a singer-songwriter legend, the other forever in her shadow; their worlds collide as adults, sending their family and friends spinning — especially a 17-year-old girl whose own talents are exploding.

Ondrasik and Schwartz will write original music for the series, which was initially conceived by the songwriters along with Dawn Soler, senior VP of music at ABC.

Ondrasik and Schwartz will serve as executive producers along with Richard B. Lewis (‘August Rush’) and Karen Janszen (‘A Dolphin Tale’), who will also write the script.

‘Footloose’ might be underperforming at the box office, but a television show fusing music and drama makes total sense. ‘Glee’ cornered the market on Karaoke-style numbers, but here’s betting Ondrasik and Schwartz have something far more ambitious up their sleeves.

They never come right out and say they love to lose. Instead, when their movie of choice loses the Oscar to “Crash,” they say things like, “Hollywood’s homophobia could be on par with Pat Robertson’s.” The case of “Crash” versus “Brokeback Mountain” turned into an absolutely hilarious pissing match that saw liberals clamoring to stake their claim to being at least as liberal as the next whiny liberal.

About the only thing liberals love more than losing is claiming they’ve been victims of — gasp! — censorship! If I seem like I’m making light of — gasp! — censorship! it’s because, well, I am.

In the vast majority of cases of — gasp! — censorship! there has in fact been no censorship.

Take Harvey Weinstein’s latest claim.  The Hollywood Reporter reports that ABC asked for three cuts to the trailer for “Our Idiot Brother,” on the basis that three shots violated its “long established ad-guidelines.” Where you and I might see an entity exercising its right to purchase and air WHATEVER THE HELL THEY CHOOSE TO PURCHASE AND AIR, Harvey sees an opportunity to reassert himself as the undisputed champion of hemming and hawing about so called censorship. The Weinstein Company quickly cut together a new red band trailer, which Harvey knew would be useless without a press release that made him look like a victim. Putting on a happy face, Harvey proclaimed, ““We’d like to dedicate our new red band trailer for Our Idiot Brother to censorship everywhere. Enjoy!”

Is this censorship? No really. I’m asking: Is. This. Censorship?

If a writer pens a spec script, sends it to The Weinstein Company (TWC) and TWC rejects it, refuses to buy it, or film it, or distribute; has that writer been censored?

I find these kinds of claims fascinating. The Super Bowl has in the last few years become a bizarre battleground for claims of censorship. There was the whole Janet Jackson affair, which was either a fiasco or an unbridled success, depending on your point of view. I recall a story in Rolling Stone, in which some journalist wrote- … … …  …

(Sorry. I was laughing hysterically at the idea of Rolling Stone employing journalists to do journalism, and a swallow of Newcastle went down the wrong pipe.)

– Anyway, Rolling Stone decried critics of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction as hysterical Bible-thumping, pitchfork-wielding, stake-burning prudes. Their accompanying photo of Janet Jackson really hacked me off; the so-called offensive part of her anatomy…was blurred. Or, censored.

I’m averse to in-depth research, but I found this story, published four years later in Rolling Stone, where in they shriek, “The incident led to an almost-censorship of live events, with tape delays becoming the norm to avoid future unscripted situations.”

“Almost-censorship.”

Alrighty, then.

Another fantastic censorship whine-fest from the last decade involves none other than The Dixie Chicks. Perhaps I’m too thick-skinned, but I wasn’t exactly offended by what Natalie Maines said in London. Why? Because being offended by what she said lent her credibility. She’s a country singer. A pretty damn good one, in my opinion. I don’t expect her to have earth-shattering opinions about George W. Bush or any other President. It was a goofy thing to say.

The ensuing hullabaloo made a mountain out of a mole hill in my opinion. Her comment deserved nothing more than an eye roll and a, “Dadgum, that Natalie done lost it. Put on ‘Goodbye Earl’ and let’s get good and ripped.” Getting together with a bunch of other people and burning Dixie Chicks CD’s was, in fact, about the silliest thing I ever heard of until Al Gore weighed in on the matter.

“They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit,” said Gore. “Our best protection is free and open debate.”

Wait — What?

Gore commits a classic blunder here, in defending the poor, poor, pitiful Dixie Chicks. Yes. They have freedom of speech. They could have said even worse things about Bush, and have. And I, and other loons, are free get offended and to burn their [bleeping] records in retaliation.

For her part, Maines apologized for her “brave” Bush rant, and later reneged on said apology. Why?

“I’m Not Ready to Make Nice,” she crooned on the lead single from their next album. Yes, it seemed that The Dixie Chicks had taken a page from the Weinstein playbook, and figured out a way to profit from the controversy. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Harvey himself coached them on how to ride this particular gravy train. After all, Harvey’s company distributed “Shut Up & Sing,” the documentary/whine-fest about the Dixie Chicks horrible ordeal. When NBC and the CW rejected ads for the movie, Harvey gravely intoned, ”It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America.”

I am telling you what. Crying about censorship is good work, if you can get it.

—–

In yet another example of Hollywood PCism run amok, producers, we are told, “admitted” that studio execs at ABC-Disney nixed any chance that the show’s characters or extras would be smoking during the series even though the historical fact is that the bulk of the adult population of 1960s America smoked.

In fact, smoking was as common as “Coffee, tea, or me.” Everyone was allowed to smoke on airline flights in the 1960s. It is just a fact. Yet producers have decided that the show will never portray a single fuming butt in flight despite the historical reality.

Heck, who over 45 does not remember cigarette ads portraying doctors telling consumers how smoking was good for your health? I sure do!

That isn’t the only whitewashing going on either — literally. There is a worse disconnection from our history that is happening on this show. The series also intends to feature black employees as stewardesses (at least if not in other positions as the series goes forward) and that is also an historical fantasy.

The sad fact of the matter is that there were no black stewardesses in the American airline industry in the early 60s. According to reports airlines didn’t start hiring black stewardesses until later in the decade. As wrong as it was, the fact is that crews in the early 60s were all white affairs, no mixing of the races occurred on the airlines of the day.

Now, we all wish that history was different in many instances. I am sure that Jews everywhere would love it if the Holocaust had never occurred. So would the rest of us. But the fact is that it did. Pretending that the vexing things from history did not happen is a childish game of avoiding truth.

It also tends to make us all ignorant of the human condition. The old saw, “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it,” is not just a pointless saying. The fact is that we must remember the sleights of history. This helps us avoid repeating them. It helps us understand other people’s experiences and helps us all work toward a better future.

Sure this is just a silly TV show. But it does a disservice to us all, a disservice to our past selves, those that struggled and overcame.

How do we, for instance, understand why Martin Luther King, Jr. was so extraordinary if we’ve washed away the conditions against which he struggled? Truth is, he becomes a pointless name in history if we do.

Of course we don’t have to burden every last TV show with a maudlin focus on past ills and a hand wringing over history. Sure we can have lite entertainment without having to load the viewer down with all the troubles of the world. But to go the opposite direction and eliminate all vestiges of historical troubles is similarly wrong.

Sadly, this little whitewashing of history on a TV show is not just occurring in entertainment. It is a whitewashing of history that is occurring in our schools, in our culture, and in our memories. And it makes us all the poorer for it.

Funny how this cynical new ABC series (produced and starring the rich, no doubt) assumes average Americans are more interested in taking revenge on the rich instead of becoming rich themselves. It’s also also interesting that the show is set in the Hamptons as  opposed to, say… Hollywood?

Revenge, which ABC entertainment Group Paul Lee called one of “our internal favorites” earlier in the day, is billed as a contemporary reimagining of The Count of Monte Cristo. The drama centers on a mysterious young woman, played by Emily VanCamp, who is welcomed into a rich Hamptons community filled with people who don’t know she’s there to exact revenge on the people who had destroyed her family.

“We’re dealing in a particular time right now in American history where I think the average American is going to want to see a takedown of the rich,” says star Madeleine Stowe.

Added creator/executive producer Mike Kelley, “Revenge is such a great story engine. It’s really a jumping off point.”

Is everyone on the show working for minimum wage? Gee, I hope so. Otherwise, that would be hypocritical.

How about this pitch for a new ABC series…

Title: “OPERATION: MATT DAMON”

Like: “Mission: Impossible” meets Rush Limbaugh

Logline: Tired of the human wreckage they leave behind, a group of Tea Partiers surgically removes the hypocrisy from wealthy, elitist class warriors.

Synopisis: After a group of “average Americans” finally wakes up to that fact that a particular segment of the Wealthy Elitist Class (Leftists) have been using a relentless stream of class warfare propaganda designed to fuel resentment as a means to keep everyone else down, out, and poor –they join forces and use their own particular skills to take revenge on these flaming hypocrites in a number of inventive and diabolical ways that always ends with the Class Warrior being left unharmed but penniless. 

Season one will be set in the studios of Hollywood. Season two in Washington DC. Season three in Manhattan. 

The series will end on a happy note when the only wealthy left in America are those who inspire others to take the risks and put in the effort necessary to join them.

The plot revolves around the recently widowed (and beautiful) Amanda Vaughn, whose husband Bill died in a car crash. Just about everything the couple owns has been seized by federal marshals because the recently deceased Bill was indicted in a Ponzi scheme, leaving his wife and teenaged children (Will and Sara) with little choice but to pack up what’s left and leave California for Amanda’s native Texas – Dallas, to be precise – and move in with Amanda’s mother Gigi until Amanda can find a job and support herself and the kids.

Amanda not only has to cope with the shame surrounding Bill’s death and helping her children transition, but moving back to her hometown. As daughter Sara discovers one of Amanda’s old high school yearbooks at Gigi’s (who does not want her grandchildren to call her Grandma), it prompts a discussion of Amanda’s past as a popular cheerleader who wasn’t above being a manipulative bitch to get what she wanted. Not proud of her past, Amanda is determined to make a fresh start. Too bad some of the girls she grew up with aren’t willing to let bygones be bygones.

Darlene Cockburn, Cricket Caruth and Sharon Pevy are gleefully plotting their revenge, which is 20 years overdue. Darlene is the former ugly duckling who is now a miracle of plastic surgery. Cricket’s looks have also improved since her high school days (and she isn’t above giving her daughter breast implants for her 16th birthday), but Sharon has gone from being a svelte beauty queen to a woman who has to wear queen-sized panty hose. She even defends herself when gobbling food that she’s supposed to be putting into baskets for charity by saying she’s testing the food before giving it away. All three women are regular churchgoers who go to Bible study and wrap their revengeful plans and general – well, bitchiness and cattiness – in a false robe of godliness. I guess having one’s bikini area waxed in the shape of a cross and having Bible verses etched on one’s car has to count for something.

Amanda’s first trial comes the first Sunday she’s in town, when Gigi forces her and the kids to go to church. Amanda’s argument against it is that she and her husband didn’t raise Will and Sara with any particular religion, figuring they could find their own spirituality. (Cue liberal soundtrack.) But Gigi tells her daughter that while they live under her roof, they follow her rules, which include church every Sunday. This is where Amanda meets up with her former classmates for the first time in two decades. Darlene begins the assault by “praying” for Amanda during the service, using the parable of the prodigal son and saying that it’s not their place to judge others’ lack of morality. Afterward, during the coffee hour, the only person who is genuinely kind to Amanda is Heather Sappington, who has become very successful in real estate. She admits that life is still like high school, only with more money and power behind the petty machinations. Men are still very much hot for Amanda, even though she doesn’t do anything to attract their attention. This does not go unnoticed by her foes. And as Amanda leaves church, she comes to the realization that she’s back in Dallas so she can atone for her past sins.

It’s a hard slog. Just when Amanda thinks she’s found a job, she loses it due to Cricket’s behind-the-scenes machinations. Her daughter Sara makes friends quickly, but doesn’t realize that she’s just being pumped for information by Cricket’s daughter Alexandra. Son Will has more difficulty fitting in, getting into a fight on his first day at school. And suddenly Amanda finds she has a secret admirer, who sends her a new Mercedes and an entire household worth of goods from a local department store. To top it all off, Sharon’s husband Zack catches Amanda off guard and forces a kiss on her when Amanda goes to his car dealership to find out who bought her the car that she doesn’t want – a kiss seen by Darlene, who is torn about whether to tell Sharon about it.

There’s a lot more – all of it somewhat nauseating. At the end of the pilot, Amanda manages to turn the tables on her foes, which gives the viewer the promise of more estrogen-fueled, sex-infused catfights to come in future episodes. Will America embrace Good Christian Belles in same way they embraced Desperate Housewives? No idea – new shows are always a gamble, no matter what the plot line. But the anti-Christian tone in this one is more than obvious. The main characters are all portrayed as a bunch of grasping, grabbing women who claim to follow the word of the Lord but live the life of the sinner. Are there real people like that? Sure. But hypocrites and immoral people come in all shapes and sizes. They certainly aren’t all Christians.

Notice, too, the location: Dallas, Texas. Sure, it’s a big city, but Texas is deep in the heart of red state flyover country. Can you imagine Good Christian Belles being set in, say, New York City or Los Angeles?

Now, if Hollywood were to play equal opportunity offender and create a television show called Good Muslim Bitches, or Belles, or whatever, that showed Muslim women as a bunch of grasping, grabbing women who use their religion as a convenient shield, then perhaps I wouldn’t be so quick to complain about Good Christian Belles. But unlike Christians, Southerners, gun owners and fat people, Muslims are a protected minority.

Besides, Christians don’t issue fatwas when their religion is insulted – they organize boycotts and write letters to the editor.

—–

Museum of Broadcast History:

FREDERICK S. PIERCE.  … Began career as analyst in TV research, ABC, 1956; director of sales planning, ABC, 1962; vice president planning, 1970; vice president in charge, ABC TV planning and development, and assistant to president, 1974; president, ABC-TV, 1974; president and chief operations officer, ABC, Inc., 1983; resigned from ABC, Inc., 1986; formed the Frederick Pierce Company, Inc., 1988, and Pierce/Silverman Company with Fred Silverman[.]

More on Mr. Pierece here.

—-

Why so angry, Whoopi? Joy?

Let’s back up a little…

I’m no Birther, I simply believe that the White House and MSM teamed up to keep the birth certificate issue alive as a weapon to use against the Right. As an example, nothing made NBC’s David Gregory happier than to ask a conservative about the issue and subsequently nothing made the rest of the corrupt media happier than to amplify that moment and use it to drown out the conservative political message. So instead of the MSM doing their job and educating the public — as they did when McCain’s place of birth was questioned — they chose to palace-guard Obama and join in on the racial smearing. This was all about fundraising, distracting, and dividing. Or, what we call standard operating procedure when it comes to our friends on the Left. 

The bottom line is that Donald Trump did the media’s job for them, the President (finally) did the right thing, the MSM has egg on their face, and the moment that birth certificate dropped the Left as a whole knew they lost a powerful political weapon. I vehemently disagreed with the Birthers but at the same time understood the cynical politics behind the White House and MSM’s decision to keep the Birthers ginned up. So today is a major win for our side and we have Trump to thank for it. Long story short…

THIS is where all of Whoopi and Joy’s boiling-over frustration is coming from. Trump forced an issue the MSM should have resolve to everyone’s satisfaction years ago, he refused to be cowed by their race-baiting, and has now effectively disarmed and backfired an issue that once delighted the Left. And because the Left is furious in defeat and has no ideas — only tactics – they’re now doubling down on labeling Trump a race-baiter, and worse.

Whoopi’s friends with Trump, knows he’s no racist, and yet joins in with Joyless to declare Trump’s basketball comment worthy of playing the race card.  Uhm ladies, the President plays basketball. America knows this, knows Trump’s no racist, and my guess is that the fearless billionaire will once again show us the way when it comes to handling these increasingly pathetic and desperate tactics. 

More than once during his press conference this morning, Trump declared openly that the press protects Obama and no one else. Of course, he’s absolutely right, the American people know it, and the media might want to stop digging.

Does Hollywood and the MSM really think they can bully a guy who just made the President of the United States blink?