#i actually really like jon stewart

[blacklezrage]

https://youtu.be/G6KZY4msgUY

7 minute video on gun violence

WATCH IT

[mindibindi]

The fact that Mulder and Scully never got a well-lit, well-shot kiss unencumbered by obstacles of any variety (be they bosses, babies or broken bones) is made all the more frustrating by the fact that David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson both look like really, REALLY good kissers. DD has played a lot of sexy/romantic roles; "Californication" alone gives ample evidence of his kissing prowess. Gillian hasn't played as many roles requiring make-out skills but she does this thing in "Playing By Heart" where she pulls back from Jon Stewart's mouth and traces his lips with hers.... 😳😳😳 She does a similar thing in the FTF blooper kiss, where she pulls back from David/Mulder and makes his mouth chase hers. She teases him a bit with her tongue before diving in... 🥴🤯🤤 and YES, she is hamming it up for the crew (not us cos we were never supposed to see it GRR). Actually, she hams up that moment more than David, who just plays it straight. That is NOT how Scully would kiss Mulder for the first time. (Maybe for the second time. But even so. Mulder would be like: Wait a minute. Nice girls don't kiss like that. And Scully would be like: Oh yes they fucking do.... And then do it again). Those blooper kisses are ALL Gillian, not Scully. And as grateful as I am that the kisses Gillovny tried so hard to insert into the M/S narrative leaked, I can't even believe THEM as real Mulder and Scully kisses. In short (not that this is news): WE WERE ROBBED. Over and over and over again. Because not only do DD and GA have the most epic chemistry in television history, not only do Mulder and Scully have the most epic love story in television history, NOT ONLY do DD and GA have the most kissable lips in television history, I believe to this day that they also possess the oral skills to elevate a well-lit, well-shot, well-timed, completely unencumbered kiss to the most sensual and satisfying consummation of sexual tension of all time. Only Chris Carter is a puritan so. Here we are. 30 years later.

[talenlee]

The Unutterable Smugness Of Being

A complaint I heard a lot, about ten years ago, was that Online Atheists were ‘smug.’ This was seen as a major complaint about us, which didn’t really do anything to bring our attention to the very real problems we had with misogyny and racism and transphobia and islamophobia, but it also worked as a really good kind of social brush to tar a group with because even now, you’ll hear the word used like it’s an automatically necessary descriptor: ‘smug internet atheists.’

Good news, I have no desire at all to ask you to change your mind on internet atheists, because there sure are a bunch of them who seem to be complete tools. Again, the ones I think of as tools, I would probably recommend that it’s much more important to confront them on, again, the racism and the misogyny and the transphobia and the islamophobia and then on the misogyny again because that… that sure is the actual problem, but I’m not seeking to claim unsmugness.

Just, like, what does ‘smug’ mean?

I got started on this thread when I realised if I had to see another well intentioned atheist youtuber bring up a clip of Mike Winger to provide an illustration of a Christian apologist delivering a particular family of bad point, I was going to stop watching them altogether. Not because what they did was fundamentally a bad thing, that they were somehow platforming a bastard, but because Mike Winger as a person to me, is painfully, unpleasantly smug and condescending and almost always, completely and utterly wrong.

I find Mike Winger really smug.

Smug in this context isn’t really a fact or a testable trait. I don’t think people mean smug as smug as like, the dictionary word. Smug means, in the dictionary, that someone is ‘highly self-satisfied.’ This is a complaint I hear a lot about a type of person, usually a type of person I am, usually around me, without actually realising I am a member of that community, which often results in me asking some questions making a mental note about someone to never bother talking to again and peace the heck out. Pretty consistently, I hear it used as a way to describe someone who is right but do they have to be an asshole about it? Or, someone who isn’t right enough, like Jon Stewart when he derided George W Bush for being bad at being a president, was just ‘smug’ about it.

You do know one of the people that atheists present themselves as against is the pope, right? Like, it is a not insignificant thing that there is a man whose job title is ‘the voice of god on earth,’ who is the head of a corporation and a country and who oversees what his church claims is 1.3 billion people. That organisation claims that membership and boasts of its charity work running 5,000 hospitals worldwide, which is a heck of a number, but also seems pretty titchy when you line it up alongside the claimed populace of 1.3 billion. For comparison, India, population 1.4 billion, is estimated to have around 70,000 hospitals. And I know it’s a cheap shot to bring up the way that the Catholic church compares badly to a country, but it is a little weird, right, for a thing that’s ostensibly empowered by god itself and headed up by, again, the voice of god on earth, to boast about 5,000 hospitals when a mere country, a country with comparatively few Catholic people, is able to lap that number ten times and change? Is it smug to think that India builds more hospitals than the Catholic church does? Is it smug to think that owning a golden throne is still bad even if you don’t sit on it?

At that point it’s kinda a positional thing, an aesthetic, right? It’s not what’s said, it’s the overall demeanour of the person saying it. And the thing that messes me up on this front is that like, atheists are people primarily responding to the most powerful social organisations in their societies, who in addition to their positions of actual literal privilege and prestige, are making claims about knowing the creator of the universe personally and being able to make value judgments about who you should or shouldn’t marry or why, based on that insight. Right?

You know they’re still mad about gay marriage, don’t you?

Okay okay, but like, ‘what is smug,’ it’s being highly self-satisfied. And I find Mike Winger smug. Well, yeah, and you might wonder ‘who is Mike Winger?’ He’s a Christian apologist. He has an audience for his youtube channel in which he delivers a really badly made point across ten minutes or so about his faith, usually in an attempt to ‘address’ some problem with his opposition, which, like

You gotta remember that a lot of the time it’s gay marriage.

Now this is entirely a point. This is, strategically speaking, a thing that Mike Winger is actively trying to do. Mike Winger has an affect and a disposition that comes from the overt position that he is an expert in the most important thing in the world, and that he is humble about it, and that everyone who doesn’t agree with him just chooses not to agree with him. And this is where a lot of these professional wheezes wind up falling into a problem of just being bad at their jobs, because rhetorically, they’re not making good points or making them well, because you can always see the seam when they have to ignore the actual argument and make it about something else. Winger believes that Atheists don’t really mean it, even if they think they mean it, because they don’t really mean it, because he says they don’t really mean it.

And remember: atheists are the ones he even complains about being smug.

What I would ask, is if you’re someone on the sidelines, who doesn’t know what the discourse atheism is engaged with, and if you’re not familiar with the parties involved, is to interrogate what the smugness is that you dislike. Delivery? Aesthetics? And if that’s the case, sure, don’t engage with it, seems like a great reason to not bother. But it’s really important to remember that one side of this argument has golden thrones and laws made for their benefit and billionaire lobbyists and asserts it knows the future and is willing to support genocides to make that future happen and that they’re good people for it and that maybe that’s kinda highly self-satisfied too.

Oh and stop responding to Mike Winger, the man is at best an insincere liar and deserves to be spat on in the street.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

I think it's time for me to come clean with something I've never admitted to anybody before. And it's not something I've done or anything like that. It's not an action I've taken. It's an opinion I have that I know is something that would cause a lot of...let's say strife with most people if they knew I had it. It's not a controversial opinion I'm particularly proud of the way I'm proud of my opinion on John Lennon being a boring hack, or my opinions on YouTube content creators being, by default, talentless nobodies compared to literally any other professional creative, or my opinion that sport hunting journalists and politicians should be, if not actually legal, than at least one of those victimless crimes that never actually get prosecuted. This opinion I'm about to share is something that my own parents would never understand if I were to admit it to them, which, to be honest, does sting a bit when I let myself think about it too much.

I know most of you don't follow me for personal BS, and I respect that, so I'm going to put a cut before I state this opinion so people who don't really care to learn more about me as a person can easily give it a skip. For the rest of you, all I ask is that you try to keep an open mind, and understand that this is as hard for me to admit as it is for you to read.

George Carlin is a terrible fucking comedian.

I know. I know.

But hear me out.

I'm not saying he's not funny, because he can be. Certainly he was hilarious to 12 year old Little Me who would watch clips of his acts on Comedy Central long after my parents went to bed. But as I got older, I started to notice something. It wasn't that I was "growing out" of George Carlin. That's silly to say. That's like saying someone grew out of watching Eddie Murphy's Raw. You're not even supposed to be watching that stuff until you're grown.

No, the thing I noticed was that he isn't actually a comedian.

He's a blogger.

Again, he does tell jokes, but telling jokes does not a comedian make. Everyone tells jokes. What makes a comedian a comedian is that they are so funny that people will pay money to laugh at their jokes. And that's not George Carlin. That's not why people go to see George Carlin. They might think it is, but it's not. No, they go to see him for the same reason he stands up in front of them and speaks.

They want to hear their own opinions parroted back at them, and then they want to cheer. Just like George doesn't really want to make people laugh. He wants to give his opinions on social issues and politics, and then he wants everyone to clap and validate those opinions. The laughter is completely secondary. It's not even necessary past the point of telling just enough jokes to both get people in the door, and to allow those people the illusion that they're at a comedy show and not reading a blog.

And Carlin isn't the only blogger pretending to be a comedian. You probably know quite a few already. The Jon Stewarts, John Olivers, and Jimmy Kimmels of the world who just want to be cheered for stating their, often idiotic, opinions on things. I used to call this "Applause Comedy", and I've always hated it with a passion. But these days I just call it blogging, because that's what it is. And George Carlin is its grandfather. His entire career is based on "telling it like it is" instead of "telling jokes". And let's be fair, some of his opinions are right. Of course, these days the people he roasts are usually not on the same side of the political divide as the ones he was intending on roasting. He is another terminal victim of the 60s, so don't ever mistake him for being even remotely right wing.

(I wonder if, were he still alive, would he be one of those few boomerlibs that actually recognize how batshit insane the left has become? Or would he be one of the ones that now supports all the things they railed against 40+ years back because their identity as a leftist is more important than their supposed principals?

I could speculate, but I won't.)

But being able to comment intelligently or eloquently on political or social issues isn't a skill one should look for in a comedian. And getting cheered for stating an opinion isn't something a real comedian should look for in their audience. A comedian tells jokes. He makes people laugh. He tells stories and weaves tales and creates an atmosphere of joy. He allows us to keep the outside world at bay for an hour or so, and leaves us with a small shield against that world when his show is over in the form of fond memories and shared enjoyment.

You're more likely to come out of a George Carlin show more angry at the world than when you went in.

And that's not comedy.

That's not entertainment.

That's blogging.

[wolfsbanesparks]

do you have any fics you'd personally reccomend?? Any DC ones or ones you think deserve more attention?

Okay so it took me a few days to find some fics I wanted to rec because I'm the worst at remembering to bookmark fics I like.

Most of these are Shazam because he's my favorite. But I'll include a couple others for good measure. If you want more recs I can definitely find some more just let me know!

The Path of a Lightning Bolt by kathkin

This series of stories is about how dceu Billy would work with the Justice League and how they deal with finding out he's a teenager. It is so heartfelt and genuinely funny with some of the best characterization of movie Billy, Wally, Cyborg and John Stewart that I've ever read.

I Am Not A Prince by Oka_Hills1232

This I an amazing story about Black Adam naming Billy as his heir, thus the heir to Kahndaq's throne, kidnapping him in the process in a misguided attempt to take care of him. There is such amazing world building about the Champions, the gods, and magic in general. Beautiful prose, fun action, and so much intriguing lore.

A Christmas Peril by The_Dawn_Knight

This is a much darker fic about Billy, Damian, and Jon overcoming their extreme childhood traumas while dealing with complicated family relationships, evil schemes, and villains who want them dead. Definitely read the tags before jumping in, but it is a really good read. There are multiple plot lines that are woven together so well and there's a lot of great character introspection and action. It's pretty long and still on going but definitely worth the time.

Like Going Through Hell on a Sunday by probablyanxious

This is about Jason Todd bringing Damian to Gotham while on the run from the League of Shadows. There's lots of brotherly bonding, family angst, and fast paced action. Along the way Jason also picks up a stray Billy and inadvertently pulls him into the family. Definitely recommend this to batfam fans!

(There’s a sister story told mainly through Bruce's POV of these events called My Hope Has Faded Through the Years that I also recommend)

Brilliant (like a confession) by kathkin

This is about Lois Lane learning that Clark Kent is Superman by admitting to Superman that she has a crush on Clark Kent. This is literally one of the best Lois stories I've ever read and is my personal favorite version of the identity reveal between them.

And lastly

The Magic Word by zorilleerrant

This fic was actually gifted to me through Fandom Trumps Hate last year and I absolutely adore it (and all of the authors other works too). Its about Marcus Sun aka Monkey Prince and Billy having to deal with zombies. There's identity reveals, amazingly funny dialogue, trans rep, and more! Theres some minor gore (because zombies) but its not an angsty apocalypse story. It's s lot of fun and deserves more love!

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

I can't believe that my dedication to collecting any bits of connection between John Oliver and British comedy have somehow, until today, missed the fact that he did RHLSTP in 2021. I listened to it for the first time today and enjoyed it.

First of all, I have to address this, because I consider myself a pretty thorough historian of John Oliver's pre-America work, and I have absolutely never heard of this thing that John claimed was at some point broadcast:

Whatever the hell they're talking about (weird panel thing where apparently Richard Herring drew rude things while he was supposed to be working like Jamie MacDonald on The Thick of It), which John Oliver claims has been broadcast, it's definitely not on IMDB. I've done a fair bit of Googling in the last hour, and became convinced that this is a dream John Oliver and Richard Herring have both had, given that in all my extensive archaeology of John Oliver's British career, I have never, ever heard of this. (I enjoyed the talking shit about Mark Dolan, though.)

Then I realized: actually, I think I have. Because I have once before found myself looking at John Oliver's IMDB page for a Channel 4 thing from the correct time, and been surprised to find nothing there. That would be when I first heard the radio show Daniel Kitson's Listening Club, and Kitson got my hopes up in one episode by saying he'd have his friend John on the following week, but then the next week said John had to miss it to film some Channel 4 thing. This surprised me, because those radio episodes were from February 2006, and there is nothing on John Oliver's IMDB page from 2006 besides Mock the Week. And nothing British from 2007, so it's not like he could have filmed it in February and then they just took a year to put it out.

I've just gone back to find that again and cut out the relevant clips:

(Please note: You do have to ignore a very 2006 use of the word "gay" during this clip, which I justify based on the fact that Kitson did like saying that ironically back then, which isn't good, but I was in high school in 2006 and given the million times a day I heard it said unironically, by 2006 standards, if you were putting some irony in your "gay" slur usage then you were doing better than most people. My general view on Kitson's former penchant for ironic bigotry is you cannot hold people to everything they said in 2006.)

That tracks. Daniel Kitson described a show for More4 that John Oliver did not like. So it did really happen. But Google yields nothing, checking various combinations of "John Oliver Richard Herring Andy Zaltzman Mark Dolan More4". Adding "2006" to that search doesn't do anything except let me know that in that year, all three of those men were nominated for multiple awards (Richard Herring: Worst Radio Personality, Mark Dolan: Worst Podcast, John Oliver: Worst Stand-Up) for terrible comedy by an extremely judgmental message board (that now has much nicer people on it, really, you can't hold a comedy forum to everything it said in 2006). I tried throwing in Andy's name as it sounds like he was there too, it didn't help. I'd love to know what this was. It sounds terrible and I want to watch it.

Anyway, the rest of the RHLSTP was good. There was some chat about times they've worked with Pythons, mainly focusing on the nice ones (Palin and Jones), that I enjoyed. Some re-hashing of stories I've heard before but always enjoy hearing again, about old Edinburgh previews that went very badly and John pulled out the story of that time he had a 100% walkout at one. I once again heard John Oliver tell the story of how he ended up on The Daily Show, and like always, the story is basically "I don't know someone just called me", making me wonder how he could have gone all those years and not asked Jon Stewart how it happened. I noticed that this time he didn't add the detail he usually adds, with is that he's heard a recommendation from Ricky Gervais was involved. Not sure if it just happened to not come up, or if by 2021 he didn't really want to keep making that association.

And there was some stuff near the end that I found really interesting, about The Mash Report's cancellation and how tricky it is to get away with political comedy on major networks, particularly the BBC with its balance rule, and how lucky John feels to have the independence he's granted by HBO. This went along with some broader discussion of how John Oliver gets away with and/or enjoys taking stupid risks and getting in trouble for comedy, which also ground I've heard covered before but always like to hear about. Some veneration of Dan Harmon that I could live without, though my roommate and I did re-watch the first few episodes of Community the other night and it reminded me of how much I love that show.

Oh, and they discuss some of the terrible movies John's done. He even briefly defends The Love Guru, which I have never heard him do before (not the whole movie, just claims there are a couple of funny bits, which is a small change from the outright disowning it that he has rightfully done every other time I've heard him discuss it). And, for the first time that I've heard, gave a bit of an explanation of why he did that terrible movie, which was basically that there was a writer's strike on and he needed work especially with his precarious immigration status, and he liked Mike Myers and didn't know it would be terrible. Fair enough.

They also discussed The Smurfs, they gave me a companion clip to go with this clip from The Bugle, the Bugle clip that I have often described as the absolute cutest shit I've ever heard:

(Separately from it being so adorable, this clip also contains Andy Zaltmzan using one of his favourite nicknames for John Oliver, "The Hostess with the Mostess", which I remain convinced was the inspiration for the "Hostus Mostus" title card on Last Week Tonight.)

They gave me a companion clip to the most adorable podcast clip in the world! From almost exactly 11 years later, he confirms that the story told in the above clip is true:

...Awwwww. Awww. Aw you really did mean it. You guys. You guys out there getting 100% walkouts on Edinburgh previews and nominations for the worst comedy in Britain by some people in 2006 on a comedy message board for people who hated all comedians besides Chris Morris. You remembered, even 11 years later. You guys are the best.

Richard Herring: You seem to be the same person as you were ten years ago. I’ve seen a lot of people go to Hollywood and… John Oliver: I haven’t gone to Hollywood! Richard Herring: …or to America, or become very successful, and change quite a lot. Do you still feel like you’re the same John Oliver who died at all those gigs? John Oliver: I think so. I still fundamentally identify more with failure than success.

[stalebagels]

what’s your ranking of the talk show hosts?

Oh, thank you for asking. I am so sorry for the essay I am about to write.

Highest to Lowest:

Conan O'Brien / Craig Ferguson - I put these two in the top spot because if you asked me to choose only one of them to watch for the rest of my life I wouldn't be able to do it. Both of them are people that I watched with my dad occasionally through my childhood so maybe I'm a little biased on that front. They're probably the only two hosts that I ever cared to watch interview anyone because it never felt boring to me even if I didn't really care about the interviewee or know who it was. They were both unique and just seemed like genuinely good people both inside and outside the studio (and to add to the bias a little; I got to meet Craig at one of his Fancy Rascal tour shows last year and he was so fucking great. I was so nervous going into it because I was worried he wouldn't be the same as he was on TV as is the case for a lot of celebrities, but he went above and beyond for everyone. He signed everyone's posters and merch even though he didn't have to (I got a poster signed) and he actually took the time to have a full conversation with everyone individually and make sure everyone was comfortable. He's a wonderful dude and I wish I could go back and talk to him again.)

Stephen Colbert - When I first started watching late night shows (back when the pandemic first started), the first shows I ever sat down and watched a full episode of on TV were Stephen and Conan. I had absolutely no idea who Stephen was because up until that point I hadn't really cared enough about politics. I grew up in a heavily conservative small town with a heavily conservative family in the south where the word liberal counted as an insult, so you can imagine we didn't really watch a lot of late night shows. Stephen's show helped me make sense of things, helped me work out what my own feelings were, and provided an escape from the hell that was lockdown. He was the one that made me give a shit about what's happening in this country first, and after that first sit down I ended up going back and watching old episodes of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show (he also led me to Jon in that regard, since I had no idea either of those shows existed) and found that I loved his style of comedy. I really do wish I had discovered him sooner.

Jon Stewart - The only reason I didn't stick Jon and Stephen in the number two spot together (as well as John Oliver) was because Stephen was primarily responsible for my interest in politics - basically he was for me what Jon was to everyone before he retired - and was the one who led me to Jon in the first place. It took me a while, but once I finally went back and started watching old clips and episodes of The Daily Show; once again I wished I had discovered him sooner. I wish I had his righteous, angry optimism to look forward to every night, but a lot of the things he's said and done on the show still hold true today. Plus, his fight for the 9/11 first responders bill to get passed was absolutely inspiring and an example we should all follow when it comes to pushing for change and holding our leaders accountable. I didn't realize he started out as a stand-up comedian, but I've since watched as much of it as I could get my hands on because he's just an incredibly smart and funny dude in any situation.

John Oliver - I hate to put John so low on the list but I didn't want to cop out and put him, Jon, and Stephen all in the same tier lol. I'll be honest, I can't really remember the first time I watched John's show. I think it must have been on YouTube at some point during lockdown or even right before, but ever since the first time I watched it I was hooked. I learn so much from him and his show and I always look forward to his next episode. Generally, I don't really watch guest interviews unless I really care about whoever is there, but since John doesn't have guests it was much easier for me to sit down and watch the entire thing without getting bored or distracted. He does an incredible job of informing his viewers about a problem that - chances are - they had no idea existed beforehand and the amount of research/investigation he and his team do inspire me to do the same. It was really weird watching his stand-up and seeing him in regular clothes and not a suit though lol.

Jimmy Kimmel - I think this might... be a controversial take. His was the third show I started watching during the pandemic - I think Stephen took a break at some point and I decided to try watching Kimmel to fill the time - and I found that I actually quite liked him. His monologues felt natural and easy, and he had a lot of his family and friends on his staff which I admired (plus Guillermo). His humor is kind of the same as my dad's though (sort of), so maybe that's why I liked him off the bat. His beef with Matt Damon is hilarious, his pranks are generally harmless and funny, and he seems very down to earth and generous for someone who makes a goddamn lot of money. Plus, I watched a clip of him back during the Tonight Show fiasco where he came on Leno's show and shit talked at him about backstabbing Conan, which earned some respect from me. I don't know a lot about what he did on the Man Show because I don't think I would touch that with a ten foot pole (and from what he says neither would he), but he seems like a good guy. (Although I will say I generally only stay long enough to watch the beginning of his show like the monologue or unnecessary censorship since I don't care about musical guests or interviews).

Seth Meyers - Again I hate to put him down so low, but I have to be honest and say I don't actually know a whole lot about him. I watched him on SNL sometimes with my dad when it was on, but it wasn't very often. I never watched his show during the pandemic as I was mainly focused on juggling Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon (gag) and Conan. Honestly it wasn't until Strike Force Five came around that I really started paying attention to him. I like that he involves his writers and his staff in a lot of his bits, and he seems like a lovely person. Unfortunately, though, he is down here a little lower but I still enjoy watching him even if I haven't watched a lot of his content. (His stand-up special is on my list, though)

Jimmy Fallon - This is a weird one for me. I watched Fallon a couple of times during lockdown and even before then I knew who he was because everyone hated him. It was on a whim that I decided to watch his show one night, and I wasn't really impressed with what I saw. That said, I didn't hate it - and when the Rolling Stone article came out I was very disappointed. And the fact that he just never addressed it publicly and carried on like nothing happened rubbed me the wrong way, and every monologue I did see afterwards just.. wasn't even puff-of-nose-air funny anymore. He became much more annoying to me, even during the podcast. The only time I found him funny were the Strike Force Wives games. Otherwise he just became painfully bland, and it's a shame because his original late night show was actually pretty decent in comparison to The Tonight Show.

As for Corden and M*her; if they were being chased by hundreds of angry geese and asked me to let them in my house for shelter, I'd shut the door in their face and laugh.

So, if you got to the end of this long ass clusterfuck, here are two pics of Craig and I at the tour :) and once again, I apologize.

[los-ninos-tortugas]

Your posts about Donnie continuing his training in Set A Course For Home has me SUPER curious what the crew of the Voyager think about his ninpo! So I'd love to hear your thoughts about it if you dont think it's spoilers!

Believe me I have also been Thinking some Thoughts about this! Cuz obviously Donnie's physical training is one thing, but his ninpo? A whole different ballpark and becasue because BECAUSE!!! In theory ninpo sounds very similar to Vulcan Katra. Like just the description on paper and the more spiritual side to ninpo would make it seem similar to Katra and if Donnie were just explaining it probably the crew (and more specifically, Tuvok) would think it was something akin to that. Functionally speaking however? Incredibly different.

Because Donnie's ability to create constructs and projections is quite unlike anything ever seen in the Star Trek universe. Yes there's been plenty of examples of telepathy, empathic abilities, perhaps even the odd case of psychokinesis. But the sort of rapid conjuration that Donnie does is something that's really only been done by a machine such as a replicator, and even a replicator pales immensely in comparison to what it is that Donnie does with his ninpo. (The closest example in other media I can think of is the way in which Jon Stewart uses his Green Lantern ring to create highly complex constructs, because he's also an engineer) I think the crew would be somewhat at a loss as to how to even begin categorizing Donnie's abilities since they are inherently mystic, and lets be real there's a whole lot of unexplainable BS that happens in Star Trek that borders on being magical/mystical but they never want to acknowledge that so.... and Donnie himself still being relatively new to mystical abilities (and someone who still deeply prefers science overall) would probably have a hard time trying to help them wrap their heads around it too, since he's still trying to wrap his head around it... though maybe some meditation sessions with Tuvok and the comparison to Katra actually might be more helpful in this regard. (In the absence of Kes Tuvok needs a new apprentice lol)

I'm gonna kinda just spitball a sort of "What-If?" scenario here because I do sort of have a plan for how the crew finds out just the true extent of Donnie's ninpo and how it works. But I think at Donnie's core he really really loves to be helpful and his abilities are sort of really well-suited to being helpful on Voyager, not that any of the crew would pressure him into using his abilities in that way, he's a kid after all, not a crew member, it's not necessarily his job to have to contribute to the ship. But nonetheless Donnie would want to do it. But I think there would be a limit before using his ninpo would take a lot out of him. In the movie Donnie does create a giant jetpack for Raph's giant projection, I'm gonna guess that Raph's projection is somewhere in the realm of about 4 stories tall, or roughly 43 feet tall, which sounds like a lot, but Voyager is 345 meters long or roughly 1,132 feet long. 43 feet suddenly seems pretty small. If Donnie were to try and create some sort of construct on the outside of the ship... even just enhancing the warp nacelles is a significantly bigger deal.

There's a lot of room to play here with this concept and it's something that I'm gonna keep plugging away at because it's something I really wanna take the time to flesh out and explore. I think it would be really interesting if Donnie inadvertently gets more mystical training in one of the most unlikely of places and he could very well leave Voyager being far more mystically adept than when he arrived.

[debunkingtherightwing]

The profound laziness of Dave Rubin

No, but you posting a video about it for clicks is. (source: Rubin Report on YouTube)

Dave Rubin is a pretty regular source of truly insane and stupid takes and today is no exception. This was the episode he put out on January 31st and as usual it breaks new ground in the realm of stupidity. Lets get into it.

Dave starts off by declaring the theme of todays episode, or lack thereof.

01:24, Dave Rubin: "The theme of todays show is there's an awful lot happening in the world right now. This WW3 situation seems like it's ramping up a bit. I'm gonna try to cool the jets as everyone loves talking about 'Oh my god WW3 is happening and oh my god the civil war is happening and oh my god the alien invasion is happening.' Sometimes, maybe we can have some calmer heads prevail so we'll do a little bit of that. But what I wanted to start with that'll kind of prime everything is that Jon Stewart-"

Brief pause, so what's the theme? If the theme is WW3 related stuff, how on earth is Jon Stewart even remotely related to that?

01:51, Dave Rubin: "Jon Stewart, I guess former comedian. I don't know what we call him at this point, he's basically a progressive activist now."

"Yeah, imagine being a former comedian who became a political activist. Man, I can't even imagine. That's so sick."

First of all, the sheer lack of self awareness is stunning. Second of all, watch that video in full if you want to get an idea of the sheer lack of talent that Dave brings to the table. It's three minutes of Dave being a complete moron constantly trying to do crowd work and getting absolutely no laughs out of anyone.

02:18, Dave Rubin: "Jon Stewart left the Daily Show, what was it? About six years or so ago. Ends up bringing a new show, The Problem With Jon Stewart onto Apple TV and he just goes all in on the crazy leftism."

Jon Stewart is back at the Daily Show for a limited time and Dave Rubin isn't gonna take it! He's only hosting on Monday nights to cover things related to the election cycle.

Jon Stewart was always a pretty big leftist. Here's him absolutely demolishing fellow blog favorite Tucker Carlson all the way back in 2004. I can't help but feel a tinge of jealousy in Dave's coverage of Jon. Jon also stood up for his free speech, something that Dave should love, by walking away from his show on Apple TV when they told him he couldn't talk about AI and China.

Dave doesn't even understand the most basic facts about this story...like the fact that Jon isn't the only person hosting the Daily Show or the fact that they are making more than the Monday episode.

02:30, Dave Rubin: "But the machine is bringing him back now, putting him back at the Daily Show at the chair on a weekly show not a daily show. So the Daily Show's going to weekly, alright they're going to struggle with that."

Here's what happened, Dave read some headline somewhere about Jon Stewart returning to the Daily Show and instead of trying to learn the facts about the story that he's trying to cover, he just barged in and started talking about it on his show.

If Dave actually read about what he's trying to talk about the subject he's talking about, he'd know that Jon is only hosting on Monday’s and that other people are hosting the show on all the other days of the week. It's also only for the election cycle.

Dave plays some clips of CBS for him to react to.

03:36, Dave Rubin: "We're doing PR, we're owned by the same people and we have to tell you he's really great. Yeah, ok! So you guys get how the whole machine works, right? There's no reason for CBS News to be covering that on their nightly news program."

At the end of the clip he plays, the reporter discloses that CBS and Comedy Central are both owned by Paramount, in short disclosing the conflict of interest. Should they have maybe not covered this? Yeah, I wouldn't have because it's a conflict of interest. But they did disclose it.

03:51, Dave Rubin: "And the damn shame about Jon Stewart and we'll illustrate this in just a moment is that at least for the first couple of years at the Daily Show he was doing something kind of new and poking and prodding at the media the way I kinda do on this show."

Dave Rubin and Jon Stewart have one key difference; Jon is funny and insightful and Dave is well....Dave.

04:07, Dave Rubin: "He's sort of gone off the deep end, or I don't even need to qualify that, he has completely gone off the deep end when it comes to progressive politics and I would say become everything that he probably once despised."

Just to recap some of Dave's career; Dave started off at the Young Turks, a progressive news outlet, and ended up starting a conservative news show after leaving the Young Turks. His sudden pivot to conservativism coincidentally dovetailed with receiving money from the Koch Brothers.

So who has became everything they once despised here?

Dave plays a clip of Jon confronting a Republican attorney general about gender affirming care for minors. If I were Dave I really wouldn't have played that clip as Jon does a really good job dismantling the Attorney Generals arguments. Dave does cut the clip and this was his takeaway.

06:51, Dave Rubin: "And it goes on and on, what an absolutely smug unlikeable person he became for the cool one million plus per episode he was making on that now defunct show."

More of Dave describing himself. Seriously, take some time to watch a Dave Rubin episode if you have time. He talks in this really slow and condescending way that's near unbearable to listen to.

07:10, Dave Rubin: "Jon Stewart, if you are watching this you might want to read Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier, thank you, who wrote an incredible book about how so much of what's happening to our children is a social contagion. Particularly when it comes to young girls thinking they can transition and become young boys."

Abigail Shrier is one of those right-wing grifters who has made a cottage industry of spreading misinformation about transgender youth. Blog favorite and professional sociopath Matt Walsh is another example of that. Shriers book is filled with massive amounts of misinformation and outright falsehoods.

Also, the idea of Jon Stewart even knowing of Dave Rubin's existence is laughable. You just know if Jon stepped foot on Dave's set, Dave would be tripping over himself to get Jon a beer and a pillow for his feet.

08:04, Dave Rubin: "No you cannot take a boy and actually make them a girl, that's just not reality."

Say it with me; absolutely nobody is giving transgender surgeries to small children. Dave's entire framework is simply denying the existence of transgender people.

I've said this before but I find the fact that Dave is a member of the LGBTQ community and still has hopped onto the right-wing transphobia bandwagon really infuriating. Years ago his ilk would be trying to make his marriage illegal and guess what? They still want that! It's so frustrating to watch this guy run defense for guys who hate who he is.

And talk about "smug and unlikeable". Dave hasn't even bothered to meet up with the families of trans youth like Jon has and is handwaving legitimate medical treatments because "my billionaire sponsors don't like it".

Anyway, lets move on before my head explodes. Dave plays another Jon Stewart clip, this time him interviewing Gavin Newsom. Dave then plays some clips from the Daily Show when Trevor Noah was hosting it. Dave proceeds to call a transwoman a "creature" and I want to throw my laptop out the window. I'll elaborate on this in the conclusion, but I'm starting to realize that Dave Rubin is a profoundly lazy content creator.

14:22, Dave Rubin: "Now the reason I'm showing you all this and starting the show with this Jon Stewart thing and everything else is because the Daily Show became this cultural touchpoint. 'More young people get their news from the Daily Show than anywhere else.' So when you wonder how did this all happen? That so many kids are confused about their gender. How did it happen that being not racist made you racist? It's because this is the crap that Hollywood pushes on us."

"The Daily Show is turning people trans" is an argument that I never thought I would hear and yet here we are. The median viewership age of the Daily Show in 2024 is 63 years old by the way so this argument makes even less sense in this day and age.

Dave plays another Daily Show clip. This time it's one of the guest hosts talking about migrants.

15:54, Dave Rubin: "Illegal people are here illegally. Even if there are jobs for them then what you do is you have them come legally and you figure it out."

Except that the pathways to legal immigration are borderline impossible to fulfill. If Dave is saying that we should loosen those pathways, I agree. But that's not what he's saying so this is just him being an obtuse idiot.

Dave does an ad for Tax Network USA and then he expands on his broader point.

18:10, Dave Rubin: "What I'm trying to lay out to you, and that's all well and good, is that all the ideas that we just talked about there are the things that get into the culture and you wonder why everything is wrong, why our politicians suck, why we don't know up is down and up is up and down is down and all these things."

Dave Rubin: Master Orator strikes again.

"Up is down and up is up and down is down", truly profound stuff right there. Seriously, who the hell watches this unironically?! How does this guy have 2.14M subscribers?! At least guys like Ben Shapiro have certain airs around them that make them seem like intellectuals to people who don't know any better.

18:25, Dave Rubin: "But now I want to drive this a little further into the cultural piece of this because Law & Order where a white woman is raped by a black man but doesn't want him to go to jail. Take a look at this."

Dave then plays the clip from Law & Order. Again, this a ridiculously stupid thing to talk about, especially since Dick Wolf seems like a pretty conservative guy from what I can tell.

19:40, Dave Rubin: "Could we do a road trip after the show? Would you guys be interested in doing a road trip after the show? Drive cross-country, go to Hollywood, bomb the place?"

Law & Order has been filmed in New York for a million years.

Also, the episode ends with the rape victim testifying against the rapist so this whole story is a complete load of nothing even if we follow the parameters that Dave laid out.

20:11, Dave Rubin: "The messaging that they are sending to the brains of young people and I guess middle age people who watch Law & Order, everything is freaking backwards. They have taken art and made it activism."

Does....does Dave not realize that art and film has been a form of activism since its inception. Also, I love how he realized in the middle of his sentence that young people tend not to watch Law & Order and threw that "middle aged people" in there at the last second. Nice save.

Dave talks about the Disney Snow White remake. This is such an insanely old story. Ben Shapiro even announced a "competitor" version that will be hosted on the Daily Wire what feels like a century ago. Old news and an immediate skip.

21:21, Dave Rubin: "I do wanna back up for just a second. I don't condone or call for terrorism in Hollywood or anywhere else. I didn't mean bomb the place, I meant like glitterbomb it, you know what I mean? Just go there and pour glitter all over these people, that is what I meant. Lets be clear about that because Media Matters I'm sure is watching every moment of this 'Rubin just called to bomb Hollywood.'"

I've got bad news for Dave, he's not even important enough to get clipped by Media Matters. He's been mentioned by them in passing but the last time he got clipped was February of 2023. Really the only people criticizing him are a Twitter account called "Dave Rubin Clips" on Twitter, his own subreddit, and me.

Dave plays a clip from SNL. He does an ad for the Wellness Company, it's the same company that makes those emergency kits that Charlie Kirk was hawking in our last episode.

Now, its time to get serious. Dave wants to talk about the news...it involves playing more stupid freaking clips. He plays an MSNBC clip and here are his thoughts.

26:11, Dave Rubin: "Ok, I'm only showing you that because these people that they put on there, they just offer them the red meat. And of course their kind of brain damaged progressive audience eats it up."

"And then I play a clip of it so that my audience can eat up my commentary on it"

Also, the brain damaged comment was stupid as all hell. Anyway, Trump lost the defamation suit against E. Jean Carroll and Dave comments on it the only way he can...by commenting on a clip he plays from The View.

28:13, Dave Rubin: "It really, it's so horrible. And watching the women applaud. If they all felt like this woman really got raped, again rape is pretty bad, they wouldn't be celebrating today, right? Like, it wouldn't be a day of celebration. It would be kind of a somber like, 'Oh there was a verdict in the defamation thing related to the rape and Donald Trumps gonna have to pay up.' But they know it's all bullshit, it's all a show."

"Woah, a rape victim celebrating finally getting justice?! That makes no sense!"

This argument makes absolutely zero sense. Imagine if you got raped and the court forces your rapist to pay you millions of dollars. You'd be pretty damn happy. Does Dave think that after you get raped you are incapable of feeling anything outside of sadness?! And what's more, if you manage to score a win against your rapist you are still going to be sad.

Lets play a game. Do you think that Dave is going to;

A): Offer insightful and nuanced commentary on the verdict that considers the evidence and leads to an informed conclusion.

B): Play another stupid clip and then say something stupid.

The answer is A....just kidding! This is Dave Rubin we're talking about, of course it's going to be B! Dave rolls a CNN clip and mumbles about some stupid shit.

30:20, Dave Rubin: "If she got raped, which Donald Trump was not convicted of, would you want to make a show of all of this?"

The guy was extremely wealthy and that was before he became president. She's celebrating getting a form of justice against an extremely powerful adversary.

Also, Trump was found liable of sexually abusing Carroll which is commonly understood as rape. So he didn't even get that part right. Again, laziness.

Dave comments on a joke Carroll made to Rachel Maddow that she would "buy her a penthouse". It was a joke and apparently Dave is pissed about it. Whatever. Dave plays more clips of Carroll and then plays a Megyn Kelly clip. Again, letting others make his arguments for him.

35:16, Dave Rubin: "This is why Megyn is just so consistently great. I don't know what happened, you don't know what happened, Megyn Kelly doesn't know what happened."

So the bar for trusting a rape victim is if you know for sure what happened? That's ridiculous! Plus the evidence was clearly compelling enough that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse.

Also, wasn't the theme for today supposed to be about WW3? "Cooler heads shall prevail" and all that?

37:03, Dave Rubin: "But now I wanna connect that to something that's happening in the world and show you Trump at his absolute best. Because these are the moments that we could use a real leader in this country and I think he has an interesting opportunity. And as I've been telling you for the last two weeks, I wanna nudge him to be the best Donald Trump if possible."

Oh yeah, that's gonna happen. I can just see Trump now;

"I was gonna make this decision but Dave Rubin said that would be a bad idea! Guess I'm not gonna do that!"

Anyway, Dave's next story is about the drone-strike in Jordan that took the lives of 3 US soldiers. He reads some stuff from the Daily Wires website (and here I thought he was going to play a clip of Ben Shapiro, he's evolving!) and then launches into his take;

38:44, Dave Rubin: "So now you might be wondering 'Dave, what does this have to do with the E. Jean Carroll thing?' Well, Donald Trump issued a statement on this and I think he nailed it."

Dave reads out a Donald Trump post that he very clearly didn't write (not enough random all caps). Again, Dave can't really make content of his own capably and just relies on everybody else to do the heavy lifting. Also, I love how quickly he switched over from being a Ronnie D simp to being a MAGA moron. Those boots need a lickin'!

40:20, Dave Rubin: "Look, I don't know if Donald Trump wrote that himself. It's obviously irrelevant, they have speechwriters and everything else."

It's relevant when you spent the past four minutes hyping this post up as "the Trump we need" and "Trump at his absolute best". If Trump didn't write it then it isn't Trump. Unless you are saying that Trump is at his best when he isn't in control, in which case me and Dave might have more common ground than I thought.

40:26, Dave Rubin: "But the clarity, the moral clarity, 'peace through strength'. The reality of the fact that three, four years ago, when Donald Trump was still president, especially pre-COVID, that the world was peaceful and Middle East peace deals were being signed left and right. The Iranians were doing absolutely nothing."

It may have seemed more peaceful compared to right now but it's important to remember that the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been going on for way longer than October 7th. The Abraham Accords, which I assume is what Dave is talking about when he mentions about peace deals, was brokered between countries that weren't engaged in conflict and did nothing to impact Israel and Palestine. Also, nothing happened with Iran? Remember the assassination of General Suleimani that nearly pushed the US and Iran to the brink of war? That certainly didn't help peace in Iran.

41:30, Dave Rubin: "The first thing that Donald Trump did when he got into office was drop the mother of all bombs, the MOAB, the mother of all bombs, dropped it. People didn't even know why he dropped it but it made it seem like he was kinda crazy so don't mess with this guy."

So Dave's brilliant foreign policy strategy is acting like a complete lunatic?

41:43, Dave Rubin: "He killed Suleimani, right? And everyone was like 'this is gonna start World War Three', actually it caused Iran to not do much of anything while he was president."

The reason we are seeing so much action from Iran is because of Israel/Palestine, a conflict which finally boiled over after decades. Blaming Irans increased action on Biden is stupid.

Again, I don't think Biden is faultless. His continued funding of the genocide in Palestine is awful and I fundamentally disagree with it. But criticizing him for stupid made up reasons is well...stupid.

Conclusion:

Ok, so Dave playing a lot of clips and not adding a lot of original ideas to his commentary took me off guard the last time that I talked about him but this time I was ready for it. This episode didn't break a lot of new ground but I felt that it would be a good opportunity to talk about something about Dave that needs to be said and it's that his content is so deeply lazy.

Think about it. Your average Dave Rubin episode is just him playing television clips completely out of context and then saying a two second conservative culture war related soundbite after it. Dave Rubin basically gets mad at TV for a living.

Even when he's trying to make an argument, he just mumbles something that doesn't really make any sense and then lets someone more articulate like Megyn Kelly pick up the pieces. It's to the point where I would be willing to wager that a good 50% of his show is just clips of other people talking.

This is because Dave Rubin is a grifter who doesn't really bring any new ideas to the table outside of "I'm gay and I'm also conservative". I feel like a big part of him realizes that when he talks for long periods of time he usually ends up making a fool of himself.

And it's not just the clips either, he barely researches what he's talking about. Take for example, the Daily Show coverage. With a five second Google search I knew more about the story than Dave did and as a result was able to point out his inaccuracies and make him look like a complete idiot. Same thing with him not realizing that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. This is basic shit that you need to know when you are trying to act like the authority on a subject. But Dave doesn't even look into it because he's too busy clipping NBC and being deeply lazy.

Anyway, cheers and I'll see you in the next one.

[thevindicativevordan]

Any thoughts about the recent Dawn of DC announcements ?

Let's see if the new DC is the same as the old DC.

DC's official press release says that 20 new books are coming, and they only revealed 10 (one of which was last year's Round Robin winner), so 10 more books are coming that have yet to be revealed. Let's take a roll call:

Unstoppable Doom Patrol by Dennis Culver and Chris Burnham - Burnham has me excited, Culver has me skeptical. All of Culver's DC work thus far has been lousy. His Justice League Incarnate book with Williamson was the weakest of the Infinite Frontier trilogy, his Future State Gotham book was really bad, and Doom Patrol is a great team that demands unorthodox writing. Rooting for Culver to surprise me here because God would I love to have a good Doom Patrol book with Way never coming back at this point. Can't believe it took DC this long given the success of the DP HBO Max series. Jane having a new alter that places her in the role of the Chief is a cool idea at least.

Superboy: Man of Tomorrow by Kenny Porter and Jahnoy Lindsay - I voted for this, I'm glad it won, I've enjoyed DC Mech, I expect I will enjoy this. I'm praying Lindsay gives Conner a new costume, it's time to ditch the 90s look for something new. No more looking back for Conner, that terrible Fitzmartin YJ mini was right about one thing: we can't live in the past. He needs a new modern costume, and a story that reestablishes who he is in a post Jon Kent world. This and PKJ Action are seemingly going to accomplish that, both in terms of who Conner is on his own, and who he is in the Superfamily. Given the long wait between when this series was announced as the winner and when it is finally coming out, there shouldn't be any delays at least.

Green Lantern: Hal Jordan by Mariko Tamaki (Artist TBA) - Tamaki is mostly good with a few misses, her Tec, Supergirl: Being Super, and (apparently I haven't read it) Crush & Lobo books were good, her Wonder Woman run not so much. In fairness that was blatant movie synergy and didn't leave her much freedom to work with. I liked her Tec run and this appears to be aiming for something similar. Hal back in Coast City on Earth, rebuilding his life here is exactly the kind of thing they should have done after the Johns era's nonstop cosmic epic. Give me revamps of old Hal Earth villains beyond Hector Hammond that we haven't seen in a while, Hal struggling to make friends with the neighbors the way Tamaki had Bruce do in her Tec run, and put Hal and Carol back together again, and I'll be happy.

Green Lantern John Stewart by PKJ (Artist TBA) - Now this has my attention. Giving PKJ another book means they trust him, giving him a John Stewart book - who may end up being the main DCU Lantern if that HBO Max GL series actually gets made - means they view him as one of their up and comers. He's expressed a lot of love for and desire to work in GL before, he's set up plot threads for GL such as the Revenant Queen threat that would give John his own Rogues which John desperately needs, and I obviously am a huge fan of the cosmic storytelling over in Action which I fully expect will be repeated here. DC Cosmic has been crying out for a worldbuilder to flesh it out more for ages, this is an exciting choice. My hunch is that John will be dealing with another Aspect of Olgrun, since there are six more out there unaccounted for. Inject some of that Warworld Saga storytelling into Green Lantern, let's get John a love interest, and maybe Stewart will finally get that equivalent to Johns run on GL with Hal which his fans have been begging for. Sampere is a huge GL fan who has history with PKJ before, I would say he's a natural choice for this book, but he likes Hal more so I could see him ending up on Tamaki's book instead.

Cyborg (Creative Team TBA) - Wish I could be more excited for this, but I have to know the team and the pitch before being interested. Too many Cyborg stories rehash the same "am I a man or a machine?" crap for me to pull this sight unseen.

Batman: The Brave & The Bold by Tom King and Various Artists - King got robbed of his 100 issue Batman run so I guess he's going to make up for it by doing secondary Batman books forever. Does Batman really need another team-up book given World's Finest already has him teaming up with Superman and the rest of the DCU? I'll be reading this so I guess I'm part of the problem, but I really wish King would take on another of the A-Listers. All he does is Batman books, C-Listers, and the occasional dabble in the Superman sphere. I want to see him tackle another Justice Leaguer's ongoing, give him an Aquaman or Martian Manhunter book since everyone else seems to be claimed. Apparently he's shifting back towards the mainline DCU ongoings after spending a couple years doing minis of dubious canonicity. Looks like creative teams will rotate and since Rob Williams is here and he's a writer not an artist, guess he's next up after King.

Green Arrow by Josh Williamson and Sean Izaakse - Williamson has been building up to this since the start of Infinite Frontier, cool that he's finally announcing the book. I'll admit I'm annoyed it's opening with a "we have to find Ollie who is lost out in the Multiverse!" arc, I'm sick of the Multiverse and I'm tired of DC "building up" to doing what everyone is asking them to. Just write a damn Green Arrow back where he's in Star City/Seattle interacting with the Arrow Family! Maybe Williamson doing a Multiverse story with a smaller cast will be more palatable, I did enjoy his Flash run after all.

Shazam! by Mark Waid and Dan Mora - Other than Superman proper this is probably the book Waid has been dying to write the most. He, Morrison, and Gail Simone pitched to take over the Marvel Family way back when, I bet he's got loads of ideas on how to revamp the character, and his ideas will probably be better received than Johns' revamp was. Solicit sounds great, Mora on art (and apparently still doing art for World's Finest, dude is a machine) is perfect, and Waid's handling of the Fab Five over in WF has shown he can handle younger characters still. Should be fun in the same way WF is.

The Penguin by Tom King and Stefano Gaudiano - Hah that's a pretty great team for a synergy book. King's Penguin in his Batman run was... well he seemed to be teasing that Penguin had sex with actual penguins, so clearly his take on Penguin is untraditional to say the least. Pitch seems interesting enough, Penguin back in crime because the government forced him back in as their agent is intriguing.

Steelworks (Creative Team TBA) - On one hand hell yes a new Steel book! Tell me Greg Pak is writing this and I am there day one. If it's not Pak however then I have qualms. The brief description in the press release makes it seem like John Henry is giving up on being Steel and handing over the role entirely to Natasha, and I've got no interest in that. S&L make me into a Nat fan but I love John Henry more, and I am not going to be happy if DC's idea of celebrating his 30th is him handing over the role to his niece. He better be the main protagonist and he better get to suit up and be Steel. Glad that DC has enough faith in PKJ to start spinning new series out of what he's doing.

Only two Bat books so fuck it, let's call it a win. Satisfied overall with the creative teams announced, for those that were actually announced, DC is playing it safe but after Infinite Frontier took risks and bombed that's exactly what I expected to happen. I guess the next event is going to be called Knighttime and will be another Batman event. Ugh. Also is that red circle with a bird supposed to represent Penguin, because it sure looks a lot like Hawkman’s symbol. Maybe a new Hawk book will be announced as part of the second wave? For the second wave I want books for Zatanna, Aquaman, Vixen, Justice League Dark (use the Shadowpact name if we're keeping the JL on ice for a while), Suicide Squad, and Legion of Superheroes, but as an opening lineup? I'm pretty happy with this!

[ataritouchme]

it is really just amazing to go back and look at lib-y stuff from the mid 2010s and see the dramatic differences in political tone between pre-BLM and post-BLM.. stuff. suddenly even the Centrist white dudes were drawing lines in the sand. i remember watching the episode of the daily show that came out after michael brown was murdered (i think it was him? maybe trayvon martin idk its all such a blur to me im sorry) where jon stewart puts on his serious voice he would typically only reserve for 9/11 or whatever and be like “look yall might not wanna hear this but the experiences of white americans are fundamentally different than those of black americans” and then like a few months later he was gone off tv. right? i think that timeline makes sense. and crash course has a similar thing going on. old series didnt really touch on race relations in the us even us history which… looking back is awkward to say the least but i suppose if ur pandering to the apush crowd its probably sensible since the ap test is never gonna have like an essay question about how america is built on racism and subjugation of black ppl and ppl of color in general. or idk maybe it does now. but it certainly didnt in 2013. but then literature has so much content about black authors and authors of color and actually has like deeper than surface level exploration of how those authors experiences of racism and colonialism informed their writing. idk its just nice to see that at least on some maybe superficial level but some level still the centrist white dudes actually stopped being spineless.

[the-peculiar-bi-tch]

Watching Jon Stewart rip apart the Arkansas attorney general on the state's anti trans youth law was so awesome; he just held on to his arguments for medical organizations and actual studies and just beat her over the head with them until she complained "I wasn't prepared to have a Supreme Court case today." Like girl you need sources if you're going to try that shit.

I understand Stewart has said done pretty transphobic things in the past, but having apologized for them and then done something I've never seen any of my cis friends do (actually defend my identity and right to exist) I don't really care. I sure didn't start out trans positive until I came on here, met some people, and cracked my egg. Transphobia is socialized into and can be socialized out of.

I hope this leads more liberal media outlets to start reporting on trans issues, especially trans youth, more responsibly. A recent opinion in The Guardian from some person complaining about how her girlfriend came out to get as a trans woman is a) a very good insight into how "allies" may react when they actually meet the real versions of us, not the faces we put on in public or our media representations, and b) a reminder that these news orgs don't care about our rights or our struggles. They care about views and right now trans drama is perfect for it. It's being driven by fearmongering and hatred, by demagogues like Rowling and Walsh, and it's causing shows to be cancelled and hospitals to shut down programs over bomb threats. The world will not stand in the way of death to save a tiny part of the population.

Yet I still appreciate Stewart for doing this. Realized you fucked up is hard and making amends can be even harder. When the amend is "be the loudest pro trans cis white guy in the country," that's an amend worth recognizing and celebrating. We're a long long way off from broader social acceptance, and I anticipate anti-trans pogroms before we reach it, but with allies like this, it's a hike we can finish.

[bebewrites]

15 tags, 15 mutuals

tysm for the tags @flowerprose & @baroquesse!! 💕

1. Are you named after anyone? nope! my parents picked my name out of a baby name book lol 2. When was the last time you cried? last night—i couldn’t stop thinking about that jon stewart video with the senator from oklahoma 🫠😤 3. Do you have kids? no, but i’d like to someday i think. currently happy chasing my nephews around! 4. Do you use sarcasm a lot? yes in lighthearted situations? not so much in more serious moments when it could actually be frustrating. i have an old toxic friend who used to do that to me and hated it.

5. What's the first thing you notice about people? i’m not really sure. maybe eyes, hair? style? 

6. What's your eye color? hazel

7. Scary movies or happy endings? happy endings, i am a basic bitch

8. Any special talents? umm well i have a food blog (baking) and i’m a cookbook author (also baking) so i will say baking 😂

9. Where were you born? alabama

10. What are your hobbies? (aside from reading and writing, which i haven’t had much time for lately) baking, photography. i used to write a lot of poetry, but haven’t really the last few years. would love to get back to that and find some new inspo for it.

11. Have you any pets? i have one cat and she is a wild girlie. she’s more like a puppy or a toddler lmao.

12. What sports do you play/have played? volleyball for a year in middle school. that’s about it ahaha. i was a marching band kid in high school.

13. How tall are you? 5′2″ rounding up lol

14. Favorite subject in school? creative writing, french, art history 15. Dream job? published fantasy author 🙃

--

tagging (feel free to ignore also sorry if you’ve already been tagged!!) @mjjune @pinespittinink @sentfromwolves @awritingcaitlin @legiomiam @carminasolis @tananaphone @saphoblin @nectargrapes @authoralexharvey @juls-writes @carrotblr @italicised @garthcelyn

[bluespring864]

6, 11, 16, and 18. any or all of them!

Thank you for the ask bestie ;-)

6. What's a line from a fic that you think about all the time?

I actually went and hunted for the little piece of paper I wrote this down on ages ago. It's from an excellent Kirk/Spock fic called "Inner War" by Kara Storm and it goes like this:

I have no right to decide what is or is not a valid struggle for you. If it pains you, of course it is valid.

11. Are there any fics that you really vividly remember reading for the first time?

I have a terrible story memory. But your Andrey fic is definitely up there, because it resonated so much. Let me link that for everyone:

— a separate sky by fisherkings

It's about homesickness and exile and friendship and it's brilliant, go read it!

I also for some reason quite vividly remember a Jon Stewart/"Stephen Colbert" story, which was incredible because it seemed impossible to me that someone could write seriously about the conservative pundit parody Colbert played, but this author managed it. It's here:

The Man in the Mirror (or: Persona Non Drama) by Vivian Moon

I highly recommend this author.

16. Are there any fic titles that are really memorable to you or that you really love?

Again, terrible memory, I'll have a look at some bookmarks maybe:

Okay, "Tauchen ist wie Fliegen unter Wasser" [diving is like flying underwater] by Cornchrunchie and "The black and white of snow" by iridescentglow

I highly recommend these authors, too :-)

18. If you were hosting a fic fest designed specifically to give yourself a bunch of fics you'd really really love, what would the theme/requirements be?

What a question for a multi-fandom person who reads a bit of everything :D But okay, I do have some preferences: no or few AUs (I do like them sometimes but not very often), as much slow burn as possible, happy endings, potentially some poly fic if well done, lots of fave rarepairs, maybe some tragic misunderstandings if they're cleared up in the end, subverted tropes (soulmates especially), maybe some wingfic, maybe some age gap stories, dark and brooding main characters with a hard shell (and a kind heart), touch starved, people overcoming trauma, people being kind to people who don't know how to deal with it, forehead kisses... I'm rambling about just favourite stuff in stories now, I'll leave it at that :D

[nomorerww]

The Wall Street Bro Cult with their nutball hits *"Greed is Good!"* and *"Pull Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps"* and *"Tricky Trickle Down Economics, M'boy!"* have a lot of "dust" that's for damn sure.

It's often said, maybe tongue-in-cheek, that there's a sort of Stockholm Syndrome among the working class populace, which I tend to agree with. On the same token though, from the looks of it, the wealthier and more powerful have something parallel to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy:

>... a condition in which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person ... This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. The caregiver then presents the person as being sick or injured.

_________________________________________________________

With respect to financial literacy - which is sorely missing in much of education today - and a broad misunderstanding among even educated people more really, really, *really* need to be aware of this - as it's related to billionaires and the fleecing of the middle and lower classes:

>In a little-known quirk of Wall Street bookkeeping, when brokerages loan out a customer’s stock to short sellers and those traders sell the stock to someone else, both investors are often able to vote in corporate elections. With the growth of short sales, which involve the resale of borrowed securities, **stocks can be lent repeatedly, allowing three or four owners** to cast votes based on holdings of the same shares.

>The Hazlet, New Jersey–based Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder votes in corporate contests in 2005. **It found evidence of overvoting—the submission of too many ballots—in all 341 cases.** ^[source](https://web.archive.org/web/20060421085925/http://www.rgm.com/articles/FalseProxies.pdf)

This is a *serious* problem without enough awareness. It undermines the most foundational elements of Wall Street/corporate democracy and voting. The entire trajectory of a company can be altered, quite easily, if overvoting is possible.

>Stocks held in *street name* may be loaned to short-sellers and resold to others. So, it is possible for *more than one person to own shares held in street name.* ^[source](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/185.asp#:~:text=Stocks%20held%20in%20street%20name,recover%20100%25%20of%20all%20securities)

Furthermore...

>Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.[^source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company)

Someone can insure shares are in their *own name* using the [Direct Registration System](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_holding_system) which legally *must* be processed when requested. If they are held in a broker, they are NOT in your name, but in what's known as *"street name,"* which laces loopholes and dubious legality and illegality all throughout and makes it possible to screw you over in numerous derivative-based ways and otherwise.

Shares, if not in your own name, are are, very, very, very, very likely, being used against you in convoluted schemes similar to 2008 Housing Derivative Meltdown - same sorta deal, different financial instruments - andor in actual non-delivery (FTDs) made possible through aforementioned Wall Street lobbying and associated loopholes.

Importantly, combine not *actually* owning shares with something called Payment-for-Order-Flow (see: ["How Redditors Exposed the Stock Market" | The Problem with Jon Stewart - timestamped to relevant portion](https://youtu.be/bP74RBTE8kI?t=396)) and, subsequently, with stock lending and a Failure-to-Deliver, *it's truly not an exaggeration to say that there's a network of drunk, coked out Wall Street psychopaths skimming off the top billions and billions of dollars that should be going to the middle and lower classes.*

>Payment-for-Order-Flow is **illegal** in Canada, the U.K, Australia, and Europe - because it's exceedingly easy to commit fraud under such a system. Singapore recently announced they'll be banning it, as well, in early 2023.

Big surprise - it's legal in the U.S. Furthermore, almost comically... it was heavily endorsed and made popular by Bernie fucking Madoff.

For a form of mitigation and defense, [this](https://youtu.be/hXWXllgcRqU) video (~5 minutes) is well worth it - it's done well and summarizes some of the broader issues - while [this](https://drsgme.org) website provides clear direction and guidance on what you/we can do to hold some of these practices, if not people, accountable.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

Well here's a fucking Chortle headline for the roundup:

Holy fuck. I cannot believe that. Never for a moment did it cross my mind that this might happen. It's been nearly ten years since he left, and this never once seemed like a possibility.

I remember exactly when he left. I know it was announced in February 2015, because I was sitting in my bedroom in the city where I lived in 2015, where I'd moved to join their bigger and more impressive sports team and ended up just being miserable and lonely for two years because I did not have any of the skills required to fit in there. Anyway, it's fine, not the point of this post. The point is I know it was 2015 and I know it was February because I vividly remember sitting in that bedroom and scrolling on Facebook, and seeing a mock Valentine's Day card that said "May Jon Stewart be the only man to break your heart this week." And that's how I found out he'd announced he was leaving The Daily Show.

I know when he actually left, too. It was August 2015. Because Donald Trump walked down that fucking escalator in June 2015, and announced he'd be running for president. I remember watching The Daily Show that night, and Jon Stewart, incredibly pleased at the comedy gold mine that was about to befall all political comedians, looked into the camera and said to Donald Trump: "Thank you for making my last six weeks the best six weeks." Then he stayed on for six more weeks and made Trump jokes every night, then he left, and the world immediately ended. Looking back with a bit of perspective, Jon Stewart really did happen leave the show right as the Western world was on a precipice of having the norms as we thought we knew them all crumble at once. I'm thinking of that timeline that says 2000-2015=nostalgia, 2016-2019=2016, 2020-present=plague. Those are pretty much my life's eras. And Jon Stewart was there for a hell of a lot of that first one. (Not actually the first era of my life, there is also 90s=childhood, but I'm pretty sure everything was fine then, right?)

It's a bit weird to me now to see Jon Stewart as having an individual career, if that makes any sense at all. If you'd asked me in 2009 who my favourite comedians were, it wouldn't have occurred to me to say Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, even though I watched them both every night and loved those shows. I hardly even though of those as things that people had to make by being comedians and writers. They were just fixtures. Part of the landscape. I was so confused when he left the show, I didn't think it could exist without him. It didn't really feel like television could exist without Jon Stewart coming on at the end of the night. I remember learning some time ago about Marc Maron's feud with Jon Stewart over their days on the comedy circuit, and that was so weird. Jon Stewart didn't have days on the comedy circuit. He didn't have a career you could object to or admire, or opinions you could agree with or disagree with. He was just a fixture in the landscape.

I remember the first time I saw Jon Stewart. I think it was probably 2006, maybe 2005. I was really into Rick Mercer, this Canadian comedian who did TV shows where he made fun of the news. My mother put on a TV show, pointed to the guy behind the desk, and said, "That's Jon Stewart, he's like an American Rick Mercer." It only occurred to me relatively recently how funny it is to call Jon Stewart "an American Rick Mercer". But anyway, I watched that episode with my mom and then I kept doing that every night for many years.

I remember watching his final Daily Show episode with my mother, in August 2015. Bruce Springsteen came on live and played him out. My mother and I both got fairly emotional.

I kept watching The Daily Show for a long time after Jon Stewart left. I even followed a lot of the similar spinoff shows by its correspondents. I watched Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and The Opposition with Jordan Klepper, and Larry Wilmore's The Nightly Show, and Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act, and Michelle Wolf's The Break. Obviously, I followed John Oliver to Last Week Tonight (and would also if necessary follow him to the ends of the Earth, but that's beside the point).

I quite like Trevor Noah too; when he took over the show I read his autobiography and watched his stand-up specials and the documentary about him. I even saw him live in 2019. So I wasn't one of those people saying the show could never recover from Jon Stewart leaving. I watched a lot of the Trevor Noah years, and only dropped off from following it so closely fairly recently. It was around 2022, I think, when I just stopped keeping up with it. I had so much Britcom going on, and the world was so fucking depressing, getting all my news from actual news sites (as everyone should always always do, do not get your news from comedians, use political comedy as a way to lighten the mood of the regular news that you should first get from actual journalists, for the love of God please do not let the industry of actual journalism be steamrolled by entertainment) was stressful enough and I didn't want to keep having this other way of going over it.

So, those are a few disjointed memories that came into my mind when I saw that story this week. Here's another memory: I remember reading an interview with Jon Stewart from just after he left The Daily Show, in which he was asked if he would ever watch Fox News again. He replied that if he were ever in some post-apocalyptic scenario where Fox News was the only way to find out where to find vital life-saving information, he still wouldn't watch it. Because doing that job that required him to watch so much Fox News had destroyed him mentally and he could not wait to never ever ever ever ever do it again.

I was one of those people, after he left, saying, "I get it, it's high-pressure and difficult, I see why he wants to move on and have a break. But I would pay to have Jon Stewart just broadcast once a month in his sweatpants from his living room couch. He can't just be gone. He needs to keep telling us about the news, what will we do without him?"

We did do without him for nine years, and the world we thought we knew has crumbled around us in about twenty-five different ways since then, and I have absolutely no idea how the fuck Jon Stewart could fit into the landscape as it exists today. Like. I don't know what to do with this information. It wasn't on my radar. It's like finding out they're rebooting Buffy with the entire original cast and writing crew. Or if the girl I had a crush on from the ages of 9 to 14 showed up and told me she was in love with me. Of course it's what I wanted, but... what? Really? Why? Why now? Do I even still want this? You mean everything pre-2016 wasn't just a dream and we still technically exist in the same world as that one and the things in it are still out there and could just come back?

...There are people like @lastweeksshirttonight who actually know things about the US late-night comedy show scene, who have always understood that Jon Stewart is a person with a backstory who entered and then left an industry that also had a backstory and those things affected each other and this will have a significant effect on the ecosystem. Those people will have intelligent takes on what's happening right now. But I do not. Jon Stewart was on TV when I was in high school. He can't be on TV now because I am no longer in high school (even though I was 24 when he left in 2015). What the fuck?