#Having him on podcast would’ve been brutal

[helpimanidiot]

oop, sorry :]

the thing stopping que from bribing them as well is, 1. He’s about to be in a legal battle with them, and 2. They don’t deserve to be given money for allowing the cullees to hang out

I could see que being brought into the podcast as a “fellow purple blooded man of reason” before the legal battle and going ‘yov k^ovv i^^ seablood cvsp right?’

His lime/fuchsia cullees first culler was almost teal, but then I went with violet

Never posted Gogo ( @coralcraftwork ) and her culler here?! Look at them now

[velvetjune]

Alan Wake 2 Lake House DLC spoilers/review (also spoilers for Control):

Had a lot of fun with this DLC! It’s short (unfortunately expected this), but sweet, although I wish I didn’t watch the trailer for it. It would’ve been amazing experiencing this with no knowledge. As a massive Control fan, I was practically thriving off of all the reading and FBC style. I have some sympathy for fans of Alan Wake who might hate Control, but these games are far more than a crossover by now and moving forward. I can see how this wouldn’t work for people who dislike that.

Personally, Remedy has done well at connecting their stories without it clashing! The AWE dlc for Control was a mixed bag for me, mostly because the story wasn’t really there and the darkness mechanics were bland. This could be because I’m very biased towards Control, but this was a great example of how to merge the settings and traits of both games in an interesting way.

The marital and mad scientist drama was terrible in the best way. I was dying every time one of the Marmonts was “hmmm Wake says we’re going to die horrifically and become monsters, but im personally better than that.”

DR DARLING… <3 He should’ve had more appearances </3

After all the deserved hate directed at AI and producing content rather than art, it was heartwarming to see promotion for Poe. I don’t know the details, but she’s barely been able to release music over the last 20 years (some songs here and there), so having an entire area dedicated to her with links to a (fingers crossed) site about an upcoming Poe project was lovely. Lots of love put towards artists in this.

Ed being there was and thinking he was in an immersive experience was incredibly funny. I’d have to look it up, but was the manuscript page in his room detailing when he was taken HERE and not him dying to taken? Was this DLC happening during the start of aw2 or right before?

I’m in love with Kiran Estevez. She can be judgmental and tries to maintain a level of calm over the situation, but her disgust, fear, humor all shine through in funny ways. Hope that she, along with at least Saga, get to be in Control 2.

Only found this out after checking Reddit (which imo is too harsh over both Night Springs and this DLC), but apparently the Dylan part is skippable. It was SUCH a highlight of this DLC. The shifting environments, the Not-Oldest House, Dylan in the “panopticon” post-Control, etc. was surreal and captivating. Usually with set ups teasers, I don’t particularly care (e.g. the AWE dlc ending was alright!), but man. The way to get it was perfectly strange. Poor Dylan. Just like Control’s “hidden” ending cutscene, this really seems to put Control 2 in the wider NYC.

Having a “person who’s only seen Boss Baby” moment: thought of tma (the podcast) with the tapes, archives, panopticon, all the weird shit. It didn’t influence this game, but I was getting flashbacks to when I listened to it (stopped caring for it, but the first few seasons were fun in a creepypasta way)

I liked the calendar puzzles. I’m not a huge fan of puzzles in games, but these were easy enough to follow without dragging on. however I did spend five minutes confused just because I got Friday and Saturday mixed up :(

The boss fight was easy in story mode lol

Diana brutally killing the taken Jules was one of the only “gross” moments of Remedy’s games and it was great! It’s not much gore, but I’ll take it.

I accidentally pressed the option to instantly destroy (?) the painting :( So im so sorry to Rudolph and I’ll be replaying this dlc soon to see what the other option is.

For my problems, I was sad that the paint monsters were mainly annoying to run from (also they’re cute). I don’t know if it was an issue on my end or a bug, but even once I went to story mode, I still wasn’t finding healing objects until the last fight. The reason I switched to story was only because my low-ish health kept instant killing me by the Painted 😭 Maybe it’s because I haven’t replayed Alan Wake in a while, but this DLC was wildly difficult. If Remedy didn’t add a whole list of assists, I’d be more frustrated, but thankfully it’s there. The map also would keep question marks and loot up even when I interacted.

I prefer the Night Springs DLC, but this was a great look into Estevez, Control, and what art is. Now, Alan Wake 2 is officially done!

[every-single-day]

So the podcast my god I love that podcast so much. His just brutal honesty (idk if that’s the wording I want oh well) and just going for it saying stuff about how he has struggled with his mental health, has struggled with other things including like eye contact and whatnot (real) just makes me relate to him even more in a way ig?? And with how he’s started to stage door more and he just seems to be so much happier and more confident lately makes me genuinely so so happy and like we’re watching him grow into himself? Like he mentioned how he feels like he’s still doing that and it just really feels like that rn from seeing what he/others post of him (apple video, gma story trevi posted etc) just genusingl makes me so happy. Also makes me os mad bc I saw somewhere that one of the days he has stagedoored this week apparently someone full on like grabbed him which makes me so icky and feel so bad for him as it’s almost normal to treat actors as objects, not people BUT OFC THEYRE REAL FUCKING PEOPLE and just like if some of this shit was being done by men to women it so would’ve been called out and attempted to be dealt with especially fandom wise but bc it’s a lot of women doing it to men it’s not and it’s os gross (lol turned into a rant oh well, again no one in our corner has done anything and we also have the hard conversations and whatnot THST are SO NECESSARY FOR HEALTHY FANDOM SPACES) anyway thanks for coming to my Ted talk and goodnight!

AGAIN?!

I’m sorry, you said everything beautifully I just can’t focus on anything else right now what do you mean somebody grabbed him at stagedoor AGAIN I’m gonna be sick

[spngeorg]

Episode 110 - 6.06 You Can’t Handle the Truth

aka truth coming out of her well to punch humanity in the nuts...

Welcome to the brutal, painful truth. Let’s start this week with a trigger warning for suicide and implied offscreen rape of a minor, because even if this show will gloss over stuff like that, I try to give a heads up about it. Because yikes…

Poor Dean has been desperate for the truth all season long, but everyone and everything has stood in his way. And now? he’s about to be kicked, repeatedly and forcefully, with the harshest possible version of the truth on all fronts.

He suffers the consequences of his poor choices in the previous episode regarding Lisa (and again, if Dean was actually Ben’s father, you’d think that would be something she would’ve been compelled to reveal in a Most Painful Possible Way in this episode, but she doesn’t, which is the final nail in my personal coffin for the fandom theory that Ben was really Dean’s kid... but that’s entirely beside the point of this episode, really...)

And we learn the truth that Sam has known all along that something was really wrong with him, and he’s been hiding it. And also unfortunately, Cas only shows up BEFORE Dean gets hit with the truth spell, so we’re still in the dark about what’s actually going on with him, though it is becoming clear that he feels pretty dang bad about it all anyway.

LINKS!

The Superwiki page

My tag

Filming Locations map

CW Promo video

SpaceTV promo video

Space TV sneak peek

I really do hope folks have been looking through my tag every week, but if you’ve fallen behind on reading Lizbob’s Dean and Cas are In Love series, this seems like a good place to start linking those again :’)

Also, since I recorded this episode two weeks ago, and Discord has FINALLY invited me to update my user name, I’m now just plain old mittensmorgul there as well. Come say hi! :)

Listen now on Spotify, or wherever you enjoy podcasts!

[underneaththesurface]

The Martinez Murder

Omi: Good Evening Riverdale! I’m Omi Klyde

Estelle: And I'm Estelle

Omi: And this is Underneath The Surface, where we dive into the history of our town, Riverdale.

Today, we’ll be discussing the Martinez Murder

Estelle: And since this is a special occasion, we've decided to switch it up.

Why, you ask?

Omi: because I’m nosy

no, because I got to do the research this week. Lemme tell you. There’s some stuff that might get us in trouble if we reveal too much

Estelle: Luckily, we like living on the edge.

Omi: Yesss

a lot of this information I actually got from my older sister, who reported on this case at the time

Estelle: So we know this is going to be gooooood.

Omi: Adelfa knows her shit

Estelle: Can you say shit on a podcast?

Omi: Well I just did so, I mean, we’re not sponsored-are we sponsored???

Omi: Abe! Are we sponsored??

Estelle: I- I don't think so.

Abe: How the hell should I know? I just joined y'all!

Omi: alright, so, as we all know, the Serpents and Ghoulies have been in opposition since their creation, basically. Well, this whole thing was started by the waterboarding of Abdiel Martinez’s -the leader of the Ghoulies at the time- teenage son

sometime around 2009

Estelle: Wait-

They waterboarded a teenager?

Abe: what the-

Omi: the serpents weren’t as soft as they are now. The ghoulies were actually a lot less rowdy in the 90s/2000s

Estelle: I see.

Abe: Why, though?

Omi: Honestly, because of a simple wrong place wrong time misunderstanding. the leader of the serpents at the time was actually apologetic to Abdiel because apparently it really messed the kid up

Estelle: That's-

Abe: How you do accidentally waterboard the wrong person?

Estelle: But you said the leader of the Serpents actually apologized?

Omi: yes! 

Actually, he even paid for some therapy. 

The two groups had a truce

Estelle: Wow!

What happened to that guy?

Omi: oh, the leader? 

Not 100% sure. 

Think he died in combat or something

Estelle: huh. 

Omi: But...

Estelle: That’s pretty tragic

Abe: I knew there’d be a but

Omi: it is. And he seemed nice too, from what Adelfa told me 

yup, there’s always a but. 

Well, not long after that, the ghoulies went after the leader’s kid

Estelle: Of course.

I mean- why actually accept the truce if you just- you know-  go after the kid.

Abe: You said "kid", does that mean he was younger than the boy who was waterboarded?

Omi: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. 

 the ghoulies might’ve been soft, but they still had some wild members from the 80s there advising 

yeah, he would’ve been about our age then 

the age of the boy who got waterboarded was 16 I think?

Estelle: Oh. That's-

Abe: NINE OR TEN????

Estelle: That’s just horrible 

Omi: nine or ten...poor kid

Estelle: But what did they exactly do to the 9/10-year-old?

Omi: they jumped him. 

Kid came out with cuts and bruises according to medical reports

Who the heck jumps a literal child??

Estelle: Ghoulies, apparently.

Abe: Didn't they do something like that to someone from our school?

The beanie guy.

Estelle: (wheezes) the beanie guy...

Omi: Nuggethead? Yes

a serpent himself

Estelle: I- I want to correct both of you, but-

His own name isn't that much better.

(whispers) Is that mean?

Omi: am I wrong??? I’ve seen him eat the entire menu at pops in one sitting

Abe: He's why you left the Blue & Gold.

That guy eats everything.

Omi: ok one more bash and I’ll get on with the story- 

but I have seen him eat a burger off the floor

Estelle: That's not just Jughead...

Abe: Yeah I'm pretty sure Mark's done that, too.

Estelle: No, I thought it was Brian.

Omi: wouldn’t put it past either of them

Estelle: Pretty sure Jonathan would do it too, if it wasn't for me.

Omi: teenage boys are something else, aren’t they? Like little creatures

anyways I should definitely go back to the topic because you’re usually the one who reigns me in

Estelle: The struggle is real.

Abe: Can't relate.

Estelle: (laughs) Let's save this for another time, yes. Please continue.

Omi: So, of course, the serpent leader was not happy bout this.

therapy stopped for the Martinez boy

Estelle: My respect would be gone if he didn't.

Omi: in fact, he was so angry about this, the serpents captured both Abdiel and his wife

the truce was over

which, is understandable

Abe: Oh no, not the wife.

Omi: the wife. But, the kids were left out of this part

Abe: Oh good, he has some morals.

Estelle: (wheezes) Better than the Ghoulies.

Omi: i don’t think the ghoulies ever had morals, minus maybe a few members. those young ghoulies scare me-they had the whole town scared of clowns for a year, remember that?

Estelle: Oh yeah.

Abe: Not a violent person but I was this close to buying a gun, yes.

Omi: those were some times 

Anyways, what is known about what happened next is the following: the couple was taken, reported missing for a few days, and Mrs. Martinez returned blind and widowed. Information was either redacted or they were unable to attain the exact details of the murder

Abe: Wh-

Estelle: Oh, that-

Abe: Blind??

Omi: blind

Estelle: I have to say, that is an effective way to lead

Abe: Are you seriously condoning this?

Omi: she stumbled into the south side emergency room, bleeding, and sobbing hysterically

no I get what you’re saying

Estelle: I mean, he was pretty chill and they abused that and now they paid.

Omi: makes sense to me

Abe: Y-yeah but-

Omi: y’all wanna hear something interesting tho?

Estelle: Oh Yes.

Abe: Oh No. 

Omi: Guess who’s kid runs the ghoulies now

Estelle: I- shut the fuck up.

Abe: Estelle-

Estelle: It all makes total sense now.

Omi: does this mean I can say fuck on this podcast

Estelle: We'll take the fine, should we get one.

Omi: daddy can pay for it we’re fine

Abe: Okay, but let's not overdo it please.

Omi: yes his son is now the leader and that is why the ghoulies are reclaiming their 80s wild child glory

also thats why they seem especially brutal towards the serpents

oh, want to hear another thing?

Estelle: Yes.

Always.

Omi: law enforcement never found the body, BUT

there are rumors

Estelle: Not surprised, honestly.

Abe: What rumors?

Omi: well, supposedly, there was a scavenger hunt

set by the serpents, for the ghoulies

Estelle: Oh.

Fun.

Abe: (laughs)

Omi: the body hasn’t been discovered to this day, as far as we know. But, that’s why there are so many random holes in fox forest

allegedly

and here I was, thinking we had massive gophers

Abe: Oh my god.

Estelle: Maybe they helped.

Omi: who knows, there’s lots of shit in that forest, especially that creepy funeral home and crematorium, which is also supposedly linked to the ghoulies but law enforcement hasn’t found proof of that

Estelle: How?

Omi: also we’re close to greendale and that town has lots of weird happenings. I suspect radiation

They searched the place

Abe: Yeah I believe that.

Estelle: See this is why I don't go to that forest.

Name one good thing that's happened there.

Omi: Absolutely nothing. 

too many kids go missing on the paths through it no way am I stepping foot in it

Abe: But y'all are dragging me to that house on Wabash Avenue?

Omi: its not in the forest. Free range baby

Abe: I don't wanna run into an angry man as we wander around his house.

Estelle: I'll get you some holy water, you'll be fine.

Omi: we’ll be fine. ill do a crazy dance to distract him

Estelle: If Omi screams, we'll run.

Omi: and I’ve never screamed

because we will be fine and if not I will ask Queenie for her bat

do you think ghosts like 90s r&b?

Estelle: I'd go for EDM.

Abe: Oh yeah.

Omi: so you have nothing to worry about my dear sweet Abe

theyll be dancing

Estelle: Now, some of you might have been wondering why it's the three of us.

You wanna introduce yourself?

Abe: Hello everyone! I'm Audrey Lincoln. Last time, Omi and Estelle decided to investigate the case of Wabash Avenue, and they've been thinking about turning it into a vlog.

Estelle: And of course, our lovely friend Abe came to mind.

Abe: So, the following weeks, I'll be part of the team.

Omi: shes talented, beautiful, stunning, spectacular, amazing, wonderful

Abe: Omi-

Estelle: And if our talented, beautiful, stunning, spectacular, amazing, wonderful friend likes it, she's more than welcome to stay part of the team.

Omi: i’d definitely like her to be apart of it, then we’d see you more!

well, I think that wraps up this week

Estelle: Feeling a little more unsafe in this town.

Omi: wait, you’ve felt safe in this town?

Estelle: When I was a little girl, yes.

Abe: Before History class.

Estelle: Or before I started following the news.

Omi: Valid points.

Well, I’m Omi 

Estelle: I'm Estelle.

Abe: And I'm Audrey.

Omi: Don’t forget to tune in next week for: The Truth Behind Pickens Day!

Estelle: See y’all then!

Abe: And sweet dreams

[pokemonmaxpics]

Well... we’ve made it this far... but unfortunately... my entire run throughout the series... comes to a close.

But that doesn’t mean this whole thing is over. We’ll get to that in a bit.

For now, let’s check the final stats for each of the seasons I got pics of.

Season 6 (Advanced): 283 pics

Season 7 (Advanced Challenge): 215 pics

Season 8 (Advanced Battle): 224 pics (I hoped to get more pics than season 7, and... we got there.)

And for Battle Frontier... Sorry, but I’m one of those people who don’t wanna tolerate the new voice cast from 2006 onwards. If you wanna make a Max Pics blog for Battle Frontier Episodes, that’s fine by me. I just don’t wanna do it myself.

Anyways... I apologize for ending the series run on such a... sad note, especially in the pictures, since I’m doing shots of Max only in order.

When I started this blog as “Relatable Pictures of Pokémon Max”, which I changed because I didn’t think any of the pictures are “relatable” in any way, I did one post a day. It was slow, but it was fun. If I kept doing that from beginning to end, it would’ve taken me over 2 years to finish.

Then in the middle of season 7, after a long hiatus, I decided to catch up and post multiple pics whenever I want. Even though I had a couple small hiatuses throughout, I had more of a fun time. I sat through 142 entire episodes just to get pictures of the cute little brother of the great coordinator out to you guys, and it was the first time I saw what the rest of the non-Max-centred episodes are about.

The Advanced Generation (except Battle Frontier) truly is my absolute favourite series in the Pokémon anime. But rewatching the later episodes... it was kinda brutal.

It makes me sad that Pasta La Vista was the final ever episode featuring the voice cast we all loved until The Pokémon Company International came in and made everything worse, much like what Team Rocket’s Battle Frontier motto says.

I wish that Amy Birnbaum (the voice of Max) is doing alright now. We did see her a couple of times since, in a podcast and her website, which has an email sender at the bottom, but I sent her a mail a few times at different points, and she hasn’t responded to any of them. I feel kinda worried for her, but that’s not the point.

The point now is... what’s next?

Well, the first phase is now complete. I just went through every 4Kids Pokémon episode featuring Max, got almost every shot of him only, and posted them on here, ending up with 722 pics in total across all 3 seasons.

That’s a lotta Max.

As you couldn’t tell, I’m like... a huge fan of Max. He’s an extremely underrated character and he deserves more love and attention. That’s why I made this, along with brotherofmay, a Max appreciation blog, in the first place.

But what’s gonna happen next?

Well... let’s go all the way back to the beginning.

Tomorrow, I’m gonna publish the very first shot of Max, which I didn’t do in the beginning, since I wouldn’t wanna start with a shot of Max’s eyes closed back then. And then, on Wednesday, I’m gonna reblog the best shots of him, from There’s No Place Like Hoenn to Pasta La Vista, every 5-10 minutes. I’m planning ahead of time the day before.

I wanna give the older pics more of a spotlight, since I’ve been seeing more people like my recent pics. I really appreciate that. So I hope this strategy works.

And then after that, there’s gonna be the movies, starting with Destiny Deoxys, then Lucario and the Mystery of Mew, and finally, we’re ending with Jirachi Wish Maker as a grand finale, mainly because... it’s my favourite Pokémon movie, and Max has a huge focus in the movie. It makes sense to end there.

Anyways, with all that being said, you all have a good night. I’ll see you all tomorrow. We’re at the homestretch!

[tommyomalley]

Overstated Harm

I have been thinking lately about harm—when it’s real, and when it’s exaggerated for political reasons. And as harm escalates, at what point does it require us to intervene on behalf of ourselves or others?

Yesterday, I recorded a conversation for my podcast Theater Fag with playwright Isaac Gomez. We met in the offices of Steppenwolf Theatre Company in Chicago, where his new play “La Ruta” is currently finishing a sold-out run. “La Ruta” is about the women of Ciudad Juárez, a Mexican border city that suffers one of the highest crime rates in North America, if not the world. Disproportionately impacted by the violence in Juárez are women, who regularly go missing without any hope of being found.

Obviously the situation in Juárez is an example of real harm. Like gay men with AIDS in the 1980s—like trans women of color in the United States today—the women of Juárez are dying preventable deaths at an insane rate, and nobody in the dominant culture gives enough of a shit to make it stop. Isaac’s play, “La Ruta,” is a tortured cry for mercy, one belonging to a theatrical tradition that includes plays like Larry Kramer’s seminal AIDS polemic “The Normal Heart” and “Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992,” Anna Deveare Smith’s verbatim account of the Los Angeles riots (in which Congresswoman Maxine Waters is a character, by the way).

In our conversation, Isaac and I discussed the roots of violence in Juárez, which Isaac attributed to toxic masculinity and failed US policy. Of the former, Isaac elaborated that he can draw a straight line from small acts of gendered insensitivity—microaggressions such as a man interrupting a woman to explain a point she was in the middle of making—to more grandiose expressions of violence, such as rape or murder. My impulse in the moment was to disagree and question the equivalence I thought Isaac was making. But after a night’s sleep on the matter, I think agree with Isaac’s general point—unchecked privilege corrupts, and if we don’t intervene when violence presents itself, it will escalate.

The women of Juárez are in a daily fight for their lives. The stakes for them could not be higher. That’s why, when people start to talk about feeling “safe” and the stakes fall somewhere short of life or death, it’s important to pause before offering our support and validation. Unfortunately, not all claims of victimhood are intellectually honest, and sometimes, folks who identify as victims are actually perpetrators. These situations require a different kind of intervention.

This week, the boys from Covington Catholic high school in a Kentucky have been all over the news, after a viral video clip in which one boy wearing a MAGA hat—Nick Sandmann—stared down an indigenous veteran named Nathan Phillips, who was seemingly just banging his drum. Since the release of that initial video, dozens more clips have surfaced, some of which show that Mr. Phillips intentionally walked into the Covington Catholic group, and others of which show an unrelated group of Black Israelites screaming nasty shit at every person who passed them, including the Covington Catholic boys and Nathan Phillips.

Some people claim these videos exonerate the Covington Catholic boys. Others say they implicate Nathan Phillips as a provocateur. What’s compelling to me is the immediacy with which reactions split along party lines. Lefties are Team Phillips, righties are Team CovCath. I have way too much trauma surrounding Catholic schoolboys of my youth to be impartial, but what I will argue is that the Covington Catholic boys are not victims here. I don’t want them destroyed, but I want to see some accountability. And when I see a lot of white adults minimizing their actions, I feel compelled to intervene.

The fact remains that Nick Sandmann stood aggressively close to Nathan Phillips, his posture and smirk fixed with a rigidity familiar to anyone who, like me, has been physically threatened or assaulted by a Catholic school meathead. Regardless of the aftermath, this was not a boy who was standing by innocently. He was full of the all the bravado an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex allows, and that—to my eye—is undeniable in any of the videos I’ve seen so far. It’s an expression of the toxic masculinity Isaac mentioned in our discussion of “La Ruta.”

Part of the PR campaign the Covington Catholic community is waging involves blaming the Black Hebrew Israelites, a group of absolutely wild bigots that stand in public spaces and say naaaaaaaasty stuff about gays, women, etc. The reason for this PR move, I believe, is that Covington Catholic knows on some level that truth seekers will look at Nick Sandmann in those videos and see a young man eager for conflict, not peace. To avoid this murky discussion, they instead point to the Black Israelites as the instigators. “Look, these folks said faggot, that’s way worse.” Unfortunately, these two unrelated wrongs don’t change the interaction between Sandmann and Phillips on that video.

I was once a teenage boy, and I remember what a brutal period of self-discovery those years were for me. I made so many mistakes and treated folks around me with tremendous disrespect. To say the least, I’ve spent a lot of my adulthood making right the wrongs of my youth, and I am so lucky that every single fucking person wasn’t armed with a recording device when I was 16. I share this because I truly wish the best for the Covington Catholic boys—that they may overcome this moment, emerging on the other end with renewed faith and commitment to peace. I don’t see that happening, however, because as Nick Sandmann told the Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie, his only regret is that he didn’t walk away from Nathan Phillips (a subtle suggestion that Phillips was the aggressor), and he does not feel that he has anything for which to be sorry. If the only offense the Covington Catholic boys committed that day was Nick Sandmann glaring disrespectfully at an elder, then that would be enough to warrant an apology. Unfortunately, Nick Sandmann and whatever crisis PR firm is handling his case do not agree. (If you do not think Nick Sandmann’s glare was disrespectful, then let me ask you this: how would you feel if you saw him standing that way before your mother, father, grandparent?)

The problem is not so much the Covington Catholic boys as it is the adults who thrust victimhood on them. (And unrelatedly, I can’t help but imagine, if society cared this much about gay boys as it does about these Catholics then Bryan Singer would’ve been dealt with decades ago. But that’s another story.) The community that has built around Covington Catholic is absolute—the boys were not wrong, and any assertion otherwise is an attempt to ruin children's lives. Their supporters are misrepresenting the stakes in order to argue that MAGA folks are under attack. An attack on these boys gives MAGA supporters a chance to transfer their own feelings of victimhood, and so the amplification of their stories has created a deafening “poor me” echo chamber.

Speaking of poor me, in December I got into a Twitter fight with a playwright named Jeremy O. Harris, whose “Slave Play” was a controversial hit for the New York Theatre Workshop. The controversy wasn’t so much about the play as the playwright himself. I haven’t read or seen Slave Play, so I can’t speak to the piece’s merits, but I can speak to the way Jeremy behaves on social media, which seems to be carefully cultivated.

The initial buzz around “Slave Play” was huuuuge. As Jeremy himself said, the play went viral. The reviews from white NYC theater critics were overwhelmingly positive, with a few notable exceptions. On Twitter, however, criticism began to mount from a surprising corner: other black theater makers took serious issue with the way black women in particular are treated in the play. Some folks went as far as to say that Jeremy’s play was its own sort of violent act against black women, and they used things he’s said and tweeted publicly to support this. I won’t quote any of them, but it’s all there for you to find, if you want to.

All I can honestly say about Jeremy Harris is that I do not believe his social media persona is authentic. While “Slave Play” was enjoying an often sold-out run, he began tweeting about all the death threats he and his cast were receiving. For sure, horrific shit got hurled at Jeremy and his collaborators. At the same time this was happening, producers were looking seriously to bring the show to Broadway. Jeremy took to Twitter and called attention to the tweets and emails, claiming the threats he and others received numbered in the hundreds. I called bullshit on that number, and I wondered whether every mean tweet he received was actually a “death threat.” I suggested Jeremy was performing victimhood to engender sympathy that would distract from his critics and/or help facilitate a transfer, and perhaps that’s a leap too far. But I tweeted what I tweeted: I do not believe Jeremy Harris received “hundreds” of credible death threats over a play at an off-Broadway house. (For the record I never @ mentioned Jeremy on Twitter, he found my tweets on his own.)

In my back-and-forth with Jeremy, I made the mistake of roping critic Elizabeth Vincentelli into the discussion. Wasn’t really fair of me, because I don’t know her. But she was one of the only mainstream dissenting voices in her assessment of “Slave Play,” which she said ripped off better plays like “An Octaroon” and “Underground Railroad Game.” Elizabeth responded on Twitter to tell me that her problem was with the play, not the playwright, and she sort of scolded me for making inferences about Jeremy’s personality based on his tweets. Jeremy, who loves to herd critics on social media, jumped back in after EV’s capitulation, letting her (and me) know that “we stan critics.” The “we” referred only to him. Lol.

The funnier thing is that, two weeks later, on her podcast “Three on the Aisle,” Elizabeth did exactly what she admonished me for doing on Twitter—drawing conclusions about Jeremy the person—and she used much harsher language than anything I tweeted. She doubled down on the derivative nature of “Slave Play,” describing it as “a play that is embarrassing in its self-satisfaction and the way it revels in this empty provocation that is not really provoking, because people are just expecting it.” She elaborated:

“It’s is also written in an incoherent, smug manner that I found really, really annoying. Just the ineptitude of the writing was confounding, I felt. This play should’ve stayed in the oven, it was not ready to be pulled out… Reading the script afterwards, it annoyed me even more. The script is a window into the way this playwright’s mind works that is not really all that interesting.”

She later described anyone who was shocked by an event that happens in Jeremy’s play as “a target sitting still.” Harsh words for an artist and his audience. I wondered why she would be so brazen on a podcast yet conciliatory on Twitter. It made me wonder if she was afraid to bring the full weight of her position to Twitter, in writing, before Jeremy. And if that’s the case, then what positional power does she perceive that he has over her? Could be generational. Jeremy and his social media followers are presumably savvier to the medium than EV, which I imagine she would understand, so perhaps that’s part of the reason. Regardless, my question now, in light of everything, is: do we still stan critics like Elizabeth? (FWIW, I do. EV is one of the greats among NY’s theater critics.)

My beef with Jeremy truly isn’t so personal, although his personality seems challenging based on our Twitter interactions. That’s not real life, though, I know that. Jeremy and I have never met, only battled from our phones. Theater is the art I care most about, and I’m interested in who holds the power to create it.

Jeremy is a power-holder, despite repeatedly trying to position himself as an outsider. As far as I can smell, Jeremy is disingenuous in these claims, as he was when he overstated the number of actual threats he and others received. I believe that doing so helped bring attention to his play. Of course I have absolutely no concept of what it’s like to be a queer black person in America, but I do know that Yale Drama School—where Jeremy is finishing up his MFA—is the nerve center of NYC’s theater establishment. You cannot graduate from Yale Drama School and call yourself a theater outsider. Sorry. It’s just not honest. And when we allow dishonesty, for whatever reason, we allow injustice to escalate. And we stan only what’s just.

[recentanimenews]

Mob vs. Suzuki is the Truest Culmination For Mob Psycho 100

The entirety of Mob Psycho 100 would’ve been a different show if Mob was the type of person who didn’t try to find the best in people. If he’d not surrounded himself with good people—those that have his back and believe in him—who knows what he would’ve done in that case. Maybe his power would have gone to his head, causing him to lash out at a world that he felt betrayed him. Perhaps he becomes a shut-in and tries to protect the world by not engaging in it. As we near the end of Mob Psycho 100, these are the types of individuals Mob is running into, including the head of Claw who is perhaps Mob’s greatest nemesis—someone who can match Mob power-wise, but isn’t empathetic.

  I speculated around the midway point of the series that Mob would find someway to further hone in his powers to have better control of them. That’s become partially true as even when he went off the percentage scale, he wasn’t fully out of control. However, what’s been his biggest strength is his ability to find ways to avoid having to fight. It’s what’s made his encounters with the Ultimate 5 intriguing since they haven’t been fight after fight after fight.

    Take for example the confrontation with Serizawa: one of the most powerful members of Claw and the Ultimate 5 taking on Mob. Here, you’d think they’d go all out with their esper abilities as Serizawa attempts to keep Mob from reaching Suzuki. For such a relatively big encounter, there’s not much in the way of combat. Outside of a big attack that Serizawa accidentally sends to Mob, it’s more of an intense chat than a fight. Mob’s biggest attack here is just being blunt.

  Mob mixes empathy with brutal honesty to eventually wear down Serizawa and forcing him to confront the error of his ways and see just how similar he and Mob are. It’s Mob at his best and how the show pushes forth the idea that being a good person is rad. Having all of the power in the world isn’t going to make you feel better or less lonely if you’re a person who doesn’t care. Which of course, leads into Suzuki and the parallels he shares with Mob with regards to the pursuit of power and having empathy for others.

    Suzuki is Mob if Mob hadn’t found people that would look out for him. He’s cold, calculating, and doesn’t want to let anyone see his true nature. If he’d let his power go unchecked and turned on the world for thinking his esper powers were bizarre and troublesome. That even brings up a what-if scenario of Mob down on his luck joining Claw. Instead, we have a true showdown of power that will become the culmination of the entire series. Which ideology will reign supreme: pure power or being a good person?

  What hurts Mob initially is perhaps being slightly too naive. He thinks he can win over Suzuki in the same way that he did Serizawa—with empathy. It worked before, why wouldn’t it again? The problem is that Suzuki is too far gone to be swayed by Mob’s pleas to see the good in everything. Given that he’s ready to destroy everything, rebuild it in his own image, and show that he is the most powerful being in the world, Mob would have to be the most charismatic person to crack that armor. He does do one thing that gets Suzuki’s attention—be a worthy opponent.

    Not only are Mob and Suzuki contrast against each other with their ideals, they become even more linked when Mob shows he essentially has the same power as Suzuki. The ability to give and take esper energy from others. That’s concerning to Suzuki as that is encroaching on his ability to be the most powerful person if there’s another just like him. It’s dangerous for Mob as Suzuki now has to put forth effort in order to dispatch Mob, which even at 10% of his power, he’s able to fling him around like a ragdoll. If you think that’s going to stop a powered up Mob though, you’re very mistaken.

  It’s also beneficial that Mob has a large support system just outside of where this fight is happening including Reigen who showed up to try and give him a helping hand. Even when it almost ended very badly for Reigen as he angered Suzuki but was saved by Serizawa, Mob can further see just how much people are willing to do what they can to save him. It’s that support system that could be the upper hand that he needs in order to find a way to turn this fight around.

    One of the big questions as we head towards the finale is will Mob have to go off the percentage scale to stop Suzuki? What’s more terrifying to think though is what will happen that would cause him to activate that again. As he’s already at a 100% rage output, he can certainly do damage, but at the same time, he’s running into the issue of Suzuki not even being at the same level of power. Yet, as we’ve seen through the series and the encounters with the Ultimate 5, Mob isn’t about going power for power with foes. He dispatched them with empathy and lets them see where things went wrong and how there’s a chance to change. After all, he’s already said he believes that people have the ability to change, so Suzuki should have that chance in Mob’s eyes as well.

  Could you handle yourself in the same way as Mob when faced with this kind of danger? Let us know in the comments below!

---

Jared Clemons is a writer and podcaster for Seasonal Anime Checkup. He can be found on Twitter @ragbag.

  Do you love writing? Do you love anime? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: news+feed@crunchyroll.com

[eponymous-rose]

Talks Machina Highlights - Critical Role C2E7 (Feb 27, 2018)

There were a few more (vague) references to the first campaign in this episode than usual, so I’ve tried to keep them non-specific/spoiler-free for folks who are still catching up.

Tonight’s guests are Marisha Ray and Liam O’Brien!

Announcements: Marisha’s feeling better but now Matt’s sick (general consensus is that he’ll be feeling well enough to DM on Thursday); Vox Machina: Origins number 5 will be released on March 7; Laura and Travis will be at Emerald City Comic Con, where you can pick up a physical copy of Vox Machina: Origins number 1 at the Dark Horse booth; ECCC Critter meetups will be on Thursday March 1st at 7PM for a live watch of the show and then March 3rd from 7PM to midnight, both at the Raygun Lounge; the C2E7 podcast is available this Thursday; shout-out to the awesome mods in the community; tomorrow at 11AM Pacific, Brian will be hosting a stream with Sideshow Collectibles, unveiling a statue (tragically not of Sam’s body).

@critrolestats​ for this episode:

Beau has rolled the most natural 20s this campaign. Her total is 13: one in episode one, and then two in each subsequent session.

Khary’s opening roll was the first time a guest player’s first roll was a natural one; Kit Buss was the only guest to start out with a natural 20.

There have already been 18 references to Judas Priest’s “Breaking the Law” in the campaign. 13 of them happened in this last episode.

Khary mentioned to Liam ages ago that he was about to start DMing for his daughter, which is when they started trying to get schedules to match up for his guest appearance.

Liam’s having fun getting specific with spell components rather than going for the “Apple remote” approach of using a focus to cast spells. The descriptions will mainly focus on more novel spells (he won’t still be describing Chromatic Orb in detail at level 20).

The Geek and Sundry Facebook/Instagram has the video of Khary destroying the cursed die. The pieces were stolen from Dani’s desk over the weekend. The plot thickens.

Marisha talks about how it can be fun to set yourself up for failure a bit, like with the ball bearings. Everyone decides on the next T-shirt: “Critical Role: Embrace the Failure”.

Liam has a bucket list of spells for Caleb, some of which he doesn’t want to mention yet because they’re story-related, but he does really want to get his hands on Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion.

Marisha felt a little warm and fuzzy inside knowing that Beau nearly had her own practically-goldfish moment. She was less concerned about the fall damage than what was potentially at the bottom of the pit.

Gif of the Week: ♪It’s DnD Beyoooooond!♪

The reason Caleb and Nott are together is because “they’re two pieces of garbage floating around in the world like plastic bags”. They were in a little podunk town jail; it wasn’t a major thing, but it was where they met. They both have no place to go. Caleb has “things that he sticks to, but his moral code is dicey. Survival is good, getting by is good, breathing.” Everyone’s still figuring out the relationships, but Liam has been surprised at how much Caleb cares about Nott’s safety.

Both agree that the short rest was worth it.

Beau is surprised by her own fighting ability. She’s always had some natural skill as a reckless fighter and basic training from the Cobalt Soul monks, and Marisha’s been describing her attacks that way: wild haymakers, etc.. “No one’s going to start as fucking Bruce Lee.” But now she can take those solid natural instincts and build upon them, trying to show a progression. Even Marisha was surprised when she succeeded in catching the arrow out of the air.

Liam gets asked who smelled worse: Caleb or Vax in the armor. Pre-year break, Vax smelled “weirder”.

Beau has theories about Caleb’s shut-down last episode. “Beau has Percy Syndrome: she thinks she’s the smartest person in the room right now.” “Caleb is not dying to know much about any of you fuckers.” Combination of not knowing them too well yet and wanting to keep his head down.

Fanart of the Week: Shakäste and Nott!

Another winner: Vox Machina: An Exandrian Musical! Everyone’s been listening to it on repeat. Marisha: “Matt and I cried so much.”

Beau didn’t see the rescue of Nott as risking her life to save her. “She has teenage arrogance, ‘I’m going to live forever!’” She’s driven by cockiness at this point. She knew she could close the gap, so she thought she was the one who could do it.

Had any of them thought about killing the baby manticore? Beau threw out the idea of selling the baby manticore, but she was mainly concentrating on getting in and out and not dying. Caleb thought that if they could kill everything in the room without dying themselves, they should do that.

Brian asks about the grey-morality tone of the new campaign. Marisha talks about the balance you have to strike, “almost a metagame element”, of wanting to be a team. Liam points out that character flaws introduce an element of unpredictability. Marisha notes that the same character qualities can often shift from "good” to “bad” and back, depending on the situation. Marisha: “Tonally, Vox Machina acted emotionally a lot more so far. We don’t have that yet, that connection.” Liam: “It feels like we all want to mess with the system a little more and come at it with a sideways approach, just to see what happens.” Marisha describes how they set the tone with Vox Machina earlier, and how that gives them a little leeway in the new campaign. Brian zeroes in on the notion of “the human heart in conflict with itself” being a great source of drama and excitement for a viewer. “As you guys get closer in the game, those stakes get higher.”

The Nott-Caleb relationship was a last-second decision that “has complicated the fuck out of what I’ve got going on,” but Liam’s delighted to have that complication, because that kind of thing is the heart of the game for them as actors. He points out how episode 85′s massive emotional impact was the perfect example of that kind of messiness.

What Beau doesn’t like about Molly is the same stuff that Beau doesn’t especially like about herself. Marisha suspects it’s the sort of thing that can develop into mutual respect in the long run.

Liam gets asked about Caleb’s moment at the end of the episode. Marisha: “Answer! Answer! You never answer shit!” Liam brings up how Taliesin’s talked about how Matt will take the bare-bones story they provide him and flesh it out in a surprising way. Marisha: “No one’s backstories or secrets are safe from Matt Mercer at this moment.”

Talks Machina After Dark:

Fave tracks from Vox Machina: An Exandrian Musical: “Burn”, “Animus”, “Dear Kaylie”, “It’s Quiet in Town”, “The Room Where it Happens”.

Sometimes Matt and Marisha will go over specific events in the battle where a single moment was clutch. Nott going in when she did saved Fjord from a full round of attacks at advantage. Beau saved Nott by jumping in even with the attack of opportunity, because with her 1 HP, the next full round of attacks would’ve killed her. Jester didn’t have the speed to get to Nott, so Beau saved her by getting her closer to Jester, but then Jester went down... and Fjord succeeded on his wisdom saving throw, which let him save her so she could save Nott. No matter how messy things seem in the moment, laying them out like that show how it can all work out.

Note-taking in D&D! Liam, on trying to decipher scribbles post-game: “Either slow down when you write or don’t bother.” Without the pressure of the cameras, Marisha would do things differently. In the last campaign, she had one book for specific enemies she could refer back to, but fell off on keeping it up around the time they were mainly just fighting specific dragons rather than dungeon-crawl stuff. She currently takes notes chronologically, with specific symbols/annotations to indicate names of cities, NPCs, plot points, etc. Liam: “What are all the dickbutts for?” Marisha: “That’s Laura. She keeps stealing my notebook. ...no, that’s not true.” Marisha brings up some advice she got: keep your notes concise and make them look interesting; she also does doodles now that can draw her attention while flipping through and looking for something in particular.

Theories on Shakäste? Liam: “I think he’s the wind.” Marisha: “I think he’s what we might be in 20 years if we all live.”

“What were your immediate thoughts after Nott stabbed the manticore baby?” Marisha: “The fuck?! (...) Just because it was necessary doesn’t mean it was any less brutal.” Liam: “Caleb has seen Nott do wild, unpredictable things that have a high rate of success. She is a Golden Snitch. It just kind of works out.”

[littlemisssquiggles]

RWBY Remarks: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing. Can Salem be secretly making an army of Grimm-human hybrids conducted by Dr. Arthur Watts?

a-a-ron-pwnz-u replied to your post “RWBY Remarks: We know that the Faunus all share traits with a specific...”

Actually I believe there was a talk about this on a podcast a while back. Faunus generally only extend to mundane animals, insects fish etc. There cannot be a combined Faunus type as they only inherit a single physical trait. It's unlikely that we'd see anything like that.

Squiggles Answers:

Aww, well that’s a real bummer right there :( Would’ve been cool if this was possible though. I’m still going to hold out on my theory of a Faunus being turned into a Grimm with chimera characteristics based on their crossbreed genetics.

Not saying Adam being turned into the Manticore Grimm is a possibility. It’s definitely too far-fetched for that. But I would like to play with the thought of it being canon. It would definitely tie into the character he was based off of. As I mentioned in a past RWBY Remark, Adam Taurus is supposedly based off the Beast from the Beauty and the Beast fairytale.

And in that story, the Beast was a prince who was turned into a monster by a witch due to his attitude. It’ll be quite a twist if Adam gets turned into a Grimm monster by Salem for his insolence. Like maybe Adam goes to Salem for power but ends up double-crossing her for his own personal vendetta. And as punishment, Salem makes him an example of those who dare try to outsmart her and abuse her generosity.

I just want to see Salem unwillingly turn someone---a mortal being; be it man or Faunus; into a Grimm. After all, the Mistral Arc introduced man being fused with amputated Grimm limbs.

I’m curious to see just how far that can go. To have human characters become Grimm would makes these creatures even more dangerous than before. The Grimm are already a threat in Remnant. Imagine how much more deadly they will be if humanity was to learn of some of them possessing the ability to turn or appear human. Grimm in human skin. 

Y’know...having human beings; dead or alive, possessed and controlled by Grimm body parts forcibly attached to them. Now that I think about it, this is a great way to big up Watts’ character.

Isn’t he not supposed to be the Dr. Frankenstein counterpart in Salem’s entourage?

Imagine...an underground dark laboratory located inside Salem’s Fortress in her dark domain where victims, kidnapped from all over Remnant, are forced into brutal experiments conducted by the inhumane Dr. Arthur Watts.

What if...all those huntsman and huntress that suddenly went missing in Mistral in V5 weren’t just killed off, but actually taken to Salem’s Domain where their bodies could be used as unwilling test subjects in Watts’ heinous experiments to perfect Salem’s agenda to create an army of human-Grimm hybrids. 

That would be a pretty sick idea if it became canon. But for now it’s just a little theory.

~LittleMissSquiggles (2018)

[nightmareonfilmstreet]

Switchblade Romance: Looking Back at Alexandre Aja’s HIGH TENSION 15 Years Later

There is a certain sub-genre of horror out there that’s earned some notoriety since its inception in the early-’00s. It’s called the New French Extremity movement, and it typically refers to French-produced horror films with a certain level of violence and savagery. The kind of movie that slaps you in the face with its visceral nature, and leaves you telling all your friends about it for years to come. Fifteen years ago, on June 18, 2003 one of the subgenres most notorious entries was released: Alexandre Aja’s High Tension.

Officially titled Haute Tension in its native France, and released in the U.K. under the slightly cheekier title Switchblade Romance, the film’s brutal nature had people talking from the get-go. Even 7 years after the fact, TIME Magazine named it one of the ‘10 Most Ridiculously Violent Films’ in September of 2010.

    [Please Note: This article discusses in detail the film’s notorious twist]

Marie (Cécile de France) and Alex (Maïwenn) are your run-of-the-mill college students on a road trip to Alex’s family’s home in the French countryside. The reason for the trip, of course, is to buckle down and study their butts off for impending exams. They arrive late at night after the house has gone to sleep, save for Alex’s father whose stayed up to greet them (Dads, right?).  Alex gives Marie a brief tour, and the two decide to turn in for the night. Marie puts her headphones on and decides to – ahem – release some tension (she masturbates), when a big surly dude in a beat-up truck pulls up to the house.

Already, this guy’s problematic with his incessant doorbell ringing at an ungodly hour of the night. Marie is in her room in the attic, wondering what in the fresh hell this bozo could want, while Alex’s poor dad answers the door. Surprise: his intentions are not good.

Long story short, some blood is shed and The Killer (Philippe Nahon) takes Alex with him on his merry way. Marie, having eluded him thanks to some quick and clever thinking, is now tasked with freeing Alex from his grubby clutches. (I mean literally grubby, as this fellow clearly washes his hands with dirt.)

    Bloody Hell

    Now let’s go over the film’s few kills. Becuase what it lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality. Spoilers obviously follow.

The first, as you may have guessed, is dear old dad. The old man gets cut in the face with a knife before getting his head pushed between the banisters on the stairs, and promptly lopped right off his body with the aid of a nearby bureau. And reader, when I tell you the blood that comes shooting out of his neck is plentiful, I mean plentiful. We’re talking Kill Bill Vol. 1 levels of blood. Alexandre Aja and special makeup effects artist Giannetto De Rossi apparently consulted with a coroner when deciding how much blood to shed, and therefore stand by their choices.

Next there’s the mom, who gets her throat cut right in front of the slatted closet door that Marie is hiding behind. In the unrated cut on the DVD release, the killer pulls her head back making the wound gape open for a second, before the delayed gush of blood kills any appetite you may have previously had. And if explicit gore wasn’t enough, the film has the balls to kill off Alex’s kid brother. It thankfully isn’t shown, but the gunshot is more than enough to make you queasy.

After a forgettable axe to the torso of a gas station attendant, Marie tries to enlist some extra help. After a tense cat-and-mouse game between her and the killer in the woods, he briefly outsmarts her and pins her down, suffocating her. Not one to go down easily, Marie knocks him over the head, grabs a previously fashioned barbed wire-wrapped post and knocks the sh*t out of his ugly face. Over, and over, and over, and over again. It’s a scene harboring such carnal catharsis any horror hound would drool for, and culminates in a guttural scream from Marie, letting out everything she was keeping at bay in order to save the day…

    Twist and Shout

    And then comes the infamous twist. The one that either makes or breaks what has essentially been a pretty straight-forward film up until this point. And yes, even more Spoilers abound.

Earlier in the film, after the carnage at the house, Marie sneaks into the killer’s truck where Alex is. And because even killers gotta get gas at some point, he stops at a station. In one of the film’s best and most suspenseful scenes, we only hear the clicking of the pump as Marie sneaks out and slowly makes a break for the station door. She pleads for help from the attendant, before hiding in the store when the killer comes in to shop around a bit before taking an axe to the attendant.

Fast forward back to the end, and we see two officers pull up to the gas station. They go through the CCTV footage from the security cameras to see Marie...and no one else.

    Turns out Marie is in deep, tragically unrequited love with Alex. To the point where she finally snapped, creating a psychotic identity to kill off anyone who might stand in the way of the two of them being together. “I won’t let anyone come between us anymore” is what she whispers to Alex over and over again at the end of the film, when they have their final confrontation.

Now, this brand of twist has been done plenty of times in the last 15 years since the film premiered in France, so the modern viewer would be forgiven for their fatigue toward it. But back then this was still a relatively novel idea. However, that didn’t stop people from crying ‘It makes no sense!’ or ‘It’s totally pointless and out of nowhere!’

BUT! If you pay close attention to the very beginning moments of the film, it shows a beat-up looking Marie in a hospital gown, hunched over and whispering to herself, “I won’t let anyone come between us anymore” over and over. The camera glides up her slashed back and we reach her hea. In the blurry background in front of her sit two men and a camera. Are they recording? she asks, and the film begins.

An epilogue masquerading as a prologue.

    As such, everything we see up until the point where she finally “kills” the killer, is just her own story that she’s feeding to the police. The kills are included, and everything else is just how she’s made sense of it in her head to support the theory that there really was a different killer. Therefore rendering almost every “it doesn’t make sense” argument all but moot. Because whatever you saw that “doesn’t make sense” was just a story after all.

The only two sustaining arguments I have found are in regards to a particularly confusing severed head, and a car chase in which Marie and the killer are driving separate vehicles until one crashes in the woods. But that could just be lazy lying on her part. And piggybacking off of that argument, where did the truck even come from in the first place? But that’s a plot hole closed by the director’s commentary, where Aja states there was originally a brief moment where Marie catches a glimpse of the truck on the edge of the cornfield early on. Which would suggest she simply highjacked it.

    And as far as the twist being out of nowhere, it’s actually alluded to in many ways throughout, sometimes quite poignantly. In fact, The Killer shows up when Marie is masturbating, thinking of Alex (presumably). And the scene in the gas station where she runs to hide in the bathroom, there is a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it hesitation before she chooses whether to go into the Men’s room or the Women’s. She chooses the Women’s, but then sneaks over to the Men’s. A metaphor perhaps?

One I didn’t even notice until this re-watch; after the killer leaves the bathroom, Marie bends down and rinses her face off. Anyone who’s seen a horror movie can tell you she’s probably going to stand back up and see him in the mirror behind her. And here the music does swell as expected, but gets perhaps a touch more foreboding when she stands up and only sees herself.

Who would’ve thought that a French Extremist horror flick with a superficially silly (and admittedly problematic) plot twist could house such weirdly nuanced metaphors of struggling with your own desires?

Where you surprised by High Tension‘s infamous plot twists? Are there any other subtle allusions to Marie‘s psychosis that you caught on a reent re-watch? Let us know in the comments below, on Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, and in the Horror Fiends of Nightmare on Film Street Facebook group!

      The post Switchblade Romance: Looking Back at Alexandre Aja’s HIGH TENSION 15 Years Later appeared first on Nightmare on Film Street - Horror Movie Podcast, News and Reviews.

from WordPress https://nofspodcast.com/high-tension-anniversary-alexandre-aja/ via IFTTT

[onestowatch]

Navvy Opens up About Heartbreak, ‘Cats,’ and Her Latest EP [Q&A]

“I've been thinking about it recently,” Navvy says down the line from Auckland. “Why do people write songs?” It’s a good question, one the NZ-based popstar has been mulling over with her newfound spare time. “I've realized you write songs when words aren't really enough anymore. The emotion has to be so strong that saying this stuff wouldn't get it out enough, you need to sing it,” she explains. “That's the most dramatic High School Musical thing ever, but I think it's really true.”

Navvy’s reasoning explains her debut set of EPs, a trilogy that traces a brutal case of heartbreak. It started when she was unceremoniously dumped by her long-term boyfriend, kicking off 2019 with a heady dose of despair. Instead of channeling it into watching vintage romcoms and checking to see if her ex had viewed her Instagram story, she made The Break Up EP - about exactly that. Next came No Hard Feelings, a collection of tracks about being almost over it; finding solace in family and being scared to be happy. “Part of my brain was like, ‘You're feeling better, so stop writing that you're sad because you're not really sad anymore.”

Now she’s closing off the story with The Final Pieces EP. And she’s come out the other side swinging. Lead single Pieces showcases Navvy at her best - written and produced with London-based producer Starsmith and her longtime collaborator Wells*, it’s all sparse production laced with husky falsetto, and a ripper of a chorus about having her pieces back together. “It's kind of wrapping up the stories of what that year meant for me,” she explains. “I don't really have any interest in releasing an EP where none of the songs go together,” she says of her choice to thread a narrative through the projects. “I wanted it to be a body of work.”

2020 has thrown its own set of hurdles - normally Navvy does most of her songwriting, photoshoots and fun popstar things in London (New Zealand is for resetting) but hopping on a plane across the world isn’t exactly on the radar right now. Still, she’s finding a way through, taking some much-deserved downtime and jumping on international Zoom writing sessions with the likes of Norwegian producer Martin Sjølie (of Sigrid fame). We caught up with her to chat heartbreak, the Cats film, and celebrating release day at the casino.

Ones to Watch: So how does a Zoom writing session actually work?

Navvy: It's super weird. Though one I did the other day was really fun - I had a producer in Norway and a songwriter in Sydney. Usually the whole thing about a session is the vibe of the room, so trying to create that online is difficult. We kind of hypothesized that in six months’ time everyone's going to start releasing songs with a disclaimer attached, like, ‘Sorry! we wrote this on Zoom, it's not great!’ But I feel like the one we wrote is actually really cool, so we felt very happy with ourselves.

What's your expert advice on getting over a breakup?

It's annoying to hear, but really, time is everything. I remember when I was in the depths of my despair and mum was just like, you need to give it time, it will be ok. And I was like, you don't know! You've never felt heartbreak like this!

It’s annoying when mums are right.

Also, I can't really hold grudges. And I think that that left more room in my heart and my brain to start feeling ok. If I was angry at him, it would've been harder. But I could be like, ‘Oh, well he's actually someone who I spent some of the best years of my life with, and I couldn't let myself throw that away just because he didn't want to be with me anymore.’ Everyone gets to make their own decision and he just didn't want to be with me. Thinking about it logically is a really difficult thing to do when your heart is involved, but I also think it's the best thing to do.

That’s very mature. I would probably be a petty bitch.

*laughs* I think both ways are appropriate. I can see how people are like that, but it's just not me - he's still one of my best friends. This has been my only relationship and my only break up, so who knows what the next one will be like. But I can't imagine having someone in my life for so long and then never seeing them again, that just blows my mind.

Has music helped you process it?

100%. Especially songwriting with other people, because I'm telling my story to them and they're being like, 'Oh I've felt like that.’ And then I get to release it and have people from literally all over the world messaging me on Instagram being like, ‘Woah, that's exactly how I feel’. Or, ‘That song has gotten me through a breakup.’

Are you thinking about an album after this?

I don't think I'm quite ready for an album yet... I love albums, they're one of my favorite things, but I don't want to just put 12 songs on a CD and call it an album. That's not something that’s interesting to me. An album to me is a really big commitment, and I don't take it lightly. It takes more thinking than just putting things together. I really like EPs because they're like mini albums, preparing me. But the dream is to do an album.

What are the albums you keep coming back to?

In lockdown I listened to a different album every day while I went for a walk. The ones that stuck with me from that were the Kacey Musgraves album, Conan Gray's new album, any Taylor Swift album, obviously. One of my favorites is Sufjan Stevens’ Carrie & Lowell, and The Beach Boys’ album Pet Sounds is one of my favorite albums of all time.

Strong choices.

But I can't jump into an album halfway through, I really have to listen beginning to end. If I’m going on a 20-minute drive I listen to a podcast because I can't start an album and not finish it, it panics me. But if I'm going on an hour drive, then I’m all about an album.

I read that you were second on your Spotify Wrapped which is amazing. Who was first?

Taylor Swift. I listened to Lover a lot. But yeah, I really do listen to my own music loads, which is funny. There's something about going on to my artist page on Spotify and being like, woah, that's me.

Does it still feel strange to see yourself there?

Yeah, it's so weird. I just don't understand how anyone gets used to it. Literally every time I hear my song on the radio it's like, out of body. It’s unbelievable to me that someone at a radio station thought my song was good enough to play. So many songs are released every day. And especially because it's not my name - my name’s not Navvy, it's Phoebe. So, it will often take a second to realise they're actually talking about me.

Do you tap into a different space when you’re doing Navvy stuff?

Sometimes I like to think of it as Hannah Montana and Miley Stewart. I'll be living my normal life, helping my friends move flats, and then that night I'll do a session with a producer I've looked up to my whole life, and I'm like, ‘How is this real? How am I doing both of these things?’

Besides Taylor Swift, who would you really love to work with?

I would love to work with Julia Michaels. I'm such a fan of what she does. She writes a lot with Justin Tranter who I’d also really like to write with. I'd love to write with Ross Golan, he wrote Dangerous Woman with Ariana Grande. He also wrote a musical and I love musicals. I would just love to sit down with him and have a chat.

What's your favorite musical?

That's a really loaded question.

I'm a musical fan so I say this with love and respect.

Cats is my favorite musical of all time.

Cats! What were thoughts on the film then?

I actually loved it, but I think because I'm such a Cats fan I was always going to love it. I think it's the best music for a musical ever. Between my 15th and 16th birthdays, I watched at least a scene of the old Cats movie every day.

How are you going to celebrate when your EP’s out?

My family and I will go to the casino in Auckland and we'll all get $20 and try and win big. That's how we celebrate in this house. I don't really drink or party or go to the casino ever, but on release day my whole family goes. The first time we won a lot of money, so we're like, ‘It's going to happen every time!’ But it hasn't happened since.

You actually won?

I think the first time collectively we won over a thousand dollars. It was insane. We were playing roulette.

That’s a good omen.

I think so too. But we couldn't go for the Pieces release because we were in lockdown. So, we're going to really have to go hard for the EP.

Well I hope you win big, both at the casino and with the EP.

Thanks!

Anything else you want to add?

By the time the EP comes out I hope they’ve arrested Breonna Taylor's murderers. If not, arrest Breonna Taylor's murderers.

Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/andy-beshear-justice-for-breonna-taylor?recruiter=1103177438&recruited_by_i

[crookedmediatranscripts]

Pod Save America - Episode 79

09.14.2017 “Amnesty Don”

“The Democrats reach a tentative deal on DACA with Trump, and 16 Democratic Senators sign on to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan. Then New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand joins Jon and Dan to talk about health care and the future of the Democratic Party, and Ana Marie Cox discusses Trump’s voter fraud commission.”

[MUSIC]

0:00:01

Jon Favreau: The presenting sponsor of Pod Save America is Blue Apron.

Jon Lovett: Blue Apron.

JF: Which now offers 30 minutes meals. In parentheses, that's meals every week that take 30 minutes or less to cook.

JL: I don't if you- if you didn't understand 30 minute meals, you shouldn't be operating a fucking stove.

[Laughter]

JF: But keep listening. Which are designed with your busy schedules in mind and made with some flavor and farm fresh ingredients you know and love. Get 30 dollars off your first meal, with free shipping by going to blueapron.com/crooked. Blue apron is a better way to…

JL: Trump is Rubio now.

JF: Cook.

[Laughter]

0:00:35

[MUSIC]

0:00:42

JF: Welcome to Pod Save America. I’m Jon Favreau.

Dan Pfeiffer: I’m Dan Pfeiffer.

JF: On the pod today, we have New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. And later the host of Crooked Media’s With Friends Like These, Ana Marie Cox. Also, this week on Pod Save the World, Tommy talks to Representative Will Hurd, Republican from Texas. First elected Republican on the show- on a Crooked Media show.

DP: Probably not great for him in the long run, is my guess.

JF: [Laughs] Poor Will Hurd. Career was going well until he joined a Crooked Media podcast. And Lovett or Leave it is on tomorrow. I actually don't even know who his guests are. So, sorry Lovett, didn't send me your guests.

[Laughter]

JF: Okay, so where should we start today, Dan? Let's start with- what did you think of the Hillary Clinton interview?

DP: You guys did a great job.

JF: Sweet.

DP: I’m not just blowing smoke up your ass.

JF: I’m just looking- I asked that, I was just fishing for compliments, really.

DP: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys did do a great job. I knew you were taking it seriously when I saw the photo, and you and Tommy both had collared shirts on [JF: laughs] and Lovett was not, as far as I could tell, wearing a logo t shirt.

JF: No, Lovett was wearing his Senator Sweater. That's what he... [laughs]

DP: Yeah, you look like actual serious- you look like interns on your first day of work. No, I thought that was great.

JF: [Laughs] Yeah, no. It was- I thought it was good. Have you read the book yet?

DP: I am probably...50 pages in. I started last night, or the day- yesterday I started. It's- there is a great -- and you guys sort of hit on this in the interview, and you can see it- and you can hear it in her voice. And this is probably a microcosm of the entire Hillary Clinton experience in politics -- is there is great diversions between the book itself and the way the book is covered and talked about.

JF: Right. Completely symbolic.

DP: You know. And if you were to read- yeah, if you were to read the coverage you would think it was this bitter diatribe of casting blame on other people and... refusing to accept any responsibility at all for her loss. And it's pretty much...the opposite of that. And I- like, it's not an easy read. Because it's like, those are really dark times for everyone and, like reliving election day or Hillary Clinton's speech, which I watched in a gift shop in Dulles airport [JF: chuckles] with people crying all around me-

JF: Yeah, it was so awful.

DP: Those were hard things to think about. Or inauguration day, and putting yourself in her shoes. That's- it's honest, it's an honest- the parts I’ve read are, like an honest, very open, raw take on an absolutely brutal experience.

JF: Well yeah, I mean- and she does plenty of taking responsibility for her own mistakes. But it makes you- reading the book makes you realize, again, that we all made mistakes- we're all responsible for this. And I don’t know, I thought it was interesting that, you know- basically the point of the book is- or one use of the book is to learn from 2016 so we that don't repeat 2016. And, you know I think some of that is grappling with challenges that no candidate- no one candidate or campaign can control. Propaganda, whether that's Russia or Breitbart or Fox, like, you know political media that's obsessed with scandal more than policy, and sexism, racism, voter suppression and all that. And I think she does a great job of laying all that out. Some of what we need to learn is obviously grappling with challenges that candidates and campaigns can control. And that's your message, your policy, sort of like the career and life decisions you make prior to the campaign. Making sure your messages break through. And I think she's- in the book she does a really good job of acknowledging all those. I think she has less to say about how to change those things going forward. Because I think she honestly is not sure, you know? And neither are we clearly.

[Laughter]

DP: Exactly. Anyone who listens to this podcast knows those answers aren't clear. And it's not clear how applicable those lessons are to...any other situation other than Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. Because-

JF: Right.

DP: You know, like- I was talking to someone this morning about the book and I was saying how open and honest it felt, and raw, right, as I said, in the early pages. And the person said to me - if that Hillary Clinton had shown up in the campaign, would she have won? And your initial thought is, “Yes, of course.” Which is the- just the greatest trope of post-election coverage.

JF: I know.

DP: If the Al Gore who gave his final press conf-speech had shown up, then he would have won. It's- the thing about Hillary Clinton, though, is it's impossible. If she had- in- been sort of that casual and honest and human-like on the campaign, it would've been covered and treated as if it was a cynical political play to be in authentically more authentic. Like it's not- like there are- because of the way Hillary Clinton is covered and treated in the political conversation is just fundamentally different than anyone I can think of in my time in politics. It's just- you know you thought about this in the -- like when the book was coming out. My initial take was, “[Groan] I do not wanna relive the 2016 primary.”

JF: Yeah.

DP: And then there's this huge debate over, should Hillary Clinton write a book? Why is she writing a book? Why is she distracting us from 2018? It's like, that conversation only happens about Hillary Clinton, no one else.

JF: Right.

DP: Right, like, Bernie Sanders wrote a book.

JF: Yeah.

DP: No one said that about Bernie Sanders. [Laughs] So- John Kerry stayed on the political stage after he lost, no one complained about that. And it's just, just there is something about Hillary Clinton -- not herself. Not the person Hillary Clinton. The incorrectly wrongly unfairly vilified political persona of Hillary Clinton - which is, automatically turns every political conversation stupid. And I think that that- you sort of can understand- when you see the reaction to the book, it also helps you understand why the task before her in running for President was- not that she didn't make some mistakes, she certainly did - but the task before her was more challenging in reality than it probably was on paper. Because of- just the things that certain politicians have available to them are not available to her because people do not give- the political conversation does not give her the permission structure to actually do those things.

JF: Yeah, and I think the challenge was somewhat obscured by the fact that...she leaves the State Department with like a 60 something percent approval rating. Very well liked, higher approval rating that Barack Obama at the time, you know? And so, you think, “Okay, maybe all the problems that we've had in the past are in the past.” And they certainly were not. What'd you think about the Sanders stuff? The Bernie Sanders stuff? That was another...cause- I mean, look, it's funny when I said that- when I asked her the question about Sanders, I specifically phrased it so that she wouldn't have to talk about Bernie or attack Bernie. I wanted to know about this going forward as a party, are we a party that needs fundamental reform or change in our policy and our message? Or are we a party that almost won and needs some tweaking? So, I thought she would answer that and she used the occasion to go back and take a few shots at Bernie again.

[Laughter]

DP: Yeah. I mean, that was as aggressive as I have seen- well I mean, that's not fair. I don't wanna say it that way. But- I’m even hesitant to answer this question because...

JF: It's so scary, isn't it?

[Laughter]

DP: Yeah. we're- well, we're just- I mean it's scary for whoever- whatever side of the debate is going to, just, go right up in our mentions.

JF: Yeah.

DP: But, it- but even beyond that, it's just there- it is important and that this book and Hillary in the interview and in her larger press tour -- all of which is less consequential than her Pod Save America interview -- is in some part about learning the lessons, right? And it's the lessons about specific Democratic strategies. It's the lessons about...that America’s not exactly, in some ways, what we thought it was coming out of the Obama era. That sexism is, and I wanna get to that in a minute, is more- is a bigger force in politics than I think a lot of people imagined. Hillary Clinton was probably not one of those people who imagined that, given what she's been through in her life, and a lot of women, like Senator Gillibrand, have experienced.

JF: Right.

DP: But- so there's a whole host about it that are important for us to just understand what happened because it is a... seminal moment in American history. And hopefully we recover from it. But, the Bernie part- I understand her raw feelings and I...as I said to you earlier, I can only imagine how we would've felt, if we had gone through that long, bitter primary with Hillary Clinton, and then lost to John McCain. 

JF: Hm.

DP: I can imagine that we would have hat- carried- had a lot of grudges about that. So, I am sympathetic to the emotions behind that. And I do believe that many of Sanders' attacks on Hillary Clinton were unfair. And they were at their heart, pretty deep character attacks. But that also, that- he was not wrong- he had a case to make, he was running for President, he can make that. They weren't out of bounds, but they were tough. But I am not sure that Clinton’s assessment of Sanders' role post-primary is fair. He- I was in the convention when- hall when he put her name in a nomination. I-

JF: Which is interesting because she mentions that in the book. She's actually a bit more charitable to him in the book than she was during our interview and has been covered in the press. And she did not choose to emphasize those more charitable moments that she wrote about.

DP: You know- cause when she says, he should have argued with his supporters...I think what that- I don't- that doesn't mean -- I could be wrong -- but I don't think that means, like his prominent elected official endorsers or his former campaign staff, like Jeff Weaver or Tad Devine or some of the people we came to know on the campaign. Cause in my recollection they followed Bernie Sanders' endorsement and did what they could to help Sanders get out there and campaign for her. I think she means the quote-unquote “Bernie Bros” on Twitter. I’m just not sure...I’m not sure how he would have achieved that goal.

JF: I don't think he could have. I also think it's like- yeah, I mean...look to me this- what matters more than sort of the personal animosity that lingers between them is, you know, the policy message implications going forward. And it's interesting, in the book, and this was Ezra Klein’s first question to her, which I figured it would be. You know at one point in the book she talks about Democrats needing to bolder on their policies. And she starts talking about how they almost proposed universal basic income that was paid for with, you know, some tax on any company that makes money from natural resources -- so oil companies, and some telecom companies. And it's this extremely progressive policy. She talks about taxing net worth instead of income and all these things that, you know, I didn't even hear Bernie talk a lot about during the race and you can sort of imagine a race where she decided that she didn't want him to outflank her on the left and she started proposing these policies. But then again, you know, as she said to us, she has this responsibility gene and she always expects that once you get into the general election someone says, “How do you pay for all this?” And she felt like she couldn't make the numbers work. And you know that's just a very, it's a very Clinton thing.

DP: And I think it is- it's both, she has a responsibility gene and I have no doubt, having worked on campaigns and that the internal view was, we are probably gonna win this primary. It may be tougher than we thought but, you know you look at the delegate math and they were in pretty good shape, Super Tuesday on. Just a question of when they were gonna close it out, and there was also I’m sure, political fear about running in the general and some of these left-wing- these more progressive policies. Left-wing was the wrong term. I don't agree with that political analysis. I think the more progressive populist approach would have worked, but- I understand that. But I also understand her calculus in the primary is- let's say she went to, you know, “x” tax rate on the wealthy. Sanders- there's no world in which she can outflank Sanders.

JF: Yeah.

DP: He can always go to the left of her. Because he did not feel as compelled as she did to make the math work. And she- he was not running, at least until the- he did not think he was gonna be President so he was not- he was running an issues-based campaign to move the Democratic agenda and the political conversation of the country to the left. And he succeeded in that, and which we'll get to in a minute, with- he had great success in that. Hillary Clinton was worried that she was- you were accountable- we know this, you are accountable for your campaign promises when you get there. So, she gets elected and it’s like, “Where's your universal basic income plan? How are you gonna get it passed? What- is it gonna be in your first budget? Talk about it in the State of the Union-“ Like, she was thinking through governing and if you're thinking through governing it can be limiting principle in what can do in the campaign. And someone who does not feel limited by that reality can always get, always outflank you.

JF: Yeah. I mean look- I think if there's one silver lining to 2016, it is that both the primary and the general showed us that we all need to rethink what is- what does electable mean? What does politically feasible mean? And sort of expand the boundaries of what's possible and not be caught up in, you know, being too cautious or worrying about the politics of something. You know, try to go with the biggest, boldest policy goal that you can and then, you know don't make it too unreasonable and don't lie to people, but, you know set a big goal. And don't worry so much about, oh well this isn't politically possible. Well we'll get into this too when we get into our single payer conversation. Before we get to that, we should talk about what happened last night. So, during the campaign, Donald Trump said that young, undocumented Americans known as Dreamers, quote “Have to go.” And last week Jeff Sessions announced Trump would be ending the Obama-era program designed to protect these Dreamers from deportation. A few weeks before that, Trump threatened to shut down the government unless Congress funded his border wall. Last night at the White House, over Chinese food, President Trump reached a tentative deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to offer about 800 thousand young, undocumented Americans a pathway to citizenship in exchange for more border security, but no border wall. Art. Of. The. Deal. And of course, this morning he tweeted that no deal was made. But then he tweeted that Dreamers shouldn't be deported and that the wall would come later. Which is essentially the deal. Dan, what d'you think caused the change?

DP: He said no deal and then laid out all the provisions of the deal that Schumer and Pelosi announced last night. Once again rendering his press secretary, who tweeted there was no deal, looking like a fool in- out the world.

JF: Yep. That's right. So, what d'you think changed here? What do you make of this?

DP: I... I think...you asked me last week why Trump agreed to the debt ceiling deal with the Democrats. And my answer was, “He's dumb.” That is also still my answer today. [JF: laughs] And I- like when Trump talked during the campaign in an interview with Chuck Todd about the Dreamers and when you read the answer that he gives, it's entirely clear that he has no idea who the Dreamers are, what DACA is, what a change in policy means. He's just erring on the side of fewer brown people in America, which is like his default position.

JF: Yeah.

DP: Without thinking about it or anything else. And now- so he goes- this is a pretty simple Pavlovian response, I think. Which is- let's do all the pieces of this. Trump has enjoyed the press coverage that he has received from the world since his fairly minor deal with the Democrats a week or so ago. Trump still remains mad at Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for screwing up health care and just being terrible at their jobs. And three, he was offered a way out of a problem and he took it without thinking about it. When you really boil this down, Trump is bad at deal making. Which I get the irony that the guy who ran as a great deal maker and wrote- had a book ghost written for him called “The Art of the Deal” is bad at deal making. But he's taking- like we said last week, he's buying his cars at sticker price. It is- he's taking the first offer and not even using a negotiating tactic where you're gonna demand the wall, and then you're gonna trade the wall for this other thing the Democrats wouldn't otherwise give you. So-

JF: Yeah.

DP: I say all that. I will add that I think this is good for the world. And I’m glad it's happening -- if it proceeds on the path that we hope it does.

JF: I think it is great. It is great all around. I mean, most importantly, it is good for the world and it is good for these young undocumented Americans. This is a win for actual people if- if it happens. We don't know. I mean, we have a long way to go, we should say, before this becomes law. You know, Paul Ryan has said before he's not doing any immigration measure in the House unless he gets a majority of Republicans on board. Now, he has also in the last couple days, he's spoken favorably about protecting Dreamers. So, you know unless there's a revolt in the House that sort of threatens Paul Ryan’s job, you know you could see him cobble together enough Republican votes. Then you know you get of course, just about every Democrat in the House will vote for this so you don't need a ton of Republicans, but he probably needs a good chunk of his caucus in order to save face. So, you can see this getting done but we're not there yet. But if it gets done it is, you know a huge policy win. It's a win for the Dreamers. Also- the other thing that’s a win is that Trump's base is so angry right now. [Laughter] So, some of media reaction last night, we're gonna actually- it- basically the MAGA media reaction is split here. Breitbart ran a headline that just said, “Amnesty Don.” Which is awesome. Ann Coulter said, “At this point who doesn't want Trump impeached.” Laura Ingraham was critical and Steve King, renowned racist from Iowa, said, quote “Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair.” It's just- I couldn't get enough of these tweets last night. It was so enjoyable to read these. The only people who are still with him of course are the biggest fucking lackeys in the whole universe, the crew on Fox and Friends and Sean Hannity. Those are the only people who stuck by him. Sean Hannity said, “McConnell failed so miserably with health care that now POTUS has to deal with Dem leaders.” So, he went with the “look what Mitch made him do” line of attack. [Laughter]

DP: I mean he's not wrong.

JF: Right. [Laughter]

DP: I mean, sort of. First and last time I’ll say that about Sean Hannity.

JF: But to twist this around like Donald Trump makes a deal with Democrats. And some of his support- the Fox team, who are basically just White House employees who aren't getting paid by the government - are like, “he's not- it's not his problem he made a deal to this amnesty deal. It’s Mitch McConnell’s fault because he didn't pass health care.” It is a little bit of a bank shot, there.

DP: [Giggles] Yeah. They are twisting themselves into a pretzel to- to stick with Trump. Look, I do not like it when Trump gets good headlines. Like, that makes me unhappy. But if Donald Trump is going to do the exact same thing that President Hillary Clinton was gonna do, I’m cool with that. Because this is the exact deal that Hillary Clinton would have struck with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell -- presuming they stayed in the- Republicans stayed in control of Congress -- to pass the DREAM Act.

JF: Yeah.

DP: It's been sitting there- this is a deal that's been out there for a long time. Republicans did not wanna do it with Obama because...they don't like to do things- because they were gonna- they were hoping they would win an election and get to do something about it and end the program and now...Trump is gonna do Hillary’s bidding. Which is...fucking wonderful.

JF: Yeah, I mean- look, Trump is a- a clear and present to the globe. [Laugh] And we need to, you know, elect him out of office or get him out of office as soon as we can, but while we're waiting for that moment, it's great if he will do things that we agree with. It's very simple to me. It's not like this is something that needs to like twist Democrats in a knot, you know, like “Should we be happy for Trump or not?” It's not about Trump. You're right that he's gonna- he will get some good headlines from traditional media and all the people in DC and the DC pundits and stuff like that. And it'll drive some of us crazy cause it'll be like, you know “Trump, the bipartisan independent deal maker blah, blah, blah.” But, like I said, it's both- substantively this is good, but also politically, I think- you know, one thing we missed a lot of during the campaign is how much conservative media sort of drives that base. And, I’ll say something else pretty crazy,  Steve Bannon- what Steve Bannon said on 60 minutes is right, in that this DACA decision, if it goes forward and they enshrine DACA into law, it will cause a civil war in the Republican party and you're seeing it already. Like, Breitbart and Coulter and some folks lining up on one side, very much against this decision, and then the Fox and Friends and Hannitys of the world still favoring Trump. I mean, this is gonna cause a huge political problem in their party which is also good for us. So, I think this is excellent.

DP: In the last 7 minutes or so, we have applauded something Donald Trump’s done, [JF: laughs] agreed with Sean Hannity, and affirmed a statement of Steve Bannon.

JF: What is-

DP: Our iTunes rankings are about to go in the toilet.

JF: [Laughs] What is happening today? Anyway, so, we'll see. I mean, look, I- the other question is, you know, how long does this new Trump last? Do we trust him? You know...I don't know.

DP: Approximately 7 minutes because immediately after the deal was announced, Trump went on a tweet storm against Hillary Clinton criticizing her for her book. So...

JF: Yeah, no. He's playing the hits there, you know...

DP: We are not- the independent, bipartisan, new, freshly pivoted Trump is bullshit. We will take this deal, presuming it comes to conclusion, any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but let's not pretend we have a new President. I will say one thing after having listening to you guys on Monday, as you know I shared your outrage about all of the ridiculous coverage overselling a- the simple moving of a debt ceiling vote as some sort of...Reagan-Tip O’Neil style tax reform-

JF: Yeah.

DP: Deal. But this is- and the argument was, he gave- there was no progressive principle- conservative principle that he sacrificed in order to do that deal. This is actually one where you can say he gave Democrats something they wanted, even if he also somewhat agreed with it, in exchange for almost nothing. But you know, we'll see. But there is an actual subst- this in an actual substantive bipartisan deal if it comes together. And the other thing was...good for Democrats but stupid.

JF: Well, yeah. I just don't wanna separate intention from result here. Like, the result is that he- he stumbled ass backwards into a great partisan deal. It certainly was not some strategy or intention or- you know, he just- everything is impulse. Like you said, he likes coverage when it's good for him, he doesn't like it when it's bad for him. He makes decisions about life and death and the country based on, you know, Fox and Friends versus Morning Joe. And also, he has some personal grudge with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell now so he thought he'd piss them off by having Chuck and Nancy over for Chinese. And suddenly we have a deal! [Laughter] So it's like...you know.

DP: That's- that is the best part of the whole thing-

[Laughter]

DP: Is that someone reported that...Trump believes that the policy issue on which he and Senator Schumer are closest is Chinese trade. So, they served Chinese food.

JF: It's problematic on so many levels. So many levels.

DP: It's just it's so...simplistic that it is just mind boggling. Like I would like to know what they'd serve for dinner if, like, Medicare reform was their closest issue. Or, I mean- it's just, it's so good. It’s so good.

JF: It's pretty great. Okay let's talk about health care. Speaking of health care. Two bills introduced yesterday. Let's actually start with the last-ditch attempt by the Republicans to repeal and replace ObamaCare. This is a piece of legislation from Lindsay Graham, Bill Cassidy, Dean Heller -- dirty Dean Heller -- and Ron Johnson. In some ways, this is actually the worst of all Republican health care plans, this last one standing. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but...basically this plan cuts the Affordable Care Act by 20 billion dollars and then it gives the rest of the money to the states to spend on whatever health care programs they want. But 20 states, mostly large populated states, also blue states, will lose anywhere from 35 to 60% of the funding they currently get from the Affordable Care Act because of a formula in the bill that gives sparsely populated red states more money. States could also get waivers that let insurers charge sick patients higher premiums and stop covering essential benefits like maternity care, prescription drugs. The estimate here is that 32 million people lose their coverage in 10 years, including 11 million on Medicaid, and premiums spiking 20%. So, no one thinks they ha- the good news is no one thinks they have the votes right now. McConnell didn't promise to bring it up. He told them to go find 50 votes on their own. Cornyn, who's the whip, the vote counter, said he didn't see the votes. Ted Cruz said they have about 44, 45 votes right now. We got Rand Paul as a no. And then the big thing is their deadline on this is September 30th. Once we pass September 30th, they go back to needing 60 votes to pass any kind of ObamaCare repeal and replace. And they can't do the reconciliation that only allows them- that only gives them 50 votes. What do you think of this, Dan? How worried should we be?

DP: Because I am not worried, we should probably be very worried. 

JF: Cool, cool.

DP: Like, I think we should- the odds are long for them and there doesn't seem to be a ton of appetite for it, but we thought the same thing the first time the House took it up. We thought the same thing when Dean Heller and others killed health care, then health care came back, then it was killed again, then it became finally killed- like, up until the clock strikes midnight on September 30th, we should maintain a healthy level of paranoia about the Republicans’ desire and ability to snatch health care away from people so they can give tax cuts to millionaires. Like, that's not gonna go away.

JF: Yeah. We're favored by the calendar here. And it seems like from Trump to McConnell to Ryan to all the rest of the Republicans, except the ones who introduced this bill, more of them are focused on tax reform and getting that done than they are on one more attempt at ObamaCare- at repealing ObamaCare. But, you know, once you get to a deadline suddenly all kinds of deal making starts happening. So, you know, everyone should be on the lookout.

DP: Yeah, I would say a not encouraging sign for the Republicans on this is when they had their press conference, they invited Rick Santorum, who-

JF: Why did they do that?

DP: Left the Senate a decade ago. No idea. I think they were like, short a Senator and they were like, “This guy was once a Senator, let's bring him along and maybe people forgot.” He got his ass kicked by Bob Casey in 2006.

JF: Yeah, here we are with former Senator Rick Santorum. He's gonna really- he's gonna juice this proposal. Alright, let's talk about single payer. So, Bernie Sanders introduced his Medicare-for-all bill yesterday, which is co-sponsored by 16 Democratic Senators. That's about a third of the caucus, including Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Al Franken, and our guest for today, Kirsten Gillibrand.

DP: Quick question, Jon, what do all of those people have in common?

JF: They may, possibly, be running for President in 2020, Dan.

DP: I was gonna say, other than Bernie Sanders, they are- have all been on the podcast.

JF: Oh! Good for us, huh? [Laughs] Yeah, by the way Bernie Sanders, come on the podcast.

JL: It's Lovett.

JF: [Chuckles] He’s here right now

JL: I think that there was something wrong with my email to the Bernie Sanders people. I think it's my fault. I think that I was try- in my attempt at raproshma, I think that I may have...not been the best person to reach out

JF: [Snickers]

DP: Did you send it to info@berniesanders.com?

JL: I did.

[Laughter]

JL: Was that not right? That's how people get us here.

DP: That's how Michael Cohen reaches the Kremlin, so it'll work for you, too.

[Laughter]

JF: Okay, so within 4 years, under this plan everyone in America would transition to a universal health care plan run by the government, just like Medicare is now. This is an extremely generous plan. More so than any single payer plan in the world right now- than other countries, more generous than Medicare itself. You would pay no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no nothing. It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, medical lab services, maternity care, prescription drugs, vision, dental, the whole shebang. Also, importantly, it would aim to bring down costs, the cost of health care overall. We know now that the Medicare program is currently cheaper than private insurance. The government helps hold costs down. We have this screwed up system in America where we pay doctors and hospitals based on how much care they provide, and not necessarily the quality of the care they provide and the outcomes that we get. That's something that the Affordable Care Act tried to change. Medicare obviously has a lot more power to change this because of their bargaining power because of how many people are insured there. The deal with Bernie’s plan is, everyone would get about 4 years to transition from their current insurance plan to this new plan. How much? Hugely expensive. Sanders did not lay out the details on that. He did have a separate white paper that offered some possibilities for paying for it, including higher tax rates on high income people, a 1% federal wealth tax on the net worth of the wealthiest one tenth of 1%. All of these tax options add up to about 16.9 trillion dollars over a decade and... still not sure if that would be enough to pay for this. One thing I should say that's important is, higher taxes- you know, don't have to mean higher health care spending since no one would be paying premiums or copays anymore, so. Dan, what d'you think about this? How big is this?

DP: I mean, it's hard to overstate how fast...the politics have shifted on this. In 2009 when we were trying to pass the Affordable Care Act… two things. One, Max Baucus, who was a Senator from Montana who was in charge of the finance committee that was writing the bill, refused to hold a single hearing on single-payer on the belief that it was too politically toxic and would endanger passage of the Affordable Care Act. In the Affordable Care Act was a public option, which is a bridge to something like Medicare-for-all or single payer. And... conservative Democrats- there were not 60 votes in a time which Democrats had 60 votes to include that in the bill and it was stripped out, to the objection of many people -- including President Obama and the people on this podcast. And to go from that to the world in which every Democrat who is thinking about running for President believes that it is- that are willing to put their name on this bill, is a pretty stunning- stunningly quick change in the political firmament. What d'you think of the politics of it?

JF: It's interesting, I think that the politics of it are...good. I mean, you can start with, you know something like 64, 65% of Democrats now believe we should have a single payer plan. I think overall the politics are pretty good. I think telling people that instead of, you know, spending all this money in this country on you know, insurance companies and insurance CEOs, and prescription drug companies, and instead we're gonna spend care on people and people aren't gonna have to pay for care and we're gonna hold down the cost of health care. I think those are all good messages. I do think that...if you're an advocate of single-payer, if you're an advocate of this bill, which I am, you do need to think through how you're gonna pay for it and be honest with people about how you're gonna pay for it. And not take questions about how you're going to pay for it as... “Oh, well you're against this and you just must be in the pocket of insurance industry and you know, you're a shill and blah, blah, blah.” Like, we have a responsibility that if we're gonna put forward this plan, to tell people, “We want this. This is the best way to go. This is the best way to have health care in America. This is the best way to insure everyone and here's the way we pay for it and we're not afraid to talk about that.” So, that's what I think.

DP: So, if you were running the campaign of a 2020 candidate, would you tell them to put all the details out? In the course of a campaign, I’m not saying they have to do it in the run-up. So, you're out there, you're gonna give your, you know mandatory speech rolling out your healthcare plan, you think you gotta do the pay force?

JF: I think you gotta give the, some options for the pay- I think what Bernie did, which was a have a separate white paper that had a bunch of options for pay force, is a good idea. I would probably, like, if I was running a campaign, narrow those down, pick some, and go around and- and that would be the message, you know. I mean, at least you wanna get in the ballpark. I don't think you have to have this fucking scored, like the CBO would score it, while you're running for President. But I do think you need-I mean it's just part of the message, you know. It's one thing to just have ads that talk about this, it's one thing to go out there on the stump. At some point, you're gonna get in a debate, or you’re gonna get an attack and someone's gonna say, “Well, how do you plan to pay for this?” And you know you need to be able to give a reasonably good answer that's believable and you need to have a follow up when someone gives you a follow up. I think that's- that's all you need. And I think that's doable.

DP: Do you think you'd do that even if you're running against Trump?

JF: Oh, I think you do that especially if you're running against Trump. I think that's- I mean it's so funny. This is what we talked about with Hillary Clinton and she had this...like, I think it's mistaken to think that you need to have every detail worked out. But I think if you're running against Trump, it is an equally good message to say that you're going to pay for this by raising taxes the richest people on this country.

JL: Dan, it's Lovett.

JF: I knew he wasn't gonna be able to fucking...sit quiet for 5 minutes.

JL: It's 10! it's time for ads!

DP: The danger of moving the studio within 10 feet of his desk.

JF: The master of single payer over here.

JL: First of all- first of all, it's 10 o clock. I’d be talking at the studio too. This is how it goes. Isn't this one of the lessons though, that Republicans have spent a long time separating politics from policy, you know. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney can run around talking about all the things they're gonna do to cut taxes. But when it comes time to paying for it, they're extremely vague or they just lie about it. Trump’s even worse. I mean isn’t one of the lessons of 2016 that-

JF: That we should be extremely vague and lie about it?

JL: No! Not that we should lie about it! But that- that we can- we can simply go back to you know, as a country we spend “x” on healthcare. We can make up for this by cutting what we spent on health care and by making people pay their fair share and leave it at that.

JF: Do you have numbers that make that work?

JL: What I’m saying, isn't what Hillary Clinton told us is, she was like, “I was waiting for the point where someone asked me do you have the numbers to make that work and in 2016 it didn't happen.”

JF: But she wasn't afraid about putting out the numbers. She was afraid about the political consequence about what the numbers would mean.

JL: But no, I’m not just talking about single payer. I’m saying that she put out all the numbers for her policies and she found that no one ever gave a shit.

JF: Well, if she didn't put out the numbers she certainly would've gave- don't you think the press would've been even tougher on her, if she didn't have any numbers to back up her policies? My thing is like- look-

JL: I don't know.

JF: If we're gonna advocate single payer, we have to be ready to defend the cost of it. And be proud of that.

DP: Let me say a couple things about this. One - the question is, do you wanna just win? And have no chance of passing single payer? Or do you wanna win and try to pass single payer? If you wanna win and try to pass single payer, you have to put enough details out that it is a reasonable proposal. If you were just gonna run on a vague notion of Medicare-for-all and just take the win and let the next President deal with it, then the more Bernie in the primary, Trump in the general election approach makes sense. I think on the larger politics of this, we shouldn't pretend that these politics are easy. Because you are at the end of the day, gonna move 90% of Americans off their current health insurance plan and onto another one. And convincing them, as we know from the Affordable Care Act, that even if people don't love their health insurance, the fear of the unknown exceeds their discomfort with the known.

JL: It's also true, Dan, that the- that you know we are watching a cautionary tale of this right now which is- they spent 8 years campaigning on a lie about health care but when it came time to govern, it's another matter.

JF: Yeah.

DP: That's right. I also think- I think the politics on this are tough. If you can't pass single payer in California or Vermont, passing it nationally is gonna be very challenging. But Democrats are 100% right to do this. It's the right thing to do. If we're ever going to get it done, people have to run on it and try to convince the nation it's the right thing to do. No one has- other than Bernie Sanders in the primary, no one has run on single-payer in decades, or made it the centerpiece of a presidential campaign.

JF: Yeah.

DP: We were able to shift the- one of the reasons why Trump feels compelled -- besides just enjoying Morning Joe commentary -- to do this DACA deal, is that we ran on immigration reform in 2012 and moved the political conversation from being largely anti-immigrant to looking for a comprehensive solution. And if Democrats wanna actually solve this problem, they have to run on it. And so, there's risks to it. But -- to the point you made earlier, Jon -- the traditional ideas of what we think about electability and how policy plays into electability and how resume and biography play into electability are out the window. And so, doing the right thing and being authentic and being bold about it is as best- as good an idea to win an election as we have out there.

JF: Yeah. I also think...the reason I like what Bernie did is it is an opening bid. And the opening bid is far to the left, so that you can sort of move back. And one of my lessons from the Obama years is, you know, the stimulus package, right? We started off with a stimulus package that we thought we could- that was not just the right policy but that we thought we could pass. And we also thought we needed a third of it to be tax cuts because we thought that would get Republicans and blah, blah, blah. And if we had to do it over again, I wonder, it's like- if we put out the stimulus package that we wanted -- that was the biggest, boldest, stimulus package possible, and then we negotiate it down to what we ended up with at our opening bid. Like if we- if we end up with instead of the extremely generous single payer plan that Bernie Sanders has laid out yesterday, if what we end up with is a robust public option that ultimately so many people choose because it's much better than private insurance, and the private insurance industry eventually just goes away because the public option is so popular-

JL: [Murmuring] Which we're not gonna say when we get behind that.

JF: Well- what we got behind yesterday says we're gonna eliminate the private insurance company- industry together all at once, so- you know, we gotta be comfortable with the rhetoric here. Then- you know, then that's pretty great, right? I think the important here is the goal at the end of the day is to get every single person covered, to bring down costs, and to make sure people can pay for health care in America. And we're saying, “This is the north star. This is what we wanna get to and let's figure out how to get there.”

DP: I think, to sort of boil this down, when you don't- when the politics for the things you want to do are not good- go change the politics, right.

JF: Right.

DP: The Democratic Party and the presidential candidates have agency here. They can make a- they can go to the country and convince them to do this and... that is the better way to do it than- it's better to decide what the right thing to do is and convince the country of that than...ask the country what they want and then just give that to them, right. So, you shouldn't dumb down your proposals to do the most politically expedient thing.

JL: Can I ask you both a question about this, which- so Chris Murphy has his version of a public option. It's a strong, public option where companies and individuals could buy into Medicare. Do you- I mean I- I wonder if that's not where we would ultimately land, right? It's kind of a more- it gives people the option and people can stay in their current health care if they want it. Do you think that we're sort of making these things too far apart, rhetorically? We've sort of made Medicare-for-all one thing, and the public option another. But part of me wonders if we can just say, we're for Medicare for all, whether it's a Bernie plan where everybody has- everybody is in it, or a Chris Murphy plan where everybody can buy into it or have access to it with a subsidy if they want. I mean, do you- like I’m just wondering if we've kind of made these things too far apart.

JF: I don't even know if we have made them far apart. When you dig into Bernie’s plan yesterday, it's a four-year transition. The first year just starts with the lowering the age to 55, which is like-

JL: Which Joe Lieberman stopped.

JF: Which is Sherrod Brown's plan. The second year is, you know, raising the age for young people and it kind of goes and meets them in the middle at the final year where it's like 35 or 45, right? And so even Bernie’s plan has this transition. And so, it is- I don't wanna exaggerate the differences as long as you're someone who's proposing, you know, a robust public Medicare plan that more and more and more and more Americans can buy into.

JL: Right.

DP: I mean the ultimate solution here is probably a transition period. Right? Where it's like, we're gonna do the public option and Medicare buy in that will transition into Medicare for all. As opposed to- it seems unlikely that we're gonna pass a bill and we’re gonna- two years later everyone's gonna be on Medicare and private insurance will be eliminated in this country. You will need to transition into it and -- because of what we tried to do with the public option and what we tried to do with the Medicare buy in that Liebermann killed -- we sort of know what the interim steps are. And every one of those steps is a huge benefit to the individuals who would take part in that program and the overall- and reducing costs and quality- and improving quality of care across the health care system.

JF: Yeah. Okay. When we come back, we will talk with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

 0:45:33

[MUSIC]

 0:45:38

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Squarespace.

JL: Squarespace.

JF: Squarespace is for people who are setting new goals-

JL: [Gasp]

JF: Starting businesses, changing careers, or launching a creative project. Squarespace gives people a powerful and beautiful online platform from which-

JL: It's new words!

JF: To make their next move-

JL: Ohhh. Spoke too soon.

JF: Into the world. With Squarespace people can lock down their next move idea with a unique domain, create a website to launch their idea, a portfolio to get their project out there, or an online store to officially open for business and more.

JL: If you wanted to open a moving company. You'd make your next move move with a moving website-

JF: You got it.

JL: with Squarespace.

JF: I think you got it.

JL: Make your next move move. 

JF: With moving.

JL: You're moving. With Squarespace.

JF: Whoo. Squarespace provides award winning 24/7 customer support and a unique domain experience that's fully transparent and simple to set up. There's nothing to install, patch, or upgrade ever. Make your next move move!

JL: If you were a jazz record store, you'd make your next move groove move with Squarespace.

JF: Use offer code CROOKED for 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's offer code CROOKED for 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Make your next move-

JL: If you sold chew toys, you'd make your next move hoove[?] move with Squarespace.

JF: With Squarespace.

 0:46:55

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Sonos.

JL: Sonos.

JF: Tell your own Sonos story.

JL: I mean, where to begin.

JF: You got anything?

JL: Honestly, I was born. 

[Laughter]

JL: I lived. I like Sonos a lot. 

JF: Yeah.

JL: I have a Sonos in different rooms in my house.

JF: So, do we.

JL: I have the play base on which my television sits. I’ve been playing a video game called Prey. Now I will say that I-

JF: The Sonos ads always become more about your video games.

JL: That's fine.

JF: Talk about the rich sounds. Talk about the easy set up.

JL: Honestly when I’m being hunted by a nightmare in the game Prey, it feels like there's a nightmare in the room with me.

JF: It is very nice to walk from room to room -- [emphasizing pronunciation] Room to room --

JL: But then I use my glue gun, but it doesn’t work-

JF: And all you hear-

JL: Because the nightmare is immune to it.

JF: And all you hear is the same stuff because Sonos. It's like- it's great.

JL: Beautiful music or the sound of a squealing alien in the game Prey. Which is fantastic, if a little derivative of, you know, some of its inspirations.

JF: For the first time ever, Sonos is offering the listeners of Pod Save America 10% off one order of 1,000 dollars or less for any product on sonos.com. This offer is available for a limited time only and cannot be combined with other discounts or promotions. Use the promo code PSA10.

JL: Promo code PSA10!

JF: Capital P-S-A one zero at sonos.com to receive this exclusive offer. Lovett, it's sad that you don't have the Wi-Fi password so you can't control the Sonos in our new house anymore.

JL: Did you change the Wi-Fi password?

JF: We did. We did.

JL: That's a shame. I’ll get it from Emily

JF: Yeah. [Laughs] 

JL: Emily and I were talking about getting a Soothe massage, the other-.

JF: Oh, that's-

JL: The next time you're not around.

JF: Just gave out the milk for free there.

[Laughter]

JL: Don't say “give out the milk for free” again.

[Laughter]

JL: Anyway, this is about Sonos.

[Laughter]

JL: And you get 10% off- how much? 10% off 1,000?

JF: I thought you said that the other day, but it was Tommy. Tommy used that saying the other day.

JL: Don't milk the Soothe if you're gonna get the Sonos for free.

JF: I mean, you know, maybe it's a whole thing there. Yeah, I understand. Okay! Sonos!

JL: Sonos.

JF: Go get it!

JL: Get Sonos. What was it? 10% off? 1,000?

JF: 10% off. PSA10

JL: 1,000? That's a lot.

JF: Yeah.

0:48:49

[MUSIC]

0:48:53

JF: On the pod today, we are very lucky to have with us New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, thanks for coming on the pod!

KG: You're welcome. I’m really excited to be on.

JF: We're glad to have you. So, yesterday you signed on to Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all act. And you've actually been a proponent of Medicare for all since your first Congressional race back in 2006. So, it seems like there are two big challenges here with this bill- with this legislation. One is figuring out how to pay for it. And two, just something- you know, we all worried about during the Affordable Care Act debate, persuading the 90% of Americans who have health insurance that we can transition them to a Medicare plan with, you know, little to no disruption in their lives. So, how do we meet these challenges?

KG: Well, I think the most important thing is to give people the opportunity to buy into a not for profit public option. I think it's really important to recognize that so much of the cost in health care today is the fact that we have these middle men called insurance companies that are for profit companies that have very high profit margins, fat CEO salaries, and quarterly obligations to their shareholders. And their goal in life is to make money, as they should be. That's what they are. They're for profit companies. We need someone who's running this that actually cares about people and puts people before profits and puts the health and well-being of Americans first. And so, you need at least a not for profit public option. And so over the 4 years under our bill -- and this is the part that I worked on to write – is, let people buy into Medicare at a price they can afford. And do it over 4 years so people can be eligible each year to buy in. And it lets people see how much less it costs if you're not guaranteeing fat CEO pay and profits for these insurance companies. Over time I think people will then begin to see it's not only less expensive, but it's higher quality care. And so, the reason why Medicare for all is so important is because you have to move away from a for profit system into a not for profit system. You cannot get, in my opinion, to universal coverage and affordability at the same time. And that's why states that have one or two providers are struggling. Because they might have a low population, they might have an older population, they might have a sick population. And so, those insurance companies can't make enough money and that's why they're not there. So, while ObamaCare did a lot to get us in the right direction, it protected kids up until 26, it said you can't be dropped coverage because of preexisting conditions. It made all these changes that really matter. It's still based on a for profit system and so it's still too expensive for a lot of middle class families, for a lot of small businesses. It's still too expensive. And so, to really get cost down you need to be able to take the insurance companies out of the equation and you need to be able to negotiate in bulk for the lowest cost for drugs. You have to be able to take on the drug companies and say, we deserve to be able to buy in bulk through Medicare or Medicaid and get lower prices for people.

JF: So- it's interesting, you mentioned adding a nonprofit- a not for profit public option. That was actually the plan that Hillary Clinton proposed in the 2016 election, adding a public option. And even though her and Bernie fought quite a bit over her plan versus his single payer plan, do you think those differences were over blown? Because, you know, you're talking about adding a public option and then ultimately transitioning to a Medicare for all single payer plan. Do you think this is just sort of a- a difference in how we transition, how fast we transition – what do you think about that?

KG: Well I think our goal has to be single payer. We have to get to a place where all Americans are covered no matter what, and that health care is a right and not a privilege. And that has to be the goal for all of us. But I think the buy in is the best way to transition because honestly if you give people a chance to have Medicare -- I can't tell you how many people when I’ve traveled around the state who've said to me, you know, “I’m 55 years old, I just got laid off, I don’t know why, you know I have to be in poverty to be eligible for Medicaid, it's not fair. Why can't I be eligible now for Medicare or Medicaid?” And it's just- it's what people want and it's not partisan. And as you mentioned, when I ran in 2006 I ran on Medicare for all. I said you need at least one not for profit public option. I said people should be able to buy in. And people liked it and that was a very Republican district. And so, it makes sense. It's really common sense. And it's all about where the money goes and the money should be going entirely towards health care, not to overhead, not to profits, not to CEO pay. And to your question of paying for it. People are gonna buy into this and it's going to be less than they're paying their insurance company. So, people are gonna save money and America’s gonna spend less money on healthcare and you're gonna get to the fundamental cost that's driving the fact that we spend so much more on health care in this country than other countries that have universal health care.

DP: Senator, like all things, this is a question of both policy and politics. What lessons, or- do you take, or concerns do you have about the fact that two of our most progressive states, Vermont and California -- where Jon and I live -- have tried to do single payer and run into great struggles politically? What lessons do you take from that as you think about how to do this nationally? In, you know, obviously a much different environment than California and Vermont?

KG: I think people just have to understand what it's about. When you really simplify it and say, should money be going to insurance company CEOs or insurance company profits, or should money be spent directly on your health care? It's really obvious to most voters. And so, when you present it like that, they say, of course I’d rather the money go to health care. I don’t need to fund insurance company profits. And so, it's- it's simplifying the system and then it's making all health care available to all people. And that's why having single payer, that's why having Medicare for all is really a very elegant solution that solves our greatest problem that too many people are priced out of health care today. It's really, in some circumstances for the most privileged among us, and it's just not right. It's morally wrong. So, I think if you talk about it in that way around the country, they're gonna support this. You know the debate sometimes becomes very toxic and misleading. And so if you really just speak truth to power, I think it's gonna work. And I think people want to have Medicare for all. I think they really- they know their grandparents or their parents are on Medicare. They know they generally like things. They'd like drug prices to be cheaper. We need to deal with that as a cost measure. And then you can begin to create a healthcare system that's not focused on fee for service, but is actually focused on well-being of patients.

JF: So, we interviewed Hillary Clinton on Monday and -- you know, you've been a strong supporter of her and you were in 2016 -- I asked her if she had any advice for women who are interested in politics, who are running for politics now- running for office now, on how to grapple with the kind of sexism she faced in the campaign. What kind of advice would you give to women who are running for office for the very first time? The thousands who have signed up to run since 2016.

KG: Well the first thing I would tell them is to believe in themselves and to make sure they know that their voice will make a difference. I started “Off the Sidelines” about 6 years ago to create a call to action to ask women to do exactly this. To run for office. If they didn't want to run for office, then to support another woman who shared your values, to vote, to become advocates, to be heard. And what we’ve seen since this President was elected is a resurgence of women who desperately want to be heard. And it all started in the Women's March. I mean, I don't know if you participated in any of the marches around the globe, but-

JF: Oh yeah, right here in LA.

KG: Millions- yeah millions of people came out and said, “I want to be heard.” And what was so brilliant about the March was its intersectionality, the fact that it didn't matter what you marched for. You could certainly march for women's reproductive freedom, but you could also march for Black Lives Matter, or you could march for immigration reform, or clean air clean water, or LGBT equality. It didn't matter. It was the first time for a lot of people to just put what they felt most strongly about and put it on a sign and carry the sign. And it was an action that I think really was a process in democratizing democracy in a way that was powerful and certainly meaningful for me and really inspiring. So, for all the women who are thinking about running, please run! We need you! And we need your voice. We need your perspective. You have a very different life experience than most people serving in government. As you know, we only have 20% in the Senate, 18% in the House. And it's not enough. It's just not enough. And so, issues that overwhelmingly impact women and families sometimes don't even get on the top 10 list. It's outrageous that we don't have national paid leave in this day and age, when every other industrialized country has it. We don't even have equal pay for equal work yet. And other things that, you know, perhaps because women see the world differently, having affordable day care or universal pre-k. These kinds of changes would make a difference. So, I just- I believe that we need women. We need the diversity of our country representing our country. And we just don't have it. We need more women of color, we need more African American and Hispanic, Latinas. We need more people running who are different than what we have today. And so, I’m hoping that women really feel this, intensely, that not only are they qualified but they're differences in life experience is what makes them more effective, more powerful, and more relevant for some of the problems we need to face today.

DP: Senator, I wanted to ask you about the deal -- or alleged deal -- that Senator Schumer and Leader Pelosi struck with Trump. And not- I guess I’m curious, not necessarily about the details of the deal, but how you think about Democrats working with Trump, while at the same time believing that he is an existential threat to a lot in this country. Is there a danger that he gets normalized by this? Or we're helping him out politically in ways that Senator McConnell certainly was not willing to do for President Obama?

KG: I don't think some of President Trump's hateful policies will ever be normalized and can never be allowed to be normalized. So, when he's objectifying and discriminating against transgender troops, you stand boldly against him and you say, why? That's immoral. When he wants to say that kids that are here under DACA can't stay, you stand up against him. But if he wants to do something good and his desire is to actually help people, there’s no reason you shouldn't do it. And in fact, it would be immoral if you didn't do it. If he wants to make sure we pass the DREAM Act tomorrow, I will be the first one to say, I will work with you to pass the DREAM Act tomorrow. So, we have to do both. When he does something that’s toxic, wrong, and immoral, we have to stand strong and fight hard. And if he wants to do something that helps people, that is our job- to work with him to help people. That is why we are here. We are public servants first. And if people let politics get in the way of helping people, they're not doing their jobs.

JF: So, you're someone who used to have a more conservative position on immigration when you first ran for Congress. Now, you know, you're one of the strongest advocates for a path to citizenship for undocumented Americans. Talk a little bit about your evolution on this issue, and also, you know, how you think Democrats should approach immigration policy going forward.

KG: Well, as an upstate House member, I just didn't have enough experience understanding the traumas that families face who are dealing with immigration in this country. My district was maybe 98% white and I didn't take the time to understand why this issue was so important and how harmful anti-immigration policies are. And so, when I was appointed to the Senate and was given the job of representing the whole state, I spent time with families all across the state to hear from them about what their lives were actually like. And I have to say I was horrified that I hadn't been sensitive enough, that I hadn't understood how difficult and challenging some of these hateful politics can be for a family. And I can't imagine what it's like to be a child whose parents could be shipped away at any moment. Like, I can't imagine the anxiety that they feel. And so, I feel so strongly now that we have to work much, much harder to protect these kids, to protect these families, and to really make the case about how important the history of immigration is in our country. I mean, we are a country founded by immigrants. Part of the strength of our democracy is because of our diversity. Part of the strength of our economy is because of our diversity. And I’ve met with refugee populations, with immigration populations, across our state who, when they come here all they do is grow the economy. They start businesses, they start families, they invest. And so, we need comprehensive immigration in this country. We need pathways to citizenship. We have to protect the kids who are under DACA and who are Dreamers. So, I just feel like our country- it's not about tolerating diversity, it's about the strength the diversity caused. Our country is stronger because of our diversity.

DP: Senator, we wanted to ask you about the amendment you're working on with Senator Collins, about protecting transgender troops. What would that do to address the situation of the new Trump policy? And what are the prospects, do you think?

KG: The prospects are very strong that we can actually pass our amendment. Senator Collins and I have worked on issues that affect military personnel for many years now. She and I worked together on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And we, you know, nobody thought we could repeal that policy. Even the advocacy groups were afraid to vote on that. But we did. And we pushed it because it was the right thing to do and goodness prevailed on that day. I think the same is true here. We don’t know how many votes we have, but we've just convince Senator McCain to support our amendment. Which is fantastic because he's seen by many Republicans as the leader on all things military. And so, what our bill will do is protect any transgender troops who are serving today and make sure that they cannot be discriminated against because of their gender identity.

JF: Senator, one thing we learned this week after interviewing Hillary on Monday is, you know from some of the responses, here's still a lot of deep divisions within the party between Bernie supporters, Hillary supporters. What are your thoughts on a message and policies that might unite the Democratic party in 2018, 2020, and beyond?

KG: Well certainly policies that really affect people deeply. Like Medicare for all. I think being willing to take on the drug companies and getting health care costs down is one of the biggest drivers of economic insecurity in this country today. I think focusing on rewarding work. Just listening to the challenges workers face across this country and then working so much harder to meet their needs. So, focusing on ways that reward work, such as obviously raising the minimum wage. But also investing in manufacturing, seeing ‘Made in America’ again. Making sure we invest in the kind of training and education that gets people right into the jobs that are available today. Having structural changes like paid family leave. I can't tell you how many people are forced to leave the work force because of an urgent family crisis, if they can even afford to do so. So being bold, being aggressive, speak about the vision for the party. I think free education is something we should absolutely fight for. Especially for these worker training issues. Like if you get laid off and your mid-career and you just need 6 months of training to get that job at that manufacturer, you know five miles away, that should be available at any community college, any local state school, for free. And so, the kinds of things we could do to level the playing field for workers and restructure the economy to reward work again. I mean this is a long conversation but, you know we have had an economy that is overwhelmingly dominated by shareholder value. It's overwhelmingly dominated by who owns things. And so, if we wanna refocus it towards who works in the economy, who actually are the people that build things, it's gonna take some really structural challenges. And I think if you incentivize companies to do things like profit sharing or employee ownership or creating a workplace policy that support workers first. Really investing in B corps and saying, if you're gonna focus on sustainability and have pro worker, workplace policies, you're gonna get a tax advantage, you know. If we're gonna do tax reform, let's increase tax benefits for companies that create their companies this way. And then support our unions. Our unions are our greatest voices for workplace fairness and to get higher pay for workers. And really help communities understand that if they have someone negotiating for them, they're gonna be more powerful. So really renew our commitment to helping unions be strong. Cause they- they put people first. And so, it's just this question of what do you do first, people or profits? And we are a capitalist country, we believe in capitalism, but we don't believe in greed. And that is the difference. That has been the divergence for the last several decades. And so, we have to reward good companies that wanna create jobs, reinvest in the middle class, and reinvest in their workers. And make it more profitable for those kinds of companies to succeed by investing in them.

JF: Awesome. Thank you so much, Senator Gillibrand for joining us. And please come back again.

KG: Thank you guys so much! I really appreciate you including me.

JF: Oh, absolutely. Take care!

KG: Take care, bye!

JF: Bye.

1:06:34

[MUSIC]

1:06:39

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Parachute.

JL: Parachute.

JF: What do you think?

[Laughter]

JL: I think Parachute is just terrific. We are back to using Parachute as the giveaway at Lovett or Leave It, for people who win the games. Sadly, we've not had a lot of people lose the games and I’m trying to figure out how to make them harder.

JF: Yeah. I could win any of those games.

JL: Well that's because you're a news junkie. That's because you’re a fiend. A Twitter fiend.

JF: Yeah. I’m gonna help you come up with the fake- the- you know how it's '”too fake to be true” or whatever that game is that you guys play? I’m a casual listener.

[Laughter]

JL: Too stupid to be-

JF: Two truths and a false?

JL: Too stupid to- don't- it's called “too Stupid to be true.”

JF: Too stupid to be true. I think- [giggles]

JL: Parachute.

JF: Parachute.

[Laughter]

JL: Parachute.

JF: We need more Parachute stuff. So, we have a pool at our new home and Emily-

JL: Must be nice.

[Laughter]

JF: And Emily wants robes, Parachute robes, for everyone who comes over-

JL: She mentioned robes to me-

JF: For when they come out of the pool.

JL: Separately.

JF: She wants to give our guests Parachute robes.

JL: Honestly, you know, it's ridiculous. Anyway- you- you know, look- you don't have to-

JF: It's cause they're comfortable!

JL: You don't have to live like the Sultan of Brunei to enjoy Parachute products whenever you want them.

[Laughter]

JL: We like Parachute. We need to take a trip. We need to do a Sunday trip-

JF: [While laughing hysterically] Sultan of Brunei!

JL: I don't where that- I don’t even know anything about the Sultan of Brunei. Maybe they sleep on a- maybe they sleep on very low count thread sheets that are uncomfortable.

JF: It's just one of those dog pools you fill up with a garden hose.

[Laughter]

JL: It's like the pool on the roof at the start of Weekend at Bernie’s.

JF: That’s right.

JL: You know what I’m talking about. Anyway-

Both: Parachute!

JF: You get towels. You get robes. Go get some!

JL: And sheets and bedding!

JF: Oh! There's something we're supposed to say, visit parachutehome.com/crooked for free shipping and returns. That's parachutehome.com/crooked for free shipping and returns. They offer a 60-night trial. If you don't love it, you just send it back no questions asked.

JL: No questions asked!

JF: Zero questions.

JL: Zero questions.

JF: Parachute.

JL: Parachute.

JF: Go get some.

1:08:30

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by the Cash app

JL: The Cash app. I, Jon, have ordered my Cash app card.

JF: Yes!

JL: And I signed it and personalized it and it will be coming in the mail.

JF: Can't wait. 

JL: We all can't wait. On bated breath, we wait for the arrival.

JF: You're gonna be throwing around that thing like it's nobody's business.

JL: And it is nobody's business. It's my business.

JF: but it is- [laughs] Who you send and receive money from.

JL: The point is, we're switching to Cash app.

JF: We're not using the other apps anymore.

JL: We're not using those other ones anymore.

JF: So, download it. Put in the code PODSAVE.

JL: PODSAVE.

JF: You get 5 dollars.

JL: You get 5 dollars.

JF: 5 dollars is going to hurricane relief.

JL: 5 dollars going to hurricane relief.

JF: That's Harvey and Irma. There’s many people in need. This is very important. So, download the Cash app if you haven’t already, or get your friends to. That's it.

JL: That's it.

JF: That's all we have to say about that.

JL: You have a group of friends and you're going out to dinner and you're going bowling and you're going roller skating and you're going to escape rooms. And the question becomes how do we settle up? You know?

JF: You're not exchanging wads of cash.

JL: Like animals. We're doing it with this Cash app.

JF: Code PODSAVE.

1:09:31

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Postmates.

JL: Postmates.

JF: Download the app. 100 dollars in free delivery credit.

JL: Download the app. 100 dollars in free delivery credit.

JF: Use it within 2 weeks.

JL: Within 2 weeks.

JF: Stuff comes to your house. It's food-

JL: I got a poke bowl last night-

JF: It could be electronics-

JL: On kelp noodles.

JF: Whatever there is in stores around you, the Postmate will bring it to you. That's the point.

JL: I saw this option that said, “Do you want your poke bowl on kelp noodles?” And I said, “Let's give it a shot. What's the worst that could happen? It's one meal.”

JF: I don't know what the worst that could happen. What is the worst that could happen?

JL: I don't know what the worst that could happen because I had a great time. Because you know what? Turns out, lesson learned from Postmates, I enjoy kelp noodles.

JF: Postmates.

JL: Postmates.

JF: Download today, use the code CROOKED. Get 100 dollars in free delivery credit.

JL: End of ad.

1:10:07

[MUSIC]

1:10:11

JF: On the pod today, we have the host of Crooked Media's with Friends Like These, Ana Marie Cox. Welcome!

Ana Marie Cox: Hello, guys.

JF: Hi, there. You just did an interview with our pal, Rembert Browne, right?

AMC: I did and if I do say so myself, it was fantastic. It was good for me. I hope it was good for him. I hope listeners appreciate it as well. We did a really deep dive into the piece that came out this week that he wrote that is a profile of Colin Kaepernick with a missing piece. Which is an actual interview with Colin Kaepernick, but in a way- like, just as a magazine nerd and as a writing nerd, I’m sure you guys appreciated this about the piece as well, which is that one of the things it's about is that it's not Colin Kaepernick's job to be a celebrity and be in profiles. And it's not his job to be interrogated by people about his beliefs.

JF: That is true.

AMC: He has a job. And he's doing it. Which is that he's an activist now, you know. He's not at the beck and call of reporters or other people that- that want to question him. Like he's doing what he needs to do.

JF: That's an interesting angle on it. I like that.

AMC: And it's just a great piece and obviously it's really current right now. Not just because we are, you know, in the middle of one of the most politically charged football seasons that we've seen in a while. But obviously, Jemele Hill at ESPN tweeted some truths about Donald Trump, including the fact he's a white supremacist. And not only did ESPN discipline her in some unspecified way, but Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked ESPN to fire her. From the podium of the White House. What's your guys' take on that -- as far as like, using the White House podium to ask for people to get fired?

JF: I mean it's fucking absurd, you know.

[Laughter]

JF: When- when reality television star Donald Trump ran around calling Barack Obama and others racist, we didn't call for his firing from the White House podium. But we could've.

AMC: Yeah.

DP: Perhaps we should have.

AMC: Yeah, you guys could've really nipped this in the bud. I think that's actually the real lesson here, right?

DP: Seriously. This is the- this is the baby Hitler question as relates to Trump.

[Laughter]

AMC: So, that's super ugly in, you know, race news this week. Other stuff too, what did you guys wanna talk about? What do you got left on the list?

JF: What we have left on the list is...we didn't talk about the antics- the Kris Kobach antics this week with Trump’s voter fraud commission. Kobach wrote a piece in Breitbart where he said that Hillary Clinton and Maggie Hassan won in New Hampshire because of illegal voting by out-of-state residents. This is, of course, false. Most of these are out-of-state college students who had every legal right to vote in New Hampshire. What's the deal with this dog and pony show here?

AMC: Well, in a way it encapsulates- it's a microcosm of everything that's wrong with the Trump administration. Which is to say that it's a poorly formulated idea that was poorly executed, that will have very few real-world ramifications beyond just re-solidifying bad ideas.

JF: Yeah.

AMC: Like Kris Kobach himself has said that he's not sure if anything is gonna come from this commission. But as you guys know, propping up the idea that voter fraud is something that is a real thing that we need to do something about, is itself a powerful idea. You know, that's a powerful tool to broadcast to the nation, that there is such a thing as massive voter fraud and that it's done on behalf of Democrats. The thing itself was almost literally a joke. Like, at one point they brought out antique New Hampshire voting machines to demonstrate? Like...like you would not pay a nickel to go see in a museum, you know?

JF: Yeah. What do you think about some Democrats who are calling on the Democratic members of this commission to resign? And they refused, saying, you know “We need to be here to sort of watch Kobach's antics.” What do you think about that?

AMC: I’m torn. I think that the main reason I would say that they should be there, is that one of the members of the commission - Hans Spakovsky, do you guys know how to pronounce his last name? It's just like one of those complicated-

JF: No, I’m not even gonna try. I have pronunciation issues on the podcast, so-

AMC: You know, eastern European sounding names, I don't know. He's one of the main architects of this voter fraud, fraud. He asked that Democrats not be a part of the commission. So therefore, I think that they should be. If one of the main perpetrators of this lie doesn’t want Democrats there, then I think Democrats should be there. I mean, I’m curious about- you know this is a question for a lot of people on the left right now, is how much you should be working with the other side. I’m sure you guys dived into the DACA thing, you know, should Democrats at all work with Trump or work with Republicans? I mean I think it's probably a case by case basis.

JF: Totally, yeah, I think it's case by case. I think on DACA it's our policy outcome so yeah, of course.

AMC: Yeah, right.

JF: It's not like- we gave up almost nothing. Or it looks like we're gonna give up almost nothing.

AMC: And I do think the Democrats being on Kobach's commission means that there's probably a little bit more transparency there. Like they'll fight for people to be able to come and see the commission’s hearings, at least. And see that they're a joke.

JF: Yeah, well okay, this is- you know I’ve been very critical of some of these folks who are in the Trump administration who are claiming they're there to like save America. And, you know, they're serving for that reason and I think that at this point they should absolutely resign and tell the country what's going on in the Trump administration and that would have a greater impact than them staying in there. Aside from some of those in national security roles like McMaster. But on this one, on the voting commission, I like that there are Democrats on the commission because it's a public commission. And I think that if you have Democrats there, they can speak out and call out Kobach's lies in- you know, to the public while it's going on. And I would imagine that if this commission comes to a conclusion that's insane and wrong, they will certainly not sign on to that and they can use that position to speak out.

AMC: And they will have some weight behind not signed on, right.

JF: Right.

AMC: They'll be able to say, “And this is why we're not signing on.” Rather than speaking from the outside. I do wanna- I mean people who are listening to-

JF: And they're speaking out now and they're not waiting, even. Which is nice.

AMC: Right, right. And I know people listening to this show know this, that voter fraud is not a problem. It doesn't really exist. But this is one of the most pernicious, like, urban legends that exists in America.

JF: Yeah.

AMC: My- my Trump supporting in-laws, you know, again are good example here. Like they earnestly believe that there's some kind of conspiracy around this. And they refuse to be shaken from it. So, the more that we can do to combat this and like just the- you know, the popular narrative, I mean, the better. And the best, the best way to combat it, though, I think is just continuing to fight against the, you know, unfair gerrymandering and just continue to just register people to vote and do voter turnout. There's no, unfortunately, like just make- make the evidence- put the evidence in the votes, if that makes sense.

JF: Yeah, and publicize some of these battles on the local and state level which our friend Jason Kander is doing so well. So, I think- I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

DP: I think it's worth nothing that Hans van whatever, he was on the FEC. He was recess appointed because the junior Senator from Illinois, to much controversy, put a hold on his nomination. So, real prescient move there, Barack Obama.

JF: There you go. Alright guys, well. So, everyone should tune in- so, With Friends like These, your interview with Rembert Browne drops tomorrow-

AMC: Yeah.

JF: So, everyone, make sure you download.

AMC: It'll probably be a little long. I’m just gonna -gonna toss that out there I know people probably- I know some people don’t like when we do those, kind of bonus episode length stuff. But I think it's worth it. I think it's a really good piece.

JL: Ana, hey, it's Lovett. I wanna talk a little bit about salesmanship.

[Laughter]

JL: I would say that there are probable other qualities besides the length of it that people might enjoy. The interesting qualities of the conversation, the fascinating insights the Rembert brought to the table. Perhaps- perhaps long is a better thing because you'll be so engrossed in it you won't want to stop listening. Maybe you'll-

AMC: I think time will fly. I think people won’t even realize.

JL: Maybe you'll sit in your car-

AMC: I’m not even gonna say how long it's gonna be. Because people aren’t gonna know. Cause they’ll- they're sense of time will be warped by the investment that they'll have while they're listening

DP: I don’t know if you've been in a McDonalds recently but Americans like more.

[Laughter]

DP: More podcasts, less- same price.

JF: Guys, I think, I think we've bled right into the outro here.

[MUSIC BEGINS]

JL: We're in the outro.

JF: We're- it's here. Now we are. Because this episode is now long.

JL: And, music!

[Laughter]

JF: Also, guys-

DP: Can I add- can I add two minutes to this intro before we go?

JF: Sure.

DP: So, I was on a podcast last week called The Rights to Ricky Sanchez, which is the premiere Philadelphia of 76ers podcast.

JF: Oh yeah, I saw that.

JL: That's my favorite Philadelphia of 76ers podcast!

DP: And the host- well- good, because you came up in the podcast. One of the hosts-

JF: Now you've got his attention.

DP: One of the hosts -- yeah, now he's excited -- is a TV writer in LA- in Hollywood. And many years ago, he interviewed to be your assistant on 1600 Penn.

JL: Cool.

JF: Whoa. And now-

JL: How'd it go?

DP: You did not hire him.

JF: [Laughing]How'd it go?

DP: You did not hire him, but you did tell him the main part of the job was to- was to get you French fries whenever you wanted them.

JL: No!

[Laughter]

JL: No! That's exactly wrong!

JF: Yes!

JL: That's exactly backwards and now I’m glad I didn't hire this person-

JF: Elijah, this is the clip that we wanna use on social media.

JL: You can use this clip all you want because I vividly remember what I said, because I ended every interview by saying the same thing: “I am not kidding. If anyone brings me French fries, they're fired.”

[Laughter]

JL: And I’m gonna ask for them.

JF: Seems like there was a lot of firing.

JL: Yeah, we went through- I went through 40 people.

[Laughter]

JF: Alright guys, well that's all we have for today. We still have tickets to Pod Save America, which- which?

JL: Ann arbor.

JF: Ann arbor!

JL: What kind of operation is this?

AMC: That's where I’m gonna be! That's the show I’m in.

JF: Where Ana’s joining us.

JL: Where Ana is.

AMC: Yeah!

JF: It's crooked.com/tour. Also, you know Santa Barbara still in December, but that's a couple months away. But Ann Arbor! Ann Arbor's gonna be in October and we have a second show, so we still have tickets to the second show. Excellent. All your friends will be there.

AMC: Come see us, guys.

JF: We'll all be here. Alright guys, we will- we'll talk to you all on Monday. Take it easy.

JL: Take it easy?

DP: Bye, guys.

JL: End of show.

JF: Good night and good luck.

DP: Just mixing it up on the outro.

[Laughter]

JF: And that's the way it is!

[Laughter]

JL: Courage.

[Laughter]

1:20:53

[paleorecipecookbook]

RHR: A Three-Step Plan to Fix Conventional Healthcare

In this episode we discuss:

The patient case that inspired the book

Who is this book for?

The mismatch between our medical paradigm and chronic disease

Drug companies and conflicts of interest

How clinicians can help create a new paradigm

The three core problems and how to solve them

What this new paradigm looks like

How do we pay for this? Is it scalable?

How allied providers are the key

Show notes:

Unconventional Medicine by Chris Kresser

Special offer for RHR podcast listeners - get the audiobook free if you buy the book by November 12th.

NaturalForce.com - use coupon “unconventional” and get $10 plus free shipping

[smart_track_player url="http://ift.tt/2yiM0Yd" title="A Three-Step Plan to Fix Conventional Healthcare" artist="Chris Kresser" ]

Chris Kresser: Hey, everybody, Chris Kresser here. Welcome to another episode of Revolution Health Radio. Today we’re going to do something a little different. I am bringing on a guest host, Tony Federico, he’s the VP of marketing for Natural Force Nutrition, a physiology editor for the Journal of Evolution and Health, and a longtime contributor to Paleo Magazine, and also at Paleo f(x), which is where I met Tony, I think, originally, and I have interacted with him the most. And he’s moderated several panels that I’ve been on and I’ve always been impressed with the way he’s done that, the intelligent questions that he asks and just his balanced perspective on ancestral health and Functional Medicine, and this movement overall. Today is the day that my new book, Unconventional Medicine, comes out. It’s now available on Amazon, and I wanted to ask Tony to come take over the podcast and talk with me about the book because I know he’s really interested in all these topics and he’s read quite a bit of the book himself, and I thought it would be more interesting to have a conversation about it than for me to just sit here and do a monologue. So Tony welcome to the show and thanks for being here. Tony Federico:  Yeah, thanks for inviting me on, Chris. It’s always fun, when we’ve had the chance to chat, as you said. Whether in person or on podcast, I’m always happy to jump in and dish on health with you. Chris:  Fantastic. So, you have read a little bit of the book and we chatted a little bit about it via email, so let’s dive in. Let’s talk a little bit about this book. And for me it was really, it felt like the most important next step that I could take in order to get this message out about ending chronic disease. Tony:  Yeah, I got my copy of Unconventional Medicine a couple days ago. I just so happened to have some time off yesterday, and the next thing I knew I was 80 pages in. Chris:  Nice. Tony:  So, I have to say that, as somebody who’s been in the trenches, I worked as a personal trainer for 10 years, I could really relate to a lot of the things that you were saying in the book, and we’ll get into why a little bit later on in the interview. But you know I just am really impressed with what you put together here, Chris. So let's just, let's get into it, and the first thing that I actually wanted you to maybe tell me a little bit about was how you open the book, which I think is a really great story about a patient named Leo. So I wanted to talk a little bit about Leo and his story and kind of how that inspired you to go down this particular path of unconventional medicine.

The patient case that inspired the book

Chris:  Sure, yeah. So, Leo was an eight-year-old boy that I treated in my clinic a few years back, and I wanted to start with his story because it's, unfortunately, a typical story, much more common than, of course, we would like. And it was powerful for me, it was a powerful experience. It's what actually led to me writing this book. So, like way too many other kids of his age, he was suffering from a number of behavioral issues. He was initially diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Eventually they settled on OCD and sensory processing disorder. He would throw these just crazy tantrums where he'd end up crying or screaming inconsolably, writhing on the floor, and this would happen for seemingly the simplest of reasons. Like trying to get his shoes tied as they were going out the door, not cutting the crust off his sandwich in just the right way or getting a stain on his favorite T-shirt. And he was really rigid around his behavior and its environment, everything had to be just right, just the way he wanted it to be, or else he would fly off the handle.

Is a new healthcare paradigm affordable? Scalable? You bet.

His diet was extremely limited, he only ate a handful of foods, pretty much all of which were processed and refined. So crackers, bread, toaster waffles, that sort of thing, and this is part of the kind of OCD-like tendencies. And any time his parents would try to introduce new food, he would go totally ballistic. And they were worried about nutrient deficiency, but they didn't feel like they ... they were just worn down. Any parent who has a kid like this will understand that. It's just they didn’t feel like they had the resources to battle him at every meal. And they took him to a bunch of doctors locally, and that’s where they got those diagnoses. Initially they were kind of relieved to have those, but then after a while they realized that they were just simply labels for symptoms. And when they asked what the treatment was, you can probably guess the answer: medication. Tony:  Something to do with drugs. Chris:  Something to do with drugs. Yeah. And when they asked how long he would be on that treatment, you can probably also guess the answer. Tony:  The rest of your life. Chris:  Yeah. Shrug of the shoulders, indefinitely, maybe he'll grow out of it, that sort of thing. And they weren't excited about the idea of of medicating their son, but they were also aware of how much he was suffering, and they were suffering, frankly, too. They decided to give them a try, starting with Adderall, and then they progressed to Ritalin and then antidepressants. And certainly the drugs did seem to help with at least some of the symptoms, but there were a couple issues. Number one, they also caused some very intractable side effects like headache, abdominal pain, irritability, and most significantly, severe sleep disruption. And they had a couple of other kids that were younger than Leo. So they were not happy about the sleep disruption. Nobody was because it was brutal for them and also brutal for Leo. Kids need a lot of sleep, and if they’re waking up throughout the night, that’s going to make ... So that was in some ways worse than the original symptoms they were trying to treat. And then Leo's mom had done quite a bit of research on the effects of these medications and she was scared. Particularly for children and adolescents, some of these drugs have some pretty scary side effects and long-term risks. So what really stood out to me, and I mentioned this in the book, is that not once during this entire process of seeing all these different doctors, primary care provider, psychiatrist, eventually behavioral disorder specialists, did anybody even hint at the possibility that something in Leo's diet or some other underlying issue like a gut problem or nutrient deficiency or heavy metal toxicity or something like that could be contributing to his symptoms. It wasn't even broached as a possibility at any time. Fortunately, Leo's mom, one of her friends followed my work and sent her a couple of articles from my blog. One was on the gut–brain–axis, and I think the other one was on the underlying root causes of behavioral disorders. And so that's what led them to bring Leo to see me, and long story short, we were able to ... we did a bunch of testing, found issues that you might guess at. So, disrupted gut microbiome, SIBO, fungal overgrowth, gluten intolerance, but also intolerance of soy and corn and rice and buckwheat, which were major ingredients in a lot of the processed and refined food products that he ate, and arsenic toxicity because rice milk was the only other beverage he would drink aside from water. And we know that rice products can be high in arsenic. So, we, over several months, it definitely wasn't easy to address these problems because of his OCD-like tendencies and his picky eating habits. But after several months he was like a different kid. His teacher even called home and was like, “What have you done with Leo and who’s this kid that you’re sending in?” Because it was a big issue for her. They often had to come to school and pick him up early because of the behavioral problems. And his diet expanded; he was eating foods he would've thrown against the wall just months before, he was more tolerant of disorder, more relaxed in his environment. They were able to travel for the first time in a long time because he wasn't so anxious in unfamiliar environments. His physical symptoms had improved significantly. So they were just over the moon. They couldn't believe it, and toward the end of our treatment together, she said something that really struck me, which was there’s so many kids out there that are like Leo and they’re suffering, they’re not finding help in the conventional system. Tony:  Sure. Chris:  And their doctors and parents are not even thinking about this stuff. Like it’s not even in most people’s consciousness that if a kid has a behavioral disorder that you should look at these physiological issues. It’s not, for 99 percent of people they don't even go there because they don't know. Tony:  Yeah, I mean I think that that was—reading about Leo and reading about a story and certainly there's people that I've known, myself included, who have had very similar experiences—I think it's great to have a narrative like this that you can really connect to because then when you tease it apart, all the pieces really make sense. It makes sense why having doctors treat symptoms has failed, it makes sense why a lack of communication between the health provider network that was supposed to be serving Leo failed. It makes sense why it didn't work when you actually start to tease it out. But then we’re still all, well not all, but most of us are still going down this path and it's an exercise in futility, really. You have an eight-year-old kid who's on powerful stimulant medications, he’s on antidepressants, and it was bad enough for his parents to reach out and to seek those interventions as solutions, and then the side effects are even worse. And that’s just something that just gets you right in the heart. And like you said, he’s not the only one, he’s not the only kid. His parents are not the only parents. And frankly, his doctors are not the only doctors because I can guarantee you that that probably doesn’t really feel good for the practitioner, for the healthcare provider to not get results as well. And they’re working with what they’ve got. Chris:  Absolutely. Tony:  And trying to use the tools they have. Chris:  Yeah, I mean, let’s be clear about this. Everybody is doing the best they can in this situation. The parents are doing the best they can, in the vast majority of situations, parents just love their kids and do everything possible that they can to help their kids thrive. I’m a parent, I know that that’s how I relate to my kid. I know that every parent I know, that’s how they relate to their kids. And I would even, I would say that’s true for doctors too. The vast majority of them are trying to do the best they can with the tools that they have and in the system that they’re working within. And that’s the rub. Tony:  Right. Chris:   It’s like most doctors I’ve seen have been caring and they’ve wanted to do the right thing, but the question is, can they do the right thing in the conventional medical system as it exists today? And, of course, that’s largely what the book is about.

Who is this book for?

Tony:  Yeah, so let’s kind of speak to that specifically. And we’re talking about doctors, we’re talking about medical professionals, we’re talking about patients, and then we didn’t mention it, but where I fit into this formula or potential formula as an allied healthcare provider, as a personal trainer/health coach, is that your audience for this book, do you really see that kind of triad is who you're speaking to here? Chris:  Yeah, definitely. I think if you look at the cover of the book, the subtitle is “join the revolution to reverse chronic disease, reinvent healthcare, and create a practice you love.” So that last bit would suggest that it's mostly for practitioners, but that's not true. It is really for anybody that is interested in the ideas of reinventing healthcare and reversing chronic disease. And, in fact, I would argue that that change is going to be initiated by people, primarily by people that are not practitioners. So it's like a grassroots, bottom-up approach, where a good example is with my training program, my ADAPT training program, now that we've been training practitioners in this approach for the last couple years, we always ask people how they learned about my work or how they learned about the training program. And in a surprising number of cases, the answer is from their patients. So these doctors or other practitioners, their patient brings an article in that I wrote or brings something in, tells them about me, and to their credit they’re open-minded enough to go and check it out. And then they like what they see and they end up taking the next step. So people even who have no intention of ever becoming a healthcare practitioner, I think would really benefit from this book if they're interested in these ideas. And then certainly, as you mentioned, licensed healthcare providers like medical doctors or nurse practitioners or physician assistants that are currently working within the conventional paradigm but have already seen its limitations and want to do something different but don't yet know what that might look like. And then people who are outside of the conventional paradigm but are already practitioners, so acupuncturists, chiropractors, naturopathic physicians, etc., in many cases they’re already well aware of the limitations of conventional medicine, which is why they chose to go down a different path. But speaking personally as an acupuncturist myself, I also saw some limitations in the traditional Chinese medicine approach, or at least some differences in the way that I wanted to practice it. I was looking for something that could incorporate modern diagnostic testing and create a more systematic approach that included ancestral diet and lifestyle and some of the other things we talk about in the book. So, I think many of those practitioners can benefit from the book from that perspective. And then you have the growing and already large number of people like yourself who are personal trainers, health coaches, nutritionists, etc., who I really think are going to play an increasingly important role in this revolution to reinvent healthcare. Tony:  Yeah, it so important now for people to really, for patients to be their own advocate, and I don't think we’re living in a time where I remember with my grandparents—if your doctor said something, it was basically gospel and you didn’t question it and you didn't think about it. Now, the first thing people do when they experience a symptom, it's Dr. Google first. So it's super important to equip and arm patients with good information, which I think this book does. Here's a path, here's a path forward for you as a patient. But then it's respectful of the role of doctors, and you highlight many situations where conventional medicine is great. If you break your arm or get in a car accident or have a heart attack or whatever the case may be, yeah, you need a doctor, and you need to go to an emergency room and you need those types of interventions. But it's really in this kind of gray area, it’s really not gray, it’s actually quite clear. And we could probably specify a little bit more, but there’s this middle zone where somebody’s not acutely injured, they’re not acutely in a disease state. They’re in a chronic disease state, or they’re just unwell. And it’s hard for a system that is all about pharmacological interventions, surgical interventions, to deal with a more subtle approach. And that’s where that whole middle ground and acupuncturists and massage therapists and everybody who's in that middle zone. I had clients constantly when I was actively training, constantly asking me questions where I was like, you know what? This is really something they maybe should be taking to their doctor. But guess what? The doctor only has 15 minutes under pressure to see as many patients as they can. I had a friend who was a physician in France. And he was telling me about their medical model, and he would spend tons of time with his patients. And it was actually incentivized for prevention. And here we see some maybe misplaced incentives, and perhaps you can speak a little bit more about that.

The mismatch between our medical paradigm and chronic disease

Chris:  Yeah, so, going back to your original comments, I think that the most important thing for people to understand is that our medical model, when it comes to our medical paradigm, is that it evolved during a time when acute problems were the biggest issues. So in 1900, the top three causes of death were all infectious diseases, tuberculosis, typhoid, and pneumonia. And the other reasons people would see the doctor were among those you mentioned, like a broken bone or a gallbladder attack or appendicitis. Tony:  War. Chris:  Right, injuries, trauma, etc. And so the treatment for that's pretty straightforward. It wasn't always successful, of course, but it was straightforward. You know, if the bone was broken, you set it in a cast. If the gallbladder was swelling, you would take it out. If someone was having appendicitis, you’d remove the appendix. So that's pretty ... it's one problem, one doctor, one treatment. Pretty straightforward. But you fast-forward to today, it's a totally different healthcare landscape. Seven of the top 10 causes of death are chronic disease rather than acute problems now, and 86 percent of the healthcare dollars we spend go toward treating chronic disease. And unlike acute problems, chronic diseases are expensive, difficult to manage and usually last for a lifetime. They don't lend themselves to that one doctor, one problem, one treatment kind of approach. The average chronic disease patient requires multiple doctors, usually one for every different part of the body in our system, and is taking ... Tony:  Specialists. Chris:  Right, specialists, they’re taking multiple medications in many cases, and they're going to be taking those medications for the rest of their life. So far, it's really, our conventional medical system is amazing for these acute problems. But it's the wrong tool for the job for chronic problems. So that's one issue, and it’s really important to point that out, because we just went through the whole healthcare debate again with the Affordable Care Act and the current administration’s proposal for a replacement, which has not come to fruition. But throughout that entire discussion, it really bothered me that there was an elephant in the room. All the discussion was around insurance. Like, who gets insurance and who doesn’t. And that’s important, it’s important to talk about that. But we have to recognize that health insurance is not the same thing as healthcare. Tony:  Yeah. Chris:  Health insurance is a method of paying for healthcare. And that’s really crucial to get that difference. Because my argument in the book is that there is no method of paying for healthcare, whether it’s the government, corporations, or individuals, that will be adequate and will be sustainable under the pressure of growing prevalence of chronic disease. It will bankrupt all of us. Government, the corporations, individuals, whoever is responsible for paying for the care will not be able to do it unless we can actually prevent and reverse chronic disease instead of just slapping Band-Aids on it. Tony:  I think the analogy you gave in the book was rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “Making a few small tweaks to our current system and expecting that to work is like rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic as it inexorably sinks into the ocean. Too little, too late.”  Chris:  Yeah, exactly. That’s the argument about insurance. As the whole ship goes under, sinks under. The other problems you mentioned are very real also. So we have a misalignment of incentives, like the insurance industry, for example, doesn't benefit when the cost of care shrinks because they only make more money when the overall expenditures rise. So it's actually not in their best interest necessarily to seek out the most cost-effective solutions.

Drug companies and conflicts of interest

Chris: And then of course, we have drug companies. People are pretty well aware of the conflicts of interest there. It’s in their interest to sell drugs, and even when that’s not in the interests of the general public or the patients or the doctors. In many cases, it’s not in their interest either. So the best example of this is a recent one. We’re in the midst of an opioid crisis, the worst we’ve ever seen by far, and the DEA has been wanting to create new regulations that restrict a pharmacy’s ability to sell opioids in ways that will protect people. So, for example, there was a pharmacy in West Virginia in a town that was tiny. It had like 30,000 people in this town, and they had ordered something like nine million opioid pills in the last year. It was clearly a front, like there’s clearly something shady going on there. There's no way that 30,000 people in that town needed nine million opioid pills, and yet there are no regulations to actually prevent that from happening. And so, the DEA had proposed some regulations to just safely protect people from that kind of thing. And the Big Pharma lobby basically shut that down and they played a big role in writing a law that limits the DEA's ability to do that kind of regulation in the midst of the worse opioid crisis ever. And to put this in perspective, we hear a lot about the gun lobbies and their control. They spend about $10.5 million lobbying Congress, I think, per year. And Big Pharma, they spent $250 million. Tony:  Wow. Chris:  Twenty-five-fold higher. Tony:  It's really tragic. I actually, I don’t think we’ve ever talked about this, but I grew up in South Florida, which was kind of ground zero for the opioid epidemic. And I remember in high school down in Miami and West Palm Beach, and kids would get a hold of a contact or whatever, somebody that had a prescription and basically would end up being a de facto drug dealer vis-à-vis a pill mill, etc. The kid across the street from me died, multiple kids in my high school died, multiple kids went into in-treatment programs, some of them battled addictions for decades. Some of them got out of it. Very few got out of it. Some of them didn't and have continued to be plagued with either switching from pharmaceuticals to street drugs like heroin, etc., and then we can see what's happening there. And that's just one example. If we look at drug consumption in the United States, is it that Americans are just that much sicker and we’re in that much more pain than people in other countries? Because we’re consuming far and away more painkillers than any other country on the planet. And I would venture to guess that you could say the same about antidepressants or ADD medication. It's very much a case of misaligned incentives. And incentives are working in the sense of the pharmaceutical companies are doing very well. Chris:  Yeah. Who are they working for is the question. Tony:  Exactly. Chris:  We’re the only country aside from New Zealand that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising, and I think that's a big part of the problem. But it's not just Big Pharma. We also have conflicts in medical research that, of course, are related to Big Pharma because they pay for two-thirds of all medical research. We have broken payment models, where there's no real incentive or reward for good performance, and in fact, you could argue it's the other way around because doctors are compensated for, usually based on the number of procedures they order and the number of patients they see. So to your point about the doctor in France who is actually incentivized to prevent, rather than just treat disease, we don't have that at all, it's the opposite. And so there are a lot of deeply entrenched issues that we certainly need to address, and that's not essentially what this book is about. There are other books that cover that material really well, and frankly many of those issues are outside of our individual control as clinicians or practitioners.

How clinicians can help create a new paradigm

Chris: We can work toward addressing them, and I think we should, but the good news is that I think that the bigger changes that we need to focus on individually and collectively are addressing the medical paradigm which we’ve talked about, creating a medical paradigm that’s better suited to tackle chronic disease. Addressing the mismatch between our modern diet and lifestyle, and our genes and our biology, which we've, of course, talked a lot about on the show before. And then creating a new way of delivering healthcare that actually supports this new medical paradigm and this more preventative approach. Because those things are all within our control as clinicians. Tony:  Yeah. I like how you posed the question, and it was kind of a cool little, I think it was, not Hiroshi, but the person who is in charge of cooking at a Buddhist monastery. And basically a young monk comes up to this older man. He’s like, why are you doing the grunt work, basically washing rice out in the courtyard? And he says, it was like, what was it? “If not me, who? And if not now, when?” And I think that that’s really kind of the core of setting all this stuff up. Talking about the problem is really in the service of pivoting to the solution, and I’m a big believer in thinking globally, thinking big, but acting locally, hyper-locally, like yourself. Chris:  Yeah. Tony:  And then the people around you and who you can touch and impact. That’s ultimately where the power comes from. So let’s talk about that. What is in people’s power. And you started to describe some of those pillars of a new model. And you describe it as the ADAPT framework. And I don’t know how much you get into this on your regular podcast episodes, but to just kind of lay it out, ADAPT from a big-picture perspective. How does that actually address some of these systemic issues from an individually empowered stance? Chris:  Yeah, great question, and before I even go into that, I just want to say I agree that I think the change is going to happen on different levels. So, because a lot ... we’ve talked about this stuff at conferences or even some people who’ve already read the book. They say, oh, this is fantastic. I’m so excited. But how are we going to deal with Big Pharma and the insurance industry and these misaligned incentives and all of that? And can we ever deal with that? The answer is we’re not going to deal with that overnight and it’s going to take a while to unwind those things. Tony:  It’s the chronic disease, is what you call... Chris:  Exactly, exactly. And I use that analogy in the book. But the good news is that changes can happen very quickly on an individual and local level. And there’s already a lot of evidence of that happening. So my own clinic, CCFM, tripled in size in the last three years alone. We have Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine, launched by Dr. Mark Hyman, has just blown up like crazy. I mean they started in this tiny space. Now their 17,000-square-foot space, it takes up the whole second floor of the Glickman Tower at Cleveland Clinic. They've got a waitlist of 2,500 patients from nine countries around the world. This is really exciting! The Cleveland Clinic is always on the forefront of the newest trends in medicine, and the fact that they've invested that much money in this speaks volumes. Then we have groups like Iora Health, an organization based in the Rocky Mountain area that’s reversing diabetes using health coaches. So there are lots of really interesting produced concepts, and there's going to be more and more of these. Like we’re doing a pilot program with the Berkeley Fire Department where we’re working with their new recruits to help, we’re implementing a wellness program. Tony:  That’s awesome. Chris:  To reduce injuries and help with recovery and optimize their performance. And if that goes well, there’s been interest from the wider fire department and in the city of Berkeley as a whole. Robb Wolf’s done some incredible work with Reno that we’ve talked about before. So I think the change is going to happen more quickly on this local grassroots level, and then that's going to start to get the attention of people on a state and federal level. And then it will start to get really interesting.

The three core problems and how to solve them

To answer your question, in my book I basically lay out three core fundamental problems with the healthcare system in the US. And these, I argue, go even deeper than the misaligned incentives and Big Pharma and all of that stuff, although they’re, of course, connected. The first is that there is a profound mismatch between our genes and our biology and our modern diet and lifestyle. And I'm not going to say more about that now because almost everyone listening to this podcast knows exactly what I mean. The second problem is the mismatch between our medical paradigm and chronic disease, which we just talked about. We need a new medical paradigm that is better suited for chronic disease. And then the third is that the way we deliver care in this country is also, it's not set up to support the most important interventions. And we’ve touched on that too, where the average visit with the primary care provider is just actually eight to 12 minutes. Tony, you were talking about 15 minutes. That’s luxurious in our current model. The average amount of time a patient gets to speak before they’re interrupted by the doctor is 12 seconds. Tony:  Wow. Chris:  So I think it’s pretty clear that if a patient has multiple chronic diseases, which one in four Americans now do, one in two has one chronic disease, and they show up to the doctor’s office and they're on multiple medications, and they had been presenting with a whole set of new symptoms, there’s absolutely no way to provide high-quality care in a 10-minute visit. So we have to change our, not only the paradigm, but also the way that care is delivered. So that was my premise. So it follows then that my solution would address, I would hope at least those three points, right? Each of those three deficiencies. So the ADAPT framework combines an ancestral diet and lifestyle, which addresses that mismatch between our genes and biology in our modern diet and lifestyle. And then Functional Medicine is the new paradigm of medicine that is based on addressing the root cause of health problems, so we can prevent and reverse them instead of just suppressing symptoms. And then the third component is what I call a collaborative practice model, which links licensed providers like medical doctors, nurse practitioners, with what I call allied providers, which include folks like yourself, Tony, health coaches, nutritionists, personal trainers, etc., to provide a much, much higher level of care than what doctors are able to provide on their own. So, again, we're not trying to replace doctors in any, or even conventional medicine. We need people to do colonoscopies and remove cancerous tumors and use all of the incredible amount of training and expertise and skill that they’ve acquired over a lifetime of practice and study. We absolutely want that, but we need to add stuff to that that's not available now. Tony:  What that really says to me is, emphasize the importance of community, of connection, of collaboration. We’re social creatures, we’re tribal by nature. That’s another kind of Paleo/ancestral health part of the puzzle. And it would be foolish to think that we can dissect out and silo out all these different aspects of our lives without consequence. I really like this idea of bringing everybody into the fold, and it’s not saying that you can go to just the naturopath, or you can go to just the health coach. Because like I mentioned already, I certainly would’ve been ill-equipped to handle plenty of issues that a client would’ve brought to mind or brought up in conversation during a training session. But it would’ve been really great to say, ah, here's the Functional Medicine practitioner that I recommend you speak with, and to have a good relationship with that person and to be able to, as a health coach, help my clients better by getting them in touch with the right person. And that’s having this network that can really support people throughout their health journey whether it’s just feeling better and more energy, or addressing something like diabetes or hypertension. Which certainly there’s a place for all the players in that kind of scenario.

What this new paradigm looks like

Chris:  Absolutely. And let’s use an example just to bring this to life for people. So, imagine you go to the doctor and they do some blood testing for your annual physical. And they find that your fasting blood sugar is 96 or 97. Your hemoglobin A1c is 5.5, and you’ve got triglycerides that are 110, 120, maybe 130. Currently, what would happen is nothing, usually. Tony:  You’re not sick enough yet. Chris:  Yeah, all of your markers are within the lab range, they say, and that means you’re normal, and so you might get some vague advice about make sure to exercise and follow a good diet. And thank you very much, that’s it. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, of course. There’s some practitioners who can get a lot more proactive about that. But I can’t tell you how many people, patients I’ve had that have been given that basic line with those kinds of lab results. What could happen is this. The doctor says, “Well, you know, if we think of blood sugar disorders on a spectrum, on the left you’ve got perfect blood sugar. On the right you’ve got full-fledged type 2 diabetes. You’re not on the right yet, you don’t have type 2 diabetes or even technically prediabetes, but you’re progressing along that spectrum. And what we know from a lot of research is that if we don’t intervene now, that you’re going to continue progressing. And in fact, we have studies that show that the average patient who has prediabetes, will progress to full-fledged type 2 diabetes in just five years if it’s not addressed.” So what we want to do is be proactive here. We want to intervene now because it’s much easier to prevent a disease before it occurs than it is to treat it after it’s already occurred. So here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to set you up with our staff health coach, and they’re going to give you all the support you need to adopt a better diet. They’re actually even going to take you shopping, they’re going to come to your house and clean out your pantry with you, and they're going to give you recipes and meal plans and give you ... totally hold your hand and do everything that they need to to get you on this diet. Because we know that information is not enough. We’ve got lots of studies. I can tell you as a doctor, go eat a healthy diet, and hey, we know that that’s probably not going to happen. Most people know what they should be doing, but they’re not doing it, and it’s not because of lack of information. It’s because they need support, and we’re here to support you. We’ve got this health coach. Furthermore, we've got this great personal trainer named Tony. We’re going to set you up with him and we’re also going to set you up with a gym membership. And the good news is, your insurance is going to pay for all this. They’re going to pay for the health coach, they’re going to pay for the gym membership, they’re going to pay for your sessions with Tony. And in six months’ time, you’re going to come back here and we’re going to retest your blood markers and I can almost guarantee that if you stick with the program, you’re going to have normal blood sugar by that time. And throughout that period you’re going to have weekly check-ins with a health coach, you’re going to have training sessions. And not only will your blood sugar be normal, you’re going to lose weight, your energy levels are going to go up, your sleep’s going to get better, you’re going to feel more confident and empowered because you’re making these changes, and you’re going to feel like a different person. Now that’s totally possible.

How do we pay for this? Is it scalable?

Chris: I can hear some people saying, “Oh, how are we going to pay for that? That’s ridiculous.” Tony:  Is it scalable? Chris:  The question we should be asking is, is treating type 2 diabetes scalable? Because I mentioned this in the book, it costs $14,000 a year to treat a single patient with type 2 diabetes. So let’s imagine that this patient progresses. We don’t intervene, five years later they have type 2 diabetes. All of a sudden the healthcare system is spending $14,000 a year paying for that person’s care. And let’s say that that person gets diagnosed at age 40, which is still reasonable these days. The age of diagnosis is dropping more and more, and then let’s say that they live until they’re 85 years old, which is also possible because of our heroic medical interventions that keep people alive a lot longer than they might have been otherwise. So 45 years living with type 2 diabetes, that’s a cost of almost $650,000 for one patient to the healthcare system. Tony:  And that doesn’t even touch on the lost wages, cost to employers, when someone’s on leave, loss of productivity. And then the cost to the family members. Chris:  Absolutely. Tony:  People that are actually, are helping the patient, their health is going to be going down too. Chris:  Yeah. Nor does it touch on the qualitative aspects. Being immobilized, not being able to play with your grandkids, all of that stuff. But let’s just even forget about that for a second—$650,000, okay? And then the CDC recently came out with statistics saying that 100 million Americans have either prediabetes or diabetes, and 88 percent of people with prediabetes don’t even know that they have it. Which means they're almost certainly going to progress, right? If you do the math and you multiply 100 million people times even $14,000 for one year, you get a number that’s so large, I don’t even know what it is. It’s like a google something. It’s like, it has so many zeros after it, I don’t even know how to characterize it. But then if you multiply 100 million times like 20 or 30 years, it’s more money than there is in the world. It's like it's not going to happen. Tony:  Not sustainable, not scalable. Chris:  Not sustainable, not scalable. So let’s say in our example that we ... the healthcare system spends $10,000, which is way more than would be necessary, but let’s even say we buy the person’s groceries for three months. And their gym membership and their trainer, and their health coach, and those weekly, let’s say we spend $10,000. We’re just super generous and we spend $10,000 for that six-month period. Again, the research and my clinical experience indicates with near certainty that if the person is at that stage of not even prediabetic and we intervene, there’s like almost no chance that it’s not going to, we’re not going to be able to normalize that person’s blood sugar. And if they do that and they stick with it and they are able to do that because they now have support rather than just information, we’ve just saved the healthcare system $640,000 over the course of that patient’s lifetime. And that’s a conservative estimate, as you say. We're not including even the indirect costs. Tony:  Right, right. Chris:  I think that this is not only possible, it's going to become necessary. And whether we get there with a proactive approach where we decide to move in this direction and we make these changes or whether we get there because we absolutely have no choice, we’re going to get there. Tony:  Yeah. I mean it really sounds like we can’t afford to not do this. Chris:  Exactly. Tony:  And if we get to that point where we continue down the reactive path and we wait until there’s a total collapse, it might be too late, just to put it frankly. And it’s going to come out at a huge, not just financial cost, a huge human cost. Chris:  Yeah, it’s going to be, we can use the chronic disease metaphor again, it’s a lot easier to prevent a problem or reverse it at an earlier stage than it is to wait until the patient is essentially on life support or the healthcare system is on life support. It’s harder to reverse it at that time. And that’s of course why I’m writing the book now because I want to get this message out as far and wide as I can. Tony:  Yeah. If not now, when? If not you, who? Go right back to there.

How allied providers are the key

Chris:  Exactly. And one more thing about that is the amazing thing, the beauty of this is that it takes about eight years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to train a doctor. And it takes a certain kind of personality and a certain kind of comfort level with science, and a lot of prerequisites. It’s not for everybody. And there’s a ... already we have a shortage of doctors, and that’s predicted to get worse. I’ve seen estimates that suggest by 2025 we’ll have a shortage of 52,000 primary care physicians. So that’s a big deal. [insert image] So we already don’t have enough doctors, it’s already going to get worse, but if you think of healthcare as like a ... I have something in the book called the healthcare population pyramid. And you were referring to it earlier, Tony, where at the very top of that pyramid you’ve got 5 percent of people who are in really acute situations. So they’re in the hospital or they’re in an intensive outpatient care setting. They need the conventional medicine paradigm as it exists, and it’s fantastic for those situations. Then you’ve got another 25 percent of people in that kind of high middle of the pyramid who are dealing with some pretty serious chronic health challenges. So they require more regular care, but they’re not sick enough to be in the hospital or in any kind of ... they’re living their lives, but they’re struggling a lot. A Functional Medicine practitioner/clinician usually working in concert possibly with the conventional specialist of some kind is a really great option for that 25 percent of the pyramid. But then you’ve got the 70 percent at the bottom. So these are people who do, may have health issues, but they’re more minor, so they might have skin problems, or a little bit of brain fog, some difficulties sleeping, some GI issues. And these can be definitely debilitating and total pain, but they’re not at the level of that 25 percent. My argument is that in many cases these people could be very well served by a health coach or nutritionist with good training. And possibly seeing a Functional Medicine provider once or twice a year, or something like that. And the thing is, we can train people in a year or two without an extensive science background to be very, very objective in this role. Because they’re mostly working with patients on changing their behavior. If you think about it, most of the risk factors for chronic disease come down to the wrong behaviors. Eating the wrong diet, not getting enough sleep, not exercising, or exercising too much, or any number of things that come down to choices that we’re making. And so if a skilled health coach who’s trained in things like motivational interviewing and coaching to strengths and other evidence-based principles of facilitating behavior change which we have a ton of research on, they can be incredibly effective for that 70 percent of the population. That's the majority of the population. So we’re totally underutilizing these practitioners, and my argument is that they’re going to play a huge role in this future of medicine. And that's of course one reason why we're launching an ADAPT Health Coach Training Program next year to complement the practitioner training program that we've been doing. Because I want to create this ecosystem we've been talking about where you have all of these different types of practitioners working to the maximum of their training and ability and scope of practice and supporting each other and therefore providing the highest level of care to patients. Tony:  That certainly kind of perks my ears up hearing about the ADAPT health coach option and something that I’m personally interested in. So who knows? Maybe I can get in on that. We can talk about it again in the future. Chris:  Yeah, for sure. For sure. Tony:  So, for this particular book, for Unconventional Medicine, people are fired up, they’re hearing about it, they’re like, “Okay, this resonates with me. I’m a practitioner, I’m an allied health provider, I’m a patient, I’m ready. Now’s the time. This is it. We’re going to do this.” What’s the best way for people to get their hands on this thing? Chris:  Well not surprisingly, Amazon. They have the best way to get your hands on anything. So it’s available in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook. We’re hoping [the audiobook] is going to be out today, the day this podcast is released. But it might be another two or three days. They’re just taking their sweet time to approve it. I narrated the audiobook myself. So you podcast listeners, I figured you might be into that, since you like to listen. Tony:  They know your voice. Chris:  Yeah, and just listening to something instead of reading it perhaps. So to that end, we have a special offer for podcast listeners, because I appreciate your support and I know many of you are already part of this movement, and some are wanting to get involved. So if you buy that paperback or Kindle version between now and Sunday night, you’ll get some really cool bonuses. The first is a free copy of the audiobook. So again, we wanted to include that for podcast listeners, since we figured you guys and gals are probably interested in audio. But there are two other things that are really, I think, fantastic. And one, they’re both tools to help you be more confident and persuasive and factual when you share your passion for Functional Medicine and an ancestral diet and lifestyle. Because we’ve had a lot of questions from people, both practitioners and non-practitioners alike. They say, “Oh, how do I talk about this stuff to my sister at Thanksgiving?” Tony:  “Isn’t that that caveman diet?” Chris:  Yeah, exactly. All of our ancestors died when they were 30, so why should we even care? How do you respond to those arguments? Or if you start talking about Functional Medicine and maybe one of your conventional medicine colleagues says, “Oh, that’s just, I saw something on Science-based Medicine that said that was all just hooey. There’s nothing to it. How do you respond to that?” So what we wanted to do is give people the ammunition they needed in a respectful way. You know, this isn’t about getting the better of somebody. It’s about responding in a factual and convincing but respectful way. So we’ve got two different, we’re calling these the Power Packs. And one is for practitioners, so clinicians, health coaches, nutritionists, trainers, etc., and these are facts, research that you can reference and persuasive reasons for your clients or patients or colleagues to consider this Functional Medicine and ancestral diet and lifestyle approach. And then we have one for non-practitioners called the Supporter Power Pack. And these are smart answers and compelling comebacks, again respectful, for those common objections that you hear when you start talking about this stuff with your friends and family. So these bonuses are available until Sunday night [November 12, 2017] at 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time. So you’ve got a few days to act on that, and you can go to ... we set up a special link for you to get these and that’s Kresser.co/bonus. That’s Kresser.co/bonus. So head over there to get your Power Packs and your free audiobook, and that’s after you purchase either the paperback or Kindle. There’ll be a place where you enter your order number and we ask for some information just to verify, and I hope you enjoy those and get a lot out of them. Because they were actually really fun to put together. Tony:  Yeah, I think the audiobook is huge. I like to listen to audiobooks when I’m driving around town or outside getting some exercise. Chris:  Yeah. Tony:  So, no excuses when you make it that easy. Chris:  Yeah, yeah. So, Tony, thanks so much for doing this. This has been really fun to talk to you, as it always is. And I appreciate it. Tony:  Actually, I wanted to throw in one extra little special thing, as we mentioned, at the top of the show. I spent 10 years as a personal trainer in the trenches, I was involved with Paleo Magazine for many, many years, going to all the events, and for me kind of an evolution in my professional life was, how do I impact more people? How do I help more people? And at first I was working one on one, and then it was as a facility manager helping other trainers and coaches get better. And then I was able to scale it up that way. And last year I had an opportunity to join the team over at Natural Force, which is all-natural, nutritional products, and I basically said, “You know what? I’m going to go all in on this because if I can touch a million people through really good, high-quality nutrition, that’s me maximizing my impact and really kind of living my purpose.” So one of the things I wanted to do today is put it out there for anyone listening who maybe uses collagen or MCT oil or whey protein. We really bend over backwards to source the best ingredients in the world, no additives, all that stuff. Everything is as clean as we can possibly make it. It takes a lot of work, working with manufacturers. Kind of like what you were saying, how patients have to know how to talk to their doctor. I don’t think people really realize, and I didn’t realize until I got on the inside, how much work it is for a brand to work with their manufacturers to convince them to get outside of the conventional mold. So it’s the kind of unconventional nutrition is really what we’re pushing here. So I set up a discount code for any Revolution Health listeners. Go to NaturalForce.com, use coupon code “unconventional” and get $10 off plus free shipping on your order. So I just want to put that out there as just a little extra bonus for anybody, and I would certainly love to help in that way and really get some good, high-quality nutrition into people’s hands. Chris:  Awesome. Yeah, and there’s so many ways people can help, and I ... at Paleo f(x) we’ve see the growth of companies that are serving this space, and it's amazing. Like the products that are available now. I had breakfast this morning, I had some eggs and kale and parsley and a little bit of bacon in a couple of cassava flour tortillas. Breakfast burritos. Whoever thought I’d be having a breakfast burrito again? Tortillas are made from completely cassava flour. They’re autoimmune friendly and they’re grain-free tortillas. It’s incredible. Tony:  I think I might have some of those in my fridge as well. Chris:  Yeah. I mean there’s so many things. And these people, they’re serving this movement with that kind of work. So it’s great to see. Tony:  It takes a village, man. Chris:  It does. Thanks again, Tony. I really appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. So again, Kresser.co/bonus to pick up your free audiobook and the other bonuses, and I hope you can all join me in this revolution to reinvent healthcare. We need you, whatever your background and goals. Take care, everybody.

Source: http://chriskresser.com November 08, 2017 at 04:12PM

[88y53]

Batman v. Superman: World’s Finest — What I Would’ve Done

It’s safe to say whatever plan Z*ck S*yder had in mind for the DCEU isn’t going to happen. How we got to this point is really a matter of opinion, but if you ask me, it all comes down to Batman v Superman. 

I really don’t care what people have to say in defense of it because I’ve read the essays, I’ve listened to the podcasts, I’ve talked to fans — I’ve heard it all. None of that changes the fact that general audiences rejected this movie. Flatly rejected it. You can argue that this rejection was indicative of the audience being too stupid, spoiled, obstinate, brainwashed by Marvel, whatever — that doesn’t change anything.

So, how could this reaction have been avoided? I’m glad you asked, Nobody.

Before Chris Terrio was brought on board, David S. Goyer wrote a script for what seemed to be a pretty by-the-numbers World’s Finest movie — Superman and Batman teaming up and parting on good terms. 

Basically. I took that outline, cut out a lot of bits that made the film an Idiot Plot (see here: “https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/IdiotPlot/DCExtendedUniverse”), and came up with this:

[If you read to the end I try to give a fair and balanced view on the original film and I why I felt the way I did, if that’s any incentive]

-----------

The film opens with Batman chasing down the Joker, accompanied by a solemn narration from the hero. Finally catching up, Batman just starts pummeling Joker without holding anything back, and wrapping his hands around the clown’s throat. The scene ends before anything definitive happens.

The next scene starts with a little girl trapped under rubble and rebar, weeping and choking out a cry for help through the dust and darkness, but no one can hear her. Suddenly the rubble starts shifting, and she braces herself to be crushed and entombed where no one will ever find her, only for the concrete to lift away as Superman reaches for her. Haloed by a beam of light, he smiles and simply says, “it’s okay. I’ve got you.” Handing her off to the firefighters, we see that this is still in the aftermath of the Black Zero event, and Superman is using his x-ray vision and super-hearing to find any survivors in the ruins of Metropolis.

One of these survivors is a man who was horribly mangled by debris. His name is John Corben, ex-special forces turned private security officer. [I’m eliminating the Nirobe scene because it makes the plot over-complicated and is just kind of dumb: so, the CIA sends in a secret agent but can’t invest in better tracking equipment, like phones? Specially designed bullets (that can easily be traced back to the owners because they were part of a government contract) can punch through meat and bone but gets stuck in a reporter’s journal? The bodies are burned in such a way that it gets rid of bullet holes in autopsies? Superman can push a man through a wall at the speed of a bullet without the man being obliterated by the violently sudden inertia? The aerial footage from government drones weren’t consulted to prove if Superman did indeed kill those people? And when the single witness that badmouths Sups changes her heart, the senator doesn’t put her into protective custody?]

Jumping forward, we see an older Bruce Wayne attending a retirement party for Commissioner Gordon. They chat for a bit, making veiled references to Batman and the Joker "still" being in a coma. Bruce, however, is fixated on "the alien," arguing that he has trouble trusting someone so powerful who nonetheless had to resort to murder to beat his opponent. [If I’m going to be completely honest, I don’t really have a problem with how Batman was presented in the film, so that doesn’t really need to change. My main problem is his callous indifference to the wanton slaughter of the random criminals in his way: Batman is allowed to play fast and loose with his One Rule (the branding I don’t mind, for example), but his arc relies on him coming that close to becoming no different from the evil he fights, but if he kills people before that moment, then the arc is ruined. There’s a big difference between callous indifference to someone’s survival and safety, and machine-gunning an SUV full of people and bulldozing the wreckage. He’s just a deluded murderer that literally brands criminals so they can potentially get stabbed in jail (it’s a good thing they showed him branding white thugs; it would be pretty hard for people to claim he has some kind of moral high-ground if he was branding people of color).]

At the Daily Planet, Perry White addresses his writing staff - consisting of Ron Troupe (political editor), Lois Lane (field reporter), Cat Grant (fashion columnist), Steve Lombard (sports editor), trainee Jenny Jurwich, and new photographer, Jimmy Olsen (played by Jesse Eisenberg) — he’s handing out jobs, when he notices that Clark Kent isn’t here . . . until Lois reminds him that he’s busy doing a fluff-piece.

That “fluff-piece" is actually delivering giant shipping containers of food and water to an African country (ala Peace on Earth). During this, talk-show host Jack Ryder (played by Stephen Colbert), is doing a point-counterpoint with G. Gordon Godfrey (who is basically Alex Jones meets Tucker Carlson) where they argue about Superman’s agenda and his presence in the world (and maybe taking a few calls from regular people, like Bibbo Bibbowski). It’s here we are treated to a montage of the various heroic acts Superman’s performed over the past two years, and we see a 99% formed Superman: he’s saving people as often as he can and he does it with a smile (even his harshest critics don’t have much of a leg to stand on). He already resolved his issues over being a public figure in the previous movie, so continuing the arc is just redundant. As we shall see later, there is, however, one thing still holding him back.)

Weighing in on the talk-show discussion is tech entrepreneur, Lex Luthor of LuthorCorp (Elon Musk meets young Donald Trump played by, lets say, Mark Strong) who actually supports Superman. 

However, after the interview is over, Lex is confronted by his father, Lionel (played by Bryan Cranston), who viciously ridicules him for being such a “media-whore.” As the two talk, we get more information on Lex’s situation — years before the Black Zero event, Metropolis was in a state of bankruptcy; it was a slowly crumbling hellhole, no better than Gotham . . . until Lex was sent to the Metropolis branch of the company as a punishment from his father. Lex retaliated by using his business acumen to create jobs and new industries, which single handedly revived the city. So, after Zod’s failed invasion, LuthorCorp started shifting funds towards Metropolis’ reconstruction. But because Superman personally stopped the invasion and helped rebuild the city (including taking the kryptonian spaceship and hiding it on the moon [because it never made sense to me why Superman would just allow an alien ship — which, by all rights, belongs to him — to be studied by the government in the middle of a major American city. He also took Zod’s body, so no one could dissect him]), he received pretty much all the credit and became “Metropolis’ favorite (if controversial) son." So Lex hates him for stealing his thunder, even if he publicly supports him.

Meanwhile, John Corben has Wallace Keefe’s arc from the original movie and graffitis the Superman statue, because he blames him for his disfigurement.

Clark has dinner with Lois, and the topic of Superman’s reputation comes up; the general public may have largely embraced him, but he still has very loud detractors (like Godfrey), and she’s worried how this negativity is affecting him. Clark reassures her that he isn’t bothered by the controversy, because it was more-or-less his fault that Zod invaded in the first place, “I understand why they're angry with me,” he says. “But they don't who I am and their anger doesn't change my opinion about myself. I know who I am.”

Later that night, Clark has a nightmare about Zod and we now see the only thing still holding him back from being the archetypal Superman is his guilt and PTSD over having to take a life to save the day — a violent act he considers to be his greatest failure, a brutality he can’t cleanse from his mind. [I think it’s best if the “isolation arc” wasn’t included in this movie, because it was pretty much resolved by the end of MoS. We have a more pressing issue for Sups to worry about — He literally murdered someone. You can argue if he was justified or not, but that doesn’t change the fact that the only way Superman could defeat Zod was by stooping to his level and losing where it counted. And Superman knows this. That’s gotta leave some lingering trauma.] 

Corben is bailed out of jail and given a ride in a limo driven by Mercy Graves, and delivered (not to the villain we are expecting — Lex, but — ) to Lionel who tells him that he want to help Corben “stand for something."

Elsewhere, Bruce is on his “White Portuguese" hunt [which includes a Batmobile chase, but no one dies, or if they do, it’s not Batman’s fault], and he has his confrontation with Superman, but it plays out differently: rather than threatening Batman, Superman tries to appeal to his humanity, pointing out that he used to be the "caped crusader" before he became the "dark knight." Batman, however, doesn’t care what he has to say, and asks Superman if he "bleeds."

Later that night, Bruce has a dream about his last run-in with the Joker; his hands still wrapped around his neck, pressing harder and harder, while a small voice tells him, "You’re letting him win." Bruce wakes from his dream before anything more definitive happens.

The next day, Lois and Jimmy attend a charity gala hosted by the Luthors (who appear with Lionel’s assistant, Mercy Graves, and Lex’s bodyguard, Otis Graves), where they celebrate the recent joint venture between LuthorCorp and Wayne Enterprises on cybernetic prosthetics. Here we see that Lex has a brilliant way with people that his father sorely lacks, and the latter is clearly envious of.

Lex actually starts hitting on Lois until Clark appears, and we get to witness the first interaction between Lex Luthor and Clark Kent. Lois continues with her questioning, asking what compelled Luthor to pour so much funding into this program; Lex explains that many people lost limbs during Black Zero, and the program is meant to address that.  While there, Clark has a run-in with Bruce, and the interaction basically breaks down as it does in the movie.

Thoroughly rattled, Superman then flies over Metropolis to clear his head and lands on an inconsequential building, where he actually meets Bibbo Bibbobowski — a big fan of Sups. Superman expresses lingering guilt over Zod’s death leading up to a “Hitman” monologue about his inability to save everyone. [https://m.imgur.com/gallery/w7BCA] Bibbo tries to change his mind, but Superman remains conflicted on the subject.

From Batman’s hunt for the White Portuguese, Alfred learns the truth about Bruce’s plans for the Kryptonite. He gives Bruce an ultimatum: either Bruce destroys the Kryptonite, or Alfred will quit. Bruce is committed to this crusade, so Alfred leaves in disappointment. After the fight, Bruce looks longingly at a Robin suit, and we get closure on the Joker flashback — Joker beat Jason Todd to death and crippled Barbara Gordon (Death in the Family meets The Killing Joke), Batman caught him and nearly strangled him to death, only stopping when Alfred yelled at him through the radio that he was "letting [Joker] win." 

Cut to Lionel talking to Corben privately; we get a little more insight into why he is so disdainful towards his son. When Lex was born, Lionel expected nothing but perfection from him, and for the most part, Lex delivered. In his youth, Lex excelled at everything, and was constantly held up as the pinnacle of human excellence. However, everything changed the day his mother died in a car accident Lex inadvertently caused, and the stress of it made his hair fall out. From that point on, Lionel saw Lex as less than dirt and “failure.” So, Lionel has begun looking for other avenues to achieve “perfection.” With his story over, we find out that Corban is being prepped for an operation involving something called “Metal-10.”

Now completely alone, Bruce throws himself into stealing and building a battle suit using the Wayne/LuthorCorp designed cybernetic prosthetics, a sonic gun, and a single bullet made out of Kryptonite.

Now in the third act, Lois is kidnapped by Jimmy who is then revealed to be Sebastian Mallory, and has been spying on Lois and Clark this whole time and figured out the latter’s secret identity. Clark then receives a high-frequency message to meet Lionel at the top of LuthorCorp tower. 

The plot then plays out basically how it did in the real movie, with Lionel threatening to kill Lois if Clark doesn't kill Batman first, and Luthor’s high-frequency howl will keep Sups from finding her if he tries to use his super-hearing. 

Superman goes and basically begs Batman to help him, but there’s one problem; Batman’s helmet is fully covered and completely soundproof, to protect his ears from the sonic gun. [See? Superman has been trying to offer the olive branch to Bats this whole time and is constantly shot down. So when his multiple attempts at appealing to Batman’s better nature fail, that’s when Clark snaps.]

Meanwhile, Luthor is watching the whole fight through small drones. Also watching are Luthor’s goons, who are taking bets on who’ll win. Lois, seeing the fight, manages to break free and escape on her own using the skills she picked up as a military-brat. [If there’s one thing I resent most about the S*yder films, it’s how much they neutered Lois Lane. She’s the daughter of a military general for crying out loud and yet she acts so passive and demure it makes me want to spit. It’s tantamount to making Scout Finch act like Sansa Stark. It’s against everything about her character. So I decided to change that and give a variation on the “warehouse scene” to Lois.]

The fight continues until Superman manages to get Batman into a head-lock, which then triggers a flashback to Zod’s death. This moment of hesitation allows Bats to get the upper-hand, but in the struggle, Batman’s helmet is cracked open. He makes the same grand speech as he does in the film as he loads the kryptonite bullet into the gun and aims it at Superman’s heart … only for the latter to say:

“You’re … letting … him … win.” 

[The death of Batman’s parents was a seminal moment in Bruce Wayne’s life, but it would realistically be a well-healed wound at this point. However the death of Jason and the crippling of Barbara are more recent and fresh traumas that (even in the books) actually did drive him to be an even darker vigilante.]

So we get a slight variation on “why’d you say that name!” to just “why’d you say that!” Only for Lois to chime in by commandeering one of Luthor’s drones and using the built-in speaker to talk through it and explain the situation. Then Batman has his moment of horror as he realizes how close he came to becoming what he hates, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Then…

Metallo bursts in. 

Luthor’s Plan B in case something like this happened, complete with a solid kryptonite power-core and a body made of Metal-10 -- an alloy made from titanium and recovered kryptonian metal.

They fight, Superman tries to reason with Corban but he doesn’t listen, and Batman’s armor allows him to stay in the game for as long as he can (but he’ll eventually have to abandon it and rely on Alfred - whom Bruce calls - for help)

Eventually the two heroes work together and immobilize him. 

With Corban at their mercy, the heroes begin to work out a deal with him that will ensure he help them trace all of this back to Lionel … only for Corban’s robot body to self-destruct, which they both conclude was Luthor’s doing.

At dawn, Superman and Batman exchange pleasantries, and Clark offers one final olive branch -- the kryptonite bullet, which he entrusts to Bruce. This gesture rocks Batman to his core and he admits he was wrong about Superman, and that he is a “good man,” which gives Clark the reassurance he needed to move on from Zod’s death.

Cut to a few months later, and we see Lex being remote-interviewed by Jack Ryder, and we learn that during the time-skip, Lionel died of a heart attack. Lex makes some token soundbytes about his “loss,” and - in light of the scandalous rumors surrounding his father and his connection to Lois Lane (even though nothing could be conclusively proven) - has taken the opportunity to “rebrand” the company from LuthorCorp to LexCorp, as a sign of “good faith” and “change.” Ryder also makes an off-handed reference to Lex taking an interest in politics.

After the interview, Lex watches a video on his computer which shows security footage of his last conversation with his father: Lionel is unconcerned with the charges Lois is throwing at him, because he now has something that literally everybody in the world will pay through the nose to get … Superman’s genetic code. SInce Zod’s body was gone, Lionel set up the whole fight just so Superman would spill some blood, which Luthor picked up using one of his drones (he was hoping Superman would die so he could be dissected). Lionel then goes on and on about the potential applications of kryptonian genetics (including something called “Project: B2-R-0”) and how they’ll someday be able to splice them into the human genome, so that “everyone can be Superman.”

Lex chews on those words for a moment … and then offers his father a celebratory glass of brandy, which Lionel - too excited by his own prospects - readily drinks, but Lex doesn’t.

As Lionel starts coughing and keeling over, Lex apologizes and wished it “wouldn’t come to this,” but that “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

And the recording ends… and Lex sees Superman in the reflection on his computer monitor, floating outside his window.

Confidently, Lex delete the footage and speaks to Superman directly. Going off on this big monologue about he’s the best, he’s “figured out” Superman’s little scheme, how when the “war is over,” the people of the world will finally acknowledge that “Lex Luthor was right.”

Superman wordlessly flies down to Luthor’s level, and simply says, “I’ll pray for you, Lex. Every day.” And flies off. Lex is left with an intense anger at his enemy’s nobility, he has now fully embraced his narcissism and even if he has to prove it to the whole world, he won’t stop until everyone recognizes that he alone is the best.

The final scene is Clark traveling to the arctic, and digging up Zod’s corpse. Finally, after this whole time, Superman has the strength to face his worst mistake and put it to rest. Clark takes Zod’s body, builds him a coffin, and gives the old soldier a proper “burial at space” into the sun.

He’s come to terms with who he is and what he is, and the film closes on him orbiting Earth - using his super-senses to see and hear millions of experiences that we could only dream of (babies being born, people celebrating, animals frolicking, monks peacefully meditating, etc.) - in full grip of the Overview Effect, smiling a perfectly contented smile at this strange little blue rock that he loves, with all his heart. (kind of like here: https://comicsalliance.com/originals-garth-ennis-dialogue-hitman-303-war-comics-creator-owned)

He’s finally the super-man.

-----------

So, if you managed to make it this far, it’s worth noting that a movie like this was never in the cards.  

When Man of Steel was being made, it came off the heels of the very underwhelming Superman Returns and the epic Dark Knight Trilogy (so a more action-packed remake was a no-brainer from a marketing perspective) and the abject failure that was Green Lantern (which was supposed to be DC’s platform for a cinematic universe). So, when WB gave Z*ck S*yder the reins they weren’t interested in making a cinematic universe. It’s only natural that they’d fall back on their strong suits and try to recreate the Dark Knight Trilogy, only with Superman this time. They wanted Chris Nolan to helm it, but he never wanted to be known as the “Superhero Director,” so he hand-picked S*yder for the job (WB agreed because they trusted Nolan and they wanted that sweet, sweet, auteur creativity that worked so well before, despite the fact that the DK series was more or less a fluke). However, when MoS proved to be a moderate success (and because there’s no such thing as bad publicity) the executives got ambitious and pushed for a franchise, but Snyder was always more interested in telling his own story, with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that just couldn’t happen in a cinematic universe designed to go on for as long as it keeps making money. So they naively tried to have their cake and eat it too. Whereas in the real world, one doesn’t try to mix chocolate-chip ice-cream, lasagna, and chimichangas into one dish, unless you’re aiming for a disappointing afternoon and a lot of wasted effort (even then, there will always be that one person who’ll love it for reasons completely unique to them).

This is all to say that I think the “Snyderverse” was more or less destined to fail, because it tried to be too many things and wasn’t any of them. 

I once read something on a Reddit post that I think is applicable to this whole situation: “Unfortunately, some writers try to shoot for crafting a Memento before they’ve mastered St. Peter and the Dragon.”

But more importantly, I’ve recently had a breakthrough in my ponderings about it that I think finally, finally, finally explains why people like me couldn’t like it …

The film wasn’t meant for people like me.

Anticlimactic, I know.

You can argue movie critic payoffs, stubborn audiences that demanded different things, the fact that the studio didn’t release the full film (I don’t think that would’ve helped), the over saturation of Marvel-style films, but in the end Z*ck Sn*der is a cult filmmaker, best suited for more low-risk niche properties. The only film he made that ever received mainstream success was 300, arguably for the wrong reasons.

The only crime you can really hold against this movie was that it failed to connect with enough people. It’s kind of sad in a way.

Without him, the DCEU seems to be moving in the direction of Adaptation Distillation, and I think that’s for the best.

[spajonas]

Book Chat #30 - Mythological Modern Japan, An Unwelcome Quest, Plus Military Sci-fi!

Guys, I fear my actual reading of books may be at an end! Lol. That’s totally an exaggeration, but I feel like the only sitting and reading time I have is for my own books/writing or beta reading other people’s work. Sigh. I’m so so SO glad audiobooks exist! Maybe I just need to save my actual book reading for the summer by the pool.

I’m changing up the format of Book Chat a little to just talk about what I read, not what I’m reading, and I plan to do one at the end of every month. So let’s go!

What I read…

RED WINTER by Annette Marie

This one had a very slow start and she didn’t even meet the other main character until the 30% mark. I think, if I hadn’t been into all the Japanese mythological elements, it would’ve been a hard sell. But I did love all the quiet moments and the adventure! I recommend this one if you love Japan, the stories of their mythological creatures, and an interesting take on destiny.

What I listened to…

AN UNWELCOME QUEST by Scott Meyer

I actually listened to this one in January but forgot to include it! It was one of the ones I rushed to listen to before I canceled my KU membership. It was funny and quirky, just like the other books in the series. The story made me laugh out loud while emptying the dishwasher. Lol. Such great narration! Luke Daniels has become a favorite narrator at this point. I want to listen to more by him.

HEARTLESS by Marissa Meyer

This was so, so good, and so heart-breaking too. I loved that we got to see all of the characters from Alice in Wonderland before they were the way they were. The Madhatter before he was mad. The White Rabbit. The tiny king. And especially Catherine before she became the Queen of Hearts. The narration on this was PERFECTION. Rebecca Soler is a master of voices! She did them all so perfectly, and in the way you would hear them from the Disney movie too. I was so charmed. I listened to this one feverishly, setting aside podcasts so I could concentrate on this alone. It was marvelous. Marissa Meyer strikes again! She’s becoming one of my favorite YA authors. I can’t wait for my kids to read her books someday.

EARTH ALONE by Daniel Arenson

I’m making it a point to read all the successful authors in sci-fi and Daniel Arenson is right at the top. Military sci-fi has become enormously popular over the last two years, indies filling in the gaps traditional publishing has left behind. I’m friends with Daniel on FB and his posts are so inspiring and thought-provoking. I knew I’d have to read his books! This series is a steal if you buy the ebook and get the audio via WhisperSync which I’ve been doing. The story is quite thrilling and brutal at the same time, aliens like giant centipedes called The Scum have torn Earth to pieces and we follow Marco through this basic training in the military. I loved all the characters that surrounded him. My favorite was Beast, who couldn’t help but compare everything to Russia. Lol. I did laugh out loud listening as I walked through the park. The narrator had the Russian accent down pat. Hahahaha. Anyway, the ending was heart-breaking but realistic. The setting was rough too. I felt like I was at boot camp, sweating and suffering! But I knew what I was in for when I decided to pick up the series. I’ve read John Scalzi’s OLD MAN’S WAR books and this was somewhat similar. Not for the faint of heart! But my heart is made of coal anyway, so I loved it. 😉

And that’s it! I’ll be back at the end of March for more chatting about books!

Book Chat #30 – Mythological Modern Japan, An Unwelcome Quest, Plus Military Sci-fi! was originally published on S. J. Pajonas