#because we clearly have issues (I'm American)

[suicidal-socialist]

Interestingly, in Russian history there was an assasination that aimed to do about that, but failed - the assasination of Alexander II by members of the revolutionary party "People's will/freedom" ("Narodnaya volya"). They fucking threw a bomb at him, TWICE because the 1st one didn't kill the tsar, so he opted to ignore it, lol.

During trial, instead of defending themselves, the narodovoltsy made speeches and declamations, the most famous one being that of Perovskaya, which contained the phrase "We started a great deed. It may take a few generations to complete it, but it must be done"

The expectation was that the people would go "WAIT, YOU CAN DO THAT?!" and kinda do a revolution. That didn't work. Largely because, unlike on the Internet, all legal media - illegal newspapers weren't a big thing until the XX century - was heavily censored and, more importantly, made by people whose interests and views commanded them to defame the assasins and their actions. Very limited access to media due to low literacy rates and most of the people living in rural areas, as well as the general lack of a proper political consciousness were also key factors.

Nowadays, informational currents are a lot more free-flowing and easily available, but more importantly - democratic, in the sense that they often come from the people on YT, Tik-Tok, *Tumblr perhaps* and other social media. Having *a* political consciousness is hella widespread, even though a large part of it is manifested in complaining about black trans people replacing le white race in videogames and bathrooms. American healthcare insurance system is such a shitshow that any non-Bezos interacting with it must hate it with a deep passion, so the issue pertains to, like, everyone, regardless of their ideology. All as ma boi Lenin wrote in "State and revolution": class struggle is the greatest teacher of class consciousness - and whenever you get your meat bionicle fixed up, you can pretty clearly feel the opposition of your and insurer's interest, as well as their dick up your ass (in, like, in a bad way, ok)

Speaking of Bro Lenin, he also dismissed what he called "excetative terrorism" (doing crime, esp. killing, maybe firebombing walmart) as a legit way of forming class consciousness because see reasons above. And in most cases that would hold because, if a person is not *actively* engaged in class struggle, they only real feel it when being extra-giga-fucked, and American health insurance is one of the few exceptionally pernicious businesses.

This may work alright as a starting point, but only as that. You should try to utilise this burst of class consciousness to transfrom it into a more sustainable, long-term form - unionising. "He was a parasite, but so is our boss, what about we so something about it?"

Or maybe I'm totally wrong, idk

It is incredibly clear that Luigi Mangione TERRIFIES the leeches at the top. The entire media machine, the law itself, it has all been focused on disassembling the class consciousness generated by his actions. They've tried to dig up every shred of dirt on him, they're censoring his name, they're setting the dogs of corporate media on him, they're planting evidence on him to prevent bail. And it's barely working, but it's technically working. At this point, anyone with a negative word to say about him or his actions is a class traitor

[ursie]

Brennan’s statement on Palestine :

[ ID: Statement from Brennan Lee Mulligan, on Instagram. It consists of three black squares with plain white text. The text reads as follows:

"I'm calling on my government officials to immediately demand a ceasefire and de-escalation in Gaza.

I applaud anyone and everyone calling for peace, with the understanding that real peace only exists if it deeply and honestly accounts for and fully ends violence in all its forms. Real peace addresses and corrects wrong-doing in the past and guards against it in the future. It goes hand in hand with justice and requires truth, restoration, reconciliation, reparation.

Peace cannot co-exist with collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. It cannot co-exist with blockades, embargoes, or with 2.2 million people, half of which are children, trapped with no hope of escape or political recourse. it cannot co-exist with murdered journalists, bombed hospitals, or years of protesters being shot and killed at the border. it cannot co-exist with illegal settlements, segregated roads, and the silent, imperial chill that settles over the gaps in the violence - the unspoken geopolitical consensus that a group of people need to unflinchingly accept permanent subjugation and occupation.

My hear breaks for every Israeli person who lost loved ones during the attacks of October 7th. It breaks for every Ukrainian person who has lost their loved ones. It breaks for every Congolese person who has lost their loved ones. I do not speak on behalf of Palestinians now because some lives are worth more than others. I speak on their behalf because I, and all Americans, have a responsibility to pressure our government because we are responsible for this. Some have said that this situation is complicated. The Unites States government clearly disagrees. It has definitively, categorically, militarily chosen a side, and I do not agree with that decision.

In wiring this, I have been wrestling with what I am sure many people like me wrestle with: There is a powerful narrative surrounding violence in the Middle East that asserts and ever-moving goalpost of self-education and study in order to even be qualified to have an opinion. As someone with a love of research, I have at times in my life fallen into the trap that I am not educated enough clever enough, or aware enough to have a worthwhile perspective, and that three more articles and two more lectures and one more book will do the trick. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't work that way - we, the citizens of any democracy, cannot possibly be experts on every aspect of the policies of our governments, and yet if we do not constantly weigh in an make our voices heard, the entire experiment falls apart. Not only do people constantly doubt themselves and the things they can see with their own two eyes, but old shortcuts for political action can fall apart as well: This specific issue exists along a raw, charged and unique faultline in American Politics. Nobody I grew up with has ever challenged me on my support for abortion rights, LGBT rights, Black Lives Matter, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, none of it. The people in my country who would despise me for those positions are, for all intents and purposes, strangers to me. But there are people who I've broken bread with and shared honest affection with who will see the words I've written here and incorrectly conclude that I do not wish for the security, dignity and happiness of them and their loved ones, and that breaks my fucking heart. Full-throatedly condemning the actions of the Israeli government while battling rampant anti-semitism at home is an urgent moral necessity, and doing so is made unnecessarily challenging for the average person to navigate by the pointed obfuscations of cynical opportunists, bigots, and demagogues on all sides of the political spectrum who see some advantage in sowing that incredibly dangerous confusion.

So, I'm calling my representatives. I'm having hard conversations with friends and family. I'm here, talking to you. I should have done it sooner. If you're Israeli and hurt by this statement, know that I want freedom, dignity, security and peace for you, and that every ounce of my political awareness believes whole-heartedly that the actions of your government are not only destroying innocent lives, but doing so to the detriment of you and your loved ones' safety. If you're American and feel lost and confused - I understand and empathize. This, the whole country, only works when we get involved. I am constantly haunted by the specter that maybe I missed some crucial piece of information on this, or any, important world event. I'll just have to make my peace with that self-doubt and trust my gut by going with Jewish Voice for Peace, Amnesty International, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, etc. And if you're Palestinian and reading this: I unreservedly support your right to life, to freedom, to happiness and human flourishing, to full enfranchisement and equal rights, to opportunity, prosperity and abundance, to the restoration of stolen property and land, and to a Free Palestine." End ID ]

[literaryvein-reblogs]

How do I write mean insults that's in character for a character to say? I'm personally poor at coming up with insults that don't sound generic or would actually cut deep, being mean in general. I want to write a snarky character with a dry sense of humour when it calls for it but don't know how to go about it.

He's also recovering from a superiority and inferiority complex.

As the writer, you know your character best, and what insults would make sense for them to say (also considering the bigger context of the scene). So, I'll just provide you with a compilation of prompts and notes from different sources, and you can choose which ones are most appropriate to incorporate in your story.

Writing Notes: Insults & Dry Humor

A List of "Sophisticated" Insults

Craven - having or showing a complete lack of courage; very cowardly

Fatuous - silly or stupid; complacently or inanely foolish. From Latin infatuate, which once meant "to make foolish," but which now usually means "to inspire with foolish love or admiration."

Insipid - not interesting or exciting; dull or boring

Obstreperous - difficult to control and often noisy

Obtuse - stupid or unintelligent; not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

Pusillanimous - weak and afraid of danger. It's been used by such notables as Ralph Waldo Emerson ("It is a pusillanimous desertion of our work to gaze after our neighbours"), and the disgraced Vice-President Spiro Agnew, who called journalists "pusillanimous pussyfooters."

Sanctimonious - pretending to be morally better than other people. It once meant "possessing sanctity; holy, sacred." The genuinely holy aspect faded, and William Shakespeare is credited with first using sanctimonious to mean "hypocritically pious or devout."

Twee - sweet or cute in a way that is silly or sentimental. Just as buddy is believed to be a baby talk alteration of "brother", twee is a baby talk alteration of "sweet". Although twee is still considered a chiefly British term, it's increasingly popular in American English.

Unctuous - revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness or spirituality. Unction can mean "anointment" or it can name something used to anoint, such as a soothing or lubricating oil. That idea of oiliness led to unctuous, which can describe the slickness of false sincerity.

Vacuous - having or showing a lack of intelligence or serious thought; lacking meaning, importance, or substance

The insult would also depend on which other character it is directed at. Here is a list of "funny" insults for adults from Reader's Digest:

My days of not taking you seriously have come to a middle.

You are the human equivalent of a participation trophy.

If you were a spice, you’d be flour.

You may have a sparsely attended funeral.

I smell something burning. Are you trying to think again?

You’re like a lighthouse in a desert: bright but not very useful.

Don’t worry—the first 30 years of childhood are always the hardest.

May your life be as pleasant as you are.

You’re as useless as the “ueue” in “queue.”

Your face is just fine. It’s your personality that’s the issue.

...and for your character's significant other:

I like you. People say I have no taste, but I like you.

You continue to meet my expectations.

I’ll never forget the first time we met. But I’ll keep trying.

If genius skips a generation, our kids will be brilliant.

We were happily married for a month. Too bad it’s our 10-year anniversary.

I admire the way you try so hard.

You’re entitled to your incorrect opinion.

Have you tried doing it the way I told you to the first time?

The best part of watching a show with you is when you fall asleep because then I can watch my show.

Don’t call me crazy—you’re the one who married me!

You can always alter these to better suit your character. You can read the full list here, which also includes some insults for kids, best friends, and family.

Tips for Better Humor Writing

Humor writing isn’t all about landing a good joke (except for when it is). In creative writing, the effect is usually a bit more nuanced. Here’s a few writing techniques to get you started:

Subvert expectations. Try to undermine the audience’s expectations or reform them with structural elements.

Save the best for last. Humor is often a release of tension, so the sentence builds that tension, and the pay-off—the punchline—happens most naturally at the end. This is also sometimes referred to as the “rule of three,” where two thoughts act as a build-up to the final humorous closer.

Use contrast. Are your characters in a terrifying situation? Add something light, like a man obsessing about his briefcase instead of the T-Rex looming behind him.

Use good wordplay. Sometimes words themselves are funny, and just as often, their placement in a sentence can make a difference. Some words are just funnier than others, so make a list of those that amuse you the most.

Take advantage of cliché. While clichés are something most writers try to avoid, it’s important to recognize them,so you can use them to your advantage. Humor relies in part on twisting a cliché—transforming or undermining it. You do this by setting up an expectation based on the cliché and then providing a surprise outcome. In humor writing, this process is called reforming.

Use humor as a counterbalance. If you just pile on one terrible thing after another, it starts to become ridiculous, and people won’t buy it. Using humor is a great way to achieve the proper balance between fantasy and real life. Remember, if a roller coaster only did twists and turns the whole time, it wouldn’t be as fun to ride.

Level of Intensity

There are people who shrug off an insult (“That’s just the way she is”) and people who commit murder over an insult (“I’m avenging my honor!”). Plus, of course, everything in between. Which is your character?

To be believable, consider the following:

Personality. How hard does your character take events in general? Does s/he get really excited over good fortune and really depressed over setbacks? Then we’ll find it believable that s/he gets really angry and reacts accordingly.

The second cause of an intense reaction is the nature of the specific fight that you’re creating on the page. Lily Owens lets most of her father’s insults go by (“the art of survival”). But when he starts in about her mother, the topic is too important to Lily to gloss over. Lily’s reaction is intense. She runs away. Another type of character might merely have seethed silently. Still another might have fought T. Ray more intensively, setting fire to the house with him inside.

Finally, the strength of fights is culturally determined. Where public or even private scenes are disapproved of (upper-class London, old-money Boston, “well-behaved” families), arguments may be muted, even when the subject matters a great deal. In other cultures, volatility is not frowned on, and people may feel free to scream at each other in public. In extreme cases, murder may even be considered a duty, as in avenging a sister’s sexual assault.

Where is your story taking place? Are your arguers in tune with local or family culture? Maybe not. You can create interesting effects by portraying the rebels against the local mores: the meek child born into a battling family, the furious feminist in polite 19th-century English society.

On Dry Humor

Dry humor - is all about the subtle irony of the facts being stated plainly; it is the contrast between sentiment and reality that makes the situation funny.

The technique is known for its simple, often matter-of-fact declarations that will make the audience laugh or be perplexed (humor is subjective, after all).

With dry humor, delivery and intention create a sort of comedic cognitive dissonance or contrast. Sometimes it is as simple as using a bit of sarcasm, but it can also be more than that.

Dry humor lives and dies on the back of doing less.

Less facial expressions, less props, less setup—less is often more when it comes to landing the joke. You aren’t using a big, dramatic setup or a grandiose vocabulary to make your point.

Essentially, these jokes are derived from saying the opposite of what is meant or delivering them in a way that purposefully counteracts the supposed meaning of what is being said.

Dry Humor in Writing

The function of dry humor has often been to highlight the absurd.

It is effectively executed in moments where satirization of the circumstances at play require little more than noting the facts aloud.

When writing this sort of humor, quick, cutting accuracy is key to making the jokes land.

Simplicity is king, and an honest statement of the facts will always lead the way to finding the funny.

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 ⚜ More: References ⚜ Humour ⚜ Laughter & Humour

Hope this helps with your writing!

[batboyblog]

Bless you for combatting misinformation about Harris!!!! I saw all this exact same copy-pasted garbage about her during the last primary, and I’m so glad people are pushing back so much harder this time on all the lies and out of context nonsense.

Yeah I mean clearly there's a lot of bad faith shit going around, I just....

When a race is between the "we do believe in Democracy" party and the "We don't believe in Democracy" party, people aren't being helpful to "examine the record" or "hold accountable" the pro-democracy side, they're adding nuance to a conversation that isn't nuanced. It just depresses voters by leaving low-info voters with the impression that the side that isn't the fascists is somehow bad or equally an issue.

People on the left of American politics should be very thankful that the pro-democracy party in our current horrible situation is a center-left, left party interested in Progressive change and not a center-right Conservative Party facing off with the far right (see French Presidential election 2002)

any ways on Harris one thing I've seen a few times is this idea that she's particularly against sex work or cracked down on them. This is untrue, in fact she drew the wrath of the SFPD when she was San Fran's DA for refusing to prosecute prostitutes

Her office de fact decriminalized prostitution in San Fran

in 2019 getting ready to run for President Harris called for the decriminalization of sex work

lets stop and set back and think about that for a moment, it is UNIMAGINABLE! not possible to think of President Obama for example having said that at any point in his 8 years in office, it 8 years ago was not imaginable for a real candidate for President to support that. So I'm sure people will pop in and get big mad and say "decriminalization isn't legalization!" okay but you get no one else before this point was willing to even go this far? and we have a real chance here to get a President who (Still) supports a major change in how this country deals with sex work.

people are using out of context and bad faith attacks, because their world view depends on change not really being possible, but it is, and its happening.

[luimnigh]

And finally, December:

22 Movies Watched, with 8 Partial Watches

1 TV Special

25 Comic Book Issues

And I started 1 Game.

Now, that 22 movies is clearly an outlier. And with 20/22 of those being watched over the Christmas holidays, it turns out I watch more movies when I feel the need to spend time with my family rather than go to my room. I watch more stuff when I'm not in charge of starting the watching. Go figure.

Details, as always, under the cut:

Movies:

A Christmas Carol (1984): The one with Patton as Scrooge, which notably has Scrooge as a commodities trader. Fairly good adaptation.

That Christmas: Netflix animated Christmas film, co-written by the creator of Love Actually. Pretty great movie, it's definitely stuck in my head since.

Sing: The Illumination franchise not featuring Minions. Fun, feelgood kid's movie. Solid stuff.

The Holiday: One of my Mom's favourite Christmas movies, she watches it every year. It's a fun little thing, mostly about romance than Christmas, but still.

Oppenheimer: I finally got around to this one by virtue of my Mom putting it on and then falling asleep watching it. It's a fascinating movie about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, how justification for immoral acts grow and spread, and how you cannot control what you put into the world once you've done it.

Batman Begins: Directly after Oppenheimer, seems they were doing a Nolan marathon. Gotta say, I feel like after this one Nolan leaned too far into realism and I feel it was detrimental to the rest of his trilogy. This one had a gothic Gotham and while the more fantastical elements were stripped, it still had a secret society of Ninjas who burned society down every so often. I feel like some more magical elements absolutely could have coexisted with this Batman over the latter two films.

Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway: This did something The Fall Guy joked about, and tried to make up for a weaker Act Three by lampshading the weakness of it's Act Three.

The Muppets Christmas Carol: Because of course I did, it's mandatory.

Moana: Still a fantastic movie, one of my favourites of Disney's 2010s films.

Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl: It's Wallace & Gromit, it continues to be a series of hilarious films. I like how it touched on AI art and how the effort of creating something is part of the enjoyment of it, but in a subtle enough way that it doesn't come off as preachy.

San Andreas: You know, I think this is the only movie I've seen where falling glass from a breaking window is depicted as dangerous.

The Quiet Man: For those that don't know: It's a movie by John Ford, starring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara, about an Irish-born American returning to his family home and trying to make a life. He falls in love, and falls afoul of local customs. It is absolutely heavy on the stereotypes, and the romance is questionably consensual the entire way through (not helped by the ending, in which our hero seems to treat our heroine terribly... until it turns out to have been an act they planned). If you can get past that, it is a fun movie.

We Own The Night: Cop drama. Not great.

And Now For Something Completely Different: Compilation of Monty Python sketches into a movie. Some of them are better in the TV versions, but it's Python, it's still mostly funny.

Romancing The Stone: Eh. It's a fair enough romantic comedy/jungle adventure.

Superman II: ...y'know, these Superman movies play a lot heavier into the Jesus angle than I remember.

Spider-Man: No Way Home: Y'know, I've seen people say this doesn't hold up now that the Marvel Multiverse stuff in full swing, but I gotta disagree, I still like this a bunch.

The Sound of Music: I gotta admit, the confrontation at the end between Captain Von Trapp and Rolfe is really well-done. You genuinely think he's gonna get through to this kid, and then the guy's true colours shine through.

The Railway Children: ...the pacing is weird on this, because what seems to be the natural climax is just the halfway point. In any other movie, preventing the train crash would happen just before the reuniting with their father.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold: I didn't really pay attention to this, to be quite honest, but I paid enough that I feel I can't call it a partial watch.

Black Panther: Technically, my last movie of 2024, as the next one I watched after midnight on New Year's Eve, but the rule is that it's not the next month until I go to bed. Anyway, still an all-time great superhero movie.

The Guard: An Irish comedy about a corrupt small-town cop who turns out to be less corrupt than the rest of the cops. Genuinely hilarious.

Herself (Partial): Irish drama about a mother escaping an abusive relationship and trying to build a home for her daughters. Harrowing, honestly.

Gosford Park (Partial): Proto-Downton Abbey. You can see the bones there, but also see where edges got sanded down from this.

Cheaper By The Dozen (Partial): Smallville Superman gets bullied by Sam Supernatural for being a farmboy. This is the only subplot I remember, it's mostly chaos.

Elf (Partial): Honestly I gotta get around to watching it in full, it seems fun enough.

Chicken Run (Partial): Animated classic.

Ghostbusters Afterlife (Partial): Technically I saw the whole thing, I just didn't hear any dialogue after the first thirty minutes thanks to everyone visiting on Christmas Eve.

The Italian Job (1969) (Partial): Quite possibly the first ever use of a hacker in a heist film. The prison scenes are very clearly filmed in Dublin if you've ever seen Killmainham Jail. I saw the car chase, that's the best part of the film except for the iconic line.

Forces of Nature (Partial): Ben Affleck, Sandra Bullock romantic comedy? Wasn't great, but it's the only romantic comedy I've ever seen where the engaged lead decides to get married to the person they're engaged to. That's the end. Our leads go off on seperate lives, happy for the time they spent together but knowing they made the right choice. Insane this happens in an otherwise forgotten romcom from the early 00s.

TV Series:

Doctor Who Christmas Special: Joy To The World: Fun little romp. Nice poignant moments. Unsubtle ending.

Comics:

Alpha Flight (2011): Issues 5-8. I was confirming some confusing wording on the Marvel Wiki regarding a kid someone protected that made it sound like it was there. Canada spent some time as a fascist state in Marvel.

Strange Tales (1998): Issue 2. The below comic continues the story, turns out Man-Thing might be a direct descendant of the Biblical Adam.

Man-Thing (1997): Issues 7 and 8. Man-Thing's son nearly gets corrupted by a demon(?). Psychadelic art style. Hard to read.

Howard The Duck (2002): Issue 6. And wow, this series was trying incredibly hard to be edgy. Quite unsure if the cosmology it lays out is canon.

Namor, The Submariner: Issue 4. Double-checking some characters who pretended to be Poseidon's kids.

Uncanny Avengers Vol 2: Annual. Checking out the full story of the Emerald Warlock.

Scarlet Witch (2016): Issues 1-4. Continuing machinations of the Emerald Warlock.

Fantastic Four (2013): Issue 5. In which Julius Caesar is replaced by a Caesar-fanboy alien.

Blade: Vampire Nation: Single Issue. Honestly, I was just checking out why Henry Kissinger was a Vampire.

Master Of Kung Fu (1976): Issues 36 & 37. Shang-Chi meets a dude who claims to be related to Pan. Incredibly confusing story.

Kidpool & Spider-Boy: Single Issue. Sometimes I get asks and have to look up comics to answer them.

Elektra & Wolverine: The Redeemer: Three Issue Series. More of a book than a comic. Interesting story, but added another kid to Wolverine's list.

Wolverine (2010): Issues 305-307. Wolverine fights a Redneck Stereotype Mad Scientist named Dr Rot, who stole pieces of Wolverine's brain and grew them into shapeshifting minions.

Videogames:

Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth (Partial): Fun detective game so far, but I kinda miss the courtroom stuff. The Testimony/Rebuttal just doesn't feel the same.

Looking back, I spent most of last year in a depressive funk. There were some high moments, but after about March I just stopped doing the stuff I enjoy. I didn't read books, I didn't watch movies, the last videogame I played to completion was in May, I only went to the Cinema twice...

I just took the quick dopamine hit from stuff like youtube videos and social media scrolling.

I gotta fix that. I gotta get back to the things I enjoy.

So my New Year's Resolution, probably the first time I've ever seriously done one, is to enjoy more art.

I'm gonna record every movie and series watched, every book read, every game played- and I'm gonna finish a bunch of those I started and never ended.

No goal, just more.

[warblogs17282]

Going over and analyzing every scene where Vassago does something.

Because I cannot call myself a 'certified Vassago stan' without doing this.

On the first time we see Vassago in this show, the first thing he does is instantly notice when something is quite wrong with the trial, and he also chooses to speak out what he finds wrong with the trial as well, that being the fact that Stolas isn't present in a trial he is very much involved in, as Andrealphus literally just accused Blitz of 'forcing himself onto Stolas', so this scene alone already shows us that Vassago wants a fair trial for everyone, and clearly is a bit passionate about it as well considering he calls out Stolas not being present at the trial so quickly.

So Vassago already has some really positive characteristics that appear to be lacking in most of the other Goetia members present, and this is something that remains consistent throughout all the other times we see him on-screen as well.

Vassago also speaks Spanish quite frequently as well, which makes sense as Vassago's VA is Mexican-American, but I do wonder if this implies that being able to speak multiple languages is a common thing with Goetia members or not.

Andrealphus states that Stolas hasn't been informed of the trial, to which Vassago instantly takes issue with, and then immediately suggests to summon Stolas at once, because again, Vassago does believe in giving everyone a fair trial, and not summoning Stolas to him undermines that characteristic he has, and this also shows that Vassago is definitely willing to point these things out, make them into an issue and make an attempt to get them fixed, so that the person can have a 'fair trial' to him.

Andrealphus and Vassago get into a bit of a heated confrontation over this point, and in the background, you can see Vassago walk back over to his spot in the balcony, but making what is basically rolling his eyes except it's his entire face while doing so, starting to walk back off right after Andrealphus says the word 'trauma', with this scene showing us that he likely hates Andrealphus, and what I believe is our first sign that Vassago is not buying into Andrealphus' bullshit at all, but Vassago doesn't have any evidence or testimony to disprove what Andrealphus is saying.

Considering in the lesser key of solomon, it is stated that Vassago is of 'good-nature', something which Andrealphus is not, putting them at odds almost immediately, and has the power to tell of future events, which could be related to this scene a little, but it's unlikely.

The next thing that happens is Andrealphus dropping the bombshell accusation that Blitz 'plotted to have Stolas assassinated', Vassago has a quite noticeable reaction to this, while I'm not entirely sure who that 'motherfucker' was aimed to, I believe that it was aimed towards Andrealphus, considering it's pretty likely that Vassago isn't buying into Andrealphus' bullshit, as I just explained when I covered the scene before this, not to mention at this point, Andrealphus has presented zero evidence to back up his accusations at this point in time.

Vassago has definitely been caught majorly off-guard with Striker's false testimony and Blitz's sudden outburst, which is very clear just looking at Vassago's face in this scene, Vassago is definitely still processing that with what looks like some rather conflicting feelings written all over his face in this scene. The conflicting feelings of thinking Andrealphus is bullshitting while likely hating him at the same time, and the feelings that come with processing Blitz's outburst.

While I will admit, all the lights on the Goetia side of the court appear to be voting for executing Blitz prematurely, considering what I've said about Vassago thinking Andrealphus is bullshitting and him being that type of person to always want a fair trial, I'm going to assume that Vassago also voted against executing Blitz here, although that is unknown at this point in time.

Something I want to point out here is that if you go frame by frame in this scene right at the camera focuses on Vassago again, right after Striker flashes us the a clearly villain-looking facial expression, you can see Vassago move his arms and body backwards a little, just like Vassago was looking downwards for some reason, and if he was looking down, I highly suspect that he was looking at Striker.

When the shot shows us Vassago's face, you can see uncertainty written all over it, which I believe is because he suspects that Andrealphus and Striker is lying, but doesn't have any evidence or testimony to actually prove it's a lie, causing him to enter a state of uncertainty, again, completely written all over his face during this scene, as he thinks about all the conflicting thoughts he's having right now, which are probably just being very much amplified due to Satan literally announcing that he found Blitz guilty of the crimes while he thinks about it all, with him looking at Striker suggesting that is what he's going through right at that point in time.

Okay so other than Vassago being cute as hell in this scene and making me really want him, Stolas and Moxxie to all be theatre buddies together, we can see that Vassago is extremely supportive of Stolas right now, while almost everyone else near Vassago appear to be looking with indifference or a little bit of shock, but still, it shows that Vassago is quite supportive to the people he gets positive impressions from right out of the gate, with that generally being another positive characteristic that most of the Goetia don't seem to have as well, making Vassago a little bit unique inside the Goetia family as a result.

This scene during Satan's part of the song, the main thing of note during this scene is the fact that literally everyone else is harmonizing with Satan here, but Vassago is the only one who didn't at all.

He starts in this scene looking around rapidly with a face that has shock and disbelief of the situation that's happening written all over it, with the next face he makes being a face of what appears to be a mix of disbelief and a bit of disgust at the situation, as he is still processing everything that is happening at that point in time, finally, as showcased in the picture below, we can see Vassago now has a face of what looks like a mix between reluctant acceptance of what the situation has turned into, and showing quite a bit of disdain of the situation as well.

Getting back to the first thing I mentioned about this scene, what Vassago not harmonizing with Satan, which every other demon royalty did for at minimum a little bit, shows that Vassago is refusing to stand behind the clearly corrupt and unfair court system, instead opting to do what I think is called a silent protest, choosing to stick to his own morals instead of following the crowd and harmonizing with Satan, which further shows the general sense of justice Vassago appears to have, and that this also shows that Vassago is firmly on Stolas' side here, that Vassago is further choosing to support Stolas.

Finally, at the end of the song, when the chains and such start to appear around Stolas, while Satan goes on about Stolas 'paying the price', Vassago looks so scared for Stolas in this scene, which I'm guessing is because well, Stolas' punishment is literally going to be right around the corner, so it's only natural that Vassago is scared for Stolas, because, as I've shown before, Vassago has been firmly on Stolas' side the whole time, with this shot showcasing that even further.

In conclusion: In the brief time we got to see Vassago in his debut, I believe I have firmly established some positive characteristics in Vassago, with those being a general sense of justice and being supportive of the people he gets positive impressions from, with the main example being Stolas, with all of this showing that he definitely lives up to being the 'good boy' that Vivzie said he was.

While a lot about his character could change as we get to see him more and more, as of right now these are my findings.

[chanaleah]

at this point, it is clear to me that this is a person whose sole mission is to harass Jews (so I have blocked and reported). I got all three of these asks last night, but was tired so decided to deal with them in the morning.

So let's go through them shall we.

"it's giving JAP vibes and my diaspora/convert Yehudi friends cringe at people like you"

okay so first of all this person is not jewish. and JAP is really only something that should be said intracommunity if even at all. and clearly this person misunderstands the definition because circumcision has nothing to do with being a JAP (which for anyone who doesn't know stands for Jewish American Princess-- it is not in this context a slur for Japanese)

and secondly I'm also diaspora. and I've never met your diaspora/convert (which btw are not interchangeable terms???) friends, so I actually don't care what they think.

2. nothing particularly wrong with the second ask in nature, except it's obviously not in good faith and also

I don't actually feel particularly strongly about circumcision! I'm not circumcised and I don't have any kids of my own. My original objection to this person was coming into a post I made refuting vile antisemitism and talking about circumcision. Which is another discussion I personally feel should be intracommunity.

3. "You can be Jewish AND anti-Zionist/Israel. I genuinely don't see the issue and why people are so willing to suck Netanyahu's dick."

I'd like to correct this statement. One can be Jewish and anti-Zionist/Israel.

But I cannot. Because I really care about the meanings of the holidays and services. For me, Judaism is so incredibly intertwined with e"y that to get rid of that would be to strip down the prayers and holidays until you've got nothing left but a weird capitalistic Hanukkah bush.

And fuck Netanyahu. He is a criminal and I hope Israeli leftists someday get to throw him into a prison cell like they want to.

But to anyone on Jumblr: do yourselves a favor and block this person.

[l-in-the-light]

Trafalgar Law and animals

It seems he is quite kind to animals, or at least he seems a little fond of them...

Evidence number 1: napping with a new (quickly tamed) friend on his wandering excursion to nowhere in particular (or so I envision this happening).

Evidence number 2: feeding random parrots just because they wanna try the onigiri. I bet he would feed random ducks at ponds as well lol.

Evidence number 3: after taking away the den den mushis he just released the snails into the wild (or took them inside the lab later, we will never know, lol). He's so bad to animals, right? He could have just crushed them when he was holding them in his palm, but nah, not his style. Snails are cool and didn't do anything wrong after all.

Evidence number 4: Chopper and Bepo. Bepo is self-understandable, but Chopper?? Law told him to shut up like twice. Yeah, but also he talked with him the most about his own issues with the plan (he can't defeat Caesar on his own for some reason he can't tell), and just few moments after meeting him. That's a huge step in the "trust" territory right there. Other Strawhats didn't hear anything about Law's own reasons of why he wants the alliance after all.

Evidence number 5: Komainu in Wano. He wasn't tamed by Tama's dango so he didn't have to listen to their orders or anything like that. It would be understandable if Luffy was the one riding in front, because Komainu spent some time with Luffy already. Law literally saw the Komainu for the first time here, just a moment ago. He already tamed it enough to ride in front and to lead the way to Oden's castle.

Okay, I think that's enough evidence (it's not like I have more anyway lol). Now let's take a look at this again:

I'm starting to think we're misunderstanding this scene. It's not Law being morbid (well, maybe a little), as in: he doesn't love dissecting dead frogs so much that he brought one into the picture. If you want to dissect frogs then you just dissect them, you know? Not carry a dead animal around with you anywhere you go.

Look, forever ago I watched enough American teen shows focused on school life to know that for some kids dissecting animals in anatomy class is a Huge Deal and they just Can't Do It, and they fuss over it for a whole episode. Believe me, if Law wanted to dissect this frog, it wouldn't be here in the picture with him, but it would be lying down dissected on the table, already forgotten. Meanwhile, it doesn't even have any mark that it was cut or anything.

Here's my headcanon about it: I think Law as a kid felt sorry for the frog. Either made it his friend (so what that it's dead? wow so judgemental smh I'm joking) or decided frogs shouldn't be dissected and wanted to give it a proper burial later on. My bet's on a friend though, because why else would he include the frog in the class photo? :D It's a photo with his school friends, it would be rude to exclude his new little friend as well! (the boy on his right clearly loves the idea btw lol. I bet he was good friends with Law)

We assume he wants to dissect it because 1. he comes from family of doctors and is a surgeon, 2. because of this picture:

Which kinda suggests the possible outcome from the encounter of scalpel+frog. But I think we might have to consider the opposite of what we thought he likes to do in his free time as a child (dissecting little animals like a psycho future surgeon in training). He just seems to be nice to animals, that's why. He would be nice to that poor frog as well, no matter if it's dead or not.

And then we have centaurs and I always ask The Question: what happened to the rest of the animal bodies?? (my guess is: they ate them).

I mean... Luffy is also nice to animals. He would still eat some of them, you know, to survive. But not his friends. Possibly also not Chopper.

And then there's this ongoing theme of people of the D. and their special relationship with animals. I mean, Luffy can tame almost any animal (Surume <3), Law has Bepo (though he's a mink, I guess), and Vivi has Carue, right? Three people already create a pattern... we also see a child Garp (in SBS) that tamed some wild beast as well!

[mirrorofliterature]

the jedi order is effectively an executive branch of the republic, and that's problematic

the problem: the jedi order presents itself as a neutal, independent peacekeeping force

the issue: in reality, by the prequel trilogy, they were acting like an executive branch of the government

my thesis: this is problematic

and this time I brought receipts. from the prequel trilogy. because I'm tired of people refuting my claim by... further proving my claim because they don't understand what an executive branch of government is (I fear for the american civic education system, truly).

this sentence from mace windu at the start of AOTC encapsulates the problem - the jedi order has uncritically adopted the view that helping, protecting and supporting the republic is equivalent to keeping peace: 'you must realise that there aren't enough Jedi to protect the Republic. We are keepers of the peace, not soldiers.'

a few weeks later: shit why are we soldiers??? jedi rolled a critical fail there, I'm afraid (it's called foreshadowing, a little known literary technique). being a government's military = you are definitely part of the executive branch (thanks US congress [a source]).

why is that problematic? I'll explain this through illustrative example: the republic maintains diplomatic ties with the hutts, who own slaves. the jedi unquestionably support that because that's the republic's position! fuck the slaves. peace for whom, exactly? the rich and powerful? yeah, I don't fuck with that.

first of all, what is an executive branch of government?

according to the state library of NSW: 'The executive is the branch of government that puts government laws and programs into effect. It is made up of the public service and government ministers.'

in this context, when I call the jedi an effective executive branch, I mean that they act like the republic's public servants by exclusively enforcing republic policy in the galaxy... not acting like independent peacekeepers, and later on are even more explicitly so as members of their military.

or, if you only trust american sources: 'The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.'

how do the jedi present themselves?

from the opening credits of AOTC: 'This separatist movement has made it difficult for the limited number of Jedi knights to maintain peace and order in the galaxy.' Mace Windu also calls them 'peacekeepers, not soldiers'.

Peackeepers = maintainers of peace and order in the galaxy.

What peacekeepers are not = enforcers of a particular government, like the republic's, will.

why are they effectively an executive branch of the republic?

this meta draws pretty heavily on AOTC.

firstly, I say 'effectively' because they're not OFFICIALLY an executive branch, but they act like one

so. start of AOTC. four members of the jedi council are meeting with palpatine, discussing the role the jedi will play in the separatist conflict, clearly on behalf of the republic. yoda says: 'do their duty [for the republic, it is implied] the jedi will'.

they accept the republic's position as unquestionably righteous, they don't consider the legitimacy of the separatists' concerns, and fall into the 'us' vs 'them' trap

should a peacekeeping force explicitly pick one side over the other? no, they should be neutral (I know a thing or two about neutral humanitarian organisations; I'm using the red cross as my baseline).

getting back to AOTC, palpatine, the head of the republic, the chancellor, the person in charge of the executive, 'suggests' that padme be put under the jedi's protection, and bail questions whether that is a 'wise use of manpower', implying that it is regular practice for palpatine, the chancellor, and other members of the senate, to direct jedi action*

later in the movie, obi-wan has ANOTHER meeting with palpatine, some senators, and members of the council, again demonstrating how intertwined the republic and the jedi are

*that's not very independent girlboss of them now is it?

and here, we have anakin telling queen jamilla, that 'the jedi have not been allowed to investigate [into whether or not the trade federation actually followed through and reduced their armies, as ordered to do so in a court after the naboo invasion]. it would be too dangerous for the economy, we were told'. this does not suggest independence - it suggests that jedi have a leash around their neck from the senate, curtailed in what they can do to what the senate thinks is okay (even if queen jamilla probably would have appreciated it).

later on, palpatine: 'we must rely on the jedi. Master Yoda, how many are available to go to Geonosis?' hm the head of the republic ordering the jedi to do something. almost like... the head of the executive branch ordering other executive members lower down to do something! mace later says: 'we have the authority to do something' [and so we shall go to geonosis].

it's almost like. they've become agents of the republic and enforce their laws and policies on their behalf. and require republic approval before doing anything. like an executive branch of government does.

why is this problematic?

you cannot be an independent peacekeeping force if you exclusively act on behalf of the whims of a particular government, here the republic. the jedi only act under the senate's authority, which means that they will make the same priorities that the senate does, which tend to prioritise core worlds and fuck over slaves in the unconquered outer rim territories because the hutts are good trading partners, for them..

the jedi should have never have become servants of the republic. allies, sure.

uncritically carrying out their will? nah, fuck that. the senate is not the people.

[newsfromstolenland]

What other disturbing things do interracial couples have to deal with in Canada? Those sound awful.

I mean. I'm not going to list everything but I'll tell you a bit about it. I'm not really interested in describing my extremely traumatic experiences in detail, but I'll give you general idea

I'm the product of an interracial marriage and am in an interracial relationship myself. canada is...sucks about this kind of thing.

despite the carefully cultivated image of "multiculturalism" that the colonial state maintains, canada is very racist

a significant aspect of racism is the simultaneous fetishization and rejection of interracial relationships

by fetishization, I mean the way white people think it's acceptable to objectify people of colour based on race. they can get off to porn of women of colour being abused, or that paints black men as violent and abusive, they can talk about asian and latin american making good "submissive" wives (which. lol. they clearly don't know much about us)

and as long as we're sexual objects, the broader white canadian society doesn't seem to object very much. but a happy healthy interracial relationship is met with disgust

my gf is mixed but very much white passing, and often white guys who mistake her for a fellow white guy will try to talk about how she bagged a (and this is a quote) "thick brown chick"

because this fantasy allows them to see me as her property, there is very little hesitation to talk about it- even to congratulate her on it

however, my parents (a brown muslim immigrant man and a white woman) are constantly met with disgust. them being married, in their 50s, and having multiple grown up children leaves little room for classic fetishization tropes. so instead, white people default to disgust.

I think of all the times I've witnessed my mom being asked if she "feels safe" with my dad, if he hits her, if he tries to make her convert Islam, if he tries to make her wear a hijab (we're Ismaili...)

a lifetime of micro-aggressions carries a heavy weight.

and then of course there are the systemic issues:

Until 1985, women with Indian status who married someone without status lost their status rights. Men, on the other hand, did not lose Indian status in the same way.

and the "Indian" status of Indigenous people's parents continues to impact their status and thus access to land claims

racial segregation in canada had a huge impact on people's ability to form interracial relationships. while not explicitly illegal, segregation made the expectations for relationships and marriages abundantly clear- and segregated schools existed in canada until the 1980s

^ this impacted black people specifically, and it was known that their safety was at risk should they go against the set expectations

[coochiequeens]

"I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that,". And that's one of the reasons conservatives won so many races.

BOSTON - Rep. Seth Moulton is defending controversial remarks that he made about transgender athletes in the wake of the presidential election.

President-elect Donald Trump's campaign spent millions on anti-trans political ads this fall. The Massachusetts Congressman told The New York Times after Trump's win that "Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone" and called for a new approach from the party on the transgender issues.

"I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that," Moulton told The Times.

The Boston Globe reported that a top aide to Moulton resigned after his comments appeared in The Times, and there were protests outside his Salem office. 

Seth Moulton defends comments on trans athletes

Moulton appeared on CNN Sunday and did not back down from his statement.

"Look, I was just speaking authentically as a parent about one of many issues where Democrats are just out of touch with the majority of Americans," he said. "And I stand by my position, even though I may not have used exactly the right words."

Moulton said that despite the public backlash, the vast majority of feedback he's received has been "incredibly supportive."

He said fellow Democrats and Congressional colleagues have told him, "You're exactly right Seth, this is our problem. We try to cancel people rather than actually having debates about issues that Americans care about."

"We're losing on issues like this"

Congressman Seth Moulton doubled down on the comments after a Veterans Day event in Marblehead on Monday.

"I stand by them because importantly, I'm just trying to raise the debate. I'm not saying I have all the answers on this. It's not my area of expertise. But this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party," Moulton told WBZ. "One, we got to start winning elections and we're losing on issues like this. And two, if we don't actually define the terms of the debate then Trump and the extremist Republicans will define it for all the rest of us." 

Backlash to Seth Moulton's statement on trans athletes

On Monday, a handful of trans activists and anti-war protesters gathered outside Moulton's Veterans Day event. One of them was Kyle Davis, a Salem city councilor who is now calling for Moulton to resign.

"If the Congressman's theory of change is that we need to sell out and scapegoat every marginalized community in order to win, I don't really know what we're winning at that point," Davis said.

Moulton told WBZ that the outrage about his comments proves his point. "It's a whole variety of issues where Democrats are clearly just out of touch with most of America. And I think that's because we do too much preaching and not enough listening," Moulton said. 

LGBTQ+ advocacy group MassEquality called Moulton's comments "both harmful and factually inaccurate." 

"Our community is deeply hurt by these remarks, which reinforce harmful stereotypes and undermine the dignity of transgender athletes," Executive Director Tanya Neslusan said in a statement. "We hope that by engaging with the Congressman, we can work toward a more inclusive and informed understanding of transgender issues in sports."

Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley did not mention Moulton by name in a social media post Sunday, but wrote that the transgender community has been "scapegoated and dehumanized."

"I will always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community," Pressley said. "This Congresswoman sees you and loves you."

[superman86to99]

Action Comics #702 (August 1994)

Bloodsport (not the black one, the anti-black one) returns, which means this is gonna be another distressingly violent issue, but hey, at least we get to see Superman hit a Nazi! Right off the bat, we start with Bloodsport mowing down a nice black family because he wants to, as he puts it, "Keep Metropolis Clean." After the "Fall of Metropolis" storyline, the place is pretty messy, so I guess what he actually wants to do is Make It Clean Again, but I digress.

Meanwhile, Ron Troupe, who helped get rid of Bloodsport the last time he popped up, is working on an article in Lois Lane's borrowed laptop, which is apparently the only working computer in Metropolis right now. When they hear about Bloodsport shooting people up on a bridge, Lois and Ron rush there and arrive right in time to watch Superman get owned by pink goo. Racist pink goo.

(New writer David Michelinie sure loves covering guys in goo, huh?)

Bloodsport recognizes Ron (so he can tell black people apart), who once again has a chance to shoot him but can't bring himself to do it. Bloodsport is like "thanks, now I'll kill you anyway" and shoots at Ron but ends up killing a police officer instead. She looked Latina, though, so I guess that's still a win for him.

By the time Superman has freed himself from The Nazi Goo™, Bloodsport has left for "the largest African-American neighborhood in Metropolis," and not precisely to experience the rich culture and cuisine. Once Superman gets there, Bloodsport teleports a bunch of automated guns all around him, which don't look terribly intimidating to someone with bulletproof skin... until Bloodsport points them outwards, targeting random people in the neighborhood to keep Supes distracted while he goes off to do more hate crimes. I regret to inform you that this makes this racist asshole smarter than 90% of criminals Superman has fought.

While Superman deals with that, Ron, feeling guilty because that cop lady died due to his inability shoot guns, decides to fight Bloodsport through something he's actually good at: journalism. And also by logging into Lois' notebook without permission, but I'm pretty sure she'd understand (you'd think she would have gotten stronger passwords after Lex Luthor hacked her, though). Ron uses his own reporting and the dirt Lois recently dug up on Luthor to find out that all those guns Bloodsport can teleport on demand are currently being stored at the LexCorp tower. Luckily, it's much easier to sneak in there since half the place got blown to shit.

The next time Bloodsport tries to teleport a gun to his hand, he gets something else: a handful of molten metal, courtesy of Ron. Turns out Ron can't pull a trigger, but he's perfectly capable of pulling the pin on a grenade.

Without his teleporting guns, Bloodsport is just a regular bigot in a silly costume. Superman doesn't even deign himself to punch this worthless scum with his whole hand, since a finger will do.

Later, Clark compliments Ron on his bravery, but Ron says the real hero is everyone who goes through their day not being a racist asshole. Pretty low bar, Ron, but a nice sentiment.

NEXT: Zero Hour! Finally!

Creator-Watch:

As mentioned, this is the first issue written by Roger Stern's replacement, David Michelinie, fresh off his long run in Spider-Man comics where, among other things, he co-created Venom, the character who still keeps him infrequently employed at Marvel. This is a bit more violent and darker than I like my Superman comics to be (not surprising from the guy who introduced Iron Man's alcoholism and killed Aquaman's Aquababy) -- I'm not sure I like Clark smiling at the end when so many people died in the issue, including a little girl. At least he didn't wink this time!

But, other than that, I think this is a solid done-in-one story and I appreciate having Ron actually contribute to the plot in a meaningful way. Michelinie clearly did his homework in regards to the continuity and seems to have a good handle on the characters, particularly Lois and Clark. Their interaction in this issue is kinda hokey, but come on, it's Lois and Clark. They're allowed to be hokey.

However, I do remember having one serious complaint about Michelinie's run the first time I read it: an almost complete lack of Bibbo, which is unforgivable. We'll see how accurate that impression is.

Plotline-Watch:

Bloodsport says he survived the explosion in his last appearance because the circuitry in his weapon teleporter got "jangled" and teleported him away. Wait, so he suffered a teleporter malfunction in a comic and didn't become fused with his guns or something? Missed opportunity, if you ask me. At the very least he could have gained the ability to teleport at will, like a racist Nightcrawler. Maybe he could have inexplicably gained a German accent too.

Jimmy Olsen, who's apparently been looking for Lucy Lane since he ditched her with some wannabe rocker girls during the Massacre storyline (that had to be days ago, right?), finally finds her with those same girls, but it's okay because they're friends now. Lucy tells tells Jimmy that the Riot Grrrls invited her to that charity concert for rebuilding Metropolis we've been hearing about lately, the mere mention of which seems to offend Jimmy. Don Sparrow says: "I want to believe Jimmy’s 'whatchoo talkin' bout Willis' expression is due to his shared (with me) hatred of Jeb Friedman, the concern organizer." That, or he remembered that the concert headliner, his old friend Babe, owes him $5.

I've been reading several DC comics published in August 1994 and this is one of the few that didn't include any teasers for Zero Hour whatsoever (stuff like the future city in Green Lantern #54 or the dinosaurs in the latest issues of Guy Gardner: Warrior). At the time, some might have thought that having a full-on Nazi running around in the present could count as an anachronism but, uh, I think we've established by now that that's sadly not the case...

Plug-Watch:

On the subject of Superman punching Nazis, I fully recommend our old pal Patrick Ryall's "Superman vs. Bigots" column at The Avocado, where he goes over instances of Superman Family characters facing bigots across the ages, from the time Supes arrested Hitler in the '40s to the "Perry White vs. the Ku Klux Klan" issue from this era (which we haven't covered yet, so spoilers). Good stuff!

Now a self-plug: as mentioned in our post for the time-displaced Action #642, I've been putting together a sort of Superman '86 to '99 reading guide at my fav'rit current social media site (sorry, BlueSky), League of Comic Geeks, where I'm writing a short blurb about every issue from this era mentioning what's special, noteworthy, or weird/funny about it. At first I was just copying a paragraph or two from our old posts and throwing in a "read more" link, hoping to drive more readers to the newsletter, but I've started rewriting them to be more like something you'd see in an episode guide or a book about the '86-'99 period... which is an intriguing idea. Anyway, here's that reading guide link again, because this paragraph doesn't have enough clickable words in it already: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/mrmxy/lists/58097/superman-86-to-99-checklist-wip

Shouts Outs-Watch:

Nazi-punching shout outs to our supporters, Aaron, Chris “Ace” Hendrix, britneyspearsatemyshorts, Patrick D. Ryall, Bheki Latha, Mark Syp, Ryan Bush, Raphael Fischer, Kit, Sam, Bol, Dave Shevlin, and Dave Blosser! Join them (and get extra non-continuity articles; we've got some cartoon-related ones lined up) via Patreon or our newsletter's "pay what you want" mode!

To see more of Don's take on this issue, including his thoughts on Jimmy's physique, keep reading!

Art-Watch (by @donsparrow):

We start with the cover, and it keeps the tradition of other Bloodsport covers where Bloodsport is firing a ridiculously high-calibre weapon.  I know the cover text (which generally I dislike) is ironic in this context, but it still bugs me slightly—Bloodsport’s views are so poisonous, even as a villain I hate seeing them represented. But buckle up, because there’s a whoooooole lot of that in this issue.

Lucky for me I’m mostly here to focus on the art, and it’s good throughout, as upsetting and violent as some of the visuals are.  The doomed, completely innocent family who are mowed down by gunfire on page 3 are very well drawn—and coloured—I love rim-lighting, and it’s rarely rendered in orange.

An odd thing happens on page 5, which you sometimes see—artists get so used to drawing everyone with superheroic proportions that even civilians get He-Man action figure physiques—this happens with Jimmy Olsen in that first panel (yes, another Superman song reference on a Jimmy Olsen t-shirt, this time it’s Crash Test Dummies being given a shout-out) looking pretty ‘roided out complete with obliques visible through his shirt.  Not to say that I don’t think Jimmy’s in good shape, but typically he’s a bit more average in build, or so it seems in this suggestive pin-up by Jerry Ordway in 1988…

[Max: You have no idea the amount of research Don did to find that pin-up, which both of us remembered but couldn't place (it turned out to be in the incredible Modern Masters: Jerry Ordway book by TwoMorrows), but it was 100% worth the effort.]

Moving on, the upside down takeoff on page 13 is well done.  Jackson Guice’s Superman always seems to have slightly longer hair than how the other artists draw him, but it’s a consistent thing, so I can’t complain too much.  There’s an unfortunately Michael Jackson-looking Superman grimace on page 18 (shamone), but by the end of the story, Superman’s extremely ticked face is a great panel.

SPEEDING BULLETS:

The Daily Planet offices are, apparently, very near Boring Plaza, named after longtime Superman great, Wayne Boring.

GODWATCH: Dig the beat cop, Marcy, characterizing Superman as an answer to prayer on page 8.  As things go wrong in other places in the book, both Ron Troupe and Superman invoke the almighty in frustration or despair.  Lastly, as Clark and Ron bond in their agreement that racism is gross and wrong, and share an amen.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bloodsport does not support the then-current Democratic President, Bill Clinton. 

Same as the last time this Alexander Trent version of Bloodsport popped up, I find this an extremely troubling issue.  I get that Bloodsport is a villain, and a dastardly one at that. But even so, I hate some of the words and views he’s sharing—words I don’t even want to type to repeat here—appearing in a Superman comic at all.  With characters this heinous, we almost need an editorial box disclaiming Trent’s statements, as they go unchallenged in the narrative as the character monologues to himself.  Similar to the last issue with Bloodsport, there’s an awful lot of carnage and innocent death for a comics code book, and it’s something I think the better Superman stories steer away from.  It’s hard not to be bothered by the juxtaposition of a black family being gunned down discriminately against Lois and Clark comfortably flirting.

Kudos to Ron for figuring out where Bloodsport’s weapons cache was, but, like in the last appearance of this Bloodsport, I can’t help but wonder why Superman doesn’t try to ionize the air around Bloodsport using his heat vision, since it was so effective the first time he faced this kind of teleporter tactic.  A single line of dialogue could have hand-waved it away, but it seems like a missed opportunity. [Max: True. I would have even taken a "Drat, can't do that since I already did it in another issue! Gotta mix it up!"]

Some small irony that it was a clone war that reduced Metropolis to rubble in this issue, in the first issue from new Action Comics writer David Michelinie, who slinked away after kicking off the wildly controversial Clone Saga over in Spider-Man before joining DC Comics.

Any serviceman’s death in the line of duty is a tragedy, but this Carroll O’Connor looking sergeant must have been pretty close to his pension as it was, no? [Max: I think Bloodsport spared him, though... probably because he loves Archie Bunker so much.]

Missed an issue? Looking for an old storyline? Check out our new chronological issue index!

[bioethicists]

responding to this with my shitty redaction because i'm not comfortable posting obvious bait with people's names in them (particularly dead names) but i just wanted to point out the ways in which this ask is prototypical bait written to purposefully generate drama or controversy (idk if this is in a kiwifarms trolling with right wing motives sense or an 'i love drama' person) by trying to appeal to online leftist culture/the fear of being 'problematic'. i see ppl fall for this constantly + i need people to start learning to recognize the signs instead of either engaging or using this as evidence that leftists are stupid/petty/hypocritical (which many of us are, but in much less amusing ways, unfortunately)

the implication that there is a single founder of the "neurodiversity movement" + that evoking this movement at all (which i don't do + i think it's actually pretty evident that my politics are distinct from the much more bioessentialist politics of those who prefer that term, which is part of what led me to conclude that this is a copypasta) is supporting the founder. tracing a broad social concept to a single individual, then disparaging that individual as morally unsound (by evoking other explosive, petty pieces of discourse, like baeddalism + transandrophobia) in order to provoke doubt, fear or anger. demonstrates a hope that leftists will flinch away from anything associated with anyone 'problematic' without applying any critical thinking.

misrepresenting complex events (or fabricating them entirely- idk if these things happened + i simply couldn't care enough to find out) in a way that hits the pressure points of performative activism (she's being mean to an autistic person! other people of color agree with me! this other person is anti physically disabled people!) while also betraying reactionary opinions through language use/implications (claiming to care about 'transandrophobia' yet deadnaming someone? claiming to care about specific events at specific autism conferences but using terms like "severely autistic"? saying you have spoken to "Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians" lmao did you type this out based on census checkboxes from the 70s?). the author of this ask is clearly not a member of the activist communities they claim to be from because they accidentally slip into the speech conventions + opinions of a kiwifarms/4chan loser who does a lot of hatereading. this one did a good job of hitting the bingo card of divisive intracommunity issues rn- great research skills, bud! put them to better use <3

reframing reactionary beliefs using leftist concepts. this works because many of us do not have a foundational politic outside of "well, i want to be good, so I'm going to support the things that other people i trust say are good". which doesn't make you bad (there is no good or bad! learn this now + quick, if you really want to play a part in building a better world) but it makes you easy to manipulate + unlikely to be capable of meaningful change. notice that the claims this ask is asserting are, at their core, "people make up microaggressions to cause problems when really they could easily suck it up" + "people fake disabilities and being trans for attention". these are reactionary concerns, no matter how artfully they are dressed in social justice language. kiwifarms in particular was very, very good at this- they loved finding the people they stalked to be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc, not because they thought those things were wrong (it was their hobby to be these things!) but because they delighted in identifying hypocrisy, stirring up drama, + destroying people's reputations.

this is hard to explain bcuz i blacked out the names, but if you have a passing familiarity with fascist/reactionary online spaces, particularly the history of kiwifarms, you will know that reactionaries have their own 'pet leftists', just like we have our 'pet fascists' (shapiro, alex jones, tucker carlson, etc). that is, ppl they obsessively follow, harass, + scrutinize + come to believe are representative of everything that we believe. these ppl are rarely ppl who are actually prominent in our online spaces but online reactionaries often believe we are just as obsessed with these people as they are, but as unquestioned paragons of virtue + brilliance. namedropping these ppl is often an accidental tip of the hat, particularly when the ppl aren't on tumblr, haven't been a topic of community discussion for quite some time, or run in a different circle than us (reactionaries don't understand that there are actually thousands of leftist social groups which have very little overlap with some others- pronouns in bio does not mean someone knows or cares about contrapoints, for instance)

tl;dr this ask is a fantastic example of the rhetorical features bait that someone might actually take seriously.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

You are not ACAB. You're an asshole

SO this post has been a long time coming and I have sent a rant to several people to look over it for me just so I could get opinions. And most agreed with what I had to say. However it was mean, callous, and too "I'm ok being an shithead" for my taste.

If I am being 100% honest, people hate cops just to hate cops. It's not because there are cops that do wrong. It's just because they are told to/programmed to hate cops. Ok, so why do I say that?

Well a few reasons.

For the past 40 years *minimum* it has been a point of the media to showcase any time a cop does anything bad. Because what better way to "Reach the people" than to assuage them with a "Hello fellow Americans. Doesn't it suck with cops get on our ass about stuff".

Social media has been using bait for years in order to get more traffic to more links and articles. This alone has made rage baiting as an entirety more of an issue.

Because of both of the above, there was a time when alt media *at the time* and social media worked in tandem to constantly show off instances of cops being assholes or outright doing things that were illegal.

So what does this mean. Well it means that you are under a notion that is already provided to you. "Cops are ruthless bad guys that don't do anything for anyone at all".

Except that's not even remotely true. What is true is that often, any positive stories involving cops is buried or glossed over and only ever talked about in very local reports. What's more a cops job is to do the right thing. So when a cop does do the right thing, the understanding is that they are not meant to receive praise. However, that is lopsided in how it works. It more or less means that you are under the LARGEST of microscopes, and if you fuck up at ALL, then you end up as a youtube video that reinforces that "Cops are bad guys" or "Cops are stupid and annoying". Rather than the truth which is that cops themselves are human beings.

Now. I can already see the comment from the shitheads. "ACAB EXISTS BECAUSE-" Shut it. I don't care. Unlike most of you I understand nuance. And more than that, I've had poor run-in's with cops. I have also had to work along side them as private security as well. And my mother, who's not shy about telling people they fucked up, worked as Dispatch and as a Secretary for the PD in the small city we lived in. "Oh well then your brainwashed", you can say that but it does not make you right.

Unlike you, clearly I'm able to think critically about subjects where as you are not. Am I a "Back the Blue" cultist? Absolutely not. I'm solely in the camp of Abolish Unions and hold officers to account for what they do wrong.

However, having said that, Cops duty to uphold the law sometimes manifests in ways that we don't like. Like Uvalde. The cops were in their rights to stop the shooter, but the top brass would have decimated any officer that decided to not follow his order of standing down. I don't think that's ok. Hell that entire chain of command should have faced a lawsuit. But where they DID properly enforce the law, is stopping parents from going in. Because had a parent gone by cops in order to stop the shooter, at that point, it legally could have been considered vigilantism.

Regardless of the moral implications of that, fact is, that's the truth.

So why am I making this post? Mostly because ignorant people exist in this world and their only reason for living at all is just to hate. "All cops are bastards"? Are you so sure? I wonder how many people in the US over the past 100+ years have been saved by cops. I wonder how many kids have been rescued from abuse. I wonder how many women have been saved from rape. I wonder how many kids have been save from gang violence or drug dealing.

Saying, "All cops are bastards" is no different than saying, "Yes all men". Functionally you are saying the same thing. And while you may say, "Hey that's not the same one is an immutable trait and the other is a job", to which I'll say, sure. Except you are making a gross generalization. Which IS the same. And ignores every single decent, good, great cop that exists out there. And every single good cop that has ever existed.

In my last post talking about this, I stated that people that are ACAB don't really hate cops. They just hate that they can't break the law without consequences. And I still believe that, but let me add a bit of nuance to that.

Most of the people that hate cops are programmed to hate cops. Because, like the media does, it picks something that will engage you, and will put it in front of you any way it knows how to. There are also a lot of people out there that hate cops because they can't break the law. That's also very true.

However there is another group that exists and it's Anarchists. Now, I have followers and people that I follow that are Anarchists. And while I view them as different from Tankies, Fundamentally they share the same, "Ideal Utopia" idea. Which is that, "Under my ideals, the world would be better". Except it won't be. It will be warlords and dictators forming groups. Assuming that we don't get taken over by Islamic Extremists, China, or the UN. Their ideals aside, they hate "The State" in all it's forms. And if you are fine with any form of "State" they will quite literally go off on a tirade of why you are a bootlicker. *Sigh*

Now, the last of these groups is just people that either 1) Do not understand what goes into being a cop and just hates them based on baseless notions, or 2) People that have had bad run-in's with cops and take that notion out on ALL cops.

So for these last two sets, things are difficult to deal with. Because they will go out of their way often to not care about how hard it is to be a cop. What do I mean?

Well for starters, cops are expected to be perfect at all times.

Perfect Aim

Perfect knowledge of all laws both federal and local

Perfect judgement at all times

Perfect execution of force at all times

Perfect response at all times

Perfect awareness of surroundings at all times

Perfect ability to listen to the law but also not piss off people breaking the law

And I could go on. Humans are fundamentally imperfect. They always will be. So expecting a cop to be perfect is like asking your SO where they want to eat every day for a month and them knowing right away. Unless you're a LIAR it's not going to happen. Same such, cops can't be perfect. Combine that with having to both uphold the law AND be sure to follow the law at the same time, then combine that with the dangers of the job, the fact that human beings are ANIMALS that are violent by nature, and unpredictable on top of which, with use of force laws. And yeah. You don't have a good time. It becomes a huge issue of people that are like, "Why didn't just just tase him?" or "Why didn't you just shot the gun out of his hand" or better yet, "He only had a knife and was threatening to kill someone. Why'd did you have to shoot him, you are not judge jury and executioner."

And that's where you are both right and wrong.

Right in the fact that they are not a Jury. Wrong about the fact that they are not acting in their capacity to judge a situation, and execute those that are too great a risk to subdue. And if you ever talk to a person that does MMA, subduing a person is not as easy as you think. More over, Tasers are not considered, "non-lethal". In a lot of cases they are considered lethal because you are delivering a shock, meant to incapacitate someone. Meaning that you have the risk of permanently injuring them, OR killing them if their heart stops. Hell you could also in theory turn them into a vegetable.

But sadly no one considers all of these things. And only people familiar with cops and how their jobs work, know any of this.

Am I justifying bad, or even evil cops with this post? No. I think cops fundamentally need more training. I also think that they need frequent psychological evaluations to see the effect of the work on them. Because some of the things you see in your capacity as an officer can be gruesome. Dead bodies. People that have been mutilated. Dead kids from drugs or gang shootings. And the list goes on and on and on.

Recently I made a post talking about how since the summer of 2020, there have been less good cops. And fact is, because of the 2020 riots, a lot of good cops did quit their jobs. That's a fact. Many actually put in for early retirement. And not because "They were being held to account". No. It was because they were told, "If you do your job, we will riot outside your station. Firebomb your cars and homes, and we will find a way to railroad you into prison".

So what do we see in NY and LA? Car break ins. Looting. Beatings in the streets. Cops that will literally stand down while people are being hurt. Why? Because why the hell would anyone be a cop when you are under a microscope SO LARGE, that even the SMALLEST twitch in the wrong direction could end your career and possibly your life.

It's easy to say, "Yeah I'd stop those looters and assaulters". Sure. Right up until the are a protected class. Then enjoy your media crucifixion, loss of work and likely stint in jail. As well as your family getting death threats for years to come. So given all this, I made a point that a lot of hires over the last 3 years have probably been scraping the bottom of the barrel. Because in truth, knowing all the above, why WOULD anyone be a cop? Certainly there are still good cops. But a lot of the good ones quit.

What's more, Now a days it's better as a cop to just NOT enforce the law. Because why risk everything I mentioned. You protect the law and you make the conservatives happy but piss off the woke. And the woke currently more or less control law and media. Good luck getting shanked in jail. If you don't uphold the law, you piss off people who want you to enforce it but you probably get to live another day.

At that point you may say, "OK so why be a cop at all then", and the answer is easy. It's a job. And it pays. Why excel at all when you are expected to be a bastion of perfection? What's that? Didn't use the PERFECT amount of force? Death Penalty. Oh? You shot a guy that pulled a gun on you and you didn't just take the shots to the chest? Well clearly you deserve to be put in jail for the rest of your life.

Cops are treated like they are supposed to be absolutely perfect at all times and it's stupid. I HATE police unions mind you. But you know what I hate more. People that have no idea the risk to their lives that cops are put through day to day just for putting on the badge. The fact that cops NEED wiggle room within the law in order to enforce it.

Remember "Hands up don't shoot"? Yeah. So do I. I also remember that it was a fucking lie, and that there are people to this day that still believe that lie. And if not for Police Unions, he might have rotted in jail for the rest of his life. There is no PEFECT in this life. Not for cops, not for anyone. Cops are not superheroes. They don't swing in on a web shooter and punch the bad guy JUST hard enough to knock him out without killing him. And with morality as fucked up as it is in the west, even just in the US, Law enforcement is in a no win situation. At all times.

But I want to find every person that has ever been saved by cops, and force you to tell those people that all cops are bad. And tell them about how whatever they were saved from doesn't matter because "ALL cops are bad". Tell the women that were possibly saved from rape, "You should have just been raped. Cops are all evil." Or tell the kid that was saved from the person that kidnapped them, "Yeah no, you should have just been a sex slave. Cops are bastards and clearly they didn't WANT to help you". Stop making assessments about ALL of any group of people. Because the likelihood that you'll be right is near zero.

There are good cops. And there are bad cops. Police Unions need heavy reformation. Accountability needs to actually be able to happen. And people need to understand how hard cops actually have it. All of these things can be true at the same time. And none of it is justifying evil or bad cops or even ones that don't enforce the law. It's a nuanced topic. And as such, it should be treated so.

[jollmaster]

Hi! I've only found your blog recently, but I absolutely love your rewrite! One thing I always found off about canon was how sinners basically go without punishment in LITERAL hell. Like sure there's the extermination, but like...no hellborn entities or the devil himself do anything, just let them run the place?

hello! that's wow, I'm happy you like my blog and different silly thoughts and ideas 🖤

(sorry I wrote many words, I thought a lot)

tbh I like the idea of Hell as partly concept that people continue create unbearable conditions themselves; but I have two issues in HH case

first, I don't feel that this is Hell, it looks like basic loud and sometimes dangerous american city where you can live, even not overcrowded; I saw how another studio made this concept with beast city much more better, it was Cyberpunk 2077 based on old game (this city is dirty, dangerous, this city literally eats you while you're still alive)

second, the sinners don't visibly suffer a lot from their own actions (and there is no punishment, as you said), and the narrative in HH itself don't show clearly the idea that people aren't ruined by higher powers or external circumstances, but by themselves: this is fundamental two-faced freedom of choice, as I think, and this could make story ambigious

I don't have problem with sinners having local self-governance somewhere, but again, this is Hell, and we don't see its influence over them: if you're introducing hellborns and demons into story, then let them influence, at least indirectly (sinners purely into the Pride ring don't help this situation much: it's not very clear why there's a sins at all, if everything can be written off as pride and connection with first sin of pride... I dunno if I speak clearly, but hope you're understand), + it looks strange that humans, literally migrants, are above some hellborns in the hierarchy, maybe it's just a deep social commentary, I don't know

and actually, in my rewrite I decided to keep the concept of so-called self-drowning, but at the same time to use the fact that they're in the other world, the world where they're lower than dogs: Sheol/Hell has a heavy influence on mortals, because they're not adapted to it at any way, it only aggravates mental and physical unhealthiness; sinner can overcome this only with great efforts, fully realize the consequences and pay for actions, and only after that they get a chance to wash off own dirt

[odinsblog]

When most people talk about expanding the Supreme Court, they're talking about adding a few Justices, two or four to the bench. But I am not most people. I do not think we should add a few Justices to get into an endless tit for tat with Mitch McConnell and his Federalist Society forces. I think we should blow the lid clear off this incrementally institutionalized motherfucker, and add 20 Justices.

I'd like to tell you about my Court expansion plan and explain why adding many Justices instead of fewer Justices is actually a better reform, fixes more underlying problems with the Court, and works out to be less partisan or political than some of the more incremental plans out there.

Let's start with the basics.

Expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court can be done with a simple act of Congress, passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Court expansion does not become easier or harder based on the number of Justices you seek to add to the Court. From a civics perspective, the process to add two Justices to the Court is just the same as the process to add 20.

Arguably, the rationale is the same too.

The current plan, supported by some Democrats, is to add four Justices to the Supreme Court. Their arguments are that the Court has gotten woefully out of step with the American people and the elected branches of government, which is true.

They argue that the country is a lot bigger now than it was in 1869, when Congress set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine, which is also true. Basically, all of these arguments flow together into the catchphrase, “we have 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal, and so we should have 13 Justices.”

See, back in the day, each Supreme Court Justice was responsible for one lower Circuit Court of Appeal. Procedurally, appeals from the lower circuits are heard first by the Justice responsible for that circuit. But now we have 13 lower Circuit Courts of Appeal, meaning some Justices have to oversee more than one. If we expanded the Court to 13 Justices, we'd get back to a one to one ratio for Supreme Court Justice per Circuit Court of Appeal.

But it doesn't actually matter how many circuits each Justice presides over, because all the Justices do is move an appeal from the lower court to the Supreme Court for the full Court to consider whether to hear the appeal.

Their function is purely clerical.

It doesn't matter.

One justice could oversee all 13 circuits while the other eight went fishing, kind of like hazing a rookie on a team. And it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in terms of the number of cases the Supreme Court hears. It's just a question of who has to work on Saturdays.

Indeed, I'm not even sure that I want the Court to hear more cases. These people are unelected, and these people already have too much power. More cases just gives them more opportunities to screw things up. I don't need the Court to make more decisions. I need the Court to make fewer shitty decisions. And for that, I need to reform how the Court makes those decisions. And for that, I need more people. And I need those people to make their decisions in panels.

Those lower courts, those 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal, almost all of them operate with more than nine judges. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has — wait for it — 29 judges!

All the lower courts use what's called a panel system. When they catch a case, three judges are chosen at random from all the judges on the circuit to hear the case. Those three judges then issue a ruling. If the majority of the circuit disagrees, they can vote to rehear the case as a full circuit.

The legal jargon here is called “en banc” when the full circuit hears the case.

But most of the time, that three judge panel ruling is the final ruling on the issue, with the circuit going en banc only when they believe the three judge panel got it clearly wrong.

Think about how different it would be if our Supreme Court operated on a panel system instead of showing up to Court knowing that six conservative Justices were against you, or the one or two conservative Justices that you invited onto your super yacht are guaranteed to hear your case.

You literally wouldn't know which Justices you'd get on your panel.

Even on a six-three conservative court, you might draw a panel that was two-to-one liberals, or you might draw Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett instead of Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, which could make a huge difference. Either way, you wouldn't know which Justices you'd get.

Not only does that make a big difference in terms of the appearance of fairness, especially in this time when some Justices are openly corrupt, it also makes a big difference in terms of what kinds of cases and arguments people would bring to the Court. Without knowing which Justices they'd get, litigants and red state attorney generals would have to tailor their arguments to a more center mass, mainstream temperament, instead of merely shooting their shot and hoping their arch conservatives can bully a moderate or two to vote with them.

Now, you can do panels with nine or 13 Justices, but you pretty much have to do panels with 29 Justices. Overloading the Court with Justices would essentially force them to adopt the random assignment process used by every other Court.

That would be good.

Sure, litigants could always hope for en banc review, where the full partisan makeup of the Court could be brought to bear. BUT, getting a majority of 29 Justices to overrule a panel decision requires 15 votes. Consider that right now you only need four votes, a minority of the nine member Court, to get the full Court to hear a case.

I'm no mathlete, but I'm pretty sure that 15 is just a higher bar.

That brings me to my next big point about expanding the Court to 29: Moderation.

Most people say that they do not want the Court to be too extreme to either side. Generally, I think that argument is bollocks. I, in fact, do want the Court to be extreme in its defense of voting rights, women's rights, and human rights. But maybe I'm weird.

If you want the Supreme Court to be a more moderate institution, then you should want as many Justices on the Supreme Court as possible. Why? Because cobbling together a 15-14 majority on a 29 member Court will often yield a more moderate decision than a five-four majority on a nine member Court.

Not going to lie. The law is complicated, and judges are quirky. If you invited five judges off the street over for a barbecue, they wouldn't be able to agree on whether hot dogs and hamburgers count as sandwiches.

It's simply easier to get five people to do something extreme than it is to get 15 people to do something extreme.

Think about your own life.

If you wanted to hike up a damn mountain, that is an activity for you and a couple of your closest friends. You're not taking 15 people to climb a mountain. That's not even a hike. That's an expedition, and you're expecting one or two of them to be eaten by bears on the way to the top. But if you're organizing an outdoor activity for 15 people, you're going to go to the park, and your friends will be expected to bring their own beer.

Most likely, adding 20 Justices would moderate the conservative majority just by putting enough people and personalities in the mix that it would be harder for them to do their most destructive work.

Just think about how the five worst senators you know, or the five worst congresspeople you can think of, often don't get their way because they can't even convince other members of their party to go along with their nihilist conservative ride.

Note, I said Conservative majority.

The astute reader will notice that I have not said that I want to add 20 fire-breathing liberal comrades who will stick it to Das Kapital for the rest of their lives. No, I believe the benefits of this kind of court expansion are so great — panels and the moderation from having more justices trying to cobble together en banc majority opinions — that I'd be willing to split the new justices ten and ten with conservative choices.

A 16-13 conservative leaning court would just be better than a six-three conservative court, even if my guys are still in the minority. The only litmus test I'd have for this plan is that all 20 have to be objectively pro-Democratic, self-government. All 20 have to think the Supreme Court has too much power. You give me 20 people who think the court should not be rulers in robes, and I'll take my chances.

However, there's no objective reason for elected Democrats to be as nice and friendly as I am when adding 20 Justices. Off the top, seats should be split eleven to nine, because Mitch McConnell and the Republicans must be made to pay for their shenanigans with the Merrick Garland nomination under Barack Obama. Republicans stole a seat. Democrats should take it back, full stop. I will take no further questions about this.

From there, this is where Democrats could, I don't know, engage in political hardball instead of being SAPS like always.

You see, right now, Republicans are dead set against court expansion because they are winning with the Court as it is. I can make all of the pro-reform, good government arguments under the sun, and the Republicans will ignore them because, again, they're winning right now.

But if you put forward a bill to add 20 seats, the Republican incentives possibly change: obstruct, and the Democrats push through court expansion on their own, and add 20 Justices of their own choosing, and you end up with people like, well, like me on the court. Or Mitch McConnell could release Senators to vote for the plan, and Republicans can share in the bounty.

It puts a different kind of question to McConnell: Join, get nine conservative Justices and keep a 15-14 conservative majority on the court, or Obstruct, and create a 23 to six liberal majority on the court, and trust that Republicans will take over the House, Senate, and White House so they can add 20 of their own Justices in the future.

Note that McConnell will have to run that whole table while overcoming a super liberal Supreme Court that restores the Voting Rights Act and strikes down Republican gerrymanders. Good luck, Mitch.

My plan wins either way.

Either we get a 29 person court that is more moderate, we get a 29 person court that is uber liberal, or McConnell does run the table and we end up with a 49 person court or a 69 person court. And while Republicans are in control of that bloated body, everybody understands that the Court is just a political branch there to rubber-stamp the acts of the President who appointed them.

Perhaps then, voters would start voting based on who they want to be in control of that court, instead of who they want to have a beer with.

The court is either fixed, or neutered.

It's a win-win.

I know 20 is a big number. I know we've all been institutionalized to believe that incremental change is the only change possible. And I know it sounds fanciful to ask for 20 when the starting offer from the establishment of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and President Joe Biden, is zero.

But like a doctor with poor bedside manner, I'm less interested in people's feelings and more interested in fixing the problem.

If you give me two Justices or four Justices, I can reverse a number of conservative policies that they've shoved through a Supreme Court that has already been illegitimately packed with Republican appointees. If you give me a few Justices, I can reestablish a center-left, pro-democracy majority… at least until those new Justices die at the wrong time, under the wrong president.

But if you give me 20 Justices, I can fix the whole fucking thing.

—ELIE MYSTAL, In Contempt of Court