#i dislike career politicians

[finitepiano]

You know, my father would always say 'This Country is Going to Hell in a Handbasket'. He was always referring to LGBT people and the immigrants. I recently started using the saying, but not for the reasons he ever did, I'm saying it because of our lawmakers and the old white men who decided it was okay to give the president full immunity from the law unless they do something very specific.

I hope the world becomes better for the next generation, I hope the older generations don't ruin us all.

[strlingsav]

Bodyguard

– Simon "Ghost" Riley x F!Reader

— Bodyguard AU: Simon is assigned as your personal protection.

Requested: Anonymous

Explicit sexual content under the cut. Read at your own risk.

You were always composed, even among the worst of situations. Regardless of the weight on your shoulders, the stress of your career, you carried it with ease.

Your work was full of lighthearted conversations, asking simple questions and giving shallow answers. It was never deeper than that, and you had no trouble navigating nuanced conversations. You always kept a solid, agreeable disposition, not easily swayed by outward forces; you had no other choice.

Though when you first laid eyes on him- your personal bodyguard, you felt the composure crack just a bit. Enough that you couldn't help your eyes following him as he strode through the hotel lobby. Your first meeting had forced a wave of heat over your body, when he met your gaze and introduced himself with an unanticipated, British accent, and hardened voice. He'd caught your eye, forced you into an uncomfortably vulnerable position, which wasn't usual for you.

He was harsh, a bit blunt- but you didn't mind. You were familiar with the ex-military type of men that usually found themselves in that line of work. Stoic, reserved, but intimidating. You liked your privacy, not answering mindless questions or making idle conversation- nothing like the hollow prodding of foreign delegates.

He was no different than the others before him, aside from the sinful thoughts that crossed your mind when you laid eyes on him. He made it a point to keep distance between you, only tending to you when you asked, no polite conversation required. You didn't expect any less, not from a foreign national who likely had no interest in making conversation with a diplomat.

You'd been in and out of meetings the entire week, driven around by the mountain of a man. He hadn't left your side, suited in a kevlar vest and carrying a handgun. He'd watched you bury yourself in your work, dig into the unpleasant parts of your job that needed to be done. He admired that kind of work ethic, even if you were a foreigner.

Your conversations were brief and uninviting. It was easy to discern his distaste for small-talk. He'd built a wall around himself, that much was evident, but it only spurred your desire to delve into unsavoury territory. You saw yourself in him, a reflection of someone who'd closed themselves off from meaningful relationships, an effort to remain unbound and free from complications.

The week had flown by. Little by little, you came to see glimpses of his personality, what made him chuckle, what he liked and disliked. It was vague, but enough for you to come to enjoy- inadvertently. You were lonely, there was no room for denial there, and in your vulnerable state, you'd found yourself wanting more.

That much was a shock. Though, you'd also kept your distance, not allowing yourself to be caught staring, remaining composed even if your heart was pounding in his presence. The added stress of an upcoming dinner didn't help your fragile state.

It was common for foreign politicians to host dinners, welcoming you to their country while promoting the image of peace. It was a tradition that you'd grown used to and learned to tolerate regardless of the strain it put on you.

It sneaked up, between conferences and meetings; a dinner scheduled with the Prime Minister's associates, and you couldn't be a minute late.

You'd already finished with your hair and makeup, zipping yourself into the tight dress until you couldn't reach above your shoulders. You were frustrated and already running behind your tight schedule. You let an exasperated sigh leave your lips before you called for Simon.

"Everythin' alright?" He asked, cracking the door.

You sighed again, walking to meet him halfway.

"I can't do the zipper up," You said. "Would you mind?"

He'd seen you in every state; half-asleep, post-shower, even casual dress- but the sight of you in a dress that highlighted all the right places made his knees weak. He couldn't meet your eyes, not for a moment while he blinked away the thoughts of you that ambushed him.

He nodded briskly, and you spun around while moving your hair to allow his fingers to do-up the rest of the closure. His fingertips brushed the skin on your back, feeling the silky texture beneath his rough hands. You forced yourself not to shiver, not to give in to the warmth crawling it's way down your abdomen.

"Thanks," You nodded.

You tugged at the dress that sat on your curves, settling it appropriately over your cleavage and hips. Your feet slipped into heels, offering Simon a quick, haphazard smile full of unseen nerves.

"Let's go," You nodded, grabbing your purse before leaving the hotel room with Simon following close behind.

He drove you to your meeting. He'd kept quiet while driving, his hand clinging to the steering wheel, sneaking glances of you in the rear view mirror. He could see you fixing your lipstick in your pocket mirror, one knee hooked over the other, lips rubbing the colour together.

He couldn't deny, he imagined those heels strung over his shoulders, maybe even digging into his back- though his head twitched while he forced himself to focus.

You were no better; your eyes had been studying the side of his head, drawn further down to the tattoos showing on his forearm. You watched him from your spot in the backseat, painfully willing yourself not to imagine him hovering over you, buried between your thighs, but it was a useless endeavour.

It took you off guard, finding yourself so flustered in his presence that it was difficult to manage simple conversation. You were grateful he didn't talk much, liked the silence as much as you.

Throughout dinner, you could feel him watching. His eyes locked in on you, studying your face as you smiled and laughed at the uninteresting conversation in front of you.

Your eyes darted to Simon's, finding his gaze already on you. Regardless of your preference for privacy, you felt a connection. A longing, for something more than cheap discussions and placid smiles. It could've been the wine, or delusions caused by stress, but it distracted you.

Simon's domineering stare never left you, not within the few hours it took to finish your meal, and during the conversation that followed.

Ordinarily, you'd think nothing of it- if anything, it would be expected, or a good choice of personal protection; but the stiffness in his stance, eyes surveilling your body, the hand that touched the small of your back as he guided you from the restaurant- your gut told you he wanted more.

You did indulge more than a few glasses of wine near the end, knowing you'd share a ride back to your hotel with Simon. It was liquid courage, filling your veins in the hopes that you'd be able to tolerate the ten-minute drive without feeling flustered.

As he opened the door for you, welcoming you back to the empty hotel room, you stopped just inside.

Your heart was pounding against your rib cage- the wine causing a bit of blurriness in your vision and a boost of confidence upon seeing him so close, only a foot outside your room. It made avoiding temptation so much more difficult than you were equipped to handle.

"Would you like a drink?" You asked, your hand resting on the door as you held it open.

"'M on duty," He shook his head, stepping back.

"Not for much longer," You replied, checking the time over your shoulder.

His weight shifted, wondering if it was worth the risk, if you were worth the risk. As his eyes wandered down your frame, he sighed quietly. Willpower was his strong suit, but after a week of watching you torment him with your silk bathrobe and tight-fitting dresses, he'd been worn down.

"Alright," He conceded with a nod.

He stepped inside, ridding himself of his utility belt and vest, making himself comfortable on the hard armchair across from the couch. He wasn't one for much conversation, and your request came as a surprise.

He wondered if maybe you'd offered him a drink to thank him- it was your last night under his watch, after all; though a less disciplined part of him hoped it would be an invitation to have his fantasies fulfilled.

"You prefer Scotch or Bourbon?" You asked, gazing over your shoulder at him.

"Bourbon," He replied.

He was leaned over, elbows on his thighs as he watched you rummage for two glasses and pour the bourbon over ice.

You joined him in the sitting area, handing him the glass before taking a seat across from him. Your feet curled up under you, resting your elbow on the back of the couch while you looked at him.

"Have you been doing this long?" You asked, finishing a sip.

"Few years, after I left the military."

You smiled softly, "I thought you were a vet. How long?"

"Too long," He answered, fingers clasping the glass as he watched you.

Your eyes narrowed at him.

"Did you have many deployments?"

"More than a few."

"Must've been hard to be away from your family."

You diverted your gaze to the bourbon in your glass, waiting with baited breath for his answer. You hadn't seen a wedding ring, though the times he went without gloves were few and far between.

"No family," He shook his head. "Don't have time for it."

"Your wife, then?"

"If you wanna ask me somethin', prefer you just ask it," He was leaning even closer, his stare was agonizingly precise.

You could feel the taunting smirk on his face, the tone of his voice inviting you to find out what his intentions were, how he felt about you. He could read you well, notice the changes in your demeanour, your breathing.

You took in a deep breath as you wondered if he was silently hoping you'd get on with it already. You liked getting to know him, though. If not to pry in his personal life so you knew just how far things could go.

The look in his eyes, one of focus and unwavering dedication to give you all of his attention, had you trembling with desire. Unravelling your legs, you strode to stand before him, and he sat up straighter.

It was a risk, though most of the risk had been diminished when he flirted with you, practically offered himself to you. And when his hands wrapped around your thighs, you knew exactly what he wanted.

"Do you have a wife? Girlfriend?" You asked, leaning in closer.

"If I did, wouldn't have come in here."

"Fair enough."

"You gonna keep askin' me questions or take this dress off?"

His hands had a firm grasp on your thighs, keeping you pinned to the spot.

Your hands landed on his shoulders. "Help me?"

He unzipped your dress, his hands helping to slide it down your shoulders. Once you'd slid it down your body, he looked you over, pulling you onto his lap.

"Couldn't take my eyes off you in that fuckin' dress," He muttered, leaning into your neck.

You hummed with satisfaction, "I noticed."

"S'pose I ain't subtle when I want somethin'."

Your cheeks flushed- maybe the drinks, or maybe the feeling of his hands on your body, but his words seemed to cover you in a fog of lust.

"I like that," You grinned.

He lifted the mask to the bridge of his nose, his lips now visible. It was the most you'd seen of his face, aside from his eyes, and it was pleasing. It was mostly as expected- stubble, full lips; though your admiring was interrupted when he pressed his lips to your neck.

He gave wet, open-mouthed kisses, soothed by his tongue, teeth grazing your silky flesh. You'd let your head fall back, eyes shutting as you savoured the goosebumps he coaxed from your body.

The warmth between your thighs spread, engulfing every limb until it felt like you were on fire- especially when his hand reached around, taking a handful of your ass with rough palms.

Your hands, in turn, slid down his chest, feeling the hardness of his pecs, mountains of muscle across his body. He was warm beneath your touch, feverish with lust, burning up just at the thought of your body against his. He was pushing his groin up into you; heavy breaths in your neck, hands grabbing whatever they could reach.

One of his hands slithered between your thighs, calloused fingers finding the crest of your pussy to apply pressure. Your lips moulded together, a soft hum of pleasure escaping in a sigh through your nose.

Still, he leaned into your neck, had a handful of your backside in his grip, manhandling you to grind your pussy over his fingers.

"Just like that," You moaned softly, gentle pants of pleasure fanning against his neck.

He only sighed quietly in response, his groin pressed against you, hips rocking into you. Already, you were leaking through your panties, the fabric sticking to the slick lubrication dripping between your thighs.

"You're wet already, sweetheart," He grumbled in your ear.

"I know," You moaned faintly. "I need more."

His hand disappeared for a moment, belt buckle clanking together, unzipping his pants as he pulled his cock from his briefs. Your eyes lifted to his, perching forward, using your hand to gently glide his cock into your entrance.

He buried his face in your neck as your palm guided him to the tight embrace of your pussy- ridges of his cock sliding past the velvety barrier with ease.

"Slow," He grumbled. "Fuck me-" He choked out.

The tip of his cock just barely pushed past the slick lining of your pussy, and he dropped his head back. In unison, groans of pleasure left your lips as you lowered yourself onto his cock, opening yourself up until he was finally buried inside you.

"Christ, sweetheart," He muttered, his hands finding your hips.

You didn't stop, moving your hips forward as he lifted his head to find your eyes. His bottom lip was tucked between his teeth, harsh grunts leaving his chest.

"You feel good," He mumbled.

"Tell me how good," You breathed, your hands meeting around the back of his neck.

"Real fuckin' good," He grunted.

His hips inadvertently bucked up into you, causing a flash of a smile to cross your lips, before he reached down and rubbed his fingers over your clit.

Your pace faltered for a moment, a quiet whimper escaping, before you pulled yourself even closer, grinding on his lap. Your arm wrapped around his neck, desperately chasing the friction his fingers offered, the depth of him inside you.

His fingers had a bruising hold on the flesh of your waist, his face nearly buried in your breasts as you rocked into him.

Low grunts of pleasure were muffled against your skin, his body rigid while he resisted the urge to climax. Your lips parted as puffs of air escaped, fighting to catch your breath between the pleasure and exertion.

He went to pin you to the couch cushions, set the pace himself, when you stopped him with a hand on his chest.

"I get what I need," You exhaled, still grinding your hips against his. "Then, you can have what you want."

He was pleasantly surprised. He'd never been one for giving up control, though watching your hips move, your breasts in his face- it wasn't so difficult to sit back and let you ride his cock.

"Get on with it, then," He said, leaving a harsh smack on your ass.

"Use your fingers," You shot back, nearly breathless.

"You ever say please?" He cocked his head.

"Please," You spat out.

You watched his lip twitch, then felt his rough fingers rub circles over your clit. You hunched over, leaning on his shoulders for support, smelling the faint scent of his cologne, listening to the deep breaths he was desperately trying to camouflage.

It was enough to bring your climax to fruition, eyes squeezing shut as pleasure engulfed you, soft tremors in your legs and hips as it migrated outward.

Your head fell back, lips open in a gasp that had been suffocated by your heavy breathing. Your fingers dug into the taught muscle of his shoulders, toes curling while your body hit plateaus of pleasure.

"That's it," He drawled. "There it is."

You whimpered softly as the pleasure dissipated, leaving you soft and pliable, relaxed. Then, he moved you to the cushions, pulling your legs around his torso.

He drove his cock into you, feeling the after-effects of your orgasm in the form of short contractions. Each time your pussy squeezed his cock, he was pushed even closer to cumming. His breathing sped up, elbows digging into the couch as he buried his cock in you.

You were useless, lifeless against the couch, hanging onto his neck as he thrusted into you. Breaths fanning your chest and collarbones as he buried his head into you, groaning harshly.

He hurriedly pulled out of you, tugging his cock a few times before releasing his cum over your stomach. A few twitches, low groans, soft exhales; his eyes met yours in the aftermath of his orgasm.

You laid back, relaxing as he brought you your robe and a towel. You quickly cleaned off, tying your robe around your waist as he tugged his vest over his head and grabbed his gear.

"Thanks," You nodded, your eyes barely meeting his. "For this past week, and for that."

He huffed- a small expression of amusement.

"Let me know next time you're in town."

"Probably won't be for another few years," You sighed, your hand holding the door for him once again. "If I had a reason to, I'd stop by."

He then grinned, "Here," He rummaged through the fatigue pocket of his vest, handing you a card.

It had his name and a phone number, not listed whether it was personal or business.

"If you find yourself in need of my services. Anytime."

You smiled, taking the card and examining it.

"How's next week sound?"

"Good."

"I look forward to it."

He left you with a short goodbye, thumbs hooked in his vest as he wandered off, giving one last look over his shoulder before disappearing.

[canisalbus]

a few quick questions on Machete, what breed is he? I love the angles of his snout and the proportions remind me of a borzoi though I don't think he is one. Also, does he have a set age for when he's a cardinal? I picture him to be around mid-30s or so. Wonderful art! love your stuff and find you an inspiration :)

He's a fictional breed called Podenco Siciliano, which is closely related to modern day Ibizan Hound (pictured below) and other Mediterranean rabbit-hunting podencos. I usually just default to calling him a sighthound since he's somewhat of a provincial mongrel and not meant to be purebred anyway.

As for the age, mid-30s sounds about right. I think the current timeline goes something like this:

0 - Born to a lower-middle class family in Sicily, father is a tradesman, has three older brothers. Generally considered a runt, is weak and sick all the time, parents suspicious of his unusual colors.

3 - Gets left at a monastery and raised by monks as a foundling. Nervous and meek kid, but the monks think he's endearing and do their best to support him. Is taught to read and write, which is a massive advantage at that day and age, and learns rudimentary Latin through exposure.

9 - Apprenticed to a Neapolitan priest, moves to southern part of mainland Italy (or Kingdom of Naples as it was called, it was ruled by Spain actually). Does chores and runs errands in exchange for education and experience.

15 - The priest gets elevated to a bishop and decides to sponsor Machete's further studies at an acclaimed university in Venice (in Northern Italy). There he studies theology, medicine, arts, law, philosophy and gets fluent in Latin and adequate in Greek. Befriends Vasco but their relationship is short-lived.

21 - Ordained a priest. Leads a parish somewhere in Papal States (Central Italy). Is generally well liked but doubts his career choice from time to time.

26 - Becomes a part of the Papal Court in Vatican, mostly because of the recommendations of his former mentor and professors, good reputation, excellent track record and sheer luck. Still a priest but assists bishops, cardinals and the pope himself directly. Moves to Rome. Becomes pope's unofficial confidant due to his obedient and hardworking nature and because of his lack of prestigious family connections that would render him a threat. Slowly starts to gain wealth.

30 - Created a cardinal (which is the second highest position in the church after the pope, and it's at the sole discretion of the pope who becomes one). Is also a bishop as a technicality. Handles administrative jobs, tons of paperwork, at some point he's in charge of a lot of the political correspondence and diplomatic missions. Still the old pope's trusted advisor but disliked by the majority of the cardinals, who see him as an outsider, sycophant and a potential disruptor of the status quo.

34 - Meets Vasco again. Vasco has become a succesful politician in Florence, he's married with three children.

38 - The pope dies and Machete's status falters. He starts to work with the Roman inquisition more. Oversees trials, torture, excommunications and executions of heretics, witches and most of all, protestants (since we're reaching Counter Reformation times and the Vatican is Very Worried about the spread of Luther's ideas). Isn't having a good time at all but keeps up the appearances. Gets infamous. The beginning of the true villain era.

40 - Grows increasingly more disillusioned with life and his ideals, as well as the corruption of the Curia. Burned out, paranoid and desperate. Uses scare tactics, extortion and legal trickery to expose and undermine his enemies, but gains them faster than he can keep up. Employs spies, thugs and assassins. Feared and loathed.

43 - Gets assassinated and dies in disgrace.

[aspoonofsugar]

So you said Oshi no Ko is inspired by Monster. How do you think the endings compare?

.

Hi!

Thank you for this ask, I wrote about the comparison between the two series here. As far as the twon endings go, well, I think Monster's is masterful, whereas Oshi No Ko's is mediocre at best. It is not a narrative disaster exactly, but it is not good and since the rest of the story is very well written... well, the drop in quality is felt.

So, let's go with the comparison. First of all, for whoever does not know about Monster (and should) here is a synopsis and a quick foiling between the series and OnK.

NAOKI URASAWA'S MONSTER

Monster is one of Naoki Urasawa's work and a masterpiece to be honest. Here is its premise (spoilers! also read this story, if you have not and disliked Oshi No Ko ending... or in general just read it... it is wonderful).

Kenzo Tenma is a Japanese surgeon working in Germany during the Cold War. He is a prodigy, so his superiors usually assign him the cases of rich and important people. One night he finds himself in front of a choice. A child, Johan, arrives at the hospital with a bullet in the head and some minutes later he is ordered to operate on an influent politician. However, Tenma chooses to make the ethical choice and saves the child. This costs him his career, but he still feels he did the right thing. Some time later both Johan and his traumatized twin sister Nina disappear, just when Tenma's superiors all mysteriously die. As a result, Tenma becomes the head of the clinic and manages the hospital in a way it helps as many people as possible. Still, ten years later Johan comes back into his life and it is revealed that not only he is the one who killed Tenma's superiors, but also that he is a serial killer. Tenma and Nina go through parallel journeys to try to both stop Johan and discover more of the twins' mysterious past. Meanwhile, Tenma's ex Eva and Inspector Lunge look for Tenma for different reasons. Eva wants to both go back together with Tenma and get revenge on him. Lunge believes Tenma is the culprit behind Johan's mysterious streak of murders.

As you can see, there are some similarities with Oshi No Ko:

Monster is the story of a surgeon, who must track down a serial killer whose life he has saved. This monster is one of 2 twins and the story deals with the brother and sister uncovering their past

Oshi No Ko is the story of a doctor, who is murdered and reborn as his favourite idol's child. Together with him there is a twin sister and they must uncover their mothers' past and killer.

In short, in both series there is a pair of twins and a murderer. It is just that in Monster the twins have no memories nor sense of selves, while in Oshi No Ko they have too many memories and baggage.

In both stories, there is a villain (Johan and Kamiki), who is both victim and perpetrator and difficult to understand. This villain is a satanic archetype, who is excellent at manipulating people. He is a serial killer, who reiterates the traumas of his past over and over, out of a sense of emptiness.

Finally, in Monster the characters must uncover the truth behind Johan, while in Oshi No Ko they must find out who Ai really is. The former is about understanding a monster, whereas the latter is about empathizing with a goddess.

Now that we have the basic foiling down, let's try and explore the two endings. Monster's fully explores the theme it set up to explore. Oshi No Ko's instead doesn't. Let's see why.

JOHAN VS AI

Both Monster and Oshi No Ko have a main protagonist (Tenma and Aqua), who is trying to solve a mystery centered on another person (Johan, Ai). As a result, both Johan and Ai find themselves at the centre of the story. Readers keep on reading because they wanna uncover the mystery behind these two characters. Who is really Johan and why did he become a monster? Who is really Ai and what was she lying about?

However, the two series' payoffs are very different.

On the one hand Johan stays the heart of the story from beginning to end. His past is slowly revealed and there are several twists, which add depth to his character, while keeping the mystery strong. Finally, the very last chapter is called "The True Monster" and it offers a final interpretative key to understand Johan. Basically, up until the very end, Johan remains the key character and up until the very end there are things left to discover about him. His story is intertwined and foiled with that of everyone else's. From Tenma to Nina, to Eva to Lunge to Grimmer... everyone is a foil to Johan.

On the other hand Ai stays at the heart of the story up until the arc, which should be about her. The movie arc is where Ai progressively disappears from the narrative. Her role is slowly overtaken by Hikaru and later on Hikaru too disappears, so that Aqua can have his sad pretty boy moment :P. The story sets up a mystery about Ai, but it solves it at the very beginning with the climax of her arc. The story promises more about her, like an exploration of her idea that loving someone is to lie to them. However, when the time comes to explore this mentality, its toxicity and its contradictions are glossed over. Everything is overly simplified, so that there can be cheap twists.

The big reveal about Ai is that she truly loved Hikaru, even if she herself did not fully understand it... However, this was something clear even before it was told. Now this is not bad per se, but for this reveal to have any impact, it should have been built up differently. Ai's love for Hikaru, either good or wrong, should have been explored more and problemitized. For example, it is obvious Ai loves Hikaru when they meet... but would she love him even if she knew he would have turned out a killer? Would she have forgiven him, even if Hikaru had tried to hurt Ruby? Did Ai know it was Hikaru killing her? Or did she not know? A lot could have been done, for example, with the white rose... She could have understood it was Hikaru, if this flower had any particular meaning in their relationship... Actually I was waiting for the flowers to become meaningful, but then they did not. Rather it seems Hikaru started using them as his signature flower after Ai's death.

Not only that, but Ai's own children do not even have to struggle to empathize with her and discover how she felt, Ai herself told them directly. Overall this revelation, which is built up from the beginning ("Will Ai forgive Hikaru or not?") literally means nothing. Aqua isn't conflicted about it, Ruby delivering the line, where she forgives Hikaru in the movie is not even shown. Finally, Ai's feelings do not change Hikaru, nor have any real impact on him. Neither for good nor for worse.

Let's highlight that Monster does have a similar moment, where a character empathizing with another is framed as too little too late:

Here, Nina finally forgives Johan for his crimes. She does so as she is finally able to remember their shared past, to accept it and to accept herself. Her act is first of all an act of self-forgiveness and shows her growth from a traumatized girl focused on revenge into a forgiving and empathetic person, able to embrace the good in the world. It is the climax of her personal arc. However, her forgiveness does not change Johan nor stops him. Johan says it is too late and is ready to either kill or be killed. His line about how "some things can never be amended" refers to both his own crime and Nina's previous refusal of him. He refuses to forgive both himself and Nina. And yet, Nina's choice still matters. In fact, even after Johan refuses her forgiveness she sticks to it and when she gets the chance to let Johan die, she doesn't and insists he must be saved.

Ai's love and forgiveness of Hikaru is instead glossed over, as it is her final wish. Again, this would be fine if it was given any depth. It could have been framed as Aqua and Ruby having to dismiss Ai's final wish as a way to truly live their lives. Not held back by Ai's memory, as painful as it was. A way to let Ai go. Instead nothing of it happens. Ai is in the end nothing more and nothing else than the character so brilliantly summarized by the song "idol". Nothing of which we discover about her comes close to the power of her introduction and death. It is a pity because her relationship with Hikaru, her confused feelings of love and her choice to forgive him (or not) could have been great.

NINA AND JOHAN VS AI AND HIKARU

Nina and Johan are like Ai and Hikaru, as they are an exploration of how different people react to trauma.

Nina represses her bad memories, whereas Johan clings to them. That is the difference between them:

Nina refuses her trauma. She builds an identity that negates everything her trauma represents. She forgets about it all and when she tries to retrieve her lost memories through hypnosis, she tries to strangle her therapist.

Johan embraces both his and Nina's trauma. He builds a self identity that is everything their trauma represents. He is so scared of being nobody that he mistakenly confuses what Nina shares about a traumatic event with his own memories.

So, you see... Nina is a protagonist and Johan is a villain, but the point of their foiling isn't that she is good and that he is bad. Actually, the point is that Nina can be good because she has been relying completely on Johan to protect her. She has been burying her own memories, so that she could depend on Johan's violence to survive. Of course this is not done on purpose and it is a tragic consequence of the twins' tragic childhood. Still, what seems as a very straightforward case of good twin and evil twin turns out to be far more layered and complex.

The same isn't true for Ai and Hikaru. Ai and Hikaru's foiling stems from the fact they are both objectified by others. They are idols, objects of adoration and they resent this situation. They suffer and are unable to forge a real relationship with another person. They literally do not know how because they are both objectified by others, so they objectify others in return. Ai wants to love Hikaru, but is not sure of how to do it. Hikaru ends up idolizing Ai, like others do. This is an interesting premise, which would have been perfect to explore the main theme of objectification and love... except the series doesn't.

The solution of Ai and Hikaru's foiling isn't that you should not idolize others... even if the idea seems to be suggested multiple times throughout the story:

The solution is that there is a positive idolization:

And a negative one:

So, Ai is a good idol because she accepts the love others give her, loves them back and brings them joy.

Hikaru instead is a bad idol because he uses his influence on others to hurt them.

Now, I do not hate this foiling tbh. I think again that with the proper exploration it could have been fascinating. I also think the series never meant to negate the fact entertainment and idols can bring joy, fun and inspire others. Still, you can't introduce a third dimension to your theme (people should not be objectified) and then go back to a white and black vision. It creates a dissonance, if done poorly. And I think here it is so.

NINA AND JOHAN VS RUBY AND AQUA

As explained above, Nina and Johan are a twist on the evil twin and good twin. In particular, Johan willingly acts as Nina’s shadow.

The shadow is everything the person represses and does not want to see about herself. It is a concept that truly fits Nina’s character After all, when we meet her:

She is running away from the darkness and violence of her past.

Nina is determined not to really face her shadow. This is why she represses her memories, tries to kill Johan when she discovers what he has done:

And tries to kill him again after she remembers him as an adult. However, you can't kill your shadow. You can only accept it. Nina does not and symbolically her attempted murder of Johan leads Johan to grow more and more desperate until he spirals completely.

Ruby and Aqua play with light and darkness, as well. In a sense, Aqua does try to act as Ruby's shadow as he is the one who is ready to face darkness and die, so that Ruby can keep on shining brilliantly and live.

By the end Aqua dies for Ruby's life, but in his last moments he wishes to live:

I would not be surprised if Ruby kept on living, despite the darkness she feels inside:

That said, both Ruby and Aqua have a dimension, which is never fully explored:

Aqua and Ruby have moments where they lose the star in their eyes and get the chance to simply be people. However, this dimension is never fully addressed (especially for Ruby) and quickly disappears. Once again the dimension, where idolization can be refused is only brought up briefly and never truly explored.

Finally, both Johan and Nina and Ruby and Aqua have an unhealthy obsession with each other, with some incestuous subtext. Still, this obsession is treated very differently.

Johan sends his sister flowers and tells her "he was born to smother her with flowers". He is also obsessed with her and at one point he crossdress as her (also to confuse the people who are following him). Still, this obsession is presented for what it is: wrong. Not only that, but despite the creepy flower lines, Johan and Nina's relationship is never presented as sexual. Johan is obsessed with Nina and organizes his whole identity around hers... Still, there is no kiss, nor love confession nor attempted rape. The subtext is used in the beginning to convey Johan's obsession and disappears as the story progresses and we get to better understand why Johan is obsessed with Nina.

Aqua and Ruby's incestuous subtext is instead never solved. Personally, I was not so outraged by Ruby having feelings for Sensei, cause I thought it was something she had to overcome in order to grow up tbh. I saw it as a freudian motif, an obsession Ruby would have overcome as she finally leaves Sarina behind and embraces her new life. However, this does not happen. Ruby straight out tells Aqua she loves him and this is never addressed again. Aqua has an inner monologue about how he loves Kana and the person Ruby loves was his past self... But this is not the point. The point of such a plotline, if you wanna insert it, should be that Ruby has to get over Sensei, realizing she never truly fell in love with him... but rather that hers was a simply infatuation. A precocious crush and nothing more. Instead this never happens and ends up being completely irrelevant and taking away time that could have been used for more relevant plotlines.

JOHAN VS HIKARU

Finally, let's talk about Johan and Hikaru. Both characters want to do the same thing: they wanna deconstruct the Freudian Excuse trope:

The writers have a villain, and they want to give that character some depth. The obvious solution is to Pet the Dog. Unfortunately, that tends to make the character less scary, causing Badass Decay and Villain Decay. Instead, writers may keep the villain (especially The Sociopath) just as vile as before, but reveal that they have a reason for being that way. The most popular one is the Freudian Excuse: the villain had an abusive and particularly violent backstory (such as Abusive Parents, being bullied by peers, being raped in the past, etc.), making them insane and warping their perception on the universe, and that's why they're sociopathic Serial Killers going on a Roaring Rampage of Revenge, or why they want to destroy everything out of their misery, or why they're Straw Nihilists who adhere to The Social Darwinist philosophy that it's a Crapsack World where Might Makes Right.

Both are young men, who went through horrible traumas and were turned into monsters. Still, Johan deconstructs this trope successfully imo. Hikaru instead doesn't.

Johan's story keeps on presenting and subverting or deconstructing popular tropes associated to villains:

At one point he says there is a "monster inside of him". Nina takes it at face value and thinks Johan has a double personality. However, this is proven false. It is a simplistic black and white solution to Johan's mystery, which is quickly discarded.

Secondly, Tenma discovers Johan as a child was taken into an abusive environment, where experiments were taken on children, to the point they would lose their humanity and memories. Obviously he believes this is what warped Johan. Except this is not the case... Johan was already a killer when he joined this abusive environment. It obviously had an effect on his psyche, but it is not what "created him".

Thirdly, it is revealed one of the twins witnessed a horrible and violent massacre. Everyone, including Johan himself, believes it was him who saw all this, becoming traumatized. Except it is finally revealed Nina is the one who saw the massacre play out, then she told Johan and eventually repressed this horrible memory. Johan instead made this memory his and tricked himself into believing he had really witnessed the whole thing.

So, Johan's story is one which masterfully deconstructs popular tropes. He was not changed because of one bad day. His self is the resulf of all his life: it stems from his weak lack of self, his and Nina's trauma, his fear of being betrayed by adults and his wish to protect Nina. Everything we discover helps us understand him, sure. However, it does not excuse him because Nina too underwent the same experiences and did not become a murderer (even if she could have).

Every twist does not detract from what we previously knew, but adds to it and it creates a character, who is both a monster and human.

Hikaru is instead reduced to a very cheap "cool motif, still murder". He is introduced as horrible since he is shown killing an actress. Then, he is humanized throughout the movie arc and he is given complexity. Some revelations are potentially interesting... Like the fact he did not willingly kill his rapist (I thought he did) and the idea he did not even mean to kill Ai. However, everything is then sacrificed to turn him into a big bad and a monster. Now, tbh I actually LOVED the twist Hikaru was the final villain. I had found the happy ending very cheap and I thought that this twist was there, so that we could have had a more gray conclusion, with some deep dive into Hikaru's head. An exploration that showed how he was a villain and maybe lost, but also that explained to us his reasoning and showed him as very human.

I would have loved if his confrontation with Aqua and a later confrontation with Ruby could finally wake him up and let him see his children as people, instead than tools to just reiterate his obsession for Ai. Like, I even think Aqua set up the perfect chance for redemption for Hikaru. As in the end, he could have taken the fall for the ONLY crime he did not committed, that is Aqua's attempted murder. So, that he would go to prison leaving Aqua and Ruby to live as they wanted. instead, we have a character, which was presented as complex reduced to a caricature of himself. By the way, if you wanted to show Hikaru was too gone... I think you could have done it... but you can't add complexity to a character and then take it away. If you do so, then you are bound to make people angry.

Again, Monster does successfully present Johan as a monster. He does a lot of horrible things and by the end you, as a reader, do not really have to forgive him. The story even lets enough space for you to wonder if the characters did the right choice into saving him. Moreover, Johan's past does not justify his actions in any way. Still, whatever you might think about Johan morally, you arrive at the end of Monster with the acknowledgement that Johan is a person. Not only that, but the point is that he is a monster PRECISELY because he is a person. It is his humanity, which turns him into a monster. Just like his humanity might help him become a person once again.

SECONDARY CHARACTERS

Without going too deep into this, but Monster has two other main supporting characters, other than the 3 main protagonists (Nina, Tenma and Johan). They are Lunge and Eva. Both of their arcs complement the themes, both are gorgeous, tie into the story and are completed. They advance the plot and subplots, but they are not sacrificed to it. In particular, Eva is a great example of how to take an overused misogynistic trope (the crazy ex-girlfriend) and how to make a wonderful character out of it. Eva is initially a horrible person, she is selfish, a woman-child, obsessive. She is also hurt, lonely and suicidal. As the story goes on she blooms into her self. She spends the majority of her story wanting to get back together with Tenma. And Tenma save her multiple times. However, by the end it is not through Tenma that she changes. She develops thanks to the meeting with another character. And in the end she ends up alone. Her arc is that she needs to stop depending on others and must forge her own life.

In comparison, Kana and Akane start the story as two wonderful characters. They have their own arcs, they tie into the plot and into Aqua's arc. However, they also feel, as if they have their own subplots, as well. Except that by the end, the ball is dropped and both are reduced to pieces of Aqua's harem. Their individual arcs do not matter to the story anymore. The relationship they have with each other, which is set up as extremely important, is left unexplored. Their contribution to the story is that they are both in love with Aqua, but their loves for him are not challenged. Kana is in love with Aqua's mask and never gets to discover the real him. Even if she is set up as his love interest since their first meeting. Akane's love for Aqua is set up as an obsession and a lie, something she needs to overcome, so that she can have a real relationship with him. One rooted in respect and friendship. Still, she is left crying, idolizing Aqua and regretting that they could not have killed Hikaru together. All of this is kind of distasteful imo.

THE ENDING

In general, Oshi No Ko's fake happy ending is Monster's ending, but cheap.

The character set up as the monster (Hikaru/Johan) is given complexity

The main girl (Ruby/Nina) forgives him and symbolically saves him

The main protagonist (Aqua/Tenma) eventually lets go of revenge and in this way he saves himself

The character at the core of the series (Ai/Johan) is finally understood and their mystery is solved in a way that frees the characters

Still, Monster does this in a way, which is real. Nina and Tenma has to struggle with forgiving Johan. Up until the end they are unsure of what their choice will be: murder or forgiveness. Aqua and Ruby's choice to forgive Hikaru is glossed over. It could have been such a cool opportunity especially for Ruby's arc. Where her forgiving Hikaru (her parent) as Ruby might have tied with her forgiving her parents as Sarina. It could have been a way for her to find closure.

However, the author preferred to use all Monster's trope in a cheap way to justify a dark twist and a tragic ending, which is not as powerful for the simple reason the story itself is not written as a tragedy.

It is funny really because often people think tragic ending are more powerful than positive one. More cathartic. And they can be. However, in this case, Monster's positive ending is way deeper and more cathartic than Oshi No Ko's superficial one, which is rooted in shock value.

[marvelstars]

You know while I understand completely why Anakin is disliked or hated in the fandom there´s one take about his story with Padme I will never get, the comment about how Anakin beat "poor innocent Clovis" as if he had been innocently just there hanging out with Padme and big bad Anakin came along and decided to beat him out of nowhere, he is even pictured as this kind of "Pro-feminist" character icon while I am like:

Clovis literally tried to force himself on Padmé

Sure he was a Senator like Padmé was but main reason why Clovis didn´t report Anakin beating him out has to do with the fact it isn´t a pretty picture for him, he would have to talk about how he was trying to kiss Padmé agaisnt her will and Anakin lost it when he saw them.

Their first interaction in the clone wars ended with Padmé poisoned, Anakin literally had to carry her out of Clovis house to seek treatment for her because he was allied with the same Federation that send killers towards her when she was 14 and used the opportunity to get the job done.

"Anakin almost kills poor Clovis out of jealousy"

Anakin beat him out because Clovis was trying to force himself on his wife, Anakin is a trained soldier and Jedi with a metal arm and the strongest force user ever while Clovis is a pampered Senator with light self defense training, if Anakin wanted Clovis dead he would have died, if Anakin didn´t hold himself back Clovis would have died with his first punch.

"Anakin was mean and controlling with Padme during this arc"

Anakin remembered the first time Padme tried to use her charm to spy on Clovis she ended up poisoned and tried to warm her about this, sure he was also afraid and jealous but he didn´t want her to be in danger again, yet respected her decision to keep spying on Clovis and after he lost it and beat him he accepted her decision of ending their marriage and guess what? He left her alone, I guess there is one character who understands no is no and it isn´t Clovis.

Later they only patch their relationship back because Padme had to call Anakin for help because Clovis, under pressure from Dooku, almost kills her and she needed Anakin to get her and Clovis out of there. Padmé would not have been in that possition if she wasn´t so confident that she could take care of herself on her own, with only one of her handmaidens help, so called handmaiden was killed because of Padmé´s imprudence.

I like Padmé as a character and I liker her initiative in the prequels, she is an heroice character, she is actually Sidious foil as a politician and sure many fans are like"yas Queen" tell that brute Anakin how it is but the truth is that she isn´t a perfect character and that´s great because well written characters are like that, she also makes mistakes that sometimes cost lifes, she is a complex character like many in Star Wars with virtues and flaws and Clovis most definitely wasn´t any kind of feminist icon as some in the fandom like to picture him.

Actually if this was an AU I actually believe it would have done Anakin and Padme well to stay separated for while to learn to appreciate each other out of a context in which they are trying to ignore their problems at their careers and actually come together stronger as couple but well, then again, if that were the case, ROTS would not have happened and we all know who wanted to keep them together but at conflict with each other in order to drive anakin further into madness and the darkside.

[about-faces]

Batman: Caped Crusader, Episodes 1-2 thoughts (SPOILERS)

First things first, Harvey is as bad as I’d expected. I honestly can’t tell whether this is worse than the version we got in the last Timm-produced animated Batman show, “Beware the Batman.” That Harvey was a humorless prick straight out of the William Atherton school of jerkasses, while this one is a smug sleazebag who would be someone you’d love to hate if he weren’t also a complete inversion of a great tragic hero turned villain.

I’m just so sick of people portraying Harvey as a politician first and foremost, performing for the cameras and thinking about his career ambitions. I’m sick of him being a corrupt asshole and even an authoritarian. I’m sick him being two-faced, when the irony of his character is that he himself never WAS. Now that that’s out of my system, I’ll move on, because I know he has an arc in store that may prove more interesting than the usual Asshole Harvey takes.

They tried several things with the Penguin, and I’m not sure they gelled into anything that worked for me this time out. Making her a woman, that’s no problem, and I appreciate her classic style and appearance in a time when everyone just wants to turn Cobblepot into a boring Tony Soprano knockoff.

Ultimately, though, it all just served to make her a standard “Ma Barker” archetype. You know, the alleged matriarchal crime boss who was killed by Hoover’s FBI, who may have dragged her name through the mud to excuse their killing of an old woman? There used to be several takes on her in pop culture, although nowadays the only famous one is probably Ma Beagle from “DuckTales.”

With that in mind, they should have just cast Margo Martindale. Excuse me, didn’t use her full name: Beloved Character Actress Margo Martindale. Minnie Driver is a fantastic actress (I’m still mad that “The Riches” was not only cancelled but totally forgotten), but it was a waste not to let her use her real accent. As it was, she was fine, but she didn’t bring anything special to match the physical design. As an actress, she deserved more to play with.

Also, “Oswalda” is a terrible fake name. Like come on guys, you can do better. That’s on par with Revolver Ocelot’s real Russian name being “Adamska.”

The biggest problem with this take on Penguin is that she’s set up as some kind of brilliant mastermind, only to act incredibly stupid, reckless, and gullible. She kills not one but two innocent goons, including her own son, without so much as an investigation or even keeping tabs on the suspected rats to use them as pawns against Thorne! To paraphrase Dijkstra from the “Witcher” books, you don’t kill spies, you USE them. You feed them misinformation! You blackmail them into being double agents! This Penguin is bad at her job, so no wonder she loses everything within hours. It’s amazing she was able to build a crime empire in the first place!

I also dislike Bullock being a corrupt cop in the mob’s pocket. That fits Flass perfectly, but Bullock? Fuck no. Bullock IS dirty, but he’s dirty in a very acceptable way to cops. He’s brutal, he cuts corners, he’s crass, and he’s probably not above planting or concealing evidence, but selling out to the mob? Hell no. That’s just wrong. Hate that choice. Unless it’s a misdirection. This show sure does love its misdirections from what I’ve seen so far.

Batman himself is… fine. He’s Batman. He’s not a bad Batman. He’s serviceable but unremarkable. But at least he wasn’t an irritating asshole, which is more than I can say for most Batman depictions these days. I liked Bruce trying his “falling off a boat” joke a second time, delivered verbatim after it flopped with Barbara.

Barbara being a defense attorney is a rather contrived choice, one that gets to put her at odds with Harvey while also giving her a professional in with both Batman and Gordon. Essentially, she’s in the role Harvey Dent is supposed to play. Except here she’s a defense attorney, which SHOULD put her at odds with her dad, since lawyers and cops don’t seem to like one another, for SOME reason!

And Harvey, even as District Attorney, can’t be in the role of legal ally to either Gordon, because the story is far more focused on making him a mayoral candidate who throws people under the bus for his own advancement! Feh.

Anyway, that was episode one. It was fine, I guess.

The screenplay is by novelist and DC veteran Greg Rucka, so of course Renee Montoya is the central focus. Seeing her interact with Sleazebag Harvey gave me war flashbacks to what Rucka did with Renee and Harvey in the comics: setting them up with a poignant dynamic of tenuous respect and kindness before dashing it all with “Gotham Central: Half a Life,” which solidified the perception of Harvey as a creepy, obsessive stalker for a generation of fans. That version of them was very much of display here. Sigh.

Also, Lucius Fox is Bruce’s lawyer now? Why? And also, what the hell? God, poor Lucius. He starts off in comics as the guy actually running Wayne Enterprises, then “Batman: The Animated Series” makes him Bruce’s right-hand-man, then Nolan and Goyer get the inspired idea to make him the Q to Bruce’s 007, while the comics don’t know what to do with him and even make him an authoritarian to cause friction with his vigilante son, and now this? It’s such a random choice. There’s no reason why this character should be Lucius. Hell, Lucius could have shown up there WITH the lawyer and that would have been fine. As it is, it’s just weird.

That said! I overall liked this episode an awful lot! For DECADES now, I’ve wanted to see someone remember that Basil Karlo was an older actor in the classic horror movie vein (his name is literally a combination of Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff), but ever since “Batman: The Animated Series,” everyone has just tried to make him BTAS’ Matt Hagen. Like, I really liked the “One Bad Day” issue for Clayface, where he gradually killed his way to the top of Hollywood stardom, but even that was still BTAS Hagen, the Serious Actor, not Karlo, the old horror ham actor.

But with this episode, someone finally drew on the old Hollywood horror roots of the character, and they found a way to combine his shape shifting abilities into the mix! I’m so happy!

Of course, this is me, so I still have criticisms. Like, I think it was unnecessary to frame it as a mystery, because that added unnecessary complications. I know the original Clayface story was a whodunnit and you can’t do that now that everyone knows that Karlo is Clayface. I was annoyed by the misdirection of Karlo’s “death,” in part because I feared this would be another Clever Subversion, just like how the animated adaptations of “Gotham By Gaslight,” “Hush,” and “The Long Halloween” purposely went against expectations from the source material in stupid ways. Hell, they’re doing the same thing now with Penguin (“But wait, there’s a twist: she’s a woman!”) and Harvey (“But wait, there’s a twist: he’s an asshole!”), so I was afraid this Clayface would end up being someone else entirely. I was okay with it in the end, but I’m annoyed at the cheap fakeout as a plot point.

Furthermore, I don’t get why Basil disguised himself as the doctor (whose name I don’t remember) for the benefit of the actress (whose name I don’t remember) he had chained up in his hideout. What benefit was there in making her think he was the doctor? She was already aware she was a prisoner and was scared, so why the facade? It served no purpose in context, only just to misdirect the viewers.

This is what happens when you try to make something a mystery when it would work better as a thriller. Stop trying to wow audiences with twists and surprises when you could just be focusing on telling a good story. So what if everyone figures out Karlo is Clayface? Who cares! Just go with it! Let them be in on it while Batman and Montoya figure it out themselves, that’s where the tension lies! Stop trying to be clever.

Regardless, I really liked this episode. I want this to now be the canon comics origin for Basil Karlo’s Clayface. Just explain that the treatments for his face gradually affected his whole body, and boom, you’ve successfully explained how classic Slasher Clayface became Mud Monster Clayface. This is how Karlo should always be written from now on. If you really want a sensitive, angsty lug Clayface, bring back Hagen. Let Karlo be the gloriously hammy monster with aspirations of stardom.

[woodlandcreatur]

I feel like we've lost sight of the fact that... Hillary Clinton was just a profoundly unlikeable person.

- she was practically the textbook definition of "establishment, career politician"

- her husband was, up until 2016, the most widely disliked president in recent American history

- the perfectly timed email scandal didn't help

All this is to say... I don't think misogyny is what did it.

She was a boring candidate with some serious baggage and wasn't offering much of anything. She didn't lose because "America isn't ready for a woman," she lost because she was a uniquely bad choice.

Meanwhile Kamala pretty damn good record as mayor, despite her judicial evils, and to top it all off: she feels like a human when she speaks.

[qqueenofhades]

Once you get offline, Biden’s doing ok with everyone but Republicans and racists. Unfortunately, that’s a pretty big voting bloc, but it should be manageable. More unfortunately, Harris is. Not popular. With anyone. Like, we’re talking Dan “To not have a mind is being very wasteful” Quayle levels of dissing. You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but enough women and people of color have jumped on the “Kamala’s letting The Team down” bandwagon that there’s got to be more to it than this. Any thoughts?

Yeah, uh, I don't think that's fair OR accurate, and deserves quite a bit more reflection and pushback than is implied here (since your question frames it as thinking there MUST be something wrong with her and invites me to expand on it). First off, I am not comfortable comparing the first female vice president (AND female VP of color) to empty suit Dan Quayle, and especially when there's such a disparity in their background, social perception, and accomplishments, not to mention their role in the administration. So:

"You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but -- " Okay, but how much? Are we actually assigning a weight to that and taking it into consideration, or hand-waving it aside in search of the "real" cause? Online Leftists are already disposed to irrationally dislike Kamala because of the "she's a cop!!!" business that went around during the primaries, which was likewise inaccurate and misleading, but showed how women, especially women of color, are often treated in white leftist spaces (including by leftist-identifying women). That very much WAS down to sexism, racism, and perceiving her as "shrill" or "there's just something I don't like about her." Okay, what is that? WHAT is the thing you don't like about her? Would you notice it in a male politician? Would you critique it in a male politician? If the answer is any part unclear, this needs more work and is in fact reflective of that dynamic, whether or not anyone is aware of it or thinks that's the reason why.

No, seriously. If someone professes that they "just don't like" Kamala or "there's something about her that rubs me the wrong way" or whatever else, my immediate next question would be "Why? What don't you like about her?" And keep drilling down through whatever excuses about "unlikeability" or "personality" or whatever else is offered. If this can be persuasively articulated in a way that a) exposes a substantive policy reason, b) can be differentiated from what any male vice president or other person in her position would do or what should be expected of them, and c) isn't just about "offputting vibes," then sure, we can have a discussion about that. Otherwise, yeah. That's not convincing me that it's anything other than the constant, long-running, ever-present discomfort with seeing a powerful and accomplished woman of color, who started her career prosecuting sex criminals, was the first Black woman in the Senate, and is now the first female vice president, actually state her issues and own her role.

"Enough women and people of color have jumped on the 'Kamala Is Letting the Team Down' bandwagon that there must be -- " Really? Must there? First of all, it's damn near impossible to find any Online Leftist who's willing to give Biden accurate credit for his accomplishments -- see the "Biden is bad and uninspiring and anti-trans but we should I guess vote for him anyway" rhetoric which is the closest they can possibly get to acknowledging it. (None of which is actually true!) When that's the case with the top of the ticket, it's orders of magnitude easier to project that irrational dislike and distortion onto "shrill" or "dislikable" Kamala. So who are these "women and people of color" who don't like Kamala? Are they in the room with us right now? Do they actually care about/vote for the Democrats, support their policy accomplishments, and realistically understand the progress that's been made and what remains to be done, or do they want to use Kamala as yet another convenient stick to beat the Democrats (since they won't give them accurate credit to start with?)

Even if this was true, sexism and racism somehow magically wasn't a factor (which uh, it is not) and Kamala had some terrible personality defect that was unique to her and her alone and not any of the far worse vice presidents there have been in the last 20 years alone: what is this kind of question intended to accomplish? Are we supposed to fear that by voting for Biden, we might vote for Kamala as well? Well, she was on the ticket last time too, and they won the election. Don't know what else to tell you.

[florydaax]

The Sims 3 - Stuff Pack Legacy (Lepacy Extended)

Hey, everyone! I completed the Lepacy Challenge recently, but I love my family so much and I want to keep playing with them. That's why I made this challenge! You can play this after you've completed Lepacy but you can also play this challenge on its own! The challenge is inspired by the nine stuff packs. You don't necessarily need the stuff packs to play this. The different generations are inspired by the themes of the packs. Stuff packs also didn't come with any new gameplay so you're not missing anything if you don't have them! This challenge is inspired by the Lepacy Challenge, where each generation is a different expansion pack, but with this challenge each generation is a different stuff pack! (Rules may be subject to change as I'm still playtesting this challenge) Generation One: High-End Loft

Traits: Computer Whiz, Dislikes Children, Party Animal, Snob, Workaholic Lifetime wish: Living in the Lap of Luxury Career: Business Rules: - Live in a loft - Have only one child - Master the guitar skill - Date your boss - Reach the top of the Business career and complete the aspiration Generation Two: Fast Lane Traits: Daredevil, Flirty, Handy, Rebellious, Vehicle Enthusiast Lifetime wish: The Tinkerer Career: Athletic Rules: - Learn to drive as a teen - Have at least 3 cars - Become best friends with your cars - Fix the Fixer-upper Car - Reach the top of the Athletic career and complete the aspiration Generation Three: Outdoor Living Traits: Artistic, Clumsy, Green Thumb, Loves the Outdoors, Natural Cook Lifetime wish: The Perfect Garden Career: Gardener Rules: - Master the cooking and gardening skills - Throw a BBQ party every week - You can only Try for Baby in a hot tub - Reach the top of the Gardener career and complete the aspiration Generation Four: Town Life Traits: Bookworm, Family-Oriented, Friendly, Mooch, Neat Lifetime wish: Super Popular Career: Education or Politician Rules: - Get a part-time job as a teen - Have 20 friends and 5 enemies - Have at least 4 kids - Get out of the house every day - Reach the top of the career and complete the aspiration Generation Five: Master Suite Traits: Commitment Issues, Flirty, Great Kisser, Heavy Sleeper, Irresistible Lifetime wish: Master Romancer Career: Spa specialist Rules: - (Risky) woohoo with different Sims every week - Accidentally get pregnant - Never get married - Complete the aspiration Generation Six: Katy Perry's Sweet Treats Traits: Childish, Insane, Loser, Natural Born Performer, Party Animal Lifetime wish: Vocal Legend Career: Singer Rules: - Live in Candyfornia (or Candy Land) - Adopt a cat (Kitty Purry) - Only eat sweets (no autumn salad allowed) - Throw a party every Friday - Be disliked by 10 Sims - Reach the top of the Singer career and complete the aspiration Generation Seven: Diesel Traits: Artistic, Diva, Grumpy, Perfectionist, Photographer's Eye Lifetime wish: Fashion Phenomenon or Home Design Hotshot Career: Stylist or Interior designer Rules: - Have triplets (you can use cheats/mods for this) - Master the photography skill - Reach the top of the career and complete the aspiration Generation Eight: 70s, 80s & 90s Traits: Flirty, Hot-Headed, Party Animal, Social Butterfly, Virtuoso Lifetime wish: Golden Tongue, Golden Fingers Career: Band Rules: - Play with the triplets, they all have a different style inspired by the pack - Each heir has to master an instrument - Form a band - Complete the aspiration with your main heir Generation Nine: Movie Traits: Ambitious, Brave, Charismatic, Dramatic, Star Quality Lifetime wish: Superstar Actor Career: Film Rules: - Play in 3 different worlds (western, horror and super hero themed) - Live your Sims' life like it's a movie - Reach the top of the Film career and complete the aspiration

[luvtonique]

I just woke up and I chose violence let's go.

Look all I'm sayin' is

If you're gonna attack AI generative art

You should, for the same reason, attack Toby Fox.

The reason I've seen the most for people not liking AI is that it's not "Real art" and that it "Takes jobs from artists" and that it "Steals from other artists"

Well, then, let's talk about how Hopes and Dreams by Toby Fox uses fake Violins to mimic a symphony orchestra. Toby could have hired a real orchestra but he used a fake one and y'all came in your drawers over it.

Why'd nobody ever lift a finger to cover social media in how Toby Fox doesn't deserve to make money because his song "Undertale" uses a fake guitar that sounds just like a real one? He could have hired a musician to play guitar but he didn't! That cost a REAL guitar player a job, didn't it?

And how come when it was found out that Toby Fox stole entire lietmotifs from other games like Kirby n shit, y'all had like 600,000,000 excuses to defend him?

I don't dislike Toby I think he's amazing, like 100/10, one'a the brightest examples of a success story of all time and one of the nicest most pure-hearted people on earth who made two of my favorite games of all time and a ton of my favorite music. Spider Dance has been my ring tone for like 8 years.

I'm just saying, the literal same reasons I see people attacking AI gen art is shit that Toby does, all of it, and y'all worship Toby for it but attack artists.

And neither here nor there, but hear me out?

Y'all will say you're in defense of artists keeping their jobs and their livelihoods which is so very noble of you, but if an artist draws shortstacks that are just a little too short, or if an artist utilizes AI, or if an artist draws Rose Quartz skinny, or if an artist draws Sans and Frisk getting a little too Frisky, or if an artist votes for Trump, or if an artist says a dirty word you don't like, or if an artist draws a black person that looks just a little bit too stereotypical, or if an artist draws a lesbian character getting fucked, or if an artist doesn't believe in gender identities, or if an artist doesn't put trans characters in their graphic novel, or if an artist makes a sexy character with butt-jiggle the protagonist of their video game; Y'ALL ARE COMPLETELY OKAY WITH SAYING THAT ARTIST SHOULDN'T BE MAKING MONEY, AND BANDWAGONING A HATEMONGERING BRIGADE AGAINST THEM.

Or in the Sans and Frisk case: PUT SEWING NEEDLES INSIDE OF COOKIES AND GIVE THEM TO THE ARTIST WHO DREW IT, PUTTING THEM IN THE HOSPITAL.

Listen

Spare me this "We hate AI because we care about the jobs of artists" shit, you lying scoundrels. You don't care about my job! You've tried to cancel me like 500 goddamn times, got my Patreon frozen twice, got my PayPal frozen over 100 times even right in the middle of conventions, flooded my stream chat and spammed the N-word in chat trying to get my Twitch banned, flooded my Discord multiple times with links to CP trying to get my Discord banned, and you have entire Discord servers literally called things like "Jay is an asshole" and "The We Hate Jay Society" (YEAH I KNOW YOU FUCKERS EXIST, HI, HAVE FUN SCREENCAPPING THIS).

My artistic career has been under fire for the past 12 years because I draw things y'all disagree with, have opinions you don't like, and have family members who vote for politicians you think are the boogeyman that's the cause of all your problems (and haven't disowned those family members). With all due respect, when I hear "We hate AI because we believe in fair wages for artists and want to protect the jobs of artists" I just wanna strangle your lying ass.

You hate AI because it's popular to hate AI.

AI is like a prosthetic robot arm that helps you carry the groceries, and disabled people like myself (rheumatoid arthritis) benefit from its uses greatly (such as being able to draw backgrounds much easier which has greatly improved my art and INCREASED MY COMMISSION REVENUE DUE TO MY ART QUALITY IMPROVING [But y'all don't care that AI helps artists earn more money, you hate AI because you claim it's hurting artists' ability to earn money]), but you're so hung up on people using the robot arm instead of their real arms that you think you're some crusader against injustice.

You aren't.

You're just looking for reasons to attack people, it's what you do. I've been dealing with y'all looking for any goddamn reason to attack someone that you can muster for the last 12 years, hell even before that I dealt with you types. You just want to hate, you want to be prejudiced so fucking bad that you look for literally any reason you can possibly find to make some vaguepost about how much you hate an artist and post it to Reddit, and then when you get called out, get so surprised that I found your bitch ass that you start pretending you didn't mean any ill will, and start pretending that you're someone else in the most pathetic attempt to dodge blame I've ever seen.

[Context: The OP of this post accidentally revealed who they are on Tumblr, and then when I called them out on Tumblr, they pretended they were someone else because they were scared I was gonna out them on Tumblr and they tried pathetically to cover their ass, and even politely said "I never wanted to garner hate against you" when they literally posted "I hate the way he draws women" on r/mendrawingwomen and flooded the comment section (mostly now deleted) with how "disgusting of a person" I am, while I was in the comments politely giving context to the shit he was saying about me, and he started getting furious when other people were liking my art and agreeing with me instead of him. I have like 600 screencaps of all the cringe this guy spewed, but I'm not gonna post it all because it's tangential anyway. Case in point? This guy's blog is absolutely covered with how much he hates artists for drawing things he doesn't like, and he regularly posts about how AI is taking jobs from artists. Not gonna out his blog, but that's who he is. A shining example of exactly what I'm talking about. "I hate AI because it takes jobs from artists!" "THIS MAN-THING DRAWS WOMEN IN A WAY I DON'T LIKE AND HE'S A DISGUSTING PERSON, EVERYONE JOIN ME IN HATING HIM AND TRYING TO RUIN HIS REPUTATION AND THEN WE CAN CELEBRATE WHEN HE LOSES HIS JOB!!!"]

Like, y'all can sit there and act like you're defending me and artists like me all you want, you're liars. You're boldfaced fucking liars. You are disgusting. It's completely pathetic watching you attack a tool that can be used to improve our art, and claim it's in defense of the authenticity of our art and the continued financial stability of our artistic careers. Fucking give me a break.

You're looking for people who say positive things about AI art so you can attack them and feel justified because it's popular to attack them.

All while sitting there and gladly swallowing the cum of any musician who makes amazing music with synths, fake symphony instruments and autotune.

"We care about the jobs of artists."

Yeah.

Long as those artists fall in line with your opinions and only draw things that agree with said opinions, right?

Wouldn't wanna care about the jobs of "problematic" artists who draw "offensive" stuff or vote for politicians you don't like.

Final note: This isn't even an attack against any political opinions or activism or anything like that, but I'm being realistic here because these are the people I see brigading against AI art. It's not me saying those people are dumb for having their opinions or political standpoints or being activists for their beliefs, it's me saying those people are the ones who are constantly attacking AI art in "defense of artists," while in the same breath attacking artists for not sharing their political standpoints or also being activists for the same causes. If you truly, truly cared about the livelihood of artists, you'd stop attacking artists' livelihood for disagreeing with you. Or for that matter: Any reason. Stop attacking artists' livelihood, or stop pretending you care about it. Be consistent, at least.

[pranklinfierce]

You seem to know a lot about James Buchanan. Do you know why politicians hated him or had low hopes for him before his presidency? Like I already know that jackson hated him and even sent him to Russia so he is far away from him as possible💀 but why the hate?

Thank you so much for asking, @opalite-illusions, love to get an excuse to make these types of posts. They're so fun for me. And sorry for taking so long to reply. I tried to revisit the Klein biography but was so busy this past week that I didn't accomplish as much as I intended. But I think I can give you a decent answer from what I know (and more specifics within his early life.)

I believed I've talked before about a trait that endeared Buchanan to some. His eyes' unique defect (one being nearsighted and the other being farsighted, to my understanding) made it necessary for him to tilt his head and shift his focus entirely upon the person before him, creating the impression that he took a particular interest in the one with whom he was engaging.

Some didn't like him because they would learn that their experience of intimacy was far more of an invention on their end than an actual connection, and feel a sense of rejection. But that is hardly the main factor that caused many to dislike him. It's very easy to pin down why some were polarizing (ex. Jackson's hot temper and extremities) but Buchanan, being a subtler man, is a subtler case.

The reasons are both political and personal. Buchanan certainly had a vanity to him. A perfect example is how he behaved in his college years. Dickinson, the college he attended, was incredibly small and underdeveloped, and the student body, it appears, would mock classmates on the straight and narrow. Buchanan, overcompensating, perhaps by a need to fit in with his peers or the necessity to socially survive college, engaged in misconduct, the severity of which resulted in his expulsion. He begged for readmission, which he attained after enlisting the help of his mentor Reverend John King (he also lived on a King street in Lancaster, this name follows him), but was, naturally, still denied the privilege of speaking at his graduation (which he was elected to do by his fraternity [of sorts, I don't remember exactly what student organization it was.]) His rejection was natural... because he had been expelled(!) He made a fuss, demanding a compromise upon the issue and ultimately getting to speak but not as valedictorian.

This event would foreshadow in a few ways his future political career: Influence from others inducing his conduct, an unbecoming ambition and vanity, and, somewhat, his jump for a compromise.

Politically, he was "wishy-washy," as my friend puts it. Interesting to know, he was raised a staunch Federalist. However, as his career developed as a lawyer in Lancaster, his response to disassociating with his party (that he was differing from increasingly) was to double down and give a "July 4th speech"* that lambasted the Democratic-Republicans. His disagreements with Federalists in some areas caused some Federalist discontent with him as well. For a moment, he felt opposition from both parties. He was elected to Congress as a representative for the growing Federalist/D-R amalgamate faction of Pennsylvania. This history carried into political life as a Democrat, something that, indeed, as you mention in your ask, caused Jackson to dislike him (he did not think he was loyal, even trying to implicate him in the Corrupt Bargain. The accusation was received with resistance from Buchanan and a weak apology. My opinion is that the Corrupt Bargain was hardly real and Buchanan didn't have much to do with any election thievery... but would Jackson have cared lol?) Buchanan was ambitious, uncertain and, personally, I struggle to call him a Jacksonian Democrat. Naturally, those political and personal features made Jackson uncharitable to him. When Polk made Buchanan Secretary of State (the event that triggered Jackson to tell him the North Pole thing ["I would have sent him to the North Pole if we had kept a minister there,") his means of subsequent course correction was to direct Buchanan's power away from where his ambitions led. Buchanan was unhappy. When Buchanan was involved in policy, as he was with some questions of Manifest Destiny, he could express support on an issue (i.e. Canada expansion) one day and reverse it the next time he was engaged on the issue.

After having sought the presidency repeatedly, he was finally nominated by his party. The only reason that the convention was able to settle upon him was because had been the minister to the United Kingdom during the Pierce presidency and, though he faced opposition for his involvement in the failed Ostend Manifesto, he was thus out of the country during Bleeding Kansas and the debate around the Lecompton Constitution, etc. (which he would then go on to have a horrible opinion about lol! Just like Pierce!) I said this all without mentioning that he was also a Doughface. He was absolutely a compromise candidate for a country that was so split that nearly no faction would be sufficiently pleased by anyone. The country was seeing record low voter turnouts in these decades, the country was electing presidents it was unhappy with before they even had the chance to screw up the office. After all, Lincoln, his renowned successor, was so divisive that his election was the straw that broke the camel (Union's) back (unity.)

I think that about covers what I can broadly tell you. His personality could be vain and ambitious, people could be unsure where he stood both in terms of relationships and on political issues, and he was disagreeable to Jackson's interests (in a Jacksonian era.) He also certainly had the capacity for deception (see: Dred Scott.)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Cox at American Storylines:

Watching the clips from Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, what struck me more than anything else is how utterly unrecognizable the Republican Party has become under Trump. A party that once stressed the importance of honesty and integrity is gone. The rally speakers engaged in unrestrained vitriol and bigotry.  It’s not all happening on stage either.  The Washington Post interviewed Craig Dumas, a T-shirt vendor at one of Trump’s campaign events. His best seller? “Say No to the Hoe.” Variations of this message can be found at Trump rallies around the country. When the Post reporters talked with Brian Howard, a Trump rally-attendee, about his “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go” T-shirt, he replied: “We can joke. We can wear crude shirts. Everybody here is having a good time.” 

Hilarious.  How much is Trump to blame for the type of nasty, derogatory rhetoric that has become a mainstay of American politics? I would argue more than a little.   But worse than the normalization of casual cruelty is the way Trump has subverted the importance of character in politics. In our late summer poll, we found that 44 percent of Americans believe he committed sexual assault. A Marquette Law School poll conducted over the summer found that 62 percent of voters believe Trump is corrupt. Only 41 percent of voters believe Trump could be described as honest and trustworthy. Even a quarter of Republicans do not believe Trump is honest.  Most Americans who are supporting Trump recognize that he has deep personality flaws, that he is not a good role model. The central animating question of the Trump era has always been: How can so many Americans support Trump for the country’s highest office when so many Americans have such a low opinion of his character? 

All Politicians Are Corrupt and Dishonest 

From the very beginning of Trump’s political career, he has sought to position himself as a brash outsider against a corrupt, effete establishment. At the same time, he never promised to restore honor and dignity to the presidency. Rather, he promised to wade into the swamp and fight dirty. Plenty of Americans were receptive to the message.  It’s not hard to see why.  Trust in government has plummeted over the past few decades. Part of the reason this happened is that Americans increasingly view their elected leaders as unethical. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. Twenty years ago, only about one in four Americans rated the honesty of members of Congress as low or very low. Most Americans rated the honesty of their elected officials as average, and one in five rated it as above average. Today, most Americans do not believe members of Congress are honest or ethical. In 2023, seventy percent of the public rated the honesty and integrity of congressmembers as low or very low. That’s a massive change and it has profound implications on the voting decisions Americans make. If elected officials are viewed as universally dishonest, then integrity is no longer a useful metric in assessing their worthiness for public office. 

Who benefits the most from this? The candidates who are most ethically compromised. Officials who engage in the most egregious acts of public corruption. 

[...]

Polarized Voters Want Pugilistic Politicians 

It's been well documented that Americans have become more polarized over the past couple decades. This has been especially evident in the negative views partisans have about those across the aisle—a phenomenon political scientists define as affective polarization. Republicans and Democrats have come to dislike each other much more in the modern era.  A couple years ago I wrote about the dramatic change occurring among partisans during the Trump presidency. Republicans and Democrats not only believed their opponents were simply wrong or misguided, but that they presented a threat to the nation. In 2017, only about half of Democrats and Republicans believed their opposition represented a threat to the country—a worryingly high number. By 2020, three-quarters of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of Democrats said the other side posed a threat to the country. 

More recent polling suggests things may be getting worse. A new poll by Johns Hopkins University found that nearly half of Republicans and Democrats believe the opposing party is “downright evil.” And a recent NBC News survey found that 8 in 10 Democrats and Republicans said their opponents are so dangerous they pose a threat that would destroy America as we know it.  The growing hostility that partisans feel towards their opponents has altered the way voters respond to deficiencies in their party’s candidates. As partisan animosity toward their political opponents grows, Democrats and Republicans become less concerned about the behavior of their own leaders. It becomes easier to overlook disqualifying attributes, because the political alternative is always worse.   It has also led partisans to prioritize candidates who would go after their opponents. If character no longer matters amidst heightened partisan hostilities, an ability and willingness to destroy the other side does. Trump excels at this type of combative politics. He relishes it. 

The real tragedy is that more Americans have come to believe that honesty and integrity don’t matter. Trump has convinced many Americans that being a good guy in politics is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. It’s a sign of weakness or capitulation. An unsurprising result is that more Americans discount a candidate’s character when making political choices. In 2011 most Americans believed that elected officials who engaged in immoral acts in their personal lives would not behave ethically in carrying out their public duties. Now, most Americans believe the opposite. The shift is far more pronounced among Republicans, but it’s not exclusive to them.   Whether he wins or loses, Trump’s legacy will be forever wrapped up in his bizarre, belittling and bullying behavior, and how he transformed our expectations for political leaders. When Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic, talked with Jared Kushner about Trump’s behavior, he received a startling reply. “No one can go as low as the president,” Kushner said. “You shouldn’t even try.” It was a compliment. 

Daniel Cox of American Storylines wrote a stark reminder that character and morals were jettisoned with the rise of Donald Trump in GOP politics.

[bg-brainrot]

Some of my AstarionxRogue!Tav headcannons of stuff I'll probably never write about:

They never officially get married, but they basically are. They get matching rings, profess their love, and promise to be together until one of them dies. Rogue!Tav just isn't interested in a wedding. Plus Astarion and them will throw plenty of parties with or without a wedding.

They never have children. Neither are very kids oriented (and would likely struggle to keep a child alive between them), but they definitely take care of Yenna for a while before getting her settled with someone who's less danger-prone. They likely also are down to babysit for their friends, as long their friends are cool with their child having a newfound love of crime.

They do get a massive mansion somewhere (or multiple places). They have accumulated a vast amount of ill-gotten wealth and, once they're comfortably settled, they use it. Their houses are extensively furnished and filled with portraits and statues (many of Astarion).

They visit all of their friends sooner or later. They especially enjoy their trip to Waterdeep, not that Astarion would admit it. And, while it was crazy and dangerous, Astarion liked that he didn't have to worry about the sun in Avernus.

They do eventually find Astarion a daylight ring (if not, Gale would have had an enchanter friend make one given enough time). They still live a largely crepuscular schedule due to the nature of their work, but they spend some days just sunbathing like a pair of lizards.

Astarion and Tav start out their post-game life in the Underdark. Astarion puts a lot of focus into teaching the more inexperienced vampires how to live and establishes some leadership before they move on.

This inspires him to briefly consider new possible career paths, including a politician or other city leadership. Tav reminds him he's still not a fantastic liar, so he decides to focus on his talents: embroidery and stealing.

His side project is investigating vampirism, all in the hopes of bettering the lives of the spawn in the Underdark.

Rogue!Tav would still be an assassin, taking the occasional mark from The Guild (or equivalent of whichever city they're in). Astarion dislikes the structure of The Guild so he never joins, but appreciates that Tav has a hobby.

As much as I love Tav grows old stories, I don't think that's how their story ends. Rogue!Tav would have one of two possible ends: they would die as dramatically as possible, likely nowhere near Astarion. It would be brutal and sad and when Astarion found out, he wouldn't believe it for a while. Or they would use the Rite of the Timeless Body that Jaheira gave them and live an unnaturally long life with Astarion. All before a different bloody death (I don't think Rogue!Tav would sit still long, so danger really would come around every corner).

Also, since they promised Jaheira when they took the scroll, Tav feels obligated to go save the city every time it needs saving and drags Astarion along too. They're the reluctant heroes, but win every time. Sometimes some of the old gang comes by to help!

Last but not least, while the two fight, they may even take breaks from each other, and even spend weeks apart at a time for jobs or visiting friends, their love remains. After dozens of reunions, each as passionate as the last, Tav finally gets over their fear that Astarion was jumping into something with them too fast after finding his freedom or that he hadn't had the chance to explore. Astarion, for his part, really just doesn't believe anyone else can be everything Tav is to him, no one he's met even comes close.

[albentelisa]

Hi What's your headcanons between Jim and Claire's Parents

Hi! Oh, it's an interesting question, for sure!

We all know that Jim's relationship with Claire's parents started horribly and it's easy to understand why they initially disliked Jim (they had no context, and Jim seemed to be a kid who wrecked their house, not to mention the mess his clones caused later).

However, I feel that once Ophelia and Javier learned the truth, they warmed up to Jim. After all, he's a good guy and someone most parents would approve of as a date for their kid.

I can imagine that Javier could possibly teach Jim how to cook some of Claire's favorite dishes (I think Javier is the one cooking in his family). Though I bet Javier cringes a lot while listening to Jim's atrocious Spanish.

As for Ophelia, I believe that she sees in Jim many traits she appreciates in people - decisiveness, determination, responsibility, and politeness. I feel she suggests the career of a politician to Jim more than once.

Anyway, I feel that eventually, both start to see Jim as their family and will gladly give their daughter a blessing (in the second timeline or in an AU when Jim and Claire reach that point of their relationship).

[beckyh2112]

👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀

Palpatine could sense a child watching him.

The senator from Naboo was strolling the… palace gardens, according to his Mandalorian guide. Palpatine had opinions about both the use of 'palace' to describe the fortress in Keldabe and the use of 'gardens' to describe the bare courtyards. He was, however, both a career politician and a Sith; he kept such opinions to himself and simply smiled genially.

That reaction didn't make the Mandalorians like him any more than they already did, but their dislike was more rooted in his being the senior Republic representative at this farce of a trade negotiation and very little to do with him personally.

He turned his head towards the watcher. The child stood in the shadow of the wall, squinting slightly as he looked at Palpatine, confusion rolling off him in waves. He couldn't be more than four or five. One of the Mand'alor's grandsons from the looks of it, and the Republic delegation had been warned away from approaching the boys.

They could hardly object to the boy approaching him.

Palpatine smiled. "Hello there, young one."

The boy waved tentatively. Then, because loved and cared-for children were usually curious creatures, he wandered towards Palpatine.

"Are you supposed to be away from your caretakers?" He asked the boy.

The boy nodded rapidly. "They said I could."

Lie, the Force murmurred, not that Palpatine needed the Force to know that. He smiled at the boy, the grandfatherly smile he'd perfected long ago. "How kind of them."

"My name's Fox," the boy informed him. "What's yours?"

[hondacivictrucknuts]

Assorted thoughts on Kamala Harris.

I voted for her in 2016, in the California Senate primary. At the time I was hanging out with BLM activists, and Harris seemed like she had potentially interesting ideas about race and crime and how to improve the situation in realistic ways (I still love my BLM friends but they have never had realistic ideas for how to make things better).

She does not seem to be corrupt or crooked in any traditional sense. Per WSJ:

Harris and Emhoff together earned $450,299 in 2023, according to a jointly filed tax return. That consists of the $218,784 Harris reported earning in wages as vice president and $174,994 Emhoff made as a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Around $6,000 came in from royalties on Harris’s books. They made $50,603 in taxable interest on bank accounts and other investments. The couple’s income is significantly lower than it was before Harris took office as vice president. Emhoff, who was a partner at the corporate law firm DLA Piper, left the practice in August 2020 before Harris was inaugurated. He made more than $1.2 million in partnership income at DLA Piper in 2020. Harris was also making more from her two books published in 2019. She has profited a total of $749,484 since 2020.

The couple has retirement assets and bank account balances worth somewhere between $3.6 million and $7.36 million. A significant portion of Harris’s and Emhoff’s net worth is held in retirement accounts, according to government ethics forms.

I.e. she and her husband have been moderately successful and are living within their resulting means.

The childless cat lady thing: I do generally agree with J.D. Vance that childless people have less stake in society and their political opinions should count for less, but it doesn't apply to every individual. Note that Joe Biden, who was a thoroughly decent and generally honest man, seems to have committed his most corrupt acts in support of his prodigal son.

She's probably of middling intellect. She went to law school at UC Hastings, where the median LSAT of a recent class was 160, about the 75th percentile. Recall that the last woman to run against Trump went to Yale Law, where the median LSAT was 173, or the 99th percentile. I don't know anything about law school histories but from what I know of the UC system in general, Hastings Law was probably worse when Harris went there. Will this matter? Other than Joe Biden and John McCain, all the presidents in my memory and everybody who ran against them were top tier intellects. Running for president and being president requires one to speak to broad audiences about many complex issues, and that's a lot easier when you understand the complex issues deeply.

The enthusiasm for her does not seem durable. So far it looks like a combination of orange man bad, relief that the candidate is someone other than Biden of the June 27 debate, and lingering vestiges of "black girl magic" from ca. 2018.

What is her position on Israel and Hamas? Sooner or later she's going to have to make that clear. That she hasn't yet alienated either the Jewish or jihadi wing of the Democratic Party seems to be mostly the result of not taking any firm stance in public.

She is a fierce prosecutor, and in her brief Senate career was best known for her questioning at hearings. I think this plays into what Black men tend to dislike about Black women, and will end up hurting her with that demographic.

Trump's nickname for her, "Border Czar Harris," is brilliant in typical Trump form. First, it's original, to her if not to him. Second, it frames her as an incompetent cop, while letting the listener do most of the work themselves. Third, even if it's not quite true, she can't argue with it because the reality is worse, i.e. that she was not actually that involved in the so-called Biden-Harris administration's immigration policy.

As a national politician, her biggest issue is abortion. What is the substantive policy there in a post-Dobbs nation? Even if she got lucky and Clarence Thomas died or something, it doesn't seem like Roberts is eager to re-instate Roe v. Wade via some other case. That leaves legislation, which Congress was unable ever to do despite a half-century of platform planks about "codifying Roe." I don't know how they could even do that now under the 10th Amendment, but what do I know.

Her fundraising ads on YouTube are somewhat scolding: "today, not tomorrow,..." Compare J.D. Vance saying If you can't afford to donate because of the Biden economy, that's fine, take care of your family. I guess it's working for now but can it last 3+ months?