#she can develop a meaningful sense of agency and then also assert it

[whetstonefires]

i mean i was mad because they set up her using her speed-mastery of the rulebook, in the bit that led up to her getting conned into nearly marrying a villain, but then during the story climax she did not get to actually use that for any real advantage.

even though the other bad guy was breaking rules and she had a bunch of rule-enforcers right there, whom she could have used for something to try to avoid sacrificing anybody. she could have made an attempt!

instead she finally asserted her agency and Being The Boss status by deciding to sacrifice Earth and her own life for her loved ones, and telling her subordinates to stay out of it.

and then afterward, having already surrendered, she changed her mind about that, so late that the only reason it didn't get her and her family and the planet earth all killed

(because if she died, and they hadn't personally murdered her, the title to the planet reverted to the other two assholes)

was that her flying dog boyfriend and the cops, her theoretical subordinates, ultimately didn't listen to her, did their own thing the one time she gave a direct order, and saved her ass.

and like, it's all very well to be worth saving to someone, that's a good angle, and in a different plot in the same fucked-up setting their ignoring her orders to save her could have been a high point in itself, with more setup.

but a story that repeatedly reinforces that the female lead is wrong to attempt to do anything, especially make decisions about her own life, was very frustrating to watch.

i got no catharsis on the repeated hammering of the theme of jupiter being helpless and feeling trapped, because her smacking Eddie Redmayne in the face in a context where it accomplished nothing useful didn't address the patterns that actually distressed me.

so i walked out of the theater all knotted up, feeling narratively blueballed.

Jupiter Ascending: *is literally entirely about how Jupiter reacts and the choices she makes in the scenario she finds herself in*

Critics:  Waah waah Jupiter lacks agency.

She has to choose whether or not to save the Earth at great personal cost and she lacks AGENCY?  Did Harry Potter “lack agency” because Hagrid told him he was a wizard?  Put a girl in a showpiece dress once and that’s it, it’s over, no more decisions for her?

I think prokopetz is totally right when he says people are failing to read this movie as a “lost princess” story.  If you want to put this story in a literary and cultural context you have to read it as a princess story.  

Listen up, people, here’s what makes princesses so special and princess stories important: Princesses are simultaneously perfect objects and powerful agents.  “Princess” is a culture hack for women.  If we have to live in a world that’s unequal, then at least we will carve out this one niche sheltered from most of the misogynistic shit women get pelted with.  How and why “princess” and fairy tales about princesses turned into this dual space of desirability and power is long and mostly lost to the mists of time, and has a lot to do with women writing novels in 17th century France and Charles Perrault being a fuckhead, but let’s not get into that.  Let’s just take it as read:  Princesses are special.

Women get objectified a lot, which literally means, “turned into objects”.  We’re defined entirely by the judgments of other people: Are we attractive, do we behave pleasingly, do we have the right attributes and do the right things.  We collude with this to some degree because we want people to like us, because we’re a social species that still instinctively fears abandonment as a precursor to death.  But most of the time the patriarchy makes us compromise: to be good objects, it makes us give up our agency, our ability to make decisions and be actors in our own lives.  To be attractive often means being malnourished, weak, and physically incapacitated.  To be liked means to be meek, mild, and powerless.  The right things we’re supposed to do are let other people make all our decisions for us and not inconvenience people.

Princesses, by some miracle, exploit a loophole in the patriarchy where we can be both.  A princess can both be seen as good, beautiful, wise, deserving of loyalty and devotion, and loved by everyone who sees her, and make her own decisions.  She can act out, run wild, escape the palace, make mistakes, choose the wrong guy, do anything she likes, and still be a princess.  The only thing she did to become a princess was be born, and since the title isn’t “earned”, she can’t lose it by bad behaviour or inadequacy.  It is an inherent state of worthiness.  That is some powerful shit, my friends.

Yes, Jupiter is surrounded by people who suddenly love her and want to defend her and dedicate their lives to her–but that doesn’t take away her right to make her own decisions.  She’s the boss.  She doesn’t have to go it alone and fight all her own battles, although she can if she has to, because women aren’t buried in the toxic masculinity bullshit about being a “lone hero”; her life gets to be rich in meaningful relationships without compromising her.

[morsking]

is shirou a mary sue? the guy is universally well liked, cooks like a pro at 17, has the most op power from all fate (and arguably one of the most cool powers on media), nothing ever happens to him on the true/canon path of each route, he does many stupid things but no one cares 5 minutes later, other times like in salter vs rider he is just a tactical genius out of nowhere

he is not.

shirou is well-liked but he isn't particularly popular. he is known at school for being helpful and handy but otherwise not that many people are aching to get to know him or involve him in their lives. most people only know shirou very superficially. he is not sought after as a person, only as a handy man. there's a really neat scene at the beginning of hf1 where people are talking about shirou in the dojo and see that while he's earnest, hard-working, and talented, he's a bit odd and intense and that makes him a little difficult to approach casually. the only people who really like him are those who sit down and actually spend time with him. apart from the heroines of the story with whom he has time to develop a romantic bond, you don't see other girls falling head over heels for him. in fact, in hollow ataraxia the homurahara trio and mitsuzuri are quick to write him off as someone they are vehemently not interested in romantically whatsoever.

he only cooks like a pro because he had to teach himself to cook since he was 8. it's vital to understand that since kiritsugu became increasingly disabled and was utterly incapable of living as a normal human being, shirou was forced to grow up well before he was ready to take care of his adoptive father. he learned to cook, do the dishes, do the laundry, and clean the house because there were no other real adults in the house. shirou's domestic usefulness didn't come out of nowhere, it's a set of skills he took on out of necessity and came at the expense of his emotional growth.

shirou's power also isn't op. it's stated multiple times in the story how difficult it is for him to tap into it. he's not a natural mage with strong magical circuits, and neither does he have any real "useful" magical alignments that would make it easy for him to use conventional magecraft. every training session shirou has is a life-threatening act where he pushes his body and mind to the utmost limit for the low chance he might succeed at strengthening or projecting something. whenever he grabs hold of an ability that elevates his combat skills, it's either a) done with saber's help in the fate route, b) acquired as his soul inherits experience from his proximity to archer in ubw and receiving mana from rin, or c) obtained at the expense of the integrity of his mind and body as archer's arm starts to supplant his existence in heaven's feel. and even then, there's limits to what he can trace and project. he can't trace divine constructs normally as seen with ea, and his projections eat through his mana. think about what happens in heaven's feel too. every time he projects something with archer's arm he leaps closer to death because he can't handle the strain.

to say nothing ever happens to him in canon is also disingenuous. he doesn't die in a permanent sense, but take a moment to consider the amount of mental and physical pain he suffers that forces him to confront something about himself and change. did "nothing" happen when he faced gilgamesh and heracles with saber? is growing closer to her to find the best way to help her assert her personhood "nothing"? did "nothing" happen when he fought archer? is realizing the truth of your ideals and grasping the resolve to realize them anyway in a healthier and more self-aware manner "nothing"? did "nothing" happen when he fought heracles, saber alter, and kotomine? is saving your loved ones and claiming your life as your own after years of not seeing yourself as a human being to protect those dear to you so they too learn to love and accept themselves "nothing"?

take a moment to consider in what ways shirou is stupid that aren't contradicted by him being smart in others. shirou is socially inept and utterly incapable of asking for help because he is a traumatized teenager who doesn't know what a normal life is. he has few friends. he survived a fire. he is constantly trying to make up for being unable to rescue anyone in the calamity that destroyed his childhood. he constantly jumps in front of danger to save others for that very reason and refuses help because he doesn't want others to get hurt because of him until he learns to overcome that fear of being destroyed and seeing others be destroyed. he is dumb at being a person because he's never let himself be one. he is smart in a fight because he's at least been able to process his stress and trauma in a way that helps him rationalize his way out of a crisis.

i feel the need to stress that a protagonist having special qualities fit for the narrative isn't them being a mary sue. it's them simply being a main character with agency, a main character that is engaging and interesting. how boring do you think shirou and the story would be if he was really a shit-ass mcnobody with no talents, personality, qualities, or meaningful connections to the setting? he'd be no different from every other harem protag the cishet male audience can use as a self-insert. he is supposed to subvert ideas of masculinity by being domestic. he challenges conventional ideas of heroism by showing how his ideals are flawed and how important it is that he self-actualize.

shirou faces consequences for his inaction and inexperience multiple times too. saber gets frustrated because he won't (tell her why he really won't) fight and that causes a rift in their relationship he must fix with honesty and mutual understanding. shirou's inability to protect himself from hypnotic suggestion gets him kidnapped by caster and forces archer to rescue him, and in turn their shared stubbornness elevates their conflict to deadly levels until they're forced to fight to work out their differences. heaven's feel shows you how his unwillingness to forsake who he is to properly scold sakura and save her makes the situation worse when sakura loses faith that shirou will keep his promise to her until he decides he will fulfill it for both their sakes. people do care! saber cares when her master doesn't see eye to eye with her! rin cares that shirou is too willing to throw away his own life for others! archer cares that he is at risk of becoming that which archer can't forgive himself for being! sakura cares because seeing the man she loves come home bruised and bloodied every night is wrong! illya cares because he is her only true family! rider cares because if shirou can't be sakura's ally then she's as good as dead! everyone cares because shirou has to learn to care too, and he does!

i'm going to ask you to try to engage with media without trying to uncover flaws under rigid standards like this because all it does is keep you from properly understanding what is being shown to you. you cannot hope to judge a story and its characters for all their flaws or merits if this is how you approach things.

[anneapocalypse]

[RvB 17.12] The Finale: Theogeny

For the most part, I did enjoy the finale.

Donut and Doc got a hot second of screentime together! It's a small thing but I ship them and it made me smile.

I really, really enjoyed Doc getting a moment of introspection, accepting his O'Malley side as a part of himself, and asserting agency of that side of him. And Doc swooping in to help Wash in his part of the Labyrinth was its own kind of poetic.

They're doing the thing where Donut doesn't swear again, and I still don't understand why.

The Grif siblings scene was one of the best parts, I think. Kaikaina's childhood doesn't really have anything to do with the main story, but in her case I don't think it needs to, and it opened up an avenue not only for character development but also for us to see more of her relationship with her brother. It was an interesting choice to retcon Grif's one-man draft, and I don't think it was a bad one. I think it does feel significant for Grif to have joined the army just to get away from a home situation where he felt lost and stagnant... only to have the army feel just as meaningless and stupid. Overall, this scene was a really great moment for both characters and I dig it.

I can't say I understand why Sarge is in... Normandy, instead of revisiting his old ODST days or some other real military experience of his. I liked what they were setting up with him in the previous episode, but it feels to me like they lost the thread a little. Still, I think the overall idea—that Sarge is restless for glory in battle but when he actually gets there he finds it's just imminent death—works well enough.

Simmons... definitely got the shaft in this episode. His illusion is stupid. (And if you want to get into the weeds with me, it doesn't make any sense that Simmons' fear would be 1960s-style UFO movie aliens when this is a world where aliens actually exist and there was a war with them that spanned Simmons' entire life—aliens can't be Movie Monsters representative of cultural anxieties in a society where aliens are real. Anyway, moving on.) I wouldn't care that his Labyrinth vision was stupid if everyone's was stupid, but when all the other characters got an illusion that was at least going for serious and meaningful—well, it kinda sucks for Simmons. RvB Tonal Whiplash strikes again, I guess.

I'm less disappointed about not getting Serious Character Development for Simmons than I am about not really getting any resolution for Grif and Simmons' relationship, which since the beginning of season 16 has been pretty much dropped in a hole and left there. It's fine to have Grif picking on him given that that's the basis of their entire relationship, but it's not so great to end the whole story arc that way. It's especially not great when Grif's whole arc, which hinged on his relationships with his friends, also got dropped last season, and while he had a great moment with his sister, it didn't do anything to resolve that arc. So that's a shame.

Tucker's scene was brief but it worked fine, and his character arc was already resolved as well as it could be. I'm completely find with the Labyrinth being unable to torment Caboose (even though it makes the Labyrinth a much more on-the-nose ripoff of the True Warrior test) for the simple reason that I do not need to see Caboose sad again. They definitely could have done something meaningful for Caboose in a longer season but I completely understand why they didn't have time for it here and if anyone didn't need to be tortured, lonely and sad here it was Caboose.

I said what I had to say about Carolina's Labyrinth vision last episode, though I could probably write a whole other post just about how badly the recent seasons misread Carolina's relationship with her team in Freelancer, and I might still do that. (And for the record, this episode pretty much nukes the possibility that past!Carolina is intentionally wildly distorted, as they have present!Carolina comment out loud on how accurate an imitation she was, so... heavy sighing. You didn’t believe me when I said maybe this is what Jason really thinks Carolina was like in Freelancer, did you? I hate it when I’m right.) 

But I will also say that I deeply appreciated the way Carolina's illusion resolved. As soon as Carolina said, "Leave her to me," I thought, nah, that's not how she wins. Present!Carolina is stronger than her past self because she has people she can trust. That's the lesson of the Texbot battle back in season 10, and of "Great Destroyers" in season 13. She is stronger with friends at her side.

That the finale picked up that thread and delivered was a highlight of this episode to me.

And honestly... I think it was a strong decision to follow through on Wash getting re-shot. That doesn't mean I'm confident about how Wash is going to be written in future seasons (because uh, I'm not, especially without knowing who's going to be writing them) but both as a story decision and in terms of writing a character with a disability I don't think it's a bad choice to follow through with it and have the characters resolve to handle it together, versus just erasing it.

I'm glad Lopez is alive, and I liked the way they brought him back!

It sounds as though Donut is going off to do his own thing for a while, which is unfortunate because we just got the team back together at long last, but I suspect that's probably about voice actor availability more than anything else, and we're setting up an in-universe reason for his possible absence next season—better than the alternative, as Donut just being forgotten would be particularly bad after all this.

It is kind of a shame we didn't see Huggins again. We know she's alive, but she did just kind of disappear into the plot and never return, so that's too bad. Nor did the Reds and Blues get a face-to-face resolution with the Cosmic Powers, though we did at least get to see them.

Ending with the whole gang at the hospital on Chorus getting news about Wash was about as emotionally satisfying an ending as I could imagine for this arc, and I'm happy with that—and happier still that they apparently all returned to Chorus together, instead of splitting up.

Plot-wise, however, that does raise... questions.

Because if Huggins warned the Cosmic Powers of Chrovos' plan to escape before it ever happened, and Donut didn't get zapped by Loco's machine, and they all returned to Chorus together... then they changed the timeline.

And since this change will prevent them from ever receiving the time guns and time traveling, this isn't a closed loop. By the established rules of time travel, this is just as much a paradox as saving Wash. If season 16 never happens, then Huggins can't know about the plan and warn the Cosmic Powers. Maybe the Reds and Blues having become unstuck in time and able to freely traverse the Everwhen means that now they can make changes without consequence where before they couldn't, but if that's true then they should have been able to save Wash... I don't fucking know, this plot was, is, and remains dumb as rocks.

I mean this season does literally undo all of season 16, so I supposed I should appreciate that even if it doesn't make much sense.

But I said from the start I wasn't here for the plot this season. We got some emotional resolution and I can live with that.

I still think the best thing for Red vs. Blue would be to bring the show to a close. This is as good a stopping point as we're probably going to get at this point, or they could do another anthology season and then end it (and there would be something poetic about 19 seasons, as the first season was 19 episodes long). I'm not holding my breath, but that would be my preference.

Either way, I'm glad it's finished and I'm looking forward to a good old Off Season—no stress about New Canon and new writers, just chilling and writing fic, and probably returning to my happy place of "RvB ends at 13 and everyone stays on Chorus."

Looking damn forward to that.

[comicteaparty]

June 15th-June 21st, 2019 Creator Babble Archive

The archive for the Creator Babble chat that occurred from June 15th, 2019 to June 21st, 2019.  The chat focused on the following question:

Describe your comic’s protagonist.  Why should we as an audience care about them and their goals?

Nutty (Court of Roses)

Technically I have five protagonists in Court of Roses http://courtofroses.thecomicseries.com/, but I can focus on the main one; Merlow is simply a wandering minstrel who, despite fighting some inner demons, just wants to bring laughter and song everywhere he goes. He is passionate and loves his line of work, and finds the beauty in all expressions in music, and, in turn, in life and in people. His friendly and sincere approach to everyone is what helps bring him and the other four main bards together. Without spoiling too much, once they begin to travel together, he'll be the unofficial leader and the glue between them all.

keii4ii

HoK is about heartbreaks that develop quietly, between people who do genuinely care about each other. The main example of such heartbreaks is feeling abandoned when you need their support more than ever. A lot of us have been through that, myself included. There are countless variations of that experience; the specific variations that I know firsthand, I've mixed them around and given to Ethan and Danbi. That's why their story speaks to my soul, the bruised part of it. And maybe it will speak to yours, too, for the same reasons.

deo101

Millennium's http://millennium.thecomicseries.com/ protagonist, Sage, is a kindhearted, southern farmer who has been thrown into a lot of bad situations he could never understand or prepare for, but always approaches with as much love as he can. I guess we root for him because we, too, want to see the best in things and have that kind of positivity work out.

Respheal

Conan of Galebound http://www.galebound.com/ is a pretty typical farmboy, except he just learned that he's a Hidden Backup Prince, that he has the power to command Magicians, that he's an assassination target, his kidnapper/protector is probably also an assassin, and the literal ocean called him "far worse"--whatever that means. He's had a rough couple of days. I like to think he's relatable and ultimately a good person. At first, his goal was just to get back home, but then he made a terrible mistake with his newly-discovered power. Immediately he takes responsibility for his actions, seeking to learn more about this power so he doesn't hurt anyone else and maybe even help against those using the same power for cruel reasons. Once he feels responsible for something, he tends to through his entire self into taking care of or fixing a problem--sometimes to the point of being a bit self-sacrificial about it. His overall arc, though, is really about following your heart, and recognizing what you really want to do versus what you're doing out of a sense of obligation--or sometimes discovering that your "obligations" and what you want are one and the same.

Desnik

My comic's protagonist (http://ask-a-warlock.tumblr.com/) is actually not the warlock...it's a small bird named Margo who is an animate drawing. She hops out of an illuminated manuscript one day and discovers the real world is very brutal and harsh. Through a series of buddy adventures with a knight, and demonic crime-solving with a cleric, Margo does eventually choose to be part of the real world, because she belongs with her friends...although she secretly desires to be human, as well(edited)

Desnik

argh, I put in the wrong askawarlock...haha, well, updated my urlwith dashes

Mharz

The Angel with Black Wings http://blackwings.mharz.com/ or Big Sis as what me and my readers call her at this point is a sweet and very caring towards people. She's like a motherly figure of some sort. (The one who will tuck you in bed and bake you loads of cookies) However she's heavily plagued by mental illness (feeling extreme guilt and blaming herself on anything bad that happens around her, thinking she doesn't deserve anything good in life, and inner voices that seems to be getting stronger as time passes.) Even tho she thinks she doesn't deserve it, deep down there is a tiny glimmer of hope that one day, she'd be forgiven. Altho her mental issues are amplified, I think most of us can relate to have felt guilt about something we did/didn't do and dwelled and ruminated on it for so long, having uncontrollable thoughts and inner voices that tells us that we are worthless, we are horrible people, everyone hates us and we don't deserve anything. I personally on that boat and slowly working on getting better. So I wrote my comics in the hope whoever reads my comics can make them feel better in some way and find that glimmer of hope. wheeze (edited)

MJ Massey

Emily (http://welcometoblackball.com/) is pretty much a passive doormat. She starts out just doing whatever her parents say and taking the path of least resistence until she feels she can't, that she has to take action to solve her sister's murder. But she has no patience for the shenanigans and games of others, always taking the most direct path she can. Some would say this makes her a concise person, but in her mind she's just doing what's easiest. She ends becoming more assertive and independent over time until she can finally make her own life choices with confidence. A good bit of her insecurities come from being very ill with measles a few years ago, and having to have her hair shaved off. It never grew back quite the same as it was, and her parents are a little more on her case because they want her to marry well in society.

kayotics

I think on paper, Toivo (https://ingress-comic.com/) sounds awful. He’s a wizard professor, single father, serial romantic, and unlucky in his adventures. He’s anxious and a little mean and obnoxious. He’s snarky and kind of an asshole and makes mistakes and doesn’t consider other people’s emotions, so he makes things hard for other people. He orchestrates most of the problems he has to solve. But i think that’s why he’s fun? He’s a good person at heart but he isn’t perfect and that’s the type of character I like to read about.

Desnik

@kayotics He seems like a genuinely fun character to read about. I like characters with flaws that seem to make sense with the story being told

kayotics

@Desnik I like to think he is! One of my favorite comic series is Ranma 1/2, and I think that series fundamentally taught me that you can have characters who are objectively not great people and still likable.

MJ Massey

I've enjoyed reading his misadventures so far. I think that since he usually learns some sort of lesson from his misadventures it makes him really endearing to balance out his flaws

NeilKapit

Lamar Anderson, the current focus of We Are The Wyrecats (http://wyrecats.com/) is a superhero of unyielding principle, to the point of self-destructive fanaticism. He’s a mute genius with cerebral palsy, who has difficulty walking without his hero armor. The Wyrecats were the first and only time he felt like he had friends, and K.A. was his first crush (reciprocated, though neither of them acted on it). When she was put in a coma and the team disbanded, he basically started a one man war against the US government that secretly initiated the plot (long story). Five years later, with K.A. waking up, he’s been questioning his approach, which involved stockpiling weapons and hiring mercenaries to wage guerilla war upon his country’s intelligence agencies. Since K.A.’s hardly in the best mental health at the moment, Lamar’s trying to do his best by her to make a world she’d want to live in.

snuffysam

Mizuki Sato is the protagonist of Super Galaxy Knights Deluxe R (http://sgkdr.thecomicseries.com/). She's a small woman from a small farm town, going on adventures through a strange world. Mizuki's main draw is that she's entertaining to watch. She constantly back-sasses & annoys the people she encounters on her journey (to be fair, some of those people are Taci Ramino) - and when action happens, Mizuki is ahead of the game, out-strategizing her enemies and pushing past her own limits. She may be a bit reckless with her own health, but to her it's worth it if she's helping other people in any way. Mizuki's main goal in life is to find love - someone she could get married to someday, specifically. But... that often doesn't work out for her. Every time Mizuki falls for someone, she loses them to someone else - or worse, she ends up in a short-lived relationship filled with endless put-downs. The people Mizuki encounters in her daily life enjoy the fact that she's around. They like the way she entertains them, the way she helps them out, the way she... makes them happy. But, at least from Mizuki's perspective, nobody she meets actually loves her in any meaningful way. anyway funney muscle lady shoot rainbow lasers woo

AntiBunny

My comic AntiBunny http://antibunny.net/ has multiple protagonists depending on what angle we're seeing the world through, but the original protagonist Pooky Bunny can be best described as a gender ambiguous depressed mess who's trying to become a better person. Why should you care? When you first meet Pooky their depression is clearly in control. As the story unfolds in the past you start to see where that depression comes from, and as it unfolds in the present you'll see Pooky learning to let others in, slowly moving to become a better person. Pooky is not OK, and realizes that, but also sees a way forward. So if you want to see someone who is initially consumed by their flaws and who eventually realizes them and works to overcome them, then maybe you'll care about Pooky. What are their goals? Pooky has both what I'd call external goals, that is things they want to accomplish in the real world, and internal ones, that is how they'd like to change as a person. Externally Pooky is all about unraveling mysteries. Being a reporter Pooky often is chasing a story. Internally Pooky's goals change. Early on it's little more than subsistence. Struggling to get by from one day to the next. Though as the story progresses as Pooky says "I'm trying to be a better person." Pooky goes from being someone who's dead inside to coming alive again. You'll see that trauma in Nailbat that started this, and in The Gritty City Stories you'll see the recovery. It's all about the fall, bottoming out, and climbing back up. Essentially that's Pooky.

Attila Polyák

Anne is the protagonist and mostly the perspective character of Tales of Midgard: The Age of Magic https://talesofmidgard.com/comic/book-1-cover-page/. She's a knight and a mage and more or less she's a well established person with a generally (currently) good life. She's definitely not someone special. Magic is very common and accessible to basically everyone and being a knight in a world full of magic is also not really extraordinary. So why should you care about someone who's not special? That's exactly the point! Most fantasy stories are set in fantastic worlds yet the main cast, and the protagonists especially, are still special. Even compared to the world. Not here. This story is the story of the everyman. The true everyman, not a chosen one, not someone who is surrounded by prophecies left and right, just your regular normal person. Of course we're still in a fantasy world so what's regular to the characters is still fantastic for the readers, and these "everydays" are still adventures compared to the normal lives most of us live in real life. Plus... Just because she not special she and everyone else in the story can still, just like in real life, be swooped up into events that are larger than life and seeing normal people cope with the extraordinary is always more interesting than extraordinary people playing their own game.

[lincoln-cannon]

Each spring and fall, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest Mormon denomination) holds a worldwide conference. For ten hours over two days, top leaders of the Church speak in-person to over 20,000 members gathered in a conference center in Salt Lake City, and via Internet and television broadcast to a much larger audience (probably in the millions) gathered in homes and church buildings around the world. The most recent conference was held yesterday and today. Below are 90 of my own thoughts as I watched the conference. As is my custom, the thoughts include observations, and range from affirmations to criticisms, and from questions to assertions. My intent is to provoke reflection, questions, and comments. I feel this is essential to meaningful engagement with the conference, which is something I value as a member of the Church.

I wonder if we've already received Thomas Monson's last general conference sermon?

Eyring looks healthy and happy. Good. For me, he represents an important influence on Mormon tradition.

Uchtdorf suggests humans feel the call of heaven like non-human animals instinctually feel their way home across great distances.

Uchtdorf finds encouragement in the weaknesses of religious leaders in our history. If they can do divine work, so can we.

Uchtdorf says God works through us if we make an effort, learning and applying. Christian discipleship must be an active faith.

Oscarson is the first woman to speak at LDS conference. Maybe she thought too few women spoke last time. ;)

Oscarson wants to have a face-to-face conversation with me rather than have me tweet about her! :)

The main limitation of tech communication compared to face-to-face is its relatively low bandwidth, for now. That will change.

Oscarson just shared a picture of her daughter-in-law and my friend, Marie-Laure Oscarson, who taught me French in the MTC.

Oaks says exaltation is more than salvation, and that exaltation is a family matter. Isn't all of humanity our family?

Oaks construes progressive marriage law as worldly, but most of the world is conservative on marriage law.

Oaks points out that the Proclamation explicitly promotes straight marriage. But it does not explicitly demote gay marriage. Why?

Dear Elder Oaks, why did God NOT inspire you and the other authors of the Proclamation to demote gay marriage explicitly?

Pingree says God uses ordinary persons to accomplish extraordinary things. How about immortality and eternal life!

We often over-emphasize criticisms of the world and under-recognize that Mormon scripture teaches that Earth will become heaven.

Christofferson says we ought to fully and completely incorporate the life and character of Christ in our being. This is theosis.

Christofferson encourages holiness, as we esteem God holy. This is the sublime esthetic, the holy esthetic, the holy spirit.

I like the French translation of "Holiness to the Lord" on LDS temples, transliterated back to English: Sanctity to the Eternal.

Christofferson points out that we're not alone in salvation. We are the Body of Christ. Salvation is not individual after all.

Holland jokes about the apparent impossible weight of Jesus' command to be perfect as God is perfect.

Holland encourages personal improvement in a way that doesn't include ulcers, anorexia, or depression.

Holland points out that we now "live in a Telestial kingdom". So let it be settled: progression between heavens must be possible.

Holland points out our only hope for perfection is as a gift of grace. Exactly. Forgive. Give grace as received. It's the only way.

Holland is perhaps the most empathetic advocate of divine grace that Mormon leadership has ever produced.

Holland discourages toxic expectations of ourselves, each other, and Church leaders. Good advice. We all need each other's grace.

Holland points out the sublime Mormon teaching that Jesus himself progressed "grace for grace" and extends it to us.

Amen, Elder Holland. Amen.

Salvation is not an individual matter. It requires grace, of God and of each other. We are saved as the Body of Christ, not alone.

I know I'm not the only Mormon who finds the Scandinavian Jesus with an Oxford accent incredibly distracting from the message.

Remember. Technology is not the enemy. Technology empowers our participation in the work and glory of God.

I look forward to the day when technology empowers the average person, if she chooses, to heal others as medical doctors do today.

Uchtdorf is letting Eyring take his turn at facing the opposition votes. :)

"I'm trying to be like Jesus." This may be the most dangerous song Mormons teach our children to sing. ;)

Stevenson compares the solar eclipse to small mundane matters that block our vision of large sublime matters. Interesting analogy.

Stevenson rightly points out that technology is not inherently good or evil. It's just power to use for good or evil.

Stevenson reminds us that the carefully crafted self-presentations on social media are always incomplete. Life is complex.

Stevenson says, "Let us use technology to help each other ... become our finest."

I'm not sure Stevenson's "gospel glasses" metaphor works as well as his "gospel eclipse" metaphor.

Owen points out that repentance should be framed as uplifting progress. It is change, taking on Christ. It is transfiguration.

Owen says the Atonement is not merely for sinners. It's for saints too. At-one-ment requires all. Reconciliation requires all.

Framing repentance in context of "atonement," as Mormons do, has interesting ramifications. Change. Be one.

Cook says our time on Earth is as fleeting as a British summer. :)

Cook contrasts the smallness of humanity with our divine potential, no matter our race or gender.

Cook says Christ-character includes humility, righteousness, and intelligence. There's both some heart and some brain there.

Cook says emphasis of authenticity sometimes leads to arrogance. He's right.

Authenticity has no inherent value. It may have contextual value. Love the superhumanity in your neighbor as in yourself.

Cook quotes, "The test of greatness is how one meets the eternal everyday." I imagine the Gods reminding themselves of that.

Rasband rejects coincidence. I wonder if God rejects coincidence. Is there a way around Heisenberg and Godel? I doubt it.

Rasband says God orchestrates. I trust that to be the case. I also consider that completely compatible with coincidence.

It seems to me that there is no need for orchestration where there is no possibility of coincidence.

Rasband says agency fits into the plan of God. I wonder if he thinks God always knows our choices in advance of us making them.

Rasband quotes the Bible, which claims that all things will work together for good. That's an idea worth trusting -- actively.

Haleck points out that Church members in developing areas contribute as illustrated by the story of the widow's mite.

Nelson, speaking now, is most likely the next president of the LDS Church -- perhaps soon because Monson's health appears poor.

Nelson emphasizes "him" and "his" describing God. I wish our leaders would talk more about Heavenly Mother.

Nelson calls attention to the idea that progress continues after this life. I love this very Mormon conception of heaven.

Nelson says death allows us to progress to the next world. I wonder if he would tell the Three Nephites that? ;)

Renlund's reasoning on the relation between priesthood and atonement doesn't make sense to me. Wish we could ask questions.

Renlund seems to be suggesting there's some kind or extent of unique access to atonement for priesthood holders. Strange.

Evans encourages questioning and shows respect for good persons that question matters related to the Church. I like that.

I'm interested in an LDS leader talk comparing and contrasting scientific knowledge with confidence in trustworthiness of religion.

Uchtdorf is emphasizing a conception of spiritual light. For some inspiration, look at "light" references in D&C.

Uchtdorf points out that Mormon scripture equivocates between "light" and "spirit" and "truth". He could add "intelligence".

Nice to hear Uchtdorf mention Christ as the "light of the world" after previous talks on negative characterizations of the world.

I want to be OF that world of which Christ is the light -- to those with ears to hear. ;)

Eyring points out that it takes great faith to sustain imperfect leaders. He's right, but he's among the easier to sustain. :)

Eyring mentions that Bishops have a hard job because ward members know their weaknesses. Indeed. What a difficult job.

Eyring's persistent willingness to vulnerability about his own shortcomings is among the reasons he's relatively easy to sustain.

Bingham says Christ can relieve disasters and commotions in the world. I'd like to hear LDS leaders say more about those problems.

Hallstrom addresses the problem of evil. Without a solution, he praises faith in the face of evil. This is unsatisfying for many.

Bednar takes up the subject of theosis, taking on the divine nature, progressing grace by grace as exemplified by Jesus.

Zwick says we should look past easy assumptions and stereotypes. Amen.

Ballard encourages remembrance of Mormon pioneers. I'm often inspired by their practical perseverance in pursuit of our vision.

Ballard raises warnings against charlatans who promote supernatural healing. Good call. Science and medicine matter.

Ballard criticizes sexism, racism, and "nationalism." I wonder what he thinks constitutes the latter.

Callister describes the complexity of the production of the Book of Mormon. Strong point. It is strange book.

Callister rightly points out that the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to advocate the Gospel of Christ, and not history.

Koch encourages saying "Amen" after talks, to signify agreement. Okay. But I don't always agree! :)

I'm concerned that some may interpret Koch's thoughts to mean they should not express disagreements constructively.

I do not feel united with persons who withhold constructive expressions of their disagreements from me.

Ellis asks if we trust imperfect persons to lead us well? Sure. But I don't trust them to lead us perfectly.

Ellis says some people create businesses from nothing. Hmm. Not even God created the world from nothing, according to Mormonism.

Parrella also takes up the theme of authoritarian obedience. Our culture excessively emphasizes this.

I think we should give more attention to persuasion and less attention to obedience. And I suspect we would like the results.

Parrella quotes the Book of Mormon declaration that death is an "awful monster." I like that passage.

Andersen shared some visuals depicting light moving across the world. Conference would probably benefit from more use of visuals.

Andersen gives insight into how LDS leaders prepare conference talks. I appreciate the humanity of it.

Andersen repeats the denunciation of "nationalism." What do LDS leaders mean by this?

Andersen shares some thoughts and words in tribute to Elder Hales, who passed away during conference.

Anderson quotes Monson in conclusion, emphasizing love. That's a good way to end.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on October 01, 2017 at 05:06PM.

[recentanimenews]

A Celebration of Women of Color in Anime

  Anime has always meant a lot to me as a person of color. I didn't see much of myself in my surroundings growing up, and even though I'm mixed Filipinx and not Japanese, it felt valuable to me that anime was an Asian-created medium. There were far more limits in terms of exposure and what you could readily learn about underrepresented cultures in the years before the internet became more widely accessible. As a result, early TV and video exposure to anime helped me indirectly feel proud of my own heritage.

I generally relate to media depictions of women more than men, so it should come as no surprise that women of color in anime comprise some of my favorite fictional characters, period. Though woefully misrepresented in all kinds of media, here's a non-hierarchical list of anime WOC who are respectfully depicted, nuanced, and poignant role models for our own lives too. Read on for more!

Nadia — Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water

    A series known for its tumultuous production and Hideaki Anno's distinct directorial hand, Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water is an aquatic adventure anime from the early '90s. The main character, Nadia, is a young woman of color searching for the truth about her past — and the secret of her blue-jeweled pendant.

One of Nadia's crowning traits is her connection with animals and the care she displays for them. Nadia communicates easily with King, her lion cub sidekick, and openly detests meat and hunting. The show also makes it clear that Nadia is a *gasp* vegetarian. It was pretty rare in the '90s for any show to feature a positive portrayal of vegetarians, so it's pretty cool to see her depicted as a genuinely caring animal-lover and not some meat-hating caricature.

Nadia is an "imperfect" heroine in the sense that she actually comes across like a real person with real struggles. She is (justifiably) prone to distrust others, can act hot-headed, grapples with intense depression, and doesn't always give people like Jean and Nemo the benefit of the doubt. Nadia's tendencies and behavior make perfect sense given her awful and abusive childhood, and that makes her one of the most interesting anime protagonists out there.

Yoruichi Shihōin — Bleach

    In Bleach, Yoruichi's coolness factor is off the charts. She can outrun Byakuya (one of the most powerful captains), knows how to help you achieve Bankai in three days, and can also transform from a black cat into a human at will. If Soul Society had its own version of LinkedIn, Yoruichi's resume would be top tier — it's no small feat to be the former Onmitsukidō commander and former 2nd captain of the Gotei 13.

Finally, much like the rest of the cast of Bleach, Yoruichi possesses a simple yet keen sense of style. Can you think of anyone over a century old who can wear purple and beige striped arm wraps and orange apparel with such finesse? I thought not.

Carole — Carole and Tuesday

Shinichiro Watanabe's new show Carole and Tuesday is yet another music fan's dream. While Kids on the Slope focused on Jazz, Watanabe's new outing hones in on pop singer/songwriters. One central message in the show is simple, yet timeless: Pursue your creative expression by staying true to yourself, and keep your creative fire safe from societal pressures intent on manipulating and/or extinguishing your gift. And with a Black woman — Carole — as one of the lead protagonists, this important message feels even more moving and powerful.

A Black woman as a lead character is the exception rather than the rule in the world of media, which is a disturbing reflection of larger oppressive social structures. That's why it feels refreshing to see a respectful portrayal in the form of Carole. We first meet her as an impoverished teenager in a big city without parents or a support network. Despite the financial and social odds stacked against her, Carole still longs to express herself and create a loving community through the power of music. Her dedication to her own creative integrity is a joy to watch, and as a musician myself, I found legitimate personal solace in her drive to be as artistically genuine as possible.

One of my favorite things about Carole is the ego-free support, sense of awe, and goodwill she displays toward other musicians. There's barely a hint of jealousy or competition between Carole and her main musical partner, Tuesday. The two get along amazingly well despite a few roadblocks, and Carole consistently honors their shared creative spirit. She even voices repeated praise for a rival musician named Angela, despite Angela's antagonistic remarks against the series' duo. As another impressive feat, Carole also manages to revive the joy of seasoned — and occasionally downtrodden — musicians due to her infectious creative passion. How can you not love such an inspirational character?!

Anthy Himemiya — Revolutionary Girl Utena

Revolutionary Girl Utena, is, well, revolutionary for a number of reasons. The show tackles gender essentialism head-on and makes some hefty statements about the toxicity of conventional social norms. Utena is an incredible character who challenges the classic patriarchal notions associated with princedom. I'd argue though, that her partner Anthy Himemiya is the true star of the show.  Without going into spoilers, Anthy is key to one of the biggest themes in the show: That for its own selfish gain, society is willing to endlessly enact cruel rigidity and heartlessness against women. It'd be both reductive and missing the larger point though, to interpret Anthy as a defenseless, subservient victim controlled by the harshness of a misogynistic culture. On the contrary, Anthy is perhaps the strongest figure in the entire series. Anthy does (at least in some ways) behave according to the interest of others, but she ultimately asserts her own worth and personal agency in a way that truly embodies the show's beautiful core. There are plenty of fascinating, insightful articles that go into depth about Revolutionary Girl Utena's symbolism and topics, so be sure to check some out. Anthy is a phenomenal character who stands out as one of the most memorable depictions of self-love, showing it's never too late to define your own life according to your needs, desires, and dreams.

Casca — Berserk

                              Berserk is likely my favorite manga, and undoubtedly my favorite work of dark fantasy. I always pair that praise with a very cautionary recommendation due to the intense gore and many disturbing sexual depictions throughout the series. While it's up to each individual to decide their limits in terms of extreme content, Kentaro Miura (the creator) softens Berserk's more unseemly edges by featuring sympathetic protagonists who organically evolve, and who are driven by immense love and support for one another in spite of a horrifyingly bleak world. That said, I find the central character Casca to be one of the strongest and most nuanced women in all of fiction. It's rare enough for a dark-skinned woman to be depicted at all in most media, and rare still for her to be given proper depth and well-deserved narrative development. Fortunately, Berserk gives us both.

In the Band of the Hawk arc — the first lengthy saga in Berserk, covered by the three recent films and the '90s anime — Casca is introduced as a well-regarded figure within the ranks of her mercenary brigade. Although she's portrayed as a strong fighter and a capable leader, the series deploys many different elements that prevent a one-sided characterization of Casca. For example, her tragic backstory highlights not only her strength and will to survive but also lends added weight to why she's so watchful of her comrades. After Casca is sent away by her own family as a child, she gains a new one in the form of the Band of the Hawk, and — much like a protective older sister — leads many of her men to safety on more than one occasion. The life and attachments Casca forges from the hell of her childhood imbues her character with skillfulness, tenacity, and meaningful emotional capacity. 

The love between Casca and Guts is a genuinely moving, reciprocal bond. While it's true that Guts saves Casca from demons on many occasions (which carries more than a hint of the misogynistic damsel-in-distress cliche), it's also true that Guts is saved from his lonely life largely because of Casca's love and presence. Though there's plenty to critique about the notion that masculine dependency is evidence of a healthy relationship, overall I find that Guts and Casca exhibit selfless, mutual gestures of love that challenge standard relational dynamics.

It can't be stressed enough how pivotal Casca is to Berserk's central storyline. Her badass skills as a fighter, coupled with her nuanced backstory and emotional depth, makes her one of my favorite anime characters of all time. 

Each anime in this list offers a uniquely touching testament to women of color. While by no means an exhaustive list, I hope you enjoyed it!

Are there other women of color from your favorite anime who aren't listed here? Let us know in the comments!

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

By: news+feed@crunchyroll.com

[dinafbrownil]

Pharma’s Take On The Pelosi Drug-Pricing Bill: Fair Warning Or Fearmongering?

“Speaker Pelosi’s drug pricing plan would siphon $1 trillion or more from biopharmaceutical innovators over the next 10 years. CBO’s preliminary estimate found this bill ‘would result in lower spending on research and development and thus reduce the introduction of new drugs.’”

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in an ad in the Nov. 27 “Politico Playbook PM” newsletter.

This fact check was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s flagship proposal to curb prescription drug prices, the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act” ― H.R. 3 ― could come up for a vote in the chamber this month. The measure would allow Medicare to negotiate prices for a limited number of drugs, cap what seniors pay out-of-pocket at $2,000 and force companies that have raised prices beyond inflation since 2016 to either reverse the price or rebate the amount of the increase to the federal government.

And drug manufacturers are in full attack mode.

Take a recent Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America advertising message embedded in the popular, inside-the-Beltway “Politico Playbook PM” newsletter.

“Speaker Pelosi’s drug pricing plan would siphon $1 trillion or more from biopharmaceutical innovators over the next 10 years,” read the ad. “CBO’s preliminary estimate found this bill ‘would result in lower spending on research and development and thus reduce the introduction of new drugs.’”

The trade group’s statement represents a core drug-industry argument, deployed whenever lawmakers propose reining in drug prices: Efforts to limit what drug companies can charge means they won’t have the means or incentive to develop lifesaving medications. The argument also appears in ads like this one ― from America’s Biopharmaceutical Companies ― that highlight patients who say they depend on new medications to keep chronic conditions at bay.

But many experts contest the link between drug prices and pharmaceutical R&D. So PhRMA’s citation of the Congressional Budget Office ― an influential nonpartisan government agency ― caught our attention. We decided to look deeper.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

What The CBO Says

A PhRMA spokeswoman pointed us to a preliminary CBO analysis of H.R. 3. Published Oct. 11, the letter doesn’t analyze the Pelosi bill but attempts to explain in broad strokes what kind of economic impact it might have.

The “$1 trillion” over 10 years statistic is the CBO’s upper estimate (the range begins at $500 billion) of what the industry might lose in revenue if this bill were enacted. But the agency leaves wiggle room, noting that this is a “preliminary” figure and that the agency hasn’t finished analyzing the full bill yet. Once it does, the $1 trillion could change.

“They’re trying to provide some sense of the relative impact on drug development, but I don’t think we have enough data to provide this,” said Stacie Dusetzina, an associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University. “It’s not a fact. It’s a preliminary estimate that is on very shaky ground.”

That leads to the next issue: If pharmaceutical revenues dip, would fewer innovative drugs become available?

Technically, kind of. But there’s a lot of important context that PhRMA’s assertion overlooks.

The CBO estimates that, over the next decade, between eight and 15 fewer drugs would come to market.

But the big picture matters: Every year, the Food and Drug Administration approves 30 new drugs, on average. That’s 300 new drugs over 10 years. So if you assume 15 fewer drugs out of 300 projected approvals, that’s a loss of 5%.

Certainly that is, as PhRMA argued, a reduction. But none of the experts we spoke with saw it as a blow to innovation. “The lower prices envisioned by [Pelosi’s] bill would barely slow new drug discovery at all,” argued Dr. Peter Bach, who directs the Drug Pricing Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in an op-ed for Bloomberg.

It’s not clear from the CBO analysis what kind of clinical value these forgone drugs would have ― whether they would represent meaningful breakthroughs or marginal improvements to medications that already exist.

We asked PhRMA. The organization’s position is that the lost revenue could discourage drugmakers from researching new treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, lung cancer and sickle cell disease.

But the group didn’t offer much evidence explaining how or why this would happen, or acknowledging that it would involve stepping away from potentially lucrative markets. And experts dispute the idea ― Dusetzina called the industry line “a scare tactic.”

In fact, she said, “there is a good reason to believe that the drugs you would lose are those that have the smallest benefit and highest price tag.”

This gets at another point: A substantial portion of drug research and development isn’t actually done by drugmakers. The riskiest portions often are conducted in government-funded labs, noted Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies pharmaceutical policy. Drug companies get involved much later, making it even less certain that a loss in pharmaceutical revenue would meaningfully discourage breakthrough drug innovation.

And any loss of new drugs would likely be at least somewhat offset by Americans’ increased ability to afford newly cheaper drugs. As the CBO report put it: “The overall effect on the health of families in the United States that would stem from increased use of prescription drugs but decreased availability of new drugs is unclear.”

So, in short: Nonpartisan analysis suggests that H.R. 3 could result in fewer drugs coming to market. But it’s a very preliminary estimate, and even then, it suggests only a small dip. The value of the drugs that don’t emerge is unclear, too. All this context matters a lot.

“Hundreds of billions in savings to taxpayers, businesses and patients would mean a real but very small decline in the rate at which new treatments are discovered,” Bach wrote.

Other Arguments

PhRMA also pointed us to a Dec. 3 report put out by the White House Council of Economic Advisers. It found a much higher impact ― arguing that H.R.3 would result in “as many as 100 fewer drugs” entering the American market in the next 10 years.

This White House report comes after President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to work with Congress to lower drug prices.

Sources:

PhRMA ad, Politico Playbook PM, Nov. 27, 2019

Bloomberg, “Pelosi Calls Pharma’s Bluff on Drug Prices,” Peter Bach. Oct. 31, 2019

Congressional Budget Office, “Re: Effects of Drug Price Negotiation Stemming From Title 1 of H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, on Spending and Revenues Related to Part D of Medicare.” Oct. 11, 2019

Council for Economic Advisers, “House Drug Pricing Bill Could Keep 100 Lifesaving Drugs from American Patients,” Dec. 3, 2019

Congress.gov, “H.R.3 ― Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019.” Sept. 19, 2019

JAMA, “The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins and Prospects for Reform,” August 2016

Health Affairs, “R&D Costs for Pharmaceutical Companies Do Not Explain Elevated US Drug Prices,” March 7, 2017

Email interview with Holly Campbell, deputy vice president of public affairs, Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, Dec. 2, 2019

Email interview with Peter Bach, director, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dec. 3, 2019

Telephone interview with Stacie Dusetzina, associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University, Dec. 3, 2019

Telephone interview with Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dec. 3, 2019

The CEA number rests on a series of assumptions. First, it estimates that a new drug costs $2 billion to develop. It also assumes that drug companies typically spend at least a fifth of their revenue on research and development. Therefore, if companies’ revenue goes down by $1 trillion, then the math comes out to losing 100 drugs.

But experts called this analysis suspect at best.

For one thing, Bach told us, the $2 billion figure isn’t substantiated. For another, the CEA assumes that “every penny of company R&D spending goes to inventing new drugs.”

That, he added, is “utter nonsense.”

Multiple experts noted that the CEA assumes pharmaceutical companies would cut their R&D to perfectly match the proportion of revenue they currently spend.

There’s no reason to assume that’s true. Drug companies also spend a good deal on marketing, administration and dividends to shareholders.

Dusetzina also noted that the analysis doesn’t consider the increased revenue drug companies might experience from more people being able to afford drugs and therefore buy them. And it assumes the drugs that never make it to the marketplace would be of high value ― without evidence to support that.

“This is not a serious analysis of the question of trade-offs of this policy and innovation. This is fearmongering,” Dusetzina said.

Our Ruling

In its advertisement, PhRMA cites a CBO analysis of the Pelosi-backed drug-pricing bill, H.R. 3. The ad suggests that the bill would “siphon $1 trillion or more from biopharmaceutical innovators over the next 10 years” and “reduce the introduction of new drugs.”

This claim misses lots of important context. The CBO’s analysis is preliminary, and it could change. The $1 trillion in forgone revenue is the upper limit of what that preliminary analysis predicts.

And even if you assume drug companies would lose this much in revenue, the number of drugs that wouldn’t make it to market would constitute a small fraction of what pharmaceutical companies typically produce, said experts. It’s further unclear that the forgone drugs would have major clinical value ― little evidence suggests they necessarily would.

Other analyses PhRMA pointed us to ― which might ostensibly support their claim ― don’t stand up to scrutiny.

This statement has some truth to it but omits crucial context that would give a radically different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/pharmas-take-on-the-pelosi-drug-pricing-bill-fair-warning-or-fearmongering/

[cherryblossomshadow]

Princesses, by some miracle, exploit a loophole in the patriarchy where we can be both. The only thing she did to become a princess was be born, and since the title isn’t “earned”, she can’t lose it by bad behaviour or inadequacy.  It is an inherent state of worthiness.  That is some powerful shit, my friends.

. #she actually does lack agency is the thing #not because she doesn't lone hero #but because she spends 90% of the story overwhelmed and uncertain #and the only two times she makes a firm call #she's being manipulated by a shitty dude and in the wrong #it was painful to watch #i kept expecting a turning point to release all this tension #and the most we got was the meaningless i'm not your mother confrontation #that's not nothing but on the level i was feeling jerked around on #yeah it was

#the only time she both makes a call and is in the right #she's already sabotaged herself so bad she needs pulled out of the fire #to avoid ruining everything? #that's someone who is not permitted agency within the narrative #in theory after she willingly goes home and scrubs toilets #when she doesn't actually have to anymore #she can develop a meaningful sense of agency and then also assert it #but that is very specifically a thing that does not happen within the movie #it's only hinted at#meanwhile boyfriend gets a much more complete arc and more character development

#i liked 90% of what they were doing and then the 10% i didn't #were major structural decisions about the narrative and its priorities

Jupiter Ascending: *is literally entirely about how Jupiter reacts and the choices she makes in the scenario she finds herself in*

Critics:  Waah waah Jupiter lacks agency.

She has to choose whether or not to save the Earth at great personal cost and she lacks AGENCY?  Did Harry Potter “lack agency” because Hagrid told him he was a wizard?  Put a girl in a showpiece dress once and that’s it, it’s over, no more decisions for her?

I think prokopetz is totally right when he says people are failing to read this movie as a “lost princess” story.  If you want to put this story in a literary and cultural context you have to read it as a princess story.  

Listen up, people, here’s what makes princesses so special and princess stories important: Princesses are simultaneously perfect objects and powerful agents.  “Princess” is a culture hack for women.  If we have to live in a world that’s unequal, then at least we will carve out this one niche sheltered from most of the misogynistic shit women get pelted with.  How and why “princess” and fairy tales about princesses turned into this dual space of desirability and power is long and mostly lost to the mists of time, and has a lot to do with women writing novels in 17th century France and Charles Perrault being a fuckhead, but let’s not get into that.  Let’s just take it as read:  Princesses are special.

Women get objectified a lot, which literally means, “turned into objects”.  We’re defined entirely by the judgments of other people: Are we attractive, do we behave pleasingly, do we have the right attributes and do the right things.  We collude with this to some degree because we want people to like us, because we’re a social species that still instinctively fears abandonment as a precursor to death.  But most of the time the patriarchy makes us compromise: to be good objects, it makes us give up our agency, our ability to make decisions and be actors in our own lives.  To be attractive often means being malnourished, weak, and physically incapacitated.  To be liked means to be meek, mild, and powerless.  The right things we’re supposed to do are let other people make all our decisions for us and not inconvenience people.

Princesses, by some miracle, exploit a loophole in the patriarchy where we can be both.  A princess can both be seen as good, beautiful, wise, deserving of loyalty and devotion, and loved by everyone who sees her, and make her own decisions.  She can act out, run wild, escape the palace, make mistakes, choose the wrong guy, do anything she likes, and still be a princess.  The only thing she did to become a princess was be born, and since the title isn’t “earned”, she can’t lose it by bad behaviour or inadequacy.  It is an inherent state of worthiness.  That is some powerful shit, my friends.

Yes, Jupiter is surrounded by people who suddenly love her and want to defend her and dedicate their lives to her–but that doesn’t take away her right to make her own decisions.  She’s the boss.  She doesn’t have to go it alone and fight all her own battles, although she can if she has to, because women aren’t buried in the toxic masculinity bullshit about being a “lone hero”; her life gets to be rich in meaningful relationships without compromising her.