I thought kittens today...

For today's difficult subject matter,
I thought we'd go with kittens.

Sorry, we're going to talk about this again, and yes, it's a bummer and yes, preacher, choir, but goddamn another gun enthusiast opened fire on people in his yard. This time, a North Carolina man shot and injured a six year-old girl and her parents--her father seriously--because some kids let a ball roll into his yard. And get this, the father was also armed and fired back, although evidently missed. This on top of similar incidents in New York, and Missouri, and I must ask: what the actual?

He didn't, they just wish he
did and are kind of dumb.

One of the more absurd claims on the part of gun people is that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun, but Tuesday's incident seems to undermine that. The number of times a shooter has been stopped by random armed passers by is low. Vanishingly small one might even say. But the Right--and while I'm generalizing here, I don't think I'm wrong-- tends to disregard statistics and evidence when it contradicts their worldview. It's what makes America so infuriating right now.

That and the constant gun violence. Speaking of, the NRA cites a study from the Crime Prevention Research Center which says something like 34% of active shooter situations are stopped by armed civilians. Which is nonsense. 

Next time you see armed, self-deputized randos, remember to
thank them for their service. No, I'm kidding, just run. Holy shit, run.

Above: John Lott, noted dupe, learning the
hard way that you can't shoot public humiliation.

The Crime Prevention Research Center is a conservative gun-advocacy organization founded by a Stop the Steal asshat called John Lott who used to run the NRA, but whom you might remember him as the guy who was tricked into speaking in front of 3,044 empty chairs representing kids lost to gun violence at a fake graduation ceremony by parents of a Parkland victim. That he didn't collapse into a singularity of impossible guilt and shame is further evidence that he lacks whatever part of the brain is responsible for self-evaluation. Anyway, all this to day, let's not go with their numbers. 

Instead, let's use another, much more widely accepted study done by Texas State University and cited by The New York Times which says the number is 3%. Which, in a country with 393 million guns owned by 32% of the population suggests to me, and I'm no statistician, but it suggests to me that guns are the indeed the problem and that the NRA and the Crime Prevention Research Center are full of shit.

"Yup, there it is. The numbers do not lie. They are full of shit.
Luckily for them, they don't believe in numbers. Or dinosaurs."

-Some mathematician I just made up who

has more credibility than John Lott or anyone

else at the Crime Prevention Research Center

Anyone else tired of this? Oh, right, we all are.

Look, right there in the grocery store.
You don't even have to deal with giblets.

I guess what I'm saying is take all the guns? And look, I know that's kind of naive, but let's negotiate. We'll say we want to take away all the guns, and they'll counter with some nonsense about how a musket-era line about keeping a militia around in case the redcoats show up means they can have assault rifles, and then we'll say, ok, they can keep the hunting rifles because maybe nobody told them they can buy meat in stores, but fine, something something tradition. And we'll go from there.

Racism is a problem everywhere, but
some states just seem to excel at it.

Reasonable. Civilized, right? I mention this because, ok, you probably know why I mention this. Another mass shooting? Yeah, several in fact, but also because a sixteen year old kid called Ralph Yarl rang the wrong doorbell and was shot in the head. Most everybody believes that racism played a role here and it did. Andrew Lester, the man who shot him, is white and this is Missouri so that tracks. But the gun was a component too, right? Or at least the culture in which this guy felt that shoot first was a reasonable response to an unexpected doorbell ring. 

There's no world and no calculus in which that's standing one's ground or self-defense or anything other than straight up murder and a hate crime and--sorry, I know, I'm just preaching to the choir here. I'll stop.

Pictured: basically you.

Better late than never I suppose.

Look, this is awful, and I should have warned you or put up a picture of puppies or something. The good news, if there can be such a thing here, is that Yarl is alive, albeit grievously injured, and that Lester is being charged with assault. And that sounds inadequate, but I gather that assault carries a heavier sentence than attempted murder so it actually sounds like the right move. If convicted, it's a thirty year sentence as opposed to fifteen and Lester is eighty-five years old, so....

If the British came back, we wouldn't even
need to shoot, we could just throw guns at them.

So hurray, right? Justice will surely be done. Except, I mean, will it? Let's say Lester is convicted, which is not a given. It seems pretty open and shut, but how many times have we seen white dudes walk after shooting a person of color? What? It's true. Look at the puppy again if you need to. Ok, let's say he's convicted. Great. Now what? Americans still own 393.3 million guns. That's 1.2 guns per person. And only 32% of Americans own one or more guns, so that's an average of 37 guns per gun owner.

What the actual? I mean, we're shocked and horrified every time there's another mass shooting which is now several times per day, but 393 million guns? Thirty-seven per gun owner? That's insane. That's hoarding behavior, except instead of old newspapers or toilet paper it's deadly weapons. What even is that? It's not a hobby. If I didn't know better, I'd say these people who own guns are just waiting for an opportunity to use them.

Hey gun people, have you considered philately? Sure, stamp collecting is probably not as exciting as
gun ownership, and it's harder to build your entire identity around it, but at least it can't end people.
Also, maybe you shouldn't be making something like guns your whole thing, you know?

Thanks, Bill?

It's ok, I don't my blog either, as you
can probable tell bye al the typos.

You know, it's actually pronounced "I apologize to everyone I hurt through my actions and promise to educate myself on the struggles faced by the trans community. Also, effective immediately, I resign as Pittsford Town Supervisor." But that's not what Town Supervisor Bill Smith said in a statement. Who? What? Great questions. You might recall I wrote about the town of Pittsford, where I went to high school, demanded $8,500 in security fees from a group planning to hold a Drag Story Hour at the town's community center.

Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but look at him and
tell me he wouldn't use a word like "ruckus."

No? Well I did, and they did, somebody put up fliers calling drag performers pedofiles, and also the Town Supervisor warned the organizers of the event, called Pittsford CommUNITY, not to cause a ruckus and then accused them of being attention seekers, who love to play the victim. Holy shit, right? Yes. Well, the event moved to a local bookstore, and CommUNITY received an outpouring of support not just for residents, but also The Human Rights Campaign and the NYCLU (the ACLU, but in New York).

The HRC called the board's move an attempt to curtail the rights of LGBTQ+ people and the NYCLU pointed out that the fees were levied because of the events content and were therefore an attempt to force Pittsford CommUNITY to cancel, so censorship. Ok, great, the fees were waved and everything's right with the world, right?

Bill Smith is still in charge, so no.

That's liberals for you, they never let you
trample their basic civil liberties without
making a federal case out of it.

Yeah, but there's still the matter of Bill Smith's egregious comments and his grudging statement regarding the waiving of the fees:

"Having to defend a controversial lawsuit easily could result in an expenditure of taxpayer funds far more burdensome than the costs involved in providing securit. It would negate the Town's good faith effort to spare the taxpayers the cost imposed by the event."

-Town Supervisor Bill "Won't somebody 

please think of the taxpayers?" Smith*

Controversial? Or they'd just lose. Badly.

So to sum up: liberals threatened to file a nonsense lawsuit that would bleed us dry in legal fees. "Controversial lawsuit"? I mean, I'm not sure what's controversial here. The Human Rights Campaign and the NYCLU weren't threatening to sue because they slipped on town property or because their neighbor put in a pool and didn't get the proper permit or whatever the board usually deals with. They're considering legal action because both are organizations whose purpose is to fight against injustices exactly like this. 

Pictured: A good faith effort.

(source: Bill Smith)

If they're coming after you for something, chances are you deserve it and should back down. Also, what good faith effort? They, the board, or Bill Smith personally, just made up fees because. Sure, a couple loons put up threatening flyers, but the shouldn't the move have been to figure out who did that? Not try to make CommUNITY cancel. Also, does Bill Smith appreciate the irony of the prospect of a massive financial disincentive forcing him to change his plans? I'm guessing no. I'm further guessing that he's not a deep thinker. 

Unsurprisingly, critics dumb fears went
un-realized and exactly zero children were
groomed. So maybe they can shut up now?

Anyway, the Drag Story Hour was held today at the bookstore and evidently went off without a hitch. Dozens (it's not a big town) showed up just to create a "wall of love," that is, they gathered to support and protect the attendees from anyone protesting or trying to disrupt the event. Even the Mayor came out to show her support. And yeah, protestors did show. Four in fact. One rando with a bullhorn, and some dude who brought his kids. Brought his kids to help protest. Because it's only grooming when liberals do it I suppose. I just can't with these people...

So after all that Drag Story hour happened, Bill Smith looks like (and is) an asshole, and the town board's ill-advised attempt to suppress Drag Story Hour only made sure it got even more attention. Which is all banning and censorship ever do. So in a way, thanks Bill? But in a much bigger way, resign. Just, resign.

What I'm saying is that if you're on the opposite side of a "wall of love," barking
out-of-context bible verses through a megaphone, it's probably time to reevaluate.  

*his name's not on the statement, but the local paper referred to this as his statement, and it does sound like the kind of 

Today in a bit of an ick:

Look, as a grown ass adult who has played video games--particularly Super Mario-related games--all his life, I'm not embarrassed to tell you that I will probably, at some point, see the Super Mario Bros. movie. 

Ok, maybe slightly embarrassed.
Please don't judge me or tell anyone cool.

Pictured: the closest the SMB
movie is getting to inclusive casting.

Except now there's a bit of ick that comes along with it because according to the Huffington Post, Twitter--which seems to grow ickier by the day--is rife with Right-wing nutters cheering the film as un-woke. Yeah, how'd they get there? Well, John Leguizamo told TMZ that he was boycotting the film over its lack of hispanic inclusion in the casting, which is fair. Leguizamo played Luigi in the bonkers 1993 film adaptation, while this new cast is, with the exception of Keegan-Michael Key (who voices Toad), white. 

I think it's important to note that I was
watching John Leguizamo's Mario movie
while Charlie Kirk was busy being born.

And look, like I said, I've not seen it yet, but no, I can't imagine Universal Studio would alienate everyone in an effort to pander to the red state shit merchants on Twitter. Speaking of:

"Mario Bros. just grossed $377 million...despite John Leguizamo boycotting the film because it "mess up the inclusion" casting two white men...as the Italian American leads. Nintendo refused to let Mario Bros go woke!"

-Charlie Kirk, noted red state shit merchant

Move over, cast of Friends.

Ok, so couple of things. One, John Leguizamo isn't wrong. He's an actor looking at what's essentially a remake (well, a new adaptation) of a movie he was in back in '93. There was a role for a latino actor in that one, but there isn't in this one. Saying it's a step backwards isn't unreasonable. Secondly, no, Nintendo and Universal were not making a conscious decision to appeal to white supremacists. That's just dumb. Thirdly, Mario Bros. is woke.

Italians sure love pasta, amiright?

C'mon, it's about the little guy (Mario), bravely going up against a greedy, militaristic, turtle dragon (Bowser) who wants to control women (specifically Peach) and rule through force. It's a thin narrative and maybe (definitely) I'm reading a little too much into it, but no more than Charlie Kirk and everyone else crowing over how anti-woke they think it is. Yes, Universal and Nintendo could have done a better job casting this movie, but no, they didn't cast it to make mediocre white guys feel seen.

 

Oh, and since we're having fun reading too much into things, the bizarre 1993 version was about two working class, adopted brothers (Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo) fighting to stop President Koopa (Dennis Hopper), from taking over the world. In this version, Koopa is a blonde, autocratic, suit-wearing despot with an inflated sense of self confidence who lives in a big tower he named after himself. He has a short temper, rigs elections, and is so insecure that he punishes descent in all forms. Sound familiar?

Pictured: Dennis Hopper and Mitch McConnell in 1993's Super Mario Bros.

Today in preemptive victim blaming:

One dipshit xerox'ed some bullshit so now
a non-profit has to cough up $8,500. Cool. 

Boooooo. Just booooo. What am I booing? Why the comments made by the Town Supervisor of Pittsford, NY (where I went to high school) and his demand of $8,500 in extra security fees from Pittsford CommUNITY. It's a non-profit organization that promotes diversity and inclusion and is holding a Drag Story Hour next week. Or maybe not, because some rando with a broken caps lock hung up flyers reading "LEAVE OUR KIDS ALONE!" and the inflammatory and patently false accusation: "DRAG QUEENS ARE PEDOS." 

Even calling that inflammatory and patently false feels like I'm giving it the dignity of a response. And I also want to point out that no one is pointing a gun at anyone demanding they bring their kids to this, but the kind of person who gets so upset about it that they feel they need to staple flyers to telephone poles about it is exactly why drag story time exists. 

I don't want to make this a left/right thing, but between a grass roots community group promoting
inclusion and diversity and a nutter with flyers and a stapler, which is more likely to own a gun?

That's weird, because the rest of us have
been getting calls saying that Bill is dumb and
 bad at his job and should resign immediately. 

Defending his decision to acquiesce immediately to the wild demands of loons, Town Supervisor Bill Smith also said he'd received "a great many calls and emails" related to "what I believe is called a drag queen story time" (which, I mean, look it up, Bill), emphasized that it is not endorsed by the town, and also claimed that the organizers falsified the nature of the event on the application (although he didn't say in what way). He then went on to preemptively finger waggle at both Pittsford CommUNITY and the asshats who are complaining about it::

Evidently the Pittsford Community Center
is the place to be at 2pm on a Saturday.

"As a position in a--uh--as a person in a position of responsibility in our community I want to ask everyone, please, no disruptive activities...to the organizers of the event, please remember that the community center is a public building, there will be other programs going on, please respect the people participating in those programs."

-Bill Smith, a person in a position 

of responsibility, making us seriously

question why that is the case

It's as if God himself set out to make the
most generic old white guy and then named
him Bill Smith just to drive home the point.

Which, I mean, ok, but does he take time out of every town meeting to remind everyone about the many other programs happening at the hub of activity that is this town's community center? But hang on:

"And to those who are critical of this event, I don't think I need to tell you, but just remember that disruption would do nothing more than grant victim status to a group of people who are desperate to seek it and are trying to get it through this event."

Ok, so Bill Smith is warning Pittsford CommUNITY not to make a scene, which is just rude given that he has no reason whatsoever to assume that they would. Next, he's telling anyone who might want to disrupt their event not to. Not because harassing people is both wrong, illegal, and in this case risks the safety of children who are just there for drag story hour, but because that's what the organizers want: to be victims. 

To be clear, Smith is saying that the LBGTQIA+ community enjoys being the victims
of right-wing hate groups and are equally to blame for the attacks and harassment.

Well, I've got another old saying:
Young people vote, so clean out your desk.

Holy shit. Two members of the board called him out for it but were, I suspect, so stunned that the town supervisor just blamed the victims for any harassment they might receive before accusing them of seeking victim status. Board member Cathy Koshykar suggested that maybe this was a little unfair, but Smith just condescendingly replied: "Welp, there's an old saying: the truth shall set you free." What? I mean, what? 

Look, I think we can all agree that Town Supervisor Bill Smith needs to fuck right off with this both sides nonsense. Providing security is the County Sheriff's Department's job, like its actual job. Pittsford CommUNITY shouldn't need to pay extra because Bill Smith doesn't like or understand what Drag Story is and is aggressively disinterested in educating himself. 

It's someone in drag reading to kids Bill, no one's going to catch the gay.

Discuss Star Trek? If you insist...

Yeah, that's the one.

"Happy First Contact Day!" I say. "What even are you talking about?" You might reply. To which I nerdsplain: "Why today is First Contact Day, the day we celebrate, or rather will celebrate, the day the Vulcans will land/landed in Montana in exactly fourteen thousand, six-hundred and ten days. Then, confronted with the reality that humans aren't alone I the universe, we put aside our petty squabbling, and start exploring the galaxy." After which you give me a look that can only be described as tolerant pity. 

It's also the first day of Passover, which
is a real holiday celebrated by millions.

Yes, it is that time of year again, perhaps the holiest of holy days in the Geek Orthodox Calendar. And I thought I'd mark the occasion by talking about Star Trek. I know, I know, tolerant pity, but I mean, no one's making you read this. Still there? Super. Are you keeping up with Star Trek: Picard? Great, because if you weren't, now would be the time to bail, because, I don't know, spoilers? Anyway, yes, to answer the question I'm sure you're thinking of right now, yes, I do like it. Kind of.

Above: A scene from season,
uh, one? Episode...whatever.

That is to say, as a life long fan of the various Stars Trek, Picard, the series, is one of them. Is it good? I don't know. Objectively speaking, I'd say no. If there is a Platonic ideal of streaming prestige television, Star Trek Picard doesn't not meet it. It's derivative, slow, and falls into the trap so many series fall into these days of starting with a big opener, followed by eight episodes of filler, and then big finish. Individual episodes are kind of forgettable. There're no Darmock and Jalad, or Four Lights here, just a vague blur of plot points.

A scene from season three in which
I count at least thirteen references. 

That said, with four more episodes to go, season three is better. Much better even. And look, I say the show isn't good and I stand by that, but I also really like it. How come? Well, it's with no small amount of shame that I admit to you that it's about the fan service. So much fan service. Every episode is a "who's who" and a "what's what" of "remember that?." That is to say, packed full of call-backs, references, and easter eggs all waiting for nerds like me to feel smart for getting them. 

It's cheap and I fall for it every time. Don't get me wrong, it's great seeing the original cast back together and the story is fun with an interesting mystery, and holy shit, Amanda Plumber and Todd Stashwick are fantastic, but I can't help but feel a little, you know, like a chump? Am I wrong for feeling this way?

Pictured: Captain Shaw, seen here backing me up.

In further tyrannosaurs disappointments...

Finally, there is an answer to the question that has long perplexed scientists since the discovery of dinosaurs: did Tyrannosaurus rex have lips? And get this, they did. Maybe.

Well not now, I mean millions of years ago.

Well it doesn't not look like a scrotum,
but still, that's pretty dumb for a scientist.

I say since the discovery of dinosaurs, but people have been finding dinosaur bones for thousands of years,they just assumed they were dragons or giants or, iguanas. There was even part of a femur from a Megalosaurus that at least one scientist identified as "scrotum human;" a fossilized human scrotum. It wasn't until 1842 that paleontologist Richard Owen came up with the term dinosaur and even then it just means terrible lizard, which they're not. Lizards I mean. And I'm sure some of them were terrible, but I think he meant in the sense of big, or awe inspiring. Which is also not true across the boards. 

Some dinosaurs looked more like chickens. In fact, I think the prevailing understanding now is that they are chickens, or at least that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.

I suppose the lesson here is that evolution is cruel and arbitrary. 

Between this and the feathers science
seems bent on making them adorable.

Anyway, apparently the lip question goes back a hundred years, but recently paleontologists from Auburn University in Alabama compared things like anatomy and tooth enamel from fossil remains with those of living animals like Komodo dragons--which has lips and is one of the less disappointing descendants of dinosaurs--and crocodiles--which like tyrannosaurus rex are just nightmare creatures, but don't have lips--and concluded that tyrannosaurus likely had lips covering their teeth. The jury's still out, but I mean, lips. And ok, sure.

In fact, if kind of sounds like the only reason we don't picture tyrannosaurus with lips is that were used to illustrations and movies where they're lipless teeth monsters. But I suppose if the idea just ruins your childhood, bear in mind the thing about the scrotum bone and remember that this is science and always open to revision and reinterpretation.

Unlike some other worldviews I could mention, but won't.