I don't think he's doing the math here...

Because I mean, how many showed up to try and overturn the election results? Something like twenty five hundred. Which, is a lot, sure, but--hang on, I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Explain to me how they're the law and order party?

Not to be confused with the radical, vicious,
racist regular people that make up his base.

So at a campaign rally in--wait, is it a campaign rally if the person holding it hasn't actually announced that they're running? At one of those events the former President holds where a bunch of dumbasses show up and cheer all the racist, self-serving, nonsense that spews out of his cheeseburger-hole, Donald Trump started winging on about the "radical, vicious, racist prosecutors" who are after him and expressed his hope that any malfeasance on their part should be met with a spontaneous outpouring of support from Americans, in the form of mass protests. 

Speaking of, anyone else like, super excited
to watch Giuliani speak to the committee?

Yes, to be clear, whilst his political allies, aides and supporters are under investigation for their involvement in a coup attempt, one that Trump himself may be implicated in--and let me be clear, of course he incited it, we watched him do it, and then stand by while it played out and then it wasn't until it had definitely failed did he tell them how great they were and then grudgingly ask them to maybe go home now--wait-where was I? Right, ok, so while the January Sixth committee is still investigating the coup attempt, he's already publicly calling for another one.

I guess he only loves America when
he's got the nuclear launch codes...

Huh? Jumping to conclusions? Me? Never. What he said to his rabid-foam supporters was:

"If these [prosecutors] do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protests we ever had in Washington, D.C.,  in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt..."

-Former President Trump, on what

a corrupt country we all live in

"No, it's not you. Naked hypocrisy
is a prerequisite for joining the GOP."

-The guy who stole two

Supreme Court seats

Wai-wai-wait. Let me see if I've got this: when you or I say, maybe criticize some aspect of the United States, we're America hating, socialist liberals. But when he makes a vague blanket denouncement of America as a whole, and our electoral system, the very one that let a guy who lost the popular election by three million votes, he's get a round of applause? Is it me, or is criticizing America only un-patriotic when Democrats do it? Anyway, it kind of seems he should take the advice we usually get when we expresses frustration with some aspect of the United States: "if you don't like it, leave." 

Which might not be the worst idea for someone in his position right now. I mean, look, I think there's at best a one in a hundred chance that Donald Trump faces consequences for his actions before, during, or after his time in office. He is, after all, a wealthy white male. But one the off chance that he does face charges at some point, some country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. might be a nice move.

Although he did dismiss a number of those countries as shitholes,
leaving Maldives, Bhutan, Madagascar--wait, goddamnit, why
are all the countries ousted strongmen can flee to vacation spots?

Free with every vote!

But we were talking about his threat of another coup, and yes, you're right, he didn't explicitly say "take to the streets and instal me as President for life." He did however essentially say that any election that doesn't result in him winning is corrupt and he also suggested that if he becomes president again, there might be pardons coming for those charged with crimes during the January 6th coup attempt. And I don't think it's much of a walk to say that an offer of pardons for last year's insurrection isn't a tacit offer for pardons for a future insurrection. 

Above: That time they sent Press
Secretary Sean Spicer out to lie to our
collective face about crowd size. 

But if somehow he does end up in court, I don't think his fans are going to need some misstep on the part of the prosecution to take to the streets. These people are still out there raving about how the election was stolen and how the COVID vaccine causes cancer. Or mind-control. Or lycanthropy. Or whatever. My point is that they're already primed and loading their guns because that's what nutters do. But the biggest protests ever? I find that unlikely. Remember his inauguration crowd?

I'm just suggesting that some hypothetical "Keep Trump from Facing Consequences for Crimes March," is going to have some stiff competition. There's the 2017 Women's March when five million people showed up the day after Trump's meager inauguration turnout. Oh, and then there's the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations that saw something like twenty-six million people come out in the middles of a pandemic. Again, for those keeping score, that's a thousand times and ten-thousand times the insurrection's turnout respectively. 

But yes, I'm sure Americans will turn out in droves to
support the guy most of us voted against--twice.

Well, it's not like he's entirely wrong...

Ok, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to admit, "beneath the dignity of the office" doesn't quite have the same weight as it used to. 

Pictured: Trump humping the flag.
Not pictured: a shred of dignity.

I mean, stupid is as stupid shouts
from the back of the pressroom.

That said, I think we can all agree that Joe Biden shouldn't have called Peter Doocy of Fox News a "stupid son of a bitch." But he did, and a hot mic caught it. Obviously, it's a wildly inappropriate thing to say. The "b" word is loaded, misogynistic, and beneath the dignity of the office. Stupid sure. Doocy asks dumb-ass questions all the time. In fact, he was shouting a dumb-ass question about whether or not inflation was a bad thing, when Biden muttered his comment. But I always figured that it's because Doocy's a parrot for right-wing bullshit, not because he's unintelligent. He might be, I don't know.

In Bush's defense (those are some words
I never thought I would type), he did say "Major
League" asshole, which, as assholes go...

If this all sounds familiar, you might remember that time George W. Bush was running for President and referred to Adam Clymer of the New York Times as a "Major League asshole." The difference here is that Bush immediately expressed regret--wait for it--for getting caught.

"I regret that a private comment I made to the vice-presidential candidate made it into the public airwaves."

-Bush calling the kettle an asshole

Biden, on the other hand did call Doocy to apologize. Like, immediately. Sure, I have no doubt that he'd not have done so if the mic hadn't picked it up, but I mean, have any of us called to apologize for things nobody heard us say? My point is, while I think Joe Biden has been a pretty okay President so far (not the best, far from the worst), he's shown himself to be a way better human being that anyone the GOP has going for them right now. Which, admittedly is an increadibly low bar. Like, on the ground.

I'll take a politician who makes the occasional honest (and not inaccurate)
hot mic gaffe over the racist, transphobic, anti-science, anti-democracy,
 rabid foam lunatic insurrectionists on the right any day of the week

Really? We're going with "My Way," huh?

Apologies to anyone who doesn't care about video games, but I'm going to have to talk about the Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin trailer that came out yester-huh? Yeah, I know, it's an absurd title, but hang on, it gets weirder and I have to discuss this with somebody.

From the Bravely Default and Octopath Traveler schools
of "just throw some words out there and call it a title."

What's to explain? Cornelia
finally got an Old Navy.

The game is a prequel to the first Final Fantasy game which was set in a quasi-medival world, but threw in some robots and flying city towards the end. Stranger then, is evidently the back story of Garland, a knight you fight early on who--and spoiler for game from 1987--turns out to be Chaos, the big bad of the end of the game. Stranger's first trailer elicited some head scratching from fans for putting Garland in a henley, and having him repeat over and over again how much he wants to kill Chaos. 

FFXV was about a magic teleporting
prince taking a road trip with his
buddies. Also, there are dinosaurs.

But then, Final Fantasy has always been weird. It's usually compared to the Dragon Quest series, which ran more or less parallel with it and has a similar audience. Dragon Quest was the traditional JRPG. It's always set in a sword and sorcery fantasy world and uses turn-based battle systems. Final Fantasy on the other hand tended to be more experimental. It started making use of similar fantasy settings, but then went through steam punk, cyberpunk, and then full on sci-fi with Final Fantasy XIII. 

Astos looks...sad? Is there something going
on between them? Because I would ship
them. Wait, am I using that correctly?

But back to SoP:FFO (acronym!). The new trailer starts off JRPG-ish enough, with some stilted exposition and scenes of Garland and other heroes battling monsters from the first game. But then about half way through Frank Sinatra's My Way starts playing and Jack--which I guess is Garland's first name now--is checking his phone and fist bumping Astos the Dark Elf. It's bananas. Not bad, mind you, just bananas. I mean, really it's kind of weird that in a game about wizards and krakens I'm getting hung up on the protagonist's iPhone. 

I guess it's a tonal thing. It would be a little like Gandalf doing a Tik Tock challenge with Shelob. It would be a little like that, again, Final Fantasy has always been pretty kooky. But hey, most of the time, the kooky works. And then other times things like this happen:

"You know what this scene of large scale death and destruction
really needs? A stuffed cat despairing at the carnage."

-Final Fantasy's developers

There's no license to have kids, and yet...

I am, as I may have mentioned before, not a parent. Or a pet owner. Nor do I have any plants. But it's because of this that I typically keep my opinions about how other people raise their kids to myself. 

It's important to me that nothing depends on me for its very life.

Yeah, Florida is right now passing a bill
banning discussion of LGBTQ issues
in school. Guess what it's called?
The Parental Rights in Education Bill.

I bring it up because I'm about to express some fairly strong opinions about a Virginia parent and gun enthusiast called Amelia King. In a school--hang on, I should probably mention first that Virginia recently swore in a new governor, Glenn Youngkin who, making good on campaign promises, has used his power of executive orders to make masks optional for school kids--that is, now it's up to the parents, not the schools, which is the right's new thing right now: parental rights. Don't like masks? Parental rights. Upset that schools might teach that slavery was bad? Parental rights. Hate gay people? Parental rights.

"I don't personally have COVID right
now, so it must be over with, right?"

-Youngkin, Republicaning

And I'm not saying that I'm against parents having rights--again, I'm not one so what do I know? But it's a policy that doesn't work if parents are say, uninformed, misinformed, or just rabid-foam right-wing crazy. Which brings us back to Amelia King who, at a school board meeting where the district was trying to decide what to do now that a reckless governor pandering to his base just made their lives even more difficult, announced that if her kids were asked to wear masks, she'd be showing up to school armed. You know, to murder people.

"My children will not come to school on Monday with a mask on. Alright? That's not happening. And I will bring every single gun loaded and ready to--"

-Amelia King, parent of children

Above: King, seen here promising to come to her children's
school armed if the board doesn't do what she wants.

"Well I mean, she's white so..."

Um, and that wasn't for effect she just ran out of time. Like, everyone gets three minutes to speak, and King's simply elapsed. So mid death threat, when someone on the board let her know that her time was up, she just said "See ya'll on Monday..." and took her seat. Well, that bit probably was for effect. I mean, the unspoken follow up being "...when I come here to shoot people." Anyway, she's been arrested and charged, and is even now out on bail--which, wait, why is she out on bail? And does she still have guns? Tell me someone confiscated her guns...

Oh...shit, right...

And what exactly was her game plan anyway? If the board did impose some kind of mask rule, did she think she'd roll in wave her guns around, maybe plug a couple administrators and then everyone would just maskless-ly go about their day? Is there some scenario in which someone waves a gun around in a school that doesn't end in a lockdown and law enforcement shooting someone? These are the threats of a violent sociopath, did she think she'd be hailed as some kind of hero?

"Yes, but what about every Amricans'
right to shoot people you don't agree with?"

-Gov. Younkin...actual quote*

So this is where I express those strong feelings I mentioned earlier. This person shouldn't be allowed to own guns or kids. Wait, do you own kids? Like I said, I'm not sure how parenthood actually works. But I think my broader point stands, and that is that we're all in this together. Sure, parents have rights, but it only works if all the parents have rights. If one family insists on sending a kid to school without a mask, then they're taking the choice away from other parents to keep their kids safe. 

Asking everyone to mask up in a pandemic isn't an infringement of rights, it's the price of admission if you want to exist in a society. Parental rights, sure, fine, but it kind of feels like parental responsibility should factor in there someone too, right?

Hey kids, remember: the lesson is "when you don't get your way, try guns."

*ok, not an actually quote, but I mean, it's implicit

A prequel? What could possibly go wrong?

Not to get all judge a prequel to a book adaptation by it's canonically questionable streaming TV spin-off's title but it's terrible right? Huh? What even am I talking about? Why this:

Huh. I guess every other combination of words
in the English language were already taken? 

Above: some early concept art

If you've not been following, or if you're like me and have kind of fell off the whole Lord of the Rings thing after the meandering nonsense that was the three movie adaptation of the Hobbit, there's to be a Lord of the Rings TV show and it's called "The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power" and no, I didn't forget the colon, evidently there just isn't one. And it's weird. Weirder still is the the use of the word "ring" twice, which is awkward. And yes, I'm aware of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" and yeah, I'll say it, it was good show, but it had a dumb title. 

In a bold move, Amazon has tapped
two white males to write the show.

The series, which is being produced by Amazon, will be a prequel to the Peter Jackson movies. According to this article in Variety, the writers/show runners, J.R. Payne and Patrick McKay think it's brilliant:

"This is a title that we imagine could live on the spine of a book next to J. R. R. Tolkien's other classics."

-the collective entity comprised that 

is J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay

No really, the article quotes them as a single unit, which again, weird, right? Yes. And for the record, literally any book could sit on the shelf next to Tolkien's. Preferably they would be ones written by authors whose last names also start with "T," but any book could sit on the shelf. This doesn't however change the fact that their title is boring.

Nor does it change the fact that it was already used by a Sega Genesis game.

They go on to talk about the premise:

"Lore lore lore, lore lore. Lore?
Lore! Loooore. Lore lore." 

-McPayne, "writing"

"The Rings of Power unites all the major stories of Middle-earth's Second Age: the forging of the rings, the rise of the Dark Lord Sauron, the epic tale of Númeanor, and the last Alliance of Elves and Men. Until now, audiences have only seen on-screen the story of the One Ring -but before there was one, there were many...and we're excited to share the epic story of--"

-J.D. Payne and Patrick Mc--let's 

just call them McPayne, it'll save time

"The hoots of men are easily clerupted."

-Glerdriel, the elp

Ok, I'm going to have to stop them there. They just used "epic" twice in two consecutive sentences. And look, if you've ever read my blog before, you know it's rife with errrors. But this is just the internet and nobody's paying me. Payne and McKay are professional writers working for one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world. Did Amazon not spring for proofreaders?  Sorry, I don't mean to be so negative. Maybe the show will be great...probably not, but maybe...

I don't know, between the unimaginative title, and writers's description being full of lore and world building instead of character or story, I just don't have a good feeling about it. And not for nothing, but Tolkien's family famously disapproved of the Peter Jackson films on the grounds that they felt J. R. R. would have objected. One can only imagine how he'd feel about a company that drives bookstores out of business churning out a CG-heavy cash-grab prequel to his work.

Pictured: noted British fantasy author J. R. R. Tolkien, 
is almost certainly spinning in his grave like a lathe.

Hey, Lego my intellectual property!

But is this really the kind of thing you sue over? Well, yes. Yes it is actually.

Because I mean, is it--huh? Oh, sorry, let me explain.

At 88 square inches, if this were a real
NYC apartment, it would list for $3200/mo.

That's the Queer Eye cast rendered in Lego. Lego, in case you've not been following, has branched out from the Pirate/Space/City sets of old into tiny plastic versions of all kinds of thing. There's Lego Star Wars, Lego Harry Potter, Lego Superheroes, there's even been Lego versions of TV shows not aimed specifically at kids, like Seinfeld and even a set that recreates the cast and apartments of Friends (the TV show, not like people you know). It's a whole thing. And now there's a Lego set of the cast of the Netflix version of Queer Eye. Ok, so what's the lawsuit about? I'm glad I pretended you asked. 

The minifig--that's what they're called, the little people I mean. I guess it's short for mini-figure, doesn't matter. Anyway, the minifig for Antoni Porowski, the show's food and wine expert, is wearing a jacket that is based on a real-life jacket Porowski has worn on the show. The jacket was made by James Concannon, a clothing designer and personal friend of Porowski and he's kind of upset about it.

I don't want to "why in my day this," but a lego Pirate with a 
painted on eye patch was a big deal when I was a kid. Here, they've
even captured Antoni's slightly raised eyebrow and stubble.

Did you know George Lucas owns the
word "droid?" He didn't coin it, he just
trademarked it. Which is nonsense.

I mean, it's definitely the same jacket, like, 100%. But is it actionable? Like, first of all, I think we're way too obsessed with intellectual property and if anything, Lego's Antoni is wearing a parody of the Concannon's jacket, not the exact design. Lego could probably claim fair use or something. Sure. But then of course, I've never had my intellectual property stolen, and really the point here is that Lego could have asked. Instead, after the fact, when he called to ask about it, they offered him a Queer Eye Lego set for his kid as compensation. That's just--what's Dutch for a huge slap in the face? Because it's that.

I mean, they're a seven billion dollar company, and used his jacket without so much as a vær så venlig and then tried to give him a hundred dollar box of building blocks to shut him up. So yeah. This is absolutely the kind of thing you sue over. Go get'em.

"Please direct any further inquires to our tiny, plastic legal department."

-a spokesperson for Lego

To Pull a Cleveland

Did you know that the 14th Amendment precludes insurrectionists from holding office? 

Although, admittedly, it'ƒ ƒometimeƒ hard to tell what thiƒ thing ƒayƒ...

Pictured: Senator Josh Hawley
giving some aid and/or comfort.

Because it does, in section three:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an office of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies there of. 

-The 14 Amendment, talking exactly about 

shit like the GOP's coup last January 6th

"Da da dat dat da ya da!"

-George III

Seems pretty clear. Clearer than say, the Second Amendment. It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," but like, does that mean anyone can own any kind of weapon in any quantity and carry it around all the time like a psychopath? Or, is it saying that in 1789 we needed to keep militias handy in case the British Empire decided to strike back? Because I'm pretty sure James Madison never saw AR-15's coming. They'd have been like phasers to him.

Above: Taylor Green, seen here being
that dick that deliberately wears their mask
below their nose. God, these people...

And while it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on that one, I'm not sure the 14th Amendment has the same wiggle room. It was put in in the aftermath of the Civil War because at the time they knew that there's no way our system of government can function with fully half of it dedicated to overthrowing it and that's why that section is there. So I think a more than fair question would be why does Majorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, or any other Republican who didn't offer a full-throated condemnation of the insurrection still have a job? 

And why is there even a chance that Donald Trump could pull a Grover Cleveland? Which, and let me stop you there, is not some weird sex thing (although, no kink shaming), but rather refers to the only President to serve two, non-consecutive terms in office.

Although Cleveland actually won the popular vote. For those
keeping score, Trump has never won the popular vote. Ever.

They talk a lot about how great America is, but
they're the ones trying dismantle the right to vote.

I mention this because it's come up recently that maybe Donald Trump, not satisfied with a disastrous singe term, and making demonstrably false claims in an attempt to undermine democracy as, you know, a thing, might try to run for President again. And he could totally win. Again, not because most Americans would vote for him, but because the Republican Party has spent the better part of the last fifteen years gaming the system to make sure only their votes count. But who cares? He fomented an insurrection, so he's off the ballot, right? Right?

"Fuck you, I do what I want."

-Mitch McConnell, see?

Well, since half the Senate is Republican we should mange our expectations of how and when rules are enforced. Take for example the time Mitch McConnell sat on Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination because he felt it was too close (ok, like a year) to the election? But then when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, he forced through Amy Coney Barrett's appointment and then when asked about the blatant hypocrisy he waved two middle fingers and said "Fuck you, I do what I want." What? That's a direct quote.

Frustrating isn't it? You betcha. Anyway, according to this Huffington Post article, Senate Republicans could block this ban--because of course they could--but, I don't know. It kind of seems like they'd have to admit that Trump incited the insurrection to do so, right? Like, if he's not responsible, why would they need to block a ban on insurrectionists? But if they did move to block a ban, then they be admitting that he was responsible, but that they simply don't care. Which, I mean, they don't, but am I making any sense?

"Yes, but I'm afraid that you're assuming that we operate from a position of
reason or have a sense of shame, and I can assure you that neither is the case."

-Somehow still a Senator, Josh Hawley

1880 called, they'd like their crime wave back...

So we're back to train robbery? Train robbery. I ask because that's the new crime same as the old crime crime that's apparently come back into fashion.

Well, 2022 is off to a great start.

Our ocean are choking on plastic,
but at least our hair will be volumized.

First of all, I think it comes as something of a shock that trains contain anything that anyone would want to steal. I kind of thought that everything was about container ships and then semi trucks, but no, apparently 28% of U.S. shipping is still done by train, including a fair amount of the junk we order online from Amazon--incidentally, please let's all stop ordering junk online, especially from Amazon. Anyway, now people are breaking into train cars and making off the with our precious essential oil diffusers and one-step hair dryer and volumizer hot air brushes. What? I looked it up. According to Union Pacific, instances of theft from their trains jumped 356% from 2020 to 2021.

The problem has gotten so bad in Los Angeles specifically that the company is threatening to hold a press conference where they will announce that not only do they still exist as a company, but that they'll be pulling out of L.A. due to lax prosecution of the crime. Which, I mean, if I was a 911 dispatcher, I'm not sure I'd believe someone calling about a train robbery either, but I guess this is actually a serious problem.

"Hello? Hello? Operator, connect me with the Pinkertons, post-haste!"

-some train company official 

Those are empty packages left by the
thieves littering the tracks, and not, as I first
assumed, just L.A. being kind of a pit.

So who and or what is to blame? Union Pacific, which operates its own security force, complains that thieves that they catch are released with no bail and come back to rob them again within twenty-four hours, so they're blaming the police. The city is saying they'd love to prosecute these crimes, but they need evidence, which is I suppose hard to come by. The sheer volume of the crimes makes it kind of unlikely that they're going to dust a hundred and fifty trains per day for prints.

The pandemic is obviously in the mix here, as it's been screwing with every aspect of the economy from supply lines to people being able to go to work. And because every crisis of the twenty-first century so far just combines into the calamitous frittata of fuckery that we've all been living in, the thieves have been making off with at-home COVID tests. 

A fuck-tata, if you will.

When Mitch McConnell is thanking
you, you're doing everything wrong.

But basically everyone just comes back to blaming poor people. Well, poverty really, which, thanks to our short memories, will eventually transfer to blaming the administration. And I have a couple of issues with that. For one, reversing the four-year shit show that was the Trump era is going to take more than a year when you have a hostile and unhinged opposition party, and two Democrats who have taken it upon themselves to doom voting rights so as not to upset the people who attempted an actual coup d'état.

No, really, give it back.

But I think if we really want to place the blame for an uptick in the crime that made Butch goddamn Cassidy famous where it really belongs, I think we should be looking elsewhere. I'm by no means an economist, but if people are raiding trains, I mean, trains! It's because half of Americans, collectively, only have two percent of the total wealth. That's insane. According to Bloomberg Wealth, Elon Musk nearly doubled his net worth in the second year of the pandemic. He made added another hundred billion. 

Obviously, the solution here isn't to just rob more trains until things even out. The solution is to blame the people who are really at fault--Republicans. You thought I was going to say rich people, didn't you? Well, there's a lot of overlap, but what I'm saying is that if Democrats actually controlled the Senate--Sinema and Manchin are basically Republicans--they could cancel student debt, close tax loopholes, and I don't know, impose a windfall tax on people who make a hundred billion dollars while the rest of us are resorting to train robbery. 

What I'm saying is that I think we're all a little sick of living in the end game
of Monopoly, where one player has all the money and hotels and it's just not fun anymore.
If we don't do something about it, sooner or later, someone's going to flip the board.