Let's hope this doesn't go all Goldblum...

Well, I hope NASA is satisfied with itself. They just plowed a $330 unmanned million spacecraft into an asteroid. Huh? Yeah, million with an "M," but I mean, still...

Unmanned? What about our ragtag crews of misfits?
Is NASA trying to put them out of a job?

When bullseyeing an asteroid is an 
easier sell than lowering carbon emissions
we seriously need to reevaluate.

And yes, plowing into the asteroid Dimorphos was the point and yesterday's impact was in fact a huge success and the first step towards creating a defense against potentially extinction-level catastrophes in the future. Well, I mean, extinction-level catastrophes we didn't make for ourselves. And really, when you think about it, $330 million isn't all that much when it compared to a planet-killing rock falling to earth with the kinetic energy of a thousand nuclear bombs. So hurray! Good on you, NASA. To boldly divert asteroids no one has ever diverted before! I am 100% onboard. But couple of things:

"Let's uh...let's hope not?"

-Some astrophysicist

First of all--and I'm sure this is a pretty dumb question--but are there like, unforeseeable consequences to altering the course of asteroids? Such as causing some other impact? The idea here was only to divert Dimorphos--dumb name, I agree--by a tiny degree, but it orbits a larger asteroid called Didymos and like, NASA looked into what diverting Dimorphos would do to Didymos, right? And even if they did everything right, isn't there an amount of unforeseeable-ness to unforeseeable consequences? I mean, something something gravity, right?

Like I said, dumb question. Of course they matched all of this out. But like most non-scientists my age, my understanding of science comes from Star Trek and Jurassic Park and so there's always going to be a part of my brain slapping a table and um-ing my way through a monologue about chaos theory.

"Space rocks..uh...find a way..."

Kind of feels like an ape problem.
What? Don't look at me like that.

Ok, but in fairness, I'm not alone in my paranoia about the unknowable. The idea with the DART mission is to see firstly if we could divert an asteroid or whatever from a potential collision course, but I mean, how often does that happen? The last serious impact was like, sixty-six million years ago and is maybe what killed the dinosaurs. I'm not saying it couldn't happen tomorrow, but I'm saying that there's also a decent chance that it could be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years away, right?

But sure, it could happen next week or in a year or even a hundred years and in anywise, better to be prepared than not, right? And really, $330 million is chump change in a world where a single billionaire has seven hundred and seventy times that much and just uses it huck roadsters at Mars and to not buy Twitter. 

Also, anyone else notice how much the impact video looks like the 
meteor crash scene from the opening of Final Fantasy V?

No? Just me? Ok...

Power Creep

Have you ever heard the phrase power creep? I think it comes from video games and refers to updates that increase the player's stats or powers and while it gives them a brief sense of superiority, it ultimately makes the game less fun. 

Hearthstone seems to be held up as an example of
power creep, but was it ever fun to begin with? 

Before Halle Berry's Toad line in X-Men, this
was the dumbest moment in comic book movies.

I've also heard it used in terms of comic books. Take Superman for example. When he started out, Supes (it's what the cool kids call him...the cool kids from 1930...) was more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap entire buildings in a single bound. Then over the years writers, faced with writing the genre's most iconic and boringest character added new abilities. Laser eyes, flight, that weird cellophane "S" he throws at Bull from Nightcourt. They just kept making shit up, which, sure, that's fiction for you, but still, let's be reasonable. 

Speaking of reasonable and people being not...uh, that, I feel like we would be remiss if we didn't at least mention the former, electoral college but not popular vote winner, turned President turned Jesus stand in to millions of America's most gullible, Donald Trump's recent assertion on Sean Hannity's show. 

Pictured: the listing for President Donald J. Trump: The Son of Man - The Christ,
a book that asserts that Trump is, and I wish I were joking, the second coming. 
Of Christ. Yes, literally Christ. Mike Pence is his Judas. No, really.

You know the one I'm thinking of. The one about how the mere power of his thoughts while President are enough to declassify documents without any sort of procedure or witnesses or signatures of paper trail or oversight or...you get the idea.

Above: Mar a Lago, the resort/legal null
zone where things are whatever Trump
says they are and no one can prosecute.

"There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it...if you're the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it. There can be a process, but there doesn't have to be. You're the President--you make that decision. So when you send it, its declassified. I declassified everything."

-Donald Trump, on how everything 

he touches is instantly less classy

Not since Gandalf fought Sarumon has
the world witnessed two septugenarians 
battle each other using magic powers.

Which, I mean, that's not how it works. Of course that's not how it works. If there doesn't have to be a process, then why is there a process? It's not optional. Also, he's not the President anymore so by this logic can't Joe Biden just use his magic President powers to re-classify the documents Trump stole? You know, just by thinking about it? And what's this "as I understand it" nonsense? Is that his lawyerly move to avoid prosecution? Because someone explained to him how this works. Of course someone did. This is national security we're talking about.

This guy's preposterous political career has been nothing but a power creep. Just a narcissistic goon laying claim to powers he has absolutely no right to. I can shoot someone on fifth avenue, I can overturn the election, I can grab'em by the--nevermind. The point is, if there's any justice in the universe, we'll all someday gather around our phones and televisions to watch the live stream of the perp walk into a minimum security prison. For like six months. What? I'm realistic, he probably won't even get that.

Followed by rioting MAGA nuts who think he's Jesus. Like, actually Jesus.

A tenuous, but I think fair comparison.

This is why we have a government people. I'm not sure that this is the soundest argument to push back against Republicans and their weird insistence that unchecked capitalism and total reliance on individual responsibility are the only way to America properly, but these:

And the rockets red glare...

"Yup, me again."

"Yeah, what even is that?" You might reasonably ask. Why it's a male to male--that is, prongs on both ends--extension cord. And if you're anything like me (not an electrician), your first response would be "surely there must be some application for such a thing, even if I don't know what it is." But evidently no. No, there is no safe or useful reason for such a thing to exist and yet it does and Jeff Bezos (and in fairness, a number of other online retailers) will sell it to you.

Right next to your lawn darts, 
Bucky Balls and Talcum Powder.

According to this article from Consumer Reports the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a warning the other day saying, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Holy shit, what are you thinking, stop buying these things immediately and if you own one cut it into pieces and bury it in the yard. What's wrong with you?" Evidently people have been buying these things, plugging one end into a generator and the other into like, a regular home outlet, under the mistaken impression that this will power their home in the event of an outage. Fun fact: it will not.

Instead, the more likely results are shock, electrocution, fire, and carbon monoxide poisoning when the generator shorts out or whatever. 

Turns out there's a reason people go to school and
apprentice for years to be an electrician.

Pictured: pedantry.

And what's more--wait, can I just tangent for a moment here, because this has been bothering me. A lot of people use the word electrocuted when they really mean "received and electric shock." Which, whatever, who cares, but the word electrocuted is a portmanteau of the words electric and executed and means "death by electric shock." So no, if you're around to tell everybody about how you were electrocuted, you weren't electrocuted. And sorry, yes, I know how I sound. Anyway, where were we?

What I'm saying is that dumbs are going to
dumb, but other people shouldn't have to suffer.

Right, the reckless behavior of online retailers who are selling a products whose only function leads to death and property loss and how I'm straining to make this into an analogy for the utility of government regulation. I guess what I'm getting at is that individual responsibility is super, but the world is full of dumbs who will try things like, say, plugging a generator into a wall outlet and hoping for the best. And ha ha, Darwin Award or whatever, but house fires have a way of spreading. 

That's why we have agencies like the CPSC. And I know, "boo, government interference!" but there's a difference between laws that say things like "you can't sell a product that kills people" and laws that say "you can't seek an abortion because it offends some peoples' religious sensibilities." Huh? Yeah, that's where I'm going with this. 

I guess what I'm getting at is that a commission telling businesses that they
can't sell dangerous products is infinitely more reasonable that laws telling
people they can't seek abortions because of other peoples' religious beliefs. 

Look at me, taking the bait...

Just...just don't. Don't what? Oh! Sorry, I'm not talking to you really, I'm just saying don't to whomever left this dumb card at the book store in which I work:

Literally nobody ever has asked them why they vote Republican. Ever.
But if people--as I'm sure they'd like us to believe--did ask and asked so often
as to make this card a time-saver, I'd invite them to reevaluate their answer.

Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, doesn't
matter. The GOP welcomes everyone who
subscribes to one of two different forms
of Christianity. They're a big tent.

Don't bother squinting, both because it's not worth it and because I'm going to get into it. The bullet point is about individual freedom which is weird because Republicans just proposed a nation wide abortion ban so right off the bat this card is preposterous. The next is about equal rights "regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability." And I mean are they maybe thinking about some other Republican Party? Because the one we're familiar with has really leaned into racism, sexism, transphobia, and general Nazi-ism of late.

The rest of the card is about free enterprise, fiscal responsibility, the proper role of government--and again, I'd direct their attention to the Supreme Court's recent Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision--patriotism (ha!), and how America famously spreads peace, freedom, and justice around the world. Through drone strikes, I guess.

Don't worry, this isn't the kind of patriotism that asks you to do anything
to serve your community, you can just hump the flag and that'll cover it.

He was basically this
truck in human form.

I'm not sure who exactly left the card, but I have a good idea. There was this rando in the other day, probably in his twenties, white tank top, American flag shorts--what is, shorts where half is the stars and the other side, the stripes. Oh, and a couple of norse tattoos. You know, the kind white dudes get because they think it's like their culture or whatever. It's not, and they're usually adopted by white supremacists who latch on to Viking imagery because they lack any unifying cultural identity of their own beyond whiteness and, I don't know, Trump.

I'm making an assumption here, but
money, actual money says that if asked this
dude would not be able to define socialism.

Anyway, he and some friends wandered around our book store in our blue as blue can be hippie little California beach town talking loudly (you know, so we could all hear) about how our store is full of socialist propaganda and something something liberal agenda and I think there was some stuff about God in there as well. Why? Who the hell knows? I'm sure in their heads they were changing minds with their unsolicited and performative right-wing nonsense, but mostly we all just felt like we needed a shower.

God, remember this asshat?

And what even is with the card? It was found--and I'm sure we'll be finding more of them stashed about all over the coming weeks--on a display of banned books. Was the rationale that someone would be looking at some of the titles rejected by school boards and certain states run by insecure white men and be converted to their way of thinking? Or was it just so that someone like me would see it and work themselves up into a frothy, righteous frenzy over how full of shit Republicans are? Because if that's the case then mission accomplished. 

Also, for someone who's so far up his own ass, our store's supply of left wing propaganda and insidious liberal agenda didn't stop him from spending like two hours in the store and buying stuff, but whatever. Well, at least we got his money.  

It's not like we go into right-wing book stores and preach about universal
health care and equal rights for--kidding! I'm kidding. They don't read.

Today in predictions that aren't:

Hey, do you know what's not news? Huh? Yes, Fox News, but what I'm talking about is--what's that? Yeah, I've heard CNN is kind of getting gross and right-wingy, but where I'm going with this is--yes, fine, those posts on Facebook about positive thoughts re-writing your DNA are also bullshit, but I want to talk about Nostradamus.

The fact that we all rely on a global porn and cat video delivery
system for our news should trouble us more than it does.

Pictured: The late Mario Reading, noted
Nostradamus expert seen here probably
being interviewed by The History Channel.

A British tabloid is--yes, I know tabloids are tabloids, but a couple of other news sites are also talking about how some writer called Mario Reading who, back in 2005, wrote a book claiming that Nostradamus predicted that Queen Elizabeth II would die in 2022 which, I mean, no he didn't. Nostradamus that is. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but Nostradamus, a sixteenth century French John Edward, wrote a book called The Prophecies and for four hundred years there have been people claiming that he was a goddamn wizard.

"Even I don't buy that one..."

-Mace Windu

Here, one of Reading’s claims is that Nostradamus further predicted that Charles III will abdicate and that Prince Harry would be the next king:

"For not wishing to consent to the divorce, 

Which then afterwards will be recognised as unworthy: 

The King of the Isles will be driven out by force,

In his place put one who will have no mark of a king."

-Nostradamus rhyming, so it must be true

Or how half a dozen monkeys given a
week will write a Dan Brown novel.

Divorce? Harry married Megan and everyone hated her! And King of the Isles? Britain is an island! Nailed it! Except, did he though? It's like how they say that given enough time, infinite monkeys working at infinite typewriters will eventually produce Hamlet. Nostradamus was bound to hit close to the mark eventually. And by close to the mark I mean at some point someone in the British royal family would get divorced, right? Like Henry VIII was divorcing wives and wives' heads from their bodies around the same time Nostradamus wrote this so it's not like it came out of nowhere. 

It probably would have been remembered
as a romantic story but then they started
hanging out with Hitler. Like, a lot.

Also, wouldn't this also kind of apply to Edward VIII? You know, the king in the 1930's who wanted to marry American divorcee Wallace Simpson? He said screw it, abdicated, married Simpson and then his brother who wasn't supposed to be king was then made king? Ok, it doesn't fit perfectly, but then nobody's telling Harry to get a divorce either so I guess what I'm saying is that maybe Mario is reading too much into it (see what I did there?). Or who knows? Maybe he genuinely believed he was on to something and what do I know?

Reading's feat is on par with coming
closest to guessing the price of an
Amana refrigerator without going over.

And Reading evidently did predict that Elizabeth would die in 2022 at the age of 96. I guess he came up with that through some kind of weird nonsense math having to do with the fact that the passage above is from Centurie X, quatrain XXII. Somehow the twenty-second stanza means the year 2022? But whatever, she did die in 2022 at age 96. Of course, predicting that someone will die in their mid-nineties isn't evidence of paranormal powers but credit where credit is due. Really, if anything Mario Reading was better at predicting the future than Nostradamus.

And it is. Dumb I mean. But if they abolished
the monarchy, who would wave at the assembled
masses from limos and horse-drawn carriages?

But back to Nostradamus and his weird poems. I suppose if you squint you could see how the one about the divorce and the "king of the isles" could apply to Charles III. At least if suddenly everyone was clamoring for him to divorce Queen Camilla, which they're not. My sense was that most British people are cautiously optimistic, while a growing minority just thinks that monarchy is a dumb medieval relic they should get rid of as soon as possible. Sure, he might abdicate at some point either due to age or because everyone loves Will and Kate but--damnit, now I'm doing it.

Trying to find meaning in something some crackpot scribbled down in order to impress the pre-enlightenment dumbasses of sixteenth century Europe, that is. Look, if Nostradamus really did see the future why wouldn't he give us details? Instead he just writes down a bunch of four line poems with alternating rhymes that could fit almost any story. There's an old adage that the simplest solution is usually the correct one and in this case the simpler solution is that Nostradamus was a charlatan that wanted to sell quatrains. 

Pfft...he couldn't predict Tuesday if he had a calendar.

Today in plenty of reasons:

If you don't like the protests, maybe
hand down less egregious rulings?

"...simply because people disagree with opinions, is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court."

-Chief Justice John Roberts

on why every should just be cool

This was a part of some comments he made about the Supreme Court being reopened to the public after COVID 19 and after the national outcry over the reversal of Roe v. Wade. 

And fine, he's correct. Disagreeing isn't enough, but just to be clear people aren't protesting and questioning the legitimacy of the court because they've been handing down decisions disagree with. I mean, ok, we are and they have been, and I actually think that disagreeing with something is a totally valid reason to protest, but whatever, it's not just that. 

Also, there's disagreement and then there's outrage at the stripping
of a fifty-year legal precedent and fundamental right. It's not like we're
disputing a credit card charge or a parking ticket. This shit matters.

All we knew for sure about him is
that he likes beer and cries a lot.

We're also questioning the legitimacy of the court because three of the last four appointments are questionable. Either way you look at it, Mitch McConnell straight up stole either Neil Gorsuch's seat or Amy Coney Barrett's. With Gorsuch's he argued that it was too close to the election to let Obama appoint a justice. And then when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died he rammed through Coney Barrett a month before Biden beat Trump. Either one is legit or the other is, not both. As for Brett Kavanaugh, the administration sat on evidence that he may be guilty of multiple sexual assaults.

Among other things.

Also, didn't Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett swear up and down that Roe v. Wade was settled law only to change their minds once they had the job? Sounds a little perjury-y to me. And that's not even touching the fact that Ginny Thomas, sitting Justice Thomas's wife, pressured lawmakers to overturn the election. All this on top of the fact that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett were all appointed by Donald Trump; someone most Americans voted against--twice--and who flushed the centuries old tradition of peaceful transfers of power down the drain.

Look, we're not a bunch of whiners who can't accept election results, we're the majority of the American people who have watched helplessly as the court was stacked by someone now facing charges for actual crimes. We're not questioning the Supreme Court's legitimacy just because we disagree. We're questioning it because a third or more of the court's justices are eminently questionable. At best. Legitimately illegitimate at worst and we're stuck with them until they either die or retire. So yeah, we're angry and going to let them know it.

Get it? Because the--look, it's not the cleverest slogan, but it's also not wrong.

King for a day!

Being British must be hard on the knees.

The King of England. King. Huh, feels weird. But luckily for me it doesn't come up in conversation that much what with me being an American. We have it relatively easy. Like, I don't have to remember to switch the pronouns when I sing God Save the King/Queen at, I don't know, cricket matches? Do they do that? I'm not going to have to trade in all my Queen Elizabeth II money--which I presume is now totally worthless--for Charles III fun bucks. And at no point will I be at a Tesco, bump into the reigning monarch and have to remember whether I'm supposed to bow or curtsy. This doesn't affect my life at all and yet here I am talking about it.

Print media: yesterday's news, tomorrow!

What do you mean "It what?" The death of Queen Elizabeth II and the en-kingulation of Charles III, that's what? How did you not...oh...oh, do you read newspapers? No offense, but I mean, it's 2022 so maybe it's time to...look, I'm not here to analogue shame. The important thing is that after seventy years, fifteen Prime Ministers, thirteen Presidents, thirteen Doctors Who, thirty corgis and a Brexit, the only Queen pretty much anyone under 100 remembers is dead. Long live the King. Yes, Charles. Yes the one everyone wanted to skip.

Which is not how that works and no, I have no idea why I find this so interesting. I am, as I mention to everyone who will listen, a quarter Canadian so I suppose I'm one quarter affected by the change in figurehead, which I guess is weird because it seems like I'm 100% more interested in the monarchy than any actual Canadian I've ever met has been. But then maybe the fact that I don't have to bend the knee or whatever subjects do makes it ok for me to find this fascinating. It's all theoretical. 

For most Americans Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada was just a pallet
swap of the Queen of England. Like Scorpion and Sub-Zero. But
to millions of people around the world, she was much, much more.

"Stop the count, I'm the next King of England.
Everyone knows it, the succession is rigged."

-Some idiot

As an American I don't really have any context for what the death of a monarch means. It's not the same as a President. A President is just some rando and they become President because A: They were elected. B: They were the Vice President when the President dies. C: they're a narcissistic gameshow host who convinced enough dumbs in electorally more valuable states that they're victims and electoral college won the office. But the Queen, and now the King, are monarchs because God says so.

Ok, metaphorically anyway. They're actually monarchs because they happen to be born to someone who was born to someone who blah blah blah Norman Conquest. 

Pictured: the Blah Blah Tapestry.

I think that's true. It's hard to say, my
understanding of US history is based
mostly on Hamilton and Liberty's Kids.

Is it ridiculous and medieval? Absolutely. Do I think it's kind of awesome from my privileged position as someone who's never lived under a divinely appointed monarch? Sure. Again, in theory. But then we Americans have never been under the heel of one. Well, ok, George III but then all he did to us was stamp tax our paper products and sing the occasional musical number. People in say India, South Africa, and China probably have a very different and far dimmer view of the monarchy as a thing.

Uncle Sam and Elizabeth II had more in
common then just patriotism and bulging
biceps, they were also both fond of hats.

I mean, there's a reason everyone in the Galactic Empire has a British accent. But this is the future and the British Crown has no real, practical political power. They're instead just figureheads. I'm not a political scientist, but to give an analogy I have no business making, it would be like if Uncle Sam was an actual person and also the living embodiment of The Constitution. So if you want someone to blame for Britain's historical misdeeds you need look no further than the elected officials, so they're a lot like us in that regard.

But back to the King of England--still weird--and his first day on the job. A job which will mostly consist of trying to keep the British people from opting for a republic. And to them I have two pieces of advice. Unsolicited, meaningless advice from someone with no stake in this whatsoever. First: remember the last time you tried a republic. Second, remember that the U.S. is a republic. I'm not saying don't, I'm just saying think before you do anything.

Also, the King just gave a lovely, heartfelt speech in which he pledged his life to
serving the British people. With a republic, you occasionally get washed up TV
 stars who can't form complete sentences and who steal your nuclear secrets. 

If the Trilby fits...

Ok, fine, not all Trilby wearers, but I mean, c'mon. Most of them. But that's not important right now. What is important is that Elon Musk, evidently hellbent on burning whatever good will might be left in the minds of anyone who hasn't paid attention to him in the past few months, has waded into the TLOTR: TROP nonsense.

The Trilby: for the discerning gentleman who interprets
strong female characters as a threat to his masculinity.

To everyone so concerned with author's intent,
just consider that Tolkien might have left some of
this stuff locked in a drawer for a reason.

That's The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. You know, the streaming series based on J.R.R. Tolkien's notes which seemed to surface whenever his son Christopher Tolkien needed a new kitchen reno or whatever? But I kid. I'm sure Tolkien the younger was in no way motivated by profit when he edited together every scrap his father wrote and published them. Twice. And to be clear, the nonsense I referred to isn't the series itself, but rather the crackpot hatred of the it, because the show is fine. I'd go so far as to say that it's actually pretty good despite it coming at the price of giving Jeff Bezos more money. Or rather would if I wasn't sharing someone else's Amazon account. Wait, uh, allegedly sharing someone else's Amazon account.

I've eaten meringue's more durable
that some people's masculinity. 

But whatever. Rather than the chorus of butt-hurt cave-dwellers wailing about how some of the elves are Black and how the very idea of Black elves flies in the face of Tolkien's 100% accurate documentary about the magic fantasy land he made up, Musk's fragile worldview is instead rocked by the strength of Galadriel's character and the comparative weakness of the male characters. "Tolkien must be turning in his grave." He cries. And, ok sure, he probably is but not necessarily because of TLOTR: TROP, people of color playing elves, or its strong female characters.

Rather, I think he'd just be baffled by contemporary storytelling. Take the Peter Jackson films, which I recently suggested would set Tolkien's corpse to spinning. I think they're great, but the author would've almost certainly been turned off by the emphasis on action, quippy dialogue, and lack of songs, but that's just how we tell stories now. Have you read the books? They're practically musicals, which is fine, but if you're trying to sneak into Mordor, maybe don't burst into song every five minutes. That's realm of the dark lord infiltration 101.

"Sam, I get it. You like big butts, and while I appreciate that you cannot
lie, I would ask that you keep it to yourself for the time being. At least
until we're past all these orcs and I can fling myself into that volcano."

-Frodo, the Ringbearer, 

kind of over it.

The Double Down alone would
likely be enough to shred his sanity.

But I think one could argue that the author would take issue with any twenty-first century interpretation, so it's probably a good thing that he's dead. He'd also probably lose his nineteen-diggity's mind about virtually all aspects of living in 2022. The internet, streaming television, the broken, out of control capitalism that allows a single person to amass an obscene amount of wealth. All of it would send a reanimated Tolkien scrambling back to the cold embrace of the grave.

Sort of like how if you put Elon Musk
next to someone even worse, he might 
come off as tolerable. Might.

As for the specifics of Musk's complains, I mean, maybe he was watching some other streaming fantasy show loosely based on something Tolkien may have jotted down on a napkin in 1938? But I don't see it. Yes, two episodes in and Galadriel is an elven special forces bad ass and yes, she did encounter a guy one might describe as a nave. But even if Musk was on to something--he's not, but if he was--this is story telling and Galadriel is one of the protagonists. The characters Galadriel encounters have to serve the story and by contrasting with her they help to tell us who she is.

But the fact that the richest human on earth is so shaken by a strong, fictional female character suggests to me that no one, let alone someone so insecure that they take to Twitter to whine about elves, should control enough wealth to launch a roadster at Mars.

"Walking away from an explosion? But that's our thing!"

-Male movie characters