Lessons in lessers

Look to what happened when he bought
Twitter to get a preview of things to come.

Once again we find ourselves falling inexorably towards the bleak reality of another year in the twenty-first century, and again into another four years of someone people didn't vote for (yes, I know who won the popular vote, I'm referring to Elon). The tradition is to look back at those we've lost, but while lots of worthwhile people died in 2024, I think I want to focus specifically on former President and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. 

Kids used to learn math and civics.
I learned about the Cybertronian Wars.

Carter, who was President when I was born, isn't remember fondly for his time in the White House. I'm not an historian, but I can't help but think this is mostly just because Republicans can't shut up about how great they think Reagan was, which is weird because I'm pretty sure the precipitous decline we find ourselves in now is mostly his fault. Trickle down economics, the AIDS crisis, and a repealing of the ban on advertising at children had a direct and deleterious impact on American life that we to this day haven't shaken.

Pictured: one of America's terrible
decisions seen here, humping Old Glory.

But Carter? After some diligent research on wikipedia, I learned that while he was in office he pardoned people who dodged the draft, established the Department of Education, and helped broker the Camp David Accords. But then Reagan won in a landslide because, I don't know, people were taken in by his confidence-inspiring and luxurious hair. But it turns out he dyed it, so joke’s on us I guess. America can, as I think we've come to see, make some pretty terrible choices. Sometimes twice. 

Nancy Reagan, seen here winning the
war on drugs through the power of sit-com
walk-on roles and mass incarcerations.

Anyway, after America embarked on the cocaine-addled and greed-loving 1980's, Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter (who died just last year) spent next forty years building houses for habitat for humanity. Meanwhile, the president-elect was busy discriminating against black tenants, filing for bankruptcy, and harassing women. Whatever you may think of the achievements of the Carter administration, you've got to admit that he was, by any measure, a 100% better human being than the once and future commander in chief.

But why bring this up? Partly because I'm a little sick of listing dead famous people, but also because I think we need to remind ourselves that we don't have to settle for lesser humans. That is people who could use their power, wealth, and/or influence to make the world a better place, but instead whine on twitter or, I don't know, stage a coup.  Sure, they can win elections and become billionaires, but they're still, you know, lesser. 

Remember when people weren't terrible to each other all the time?
No, me neither, but look at the Carters here...all old, and holding hands,
doing charity work together...shut up, I've got something in my eye...

Unwarranted!

Huh, tastes kind of like lies, doesn't it?

So maybe lavishing so much importance and prestige on someone because of some outmoded system most countries have long since abandoned is a questionable practice? I mention this because last week King Charles III withheld the royal warrant from a couple of companies who've been enjoying the hoity toitsity that comes with it. The companies in question are the candy company Cadbury, and Unilever which makes a lot of things including Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Evidently the titular hippies from Vermont sold out back in 2000.

Oh Hyacinth, will they ever
pronounce your name correctly?

But what even does that mean? Welp, because I grew up watching British sit-coms on PBS--specifically Keeping Up Appearances--I happen to know that in the UK, the monarch grants certain companies the warrant which is a sort of coat-of-ams they can put on their products. I don't think we have anything similar in America outside of sweetheart deals for government contractors, but that's more like graft. Having The Royal Warrant means that the Royal family, or at least the Palace actually uses your goods or services, but it also seems to work something like a seal of approval.

A seal of approval granted to your company by someone able to trace their lineage all the way back to the conquest. 

Above: it was at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 that
the future of product endorsements would be decided.

Sorry, just kidding. He worked very
hard to get where he is today...

Monarchy is, and I don't think I'm alone on this, objectively ridiculous-although we're swearing in a felon in a couple of weeks, so who are we to talk? But what makes Charles III any more qualified than say you or I to decide which flavor of ice cream has the cleverest name or which cloyingly sweet chocolate egg is the most...easter-y? He's just some guy. A guy who was born into wealth, privilege, and power, but still. What gives him the right to withhold the warrant and potentially cost these companies millions of dollars in lost sales?

The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, the divine right of kings, and I don't know, Magna Carta? Look, I'm not an expert. But it's also true that while Buckingham Palace makes it a policy not to explain, well, anything, the consensus here is that both companies have been doing business in Russia whom you might recall in moving past the decade mark in its war with Ukraine? So, I'm kind of with Chuck on this one. 

International policy on this is clear: no ice cream for you
until you withdraw your forces from Ukrainian territory.

Ars gratia pecuniae!

Look, I don't want to tell Sony Pictures CEO Tony Vinciquerra how to CEO, but I'm not sure the problem with studio's comic book movies is critics. 

Above: Vinciquerra seen here, doing what ever CEO's do.

Not all heroes wear capes. Some review
customer service experiances on Yelp.

In the interest of full disclosure here, I should mention that I'm not a film industry expert. Like, at all. In fact, I don't think I've seen any of the movies he's referring to. In anno domini 2024, this is absolutely no barrier to having an opinion. In fact, many see chiming in on any and all topics, regardless of one's qualifications, as a moral duty and far be it from me to shirk such a heavy responsibility. I should also mention that my goal isn't to defend the critics he's blaming. The old saying "everyone's a critic" has never been more true, and what it means to be a critic has never been more meaningless.

Pictured: hyperbole.

Any idiot with internet access can be a critic, but I suspect he's referring to those associated with  news outlets and respected websites when he says:

"Madame Web underperformed in the theatre because the press just crucified it."

-Vinciquerra comparing the film's

 reviews to being tied to a cross and 

left to die of exposure and starvation

Really? There're no other reasons you can
think of to explain Venom's disappointing
box office performance? None at all?

He goes on to say: 

"It's was not a bad film, and it did great on Netflix. For some reason, the press decided that they didn't want us making these films out of 'Kraven' and 'Madam Web,' and the critics just destroyed them...They were just destroyed by the critics in the press, for some reason."

-Vincinquerra spinning conspiracy theories

to explain the explainable

Although it's been my experience that 

movies are rarely so bad they actually 

wrap around to being good and are just bad.

Which, first of all, I did a quick scan of the critic reviews for Madame Web, and it's not for some reason that they're so negative. It's for specific reasons. Many of them site it's dull plot, thin characters, and a bloated story. In fact, I was surprised by how many times critics said they enjoyed some or all of the film despite its short comings. It sounds like it's an "it's so bad it's good situation," but whatever, the numerical reviews are indeed quite low and Vinciquerra nevertheless blames this for the movie's poor box office return.

Also, just because something does well on Netflix, doesn't preclude it being a bad film. People watch all kinds of terrible things in the comfort of their own homes, far from public scrutiny. In fact, I think Netflix is famous for just that.

This is a Christmas movie about a snow many who comes to life and is also hot.
Will it be good? Almost certainly not. Will people watch it? 100%

I mean, they have access to J. Jonah
Jameson. Where's that origin story?

And lastly, I think it's giving the press far too much credit to suggest that they collectively have some kind of anti-Spider-man spin-off agenda. I like Spider-man as much as the next nerd, but personally have no interest in Spider-man adjacent solo movies. I realize that Sony doesn't have the stable of popular characters that Disney has access to, but that doesn't change the fact that Kraven, Madam Web, and Venom (another Sony Spider-film) are C-tier. With rare exceptions, I think audiences just aren't into characters who know, but aren't Spider-man.

I mean this with all due respect and
admiration, but these guys got out just in time.

But I'm getting off track. His contention is that by reviewing the film poorly, the critics cost the studio money. And his evidence is the idea that streaming numbers suggest that people watched them anyway. Ok, cool, but nowhere is he defending the artistic merit of the movies beyond the idea that they're not terrible. Which, I mean, if the aim is mediocrity, it sounds like he nailed it. But he shouldn't expect people to line up for it. Not when it's competing with all the other mediocrity out there.

The idea that they're good enough and should have made more at the box office is a very CEO way of looking at them. It's ars gratia pecuniae. And I can't help but feel that that the answer here isn't to blame movie reviews, but instead to make better movies, you know?

"Make better movi-that's a good one. I mean, we're CEO's, not superheroes..."

-CEO's creating value for shareholders?

I think? I'm unclear on this point...

Yeah, but what if we don't want him either?

Will Rob Schneider's star ever stop rising? Yes. Sometime around The Hot Chick. I didn't see it, but he plays a guy who swaps bodies with a woman and comedy ensues. It was made in 2002, so I'm sure it's a smart, insightful examination of gender and its role in culture.

I'm kidding, I'm sure it was neither of these things.
Also, I suspect comedy is a generous description as well.

Evidently the state wanted him to be able
to back up his claims about his vitamins.
With evidence. Can you believe it? 

Doesn't matter, the thing to bear in mind here is that since the early two thousands, Schneider has been increasingly vocal about his beliefs, and those beliefs became increasingly...what's the word? Right-wing nutter? He endorsed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the last election and when that didn't work out went all Trumpy. Basically his wikipedia bio is a slow spiral into conspiracy theories and getting booed off stages at comedy clubs. He went anti-vax, transphobic, and finally packed up his vitamin business and moved to Arizona: the Florida of the west. Oh, also, he had a vitamin business. 

It's the one where Matt Berry's character
dumps and then punches a trans woman for
being trans. It's as cringe as it sounds.

Anyway, fast forward to now and across the ocean where noted victim of trans people existing, Graham Lineham, has declared that he shall move to the colonies and join embittered conservative forces with the Richmeister on a new sitcom. In Arizona, the center of television production. Lineham, whom you might remember as the creator of britcoms Father Ted, The IT Crowd, and Black Books, disappointingly came out as a transphobe after a transphobic episode of the IT Crowd was called out as being transphobic. Which it super is.

"Stop. Don't. Come back."

-Britain

Lineham's beef with his home kingdom is that he feels that he is being denied his freedom of speech. Specifically his freedom to say terrible things about marginalized groups without being criticized. Which isn't so much freedom as it is freedom to be tone-deaf. And hate-filled. Oh, and not funny. Which is a shame, because those three British sitcoms I mentioned above are--barring that galling IT Crowd episode--great. Like, really great. It's heartbreaking that Lineham turned out to be such a heel. 

Pictured: Graham Lineman, seen
here being oppressed by people not
finding his humor terribly funny.

Like he has every right to be. A heel that is. This is America--or Britain--and the freedom of expression is a cherished right. Just as it's the BBC's cherished right to not hire hate-filled transphobes who, rather than grow up and expand their worldview, have decided to lean into a lazy, punch-down line of humor that the rest of us agreed was best left in the past. So like in many ways the thing he's complaining about is exactly the thing that's driving him from his sceptered isle into the far too warm embrace of Arizona.

There, like a Katamari Damacy of irrational hatred, he, Schneider, and another "woke is killing comedy" doofus called Andrew Doyle, will be teaming up for sitcom that will, I'm sure, attract tens of fans. I wish them all the failure in the world.

This, but instead of rolling up household items, they're
rolling up comedians of a certain age who mistakenly blame
their declining careers on everyone else going woke. 

Unashadened Freude

Maybe your parents should make more
ethical choices when it comes to shopping?

To be clear, my schadenfreude--about which I don't actually feel particularly ashadened--is aimed at Amazon the company and not say, people who work for Amazon (everybody's gotta eat), or even the people who buy from Amazon (although, you 100% don't have to do that). Although I suppose I feel a little badly for folks who bought their kids' Christmas gifts on Amazon, and now they're delayed, but then that's on the company's management and not the workers.

"You want to negoti--what? Sorry,
I can't hear you over all this money."

-Amazon

Like, maybe they should have agreed to bargain with the workers? But you, know, something something capitalism I guess. And now nine thousand Amazon employees walked off their jobs. Not because of the unsafe working conditions or inadequate pay--well, ok, kind of because of that--but because the company declined to even negotiate with them. And nine thousand workers are like, you know, .6% of the company's one and a half million workforce, but then it's enough to grind Christmas to a halt. 

Is it true? I don't know.
But people are saying...

Alarmingly, the former CEO and noted rich guy Jeff Bezos is hanging out with Trump and is handing him a million dollars for his dumb inauguration. Because the last one went so well. I say alarmingly both because of what he did at Notre Dame, and because billionaires are just straight up buying the presidential access now. Which isn't new, but the tit for tat feels particularly blatant, and I have a not unreasonable conspiracy suspicion that he'll pull a Reagan and send in scabs shortly after being sworn in. 

Or, easier still, he could pack the National Labor Relations Board. You might have heard that the Amazon/Trader Joe's/Tesla lawsuit to get rid of the NLRB isn't going so well at the moment, so like they say, if you can't beat'em, throw your money behind a populist autocrat, and let him fill it with billionaire-friendly puppets who will take your side when your underpaid staff complain about unsafe working conditions...you know, Republicans.  

Breaking News: the President has appointed a number of nineteenth-century
robber barons to the National Labor Relations Board in a move critics say not
only undermines labor protections, but violated the laws of nature by resurrecting
their corpses and giving them powerful positions in a federal agency.

Is it cynical if it's true?

Yeah, but they said that their warehouses were like super safe, and like why would they lie?

Oh, right.

Above: a typical day at an
Amazon fulfilment center.

An eighteen month Senate investigation chaired by Bernie Sanders found that the rate of worker injuries at Amazon is twice that of the industry average. Evidently, the company's Dickensian warehouses where workers frantically rush to fulfill orders are veritable death traps--or at least injury traps--where safety procedures are routinely ignored. Then, when someone is injured, company representatives pressure them return to work before they're fully recovered. Which, super.

The report is pretty damning. Or at least the summary is. I don't get paid for this you know. The committee conducted a hundred and thirty-five interviews, collected first hand accounts, and documents from hundreds of workers, and it all paints a picture both horrifying yet, you know, on-brand for the company. 

"Oh-wee-ohh-wee-oooo-ohhh."

-An Amazon worker who

preferred to stay anonymous

"But your honor, people should be
grateful that they even have a job."

-Amazon's lawyer

Amazon, for their part, is disputing the findings. In a statement hilariously attributed to "Amazon Staff," the company portrays itself as a tireless champion both of worker safety and customer satisfaction, which is a bold claim from a company famous for having to be pressured into giving their employees enough time to use the bathroom. And for a company which is also trying to get the courts to rule that the National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional and always has been. I guess their contention is that no one has noticed in the past ninety years.

Pictured: Sanders at Biden's inauguration.
Remember? Back when we had hope? Fun.

Now, I should be upfront and say that in addition to working in a bookstore, an industry Amazon specifically set out to destroy first before moving on to gutting brick and mortal retail in America, I've also become increasingly skeptical of corporations in general over my forty-some years of life. In my view, ours is a bleak, hyper capitalist wasteland. so to some extent when I read a story like this, one that aligns so easily with my worldview, I'm inclined to believe it. I'm biased. I have no trouble believing that Senator Sanders is on to something here. 

To be clear, you have to
provide your own bag.

But biases don't mean that the committee isn't correct, or that we need to give the company that popularized poop bags for their drivers the benefit of the doubt. Of course the committee's findings are real, and of course Amazon is putting profit ahead of people. Milton Friedman, noted economist and cause of everything wrong with everything, argued that corporations have a social responsibility to increase its profit, and that's it. So Amazon will keep doing what they're doing it until they're forced to stop either through government action or until public disgust makes it unprofitable to continue. 

Basically they'll keep doing it forever. You see, the incoming administration is almost certainly going to be on team poop bag, so government action seems unlikely. And America is addicted to free shipping despite the fact that it's in no way free, so a boycott is equally out of the question. Cynical? Maybe. But not wrong.

What? It's not free. It's called Prime and it's $135 year.
Amazon's not your friend, it's your dealer.

It's the Schrodinger's cat of pie videos

Kids also swear more, but unlike
Rooney, that never bothered me.

Honestly, thought I'd be older before the world became a confusing, baffling nightmare, but in fairness, I am in my forties. On the bright side, it's not like I'm all Andy Rooney about it, complaining about how things used to cost less and that customer service is dead. Of course, they did cost less, and customer service is dead, don't misunderstand. We're just used to it. I've seen a precipitous decline in the quality of life in America just in my lifetime. It's just that that thing with the Enron CEO and the pie lady happened yesterday, and I'm just...I can't even.

Hooray. We, the powerless and downtrodden millions have found a way to protest the system that sets corporate America above the law, above morality, and above consequences without resorting to murder. The answer is, as I suppose it was always meant to be, pie. 

Yeah, but hold your applause, I'm about to ruin it for you.

I don't mean to victim blame here, but
it kind of feels like they should have seen
the French Revolution coming.

And sure, there are those who will bemoan the fact that assault with pie is still assault, and it is. But as so many have pointed out, people can only be pushed so far. People have to set up GoFundMe's every time they need a kidney or get a cancer diagnosis. Yeah, Luigi Mangione is being charged with murder, of course he is. And I mean, assuming that's him in the video (and we're all pretty sure it is, right?), he's super guilty. The fact that we're not all as horrified as we should be--and a lot of people are actually cheering him on--speaks to the frustration and powerlessness we all feel. 

Pictured: America's 1%, seen here 
blissfully unaware that this is not
a sustainable situation.

There's a finite amount of money and resources in the world. Probably enough to go around, but with each passing day those resources are increasingly sucked up by a wealthy few. Like, we should have universal healthcare like every other wealthy nation on the planet, but we don't because money is speech and health insurance companies basically own lawmakers. We should be able to afford housing, but speculators and developers have made it impossible for most of us. We live in a democracy and should be able to do something about it, but, well, you saw what happened last month.

And afterwards, Gates gave away all
his money and has become a tireless
crusader for social justice...right?

But then comes this hero and her pie. Was it assault? Maybe. Insanely, pie, unlike money, is not considered protected speech. But who can blame her? She's just chucking what we're all feeling...or is she? Because it sounds like this hilarious and satisfying example of baked justice was staged. Evidently, Connor Gaydos, the CEO in question is the same Connor Gaydos who, along with Peter McIndoe wrote Birds Aren't Real, a satire about an equally satirical conspiracy theory. Also, Enron doesn't exist anymore having folded in 2007 and perhaps this was a reference to the real-life pie-ing of Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and actual Enron CEO Jeff Skilling. 

Which, ok, that's actually funny, but is it real or not? Or is it actually just viral marketing for crypto currency? All I can find about that is articles passive voice-edly saying "it is speculated" that it's just a crypto ad. So maybe it's not. Or is. I don't know, because we live now in a world where nothing is real, and nothing matters, but everything is prohibitively expensive and they're about to swear in a convicted felon in a few weeks.

Pictured: adult diapers for concerts so you don't have to get up.
It's a joke, but it also sold out immediately, so it's not a joke? But it is?

 

An algorithm of perpetual failure

So, couple of things...

It's not just me. It can't be. Can it?

In fairness, kids are terrible artists.
I mean, look at this. That's just awful.

Someone on the DivvUp marketing team had to have known what they were doing, right? It's not impossible that an actual child drew this, but someone had to look at this and make the conscious decision to say: "Yes, that is exactly the image to use. That's what human necks look like. Perfect. No notes." Which is weird considering the general wholesomeness of the company--if anything in this end-stage capitalism hellscape we find ourselves suffering through can be called wholesome--but I mean, they provide socks to homeless people. And dick jokes to Facebook.

"More food? Where are the socks?
Just--just throw this all away..."

-Shelters, evidently?

DivvyUp is a Florida-based--wait, hear me out. Not everything from Florida is terrible. There's uh...oranges? You don't have scurvy, do you? Thanks Florida. So DivvyUp is sock manufacturer whose thing is that for every pair of socks you buy, they donate a pair to a homeless shelter. No, not like one at a time, I guess they let them build up and then do it monthly? Which, cool. According to their site, that was the thing the shelters say they need, even more than food. But, also food, right?

They also sell custom socks, so if you--for some reason--want your face or that of your pet on a pair of socks, or any number of products, it can be yours. Blankets, drink cozies, you name it. If you want your baby's face on an air freshener, they'll do that for you too. The possibilities are limitless. And baffling. 

They are curiously silent on exactly what this smells like,
but baby's aren't really famous for pleasant odors.

Ugh, we get it. You're fecund.

A similar company appeared on my social media feed a few years ago, leaving me to seriously doubt the competency of the algorithm as I have no pets and even if I did, I wouldn't want them on socks. Look, I'm not judging you if this is your thing, but the practice of putting photos of your kids or your dog on socks, hats, and t-shirts (always ill-fitting t-shirts at that) or whatever is a yum I have no problem yucking. For one thing, I find it kind of tacky. For another, like Marty McFly's siblings, these images must surely fade with each passing trip through the laundry. It just seems like an ever-present reminder of death. A crass memento mori in 100% polyester.

More like a tsu-not-mi...

So, I just want to be clear that I'm not mad that there wasn't a tsunami. I'm really not. I do however want to talk a bit about the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery & Resilience. Which, no really that's what it's called, because Santa Cruz is going to Santa Cruz. But back to the cataclysmic death wave: 

Uh-huh: "until local officials say it is safe to return."
Remember that bit, it will come in handy later...

The red is the possible tsunami danger
zone, the yellow is us, and the whole
thing is in the unaffordable rent zone.

First we got the above warning accompanied by every phone in earshot blaring that alarm sound. Ok, fair enough: flee the city. At this moment I and everyone with a screeching iPhone, was in Santa Cruz, California, about a mile from the shore. As it happens, Santa Cruz is on the north end of Monterey Bay, and we're kind of used to these things not really applying to us, as the bay sort of shields us a bit, but part of the county is on the coast and was included in the warning. Maybe the notification technology isn't sophisticated enough to parse out which parts of a county are affected, so they just tell everyone to head for the high ground and sort it out later. Whatever, a quick map check says we're not in the zone. Super.

Oh, so we are going to die? 
Make up your minds, would you? 

Around noon the National Weather Service gave the all clear for the entire California coast and we all went back to living our lives of pleasant weather and clinging to the knowledge that at least we voted for Kamala. But ten minutes after the all clear from the NWS, we get a whole other warning from the County Office of Response, Recovery & Resilience--which is the most Santa Cruz name for a thing ever--telling us "get away from the coasts because tsunami." Look, I don't want to tell the SCORR&R how to do their jobs, but this back and forth is seriously affecting my resilience. 

Another trip to the NWS site confirms that this is nonsense, but I mean, someone had to push the send button, and they probably also have access to the NWS site. So maybe check it out before sending us all back into panic mode? It was another half an hour before the Santa Cruz Office of Response, Resilience and Manifesting Positive Vibes called their warning off, and I just need them to get it together next time, you know?

Oh, and if they could look into getting an Oxford
comma while they're at it, I'd be much obliged.