Don't his robot cars keep killing people?

I mention this because being ultra-wealthy is not the same thing as being an expert in...well, anything's really. Did you see this? Elon Musk's defense of Dilbert creator Scott Adams's batshit video about how America should just give up trying to not be racist. 

Has it been though? Racist against white people I mean.
Is he...could he be thinking of some other the media? 

Pictured: what Musk did.

After the preponderance of the internet clapped back at Adams for his ignorant shittiness, Musk leapt to his defense, both turning the table whilst simultaneously flipping the script. Yeah, you read that right, it's the media that's racist. Against white people. Asian people too. And um. Cool, yeah. I mean, he's half right, maybe. There's absolutely racism in the media, but I've never noticed being aimed at white people, have you? At Asian people, sure, but I think he just stuck that in there so he'd sound less racist. Which didn't really work. In fact, it kind of backfired. 

"Mondays? More like No Fun-days!"

-basically Dilbert

Adams coming out with his nonsense was weird enough. He's been voicing some pretty retrograde opinions for years now, but I guess he's never said anything offensive enough to overcome his lack of relevancy. It's like people didn't care enough to cancel him before now. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, I know he was a successful comic writer for years, and Dilbert had it's day but it's not like anyone in twenty twenty three was waiting for Scott Adams to weigh in on race in America. Nor was anyone waiting for Elon Musk's opinion either.

So why did he jump in there? Nobody cares what he things about this and it's not like he needs to attach himself to controversy to get attention. Everyone hates that he bought twitter, his self-driving cars keep getting into fatal accidents, and he's started hanging out with MAGA goons. Is it that he feels like he's so rich and powerful that nothing can touch him? Sure, it's been true so far, but sooner or later this catches up with him, right?

"It's about time a cis, straight, white, male billionaire set the
record straight about how hard it is to be white in America."

-literally not one person ever

You know what really doesn't pay off, Scott?

Look, I don't want to tell people with shitty worldviews how to live, but you'd think--particularly now--that they'd know better than to, say, go on racist screeds in Anno Domini MMXXIII, right? Look, I don't care about Dilbert--like, at all--but what I am interested in is asking what Scott Adams's endgame here was? Like, what was his plan? I mean, what did he think would happen when he put his horseshit out there for all to enjoy?

Was he hoping for condemnation, the erasure of whatever goodwill he might have
had, and every paper in the country dropping his comic strip the instant he opened
his racist face-hole? Because that what he got. Like at the speed of outrage. 

Oh no! What's Black America going
to do without Scott Adam's help?

I didn't want to watch the video for the same reason I don't watch Dr. Pimple Popper; I just don't what that in my brain. But I did watch it, and it's as gross as you think it is. He found some weird right-wing poll about race, decided that there's no fixing racism and advises white people to "escape" from Black people by moving into white neighborhoods. Oh, and then announced that he's going to "back off" from being helpful to Black America. 

I'm not super-clear on how writing Dilbert
was helpful to Black America, but I don't know...

"I'm going to back off from being helpful to Black America. Because it doesn't seem like it pays off. Like, I've been doing it all my life, and I've been--the only outcome is that I get called a racist."

-Noted cartoonist and racist Scott Adams

Ok, but surely even he's got to admit that saying things like helping Black people doesn't pay off, sounds pretty racist, right?

Anyway, after showering, I'm left with the question of what was he looking for here? Was he thinking that the tens of Dilbert fans out there might flock to his cause? Or that America, as a nation, might suddenly revert to separate water fountains and red line neighborhoods just because Scott Adams is feeling under appreciated?

Like, literally no one anywhere was asking Scott "Dilbert" Adams to chime in on
race in America. No one. All he had to do was keep his shitty opinions to himself,
and the five or six newspapers left would still be running his dumb comic.

Once more unto PVP dear friends, once more!

Pictured: online gaming.

I should be upfront that while I am a video game person, I'm not an online video game person. That is, I don't play online games with other people unless I know them and it's Mario Kart or something. I'd like to say that it's for some kind of snobbish reasons, but really I'm just socially awkward in some ways and don't want to interact with strangers in a video game. Because gross. But I do admire the fact that performing plays, including some of Shakespeare's, is now a thing people are doing in MMORPG's. 

Above: Shakespeare's Globe with historically
accurate metal girders and Tommy gun.

Yup, a group called the Wasteland Theatre Company gets together and puts plays on in Fallout '76. The game is part of the Fallout series and is a post-nuclear apocalypse role playing game, so it's a lot of desolate ruins and, well, wastelands. The game is famously not great, but has attracted a cult following including, apparently, theatre nerds. They hold auditions, build the stage, including The Globe, sets, and costume the "actors," all using in-game assets and then perform using the game's chat.

Cheap shot? Sure, but I'm not wrong...

Theatre is best when you're seeing it live and in person, and I guess Wasteland's productions work the same way. They have a Twitch channel, but apparently you can also go see it in the game. Of course, that means you have to play Fallout '76. Because it's an MMORPG and in a consistent world where anyone can play, one has to be prepared for some rando to pop in and murder everybody. So it's a lot like what I imagine doing outdoor theatre in a Redstate is like.

I suspect most people catch them on their Twitch channel, although a recorded production of A Christmas Carol they did for charity back in December is up in its entirety and I watched some of it. Was it the best thing ever? No, it was not. The actors were a bit flat at times, and lost their places in the script, but it was definitely the best Dickens play I've ever seen performed in a video game. And I admire the passion and the nerdery it takes. Which, I mean, that's live theatre, right? Passion and nerdery.

"Out out brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts
and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. Until he respawns."

-Macbeth, World V, Level V

Presidents* Day

They're on the money, they have cities and even a state named after them, I guess what I'm asking is do they need a whole day too? Because some of them were kind of awful.

This one committed genocide. Like, actual genocide.

"Enjoy your federal holiday, I'll just
be here. You know, working."

Presidents, I mean. I ask because tomorrow is Presidents’ Day, which is a holiday for some people. You know, people whose jobs are, shall we way, non-essential. Which is another way of saying that they make more than the rest of us who will be taking their lunch orders and customer service calls while they reflect on the U.S. Presidents. Anyway, doesn't matter. I'm not here to whine about having to work tomorrow, that was just a bonus, I'm here to call into question Presidents Day, as a holiday.

"Because the real victims of slavery are
white kids who have to learn about it."

-Ron DeSantis

Officially it's Washington's Birthday, but then they rolled Lincoln's in there was well, and now I guess it's a holiday for Presidents in general. Washington, I kind of get since he was the first President. I suppose the bar was super low, and he did defeat the British and basically start America, but he also enslaved people so I guess I don't mind that he has to share now. Oh, and in case you live in Florida, yes he did, he absolutely did. And no he was not nice to them. It's literally impossible to be kind to someone you own and make work for no money.

Pictured: the woman most of us
voted for but wasn't President somehow.

Where was I? Lincoln. Also great. Won the Civil War, freed the enslaved people, he gets a day even if it's weird that he has to share it which the be-powdered wigged proponent of forced labor. But what about the rest of them? Does President's Day celebrate all the Presidents? All of them? Really? The thing about Presidents is that unlike say, a king, is that they're supposed to be real people. Not the vessels of divine will, but just some randos whose careers in politics landed them at the top. Or maybe they just gamed the electoral college. Either way.

Above: Ninth President William Henry
Harrison, seen here wearing the coat he
should have worn on inauguration day.

I guess where I'm going with this is I think they need to do something to warrant a holiday. Like for every Lincoln and FDR, there's a Buchanan, right? In fact, there were probably several Buchanans for every FDR. Or William Henry Harrisons. Remember him? He caught pneumonia while giving his inauguration speech and died thirty days in. What did he do to deserve getting one forty-sixth of a national holiday? I don't mean to pick on they guy, I'm just saying that I'd kind of get it if he was the reason we have sick days now, but he's not. They just swore in the next one and moved on, but he still counts.

I guess my point is, shouldn't it be Some Presidents Day or maybe Good Presidents Day? Presidents* Day? I'll leave you consider that while you spend tomorrow in solemn contemplation of the achievements and contributions of some of our nation's commanders in chief. If you need me, I'll be, you know, working at my job.

Contemplation, shopping. Same difference. I guess they have good deals on stick
blenders, maybe pick one of those up? It's what Lincoln would have wanted.

Today in relentless fan service:

Huh? What's that? Why yes, I did see the new episode of Star Trek: Picard. What's that? My opinion of it? Why certainly, I'd be happy to. What? In my defense, it's not like anyone needs to ask me. Should I encounter you in person, there's a decent chance that I'm just going to launch into my thoughts about it.

The internet is something like forty percent fans opining
on media franchises they like. I'm just doing my part.

I read more Star Trek novels in my misspent
youth than I'm prepared to admit to you now.

Anyway, Picard season three. I thought the first episode was great, but I'm not saying you should go watch it. Nor am I saying you shouldn't. You seen, I'm just not sure I'm the one to ask. Or even the one to pretend to ask as a set up for a blog post. Star Trek: The Next Generation and the extended universe of spin-offs and movies and even comics and novels, were a big part of my childhood and teens. I may have even, to my great shame, built models. Models. So I'm not sure I can evaluate it objectively. And this defiantly works in Star Trek: Picard's favor, because I have mixed feelings about the series.

Share them? Well, ok, but only because you insist. Look, it's not a great show. In fact, it's probably been the weakest Star Trek series out of all of them. And yes, I am familiar with Star Trek: Enterprise.

Yeah, you heard me. Trust me, I'm as surprised as you are.

All I'm saying is that Star Trek Discovery
did "extra-dimensional doomsday sentient
machines" like two months earlier than Picard.

They both played out like miniseries, each season telling a single over-arching story rather than being stand alone episodes, which is a completely contrary style to the series it was based on, and neither told a very interesting one, if we're being honest. Season one--and spoiler alert, I guess--ended up being a "stop the rise of the evil robots" story. While season two was time travel shenanigans. And yet, I watched and enjoyed them both. How could I not? They're tailor made for exactly people like me. People who built the goddamn model kits.

Before you ask, no, Crusher's sex
candle was vaporized years ago.

People who, as I did last night, scrutinized the dialogue and even the backgrounds picking up on every detail placed there by the writers and the production team for nerds like me. The orchids we see in the beginning of the episode? Oh, Doctor Crusher grew orchids in the episode Cause and Effect. Geordi LaForge's daughter Sydney? She was mentioned in the series finalé All Good Things... Space dock? Dang, straight out of Star Trek III.  Does any of this make for good television? No. Am I there for it? You betcha. And they--the writers--know this. They know the buttons to push. 

And I know that they know. And yet I don't care. Well ok, I do care. I mean, I feel like I'm being manipulated, but that will in no way stop me from watching the next nine episodes. Which, and don't get me wrong, could actually be great. I think this season's first episode was actually good. Like, really good. It's just that I don't trust my own objectivity. 

What was it about? I uh...I don't know, but Doctor Crusher's
jacket is totally a call back to The Wrath of Khan, so...there's that.

Wait, did someone think it was aliens?

You've got to feel for the White House Press Secretary, right? Well, the current one, Karine Jean-Pierre, not Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

Pictured: Sarah Huckabee Sanders seen here calling the women who accused
Donald Trump of assault liars, or possibly calling Democrats baby killers. It's hard to say.

"And before you ask, Pete Doocy,
no, the objects aren't angels either."

-Jean-Pierre, covering her bases

I say this because Jean Pierre had to reassure the press--a room full of adults mind you--that we didn't just shoot down four alien spacecraft:

"I know there have been questions and concerns about this but there is no, again there is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns..."

-Karine Jean-Pierre, on how

definitely alien these objects aren't

"Our patented five blade design ensures a
close, comfortable cutting through of the bullshit."

And I mean, really? Is that really a question the White House has been getting? Ok, fine, of course it is, but I kind of think they can just let them stew. Stew in their tin-foil hat juices. Sorry, that's a mixed metaphor, but I think you get me. Of course this rash of as-yet-unidentified high-altitude objects has nothing to do with aliens. Of course it doesn't. Not just because of some Occam's razor argument--although, also because of that that--but because it's preposterous. And a little insulting if there are aliens.

Do we have a tachyon detection grid?
No? Then they have nothing to worry about.

Ok, to be clear, there are absolutely aliens out there. Like, it's just math. Whether or not they can or even want to visit us is a whole other question. But let's say sure, there are aliens with the technology and morbid curiosity to check out our backwards, fossil fueled little garbage fire of a planet. Are they doing it with balloons? Balloons easily visible to our tracking devices and vulnerable to our puny weapons? Or are they scanning us from a distance in cloaked spaceships with sophisticated sensors? I'm not an alien, but I know which I'd pick.

Call me a skeptic, but to get here, they would have presumably crossed impossible, interstellar distances and I just have a hard time buying that they'd not only come all this way to surveil North America, but to do so in a hospital gift shop mylar balloon that can be taken out by bunch of pre-warp barbarians. 

Although in the unlikely event that these things were alien in origin,
I feel pretty good about our chances should they try and invade.

You might say it's a real A.D. campaign...

Or you might not...anyway, have you ever heard of this niche religious movement called--hand on, let me see if I've got this right--Christ-ism? Wait, no, Christianity. Yeah, that's it. If you haven't and you're a fan of the football, you're about to hear what it's all about at this year's annual Super-bowl sporting event.

"Christianity? Never heard of them. Are they a band or something?"

-literally no one in the world

Pictured: a crusader bludgeoning
non-believers with God's love.

The movement, founded in the first century A.D., is based around a street preacher/son of God who hung out with the destitute, the chronically ill, and the socially outcast and called out the political and religious establishment of his age for its hypocrisy. The religion went on to be the dominant belief system for a significant percentage of the human species for the subsequent two thousand years. It inspired art, architecture and incredible acts of kindness, but it was also used as justification for slavery, countless wars, and acts of brutality and intolerance that resonate down through the ages.

So it's a little weird that someone feels that they need to take out a Super Bowl ad to raise awareness of the religion's existence. Although I am given to understand that God does routinely take time out of his busy schedule to intervene on the behalf of the faithful in the outcomes of sporting events, so what do I know?

"He who prayeth the hardest shall winneth the big game, so sayeth the Lord."

-the Bible.

They should probably call it: 
"We Don't Get Him, Like At All." 

The ad campaign dubbed "He Gets Us" (he in this case being Jesus) is aimed at the youths, a demographic the religion has lost significant ground with over the past few decades. Why? I don't don't, but if I were to speculate, I'd say it has something to do with the way Christian organizations have become increasingly hostile and toxically right-wing. They tent to be anti-choice, anti-LGBTQIA+, xenophobic, racist, authoritarian, hyper-capitalist and--fine, Republican.

"Birth control? I don't know, have you
discussed this with your managers pastor?"

-some doctor

He Gets Us however aims to change all that. Huh? No, not by actually addressing the gross, right-wing bent of American Christianity, but by trying to change the public perception. The hip sounding He Gets Us website emphasizes the love one another, everyone has a seat at the table, Jesus as Hippy vibe and that's super. But the organizations funding the campaign are a bunch of conservative, anti-choice, homophobic groups and individuals including David Green, the Hobby Lobby founder who fought for an won the right for businesses to deny birth control coverage for employees on religious grounds.

After all, a rebranding is way easier for American Evangelical Christianity than actually examining the questions and irreconcilable paradoxes at the heart of their political beliefs. Questions like "how can pro-life people also be pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and anti-healthcare?" And "why are Evangelicals anti-gay when Jesus mentions gay people exactly zero times?" You know, the real come to Jesus stuff they don't like to think about.

You know, David Green is awfully vocal about how Christian he is for
a guy who has not, as Jesus explicitly asks, given all his money way to the poor.
Pretty sure he never said anything about donating to right-wing political groups.