OKAY, WE ARE AT THE END OF JULY AND I’M STILL OBSESSING OVER MAD MAX : FUCKING FURY ROAD, HOW IS THAT

in mesopotamia there were no 'cover letters' or 'curriculum vitaes'. there were just, pots.

Minor correction -- Reagan didn’t fund Bin Laden. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but was sitting on the sidelines watching everything go down. The Saudis were initially highly resented for that approach.

It was in the aftermath of the disastrous civil war that followed out departure without building infrastructure or bothering to support the right people that he was able to gain a foothold with the angry.

Now, America was funding Bin Laden for decades -- but not because of the Soviet-Afghan war. The Saudi royal family belongs to the Wahhabi sect of Islam, the same radical school that birthed both Al Qaeda and ISIS, and have spend decades funneling the money we pay them for oil directly back into terrorism against us. Our thirst for black gold has been paid in blood for decades, and that’s fueled endless violence.

But nobody talks about this because we don’t want to have a mess fighting the Saudis -- the do, after all, have the Muslim Holy City, and can you imagine that disaster? --, it’s easier for liberals to just blame Reagan than acknowledge the more complex truth of what we’ve done (and our own complicity), and heaven knows we don’t want to be paying $3 a gallon.

To be clear, this is just a correction of a minor point. The thrust of everything above? Important truth.

wait….are any americans aware that the cia overthrew the democratically-elected premier of iran in 1953 because he wouldn’t concede to western oil demands….and how that coup was the reason for the shah’s return to power, the iranian revolution, and the resulting fundamentalist dictatorship…..like, america literally dissolved iranian democracy and no one knows about it???

It is almost five centuries ago, and the girl who will one day be a swordswoman is lying in the red-tinged mud. She can't get up—broken bone? severed tendon? She can't tell. She's yet to cultivate her palate for pain. Her enemy towers over her, a cataphract mailed in screaming steel and poisoned light. His warhammer falls, and it is death, forever death, death unconquered and unconquerable.

"No," says a part of her. She is not even seventeen years old. Her body is mangled and broken, wound piled upon wound piled upon wound. A dull kitchen knife is her only weapon, though she lost that in the mud the second her grip faltered. Her enemy is no thing of this earth. And yet—

"No. It is not death, forever death, death unconquered and unconquerable. It is only a hammer, falling. It is only 'an attack.'"

And the girl understood.

~~~

It is the better part of three centuries ago, as best the swordswoman can reckon, and she is beset on all sides by foes. They are not monsters—just mountain bandits, or highland rebels, as one cares to see it. But they outnumber her by dozens, and even an exceptional swordswoman might struggle against but two opponents of lesser skill.

From in front of her, beside her, behind her they advance, striking from every angle with spears and blades and axes. Others fill the air with arrows, sling stones, firepots. It would be effortless, to parry any single blow. It would be impossible, physically impossible, to defend against them all.

"No," says a part of her.

"You are not outnumbered. You do not face 'multiple' foes. It would be impossible to defend against every attack — but there is no 'every' attack. Only one."

"Oh," the swordswoman said. And it was, in fact, effortless.

~~~

It is eighty years ago, or thereabouts. A coiling spire of stony flesh and verdigrised copper throbs like a tumor on the horizon, coaxed from the earth by spell and sacrifice. It is the tower of a sorcerer-prince, and a birthing place of abominations.

Seven locks of rune-etched metal are opened with her single key. Wretched shapelings beasts, grown by sorcery in vitreous nodules, flee wailing from her, absconding before she even draws her blade. Demons sworn to thousand-year pacts of guardianship find the binding provisions of such agreements unexpectedly severed.

These things dissatisfy the sorcerer-prince. Waxing wroth, he makes signs and chants incantations. With a flask of godling's blood, he draws the binding sigil inscribed upon the moon's dark face. With cold fire burning in his eyes, he speaks the secret name of Death. It is a king among curses, all-corrupting, all-consuming, and it falls from his lips upon the swordswoman.

"No," she says, and she turns it aside with her blade.

The sorcerer-prince's brow furrows. How did she even do that?

"Parried it."

But—

"With my sword."

No—

"See, like this."

Stop—

"Well," the swordswoman finally says, "I figured that if I just...looked at it right, and thought about it, and construed your curse as a kind of attack...then I could block it."

That's not how it works at all!

"If you insist," says the swordswoman, shrugging, and decapitates him.

~~~

It is now. It is the end. Death couldn't take the swordswoman, not when she'd spent all her life cutting it up. At times, Death might sidle up to one of her friends, or peer down into a grandchild's crib, and she'd just give it a look. That's all it took, by then.

Heartache couldn't take her, either. Bad things happened to her, and they hurt, and she lived in that hurt, but if it was ever more than she could take...she'd just, move her sword in a way that's difficult to describe. And she'd keep going.

Kingdoms fell, and she kept going. Continents crumbled and sank into the sea. Her planet's star faded and froze. She started carrying a lantern. Universes were torn apart and scattered, until all that had been matter was redistributed in thermodynamic equilibrium. With one exception.

But now it is the end. There is no time left; time is already dead. The swordswoman has outlived reality, but there is simply no further she can go. This is not a thing that can be blocked. This is the absence of anything further to block.

"No," says the girl who will one day be a swordswoman. "This isn't the ending. And even if it was, it's not the ending that matters."

The swordswoman looks back at who she was, at the countless selves she's been between them. She looks forward, at the rapidly contracting point that remains of the future. She grasps the all of linear time in her mind, and sees that it is shaped like a spear.

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

What should people from Eastern Europe do, should we prepare for war?

Is World war 3 coming now?

Taking these two questions together. I don't think it's the Third World War, though it's definitely a much more localized armageddon for Ukraine.

I'd improve cybersecurity and other methods to stop Russia's hybrid warfare doctrine, increase commitment to regular forces, improve dialogue and coordination with fellow allies to increase a deterrent effect. Help the Ukranian refugees how you can. Vote out the cowards and Putinites that are elected and shun the rest. Correct revisionist falsehoods that permeated Putin's speech from the Ukranian independent identity to Putin's excuses about NATO enlargement to the "denazification of Ukraine" pretext, flimsy even for an autocrat.

Thanks for the question, Anon and Eastern European Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

Okay I know that Nick Cage is the Internet’s favorite movie lunatic but we really need to talk about Sam Neill

Like, sure, he’s more simmery-crazy than explody-face crazy but this motherfucker kook it up with the best of them.

Like, if all you know him from is Jurassic Park, just take the SIX INCH RETRACTABLE CLAW scene, multiply it by a thousand, and you get the rest of his career.

 Motherfucker was in a movie with Isabelle Adjani (The Queen of the movie lunatics) where she contorts herself into a miscarriage that makes her bleed from the ears and gives birth to a demon-fetus-doppelganger-monster and held his own.

He was scarier than any of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park…

Then there is this shit:

(Seriously, if you ever feel like watching the Omen series, you can skip Omen II and just go to Omen III because Sam motherfucking Neill. If you really have to know about Omen II — there is a bowl cut and some birds. That’s about it.)

The guy makes Malcolm McDowell look like Morgan Freeman.

(I just love how fucking pleased with himself he is)

In conclusion Sam Neill is an underrated mad genius thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Last year I did a few write-ups and drawings about some lady fighters from history who fought openly as their gender (there are plenty of disguised-as-a-man soldiers and plenty of trans soldiers, but those are outside the scope of this series).  This is by no means an exhaustive list; there were plenty of great figures that my schedule didn’t permit me to tackle (at least not yet).  But as Women’s History Month gets started tomorrow, I thought y’all might enjoy reading about some of history’s toughest broads.

Oscar Nomination Predictions

Once I get around to finishing up a few of the high-praised films I haven't gotten to (Selma, American Sniper, Mr. Turner, a few others), I'll do a best films list, but I don't think viewing those will change my predictions here too much.

On the other hand, finally seeing Whiplash (which is amazing) convinced me that it has a better chance than I thought, so who knows?

Best Picture The last three years have had nine nominees, so I'll put that many, more or less in order of likelihood. I'll be genuinely shocked if one of the top four doesn't show up. Boyhood Birdman The Imitation Game Selma The Grand Budapest Hotel Theory of Everything Whiplash Gone Girl American Sniper And if there's a tenth nominee, I think it'll be one of these, in this order of likelihood: Foxcatcher - [The enthusiasm for this one seems very limited, but then again, Miller's other two movies (Capote & Moneyball) were more of the "respect" than "love" kinda movies, and they got nominated anyway. He definitely has his fans in the academy. Nightcrawler -A solid Dark Horse here. Unbroken - Opinions are very mixed, and even the positive reactions seem to be in the "good, not great" category. It might get in on sheer "heroic WWII flick" factor, though. Mr. Turner - Unknown enough that it might get lost in the mix, but it's certainly universally praised. Interstellar - Probably wishful thinking to even put it as the "least likely nominee", but I imagine it'll get enough support to have a very, very distant chance. After all, it's been hanging on in the lower parts of the charts to make a good $25 million more than expected. Also, I'd love to see this get an Oscar bump at the box office, which should be enough to get it over $200 million and maybe even in the top 10 of the year. Not that box office or awards matter that much at the end of the day, but it would make this kind of crazy ambitious sci-fi - and original films in general - easier to get through the system. Also, it was awesome. Director

These three seem pretty well locked: Richard Linklater (Boyhood) Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman) Ava DuVernay, (Selma) But the last two I'm not sure about at all. I guess this is the order of likelihood to my mind: Wes Anderson - Grand Budapest was fantastic, and dazzlingly made. I imagine Anderson will finally get a directing nod on the "It's his time" vote, but it still might be too quirky to get broad support. Morten Tyldum - The Imitation Game is certainly an excellent film and is going to get a lot of nominations, but the directing seems fairly straightforward. Or maybe it's just a shock that something that middle-of-the-road feeling came from the guy who did [i]Headhunters[/i]. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if something flashier got in instead. Clint Eastwood - apparently American Sniper is the usual "rough around the edges but highly effective" thing late-period Eastwood does, which has a way of splitting opinions. Plus, he already has two directing Oscars, so there's not exactly an overwhelming sense of him being under appreciated. Still, he'll probably get a number of votes from older members.

Damien Chazelle - Whiplash is absolutely incredible, and it might pull off the final slot on sheer quality.

David Fincher - This probably depends on how much the Academy actually liked Gone Girl. I have a feeling it's just lowbrow enough that Fincher will miss the shortlist.

Actor Michael Keaton (Birdman) Eddie Redmayne (Theory of Everything) David Oyelowo (Selma) Benedict Cumberbatch (Imitation Game) The top four there are probably locks; certain the top two are. The last slot seems like a battle between Steve Carell (Foxcatcher), Jake Gyllanhaal (Nightcrawler), Ralph Fiennes (Grand Budapest), Bradley Cooper (American Sniper), and Timothy Spall (Mr. Turner). I guess I'll bet on Fiennes, but none of the others would surprise me. I'd really love to see Miles Teller get it for Whiplash, unlikely as that may be.

Actress

Since Hollywood doesn't give enough great leading parts to women, this category is a lot more likely to go to more obscure performances. Julianne Moore (Still Alice) Reese Witherspoon (Wild) Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl) Jennifer Aniston (Cake) Felicity Jones (Theory of Everything) Longshots: Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night), Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Beyond The Lights), Shailene Woodley (The Fault In Our Stars), Jenny Slate (Obvious Child)

Supporting Actor JK Simmons (Whiplash) Edward Norton (Birdman) Ethan Hawke (Boyhood) Robert Duvall (The Judge) Chris Pine (Into the Woods) Pine is probably a risky prediction; Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher might be a safer bet. I would love Tyler Perry to pull a surprise nomination for Gone Girl, and that's not entirely out of the question.

Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood) Emma Stone (Birdman) Jessica Chastain (A Most Violent Year) Tilda Swinton (Snowpiercer) Rene Russo (Nightcrawler) Meryl Streep is probably a wiser bet, but I think that would be 100% an "It's Meryl Streep" vote. Then again, she got nominated last year for exactly that. Keira Knightley might get swept in if The Imitation Game has any coattails. (she's very good, but not in a particularly flashy way) Carmen Ejogo (Selma) and Carrie Coon (Gone Girl) are longshots. I've also heard Kristen Stewart is outstanding in Still Alice, and I would love for her to get nominated the same way I want to see Tyler Perry get one.

Original Screenplay

Birdman - Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo Boyhood - Richard Linklater The Grand Budapest Hotel - Wes Anderson & Hugo Guinness Dan Gilroy - Nightcrawler Paul Webb - Selma

Mike Leigh might take Nightcrawler's spot for Mr. Turner. The LEGO Movie (Phil Lord & Christopher Miller) and Top Five (Chris Rock) wouldn't shock me. Justin Simien (Dear White People) would be a surprise.

Adapted Screenplay

Gone Girl - Gillian Flynn The Imitation Game - Graham Moore The Theory of Everything -  Anthony McCarten Whiplash - Damien Chazelle Snowpiercer - Joon-ho Bong, Kelly Masterson

I doubt Guardians of the Galaxy will get in (if The Dark Knight couldn't nominated), but it'd be a gas if it did.