Price Gouging

Since moving to Canada from the US, the one thing that irritates me the most is how Canadians get price gouged by companies based in the US. When questioned on this, most companies have very simplistic reasons for it: price to ship across the border, differences in packaging requirements, and even the difference between the US and Canadian dollar at any given time. When it is pointed out that none of these (or, if you prefer, all of these) can account for the huge differences in price between exactly the same goods in either country, they stammer, hem and haw, and usually cut the q&a short very abruptly. The reason being, there is no good reason for the huge markups with which they sell goods in Canada.

As an example, I broke my mouse yesterday. I thought it might be time to get a nice, new gaming mouse for my main PC on which I play games. I did a little research and discovered that a particular mouse, the Razer Deathadder V2 is a nice, solid, wired gaming mouse. The articles all pointed out that the price of the mouse is right around $70. A little steeper than the typical $20 I spend on a generic, "over the counter" type of mouse, but a gaming mouse has more buttons, are generally larger, have better lasers (DPI), and are generally more rugged -- just what I need.

I'm a fan of Newegg. So I went to Newegg.ca to see the cost to get it to me as fast as possible. I blanched when I saw $229.99 plus $29.99 shipping! I went to Newegg.com and looked at, literally, the exact same mouse sold by the exact same company and saw $85.98 and free shipping. When you add in shipping to the Canadian cost, the exact same mouse is slightly more than 3 times the cost of the US mouse!

Newegg.ca on the left, Newegg.com on the right

In case you think this might be because Newegg is using different sellers, I clicked on both and went to the exact page for each device. Both are being sold by the same third-party vendor.

Highlighted: The third-party company selling the device to both .ca and .com

As I post this, the Canadian dollar is at $0.74 of the US dollar. In other words, to buy 74 cents of US currency would cost you a full dollar of Canadian currency. Let's round that to a nice even .75 cents to make the math slightly easier and any good sent to Canada would cost 25% more than in the US just based on the differences in the dollars at this particular moment. 

Note, there have been times when the two dollars have been at par and they are usually closer to par than this current value.

That would mean that the mouse in question, just based on the dollar difference, should cost $107.48 Canadian. The price listed, without shipping, is still slightly over double that difference. Can shipping across the border account for that? Not by a long shot. Can the differences in taxation account for that? Not even close. Can both together account for a more than double value on the same good? Nope.

A quick search of Google finds articles going back decades about this disparity. It is especially galling when the dollars are close to par and Canadians should be paying only the difference in taxes and import fees, making the goods purchased only a few bucks more. But when companies can get away with pricing a good at 3x the cost they sell it for in the US, something has to give.

People often ask me why my wife and I travel across the border so often. It is because, if we save up and ship a bunch of things at once, the cost of the goods in US dollars, even with the taxation and tariffs we may pay recrossing the border, plus the gas and time to get it from the US postal service, it is STILL cheaper than buying it from a Canadian store or a US store with a Canadian presence (like Newegg or the third-party vendor in the examples above). This is why so many of the US border states with Canada are so desperate to have the Canadian/US border re-opened as soon as possible during this COVID-19 pandemic-- they are losing out on billions of dollars of Canadian purchases and tourism. Nearly 90% of all Canadian live within 100 miles of the US border and a majority of them make multiple trips across the border for things that are worth it, like food, clothing, and electronics. All those border cities are hurting even worse than other locations because they have been cut off from both their US customers and the Canadian tourists that regularly shop there. 

Note, the Canadian government sees the absolute clusterfuck that the Trump administration has made of the pandemic and refuses to reopen the border even when the US begged them to this month and last month. And, frankly, with the second spike already forming in the US earlier than expected due to the idiocy of so many people, they were right to. They will probably keep the border closed through the end of the year, at least, at this rate.

Canadian have often said, and they mean it, that they understand that there are some differences in price between the same goods sold in the US and Canada. They understand that the dollars are not always near-par, they understand there are some shipping and taxes involved, and they are willing to pay those differences. But when you see an obvious price gouge like Newegg and their third-party vendor doing with this mouse, that is when Canadians get angry. That is when you hear about introducing legislature to force price parity. That is when you hear about Canadians possibly putting tariffs on companies that use these predatory practices. We just want to be treated fairly!

Complicit

I honestly believe that 90% or more of all police officers around the United States are good people trying to do a very hard job as best they can. The bad apples that shoot people (usually PoC) with little to no provocation, who plant evidence on suspects (even when wearing body cameras that catch them in the act), and are generally hate-filled assholes are very much in the minority.

However.

Every single "good cop" is absolutely complicit in the deaths (murders, really) of PoC and others. Every single "good cop" is absolutely complicit in the planting of evidence. Every good cop is complicit in the action of the hate-filled assholes. Why? Because they allow it to happen and hide behind the "blue line" and their union when it happens. And, because of that, these rogue cops, these bad apples, these hate-filled assholes get away with it. Good cops look the other way, subtly (or grossly) change their testimonies during inquests and trials, and hide behind the union's statement on the matter. They think, "It might be me one day." Well, no. If you stay honest, continue to follow the rules, and never act or become an asshole, it should never be you!

A job as contentious as police officer needs a union, and a strong one. There are plenty of people who wish ill-will toward the police and will accuse them of all manner of things. At the same time, however, the police need to have one of the staunchest policies to root out bad apples. It should be the highest honor to be nominated for Internal Affairs within the police department, not a badge of shame. Every police officer should be encouraged to turn in any other officer that crosses any of the lines that police officers face every day and should get citations and commendations for doing so.

And, when we have a video of police officers kneeling on a completely subdued man's throat until he's dead, the police union should be some of the first to decry the action and should lead the charge to fire that officer and any officer who is present and doesn't help the choking man.

When we have a video that clearly shows a police officer drawing his weapon and firing when there is no obvious reason to do so, the police officers of his station and his union should be first in line to ask for summary punishment up to and including criminal charges against that officer.

Instead of sending police officers to classes that teach them that everyone else is prey and they are the predators hunting for wrongdoers, we should be sending officer to de-escalation courses.

Instead of emphasizing any sort of "war" on the people they serve, police officers and their unions should be emphasizing protection, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Instead of the latest armament and tank, the police should be purchasing more non-lethal subduing implements and courses.

In, I'm guessing, well more than 90% of all police work on a day-to-day basis, police don't need firearms of any sort. They don't need those heavy flak-jackets. They don't need riot gear, shields, tanks, teargas, explosives. If that's the case, then why do most police officers have that equipment?

It used to be that cops were those who protected and served on a daily basis. They needed little more than their badge, handcuffs, and the occasional use of a gun or pepper spray. When you need a more military-style response to a situation, you called in SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics). The "special weapons" part was that they had the military gear. They trained in the tactics to overcome the special situation that only occasionally arise in the course of normal police work. Now that every cop has a semi-automatic to a fully automatic weapon, armor, and other special gear, what does SWAT do?

As the old saying does, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Now that the police are practically an arm of the military, they are acting like the military. They see everything as a military engagement, they escalate with overwhelming force in split-second timing regardless of whether it is a domestic dispute with no weapons or a bank robbery with fully armed and armored robbers. They act like SWAT because they are armed like SWAT. They see everything as a nail because they have been given some pretty big hammers and nothing else. It's time we start taking the hammer away and give then some pliers, wrenches, and maybe a screwdriver!

The police already have separate groups within their organization that have special training. Investigators solve crimes. SWAT is (supposed to be) the tactical response to special situations. Maybe now we need to say that the everyday beat cop needs nothing more than some non-lethal responses, training on how to de-escalate and resolve conflicts, and the ability to write tickets.

It all comes down to: what do we need the police to do? Do we need the average, everyday cop to be like the military and provide a military-style response? Or do we need them to help find stolen bikes, diffuse domestic disputes, and protect those who need protection?

If we take away the cops' instruments of war, they will have to seek other solutions to problems. If we make it a badge of honor to weed out the bad apples, the public will trust the cops more. If we give them the tools to use conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques, fewer interactions with the public will make the nightly news (and for all the wrong reasons, typically). 

Ask yourself, "What do I need the police for?" You may find that "fight a war" against people of color, those with mental health issues, the homeless people, and others is not the answer.

State of Decay 2 -- Lichenology for the Win!

I have played both State of Decay and State of Decay 2: Juggernaut Edition, both zombie survival games, for many years and enjoy the titles. Recently, SoD2 updated to the "Juggernaut Edition," improving game AI, some graphics, and a host of other items throughout the game. Overall, I have really enjoyed those improvements and the game is even more fun to play now.

In both games, there is a chance that you can "roll" a person with the skill "Lichenology," the study of lichens, that gives you the base bonus of +2 Meds Per Day and knowledge of Gardening and Herbalism. This is huge, as you use a set -2 Meds Per Day to stay healthy each day. Lichenology effectively cancels that per-day charge. This means any extra meds you find in the game are there for your use via the Infirmary, to create medications that you can carry with you, or to put in a rucksack for trade with other groups for various missions.

What I've noted in SoD2 is that any time I've been lucky enough to either roll a survivor with Lichenologist or when I've found a book that grants that ability in-game, the game gets harder. Much, much harder! The game targets Lichenologists like no tomorrow.

I recently completed my last game at the default difficulty level and decided to try to get all four bonuses at the Dread difficulty level. I played and finished one game prior to the Juggernaut update. While playing, I found a Lichenology book at a vendor, bought it, read it, and immediately the game stepped up a level. Every time I took that character out of the base, zombies were attracted to her no matter how carefully I played. It seemed like every mission she ran had a Juggernaut or a feral, plus at least one shrieker, nearby. I always had to be extra careful, do every mission with a helper, and drive to even the closest locations so I had the relative safety of a vehicle to get into to either mow down hordes or to make a fast escape. In the end, it didn't matter, as she was caught between two Juggernauts and ripped in half.

Aside:

Strangely enough, I have the same problem with auto mechanics. I had one game where I went through 6, yes 6!, auto mechanics. I had another game where I had one auto mechanic, she was killed by a feral and a horde fairly early on, and I never saw another auto mechanic to poach into my group nor did I find any mechanics books from that point forward to make my own auto mechanic! Boy, I found it next to impossible to complete that game. I kept destroying the vehicles I found with little chance to repair them, as I wasn't finding many repair kits in my scrouging and I couldn't make any of my own without an auto mechanic! Talk about Hard mode -- having to run from one side of the map to the other sucks!!

I finally finished that mission, got the Trader bonus, and started a new game. I selected to start with an auto mechanic and a lichenology survivor from previous games, plus a new character (Medicine). When I started the game, I told my wife, "Well, I'm starting in hard mode! I'm starting with a Lichenologist!" She laughed. While playing, I have had the hardest time whenever I take either of those two out for missions. (If you're wondering why I even take those two skills out of the base it is because you get worthwhile bonuses from having them be Citizens and Heroes. It is worth it to play them enough to get those bonuses.) 

Recently, I came across a vendor who was selling a Lichenology book and purchased it. I found a character with no quirk skills, poached him into my group, read the book to give him the skill, and played him trying to reach Hero status. I told my wife, "Well, the game is going to swarm my base with Juggernauts and tear me apart-- I just made another Lichenologist!" Literally, within 30 minutes of creating him, my base was swarmed and there were two Juggernauts and they each specifically went after the two lichenologists! I managed to survive that encounter, but it gets worse...

Later, trying to get him to Hero status, he was mobbed by a horde containing two shriekers and a feral, which I barely survived even with a sidekick along-- everything ignored the helper character and targeted the Lichenologist. I switched to another character and a horde almost immediately attacked the base, including a Juggernaut. The Juggernaut targeted the new lichenologist character and ripped him in half, killing him! Inside my base! During the attack, of the eight characters I had at the base, only two came to help the character I was running, so it was just three against the horde and juggernaut, even though the other five were right there and should have come to help. Out of all the games I've played, this is literally the first time that a) not everyone came to help out on an attack inside the base and b) that a character died from a solitary Juggernaut attack inside a base! End result: I'm back to only having my original character with the Lichenology skill. Luckily, she's already at Hero status, so I never let her leave the base (although I have to be careful every time a base attack occurs!).

At this point, with the consistency with which the game is targeting my Lichenologists, I can only assume that the programmers have purposefully written code that targets those characters. I played five games to completion at the normal difficulty and, whenever I had a Lichenologist (made via book or rolled), they were unduly targeted. I'm on my second game at the Dread difficulty and the targeting is even worse and feels unfair. I have to be extra careful when using them, I have to take extra help on every mission, and I have to watch out for those characters during base raids. It takes a lot more effort and I'm having to dress them in bright clothing so that I can easily pick them out of a crowd and keep an eye on them.

I tell you, I don't care how long it takes, I'm strongly considering that for my next Dread-level game I will start with three Lichenologists and see if I even make it through day 1 before an endless horde of Juggernauts and ferals attacks them and wipes them out!

Addendum

I have finished my previous game and started a new one. Of the seven games I've played to completion, all but one had at least one Lichenologist in it, and I have two that survived of my 50 survivors I've kept. I pulled both of them into the next Dread-level game and I rolled until I got a third Lichenologist. We'll see how the game reacts to that!!

Addendum 2

Since starting the new game with three Lichenologists, the game has done some weird things. When you first start a game, even at Dread difficulty, the first game-day is usually fairly free of special zombies. However, this game started with a Juggernaut right off the bat near my base. I managed to avoid it, even though two missions took me right by it.

Next, I was out scrounging for Materials with my newest Lichenologist when the game just quit to Windows. No error messages, no BSOD, nothing but a slight pause, and then I was looking at my desktop.

I simply take this as further proof that the programmers have it out for Lichenology specialists within the game. 

Addendum 3

Beyond my three starting Lichenologists, today I collected three more people for my survival group. Two were mechanics and one had no quirk skills. I was using one of the mechanics to reach Hero level out doing some missions. A horde was between me and the objective so I threw one molotov cocktail-- and, even though it landed directly in the middle of the group, not one of the zombies was killed. I threw a second and a third with the same effect. By that point, the horde was on me and I tried to get away. But my truck struck a huge pile of nothing (literally, I showed my wife -- it was the side of the road, nothing was visible at all, but the front end was torn up and the truck started burning... they type of burning that leads to the truck blowing up after about 10 seconds or so) and blew up, greatly injuring me. The horde tore me apart after that. Now, my one "working" vehicle was half-way across the map and destroyed. I had to pick another character to take over for the dead one.

I chose the non-quirk skill person, so I could start working her up to Hero. She was back at my home base, so I was teleported back there... into the middle of a horde base raid! Crap! I was immediately attacked by a feral that was already inside the base and none of the remaining survivors were helping me. I nearly died before one decided to shoot it. Then a Juggernaut attacked. The base all turned to it and we slowly whittled it down and killed it. Then a second and third Juggernaut attacked! One of my three lichenologists was killed (the new one I had rolled for this game), my other mechanic was nearly torn apart and is grossly damaged, I've used up nearly all of my ammo, and the character I'm using now has more injuries than my Infirmary can overcome. This is all happening on surviral Day 5, by the way. Day freak'n 5!

Again, this seems egregious, especially compared with any other SoD2 game I've played, even the other games at Dread level. The easiest game I played, by far, was the one with a starting Fishing and two starting Recyclers that never had a Lichenologist and only picked up one mechanic.

You will not convince me that it is completely random that when I have a lichenologist (or three!) in the group that the game doesn't target them specifically or become harder in general. Never. 

Addendum 4

I recently started a new game after the major updates of early 2021. I used three existing characters of my 50 survivors, including a Lichenologist. Of course, on the fourth mission out of the gate, I was surrounded by a mob, had three (!) screamers (with one being inside a building, so I couldn't immediately kill him) plus a Juggernaut in the mix. ALL of the mobs immediately keyed on the Lichenologist I had brought as backup and to help carry stuff (it was a "clear for materials" type of mission). I couldn't grab aggro from her to, literally, save her life, even when spraying the mobs of zombies with auto-fire from my machine gun. She was eventually torn apart by the Juggernaut in a very bloody display.

This is just par for the course, as you can see from the ongoing story above. The programmers hate Lichenology/Lichenologists!

Loser, Loser!

Darrell "Bubba" Wallace, NASCAR's only black driver, successfully brought up the Confederate flag with the sport he races for. NASCAR banned it on all of its properties. Just this weekend, Bubba found a noose in his garage and a private plane flew over an event carrying a Confederate flag banner.

EDIT: Turns out the noose was already in the garage and was used to lower the main door. It was not a racial attack.

"Nascar moved quickly and by Monday, FBI agents were at the track. On Tuesday, authorities said the rope had been hanging there since last fall and thus was not a hate crime targeting the 26-year-old Wallace."

I just don't get that. Why would anyone be proud of being a loser and a racist? I mean, I checked my history books from elementary school and they clearly say that the seceded states lost the Civil War and are now, once more, part of the United States of America. They lost. In humiliating fashion.

When a loser loses a war, the winner ... well, never that I can find... allows the loser to erect monuments to loser generals and loser leadership of that war. If anything, the winner usually erects monuments to the winners of that war. Why isn't there a proud statue of Sherman placed in every town in Georgia along the route of Sherman's March? Why aren't there statues of Ulysses S Grant littering the South to remind them that a drunkard beat their best soldiers? Why aren't there statutes and monuments to Lincoln in every single formerly-seceded state's capital to remind that state of who won the war?

Okay, you say it's not about who won or lost the war. I get that, sort of. I mean, the only other thing that flag can possibly stand for is racism, right? So, if it doesn't stand proudly for being pathetic losers, it stands for being pathetic racists. Why would you want to fly that flag and proudly proclaim, "Look at me, I'm a racist loser"? Okay, some in the South will try to argue with you that the secession and Civil War were about other things beyond slavery and racism. They are wrong. They all boil down to having slaves means you can harvest your crops of tobacco and cotton less expensively and get more profit. That's still slavery and racism. Every argument the Southerners bring up eventually leads to slavery and racism. 'It's our heritage!' Yes, one of racism and slave ownership. 'We have pride!' Why? You lost the war and have a history of racism. 'We defy/defied northern progressivism!' And you lost the war and that progressivism was fighting slavery and racism. It's time to progress. Also, if you are so against Northern progressivism, stop using a phone, don't use electric lights, absolutely don't use automobiles, or anything else that came out of northern progressivism. Put your money where your mouth is, loser.

Every now and then, one of these losers will attempt to draw a comparison between the swastika and the Confederate flag. However, this fails the smell test pretty quickly. The swastika was an enduring symbol of life and fertility for literally thousands of years until Hitler latched onto it and perverted its meaning to one of hate, oppression, and racism. (There's that word again.) The Confederate flag was specifically created to symbolize all that the Confederate States of America stood for... which was defiant racism. After they lost the war, this symbol also added a new meaning: loser. So, yet again, all history and insight bring us back to this stupid symbol ultimately meaning racism and loss. Pathetic.

Around the world, most countries didn't need to fight a civil war in order to recognize that slavery and racism was bad. Most countries had already freed their slaves or were making plans to do so. Most understood that paying for labor brought about better results and a stronger workforce. Only the Confederacy fought against this truth so hard that they had to secede and lose a war to have it drilled into them.

History books today say that Reconstruction was harsh. I don't think it was harsh enough. No winning country should ever allow the amount of rebellion and subtle fall-back to their old ways that the US allowed of the Confederacy. Every history book should be written to promote that the Confederacy stood for racism, that they lost, and that the world is better for it. Every single site of a Confederacy loss should have a plaque or a monument to it in the South. No Confederate leaders should have a statue unless it is in a museum in a Hall of Losers.

Whenever you see a Confederate flag flying, you should stop and start the old High School and College chant of, "Looo-serrr! Looo-serrr!" You should always refer to the people who live there as racists, like in the statement, "You turn right at the racist Smith house" or similar. There is not enough shame you can heap on someone who strongly identifies with a symbol that directly identifies those flying it as losers and racists. So, shame them. Make it known how pathetic that stance is.

Black Lives DO Matter

I get so sick and tired of racist white people claiming "all lives matter." It is such bullshit and indicates either the person saying that is an outright racist or just dumber than shit.

You see, it's not an "either/or" statement. Saying "black lives matter" does not exclude any other lives. It says, 'These other lives are working as intended, don't have issues, and don't need perspective or introspection; however, this subset of all the lives does need looking at -- something isn't working as intended over here.'

For example, when one of these racist assholes has a POW/MIA flag on their truck or flying at their home, are they saying, "Fuck all the military that currently serves, we ONLY care about those who are missing in action or prisoners of war. They are all that matter!" No, of course not. It is so obvious that the flags are intended only as reminders so that people don't forget about this one subset of the entire military who sometimes gets swept under the rug and not talked about during our daily lives -- hell, even during Memorial Day and Veterans Day celebrations.

When we look at milk cartons and see missing children's faces are we saying, "Missing children are all that matter. Missing adults don't matter at all!" No, of course not. But many people aren't aware of just how many children go missing, so we thought it might be a good idea to post this subset of missing people and highlight the problem so more people are aware and more people keep them in mind.

The point is, black people cannot trust that they will be safe around cops. They can't trust themselves that they will be safe around general white people (who may call the police on them for common, everyday activities, like BBQing, birdwatching, walking around their neighborhood, and other things white folks do without any extra thought). A black person may be arrested, beaten, and/or killed for no reason at all. But white folks don't have that fear. White folks don't think, 'Shit, it's after dark. I better not take a walk around my neighborhood wearing my favorite hoodie or my neighbors might shoot me.' It just doesn't happen that way. Yet every black person has to consider that.

There's a reason you see so many women of every color at BLM rallies: women have a similar fear of men. Men have created a hostile world where women aren't in control of their own bodies, are often seen as things instead of people, and who have to navigate around hostilities that men either don't see, don't experience, or promote. So, women get it. 

There's a reason why #MeToo happened. There's a reason why #BlackLivesMatter is happening again now. The marginalized and terrified are sick of being afraid. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. Women shouldn't be afraid of men. Black (and other "colors") people shouldn't live their lives afraid of white people, white justice systems, white juries, and white-run prison systems. We shouldn't assume a woman walking down a dark street at night is okay to rape. We shouldn't assume a black man walking down a dark street is a predator. Hell, we shouldn't assume a black woman sleeping in her bed is somehow a threat that needs to be shot eight times.

Black lives matter. Women matter. And, yes, "all lives matter." But, you know what white people? You've been on top and it has been smooth sailing for you for quite some time now. Maybe it's time to take a look at how far back everyone else is and figure out some way to level the playing field.

And, if you don't want to, if you think whites 'have it bad' in some way, or if you think that helping other sexes or ethnicities to succeed is somehow going to take something away from you... fuck you. You fucking racist.

It's All Part of the Plan

It is so frustrating to see people actually protesting that the US should start reopening. First, because, so far, there is ample evidence to suggest that all of these protests are backed/funded by a few right-wing people (Betsy DeVos's family is linked to at least two of them) and, secondly because these people don't understand what they are asking for.

I can't help but notice that the protestors have been all white, privileged, and from various hate groups. There have been racist signs at most of them. Many suggest there is some sort of conspiracy at work. This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that these people are poorly educated or uneducated, easily influenced, and ignorant. What other conclusions can you reach?

Ignorant, poorly educated people tend to flock to supposed conspiracy theories because they have a hard time reasoning these things out. I mean, the sheer number of people that would have to be involved to make most of their conspiracy theories work would mean that someone, at some point, would crack and the lie would be out there. We may find out more about the coronavirus at some point, but right now all evidence points to the standard biological processes of a virus that wants to live mutating rapidly, jumping species until it was successful in attacking human beings' biology, and then spreading. It happens all the time, it just usually turn into a pandemic because human beings are good at following these things and killing them early. No need for a conspiracy... or, better, the conspiracy is that life out there is harsh and everything wants to kill you; it's always just a matter of time before Mother Nature figures out how to make it happen.

While there are usually a few smart people in leadership roles of racist gatherings and organizations, the bulk of the members are ignorant, poorly educated people who, again, don't reason well. The leaders demonize the ethnicity in question (usually Blacks or Jews) with evidence that doesn't stand up to any amount of real scrutiny, convince the easily convinced, and constantly blame all of the members' troubles on real and perceived things that ethnicity has "done to them." Because they are not smart and can't reason for themselves, the followers latch on and are led to believe this crap.

And antisemitism? I have never understood this particular racist stance. The Jews have been one of the most persecuted ethnicities in the history of the world. Of course, they will turn inward and be a more insular society when nearly every other ethnicity and religion on the planet wants to destroy them. Wouldn't you be less trusting of others if your countrymen consistently turned on you on a dime and sent you to concentration camps and death?

The fact that right-wing money has already been found to be influencing these protests also shows to what lengths the right will go to stay in power. They have no interest in leading, no interest in governing, and no interest in the average, every-day person's well-being. They simply want to stay in office, to stay in power.

This just goes to show you how important education is. The educated (beyond the aforementioned racist leadership) aren't at these rallies. Or, if they are, they are on the side of the counterprotesters and opposition to these racist idiots. Why do you think a classic racist bully and idiot like Trump wanted someone who didn't know how to be Secretary of Education in the position? Or, I should say, why Trump's handlers wanted to tear apart the educational system. Miller, Mnuchin, Kushner, et al, all understand that the stupider the masses are, the easier it is to confuse, control, and dominate them. And look, it's working!

Stop being sheep, people! Educate yourself! The more educated you are, the more independent you actually will be! Stop buying what the Republicans are selling! They want you sick, poor, and uneducated so they can rule over you. While the Democrats aren't much better, at least they want you healthy and educated so you can make decisions for yourself.

Educate yourself.

Too Small for the Job

I was not a fan of 'W' as President. However, when tested by something few other world leaders or Presidents had to deal with during their tenure, he rose to the occasion and acted presidentially. He offered sober direction, provided leadership to *all* Americans, and swallowed his partisan leanings in favor of the common good as we rebuilt and came together after 9/11. He did, eventually, show his stripes when he fabricated a war with the middle east when none was warranted, but during the 9/11 crisis, he provided leadership and guidance.
45 has also been called to serve with an equally serious and testing event. His response so far has been to deflect, lie, and blame others. He specifically takes no responsibility for anything that has happened on his watch. The buck does NOT stop with him, but with some underling below him or somehow with a President that hasn't been in office in over 3 years and who specifically set up an organization to deal with just this sort of crisis, which 45 dismantled/fired.
Rather than calming words of succor for all Americans, his sense of leadership is to save the rich and the corporations and let the average American die. He has dragged his feet and looked for the chances to enrich himself. His petty grudges with individual state leadership have led him to act in vicious, dangerous ways that further harms the average American. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that he *wants* this pandemic to spread and kill as many people as possible, especially as it is strongly in those states he can't carry come November.
Even when other world leaders have been dealing with the same issue and shown what needs to be done to resolve it in the best and fastest ways possible, 45 has refused to follow that example. It is like he can't act presidentially even when shown a blueprint for success. He doesn't understand empathy, doesn't get the nuances of job, and can only understand fear, anger, and happiness. Which is probably why he likes authoritarian dictators so much; they use the emotions he understands in ways he understands them to lead. To him, they are good leaders because he can understand them. He doesn't get more subtle uses of power, moral leadership, doing what is right even when it is harder or he has less to gain from it.
All leaders are tasked with something big during their tenure. Most rise to the occasion. Some keep an even keel. And a few fail. Poor, overwhelmed Trump has proven incapable of leadership on his best days. Now that a true crisis has called on him to act, he has proven too small for the job.

Self-Isolation

I have been taking immune-suppressing medication for almost 25 years. For the first ten years, I saw a slow decline in my body's ability to fight infections. Then, that decline increased over the next five years. For the last almost ten years it has been fairly stable at, I'm guessing, between 60% and 75% of where it was pre-medications.

So, because of that, I have been practicing self-isolation for a long time. I don't go out to concerts, movies, or other large gatherings nearly as often as I used to. I ask my friends and family to stay away if they are sick or think they might be contagious. I wash my hands regularly. I clean the things I touch regularly (like keyboards, screens, pc mouse, telephones, etc.). Basically, I do most of the requirements for COVID-19 already because I have a weakened immune system. And my immune system isn't, really, all that bad; there are people with HIV/AIDS, who take cancer drugs, etc. who have it worse than I do.

As of this writing, I haven't actually left the house at all most days and haven't gone farther than my property line in 25 days. But that started before and will continue long after the current pandemic. It's just what I feel I have to do in order to stay healthy since so few people are conscious of just how sick or contagious they may be. I'm hopeful that this pandemic will teach people that they may be contagious without having symptoms of an illness, or may harm people if they don't stay at home when they do have symptoms, and that they should stay home and use those sick days their company provides. I'm hopeful that companies will start to realize they need to provide all workers with some amount of paid sick days to use going forward.

The end result being that I am amused when I read my friends and family being bored, having cabin fever, with the whole self-isolation deal we all must survive now. I've been practicing it for 15 years now! I play video games, so there's a big time sink. I like to both read and write, so there's more time. I enjoy movies and TV, so there's more time. When I'm feeling healthy enough, I like to ride my stationary bicycle. I play with the cats. I clean. I make meals. I play roleplaying games, including gamemastering for them (which takes a lot of preparation time). I've been exclusively working from home for over ten years now. If my wife doesn't remind me (or, rather, FORCE me) to leave the house every now and then, I can find that I haven't left it in literally months. It's just the way I'm built to stay as healthy as I can be.

Basically, I'm hoping this pandemic tells the world that we should be cognizant of and compassionate toward those who can't protect themselves from disease AND STAY HOME when we are sick. When you have the least bit of illness coming on, you should assume you are contagious and do what you have to in order to keep from making others sick. And businesses should encourage this behavior with time off and other policies -- the fewer people who are sick, the more productive they are. But Americans are taught to gut it out, to work through it, that if you aren't working 60+ hours a week, you are somehow doing less than you should be. The rest of the world has figured out that all this mentality means is a quick trip to the morgue, but Western culture insists on it. I'm hoping that changes.

There's Always One

America is the asshole. There's always one. We have, for too long, taken it for granted that we are somehow better, more capable, and a guiding light to the world. However, over the course of the last 30 years or so, we have lost that. We have let internal squabbles, strife, and partisanship take over. Now that a true world crisis is here, America is not only NOT leading, but we are also one of the best examples of what NOT to do!

America once led from the moral high ground. We always did what was morally right. Republicans introduced and got passed legislation to clean the air and water, both sides worked on social reinforcements, we all agreed that if we thought of the general people first, the rest would fall into place.

That started to change during Reagan's tenure. We started to shift the tax burden from the rich, who could afford it without it affecting their purchasing power, to the middle and lower classes, who felt the pinch. We started to roll back laws that protected people from businesses and from the government. We started to give everything to an elite few who, in turn, gave enough as was required to keep that tap flowing and to turn off all other taps.

Republicans stopped being interested in governing about 30 years ago. They became obsessed with power and money. Instead of governing and providing direction and a fiscally conservative long-term plan for the country and its people, they became singularly focused on gerrymandering, court-stacking, and taking as much money away from government assistance programs as possible. They especially targetted unions (which, while they have both good and bad points to them, were one of the primary reasons for the middle-class's constantly rising income level) and education (because if the masses were dumber, they wouldn't recognize nor fight the "elite's" more sinister power grabs).

This all culminated in the current Idiot in Chief, President Trump. What's funny is that he isn't even really the problem. He's a symptom of it. It is the succession of Newt Gingrinch to John Boehner to Mitch McConnell that is the problem. It is not having term limits which is the problem.

I have said before that the President is like the steering wheel of a car, Congress is the engine, and the Supreme Court is the brakes. The President sets the tone and direction for the country, Congress enacts laws to push the country in that direction, and the Supreme Court stops the laws that are not constitutional or that are flawed. Because the Republicans have been packing lower courts and gerrymandering for so long, they now have an over 90% incumbency rate in Congress, so the same people are always there, always furthering the party's goals while the President packs the courts with as many life-time appointments as he can. In addition, since Trump is so stupid, he is surrounded by people who can convince him to do nearly anything... so he has been openly racist, sexist, and money-hungry since entering office.

It's all biting back now, however. The world is in crisis and America is woefully underprepared for it. Trump canceled America's best hope at having a swift response when he allowed the pandemic response team, set up by Obama, to be fired and the office to be removed. He has systematically taken money from the CDC, FEMA, and other groups that could have stepped up and helped. He is consistently not paying any attention to what his experts tell him and consistently making the problem worse.

His only real contribution so far is to prop up the stock market... which is doing next to nothing to solve the problem. He is talking with business leaders and buying stock in their companies, a clear violation of emoluments, and then giving the wrong people tax breaks because he (or someone close to him) believes that, contrary to hundreds of years of evidence to the contrary, tax breaks will incentivize businesses to be better, to do what is needed, and to pass the savings on to the people. It hasn't happened yet.

Luckily, some in America ARE stepping up. Some smart people are no longer paying attention to President Idiot and are taking the reins and giving people real advice. Some of the more moderate oligarchs are putting money into places that will actually help. Businesses see that having the country collapse is bad for business, and are stepping in to do the exact opposite of what Trump says for the good of the country.

My hope is that people will see the current sham of a party that the Trump and the Republicans have become for what they are and will vote these idiots out of office in November. We need Republicans who, like in the past, wanted to help and govern the people from a place of fiscal conservatism but see that the people are the most important part. We need to see wholesale turnover in Congress on the Republican side so that the two sides of our bicameral system will start talking to each other again, start working together to get some progressive ideas and some conservative ideas passed. We need Congress to start looking out for ALL of the people again, instead of the wealthiest 1,000.

I just wish that a worldwide pandemic wasn't what was needed to wake people up. Now that it is here, let's hope that they learn from the issues and press for better leadership tomorrow.

Ethnicity and Representation

I am strongly in favor of each ethnic group having strong and appropriate representation. Differing voices should be heard and the needs of a disparate group of people can help strengthen the whole of society.

When I watch TV (which I do way too much of) I see a current trend: every single show I watch, whether drama, sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, long or short, high-end or low-brow has at least one relatively major character who is LGBT on it these days. They are getting their voices heard and those who are LGBT have people to look up to in mainstream media.

The most recent stats I can find indicate that approximately 4.5% of the US population is LGBT. So, having so many LGBT characters (and, hopefully, the actors who play them) is actually a huge amplification of the voice of this one minority.

Most shows these days have at least one but usually two or three people of color on them. This is great! Blacks and Latinx people deserve to see people like them on TV and in the movies (Will Smith, Kerry Washington, Oscar Isaac, America Ferrera, et al). More importantly, enough PoC have been successful behind the scenes making TV shows and movies that more productions headed by PoC are coming out and in the works (Jordan Peel, Les Daniels, Alfonse Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, et al). Even the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has opened its doors to more representation, allowing for a new diversity in films during the Oscars presentation. This is all a fabulous turn of events and PoC voices are strong and should be heard.

The most recent stats I can find indicate that just over 13% of the US population is Black and about 18% is Latinx, while about 76% of the population is White. If most shows have such a strong Black and Latinx showing, then their voices are similarly amplified beyond what their population percentage indicates.

(Note: Since "Hispanic" refers to the language spoken and not ethnicity, but is grouped together by the US Census with "Latinx," the statistics for the ethnicities of White and Latinx have some overlap, which often results in numbers above 100% for the population.)

While I do see more Asians on shows in general, it is not to the degree of other ethnicities. However, strides have been made with the successes of some TV stars (Lucy Liu, John Cho, Ken Jeong, et al) and movies (Crazy Rich Asians, To All the Boys I've Loved Before, et al) -- although with a caveat: many successful Asian properties get re-made by Hollywood with White actors rather than simply released in America with English subtitles or language tracks. Strangely, this is not often the case with other PoC's TV and film contribution (but does happen on occasion).

Asians make up around 6% if the US population.

Every ethnicity's voice should be heard. The diversity of voices is one of the strengths that has made America great throughout its history. A constant influx of new people with new ideas and strong work ethics has helped build America into the leading nation in the world. However, I wonder if the current path of amplifying voices that haven't been strongly heard in the past is the best way of ensuring that those voices are not only heard but really listened to.

I am also concerned; the violence I see in speech and action from some within the White majority cannot be discounted. A certain segment of that population is angry and feels, rightly or wrongly, that PoC are "taking over" or, more importantly, "taking away" from them in some fashion: jobs, houses, money, culture, identity. These voices rise up as Neo-Nazis, Incels, the angry white male, the current leadership in the GOP, and, too frequently these days, the gunman with a manifesto.

Historically, the most social change has occurred when women of color, specifically Black women, have led the charge. Whether it was ending slavery, giving women suffrage, protecting the environment, advocating for social security nets, or, more recently, denouncing violence against PoC, economic disparity, and other social injustices, Black women have been at the forefront each time. It seems that the country needs to hear from these people and their voices should be amplified.

So, how do we balance the need to allow the under-represented voices of PoC and other minorities to be heard against the fear and potential violence of a certain segment of the White majority? Should we balance that need? Is amplification the best way to show the majority how vital and valuable these other voices are? How can we get the biases that are inherent in society to allow these voices to be heard without using amplification? Should we care that some of the majority are made uncomfortable, feel threatened, and otherwise lash out when these voices are heard?

Maybe we should trust that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward moral justice? Maybe if we amplify PoC voices now, and ride out the hatred and terror that doing so causes in some, we can find the balance later as the society is bent toward moral justice? I simply don't know what the right answer is -- are the small numbers of the White majority who fear change unimportant enough to ignore? Or should we listen and try to find a common ground that both makes them feel secure AND allows PoC to voice their own concerns and be represented?

Just the Facts, Ma'am

I'm wondering how we can restore journalism to the position it once held in the US. At one time, newsmen were the lifeblood of democracy, holding the powerful in business and government accountable to the people. People trusted journalists and when Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, and so many others wrote about it or spoke about it, the people listened, trusted, and rallied.

And then CNN and other 24-hour news networks were born. While that, by itself, didn't spell the death knell of journalism, it started a slide toward the sensational and lurid which Fox News turned into an avalanche. Soon, journalism became all about "if it bleeds, it leads" and profitability. And, once news channels became profitable, the desire to keep them profitable started to inject itself into every decision that newsrooms made. What was once a loss-leader for whatever production company owned the channel became a cash cow. And the decisions made slanted toward whatever would keep them in the black.

The internet exploded. Now, anyone could report the news. People with no understanding of bias, sourcing, context, and accuracy were presenting news. With these pseudo-reporters scooping real journalists, papers and news programs started to pay for video or eye-witness accounts and letting their actual reporters go. Profitability increased.

Soon, we entered the era of the mega-rich, superstar on-air personalities. And the people paid attention. The more outrageous the personality, the more people glued themselves to their TVs and radios. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum the viewers leaned toward, there was a personality to cater to them. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh on one side, Rachel Maddow and Howard Stern on the other and every personality in-between.

The money rolled in. Rather than presenting real news, they became opinionated. Without clearly labeling what they were saying as opinion, many of these personalities claimed to be real journalists even though what they presented couldn't be sourced, wasn't accurate, and was, in fact, either their own or their corporate leadership's opinions. They became little more than talking heads spouting a single party's or corporation's agenda.

These days, you have a President who claims that all news that doesn't cater to his whims is "fake." People are turning away from traditional news sources and listen more and more to an echo chamber of like-minded talk show hosts and news presenters that only present opinions those people already agree with. It makes them feel safe and understood in a world that is changing rapidly and, possibly, leaving them behind. You have people working for the President whose job it is to tell the truth who are instead lying every day, all day long. You have corporations funding biased research and presenting it as fact and not being held accountable. You have corporate lobbyists who take advantage of people's ignorance and shill what the corporation wants. You have people who feel they have become experts via the Internet who then preach to the masses ignorant views and semi-literate beliefs that find an audience.

In the end, the next leadership in America needs to somehow stop the division and bring journalism back to prominence and trustworthiness. They need to pass legislation that forces written and viewed commentary pieces to be labeled as such, so people know when they are being told real, hard news and when they are listening to someone's opinion. We need to make sure that the people know who has funded a particular news piece in question clearly and simply.

Lastly, we need all journalists to take a look at the four main tenents of journalism and rededicate themselves to upholding them:

1. Seek Truth and Report It
2. Minimize Harm
3. Act Independently
4. Be Accountable and Transparent

For more information on what a real journalist should do, see the Society of Professional Journalists site.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Our educational system must be even worse than I thought when people can't recognize, understand, or cope with famous words spoken or written by well-known individuals.

Every year for quite some time (about 30 years), NPR has presented the Declaration of Independence on-air. They recently also started tweeting it out. The last couple of years, a number of people have complained because they thought that NPR was releasing a screed against President Trump! They didn't recognize it as the Declaration of Independence. First, what does it say that people don't recognize one of the two most important documents in their country's history? Secondly, what does it show if they mistake a call for freedom from the tyrannical government of King George III for a plea against what Donald Trump is doing as President?

Today, I saw someone post and attribute the famous "Pale Blue Dot" speech of Carl Sagan. I then saw a bunch of people react negatively to it. They were claiming it is not true; that Sagan must be a political hack, a leftist, one of those environmental activists; even that the earth is flat and therefore the whole speech is inaccurate; etc. Yes, this was said about one of our greatest astronomers and astrophysicists about the subject he knew best! A call for people to be better to one another was met with derision and hatred. Go figure.

I've seen people complain about the words of Lincoln, Jefferson, Hawking, Franklin, Roosevelt (pick one), de Grasse-Tyson, King, Jr., and many others. I've seen GOP people complain about how leftist the words of Ronald Reagan, their Republican Godhead, were before being told that the words were his! It's actually fun to watch them stammer, stutter, and try to walk back their angry retorts. Again, it just goes to show how far we've changed that anything Reagan said in the 80s is now considered leftist and progressive... and that members of the GOP don't even recognize his words!

When did America stop thinking? Or, more precisely, when did a certain segment of America decide to leave the thinking to others? Why is ignorance the default setting now?

GOP Lies

For at least the last 20 years, the GOP has been telling lies through the media about various groups of people. The reason for this is to inure you to the speech and to those people so that they can move on to the next step: making you afraid of those people.

For example, they have been telling the public at large that Muslims are bad people. It doesn't matter to them that Muslim violence and issues account for far less than 1% of any crime in America, they keep saying it. Then, finally, when a single Muslim does something violent, they turn around and say, "See, we told you so." It doesn't matter that hordes of White Americans have done the exact same crimes thousands of times, maybe more, they point to the one Muslim as the culprit of this crime and then start making you afraid of all Muslims.

They have been telling you for two decades (really, since the late 1970s, but in earnest over the last twenty years) that Black and Brown people are a huge problem. They are more violent than you. They are more crafty than you. They will rape your women. They will steal from you. Then, when a Black or Brown person is caught doing one of these crimes, they say, "See, we told you so." The White Americans who are in charge of every aspect of the criminal system then give those Black and Brown people harsher sentences, get away with murdering them, and make sure they are put forth as examples of what they've been saying. They completely ignore and sweep aside the thousands of white Americans who have done the exact same crimes. If a white person can't be ignored, then they get greatly reduced sentences for the same crimes and are out to rape, murder, steal, whatever that much sooner.

The GOP has been telling us for at least two decades that women don't know how to control their bodies. They make bad decisions about those bodies and they must be legislated so that they can't make these poor decisions. It doesn't matter that these bills mostly target Black and Brown mothers (and low-income White mothers). It doesn't matter that they have no plans to care for the increased birth rate that results from these bills-- once the child is born, it isn't their concern anymore. It doesn't even matter that more women are dying in childbirth due to these laws.

The facts simply don't matter to the GOP anymore. Statistics don't matter. Hell, reality doesn't matter anymore. Only the feelings of anger, oppression, and fear matters to them at this point. If they can't sell you on the pros of their plan -- and, let's face it, they don't have any plans; they refuse to actually govern anymore -- they will certainly do everything in their power to ensure you are enraged or scared of the other guy's plan.

Don't be fooled by this rhetoric.

Pregnancy in America

I suggest the following laws be proposed and debated.

Deterrents:

• All male rapists must be either chemically or physically castrated after conviction.
• If the father of a child does not help care for the child, either by missing childcare visits, payments, or similar, the father will be chemically castrated until such time as he is able to fulfill his minimum duties as a parent (i.e., he makes restitution for the missed childcare).
• All children of male rapists that are not wanted by the mother must be given to the rapist to raise.
• Vasectomies can only be performed after the age of 25 and with a partner's, or the person's parents, consent. There is a waiting period of a minimum of 7 days to get a vasectomy. The person requesting a vasectomy must watch an hour-long video on the dangers of the surgical procedure and the joys of parenthood.
• In Texas, both the male and female participants will be tried and, if convicted, sent to the death penalty if the woman has an abortion. DNA testing is mandatory to determine with the greatest accuracy who the father of the child is.
• Males must wear athletic supporters and protective cups whenever performing any sports activity or dangerous activity to ensure their reproductive organs are safe from harm. Anyone found to be willfully harming the penis or testicles can be arrested and confined for up to 5 years or a fine of $25,000 per offense.
• Males must see a doctor a minimum of once a year and have their reproductive organs checked, including providing a semen sample to check for sperm viability.

If we make it in any way illegal to have an abortion, and it is done to "protect the child," then we must also propose the following laws to ensure the safety and welfare of that child:

• Increased federal funding and mandated minimum staffing for foster care.
• Increased federal funding and facilities for pregnant mothers to help ensure successful pregnancies and births. Alternately, a program by which all pregnant women get free healthcare while pregnant and for a pre-determined time after pregnancy to ensure both the mother and child are healthy long-term.
• Funding for and research into accessibility to medical care to ensure that all pregnant women have "reasonable" access to healthcare. Reasonable will be defined to mean within a 1-hour car, bus, or train ride from the person's home, a fully-staffed hospital, clinic, or other facilities that can perform all identified healthcare needs for a mother and child through the age of 5.
• Increased funding and accessibility for mental healthcare for pregnant mothers and post-partum women.
• Increased federal funding and increased access to food and post-birth medical care to ensure as many children that are conceived live to see the age of 5 (an age where mortality rates drop significantly).
• Federally mandated vaccinations.
• Increased federal funding for schools and all education programs.
• Federal funding for childcare services after birth so the parent(s) can go back to work, if needed, or can get child care services when required.
• Federal minimum time off requirements of at least 6 months for both the mother and father to care for the newborn baby.

If the pro-life, Republican politicians that are so stringently against abortion are *really* proposing these laws "for the children," and are not simply about controlling women's bodies, it seems like these rules are pretty much the *bare minimum* they should be proposing to both a) ensure that every child conceived has the best chance to survive to birth, b) to give every mother the best chance to carry the child to birth, and c) to give the parent(s) the best chance to raise a healthy child after birth.

Somehow, though, I don't think these suggestions will even be considered nor do I think these laws would make it even up for a vote. During the debate, I bet these white, male, "pro-life" politicians will laugh at the suggestions that males be held equally accountable for the pregnancy. I know already that they won't even consider plans to educate, care for, feed, or otherwise provide for the best welfare of the child once it is born as they have systematically attacked all of these institutions already.

These people are not pro-life. They are simply against women's rights because they know that to keep women "in their place" is to keep the men in power and to keep the current power structure strong. Women are a threat and this group is scared of them.

Don't Go Gentle Into that Good Night

The comic book industry is in turmoil. It is, once more, on the edge of being wiped out. It makes a product that is (at least currently) overpriced (averaging around $4 US for 22-28 pages of episodic story) and very niche.

I'm a huge comic book fan. I prefer the superhero genre but have dipped my toe into other genres that comic books support. I have collected comics for about 40 years and have an embarrassing number of them bagged, boarded, and boxed in my basement. And I've read them all. I even worked in a comic book store for almost 3 years as well as practically working at two of the comic book stores I used to frequent (so much so that I was allowed to watch the store and check out customers when the staff needed a bio break).

Price and Value

While the art, paper, and printing processes have all improved a great deal from the 1970s when I first started reading comics, the stories haven't really changed much. Yes, they have waxed and waned between being more or less adult in their storytelling, more or less explicit in the art, but the core storytelling is the same; it is a soap opera featuring people with extraordinary powers reacting and interacting with the rest of the world.

I have comics that were purchased for 10 cents. Many were bought for 75 cents, where the price stayed for about a decade or so. Then comics prices edged up to $1.00 followed very quickly by another boost to $1.25 and then $1.50. As I mentioned above, now comics are pretty set around the $3.99 range, give or take. But, here's the thing: you aren't getting much more story at that price than you were 30 years ago. Matter of fact, the Big Two publishers (DC Comics and Marvel) seem to be re-imagining, re-creating, or otherwise re-booting the same stories from the 1980s and 1990s that were their biggest successes and hoping long-time fans don't notice and they draw newer fans. But they are even failing with that, because the original (better) stories are available in many formats, including the original comics themselves, trade paperbacks, cartoons, and even movie versions. We've seen it all and done it all.

So, the audience, in a time where real wages have declined almost 10 percent in the last decade due to inflation and stagnant pay increases, has to ask themselves, Is it worth it to pay $4 for 22-28 pages of an episodic medium when I can get an entire live-action comic-book story told to me via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, on TV, or in the movies for the same or only slightly more money? I would argue the answer is No.

The -Isms

Recently, a thing called "Comics-gate" cropped up wherein a bunch of "fans" (I use the term loosely) of the medium jumped on publisher's throats because they were replacing existing, long-time characters with newer versions that reflected a non-white, non-male perspective. Peter Parker was replaced with Miles Morales. Bruce Banner was killed off and a new, younger genius, Amadeus Cho took his place as The Hulk. She-Hulk was given a higher profile. A new Ms. Marvel who was Muslim and of Middle-Eastern descent replaced the older, white character. Some characters were suddenly gay. You get the picture; the industry was trying to get more readers by going after untapped markets.

Needless to say, a small section of the predominantly white, male, straight audience went apeshit. They saw any hiring of a female writer or artist as being "SJW"-ing at its worst. They claimed that female writers and artists were producing inferior work. They claimed that the new characters or changed versions of existing characters were somehow worse than the original. Basically, they got seriously butt-hurt because, somehow, everything they knew and were the gatekeepers for, was trying to broaden and expand its appeal.

An argument can be made that the companies made many of these changes in a ... haphazard manner. Maybe more thought could have gone into it. I mean, there were successes; Miles Morales (half-Black, half-Latino) caught on because, at first, he didn't replace the original Peter Parker Spider-Man. Miles was introduced first in an alternate universe. Readers could choose to continue reading about Peter Parker or they could start reading about this new guy over in this other world where that world's Peter Parker had died fighting crime. He became a hit.

Ms. Marvel actually became a hit, too, and I think some of it had to do with the fact that the original character was still around. Some of the other changes happened too quickly, or without enough build up to or interest in the new character. I don't know anyone who was looking for a replacement Bruce Banner or The Hulk... they just decided to kill off the character and replace him with a young Asian fellow. And the book's sales suffered. Same too with the introduction of RiRi Williams -- there wasn't enough of a build up or connection to Tony Stark to have this genius Black girl suddenly taking over his role in the Marvel Universe.

The point is, the industry, seeing falling sales, looked at their demographics and saw mostly 20-50-year-old white males and said, I wonder if we can get more people to read our books. Whether you agree or disagree with how they handled it, they decided to go for more female readers and to see if they could maybe pull in some minority readers with characters of different ethnicities and sexuality. They even decided to look within their ranks and realize they were an industry dominated by the same demographic and decided to make an effort to bring more diversity to their writing, art, and other aspects of the business. They were sometimes hamfisted in how they made this transition and didn't always give their existing readership time to ease into the transitions being made, and there was a lot of backlash. But, if the number one axiom of writing is "write what you know," then the industry was going to continue to be niche unless they broadened their available pool of knowledge.

Media

In 1978, Warner Bros made you believe a man could fly. In 1989, audiences were treated to the first decent age of comic books in movies with Michael Keaton's uttering of, "I'm Batman." In 2000, the second great age of comic book movies began with X-Men and was followed by a steady stream of increasingly good movies leading up to the creation of the MCU (Marve Cinematic Universe), which became the high-water mark.

In an era where we can go to the films and see "real people" being superheroes on the big screen for $10 a couple of times per year, it becomes hard for a comic book fan to justify paying $4 a month for each title of each character he or she is interested in, not to mention all the addendum titles, specials, one-shots, and special events the comics industry throws at readers. I mean, if you want to follow Batman and not even counting all his "Bat-family" titles (like Catwoman, Batwoman, Batgirl, Nightwing), you're looking at Batman, Detective Comics, The Dark Knight, Batman and Robin, and probably Justice League. So, that's at least $20 a month, or $240 a year, not including special titles, annuals, one-shots, and other titles where he may guest-star. Now, as a viewer with limited funds, compare that to, say, 4-6 tent-pole, big, can't-miss superhero movies a year at $10 a ticket.

Now, let's look at TV and paid subscriptions. Just off the top of my head, you can currently watch: Arrow, Black Lightning, Flash, Supergirl, Legends, Legion, Daredevil, Punisher, Luke Cage, Gotham, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, iZombie, Walking Dead, Lucifer, The Gifted, The Runaways, The Tick, Preacher, and Agents of Shield. There are Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Spider-Man cartoons from Marvel and Justice League and Young Justice from DC.

In other media, superheroes have had a strong showing in various video games, including fighting games, MMOs, and strategy games. I'm not even going to list all of those here, there are so many.

Again, it comes down to economics -- if you have limited entertainment dollars, are you going to spend $4/mo or $48 a year on a comic book that is often only part of the story (they are primarily episodic stories, remember) or are you going to take that same $50 and get an infinitely replayable video game, go to 4-5 movies, or watch the same type of stories on TV?

The Present

The people who write and draw comic books are very talented. An argument can be made that they create the content that is then transported over to other media where it is more successful. However, the counterargument is that most of the movies are using tried-and-true stories from the characters' pasts and not anything from the new era of comic books. We keep seeing the same origin stories, the same four X-Men stories, the same couple of Batman tales in the movies and on TV. Plus, there are 80+ years of good stories still to mine for other productions. Because of this, it's hard to see the comic book medium surviving in its present incarnation. The people who write comics today would just transition over to writing the same stories for TV and movies and video games. The same stories would be told, they just wouldn't be told in the comic book format going forward.

The Future

I do see ways for the comic book medium to survive, however. I wouldn't bring up this topic if I didn't see a silver lining. I think the following changes could benefit the industry:

• Issue Price: They have to get the price down. If you can sell comics for $2 or less per issue, I think you have a chance.
• Issue Quality: Lessen the quality of the paper and inks used.
• Issue Schedule: Many titles shouldn't be on a monthly cycle. Team books, in particular, should only come out 3-6 times a year. Characters who are "overpowered," like Superman, Thor, Hulk, etc., should be published per-story. I.e., Rather than having a monthly Superman title, you solicit story concepts for the character, pick the 1-2 best stories, and publish those as an omnibus edition once or twice a year. This way, the reader gets the best of the best stories and doesn't have to wade through months of filler or setup or transition writers.
• Publishing Style: Instead of publishing as a monthly magazine, take a page from Manga and make books. Work on the best 100-page story(ies) for Batman and publish it as a book for $25 instead of spreading that 100-page story out over a year of smaller comics. When you factor in weather delays, the grind of trying to publish X number of comics per month, printing issues, shipping delays, etc., you would actually be saving yourself, and your readers, a lot of headaches by publishing in a Manga book style.
• Online: Shift to a predominantly online-only market; no physical books. This will most likely destroy the direct market and means you will have few physical copies on bookshelves or in racks on a stand in a grocery market, but you do away with many of the issues listed in Style, above. This also ties into Price and Quality, as you can set up a process to make one "PDF" file of the comic in question and then everyone buys the rights to view or download that one copy. This should lower the cost and increase profits, over time. And no more of this selling an online copy for the same cover price -- we're too savvy for that. We know you are making one electronic copy of the item that we all then have access to; creating one master should NEVER be as expensive as all the paper, ink, printing, and shipping costs of each individual comic each month!
• Story: I shouldn't have to mention this, but with the plethora of re-boots, re-imaginings, and thinly-veiled sequels to previous work, I feel I have to: write good, original, new stories. Stop going to the Civil War well. Stop re-hashing Watchmen. Just stop. You have talented people who, I'm sure, have incredible stories they want to tell-- let them! I don't want to see Secret Wars 2, 3, or 13. I won't give you money for a more modern rewrite on Crisis on Infinite Earths. Just... stop. Please.

Comic books can survive as an industry. But the industry is quickly making itself redundant by being too expensive when compared to other, similar media that can provide the viewing audience with the same stories. Unless it is willing to make some changes, it will cease to exist as we know it now. Can it change to meet the demands of the fractured media landscape now and in the future? I'd like to think so. If there is one thing I have taken away from my decades of reading comic book stories it is to always have hope!

Speech and Debate

What I would like to see in the next Presidential election cycle at the debates is a new set of rules put in place. And appoint moderators that will expressly follow those rules. I'd also like to see rules like this applied to politic ads, as well.

Rule 1: No talking about the other party

When asked a question of any type or style, all answers must be from YOUR perspective. You cannot talk about "well, according to my opponent ..." or "the philosophy of the [other party] is to ...". None of that. All questions must be answered based on your own position, your own desires, your own reasoning.

Rule 2: No pejorative words toward or attacks aimed at the other party

You are not allowed to use ANY negative words toward the other party. Your ads and your words cannot be deemed to attack the other candidate(s) position or perceived faults. This seems like it should be covered in #1, but I want it stated outright and for the record. No use of "snowflake" or "childish" or anything harsher. No fear-monger ads that misrepresent or make something seem more dire or dangerous than it is. Nada.

Rule 3: No false statements

If you are saying something and the fact-checking crew catches you in an outright lie, you get one warning. If they catch you in another lie, you pay a penalty. Lies will be determined by factual content within your statement, not normative statements.

Punishments

If you break any of the rules, the punishment for that infraction is that your microphone is cut off immediately and you do not get to finish your statement (or, in the case of Rule 3, it is cut off on the second lie within the same answer).

Once your mic is cut off, the moderator will immediately respond to the audience why the microphone was cut off and move to the next question for the next candidate.

I think that these simple rules can keep the debate lively, focused on what the candidate will do once in office, and give the audience a reason to watch. Too often the debates (and especially in the last election cycle) turned into diatribes about what "the other party" wanted to do or what "the other candidate" wanted to do... that isn't helpful. Also, it often is not true. You cannot speak for someone else. You don't know where they are coming from, what they plan to do, or how their mind may have changed.

In addition, by focusing on the candidate's position, it is easier for the audience/voter to hold that candidate accountable once they get into office. You must answer questions directly, responsibly, and on-record in front of both a live crowd and the millions watching the debate. It gives you a chance to talk about you -- and only you.

If these same rules are applied to political ads, then the punishment for those would be slightly different. The company/group providing the ad will be asked to re-edit the ad to remove the offending piece. If they are caught airing an ad that infringes on one of those rules a second time, that company/group cannot provide any more ads for that campaign season at all, for any candidate.

The rule will be doubly-applied to both the company/group name (The X Group to Elect Candidate Y, or whatever Super PAC, PAC, Candidate Committee, or grass-routes group) AND to the people who make up that group. So, for example, if Jim Walsh is the founder of a Super PAC that releases two ads that are deemed to violate one or more of the rules above, that Super PAC cannot release any more ads at all AND Jim Walsh (and all his coworkers at that Super PAC) also cannot be involved in any more ads during that election cycle, for any candidate.

These rules, and others like them, can keep the political climate open, fair, and more positive. If the audience can only hear what a candidate will do for them, they have a better chance of picking a viable candidate and hold that candidate accountable. No more attacking. No more fearmongering. No more divisiveness in the election cycle.

Petty By Nature

People are petty and vindictive by nature. This is doubly true when those people are in politics. Why is it that Trump thinks that anything he does will last more than a year after another person takes the office? Hell, even Republicans are starting to listen to their constituents and hear that they want universal healthcare, don't want a wall, want stronger EPA regulations, etc.

The only way I see what he's done/doing working long-term is if the next person in the office (regardless of party) does what he did and puts the least qualified people into place again. Anyone who actually is qualified to lead the various gov't departments will reverse everything their predecessors did, too.

I imagine that we'll also see the next president put into the appropriate policing agencies (FBI, Homeland Security, et al) people with a decidedly anti-Trump bent. Even if he avoids impeachment and manages to keep his job until the next election after he is gone from the office he will have to constantly look over his shoulder.

Remember what he did the first few weeks of taking the office: he sat down and signed a record number of Executive Orders that, while many of them wound up being unConstitutional and/or unneeded, those that were left basically were designed to undo what the Democrats and Obama had managed to accomplish for 8 years. After those EOs went into effect, we started to see flaws in the economy, funding issues in various areas, and the general populace getting angry.

Now, when a new person takes office, especially if he/she is a Democrat, the petty nature of politics will decree that the person will sit at his/her desk and write out a shit-ton of EOs that will... yes, you guessed it... undermine and/or undo everything that Trump ever signed.

And, frankly, this is why compromise is the key to politics. If all parties agree, then the next power shift won't bring about a slew of reversals. But, when you have an idiot like Trump take office, who based all decisions on his own lack of education as well as a petty and vindictive nature, you will see the next party that takes office reciprocate in kind.

So, keep talking, Trump. Keep bringing forth your conspiracies, lies, and idiocy. Keep proving how important education is in our leadership. Keep being petty and vindictive. You won't be more than an obscene and unqualified footnote in history after you are pushed out of office.

Addendum

Others are coming to that same conclusion. Link

The Mueller Investigation Explained

Let me start by telling you a story:

Let's say you are driving along above the speed limit. A cop pulls you over for speeding. He walks up to your window to ask for your license and registration but notices you are not wearing your seatbelt. As he explains to you about the seatbelt, he notices a strange scent emanating from your car.

He asks you to exit your vehicle and, using his suspicion of drug use, searches your car. He finds drug paraphernalia on the passenger seat under a blanket. Now he asks you to take a drug test and it comes back positive. This prompts him to call in backup and continue the search in earnest.

Under the driver's seat, duct-taped to the chair, he finds the brick of cocaine you are trafficking. He then pops the trunk and finds the dead body of the informant you've killed.

He arrests you for:

• Speeding

• Not wearing a seat belt

• DUI

• Carrying drug paraphernalia

• Drug possession (possibly with the intent to distribute)

• Murder

But all the cop did was pull you over for speeding. How did it go so wrong? Well, because he followed the law and that initial crime allowed him to find many other crimes for which you could be prosecuted.

The Mueller investigation is the same thing. As a duly appointed officer of the law, Mueller was tasked with determining if there was collusion between Trump and the Russians (speeding). As he started searching, he found anomalies that lead him to find other possible crimes (seatbelt, drugs, murder), which he has passed off to the appropriate other agencies to investigate, charge, and detain those involved.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. All these complaints by Trump, his cronies, and those who are still, for some reason, in his camp concerning the Mueller investigation and how wide-ranging the probe seems to be getting are stupid. He is doing what any investigator is supposed to do: follow the trail wherever it leads. And, so far, like the example above, the one crime he was tasked to investigate has quickly led to further crimes. This is both understandable and common when the FBI is tasked with investigating someone.

Trump claims there is no collusion, that the investigation is overreaching, and that he has done nothing wrong. Yet, Mueller has gotten guilty pleas and indictments against 33 people so far. He has sent a number of people to jail. And, what we're learning now, is that Trump is so fearful of the investigation that he is trying to get those who have been indicted to be "double-agents" for him by bringing back intel on what Mueller is investigating so that Trump can prepare his counterattacks. Trump is promising pardons to those who will help him. These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide; quite the opposite, it is what we would expect from someone who is guilty and knows he's guilty.

I look forward to the Mueller investigation finishing and seeing just how many people go to jail, how many are indicted, and how many crimes are laid at Trump's feet. I don't think it will kick him out of office, which is a pity. And I don't think his crimes will even sway a majority of his ardent believers, which is worse. They are the ones who are most hurt by this man being the President, yet they are so scared and angry that they will follow him to Hell.

Elementary, My Dear Watson

The CBS show "Elementary" became one of my favorites. I liked how it brought forward Sherlock Holmes to the 21st century. I enjoyed many of the updates they made to the storyline, characters, and mythos of the character. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoyed "Sherlock" on the BBC, and it did pretty much the same work of bringing the characters forward to modern times, but it didn't stretch as far as Elementary did in recasting characters.

The biggest editorial decision Elementary made was to cast Watson as a woman. This led to the second biggest decision they made: to have Watson and Holmes just be friends and colleagues, like in the books, even though the characters were now male and female. Nearly every show on TV with male and female co-leads has a 'will they, won't they' vibe that, in most cases, ruins the show. People start "'shipping" the characters, talking about when they will get together, debating about how it will affect the show (spoiler: almost always negatively), and wondering if they will get married.

What I have constantly wondered is whether a TV show can simply present a heterosexual male and female being close confidants, working together, and having mutual respect for one another. This show finally did it. Through the current episode of season 6, Holmes and Watson simply respect one another's skill sets and intelligence and use their close working relationship to help them confidently delegate tasks. Sometimes Holmes takes more of the lead on a case and sometimes it is Watson. Sometimes one does the grunt work, sometimes both, sometimes the other.

Each has been shown to have a healthy sex life, but not with each other. Sometimes Holmes, due to his quirky behaviors, oversteps a bit into Watson's personal life, but she recognizes it for what it is (he has many personality quirks, bordering on autism) and knows it comes with the territory of being Holmes' friend.

Both characters have shown a 'got your back' attitude toward the other, as well. Each has stood up to both authority and criminals for their partner without hesitation. Both know the other person well enough to know when to lie, to tell the truth, or otherwise to defend the other when accused of something. Each has successfully defended the other against accusations, frame-ups, and possible physical assaults. They have each helped the other to move on from hard and painful life lessons.

I hope that, in the final few episodes remaining before the series is canceled at the end of this season, the writers do not force Holmes and Watson together romantically. I hope that the show remains one of the few to have aired where colleagues can just work well together, regardless of gender. I really liked this show and will miss it.

Addendum

The show was originally going out on a 13 episode order in season 6. However, the network upped that to 21. I hope that the writers don't fill those remaining 8 episodes with some sort of surprise relationship between Watson and Holmes for the series finale. I will admit I've been getting a bit of a vibe from the show that they might. Even if they do, the writers have earned my trust that they could possibly do it in a way that makes sense for, and respects, the characters as they have been presented for the previous five seasons. Here's hoping!

SPOILERS BELOW

One other choice the writers made that I thought was brilliant was introducing Irene Adler ("the Woman"; the one person to have bested Holmes) as also being Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle, writing in the era he was, would never have made the male protagonist's main antagonist be a woman, so it was nice of the modern writers to see the similarities between the one person (who wasn't named Moriarty) who beat Holmes and the evil antagonist that Professor Moriarty became and make them one and the same person. Plus, the woman who played Irene Adler in the TV show (Natalie Dormer) was a really good choice.