#thus cementing my point and giving me the best example of the effects of this thing to date

[a-story-teller]

Seriously one of the most confounding things in the world is pop-Christian moralizing.

"Is ASMR ok for Christians?? 🤨🤔😧" I'm not sure in what world it would be sinful to listen to soothing brushing, ocean sounds, and tapping, yet someone felt the need to ask the question, and someone else felt the need to make a YouTube video answering it. (I didn't watch it, so I don't know the verdict, but somehow you're trusting the verdict to a rando on YouTube and not Discernment from God?)

"Christian facials" because having a hot towel on your face and putting on serum is in any way aligned with a religion or lack thereof, and therefore needs to/even Can be made Christian?

"Christian-friendly sex positions" and the only difference is it's stick figures instead of realistic drawings, and instead of male/female or penetrator/receiver, it's husband/wife. Because you know those goofy health-book illustrations were distracting you from the righteous goal at hand: eating your girl out. But you can't call her your girl, you have to make it clear to everyone seeing you have sex (which... is just the 2 of you, right?) that you're having Good and Not Sinful sex, because you, a Husband, are Married to your Wife. Side note: the stick figures actively make it harder to figure out the intricacies of any of the positions and therefore are objectively shittier at doing what they're made to do.

Christian soap, christian mints, christian calendars, christian music, christian curtains, christian fiction, christian restaurants, christian news, christian shops. There are things in the world that are OK being secular. The fact that your soap does not have an icthus sign etched in that washes away in 3 days anyway does not make you a bad person, or even a bad christian. Your home does not need something Christian™️ in every room for people (or yourself!) not to forget you're christian... I assume?

The king who must say he is king, etcetera. This kind of mindset is so boggling to me, and reeks of nominative faith and deeeeep insecurity. Retail therapy but instead of buying temporary happiness you're buying temporary grace. Being so beholden to the dogma of organized religion that you go to any person feigning authority on the subject rather than using your own brain to make a decision. The idea that things can only be okay to interact with if they're explicitly christian, as though interacting with it as a christian doesn't inherently put it through a christian lens; as though you can only get things trickled down to you from church authority figures with robust enough constitutions to judge what's ok for you because you don't have the ability to think critically; as though you should stay away from what's "sinful" rather than, LIKE JESUS, be able to go into it and be a good example; as though instead of learning to be capable of handling it, you should be as weak to sin as possible; as though you have to go through the world with kid gloves because touching something dirty would soil your soul (which, of course this implies, is sparkling - impossible, arrogant, and kind of denying God, lol [actually, not lol, I'm expanding on that. Denying God by refusing to admit your own sin. Denying God by refusing his grace because you won't admit your own sin. Denying God by acting like his power couldn't absolve something as simple as being exposed to sin, let alone if you did end up making a miatake. Denying God by keeping yourself in Good Christian spaces and not being there for people who need outside help. There's more but I digress]).

Also, the childish áffect of refusing to say things as they are because that would be bad, but referring to it in euphamism is fine - or, transversely, that using colloquialisms is bad, but medical speak is fine, depending on what breed of crackpot christian you're dealing with. "Hanky-panky" just say sex. "Adult drinks" just say wine, beer, liquor. "Flower" for the love of all that is holy just say vulva/vagina/virginity. "Breasts" is fine to describe your chest but "boobs" is not. You can say "buttocks" but not "butt". Discussing bathroom activities is decisively not cool but if utterly necessary you must say "urine" and "feces" because pee and poop are too pedestrian.

Like, entire side tangent, but the weirdly widespread christian-ism of not discussing things frankly or discussing them super detachedly, but both preferring to never discuss them at all, regarding anything "potentially sinful" or "not spiritually uplifting" (usually boiling down to "anything physical") is so whack to me. Do not discuss your period, even in female spaces, because it's tmi. Don't talk about your health issues if they're not Clean enough subjects, even as something to pray about (like breast/prostate cancer, shitting diseases). Don't ever talk about your sex life except to wiggle your eyebrows at your kids when they're old enough. Don't hug your male friends, daughter. Don't play with your little cousins, son. Sex is so so bad but everything is about it, actually. Sex is so so great which is why you should feel guilty about ever wanting it. All nudity is sexual. Dress so they know you're a woman but also that you're a lady. Fart jokes are not allowed. You must remember that all men are looking at you with lust at all times but you can't hold that against them. All things that get you sweaty or muddy are bad. Hair on women is unnatural but just dandy for men, except we can't talk about pubic hair so you're just going to have to figure out on your own if it's less sinful to not think about your vag enough to do anything to it or to ensure you're free of all sinful hair. Here's how to do makeup in a god-honoring way, because you couldn't know on your own, and you must both jump through this hoop to be acceptable to your men but not have enough fun and personal expression with it for it to become anything other than a chore. It is wrong to kill, which is why we support the troops. We are supposed to help the poor, which is why I drive past the beggars that are dirty and ragged and smelly. We are supposed to celebrate God with our bodies, which is why my most spiritually moved state equates to slightly raising my arms.

I can't close this post without including my oft-quoted favorite example of this weird-ass pop-Christian phenomenon translating to real-life people in real-time thoughts: my mom saying she had to take into account "which ice cream flavor is most glorifying to God" at a froyo shop. Either it's raspberry, or she chose sin that day.

#to be SLIGHTLY fair to my mom she was trying to give an example of ''having God as priority 1 all the time'' to middle school me #Who thought (correctly) that there are plenty of things which God has no direction relation to or care towards #What color you wear or what sandwich you eat having no impact on your relationship to God #And mom tried to illustrate that it's about the intention to be mindful of God 24/7 by using the most batshit method available #thus cementing my point and giving me the best example of the effects of this thing to date #christianity #christian #theology #in which I read a book with a really problematic fanbase #religion #So much of ''christian'' culture is alien to me... so much of it I hate with a deep fervor... #I will raise my kids to be okay with the fact that they are physical beings with bodies #I will raise them to make their decisions themselves based on their own interpretations and direction #And I will raise them to know that the world will not sully them without their consent - that to be good does not mean to be free of sin - #and that they take from the world what they bring to it and can face ''bad'' things without turning to stone

[the-library-alcove]

So a while back, a fairly left-wing friend of mine was shocked at the thought of Left-Wing Holocaust Denial, asking how it could even be possible, how can the Left even deny the Holocaust given everything (quote: "why would the LEFT be in denial? After you read Elie Wiesel, you can't deny any of it. Same with Maus, Frieda Appleman-Jurman's memoirs, and all that. Also, Lois Lowry won a Newberry medal for Number the Stars"). So I've been chewing on this for a while now.

First, Right-Wing Holocaust Denial is straight up "denial that the Holocaust happened"--often with an undertone of "But we wish that it had and it was a great idea". They deny the number of deaths, or excuse the Nazis, or say that the Jews had it coming, or say that it didn't happen at all, that sort of thing. It's a very blunt, straightforward form of denial.

Comparatively, Left-Wing Holocaust Denial takes a different, more sophisticated form that functions on multiple levels--with an undertone of its own along the lines of "the Jews are exaggerating to try to portray themselves as victims"--and to talk about this form of denial, I have to explain what the Holocaust was.

So this gets a bit long, because what is being denied is long, but I will ask you to bear with me.

But, TL:DR:

Right Wing Holocaust Denial denies the body count and the atrocities...

Left Wing Holocaust Denial denies everything that built up to it, the centuries of Othering and murders, and the aftereffects.

The Holocaust, 1939-1945, was the culmination of literally centuries of anti-Jewish hatred from Christian Europeans, dating back well over a thousand years.

For one example, there were anti-Jewish riots in France in the 1020s in misplaced vengeance for the Islamic destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009 CE. Decades later, the Crusaders butchered 99% of the Jewish population of northern Europe, beginning in 1096 and continuing for centuries, such that a population of nearly 100,000 in 1050 CE was reduced down to less than a thousand in 1350 CE, as genetic studies show.

Jews were vilified as "Enemies of Christ", and various forms of attack to whip up mobs against Jews became common enough to get names of their own: Blood Libel (the accusation of Jews stealing children and murdering them to use their blood) and Host Desecration (the accusation that Jews were stealing consecrated Hosts and "torturing" them in order to attack Jesus), among others. These resulted in thousands of Jews being attacked, harmed, killed, and expelled.

Pogroms, massacres, and expulsions were just part of the pattern; Jews were effectively second class citizens at best, confined to marginal parts of cities (the original ghettos), subject to ritual humiliation (there was a part of Carnival in Rome that featured "The Running Of The Jews" where the Jewish population of the city had to race and be beaten by the Christians and there are designed-to-be-humiliating carvings of Jews on churches), and so forth. Jews were the scapegoats of choice--a powerless minority made to do the dirty work (such as tax collection) by the powerful and then liquidated when the lower classes got upset, as a distraction (King: "It's not my fault you're hungry!" *motions to table laden with food* "It's the fault of those greedy Jews who I force to work as tax collectors! Go kill them instead of me!"). And that cycle further entrenched the hatred.

Martin Luther took this to new heights during the Reformation; initially, he was "nice", saying that the Christians should treat the Jews gently to get us to convert... and when we didn't, he got nasty, writing a book titled "On The Jews And Their Lies" where he outlined a "how to persecute Jews and make their lives utter hell so they'll convert" prescription of behavior.

And this all became deeply baked into the culture of Europe, in plays, architecture, pop culture, stories, and conspiracy theories over the centuries. Even after the ghetto walls were torn down in the early 1800s by Napoleon and Jews were allowed to integrate into mainstream society, that hatred did not go away. If anything, the resentment grew, culminating in outbursts like the Dreyfus Affair, where a French-Jewish artillery officer was made into the fall guy for another spy, because he was Jewish.

There was a "Jewish Question" in the countries of Europe. A political National Question that went, "What shall we do with these Jews who live in our lands who we do not want?" And many of the Jews desperately wanted to prove that they were Good Model Citizens, but it didn't matter. Some of us, seeing the writing on the wall, and that the Europeans would never accept us, started agitating for political separation and independence--Zionism.

During this time, the old religious-based hatreds were being ostensibly phased out, and it was the era of "scientific racism", so a new word was coined--"antisemitism", to replace the old "Judenhass", to sound more "scientific". More anti-Jewish accusations were created, such as the "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion", which is a Russian-made forgery that is supposedly the record of a meeting of Jewish elders in their master plan to control the world; it was written to distract hatred away from the Czar and onto a scapegoat. (Essentially just an updated version of the kings' tactic of scapegoating the Jews from centuries earlier)

So the hatreds stayed, regardless of what new clothes they wore. After World War One, when the Nazis said that the blame for the loss and subsequent humiliation and economic collapse of the Weimar Republic was because of the "Jews stabbing us in the back", there was a massive population of people who were already primed to hate and resent Jews and just needed that excuse to focus that hatred. They passed laws that specifically stripped citizenship from the Jews on racial grounds, instituted blood purity laws--again, on racial grounds--and built up to the Holocaust, where the Jews were not seen as human, but as vermin, out to contaminate their pure race.

In the process, they killed nine out of ten Jews who lived in Europe. Their hatred to the point that they diverted efforts to fight the Allies just so that they could kill Jews. Local people hated Jews so much that they collaborated with their own conquerors, just so they could kill Jews. Because they hated us so much, had hated us for centuries. Their "Final Solution" to "The Jewish Question." This part is what the Right Wing denies.

And then, in the aftermath, nobody wanted the remaining victims. Literally, the British said, "We'll carve off part of our Empire to give to them rather than let them come here."

So, after centuries of hatred and marginalization, Europeans gave into their hatreds that they had been raised with and murdered us in our millions, and we were traumatized.

And some of us went to the USA--the few that the US was willing to take in--and many more, not having any other place to go, went to British Mandate Palestine with the hope of self-governance in the future Jewish territory... having learned that they could not trust non-Jews.

That is the Holocaust and what led up to it, and some of the aftermath of it.

Left Wing Holocaust Denial erases all of that, except for the Holocaust itself, which is taken out of context as a moral lesson.

The Left Wing Unofficial Narrative Of The Holocaust is that the Nazis arbitrarily picked several groups of fellow European Whites, the Jews being just one of them, agitated against them in order to make an Enemy, and then killed them in order to cement power. Thus, in this narrative, the Holocaust was thus an aberration brought about by demagoguery and propaganda. Thus, it is imperative to remember "Never Again", because it can happen to anyone.

According to this narrative, "Jews" are just White Europeans who practice a different Abrahamic Religion, and who played the aftermath of the genocide for undeserved sympathy points to get a colony of their own where they could become oppressors in turn, and that they are getting special treatment that ignores the other victims of the Holocaust.

In doing so, the Left needs to ignore...

...the racial aspects of the Holocaust and the decades and centuries before it--the blood purity laws, the specific "racial science" that Othered Jews, and so forth--in favor of a "Jews are White" narrative.

...that the Jews were specifically targeted by the Nazis for extermination, to the point of irrational, self-defeating fixation, whereas only the Roma were as targeted for complete eradication alongside the Jews--in favor of a "But what about the other victims too?" narrative.

...the Nazi obsession with hating Jews (which has not gone away) as a fundamental part of their ideology, and pretending that the Nazi hatred of Jews is no different than the eugenics and political oppression that other groups were victims of--again, in favor of a "Other people were victims of the Nazis too!" narrative.

...the centuries of hatred and victimization that preceded the Holocaust and culminated in it--in favor of a "Jews are just European White People" narrative.

...the trauma that happened when you've lost your homes, your families, your way of life, and your society, and nobody made any efforts to help you, and how it becomes apparent, after trying to fit in and integrate for decades, that you can be Perfect Citizens and the Christians will still hate you so we need to defend ourselves for our own sakes--in favor of a "Jews are oppressors and didn't learn the right lessons from the Holocaust" narrative.

So, TL;DR:

Right Wing Holocaust Denial denies the body count and the atrocities...

Left Wing Holocaust Denial denies everything that built up to it, the centuries of Othering and murders, and the aftereffects.

[valley-of-the-lost]

I don't know if you watched BPA, but.. I have a question, that I don't know if you can answer this, but it's been nagging at me (this is a multi-part ask, this will be a quick rundown): A blog that used to be interested in Barbie claimed that BPA has some racist undertones; this is because, as they claimed, due to the antagonist (who has, as they put it, brown skin) tries to take over the kingdom of a white princess/queen. 1/?- Barbie Multiverse Anon

Okay, so, a quick explanation. This ask has been sitting in my inbox for a few days, and I sincerely apologize to Multiverse Anon for making them wait this long for me to weigh in on this. When I received this ask I was neck-deep in part of an art challenge that wore me out and I had not watched BPA (which I assumed was Barbie Princess Adventure) at the time, and I felt that this was the type of ask that I needed to chew on for a couple days and talk to some people before I was certain of my thoughts on it.

Now, I have done some cursory research, watched Barbie Princess Adventure myself, and bounced it off some of my friends for their take as well. Thus I will attempt to answer this to the best of my ability.

I do agree with the unknown blogger in question that Prince Johan is a brown-skinned character, and that the plot has racist implications due to the combination of this, him being the antagonist, and the fact that his kingdom lost a war to Amelia's prior to the plot to drive his motivation hence why Amelia is taking over the rule of both her own and his kingdom. However, I disagree with them that this is an ongoing theme or that there's a pattern of racist undertones in previous Barbie movies. At least from my own knowledge. 

(under a read more because I don’t want to clog people’s dashes, this is not a simple topic to unpack + the movie did some weird things I wanted to explain too)

Before I really delve into the meat of why I take this stance, I want to quickly discuss why I had to even assert that I agreed that Johan is a brown-skinned character as its own point on the off-chance someone else encounters the same initial weird impression I did. You can skip this part if you want, I'll put a triple asterisk where this ends (***).

Prior to watching BPA myself, I did some cursory research on the Barbie Movies wiki, prompted by this ask. I put together that Johan was probably the antagonist that was being referred to, but when I was on his page, his wiki picture was just this.

This was all I had to go off of at this point, because he didn't have a screenshot gallery for me to cross-reference him throughout different points in the movie. So the conclusion I drew at the time was "he just looks like a tan white guy". This impression was reinforced by his light eyes and recycled Ken face model. I cross-referenced this with some friends, and we came to the conclusion that at best he looks racially ambiguous, with no reason to think he was a character of color unless there was other indication about his race in the movie itself.

And then I watched the movie. And changed my mind when I saw what he looked like in these scenes.

Johan looks noticeably darker than he did in his single wiki picture, especially when next to other more obviously white characters like Barbie and Amelia. His skin tone is closer to Alphonso whom I would call a brown character pretty confidently in the same movie (I wanted to minimize comparisons across movies to eliminate the possible different variables that would come with it).

While this might not be as noticeable to other people casually watching the movie, I found this a bit jarring myself because I was focusing on his skin tone in particular due to the subject of the ask and my initial impression from the wiki picture when he was arguably at his lightest in the whole movie, as well as when he was introduced he was at his darkest because it was set at night. Also the way the animation team decided to shade him to convey that its nighttime confused me because he looked a lot darker than I thought someone of what I assumed his skin tone would look. And then the next scene with him and Barbie further confused me, because he suddenly got this reddish undertone that really highlighted their difference in skin color.

(Barbie’s hands are on the left and Johan’s are on the right for sake of direct comparison)

Finally, in his last scenes in the movie, Johan's skin tone is most like that of his wiki picture's. Darker than Barbie's when they stand in the same shot but light enough that he could've passed as a tan white guy. What cemented my confusion is that he still looks like this in the throne room, where he was before when dancing with Barbie so it should reasonably have the same lighting and bring out that reddish undertone, but no he still looks like that. So my final conclusion on him was that since he looks like a brown-skinned character in around 2/3s of his scenes and there's a 2D painting of him in the bg when Barbie and Amelia are kidnapped, that he is indeed a brown-skinned character and the animation department probably fucked up their lighting which messed with how uniform his skin tone looked across scenes. ***

Now that I've explained my process of confusion and then final agreement that Johan is indeed brown-skinned, let's discuss how this compounds with other elements to create a rather unfortunate picture. I'm afraid its a bit worse than Anon described.

First off, the added context of the history between Amelia's kingdom of Floravia and his kingdom of Johanistan. Prior to the movie proper, these two countries fought in a war and Johanistan eventually surrendered to Floravia. The two countries signed a treaty that said that after her coronation, Amelia would rule both Floravia and Johanistan.

There is a severe lack of critical details about the war itself, such as what caused it in the first place, which really works to the film’s disadvantage, since the absence of clarity does little to clear up the questionable implications of what is known about the relationship between Floravia and Johanistan.

Amelia’s kingdom is the one that took over Johan’s initially, since they won the war and Johanistan would be ruled by Floravia’s queen, with the implication being that she’d depose Johan’s family, the original ruling family. While the lack of details makes it so it can’t quite be said that Floravia is colonizing Johanistan, it also means that it can’t be said that Floravia is not colonizing Johanistan. What is known about the war is very broadly reminiscent of tactics white people have used to colonize other countries, such as using a war to depose the original royal family for the colonizer’s own gain (the US colonizing Hawaii by staging a coup against their ruling family because the white plantation owners got mad) and putting the other country in a disadvantageous position with a treaty (Opium Wars). This would probably just be viewed as normal Kingdom vs. Kingdom politics if... well Johan wasn’t a character of color.

Combined with viewing this movie through the lens of real-life racial biases (which people are predisposed to do because we're inherently based in reality), the likely conclusion drawn is that this white ruler (Amelia) is effectively ousting a character of color (Johan) and his family out of power and force-assimilating his country, and there's simply not enough clarity about previous events before the movie takes place to dispel it sufficiently.

This also poisons the plot proper because Johan's motivation is to take advantage of the law that the rule of both kingdoms falls to him if Amelia doesn't show up to coronation and regain rule of his own kingdom and Floravia as a nice plus. The intention was probably to show him as greedy for wanting lone rule of Floravia and Johanistan, taken together, it honestly comes across as the movie villianizing a character of color because he wants to regain sovereignty of his own kingdom from a white ruler. Its completely understandable that Amelia wouldn't want to lose her own kingdom especially coming off of war, but also her kingdom is also the one ousting out the previous royal family of Johanistan without giving any good reason why they can't compromise.

The effect would be somewhat mitigated if another character of color had a similarly prominent role as Johan on the side of Barbie, but there's really not. The closest I'd argue would be Alphonso, but he doesn't have equal plot relevance. This does, in my opinion, make Barbie Princess Adventure's plot give off racist vibes like that unknown blogger said. But I do not agree with them that there's a "pattern" of racist undertones in other Barbie movies.

Due to the lack of details of what exactly they meant by a "pattern" of racist undertones, I am assuming they mean a consistent pattern of racism across the movies, for example the movies consistently dipping into anti-Asian sentiments with their villains, or their plots inherently having racist vibes woven into them like I just talked about in BPA.

Despite the Barbie movies occasionally dipping into offensive territory, in my personal experience I have not observed a pattern of racist undertones or consistent racism targeting a specific group. I acknowledge that I could fully be wrong and a lot of things could have slipped past my notice, especially since I have not seen all the movies, but from the ones I have seen I have not observed a pattern with regards to this. However, I will point out the offensive/iffy things in the movies that I know of, with varying degrees of detail depending on how much I can remember. This is by no means a full compendium of all the problematic stuff Barbie films have touched on but these are the ones I am aware of at present.

Barbie of Swan Lake - Antisemitism. There was a TikTok on this somewhere that discussed this more in detail that I can't find but will link if I do, but what I do remember was Rothbart was given an extremely large nose which is reminiscent of the "Jewish nose" ethnic stereotype. Also there was something about his name and Tchaikovsky himself being antisemitic and those views being reflected in his ballet. I don't remember all the details I'm sorry and google wasn't giving me much.

Barbie in the Princess and the Pauper - Antisemitism. Preminger hits a couple of antisemitic stereotypes in the movie, such as having a noticeably larger, hooked nose compared to the other male characters which is reminiscent of the ethnic stereotype of the "Jewish nose" and being greedy and corrupt (literally mining every singe piece of gold out of the mines) which is a stereotype of Jewish people. His name is also of Jewish origin which by itself wouldn’t be a necessarily suspicious thing but combined with those other tropes it does add up.

Barbie Diaries - Tia, a black woman and also the only one with curly hair in the cast, making an iffy comment about "getting the tangles out of her hair". POC with different hair textures have gotten a lot of racist shit for their hair so even though this is a small oneoff comment seeing Tia talk about her hair like this in a negative manner rubbed some of my friends with curly hair wrong.

Barbie in a Mermaid Tale 2 - Polynesian racism. Another friend of mine who is Hawaiian brought this up in Mermaid Tale 2, when Merliah and co decided to have a luau (which is a traditional Hawaiian party or feast usually accompanied by entertainment) in Australia. My friend found it a bit iffy they were doing this when most everyone is white, but what they found worse was when poi was being served in the luau. Poi is a traditional Polynesian dish, but in the movie they claimed it was an Australian and Hawaiian dish, which its not, there’s no Australia in its origin. And then there was a "gag" where the people eating the poi were gagging on it, so essentially this movie was making a joke out of another culture's aesthetics and food.

Barbie Princess Adventure - Reread the above text.

Maybe my sample size isn’t big enough but I’m not seeing a pattern or a trend here, which in my opinion would be a larger cause for concern because for these movies their issues are largely contained to their specific movie, and a pattern would be indication of a wider problem. Maybe you see a pattern I don’t, that would be completely valid.

Now, do I think this means you can’t enjoy Barbie Princess Adventure? No, I’d be a bit of a hypocrite if I said that because I still enjoy some of the Barbie movies I listed above that I just said also have problematic elements (Swan Lake and Princess and the Pauper specifically). But I do think it is good to at the very least be aware of it, hear it out, keep it in mind. At the same time I understand why people would be turned off by this topic because they’re here to have fun riding the serotonin of childhood nostalgia and not delve into discourse.

But I hope I answered your question to your satisfaction Multiverse Anon! I’m going to go take a nap now I’m tired 😭.

#ask of the lost #barbie #barbie princess adventure #tw discussion of racism

[meichenxi]

Benefits of watching target language media without subtitles!

Or: why watching media without subtitles is not limited to advanced learners, and why you should incorporate it into your routine!

SO this is prompted by a personal anecdote: Yesterday I watched an episode of my favourite show (the untamed, go and watch it, heathens, it's gay and pretty and has beautiful sword fights and necromancers and revenge and insane character development and), and rather than keeping the subtitles on, I rather dubiously turned them off.

So no subs in Chinese or English.

And lo and behold - I could understand most things! Not everything, especially not specialised vocab or formal speech, but enough (with good knowledge of the plot already) to comfortably follow most conversations. Yeah, this was a surprise.

Watching media in your target language without subtitles is something that a lot of people think is restricted to advanced learners - learners at the stage where they can understand almost everything wihh subtitles in the target language (henceforth TL) itself, and is just used to train listening practice.

If you wait until you're at that stage to incorporate this into your language learning routine, though, you're missing out. And here's why.

Firstly, personal-situation specific: I usually learn best via reading, but my Chinese reading ability is much worse than my listening ability (immersion yay), and so turning on the Chinese subs just makes me annoyed and frustrated because I can't follow them quickly enough. I realise that for many people this may be the opposite way around, but for heritage speakers of languages that use an unfamiliar alphabet, or those (like me) who are not heritage speakers but because of various factors have had intense spoken immersion and little formal education (and thus some - SOME - of the same difficulties), subtitles can be a hindrance rather than a help. There are many posts targeting improving listening skills, but not so many looking at it the other way around, so it's important to remember such learners exist.

I found to my surprise that I picked up significantly more vocab with the subs off than with them on. Firstly, if you know the general plot and know enough to pick up the outline of the conversation, you contextualise any word automatically at the same time as using the context to provide clues for what the word could be - the example sentence defines the word, and the word comes automatically with an example sentence, which cements it in your memory far better than if you heard it in isolation. This fits nicely into the functionalist approach to language learning (which systems like Glossika try to utilise to varying degrees of success), where vocabulary and different variations and pronunciations of different words serve as individual instantiations of a particular token - in this case, it could be the vocabulary word itself, but that's not all the information you're getting. You're also getting instantiations of the actual SOUNDS of the language, as well as the grammar.

You're picking up information on the permittable pronunciation of certain phonemes and phonological patterns, to inform your brain how much variation is acceptable within native speech. So for example the finals <n> and <ng> in pinyin are notoriously difficult in Mandarin, with some native speakers doing away with it altogether. What the input tells you is how much like an /n/ the <ng> is allowed to sound whilst still being perceived as an <ng> by speakers - and thus what the range of permissable differences is, that you, as a non native speaker, can play with.

As I've already written about, one of my first hills to die on is the tone/intonation interplay. And listening to audio without subs is fantastic for teaching you how intonation works not only on an emotional level, but also how it helps people understand sentence structure - it teaches you which parts of an utterance to pay attention to. Even if you don't understand the word itself, you will gradually learn what is the focus point of the sentence and what is peripheral information. Why is this particularly effective without subtitles? Especially in languages that have differing sentence structure (like Chinese in longer sentences), you need to rely on the intonation to guide you towards finding the focal point of the sentence. With subtitles, you get lazy and you don't utilise your ear in the same way. And again, again, you're drumming these patterns into your head. Frequency = success!

Thirdly, by training your ear to listen for intonation, you are necessarily listening for grammar patterns that give you a clue about who is playing what role in the sentence. Our brains are fundamentally lazy (effecient)- they only pay attention to what is necessary to complete the task. Have you seen that video where you are asked to count how many times a basketball is passed? And then at the end they ask you if you noticed the bear? There is a lot of linguistic debate about what role exactly attention plays in the process of language learning, but for our purposes it suffices to say that both actively noticing a pattern and hearing it confirmed again and again when you are not specifically looking for it help us hugely when it comes to not only memorising, but also internalising, that grammatical pattern.

Going back to the attention thing, let's talk about another problem no subs solves: if you are reading subtitles in your native language (and even more so in your TL), you are much less likely to bring the full force of your listening abilities into play. Why? Well, because the answer is right there in front of you. Listening without subs forces you to use context, social cues like smiles or frowns, as well as supra segmental factors like tone of voice or volume, to determine what exactly is being said - in other words, the same social interaction and outside stimulus that many functional linguists believe is absolutely critical to the development of the language faculty in children. Of course, you're not actually interacted with the media, but being actively forced to pay attention to these things makes it a much more holistic process. Suddenly, your brain is fired up: it needs to pay attention to everything in order to understand. In other words, the vocabulary and grammar and intonation you're hearing has suddenly become relevant.

And what happens when it's relevant? We learn it - sometimes without even knowing that's what's happening.

For all of these reasons, then, whatever your level, I'd suggest listening and watching media in your target language without subtitles. The expectations you have at each level, from beginner to advanced, should not, however, be the same. Unless you find incredibly good targeted media, or the language is sufficiently similar to one you know, you're unlikely to understand even what's going on when you first start out.

That's ok. Your brain is processing things - it's learning how to recognise nouns, verbs, questions, declarative sentences, the way the language expresses surprise or fear or love. It's learning that some phonetic distinctions that you don't have in your native language are important in your TL. It's heading patterns of vocabulary and grammar and phonology again and again and again. Don't expect to understand everything - but try copying it, out loud, if you can. It will help you get an ear for word boundaries, which is crucial for parsing the boundless speech-stream that's suddenly presented to you.

If you're at an intermediate level, enjoy spotting common verbs and watching the action, even if you don't know 100% what's going on. Even more than the beginner level, you're getting used to the speed of the language and its rhythms, as well as challenging yourself to understand more.

If you're at an advanced level, this is perfect for you. You'll understand more than you suspect. And if you don't, who cares, it's meant to be difficult. I never would have thought that I could understand and comfortably enjoy most of an episode of my show. And there were certainly conversations where I was totally lost!! But that's ok. You don't need 95% comprehension to survive - 50%, while incredibly frustrating, is good enough - as long as it's the right 50%! All you need is one key word - especially if you're watching media you're familiar with, which I recommend - and then click! You've got it.

加油！

#langblr #mandarin #chinese #chinese studyblr #studyblr #langblr study tips #study tips #learning languages #languages #chinese langblr #linguistics #lingblr #second language acquisition #learning second language #the untamed

[musical-chick-13]

And Theon bc I love him

WHAT A COINCIDENCE I LOVE HIM TOO (this answer is gonna be a combination of books and show)

Send me a character and I’ll tell you the following:

• Did they live up to their potential? / In what ways was their potential unachieved?

-I would say yes. The only negative I have about his general arc is his death (which, see below). But Theon from the very beginning was, though not a particularly nice person, still relatable. Feeling othered, wanting to be accepted by an immediate environment that doesn’t accept you, isolated from and ostracized by your family, and the tension that comes between serving the different types of familial relationships in your life. Theon has no idea who he is, tossed aside by his blood family for not growing up with them and being “soft,” aka sort-of moral and having emotions that aren’t selfish rage or smugness (which, yep, that second part is a mood, see: my entire childhood and how no one wanted to be around an “emotional” “soft” child). And from there, he spirals out of control in a way that, while certainly not admirable by any stretch of the imagination, is still understandable in the context of the narrative and his characterization. And from there, after going through hell and quite literally losing himself (even to the point of straight-up denying rescue), he builds himself back up gradually, to the point where he expressed extreme regret for what he’s done, helps an innocent woman escape a truly horrifying situation, acknowledges that his family is generally garbage, and (in-show b/c again books aren’t finished), helping to restore his sister to power, rescuing her after his PTSD relapses while confronting Euron, and ultimately opting to protect the Starks come hell or high water in order to genuinely atone for what he’s done. He is no longer conflicted because he wants to do the right thing, and that right thing is defending the kingdom from the White Walkers and making sure Sansa and Bran are safe. And it’s no longer about fulfilling a duty or finding a family to fill the void. Because now he has found himself. I will contend that Theon has one of the best, most nuanced, most organic redemption arcs of all time. I will forever be grateful that I got to see that piece of storytelling unfold.

Although, I would love to know what he thought of Dany. A missed opportunity, that.

• How they negatively and positively affected the story.

-Positive: His arc of identity and finding where your loyalties lie ties into the overall theme of “How do you find yourself in a world where goodness, authenticity, and honesty are often punished and increasingly rare?” And it proves that governmental politics aren’t the only defining factors in decisions: familial politics can be just as difficult and dangerous, which adds yet another rich, complicated layer to the overall story. He has a genuine, honest-to-Drowned-God redemption arc, which is...not really present anywhere else in the story (no, Jaime is not on a Redemption Quest, I will die on this hill). But I think the biggest draw of Theon’s presence is that it deconstructs the whole “Character Revenge Fantasy” idea. He does bad things. We want him to be punished. But not like that. No one deserves that. How far is too far? What does retribution really look like? Given how easily that idea can be abused and go off the rails, is retribution even something to strive for? What is the point of using extreme violence/torture/mutilation/breaking someone’s psyche when it doesn’t really accomplish anything? Isn’t atonement and genuine justice a better option? It certainly was for Theon. He could only piece himself back together and do anything meaningful once he was out of his abusive environment. All of these are imporant questions that are posed by his existence in the narrative.

-Negative: Idk if I have much to say here. My biggest problem is his death (see below), but that’s not really a negative story effect so much as...being disappointing and narratively irrelevant. I gotta say, his introduction via his sister was...really weird. I genuinely have no idea why GRRM wrote that. It never came up again or had any kind of narrative ramifications and kind of cast a strange, uncomfortable light on his relationship with Asha/Yara for the remainder of the story. I can ignore and enjoy their later relationship it if I don’t think about it too hard, though, so I guess I’ll chalk it up to GRRM having a Bad Idea.

• What my favorite arc for them is.

-All of it?? Theon’s journey is kind of...one big arc, which is why I think it works so well. He has this overarching redemption plot which spans the entire series and informs every decision he makes (for good or for bad, depending on where in the aforementioned journey he is). The redemption arc isn’t bogged down with side plots or other pieces of narrative clutter, meaning it has time to grow and, thus, be gradual and realistic. If I had to choose a specific point, it’s probably when he tries to reintegrate back into society via supporting Yara. Gaining the Iron Islands’ support for her ruling, spiriting away with Euron’s fleet, and ultimately rescuing his sister after her capture. He can’t just go back into society. He’s scared. He has really bad PTSD. But he recognizes that putting his home in good hands is something bigger than just him because it’s Yara’s home, too. I just...I really love family relationships, y’all.

• What I think of their ending.

-I’m not really sure how I feel about this one. I get that the series is GrimDark™ and that people who make the right choice and fight for good die all the time, but Theon dying just felt...wrong. To me.

And, like...I get it. It makes sense to parallel his original descent into villainy (cemented by executing those two boys and pretending they were Bran and Rickon) with him dying to protect Bran himself. It ties into the whole very common trope of completing a full redemption arc by committing a completely selfless act at great personal cost. It’s kind of like the whole Missy thing in Doctor Who (which...hoo boy, that post is coming, make no mistake), where selfishness is directly opposed by making the ultimate sacrifice with no motivation for personal gain. And the fact that the last words he ever heard were “You’re a good man?” I cannot even begin to describe how much that makes me sob. But...honestly, I’m really tired of this idea that redemption has to end in death in order to be achieved or “complete.” I think it’s much more poignant to have a redeemed character live to help build a better world. Because what’s the point of telling people to be better if the “reward” is death? No one’s going to want to reform themselves if they think that’ll be the result.

I think the thing that Bugs Me™ the most is that Theon never really got to have a moment of peace when he was alive. Sansa gained the North’s love and at least had a secure childhood. Ned and Cat were happily married for years. Arya had parents who loved her and a good relationship with Jon. Jon fell in love with Ygritte and found his Night Watch Bros, and Robb (in show verse) had some very happy moments with Talisa. Davos put great stock in what he considered fulfilling friendships with Stannis and Shireen; Brienne was treated respectfully by Renly, Catelyn, and Sansa; Missandei and Grey Worm had each other and their friendship with Dany, who herself had many personal successes in her quest for the Iron Throne and saw the death of her abusive brother. Cersei even had moments with Jaime (who himself had several notable military victories and at least some time with Myrcella, as well as being gladly and deeply in love, however dysfunctional that love was), times when she successfully fought off enemies (including her dad), and some sweet moments with Tommen, as well as a huge victory via blown-up sept at the end of season 6. Theon was treated as a second-class family member by the Starks his whole life by being “traded” to them as a condition of war resolution AS A BABY, is immediately disparaged and mistreated by his immediate family when he tries to return to them, makes terrible decisions that almost cost him his conscience completely, is brutally tortured by Ramsay, is on the run with his sister from Euron almost immediately after, and has a PTSD attack that ultimatly results in him having to launch a rescue mission. And then he fights ice zombies. And then he dies. He never really...got to be happy at all? There was never any kind of “win” for him. Not even survival. The narrative couldn’t even give him that.

TLDR: Theon’s death seemed less shock-value-y than others (like, for example, Shireen or Missandei or, heck, Melisandre even), and it isn’t the worst thing I’ve ever seen. It’s narratively-informed and it makes sense as an emotional through-line, but, ultimately, Redemption Cemented By Selfless Death is a tired trope, and I honestly thought this story (which...you know...serves as a deconstruction of common fantasy tropes/book tropes in general) was better than that.

• When I wish they had died. / If I think they should’ve died.

-So here’s where we get personal™ kids.

So, it’s no secret that I am...severely mentally ill. I’ve talked about expression/presentation of mental illness in regard to Cersei a lot on this blog, and how that (as paradoxical as it may seem) helped bring a sense of comfort and emotional resonance to me. Theon, post-Ramsay, has, I think, a very clear case of PTSD. Theon is one of the few characters I’ve seen where his mental illness isn’t the cause of the bad, violent, dangerous choices he makes. It only takes root after he has made the decision and conscious effort to better himself, and it, rather than demonizing him, serve to humanize him. His trauma didn’t define him. And although a PTSD attack led to him unintentionally losing Yara to Euron’s capture, he makes every effort to rescue her, a goal he does end up achieving. It is so rare I get to see a character who goes through these things, successfully fight them and come out with positive qualities at the end. Like...switching topics a bit here, Jaime going back to King’s Landing to (try to) escape and ultimately die with Cersei made sense to me because, as Jaime says, he is a hateful man. He never made much of an honest effort to be anything else. And he never truly wanted to be good; he just wanted to be liked. He wanted to adopt some personality that would make him feel less disconnected from the rest of the world. But Theon...genuinely feels remorse for everything he’s done. He makes a concerted effort to do everything in his power to improve the lives of people he believes are good and deserve to be safe. So, just...killing him off in a Completely Selfless Sacrifice (like...you know how a lot of mentally ill people put themselves through suffering-like OCD rituals, bottling feelings, self-harm, even suicide-in a misplaced attempt to “help” or “protect other people”) seemed antithetical to everything we saw of his arc.

Ultimately, with such a humanizing, empathetic portrayal of trauma and mental health struggles, seeing Theon be killed off just...pissed me off. I am so tired of seeing mentally ill characters die. I really want to believe that I can live through and thrive in spite of the things that afflict me, and I get example after example of characters not being allowed to do that. It feels awful, quite frankly. And it makes hope that much harder. 

I also just feel like...there was nothing the story gained from his death? I get the thematic parallels as mentioned earlier, but it didn’t really move the story forward in any significant way. It didn’t motivate other characters to do anything, it had no political ramifications, it didn’t serve to contribute to any kind of happy ending or commentary on society, it just...was sad. Again, I thought this story was better than that.

#theon greyjoy #got #my son #mental illness in media #meta #redemption arcs #tw: self harm mention #tw: suicide mention

[calliecat93]

Top 5 Things I Liked About RWBY Volume 5

(Top 5 Dislikes)

As I said in the Dislikes post, this volume is probably the most hated so far. Which is a real shame. Yes, there are legit problems with it, but that doesn’t mean that there was nothing good at all. There was a lot of good in this volume and I don’t find it fair to just brush it into the same pile along with the bad stuff. So let’s talk about some of those good things with my Top 5 Things I Liked About RWBY Volume 5~!

#5. Weiss is Best Girl

Weiss was the best character in this volume, honestly. While she doesn’t get as much stuff as Blake or Yang, she still got enough screentime and things to do that I was happy. She got it better than Ruby, at least. He successfully escaped Atlas. She defeated an entire horde of Lancers. She’s perfected her Summon enough to use it in combat. She survived a plane crash. She wasn’t intimidated by the Branwen Tribe. She would have escaped if Yang hadn’t appeared, and even then that just meant she couldn’t use stealth. She called Raven obnoxious. While people complain bout her relying on her Summoning too much,  she did a fairly good job of holding her own against Vernal. And once Jaune restored her Aura? She went right back to thrashing with her Queen Lancer Summon.

Weiss is the queen. But even so, we see a lot of her maturity in this volume. In the first two episodes, she wants to help the people being attacked by Grimm, but can’t cause it’ll give her away But when they stumble upon it in CHapter 2? Screw doing nothing! Weiss is a Huntress, ad she proves that she’s dedicated to that task there and then. But the best scene, of course, si when she talks to Yang in Chapter 8. Yang is correct that Weiss doesn’t know what it’s like for people to just leave without a word, but she does understand not having support from loved ones. Even with her large family, it fractured and split apart, and she was truly alone. She gets Yang to understand that Blake had reasons for leaving and that she will come back, and when she does then the best that they can do si give her support.

Not only does this help Yang cool down enough to be willing to let Blake back into the group, but it shows how much that Weiss has grown. This isn’t “The innocent don’t run, Yang” Weiss from Volume 1. Team RWBY became her new family, and she cares about all three of them more than either her brother or father cared about her. She doesn’t want to see another family fracture and her left to endure the fallout. Weiss understands why Blake did what she did, and believes that she will come back. And she’s willing to support her, as well as Yang. It’ one of the volumes best moments and really shows how much that Weiss has grown. She was such a great part of this volume all the way through, and this proves it.

#4. The Menagerie Plotline

While the Blake Plotline in V4 was not a favorite of mine, this one? This was what redeemed Blake for me. She’s done with running and is ready to face the White Fang, and in turn Adam, head-on at Haven. But, of course, she can’t do it alone. Their best chance is to get the citizens of Menagerie to help… but they’re not so willing. Not only because they’ll be risking their lives, but because they’ll be helping the humans. Humans who either hurt them or did nothing to stop it in their eyes. Ilia’s interference where she points out exactly how horrible their mistreatment had been did not help. But still, Blake was going to try.

We see a lot of Blake’s growth here. As I said, she’s not running anymore, but that’s not all fo it. She talks to Sun about Adam and if V3 hasn’t been enough, it and V5 Chapter 2 make Adam’s spiteful nature very clear and only makes it even more clear why Blake left when she did. She knows that Ilia is heading towards the same fate, but there’s still hope, and she wants to save her friend even if Ilia doesn’t want it. Ilia isn’t a bad person. She has noble intentions and we see that she still feels guilt and uncertainty in what she’s doing. She doesn’t want to hurt the Belladonna’s. She has to justify Sienna’s assassination as necessary for the betterment of the Faunus. She tries to get Blake to leave while there’s still time. She had the chance to hurt her in the Blake Trailer, but in the end, she couldn’t do it. She outright says that she hates hurting people, but in her mind, it’s the only way to get results.

Ilia is what I think that certain fans thought that Adam was. While Adam truly only serves himself and was beyond the point of return, Ilia did genuinely want to make Faunus lives better. She could have passed as a human if she had really wanted to, but she didn’t. She wore her Faunus status on her sleeve and was genuine in trying to improve their lives sot hat no one else died in a Dust Mine like her parents did. But she felt like the only way was to use fear and violence because otherwise no one did anything but stand around and let it happen. But she knew that it was wrong and she was still hesitant. Which Blake knew. She knew that there was still a chance before Ilia became another Adam, and she was going to help her before it was too late.

Indeed, it all leads to their fight in Chapter 10. It’s a really good fight all things considered, even if Blake burned down her own house… I wonder if they ever got that put out before they left Menagerie… but indeed, Blake tackles down Ilia, points out to her how there’s always another choice, and asks the million-dollar question: would Ilia’s parents want her to live like this? Ilia can only tearfully snap back that he doesn’t know what to do before all fo her resolve breaks then and there. After that, Blake’s words and Ghira saving her life finally pushes Ilia to make her choice. he stops Corsic (I think) in his tracks and finally breaks down.

After all of this, what does Blake do She steps up before the entirety of Menagerie. She points out that all the current chaos? They did it. Not the humans. Them. The White Fang is making people afraid and setting a bad example for the Faunus while they do nothing to contradict it. Blake has no answers on how they can truly achieve equality, but she does know that they can be better. They can show humanity that they aren’t like the White Fang by going to Haven and standing up against them. By standing alongside humans. And the first person to stand up and say that they’ll fight with her? Ilia. The girl who previously called the Belladonna’s traitors for this notion is now taking another choice. And this gets everyone else, everyone who was previously afraid to do so, rise up and all claim that they will go as well.

Indeed, Blake and the Faunus arrive at Haven and stop the White Fang. Blake faces Adam with no hint of fear. She rightfully knocks him into the ground, but that’s just the icing on the case. No, when Adam tries all of his little manipulative tactics on her, it fails. He tries to talk her down. She doesn’t budge. He thinks that he’s just going to run again. She doesn’t. Hell, she outright tells him that she is there for Haven, not him. He doesn’t matter to her anymore. Unlike Adam, Blake has friends and allies all around her while everyone that Adam had has either been arrested or walked out on him. Blake has better things t deal with, and thus this time, it’s Adam who runs. With this act, he made the White Fang turn on him, and now he’s the one running away. All while Blake is reunited with her team, this time having no intention of leaving and ready to repair the damage.

...okay I didn’t mean to go full-on analysis there, but the short version is I loved this plotline. Ilia’s a really good character who is very sympathetic and who you want to see do the right thing. And she does! Blake here is freakin’ fantastic in every way, and I love how far she’s come. Sun was great. Kali and Ghira were great. Adam having everything fall apart around him and it being entirely his own fault was great. Him running away was very satisfying. Everything was great~! Maybe some of the execution could have been a little tighter, but I don’t care. I loved this plot and I love Blake Belladonna.

#3. Spring vs Fall

I’m gonna lie, they totally fooled me about the Spring Maiden. I truly believed that it really was Vernal. Mainly because we saw her using her powers at least twice. We didn’t see Raven do anything, so how could it be her? They played us all like a damn fiddle. She wore her mask to hide the magic eye effect. Vernal was a Spring-inspired name, so those of us who like to look up stuff would just think that it cemented things even more. Raven was a good enough actress and liar to sell that Vernal was the Maiden without hinting at all that it may be her. She not only fooled Cinder, but she fooled Qrow. They framed things just enough to make it look like Vernal, like in Chapter 4 with the lightning where you see Vernal lowering her arm and, of course, her shouting ‘Enough!’. Or Raven telling Vernal to not use her power on Weiss, just to keep it up and have a reason for why Vernal doesn’t go full-on Maiden and since she’s a Bandit who would have years of combat experience, none of us would question it. Plus there was the earlier backstory, further pointing it at Vernal.

They had a well-crafted charade going, and CRWBY executed it perfectly. But of course, Cinder finds out when she fails to get the power out of Vernal. But due to it, we get by far the best fight int he entire volume. Say what you want about the Battle of Haven, but this fight they executed perfectly. It’s the first Maiden vs Maiden brawl and has two very strong and capable fighters duking it out. It is a true visual spectacle. And unlike all of her previous fights, Cinder isn’t confident or smug. Raven can match her. In fact, Raven is stronger, more experienced, and much smarter than her. Once again, Cinder is made to feel powerless and brought down from her high just as Ruby did in Volume 3. And you can just feel the hate radiating off of CInder due to ti, especially when she tells Raven to shut up when she mocks her near the end.

But indeed, Cinder loses. She muddied up their plan just to get a shot at the Maiden powers and for Ruby to get some damage since she’s not allowed to kill her. Raven overpowered her. Outwitted her. And it ended with Cinder getting thrown over the ledge, frozen, and sent into the abyss below. Yeah, we know that she survives, but it as still quite the beatdown. One that she brought onto herself because of her thirst for power.

The fight was just great. The whole Spring Maiden plot was great. They did such a great job with o many little details to sell the ploy to us, and we bought it! It’s why I can’t call Volume 5 bad. We have stuff like this that just gets swept aside, and that’s wrong Good writing should never be brushed aside just because we don’t like every other plotline. This on they did very well, and they deserve praise for it. I really enjoyed the plot and of course, the Maiden brawl. Although the final fate of the actual Spring Maiden is… dark. That isn’t a bad thing, it perfectly aligns with Raven’s character.  Speaking of which...

#2. The Yang and Raven Storyline

I’m gonna be honest. I don’t like Raven. Not because of bad writing, Raven is very well-written. I just hate her as a person. V4 already gave me a bad impression, but this one… ho boy. She’s emotionally manipulative of Yang and pretty much dismissed her when it was clear that Yang had no intention of joining her. She made a jab about family only showing up when they want something, which we all remember V4. She had zero problems with setting it up so that her brother could get killed just because he knew about Spring. Even if it was just to have a diversion to get the Relic, she still put her brother and daughter in harm’s way just for her own needs. And let’s not forget how she destroyed Shion, which knowing that she’s the Spring Maiden make sit even worst, and had no remorse in how any people got killed by them or the Grimm.

Raven’s a bad person and an even worst mother. And she knows it. She knows that abandoning Tai and Yang was bad. She knows that she’s selfish and hypocritical. She knows that murdering a young girl for her power was horrible. But in her mind, she’s doing what is necessary to survive. She justifies her actions as being strong. After all, the strong survive. She justifies killing Spring as mercy because she wouldn’t last in the world and her powers made her a target. She has this persona of a strong, clever warrior and leader, but that’ what it is. A persona. In truth, it’s all excuses to cover up how she’s really a scared young woman. Why? Because she’s afraid of Salem and like with Leo, feels that there is no beating her, so why try?

You know who is strong though? Yang. This girl lost her arm and is still suffering for it. Yet she got back up and went after Ruby. She finally meets the mother who abandoned her and uses her to get to Ruby and Qrow, her real family. She’s understandably angry about Blake still, but she actually listens to Weiss and starts to work through those emotions. She doesn’t just go rampaging in at the enemy, she finds other ways around a problem as Tai taught her. She doesn’t even use her Semblance at all because she doesn’t need to. She’s thinking smart and not wasting energy or taking attacks that she doesn’t need to take. We really see how much she’s grown as a fighter and see her evolve as a person. Despite all that happened to her, she still went to Haven. He still fought by her friends’ sides. She still went down into the Vault, and faced her mother.

Watching Yang call out Raven on all of her bullshit was immensely satisfying. Earlier, Raven planted doubt about Oz and the world in Yang’s mind and told her to as questions. Now this in itself was actually a good thing since it meant that Yang was actually wondering about things and didn’t just follow orders. Oz has done dubious things and as V6 showed, he does lie and manipulate. Raven pointing that out was good… she just didn’t expect Yang to also question her. Raven painted the bird thing as being forced on them, but Qrow made it clear that wasn’t the case. Raven kept trying to convince Yang to join her, acting cold towards her when her gestures were rejected. She feels like she should be Yang’s mom still, despite abandoning them, never being there despite being able to freely go there and back whenever she wanted, and just acting pretty shitty to her when they do finally meet. She was justified in leaving Ozpin. She wasn’t justified in turning her back on her family.

What Raven had done wasn’t strength. It doesn’t matter how many times she faced death, it doesn’t excuse murdering Spring due to her warped view of the world. She uses people. She abandons people. She puts people in danger to get what she wants. Everything that she does is self-serving. Even if she regrets it, she still did it. She may have been remorseful about Vernal, but she still used her just to protect herself. She wants to avid Salem, but took the Maiden powers and tried to take the Relic. But most of all, in the end, Yang points out how Raven will be a target if she takes the Relic. So she can either do it and re-enter the conflict that she claims to want no part of, or she can let Yang do it and put the target on herself. Raven weakly tells her that she doesn’t have to, but otherwise? She tearfully says that she’s sorry… and teleports away. In the end, despite knowing that Yang is right about everything, Raven once again chooses her own self-interest. Her own survival. She lets Yang take the fall, and abandons her once more.

Yang knows it too, taking the Relic and then breaking down. She spent so long wanting to meet her mother. Even if Ruby was her primary concern, I do think that she legit wanted to finally find Raven and get to know her. To see if she was the woman that her father described to her. But that Raven was dead. Qrow told her about Raven’s twisted world view, and it was proven true. I believe that Raven doe slove Yang, but in the end, she’s too stuck in her ways and in her own cowardice. She ran, but Yang stayed She was trembling, but she stood firm against Raven and called out her skewed view of strength. She may be powerful, but she isn’t strong. Yang was scared, yet she still made it to where she was. She was standing there. She took the Relic, fully aware that there was no turning away when she did. This arc showed why Yang is such ana amazing character and while it ended poorly with her mother, she has a family who loves her. And while one person left again, another came back.

On that note…

#1. The Team RWBY Reunions

The last time that we saw Team RWBY on-screen together was in Volume 3, Chapter 12. In it Yang was dismembered, Blake was a broken mess, and only Ruby and Weiss were left standing. After Ruby and Weiss ran in Beacon, that was it. The only time any of the members are together in some form is when Ruby went to see Yang after waking up. Yang was broken and could only tell Ruby that Weiss and blake were gone, and she just wanted to be left alone. That chapter was in February of 2016. V5 began in October of 2017. We hadn’t seen Team RWBY together in over a year and a half, and the last time was them at their darkest hour.

Fortunately, that wait ended here.

In Volume 4, we watched the girls overcome their hardships and set off on their new paths. RUby to save Haven. Weiss to escape her father. Blake to take back the White Fang. Yang to find Ruby. And they succeeded. Ruby made it to Mistral, and int he end did save Haven. Weiss got away and while she was too late to reunite with Winter, she still made it out. Blake stopped the White Fang from destroying Haven and re-ignited the Faunus on a more peaceful path. Yang found Ruby and held her own despite her PTSD. They all succeeded in their separate goals, but we still wanted them back together. And fortunately, we got three beautiful reunion scenes.

We had the Freezerburn reunion, where Weiss is just so relieved to finally see the face of someone that she cares about. The second that the Bandits backed off and Weiss jut threw herself at Yang and is clearly tearful as she tells Yang how much she missed her… it both breaks and warms your heart. Then we get their reunion with Ruby. One where Ruby drops everything (literally) and immediately begins to break down as she tries to apologize to Yang for leaving her. She thought that Yang didn’t want her around, and considering Yang’s last onscreen words to her were “Just leave me alone”, can you blame her? Yang’s response this time? To hug her tight and tell her that she loves her. Finally responding back after their not so happy final talk in V3. If that wasn’t sweet enough, they immediately open their arms to invite Weiss in, considering her to be their sister just as much as they do each other. Weiss tearfully, but happily, run into their arms and you’re crying right along with her. They are just such beautiful scenes and very much worth the payoff.

But it’s still an incomplete set, so let’s fix that.

Blake had no idea that RWY would be at Haven and seeing them, of course, shocks her. Seeing Yang back up and actually okay shocked. She didn’t have a lot of time to take it in yet though, having to deal with Adam. But after that? She jumps into the fray to help Ruby and Weiss and while we, unfortunately, don’t get to see the fight, they’re as sharp and coordinated as ever. Then the fight is over. The White Fang is dealt with. Her family and Ilia have that part covered. Sun yanks Blake towards the others, wordlessly gesturing her to walk forward and go back to her team. Her friends. We see her take in a breath before facing the three girls that she left behind. She’s clearly not sure what to say or do, but when RUby says that why they’re there is one of life’s great mysteries is a long story, Blake says that she’s not going anywhere. Ruby and Weiss are ready to accept her back, but they turn to Yang for her response. Ruby said that them being together was all that mattered… and sure enough, Yang smiles, nods, and agrees. That was the moment that Blake knew that while there was plenty to answer for still, she wasn’t going to be rejected for it. Yan saw that Blake came back so even if her mom left her again, Blake wouldn’t. Weiss opens up for arm as the sisters did for her before. Blake happily kneels down to join in. All as All That Matters plays in the background.

At that point, V3 was on the verge of becoming two years old. Last time the girls were together, they were broken and torn apart. Now? They grew. They healed. They somehow found a way back to each other. They all lost so much and endured so much, but somehow, despite all of it, there they were. Together once again. That group hug is one of my favorite RWBY moments of all time and still makes me tearful now. It’s why I will never hate this volume. That scene where they hug and are just so happy and relieved to be together… how the Hell could I hate that? I can’t. Every reunion was beautifully done, especially the final one. It was a perfect payoff to the split plotlines and everyone’s arc, and it will always be what I treasure most about this volume.

V5 gets hated. A lot. But there is value in it. A lot of value. So no, I refuse to hate it. I don’t hate any volume and have yet to hate any volume. I hope that I was able to show some of the good parts of it. But with that done, five volumes down. One to go. Two more posts to do folks. We are in the home-stretch people. Let’s see if I can make it to home-base now.

#rwby #rwby reviews #top likes/dislikes

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (semi-stream of consciousness) Thoughts Part 3: Spider-Miles and his Amazing Friends/Foes

Apologies for not getting this out sooner. I’ve been/still am unwell so I was physically too energy drained to crank it out.

For this outing we’re going to discuss the characters not named Miles Morales. Spoilers ahead.

 As I have said before, Miles might be the primary protagonist but he is not the sole one.

Alongside him we have the Peter Parker who died (who, in what is surely a Clone Saga reference, is blonde), the older washed up Peter Parker, Spider-Gwen, Spider-Ham, Spider-Man Noir and Peni Parker with her SP//dr mech...with a cameo by Spider-Man 2099 and 1960s Spider-Man.

Going up against them are Kingpin, Prowler/Aaron Davis, Doctor Octopus/Olivia Octavius, Tombstone, Scorpion and Green Goblin with cameos by the Lizard/Spider-Gwen’s Peter Parker and some versions of Doc Ock and a reference to Electro. Honestly there were probably more villains too I just missed them because this movie is such a feast for the eyes that you need to see it more than once to take everything in. For example my friend caught a Ditko reference I missed.

I already gushed about how impressive it is that the movie balanced so many characters so lets not go over that again beyond saying that it is honestly mind blowing that us Spidey fans got all THOSE villains (some of whom have never been on film before) in this movie and what is essentially a Carolin Trainer Doc Ock reference rendered as a really cool villainess.

For real Olivia ‘Liv’ Octavius was bad ass. If Kingpin was the Big Bad she was his ‘Dragon’ to use TV Tropes terminology. Her design was unique to Molina’s Doc Ock and her unveiling was one of the movies best twists that I really didn’t see coming. Also Aunt May seemed to know her which means in my headcanon they were like old friends and had tea together sometimes. It is also worth of note she is technically one of the relatively few Marvel movie villainesses.

Sticking with the villains for now Tombstone and Green Goblin were the least interesting. Goblin here existed essentially to serve as reference and honour to the Death of Spider-Man arc from the Ultimate comics as he is very much involved in Blonde Peter’s death and dies himself. Tombstone was just...Tombstone. He was just Fisk’s bodyguard and nothing else. Still the fact that there even exists a Spider-Man movie WITH Tombstone in it is something of a marvel. Scorpion is elevated somewhat beyond Tombstone and Goblin by virtue of his interesting redesign and the quirk that he speaks Spanish, thus connecting him to Miles. Whilst the movie doesn’t use it’s relatively even hero and villain count to just pair the characters off, it should be said that Tombstone and Scorpion do exist specifically to give Noir, Ham and Peni something to do in the second and third act climaxes.

This is not a detriment to the movie though. Although this is an ensemble movie, it is Miles movie primarily, Peter and Gwen’s secondarily and the other Spider-Heroes’ behind them. This point is accentuated when we are given their origins simultaneously in a three panel sequence. It is understood that these three characters are to be regarded somewhat collectively, sort of like the Warriors Three from Thor.

Getting back to the villains though, I have little to say on Prowler I didn’t cover last time. All I will add is that his visuals are very cool. Even though he is based upon Ultimate Prowler his look is more 616 Prowler influenced, but imagine if instead of a misguided antagonist he was a scary slightly Spawn inspired villain. So he was totally bad ass.

However hats must go off to Kingpin. He was the main and best villain of this story. It is funny this year has been oddly Kingpin focused in terms of Marvel content.

He was brought back superbly for Daredevil season 3. He was a notable figure in the PS4 Spidey game. He was the main villain of the PS4 prequel novel. He got a lot of play in Daredevil and Spider-Man comics where he was the mayor and he is now serving as a Marvel movie villain for the second time. For me personally I complimented all this by checking out Daredevil Born Again and Last Rites, two very Kingpin centric stories.

As far as his portrayal here is concerned, the central conceit of the movie again creates a potential get out of jail scenario for any direction the writers want to take with the characters. This is an AU version of Kingpin and so is at liberty to deviate wildly from the 616 version as Liv Octavius did.

How interestingly what we wind up with is an interesting rendition of Kingpin who’s deviations from his canon counterpart’s personality are relatively minor and his overall portrayal is different more in where it places the emphasis as opposed to what the specific traits of his personality are.

Comics Kingpin is defined by his cold controlled and sophisticated demeanour hiding a thuggish, cruel and raging temper beneath the surface. He is the boss of bosses, the biggest criminal ever in more way than one.  

Spider-Verse Kingpin is a little more ‘street’ in his dialogue and vocal performance than we might be used to with classic Kingpin and ever so slightly more prone to making jokes, but beyond that his personality is very similar. Essentially he is Kingpin with a bit more Tony Soprano injected into him. The idea of his calm exterior hiding a cruel raging monster beneath is very well realized though via his gimmick of clicking his pen as a kind of stress ball to maintain his temper and his beating Spider-Man to death with his bare hands. Not to mention his flying into raging bull mode at the climax of the movie when things go all wrong.

Where the key deviation lies for this rendition of Wilson Fisk though lies in his motivation for the movie. Whilst various stories in comics and other media depict Kingpin’s motivation to simply rid his criminal empire of one superhero or another, or else further expand and secure that empire, Spider-Verse Kingpin is all about his family. The entire reason he is investigating parallel universes is in order to find alternate living versions of his dead wife Vanessa and son Richard. They died fleeing him in horror upon witnessing him fighting Blonde Spidey, so Wilson feels guilty and heartbroken over their deaths.

What is ingenious about this take upon Kingpin is that you could entirely see his canon counterpart doing something like this and it serves to add a note of sympathy to him in spite of his directly murdering Spider-Man and Miles’ uncle. Whilst it is perhaps not as nuanced or multilayered as the Netflix Kingpin, it still serves to make him more than a two-dimensional, black and white gangster. So as a villain he is simple, yet effective.

  Kingpin, like all the Spider-Heroes sans Miles, also has a backstory flashback sequence that  explains his history with his family. These are strategically placed throughout the movie and are reminiscent of the origin sequences from the Suicide Squad movie. However what worked so poorly there works magnificently here.

These origin sequences do much more than simply drop exposition for each character. Putting aside how the movie does enough to build up and endear us to most of the characters who get such sequences, the sequences are actually in aid of conveying to the audience the primary conceit of the film, that of alternate realities.

And the best way to convey this idea is to prevent the familiar with deliberate changes.

What I mean by this is that the movie sets up these origin sequences in deliberate contrast to one another and signposts this fact with repeated dialogue and visual cues in each sequence. This even applies for Kingpin as the visuals of his origin sequence are evoked for the climax wherein he briefly does see flashes of his wife and son from other realities.

As far as the Spider-Heroes are concerned though, the first of these sequences is at the top of the movie with the background information for Blonde Spidey.

This helps immediately hint that the world we are watching is both similar to yet different to the ones we might be familiar with, noticeably the world of this Spider-Man is more similar to our own as Blonde Spidey (surely a Ben Reilly reference unto himself) is a beloved and highly merchandised celebrity. Even the iconic upside down kiss with Mary Jane occurs for him with MJ upside down. A fun little in joke for the audience, or sly easing in of the idea that this Spider-Man is not the one we know?

A little of both probably, but that one scene illustrates what I mean because the second origin sequence we get is about the older Spider-Man. Like I said it plays itself in deliberate contrast to the Blonde Spider-Man, retaining the same narrative/dialogue structure within the short vignette to convey for us how this Spidey is different and thus develop his character. E.g. he is older and yet less successful, he is underappreciated and in bad shape and his marriage to MJ (whom he shares a more traditional upside down kiss with, see what I mean, it slyly hints this Spidey is more like the ones we recognize) has ended in sad divorce and he is a wreck.

Further origin sequences repeat for Spider-Gwen (she is similar to her comic counterpart, but her hang up is distancing herself from her friends), Noir, Peni and Ham.

As I said before Noir, Peni and Ham have their origin sequences play out simultaneously on the screen. This cements their lesser status within the movie compared to the other protagonists.

Collectively the sequences not only use the individual Spider-Heroes to mutually develop and build up each character on the most basic level to the audience (Spider-Man but a Looney Tune pig, Spider-Man but if he was a drummer Gwen Stacy, Spider-Man but if he was Humphrey Bogart, Spider-Man but if he was an anime girl from a mech anime, etc) but also serves to hold the audiences hand as it gets them to accept the conceit of parallel universes.

Of course the concept is first broached at the start of the movie where Blonde Spider-Man’s origin sequence concludes with him declaring himself the one and only Spider-Man (a sentiment echoed in other origin sequences too) and is then immediately followed by Miles’ introduction. We also have the topic raised in Miles classroom.

When combined with the other origin sequences, this opening obviously challenges the audiences idea that there could only ever be one Spider-Man and that it would have to be Peter Parker (a fair presumption, most audience members would be unaware of any other Spider-Heroes). This I think is part of the ingeniousness (forgive my repetition of the term but it is true) of featuring the two Peters in this movie.

See both Peter Parkers are as much positioned as deliberate deviations from the norm general audiences would expect as Spider-Ham or Spider-Gwen. Whilst one Peter is blonde and a successful married celebrity with essentially his own Spider-Cave, another is the oldest on screen Peter Parker we’ve ever had, pot-bellied and a divorcee. Outside of some video games and two 20 year old cartoons general audiences have never even seen a married Spider-Man so presenting not just one but two, and one of whom is post-marriage to boot, is a brilliant way to sell ‘this isn’t the Spider-Man you know’.

But these Spider-Men ARE Peter Parker. So if there can be versions of the Parker Spidey audiences are familiar with that are so different to what they know, the idea of Peter Parker but an anime girl or a 1930s noir character or a cartoon pig becomes easier to accept as does Gwen Stacy (whom audiences ARE familiar with from the recent Marc Webb movies) as ‘Spider-Man’ becomes yet easier to accept.

All of which build to what is second half of the question the start of the movie raises.

The question is partially ‘Does Peter Parker have to be the one and only Spider-Man’ (obviously not there are alternate versions of him as well as Gwen Stacy in the role) and, perhaps more poignantly, partially ‘Can Miles be Spider-Man’.

And this is the the most important purpose that the origin sequences serve. They are all building towards the climax of the movie which bookeneds the start wherein it is at last Miles turn to relay his own origin, allowing the movie to put to rest the question it raised at the start and cement in the audience’s minds that YES, this kid can and now IS Spider-Man.

As Stan Lee said, part of the appeal of Spider-Man is that under that costume anyone can imagine themselves to be Spider-Man. This movie embodies that message, embeds it into itself and in that sense serves the fundamental ethos of Spider-Man or him being the relatable everyman, even whilst Peter himself is not the heart of this movie.

And it did all that via having comic book style flashback exposition dumps!!!!!!!

I might have said this before or elsewhere but this is the most ‘comic book’ comic book movie I’ve ever seen! As in it is a movie that looks like and plays out like a comic book!

And just like the best comic books and comic book movies it always remembers that these stories are someone’s first so whilst it presumes a certain amount of foreknowledge (like you know who Spider-Man is) it leaves nothing to chance and organically walks you through everything you need to know. Again, those origin sequences by being placed in contrast to one another walks audiences gently through the massive concept of multiverses which no other theatrical comic book film before this to my knowledge has ever touched (sorry DC..).

Sticking with the Spider-Heroes for a moment, what should be understood is that the characterization of them is all geared towards the needs of the specific story being told, which obviously has Miles at the heart of it.

What I mean by this is that whilst the movie doesn’t give you the most detailed or faithful rendition of Spider-Gwen or Spider-Man: Noir ever they are the right takes for the movie’s story, for selling the concept of parallel universes and Miles development.

Blonde Spidey is not just hyper successful in order to contrast with Old Spidey. His success and competency (his brief action scene is incredibly impressive) is designed to also contrast to Miles inexperience and to sell him as almost a Superman/Captain America figure within Miles’ world. His death is mourned as the passing of a great and revered hero, a national day of mourning and even made me tear up a bit. This is done to accentuate the guilt Miles feels and the burden Miles feels to live up to his dying wish and shadow, the latter of which could fuel a potential sequel. His specific death scene itself is played as very different from the Ultimate comics. There his death was the grand finale (we thought) to the saga of a hero we’d been following and gave him a fittingly grand death. In the movie since his death is primarily the launch pad for Miles’ journey it is less grand, even cruel in how quick, blunt and undignified it is.

Old Spidey’s failure is not undertaken because the filmmakers believe Spider-Man is or should be some abject loser or failure, as I and others have feared. It is a direction taken because it gives him an arc for the movie. His hang up is wrapped up with his divorce from Mary Jane. But refreshingly for comic fans their separation occurred because MJ wanted children and he couldn’t bring himself to go there. It is through his tutelage of Miles (and hilarious confession to Blonde Spidey’s widow, a reflection of his student’s poor attempt to woo Gwen earlier) that he works through his issues and gets his happy ending of reuniting with his MJ. He thus has an arc intertwined with Miles even as he serves as his reluctant and somewhat haphazard mentor. If you think about it, having a version of Spider-Man more akin to the ‘default’ version would have made for a boring and underwhelming movie as far as Miles and Peter’s relationship is concerned. In this dynamic though master and student mutually grow.

Moreover his arc is interesting on a meta level as his pot belly somewhat resembled Tobey Maguire in some infamous and unflattering post-Spider-Man 3 images and Peter and MJ having a child and divorcing were in fact concepts toyed with for the aborted Spider-Man 4. All of which lends credence to the idea that Old Spider-man could very well be the actual Maguire Spider-Man. Indeed Maguire was apparently considered to be cast for this Spider-Man.

Between them Blonde and Old Peter represent something of the best and worst case scenarios for the ‘standard’ Spider-Man that broadly exists in the popular consciousness of general audiences.

Also one of these two Peter Parkers is explicitly Jewish. They have a Jewish wedding with Mary Jane which is a lovely touch as both his creators were Jewish and it has often been said the character embodies certain characteristics that recognizable within Jewish culture.

Spider-Gwen is changed into being more snarky than her earliest comics depicted her mostly because she has to be a more in control and experienced counterpoint to the in experienced Miles, serving as the subtextual second-in-command of the team. Her character’s conceit of being distant from her friends was something sort of present in her comics but is played as her central emotional problem in this movie that is also worked out through the course of teaming up with others. Additionally the film, seeking to connect her and Miles romantically (perhaps unnecessarily, but it is a sweet enough young romance nevertheless, helped by their similar age for a change) draws a parallel between how both her and Miles lost a Peter Parker. Parker in her universe was the Lizard as in the comics which further helps sell the idea of ‘Spider-Man’ being flexible.

The other Spider-Heroes are again, bodies to pad out the team and all of them are geared towards comic relief which helps balance out the team and movie over all, even if it goes against how Peni and Noir were originally characterized in their solo outings. But again this isn’t a solo outing, it is a team outing centred around Miles.

And the key thing to note here, as I noted in previous instalments is that all these other Spider-Heroes NEEDED to be in here and (to a lesser or greater extent) needed their own arcs because Miles was not going to hold the movie all on his own.

As for the other characters not much to say really. Miles parents are done well though his Dad gets more focus, a biproduct think of the movie focussing upon his brother Aaron. Aunt May has a small but lovely role as the keeper of Blonde Peter’s legacy. There is a touching scene which adapted Spider-Men better than the actual story. In the comic book 616 Peter meets Ultimate May in the relatively recent aftermath of Ultimate Peter’s death. In the movie, apart from Blonde Peter being older (meaning more years with Peter), Old Peter has also lost his Aunt May meaning the moment is much more emotionally packed as bereaved aunt and nephew reunite.

Then there is Mary Jane. Again a small role and she is somewhat relegated to a motivator than her own character but in a movie this packed where the heart isn’t Peter Parker you can understand why. You do feel bad that every (good) character in this movie got a happy ending or at least a happy final scene except her...well sort of. She is just left as the widow of Blonde Spidey but she gets a nice scene where she reunites with Old Peter. So ONE version of MJ has a happy last scene.

I will say this, the movie treated the character with respect. It is MJ who delivers her husband’s eulogy that prompts Miles into action and sums up the message of anyone being Spider-Man. It is made clear MJ was not the root of her split with Peter because ‘she couldn’t handle it’ or some shit like that. So whilst the movie didn’t give her much to do it also didn’t punch down on her or disrespect her legacy the way Homecoming did. And if nothing else how cool was it that we got not one but TWO Peter/MJ marriages on screen in a major motion picture. Take that Marvel!

But I cannot talk about the characters in this movie without talking about the three best cameos in any comic book movie.

The first was the surprise post-credits sequence where Spider-Man 2099 showed up! Of all Spider-Heroes he was the one I wanted most to show up. I love Mayday of course but I never deluded myself she could show up and in fact Old Peter’s story opens up that possibility for her more down the line.

2099 shocked me (how appropriate) and I thought we were going to get some nice sequel bait. That was until that was subverted for the second cameo that made me and my friend split our sides with laugher.

1960s cartoon Spider-Man, specifically with him and 2099 recalling the ‘Spider-Man pointing at himself meme’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is how you integrate a meme right!!!!!!

They even paid the 1960s show homage by referring to it as going back to the beginning since the 1960s show was in fact the first time Spider-Man was ever adapted into animation.

The third and best cameo goes to the Stan Lee appearance.

I am not ashamed to tell you dear readers that when I saw Stan Lee, even a cartoon version of him, saying in his own voice that he was friends with Spider-Man and will miss him I genuinely cried a little.

Even seeing the grave of Blonde Spider-Man shortly afterwards, a scene I’d already seen as the after credits scene for Venom, hit me hard and felt very different in a post-Stan Lee world.

And of course there was that ending title card crediting Lee and Ditko. Beautiful, no other word for it.

And given the movie’s fundamental message I can think of no more fitting way to honour the fathers of Spider-Man.

#Spider-Man #Spider-Man: Into the SPider-Verse #Into the Spider-Verse #Peter Parker #Miles Morales #Gwen Stacy #Spider-Gwen #Spider Woman #MCu #marvel cinematic universe #sp//dr #Peni Parker #Spider-Man Noir #Spider-Ham #Peter Porker #Sony #sony animation #Marvel Comics #Marvel #Stan Lee #Steve Ditko

[rcardamone]

Final Part 2: Paradigm Shifts and Pragmatism

As the documentary Food Inc. points out in its opening lines, the image of agrarian America (of family farms with picturesque red barns and animals grazing in open fields) used to sell food is a “pastoral fantasy.” 1  Though this image was once much closer to reality, the industrialized agriculture that has rapidly grown and cemented its dominance of the American food system has driven American family farms to the brink of extinction. Now, they hide appalling practices behind the image of what they destroyed.

Industrial agriculture was designed to achieve a simple aim: producing as much food as possible as inexpensively as possible. As one industrial agriculture executive in the food exclaims, “what’s wrong with that?” 2 From the perspective of pure profit, absolutely nothing. From any other perspective, almost everything

As one farmer who dared to be interviewed for the documentary put it, the system, “isn’t farming [but rather] like mass production in a factory.”3 Indeed, the animals are treated much more like technology than living beings. Chickens have been engineered to grow to their full size in around forty-eight days, rather than the typical three months and that full size is significantly larger than that of an unmodified chicken. The chickens grow so large that, according to that same farmer, they cannot take more than a few steps before falling over under their own weight. 4 If one is willing to acknowledge that a chicken (or a cow or a pig) is a living being that experiences suffering and it is certain that many in industrial agriculture do not, the idea of intentionally modifying them in a way that dramatically increases that suffering is disturbing and fraught with ethical questions. However, one need not concern themselves with the wellbeing of chickens to find casualties of industrial agriculture.

Figure 1, The Inside of a Chicken Farm 5

The farmer being interviewed also stated that due to her work with the chickens, she had become entirely allergic to antibiotics. Additionally, farmers find themselves trapped by their contracts with large agricultural companies. The reason for this is that the chicken houses they must build in order to get contracts in the first place cost around 280 to 300 thousand dollars each. Additionally, the companies demand frequent updates to the facilities on farms. The average chicken farmer earns around 18,000 dollars a year. Thus, they must take on enormous debt in order to continue to fulfill the demands of their contract, leaving them with virtually no bargaining power.6 That is far from the only nefarious scheme agricultural companies engage in.

A job in the meat packing industry used to be one of the best in industrial America. In the 1950′s, workers were guaranteed a decent wage and pension, and had a relatively strong union. However, as the meat packing industry grew to meet the demands of fast food, unions were crushed and worker protections destroyed. Furthermore, the industry now exploits illegal immigrant labor. Because of their illegal status, these workers have virtually no lines of defense between themselves and what has now become one of the most dangerous lines of work in America. Additionally, companies make deals with immigration authorities. For example, one company allowed around fifteen of their workers to be arrested and (presumably) deported on a consistent basis. This was an easily replaceable number and avoided the disruption that would come with a mass raid. Furthermore, nobody in the company was forced to answer for their use and exploitation of illegal immigrant labor. 7    

As evidenced by this example, which is but one among many, industrial agriculture holds immense power within the United States government. Their stranglehold on the American political system to leads to blatant, intentional failures of regulation. In one instance, the USDA attempted to create a regulation that required that meat processing plants which repeatedly failed E Coli tests be shut down. The case was taken to court, and, shockingly, the court ruled that the USDA held no power to create such a regulation. An attempt to pass a law to give that power back to the USDA, nicknamed “Kevin’s Law” after a young child who died from E Coli, repeatedly failed to pass Congress. 8  

Based on the facts, it is clear that the behavior of industrial agriculture corporations in America has caused tremendous harm not only to farmers but to millions of citizens. It is in many ways a perfect example of how pursuit of maximal profit combined with lack of effective oversight, both by consumers and government, can have disastrous consequences. The case for both these truths laid out in “Food Inc.” is damning and conclusive. How to engage with the behemoth remains an open question.

First, it is important to acknowledge that there are farmers who operate within an entirely different paradigm. One such farmer is Joel Salatin, who runs Polyface Farms in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. He is committed to sustainable agriculture, and growing food in a way that supplements the health of its consumers as well as the ecological system. His business model is in stark opposition to that of industrial agriculture. At one point he states, “I have no desire to get bigger, my desire is to produce the best food in the world and heal. And if in doing so, more people come to our corner and want stuff, heaven help me meet the need without compromising our integrity.” 9

      At another point he posits, “imagine what it would be...if as a national policy we said we would only be successful if we had fewer people going to the hospital next year than last year.”10 Implicit in this is an acknowledgment that our health and the food we eat are profoundly connected. As is made clear in Food Inc., the consumption of fast food and heavily processed food is causing a tremendous public health problem. One manifestation of this is that one in three Americans born after 2000 will contract early onset diabetes. The brunt of the crisis is borne by lower income Americans. As Michael Pollan says, “it is extraordinarily difficult for Americans with limited incomes to survive on good food.” He goes on to point out that unhealthy calories are cheaper largely because they are the ones subsidized by the government.11 The cost of such a public health crisis, both in dollars and in human suffering, is immense. Unfortunately, it is not paid by the agricultural industry, but by the American people. The frustration here is that Joel Salatin is obviously correct in pointing out that there are standards other than profitability by which the success of food production should be measured. However, while it may easy to imagine a reality where most Americans get their food from farmers like Salatin as an ideal, it is harder to have confidence in a path towards such a reality in the near future. The size, legal power and government influence of agricultural corporations is formidable. As mentioned in the previous post, overcoming them requires the will to do so. There may come a day when a critical mass of consumer-citizens decide they will no longer tolerate the side-effects of “cheap” food. However, it does not appear that day will be tomorrow. Still, farmers like Salatin are crucially important as reminders that a different paradigm of farming (and of measuring success by more than profitability) is no pipe dream and has already been realized in some markets.

Also interviewed is a founder of Stonyfield Farms, one of the nation’s largest organic dairy farming operations, who takes an entirely different approach to improving the quality of food: pragmatism. Unlike Salatin who speaks out against measuring success by growth and having products sold in Walmart, Stonyfield has decided to play by the rules of corporate agriculture in order to maximize their reach and, at least in the mind of its founder, ability to do good. The founder started his agriculture career in a similar ideological camp as Salatin, but found himself “preaching to the convinced” and realized that in order to put organic food on the tables of a much larger swath of America, the operation, “didn’t need to be David going up against Goliath, they needed to be Goliath.” His justification for becoming “Goliath,” and differing worldview from Salatin is well summarized by his statement that, “we’re not gonna get rid of capitalism. Certainly we’re not gonna get rid of capitalism in the time we need to reverse global warming and address the toxification of our air, our food, and our water...and if we attempt to make the perfect the enemy of the good and say we’re only gonna buy food from the most perfect system within a hundred miles of us, we’re never gonna get there.”12

While there is always some degree of uncertainty when it comes to the future, he seems likely to be correct in his assessment that capitalism and, presumptively, dominance of markets by large growth oriented operations, is not going anywhere in the near term. Given that, he has taken a utilitarian approach in trying to do what he believes to be the most good for the most people by dramatically increasing the reach of healthy food, even if it means doing business with “evil empire” type companies like Walmart. By his own definition of good, he has done much more than someone like Salatin can simply due to the size of his company.

There are, however, problems with this type of thinking. His statement on the certainty of continued capitalism in the short term and his willingness to work within that system seem to imply that he believes capitalism is a system that can “reverse global warming and address the toxification of our air, our food, and our water.” There are good reasons to doubt that. The first is well illustrated by a scene in Food Inc. in which the filmmakers tour an organic food convention and it is pointed out that most of the “organic” companies have been bought out by larger agricultural conglomerates. 13 This seems to suggest that an idea of organic companies as disruptors of the status quo in industrial agriculture is misguided. Rather, once bought out, organic companies merely become a way for agricultural conglomerates to profit within the growing organic portion of the market. Thus, the larger segment of agriculture which engages in highly unsustainable practice, while perhaps shrinking slightly as a percentage of all agriculture, is not in danger of being out competed anytime soon. Furthermore, even for those companies that are not bought out like Stonyfield, there is always the question of whether at some point the integrity of the mission to do more good than harm is compromised by growth. For instance, even assuming that the food may perhaps still be produced sustainably on a large scale, at what point is that sustainability negated by the ecological costs of transporting the food across large distances?

Figure 2, Joel Salatin Holds a Chicken

14

There are, of course, many instances when pragmatism is necessary, and it is worth entertaining the argument that there is more net good done by larger organic companies like Stonyfield from some perspectives (for instance that of making organics accessible to many more consumers) than by smaller farms that put principle before growth. However, the question becomes hazier from other perspectives, such as that of ecological harm caused by transportation of “sustainable” food. As Salatin states, “as soon as you grasp for...growth, you’re gonna view your customer differently, you’re gonna view your product differently, you’re gonna view your business differently, you’re gonna view everything that’s the most important...differently.”15 That change of view is of no small consequence. It is true that a world where the majority of food supply chains are localized and rely on farmers like Salatin may not be around the corner. It is also true that attempts to make it a reality will encounter serious resistance. However, pragmatism alone won’t make that world a reality and settling for less will have a serious cost.

Question:

How much lower is the ecological impact of large organic companies versus non-organic ones once all costs (such as transport) are factored in?

Word Count: 1918

1Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020.

2Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

3Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020.

4Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

5https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/01/24/463976110/when-a-chicken-farm-moves-next-door-odor-may-not-be-the-only-problem

6Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

7Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

8Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

9Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

10Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

11Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

12Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

13 Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

14https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin

15 Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

[themousai]

Gig Review: The First Child - Whammy Bar [22/11/2019]

Whammy! Friday night! Metal! Emo! Post hardcore! Beatdown!

If you respond positively to one or more of these words then I have some bad news, you missed one hell of a show at Whammy Bar on the 22nd of November. Unless you were there, in which case congratulations on bearing witness to the aforementioned one hell of a show. 

First up was solo post-metal act Ommeta, passion project of Luke Finlay. That genre specification should be taken with a pinch of salt, given that Ommeta’s short but vibrant set ebbed and flowed from industrial tinges with spacey effects to blastbeats and guttural growls to more atmospheric and emotional tones. Having heard his first release “Precostal”, I had a rough idea of what to expect sound wise, but was still left with expectations well exceeded. I cannot comprehend how hard it is to compose, arrange and perform one’s own music by oneself, particularly music this intricate and technically focused.

Friday’s performance demonstrated that Ommeta has not only the chops to arrange excellent alternative and exploratory metal, but also the presence to command the stage space. There are high energy punk and metal bands of half a dozen members or more with less stage presence than one guy by himself. This is a genuinely exceptional act, number of members entirely notwithstanding, and the calibre of orchestration and performance elevates this well beyond a humble bedroom project. 

Following on from the post-metal came what I found to be the evening’s unexpected gem; three piece oddly genre bending and stage bantering outfit Qualms, who absolutely nailed their first set much to the delight of myself and the swelling crowd. A set that began with a driving post-hardcore jam with howled vocals [which I loved] then veered off into a bouncy pop punk track with almost sickly sweet clean singing [which I loved] before jumping around a few more times from shoegaze-esque indie and stomping post-punk riffs [which, if you haven’t picked up the theme here, I loved].

All of these songs were punctuated with casual banter ranging from the price of bass guitars to whether it’s appropriate to put yogurt and milk on cereal to how many more shows the band would play before splitting up.  It’s very rare to see a band hop between half a dozen different genres in a single set and somehow nail each one. It leaves me scratching my head regarding the future of Qualms; will they choose one particular avenue to explore or continue mixing and matching and mish mashing whatever takes their fancy? Peculiarly for this band, the answer doesn’t seem to matter much. I’m confident that whatever they produce in future will be well worth whatever wait they put us through. 

Third for the evening was Auckland post-hardcore darlings Chasing South, playing a comparatively streamlined set to what I’ve seen in recent months. This means they were able to condense about a dozen songs worth of energy and impassioned howls into a set roughly half that. Set length aside, no punches were pulled and the high intensity performance on which the band have built their reputation was fully accounted for. Something that always strikes me watching these lads perform is the simultaneous effortful and effortless nature of how they play. The band clearly knows their own material as if hardwired into their DNA, and therefore an audience is treated to a band who can pretty much play in their sleep. However as capable as they are of flicking on autopilot, I’ve never seen them phone in a performance.

Every time you see this band play they will bring it to the best of their ability. The other thing long-time fans of the band will know is their refusal to rest on laurels, constantly working to put out new material. Having earlier this year released “Greying Into Bloom”, a split with Rei The First Child [who are either a band or a clothing label, unsure] Chasing South have a new album in the works already aiming for release early next year. The DIY-hardcore stage wreckers have yet to disappoint purely in terms of live energy, and Friday’s set was a solid example of why they deserve their hard earned reputation. 

Alright kids, time to pour out your beers and hang your local drug dealer because capital city straight edge soldiers ColdxWar are comin’ thru bearing downtuned grooves and pummelling breakdowns. Just to clarify, that’s a joke. ColdxWar do not condone the food wastage that pouring out beers would imply, nor have they ever killed any drug dealer. I wouldn’t be surprised however if at some point they’d met one and just come across as so lovely they convinced him to stop. For those of you who find straight edge in general intimidating or outwardly judgmental, ColdxWar might be the band to change your mind. For all the seemingly limitless aggression of their music, they at no point appear superior or hostile to literally anyone, with the exception of the one person vocalist Bo hit in the face while moshing, and the barked instruction “move you fucking cowards” which I thought was totally appropriate. The band showcased material from their debut EP “Culture Shock” released last year, two singles since released and two as yet unreleased songs. The new tunes demonstrated both some of their fastest and heaviest material to date, riffs for days and Bo’s always vitriolic vocal bark cementing ColdxWar as still one of the angriest and simultaneously most wholesome bands active in the country today.

My favourite thing about their releases thus far is actually how little they focus on drug-free living. There’s an assumption with straight edge hardcore as a one-trick pony, focused entirely on one theme and unable to say much else. ColdxWar’s lyrical themes range from drug use to animal rights, through the cyclical and exploitative nature of capitalism, to the responsibilities of leaders in an age of misinformation and peddled confusion.  Whatever they discuss is consistently confronting and worth listening to.  

To cap off a night of sterling performances was the band formerly known as Rei and now known as The First Child, celebrating the pre-release of their upcoming EP “Violent Delight”. We now know why the name change was forced upon them thanks to the return of the peerless Real Slam Poetry, who opened the set with an uncanny reading of the very cease-and-desist letter which forced the Auckland post-hardcore emo outfit to rebrand in the first place. While this suggests that nothing has changed besides what they call themselves, I found Friday’s performance to be one of the best I’ve seen this band give all year. This was by far the most energetic set I’ve seen them deliver, without sacrificing the technicality their particular brand of post-hardcore calls for.

Opening with their newest single “Seven Eyes” [expertly reviewed on The Mousai by a brilliant and super cute writer], the band left little room to breathe before barrelling through more of their signature emo blend of clean and harsh vocals delivered near seamlessly, with technical sweeping riffs and drums that thankfully depart from the 4/4 punk beat, twostep, breakdown formula plaguing hardcore scenes the world over.

A pleasing surprise for me personally was having it proved to me just how heavy The First Child are. The genre isn’t much known for heaviness, but The First Child have let just enough metalcore slip through to still deliver some crushing weight behind the spacier, more emotional corners of their repertoire. This set was tighter, heavier, more technical and more consistent than I’ve seen them to date. This is a space in the seen we should be watching.

Friday’s show at Whammy showcased some excellent talent from the wider North Island, from a few different corners of the alternative scene. It always helps to be reminded how diverse the proverbial fruit basket we have to pick from is. Between well-established names and newcomers alike the future looks bright for the music our locals are going to produce.

It’s going to be atmospheric, bouncy, carefree, energetic, crushingly heavy and emotionally vulnerable all at the same time. Now that I’ve written it out, that sounds pretty horrific. But trust, some really good sounds are on their way, and they’re coming for your ears.  

PHOTOS The First Child | Coldxwar | Chasing South | Qualms | Ommeta

Photography by Matthew O’Neill Review written by Jai Aronsen

#jai aronsen #matthew oneill #shifty jesus #ommeta #chasing south #qualms #coldxwar #the first child

[canvaswolfdoll]

CanvasWatches: My Hero Academica

If there’s something I needed in my Anime Repertoire, it was a fun, pulpy Shonen Series.

I have selected My Hero Academia because frog girl.

Tsuyu Asui and the various tumblr posts she spawned is what drew my attention, and I was hearing good things about the series, so I thought I’d give it a go. Plus I’m catching it in the early stages, so there’s not too much of an archive to panic over. It’s a good time to get in.

I’m not one for long runners, since I enjoy definite start and end points.[1] Media designed to just go on forever, stuffed with filler and formula is a quick eject for me. And I’ve never been one for fighty man Shounen.

I couldn’t get into Dragon Ball Z, because I only caught brief segments, and those segments were the parts with Goku floating there staring down his enemy. Or Buu turning someone into a cookie and eating them. Contextless nonsense that was very unappealing.[2]

Naruto began it’s dubbed broadcast as I entered Middle School. However, those were troubled times of much grounding due to academic indifference, and I couldn’t be bothered to monitor the broadcast schedule. So I fell off the Naruto train… basically after the second episode.

I didn’t care about pirates enough to try One Piece, and Bleach seemingly left no cultural weight to enter the equation.[3]

However, these reviews are nothing if not a bizarre justification for making up for my misspent youth. Because yearning for the nostalgic past is what adulthood is for.

And I finally committed to Funimation’s streaming service, so, yay! More dubs for Canvas![4] Which leaves only the Viz stable to have difficulties with.

So… why does My Hero Academia succeed where it’s predecessors fail?

Likeable cast, mostly. While other self-perpetuating shonens have large casts with various interesting gimmicks, usually only one or two will resonate with the viewer, and there’s often little by way of character complexity or arcs.

Meanwhile, MHA has a cast that, oddly, are mostly characterized by positivity. There’s one or two grumpy loners, sure, but they’re handled with an almost parody tone, and the rest are actually nice kids you can appreciate.

And our protagonist, Deku, is notable for not being uniquely special. At the outset, he’s in the minority of people without powers. He eventually gains some, a decision I’m… conflicted on, but he gets superpowers by earning them.

Deku’s a tenacious fanboy, particularly idolizing the biggest hero in the world, wanting to follow the man’s example. However, as he doesn’t have a gift, he’s seemingly incapable of reaching that point.

Our hero takes this in stride, instead dedicating his attention to analyzing heroes and their methods. He’s a very clever and intelligent protagonist, and considering he’s following the trail of Naruto and freaking Goku, that defining trait is a refreshing departure.

Then he earns his chance at his dreams by being undeniably heroic despite being a squib.

Now there are obviously two sides to Deku inheriting All Might’s power:

One one hand, we miss the story of a muggle climbing his way up the ranks through sheer willpower and analysis.

But, with him getting All Might’s power, we instead see a young boy struggle with a power well beyond his control and capabilities.

While I’d prefer the Rock Lee route, the physical struggle of Deku literally destroying himself with every use of One for All, and the ramifications (risk of permanent damage and Deku needing to use it strategically) is a compelling narrative thrust in its own right, so I can’t complain too much.

The duality of All Might is an interesting sight to behold. In full hero mode, he’s nothing if not positive and encouraging. Outside of that persona, All Might is a little pessimistic and grumpy, but he still has a clear streak of good that’s never suppressed, even when he’s feeling sick.

It would’ve been easy and in line with established tropes to make All Might a lazy and harsh task master, but even when sending Deku through an excessively intense training regiment, All Might’s encouraging and positive, pushing Deku not for his selfish purposes, but because he honestly believes in Deku.

Then, after Deku goes above and beyond the task All Might set (clear out a stretch of beach), All Might tells his student to eat a strand of his hair, which is precisely the sort of thing I make jokes about when watching television.[5]

The even more amazing thing is that this positivity isn’t exclusive to All Might. The entire hero cast are positive and supportive people. Besides Bakugo, who’s the childhood friend turned rival character, no one specifically puts down anyone else. Every challenge and lesson has the whole of Class 1-A cheering each other on.

Even during the admission trials, where they’re literally competing against one another, you never see any character go out of their way to sabotage another.

Normally, it’s so easy to make the main character a total reject, give them a whole community of opposition and conflict. So it’s refreshing that everyone who wants to be a hero is a positive person.

It’s the same reason so many people gush over pages featuring Batman offering sympathy to others instead of punches. We want our heroes to be the best example of humanity, something to aspire to be.

Which is the exact philosophy that brings All Might to take Deku under his wing.

Then Bakugo, who’s introduced as a violent bully, wanting to believe heroics is his birthright, becomes mocked for being such a hothead. He’s got a powerful quirk, was number one for the admission test, but the rest of the class silently agree that they don’t wish to abide by his attitude. And it’s not even bullying Bakugo, but more gentle mocking and pushback against his egocentrism and violence.

Because the class are still children, but their nature shows a preference toward acceptance and teamwork, and an openness for redemption.  The class’s treatment of Bakugo is negativity towards his current actions, not the kid himself.

UA is structured to be a competitive environment, a whetstone to hone the next generation of heroes. You have to compete in a trial to get into the programs, teachers can expel whole classes, and you can lose your spot in class to someone in a ‘lesser’ course. However, even when the cast are explicitly telling one another they’re gunning for each other, it’s usually with a tone of ‘nothing personal, it’s just the situation,’ and there’s no hard feelings. No one resents anyone else, really, and there’s no hesitation to work together when the situation calls for it.

Which is important because this is a show for children, and it’s showing, by example, that intent and actions are a better defining trait than raw ability or natural born talent.

A lot of the quirks are explicitly underwhelming. Class 1-A runs the gamut between making explosions, nullifying gravity, sticky balls, being invisible, and having a tail, with various and unequal limitations. It’s not what you have that makes you good or evil, it’s what you do with it.

To further cement this, One for All is absurdly powerful, and after a training montage, Deku’s given a portion of the quirk. And that portion is so strong, so powerful, that even with the preparation All Might put him through, using it still physically breaks Deku.

Which means, while most Shonens are about the protagonist becoming stronger, working their way to being the best there is, Deku literally gets handed that strength in episode 4.  So, instead of growing powerful, Deku has to learn restraint and self control when using One for All.

Because being a hero isn’t about being better than everyone else, it’s about using what you have effectively to make the world around you a better place, with both physical abilities and personality.

Deku has the right personality and philosophy, he needs to learn how to use his power.

Bakugo knows how to use his power, but he doesn’t quite have the needed interpersonal skills or humility.

Thus why the two are the rivals.

The actual arcs do a good job of tracing old structures while also bringing in its own twists.

There is, of course, the introductory arc, where we’re introduced to the protagonist whose dream seems impossible to him, until a mentor figure steps in and grants him the one thing needed to proceed (A quirk for Deku, headwear for Naruto and Luffy). Then he meets his crush and turns a few low-grade rivals into allies (like you do) as he begins the journey to become the best… hero/ninja/pirate/grim reaper?[6]

Deku takes the entrance examine, which he technically failed, but he put in such a good effort that he was given bonus points so he could enroll at UA anyways.

Then we get a nice mix of Slice of Life and implied opposition from a mentor figure, who turns out to have been performing a secret test of character.

Next, the main cast is given their first field mission, which suddenly becomes a lot more serious than expected.

Which brings us to the end of the first season.

So, a quality that I find takes a series from good to great is its approach to balancing drama and comedy: namely, no one’s truly exempt from either. Naruto had shades of it, Fullmetal Alchemist did it to the hilt. Sometimes it’s well set-up jokes, sometimes it’s just goofy character designs.[7]

Class 1-A is filled with goofballs, and even though they serious up when a horde of villains crash their first rescue training mission, their personalities are able to leak a good amount of comedy where needed.

Then the entirety of the second season is dedicated to the required tournament arc. Which… okay, time for Canvas to zone out, right?

Well, no. Because My Hero Academia is pretty good at both dynamic combat and interesting situations. Further, the previous season already did a good job of establishing people’s powers, so there’s space to split the focus between showing fine details and solid character work.

UA’s tournament is actually a broadcasted sports festival, so the competition starts with a obstacle course, which revels in all the slapstick potential inherent. Deku also wins it by looking at the mine field that is the final obstacle, and says ‘Nah. I can use this.’

Good for our hero!

Then, the second event is a cavalry battle,[8] where Deku’s reward for winning the first event is getting a 10 million point bounty on his head. It’s so unfair it turns to the realm of parody. Which I’m all about.

The second event is thus a showcase of Quirk Synergy, more of Deku’s strategy and resulting counter strategies, and more slapstick. So that’s nice.

Since Deku soundly won the first round, our protagonist is getting diminishing returns for the rest of the arc.

The third event is straight up tournament battles, but with most of the cast already eliminated, so that saves time, and the show only really focuses on the big events, split between the second half of one episode and the first of another. Between those, there are match ups that are just squashes[9] and comedy.

The final winner is then Hannibal Lecter’d on the podium in a great mix of character drama (he didn’t like the way he won) and comedy (because the final winner has to be actively restrained and muzzled. That’s just silly!)

Then the cast picks out their codenames.

Which pretty much brings us even to where the dub’s gotten.

I’m having a good time with the show, and I look forward to more episodes. It’s going to be interesting to follow an anime episode by episode instead of marathoning the whole thing through. Let’s see if I can keep my sanity.

Kataal kataal.

[1] There are exceptions, mostly in the form of webcomics and Discworld. [2] Dragon Ball, meanwhile, had a youthful energy that drew me in. But it also aired infrequently so I never got totally invested. [3] Okay, I had a high school friend who was interested, much to the annoyance of another high school friend, who had a weak understanding of difference in media interests. [4] You had your chance Crunchyroll! [5] Seriously, ask Vulpin, it’s exactly my humor. [6] Again, never got into Bleach. [7] Depowered All-Might looks like a muppet. [8] A sport I’ve only seen in the context of anime, but should totally be more common. [9] Following a wrestling podcast may be helping me appreciate some of the meta-aspects of fight scenes.

#CanvasWatches #my hero academia #boku no hero academia #anime #CanvasReviews

[americanlibertypac]

VIDEO AND FULL TEXT: U.S. Withdrawal From the Paris Climate Accord

June 01, 2017

Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord

Rose Garden

3:32 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  I would like to begin by addressing the terrorist attack in Manila.  We’re closely monitoring the situation, and I will continue to give updates if anything happens during this period of time.  But it is really very sad as to what’s going on throughout the world with terror.  Our thoughts and our prayers are with all of those affected.

Before we discuss the Paris Accord, I’d like to begin with an update on our tremendous — absolutely tremendous — economic progress since Election Day on November 8th.  The economy is starting to come back, and very, very rapidly.  We’ve added $3.3 trillion in stock market value to our economy, and more than a million private sector jobs.

I have just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.  It was a very, very successful trip, believe me.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.

In my meetings at the G7, we have taken historic steps to demand fair and reciprocal trade that gives Americans a level playing field against other nations.  We’re also working very hard for peace in the Middle East, and perhaps even peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  Our attacks on terrorism are greatly stepped up — and you see that, you see it all over — from the previous administration, including getting many other countries to make major contributions to the fight against terror.  Big, big contributions are being made by countries that weren’t doing so much in the form of contribution.

One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for President –- whether it’s cutting job-killing regulations; appointing and confirming a tremendous Supreme Court justice; putting in place tough new ethics rules; achieving a record reduction in illegal immigration on our southern border; or bringing jobs, plants, and factories back into the United States at numbers which no one until this point thought even possible.  And believe me, we’ve just begun.  The fruits of our labor will be seen very shortly even more so.

On these issues and so many more, we’re following through on our commitments.  And I don’t want anything to get in our way.  I am fighting every day for the great people of this country.  Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.  (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens.  The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely.  They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors:  paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent.  The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals.  As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13.  They can do whatever they want for 13 years.  Not us.  India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.  There are many other examples.  But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up.  We’re having a big opening in two weeks.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.  A big opening of a brand-new mine.  It’s unheard of.  For many, many years, that hasn’t happened.  They asked me if I’d go.  I’m going to try.

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants.  So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement.  India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.  Think of it:  India can double their coal production.  We’re supposed to get rid of ours.  Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.

In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.  The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage.  A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound.  We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty.  Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.  At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country — (applause) — will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.  Tiny, tiny amount.  In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning:  “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”  The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth.  We’ll be the cleanest.  We’re going to have the cleanest air.  We’re going to have the cleanest water.  We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs.  We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly.  (Applause.)

And I think you just read — it just came out minutes ago, the small business report — small businesses as of just now are booming, hiring people.  One of the best reports they’ve seen in many years.

I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.  (Applause.)

So if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let’s make them non-obstructionists.  We will all sit down, and we will get back into the deal.  And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs.  And we’ll sit down with the Democrats and all of the people that represent either the Paris Accord or something that we can do that’s much better than the Paris Accord.  And I think the people of our country will be thrilled, and I think then the people of the world will be thrilled.  But until we do that, we’re out of the agreement.

I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.

No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.  The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement:  It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.  That’s not going to happen while I’m President.  I’m sorry.  (Applause.)

My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection.

Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it’s doing very well.  I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised.  The Republicans are working very, very hard.  We’d love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone.  But it’s going very well.

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.  They don’t put America first.  I do, and I always will.  (Applause.)

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance.  You see what’s happening.  It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned?  At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?   We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers.  We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore.  And they won’t be.  They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.  (Applause.)  I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests.  Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation.  Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation.  The process has begun from day one.  But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.  So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else.  Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.  That’s where they came.  Believe me, they didn’t come from me.  They came just before I came into office.  Not good.  And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.”  In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020.  And nobody even knows where the money is going to.  Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated.  America is $20 trillion in debt.  Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure.  Millions of our citizens are out of work.  And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.  So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well.  Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.  Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.  (Applause.)  Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it.  And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.  It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.  In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point.  And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.  Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people.  The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France.  It is time to make America great again.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.  Very important.  I’d like to ask Scott Pruitt, who most of you know and respect, as I do, just to say a few words.

Scott, please.  (Applause.)

ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Your decision today to exit the Paris Accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put America first.

And by exiting, you’re fulfilling yet one more campaign promise to the American people.  Please know that I am thankful for your fortitude, your courage, and your steadfastness as you serve and lead our country.

America finally has a leader who answers only to the people — not to the special interests who have had their way for way too long.  In everything you do, Mr. President, you’re fighting for the forgotten men and women across this country.  You’re a champion for the hardworking citizens all across this land who just want a government that listens to them and represents their interest.

You have promised to put America First in all that you do, and you’ve done that in any number of ways — from trade, to national security, to protecting our border, to rightsizing Washington, D.C.  And today you’ve put America first with regard to international agreements and the environment.

This is an historic restoration of American economic independence — one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes.  With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.  And it should be noted that we as a nation do it better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing our economy, growing jobs while also being a good steward of our environment.

We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship.  After all, before the Paris Accord was ever signed, America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels from the early 1990s.  In fact, between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 18-plus percent.  And this was accomplished not through government mandate, but accomplished through innovation and technology of the American private sector.

For that reason, Mr. President, you have corrected a view that was paramount in Paris that somehow the United States should penalize its own economy, be apologetic, lead with our chin, while the rest of world does little.  Other nations talk a good game; we lead with action — not words.  (Applause.)

Our efforts, Mr. President, as you know, should be on exporting our technology, our innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint to learn from us.  That should be our focus versus agreeing to unachievable targets that harm our economy and the American people.

Mr. President, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what’s right by the American people.  You have that courage, and the American people can take comfort because you have their backs.

Thank you, Mr. President.

END 4:03 P.M. EDT

#Paris Climate Accord #Pruitt #Sessions #Climate Change #Global Warming #Government Spending #Government Waste #U.N. #United Nations #Video

[32flavasshoetique]

siberian woman

This is only some of the numerous concerns I have been talked to recently because of blogging here. What a question!

I possess a routine of composing late in the evening but Nastya ases if to view motion pictures withme prior to she sleeps. I suchas to maintain the condo clean and also ordered whereas Nastya ases if to carpeting the floor withall the clothing she chose she isn’ t mosting likely to wear that time. Image: Michael Oliver-Semenov

One I significantly desired to stay clear of as well as would have had my editor as well as wife not goaded me in to giving a response. I need to step carefully as my partner and publisher are eachSiberian women and also I put on’ t want to shed this area on the Moments or awaken to locate I have possessed parts of me taken out througha quite furious other half.

Firstly, being actually married is actually a strange trait: two people stuck together forever and ever amen. It’ s a challenging service in itself. It was actually also harder for my better half and also I as I was actually simply provided residency 6 months earlier and our team invite fact been married for only over pair of years. Previously 6 months, our initial effective time period of cohabiting as a couple, we have actually needed to acquire made use of to eachvarious other’ s bothersome behaviors and also traits; it hasn’ t consistently been actually exciting.

I have a habit of creating late during the night but Nastya suches as to see flicks withme before she rests. I as if to maintain the home tidy and also organised whereas Nastya ases if to carpet the flooring along withall the garments she chose she isn’ t going to use that day. I ‘ m instead keen on participating in jazz popular music, Led Zep and so on, however Nastya ases if to play the Russian popular song. So there have been actually times where our experts eachcould possess gladly coshed the various other over the scalp along witha blunt guitar.

But these traits are actually usual in relationships aren’ t they? I put on ‘ t know because neither Nastya neither I have actually been actually married prior to; that makes it look like I am less trained to answer this question, considering that definitely I will need to have to have been actually married to one woman from intermittent country if you want to make some form of evaluation.

Perhaps it would be actually muchbetter if I were actually to define Siberian ladies?

As a Westerner there have actually been some cultural distinctions that have actually taken an althoughto get utilized to; and also as a teacher, where I am in a blessed position that permits me to ask all kinds of private questions of my trainees, I have actually been surprised by some perspectives.

What is it like being actually married to a siberia women , are they more durable than typical? This is just among the various inquiries I have actually been actually asked just recently because of blogging listed below. What a concern! Picture: Michael Oliver-Semenov

The a large number of my female pupils assume it is a woman’ s place to cook for males, to washthe condo, to care for males commonly and to regularly appear attractive. It is their major duty to be slim, healthy and gorgeous at all times in purchase to feel free to guys.

My man students meanwhile can certainly not prepare a single factor. None may also boil an egg. Their main job depending on to them is actually to – provide ‘, – fix factors ‘ and also be manly. Seems to be a bit old fashioned doesn ‘ t it? Due to the fact that it is.

This is why I have been actually talking about feminist literature withmy women trainees and also asking my male students lots of concerns regarding cooking food, then telling them just how an egg is steamed. Simply, my examining and also tries to – inform ‘ so to speak could be observed by some as an attempt to subvert Siberian lifestyle; so I have actually had to step quite carefully. Siberians have actually lived withthese values for a long period of time and it’ s most likely not my location to attempt to transform just about anything.

Everyone seems to be delighted, althoughI was actually worried when some of my pupils couldn’ t also consider becoming head of state of Russia when I inquired her to compose an essay on the subject matter.

– However only men are actually presidents ‘, – men are stronger as well as better as well as better at ruling the globe’. Really? I couldn ‘ t aid but experience unfortunate that this set certain pupil couldn’ t even imagine being just about anything muchmore than second area or even second-rate in the world. In her sight guys ought to constantly be actually paid out greater than ladies regardless of whether they carry out the same work. – Men must consistently be made to feel they are manager’ ‘ etc and so on

Thankfully I wear’ t have these sort of discussions along withmy wife; I wear’ t requirement to: our experts are actually identical. Nastya throws the clothing on the floor and also I pick them up. I also perform most of the food preparation, not just due to the fact that I really love cooking food yet since I put on’ t would like to be – took care of ‘. Equality of the sexes isn ‘ t constantly about preparing food as well as cleansing thoughis it. It’ s concerning understanding as well as stability, self-respect as well as morality. I don’ t think my better half experiences she is actually next to best; at least I hope she doesn’ t.

The bulk of my women students think it is a woman ‘ s position to cook for males, to clean the condo, to care for males usually and to constantly appear stunning. It is their major part to become slim, in good condition as well as sexy in all times in order to satisfy guys. Image: Michael Oliver-Semenov

As you asked, I have to point out that in my point of view she – wears the pants’: she brings in most of selections when it concerns spending loan, where our experts invest our holidays, our potential programs; she even revises my job and recommends me what to accept eachauthor. However this is relationship in general isn’ t it -? Men like to – show up ‘ as the one in charge when in reality females consistently have the upper hand; that ‘ s exactly how marital relationship operates doesn ‘ t it?

In Russia there is an articulation that goes something suchas this: – Russian females can stop operating horses in their keep tracks of ‘. Siberian females specifically have a reputation for being difficult, considering that Siberians are normally tougher than the typical human being (sweeping statement, I know).

While I shelter’ t viewed any sort of evidence of Siberian ladies presenting super-human strengthI can say that mostly they are actually really patient as well as tireless. My relative for example is a power of attribute. She deals withevery thing in the home as well as expands bunches of vegetables at the dacha. Althoughshe is actually slow she is actually regularly moving: watering crops, cutting timber, taking her son to school etc. And her mama, 87 year old Baba Individual retirement account is specifically the exact same.

Althoughshe may appear historical, in her head she is actually still 20; and despite the fact she can scarcely stroll unaided, she still chooses to prepare her personal dishes and also suches as to check out the dacha in summer season too. Thus to answer your inquiry regarding Siberian ladies being actually harder than other women, I may’ t specifically claim without a doubt.

I possess 3 sisters back home in the UK and also they’ re all toughas old footwear; so I reckon my solution is actually bothyes and also no (I’ m being smoothhere, may you inform). I can’ t mention anything cement without creating muchmore sweeping statements, as well as I’ m still definitely stressed I might encounter as a prejudiced pig (if I place’ t actually).

What I can easily claim for sure is that I have no issues or disappointments, having said that if my partner asks me to watchSexual activity and the Urban area once more, that are going to perhaps transform.

In Russia there is actually a phrase that goes something suchas this: – Russian girls can stop running steeds in their keep tracks of’. Siberian females especially possess a reputation for being tough, given that Siberians are actually generally tougher than the typical person. Image: Michael Oliver-Semenov

Siberian ladies might look challenging, during that they manage to live in a world witha commonly unfavorable climate device, as well as rub shoulders withguys when it relates to dicing lumber, producing fires for the bbq and so on, however to illustrate the ladies here as tougher than others may be going a little bit far.

They, like ladies all over, have to reside in a man controlled globe and endured the same foolishness, while constantly competing for level playing fields and also justness. One can contend that in general Siberian girls are muchless difficult due to the fact that lots of (minority I have complied withanyhow) can easily’ t visualize a globe where ladies are identical, and also some equal inquiry why females ought to be equal.

In my view the – hardsiberian woman ‘ is actually a bit of an untrue cliché: my female students are probably occupied improving on their own at the moment or even thinking of what they must be actually doing to feel free to someone else rather than what they’d like to do as individuals. Simultaneously one could possibly dispute that Siberian women are tougher than girls elsewhere given that they exist in suchan aged fabricated fatherlike society and as a result have a longer roadway to empowerment. I presume everything boils down to what you suggest throughhard?

If you intend to wed a woman that chefs, cleans up, pertains to men as premium and also believes males are actually – supervisor ‘, then certainly, you may intend to look into seeing Siberia as well as pleasing a woman here, however, if you performed, that would most likely say a lot more about you than it will about Siberian ladies.

But after that mentioning eachof this, I put on’ t know everybody here, and also I can only happen my expertise along withthe few people that I recognize. I have asked a lot of questions of the people I have discovered however there is obviously the truththat I know lower than 0.002% of the population, or even less than that, therefore my understanding is actually very confined in extent. There is actually the opportunity that there are simply a handful of people listed here along withoutdated fabricated scenery whichthey all occurred to become in this particular one place. Whichwill indicate every one of the above isn’ t quite common.

from 32flavas https://ift.tt/3bDzCFz via IFTTT

[operationrainfall]

Title SENRAN KAGURA Peach Ball Developer MARVELOUS!, Honey ∞ Parade Games Publisher XSEED Games Release Date July 9th, 2019 Genre Board Game, Pinball, Party Game Platform PC, Nintendo Switch Age Rating Mature 17+ – Language, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes Official Website

In a way, I’m really happy I’m the one that got to review SENRAN KAGURA Peach Ball. I’ve been a fan of the series from the beginning, and it’s been nice to watch it grow over the years. On the other hand, I kind of feel like a displaced time traveler, since I played the first couple of games, took a long break, played Bon Appétit! and that’s it. In other words, while I am familiar with the series, there’s a lot I’ve missed out on for various reasons, mostly my ridiculous backlog of games. But that didn’t stop me from deciding I would review Peach Ball. The question then, was this a great SENRAN KAGURA side story? Or should I have stayed put in my time machine?

Much like Bon Appétit! before it, Peach Ball is not a game that’s supposed to be taken as seriously as the main franchise. Which is saying something. So if you come here expecting a deep plot and agency for the various characters, you’ll be disappointed. While I kind of expected that, I still was hoping for just a bit more story here. Part of the fun of SENRAN KAGURA isn’t just the action and fanservice, but rooting for the girls as they overcome their fears and pursue their ideals to become stronger human beings. For better or worse, that’s not the theme of Peach Ball.

Peach Ball starts at Haruka’s new side job, working at an arcade. Several of her shinobi sisters are there to watch Yomi and Murasaki compete for the grand prize in a fighting game, when Ryōna sets chaos in motion. She’s just washing her hands in the bathroom and she finds a bottle hidden away that she thinks is soap. Instead it’s a dangerous chemical concoction, called Beastall, that Haruka made in her spare time (idle hands and all that), and it quickly goes into hilarious effect. Ryōna suddenly transforms into a dog version of herself, and runs about licking everyone in sight. Thus the contamination spreads to everybody she touches, and suddenly you have 5 rampaging ninja girls who think they’re animals on the loose. Now it’s up to Haruka and a random bystander from the arcade (played by you) to set things right.

Story mode is split into 5 separate, though largely similar, campaigns. In each, after you pick the shinobi whose campaign you want to try, they are quickly returned to sanity and work with you and Haruka to bring the other girls back to their senses. The one nice thing in this mode is there’s pretty solid writing for each campaign, and there’s some gut busting humor here if you don’t mind things getting a bit raunchy. Each campaign, except one, also culminates in a confrontation against the girl you start out with, as they are inexplicably reinfected by Haruka’s Beastall concoction. You’re probably wondering how you can cure your friends, and the answer is pinball.

Yes, I was confused too. Haruka gives some explanation about needing to use the titular Peach Balls to cure your friends. By accumulating enough vibrational energy, it will release a cleansing mist that returns the girl to her senses. It all is pretty much an excuse to get crazed shinobi girls to sit and jiggle atop pinball machines and bop them with balls until they are fixed. And because it’s a SENRAN KAGURA game, there’s plenty of fanservice. I wasn’t bothered by it, but it can get pretty risque, especially when you start participating in the various mini games required to save the girls. It’s definitely not the sort of game to play on a crowded bus or in polite company, since the moans and various sound effects can be very distracting. There’s also definite suggested elements of BDSM here. But rather than harp on all that, let’s move onto the meat of the game – the pinball itself.

I should note that the last time I played an actual pinball machine was probably a good decade ago. Having said that, the pinball mechanics in SENRAN KAGURA Peach Ball are pretty entertaining. You control the flippers with either of the shoulder buttons, and can shake the machine with the joysticks. Like any pinball game, your goal is to keep the ball in play as long as possible and bop things to get points. But because this is SENRAN KAGURA, there are some weird little twists. Your goal is to accumulate enough Peach Points, but you don’t just do it once. In story mode you need to fill up the meter 3 times to win, and you have a limited amount of Peach Balls. Each time you get enough energy, you can bop the girls to initiate a Sexy Challenge, where you play a mini game to increase your rank and it ends with something ridiculous happening to the girl. Examples are an ice cream truck spilling onto their cleavage or an explosive blowing up part of their already flimsy clothing.

Ryōna may enjoy pinball a bit too much…

None of the mini games are that challenging, but they throw some curveballs at you. One are when Faeries appear on the field of play. You get points for wiping them out before they disappear, but they are also really good at deflecting your pinball in awkward directions. This brings us to the Peach Missions. Basically, each machine has small goals you can accomplish for more points, such as bopping the girl a set amount of times or hitting the bumpers frequently. There’s a lot of variety, and that’s great, though it can be hard to keep them in mind as you’re frantically trying to keep the ball in play. Frankly, I was a bit overwhelmed by all the different things you have to keep track of while playing. Thankfully, I found that by just doing your best to keep the ball from falling off screen, you’ll usually be able to win. You might get less points overall, but that’s hardly game breaking.

There’s a lot to enjoy in these mechanics. I loved hitting the Luka Hole, where a demented dolphin would reward me with a random usable item, or bouncing the ball off spinning teacups, or even hitting a heart to temporarily put the girl in a state of ecstasy. However, as much as I enjoyed the amount of things to do, I do strongly wish there were more pinball machines. I only encountered 2 different ones in my entire story mode playtime. I was really hoping each girl would have her own machine with unique gimmicks but that wasn’t the case. Unfortunately, this phenomenon of wanting more content translated to several other aspects of the game. Much as I enjoyed all the girls in Peach Ball, there were so many more that could have been here. There’s only 2 Hebijo girls, 1 Hanzo, 1 Gessen and 1 Crimson Squad. My personal favorites Hibari and Hikage don’t show up at all. If you love characters like Mirai, you’re also gonna be disappointed, since there are no flat shinobi in the game. And while Haruka is front and center the entire time, you never get to cure her of Beastall infection. Though to be fair, you can pester her in the credits.

It wouldn’t be a SENRAN KAGURA game without tons of extras you can purchase, and that’s the case here. There’s tons of accessories you can buy to dress up the girls, as well as entirely new outfits. You’ll want to buy everything, including the music and story art. You can even buy different types of Peach Balls, though I’m still not really clear on the differences between the Yin and Yang balls, and whether it really matters strategically. My only complaint regarding all these extras are that altogether they cost a ton of money, and even after beating every story campaign, I’m nowhere near flush enough to buy them all. On the other hand, that does give me proper incentive to play the free play mode a lot more to get enough cash.

Visually, Peach Ball is a great game and it looks fantastic on Nintendo Switch. It’s very colorful and the designs for all the girls’ animal forms is distinct and attractive. The many cutscenes further add to the fabric of this humorous adventure, as well as reminding me why I love this series. The banter is especially hilarious, and Ryōna quickly cemented herself as my favorite girl in the game. Her lewd nature and twisted sense of pleasure made her by far one of the funniest shinobi in the entire story mode, with some amazing one liners. Musically, the game is okay, but the voice acting more than makes up for it. Each actor does a wonderful job of presenting a distinct personality, and none sounds identical to any other. The sound effects do their job, though you might want to turn down the volume when the shinobi start getting loud.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Overall, I did rather enjoy SENRAN KAGURA Peach Ball, though I feel it will mostly appeal to longtime fans of the series. It’s fun and colorful with good replay value, but it also feels very repetitive and lacking in terms of content. I saw there’s a tab in the game shop for DLC, which makes me hopeful they will add additional character packs later on. But I still can’t help but feeling they should have loaded the base game with more content from the get go. Cause while I do feel you get your money’s worth for $39.99, I also feel there could be much more variety here. That said, I easily got some 10 hours playing through campaign, and it will take many, many more hours to unlock everything. If you’re a fan of SENRAN KAGURA, you’ll find a lot to love here. If not, you might want to wait for the next main game in the series.

[easyreview cat1title=”Overall” cat1detail=”” cat1rating=”4″]

Review Copy Provided by Publisher

REVIEW: SENRAN KAGURA Peach Ball Title SENRAN KAGURA Peach Ball

#fanservice #Honey Parade Games #Marvelous #oprainfall #PC #Peach Ball #pinball #Senran Kagura #Switch #XSEED Games

[stopkingobama]

VIDEO AND FULL TEXT: U.S. Withdrawal From the Paris Climate Accord

June 01, 2017

Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord

Rose Garden

3:32 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  I would like to begin by addressing the terrorist attack in Manila.  We’re closely monitoring the situation, and I will continue to give updates if anything happens during this period of time.  But it is really very sad as to what’s going on throughout the world with terror.  Our thoughts and our prayers are with all of those affected.

Before we discuss the Paris Accord, I’d like to begin with an update on our tremendous — absolutely tremendous — economic progress since Election Day on November 8th.  The economy is starting to come back, and very, very rapidly.  We’ve added $3.3 trillion in stock market value to our economy, and more than a million private sector jobs.

I have just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.  It was a very, very successful trip, believe me.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.

In my meetings at the G7, we have taken historic steps to demand fair and reciprocal trade that gives Americans a level playing field against other nations.  We’re also working very hard for peace in the Middle East, and perhaps even peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  Our attacks on terrorism are greatly stepped up — and you see that, you see it all over — from the previous administration, including getting many other countries to make major contributions to the fight against terror.  Big, big contributions are being made by countries that weren’t doing so much in the form of contribution.

One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for President –- whether it’s cutting job-killing regulations; appointing and confirming a tremendous Supreme Court justice; putting in place tough new ethics rules; achieving a record reduction in illegal immigration on our southern border; or bringing jobs, plants, and factories back into the United States at numbers which no one until this point thought even possible.  And believe me, we’ve just begun.  The fruits of our labor will be seen very shortly even more so.

On these issues and so many more, we’re following through on our commitments.  And I don’t want anything to get in our way.  I am fighting every day for the great people of this country.  Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.  (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens.  The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely.  They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors:  paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent.  The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals.  As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13.  They can do whatever they want for 13 years.  Not us.  India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.  There are many other examples.  But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up.  We’re having a big opening in two weeks.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.  A big opening of a brand-new mine.  It’s unheard of.  For many, many years, that hasn’t happened.  They asked me if I’d go.  I’m going to try.

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants.  So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement.  India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.  Think of it:  India can double their coal production.  We’re supposed to get rid of ours.  Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.

In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.  The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage.  A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound.  We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty.  Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.  At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country — (applause) — will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.  Tiny, tiny amount.  In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning:  “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”  The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth.  We’ll be the cleanest.  We’re going to have the cleanest air.  We’re going to have the cleanest water.  We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs.  We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly.  (Applause.)

And I think you just read — it just came out minutes ago, the small business report — small businesses as of just now are booming, hiring people.  One of the best reports they’ve seen in many years.

I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.  (Applause.)

So if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let’s make them non-obstructionists.  We will all sit down, and we will get back into the deal.  And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs.  And we’ll sit down with the Democrats and all of the people that represent either the Paris Accord or something that we can do that’s much better than the Paris Accord.  And I think the people of our country will be thrilled, and I think then the people of the world will be thrilled.  But until we do that, we’re out of the agreement.

I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.

No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.  The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement:  It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.  That’s not going to happen while I’m President.  I’m sorry.  (Applause.)

My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection.

Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it’s doing very well.  I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised.  The Republicans are working very, very hard.  We’d love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone.  But it’s going very well.

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.  They don’t put America first.  I do, and I always will.  (Applause.)

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance.  You see what’s happening.  It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned?  At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?   We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers.  We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore.  And they won’t be.  They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.  (Applause.)  I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests.  Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation.  Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation.  The process has begun from day one.  But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.  So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else.  Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.  That’s where they came.  Believe me, they didn’t come from me.  They came just before I came into office.  Not good.  And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.”  In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020.  And nobody even knows where the money is going to.  Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated.  America is $20 trillion in debt.  Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure.  Millions of our citizens are out of work.  And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.  So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well.  Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.  Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.  (Applause.)  Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it.  And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.  It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.  In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point.  And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.  Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people.  The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France.  It is time to make America great again.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.  Very important.  I’d like to ask Scott Pruitt, who most of you know and respect, as I do, just to say a few words.

Scott, please.  (Applause.)

ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Your decision today to exit the Paris Accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put America first.

And by exiting, you’re fulfilling yet one more campaign promise to the American people.  Please know that I am thankful for your fortitude, your courage, and your steadfastness as you serve and lead our country.

America finally has a leader who answers only to the people — not to the special interests who have had their way for way too long.  In everything you do, Mr. President, you’re fighting for the forgotten men and women across this country.  You’re a champion for the hardworking citizens all across this land who just want a government that listens to them and represents their interest.

You have promised to put America First in all that you do, and you’ve done that in any number of ways — from trade, to national security, to protecting our border, to rightsizing Washington, D.C.  And today you’ve put America first with regard to international agreements and the environment.

This is an historic restoration of American economic independence — one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes.  With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.  And it should be noted that we as a nation do it better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing our economy, growing jobs while also being a good steward of our environment.

We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship.  After all, before the Paris Accord was ever signed, America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels from the early 1990s.  In fact, between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 18-plus percent.  And this was accomplished not through government mandate, but accomplished through innovation and technology of the American private sector.

For that reason, Mr. President, you have corrected a view that was paramount in Paris that somehow the United States should penalize its own economy, be apologetic, lead with our chin, while the rest of world does little.  Other nations talk a good game; we lead with action — not words.  (Applause.)

Our efforts, Mr. President, as you know, should be on exporting our technology, our innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint to learn from us.  That should be our focus versus agreeing to unachievable targets that harm our economy and the American people.

Mr. President, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what’s right by the American people.  You have that courage, and the American people can take comfort because you have their backs.

Thank you, Mr. President.

END 4:03 P.M. EDT

#Paris Climate Accord #Pruitt #Sessions #Climate Change #Global Warming #Government Spending #Government Waste #U.N. #United Nations #Video

[rcardamone]

Paradigm Shifts and Pragmatism

As the documentary Food Inc. points out in its opening lines, the image of agrarian America (of family farms with picturesque red barns and animals grazing in open fields) used to sell food is a “pastoral fantasy.” 1  Though this image was once much closer to reality, the industrialized agriculture that has rapidly grown and cemented its dominance of the American food system has driven American family farms to the brink of extinction. Now, they hide appalling practices behind the image of what they destroyed. 

Industrial agriculture was designed to achieve a simple aim: producing as much food as possible as inexpensively as possible. As one industrial agriculture executive in the food exclaims, “what’s wrong with that?” 2 From the perspective of pure profit, absolutely nothing. From any other perspective, almost everything 

As one farmer who dared to be interviewed for the documentary put it, the system, “isn’t farming [but rather] like mass production in a factory.”3 Indeed, the animals are treated much more like technology than living beings. Chickens have been engineered to grow to their full size in around forty-eight days, rather than the typical three months and that full size is significantly larger than that of an unmodified chicken. The chickens grow so large that, according to that same farmer, they cannot take more than a few steps before falling over under their own weight. 4 If one is willing to acknowledge that a chicken (or a cow or a pig) is a living being that experiences suffering and it is certain that many in industrial agriculture do not, the idea of intentionally modifying them in a way that dramatically increases that suffering is disturbing and fraught with ethical questions. However, one need not concern themselves with the wellbeing of chickens to find casualties of industrial agriculture. 

Figure 1, The Inside of a Chicken Farm 5

The farmer being interviewed also stated that due to her work with the chickens, she had become entirely allergic to antibiotics. Additionally, farmers find themselves trapped by their contracts with large agricultural companies. The reason for this is that the chicken houses they must build in order to get contracts in the first place cost around 280 to 300 thousand dollars each. Additionally, the companies demand frequent updates to the facilities on farms. The average chicken farmer earns around 18,000 dollars a year. Thus, they must take on enormous debt in order to continue to fulfill the demands of their contract, leaving them with virtually no bargaining power.6 That is far from the only nefarious scheme agricultural companies engage in. 

A job in the meat packing industry used to be one of the best in industrial America. In the 1950′s, workers were guaranteed a decent wage and pension, and had a relatively strong union. However, as the meat packing industry grew to meet the demands of fast food, unions were crushed and worker protections destroyed. Furthermore, the industry now exploits illegal immigrant labor. Because of their illegal status, these workers have virtually no lines of defense between themselves and what has now become one of the most dangerous lines of work in America. Additionally, companies make deals with immigration authorities. For example, one company allowed around fifteen of their workers to be arrested and (presumably) deported on a consistent basis. This was an easily replaceable number and avoided the disruption that would come with a mass raid. Furthermore, nobody in the company was forced to answer for their use and exploitation of illegal immigrant labor. 7    

As evidenced by this example, which is but one among many, industrial agriculture holds immense power within the United States government. Their stranglehold on the American political system to leads to blatant, intentional failures of regulation. In one instance, the USDA attempted to create a regulation that required that meat processing plants which repeatedly failed E Coli tests be shut down. The case was taken to court, and, shockingly, the court ruled that the USDA held no power to create such a regulation. An attempt to pass a law to give that power back to the USDA, nicknamed “Kevin’s Law” after a young child who died from E Coli, repeatedly failed to pass Congress. 8  

Based on the facts, it is clear that the behavior of industrial agriculture corporations in America has caused tremendous harm not only to farmers but to millions of citizens. It is in many ways a perfect example of how pursuit of maximal profit combined with lack of effective oversight, both by consumers and government, can have disastrous consequences. The case for both these truths laid out in “Food Inc.” is damning and conclusive. How to engage with the behemoth remains an open question. 

First, it is important to acknowledge that there are farmers who operate within an entirely different paradigm. One such farmer is Joel Salatin, who runs Polyface Farms in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. He is committed to sustainable agriculture, and growing food in a way that supplements the health of its consumers as well as the ecological system. His business model is in stark opposition to that of industrial agriculture. At one point he states, “I have no desire to get bigger, my desire is to produce the best food in the world and heal. And if in doing so, more people come to our corner and want stuff, heaven help me meet the need without compromising our integrity.” 9

       At another point he posits, “imagine what it would be...if as a national policy we said we would only be successful if we had fewer people going to the hospital next year than last year.”10 Implicit in this is an acknowledgment that our health and the food we eat are profoundly connected. As is made clear in Food Inc., the consumption of fast food and heavily processed food is causing a tremendous public health problem. One manifestation of this is that one in three Americans born after 2000 will contract early onset diabetes. The brunt of the crisis is borne by lower income Americans. As Michael Pollan says, “it is extraordinarily difficult for Americans with limited incomes to survive on good food.” He goes on to point out that unhealthy calories are cheaper largely because they are the ones subsidized by the government.11 The cost of such a public health crisis, both in dollars and in human suffering, is immense. Unfortunately, it is not paid by the agricultural industry, but by the American people. The frustration here is that Joel Salatin is obviously correct in pointing out that there are standards other than profitability by which the success of food production should be measured. However, while it may easy to imagine a reality where most Americans get their food from farmers like Salatin as an ideal, it is harder to have confidence in a path towards such a reality in the near future. The size, legal power and government influence of agricultural corporations is formidable. As mentioned in the previous post, overcoming them requires the will to do so. There may come a day when a critical mass of consumer-citizens decide they will no longer tolerate the side-effects of “cheap” food. However, it does not appear that day will be tomorrow. Still, farmers like Salatin are crucially important as reminders that a different paradigm of farming (and of measuring success by more than profitability) is no pipe dream and has already been realized in some markets. 

Also interviewed is a founder of Stonyfield Farms, one of the nation’s largest organic dairy farming operations, who takes an entirely different approach to improving the quality of food: pragmatism. Unlike Salatin who speaks out against measuring success by growth and having products sold in Walmart, Stonyfield has decided to play by the rules of corporate agriculture in order to maximize their reach and, at least in the mind of its founder, ability to do good. The founder started his agriculture career in a similar ideological camp as Salatin, but found himself “preaching to the convinced” and realized that in order to put organic food on the tables of a much larger swath of America, the operation, “didn’t need to be David going up against Goliath, they needed to be Goliath.” His justification for becoming “Goliath,” and differing worldview from Salatin is well summarized by his statement that, “we’re not gonna get rid of capitalism. Certainly we’re not gonna get rid of capitalism in the time we need to reverse global warming and address the toxification of our air, our food, and our water...and if we attempt to make the perfect the enemy of the good and say we’re only gonna buy food from the most perfect system within a hundred miles of us, we’re never gonna get there.”12

While there is always some degree of uncertainty when it comes to the future, he seems likely to be correct in his assessment that capitalism and, presumptively, dominance of markets by large growth oriented operations, is not going anywhere in the near term. Given that, he has taken a utilitarian approach in trying to do what he believes to be the most good for the most people by dramatically increasing the reach of healthy food, even if it means doing business with “evil empire” type companies like Walmart. By his own definition of good, he has done much more than someone like Salatin can simply due to the size of his company. 

There are, however, problems with this type of thinking. His statement on the certainty of continued capitalism in the short term and his willingness to work within that system seem to imply that he believes capitalism is a system that can “reverse global warming and address the toxification of our air, our food, and our water.” There are good reasons to doubt that. The first is well illustrated by a scene in Food Inc. in which the filmmakers tour an organic food convention and it is pointed out that most of the “organic” companies have been bought out by larger agricultural conglomerates. 13 This seems to suggest that an idea of organic companies as disruptors of the status quo in industrial agriculture is misguided. Rather, once bought out, organic companies merely become a way for agricultural conglomerates to profit within the growing organic portion of the market. Thus, the larger segment of agriculture which engages in highly unsustainable practice, while perhaps shrinking slightly as a percentage of all agriculture, is not in danger of being out competed anytime soon. Furthermore, even for those companies that are not bought out like Stonyfield, there is always the question of whether at some point the integrity of the mission to do more good than harm is compromised by growth. For instance, even assuming that the food may perhaps still be produced sustainably on a large scale, at what point is that sustainability negated by the ecological costs of transporting the food across large distances? 

Figure 2, Joel Salatin Holds a Chicken 14

There are, of course, many instances is pragmatism is necessary, and it is worth entertaining the argument that there is more net good done by larger organic companies like Stonyfield from some perspectives (for instance that of making organics accessible to many more consumers) than by smaller farms that put principle before growth. However, the question becomes hazier from other perspectives, such as that of ecological harm caused by transportation of “sustainable” food. As Salatin states, “as soon as you grasp for...growth, you’re gonna view your customer differently, you’re gonna view your product differently, you’re gonna view your business differently, you’re gonna view everything that’s the most important...differently.”15 That change of view is of no small consequence. It is true that a world where the majority of food supply chains are localized and rely on farmers like Salatin may not be around the corner. It is also true that attempts to make it a reality will encounter serious resistance. However, pragmatism alone won’t make that world a reality and settling for less will have a serious cost. 

Question: 

How much lower is the ecological impact of large organic companies versus non-organic ones once all costs (such as transport) are factored in? 

Word Count: 1918 

1Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020.

2Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

3Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020.

4Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

5https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/01/24/463976110/when-a-chicken-farm-moves-next-door-odor-may-not-be-the-only-problem

6Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

7Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

8Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

9Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

10Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

11Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

12Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

13 Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020

14https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin

15 Food, Inc., n.d. Accessed March 28, 2020