Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by R.CAllen

  1. I’ve felt for a long time that President Donald John Trump is going to win reelection. It’s certainly the funniest outcome! But I think it’s possible that everyone’s going to have to settle for the second funniest outcome.

    My reasons for thinking President Donald John Trump will lose are threefold.

    1) Money. He’s not raising enough of it! And what he does get, well, a huge chunk of it has to go towards his legal costs. So he’s doubly handicapped when it comes to money. And, like, basically, some of the richest people in America don’t think he’s going to win. If they did they’d be shoving money his way! He openly asked the oil people to give him money now in exchange for his favour after he wins and they still didn’t bite!

    2) Polls. He’s been the presumptive nominee for a while now and still hasn’t sufficiently dipped the incumbent’s numbers. I’d expect we’d see a bigger drop from President Joseph Robinette Biden and a bigger jump from President Donald John Trump if the challenger had a really solid chance. The most recent numbers aren’t that different from the ones from the fall. If it remains this close all the way to the end I expect President Joseph Robinette Biden to get at least a little boost — the debates, an October surprise, maybe President Donald John Trump’s pants fall down in court revealing polka-dotted or little red hearts underwear — and that’ll put him over the top.

    3) Neither Mitch McConnell nor Mike Johnson appear to think President Donald John Trump’s going to win. Why would Senator Mitch McConnell give up the chance to be majority leader if he expected there to be a Republican in the Oval Office soon? Why would Congressman Mike Johnson put funds for Ukraine up for a vote — a move that may well take the Speaker’s gavel away from him — if he expected being Speaker of the House to be valuable soon?

    Yeah. I don’t know. It’s still possible that the funniest possible outcome happens, of course, but if it does I assume it’ll be more of a squeaker than ‘16. Which would make it even funnier, yeah.

  2. Assuming the election, like, happens — everybody could get lucky and 2007 FT3 wipes civilization out or whatever — I do not think this is going to be the lowest turnout election in 20 years. It’s a math thing so I obviously don’t feel confident enough to bet on it or whatever. But I do not expect fewer than 122,349,000 votes or a voting-eligible population percentage of less than 58.0%.

  3. I think Yoda is great. He should be in everything. They should put him in all the movies and TV shows. He should be in commercials. He should be on Broadway. The local news. If you open the weather app on your phone to check the forecast Yoda should be there too. George Lucas should raise money online and buy back the franchise from Disney and put Yoda into a cut of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977) and then he should send vigilante death squads around to everyone’s homes to destroy all the previously released imperfect versions of the film.

  4. I thought this one wasn’t quite as good as the last one. Not as much variety. It’s basically just two (2) stories. Oh well. Excited for the next one! Is there going to be more short animated stuff like this every year and a half from now on? Hope so!




    1 - The Path of Fear


    My LibreOffice doc crashed and wiped out my notes so I kind of forgot what I thought about this one. I don’t know. I didn’t really think much of it. I liked the bows! Are the bows new? I liked them.


    Oh, wait, now I remember. I was surprised that I recognized who this Morgan Elspeth was even though I haven’t, like, seen her live action show. She’s Ray Stevenson’s sidekick, right? Haven’t seen the show. Haven’t seen a trailer. But the knowledge — such as it is! — percolates through nonetheless.


    And I guess I thought it was interesting how to these Nightsisters there’s nothing distinguishable between General Grievous and a Jedi.


    2 - The Path of Anger


    I thought for a moment those were clutch tri-fighters but I guess they’re not. Different design. And I thought Corvus was the name of the star system so obscure that the Empire hides a hidden blaster gun inside the book about it in their libraries.


    Wait. Is that who this is? Is she the lady from The Mandamalorian show who looked like Cheri Oteri? I don’t know. Oh yeah! That’s who it is. She’s got the beskar spear! Wait. Are these two characters the same character? I don’t think so.


    Is this guy a Noghri? Oh wow. “Rukh”. Yeah. This guy is!


    I didn’t know Xander Berkeley did the voice of Pellaeon. I assume that guy has shown up before on the animated shows. I also think I have a vague memory of Rukh popping up on Rebels (‘14-’18), as well.


    3 - The Path of Hate


    I liked the design of the New Republic ambassador lady. Her, her troops, her ship, her astromech.


    4 - Devoted


    Who’s this other lady? I know who Barriss Offee is. Of course! But what’s this other lady’s deal? And who are these two goofuses? Were they all in the Clone Wars (‘08-’20) episode where Barriss Offee was revealed as a traitor and people online went into conniptions the way they always do whenever someone from the movies is killed off and/or substantially altered?


    I recognize one of the Inquisitors at the end but I can’t recall the other one. I think the look of him is kind of dumb. Looks like a novelty chess piece.


    5 - Realization


    This was pretty slight. The Jedi at the end is only credited as ‘The Jedi’ and is referred to as ‘they’ by the main characters. I don’t know. First nonbinary Jedi? Could be!


    6 - The Way Out


    I liked the little animal. I don’t know. Kind of scant. Not much there.




    All this talk of serving a vision and prosperity. I don’t know. Something there.

  5. Laurent Cantet died. 63! Time Out (2001) is the only one of his films I’ve seen but it’s loomed really large in my head ever since I first saw it. I think I’ve seen it ... twice? I’m not sure when or under what circumstances. I think maybe it made some big list of Best Films Of The First Half Of The 00s and so that would’ve been in ... ‘05. The premise was intriguing enough that I watched it and, like, the feelings it evoked are still with me. I should probably see it again.

  6. Okay! Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it! (The preceding nine words from me were not sarcastic or an attempt at wit or some kind of online argument standard-for-the-Lyceum posturing. I do thank you for telling me that and I do appreciate you telling me it.)

  7. Well, I feel like I’m repeating myself.

    Neither of you have convinced me that I am mistaken. I don’t think I’m substantially misunderstanding either of you. If I keep restating your positions and saying that I think it’s wrong if what you want is what you want it’s only because you both keep restating your positions and saying that you think it’s right.

    There’s no way to know for sure short of President Biden changing his mind — I don’t have to ask myself why that hasn’t happened yet because I can see that it’d be bad for all directly involved (and, long-term, the US and the rest of the world too!) for that to happen so it makes sense he hasn’t! — or Netanyahu being assassinated. If either of those two things occur and it turns out the outcome is good I’ll be glad to eat my words. Although, I struggle to see either Netanyahu being assassinated or President Biden changing his mind actually happening. Neither is an absolute impossibility, of course. Somebody might kill Netanyahu. What would make President Biden change his mind? I don’t know. Maybe if Israel sinks the International Freedom Flotilla. Anything can happen.

  8. Look at what’s happening even though Israel is strong. Thinking things would be better if Israel was made weak is wrong. Look at what Sinwar and Nasrallah and Khamenei are willing to do even though Israel is strong. Think about what more they would do if they had good reason to believe Israel was weak. Think about what more Israel would do if it genuinely believed that it was under immediate existential threat. Assassinating its prime minister or cutting off the US supply of support and funding and arms to Israel would not make things better for anyone in Israel or the Gaza Strip or the West Bank or Lebanon or Iran. Or, in the long-term, the US and the rest of the world.

  9. “I know the perfect tools to make things better. Making more war happen and assassination!” I try my hardest to assume the best of people but I can’t help but think you haven’t given much thought to what would happen if what you say you wanted actually occurred. I probably just need to try harder.

  10. 14 hours ago, Odine said:

    My stance hasnt softened, if it seems like it has it's only to the extent that I'm trying not to use inflammatory language for the sake of ruffling minimal feathers. I still think Netanyahu deserves nothing more than being lined up against a wall and unceremoniously shot in the back of the head, and left where he falls.

    Will good come of that? Probably not. Would the reality of that result in someone worse taking power, given the current situation? Quite possibly. Saying someone needs a bullet or deserves a bullet is not the same as saying "I think that is the most responsible and sensible course of action at the present time".

    So you just want this assassination to happen even though the outcome will be bad. Okay! I like it when bad things don’t happen!

    14 hours ago, Odine said:

    I think his government needs to be tried for war crimes.  That hasn't softened.

    My response to this is to refer you back to what I think will happen if that happens.

    14 hours ago, Odine said:

    The reality is, like I said, we (The Us and UK) need to stop arming and supporting Israel, and publicly denounce them, heavy sanctions should be imposed upon them, and they should be brought to heel. There needs to be a permanent ceasfire, and a two state solution needs to be instituted. Will that happen? Probably not. Israel is the US' proverbial air craft carrier in the middle east. The US will be hard pressed to ever directly challenge Israeli policy/actions.

    Do you know what reality is? Reality is the things that happen.

    14 hours ago, Odine said:

    You keep banging on about a possible Hezbollah invasion.. and I keep saying the only person who wants war with Hezbollah is Netanyahu. Hezbollah does not want war with Israel and nor does Iran.

    I think if that was really the case Nasrallah and Khamenei would stop attacking Israel. For all the talk about Netanyahu wanting war with Iran to stay in power it seems like this might not actually be the case. Gantz and Eisenkot pushed for immediate retaliation before the attack from Iran had even properly happened — shades of 2000AD! — and Netanyahu said no. Netanyahu knows that the Israeli public punishes prime ministers electorally when wars are on their watch. He’ll go with what assures his political survival, sure, but I suspect President Biden’s statement that the US won’t participate in any Israeli counterattack actually did that. No way to know for sure — I always think of Don Draper’s reply to Roger Sterling in the Cuban Missile Crisis episode of Mad Men (‘07-’15) : “Kennedy’s daring them to bomb us. Right when I got a second chance.” “We don’t know what’s really going on. You know that.” — but that’s my take.

    14 hours ago, Odine said:


    Because right now, there is a clean narrative of Israel disproportionately attacking Gaza, expanding it's borders, and committing genocidal war crimes. The US and the UK are beginning to distance themselves from Israel. The rest of the world is alresdy united in disgust with Israel. But as soon as either Hezbollah or Iran get involved it muddies that narrative and the conversation is no longer about Israel and it's war crimes and atrocities, it becomes murkier and about what should be done with Hezbollah and Iran. Then Netanyahu can solidify his hold on to power as a wartime PM. Hezbollah and Iran know this, and understand it's in their best interest NOT to engage with Israel. Meanwhile Israel is trying to provoke both Hezbollah and Iran into an open conflict, as we have just seen yesterday. With Iran launching a counter strike of some 300 missiles as a direct proportional response to Israeli actions taken against Iran.

    Yesterday? It’s Tuesday. What are you talking about?

    14 hours ago, Odine said:

    As for my weaksauce sources. I gave a screen grab of a mainstream news feed simply to highlight that Israel is frequently provoking and engaging with Hezbollah. To highlight my statement that any action from Hezbollah will be a direct proportional response to Israeli actions. And Scott Ritter, who I've mentioned but not directly linked, has dozens or more videos disseminating whats been happening since the begining of the conflict, and is probably one of the most informed and knowledgeable publicly speaking experts on the matters of war and geopolitical conflict. So not sure what is weaksauce about referencing his arguements. If anything is weaksauce it's my ability to retain everything that I've read or listened to, and parce it into a legible post without using too many minutes of my day.

    I’m glad you like the guy from Three’s Company (‘76’-84) and, yes, it is difficult to do that!

    14 hours ago, Odine said:

    Finally I am interested in what you think, it's why I asked what you think should be done in the first place. Because at the moment it seems like you wish nothing more than for the US to continue to supply arms, and for Israel to continue doing what it's doing. Which is tantamount to appeasement of a genocidal regime.

    Oh, I got the impression you didn’t care. My mistake!

    I don’t usually look at real things in reality and think about ideal solutions. What should happen? That’s just asking to be disappointed. Reality isn’t some piece of sci-fi fantasy make’em’up offered to me for my entertainment. When it comes to the real world I just try and see what’s happening and, from time to time, I wonder about what will happen.

    I mean, I’m human. Sometimes I do wish for better, sure. But that’s an impulse I try my best to tamp down. If you put me on the spot, though, my answer is pretty simple : Hamas should return the captives. Israel should end the war. The peace process should restart.

    14 hours ago, Odine said:

    If you're one of the "Free Palestine from Hamas" folks then just say so and I'll stop wasting my time engaging.

    If you feel like you’re wasting your time, well, I don’t know how to assuage your feelings on that score. I do think Hamas is pretty bad for the Palestinians! I think there’s some pretty strong evidence now that this is the case! I don’t agree with Sinwar’s statement that he was willing for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, down to the very last infant, to be killed so long as the dream of Hamas survives. I think that’d be bad if that happened!

    But if you do disengage and I ever wonder to myself, “Self! What would Ondine think about what’s going on the Middle East?” I’ll just watch John Ritter’s television show and get the real deal straight from the source.

  11. I also think it’s funny — not hah hah funny, it doesn’t make me laugh, but kind of funny in the abstract — how your stance has softened. You go from saying “Netanyahu needs a bullet to the back of the skull” on April 5 to “I think Netanyahu deserves death” on April 9 to “I stand by my statement Netanyahu needs a bullet” on April 11.

    I believe you think you stand by your statement, sure. But that’s not what you stated. It’s not all of it! You’re missing a few of those colourful little words at the end. They really set the stage! And you dropped a register there in between. “Deserves death” is just not the same thing as “needs a bullet to the back of the skull” or “needs a bullet”.

    Tough for me to imagine a principled character in some old war movie going from saying “Zee Führer must be shot in a humiliating and painful fashion!” in one scene to “I think Zee Führer deserves death” in another to finally settling on “I stand by my statement Zee Führer must be shot” in his last. If I were watching that old war movie I wouldn’t think that this was a guy who really wanted anything but to get mad at someone he’s allowed to get mad at. That guy in the old war movie was just changing the tempo of his tune as he blew off a little steam. Mixed metaphor, sure, but I hope what I’m saying here comes across.

    My point is either as far as you’re concerned Netanyahu is Hitler — which would make any deviation or fluctuation odd. you’re talking about Hitler here! are you soft on Hitler? — or he’s not Hitler and you know that and you’re just kind of scrambling around.

    It could be I’m wrong. I might be reading too much into it! Maybe you meant the exact same thing all three times. Many people — myself included! — often have difficulty making themselves understood.

  12. On 4/12/2024 at 3:01 AM, Odine said:

    You're missing the point. Hezbollah doesn't want war with Israel. But if Israel continually makes further incursions into Lebanon then Israel will force the hand of Hezbollah to retaliate. Ergo, any Hezbollah invasion would be a direct consequence of Israel's actions. They're bringing it on themselves.


    I said that Hezbollah will do a full-scale invasion depending on what the US does — what Zathras wants it to do! — and that it might very well do so even if the US does not do anything. You decided to tell me about Israeli incursions into Lebanon and how Netanyahu was trying to draw Iran into the conflict by doing this. You made the point of how Netanyahu is trying to draw Iran into the conflict by posting a screenshot about Israeli strikes on Lebanon — which have become somewhat routine over the past few months alongside Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel — rather than, say, a screenshot about the strike on a consulate (!) killing Iranian generals. I was telling you this and that I was aware of what Hezbollah might do no matter what the US does. I said I was aware of what Hezbollah might do no matter what the US does when I wrote the words “It might very well do so even if the US does not do that”.


    You were telling me something I already said I knew and you were supporting this information with bottom shelf evidence. I was telling you this. I am now telling it to you again.


    ME: Hezbollah will invade if [x] and it might invade if [not-x].

    YOU: Hezbollah might invade if [not-x] and I have weaksauce proof.

    ME: I already said Hezbollah might invade if [not-x]. And if you want to talk about the reason why Hezbollah might invade if [not-x] then you should support it with something better than that. Here you go! Here it is! This is what you should support it with!


    On 4/12/2024 at 3:01 AM, Odine said:

    So what is your solution?


    You don’t care what I think.


    On 4/12/2024 at 3:08 AM, Odine said:

    Lol. Jew, singular- Netanyahu. I'm comparing him to Hitler. Not the people of Israel, a large number of whom were protesting his very government before Oct 7.  Many Israelis don't want him.


    I took your words ““Netanyahu needs a bullet to the back of the skull, and every member of his regime should be tried for war crimes.” and “I think Netanyahu deserves death, yes. And his regime needs to be tried for war crimes. I'm saying nothing particularly controversial given the context. No different from saying Hitler should've been assassinated and saved the world a lot of trouble.” and “I stand by my statement Netanyahu needs a bullet.” as directly analogizing assassinating Hitler and saving the world a lot of trouble with killing Netanyahu and trying his regime for war crimes.


    You were saying Netanyahu and his regime are Hitler and you were saying that you saying this was not particularly controversial. Netanyahu and every member of his regime are Jews. (Are they? I suppose that’s not true in the strictest possible sense. The head of COGAT is Druze!)


    I characterized the above in the following fashion : “Controversial? Me? I just think these Jews are Hitler.”


    If you really think I’ve misinterpreted you and what you really meant to say all along, well, fine. I’ll revise. “Controversial? Me? I just think this Jew is Hitler.”


    On 4/12/2024 at 3:08 AM, Odine said:

    But the second I use it against an actual far-right ultra nationalist with genocidal intentions it gets called controversial because said leader happens to be Jewish.


    It got called controversial because you used the word ‘controversial’.

    I don’t know how to explain to anyone who has already attended kindergarten that a bad thing doesn’t become a good thing because you think it’ll make a good thing happen. The prime minister of a parliamentary democracy being assassinated isn’t a good thing. And a moment’s thought from anyone familiar with the particular parliamentary democracy being discussed ought to make anyone realize that the consequences of that happening wouldn’t necessarily and automatically be good consequences. If you want something bad to happen because you think it’ll make good things happen and I pipe up with, “No, that’s bad! And it’d make bad things happen!” you can of course keep insisting that you want it to happen because it’ll be good. It’s up to you. I can’t stop you!

  13. You’re both insisting your motives are good so the outcome of what you want to happen would be good. I believe you think you’re good and the violent results of what you wish for will therefore lead to good things. I understand that this is something you both think.

    “Violence? Where? Wrong! A leap of logic! I just think there should be more war.”

    “Controversial? Me? I just think these Jews are Hitler.”

  14. When I wrote the words “It might very well do so even if the US does not do that” those words meant that Hezbollah might very well do a full-scale invasion even if the US does not cut off any more weapon shipments to Israel and if it does not stop funding and arming Israel. I’m aware of Israeli strikes in Lebanon and, of course, Syria!

  15. Nope! No leap of logic! I don’t believe Israel is weaponless without US weapons. It isn’t! I believe Hezbollah will do a full-scale invasion if the US cuts off any more weapon shipments to Israel and if it stops funding and arming Israel. It might very well do so even if the US does not do that but I think it definitely would if that happened.

    You think Israel doesn’t deserve US backing because it wages war in a manner inconsistent with US policy and human rights — does it? I guess we agree! pretty sure Americans would’ve killed millions if there were multiple terrorist attacks in America by Al-Qaeda sympathizers in the six months after 9/11! Israel’s actions so far are thus pretty inconsistent with American policy and the American track record on human rights! — but I think deserve’s got nothing to do with it. Do people in Gaza deserve to die? No. Do people in Israel and in Lebanon deserve to die? No. If there’s something that’ll make more people die I don’t want it to happen. I guess we’re different!

  16. 3 hours ago, Odine said:

    I think Netanyahu deserves death, yes.  And his regime needs to be tried for war crimes.

    I'm saying nothing particularly controversial given the context. No different from saying Hitler should've been assassinated and saved the world a lot of trouble. 


    If someone assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel (again!) and then abducted everyone in Israel’s thirty-seventh government and put them on trial the outcome would not be good. I don’t think the thirty-eighth government would be any nicer. Like, who would lead it? I guess considering that Gantz’s presence in the war cabinet means he would probably count as part of “his regime” I suppose that would make Yair Lapid the next — wait, no, realistically speaking it’d be some brand new fascist nobody who would be swept into office by promising to invade Holland or whatever.

  17. 3 hours ago, Zathras said:

    Who said I wanted more violence to happen?  I think we should stop funding and arming Israel.

    Given that you’ve repeated yourself I suspect you may already know my answer to your question.

    “Biden should CUT OFF any more weapon shipments to Israel. Period.” and “I think we should stop funding and arming Israel.” are wanting more violence to happen.

    No one can predict the future but cutting off weapon shipments to Israel would result in a full-scale invasion by Hezbollah in the short-term. And in the long-term the consequences of every American ally knowing that the USA will switch off the spigot when things get bloody would probably be worse in terms of body count.

  18. You are both looking at events and seeing a huge heap of violence and somehow you all just want MORE violence to happen. In this particular respect neither of you seem all that different than a trigger-happy IDF soldier. Or a Hamas/PIJ terrorist. You all think that things will be better if the right people just die. I don’t have some magic toggle switch to change anybody’s mind — surely arguing about things online in this forum won’t do that — but I still felt I needed to type these words.

  19. The show was cancelled. So I figured it was time to finish off watching the remaining slate.



    I resumed watching the tenth episode which is where I think I left off. That’s the one with Dan Bakkedahl and a Lebanese Christian transmasc they/them in the 1950s — the show, in either an earnest endeavour to help naïve viewers or a cynical attempt to avoid criticism for quote unquote being harmful, points out that binding with elastics can be dangerous — which sort of sums up the show’s appeal to me. Great character actors and squishy attempts at making big statements! Like, the show has the new Dr. Sam Beckett guy — having leapt into the body of a woman, the transmasc they/them’s sister — take off his cool leather jacket and put it on them and tell the sibling, “You look badass.” It works! The moment works! And then the show grinds to a halt and has the new Dr. Sam Beckett figure explain what the words ‘binary’ and ‘non-binary’ mean.


    Yeah. I don’t know. Does it all work? Is it all necessary? I feel like the show was so scared of getting quote unquote cancelled that it couldn’t manage to avoid being cancelled actually cancelled for real cancelled no more show.


    The episode ends with one of those ‘If you or your child are trans and are in need of support call 1-800-DO-NOT-BE-MEAN-TO-US-ONLINE-ABOUT-HOW-WE-FAILED-TO-ACCURATELY-REPRESENT-OR-DEPICT-THE-TRANS-EXPERIENCE-!-WE-DID-OUR-BEST-!-THE-EPISODE-WAS-FOR-THE-KIDS’.


    The other two episodes before the (series!) finale didn’t quite make an impact. I don’t really remember what goes down in them. James Frain gets to do some more stuff, I suppose. The new Gooshie figure quotes Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) twice in the penultimate one.


    The finale explicitly references the series finale of the original show. Al Calavicci’s daughter just exposits the last scene of the old show for the audience. Oh, and there’s a big impassioned inspirational speech from the new Dr. Sam Beckett. It’s solid. Comes after he does a big run, too. The whole thing is effective, I thought.


    The series ends with M83’s ‘Outro’ playing — just like the shortlived sitcom Enlisted (‘14-’14) — and there being two (2) leapers now instead of just one (1). A bold choice! I guess we’ll never find out if they could pull it off or not.

  20. Sorry. I completely forgot about the existence of the Ahsoka Tano show. Haven’t seen that one yet either. There’s also one with Carrie Ann-Moss and Manny Jacinto and Dafne Keen. Haven’t seen that one too but then again I can’t be blamed for it. To quote Han Solo and Lando Calrissian, “It’s not my fault!” Because it isn’t out yet.

    There’s another show coming this year with Jude Law and Tunde Adebimpe and Kerry Condon and Jaleel White!? What a world. What a world.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.