Question I didn't realize I was going to have to ask myself when I started a blog, #8326: If I post a picture of seashells spelling out that I don't want to pay federal taxes anymore so long as the money is going to be used to fund insurrections against my own democracy, is the FBI going to come knocking on my door?

Better to be safe than sorry. No picture. I can't afford lawyers.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: fuck you america news

Yes, it's been days since my last post, and this blog may have seemed dead. But that's just how I'm celebrating Easter this year.

Speaking of not-dead guys, the local Catholic Church has had a crucifix on its front lawn this year with a Jesus that looks like he was carved by a chainsaw. The folk art approach doesn't bother me. I don't know what Jesus would think of it. I suspect that as a carpenter, he'd probably be pretty impressed by chainsaws.

On the other hand, he probably wouldn't be too happy that people are so into seeing him hung up. The Catholic list of 10 Commandments conveniently omits that whole "graven images" restriction -- they love their icons! -- but Jesus was a Jew, so he might have a different opinion about Exodus 20:4.

What does bother me a little is that the statue has a very well defined set of washboard abs. I'm sure the historic Jesus had low body fat (although infinite fishes, loaves, and wine didn't do Dionysus any favors), but could he really have looked like Mark Wahlberg in a Calvin Klein ad? I hadn't thought so, but now I'm reconsidering. Jesus was a wise guy, and a thirst trap certainly would have helped attract eyeballs to his newfangled religion. It's a whole lot easier to love your neighbor when he's beautiful. (That's why even Catholics agree about keeping your hands off your neighbor's spouse.)

Hmm. Maybe those clever Catholics are right. A cut wooden Jesus just might be a good idea. Not only does it have me now rethinking my religion, I'm also inspired to cut back on my own intake of waistline-expanding Easter candy. Jesus saves!

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: easter holidays

It's primary season in Georgia, and right now there are at least three (three!) leading Republican candidates for governor currently airing television commercials during every Jeopardy! commercial break vowing to get tough on the same issue. Not taxes. Not jobs. Not education. Not data centers or immigration or crime or polluted water or unaffordable housing or traffic congestion or gas prices. The issue they're worried about is "men" stealing trophies in women's sports.

Yes, I do live in a basement, and no, I don't have a daughter, but I still have to wonder if that's really the biggest issue facing Georgians today. Or ever, really. Outsports.com lists only five openly transgendered athletes playing for Georgia teams the past twenty years. Exactly zero of those were biological men who joined women's teams in search of fame and fortune. Zero examples would seem to make this a solution in search of a problem.

Even recognizing there were a couple of swim meets in the recent past where transgendered women stormed our borders and won (or, as in the case of Riley Gaines, placed fifth), this still doesn't seem to be a problem because A) the Georgia High School Association banned transgendered girls from playing as girls on high school teams in 2022, B) the NCAA banned the same at the college level in February 2025, and C) Georgia passed a state law ("The Riley Gaines Act") banning them from any event statewide in April 2025. It's not (yet) illegal to be transgendered in Georgia, but they better not try kicking any girls' balls.

So we ask the question: why are all these Republican governor candidates spending so much time and money decrying a vanishingly rare situation that is already triply illegal in the state they say they know enough about to run? I guess it's too much work to come up with a plan to address the ongoing homeless crisis or social media monopolies when you can just keep holding up your pitchfork and yelling "Won't somebody please think of the trans children?"

All I can say for sure is that it doesn't look like I'll be voting Republican this year. Again.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: misogyny politics sports television trumps america

Seeing that this blog doubles as my personal diary, I feel I need to make note of the passing of Friend Michael, killed too young by cancer.

Rummaging around my archives for a pic of Mike to commemorate the sad occasion, I found this, taken (probably by James) in the parking lot of Medieval Times in Lawrenceville in June 2013.

Talking comic books and acting like big dorks. Yeah, I think pretty accurately encapsulates our three decade friendship.

Thanks for the good times, Mike.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: death friends georgia james lawrenceville mike superman

For the last few years, we've had a Jeopardy! page-a-day calendar. This year, Mom opted for a History Channel This Day in History calendar because she got a great price on it... in February. I'm starting to think the price markdown was for more than just the expiration date.

This Day in History for March 5, 1770, was the Boston Massacre. Maybe you've heard of it? It's pretty famous. According to the calendar, British Private Hugh Montgomery "slipped and fell, discharging his musket into the taunting crowd." Though this makes it sound like an accident, eyewitness testimony at the trial indicated that Montgomery shot only after recovering his dropped rifle and regaining his feet. That, plus the fact that he more or less confessed, is surely why Montgomery was one of only two of the eight soldiers found guilty of manslaughter.¹

The calendar also explicitly states that "John Adams and Josiah Quincy Jr.² defended the colonists." Both of those men would like to assure you that they defended the prosecuted soldiers. In point of fact, there were three trials related to the massacre, the first two against soldiers (Rex vs. Preston and Rex v. Wemms et al.) and the third, much lesser known, against colonists (Rex vs. Manwaring et al). There were no defense attorneys in the third trial, so the calendar is flatly wrong.

(Technically, I suppose, so long as we're being pedantic, we should say that there were four trials related to the Boston Massacre, as according to the 1771 summary of the trial published in The Trial of W. Wemms, J. Hartegan, W. McCauley, H. White, M. Killroy, W. Warren, J. Carrol, and H. Montgomery, Soldiers in His Majesty's 29th Regiment of Foot, for the Murder of C. Attucks, S. Gray, H. Maverick, J. Caldwell, and P. Carr, the sole witness for the prosecution at the third trial, Charles Bourgat, was found not credible and was later brought up on charges of perjury. I don't fault the calendar for omitting this fact. But it is a fun bit of Americana legal trivia.)

Now that I've caught This Day In History making these mistakes, I'm doubting the accuracy of everything it tells me. Sure, these may have been honest editorial grammatical errors, but in this day and age where Google's terrible search AI is giving me factually incorrect answers to everything,³ I think it's more important than ever that the people who claim to be authorities in their fields know what they're talking about. Why should I learn facts about history from people who don't know the facts of history? If you can't trust a discount page-a-day calendar, who can you trust?

¹ Montgomery's punishment was having the letter M "for murder" branded on his thumb,⁴ which is very The Scarlet Letter indeed.⁵

² These days, it seems historians usually refer to the father of 15th Harvard University President Josiah Quincy III as Josiah Quincy II. However, when the son published a posthumous biography cobbled together from father's "journals and letters" in 1825, he titled the book Memoir of the Life of Josiah Quincy, Junior, of Massachusetts Bay: 1744-1775. And who is the History Channel to argue with a former president of Harvard?

³ DO NOT READ GOOGLE AI RESULTS FOR ANYTHING. Seriously, people, I cannot tell you how unhelpful Google AI responses were in researching this topic, a famous incident in American History that has been extensively researched and documented. The responses were so astonishingly wrong, you're just as likely to get correct responses to queries if you asked the teenager at the window of your local Burger King drive-thru. Which, I suppose, does mean that in all the ways that matter, Google AI successfully passes the Turing Test.

⁴ According to Wikipedia, the "benefit of clergy" defense used to save Montgomery from the gallows was abolished in the United Kingdom 1827 and from United States federal law in 1790, though the possibility exists that it may still be recognized in some state courts. I recommend consulting a lawyer before trying it yourself.

⁵ Though it takes place in the 1640s, The Scarlet Letter was published March 16, 1850. I've already peeked ahead; March 16, the calendar tells me, marks the day in 2006 that the "First Lady of Drag Racing," Shirley "Cha Cha" Muldowney, was inducted into the International Drag Racing Hall of Fame, which at least fits the National Women's History Month theme. Weirdly, despite explicitly mentioning four other Halls of Fame she belongs to, Muldowney's Wikipedia page does not mention this induction, though the Don Garlits Museum of Drag Racing which sponsors the IDRHoF does. Why does the calendar endorse this one in particular? I guess that's just another one of history's mysteries.

Comments (2) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: family history john adams mom

Reset the numbers! Grab a Coke! Here are quick reviews of the movies watched by me for the first time in 2026, part one of many:

1/2571. The Pirate (1948)
You just know from the moment that Gene Kelly's arrogant actor is introduced that this film is going to struggle landing its complicated love triangle, but it does all right for itself, specifically because the Nicholas Brothers show up at the climax to do a great dance routine and make you forget about the silly melodrama. Those guys could dance.

2/2572. Spinal Tap II: The End Continues (2025)
Inferior in most ways to the original, but everyone involved seems to know it'd be foolish to try to top a classic and instead trusts the audience to be satisfied enough with hanging out once again with old friends. I was. (Bonus points for surprise performance by a Beatle!) Thanks for all the laughs, Rob Reiner.

3/2573. The Bad Guys (2022)
Perhaps I've played too many role-playing games and watched too many heist movies, but I don't think a movie could be any more predictable in structure. To its credit, the target audience is children, and invention isn't really the point here so much as fun visual style and the chummy camaraderie of the voice actors.

4/2574. Too Many Husbands (1940)
What a mess! This farce was later remade as My Favorite Wife which handles the material somewhat better by swapping the genders, prolonging the secret, and adding children. In fact, go watch that one. It's just better all around.

5/2575. The In-Laws (1979)
Generally speaking, I do not find Alan Arkin's trademark "comedically" exasperated film persona funny, and that held true for most of this movie as well. But the scenes in the diner and on the airfield really landed with me.

Parallel to the road? Hmm. What an odd place for a billboard.

More to come.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: coke movies

Every day we awaken to find that the world isn't even the place it was the night before. Predictably, that constant instability has led to fear, fear to anger, anger to hate, and hate to suffering. The goal should be to try to curtail that path, not accelerate it. Any man can only take so much injustice, cruelty, and bad taste before hopelessness wins.

Which is why I'm demanding that Kroger return to its previous recipe for Bread and Butter Chips.

Back in the good old days, the ingredients were listed as "Fresh cucumbers, sugar, water, vinegar, and less than 2% of: salt, spices (including mustard and celery seed), calcium chloride, turmeric extract (color), gum arabic, natural flavors." The result: deliciousness!

But now? Kroger pickles have become a "Product of Vietnam" with ingredients "Cucumbers, sugar, water, vinegar, salt, mustard seeds, celery seeds, gum arabic, natural flavor, turmeric oleoresin (for color)." Those may look like small changes (just 3% more salt and 2% more sugar), presumably to keep the price down, but they translate to soggier, sweeter, inferior pickles. Blech. I'll never underestimate the value of calcium chloride again.

If I have to watch as the United States sides with corporations, racists, and the enablers of pedophiles over the welfare of its own citizens; disavows medical and climate science; scuttles the global economy; turns its back on former allies Europe and NATO; solicits bribes from criminals and tyrants around the globe; murders people in international waters and its own streets; and bullies media conglomerates, law firms, and astronauts to deny its immoral behavior — you know, all the things 78 million American people voted for in 2024 — then at the very least I should be able to enjoy my favorite pickles as the legacy of the America I used to know crumbles around me. If you can't find joy in the little things, what's left?

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: food fuck you america

If you've read the news in the past few weeks, you may have a little trouble figuring out what the word "terrorism" actually means these days. It's being thrown around a lot to cover a lot of situations. So let's see if we can help clarify.

Merriam-Webster.com: ter·​ror·​ism, n: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Wiktionary.com: terrorism (usually uncountable, plural terrorisms) The use of unlawful violence against people or property to achieve political objectives.

Kids.Britannica.com: (under ter​ror​ism) Terrorists are people who use fear to try to change society.

As you can see, performing "terrorism" generally requires intent that the act would intimidate others into compliance with your desires out of a sense of fear. Darth Vader was a terrorist; he made his Imperial officers watch him kill their leaders so they would be too afraid to question his amoral orders. On the other hand, Freddy Krueger was not a terrorist; he was just a monster who enjoyed killing people.

The October 7 attack on Israel was an act of terrorism. The September 11 attack on America was an act of terrorism. Wearing white sheets and burning crosses in front yards has always been terrorism. Shootings on school campuses can be terrorism, but they can also just be murder. Trafficking drugs is itself not generally an act of terrorism, but in the right situation with the wrong sorts of people (like The Joker), it could be. Holding protest rallies is not terrorism (so long as there's no threat of violence). Fleeing across political borders, while illegal, is not terrorism (because people themselves are not inherently terrifying or seeking to force societal change by standing on one side or the other of an imaginary boundary).

Trying to escape police, while possibly unwise, is definitely not terrorism. Likewise, shooting someone in self defense, even if you were wrong to think you were in danger, is not terrorism either. But a hypothetical case of encouraging lethal force to subdue a fleeing suspect so others will think twice about trying to escape if they find themselves in the same situation? That's Darth Vader territory.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: death dictionary fuck you america news

86/2518. Hi, Nellie! (1934)
This movie has a weird structure. It's mostly a light comedy, with a haughty newspaper editor supposedly being taught a lesson by being busted down to the lonely hearts desk. There's less misogyny on display than you might expect (unusual for the era), and there's also a big story to break. I enjoyed it.

87/2519. Blondes at Work (1938)
Fourth (of nine) Torchy Blane movies. Hard-nosed newspaper reporter Torchy breaks a lot of rules (and laws) in this one as she races her detective fiance to break the story of a dead department store magnate. Enjoyable as all the ones that came before it (in no small part because of Torchy's mischievous irresponsibility in determined pursuit of a headline).

88/2520. The 400 Blows (1959)
This French film is much lauded, and I get it. It's incredibly modern in its sympathetic presentation of a much disturbed adolescent who is treated very poorly by the self-absorbed adults in his life. I wish I'd seen it at 14.

89/2521. Torchy Gets Her Man (1938)
Sixth (of nine) Torchy Blane movies. (I skipped 5 because Torchy isn't played by Glenda Farrell in that one.) Here the dramatic tension comes from the audience knowing more than Torchy or her fiance about the counterfeit ring they're chasing. Plus there's a police dog that only answers to German commands. Who doesn't love dogs?

90/2522. Torchy Blane in Chinatown (1939)
Seventh (of nine) Torchy Blane movies. New York's Chinatown doesn't have as much to do with the story as the title would suggest. Instead, Torchy (and her fiance) are on the hunt for a Chinese gang that implies supernatural force to extort money from a family of art collectors in possession of ancient Chinese family jewels. It's all a bit far-fetched, and the mystery is incredibly easy to crack. Still fun.

And since we've already covered three Torchy Blane movies, let's just skip ahead a bit and get to

96/2528. Torchy Blane Runs for Mayor (1939)
Eighth (of nine) Torchy Blane movies, and the last one to star Glenda Farrell. To tackle a corrupt political racket, Torchy does, indeed, run for mayor of New York on a campaign platform that would probably still work today. Not my favorite, but still worth the watch as Farrell's last Torchy.

More to come.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: movies

I'm not always a fan of absolutes, but generally speaking, "thou shall not murder" is a pretty good rule, especially for a society that depends on cooperation to thrive. But while disobeying that rule is a sin, I've been wondering lately whether that rule is actually an absolute. Even the Bible doesn't think so, as the very next chapter in Exodus (21:12) paradoxically instructs that people who kill should be killed. Does the "no murder" rule not apply to the killer of killers?

The Bible is actually pretty keen on finding reasons to kill people. According to Exodus alone: don't kidnap anyone (21:16) or curse at your parents (21:17) or let your ox gore two people (21:29) or oppress orphans (22:21) or be a witch (22:17) or sleep with a sheep (22:18). And certainly don't strike anyone (21:23) unless it's a slave you own and you can keep them alive for "a day or two," in which case you're cool (21:21).

Come to think of it, how f'd up was Moses' flock in the first place? You don't make rules unless you need them, much less take forty days and forty nights to carve them in stone. For there to be so many rules about when you can and when you can't kill someone, they must have really, really wanted to kill one another. Hmm. Maybe the Old Testament isn't the best place to look for relationship advice or ethical behavior.

Not that we're doing a whole lot better. We just commemorated 9/11, when some people killed a whole bunch of people because they... well, because they were angry, I guess. That's usually why, isn't it? Wrath. Envy. Gluttony. Lust. Greed. And Pride for thinking you have the right to do it. By comparison, Sloth really doesn't seem so bad, except when he's not helping you restrain his six deadly pals.

Personally, I'm opposed to killing in all cases for the pretty simple reason that if anyone is allowed to kill, they might kill me, and I do not want to be killed. So far as I can tell, the only shot our flawed society will ever have at perfection is if we can all agree to stop all the killing. As a wise, soon-to-be-murdered man once said, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." He probably should have added something about nails.

Comments (0) | Leave a Comment | Permalink | Tags: death history laws philosophy religion