Clarification. It's a Beautiful Thing.

I've received an immense amount of pushback from some people regarding the Operation Blazing Sword - Pink Pistols press release on the Rittenhouse verdict. This is disappointing, as I took great pains to make the statement as neutral as possible regarding Rittenhouse himself and focus solely on the gun rights aspect of the case. 

I stand by my assertions that if Rittenhouse had been convicted, ADA Binger's position of "You were armed, therefore you deserve violence upon your person" may well have taken root and destroyed what we have left of the right to keep and bear arms. Pink Pistols cannot perform its function if using a weapon for self-defense automatically negates your right to self-defense, and it is for that reason we agree with the court. 

Once the argument of "You aren't allowed to defend yourself" has been accepted by the courts, it doesn't matter your political affiliation, race, sex, religion, disability, or anything else; that charge will be used against you. 

You are either for self defense or you are not. There is no grey area.

On a related note, there are an astonishing number of people who cannot wrap their heads around the concept that there can be an overlap between behavior that is "Perfectly legal/Well within your rights" and behavior that is "Ill-advised/Self-endangering."

It is perfectly legal for me to dress up in a skimpy bikini with $100 bills stuffed into it and totter down the sidewalks of a rough neighborhood in stiletto heels after midnight. I have every right to do that. However, this also puts me in significant danger of assault, theft, robbery, etc.

Now, if I am assaulted/robbed/etc, it's the fault of the criminals. It's not my fault, because a crime needs a criminal to commit it: no criminal, no crime. It's not my fault because even if I'm not there, the criminal may decide to prey upon someone else. But doing such a thing proved to be ill-advised and self-endangering, because I increased my chances of becoming a victim happening by making myself an easy, enticing target. 

Similarly, Kyle Rittenhouse being in Kenosha, openly carrying a rifle while trying to protect businesses and stop fires and offer medical treatment, was perfectly legal. He had every right to be there doing those things. (If you doubt that, look at what the court ruled.) It was also ill-advised of him to do so, and it put him in significant danger. He will be forever scarred by this, and the repercussions will follow him all the days of his life. 

And it wasn't his fault, because we have footage showing he was attacked first every time. However, he made himself a tempting target, because he looked like a vulnerable child with a valuable gun. If he hadn't been there, then other crimes would have happened; they just wouldn't have happened to him.

It astounds me that there are people who can't grasp this concept that just because something is ill-advised doesn't automatically make it illegal. If everything dangerous was made illegal, we would have no police, no firefighters, and no military. 

Your head is there for more than just decoration. Please use it. 

A Grievance of the Clergy

You may recall me saying a few weeks ago that I'm giving AMC's Preacher another shot. I'm current with the series now, and I have been re-reading the comic series over the last few weeks, and I've come to a couple of conclusions and what I certainly hope isn't a breaking point in the series.

As of this past episode, one glaring thing has become startlingly clear as of this last episode, a thing which explains why I dislike Cassidy's character in the television adaptation. Spoilers commence now, so if you're going to catch up on the show, bow out if you mind that sort of thing.

The Exponential Outrage Theorem

I'd like to propose a thought experiment. (Bear with me here, I've always been rubbish at maths.)

Something big, something monumental is announced. This thing that is announced is a change. Let's say, just for the example, the casting choices in a major science fiction franchise.

One hundred idiots get mad about this change and over-react. From the reaction of these one hundred idiots, a far Left or far Right blog whips up an article containing six tweets from people who are literal nobodies with an insignificant amount of followers (I don't use my Twitter, so let's say 24. 24 sounds like a nice insignificant number.)

Ladies, gentlemen, and multi-forms, your Twitter nobody.

One thousand people read this article, and become outraged by the "huge backlash" of the one hundred over-reacting idiots. They, in turn, overreact. Ten more extreme-end blogs write articles, including the six tweets and six more attacking the original. Ten thousand people read these articles and are now annoyed. They start a hashtag movement which catches the attention of a few mainstream news sites, which write about the massive outrage over the initial decision, more than likely using words like "manbabies", "piss babies", or "garbage humans." One hundred thousand people read this article and are now annoyed. The reaction is no longer the story -- the outrage is -- and it continues well into the millions.

So, then. On a completely unrelated note. What do I think?

Nice coat.

I think she's not Peter Capaldi. But then, as much as I adore Peter Capaldi's Doctor, I knew it wouldn't be forever. Like the man himself said, nothing is sad until it's over, then everything is. Everything ends, and it's always sad, but everything begins again and that's always happy. So I'll let the Doctor handle everything else. To me, he's been the best thing about the show since it came back, and I pity anyone who has to follow in his footsteps.

Capaldi's final episode hasn't even aired yet (spoilers!) so we're a little premature on pronouncing judgement on her ability. Do I like the choice? I have no idea yet. But she shows promise, and I maintain there has never been a bad actor in the role. Strange choices, maybe, but never bad ones. Here's what I think:

• I remember her from Attack the Block and Broadchurch, and looked up a series she'd starred in on Netflix called The Assets. 
• I think she's a talented actor. Does a surprisingly good American accent. 
• I think she's very distinctive-looking, which is far more important than attractive for the role. Prominent nose, high cheekbones, slightly strange-looking (Erin's informed me that saying someone "looks a bit like a ferret" isn't a flattering thing that normal people do, even after I assured her that I think ferrets are adorable), I think she looks distinctive enough for the role. Smith and Tennant both looked a bit weird, with Tennant being very thin and goofy but exuding confidence, and Smith looking like a literal alien with vaguely unformed facial features and an enormous chin. 
• I think she has enough intensity and range to play the role, and the outfit they chose for her looks decent, if a bit unremarkable, but no Doctor keeps the same outfit forever - even Eccleston changed his jumper periodically. 
• I was hoping for Emma Thompson if we were going female Doctor, but then I doubt the BBC could afford her.

So as far as Jodie Whittaker goes, I'm definitely going to give her a shot. This isn't the first time I've lost a beloved Doctor and I'm not about to quit watching because I'm not 100% sure on the 'new guy.' If I were type to do that, I'd never have seen Paul McGann be tremendously let down by his TV movie or Eccleston shine for a year. But as I said, there's never been a "bad Doctor."

There has, however, been bad writing. One thing we need to keep in mind is that all the groundwork that's been laid for this change to happen is due to the allegedly EVOL MISOGYNERD that is Stephan Moffat. The Corsair, the General's regeneration, Missy, River changing from white to black and back to white, and even Eleven's throw-away line wondering if he was a girl because of his hair all happened under his watch. Now Moffat's leaving the show, and the incoming show-runner, Chris Chibnall, wrote one very good and several very bad episodes of Torchwood, and was the show-runner for the two series it was on BBC.  He wrote several episodes of Doctor Who that... varied in quality. And while it's true that Broadchurch was his show, it was equal parts good and very, very slow and grim.

Moreover, Chibnall is a fan. As a friend and I recently discussed, fans should be kept well away from the reigns of the show, and Chibnall once appeared on the BBC in his capacity as a fan bemoaning the state of the writing during Colin Baker's tenure. While he wasn't wrong, this would be like a modern fan (say myself or my friend) publicly decrying the state of the writing under Stephen Moffat, then decades later running the show ourselves, and that would be very, very bad. I'm more worried that, in a year or two, we'll be begging Moffat to come back than we will be wishing Jodie hadn't come on board.

I have a final thought here: If you're celebrating something based on the negative reaction that you feel a demographic will have, then you're celebrating it for the wrong reason. The legions of "screaming manbabies" have not manifested. The outrage against Jodie Whittaker is as overblown as "black stormtrooper" or the "Fury Road boycott.' In fact, the demographics of the outrage are so wrong that even The Mary Sue has had to address it (albeit in their condescending and short-sighted way), admitting that there are a substantial number of women that aren't satisfied with the decision (the words "internalized misogyny" were thrown around).

Don't mistake this for me saying you're not a "real fan" or a "fake nerd." I'm saying that if you're salivating at the thought of "evil white men", you might be valuing message over entertainment. You may be a fan for the wrong reasons. And it's supremely annoying to someone who considered the Doctor a role model not because he was a man, but because he was clever and cared and helped people while trying not to resort to violence. As Twelve would really like to hear, he was, all in all, a good man. And I hope he can be a good woman, too.

I just hope it doesn't get lost in causes and messages.

Correcting the Record: Anger Post

I am in an absolute rotten mood. I've been that way for a while now. Anyone that was looking forward to more Gotham Rain, I apologize. My mind's not in that place at the moment.

A few things over the last few weeks have caught my attention, though, and I have a few very simple messages before I go back to laying in bed watching Supergirl on Netflix.

A few weeks ago there was a petition on change.org to change the settings of the upcoming Far Cry 5, which is set to take place in rural Montana, with the antagonists apparently being some sort of religious cult. The Petition is written with such ham-handed, overt usage of the language of social justice activism inverted into a strawman of gamers the level of which hasn't been seen since Gamergate that anyone that took it seriously and reported on it as such should turn in any journalistic credentials they think they still have the right to hold. In the words of Vreenak from the best episode of Deep Space 9, "It's a FAAAAAAAKE."

Mario got called racist and culturally approprating because of a sombrero outfit in the new game. Mexican gamers promptly fired back en masse with responses ranging from "we're cool with this" to "this is pretty neat" to "you assholes are why we lost Speedy Gonzales." Stop looking for reasons to be outraged. It's getting old. To everyone.

Some genius decided she'd take her activism to retail by moving tank tops for boys into the girls section because they had the NASA logo on them. At this point I'm sure that the perpetrator has never been in a Target before now, as retail staff are going to have to move those back, and I've never seen a man working in the clothing section of a Target. So congratulations for inconveniencing low-paid women! Also, Target fired back with a link to their selection of girls clothing with NASA logos on them. I haven't seen a burn that bad since Wendy's still had good social media.

Apparently, everything else can now take a back seat. Clean energy, crime, homelessness, wars; they're all unimportant. Our top priority now is legislating social media.

Oh, and I've been waiting to use this one. MUH FREEZE PEACH. So now free speech matters to you?

A congressman or senator or someone was shot, and another shot at, or something. All I know is that everyone further Left than me is scrambling right now, #NotAllLiberal'ing the shit out of it because the shooter was fervently Anti-Trump and Pro-Bernie.

Battle of Berkely. Evergreen College. Cheering on Antifa. Punch a Nazi. Kathy Griffin beheading the president in effigy and Madonna contemplating blowing up the White House. You've lost the moral high ground Lefties. Even Vice and the Anti-Defamation League know it.

You're no longer the "Politicks of Peace." You've got an extremist problem. There's blood in the water, and if you don't do something about, 2020 isn't going to matter, let alone 2018.

Erin's going to bullet point that paragraph, I just know it. 
I guess I showed you! - Erin

I'm going back to bed before this day gets any worse. Thank you, Erin, for the LEGO Batgirl. It made me smile for the only time this week that didn't involve alcohol and Doctor Who reruns.

You're welcome. Salem. [hugs]

Monday Gunday: a Transcript of Last Week's Gunblog Varietycast ITAR Rant

I thought folks might find it helpful to be able to refer to a transcript of what I said in GBVC Episode #103 regarding the new ITAR "regulatory guidelines" instead of having to listen to the podcast each time.

The Main Topic:
The State Department, ITAR, and Gunsmiths

This actually has me so upset that I’m in full-on nerd rage about it. I’m going to try to keep my thoughts coherent and logical, but please understand that just talking about this gets me very worked up. Sean, get your finger on the censor button because I might just start swearing.

So before I go off on a rant, let me explain what ITAR is and does before I explain how this latest regulatory clarification is both a perversion of the original intent of ITAR and a gross violation of rights.

ITAR is an acronym for International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and it was created in 1976 to prevent American companies from exporting arms to countries or entities that were hostile to the United States. Since then, its role has expanded to include certain technologies -- for example, some kinds of night vision -- that give our country or our military an edge, and so we heavily restrict the export of those technologies so that the bad guys don’t get it. It’s important to note that technologies can mean concepts as well as material, such as new manufacturing techniques and the like.

Now I’m practically a 1st Amendment absolutist over here -- I believe VERY strongly in Freedom of Speech -- but I do understand the reasoning behind ITAR. Put simply, we don’t want al-Qaeda or Daesh to have access to the same arms and tech that our warfighters have. So in that regard, I grudgingly accept the necessity of ITAR being able to tell companies to whom they may sell their property.

But this most recent regulatory clarification -- hoo boy. I’ve attached a couple of PDFs for people who want to read for themselves; I’ll paraphrase for everyone else.

A big THANK YOU goes out to Firearms Law Attorney Benjamin M. Blatt, Esquire, for helping me decipher the legalese and putting it into simple English. If you need a lawyer in Indiana, he’s your man.


So the short version here is that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has decided -- because, you see, much like the ATF, this UNELECTED BUREAUCRACY gets to define the regulations it then enforces -- that, and I quote, “Many -- but not all -- traditional gunsmithing activities do not constitute manufacturing for ITAR purposes and, therefore, do not require registration with the DDTC.” Or, put another way, they have unilaterally and without legislative oversight decided that a lot of gunsmithing tasks DO require ITAR registration -- a process which, by the way, takes around two months and around $2,250 a year. So by making these requirements, they’re going to put many, many gunsmiths out of business. Why? Because fuck you, peon, that’s why.

So let’s look at these terrible technologies that ITAR is going to regulate:

a) Use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms;
b) Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity;
c) The production of firearm parts (including, but not limited to, barrels, stocks, cylinders, breech mechanisms, triggers, silencers, or suppressors);
d) The systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of ammunition;
e) The machining or cutting of firearms, e.g., threading of muzzles or muzzle brake installation requiring machining, that results in an enhanced capability;
f) Rechambering firearms through machining, cutting, or drilling;
g) Chambering, cutting, or threading barrel blanks; and
h) Blueprinting firearms by machining the barrel.

Yes, you heard right: the DDTC is protecting us from the terrible scourge of 19th-century technology known as drilling, tapping, and threading. Who knew that a simple drill press and lathe could produce such awful, high-tech, restricted capabilities such as -- and I shudder to say this aloud -- putting a scope on a rifle?

I don’t see how anyone can interpret this as anything less than an overt “fuck you” to the gun industry and to firearms owners who want to modify their rifles. Want to put a suppressor on your rifle? Hahahah, screw you, your gunsmith can’t thread the barrel unless he’s spent thousands to become ITAR compliant.

Now some of you may be wondering how, precisely, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has authority over gunsmiths in this regard. After all, wasn’t ITAR designed to prevent the export of guns and high-tech concepts? How could this possibly affect American citizens doing work for other American citizens domestically?

Again, put simply, ITAR has been given jurisdiction over things called “Defense articles”. How does one define a defense article? That would be in the second PDF I have attached in the notes, but the easy answer is “practically all guns are defense articles.”

The very first category says “Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive”, which is… practically every gun we can own legally. But wait, it gets better! Further categories specify automatic weapons up to 50 cal, shotguns with a barrel less than 18”, sound and flash suppressors, riflescopes manufactured to military specifications (and most scopes these days are), and barrels, cylinders, frames and breech systems.

A regular pump-action shotgun might get a pass, except that there’s a category which states “Firearms or other weapons having a special military application regardless of caliber.” I’m pretty sure that the Army issues Mossberg 590s to its Military Police.

So, basically… all guns. And, of course, all the components and ammunition for the above.

Now, here’s what this means for you, based on my knowledge and understanding of what Mr. Blatt told me:

• If you’re a gunsmith, you’re screwed unless you pay the ITAR registration. And even if you do, you have to wait until your forms are processed, which could take longer than 2 months if a bunch of people -- like, say, all the gunsmiths in the United States -- suddenly applied. 
• If you want to have your gun modified by a gunsmith to take a suppressor, scope, have it re-chambered -- you’re going to have to wait until your gunsmith pays his tribute and is licensed. Otherwise, anything you have done to it will be illegal. I don’t know if YOU will get in trouble for that, but the gunsmith sure will. 
• Fortunately, this is all for commercial enterprises. If you do this in your own garage with your own tools, you ought to be okay -- for now, at any rate. Likewise if you allow your buddy to use your tools. I’m not sure how the law would regard a buddy paying you in beer and/or pizza to mod your gun for him, but I wouldn’t risk it. 
• Regular gunsmith repairs to a broken gun are fine, so long as they don’t involve the BLEEDING EDGE HIGH TECH PROCESSES known as cutting, threading, drilling and tapping… 
• ...except if such things don’t change the capability of the gun. For example. If you already have a drilled and tapped scope mount and you want iron sights installed, that ought to be okay. Then, drilling and tapping is perfectly legal. Clear as mud, right? 
• Cosmetic additions and engravings are okay, as are adding accessories that don’t require those dark 19th century machining arts. So you could have a gunsmith install a suppressor for you, so long as the barrel was already threaded, but you couldn’t have him thread it for you unless he was ITAR compliant. 
• According to Attorney Blatt, “There's an exception on the CFR munitions list for shotguns under .50 without military application. So gunsmiths SHOULD be able to go hog wild on .410s and 20 gauges without registering for ITAR.” I’m not sure if that’s a silver lining or just an oversight on DDTC’s part. 
• Finally, and surprisingly, manual reloaders are okay. Actually, it says “Manual loading or reloading of ammunition of 50 caliber or smaller”, so it could be argued that this doesn’t apply to 12 gauge shotgun ammo. This seems aimed at systemic production of ammunition -- I’m not sure if the higher end reloaders, such as from Dillon, count as “automated loading or reloading”. I think this is more likely a measure meant to screw with ammunition manufacturers like Remington, Winchester and the like. The big companies will just pay the fine, but the smaller companies may go out of business because of this. 

So, welcome to the final days of the Obama Administration, where our petty and passive-aggressive Coward-in-Chief is going to screw with gun owners and the gun industry as much as possible, because he lacked the wherewithal to actually pass the gun control legislation he wanted.

There’s probably more of this crap ahead, too. I’ve attached another PDF that talks about the Firearm & Ammunition Excise Tax, or FAET. And of course there are all the nasty rumors, about how the EPA wants to define ammunition as hazardous or toxic, and how OSHA wants to implement ammunition storage laws. They’re going to find all sorts of creative backdoor -- and yes, double entendre FULLY intended -- backdoor means to screw with us.

So, how do we fight this current regulatory clarification? Reading through the clarification, you see many references to “the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning for “gunsmithing,” That means the DDTC is not using a legal definition for what gunsmithing is, and as we know by now, there are lots of legal terms of art in use -- such as how the ATF doesn’t define a black powder gun as a firearm.

So it ought to be relatively easy to legally define Gunsmithing, and what gunsmithing entails, as exempt and outside the common meaning of manufacturing. That would short-circuit a LOT of this bullshit.

How would we do that? If just 1,000 gunsmiths contributed $50, that would form an excellent war chest to fight this legislatively. Unfortunately, no one has yes set up a legal defense fund for this, so I cannot tell you where to send your money.

But if, for example, there was a gunsmith organization willing to raise the money, Prince Law definitely has the experience in federal admin law disputes to deal with this. I’m just sayin’.

Regardless, if you know someone in the legal world who has the time and inclination to create something like this, then you bug the shit out of them to do this. Because we have to fight this garbage, and we have to fight it NOW.

Show Notes

• ITAR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
• Benjamin M. Blatt, Attourney at Law - https://www.facebook.com/hoosierattorney
• Applicability of the ITAR Registration Requirement to Firearms Manufacturers (Publish).pdf - https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/13691881_1368514966498222_1579812427_n.pdf/Applicability-of-the-ITAR-Registration-Requirement-to-Firearms-Manufacturers-Publish.pdf?oh=c3b57f2a9d6263a31554041299a76849&oe=57A6514F&dl=1
• eCFR ITAR Munitions list.pdf - https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/13711192_10104206500875595_894041325_n.pdf/eCFR-ITAR-Munitions-list.pdf?oh=4139c43a3d26cc44bbaf3a0202b92a36&oe=57A657E2&dl=1
• Firearm & Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) - https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/13586789_10104224358334105_1778550122_n.pdf/If-You-Thought-ITAR-Was-BadFirearm-and...hing-Taxes-_-Prince-Law-Offices-P.pdf?oh=186f32d4723658b821dc3402658c0755&oe=57A6141F&dl=1
• Prince Law - http://www.princelaw.com/

Oh My GOD Stop "Helping"

I know what I said last night about being exhausted by the trans bathroom debate, but this is a case of Please stop "helping". You are actively encouraging behavior that will get your ass arrested or shot.

In this picture, an overzealous father has decided that someone approaching the women's restroom isn't sufficiently female and has pulled a gun to prevent entry. Not "Don't molest my daughter"; not even "You are making my daughter feel uncomfortable." Nope, this is full-on "I don't like the way you look and because you might do something wrong I'm going to hold you at gunpoint."

Folks, here in Florida this is known as aggravated assault. It is a felony. Do you really want to spend five years in jail and lose your right to own firearms just because you've decided that someone coming up to the restroom isn't sufficiently ladylike?

Of course, getting arrested for pointing a loaded gun at someone who isn't an immediate, obvious threat to yourself or another isn't actually the worst-case scenario. Want to know the worst case?

Yep. Pulling a gun on someone who just wants to use the toilet is a great way to get your ass shot. And you know what? It would be a justified shooting, because aggravated assault is a forcible felony.

Please, gun owners, stop posting shit like this. It isn't helping anyone, it's making our side look like kneejerk idiots, and it's encouraging people to take a course of action that may very well get someone arrested, hurt, or killed. It's very much our version of the "Joe Biden Defense", which is also terrible advice and has resulted in someone's conviction and imprisonment.

Just... stop doing this. You aren't helping. Please, please, PLEASE stop. 

Things Which Irritate Me Beyond Rational Levels

There are some things which irritate me disproportionately to the actual effect they have on my life.

Those things are, but are not limited to, the following:

1. People who do not use the proper plural suffix of words and instead just add an "s" to everything. No! The plural of index is indices,  the plural of nova is novae, the plural of auditorium is auditoria.  Look, I realize that it's slightly more difficult to remember to say appendices rather than appendixes, but choosing not to use the cool unusual suffix because "it's faster and easier to use the S" is like choosing to eat at McDonald's every day because it's more efficient. 
2. The use of "Men's room" vs. "Ladies' room".  Please note that it's not the actual words, it's the pairing. If you say Ladies' room, then please also say Gentlemen's room (or 'the Gents'); if you say Men's room, then please also say Women's room. It just bugs me that the default seems to be that when females go to relieve themselves it's always dainty and ladylike, but when males go they're never given the benefit of equal refinement. If she's a lady, then he's a gentleman. It's baked right into the greeting, folks. 
3. Calling a magazine a clip. I just... ugh. Look, here's a simple rhyme to help you remember: If it's gotta spring, it's a magazine. It really is that simple. If you're confused, the Internet has pictures to help you out. 
4. The way that "dank" now means something other than "damp and cold." Yes, I realize this makes me old. Now get off my lawn and fetch me my Geritol!

I clearly have very strong feelings about the English language. 

In Which I Have Strong Feelings About the MLP Season Ender

Earlier this year, Salem took a page from my playbook and talked about the Season 5 opener of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. This two-part episode was a remarkable thing, as it effectively took social justice warriors seeking enforced equality of outcome and cast them into a talking cartoon pony version of the East German Stasi.

I mean, just watch this video and shudder at such lyrics as You can't have a nightmare/ If you never dream.



You know... for kids!

As it turns out, the Glorious Leader of Our Town and villain of the episode -- one Starlight Glimmer* -- has been showing up in the backgrounds of various episodes this season, and so it comes as no surprise that she should re-appear as the Big Bad for the season ender as well. So far, all is good.

(I will spare you the synopsis and assume that if you're reading this then you saw the episode. However, if you haven't but want to know what I'm talking about, go here and start reading.)

What was not so good is how the ending just sort of... happened. As The_Jack wrote on my Facebook,

I liked the time travel and how it showed all the alt-ponies and the ways the present could have gone wrong. But man... that reform was too neat and tacked on.

Now lest you think I am expecting too much from a cartoon aimed at preteen girls and meant to drive toy sales, I first direct you to watch the aforementioned season opener again and marvel at how the story, while accessible by children, carries a message that is meaningful and relevant to adults.

Then I ask you to look at this summation of alternate dystopian timelines as a result of Bitchicorn Starlight Glimmer mucking around with causality:

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1047457-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic

What you are seeing here are dystopias. Kid-friendly dystopias, to be sure, but the fact remains that each and every one of them are great examples of places you wouldn't want to live. These are mature concepts made accessible by cartoon sensibilities. Fairly heady stuff, and one of the reasons I'm a big fan of the show.

The ending, however, was basically... this:

http://geek.cheezburger.com/bronies/share/8589520384

Yeah... that doesn't track with me, especially since Starlight Glimmer's end goal was this:

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1047796-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic

So with that in mind, here is my big rant on why I didn't like the too-tidy ending, how it was broken, and how it should have gone.

First of all, Starlight Glimmer has some sort of pathology -- sociopath, psychopath, I don't know for certain, but anyone who 1) is incapable of making friends without emotionally manipulating them and 2) basically says "I don't care about the future, I just want to hurt you" is some version of insane, callous, or other severe dysfunction.

Second, I have issues with the whole "Every time Twilight goes back in time, so does Starlight in order to thwart her" because it raises the logical question of "Where does Starlight go when Twilight is sent to the new timeline?" There are various possibly handwave-y answers to this, but they seem to reduce to either "Starlight Glimmer is willing to permanently strand herself in the past in order to keep enacting her revenge, which means she's psychotically crazy" or "Starlight Glimmer also returns to the new timeline but is unable or unwilling to see the consequences of her actions, which means she's delusionally crazy."

Third, Twilight is the Princess of Friendship. In this universe, it has been proven empirically that Friendship is literally Magic, which means that she's Princess of Magic as well. I have a really hard time accepting that mere unicorn Starlight Glimmer (with some undefined cutie mark) could out-magic the Alicorn Princess of Magic (who also has a magic cutie mark). That's akin to saying "This unicorn over here with a sun-shaped cutie mark is better at raising the sun than Celestia, the Alicorn Princess of the Sun." I'm sorry, but NO.

Fourth, here is how it should have ended: Twilight, realizing that Starlight Glimmer is pathological, decides that she needs to go back in time and prevent the childhood trauma from happening (basically, a pony version of Let's Kill Baby Hitler). So Twilight uses her special talent in magic -- remember, she was promoted to princess when she fixed a spell that Starswirl the Gandalf Bearded couldn't do -- to modify this other Starswirl spell and goes back to Starlight Glimmer's past. There, Twilight shows her how to make new friends, and halts the creation of the nascent sociopath.** Starlight Glimmer makes new friends and understands that friendship is the most powerful magic of all. Bam, problem solved in a proper pony manner and it makes sense.

Finally, let's say the writers really wanted that ending. OK, that still isn't a problem: just replace Starlight Glimmer with The Great And Powerful Trixie. This actually makes narrative sense, you see, as Trixie has a longstanding magical feud with Twilight (see Boast Busters  and Magic Duel), and she's demonstrated both an ability and willingness to find things which give her a magical edge (like the Alicorn Amulet).

If they'd used her instead of Starlight Glimmer, it would have changed the thrust of the episode from a stalkerish "I hate you and will do everything I can to ruin you" to "I'm going to prove once and for all that Trixie is the greatest!"

Which would mean the end conditions would change: all Twilight would have to do is admit that yes, Trixie beat her this time and Trixie is indeed both Great and Powerful, but The Great And Powerful Trixie's ego is turning the future of Equestria into a horrifying uninhabitable wasteland, so would she please stop screwing around with time? And Trixie, because she isn't an utter sociopath, accepts.

Either of these endings would have been preferable to the one we saw on screen. This matters to me because I have this terrible sneaking fear, given the final scenes of this season and the fact that the girls have been a unicorn short ever since Twilight was alicorned, that Starlight Glimmer will join the cast next season.

If it were Trixie, I'd be okay with it. The fans like her -- I like her -- and while she has an ego the size of an Ursa Major, she's not a bad pony and can easily be redeemed by the Avatars of Harmony. 

Starlight Glimmer, though -- is she actually redeemed? Or has she just been temporarily mollified by having been given what she wants, which is unconditional love? I think it's the latter, because I haven't seen any evidence that  she truly learned her lesson and has turned her back on her mandate of Enforced Equality For All. 

She's a ticking time bomb. And if she sticks around, Twilight and the others better keep not turn their backs on her.


* As Dustbury said back in the spring, "If you're a unicorn with a name based on a time of day, you're probably overpowered."

** It was asked "How come Starlight Glimmer's parents -- I assume she didn't arrive via parthenogenesis -- never saw this little ball of resentment growing? Unless they just didn't give a flip." Based on her actions and sense of entitlement, I'm guessing that their special snowflake could do no wrong in their eyes, and was likely an only child.

Regressive Progressivism: Arkham Knight

I am vengeance. I am The Night. I am Spoilers.

I love the Batman: Arkham series. I have since I first played Arkham Asylum, the beginning of the series. I was wary of them at first, as licensed games have a long and storied history of being completely shit. Super-hero based titles in particular. One of my favourite super-hero films is Iron Man, and I was psyched when I found a clearance copy of Iron Man: The Game. Sadly, it was one of the worst games I've ever played.

Seriously how do you mess this up?

Not since Goldeneye 007 on the N64 had there been a good licensed game, and Asylum sparked the return of good licensed games, followed up with High Moon's Transformers: Cybertron titles and Deadpool. Even now, the genre hasn't recovered from the damage done, but at least there are good licensed games out there, and we owe it mainly to Arkham Asylum.

Arkham City, the sequel, may have been lacking the tightly focused narrative of the original, but it made up for it in scale of playable area and the mountains of sidequests, expanded roster of villains, and innovations in gameplay. The prequel game Arkham Origins (while not made by Rocksteady) is easily the worst of the series, but still an outstanding game. It innovated very little (expanding mainly on the Detective Mode in such a way that Rocksteady recognized and used in Arkham Knight), but it told a great story with mainly b-team villains. A mobile game, Arkham Origins: Blackgate wasn't necessarily a great game, but it wasn't terrible either, and was ported to PC and consoles later. 

It's previously been fashionable to bash the Arkham games for their treatment of women, primarily Catwoman. Despite being a playable character (both free-roam and story) and given her own motivations, agency, and the chance to rescue Batman, the game was still branded sexist because common street thugs called her 'bitch.' I'm honestly not sure how people who are locked up in a city-sized prison can be expected to treat one of the two women publicly making their residence known in said city-prison respectfully, but apparently the words of minor villains are the lesson the developers wanted us to take away from the game. Not that Catwoman is a badass capable going toe-to-toe with dozens of hardened criminals and Two-Face himself, but that she's a bitch. You've got me there.

For the most recent outrage, Arkham Knight is coming under fire for its treatment of Poison Ivy, mainly that she's a scantily clad damsel in distress. I'll grant you exactly one thing, she is scantily clad. But Ivy's so far mutated from baseline-human that her brain doesn't process human modesty the way the rest of us do. Is that an excuse? Maybe, but it's one that works in the context of the story. But that's as much leeway as I'll give those claims. 

My only assumption can be that the people writing these articles haven't played the game, but only seen a few short, selected clips. The claim is that she's kidnapped with a gun held to her head by a goon that she should be able to take out herself, Batman rescues her only to take her again and throw her in a cell, and use her when she's useful again, as a 'power-up.'

Let me tell you what really happens: Ivy is involved, as a party with agency, in a meeting of villains called to pool their resources to take out the Bat. Exercising that agency, she refuses, and is somehow rendered unconscious. It's not explained how, but she wakes up in a chamber with a gun to her head, at which point Batman enters the picture, beats up a dozen guys outside of said cell. Scarecrow gasses her and goon, but it only affects goon due to her natural immunity to toxins. She proceeds to smash his head into the glass of the chamber, and then walk out under her own power. She explains the situation to Batman before casually tossing him off of a building with her vines. Naturally, being Batman, he's waiting for her when she exits the elevator. Deciding the fight isn't worth the trouble, she allows herself to be arrested and taken to the GCPD. Batman later realizes he needs a way to purge Scarecrow's toxin and releases her from custody. She then takes control of a giant root system underneath Gotham and wreaks havoc on the Arkham Knight's tank division while Batman provides a modicum of covering fire. The game's mission objectives even reflect this by instructing you to "work with" Ivy, not "protect" Ivy. Finally, she sacrifices herself to purge Scarecrow's toxin from Gotham in a heroic redemption.

Reducing Ivy's role in the story of Arkham Knight to 'damsel in distress' is downright insulting. Insulting to the character, to her creators, the developers of the game, and her fans. She plays a major part, and Gotham would have been lost halfway through the game if it weren't for her.

Catwoman's part is being criticized as well, but that one's only partially valid. It's true, Riddler has her. She's got a bomb collar on, and Batman must complete challenges for keys to the bomb collar.. only some of those challenges involve taking direct control of Catwoman. And she's in this situation in the first place because of a character trait that's been present in Catwoman from day one: She's greedy. Riddler paid her to do a job, and double-crossed her by fitting the collar on her in the process. She even straight-up tells Batman that she doesn't want her situation to act as a motivation for him.

I'm only going to say this about Harley Quinn: She's wearing more clothes in every game and still you consider her sexualized.

Don't you go there, Kotaku.. don't you... you went there.

As for my favourite character in all of Batdom, Barbara Gordon... Kotaku, you go back and finish the goddamned game. And when you get to the part where Barbara Gordon looks Scarecrow in the eye and says “You don't scare me”, you come back and you apologize. And you replay those parts where you track her movement, where you hear about the soldiers that were taken out by a 'cripple in a wheelchair with ninja sticks.' Where you find the scene of the humvee she managed to crash by macing the driver, and how she crawled away until someone put a warning shot in the pavement a foot from her head, only to leave Batman a way of tracking her location without a trained and highly skilled villain noticing. And don't you ever call Barbara Gordon a 'professional victim' again. A professional victim is someone that milks a tragedy (real or imagined) for sympathy. Barbara Gordon took that tragedy and turned it into a legacy, becoming one of the most important characters not only in the Bat-titles, but in all of DC. 

The Ivy criticism made me sigh. The insult to Barbara Gordon made me genuinely angry.