(written by Terry MacNeil, on February 8-10, 2026)

When I was a university student – Noam Chomsky came to my university, to read a speech he wrote about the USA’s Occupation of Iraq. And I was lucky enough to attend the speech in person! However, I considered the speech disappointing – he didn’t say much that I didn’t already know about the occupation. When the speech ended, I was surprised Chomsky didn’t exit the building through a backdoor – he was led right through the audience by one of my university’s professors. And as Chomsky and his escort made their way out, they walked right past me – and Chomsky made eye contact with me, and he had an uncomfortable smile on his face (he looked like he was thinking “Get me the fuck out of here”). And then Chomsky was supposed to do a meet and greet with the senior political science students (as I was at the time). And they were serving free wine there – so me and a friend of mine took the opportunity to get drunk. Then Chomsky arrived for the meet and greet – and almost as soon as he arrived, he headed straight toward an exit. But he was cut off by the President of the Political Science Society – and the President shook Chomsky’s hand. Then Chomsky quickly went through the exit, and that was the last any of us saw of him. My friend and I kept drinking. The next day, I woke up with a hangover – and vomited. And that – is the story of the time I saw Noam Chomsky.

As for the Epstein Files – Chomsky is in there. So at best, Chomsky’s a horrible judge of character (when it comes to his friends/acquaintances). And at worst, Chomsky’s a sex criminal. From what I’ve heard of Jeffrey Epstein – that guy was intent on tainting as many powerful and/or influential people as possible. So I’m convinced Epstein was running an elaborate sexual blackmail operation – and hoped to be able to blackmail people like Chomsky. And I’ve seen countless recent comments about Chomsky in social media, made by naive people who say it’s NOT possible for an adult man to be naive, and that ANY adult man CANNOT be manipulated by a slimy/sociopathic character like Epstein (unless said adult man is cognitively disabled). Well, it is POSSIBLE to be an intellectual genius (as Chomsky is) AND be too easily trusting, when it comes to your dealings/interactions with other people (which Chomsky might be).

I’m an adult man, and SOME people I know would say I’m too naive and easily trusting (though I’m certainly not an intellectual genius). That said, I’ve had my trust betrayed by various people (at various times) in the past. But one thing about being an anarchist (as Chomsky and I are) is that you’re SUPPOSED to look for the good in people – to give people a chance. And if they betray you – they (in my book) have had their chance. BUT I also consider forgiveness important. So there’s lots of people I’ve known over the years, that I forgave in the past – when I shouldn’t have. And that’s the price you will pay, if you’re an honest believer in second chances. That said, I don’t believe in unlimited chances. And neither should anyone. But I digress.

In closing, it wouldn’t surprise me if Chomsky is a rotten sex criminal. And he was way too skeptical of people who came forward with allegations of sexual abuse, than he should’ve been. I regard many “older” anarchists (like Chomsky) as being insufficiently “woke” – so keep in mind, he was a flawed anarchist (as many of us are, in one way or another). But does the controversies around Chomsky make his books completely valueless? NO! If you want to read far-left/anarchist books – I still say some of Chomsky’s books are required reading. But it would be a HUGE MISTAKE to make his books the only far-left/anarchist books you read. These days, there’s LOTS of “woke” anarchist books out there – make sure you read lots of them! Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on January 16-18, 21-22, 2026)

Frequently, slasher movies will feature (underage) teenage characters in high school – but those characters are usually portrayed by actresses in their twenties. So when I usually watch those slasher movies – I imagine I’m seeing characters onscreen that are NOT underage (and are in their twenties). I see no harm in lusting for an actress you’ve CONFIRMED is an adult.

And a few months ago, one of my best friends got me to watch Season One of The Legendary Hero Is Dead! That was an anime where the protagonist is a male pervert – who is constantly lusting for the women around him. My friend assumed I could relate to the protagonist – and he was correct. That was an anime with HOT anime women, that I lusted for.

I’m not an anime fanatic (as many people are). But I would say I’ve seen enough anime to comment on certain things I’ve seen, over the years. The most disconcerting thing I’ve noticed – is that anime child characters often have the exact same facial features as anime adult characters. It is common to see anime child characters with the same huge/bright eyes as anime adult characters – which, if you’re not paying attention, can make you think you’re viewing adults, when you’re viewing children (or vice versa). SOMETIMES, anime adult characters will have squinty eyes – which more clearly sets them apart from the underage characters in the anime. But (normally) in terms of facial features – it is oftentimes not possible to distinguish between anime adult characters and anime child characters. That said, anime child characters are usually physically shorter than anime adult characters – and I don’t remember ever seeing anime child characters with protruding bosoms. Though I do remember being shocked while watching Ghost Stories, because that was a show about children – and occasionally the male child characters would be sexually aroused by glimpses of the panties of the female child characters. When I mentioned that to my friend, he basically said “Yeah, you unfortunately see a lot of that underage sexual shit in Japanese anime.” To be clear, my friend is not a pervert (but I am). So I wasn’t turned on by Ghost Stories. But I was turned on by The Legendary Hero Is Dead!

For Christmas 2025, my friend got me a DVD set of the anime High School DxD. There was a quote on the DVD case from a reviewer named Bamboo Dong(!) saying “An action explosion of hot, deadly ladies, PUNCTUATED WITH BOOBS.” The DVD case also revealed the show has a male pervert as the protagonist. So I told my friend “WE MUST STREAM THIS SHOW TOGETHER”. But he said “NO”. I asked why. He said he was convinced that if we streamed the show together, I’d be masturbating non-stop (at my computer). And he does not like the thought of that – but he DOES want me to watch High School DxD, on my own (so far, I haven’t gotten around to that – yet). Well, for decades I’ve (unintentionally) given my friend the impression that I am an ultra-pervert. And I can say he’s a dude, that despite being an anime buff – derives no sexual pleasure (that I know of) from anime women. When it comes to anime, he seems to only care about ACTION and/or HUMOUR. Nothing else.

Quick side note – I have, on occasion, looked up “hentai” porn online. “Hentai” would basically translate as “anime porn”. And it seems to me, that hentai animators haven’t figured out how to make “anime porn” that a NON-WEIRDO can jack off to. I recall one hentai video from back in the day, showing what was (kinda like) an x-ray visual of a penis going in and out of a vagina. And I thought to myself “This is about as arousing as a video of an autopsy.”

The MAIN reasons I watch anime? For the HUMOUR (and/or the T&A)! Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on December 18, 2025 and January 2, 2026)

For “old/geriatric” Millennials (and anyone older than Millennials) in Nova Scotia, you all know what Live at 5 is – the ATV News show that would air before the ATV Evening News. The ATV Evening News was considered “the REAL news going on in Nova Scotia”, though I’ve often said they should’ve been ashamed of the amount of shitty CNN footage they used. As for Live at 5, that was considered “soft news” (though when I was young, I’d watch the show to ogle Nancy Regan). To be perfectly frank, it’s probably been more than 25 years since I watched an entire episode of Live at 5. If someone I know appears on the show – I’ll watch the segment (but definitely NOT the entire episode) online.

I don’t know Kate Beaton – though I certainly know of her. For her recent appearance on Live at 5, she was briefly interviewed about the Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands postage stamp she designed for Canada Post! And since this is Live at 5, they forced Beaton to be filmed at times – while acting as though she was unaware she was being filmed. Like I said, I don’t know Beaton – but my guess is, she thought “This is good publicity for the stamp and Canada Post – even though this staged shit is stupid.”

I recall my uncle – a Catholic priest, who died a few years ago. My theory, is that the stress from the heavy workload of being a priest running multiple churches (and doing near-constant funerals and hospital visits) was fatal. There was some controversy near the end of his life – because he flew the LGBTQIA+ Pride Flag at one (if memory serves me correctly) of his churches. I remember him as an overall very humane man (and socialist), who admired Che Guevara – and who was also FUCKING HILARIOUS. If you were someone he had no respect for – he probably said hilarious shit about you, behind closed doors. But, like I said – he’s dead. So as far as I’m concerned, there’s no harm in making that info public. When it comes to the dead – I like to think that THE REAL PERSON should be made MORE public, even if it makes some (living) people uncomfortable. And my uncle had THE LEAST RESPECT for the bible-thumpers. Shortly after the Pride Flag event occurred, the CTV News Atlantic wanted to do a story on my uncle. They filmed him giving a statement (speaking directly to the camera) on why he did what he did, which, in my opinion, was fine/appropriate – there was no silly “staged shit”.

I’m also 99% certain my uncle appeared on Live at 5 many years earlier – though I can’t remember the reason they did a story on him. That was an appearance I found… unintentionally hilarious. If memory serves me correctly, my uncle (later) told us Live at 5 told him (paraphrased) “We’ll film you delivering your statement directly to the camera. AND we are ALSO going to film you in your church – but you need to pretend we’re not there. And make sure you wear your priest robes, and pretend you’re doing ‘religious shit’ in your church (as we film you).” And I remember my uncle had a wide smirk on his face as they filmed those staged scenes. From what I knew of him – he was clearly thinking “This staged shit is fucking stupid. Oh well…”

Though I must add, some of my fondest memories that myself (and my brother) have of our uncle – was when he’d be slamming beers (with a high alcohol content). We never drank with our uncle – though I wish we had. That said, I suspect he wouldn’t have been comfortable, if he were drinking with me and my brother. But I must say, he was a character – the good kind. RIP. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on December 13-14, 2025)

These days, Facebook always sends me Reels to click on – these being short video clips. And these are always Reels that zoom in on women’s asses. But of course, the Facebook algorithm is merely operating the way it should – because Facebook sends me the kind of Reels that I am likely to click on. Although these days, I am trying to get the Facebook algorithm to send me more Reels of women with thick thighs – regardless of ass size. One such female that often posts Facebook Reels I click on – is Jules Ari (I think). That might not be her real name – so for the remainder of this note, I shall only refer to her as “the woman”. In the video, the woman claims to be 26 years old – and since I’m in my forties, I imagine I’ll be taking SOME criticism from SOME OF YOU HUMANS for ogling a woman in her twenties. Oh well. Fuck you all.

Anyway, in the video – the woman is frustrated to be dealing with unconfident men whom she labels “boys” (I know that’s an insult, but I can think of a million way crueller insults than that for such men). “WHERE ARE THE MEN AT?” she asks, before stating she “shouldn’t be the one to have to take control in the situation when it comes to kissing”. She then cites one man and their first date together, and says it had been going well – until they were about to part ways. She says the man was unassertive – and she was unimpressed. The woman then (in the video) makes it clear she expects tongue for a good night kiss (on a first date). And I say that’s great! Though I would ask the woman – did the man specifically know that was what you wanted? And, if he knew you wanted tongue – was he too sexually inexperienced to kiss you the way you wanted? If so, why not teach him? Also, is it possible he was simply trying to be “considerate”?

I recall a conversation I had not so long ago, with a male homosexual friend of mine. I was explaining to him that as an anarchist, that before I do anything sexually – I NEED to have 100% confirmation that it’s OK with the woman. So I guess having sex with me would be pretty fucking mechanical: “Can I kiss your lips?”, “Can I put my tongue in your mouth?”, “Can I put my hand on your thigh?”, “Can I put my hand on your tit?”, “Can I put my dick in your mouth?”, etc. My friend pointed out most people simply “read the situation”, and instinctively “know” what their sexual partner wants. My reply, is that I am completely fucking clueless when it comes to “reading the situation”. And so are an increasing number of men this day and age. Feminism has (thankfully) made a lot of headway – when it comes to getting men to be more “sensitive/considerate” (in multiple ways) of women (especially since the “Me Too” movement).

Why are so many men so clueless at “reading the situation”? I blame teenagers choosing isolation, smartphones, and video games instead of socializing face-to-face with their peers (I also blame “helicopter parents” that are WAY too protective of their teens). Teens NEED to be going to parties on weekends, getting drunk, hitting on the girls/boys that they’re attracted to, etc. When I was a teenager – I was so depressed and so psychotic, I was terrified of socializing. So long before I ever became an anarchist – I was completely socially inept. And yes, I regularly whack off to porn – but I would never forgive myself if I tried to convince a woman to let me do the things to her that I see depicted in virtually every pornographic video I have ever seen. My point is – we men (not all of us, but many of us), are TRYING to be “considerate” feminists.

The info the woman (in the Facebook Reel) leaves unsaid – is if she had ever been sexually assaulted. Yes, we “considerate” men are boring/passionless. But I can say with a VERY HIGH degree of certainty, that any “considerate” man is preferable to an “inconsiderate” man. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 19-21, 2025)

I don’t read about Canada as often as I should – for the past decade or so, I’ve mainly been reading about anarchism, Marxism, and (global) capitalism. But I recently heard Emily Grafton being interviewed on the CBC Radio (to promote her new book, co-edited with David BA MacDonald, titled Settler Colonialism in Canada: Lands & Peoples). As a white settler, I figured it would be just the book I need – so that I’d become more informed and sensitive to indigenous issues in Canada. In the end, I think the book did for me what I hoped it would.

Over my many years, I’ve often heard terms used by the Canadian news media (almost always without explanation or clarification) when they would be doing “indigenous” news stories. Such terms included “nation-to-nation”, “land back”, “colonialism”, “genocide”, “treaty rights”, “unceded territory”, etc. So I shall list a few questions I would wonder, thanks to the vagueness of those Canadian news media reports. “Didn’t colonialism disappear (to be replaced by neo-colonialism) when all those Asian and African countries gained their ‘independence’ in the mid-twentieth century?” “Do the indigenous want every square inch of land (that is today considered ‘Canada’) back, and will all settlers become refugees?” “Were there really enough indigenous deaths to warrant charges of genocide against the Canadian state?” And so on. Well, those were thoughts I had – and I’m embarrassed I ever had them. Oh well. Live and learn.

A reply: I have never heard any indigenous person advocate taking back ALL the land in Canada. From what I can tell, they want a lot (but certainly not ALL) of Crown Land to be handed over to indigenous nations, for them to live on (and off) as they please. If the indigenous nations ever get their wish – I just hope they won’t embrace capitalism. “Don’t make the same mistake us white (male) settlers did!” I will plead.

A reply: Some genocides have way higher body counts than others. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide lists various categories of what qualifies as genocide. So many genocides are more “subdued” than what Nazi Germany did, or what Israel is doing. Forced sterilization programs? Residential School systems? Allowing large segments of the indigenous population to die of disease? Seizing indigenous children and putting them in white households? The UN considers all of these actions to be acts of genocide – because the Canadian state’s aim was (and still is) to drive every indigenous nation into non-existence.

Also, I’m reminded of a CBC Radio News report a year or so ago (I forget exactly when or where it took place, but I know it was somewhere in Nova Scotia). And it was about settler fishers becoming enraged that Mi’kmaw indigenous fishers were fishing (at a time, according to the Canadian state, that NO ONE was supposed to be fishing). Of course, the news report made no mention of the Mi’kmaw treaty right of hunting and fishing. But the CBC got a quote from one settler dude, who said (paraphrased): “We’re committed to equality for all fishers to fish, when it is permitted for EVERYONE to fish AT THE SAME TIME.” OK asshole, but by denying the Mi’kmaw their treaty rights – you are making a case for the Mi’kmaw to say “OK, you settlers have broken the treaty. So we’re just going to kick ALL settlers off ALL Mi’kmaw territory.” Granted, it’s HIGHLY unlikely that would ever actually happen – but I consider it proof that settlers need to be WAY more considerate when dealing with the indigenous. Nova Scotia HAS been recognized as MI’KMAW land, whether you settler fishers like it or not.

Should there be “Indigenous Privilege”? I say yes (UNTIL the anarchist revolution). Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 2, 2025)

The brilliant film Observe and Report (written and directed by Jody Hill) is among my favourite comedies – it is as consistently hilarious as it is appropriately mean-spirited. So I consider it a “vicious” comedy, because of the varied (often cartoonish) forms of cruelty that virtually every character in the film is forced to endure at some point(s).

The film is centred on a childish, rude, antisocial, nasty, and extremely dangerous/unstable bipolar security guard (aka “mall cop”). For simplicity’s sake, I shall refer to him as the “boss mall cop”. Well, only a TINY MINORITY of bipolar people are a menace to society – and the boss mall cop sure is. So for me, more movies (especially comedies) should have more protagonists as interesting/vicious as the boss mall cop. The boss mall cop has three main goals in his life:

1. Arrest a local flasher,
2. Become a “real cop”, and
3. Win the heart of the hot (AND uninterested AND clearly sociopathic) blonde female party animal he’s OBSESSED with.

Generally speaking, some of the most vicious movies I’ve ever seen – were movies that TRIED to make rape “funny” or “hilarious” in one way or another. And Observe and Report is one movie that is able to SUCCESSFULLY pull off that very difficult feat. In the film, the blonde female party animal grudgingly/reluctantly agrees to go to dinner with the boss mall cop – only because he’s so annoyingly persistent. At the restaurant, she gets incredibly drunk – after consuming A LOT of alcohol AND a lot of the boss mall cop’s prescription medication (specifically clonazepam, which is also the moment the boss mall cop hilariously decides he doesn’t need to take ANY medication EVER AGAIN). The boss mall cop then takes the barely conscious blonde female party animal back to her apartment – and they have sex. And many point out that this was a case of “date rape” – because she would’ve been too incapacitated to give informed consent. Even when she hilariously (and belatedly) consents to sex (while he is in the middle of fucking her), she STILL seems to be too incapacitated to fully consent. So I consider this a scene where we must condemn the actions of the boss mall cop – though he must also be condemned for an incredibly long list of hilariously violent acts throughout the film.

Observe And Report was made before the Me Too movement got going – back in the day when men (generally) were even more ignorant about sexual consent than they are today. The date rape scene in the film IS hilarious, though in the worst taste. But the entirety of this movie is unapologetically in bad taste – and that is why I love it so.

Should the mentally ill be offended by Observe and Report? Well, I’m not bipolar – but I’ll say this. This is a VERY silly film that is NOT meant to be taken seriously. You’d have to be pretty naive to think the boss mall cop is representative of common behaviour of people with bipolar disorder. Also, with a bit of tweaking to the character of the boss mall cop – he could’ve easily been a schizophrenic (a direction I wish Jody Hill had decided to go in). Oh well.

In closing, Observe and Report is a GREAT film – even if you’ve heard it isn’t. But I have better taste than the World’s “film critics”. So you should trust me, more than “them” – and as I type these words, Roger Ebert is spinning in his grave. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on October 19, 24, 2025)

Nowadays, I don’t expect everyone to have sensitivity for people who are suffering. But about twenty years ago, as a college student – I assumed everyone I knew had as much sensitivity as I did. And yes, the previous sentence makes me sound like an arrogant douchebag. BUT I ASSUME I’m an empathetic person. However, the people that know you are a better judge than you are of whether you’re empathetic or not. So twenty years ago, my former best friend was struggling with depression – because of various reasons, but most notably because his girlfriend had dumped him. My attitude at the time was “I MUST DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO HELP MY BEST FRIEND OVERCOME THIS DEPRESSION.” All I did – was listen as he talked about his sorrows. And as anyone who’s been depressed knows – having A FRIEND listen to your woes can bring SOME relief (though it’ll never be enough to make the depression go away entirely). That friend appreciated my help – and even said so. But when it was ME who (later) became bogged down in depression – that former friend simply viewed me as being “weak”, and that I was a whiner. And that was the way many of my friends and acquaintances viewed me at that time. I’m not the biggest fan of the 2020s – BUT I will say, at least people these days are WAY more sensitive/empathetic (with regard to mental illness) than they used to be.

In more recent times, I’ve been streaming Celtic Colours shows online (because I haven’t been to a live show since COVID). To be clear, Celtic Colours is a Cape Breton event that goes on during mid-October – every year. At various events across Cape Breton – there are “Celtic” (to varying degrees) musicians performing. And I enjoy a lot of that music.

Though I must say, as a regular viewer of the Celtic Colours livestream over the years, I have seen at least one mentally ill (more specifically depressed) person reaching out to strangers – for friendship (on the Celtic Colours chat). And I’m convinced he was hoping any new friends he made would listen to him talk about his experiences with depression. Well, like I said – we shouldn’t expect everyone to be able to “help” the mentally ill. But I’d see the same dude, year after year, trying to connect with random people – in the hope they would become his friend. And just about all of them would say to him (paraphrased) “You’re my friend, BUT I don’t want to give you my e-mail, and I don’t want to add you on Facebook. And I don’t want to hear from you again, friend – until the next Celtic Colours, next year. Until then, fuck off.” Though I must point out – there are a lot of people online, who PRETEND to be mentally ill. So I can see why most humans are nervous about dealing with strangers who publicly claim to be mentally ill.

My point – is that I become enraged when I see people say/claim they’re “friends” with someone online, then deliberately refuse to connect with them in any way (even if the other person is begging for it). It amounts to phoniness of the worst kind. Oh well. I guess I’m just an old school fool that puts way too much meaning in words like “friend”.

As for me, after I had that crippling major depression about twenty years ago – I was so enraged and humiliated that none of my friends or acquaintances wanted to help me – that I basically went through the major depression on my own (though my family did A LOT to help look after me). And when it ended about half a year later, I basically said to myself “ALRIGHT. All you friends/acquaintances (aka ‘fuckers’) did nothing to help me. So the next time I’m in a crisis – I’m not telling ANY of you. Because I have more faith in myself to get through a mental health crisis ON MY OWN than I do in any of you useless humans to help me.” Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on September 30 and October 1, 2025)

The first anarchist I am aware of ever meeting – was a political science professor, named J. Frank Harrison. He was a character – but I’ll cover that in another note (to be written in the future). “Political Philosophy” was his expertise – though he almost never said anything about anarchism. There was one time, he said police are unnecessary in society – and cited the fact that during a blackout in Halifax, there was no looting or rioting. When I heard that, I thought to myself “Harrison is INSANE,” and I assume almost all of my classmates agreed with me – but no one dared debate him. Near the end of the academic year, Harrison handed out an essay he had written many years earlier – which he said was his take on anarchism (in a nutshell). However, that essay was not part of the course – and since it was only to be read if you were “interested”, I promptly threw the essay in the trash. Why? In university, I had zero interest in anarchism. Also, I was burnt out from mental illness, schoolwork, drinking, and regularly cutting back on necessary sleep – so reading for pleasure was THE LAST thing I wanted to do. It was MANY years before I would read for pleasure again. And it took me LOTS of practice (usually reading books that I today consider “light reading”) before I could FINALLY read for pleasure again.

After seeing the documentary The Filth and the Fury, and being exposed to (more of) the Sex Pistols’ music – punk rock became my favourite kind of music! And shortly afterwards, on my quest to learn about punk rock (and hopefully become a punk), I bought the Craig O’Hara book The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise! From what I remember, that book had a list of shit saying what’s a punk, and what isn’t. So O’Hara says punks are SUPPOSED to be anarchists – and that “Nazi punks” are NOT punks. In retrospect, I consider O’Hara’s definition of “punk” WAY too narrow (the same way many anarchists have WAY too narrow a definition of “anarchism”). I mean, to be a “metalhead” – it seems (to me) all you need is for “heavy metal” to be your fave kind of music. But there’s debate about what it is to be a “punk”. SOME SAY to be a punk, you have to dress certain ways (which I did not want to do). OTHERS SAY to be a punk, you need to be outspoken and always (confrontationally) say WHATEVER is on your mind – which amounted, in my opinion, to being a rude douchebag (which I also did not want to do). For a while, punk rock was my fave kind of music – now it’s only my fave kind of “rock”.

Back when I was Harrison’s student, I became friends with “my anarchist former friend” – a dude with a poster in his dorm that hilariously said “KILL THE COPS” in huge all capitalized font. He was a few years younger than me (he having become an anarchist at what must’ve been a very early age). It would not be until about half a decade later that I myself took an interest in anarchism (and actually became one, after reading a Derrick Jensen article “my anarchist former friend” posted on Facebook). That would’ve been shortly after I had read The Philosophy of Punk, and shortly after reading a collection of anarchist writings “my anarchist former friend” gave me. “My anarchist former friend” had respect for me in our university days, but would later view me with contempt – for various reasons (such as having zero interest in reading, watching too many movies/TV shows, having no ambition, having no work ethic, being unassertive, having bad taste in music, etc). That said, I must give props to “my anarchist former friend” and another former friend of mine – both inspired me to re-discover the joy/value of reading.

Today, I have no anarchist friends – and haven’t for a long time, which is fine.

And to this day, I sure wish I never threw out Harrison’s essay on anarchism. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on September 18, 20-21, 2025)

As I’ve said before on my Bluesky account, virtually the only times I watch American (liberal) late-night talk shows – is to ogle certain female guests. So if I hear a particular female I fancy will be on a particular late-night talk show – I record the episode of said show on my PVR. Then the next day (or whenever) I fast forward the episode, to the part where the female walks onto the stage (that’s the best part). When they take their seat onstage – I OFTEN turn off the episode, and delete it from my PVR. Why? Well, it is EXTREMELY RARE that ANY GUEST on a late-night talk show will have anything to say, that I consider to be worth hearing.

I shall now make some comments about the (liberal) USA late-night talk shows (these being TV shows I’ve seen on occasion, though never watched in their entirety on a daily basis):

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: People started panicking when CBS announced they were cancelling Colbert’s show – especially after CBS’ dishonest (and cowardly) excuse for it. Considering the hatred I had for Colbert and his show – I was pleased to hear the show would be cancelled next year. Why? Because Colbert is PAINFULLY unfunny, and his political stances WAY too milquetoast. Colbert’s cancellation is worth the end of free speech in the USA.

The Late Late Show with James Corden: I actually considered Corden to be HILARIOUS – though I seem to be one of the few that did. However, the guy also sounded like a major douchebag and total arsehole when he was off camera (such as in restaurants). It’s been a few years since Corden’s show ended – and I genuinely miss it.

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon: If you think Colbert is the least funny late-night talk show host, then you desperately need to see Fallon in action – he’s WAY WORSE. To Fallon’s credit, back in the day his show (supposedly) had no “political” content – it was just supposed to be a “fun” show where celebrities play childish games with Fallon – and in his interviews, he’d act like their best buddy. That is why I so savoured a Martin Short and Steve Martin interview (in February 2019) where Short and Martin spent the interview making fun of Fallon. In that interview, they accused him of being unfunny, insincere, and fake – and they delivered their criticisms so hilariously, I was dying laughing (and in TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THEM). Why did Fallon keep bringing those two back onto his show? I have no idea. That said, Fallon took a lot of heat for the time he rubbed Donald Trump’s head – which probably endeared Trump to some viewers (while Trump was running for USA president). But Fallon’s show was “non-political” – and he treated Trump the way he treated every other celebrity. BUT if his show was supposedly “non-political” – they never should’ve had Trump on as a guest.

Late Night with Seth Meyers: Meyers is an often hilarious guy, and when he does discuss politics on his show – it is fairly insightful, I must admit. I would hate to see his show cancelled.

Jimmy Kimmel Live!: Kimmel has taken heat for insensitive shit he did when he was younger. And Kimmel is often nasty (while simultaneously being HILARIOUS). I recall the time he had Rob Ford on his show – I despised Ford for his politics, but I felt BAD for Ford when he was on Kimmel’s show, because Kimmel spent the whole interview hilariously humiliating Ford. Then I thought “Jim, you’re making me feel bad for this right-wing (unintentionally hilarious) clown. Thanks.” I shall always look back with fondness on Jim’s weekly segment “Unnecessary Censorship” – and in a way, you can say Jim became a victim of that very thing. Oh well. As Jim found out, it’s a bad time to be a liberal late-night talk show host (in the USA). Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on July 4 and August 31, 2025)

Back in the day, a former friend of mine would frequently give me shit for not paying attention to “art”. One time, he said “How can you know so much about the Paris Commune, but have NEVER read the poetry of Rimbaud?” And my answer to that (everytime, and paraphrased) was “I don’t care about poetry, paintings, architecture, etc. Call me a philistine if you please, but I simply don’t give a fuck. I focus on other things that are more ‘important’ – like economics.” To be clear, I never said anything as literally harsh as THAT to my former friend – but that paraphrased quote DOES sum up my CURRENT stance (a stance I’ve had many years).

Speaking for myself, I find it WAY easier to read the printed word, than listen to an audio speech of someone speaking. So I find it astronomically easier to focus when I am reading the printed word, than when I am listening to someone speak. No offence to the speaker – I’m like that with every speaker. So that is why I made sure I acquired a physical copy of Kate Beaton’s great and impressive speech, titled Bodies of Art, Bodies of Labour. That speech is as focused on class as it is on art – but I won’t say much of anything about class in this note, because I would quickly run out of space.

One of the main arguments in Bodies of Art, Bodies of Labour, is that for people who come from wealthier (aka “more comfortable”) economic backgrounds, it is WAY easier for them to become “artists” (of one sort or another), than people who live in poverty (or are among the “working poor”). Put simply, people from the lowest social classes rarely become artists.

By Beaton’s definition, I can self-identify as an “artist” – because I write fiction whenever the mood seizes me. That said, I am personally more comfortable embracing the label “writer” than “artist” – even though I’ve never been published, and do not make a living by writing. In actuality, I’ve been unemployed for decades and live with my mother – things society says I should be ashamed of, but I’m not. Why? Well, unemployment has given me the blessing of “free time” to engage in more “creative” pursuits. That said, I doubt I could make a living as a writer – because I can’t fathom ever writing anything unless I FEEL like doing it (for pleasure, as well as FUN). Also, as far as most of my writing goes – my primary concern is to make Terry MacNeil laugh. Since I find so much of my writing hilarious, I am pleasing my audience (which is solely comprised of me). And the former friend I mentioned earlier – always found it unusual that I was so eager to show off my first completed novel to other humans (as in, my level of insecurity and self-consciousness with regard to my writing – was, in his opinion, very low).

Kate Beaton will never hear of Terry MacNeil. But if she DID hear of me, and wanted my advice? I’d say “Well, obviously, keep making cartoons – it is clear that is what the VAST majority of your fans want (as well as being your primary artistic passion). But I’d also advise you to write occasional text only essays for your Patreon subscribers – such as an essay on Sheldon Currie, or reviews of Craig Thompson’s graphic memoirs Blankets and Ginseng Roots, etc. Such text only content won’t be as appreciated by (most of) your fans as your cartoons – but you’ll always have a large segment of fans who recognize you for your command of the written word and insightful analysis on whatever you choose to write about.”

Also, Beaton is a socialist – so that will ensure the socialists in her fanbase (like me) will want to read any written political content she creates.

I am not currently a paid subscriber to Beaton’s Patreon – but I expect to be, soon. Ⓐ