(written by Terry MacNeil, on May 16, 20, 27, and June 5, 8, 2025)

I avoid reading superhero comic books, for the same reason I avoid watching professional wrestling – I was once a HUGE fan of both, and I don’t want to become addicted to either again. The main reasons, is that being a superhero comic book collector is INCREDIBLY expensive (and time consuming), and being a professional wrestling fan requires watching WAY TOO MUCH televised programming (though I always found the villainous wrestlers hilariously antagonizing the audience to be WAY more entertaining than the actual “wrestling”). But I recently decided to make an exception for the collections of The Mask comics – mainly because there weren’t many of them made (and I was curious to see how they compared to the movies).

In the 1994 movie The Mask, the actor Jim Carrey portrays the meek/unconfident/unassertive protagonist – who is completely inept around women. So the protagonist is supposed to embody the saying “nice guys finish last” (a saying that is rarely true in real-life). When he puts on “the mask”, he acquires godlike superpowers. But more importantly – when the protagonist wears “the mask”, he is the confident and suave person he always dreamed of being. But it must be emphasized – the protagonist, deep down, is kind-hearted. And that is reflected in what he does while wearing “the mask”. Overall, I consider The Mask to be a children’s movie – that I enjoyed as a child, and am (much to my surprise) still able to enjoy as an adult.

In the various (R-Rated) comic miniseries of The Mask, there are various protagonists that end up wearing “the mask”. But the first (and most infamous) protagonist to wear “the mask” in the comics, is a meek/unconfident/unassertive dude – though it must be emphasized, he is also a bitter, hate-filled misanthropist. Deep down, the protagonist is NOT kind-hearted – and fantasizes about violently punishing everyone who has ever wronged him. So when the protagonist puts on “the mask” – he acquires godlike superpowers. But more importantly – when the protagonist wears “the mask”, he is the psychopath he always dreamed of being. Since the protagonist, deep down, is such a rotten guy – when he wears “the mask” he becomes an out of control mass murderer, sadist, and cop killer. Since the protagonist is immortal as long as he wears “the mask” – he treats the rest of the World the way he always dreamed of treating it. Unlike the protagonist, most teenage misanthropists grow out of their misanthropy before (or during the early years of) adulthood – and evolve into genuinely nice/caring people. That said, I was a misanthropist into my thirties. Oh. There’s one element in the comics I enjoyed more than the violence, and it’s that the longer you wear “the mask” – the more of YOUR SANITY you lose! Too bad everyone goes back to “normal” when they take off “the mask”. I wish they became PERMANENTLY insane and deranged even when “the mask” is taken off!

And yeah, I also heard there are comics in The Mask franchise that were inspired by The Mask children’s TV cartoon (said cartoon having been inspired by the 1994 movie). Well, I hated that cartoon in my childhood – and I sure as fuck don’t want to waste my time reading G-Rated comics inspired by THAT DRECK.

As for a future movie in The Mask franchise? I want Jim Carrey portraying the protagonist – but this film exists in an alternate universe, where he is an aging and bitter misanthropist. Also, the film is R-Rated – and just as violent/gruesome as the R-Rated comics.

As for the 2005 movie Son of the Mask – the nearly universally despised sequel to the 1994 film? NO COMMENT – except FUCK THAT SHIT MOVIE. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on May 20, 2025)

If Bill Cosby had not been exposed as a sex criminal, most people who read Love and Marriage (especially if they were fans of The Cosby Show) would incorrectly regard it as a “heartwarming” book. Knowing what we know now, this book shall forever live in infamy.

The book begins with Alvin F. Poussaint’s introduction. He’s a man who died a few months ago, though we all know his greatest life regret – had to be writing the introduction of this book. To quote Poussaint: “Cosby humorously recalls coming of age, marked by his first wet dream. He tells of trying to hide the evidence of his new manhood from his parents by hurriedly washing his sheets, and of being discovered – to his great chagrin.” As for me (Terry), I don’t remember my first wet dream. All I know is, I didn’t change my sheets – because I didn’t care if my parents knew I was having nocturnal emissions, and the thought of lying in my own dried semen didn’t bother me. Although, since it was left to my Mom to change the sheets on my bed every so often (when I was a teenager) – I presume she was grossed out by my crusty sheets.

As for Cosby’s actual book, he mentioned something he and I have in common – we both have long eyelashes. As a child, I recall countless adults commenting on my eyelashes – and saying they wish they had MY eyelashes. Back then, I found the topic embarrassing. But as an adult, I simply think “Well, I don’t have a masculine face – so I may as well accept that I’m a beautiful man.” But I digress.

In the early part of his book (covering his teenage years), Cosby writes (over and over) about glands, and his awkward attempts to woo girls (his own age). I found that a little peculiar, because when I was in junior high – I only had eyes for the high school girls. Then when I was in high school, the girls my own age were only interested in boys older than me. Oh well. I was too clinically insane (and afraid) to court anyone back then. But I digress.

As Cosby’s book moves on to his adult years, he reveals that he was nowhere near as nice as the fictional father he portrayed on The Cosby Show. One of the more memorable Cosby lines: “Paying back the person with whom you have recently been in love is one of life’s most precious moments”. To be clear, he is here referring to revenge. And keep in mind, that is a 52-year-old Bill Cosby’s words – not those of a dumb teenager.

And the rest of Cosby’s book, covers the years of his, uh, “happy” marriage. These chapters amount to little more than transcripts of unamusing arguments he had with his wife. A reader of this book will find not a word of good advice about “love” or “marriage” in its pages, which is to be expected from a book written by a serial rapist.

In my opinion, Cosby has a gift for humour – though it doesn’t translate into the written word. From what I recall, he needed to be SPEAKING to be funny – like when he’d go into “cranky old man mode” (when being interviewed on late night talk shows), or into “cheerful kid-at-heart mode” (when hosting the TV show Kids Say the Darndest Things). I guess that’s why he was a stand-up comedian (something I’ve never actually seen him do). Although, many white right-wingers had a special place in their heart for Bill Cosby – because of his incessant need to shit on young black males. So it seems Cosby’s a guy who likes to punch down.

That said, perhaps the most telling excerpt from the book – is when Cosby wrote “I realized how important it is for each partner in a marriage to make adjustments. One of mine is agreeing to live in a minimum security prison.” Oh, if only. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on May 6, 9, 12-13, 2025)

In my high school years, I (as I often say) was terrified to socialize with my peers (I was too psychotic, depressed, and anxiety ridden) so I’d spend my weekends watching The Showcase Revue (on TV) with my father. And he would give me one or two beer a night, which I would sip astronomically slowly – and watch indie movies (mostly foreign). And he would reveal certain details of his past – though I later heard there was a fair amount he kept quiet.

Although, before that became our routine – back in high school I noticed a Pedro Almodóvar Spanish movie called Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! was going to be on The Showcase Revue, and was listed as having the highest level of sexual content (for Showcase) – so I made sure I watched it one night (by myself). The sexual content/nudity was indeed explicit – though in retrospect, could have harmed naive/impressionable viewers (if they saw nothing wrong with what the protagonist did in that film). After my Dad heard I watched that movie by myself, he was pissed – and committed himself to watching movies like that with me. He was deeply fearful that teenage males who watch movies like Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! might try to imitate what they see onscreen (and/or see nothing wrong with what the male protagonist did).

Well, there are laws against adults watching pornography with underage teenagers – for good reason. But with the way internet porn is these days – underage teenage males are consuming vast amounts of incredibly misogynistic porn, without any kind of adult supervision. So I’m unsurprised so many teenage males consume porn, and think THAT is how people fuck. And that the advice from scum like Andrew Tate is how men should treat women. As a consumer of porn myself, I consider the most soul-crushing element of porn videos – to be what the male AND female pornstars SAY during the videos. Typically, the male pornstar verbally degrades the female he is having sex with – and the female pornstar verbally degrades herself. To the credit of BOTH my parents – they carefully raised me to NEVER be a misogynist. But I digress.

One of my fondest memories, was the first time I saw Apocalypse Now – specifically the part when some dudes tossed a severed head at the protagonist. When that happened in the movie – my father jumped out of his skin, but I barely flinched (even though I regarded it as a genuinely horrifying moment in the film). And then my Dad was angered/embarrassed by his reaction, and said to me “So if someone cut off my head, and threw it on your lap – what would you do?” I don’t remember what I said, but I think I laughed.

Another fond memory, was watching The Devils – during the part where an inquisitor said (paraphrased) “Blood from the tongue! This is proof he’s a witch!” And my Dad felt the need to tell me “That’s not true.”

Also, Videodrome (with brief interview of special guest David Cronenberg), a movie I hated the first time I saw it – just because it was so bizarre. But that’s the normal teenage reaction to a movie like that – and when I re-watched it in my late-twenties, I loved it.

When I was in junior high, my Dad showed Reservoir Dogs (which he owned on VHS) to me and my brother. When it ended, I said “This is the best movie EVER!” Then my Dad (paraphrased) said “Don’t say that! Only a weirdo would say that’s their favourite movie.” In my early twenties, my Dad assumed I only liked “weird” movies – though he’d be partly to blame for my taste in films. That’s the same guy who assumed everyone he labelled “weird” was a bad person – until I was in high school. Having a weirdo son (who was also one of his best friends) forced him to reassess the way he judged people. I recall him saying to me “You’re weird. But I like you.” And I thought something like “Well, at least you’re not going to kick my head in – unlike lots of the weirdos you encountered in your past.” That said, I’ll always miss him. RIP. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on May 6-8, 10, 2025)

Recently, I’ve been seeing occasional short (yet strange) ads about vaping and anxiety. I GUESS they’re saying vaping causes anxiety. But the ads are so short, and disappear from my screen so quickly – I can’t say with certainty what they’re about. No matter. I don’t vape.

Though those ads are the kind I’d expect from some level of government – which leaves me surprised the federal government isn’t screaming about alcohol causing cancer. As for the Nova Scotia provincial government – I’d expect them to say: “Yes, alcohol causes cancer! But PLEASE keep buying alcohol (and contributing to our coffers)!” Which reminds me – there was some study that no one could shut up about some years ago (I forget when exactly). And the study said consuming alcohol CAUSES CANCER. And I thought “Duh… isn’t that common sense?” Looking at my father, I assumed that since the days of my youth.

My father was an interesting cat. I won’t say much about his life, except that it was quite sensational. He did plan on getting me to write his biography (back when I was a teenager) – though he later changed his mind, because he assumed no one would believe it. The problem with people who live sensational lives – they tend to need other witnesses to the stories they’re recounting, if they are to be believed by anyone. Over the years, I have heard the occasional story (from other people) about impressive shit my father did. Overall, my father’s main tendency – was to intimidate and terrorize other humans. In my opinion, instilling fear in the rest of humanity – was the reason he was born. His life purpose.

My Dad was also a partyanimal, and became an alcoholic. So he had a lot of “fun” in his youth. After moving to a community where he rarely socialized with anyone outside of the house, and was stuck with only the local CBC, ATV, and MITV channels on TV – it’s no surprise (to me) that he drank as heavily as he did. Although, he didn’t drink any less once we got our first satellite TV system – although he did seem to enjoy his waking hours WAY MORE.

His was a slow-motion death – his health slowly worsening over the course of about a decade. Liver failure, cancer, and bowel blockages were the worst issues he dealt with during those years. Near the end of his life, he did mention to me that he had a lot of “fun” in his life – but that “it wasn’t worth it” (as in, he conceded he should’ve AVOIDED the partying/drinking so that he could’ve lived longer). I admired the strength of his will to live, especially considering how much he suffered during that decade – but I was saddened to hear he regretted the “fun”.

Also near the end of my Dad’s life, he did say that he assumed the meaning of life – was to have children. So I guess when he went unconscious (and later died) he had peace of mind. In my opinion, spawning children is unimportant (especially when on a planet as populated as ours is). Though I DO consider the way you treat the World and ESPECIALLY the humans around you to be VERY important. Well, that is what I assume.

As for me, I routinely get loaded in front of my computer – then go to bed (without leaving my house). Do I have “fun” doing that? Absolutely! Getting wasted while listening to music (by myself) is strangely more enjoyable than going to parties was in my youth – I guess because I’m no longer “batshit crazy” (aka psychotic) nor incredibly depressed. However, I EXPECT that my drinking will one day result in me developing cancer – which is fine with me. I have no intention of living a boring/healthy lifestyle, because I have no desire to live as long as I possibly can – I’d rather perish from cancer in middle-age than spend my elderly years in an Alzheimer’s ward. And with climate change and crises in the global capitalist system hanging over my head… Well, if my fucking house burns down in a forest fire – not only will I be financially unable to “rebuild”, I will have no desire to do so. The last thing I need is to suffer. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 27-28, 30, and May 3, 2025)

Today, I finished reading Kate Beaton’s graphic memoir Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands. Being the cheapskate I am – I waited a few years for her book to come out in paperback, before purchasing it.

My main takeaway from Ducks – is that the resource extraction sector sounds like an even more hostile workplace for women than the RCMP or the Canadian military. At the tar sands, Beaton was able to experience a high level of hostility, misogyny, and sexual harassment from A LOT of unpleasant men – these being men who make all men look bad. And I say that, as a man who frequently engaged in “guy talk” with “the guys” throughout my life. The only reason I don’t engage in actual “guy talk” nowadays – isn’t by choice. It’s because I don’t really have any male friends left who engage in “guy talk”. Instead, when it comes to me expressing my thoughts on the physical attractiveness of women – nowadays it is usually only in the form of public posts on my Bluesky account (typically after seeing a movie or TV show that results in me drooling over a physically “hot” actress). Is “guy talk” a bad thing? Well, it is incredibly juvenile. And if you’re a male feminist (as I am) and if you engage in “guy talk” – it is proof that you’re a FLAWED feminist (which is how I see myself).

Before I continue, I must mention my Mom (a “Classical Marxist”) is old school – she says “If you’re not an anti-capitalist, you’re not a socialist.” But I am more lenient in my lingo – I am comfortable labelling “social-democrats” (despite not being anti-capitalists) as “socialists”.

In my opinion – being kind is an essential personality trait of being a socialist. Which reminds me of Ana Kasparian – a longtime host of The Young Turks (TYT), which USED TO BE a social-democratic news analysis Youtube show. I recall one of her videos that put me off, when she revealed she’s basically anti-social and is purely hostile to everyday human interaction – though NOT for reasons of social anxiety. So I took that as proof that you can be a socialist with admirable political stances, and still be a shithead. And I wasn’t surprised she later abandoned “the left” – and became a right-winger (the last I heard, she claims to be “neither right nor left”, a label commonly embraced by left-wing sellouts). When Kasparian made her right-wing pivot, she became rabidly anti-crime – which, if memory serves me correctly, occurred around the time Kasparian became a victim of crime. Kate Beaton was frequently treated with extreme disrespect (and also raped more than once) in the tar sands – yet retained her empathy for the men (even the nasty ones) at the tar sands. If I were a woman and had gone through what Beaton went through – I’d likely become a misandrist, that would want to have as many horny men as possible thrown in prison. Would I remain an empathetic person? I highly doubt it.

Granted, I don’t know Kate Beaton personally – though I have read the Wikipedia articles of herself (and that of her husband – the author Morgan Murray). And I make sure I check out her Bluesky and Twitter social media accounts on a daily basis. Those accounts (particularly based on the replies her online friends/acquaintances/fans write to her posts) do SEEM to reveal one thing – that Beaton is kind. It is clear Beaton’s experiences working in the tar sands did not harden her heart. Despite enduring A LOT of bad experiences out there, she does SEEM to have always been a very kind, caring, considerate, and empathetic person. Those are the kinds of socialists the World needs more of – though I wouldn’t recommend those gentle socialists participate in the street brawls where Antifa slugs it out with fascists/neo-fascists. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 29-30, 2025)

It was a bad night to be a Canadian socialist. Last night on TV I saw Jagmeet Singh (standing alongside his beautiful wife) deliver his concession speech, where he announced he is stepping down as NDP (New Democratic Party) leader. I knew the NDP was going to get wrecked (by strategic voting more than anything else). It blows my mind that so many social-democrats CONSISTENTLY won’t vote for A GENUINE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY, voting instead for non-social-democratic parties (especially one moving toward the right).

Said party moving toward the right – is the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), the winners of last night’s Canadian federal election. Within a fairly short amount of time, Mark Carney replaced Justin Trudeau as LPC leader and as Prime Minister – and astutely calculated where the political winds were blowing. Well, Carney’s biggest asset was that he wasn’t the universally despised Trudeau, and USA President Donald Trump’s actions were also scaring the shit out of A LOT of Canadians. Seeing that the right-wing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) was (for a while) way ahead in the polls, Carney began to steal some of their policies. And Carney’s strategy paid off – but it must be emphasized, there is nothing unique about that strategy. The LPC has a LONG history of moving to the left or to the right of the political spectrum whenever it is politically advantageous for them to do so – and often stealing policies from rival parties (especially while campaigning during federal elections). As soon as Trudeau became LPC leader back in the day, I had him marked as a vapid charlatan and idiot. AND YET, Trudeau made then NDP leader Tom Mulcair look like a fool – because Trudeau moved the LPC further left than Mulcair had positioned the NDP. Mulcair suffered several fatal blows that election – one of which was trying to turn the NDP into yet another centre-left party. And the NDP has never truly recovered from that fuck up – I say THAT was a federal election that Singh MIGHT have been able to win, if he had been NDP party leader at the time. But I digress.

Last night’s defeat of the CPC shows the short-sighted strategy of rabidly attacking Trudeau and Singh for years, and not only not bothering to prepare for a change in circumstances – but when the circumstances DID change, the CPC had no clue what to do. I can’t stand Pierre Poilievre – but I fear this won’t be the end of that mouthy shithead’s political career.

In closing, this brings me to the joke book put out by Mark Carney – titled Value(s) Building a Better World for All. His book’s title (which weakly attempts to invoke the writings of economist Adam Smith) implies that when he’s a A POWERFUL POLITICIAN, he’ll significantly REFORM capitalism to become WAY more humane. Well, bankers are known for their ethics and compassion, so… That reminds me of Chrystia Freeland’s joke book Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else – a title that made it sound like if she ever had political power, she’d bend over backwards to fight income inequality. Granted, she was never Prime Minister of Canada – but I don’t recall any of her federal budgets doing anything to help out the poor and the downtrodden. That said, I have not read Carney’s nor Freeland’s books – yet. But someday I will, because I want to skewer their books (among others) in a novel I’ve been working on for MANY years. Anyway, it seems your political strategy (if you intend on becoming a prominent politician in the LPC) is to first write a reasonably long book. And your book must make it SOUND like you’ll be compassionate – then you must be the exact opposite when you have the actual power to do something. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 27, 2025)

An old friend of mine identifies as politically “liberal”, and almost always votes for the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC). But as far as labels go – I’d say he’s a “social-democrat” (aka a “progressive”). And I consider “social-democracy” (as it is commonly defined today) to be the most watered down kind of socialism – because it is “pro-capitalist”. Social-democrats HATE capitalism, but they (sadly) see it as a necessary evil – though they try to make capitalism more “humane” through government regulation. Anyway, my friend is a huge fan of the NDP (New Democratic Party – which is a social-democratic political party). HOWEVER, in virtually every election (especially federal) he’s too afraid to actually vote NDP – because he assumes he’ll be throwing his vote away, and make it more likely a right-wing candidate will get elected. There was a by-election in his district not so long ago – and he told me (paraphrased) “Well, I voted Liberal – but it turned out I didn’t need to vote for them, because the NDP candidate won in the end”. When I heard that, I nearly lost it. And THAT – is the outrage that is “strategic voting”.

There will be a federal election in Canada on April 28, 2025. But my mother and I already voted early – for the NDP (even though the polls look incredibly grim for them). Because of redistricting (which I assume is in response to population shrinkage) my mother and I are now (territorially) in a WAY larger district than in the previous election. In our district, it looks like the LPC candidate will win their seat. Have I or my mother ever voted strategically? Nope! We vote with our hearts, and say “If you vote for the lesser of two evils – you still end up with evil”. So you will never get the change you truly want to see in society. Fun fact – me and my Mom are both anti-capitalists, though we’d never vote for a “Marxist-Leninist” political party. That’s because (overall) the NDP better represents us politically than the Marxist-Leninists. But since I’m an anarchist – there will never be a political party that fully represents me. But I digress. In the last USA presidential election, the vast majority of American voters were stuck with a choice between one HORRIBLE party (the Democratic Party) and another party that is WAY WORSE (the Republican Party). It’s no wonder so many leftists simply stayed home rather than vote in that election. If I were American – I’d have voted for the Green Party (or spoiled my ballot if they weren’t running in my district).

For decades, I’ve been hearing the same old/tired arguments in support of choosing “the lesser evil” – especially with regard to Weimar Germany. Before Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Communists (a Marxist-Leninist party) competed against the Social-Democrats for power. If the Communists and Social-Democrats had chosen “the lesser evil” of forming a coalition – PERHAPS World history would’ve been less bloody. But the Nazis soon formed government – and used “the state” to repress Germany’s Marxists and other socialists. What does that example have to do with strategic voting in Canadian elections? Nothing. But the stakes of voting in CANADIAN ELECTIONS are NOWHERE NEAR as high as in Weimar Germany.

In closing, I am reminded of an old George Carlin quote (paraphrased) “I don’t vote. If you vote, you’ve got no right to complain about the party that wins the election – no matter what they do when in office.” I disagree with Mr. Carlin. I say “If you vote for the party that wins an election – you have no right to complain about anything they do when in office (unless they’re doing shit they never campaigned on). And if you vote strategically – you’re a coward”. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 20-22, 2025)

Today, I finished reading Orwell’s Roses – a biography about George Orwell, by Rebecca Solnit. I read the novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four in high school, and I read Homage to Catalonia around the time I became an anarcho-communist. But I never got the impression (from what I knew of Orwell) that his life had been interesting. Yeah, Orwell fought in a Marxist (more specifically Trotskyite) unit in the Spanish Civil War – and I considered his experiences in that war (which comprise his book Homage to Catalonia) to be captivating. BUT his time as a soldier in that war was (relatively) brief. And since a large chunk of his life was spent as a writer – any biographer of Orwell is faced with the fact that WHAT HE BELIEVED AND WROTE ABOUT is WAY MORE INTERESTING than the activities he did during HIS ACTUAL DAY-TO-DAY LIFE. Well, when it comes to writing itself – you’re thinking and writing/typing, which in itself is an uninteresting spectacle to behold. Although, Karl Marx sounds like he MIGHT have been an exception – and I’m not saying he was manic-depressive, but I have heard he’d write with an output of physical energy that could be described as “manic”.

I’ve actually read more autobiographies than biographies. Still, I haven’t read many celebrity memoirs – but I’ve read enough of them to have detected the pattern they follow. And the vast majority of these celebrity memoirs is little more than a long list of encounters with other celebrities (from random run-ins to collaborations on shared projects – whether a movie, an album, a fundraiser, a concert, etc). So the celebrity memoir is (typically) little more than non-stop name-dropping of other famous people. I’m assuming that’s the main reason Audrey Hepburn never wrote a memoir – though long ago I did read Barry Paris’ biography of her (a book that followed much the same pattern of a celebrity memoir). The only reason I didn’t find Paris’ biography boring – was because I was (and still am) a fan of (most of) Audrey’s movies.

That said, Orwell’s Roses might be the most enjoyable biography I’ve ever read – mainly because of the frequent digressions by Solnit. First, it must be emphasized that gardening is the way Orwell spent a lot of his time – and a lot of his writing was about gardening. As for me, gardening is one of THE LAST things I’d ever want to do. As for Solnit’s digressions, she would often stop writing about Orwell, and typically spend a few pages writing about other gardeners throughout history (with focus on various commonalities between them). For many of these digressions, Solnit wrote about people (some of whom weren’t gardeners) that had never met (let alone known) Orwell. Other digressions centre not on specific people, but on gardening itself (especially aspects of its commodification). But it must be said – these digressions result in a much richer biography. Through the lens of gardening (even with regard to brutes like Joseph Stalin who loved to show off his gardens, while having zero interest in tending them himself) we are better able to understand why gardening is a passion for so many – with particular emphasis on Orwell’s passion. And because of Solnit’s many digressions, we are able to get a deeper SENSE of Orwell himself (at least with regard to things he left unsaid about himself).

Also, major props to Solnit for FREQUENTLY quoting Marxists (for their historical research) throughout her book (and without feeling the need to be constantly condemning them). Well, she condemns various murderous Stalinists (for good reason). But as an anarchist, I found it refreshing to read a book that in many ways is about socialism – without feeling the need to belittle socialism. Solnit even had praise for Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman! Kudos. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 15-16, 2025)

During Donald Trump’s first term as US President, he was so nervous and unconfident – he’d agree to do whatever his advisors advised (I heard he would always go with the advice of whoever was the FINAL advisor in the long line of advisors that would be giving him advice on an issue). Now that we are in Trump’s second term as President, he’s WAY more assertive/confident, and is committed to carrying out the shit he’s been preaching for years.

But first, we must look at the “New Imperialism” – as defined by Marxist intellectuals like David Harvey (who wrote a book about it, titled The New Imperialism, which I have not read yet) and other Marxist intellectuals like Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin (who co-wrote a brilliant book I did read, titled The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire). Is there a USA empire? And if there is, is it global? Panitch and Gindin emphasized that the USA has an “Informal” Global Empire – instead of militarily occupying every corner of the globe (as a “Formal” Global Empire would), the USA instead occupied vast swaths of the globe with its multinational corporations (MNCs, which resulted in an “economic occupation” rather than a “military occupation” by the USA). Though it must also be emphasized, the USA has a HUGE number of military bases located around the World – so the USA felt the need to retain an element of a “Formal Empire” aka “Old Imperialism” to provide the muscle to protect its MNCs, protect its trade routes, and protect friendly/vassal countries around the World (while also militarily surrounding its rivals/enemies).

With the era of “globalization”, the USA was able to have a GLOBAL Empire (after the collapse of the USSR) where the World’s manufacturing was dispersed globally (usually to the places where production costs were cheapest, and workers’ rights were nonexistent). But in more recent years, there is an increasingly strong international right-wing backlash against globalization – and we have seen China ascend to become an economic rival of the USA. Under “globalization”, there was NEVER supposed to be a rival of the USA – especially not an economic one. Russia will never be an economic rival of the USA – but China sure is.

Now we come back to Trump – a guy who thinks American tariffs (or trade sanctions) will result in every fantasy he wants to come true. To quote William Appleman Williams (who was quoted by Alfred W. McCoy in his great book In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power) the “grand illusion” most Americans are under is “the charming belief that the United States could reap the rewards of empire without paying the costs of empire and without admitting that it was an empire.” The only thing imposing tariffs on the USA’s allies, and trade sanctions on its rivals will do – is speed up the end of the US Empire.

If you tried explaining how the “New Imperialism” aka “Informal Empire” works to Trump – he’ll never get it. He believes the New Imperialism results in the economic exploitation of the USA by THE REST OF THE WORLD – and that the USA gets NO BENEFIT from it. So he’s regressing back to the “Old Imperialism” forms of empire – by wanting to annex territory (such as Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal). It’s clear the USA wants Canadian resources – especially water (one day they’ll say “Sell us your water, or we’ll take it by force”). Trump wants to bring ALL manufacturing back to the USA – so it will have all the resources it needs at its disposal to wage a military war with China (and any other rivals) and for American workers (but no one else on Earth) to get well-paying factory jobs (which won’t happen). Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 5-7, 2025)

I am WAY late to the game, when it comes to learning about the transgendered community. I’m well-aware the trans community is among the most hated (AND most misunderstood) parts of society – and it only gets worse if you’re trans AND a racial minority. These days I’m mainly focused on reading economic and political books – but I figure I’ll need to keep an eye out for a bunch of books (for future reading) about what it’s like to be a transgendered human, and their experiences/perspectives in a (mostly) cisgendered World.

I recently re-watched the movie Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. It’s a movie I’ve loved since my childhood – and I still consider it a hilarious film. Jim Carrey’s comedies aren’t for everyone – but they are for me! However, after taking a glance at the film’s Wikipedia article recently – it is clear A LOT of people have criticisms about its transphobic content.

In the movie, the INCREDIBLY HOT (cisgendered) actress Sean Young portrays one of the main characters (who is also the main villain). The main villain is later revealed to have had a sex change – though it SEEMS the villain is NOT transgendered. It SEEMS to have been a case of an evil cisgendered male villain who gets a sex change, ONLY as cover so that he can carry out his revenge plot. So the movie makes it seem the male villain was NOT “born in the wrong body”. At least, that is how I read the film – if it turns out the villain IS legitimately transgendered, I will be genuinely surprised. But I digress.

Another reason people condemn the film for being transphobic – is because “Ace Ventura” is grossed out when he realizes he made out with the main villain. It must be emphasized – the villain still had a penis and testicles. Does that matter? Well, heterosexual cisgendered men aren’t “grossed out” by male genitalia per se – but we have a habit of being grossed out (and often incredibly embarrassed/insecure) when we are sexually attracted to someone who appears (to us) to be a physically attractive woman (when we find out the person we were attracted to has male genitalia). For many heterosexual men, if they see a male transvestite or a transwoman that they are physically attracted to – they panic, fearing that they’re sexually attracted to MEN. As for me, there’s been times I’ve seen (on TV and in movies) transvestites and transwomen (like in the movie The Crying Game) who I considered sexually attractive. Would I ever fuck a person that I KNEW was someone who had male genitalia? NO. But that’s just me. It also means I consider (by my standard) a TINY percentage of androgynous men can pass as a “pretty” woman (when they’re “done up” to look like one).

In closing, I highly doubt the filmmakers of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective knew anything about the transgendered community – and I doubt they cared. It is clear they had no intention of making a movie that was respectful of other peoples’ sensitivities (which is what you should expect from a movie made in the mid-1990s). I say the movie IS HILARIOUS – though insensitive, and in bad taste (especially when the main villain was being publicly exposed/humiliated by “Ace Ventura”). The film provides a window into the mind of the cisgendered heterosexual male – and that so many of us cisgendered heterosexual males react with SHEER HORROR when we are “getting it on” with a physically attractive woman – who turns out to have a penis and testicles. Sadly, that’s one reason so many transgendered humans are murdered by cisgendered killers. Ⓐ