prodigious reader, chronic forgetter
4354 stories
·
14 followers

heist!

1 Share
heist!

Ask any project manager—well, ask me—what my favorite film genre is, and I will say that it's a heist. What else combines the thrill of tense make-or-break situations with carefully-detailed process mapping? I love it when a plan comes together! Ocean's Eleven (2001) is perhaps the best modern example of a classic heist movie. The heist movie formula is simple: a diverse group of experts unite for a common cause (stealing something). They carry out their work using skills they've honed through years of experience. They prepare for unexpected issues that may arise day-of and adapt their plans to fit. There's a mastermind making sure everything is on time and in the right place. A heist is more or less a project plan with 1 or 2 more twists and double-crosses (if you're lucky).

Heist movies build tension with stakes that ratchet up throughout. There are no repeat attempts or do-overs once the plan has started. Thieves, pickpockets, forgers, and con artists have a job to do and must be at the top of their game. Masterminds often come back for "one more score," giving finality to their career or even their lives. They face impossible odds and almost always come out on top.

Author Charles Kunken did a deep-dive on heist films that I really appreciated. He analyzed dozens of movies to note what makes one of these films so special. Why do we/I like them so much? Kunken describes three traits that make up a good heist movie. He also wrote a detailed breakdown on the 16 conventions found in most heist movies. It's worth reading! I won't go into them here. Kunken says the genre's three defining traits are:

  1. Individualism. Outsiders commit heists. Their intense study of the rules of the game means they know where to break them. They stand up to the systems and norms around them. The best heists rob from the people who deserve to be robbed, or when there’s no harm done. Stealing is bad, but is it as bad if we steal from a bad person? What if it's a faceless entity that will get all that money back anyway?
  2. Cleverness and Patience. Our thieves spend years learning and building up their skills. There's rich history, a career of success and failure, behind every professional thief. It takes planning and effort to study a mark, create disguises and ruses, and strike at just the right time. Buddy characters in some films may reminisce about past heists that went sideways. They've been doing it so long, and are so good at it, that they know they can get through anything.
  3. Art. There's no creativity behind going into a bank with guns blazing. Heist movies often have an intricate set of plans that must happen in perfect sequence to go well. Before I can get to the vault door, our electrical expert has to shut down the lasers. My hacker friend has to forge me an ID and upload new credentials to the face scanner. And the money? Who even cares about the money? We'd set it on fire if it meant we got a little more time to play our games.

Heist movies showcase the main characters' ingenuity by emphasizing the above. These aren't petty criminals looking for an easy score. They know what they want and they know just how to get it.

this isn’t really about heist movies, is it?

Heist movies make it very easy to root for the "criminals." Unlike movies or TV shows where cops are the main characters, in heists the criminals don't get caught. These films remind us that everyone wants a good life. Why do only some people deserve it? Maybe heist movies are more than project management done with style. What if they were a blueprint for something bigger?

Think about the villains in our own world. We all have one or more people that we root against. They work at every level of our government. They try to ruin the lives of everyday trans people. They cheer on the deaths of Palestinians. They lead the companies who design products that cause anxiety and other problems.

We have politicians and government officials tearing apart families and kidnapping our neighbors off the streets. They're occupying our cities. They're carrying out extrajudicial killings. They invest in global calamities. They profit off our pain while they live extravagant lifestyles. Why do they get to have untroubled lives at the expense of everyone else?

I get more out of heist movies than the pleasure of seeing a plan well-executed. I see underdogs working tirelessly against an unfair system. I see people who started from nothing trying to carve out a piece for themselves. I would love to see more heist movies where the ill-gotten goods go back to the communities the villains robbed in the first place. But I still think they all have something to teach us:

  1. Commit to breaking the system. We don't live in a good system. People seem to have nostalgia or sentimentality for the institutions around us. The longing for a "different" government is especially loud now. But the institutions some people want back have fallen apart after years of neglect. The systems of our past killed thousands, if not millions, of Black and Indigenous people. Thousands of people seem to be falling into a kind of chatGPT psychosis. Institutions of old are easy to subvert and twist into something even worse. I'd rather amplify new systems and new ways of living. The ones we have are causing (and have caused) us so much harm. Extracting myself from them may or may not hasten their downfall, but I do feel better without them.
  2. Be patient and stay clever. I'm honing my skills and picking up new ones. I'm trying to unlearn the patterns and habits of old. Nobody's cracking that kind of safe anymore! We've all moved on to the challenges of today. I'm building communities of care. I'm taking part in tangible practices that give me hope.
  3. The work is the payoff. Resistance is not easy. Think about why swimming against the current is such a timeless metaphor. When salmon swim upstream to spawn, they're risking everything for the future. Many of them await exhaustion and death on the rocks or in a predator's belly. Resistance will never be as easy as it should be. Still, we must try.

let's get to work

Heists succeed because everyone is different and everyone is doing their part. We all have roles to play. We all have heists that our talents and teamwork alone can pull off. What's yours?

Read the whole story
rocketo
4 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

This Is Who Charlie Kirk Was

1 Comment

Certainly the dead tend to be thought of more fondly than they were in life. Still, it's quite disorienting to watch American institutions obediently line up to display the utmost solemnity for a bigot, whose career achievements were pushing for hatred and violence toward those he saw as inferior to him.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was fatally shot at an event Wednesday at Utah Valley University. At the moment of his killing, which was captured on multiple videos, he was about to debate a student about mass shootings in the United States. Authorities announced on Friday that they had apprehended a suspect, although the motive is still unclear.



Read the whole story
rocketo
16 hours ago
reply
“Pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't lead them to have a change of heart or see the error of their ways. They only care that it's happening to someone with whom they share common interests and goals.”
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

In Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Is Biology Destiny? - Reactor

1 Comment

Note: This piece contains spoilers for the latest Strange New Worlds episodes, “Four-and-a-Half Vulcans” and “Terrarium.”

You’d be forgiven for thinking that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is, as its reputation suggests, a cold movie, one where emotion and character give way to tedious docking sequences and 2001 rip-offs. And the movie has those, sure, but it’s not about those things. It’s about love.

More specifically, it’s about Spock—half-Vulcan science officer of the Enterprise, fixated on observable facts and sound logical thought, beneath the surface consumed by angst about his residual emotions—considering destroying his emotional self through a Vulcan ritual, the kohlinar, that’s said to cleanse one’s mind of anything but logic. And then, before he can go through with it, the Enterprise gets called to deal with a galactic threat: a strange cloud of matter that eliminates anything in its path. At the cloud’s core is V’Ger, a sentient space probe in turmoil from its inability to approach the world through anything but logic. Spock goes out to V’Ger across the void of space to mind-meld with it, gets knocked unconscious, and is dragged back to the Enterprise by Kirk. 

And there, in a white bed surrounded by his friends, Spock realizes the futility of his attempt to achieve kohlinar. He grasps Kirk’s hand, looks him square in the eyes, and says that, quote, “this simple feeling is beyond V’ger’s comprehension.” He doesn’t need to say what feeling he’s referring to; we can see it on Kirk’s face as he smiles back tears, seeing that the man he loves (in whatever sense of the word you find appropriate) is alive and, more, that he has elected not to kill the part of himself that feels.

It’s a gorgeous moment, one of my favorites in all of Trek. I love it for how sincere it is, how gentle, how radically uncringing. But I also love it because, like many moments in Star Trek: The Original Series, it lets a Vulcan be a person rather than an automaton. 

Vulcans in TOS are beings of logic by culture and choice, not by biology. Spock struggles with what he often terms his “human half,” absolutely, but the show makes clear that, more than a biological struggle, this is an anxiety about his upbringing, about the way he’s internalized other Vulcans’ bigotry toward him. In season two’s “Journey to Babel,” we meet Spock’s parents, the stern Vulcan ambassador Sarek and his gentle human wife Amanda Grayson. When Spock and his father quarrel about whether Spock ought to give his own blood to save Sarek’s life, the entire scene rests on you, the viewer, knowing that these two bickering Vulcans are using the idea of logic as a shield for what they actually want. Even some of TOS’s cringier properties are fundamentally about the fickleness and contingency of Vulcan logic: see, for instance, Spock’s secret half-brother Sybok in Star Trek V, someone who has more Vulcan ancestry than Spock and yet who by choice speaks and acts like a fully emotional human.

And it’s not as if this theme—the primacy of culture and individual volition over innate biology—is limited to the series’ consideration of Vulcans. Think, for instance, about “Arena,” the famous and famously goofy episode of TOS where Kirk fights a Gorn in a poorly-articulated rubber lizard suit. Kirk’s grudge against the Gorn is not small: it appears to have annihilated a Federation outpost. Moreover, when Kirk finally sees the Gorn, he regards it as monstrous, cold, inhuman, a beast. And yet, after hours of tussling atop Vasquez Rocks, Kirk finally manages to speak to the Gorn, who says they were just defending their own territory to stave off what they feared would be a Federation invasion. When Kirk finally has the upper hand, he decides not to kill the Gorn. He’s still horrified by their actions, but he realizes that they were likely telling the truth about their motivations. It’s an act of mercy, but also one of recognition: this creature Kirk took from its appearance to be monstrous is in fact an individual agent capable of free will, just like Kirk himself.

All of which makes it rather odd, when you think about it, what Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has done with Vulcans and Gorn. 

The show, Paramount+’s flagship program and the only remaining Trek series on the air, is a quasi-prequel to TOS, set seven years before with a crew composed of both original and legacy characters. It’s both largely (not entirely!) faithful to established show canon and reverent in its attitude toward many of its parent program’s most famous episodes, going so far as to remake an entire TOS episode to prove that Kirk’s actions in that original episode were correct. Yet its vision of nonhuman species is just about entirely at odds with that we see in TOS

In SNW, Vulcans are most often the butt of jokes, and that joke is, just about universally, look at how logical these Vulcans are! In season two’s “Charades,” Spock (already half-human) is turned fully human by a noncorporeal intelligence. This immediately makes him smelly, horny, hungry, and catastrophically emotional, things he apparently was unable to be when he was biologically part Vulcan. Later, in season three’s “Four-and-a-Half Vulcans,” four human crew members are turned into Vulcans, which makes them into science-loving assholes obsessed with facts and logic, save for one who, because she got turned into a Romulan, turns scheming and mutineering and altogether evil. There is little nuance in the show’s portrayal of Spock and his emotions, and even less in how it regards anyone with two Vulcan parents. Vulcans in SNW, to oversimplify (but not by much), are cruel, petty beings obsessed with logic and science simply because they are Vulcans. 

Things are even further from TOS’ vision with the Gorn, who have become the series’ primary antagonists. In SNW, the Gorn are both a known galactic power and a race of shadowy, monstrous lizard-men. Gorn episodes of SNW are routinely the show’s most audacious attempts at gristly horror. In these episodes, Gorn eat humans and use them as fuel on their starships. They implant their young, xenomorph-like, into humans who will act as incubators. Their young are ravenous beasts who long to rip you—yes, you—limb from limb. In season three’s “Hegemony, Pt. II,” the Enterprise crew find out that the Gorn have what is in essence a good/evil switch regulated by solar flares, and by imitating one of those flares they manage to turn the whole Gorn fleet, and possibly the entire Gorn species, docile again. 

Until this week’s “Terrarium,” more than halfway through what we now know will be the show’s entire run, no Gorn had spoken a line of dialogue on SNW. And while “Terrarium” complicates the way the Gorn have been portrayed on the show (more on that below), it’s one episode against a solid handful throughout the entirety of the show’s run that have portrayed the Gorn as, essentially, mindless beasts, forces of nature rather than thinking minds with goals and motives and friends and dreams and loves.

Strange New Worlds has often been hailed as a progressive breath of fresh air in a repressive political climate. And yet its commitment to one of the fundamental tenets of not just progressivism but any left-wing ideology—that people from groups unlike your own are still complex individual people, not marionettes strung up on stereotypes—seems less than that of a show that premiered before the Moon landing. What’s going on? 

In a word: bioessentialism.

Bioessentialism, or biological essentialism if you want to be fussy about it, is a term that gained popularity in late twentieth century feminist discourses. It means pretty much what it says on the tin: that one’s inborn biological traits determine one’s personality, preferences, and actions in life. I would argue that it’s the defining ideology of being alive in America right now.

In its native academia, bioessentialism is often used to describe conservative worldviews around gender and sex. In this usage, it’s a very useful term to cut through right-wing bluster and get at the core of these arguments: that boys are born to become traditionally masculine heterosexual men and girls are born to become traditionally feminine—and, vitally, childbearing—heterosexual women. In a bioessentialist view of sex and gender, gay men, women who work outside the home, and trans people of any stripe are all deviants, trying in vain to fight against their rightful, biologically determined life path. (If you find yourself wondering why these roles would need to be enforced if they are also natural and innate, great question!)

It would maybe be an overstatement to suggest that a bioessentialist worldview about sex and gender is currently running America, but there are signs. See: the encroaching aesthetics of fascist ultrafemininity as embodied by administration goons like Kristi Noem , the growing number of cis men convinced that they must take massive doses of exogenous testosterone to feel sufficiently masculine, the news attention the same couple of right wing childbirth enthusiasts get every time they open their mouths. These cultural signifiers, blasted constantly toward us in mass media, in turn lend credence to the administration’s material attempts to enforce bioessentialist views of womanhood. A trans person unable to leave the country because they cannot get an accurate passport and a brain-dead cis woman kept alive as an incubator for a fetus are in the same category of person to the Trump administration: those who need to be violently returned to their biological essence.

This in itself would be bad enough, but bioessentialism doesn’t only refer to issues of sex and gender. Bioessentialist views of race and ethnicity have never been far from the American conservative imagination, but they’ve taken on even more import since January. The vice president’s favorite thinker is an open “race scientist”; the shadow president regularly retweets white supremacists; the administration regularly massively overstates the proportion of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, creating an indelible impression in many people’s minds that undocumented immigrants are criminal in their very essence. I am no longer on what is now called X, The Everything App, as I value the ability to use my brain, but in what leaks over to my sphere of knowledge from there, it’s clear that a number of Silicon Valley elites have become utterly besotted with phrenology

Bioessentialism, in brief, is the ultimate anti-liberty philosophy: a bioessentialist universe is a clockwork universe, one where every choice a person makes can be traced back to a fundamental and irrevocable feature of their DNA. A bioessentialist wants nothing from you but your cooperation in the role they’ve decided you must play in their world; God help you if you say no. It’s an ideology so self-evidently evil that it’s at the center of just about any young adult dystopian novel my fellow Millennials may have read in middle school. If you believe in human self-determination in any way, it’s a concept you must not only refuse but actively resist.

Which, of course, makes it all the stranger that it’s so present in a television show that’s been celebrated since its debut for its progressive politics.

The skeleton key to all of this, in my opinion, lies in what, precisely, it means when we call Strange New Worlds “progressive.” It’s a term that’s been bandied about for the show online for years for reasons that seem initially quite obvious: it has a main cast that’s more than half female! It had a nonbinary character in its first season and never once got their pronouns wrong! It’s, as best I can tell, the first ever Trek show to explicitly refer to the franchise’s future as “socialist”! In its very first episode, it showed footage of the January 6th coup attempt in a slideshow meant to demonstrate Earth’s history of needless violence! All those things are true, and I sincerely think the show is better for all of them.

Unfortunately, they are also all surface-level espousals of progressive beliefs rather than deeply-thought-out thematic statements. The themes the show does incorporate are, paradoxically, often pretty conservative. I’ve laid this out at length in an essay in Emily St. James’ newsletter Episodes, but the summary is that that the show has two main modes, one in which its episodes point toward broad and sort of mealy-mouthed progressive morals (see: “Ad Astra per Aspera,” “Lost in Translation”), and one in which its episodes hide a profound xenophobia beneath their slick production (“A Quality of Mercy,” “Under the Cloak of War”).

Nineties Trek shows, generally speaking, had a far different attitude toward progressive thought, especially in regards to bioessentialism. While they routinely churned out horrifically anti-progressive episodes like Deep Space Nine’s stunningly transphobic “Profit and Lace,” they simultaneously took pains to avoid bioessentialism in their worldbuilding. Consider, for instance, the way Klingons transition from enemies to allies by The Next Generation, the many conflicting ideologies of the Cardassians we meet in Deep Space Nine, and the literal individuation of a former Borg unit in Voyager. I’m not suggesting this approach was perfect, of course. I’m glad Trek no longer routinely makes plainly offensive episodes. But it suggests a level of baseline consideration toward avoiding bioessentialist thought on the meta level that SNW hasn’t nearly matched.

I’ve spent some time thinking about SNW since writing the essay I linked above, and I’ve come to the idea that the conservatism I clocked in those latter episodes is probably negligent rather than malicious. Trying to square the circle of the show’s left-wing cultural signifiers and regressive bioessentialist ideas in any way that suggests intent eventually leads to the conclusion that it must be some sort of sinister operation, and no matter my thoughts on Paramount’s new ownership, Occam’s razor rules out a grand conspiracy to smuggle right-wing ideas to the public through a show mostly watched by lefty nerds. No: I think Strange New Worlds’ bioessentialist politics are a product of the show chasing after TOS’ afterimage without spending enough time considering why TOS made the choices it did. 

SNW is a distinctive show in Trek’s history in that (and I do not mean this in a derogatory way!) it seems to exist almost entirely to sate fan nostalgia. After Discovery veered, in many fans’ eyes, too far away from Trek’s in-universe tentpoles, it was hard to find a review of SNW that didn’t focus on how the show harkened back to Trek’s roots, both in its in-universe content (the 23rd century! Exploration! No fate-of-the-galaxy battles!) and its out-of-universe format (episodic television with character arc serialization, a format Nineties Trek perfected but which TOS arguably innovated). Its unique place in Trek’s timeline means that it can show on screen many things that TOS merely alluded to (Spock and Kirk meeting for the first time, for instance) and that it can have a second story—the origins of TOS’ crew—running in parallel to its main plot. As a critic, I’m ambivalent in particular about that last point, as I think a TV show should have higher aims than “turn into a show that already exists,” but if IMDb ratings are any indication, SNW episodes like “A Quality of Mercy” and “The Sehlat Who Ate Its Tail” that focus most directly on TOS characters developing into their Sixties-accurate selves are among the show’s most popular entries. Bluntly: fans love this stuff.

And so is it a surprise that SNW wants to give those same fans more of what they want? That it is going out of its way to stack what is ostensibly a standalone program rather than a prequel with signifier after signifier of how much the writers’ room loves TOS? Spock is (sorry, Kirk!) Trek’s most iconic character, and his inner turmoil about his Vulcan heritage forms TOS’ emotional core; if you’ve got Spock on your new show and want to keep TOS fans engaged, why not make the differences between Vulcans and humans the center of a few episodes? “Arena” is one of TOS’ most famous episodes; considering SNW’s affect toward TOS, I’d be shocked if the Gorn didn’t show up. These species of aliens are present on the show to do the same thing, say, Scotty is present to do: to say the line and get the fans to cheer. 

Here, I think, lies the problem. Scotty, in SNW, has been reduced down to teleological caricature, someone whose character growth is inextricably tied to him paraphrasing TOS lines and learning how to be the miracle worker we see in his later incarnation. I wouldn’t argue that that’s good, narratively, but it’s largely inoffensive. The exact same sanding-down of Vulcans and Gorn to their absolute minimum rewriting-from-memory TOS stereotypes, though, is what gets us the bioessentialist ick. SNW abandons the lessons these species’ episodes are meant to teach us as viewers in favor of aping those species’ bare images to sell fans back the same thing they’ve always loved, and in the process they’ve (to borrow a phrase) reversed the polarity of Trek’s moral universe. It is a bigotry arrived at, I believe, through pandering rather than hatred, but its laziness does not make it any less despicable.

In fact, I think that laziness makes it more damning, for all of us. The more I think about SNW’s biologically determined view of the world, the more I fear that it is not an isolated case of terminal Franchise Brain but a damning example of the way that being an American of relative privilege is a massive risk factor for being a negligent bioessentialist. 

The thing about growing up in America is that bioessentialism is the water you’re slowly boiled in. When my parents were born, Jim Crow laws were still in place across most of the American South, and the American North was, via white flight and redlining, in the process of hardening its own segregation boundaries. They grew up at a time when legal, social, and moral systems across the country were blaring the message that Black people were inherently and essentially less deserving of wealth, safety, or respect than white people. By the time I was able to walk and talk, such messages often used softer language, but much of the time they conveyed the same content. I got my first bank account less than forty years after the Equal Credit Act, before which women were often assumed intrinsically incapable of managing credit without a husband or father’s guidance. The American discourse around trans rights has regressed toward a bioessentialist framework so quickly it makes me queasy to consider; only eight years separate the NBA pulling out of North Carolina to protest HB2 and the present moment in which major national Democrats have adopted right-wing talking points about trans women as “common sense.”

No one, no matter how smart a writer they may imagine themself, lives outside the context and political norms of their era. This is especially true for writers of horror and comedy, two seemingly distinct genres that are nonetheless two sides of the same coin, exploiting surprise, anxiety, and the grotesque to elicit a specific lizard-brain emotional reaction. It’s unsurprising that both these genres have a tendency toward explicit and implicit right-wing messaging that’s difficult but absolutely necessary to guard against. (Trust me; I write both.) And it’s therefore sadly predictable that it’s from episodes in these two genres—broad Vulcan comedy and derivative Gorn horror—that Strange New Worlds’ most grossly bioessentialist moments have come.

More cynically, too, I don’t think the adjectives in that last sentence, the broadness of SNW’s Vulcan episodes and the derivativeness of its Gorn episodes, are incidental. Bioessentialist storytelling is morally queasy at best, but it’s also just so goddamn boring. The heart of TOS’ best Spock episodes is always the painful depth of Leonard Nimoy’s performance, the pathos when we see Spock holding back tears, working so hard to live in a way he’s been told since he was a child ought to be easy. That’s why The Motion Picture’s emotional climax is so powerful: Spock finally, without angst, accepts his individuality and thus his emotionality. How do you find that kind of catharsis in a show where Vulcans are flat caricatures without agency or complexity? How, for that matter, do you make the comments “Arena” makes about the American tendency toward xenophobia and warmongering in a show whose Gorn are so often portrayed as thoughtless beasts, cheap bodies to be phasered while too-loud dissonant strings crescendo? If everything you need to know about a character can be summed up by their ancestry, why bother writing a character at all? I imagine there will be readers of this essay who envision me yelling like a madwoman at my TV screen when SNW goes bioessentialist, but in truth I’m usually bored stiff, pausing the episode every thirty seconds to see just how many more flat jokes or muddy action sequences I’ll have to watch before I can go do something else.

I know Strange New Worlds can do better. I think it’s already trying to. Above, I mentioned that “Terrarium,” this week’s episode of Strange New Worlds, broke with how the show has depicted the Gorn so far. In it, hotshot pilot Erica Ortegas gets stranded on a moon with a Gorn, whom she tries to fight before realizing their only option for survival is mutual cooperation. It’s far from a perfect episode: I could call the episode’s entire plot literally from the summary in Paramount+, Ortegas’ constant talking to herself gets old quickly, and the episode’s conclusion reveals it to be a groanworthy “Arena” redux, down to the entire plot being the result of Metrons meddling in human/Gorn relations. 

But, crucially, “Terrarium” is also the first episode to portray an individual Gorn as a person with agency and culture and desires. Ortegas rigs up a crude device to talk to the Gorn via yes-or-know questions, challenges her (the Gorn) to a chess match, tends to her wounds even when she wants to give up hope entirely. We find out that, although Ortegas doesn’t understand the Gorn’s language, the Gorn has been learning English to better understand her enemies. The episode’s filmic language is just as changed: the shots of the Gorn’s teeth and claws and reptilian eyes are now clearly from Ortegas’ point of view and get replaced with a more humane framing as the episode goes on. 

The whole thing certainly makes me wonder whether the show will continue the work it starts in this episode to reconcile the monstrous Gorn we saw earlier with the individuated Gorn we see here. It’s hard to be sure, particularly since “Terrarium” tiptoes around or straight-up ignores the most offensively bioessentialist bits of SNW’s Gorn worldbuilding: there’s nothing here about Gorn breeding planets or Gorn eating human flesh or the special sort of solar flare that turns the Gorn less evil. But, well, it’s a start. And it’s already yielding dividends in terms of quality: “Terrarium” is one of SNW season three’s best episodes. It’s certainly the first Gorn-centric episode of Strange New Worlds I legitimately enjoyed, and, crucially, it’s the first of those episodes to have a theme beyond flat xenophobia.

I won’t pretend I have no investment in Strange New Worlds being a progressive show. The United States is in a genuinely frightening political era, and in an era where progressive political candidates are citing Andor when describing why they’re running, left-wingers need all the help from fiction we can get. But as much as I want SNW to be a politically astute show, I just as much want it to be a good show. I have many issues with Discovery’s large and often reactionary hater-dom, but I broadly agree with them that I prefer Trek when it’s episodic and moderate-stakes like SNW. More importantly, as the only Trek left on the air, SNW holds the fate of the franchise on its shoulders. By stumbling into bioessentialist storytelling in an attempt to become a show that already exists, though, it will only ever come across as a cheap imitation of the genuine article, something that might delight a handful of fans in the moment but which will leave both the show and this era of Trek with a mushy, bland legacy.

These past two weeks have shown us the two radically divergent paths SNW’s attitude toward bioessentialism can take from here: blundering further into that mushy blandness with the fanservice nothing of “Four-and-a-Half Vulcans” or sticking with the messy, worthwhile searching of “Terrarium.” I know which one I’m pulling for.

Read the whole story
rocketo
2 days ago
reply
"The thing about growing up in America is that bioessentialism is the water you’re slowly boiled in. When my parents were born, Jim Crow laws were still in place across most of the American South, and the American North was, via white flight and redlining, in the process of hardening its own segregation boundaries. They grew up at a time when legal, social, and moral systems across the country were blaring the message that Black people were inherently and essentially less deserving of wealth, safety, or respect than white people. By the time I was able to walk and talk, such messages often used softer language, but much of the time they conveyed the same content. I got my first bank account less than forty years after the Equal Credit Act, before which women were often assumed intrinsically incapable of managing credit without a husband or father’s guidance. The American discourse around trans rights has regressed toward a bioessentialist framework so quickly it makes me queasy to consider; only eight years separate the NBA pulling out of North Carolina to protest HB2 and the present moment in which major national Democrats have adopted right-wing talking points about trans women as “common sense.”"
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

The Little Engine that Could

1 Share
Sound Transit sent a light rail car across the floating bridge using its own power on Monday night. That’s the first time it’s ever been done
by Hannah Murphy Winter

Just before midnight on Monday night, I was standing on the I-90 pedestrian walkway with six other people and one nervous-looking shiba inu. The sky was clear and the moon was full, so Lake Washington was bright. Traffic would have felt sparse if you were in a car, but on foot, it felt like a crowded jet way. All seven of us were watching the other end of the bridge—most of us were squinting at the tracks between the east-bound and west-bound roadways; one older man with a baseball cap and a windbreaker periodically picked up his binoculars and peered toward Mercer Island.

At 11:53 p.m., headlights appeared just above the empty tracks. Then some orange lights came into view. And finally, a whole light rail car, moving slowly enough across the bridge that men with hard hats and hi-vis vests could keep up, but just fast enough that they had to run.

The train was manned by about a dozen workers, also in hi-vis vests and hard hats, looking like late-night commuters.

That light rail car was the first to ever cross a floating bridge using its own power, and it’s a huge milestone actually connecting the 1 and 2 lines, and turning our amusement ride of a train system into public transit. Before Monday night, the closest Sound Transit had come to getting a train car across the bridge was when they towed a car across last May.

Sound Transit has been trying to figure out if this slow-motion feat was possible since 2005, when engineers sent trucks carrying 600 ton loads across the bridge to make sure it wouldn’t collapse under the weight of the trains. Next, Sound Transit will start months practice trips, before they open the I-90 crossing in spring 2026. 

Read the whole story
rocketo
3 days ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

Israeli Arms Maker Reportedly Shuts Down UK Branch After Repeated Protests

1 Share

Major Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems has reportedly shut down a U.K. facility after it was repeatedly targeted by Palestine Action activists, in a major victory for the group that was recently banned by the U.K. government. The Guardian reported on Saturday that one of the company’s Bristol facilities, in Aztec West, appears abandoned, with no staff other than a security guard…

Source



Read the whole story
rocketo
3 days ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

New York Socialist City

1 Share
Dangerous radicals bent on helping people. (Photo: Getty)

Bernie Sanders’ childhood home is a six-story tan brick apartment building on the corner of East 26th Street and Kings Highway, deep down in Midwood, far south in Brooklyn’s belly. The building has a few bare cement courtyards and fire escapes and dirty windows with AC units poking out intermittently and a lobby floor that is a little grimy from many decades of scuffing feet. It is thoroughly unremarkable, a building just like mine, a building like thousands of others that stand on thousands of Brooklyn blocks everywhere south of Prospect Park, all the way down to the shores of Coney Island.

Stroll down Kings Highway from the Q train stop and you will see Russians and Asian people and Jewish men in yarmulkes and Muslim women in hijabs, all shopping at fruit stands where Mexican men stack avocados and Chinese women ring up purchases. The people who pass in and out of the average fruit stand anywhere from on Kings Highway represent a broader cross section of the world than you could find scouring the entire phone books of many large American cities. Look up the streets all the way to Church Avenue and down the streets all the way to Brighton Beach and everyone you will see is an immigrant, or the child or grandchild of immigrants. (Or a reporter from Florida). That is Brooklyn. That is New York City. We’re all here.

Bernie’s childhood home.

One of my most correct opinions about American politics is: Nobody knows what socialism means. Perhaps a better way to say this is that everyone who says “socialism” means something different. The worst person to ask about what socialism is is a Republican, who doesn’t know what socialism means, and will tell you that everything is socialism. The second worst person to ask is a leftist college professor, who knows exactly what socialism means, and will tell you that nothing qualifies as real socialism. Somewhere between these poles lies the elusive Practical Definition of Socialism, which nobody ever stops long enough to lay out before launching into their various tirades.

The most common usage of the word “socialism” in mainstream political discourse is as a slur, something that Republicans hurl at Democrats, who respond by trying to run in the opposite direction. For those who actually want to have a good faith discussion about socialism, it is imperative to agree on what the term means before you start, or else you and your counterpart are guaranteed to be talking past one another within minutes. As in all discussions of popular politics, the useful definition lies at some reasonable midpoint between What a Textbook Says and What Idiots Think It Means. The meaning of the word has to be easy enough for anyone to understand, without falling into the trap of allowing itself to be defined strictly from the perspective of its enemies.

So what socialism really means in the context of US politics is public services for the public good. Using government to socialize the things that can help everyone, rather than allowing the private market to run everything in a way that preys on the public for private gain. As a practical matter, this is what most people trying to Do Socialism in American politics are trying to do. Full state control of the economy is not and has never been on the table.

Social Security is socialist. 401ks are not. Public schools are socialist. Private schools are not. Public roads are socialist. Private toll roads are not. Public parks are socialist. Private playgrounds are not. The fire department is socialist. Private firefighters protecting the mansions of the rich are not. Public health care would be socialist. The awful private health insurance system we have is not.


How Things Work is a 100% reader-funded publication. Support us for just $6 a month.


When you look at it this way, you may notice that socialism is pretty popular! People tend to love the socialist things that already exist as much as they claim to despise the idea of any socialist thing that does not yet exist. If the general public were just a little less susceptible to red-baiting, they could have a ton of nice things. Our unstated national agreement is to all stop calling the socialist parts of our country “socialist” as soon as they are established. If we had enough mainstream politicians brave enough not to run away from the socialist label, people would probably become less frantic about the concept over time.

The two most famous socialist politicians we have today are Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani, and on Saturday night, both of them were on stage in an auditorium at Brooklyn College, just a mile and a half up Nostrand Avenue from where Bernie was born. Zohran had the crowd sing “Happy Birthday” to Bernie, who smiled and grimaced alternately throughout like the lovable, irascible old lion of the movement that he is. That room, that night, was the epicenter of socialism’s possibility in America—not an arcane ideological battlefield for zealots wielding rhetoric, but a place where the government works to make people’s lives better. Everyone’s lives.

Bernie noted that his parents, who did not make much money, spent 18% of their income on their Midwood apartment. Today, experts calculate that it would take an income of $139,000 to “comfortably afford” the median New York City, meaning that it would require under 30% of one’s income. Bernie also attended Brooklyn College when its tuition for city residents was zero dollars per year. The America that he grew up in was a far less materially wealthy country than we are today, but it was also a place where economic and social mobility were, in many ways, more realistic promises.

New York City is a great place for socialism. We are big and crowded and full of people and therefore the necessity that we establish rules that will allow everyone to survive and get along is vital in a way that it is not in places with more open space. Everyone rides the subway together. Everyone walks the sidewalks together. Everyone dodges one another on bikes and on streets and in parks. We are all here, together. I don’t want to sound too utopian—there are certainly many rich people in New York City who live in rich people bubbles—but even they must sometimes set foot outside of their lavish apartment buildings, and when they do, they find themselves right next to a hot dog vendor from Queens via Bangladesh and a bootleg sunglasses vendor from Africa and a whole bunch of people who are in too much of a rush to scrape and bow before their social and economic superiors. Even the lavish apartment buildings have graffiti on them. Bubbles in New York City are more permeable than anywhere else. If you cannot tolerate other people, you cannot live here. If you want other people to be tolerable, you want them to be living tolerable lives. Giving everyone a decent standard of living is mutually beneficial in New York City, because everyone else is right here, next to you, and if they are having a bad time, you soon will be too.

May Day 1934, New York City.

This common sense reality of life in the metropolis, I think, accounts for some of Zohran’s popularity, and also serves to highlight the ridiculousness of the attacks that rain down upon him from people who do not live here, or who live in the most insular bubbles of all. His platform consists mostly of policies that aim to solve some of the most common headaches of regular people in this city: Free buses. Free child care. Higher minimum wages. Less crazy rents. Is this socialism? Who fucking cares? Have you ever tried to take your child in a stroller on a city bus to their expensive day care so you can get to your low wage job that barely pays your high rent? It sucks! To see a politician who is, at least, trying to directly solve some of those problems get characterized as some sort of threat has to make you laugh. Threat to who? To your landlord, to your landlord’s banker, to Uber and DoorDash and other multibillion-dollar companies that want to pay you less and make your life suck more so some rich person who never has to take the bus can get richer? Is that supposed to be appealing? Zohran is going to win. Enacting his agenda will be hard, but the specter of local billionaires wracking their brains to concoct charges against him that might resonate with normal voters (He might open a new grocery store that would be cheaper than the piece of shit other grocery store in your neighborhood!!) is pretty amusing to watch.

On stage at Brooklyn College, Bernie pointed at Zohran to make this point. “Seems to be a nice guy. Dresses nice. Beautiful smile,” he said. So why the insane tenor of opposition? Because, he said, they are “afraid of him becoming an example of what can happen all over this country.”


Order my book, "The Hammer"


Normal socialism. That is the most important thing that Zohran represents to me. A socialism that means “It’s easier to take the bus and the subway and pay the rent and take care of your kids and generally live a decent life.” A socialism that means that the government is a thing that works on behalf of the public to make the public’s life better. That’s all! That’s it! Can we not try this? Are we to believe this is a foolish dream—for the bus to be free and on time? For it to be possible for a normal person to live a normal life in the biggest city in America? Zohran had a good line about the perpetual flood of scolding from purported experts who seem to exist for the sole purpose of heaping derision upon any hopeful vision of collective progress.

“When you ask the experts to show their work,” he said, “it is the life that we live today.”

The life that we live today is one in which New York City has the greatest economic inequality of any city in America. We are a city that is home to 123 billionaires with a collective net worth of $759 billion, and also a city where 350,000 people spent a night homeless this year. We are a city that has some of the greatest examples of socialized public treasures in the country—the libraries! Central Park! The subway system! —and also a city that has allowed our public housing system to become underfunded by tens of billions of dollars. Any moron, any drooling idiot, can see that there is an urgent moral and practical case for taking a little more money from the rich and using it to pay for vital things that help the millions of people that make this city into the amazing place that it is, which is why all the rich people are here in the first place. It is obvious, obvious, that we need decent public transportation and public schools and public services to make this enormous seething city into a livable and functional place, and that funding these public good will create public benefits that will accrue to rich and poor alike. This extremely basic, common-sense insight has a name: Socialism.

The New York City version of the American dream is not Bill Ackman standing in a penthouse apartment, gazing down at all the pitiful people below. It is, instead, the promise that anyone can come here and work hard and afford to raise a family in a perfectly normal apartment in Midwood near a good fruit stand. And thanks to all of the wonderful things that are available to everyone in this great city, the kid who grows up in that Midwood apartment can grow up to be a happy and righteous man, whereas Bill Ackman will always be a clown with no swag who probably has never even been to a fruit stand on Kings Highway. Your loss, Bill Ackman. There are many more of us in big brick apartment buildings in Brooklyn than there are billionaires on 57th Street. The city is ours. We are going to make it suck less, through socialism, whether you like it or not. If that makes you run away, I’m not surprised. New York City might be a little too fast for a small mind.

Leave a comment


Also

  • Related reading: Up With Zohran; The Subway Is Not Scary; Everyone Into the Grinder.

  • I have a couple of events coming up. On Saturday, September 20, I’ll be speaking at the 17th annual Douglass-Debs dinner in Atlanta, which is a fundraiser for Atlanta DSA. Tickets are here. And on Monday, September 29 at 11:30 a.m. I’ll be speaking on a panel at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism about reporting on economic insecurity. That’s part of a half-day event sponsored by the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, and there are a bunch of great people appearing, so consider coming by if you’re in town.

  • I am obviously biased, but I think that we are living through a time in which the existence of a robust independent media is as important as it has ever been in this country. This site, How Things Work, is as independent media as it gets. We have no corporate sponsors, and we also have no paywall, so that anyone can read us regardless of their ability to pay. The way that this works is that I ask all of you: If you enjoy reading this site and would like to see it continue to exist, and if you have some disposable income to your name, please take a moment and become a paid subscriber for just six bucks a month or $60 a year. As long as enough people contribute, this publication will keep on publishing, and will remain free for all. This is a socialist media funding model, and it can work, with your help. Thank you all for being here and please continue kicking ass.

Subscribe now

Read the whole story
rocketo
3 days ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories