So. Here are my general (and less abbreviated than in the previous entry) thoughts about the Kavanaugh sitch:

I think if I had been Trump or even Kavanaugh, I would have withdrawn or declined the nomination early into this drama -- and had I been a Republican senator, I would have voiced my intent to vote against Kavanaugh's nomination in order to force one of those outcomes. This is not to say that I would have admitted to any certainty of Kavanaugh's guilt, and I would have said as much in voicing my intentions. My action would not have been about "punishing" Kavanaugh. But I do believe members of the highest court in the country should have (as best we can manage in this hyper-partisan environment) the confidence of the American people, and I'd argue that Kavanaugh -- perhaps especially now, given today's events -- has been irrevocably tarnished in that respect. A friend linked a great piece in The Atlantic that includes (and goes far beyond and explores in greater depth) the rationale I'd use to justify my decision. (more...)

So I'm following the Kavanaugh drama, and I'm seeing Dr. Ford's testimony heralded as a turning point in the national conversation about sexual misconduct/harassment/assault against women... and I wish I were as optimistic about that. I mean, certainly Ford's experience has inspired a lot of women to share their own stories, and I'm glad these women feel empowered to do so and hope they get the support they deserve. But I'm also hearing the familiar dismissals of those accounts (and from high-profile elected officials like the President of the United States) and I don't expect Ford's testimony to prevent Kavanaugh from ascending to the Supreme Court. I hope I'm wrong on that. We'll see.

In other related news, re: this Daily Show segment about Kavanaugh's supposed virginity -- can someone explain to me what makes it (particularly the latter bit with Dulcé Sloan) funny? It's clearly going over my head. I mean, I get the "lol virgins are lame" joke, to the extent that that's the entirety of the joke -- but sometimes it's possible for an audience to interpret a joke in a different way, or at least to find it funny for reasons not necessarily reducible to mean-spiritedness and/or prejudice. (Frex, I think some of the cartoons about a Trump/Putin romantic relationship work on an absurdist level, even though I acknowledge that homophobia -- or misogyny, to the extent that those cartoons feminize Trump -- might explain the amusement of some audiences, and therefore I understand why gay people might find those cartoons offensive.) I'm just curious about the possibility of an alternative explanation for the humor here.

PEOPLE.

Dark Dungeons is free to watch on Amazon Prime!!!

Dark Dungeons is apparently an officially licensed adaptation of the titular Chick tract. (Despite my enduring love of those delightfully awful little comics, I hadn't heard of the film until a recent convo with several Rudes members.) I am suuuuper excited to watch.

(Btw, re: the Rudes -- I did mention that I joined a theater troupe this year, didn't I? I guess I might not have. I joined a theater troupe -- the Rude Mechanicals -- and have been in two plays. And now, as mentioned below, I'm apprentice directing. Huzzah!)

I mention this in part because I am apprentice directing a show -- Uncle Vanya! -- to start laying the groundwork and gaining the necessary experience and knowledge to someday direct a show myself. I really, really want to see a community theater incarnation of a Chick tract/Hell House/Judgement House type production, and part of me is thinking that if I want to see that I'd have to direct it myself. (But part of me is thinking I'd also need to write it -- which I could totally do; working title: "Tarnation House" -- which would potentially complicate matters. Hm.) (more...)