Where It's Always 1895

A useful place for putting things: Sherlock, Tolkien, Star Trek, and whatever else catches my fancy. Mostly reblogs but occasional meta, fanfic, and/or late-night musings. The ask box is always open, and I love notes from friends and strangers alike. Don't be shy!

[marta-bee]

I've got tickets to see the Odyssey tomorrow. I've heard mixed things about it, or rather, two pretty intense but divergent things from two different groups. Actual classicists and amateur classics nerds here on Tumblr seem ... well, let's just say they have notes; whereas people with a more general knowledge of the original and are just fans of big-scale movies like it quite a bit.

I did school in medieval philosophy so you'd think I'd be more sympathetically inclined toward the first set, but really I have only the most basic knowledge of the original poem. I think I read a novelization or some other retelling in middle or high school, and I could give you maybe 5-6 bullet points of the basic plot. But if you asked me what my opinion was on a certain character, the Halbarad or Denethor of the Odyssey, I could only blink my eyes dumbly. I've never read even a translation.

I do hope I can enjoy it on at least an aesthetic level. But it does have me feeling like something of a bad geek. This once, I suspect (at best) I'll be one of those folks.

[marta-bee]

Marta Rereads LOTR: "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony" and "Strider"

I recently reread Lord of the Rings Ch. 9 & 10, “At the Sign of the Prancing Pony” and “Strider,” but never got around to writing them up. In many ways it’s a lot more straight-forward plotwise than the chapters with Ol’ Bombadillo. It could almost be a standard tavern episode in a typical sword-and-sorcerers fantasy novel, or a Dungeons & Dragons game. In fact, it’s so comfortable, even stereotypical, I’ve struggled to work out what I can say that would add anything beyond what you’d get from reading it yourself.

Frodo & Co. make it back onto the road and at long last reach Bree just after dark. After some furtive questioning they’re let in, rent a room at the Prancing Pony, and after their meal join the Company (TM) for a little storytelling and song. (Well, most of them; Merry hangs back.) In their naivety they’re very nearly Found Out (also TM), antics ensue, and they end up finding common cause with a Rogue who turns out to be half Mentor, half Mage.

Pausing a moment here, I can add one of my favorite bits from the BBC radio drama, with Ian Holm voicing Frodo singing “The Man in the Moon.”

But more substantively, once you get past all the fantasy archetypes (which wouldn’t have existed before Tolkien in so many ways; this is a comment on the more modern experience of reading these chapters for the first time in the early 2000s, not on Tolkien’s original creativity), a focus on what's happening threatens to slide right past what I think really matters in these chapters: the question of “Can they be trusted?”

Bree feels very homelike, but it’s not actually home. Hobbits and “Big Folk” live together. Dwarves pass through. There are refugees from the South, who are new to the area, and people we’re later told are probably informants if not outright spies. Even Barliman Butterbur, the merry old inn-keep, may not be entirely trustworthy. Even Frodo’s party isn’t immediately welcomed like they expect to be, though we learn that’s for good reason.

This is most interesting with Strider. In the movies he’s gruff and a bit mysterious, but also cast as an ally and friend pretty quickly in the interests of moving things along. In the books, though, we get a much slower introduction to him, and he’s much more of a mystery for a while longer. There’s a good deal of respectability politics at play here. Strider is unknown, and gruff, and doesn’t fit into a group that Bree locals would consider normal or safe. Barliman doesn’t quite warn Frodo away from him, but he did keep Strider from speaking to Frodo privately before they joined the larger company for a drink.

The thing is, if Frodo was any decent judge of character in the usual sense, he probably wouldn’t have trusted Strider, or even met with him in such an isolated place without getting more details about him from Butterbur. By any fair measure he’s a danger to Frodo and could have easily killed them, and though they need his help quite badly they don’t even know how badly to start. Beyond his rough appearance, Strider changes how he presents himself over the course of their conversation, or more precisely he lets his mask slip and shows more of who he really is. Even his accent changes. That’s hardly the kind of shift that would make me trust a stranger I’d just met in a new and scary place.

Frodo has something almost like an intuition, though. Facts be damned, he seems to recognize that he can be trusted. He engages in a bit of healthy skepticism, to be sure, but it feels almost performative, like the kind of thing he needs to do to be smart and careful. Ultimately Butterbur comes back with a final (& late) piece of evidence that justifies (to a point) the hobbits’ trusting him, a letter from Gandalf describing Strider as a friend, but on its own that’s not what makes this trust, well, trust-worthy.

‘Why didn’t you tell me that you were Gandalf’s friend at once?’ [Frodo] asked. ‘It would have saved time.’ 

‘Would it? Would any of you have believed me till now?’ said Strider. ‘I knew nothing of this letter. For all I knew I had to persuade you to trust me without proofs, if I was to help you. In any case, I did not intend to tell you all about myself at once. I had to study you first, and make sure of you. The Enemy has set traps for me before now. As soon as I had made up my mind, I was ready to tell you whatever you asked. But I must admit,’ he added with a queer laugh, ‘that I hoped you would take to me for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of distrust and longs for friendship. But there, I believe my looks are against me.’ 

‘They are – at first sight at any rate,’ laughed Pippin with sudden relief after reading Gandalf’s letter. ‘But handsome is as handsome does, as we say in the Shire; and I daresay we shall all look much the same after lying for days in hedges and ditches.’ 

‘It would take more than a few days, or weeks, or years, of wandering in the Wild to make you look like Strider,’ he answered. ‘And you would die first, unless you are made of sterner stuff than you look to be.’ 

Pippin subsided; but Sam was not daunted, and he still eyed Strider dubiously. ‘How do we know you are the Strider that Gandalf speaks about?’ he demanded. ‘You never mentioned Gandalf, till this letter came out. You might be a play-acting spy, for all I can see, trying to get us to go with you. You might have done in the real Strider and took his clothes. What have you to say to that?’ 

‘That you are a stout fellow,’ answered Strider; ‘but I am afraid my only answer to you, Sam Gamgee, is this. If I had killed the real Strider, I could kill you. And I should have killed you already without so much talk. If I was after the Ring, I could have it – now!’ 

He stood up, and seemed suddenly to grow taller. In his eyes gleamed a light, keen and commanding. Throwing back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that had hung concealed by his side. They did not dare to move. Sam sat wide-mouthed staring at him dumbly. 

‘But I am the real Strider, fortunately,’ he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile. ‘I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.’ 

There was a long silence. At last Frodo spoke with hesitation. ‘I believed that you were a friend before the letter came,’ he said, ‘or at least I wished to. You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would – well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.’

 ‘I see,’ laughed Strider. ‘I look foul and feel fair. Is that it? All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost.’ 

‘Did the verses apply to you then?’ asked Frodo. ‘I could not make out what they were about. But how did you know that they were in Gandalf’s letter, if you have never seen it?’ 

‘I did not know,’ he answered. ‘But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name.’ He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. ‘Not much use is it, Sam?’ said Strider. ‘But the time is near when it shall be forged anew.’

I remember reading these paragraphs the first time and smiling like a smiling thing. I think every awkward, isolated teen who felt a bit unseen (didn’t we all?) longed to have someone see we were trustworthy against all evidence, and if it took a near-deus ex mai-ina to make it happen, that still felt like a blessing.

Next up: a late start, and a shortcut of sorts, and the much-lampooned favorite midget’s meal of bit hobbits.

[marta-bee]

News of the Day: Medicaid Work Requirements

Today’s Reads

Jonathan Cohn, The Bulwark: “Trump’s Incredibly Misleading, Downright Outrageous Case for Medicaid Cuts” (Requires Bulwark+ membership)

Chloe East and Adrianna McIntyre: “The Trump Administration’s Dubious Case for Work Requirements”

What’s Happening

As part of the BBB, the federal government will require people receiving Medicaid to either work or train for eighty hours a month or be exempt for some other reason like disability. The rule will go into effect January 1, 2027, but as part of the leadup the government agency that administers Medicaid and Medicare released an early form of the rule last month. Like most governmental changes these rules have to be published before they take effect to give people a chance to comment.

Connected to all this, HHS’s Policy and Evaluation office (ASPE) released a report claiming to show the change would lift people out of poverty. Basically HHS is arguing people will work more to stay enrolled in Medicaid and be better off because of it. Shocker of shockers: there’s some methodological problems.

What Jonathan Cohn Wrote

On the ASPE generally:

That office is supposed to be a source of reliable, dispassionate analysis. And while it has always promoted the priorities of whatever administration is in power—Buchmueller, Frank, and Glied all did stints there under Democrats—it has a reputation for producing intellectually defensible material.

This report doesn’t live up to that standard. And it’s emblematic of what’s been happening elsewhere in the federal government, as the Trump administration has purged veteran, senior leaders and in some cases large numbers of lower-ranking career analysts as well. The HHS planning and evaluation office is a perfect example: It lost two-thirds of its staff during the DOGE purges last year, going from about 150 to fewer than 50 employees, according to STAT News.

The result across government agencies has been predictably shoddy work, like with this January’s thinly referenced HHS report supposedly showing the United States childhood vaccine schedule was an international outlier—or last August’s highly selective reading of climate research by the Environmental Protection Agency, allegedly demonstrating that warming temperatures did not endanger human health.

And on the study itself:

YOU MIGHT THINK A REPORT considering the effects of new work requirements in Medicaid would draw on the Arkansas experience, or at least account for it.

You would be wrong.

The recent HHS report doesn’t cite the research on Arkansas—or any research on Medicaid for that matter. You can see for yourself by opening the technical appendix online, opening a search box, and entering “Medicaid.” Nothing comes up. When I asked HHS for an explanation why, they did not return my request for comment.4

Instead, the review relies entirely on papers about other efforts at imposing work requirements in other government programs, including the big welfare reform law that Republicans passed and then-President Bill Clinton signed in 1996.5 Which is a problem, because there are some pretty big differences between cash benefits and Medicaid.

The theory on work requirements and welfare is that people will react quickly if cash is on the line—either in the negative sense (people will worry about suddenly losing the ability to cover food, rent, and other necessities) or in the positive sense (people will realize they have a chance to find steady, stable income). But with Medicaid, it’s not cash that people stand to lose. It’s the ability to get medical care. “Most people don’t use a whole lot of health care services,” Glied said, “and they’re not thinking about these problems in advance.”

And as McIntyre explained, there’s good reason to think the problems evident in the studies of Arkansas—the studies, again, that this HHS report ignores—will show up now as states implement the new law.

“Something like one in three people in Arkansas who were subject to the work requirements had heard nothing about it, and we can expect similar confusion here,” McIntyre said. “Folks aren’t going to know whether they’re affected by the policy or not, and then the state is going to be able to automatically exempt some, but not all people in that affected group. It’s a recipe for constant confusion about whether, when, and how people have to report that they’re complying with the work requirements, or why they should be exempt from them.”

What It Means

Chloe East and Adrianna McIntyre have a more detailed kicking of the tires at the second link above. It’s worthwhile if you’re interested in the economics of healthcare and well done as far as I can see, but you don’t actually need to get into the weeds to understand why the report’s predictions for peoples’ incomes are far-fetched. 

It’s common sense: Medicaid doesn’t actually give you income you can use to pay your rent or buy diapers. The program lets you access medical care which of course people want and need, but that’s not going to be enough to live off of. Reducing someone’s cash assistance like in the study the HHS report looked at may well lead them to work more; but if someone’s already unemployed and dealing with the related poverty, that’s probably either because there aren’t jobs available they qualify for or because there are structural problems keeping them from working. Those problems don’t magically go away just because they’ll lose their health insurance if they don’t find a job. 

Really, this study’s conclusion only makes sense if you think poor people are sitting around not working because they’re too lazy. Unfortunately quite a lot of people are primed to believe precisely that. At an absolute minimum, the different kinds of benefits being measured by the study makes it much harder to apply to the current health insurance problem, and the HHS report just doesn’t account for that.

Obviously the practical problems for people about to lose their Medicaid is the most important thing, but I’m also an academic at heart so I’d be remiss if I didn’t also talk about what it means that a historically respected office like this was doing such sloppy work. 

Usually when people talk about the war on data they mean that the government is somehow corrupting the information it measures, like with the BLS’s attempt to misreport the jobs numbers back in early 2025. This is different, though not in my view better. The data itself isn’t wrong; there really was a study that measured how limiting TANF and other cash benefits drove people to find work. The analysis is so misplaced, though, it calls into question the competence of the people doing it. Bad data is bad enough, but a loss of trust in the groups doing the analysis is worse because it reinforces the idea that there’s no truth to be had.

As Jonathan Cohn describes it, this HHS group was doing some politically motivated analysis even before this presidency, but it was still operating in the realm of the intellectually defensible. They were trying to give the best defense of the government’s policies that the facts allowed. The problem is analyses take both time and reading skills, and as the internet recently learned (PF) the second in particular is in short supply. Reducing even papers like this to partisan noise - by which I mean the groups making it impossible to approach them as anything else - makes it that much harder for any kind of facts to get through.

Related Stories

Jonathan Cohn, The Bulwark: "Trump’s Big Medicaid Cuts Are About to Get Very Real"  (Requires Bulwark+ membership.)

The HHS Report: “Medicaid Work Requirements Incentivize Employment and Are Estimated to Reduce Poverty”

From CMS.gov: “Medicaid Community Engagement Requirement for Certain Individuals Interim Final Rule with Comment Period (CMS-2454-IFC)”

Gothamist: “Yes, this does suck': NYC health officials brace for new Medicaid work rules” (PF)

Mother Jones: “States Sue to Block Medicaid Work Requirements” (PF)

Musical Break

More News on Health Insurance

Archive.is is down; I’ll try to add paywall-free links later.

Paul Krugman: "Curing U.S. Health Care, Part II" 

Jonathan Chait, The Atlantic: “You Don’t Need to Vote for Socialists to Get Universal Health Care” (PF)

Stat News: “As states absorb Medicaid funding cuts, family caregivers face financial ruin” (PF)

The Conversation: “How health insurers get a free pass to deny coverage from a 52-year-old law meant to protect worker pensions” (PF)

The New York Times: “Obamacare Enrollment Drops Sharply as Costs Rise” (PF)

The Fulcrum: “Saving Medicare Republicans Are Privatizing Medicare” (PF)

Reason: “Trump's 'Great Healthcare Plan' To Replace Obamacare Isn't Much of a Plan” (PF)

The Fulcrum: “High-Deductible Health Plans Are Being Sold as a Cure. They Aren’t.” (PF)

The New York Times: “Can’t Pay Medical Bills? Trump Administration Suggests Getting a Loan” (PF)

The Fulcrum: “The United States May Be the Best Place to Build Universal Health Care” (PF)

& on Healthcare Generally

Catherine Rampell, The Bulwark: "The Americans Trump Would Rather Not See"

Mona Charen, The Bulwark: "Damn the Risks, Pour Me Another Glass"

The Fulcrum: “When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken” (PF)

Stat News: “Maternity deserts aren’t accidents. They’re the result of a design flaw ” (PF)

The Conversation: “Rural areas lag behind in cancer treatment and prevention – even as rich, urban areas increasingly leave dying from cancer in the rearview” (PF)

Salon: “The real reason RFK Jr. is coming for your antidepressants” (PF)

Vox: “Putin’s plan to live forever” (PF)

Wired: “Diabetes Detection Needs Better Tools. They’re on the Way” (PF)

Aeon: “The joy of autism” (PF)

And finally, because of course: 

Associated Press: “Lettuce at Taco Bell in 5 states confirmed as a source of diarrhea-causing parasite”

[marta-bee]

"Analyses" is a real word, whatever Google docs thinks. I'm just sayin'.

[beardedmrbean]

Next up someone is going to claim that the Narnia series isn't kids books.

Kids books is probably not the best way to word it, you can enjoy them at every age, including your childhood, as you get older you may find new truths in them, but they're still good for any age.

[enjolras-in-valinor]

Oh for fucks sake. The Hobbit IS DEFINITELY A KIDS BOOK.

Anyone who reads it should recognize that, because it's a cute adventure story about a funny little guy and some dwarves and a dragon. Also, if you've read LOTR as well, you should be able to easily recognize that the style of language used in the Hobbit is simpler than LOTR. And so are the story elements used. Because it's for a younger audience, purposefully.

On top of that, if you look into the history of how and why the Hobbit got written, you will find out that it was originally a bedtime story that Tolkien told to his kids.

I work in a library, and I frequently refer to the Hobbit as "the gateway drug" for the works of Tolkien. Because it's an easy place to start. You dip your toes in, you decide if you like hobbits or not, or if you like this type of fantasy adventure or not, then you can go from there. BECAUSE IT'S FOR KIDS.

I personally read it at around 8 years old, probably. And it was fine. I loved it. And now I give it to a bunch of other kids at my job and guess what? They love it too.

FFS. Let kids read the Hobbit.

[marta-bee]

I'm reminded of Rayner Unwin's review of the Hobbit, here. He was ten at the time and the son of the publisher, and was asked to review it for his dad as part of his allowance.

All fans of the Lord of the Rings DVD extras probably remember that great video of a much-older Rayner reading his childhood review. I didn't even have to look up the last line: It does not need illustrations and should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9.

If that was good enough to get it published, it's good enough for me.

[marta-bee]

News of the Day: Some (Qualified) Good News on AI

Today’s Read

Wired: “New York Governor Signs First Statewide Data Center Moratorium” (PF)

New York’s Gov. Kathy Hochul just announced a one-year freeze on building AI datacenters in her state. She’s framing it not as being anti-AI but as making sure they have a well thought-out process that protects the communities of places where the data centers are being built. She also recognizes some of the problems (pollution, higher energy cost, just being noisy and unpleasant to live around) and the limited economic benefits from the towns near them once they’re built. I wish we didn’t have to live in an economy built on AI just on general principles, but if we’ve got to have AI this was a remarkably good approach to managing its costs.

Musical Break

More Stories About AI

I’m not even going to pretend this set isn’t a wee bit biased. :-) 

Paul Krugman: "Technology and Social Change"

The Atlantic: “AI Is a Great Tool for Dictatorships” (PF)

The New Republic: “Nobody Here Wants the Data Center: An Oral History” (PF)

The Conversation: “Why better-off cities and towns see more benefits from data centers than rural regions” (PF)

Rolling Stone: “Leo Shows He’s the Planet’s Pope by Taking on AI” (PF)

Wired: “The White House Is Making Up Its Rules for AI in Real Time” (PF)

Slate: “Did A.I. Really Solve a Math Problem That Mathematicians Couldn’t?” (PF)

The New Yorker: “When A.I. Is a Member of the Family” (PF)

The  Conversation: “Large language models often prioritize Western moral values, overlooking other cultures” (PF)

Wired: “The Chatbot That Foretold Why People Share Secrets With ChatGPT” (PF)

[catasters]

[marta-bee]

Bilbo in Rivendell.

[boomer-mythology-destroyer]

[marta-bee]

🎶 Everybody's got a water buffalo, Yours is fast but mine .... 🎶

[marta-bee]

I need an RPF fic of that Martin - Benedict - Sophie pic at the sporting event in the worst way.

[marta-bee]

Based on the amount of kitty litter pushed out onto the mat around the litter box this morning, the only real conclusion is someone got the zoomies while sitting there. Or something else equally unfathomable, I suppose. Silly ol' bear.

[marta-bee]

News of the Day: The Red Menace

Today’s Reads

Cathy Young, The Bulwark: “The Return of Communism Chic”

W.A. Lawrence: "Trump is Building a Communist Economy"

What’s Happening

With the rise of DSA candidate, Trump, MAGA, and a lot of traditional Democrats are freaking out over the rise of communism. It’s not, of course, and while some of their platform calls for doing away with private ownership in some areas (democratizing housing and energy, for instance), in practice the actual impact of these goals would be pretty limited. The practical impact of a few state-run grocery stores out in Queens just doesn’t seem like the biggest economic danger of our times.

On the other side, the president has been a lot more willing to get involved in the economy than Americans have historically wanted. From demanding partial ownership in private companies to castigating them when they set their prices too high and even using the Defense Production Act to boost production of AI chips, Trump’s America is getting closer to a socialist hybrid economy like they have in China than anything Zohran Mamdani could hope to put into practice.

What W.A. Lawrence Wrote

Trump brands the left communist while nationalizing American industry. The warning that socialists will seize the economy describes the seizure his cabinet already ran. The accusation is the confession.

In September 2025, Trump overruled the board of U.S. Steel and reversed its vote to close the Granite City plant in Illinois. The plant stayed open, but the power that kept it open is the danger, because a president now commands what a private company may open, close, or run. Trump wields that command through a single golden share, secured when the White House approved Nippon Steel’s $14.1 billion purchase of the firm. “We have a golden share, which I control,” Trump told reporters. One man now dictates what that corporation builds, shutters, or pays its workers.

This takeover reaches your money and your freedom. Washington spent $11.1 billion of public tax money on Intel stock without a vote, and taxpayers absorb the loss through the Treasury when shares fall. Millions of 401(k) accounts already own Intel and Nvidia, so households fund these companies twice. The Pentagon now fixes the price of rare earths, and that cost climbs into phones, cars, and kitchen appliances. Washington owns these firms and polices them, so the watchdog guards the companies the watchdog should investigate.

Trump crossed into direct ownership. By Trump’s decision, Washington became a shareholder owning 9.9 percent of Intel and 15 percent of MP Materials, so the government now works to raise the share price its own holdings depend on. A startup cannot outbid a Treasury that paid $11.1 billion for Intel, so the next competitor never launches, and the $110 floor on rare earths keeps a government-owned producer profitable even when a rival sells for less. One president now decides which firms survive and which firms fail, trading the open markets that built American wealth for one man’s control.

What It Means

Thinking about this (because the topic has been coming up more and more in recent months), I find myself circling back to two basic questions: are Trump’s shenanigans truly a form of communism, and does it matter?

This practice of the government taking shares of private companies isn’t entirely new, but it does seem to be happening with much more frequency during this Trump administration, and for a very different reason. I’m reminded of the TARP program, the Wall Street buyout where the government “purchase[d] toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.” I’m sure there are similar examples of the government investing in companies in the before-times. 

Trump, though, isn’t demanding shares to help the company or the larger economy; he very clearly seems to be trying to enrich himself, and perhaps to show he’s not a chump. The Pentagon’s taken a public equity stake in at least one defense contractor (PF), and last year Sec. Lutnick discussed pushing for similar deals across the industry. (PF) More recently the older Trump sons have invested heavily in weapons manufacturers (PF) and been appointed to their boards, with the companies then landing major contracts. The thought seems to be if you’re getting most of your business from government contracts, you’d best give a little to the man handing out the contracts.

At a structural level, this does seem to look a lot like China’s economy. The government buying up industries, literally seizing the means of production, sounds like textbook communism. There’s certainly a delicious (or painful) irony in watching Trump bellyache about the DSA being “godless communists” as he adopts its worst features on his own. I’d argue, though, there’s at least one important difference: intent. Actual communism is meant to be about managing certain resources for the benefit of the people. However poorly executed, however quickly it gets corrupted, that’s at least the starting goal. Trump doesn’t even aim for that. He just has the power to award favors and is trying to monetize that. It’s feudalism, or kleptocracy, or just a mafia racket..

Does it matter? Perhaps not. Whatever this is, it’s surely not a free market. But this still seems like some new and worse third thing to me.

Musical Break

More News on Communism, Socialism, and Whatever the Heck We’re Doing in Trump’s America

Catherine Rampell, The Bulwark: “The Price of Staying on Trump’s Good Side”

Jonathan V. Last, The Bulwark: “The Red Menace Is Here” (On those Freedom Fuel gas stations; requires Bulwark+ membership)

Cathy Young, The Bulwark: “Desperate Trumpists Try to Stir Up a Panic Over ‘Communists’”

The Counteroffensive: "What communist sympathizers usually don’t get"

The Fulcrum: “Trump’s State Capitalism Marks a Radical Break in U.S. Policy” (PF)

Reason: “Why Are Republicans and Democrats Abandoning Economic Freedom?” (PF)

Axios: “Sewer socialism is flowing through America's cities” (PF)

Financial Times: “Trump is taking a page out of China’s sovereign AI playbook” (PF)

The Conversation: “Even in conservative North Dakota, some socialist institutions thrive” (PF)

Fortune: “Presidents aren’t supposed to pick winners, former White House ethics lawyer says. Trump keeps choosing Dell” (PF)

And if you've read this far, for funnsies:

"A Radical Examination of Homoeroticism in Communist Propaganda Posters"

[outofangband]

Another Tolkien question for you all!

What’s your favourite part of the Legendarium that was abandoned, discarded or otherwise not considered strictly canon? It can be a character, timeline or event or even something more abstract like a name change or just a line!

Feel free to use your own preference and discretion as I know discussion of what is canon can be thorny!

I imagine my favourites are obvious!

[marta-bee]

Aldarion and Erendis. It was getting so good....

[marta-bee]

Some good news from yesterday: Salem's labs came back normal, so it's just a question of getting him on a diet. I can deal with that, even if he's not in full agreement. (Those little kitty-eyes...) I can certainly deal with it a lot more easily than pills and yet more worry.

[marta-bee]

News of the Day: Gaza and Free Speech

Today’s Read

The Nation: “The Curious Case of the Nadav Lapid Boycott Campaign” (PF)

Forward: “This Israeli filmmaker harshly criticizes his country. Pro-Palestinian activists boycotted him anyway” (PF)

Last month Nadav Lapid was invited to serve on a film festival jury in Marseilles. He’s a Jewish filmmaker, an Israeli expat who moved to France in protest of Netanyahu’s policies. His films are highly critical of Israel, though according to Forward, some of his films were also partially funded by public funding through the Israel Film Fund, which is tax-supported. Pro-Palestinian groups started protesting the film festival, and Lapid eventually had to pull out.

It’s an interesting case study in how to balance BDS and pro-Palestinian activism generally against anti-Israeli racism. There’s a good case to be made that the point of BDS-style protests is to encourage Israelis to put pressure on the Israeli government, but Lapid has already done an unusual amount to protest his former country’s government than most people do, certainly more than I as an American have given up to protest Trump. Beyond that, sanctions always carry collateral damage, and no one argues that the Russian athletes excluded by the Olympics’ ban on their country means the sanctions aren’t worth doing.

More seriously and more recently, Sen. Ro Khanna was recently threatened by settler extremists in the West Bank and detained by the IDF even though he had permission to tour the area. Hearing him describe his experience (VIDEO), I suspect Lapid would argue his rights are not the most important ones to be focusing on here. Still, this pushback does feel like it’s sweeping up good people in its wake, too, and it bothers me.

Musical Break

More News About Israel and Diaspora Anti-Semitism

Jewish Currents: “The War on Palestinian Schools” (PF)

The New York Times: “Gaza Aid Worker on His Way to Watch World Cup Killed by Israeli Strike” (PF)

Wired: “How Palestinians Are Building a Digital Archive That Can’t Be Erased” (PF)

Forward: “Half of Americans think the U.S. is ‘too supportive’ of Israel” (PF)

Le Monde: “Netanyahu says some Lebanese Christian villages 'asked to be annexed' by Israel” (PF)

Mother Jones: “Is It Time for Jews to Leave New York?” (PF)

The New York Times: “Attacks on Jewish Targets in Europe Suggest Hybrid Warfare” (PF)

Jewish Currents: “The Ecology of Dispossession" (PF)

Foreign Policy: “Israel Belongs in the New Saudi-Iranian Order” (PF)

Le Monde: “Behind the suffering there are people who love life, art and peace': Words of hope from a poetry contest in Gaza” (PF)

[marta-bee]

The world seems like an awful lot just now. Real-world stuff that's a big deal seems extra big and less manageable. I rather suspect it's about what's going on inside my head, what I'm bringing to the situations, but as Dumbledore famously said that doesn't make it any less real.

And if I needed confirmation, the fact I very nearly typed "Gandalf" just now makes that point quite nicely.

RL will sort itself out. It always manages to, somehow. Probably I'm just worn a bit threadbare.

[marta-bee]

You know, I just watched Seth Meyers recount the news he missed, and maybe it simply is just too much happening right now in the world. Strangely, that helps.

[marta-bee]

The world seems like an awful lot just now. Real-world stuff that's a big deal seems extra big and less manageable. I rather suspect it's about what's going on inside my head, what I'm bringing to the situations, but as Dumbledore famously said that doesn't make it any less real.

And if I needed confirmation, the fact I very nearly typed "Gandalf" just now makes that point quite nicely.

RL will sort itself out. It always manages to, somehow. Probably I'm just worn a bit threadbare.

[ashenmind]

good lord this thing is useless

[fishmech]

idk what yall are mad about the new Lies Your Older Cousin Tells You machine is working great

[dragongirltongue]

Happy horse on mars day

[marta-bee]

A horse with no name, you say?