Books What Are Mothers For?  Despite their best efforts, Rachel Wiseman and Anastasia Berg conclude that children—and motherhood—are good on their own terms. Credit: image via Shutterstock What Are Children For? by Rachel Wiseman and Anastasia Berg, St. Martin’s Press, 336 pages, June 2024 Rachel Wiseman’s mother always knew she wanted to have children. Wiseman, meanwhile, only arrived at the same conclusion after a winding personal odyssey, one that involved soul-searching “Motherhood: Is It For Me?” classes, reading a lot of “motherhood ambivalence” autofiction and feminist literature, and finally, watching her friend, Anastasia Berg, go through it. Together, Berg and Wiseman wrote What Are Children For? to parse the titular question and the uncertainty with which the majority of their millennial generation approaches it today.  Berg, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine, and Wiseman, managing editor of The Point magazine, are keen to establish with their readers their progressive chops: These women are not conservative, nor are they pro-natalist, and their argument for having children does not come from a place of concern for low birth rates. They are two thoroughly modern millennial women, wrestling with how to justify having children in a world which, by their estimation, is wracked with climate concerns, financial instability and inequality, and attacks on “women’s reproductive freedom,” also known as the abortion industry. Moreover, as the popularity of motherhood ambivalence fiction attests, countless women of Berg and Wiseman’s own ilk—progressive, 30-something college graduates—are hopelessly undecided on the subject of having a family and looking for answers. (The answers in motherhood ambivalence autofiction are more or less the same: The first few weeks of motherhood are horrifying, and the rest is never discussed.)  It is not enough, then, for Berg and Wiseman to say that children are worth it for their own sake: “Having children is steadily becoming an unintelligible practice of questionable worth… the old frameworks… no longer seem to apply. And the new ones provide us with hardly any answers at all,” they write. To answer the question satisfactorily for their audience requires examining why millennials are hesitant to commit to kids, and answer the prevailing arguments of feminism, fiction, and climate change which many use to defend their ambivalence.  Climate change, however, quickly turns out to be a very unconvincing argument against children for most women. Mostly, women’s fears of family coalesce around the idea that children will directly and negatively harm their career, and by consequence their hard-earned sense of self, since job and self-identity are deeply entwined for the millennial cohort. Compounding this is the newer phenomenon of “slow love,” or the practice of protracting each phase of a romantic relationship over years—couples now commonly text for months before even making it to a first date, and move in together for years before considering engagement—as a means of caution. Of course, this slow burn doesn’t just mean women are well past their fertile prime before they think about kids, but that many find themselves several years into a relationship before discovering they want children and their partner does not. Another hurdle is plain selfishness: Several interview subjects told Berg and Wiseman “they would be more receptive to the idea of children if only they could guarantee that having kids would not jeopardize the things that really mattered to them”—such as unlimited free time, traveling, or sleeping in. As the authors note, “birth rates by and large correlate negatively with income.” For those for whom such a luxurious lifestyle is not an option, the sacrifices of child rearing are far less consequential. The problem which modern women are encountering is at its root a problem of separating children from romantic relationships: To marry a man because you want to have his children is, somehow, convoluted and wrong, a perversion of the modern romantic trajectory. This is not a 21st century idea, but one which stems from the feminist tradition of treating motherhood as antagonistic to a woman’s full personhood. While the idea was calcified by Simone de Beauvoir, the majority of feminist thinkers treated the biological realities of womanhood as something to be overcome in order to reach complete self-determination. (Beauvoir herself recognized the transcendent qualities of motherhood, but called it a lesser form of freedom since it was not something a woman did for herself.) “That only some but not other human beings are naturally endowed with the ability to support the development of an embryo in pregnancy…has historically been understood to underlie many, probably most, of the disparities that characterize the lives of women and men,” Berg and Wiseman write. True freedom, as Shulamith Firestone and Sophie Lewis would each later argue, requires a complete separation of motherhood from womanhood.  One does not need to read about the now medically-sanctioned phenomenon of “chestfeeding” to sense that the separation of womanhood from motherhood has effectively come about. The most commonly cited reason for egg freezing, according to women surveyed, is not to delay motherhood for a career, but to “separate child bearing from relationship success or failure,” according to Berg and Wiseman. That the question of having a child is so unknowable to millennial women testifies to this fact too: How indeed is a woman to know if she wants to be a mother if she does not know what motherhood means? Wiseman describes the vocation as “coming naturally to my mother,” but by this she simply means her mom could organize schedules effectively, both those of her children and of “a rotating cast of nannies and babysitters.” Unsurprisingly, this image does not inspire Wiseman to mimic it.  “Is the capacity to give birth a source of power and meaning, or is motherhood a cumbersome, potentially torturous, and at any rate unnecessary and overrated experience?” Berg and Wiseman ask. This becomes a central question for the authors as they plumb the murky depths of autofiction, a genre characterized by fictionalized narratives of its authors’ own lives. The popular subgenre of “motherhood ambivalence literature” typically follows a single woman’s internal monologue as she muses over whether to have a child; the stories often culminate in an unplanned pregnancy or the drama of birth, and rarely consider any voice besides the author/narrator’s to be authoritative. Presumably, the point is that the author must find the answer to her question deep within herself, but as Berg and Wiseman note, “the deeper we go into the recesses of our narrators’ minds, the less we can tell what they are like and who they are.”   If motherhood is meaningful, its meaning is not found in a void. A child is created through the closest type of communion between a man and a woman, assisted reproductive technology notwithstanding. Berg and Wiseman seem to recognize this instinctively: Wiseman condemns both the motherhood ambivalence class she attends and much of the motherhood ambivalence autofiction she reads for their attempts to abstract the question of whether to have children from every external factor, such as whether a woman has a husband, or any marriage prospects whatsoever, and whether said male has any interest in creating life with her. But when it comes to her own decision to have children, the reader is given no context: Wiseman says she is pursuing IVF. With a husband, boyfriend, or anonymous sperm donor? Apparently, it doesn’t matter.  In their final philosophical argument, the authors turn to a discussion of teleology to argue that since goodness, justice, and beauty are worth pursuing unconditionally, having children cannot be morally wrong, since it may be a way of pursuing those worthy ends. This is hardly a resounding emancipation of motherhood, but it is as close as the authors come to reinforcing children as a worthy pursuit. The choice to have a child is, ultimately, up to you: It is the most “basic way to affirm our existence,” and not immoral, but also decidedly not imperative.  We are accustomed to thin gruel from secularism, even well-intentioned secularism. After all, if Kant could not overcome the impossibility of arguing for moral behavior separate from an animating fabric of morality (what does it mean to be “good”?), it is not surprising that the dicta of liberalism can barely provide grounds to argue the choice to have a child today is not immoral. Where Berg and Wiseman land is exactly as far as two cautiously pro-child liberal feminists are allowed.  Was it this argument that ultimately turned Wiseman’s head towards family making, or was it something else? In her concluding essay on motherhood, Berg seems hesitant to admit to any delight in her young daughter Lila, but the enchantment seeps through anyway. Wiseman is also discovered in these scenes, sticking and re-sticking window clings with the two-year-old.  “To have children is to allow yourself to stand in a relationship whose essence is not determined by the benefits it confers or the prices it exacts,” Berg writes. In other words, we cannot come to this decision by a pro-con list. We must instead be moved by a love for another to engage in that creative act (which mimics that of a greater Creator). “To give life to someone else is always to give away something of your own and to saddle yourself with a love—yours, theirs—that can be almost unbearable. A child’s life comes at the cost of yours,” Berg writes. She does not seem to be calling this a bad thing. The post What Are Mothers For? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Democrats are the Biggest Danger to the Constitution A Kamala Harris presidency threatens the roots of American order. Credit: image via Shutterstock We have reached that point in the election cycle where people begin to tell us it is conservative to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris or express astonishment that Republicans are voting for the former President Donald Trump—even Republicans who are aware of his flaws, given the options that are actually on the ballot this year. There was an extended period of time when I stopped voting for Republican presidential candidates because I thought they increased the risk of disastrous, no-win wars in the Middle East. Even Trump heightens the chances of war with Iran more than I’m entirely comfortable with, but my sense is that he would prefer to go down in history as an international dealmaker and his instincts, in this area at least, are less bellicose than the available alternatives. But I was never one to pretend that increasingly progressive Democrats were actually conservative. Occasionally, a Jim Webb would come around who combined some latent conservative tendencies with sensible foreign-policy views. More often, Democrats would give us candidates who voted for the Iraq War, as did then-Senator Joe Biden and both senators on the ticket they ran against George W. Bush in 2004. January 6 was a national disgrace and embarrassment, a dangerous event even if not quite for the reasons many of those who make it central to their political identity claim. Yet my view is that the Iraq War represents the nadir of American political leadership in the last quarter century, which leads me to see both the stakes of the election and international conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war differently than the small but vocal group of Harris-voting conservatives.  But anything Trump attempts will be opposed by major national institutions—from the press, to the courts, to the people with the biggest media megaphones—with a ferocity and near-unanimity that nothing Harris does will come close to eliciting. Let’s start with a perfectly benign example. When Trump proposes an end to the taxation of tips, there is a rush of news stories about the lost revenue and unintended consequences. When Harris copies him, with the support of the Biden White House, sometimes even the same media outlets treat it as just another policy proposal. What little we know of Harris’s platform is hostile to constitutional government as it presently exists. She has endorsed Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reforms and may be even more committed to them than he is. Taken together, they are a naked attempt to gut judicial review and constitutional checks on what a future Democratic administration would do. Anything Trump would try to do to make an unelected federal bureaucracy accountable to the elected constitutional officeholders will receive far more scrutiny. More attention will be paid to what a discarded Heritage Foundation whitepaper might mean for Trump’s power than what these reforms would do to enhance Harris’s. Democrats have been inattentive, if not outright hostile, to enumerated powers for decades. This is often justified by arguing they want to defy constitutional strictures for the public benefit, not Trumpian self-dealing. But you don’t have to worry as much about presidential immunity if presidents are limited to their enumerated powers. Sometimes the Democrats’ small-d democratic rhetoric is itself at odds with the Constitution. What they want to do is replace the current system, which requires broad consensus for most major changes to the frustration of both parties, with the ability to ram things through with the barest majorities. They can justify it in terms of one human, one vote, but it rather suspiciously maximizes the amount of power they can wield with the narrow margins by which they can actually win elections. If Harris is elected president alongside Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, there is a good chance the Senate filibuster will be eliminated. This would allow 50 or 51 Democratic senators to deal conservatives long-term defeats on issues ranging from abortion to immigration, further consolidating their own power through a bigger federal role in elections and statehood for ultra-blue jurisdictions like Washington, D.C. All of this could have happened under Biden, but the Democratic majorities were too small. Perhaps some other Democrats in the Senate would take up the role played by Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Their absence from the next Congress, however, suggests probably not. The real consequences of any election result can be hard to predict. Recessions, terrorism, and pandemics can disrupt the best-laid plans. That’s why people should vote as they please. The post Democrats are the Biggest Danger to the Constitution appeared first on The American Conservative.

Liberpulco Tickets: https://liberpulco.com Use the coupon "IGAN" for a 10% discount Anarchapulco Tickets: https://anarchapulco.com/ Use the coupon "IGAN" for a 10% discount https://thecrowhouse.com BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/TheCrowhouse/ Odysee: https://odysee.com/@thecrowhouse:2 Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-4683704 VigilanteTV: https://vigilante.tv/c/the_crowhouse/ FreedomTube https://tube.freedom.buzz/channel/thecrowhouse CloutHub: https://clouthub.com/c/thecrowhouse Liberpulco Tickets: https://liberpulco.com Use the coupon "IGAN" for a 10% discount Anarchapulco Tickets: https://anarchapulco.com/ Use the coupon "IGAN" for a 10% discount https://thecrowhouse.com BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/TheCrowhouse/ Odysee: https://odysee.com/@thecrowhouse:2 Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-4683704 VigilanteTV: https://vigilante.tv/c/the_crowhouse/ FreedomTube https://tube.freedom.buzz/channel/thecrowhouse CloutHub: https://clouthub.com/c/thecrowhouse Fundraiser for my friend Nedal in Gaza https://www.gofundme.com/f/4-generations-of-palestinian-family-live-in-shack A lookback at the Zionist terrorism that led to Israel’s creation https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/a-lookback-at-the-zionist-terrorism-that-led-to-israels-creation-15767166 Goyim Flyers https://www.gtvflyers.com/ Anarchapulco Virtual Replay https://cdn.dollarvigilante.com/slpg-2024-anarchapulco-virtual?utm_source=jeff&utm_medium=video&utm_campaign=anarchapulco-virtual Max Igan en Español https://www.bitchute.com/channel/maxiganenespanol/ https://odysee.com/@MaxIganenEspa%C3%B1ol:5 Biometric Update https://www.biometricupdate.com/ Guide to Forming Communities Spanish Edition http://thecrowhouse.com/Documents/Guide%20to%20Forming%20Communities%20Spanish%20Edition.pdf Commonwealth of Australia States Assembly https://commonwealthofaustraliastatesassembly.com/ "The illusion of freedom will continue for as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will take down the scenery, move the tables and chairs out of the way, then they will pull back the curtains and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." - Frank Zappa “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." - George Orwell “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.” ― Frank Zappa "A single person who stops lying can bring down a tyranny" Alexandr Solzhenitsyn TURN OFF YOUR TELEVISION!!! THROW AWAY YOUR SMART PHONE!!!

The book burnings during Hitler's reign are frequently mentioned, but never WHAT they banned or WHY, it's time to delve deeper into the subject. They're never discussed in detail, only a quick mention in history books as if it was a huge evil during the National Socialist reign. But was it so bad? Let's find out the truth. This video is NON-POLITICAL, obviously, I have an opinion like everyone does, but I did try to simply present the facts as they are here without inserting my own opinion, if it didn't come off that way, I apologize but I did try to state the fact several times. I understand why this is a sensitive topic, as if anything relating to the period. Patreon : / zoomerhistorian Telegram: https://t.me/zoomerhistorian YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ZoomerHistorian UTL COMMENT:- "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."

UTL COMMENT:- Albanese is so OUT OF TOUCH

Pinocchio originated from The Adventures of Pinocchio, written by Italian author Carlo Collodi in 1883. Collodi, born Carlo Lorenzini, was a journalist and writer known for his children’s literature and political satire. The story was first serialized in 1881-1882 in a children’s magazine before being published as a book. It was intended as a moral tale to teach lessons about honesty and good behavior. The character of Pinocchio has since become an iconic figure in literature and popular culture. Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio Review Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is an original and somewhat somber take on the well-known fairytale that is vastly superior in many ways to most of its other cinematic brothers. The overall aesthetic is gorgeous, with del Toro’s distinct gothic style and panache for symbolism, breathing life into more than just the titular wooden puppet. Unfortunately, that same complexity may alienate younger viewers who are far less interested in existentialism and the nature of ethics than they would be in a brightly colored and easily digestible morality tale. When combined with a slightly blurred narrative that completely overshadows the moral of the original story, the importance of honesty, the film sometimes tends to drag. This uneven pacing and its murky central theme does much to stall the audience’s emotional connection to its events. However, for those looking for a generally family-friendly film that celebrates the importance of fatherhood and the vital meaning that children can bring to one’s life, they could do far worse.   INAPPROPRIATE ELEMENTS Parental Guidance Suggested Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is rated PG for good reason. Its themes range from melancholy to macabre, and while it is never graphic, neither does it shy away from some mature subjects. Geppetto’s biological son dies just off-screen in a bombing. One of the film’s villains falls off of a cliff to his death. The camera follows him all the way to the rock that he crashes upon. Even though the camera angle hides any blood and broken bones from view, we hear him splatter against the stone and see an arm and a leg sprawled out hanging over the side. A son is physically abused by his father, who picks him up by the throat, strangles him as he casts dispersions, and then throws him to the ground. Another villain regularly threatens other characters by holding the tip of his sword to their throats. How Dry I Am Suffering from the loss of his only son, Geppetto becomes an angry and bitter drunk who is shown several times stumbling around with a bottle of alcohol. Seig Heil The film is set during the rise of Mussolini, between the First and Second World Wars. As such, there are a number of characters who give the Nazi salute, including but not limited to a Catholic priest. Cheese and Crackers Ewan McGregor’s Sebastian J. Cricket exclaims, “Oh my God” at least once.   WOKE ELEMENTS Are You a Good Catholic or a Bad Catholic Early in the film, Geppetto and his son are seen praying over their meals and attending Mass. Geppetto even carves a large and beautifully intricate Crucifix for his local church. However… ***SPOILER ALERT*** Geppetto’s son is killed in a church ***END SPOILER*** while other “spirits” and supernatural beings play an integral role in Pinocchio’s life. The latter has been the case since the original 1800s story, but the fact that Christ was made so important yet seemingly impotent later on could be taken as a slight. However, it’s never explicitly said that this is the case, nor does Geppetto ever forsake Christ. Since it is so open up to interpretation, I didn’t remove any points. The Catholic priest is portrayed as a Mussolini supporter who gives the Nazi salute. Even though others are shown to give the salute out of fear, and it isn’t expressly stated that the priest isn’t doing so as well, his character is largely unneeded. This, and del Toro’s past comments on religion, leads me to believe that this was a deliberate slight. I didn’t ding the score hard due to the fact that the priest is only briefly in the movie.  

It’s early in Batman’s crimefighting career, and Gotham is at its peak corruption. The Caped Crusader will have to fight his way through a rogue’s gallery of familiar and new faces if he hopes to quiet the demons that drive him. Batman: Caped Crusader Review With Caped Crusader, Bruce Timm, the producer who brought us the incredible Batman: The Animated Series in the 90s, tries to recapture lighting in a bottle, and just like the saying implies, it proves impossible. With an aesthetic that only deviates slightly from that seminal work and some real directorial brilliance, this iteration of Batman is sorely missing a key ingredient: Batman. Comprised of just 10 episodes, Batman often feels like an afterthought. The first half of the season focuses almost entirely on its cadre of diverse, strong, independent women, and Batman is little more than a background curiosity or a plot catalyst. In later episodes, The World’s Greatest Detective shines a little more brightly, but these instances are the exception. This is a shame because much of what the series offers is quite good. Batman: Caped Crusader boasts the same excellent animation as the 90’s series, only with today’s high fidelity. The direction and storytelling are crisp and engaging; for a cartoon, its characters are multi-dimensional and nuanced, and most of the voice acting is excellent. Unfortunately, the latter takes a major dive with the program’s lead. Hamish Linklater, who voices the titular Dark Knight, delivers an almost flawless Kevin Conroy impersonation… if Conroy had spoken in an emotionless and robotic monotone. It’s a flaw that ruins what precious little screen time Batman gets. Ultimately, Batman: Caped Crusader is a forgettable and derivative entry into Batlore, lacking the dynamism and focus of its 90s predecessor or the distinctiveness and fun of series like the divisive The Brave and The Bold.   INAPPROPRIATE ELEMENTS – BATMAN CAPED CRUSADER We Are The Letter People See Love is Love in the Woke Elements. #$%!^&*@ There are multiple damns and hells, and variations thereof The Lord’s name is taken in vain several times with “Oh my God,” “Jesus,” and the like. M is for Murder The Penguin brutally murders her own sons. A dirty cop shoots and murders someone. L is for The Way You Looked At Me At one point, Dr. Quinzell, who is providing court-mandated anger management therapy for Bruce, asks him if he’s ever been in love or “in lust” with someone. WOKE ELEMENTS I Ain’t Need No BatMAN For the first half of the 10 episode season, Batman gets far less screentime than the strong independent diverse ladies of Gotham. With the exception of one or two of the later episodes in which he and his adventures are the focus, even the later episodes in which he is featured more don’t have him driving the plot. Batman teams up with Barbara Gordon instead of the Commissioner. When she’s not running her own mob, Penguin is a tall, mannish woman named Oswalda who sings at a nightclub and wears men’s clothing as men swoon. Harvey calls Barbara “sweetie,” and she makes a big thing out of it. Oswalda Cobblepot (aka The Penguin) wears men’s clothing and towers over Batman. Love is Love DC Comics has been shoving gay pegs into our round holes for decades now, and making Harley Quinn a lesbian has become one of their favorite tropes. However, all other animated iterations have been relegated to shows rated for mature audiences, not so with Batman: Caped Crusader. In this show, rated safe for children aged 14, Harley and Detective Renee Montoya spend several episodes looking at one another with googly eyes before finally going on a date and sharing a romantic kiss. There’s a brief scene with an ambiguously gay actor character. Montoya and Harley Quinn passionately kiss in Batman: Caped Crusader The Great White Nope Not every villain or jerk is a white guy, but, except for Batman and Alfred, every adult white male is a dirty cop, corrupt politician, vain opportunist, man-baby, or a heartless rich scumbag. In one scene, the police station has to quickly evacuate, and a white police officer abandons a woman handcuffed to his desk to save his own life. Barbara ends up saving her. Harvey Dent lets wealthy white girls off while throwing the book at minority defendants. Catwoman is a spoiled rich brat who steals to supplement her dwindling inheritance. Super-Babes Barbara is naturally great at everything and always right. Harley Quinn bests Bruce in a battle of wits. I Said Celluloid, Not Cellulite The animators must have needed extra ink because now Montoya, Harley Quinn, and Alfred need Ozempic. Gotta have those body positive comicbook characters. DEI, It’s What’s For Dinner. So, Get Ready To Swallow Harley Quinn isn’t just dumpy; she’s also inexplicably asian. Barbara Gordon is black. James Gordon isn’t just black; he’s an actual DEI hire. The corrupt white mayor reminds him that the only reason he got the job was to generate “good headlines” for him. Much like the infinitely better Animated Series Batman: Caped Crusader is set in an alternate 1930s and 40s, but white people aren’t even close to being a majority. I actually didn’t take many marks off for this since it is an alternate reality. No More Joking Around Harley Quinn’s origin used to be that of a psychiatrist who was tortured, broken, and turned by the Joker. In Batman: Caped Crusader, she is still a psychiatrist, but now she is broken by the inhumanity of wealthy white men. That’s not hyperbole. After spending years listening to her rich white patients divulge their dark secrets to her, she snaps and turns to villainy.  

The House with a Clock in Its Walls is a fantasy film about a young boy named Lewis Barnavelt who goes to live with his eccentric uncle Jonathan in a mysterious old house. Lewis discovers that Jonathan is a warlock and that the house is filled with magical secrets, including a hidden clock with a sinister purpose. Along with their neighbor Florence, a powerful witch, they must race against time to find the clock and prevent an evil plot from unfolding.  

Trap revolves around Cooper (played by Josh Hartnett), who takes his daughter, Riley, to a concert by beloved pop artist Lady Raven. However, Cooper soon discovers that the concert is actually a trap set to catch him. Trap Review Josh Hartnett can’t seem to get a fair shake. After starring in 2001’s schmaltzy, melodramatic, and never-ending Pearl Harbor, he’s never quite been able to find a place for himself in Hollywood. However, after a surprisingly excellent turn in last year’s smash hit, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, one might be excused for thinking that things were looking up for the one-time heartthrob. This makes it doubly unfortunate that he found himself seduced into this ill-conceived mash of reject-dialogue nonsense written by someone who has apparently never interacted with another living human being. No doubt Hartnett was intrigued by the possibility of stretching his thespian stride over the dead bodies of the serial killer perfectly named for this creative black hole, The Butcher.  Yet, under Shyamalan’s direction, Josh struggles to find a balance between over-the-top cartoon and brutal and cunning monster. Only adding to the tragedy is that Harnett shows signs of brilliance from beneath the weight of unnatural dialogue and interactions with performers behaving like aliens who have only studied humanity via streaming services. This is to say that very little, if any, of what’s wrong with Trap has anything to do with Harnett. That dubious distinction rests solely on M. Night and his casting director(s), though mainly on the former. Whereas Hartnett is a strong enough performer and was given just enough material to find nuggets of humanity to emote, the rest of the cast is left with dialogue and situations that make one wistful for Lesley Headland and The Acolyte. That said, M. Night’s daughter, Saleka, who plays the pop star Raven and gets the lion’s share of the screen time after Hartnett, looks and sounds completely lost every moment that she is not belting out a vapid ear-drilling poptastrophe. Yet, as dumb as the premise and as tedious as its many and more concert scenes might be (and they are), the first half of Trap is serviceable, thanks almost entirely to Hartnett. While he charismatically serendipities his way from scene to scene, discovering more and more of the FBI’s impossible plan, the film’s many weaknesses could be forgiven as those of a dumb-fun summer thriller. But like much of modern cinema, Trap doesn’t actually have enough of a story to fill its already truncated runtime, and it runs out of gas at the end of the second act. This leads to a meaningless and flat conclusion with an almost palpable feverish desire to deliver a signature Shyamalan twist. The overall result is a movie that borders so bad that it’s good.   Trap Drinking Game Rules: Sip: Take a small sip of your drink. Gulp: Take a bigger drink. Shot: Take a shot or finish your drink. When to Drink: Sip: Whenever a generic pop song plays. Whenever Raven talks to the audience. When Josh Hartnett’s character, The Butcher, narrowly avoids law enforcement. When someone talks directly to the camera in a closeup shot. Whenever the daughter says her dad is acting “weird” or “strange.” Gulp: When one of The Butcher’s victims is viewed via a smartphone app. When a twist or surprising moment happens (especially if it feels forced). Shot: When someone performs a particularly cringe-worthy performance. Whenever you feel the movie borders on “so bad it’s good” territory. Every time M. Night Shyamalan appears on the screen. Bonus Round: Finish your drink: If Josh Hartnett has a moment where he shines despite the dialogue, delivering a genuinely good performance. Remember to drink responsibly and have fun!   WOKE ELEMENTS Blinded By the Light I didn’t see any. Let us know what we missed below.

Thirteen years ago, Game of Thrones captured the imagination of audiences worldwide with its high-concept fantasy, masterfully written intrigue, and well-defined characters played to perfection by charismatic performers. 2022’s House of the Dragon, while not the heart-pounding global (at least for a few seasons) phenomena of its forefather, gave fans a respectably well-done spinoff series that honored the source material. House of the Dragon (S2:E1 – A Son for a Son) Set 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones, season 2 of House of the Dragon picks up days after the conclusion of Season 1. Westeros is on the verge of war as the already cloven royal family reals in the aftermath of Prince Luke’s death at the hand of his cousin Aemond. Unwilling to forego vengeance, will Queen Rhaenyra’s next actions set the whole of the country in dragon flames?   House of the Dragon (S2:E1 – A Son for a Son) Review Season one of the series was already at a disadvantage when compared to the electrifying early seasons of GOT. However, it quickly found its own voice, distinguishing itself as a more deliberately paced affair far more interested in political intrigue than in being an epic adventure with global repercussions. Episode 1 of this season continues the trend even though it also sets the groundwork for what look to be set pieces to rival the scope, if not the emotional connection of Game of Thrones. And that’s really where this episode suffers the most: a lack of emotional connection. Unhelped by the two-year gap between seasons 1 & 2, A Son for a Son doesn’t possess the same connective tissue as even some of the weakest episodes of its older brother. Its characters seem to blend together with names that are even more similar and indistinguishable from one another than they are. All in all, the somewhat slowly-paced episode 1 of season 2 of House of the Dragon is held together by good performances and promise.   WOKE ELEMENTS Oh, Varys Game of Thrones had no shortage of strong women in leadership roles. However,  unlike Daenerys and Sansa, who went through hell only to gain power organically, or Cersei, who schemed and connived her way to power and ultimately ruin, the leading ladies of House of Dragon wield power much more like their male counterparts. Furthermore, the competence scale has significantly tipped in their direction. With all of his flaws, even after losing his hand, Jaime Lannister’s character arc was both that of finding redemption and, once again, becoming competent. Season 2 of HOTD seems to be setting the stage to make the men more or less irrelevant. It’s fairly subtle at this point, and I might be wrong about the show’s trajectory, but I doubt it.   House of the Dragon (S2:E2 – Rhaenrya the Cruel) The drama continues as the consequences of Daemon’s impetuousness begin to bear poisoned fruit. The Red Keep is in turmoil, the king is furious, and war is inevitable.   House of the Dragon (S2:E2 – Rhaenrya the Cruel) Review Rhaenrya the Cruel is another perfectly satisfactory entry into the series. The performances are consistently fantastic, and the dialogue is better than almost anything else out there right now. However, the show still hasn’t reached GOT’s intrigue or on-the-edge-of-your-seat thrillingness. Instead, it continues to give off a very soap opera-like vibe, though with infinitely better script, performances, and production value.   WOKE ELEMENTS Floppy Wieners I’m all for the franchise’s complete omission of gratuitous nudity. It added nothing to the original series and served as little more than cheap titillation. However, while this series shows a marked reduction, they make a concerted effort to hide female nudity without the same consideration for the men. Don’t get me wrong, junk isn’t spinning in the wind in scene after scene, but they will show completely naked men (junk hidden) while giving half-ass-crack shots to women playing dancing whores. It’s not an accident. Geography Schmeography One of the things that gave the original such a wonderful sense of scope was its clearly defined geography, as shown by clear racial and cultural divides. You know, like the totality of human existence was before cheap and easy mass transit was a thing. Heck, have you been to modern-day Japan or Norway? They’re filled with Japanese and Norwegians.   House of the Dragon (S2:E3-E8) [membership level=”1,2″]Beautifully acted with exquisitely crafted dialogue, all directed with aplomb, episodes three through eight are among the most artfully repetitive stories ever penned. It’s sad to say, but House of Dragon has taken the bane of modern storytelling, which is stretching too little story over too many episodes, to the next level. One of the show’s many refrains is that of Rhaenyra’s Small Council’s concern that Rhaenyra, while intelligent and well-meaning, doesn’t understand the nature of warfare as do men. As she flounders in inaction, only to MacGuffin her way to success, it’s difficult not to see the ironic comparison between her and this season’s mostly female writers. As one conversation transitions to another conversation between two characters whose names you will never remember, one can only lament the absence of Game of Thrones’ early dynamic and its multiple disparate yet tangentially related story arcs, all designed to merge into what ended up being rather disappointing. However, until it let us down, it was quite a ride. Conversely, this entry into House of The Dragon is little more than a setup for season 3.   WOKE ELEMENTS Kneel Before Broad The series only begins to gain momentum once every single primary male character has been meaningfully humbled or humiliated. In fact, one of the leading males only becomes a fully actualized person after he literally kneels and abases himself before a woman. Furthermore, it is a woman who shows him this path to salvation by humiliating him throughout the season. All of the series’ men (with perhaps two minor exceptions) are either petty, weak, dumb, brash, overly aggressive, deadbeat dads, or shortsighted. In contrast, the women are all wise, temperate, and brave. A young, stoic, and stolid woman schools a sad and weepy man (one who has seen many battles) on the nature of honor and glory in death. Unlike GOT, which generally stuck to cultural mores akin to Hight to Late Middle Ages Europe, making Daenerys’ rise to power all the more meaningful, 200 years before Winter came, women speak with impunity. They are leaders in every facet of every society (foreign and domestic) and regularly best the men around them. There’s some lip service given to the evils of sexism, but it is used to make a male character look foolish, and its inconsistency only makes the feminist agenda of the writers that much more obvious. Random Acts of Lesbianism Having zero impact on the story and even less buildup, Rhaenyra and WhatsHerFace passionately kiss one another. The randomness of this cannot be overstated. Another female leader of men offhandedly asks a man to have sex with her wives. It was completely irrelevant to the plot, and there was no hint of her sexual leanings prior to this.[/membership]