Podcast appearances and mentions of mike right

Play Episode Listen Later May 30, 2023 70:33

Mike Isaacson: Lügenpresse! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOs Lizards wearing human clothes Hinduism's secret codes These are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genes Warfare keeps the nation clean Whiteness is an AIDS vaccine These are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocide Muslim's rampant femicide Shooting suspects named Sam Hyde Hiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the cops Secret service, special ops They protect us, not sweatshops These are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Today, we're talking about the lying press with Jonathan Hardy, professor of communications and media at the University of Arts, London. His most recent book, Branded Content: The Fateful Merging of Media and Marketing, explores the world of branded content, particularly native advertising or sponsored content–longform marketing copy made to look like news items. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Hardy. Jonathan Hardy: Thank you, Mike. It's a pleasure to be here. Mike: It's great to have you. So I'm really excited to talk about marketing with you because that's the industry I'm in now, and I do have some ethical issues with some of the techniques that we use. Now I write in the B2B space, selling services to business owners and officers, so I don't super have a problem with what I do–you know, manipulating business owners into buying things. So reading your book, what comes up again and again is that most of these marketing techniques aren't new, but the digital age has made them more invasive and persistent. Can you talk a bit about how digitization has changed the advertising world? Jonathan: Sure. Well, it's done so definitely in a great many ways but I'll talk about some key ones that really relate to the work I've been doing on branded content. In the 20th century, through most of the 20th century, we had a model that I call advertising integration with separation, which means that the advertising appeared in the same vehicles as media. When you looked at a magazine or a newspaper, you turned the page and it's editorial, you turn the page, it's advertising. Or the adverts that appeared between programs on television and radio. So we had integration, but often some quite strict rules and strict practices that kept advertising and media separate. So what we're seeing in the digital age is an intensification of two tendencies which face in opposite directions. One is towards integration, so advertising getting baked into media content and integrated with it; product placement all the way through to influencer marketing, branding content and so on. But the other trend is disaggregation, advertising getting decoupled from media. Because essentially in the digital age, advertisers didn't need–as some of them put it–to pay the premium prices to put their ads in media content. They could track users around the internet. So these are trends going in opposite directions obviously, right? One is about integration, the other one is about disaggregation. But I argue that they have one really common power, which is that they indicate the growing strength of marketers over media. Media that rely on advertising revenue are having to become more and more dependent, satisfying advertisers who want to integrate their content so that people will engage with it. And they're also desperate because of these other trends of losing ad revenue coming from disaggregation to kind of, again, appeal as much as they can. So what we're seeing is a strengthening of marketer power in the digital age. Mike: So my intention with this episode was to give a deep dive into how things like the Cambridge Analytica scandal could have happened. To start, let's get some technical details. We're talking mostly about inbound marketing today. So before we get into advertising techniques and stuff, what is the difference between inbound and outbound marketing? Jonathan: Sure. Well, I'll talk about that, Mike. But we should acknowledge there's some confusion here, because these terms are not always used to talk about the same things. I think one really valuable aspect is this idea of push and pull, right? If you're pushing out messages, this is known as outbound marketing. You're sort of pushing your message out to reach people. If you on the other hand create great content that people come to you for to engage with, that's pulling. And that's known as inbound. So, so far, so good. That makes sense to me. But this is used in other ways too, and I think that illustrates actually a broader point which is that marketers, not surprisingly, are often in a competitive struggle to be on the side of the new and the innovative, and not the old and the tired. So some versions of inbound and outbound marketing I think get a bit problematic here. Because outbound in some versions is kind of associated with scattergun marketing. Right? The opposite of inbound as highly targeted aiming at particular people. And I don't really buy that. You know, marketers sometimes talk about spray and pray, for instance, you know? Chucking out messages. But quite honestly, most of the time modern marketers don't do that because they can't afford to do that. So I don't really buy the argument that outbound is untargeted. I think that's misleading. What's a bit more helpful from all of this, and actually quite a crucial issue, is if you like the challenges for a thing called push marketing. The challenge is when people are not engaging with traditional advertising forms and pushing them out, and the need to come up with more engaging content; either because it's more entertaining or it's more informative. And I think that aspect of inbound is important. Mike: So when it comes to inbound marketing, it's all about the buyer journey or the marketing funnel. Can you talk a bit about the theory behind the marketing funnel? Jonathan: Yeah, sure. I often test this out on students, but if you were studying advertising in the 20th century, you might have come across a model called AIDA, which was a mnemonic, helps you remember some important fundamentals. AIDA stands for Awareness, Interest, Desire, and Action. And it kind of summed up this idea of what's called in modern terms, a marketing funnel or a customer journey. Sort of how if you're a brand, people start off with awareness and then become more interested and motivated all the way up to purchase. That's essentially what the marketing funnel means. Just to relate it to branded content for a moment, it was often argued in the past that brands branded content, which means content that's produced or funded by brands, was particularly associated with that early stage–building brand awareness. But if you speak to people in the industry, they say it's not really true. Branded content is the content that serves people right across the customer journey. So if you think someone becomes more interested and they want to find more information about the product, for example, I think they're right and I think that's– We're often thinking about a new world where brands are involved in kind of thinking, "What are the information needs? What are the communication needs of consumers at every point?" And engaging with it. And amongst other things, that's breaking down some old divisions between what we might call advertising and customer services. And as an academic, I'm really interested. I'm critical of a lot of what's going on, but I'm interested in how that speaks to a changing world and convergence across communications. Mike: Where I work, we definitely use branded content across the buyer journey and we use different kinds of content for different points along the journey. So for instance, we do more informative content for when you're in the awareness stage. Whereas when you're in the purchasing stage, we hit you more with salesy content. Because that's the point where you're trying to just hear about the benefits and decide upon a final product. Jonathan: Yeah exactly. Mike: Can you talk a little bit about the software that's used to track customers? Because that's something that I don't think most people are aware about, the CRM software. Jonathan: Yeah. CRM means customer relations management software. Some of your listeners might be aware of software like Salesforce, which tracks relations between a company and its clients, or including its prospects. So yeah, customer relations management is a huge area. One of the things I looked at interestingly was the annual reports of what are called the holding companies. These are the really big groups that own advertising agencies and PR agencies. And they've been in a battle for survival and for their presence in companies, and they're often fighting alongside companies like Accenture who are offering companies all sorts of other data services. So it's a kind of interesting world in which the traditional advertisers are maneuvering to cover more ground because that ground's becoming more and more important to companies. And definitely, all the data around customers and other people in the chain is a really important battleground for these firms. Mike: Okay, and we'll talk a bit about what gets fed into the CRM in a bit. So the company I work for, we do exclusively owned media and digital ads, pretty much all inbound with an occasional email campaign here or there. But there's other forms of digital advertising, too. Let's start by talking about what owned media is. What do advertisers mean when they talk about owned media? Jonathan: Okay. This is content that's produced and published by the brand or the marketer themselves. It's got a really long history. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, the farm implements company John Deere had a magazine called The Furrow, for example. So what we now call contract publishing by a brand. Lots of other examples; the Michelin Guide to restaurants, the Guinness Book of Records, and so on. Brands have been involved in producing their own content for a long time, but this really got turbocharged in the internet age. With the early internet, brands started to create their own websites and web pages. They've now moved right across social media, for example. And some brands have become essentially media companies. So a brand like Red Bull, which is involved right across kind of music, sports, etc, is producing content of all kinds to support the brand. Your listeners, again, one of the models that's really helpful for students and might be of interest to your listeners is called PESO. PESO stands for paid, which is a term for advertising essentially, right? The brand pays and controls. Earned, which stands for traditional public relations. You work in PR, you write a great story or a feature, it gets carried by the media, you didn't pay. That's called earned media. The S is for shared. Used to be called viral, but shared is a much nicer word for things that get moved and amplified across the internet and social media. And then the O is owned. And what PESO tells us is, these things are still separate but they're overlapping and converging in the middle. Mike: Right. So the problem with owned media is that you have to get it in front of people. What are the various ways that advertisers try to get their own media to an audience? Jonathan: Well, I'm just gonna... If you don't mind, I'll just pick up this word 'problem', Mike, because it might help to explain where I come from on these issues. I think the industry is essentially looking for how to do marketing better, right? And quite a lot of people who are in academia, in universities like myself, are really asking and answering the same question. Their aim is really to help marketers do better and do research on it. And I call all of that affirmative. So the problem from that framing is how can we do this better? How can we learn how to be more effective? But I would self-describe myself as coming from a critical tradition, a tradition of critical political economy. And we ask a different question about “problem.” We say, "Are there problems in the way communications are organized and delivered? Are there problems for communication users? Are there problems for societies? And if there are, if things aren't great out there, let's identify them, understand them, and think about how to change them." So when I come to questions of problems, that's really the kind of dominant lens that I look at them. But obviously like anyone in order to understand things better, you've got to listen to everyone in this space; to industry practitioners, and I work a lot with them. So that's just a wider framing, but actually to answer your question. Well, it's interesting because historically, they've struggled. Right? Brands have kind of invested in great content and then found surprise, surprise! People aren't always interested in going to corporate websites and finding this stuff. So part of this story has been brands producing content that they need advertising, social media advertising, to say to people, "Hey, we've done this. Here's a snippet, but come and look at the full amount." That's an interesting feature. But essentially, in this space brands would say, "Well, you've got to produce material of value back to this language of sort of pull. People have to be engaged, entertained, and/or informed. Those are the key things you need to do to solve the problem." But the other thing we'll come on to is when the marketing messages get disguised and buried. Just to give you another take on problems, I think there are problems about brand's own content. Sometimes that can be really entertaining and I enjoy it like anyone else, but there are problems essentially because it's a brand voice. And sometimes that brand voice can be louder than other voices. And that essentially is an issue. But actually, I see less problems with brands and content compared to the material that's weaved into media content: sponsored, editorial, native advertising, and so on. Mike: Okay. What about things like SEO, SMO, paid search, display ads? That sort of thing. Jonathan: Sure. SEO, search engine optimization, is a practice of trying to improve your ranking traditionally in search results, but in wider areas of content so that it gets visibility and people engage with it. Right? Because we all know people don't turn mostly past the first page of search ranking results. And as I know you know, this divides into what are called relatively good practices and bad practices, sometimes referred to as white hat–in other words, everyone does this to try and be effective–and blackhat, which is nefarious 'don't do this'. What that sums up is a cat-and-mouse game between marketers and agencies and the platforms, because the platforms are concerned to ensure the integrity and quality of search results because they depend on that trust and therefore want to move some of these black practices off to the margins, if not get rid of them entirely. But we should remember, of course, these platforms are not just there to serve the consumer. They're there to generate ad revenue. And some of the tensions that play out in that space are important to note, too. But I'd say for me, again, there's a whole literature on how to do search engine optimization and if you were teaching people how to be marketers, I'd certainly say they need to understand that. One of the bigger concerns for me is about awareness. How aware are consumers of things like sponsored search results? There was some really important research done by the UK regulator for communications, Ofcom, which looked at young people and found that a majority of them couldn't recognize the difference between sponsored listings and so-called organic ones. Only a third of young people aged 12 to 15, for example, knew which search results on Google were sponsored, were adverts, or organic. That's a really, I think, important issue and an ongoing issue. Mike: Yeah, especially when it comes to children. Let's dig a little deeper into SEO. What kind of techniques do content producers both in media and advertising use to boost their search engine results? Jonathan: Oh, wow. There's a lot of terms and some great names out there to describe some of this stuff: keyword stuffing, cloaking, bait and switch. What they really have in common is artificially enhancing the value of your content without the intrinsic worth and value that would come from people's clicks and engagement. Okay? So there are a whole series from mildly artificial through to downright criminal and exploitative means to do it. One of the more serious, for example, is this great term brandjacking, where someone acquires or otherwise assumes the online identity of a brand for the purposes of inquiring their followers, their brand equity as they say. Mike: It can be less than that too. It can just be, for instance, putting a brand's name as one of your keywords in paid search. That's brand jacking too. Jonathan: Exactly, Yeah, exactly. Mike: Yeah. So keyword stuffing, this idea of throwing search terms into content. One other thing though that bothers me a little bit where I work is the way that we go after keywords. The content that we write is pretty much exclusively based on whether there is search for it. And so as a result–I guess in the aggregate–you end up with huge patches of knowledge that just are not covered by free media. Jonathan: Yeah, I agree. I think one of the fundamental questions here is, "What about brand voice in a world where that voice comes with resources that are not widely shared?" Right? In order to be a marketer, you have resources of money. And money buys you the chance to speak. Not everyone in our world gets the chance to speak and be heard, but brands can do it through their money. Now, of course there are small brands, there are radical organizations who advertise. But we also know that the concentration of voice is often in the hands of the concentration of wealth. Which means some people, some brands, some interests, some ideas get privileged over others. And that is a really fundamental concern and it drives, for me, this issue of saying, "Well, what's the settlement for society between communications and brands?" In the old world, I mentioned the 20th century, we had some settlements. We had some rules which said, "We're going to really make sure that you know this is an advert and we're going to keep some controls on where advertising appears and how much appears and what's advertised." And the digital age is throwing up challenges all the time because new spaces, new opp,ortunities emerge for brands. And the rules are often some way behind. So those are the, kind of fundamental issues. I think voice is a really good term to use to get into that. Mike: Right. So in addition to the black hat and white hat, there are gray hat techniques which kind of straddle the boundaries of marketing ethics. One example is the subject of your book, which is native ads, sponsored content, advertorials. So, what are these? What is sponsored content? We've talked about it a bit, we haven't really defined it. Jonathan: Sure. Well, lots of different forms. But what's common to a lot of the forms I examined is in the way the industry would describe it, that the advertising is blended into the media environment in which it appears. Okay? The advertising is integrated and blended in. And I think a good way in is–building on what I was just saying to you, really–is to start by asking some questions about payment and control. Those are really key elements in tracking this story. In the old world, we had advertorials in newspapers and magazines. We still do, of course, but they're a feature of the old world. And the brand paid and controlled the content. It was an ad, but it was an ad that started to blend in to its surroundings. But what's happened in the digital age is that's taken off across all media. So we have native advertising as a term for adverts, which are also paid for and controlled by the brand, but are coming into your newsfeed on mobile social media and so on. Then we have sponsored content. And here, things get a bit more complicated because these questions of payment and control get widened. Because sometimes the brand pays and controls, sometimes the brand pays and the media, the publisher, or an influencer for example says, "No, we control the content." And sometimes it's a blend of both. And fundamentally across that spectrum, we don't have clear and consistent labeling that is readily understood by people to know exactly what's happening here. So we don't always know when a brand paid and shaped content in this space, and that's a fundamental problem. Sorry, but can I just put in–I don't know if this will be helpful or not-- but an example I was going to give from the UK is that we have a London paper called The Evening Standard. And an investigation by an online publication, openDemocracy, discovered that Syngenta, which is a US agribusiness firm, was paying for favorable editorial in that newspaper. But those stories weren't being clearly labeled as paid for and sponsored by Syngenta. And obviously, that's a big deal because Syngenta was at the time being sued by a large number of American farmers, which of course didn't feature in this more positive coverage. So here we have some problems of labeling and identifying content, we have some problems of what kind of story gets shown, but we also have an issue which goes to the heart of this where the brand could pay but the publication could say, "No, we're in control. So we don't have to label that as an ad." Mike: Right. And there's also the other problem of advertisers' control over media in general, where if there's an unfavorable story they could have it pulled. And we've seen instances of this, too. Jonathan: Yeah, it's funny. And just to share with you, sometimes when you're talking to students particularly as a professor, it's good to show them that you may make mistakes, too. So I shared the fact that, you know, I'm in a tradition which has seen advertiser influence on the media as essentially a negative force, right? And looked at, kind of, "Well, when does this happen? And how does it happen? And how is it resisted?" You know, sometimes it's resisted because journalists say, "We're not going to have it." Chrysler company told American magazine editors it wanted to be told when they were putting its ad next to content it thought was controversial. The American Society of Magazine Editors said, "We're not doing that. We stand up for free media." So, those kinds of stories. But I said to the students I have to update this. Because we're in an era where advertisers are using their power and clout, sometimes for positive and progressive ends–ends that many of you might agree with. So you know, Unilever doing an ad ban on Facebook. The current ban or semi-ban, if you like, in which one of these major holding companies Omnicom is, quote, "Advising its clients,” so it's not quite a ban, but it's advice, “not to advertise on Twitter because look what Musk is doing, who knows how this is going to play out." So in its language, it's concerned with brand safety. It's advising marketers to produce a boycott. So what I'm saying is I come from a tradition which sees advertising influence as negative. You could argue and it's important to recognize there's some positive things happening in these stories, brands doing good, right? Calling out hate speech and racism and xenophobia. That story, of course, isn't just because those brands are angelic. It's because they've been put under powerful pressure from campaigns, from #StopHateForProfit in the US, Sleeping Giants, we have Stop Funding Hate in the UK. ANd also, frankly there's still a problem. Because however good they do, they still have enormous power and they can still use it in unaccountable ways. But anyway, there's a story that just acknowledges that it's sometimes complicated. Mike: So native advertisement's gone beyond traditional news media in the digital age. Where else do we find sponsored content? Jonathan: Well, we find it right across what we could call audio-visual. We've had a long history of product placement in films and television programs but, you know, there's some big questions about where that's going next. Amazon is a company that sells things, but it's chock full of audiovisual content, sponsored brand videos, and so on. So as this world evolves, as we get Amazon's Alexa and audio marketing, we're going to have more and more content in which there's a brand role and a brand presence. Another big example is the Beta Verses. I was at a recent conference with advertising lawyers and they were kind of half-jokingly saying, "What's going to happen in this world? Are people going to walk around in T-shirts with #AdOn if it's sponsored? How is the brand presence going to be seen and identified?" And again just on this, I'd like to go back to something that was written in 1966. The code of the International Chamber of Commerce is kind of the big international code, the self-regulatory code for marketers. And it said, at the time, "Advertisements should be clearly distinguishable as such, whatever their form and whatever the medium used." Again, I like to share with you and my students, that's great language. That includes TikTok. It was written in 1966. It's really clear what it's asking for. And it went on to say, "When published into medium post that also contains news and editorial opinion, an advertisement should be so presented that the consumer can readily distinguish it from editorial matter." That's interesting because it didn't even need to add that second sentence. It's just indicating that it really underscores the importance in some of our media like news and editorial that it really matters that we can trust the content and it's not an ad. That was 1966, I don't think that describes the world today, I don't think that rule even in its current form holds, but it does exist to call on. Mike: Yeah, I know. We now have companies that are flooding their own reviews with positive reviews to boost their rankings on Google and stuff. I do want to talk about something that skeeves me out in what I do, and that's ad retargeting. So, what is ad retargeting? Jonathan: Retargeting ads are a form of online targeted advertising that is served to people because they visited a particular website. We all know this, you kind of go to a website, look at a pair of shoes, go on to some other websites, and you're being flooded by adverts for those shoes. What on earth is going on? And the answer has been third-party cookies. So to introduce another term, cookies are bits of data that get put onto your browser, so they can then follow you as you move around the rest of the internet. And those so-called third-party cookies are sold for advertising purposes; they build up a profile of you so that you can be advertised to. And that's essentially what's gone on in retargeting. Now, the world of cookies is undergoing a change at the moment, which is interesting. But all your listeners will know this experience, as you say, of ad targeting. And it's still very much present in our experience of the internet. Mike: Yeah. So basically the cookies originally were intended, as I understood it, to allow websites to remember what you have, like in your shopping cart on digital marketing or on a digital storefront. And they kind of morphed into this weird thing where they can now track you across the Internet and add things to your profile so they have more and more information about you. Okay. Jonathan: Yeah. Well, there's an important difference, Mike. The first type you're talking about is called first-party cookies. And the important thing is, again, many of your listeners will say, "Actually, some of what they provide is quite helpful to me." You know, you go to a website, you put something in a shopping basket, you don't want to pay for it. But when you come back to that site, it's still in your shopping basket, right? That's a cookie that's controlled by the website itself. And often, frankly that can be a help to us. It's still collecting data. It still raises privacy issues.But it's often helpful. Third-party is different. For example, you go to a publisher who signed up to Google's AdSense. You go there because you want to read a story, but what gets put onto your browser is a third-party cookie. And that is being used to sell advertising to reach you. Mike: The third party being AdSense, right? Jonathan: Yeah. Mike: Okay. So let's talk a little bit about market research. How have market research techniques advanced in the digital age? Jonathan: I mentioned there's this challenge to third-party cookies. And that's been driven by a number of factors. It's been driven partly because with more use of mobile, people are on different devices, it's harder to track them. It's been driven by privacy pressures which have led to important new regulation, particularly for us in Europe. And I'd say that from the UK, we don't know exactly what's going to happen next. In fact, we have a government that's probably going to relax rules that apply in Europe. But from 2018, Europe said, "You need permission to collect cookies." And there was a really deep intake of breath across the advertising and marketing and platform industry saying, "This is going to destroy the model of internet advertising." So you need permission, and we have strong rules now that demand it. As I understand it in the US, there's no federal-level regulation. But there are states–California is an example–which have brought in new rules for consent to kind of strengthen privacy and protection. So, third-party cookies are on the slide. And to answer your question about data, one of the things that is becoming more and more important is so-called first-party data. So companies, brands are collecting as much material as they can about their customers so that they can market to them. So we're seeing a huge industry growing up around digital data in the areas of customer data, financial data, and operational data. Mike: In addition to collecting their own market research data, businesses can also pay for data. So, what kind of marketing data are businesses and ad agencies buying? Jonathan: What marketers are interested, as I say, in customer, financial, operational, derive from different sources. So yeah, they're buying up to create a richer tapestry of their clients and potential clients from their own data first party and from third-party data. And we're seeing the whole ecology of advertising and marketing and media changing with the growth of these firms that are basically data harvesters and data brokers. Mike: And are advertisers the only one that are buying these data. Jonathan: Certainly not. Political movements and organizations who want richer data on consumers to target them are also absolutely buying up this data too. Mike: Okay, so now I think we've discussed is everything you'd need to know to understand how the Cambridge Analytica scandal worked. So let's talk about it. So unlike the UK, the US did not have widely publicized hearings regarding Cambridge Analytica, so a lot of my US audience will probably be unfamiliar with what happened. So before we get into the details of how the scandal worked, big picture, what was the Cambridge Analytica scandal? Jonathan: Well, I like to think of this as kind of a bundle of scandals actually because it involved failures across quite a range of organizations. Cambridge Analytica, this company that gathered and used data and sold it on to political campaigns, but other players too. I mean, it's one of the biggest scandals for Facebook. So essentially what happens–and this as a practice goes back to 2015–is a Cambridge-based researcher puts out an app which collects the data on US Facebook users. But not just them–the people who willingly took part–it accesses the profiles of all their friends and family. So in the end, data on about 87 million Americans–about a quarter of the whole Facebook audience in the US–were collected. Mike: Can you describe the app that they put out? Jonathan: Yeah. Sure, Mike. The researcher was called Aleksandr Kogan, and he put out an app called This Is Your Digital Life. It was a psychological profile app in June 2014. Either way, one group that comes out reasonably good from this story and I'm particularly proud of this or pleased about this because it is close to my heart, was the Ethics Committee at Cambridge University, because that rejected an application by this academic and also made the damning judgment that Facebook's approach to consent fell far below the ethical expectations of the university. In other words, it was deeply unimpressed with Facebook's provision. But of course having said that, we could say Cambridge University has questions to answer because this was still an academic who undertook this work. So it was an app, people who took part gave consent, but they didn't give consent for their entire network to be data scraped in this way. The crucial thing about the scandal is that data was then used and sold on to right-wing politicians in the US in various forms, to Ted Cruz for his presidential campaign, and later for Donald Trump, because it produced rich, detailed profiles of American voters, which allowed micro-targeting. And we've seen this more and more, but it's a kind of early example of what kinds of micro targeting can be done. In other words, you identify a voter who's going to be particularly triggered by rights to own and carry a gun, for example, but you trigger a different message to a different voter to mobilize them. And often those messages can be actually flat contradiction that can be at odds, but it doesn't matter. It's whatever works to build your political coalition. I think the other thing just to highlight from this is this is often framed as a digital story, but it's older and broader than that. It's about power and money. We've had lots of lobbyists who engage in political campaigns and, again, we might all agree it's okay to promote your candidate and do marketing techniques. But it's not okay to do the dark arts of demolishing a candidate through fake news and misinformation, for example. Some of your listeners might be interested; I'm in the UK, I have a great shoutout for the Channel 4 News, a public service news channel which did amongst other things, an undercover investigation in which executives from Cambridge Analytica are sort of bragging, because they don't think they're being filmed, about how they've intervened in democratic elections. It's a deeply disturbing portrait of how money and power can be used to undermine democratic processes. Mike: Okay. And Cambridge Analytica wouldn't have been nearly as successful with what they did without the plethora of right-wing content farms pumping out slanted and misleading news content. Talk about the online ecosystem that existed in 2015-2016 that allowed these websites to thrive. Jonathan: Yeah, one kind of crystallizing example, again some of your listeners will remember, was an infamous example of a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency, which spent thousands of dollars on social media ads and promoted posts in an effort to influence the US elections in 2016. So misinformation, fake authors, pretending to be Texans when you're actually in a content farm as part of the kind of quasi-state corporate world of Russia. How did that all happen? It partly happens because of the deeper logics and business models of the internet, right? You know, promoting controversy and hate, driving traffic and engagement. It happened because of lax rules on who's the source and sponsor of marketing messages. Lots of things caused it but yeah, that was the ecosystem at the time. And I think, again, before we just jump to the digital, this happens because of money. And so much of the right which can often appear to be kind of grassroots is, as we know, funded by very rich corporate donors who often don't like to be particularly transparent about who they are and how they operate. And the left progressive forces, which are more rooted in popular movements, in the end have less resource. We don't have the power of capital. We have the power of trade unions and collective work, but relatively weakly resourced. And that's a key issue. Mike: And the content farming, it wasn't just from the Russian state, it was also private sector too. I mean, there was money to be made here. So can you talk a bit about how that was profitable? Jonathan: Yeah. Well, if you generate clicks, if you produce clickbait, then the algorithmic world recognizes success at the levels of engagement and eyeballs, and that can be monetized. We should remember that's often not the primary motivation for political campaigns, it was information, disinformation, and mobilizing people to vote for candidates. But yeah, there's an economy built around it as well which meant advertisers became very aware that they were often not choosing to support right wing publications because of the way the algorithms were driving traffic towards popular and shared content. And that's one of the reasons we saw the first wave, if you like, of boycotts and withdrawals from big brands like– big companies, rather, like Unilever who were being advised that their brand safety was being compromised by the sites that were appearing on and that many of their consumers were deeply unhappy about hate speech being connected with their advertising and advertising dollars. Mike: Yeah. So one of the things that happened too as a result of these boycotts was that major social media and search platforms kind of reformed their algorithms to try to suppress this misinformation from proliferating. So, how has the digital media landscape changed since the 2016 presidential election and since Brexit? Jonathan: Well, as I say, I think we should recognize that it's often been civil society power, political power, these campaigns that have forced marketers to divest. This hasn't just come from corporate voices; it's come from popular campaigns which absolutely deserve recognition. But as I say, I think marketers using their power for good is all well and good, if you like, but it's still an exercise in a marketer's power. And that power is ultimately private and in my view, unaccountable. I mean, a defender would say, "What are you talking about? The market decides that consumers don't like it. That's a powerful force on brands." To which you could say, "Well, consumer power does matter." Right? Ad blocking is a really good example of consumer power in this world. But consumer power is dispersed, it's not concentrated. And it's not sufficient very often to challenge corporate power and interests. So these are all arguments, essentially, for a much stronger public regulation of communications because it shouldn't be left to private power to regulate itself. But nor, however important it is, can we rely on consumers only, you know? Like other people, I believe in the importance of media literacy and better education so we can find our way through this world and decode it, but I also don't think the burden of responsibility should lie on consumers. It should be a principle. If you're big and you're in a communications space, then you act responsibly, and public regulation is the only way to kind of underpin that that is actually done. Relying on self-regulation from powerful forces in this world is not enough. Mike: Yeah. Especially when the advertising techniques are constantly changing and evolving, you can't expect consumers to be privy to new ways of reaching them. So we've talked about various advertising techniques, let's talk a bit about their social implications. What are the consequences we're seeing from the proliferation of owned media? Jonathan: Sure. Well, I like to sum up the whole world of what I call branded content around three problem areas. The first key problem area is around consumer awareness–this principle that we should know when we're being sold to. And that gets the lion's share of attention, actually, from all parties to the discussion. And that's important. It's about labeling and disclosure and identification. But I argue that that attention tends to displace two others. The second big area of concern is around the quality and integrity of the media. I don't think there's enough people in this world who are speaking up for the importance of having media spaces that are free from commercial influence and interference. So that's the second area. And then the third area, which I think is really where the radical voices come in, where the critical tradition I'm part of comes in, is this notion of marketer's power of voice. You know, the significance of a world in which the ability to pay can give you a louder voice. It's not to say we can wish that away, but it is to say that it's a way of thinking about historically that societies have put limits on that. They've said, "This is where advertising can appear. This is how it can appear." And I think we need a conversation about what those rules should be for the 21st century because at the moment, we're in a bit of a hybrid of old rules that are weak and don't work, and new spaces that are opening up. So for me, that's the call of my book, really, to say, "These are deep problems. This isn't just about surface-level techniques; this isn't just about new tools in the marketing toolbox. This is a much more deep reconfiguration of the space between commercial voices, advertising, and communication space, and we need to work out what the rule should be. I put a call in for saying we really need to have a discussion about what a 21st century version of separation–keeping media and advertising apart–would look like. And I say that because of course we can't put it all back in the box, we can't come up with a solution that would have worked in 1960 and say that's going to do it. It isn't going to do it. But I think that's a really key discussion to be had. Where should we be seeking a world which is free or freer from commercial influence and interference? How are we going to create that? How should it be configured and organized? Mike: Yeah. Going back to owned media, I mean, the owned media dominates search results now. It's basically impossible to look something up online unless you're finding it through Wikipedia without having to use corporate blogs. And there's always a limitation to that, right? There's always a wall where they will not give you more information than is necessary to hook you to their services, right? When I farm out my content to freelancers, I actually specifically instruct them that the reader should come away knowing what to do, but not how to do it. And so there's a technique to writing instructional articles that make you feel more helpless, and that's definitely what we aim for in our copy, which I take particular pleasure in making business owners feel helpless and so on and whatever. So let's talk about native. Jonathan: Can I just say, I think that's such an important point and I agree entirely, and it shows that, kind of, you know, this isn't a simple change where we can easily identify the before and after. What you're describing is a kind of world where more and more content comes from an interested party and is underpinned by money and monetizing it as a driver. And we know historically we've relied on content to come from other quarters, right? I'm very proud to work in a university world because that's a world that defends the idea of, "Well, actually we should ask questions that are important for society, not the sponsor, not the company." So that's one side. We've traditionally had media in various traditions, you know, a free press in the US standing up for the idea of independent and impartial, know the advertisers can't call the tune because then we lose something really precious and what it means to do journalism. And all of those alternative sites are weak because for me, this all comes down to these questions of resource, money and power as a way in, so they have relatively less. What are we going to do about it? Well, in Europe some of us defend and advocate for public service media, but also for new forms of public service community media, non-profit, hyperlocal, because those are really important spaces where that other content gets produced. I don't know about you, sometimes it's depressing that we don't link up the networks more effectively. Why don't we have publications that pull together all the non-governmental organizations and civil society groups who are producing great content but can't always get it out to wide audiences? We don't have a very great tradition of connecting the content with the vehicle to promote it amongst, if you like, the left and progressive causes. But plenty of people are thinking about how to do it. And yeah, absolutely, it comes through to other solutions. We need to defend and extend public media–what I call in Europe, public service media. And do that in new ways, too, because some of the old ways have been– Well, PBS in the States and all the problems of corporate funding kind of shrinking what gets said in that space, so a lot to fix too. But I think that's a really important part of the solution. We need non-commercial media, and have to work out how to support and develop it to create that kind of other kinds of information. Mike: So by that same token, open-access journals I think are also really important, too. The fact that so much media now is putting up paywalls, all these academic journals are charging $30-$40 to rent an article, and there's just really no way to get free information that isn't paid for in some way. So let's talk about native. What is the effect of sponsored content on the public? Jonathan: Let me answer that by an example I show my students, which is an Exxon advertorial in the New York Times. Exxon paid for an editorial which said, "Guess what? The solution to the climate crisis isn't the removal of fossil fuels. It's smarter use of our assets." That sums up for me some of the greatest dangers, which is sponsored content amplifies voices who can speak with partiality because they're advocating for themselves, but undermines independent journalism in the process. To give another example, Facebook, as you know, has paid huge sums into lobbying and influencing politicians in Europe because it senses danger, right? Europe has created some quite strong rules on data privacy and on cookies as we discussed earlier. Facebook took out 20 ad-sponsored content items in the British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph. So it sets up stories with charity bosses who say Facebook is great without disclosing that they're financed by Facebook. It has people saying what great things it's doing to kind of cut content, even though it's been pushed out just after the Christchurch massacre, which of course was relayed for hours on Facebook and other social platforms before it was taken down. That's the problem with sponsored content, it strengthens and amplifies voices. And of course there are other problems; it's disguised; it's hidden; people aren't aware of it. We should know who the source of our content is. In fact, just be interested to talk to you because you're working in journalism. I think one of the things I grapple with but would really like to see more debate out is about the disclosure of sources. Now, I know from the Human Rights tradition and so on the absolute importance of protecting a journalist's sources. Because we don't get good stories if journalists can't protect whistleblowers and others. But we need something which protects that important public interest right. That gives readers better guidance to what the provenance, you know, what's behind the story. We could have ingredients in food and drink, but what were the sources? And in particular, we definitely need to know when there's been a paid source underlying a piece of content. So what drives me in that debate is one of the things that happened in the UK was we had a debate about political advertising on Facebook, which said we should be told better when there are political advertising. But that was running alongside another debate about how to save the British press, which was saying let's have more native advertising. So we've had contradictions and gaps in the way these issues have been treated. And I think we should recognize what's happening underneath, which is we don't always know the interests and sources behind our content. And we should do. Particularly when it's either a political voice or a commercial voice. Mike: Yeah. And I want to give a shoutout here to Corey Pein and his book, Live Work Work Work Die, where he talks about how the tech world typically, they don't really concern themselves with following rules and regulations. They just kind of do what they do and then just once regulators catch up to them, they hope they've made enough money where the fines or penalties or whatever is insignificant to how much profits they've made. And we see that with what happened with Facebook and I guess Twitter to some extent where they weren't regulating political advertisements at all. At least in the United States, political advertising has certain rules for financing and stuff that you have to report it and stuff like that. And so in the 2016 election, that was just out the window. And that's been fixed. Facebook now requires that political advertisements are registered as such, and they only get served in certain ways. All right, so there are regulations in place regarding advertising. What safeguards exist to protect the public from nefarious advertisers? Jonathan: I think just to respond to what you were saying, these are kind of almost the deeper myths, the deeper stories that have been told. The story that internet innovation was somehow kind of natural, inescapable, has-to-be-done-this-way. You want change and all these great services, this is what comes with it. It's going to be driven in these ways, we're going to move fast, we're going to trip over the old rules. I don't know about you, I think that is a myth in the making and it doesn't stack up, and it's already fragmenting and under pressure. So when Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg gets into US hearings in the likes of Cambridge Analytica, he has to say something different at that point. He has to say we do stand up for privacy and consumer protection. The problem is he doesn't fully deliver, and perhaps the bigger problem is the grand-sounding statements are there to reassure investors and markets and other stakeholders, but behind the scenes, Facebook carries on paying millions into lobbyists who go and influence politicians to make sure the rules are kept as weak as possible. So that would be my summary. In the space that I've looked at, native advertising and so on, we see a kind of mixed progress. So just taking the United States, 2015 Federal Trade Commission comes in with new rules and guidance on native advertising. And the rules are certainly an improvement: they're sharper; they're clearer. But what happens? Compliance by the industry remains low. Some early studies found 70% of marketers within I think a year of the new guidance weren't compliant. It got a bit better. But all the latest studies show right across publishing or influencer marketing, there's a compliance problem. There's that lobbying problem I mentioned. So the big marketers say, "Yes, we want to be responsible and transparent, it's in our interests that consumers know they've got ads." But actually then go and lobby. And the kind of thing they lobby over is to say, "Leave it to us what the disclosures should be." So what happens is consumer awareness is very low. Lots of the academic studies in this area have found awareness rates of about 10%, right? People being able to fully identify ad-sponsored content in news publications, for example. And it remains very low. So these industry people are kind of saying, "Well, leave it to us. We need to be fitting for the platform." And the result is consumers have low awareness and are confused. And people like me in this debate and in my book say, "We should call this out. We should have– If the objective really was consumer awareness, then we should move to clearer and more consistent labeling." And why I perfectly accept Instagram and Facebook are not the same thing and TikTok is not the same thing, if we had much more consistent labeling, we'd be in a better place. So one of the things I've argued for in Europe, for example, when we have product placement on television, unlike in the US it has to show a sign–a P sign to tell you that there's product placement. And not just at the end of programs as you're used to where the credits roll very quickly, but before and after each ad break. So why don't we have a sign, a hashtag ad, or a B sign for branded content across all branded material? I think that's an important argument to have because I think we're going into a world which is going to become even less recognizable as these new forms and formats emerge. Mike: Okay, so we've talked about some of them already, but what kind of policy gaps do you see with respect to marketing and media? And what do you think we should do to patch them? Jonathan: Well, I must just say it's a lovely time to speak to you and your audience about this because we've just started–I'm very proud of this–a three year research project which is looking into the rules and regulation of branded content. So we have what's called a Branded Content Governance Project and we're looking at the United States, Canada, Mexico, the UK, every country in the European Union, and Australia to kind of track what the rules are and what we can learn from that to do better. When I map this, I see the forces sitting in four areas. There's regulation, public regulation. There's industry self-regulation, when it makes its own rules. There's the power of the market, ad blocking, for example. And there's the power of civil society arguing for better. And I think we're at a point where self-regulation by the industry is failing. And that's becoming recognized not just by activists if you like, but by governments too. So we need a new settlement. And I think that needs a strengthening of public regulation as I've outlined. But I think all the elements need to work together. And that means putting pressure on companies to actually do as they say and strengthen their own self-regulation. Mike: Okay. Let's talk a bit about the stakes. So given the current digital landscape, what do you see the internet looking like if policy does not catch up with advertisers? Jonathan: Yeah. Well, that's a great question. Pretty chastening one, isn't it? There's a famous moment in 1994 where the chairman of Procter & Gamble, Edward Harnes, gets up and does a speech to the American Association of Advertising Agencies. And it basically says, "Hold your nerve. Things are happening, digitalization is about to happen. You could get slaughtered. The digital world could help people bypass ads and evade them. But if you keep your nerve, you can dominate this space." And I don't know about you, Mike, but I feel he was right. [chuckles] We knew this was happening in the early internet, the commercialization of the internet. But that corporate model and that corporate dominance is dominant. It's strong. However, I think we always need to look for sources of hope. And if it's dominant, it's also contested. There are forces challenging it, whether those forces are kind of carving out space for public media as we discussed, or whether like I am with others, we're kind of arguing for the rules to be improved on behalf of consumers and society. So I think we're losing, but classic Gramscian and optimism of the will is required. And to recognise all the things that are being done to highlight the problem and think through solutions. Whether that's very local ones like– I mean, something we haven't mentioned I think is very important is kitemarking, right? Small publications, non-profit or low profit saying, “We're going to signal what standards are to readers." And that's good for the publication but I think it also is good for awareness. It says, "Well, yeah, why is this publication different from these other commercial ones?" Because this is how it engages with advertisers. So I think that's all really important, too. Mike: All right. Well, cool. Well, hopefully, we can save the internet. Thanks, Dr. Hardy, for coming onto the Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about the lying press. The book again is Branded Content out from Routledge. Thanks again, Dr. Hardy. Jonathan: Thank you. Mike: If you liked what you heard and want to help us pay our guests and transcriptionist, consider subscribing to The Nazi Lies Patreon. Subscriptions start as low as $2, and some levels come with merch. If you don't want to commit to monthly donations, you can give a one-time donation via PayPal.me/NaziLies or CashApp to $NaziLies. [Theme song]

united states american university amazon california tiktok canada donald trump australia europe google uk internet marketing pr media secret action talk mexico news americans british new york times race russia elon musk russian european union arts army lies political press nazis jews states desire muslims seo records commerce brexit shooting wikipedia cambridge paypal brands b2b lying mark zuckerberg pbs aids sort human rights texans iq compliance crm red bull salesforce warfare hardy american society american association ted cruz accenture hollow christchurch relying earned unilever cambridge university hinduism peso branded subscriptions whiteness cambridge analytica john deere federal trade commission routledge guinness book daily telegraph advising exxon procter gamble advertisements evening standard adsense ofcom syngenta magazine editors michelin guide branded content omnicom ethics committee advertising agencies sleeping giants opendemocracy smo chucking adon international chamber furrow internet research agency mike it stophateforprofit mike yeah mike so gramscian mike right mike all corey pein stop funding hate jonathan yeah aleksandr kogan

Laura Graber on Sexual Abuse, Part 1

Blazing Grace Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 3, 2023 25:20

Growing up, Laura Graber's father was an alcoholic. He was also addicted to pornography and molested his daughters. There was constant tension and the fear of sexually inappropriate behavior of their father in their home, to the point that Laura was afraid of taking a shower. Laura grew up in an Amish family; while many have the perception that the Amish live pristine, peaceful lives, an undercurrent of unspoken sexual abuse is alive in their community. In this first of two interviews, Laura shares her story. Laura Graber on Sexual Abuse - Part 1 - Transcript ANNOUNCER: This radio program is PG-13. Parents strongly cautioned: some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13. Jesus's mission was to comfort those who mourn, bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim liberty to captives, and open prison doors for those who are bound for those who want more than status quo Christianity has to offer, Blazing Grace Radio begins now. And here is your host, Mike Genung: MIKE GENUNG, HOST, BLAZING GRACE RADIO: Hey, Mike Genung here, and welcome back to Blazing Grace Radio. Glad to have you along. It's a beautiful sunshiny day here in Phoenix, AZ. And before I introduce our guest, a couple of quick announcements. May 5th - 7th I'll be in Italy, the north side, leading a men's retreat there. May 13th I'll be in Vienna, Austria leading an all day conference. On that Saturday, May 20th, we'll be in Finland for several speaking engagements. And then, May 27th, I'll be back to the UK in Frimley Green, which is a little southeast of London, holding an all day conference on that Saturday. And then June 3rd holding another conference - all day conference - in North Wales. So for our listeners there in the UK and Europe, I'd love to see you. Go to the website at blazinggrace.org, there's an events calendar on the homepage. And so today I have back with me at the program, Mrs. Laura Graber from James Port, Missouri, Laura my friend and welcome back to the program. LAURA GRABER: Thanks for having me, Mike. It's an honor. MIKE: Thanks for coming on. And so, Laura's going to be with us the next two weeks, and today we'll be talking about some sexual abuse issues she encountered growing up in her family. And then next week, what she's been through with porn addiction in her marriage. And a common thread that can run through both of those scenarios, is anxiety and fears. So along the way, we'll be picking that conversation up and looking at what recovery looks like. So let's begin, Laura, and go and begin by sharing what you went through growing up. LAURA: Sure, absolutely. So I grew up in a in a Baptist Amish home. So, you know, a lot of people have their opinion of how they think the Amish are [laughs] who they are and how they live their lives. Granted, my home that I grew up in was was an exception. Thankfully there's not many of them in the culture, but my father was an alcoholic. And with that came lots of anger and rage, and, you know, all the aspects of that. And as I grew up there became more and more sexual impurities in his life, became more evident, until it got to the point where he definitely was sexually abusing us through a lot of different forms. For a long time in my life I was able to ignore it, and not, you know, call it for what it was because it didn't seem like that big of a deal. Which is, a lot of times, what sexual impurities and sexual sin... you can lie to yourself for a while, believing that it's not as bad as you perceive it to be. But... so, obviously, growing up with a father that you know was an alcoholic, and angry, there was lots of tension in our home. My parents would fight a lot, and argue a lot, and just always being tense, never knowing when something would tip them off. And he would spank you, per se, but it was much more than disciplining you. It was a way for him to unleash his anger, you know, using a whip or, you know, whatever he had close to his hands to use. So a large part of my childhood was spent, like, just living in constant fear. I remember bumping his chair one Sunday afternoon as a little kid, when he was taking a nap, and getting a beating because I bumped his chair. MIKE: Mmm. LAURA: You know, just instances that were completely crazy, you know? Yeah. Sometimes he would come to the table and I'd have to sit beside him and... because that's how we sat at the table, in that row. And he would be angry because he's looking for an excuse, you know? Someone to take his anger out on. And it was so nerve wracking trying to eat, you know, just fear, just complete fear. So obviously as I got older, you know, in the age of eight, nine, ten years old, I started becoming aware that... I can't necessarily pinpoint, like what happened, that I knew to never be alone with him. But I was always very aware at a young age, you know, if he was in the house and there's no one else in the house, like, don't be in the house with him. Yeah, I just... I spent a large part of my life just not being in the same place as him, alone. So by the age of 8-9 years old, he would make me uncomfortable with staring at me. And that led to, you know, occasionally he would, you know, try to touch me as I walk past him, or depending on where you sat or what you were wearing, he would be staring at you. He would write vulgar things on, you know, papers and leave them laying around where... you know, if I was, if he was out in the shop and I was out there too, he'd be sitting there, you know, looking at, like, magazines that were full of, you know, porn, literally. MIKE: Right in front of his daughter? LAURA: Yes, yes. MIKE: Mhmm. LAURA: I mean, he would sometimes try to hide the cover, but I knew they came in the mail. And, you know, we knew that's what he had in his hands. You know, we walked behind him, you'd see what he had. There was just like... slowly but surely it kept getting worse. And I was very naive, like no one... like, my mom would have never talked to me about sexual things, you know, growing up. So for me it was, it was all foreign. It was disturbing to me, like, disgusting to me. Like, I knew it wasn't right, and yet I had no one to explain to me, like, that this is wrong. So it's kind of, yeah, a lot of confusion mixed in with that. But it kept on going throughout my teenage years. You know, like, if in the morning, if he would hear that you're awake then he would all of a sudden, you know, open the bedroom door in hopes to catch us changing. Or if you were showering, the the lock on the door didn't work very well. Which I'd say it was probably done on purpose. And he would, you know, open the door and pretend he didn't know you were in there. It got to the point where us young little girls would, you know, if one of us were showering, the other one would be hanging around the bathroom door or be inside the bathroom just so he didn't try those things. He would, by the time I was like 13-14 years old, he would, like, in the living room evenings, he would sit on his recliner in front of everyone and be masturbating or something. You just... yeah, lots of very disturbing things. MIKE: In front of the whole family? LAURA: A lot of disturbing things. Yes. Yes. I mean, obviously I had older brothers, and if they were around he never acted out in front of them as much. He definitely hid it from them, because there was a time when some of us younger girls started speaking up a bit, and my brothers were just kind of like "What?", you know? Like they didn't know this stuff was happening. So I think he hid it more from them than what I realized, you know, at the time. But yeah, like, my mom would be sitting there sometimes, so us girls would just, I spent... I remember spending quite a bit of evenings in the bedroom until he went to bed. He'd go to bed fairly early. You know, 8:30, 8:00, something like that. And then coming out in the living room and hanging out with mom after he went to the bedroom. So yeah, that was just reality. And I somewhat knew that other dads maybe weren't like that, but it just felt too much for your brain to even process that, that this isn't completely normal. Because then I would have had to admit that this is wrong and there's something wrong. And that felt terrifying to me. Yeah. I would have much rather just had to live in an alternative reality and not face the actual effect that all of that was having on me at the time. MIKE: Mhmm. LAURA: So yeah, he was very... a vulgar person. I mean he would tell me that I was made to satisfy the other half of the population. Oh, that would that would make me very, very angry. [laughs] Obviously. Yeah. Those things kind of all continued until my parents separated when I was 16 years old. And yeah, so obviously that released me from having to live in the same house as him. The last year before they separated I would be home a lot alone with him and my mom. And that last year was... it was awful. It was completely awful. I know there was other people around on the weekends, a lot to distract him. And yeah, it was just a lot that happened that, sometimes I wonder if I even gathered, you know, mentally, today - years later - you know, what all took place. But yeah, so that obviously left me with a lot of, like, the mindset of, like, anything sexual is disturbing and disgusting. And even viewing men in general, in a very... ungodly way. Just, like, being disgusted by males in general, which in a sense, like, God used for good. Because I didn't have a lot of boy drama in my life [laughs] as a teenager. So that was... that was a little positive in the whole aspect. Yeah. Kind of a small glimpse of of my childhood growing up. MIKE: How many kids in your family? LAURA: There was nine of us, and I was the youngest. MIKE: How many boys? How many girls? LAURA: There was five boys and four girls. Actually, I said that exactly opposite, four girls... five girls and four boys. MIKE: And your brothers had no idea that a chunk of this was going on. LAURA: There was things that they did know. I mean, they were aware of, like the magazines he got in the mail. They were aware of different things because, you know, after he was done with the magazines, he would lay them in on my older brother's bed, you know, gave them to the boys. So he was very, like... entitled, you know, as a male. That was just what males did. This is who they were. So my brothers, you know, he... he tremendously impacted their purity at a young age. And they knew some of the things, but a lot of the things that he did toward us younger girls, we just didn't talk about, not even really that much to each other, nor to my mom. It was kind of something that you just didn't want to talk about because it was hard. And subjects like that in the Amish culture, you don't hear anyone talking about sexual things. They're just like a, yeah, a silent subject. Especially in the community that I grew up in that era... you didn't get taught any of that in school, you know, there was no sex ed classes in school. So there was just a lot of silence on the subject. So I remember, you know, several years after my parents had separated, I was talking to one of my brothers and sharing about the showering and he was just horrified. He was like, you know, he remembers me asking him if he could hang out in the hallway while I'm showering. And he remember just like being like, "Okay, what's wrong with her?" you know, "She's acting strange," you know? But he did and he would do that for me if I asked him. But I guess I always just assumed he knew why I was asking him, and he didn't. That's just how less we talked about it at the time. Now, today, and even, like, you know, by the time I was 17-18 years old, all of that stuff was definitely discussed and very openly talked about. At the time it was just a silent subject, yeah. MIKE: Well, a lot of people, myself included, have or had a perception of the Amish community, of being peaceful. They're living life the way it should be. There's wonderful families and communities. And so our listeners know, I've been to James Port where Laura lives, and you guys have kind of educated me that that's not quite the situation. So is there a lot of sexual abuse... immorality in the Amish community? LAURA: There is, there definitely is. And it greatly saddens me because of how that subject is not discussed. It's not taught. It's not addressed. There's, you know, a lot of young kids, you know, things happen between kids, and adults view it as, "Oh, it's just kids doing things." And that's not just kids doing things, you know? I don't know as far as, like the ratio of, you know, the difference between the Amish culture and the so-called English culture - [laughs] MIKE: [laughs] LAURA: - you know, that if you do statistically the difference between the two. But I would say in the Amish culture there is more, from my personal opinion. For the mere fact that A: it is hidden. Few people bring it to the light, talk about it, actually find healing. And it's, like... the Amish community is a really close knit community. So if one person finds it out, like everyone knows, a large part of the time. So it's something that a lot of shame and fear and just complete terror is associated with, so you don't want anyone to know about it. So it's better just stay silent and shove it to the back of your mind and forget that it exists. MIKE: Mmm. LAURA: So that's definitely, like, a lot of times when, like, instances do come up that you catch, you know, little snippets here or there, that you know something may not be quite right. Or something may have happened, but you never know, like, full details, or people don't just openly talk about it or share, you know, that "Hey, I was sexually abused, and this happened, and this is how I found healing." Those conversations would not be a part of the life and Amish community in James Port where I lived. It's more of a yeah, definitely a very shameful thing that hidden scraped under the rug, you know, covered it up. MIKE: Well, the official numbers are that one out of every four women have been abused or molested and one out of every six men have been abused. But those, those are the official numbers. That doesn't even include all those that had even reported it. So the real numbers are - LAURA: Exactly. MIKE: - probably much higher. So was your family going to church when all this was going on? LAURA: Oh yes, yes. We were in church every Sunday that there was church. My dad was actually looked up as a respected person of the community, at one point, a lot. I think as the years went by, more people... he might have happened to show his anger at the wrong time, and more people got to know that there was definitely, maybe some issues, you know, happening in the background. But there was... like, when we left, when my mom and dad separated, we actually - my dad left for work, and my mom and my brother, me and my sister, we just loaded up in the car and left and left him a note. That's how we separated because that's... we just left. And at that point, you know, I think a lot of people were shocked. And still today there's people in the community that they don't know the full story, you know, they don't know what all happened and they would still view us as being wrong. For having just left because my dad was, I mean, in public, he was a jolly person, he was funny, you know. Still today I hear a comment, you know, oh, you know, his laugh or they so enjoyed talking with my dad or something my dad said or, you know, whatever. And there's still a lot of people today that would not, yeah, would not know the real Jake as I knew him growing up. MIKE: And part of the reason on this program I have people who come on and share stories of being molested, like you've been willing to do, Laura, is because a lot of this gets repressed in the family system, and then people grow up thinking, "I'm the only one that's gone through this," and it's far from the truth. LAURA: Yeah. MIKE: So how did you unwind the idea that men are basically scumbag pervs? [laughs] LAURA: Umm... [laughs] That's a big question, Mike. Do you have a couple hours? [laughs] First of all, my brothers were pivotal in that. I mean, obviously God was in the background, you know, orchestrating all of this, but my brothers played a huge part because they treated me differently than from what my dad did. They cared about me. They were, you know, never sexually... toward me in any form. They advocated for me, did things for me, they loved me, they looked out for me. They, you know, were there. They were vibrant in my life and I could trust them completely. So that was huge. And, like, to hear they might be hanging out with guy friends or they might be hanging out with people. Like, if they were comfortable with them, I was comfortable with them a lot of times. Like, who they liked, I liked because I knew that they they had grown up with the same dad as I did. So that that was huge for me. Definitely my brother's impacting me. And also you know, as I became a Christian in later years, recognizing that there are a lot of men out there who have a heart for God. And, you know, as I started sharing my story, little bits here and there, you know, I barely wouldn't say much, you know, because I'd still be scared. But people's reaction, like men's reaction, the same like, "Wow!" like, "That is so wrong!" Or, you know, like, "That's awful!" And recognizing like, "Oh, they would think it's wrong to do this?" You know, "They wouldn't think that's okay?" You know, "That's not just how males are?" So those are probably the two biggest aspects of, yeah, my brothers, and then, like, hearing other males react to parts of my story - MIKE: Mmm. LAURA: - was huge. MIKE: So when I first met you was in 2018 when I led a wive's retreat in Colorado. So, you and seven or eight other women. So I'm wondering what was going through your mind when you're going to a wive's retreat that a man is leading [chuckles] with your background. LAURA: [laughs] Well, I definitely... I was... most of the reason why I went to the retreat was because I needed to get away from my husband. I was losing my mind, it felt like, and I was just desperate to get away. And my friend invited me and I was like, "Hey, let's go. Who cares?" But when I showed up there and I met you and I realized like, "Whoa, like I'm spending the weekend at a retreat that's being led by this male." And it was... yeah, there was thoughts in my mind, definitely, of like "Who are you?" Like, "Why would you do this?" You know, yeah. "What type of person are you?" And then that first evening we were broke up in groups to share a story, and you just happened to be in my group. And you shared your story, and that... yeah. That instantly, I... through hearing your perception and seeing your love for purity and calling things out for what they were to be wrong. You know, speaking the truth over subjects, not just brushing them under the rug, or making them sound better than what they were. Yeah, you gained a lot of respect for me that first evening and I continued to go on that. MIKE: Well, we've got several minutes left, and so I'm wondering what your healing journey... Can you give us a point or two on what that has looked like? Because that was a lot of damage to recover from. LAURA: That was a lot. In a lot of different areas, you know. A lot of small things that I even today, sometimes something strikes me and I'm like, "Wow," like, yeah, "I didn't recognize that until today." Probably the biggest, obviously the biggest thing was becoming a Christian and having God, like, the Holy Spirit, to walk me through those things. And I did a lot of counseling... have done a lot of counseling. And my siblings. My siblings have been pivotal in my life. And, like, we can sit together and we can talk openly and honestly about our childhood and connect and, like, just talk about the hard stuff. You know, the disturbing stuff that's really hard to talk to other people about openly. We do that with each other. We're not afraid to go there and to talk. We can talk about anything. And that has been majorly healing to have people who understand what it was like, and being able to just share and talk and not people freaking out about what all happened. Yeah. MIKE: And at what age did you become a believer? LAURA: I was 20 years old when I first... Yeah. I happened to go to church, which is kind of a crazy thing because I hadn't been in church for a long time, because all of this, really, I was really bitter toward God. MIKE: Mmm. LAURA: I was. I just had the mindset of "If there is a God and he would allow me to live like this, you know, for close to 17 years, then I don't want anything to do with him," you know. If he... yeah. MIKE: Hmm. LAURA: You know, people would tell me, you know, "God's good," or, you know, I would hear things like that and I'd be like,"Yeah, whatever." I would mock Christians and mock people who believed in Him because to me it was like, "How could he turn a blind eye while we suffered all those years?" I mean, just day after day of complete agony and darkness and just horribleness. I mean, just complete terror and fear, and... yeah. It was awful. MIKE: My friends [clears throat] we're going to continue this conversation with Laura next week, so I would encourage you to join us. And Laura, thank you so much for your honesty and transparency, and I look forward to seeing you next time. ANNOUNCER: Blazing Grace is a nonprofit international ministry for the sexually broken and the spouse. Please visit us at blazinggrace.org for information on Mike Genung's books, groups, counseling, or to have Mike speak at your organization. You can email us at e-mail@blazinggrace.org, or call our office in Chandler, AZ at (719) 888-5144. Again, visit us at blazinggrace.org, email us at email@blazinggrace.org or call the office at (719) 888-5144.

god jesus christ europe english uk parents colorado christians holy spirit christianity italy missouri finland austria pg granted amish sexual abuse north wales graber mike well mike how mike so laura you mike thanks mike right laura yeah laura so frimley green

Yung Prince Ft. Atomic Mike - Right

BayArea Compass

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2023 2:42

Yung Prince Ft. Atomic Mike - Right by BayArea Compass

atomic yung mike right

Exploring a Framework for Equity in the Math Classroom - Guest: Dr. Pamela Seda and Dr. Kyndall Brown

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2023 19:57

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 8 – Unpacking ICUCARE Guests: Dr. Pamela Seda & Dr. Kyndall Brown Mike Wallus: What does it mean to offer our students a culturally relevant experience in mathematics? This is a question on the minds of many, particularly elementary mathematics educators. Today we're talking with Pamela Seda and Kyndall Brown, authors of “Choosing to See: A Framework for Equity in the Math Classroom.” We'll talk with our guests about what culturally relevant mathematics instruction looks like and identify practical steps educators can take to start this important work in their classrooms. Mike: So, hello, Pam and Kyndall. Welcome to the podcast. We're so glad to have you with us. I'm wondering if both of you would be willing to take a turn and just talk a little bit about what brought you to writing the book. Pamela Seda: OK, well I'll start. This book really started with my dissertation research. And when I started my Ph.D. program, I was very well aware of the achievement gap and the lack of opportunities for so many students, and I just wasn't satisfied that there was a gap. I had to find answers. And so, my Ph.D. program was my quest to find answers. In the process of finding answers, I created this framework that came out of my study, and I had the opportunity to think about how to support teachers. Firstly, implement it in my own classroom and then figure out how to help teachers implement this. And it was just one of those things that I knew that there were a lot of people who wanted to do better for their kids, but they weren't quite sure how to do it. And so, therefore, this book was really kind of a nuts-and- bolts place to start. Mike: And, Kyndall, if you can pick up the story, how did the two of you start collaborating around the book? Kyndall Brown: So, I met Pam at the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Conference in Boston in 2015. I was doing a keynote presentation focused on equity and mathematics, and Pam was in the audience. And at the end of the presentation, she approached me and suggested that we start doing presentations together. So ever since then, we were collaborating to do presentations at national conferences. I had been approached by a publisher about writing a book focused on equity in mathematics. So often when those of us who've been doing this equity work over the years, what we hear from math teachers in particular is, ‘What does it look like in the math classroom?' In language arts, you can read the literature that's reflective of your student population. And [in] a social studies class, you can study the cultures of the student populations in your classroom. But math teachers were always wondering, ‘What does equity look like in a math classroom?' And so, one of the first things Pam did when we met was, she introduced me to her ICUCARE framework. It just made perfect sense to use her framework. I asked if she would like to collaborate. She said yes, and this is what we did during the pandemic. Mike: Well, I'm wondering if the two of you could just start and unpack the premise of the book and describe the framework that you all have proposed for people who may not have read it yet. Pamela: Well, ICUCARE is the acronym. The first part is, ‘I include others as experts; C, be critically conscious; U, understand your students well; and then the second C is, use culturally relevant curricula.' Kyndall, you want to take it from there? ( laughs ) Kyndall: ( laughs ) Sure. The next principle is, ‘Assess, activate, and build on prior knowledge; then comes release control; and the final principle is, expect more.' Mike: You know, we could do a podcast episode for every component of the ICUCARE framework, but today we're really focused on using culturally relevant curricula. I suspect there are many educators listening who are kind of in the shoes that Kyndall was describing earlier, this idea that they're interested in the work, but they're not sure how to start, particularly in the math classroom. So, I'm wondering if you all could just spend a little bit of time talking about the guidance you would offer folks when it comes to culturally relevant curricula in a math classroom. Kyndall: Well, first of all, in order to make a task or your curriculum culturally relevant, you have to know who it is that you're teaching, right? You can't make assumptions and assume that you know who they are based upon some physical characteristic or some other information that you might have with your students. The first thing you have to do is get to know who they are, what their interests are, what their concerns are, and then you can begin to start making the curriculum culturally relevant. Mike: Hmm. Pamela: I always say, if we're talking about a task, let's start with something that is cognitively demanding; something that is accessible but also cognitively demanding. And so, oftentimes we describe that as a low-floor, high-ceiling task. And it's real important that students have that opportunity to be able to have cognitively demanding tasks. I say that's a good place to start. We can use textbook problems, we can go to websites—things like Jo Boaler and Achieve the Core and Bridges—those kinds of things. And that's a good place to start. And so, then you might say, ‘OK, well how do I know that's culturally relevant?' Well, that's what we start with, the good task, and then we're going to take that and make it culturally relevant. And one way I say to take a baby step is, take that task and then just change the names and put some names in there that are meaningful to your students. Pamela: And I say, put your students' names in there rather than just trying to come up with some ethnic-sounding names. Put your students' names so that they can see themselves in there. Put your school's names, put the other teacher's names. The key is students need to be able to see, ‘I am a part of mathematics, that mathematics is a part of who I am, a part of who we are.' And so, I think that's a very good baby step to take is just put meaningful names in there. I know that it was very effective. My students really enjoyed it. I could tell, like, even I purposely oftentimes would do that on tests to help reduce the anxiety level of taking a test. And my students, you would see them kind of smile and look around for the persons that they saw whose name was mentioned in the problem. Pamela: So, that's a good first step. And then I would say, the next thing you could do after you've changed the names is then change the context. Change the contexts to things that are meaningful. But as Kyndall said, this is going to require you understanding something about your students. And some things that you can do to understand your students: You can interview your students. And one of the things we talk about in our book is empathy interviews that you can do. You can have listening conversations. Just have conversations with your students in the hall. What are they talking about in the hall? What are they talking about at lunch? What are they talking about at the bus stop? Just pay attention to those conversations, those social conversations, to figure out what's important to them. And then just do community walks. Find out what's in the community. What are popular places that kids hang out, that they go? What's meaningful to them and their families? And incorporate those contexts into problems. And then after that, if you've gotten used to changing the context, then I suggest what I call go to a Stage Four Task. And then you try to engage their agency and help them understand that math can be a tool to use. Mike: I would love for you to—either of you—to talk a little bit more about that last bit that you mentioned, Pam, when you talked about ways to build up kids' sense of agency. Would you be willing to indulge and just go a little bit further down into that conversation? Pamela: Absolutely. So oftentimes, even if we have these wonderful contexts that students will solve problems and become engaged problem-solvers, there's always the question is, like, ‘So what now? What do I do with this? Why is this important to even get this answer?' And it has to be more than, ‘Well, it's going to be on the test,' right? ( laughs ) And so, helping students understand and solve problems that help them see that they can be a part of solutions [to] things that are important to them. So, for example, I remember taking a problem. And it was something about increase in numbers. There was something about what percent did this increase? And I changed the context to the housing market because we had just actually had some storms that had come through our state and had created a lot of damage to houses and homes. And so, then the very next step was I started having them think about, ‘Well, how much might it cost to rebuild these homes? Were some houses damaged more than others?' Pamela: And ‘What could you possibly do to help?' Those are just some kinds of things to help kids understand that, ‘Oh, well, I'm not just trying to find percent increase or decrease, but there's some contexts here that matter, and it may cause me to do some more research.' And even thinking about, ‘Well, if there are neighborhoods that were impacted, what are some things that I can do? Could there be some money that we raise? If I'm going to rebuild the house, how much might I need to spend? How much might I need to invest so that this maybe doesn't happen again?' Those are just all different types of questions to help students understand that you can use math as a part of your community. I also talk about an example of how I was teaching a unit on regression equations, and I know this is an elementary audience, but it was just an example of the fact that we give tests all the time. Pamela: We give those state standardized tests, and I decided to use our district's data for the schools in our district, and things like that, to actually do the mathematics. And students care about that. They got to see their state scores, and they got to see the scores of their neighborhood, of friends who maybe go to a school down the street. And then not only did they get to do the math with that, then they got to have some input. I gave them that opportunity to basically talk to fellow students, talk to fellow teachers, talk to fellow administrators about, ‘What do you think should be different now that you've analyzed and looked at this data?' Kyndall: And I would just add that Lisa Delpit, an education scholar, wrote this book in the early 2000s called ‘Multiplication is for White People.' And that's an extremely provocative title, but it was actually a quote from an African American student of ours. And it kind of spoke to that student's math identity. The actual quote was, ‘Multiplication is for white people, addition and subtraction is for Black people,' right? And so that speaks to what that student's identity was about. The ability of certain people to do math based upon their racial or ethnic background. So, it is very easy to go through the U.S. educational system and come to the conclusion that mathematics is pretty much the domain of mostly white, European men, right? Mike: Certainly. Kyndall: When nothing could be further from the truth. There's an excellent book called ‘The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics' that shows very clearly that mathematics is a cultural endeavor. It's a humanistic endeavor that all humans all over the planet have engaged in. And that other cultures have made significant contributions to the field of mathematics. And so, we need to do a lot better job of exposing students to that so that we can make sure that they see mathematics is as much a part of their culture as any other racial or ethnic group. And they need to see examples of people that look like them in the math textbooks, on the walls of their classrooms, as another way to help build that mathematics identity. Mike: You know, and I think that is actually one of the things that I really appreciated about the way that you all structured the book. I know that I've heard other people who have read it say how much they appreciated being able to hear the stories from your own classrooms, the experiences that you had with students, and really being able to put those out there in a way that help people see where there might be pitfalls and where there might be opportunities. I'm curious if either of you would be willing to share a story about culturally relevant curricula and the impact that you saw on a particular student. Kyndall: Well, Pam has a couple of really good stories in that chapter, so I'm going to let her ... Pamela: ( laughs ) Yeah. So, one of the things I talk about is Jasmine. Jasmine was one of my students who, we'll just say we didn't see eye to eye on most things ( laughs ). Jasmine was very openly hostile towards me, and I was expending a lot of my energy just trying to get her to do anything. And she just made it very clear to me she wasn't interested in doing anything I asked her to do. And so I gave her that project that I talked about, where we decided to look at our test scores, our standardized test scores throughout the district, and applied the math content of the standard that we were using to this, to where she got to make an analysis and be able to see if there was a relationship between the percentage of Black students in our school and then our college and career readiness index, and those kinds of things. Pamela: And I was just really amazed about the transformation that happened with her. Because previously, not only was she not willing to work with me, she didn't want to work with her classmates either ( chuckles ). Mike: Mm. Pamela: And she, as a result of working on this project, asked to be a part of a group. When she found out that she had made some mistakes on some of the data, she willingly stayed after school to fix her mistakes. And I even remember the day that the project was due. She stayed late to put her finishing touches on it. And so, I just was amazed. She was just ... became pleasant. And as a result, I wanted to talk with her about the impact that this project had on her. And she said she really wanted to do it. It wasn't like it was just for a grade. She really wanted to learn the information. And the other thing that was kind of interesting is she didn't really see it as math. She didn't really think that what she was doing was really math, even though she was using Excel spreadsheets and she was using formulas. What that told me was how her perception was that school math wasn't what real math was, and that what we were doing that was connected to her community didn't feel like math. And I felt like that's something that we really need to change. Mike: Yeah. Kendall, I saw you nodding on the other ... (this podcast was recorded via Zoom with video) Kyndall: Well, I think the general public has come to believe that the only thing that counts as math is what you do in school, in a math classroom, right? Mike: Uh-hm. Kyndall: That all of these ways that people are engaging in mathematical thinking and reasoning all day, every day, they don't see as math. And so, they don't see themselves as math people, right? Because they were not successful at school math. Right? Mike: Right. Kyndall: And so how do we undo that perception and get people to recognize the myriad of ways that they're engaging in mathematical thinking and reasoning all the time? Mike: Absolutely. Yeah. I was just going to ask you if there's anything in particular you think might be important for an elementary math educator to be thinking about when they're trying to apply the ideas, some of the suggestions that you all have when it comes to ‘Choosing to See.' Is there anything in particular that folks who are operating at the elementary level might consider or might think about that has come to y'all as you've brought the book out into the world and had people interact with it? Pamela: Well, one thing that I've come to understand is that, while we do need to have good tasks—and the work that we ask students to do needs to be meaningful and needs to be accessible—tasks don't teach kids. And we need to think about how do we structure how kids experience the mathematics in our classrooms? And that to me is what the framework does. It's a lens to help teachers think about, ‘How do I engage my students? How do I structure the instruction so that kids have a positive experience around the mathematics?' So, it should not be thought of as, ‘Oh, this is just once I get the math, then I'm going to go and think about this as a add-on.' Mike: Hmm. Pamela: There are myriads of strategies out there. It's not saying that you should throw out everything that you've ever done before. It's just look at the strategies and the things, the rituals and routines that you've been using in your classroom. And think about them in terms of this lens. If you're getting ready to do an activity, you might say, ‘OK, here's a routine that I normally have. How can I adapt it so I can include others as experts, so I'm not the only one that's doing all the talking? How can I engage my students so that I expect more out of them?' Right? So that they're doing more of the work? So, it's really a lens of how to think about the work that you do and the work that they do. Mike: That totally makes sense. Kyndall: Right. And the research shows that tracking begins very early in elementary school, right? And so elementary teachers need to be conscious of all of these different issues so that they can be on guard at the very early stages to not allow that tracking to begin. Mike: For educators or instructional leaders who are new to the conversation, in addition to reading ‘Choosing to See,' are there other resources that you think would be helpful in supporting people in learning more about equity in the mathematics classroom? Pamela: Well, yes, I know that I've just started reading recently, it's a new book this out called ‘Engaging in Culturally Relevant Math Tasks: Fostering Hope in the Elementary Classroom.' And it's by our good friends Lou Edward Matthews, Shelly M. Jones, and Yolanda Parker. It's at Corwin books, and I definitely recommend that that is a great resource. Kyndall: There's a new book that just came out. It's called ‘Middle School Mathematics Lessons to Explore, Investigate, and Respond to Issues of Social Injustice,' by Robert Berry and his colleagues. In 2020, they released a high school version of the book. And in the fall of 2022, they're planning on releasing an upper- and lower elementary version of these books. And the first section of the book is really talking about the kind of pedagogy needed to implement social justice tasks. And then the second part of the book has lessons aligned to the different content strands that are social justice focused, a lot of digital resources. And so, I think that is an excellent resource for teachers. Mike: That's fantastic. Pam and Kyndall, I want to thank you both so much for being here with us today, for sharing the book with us. It's really been a pleasure talking with both of you. Kyndall: Thank you. Pamela: Well, thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Cognitively Guided Instruction: Turning Big Ideas into Practice - Guest: Dr. Kendra Lomax

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2022 24:30

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 7 – Cognitively Guided Instruction: Turning Big Ideas into Practice Guest: Dr. Kendra Lomax Mike Wallus: Have you ever had an experience during your teaching career that fundamentally changed how you thought about your students and the role that you play as an educator? For me, that shift occurred during a sweltering week in July of 2007, when I attended a course on cognitively guided instruction. Cognitively guided instruction, or CGI, is a body of research that has had a massive impact on elementary mathematics over the past 20 years. Today on the podcast, we're talking with Kendra Lomax, from the University of Washington, about CGI and the promise it holds for elementary educators and students. Well, Kendra, welcome to the podcast. It's so great to have you on. Kendra Lomax: Well, thanks for having me. Mike: Absolutely. I'm wondering if we can start today with a little bit of background; part history lesson, part primer to help listeners understand what CGI is. So, can you just offer a brief summary of what CGI is and the questions that it's attempted to shed some light on? Kendra: Sure, I'll give it my best try. So, CGI is short for cognitively guided instruction, and it's a body of research that began some 30 years ago with Tom Carpenter and Elizabeth Fennema. And there's lots of other scholars that since then have kind of built upon that body of research. They really tried to think about and understand how children develop mathematical ideas over time. So, they interviewed and studied and watched really carefully what young children did as they solve whole-number problems. So, you may have heard about the book ‘Children's Mathematics,' and that's where you can read a lot about cognitively guided instruction and [it] summarizes some of that research. And they really started with whole-number computation and then have kind of expanded into areas like fractions and decimals, learning about how kids develop ideas about algebraic thinking, as well as early ideas around counting and quantity. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: So, there's a couple of books that are kind of in the CGI family. ‘Young Children's Mathematics' includes those original authors, as well as Nick Johnson and Megan Franke, Angela Turrou, and Anita Wager. That fractions and decimals work was really led by Susan Empson and Linda Levi. And then, like I mentioned, ‘Thinking Mathematically' is the text by the original authors that kind of talks about algebra. So, in all of those texts that summarize this research, basically, we're trying to understand how do children develop ideas over time? And Tom and Liz really set an example for all of us to follow in how they thought about sharing this research. They had a deep respect for the wisdom of teachers and the work that they do with young children. So, you won't find any sort of prescription in the CGI research about how to teach, exactly, or a curriculum. Because their approach was to share with teachers the research that they had done when they interviewed and listened to all of these many children solving problems, and then learn from the teachers themselves. What is it that makes sense to do in response to what we now know about how children develop mathematical ideas? Mike: I mean, it's kind of a foundational shift in some ways, right? It reframes how to even think about instruction, at least compared to the traditional paradigm, right? Kendra: Yeah, it's less a study of how best to teach children and really a study and a curiosity about how children bring the ideas that they already have to their work in the math classroom, and how they build on those ideas over time. Mike: Definitely. It's funny, because when I think about my first exposure I think that was the big aha, is that my job was to listen rather than to impose or tell or perfectly describe how to do something. And it's just such a sea change when you rethink the work of education. Kendra: Definitely. And it feels really joyful, too, right? You get to be a student of your students and learn about their own thinking and be really responsive to them in the moment, which certainly provides lots of challenges for teachers. But also, I think, just a sense of genuine relationship with children and curiosity and a little bit of joy. Mike: Definitely. So, I'm wondering if we could dig into a little bit of the whole-number work, because I think there's a bit that we were talking about with CGI, which is really the way in which you approach students, right? And the way that you listen to students for cues on what they're thinking is. But the research did reveal some ways to construct a framework for some of the things you see when children are thinking. Kendra: So, if you read the book ‘Children's Mathematics,' you might notice or recognize some of those ideas, because CGI is one of the research bases for the Common Core state math standards. So, when you're looking through your grade-level standards and you see that they're suggesting particular problem types, number sizes, or strategies that children might use, much of that is based on the work of cognitively guided instruction, as well as other bodies of research. So, it might sound familiar when you read through the book yourself. And what CGI helps reveal is that there's a somewhat predictable sequence: That young children develop strategies for whole-number operation for working with whole-number computational problems. Mike: Yeah. Can you talk about that, Kendra? Kendra: Yeah. So, young children are going to start out with what we call direct modeling, where they are going to directly model the context of the problem. So, if we give them a story problem, they'll act out or model or show or gesture, to show the action of the problem. So, if it describes eating something ( makes eating sounds ), you can imagine, right, the action that goes along with eating? And we're all very familiar with it. So, they're going to show maybe, the cookies, and then cross out the ones that get eaten … Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: … right? So, they're really going to directly model the action or relationship described in the problem. And they're going to also represent all the quantities in the problem, which is different. What they learn over time is to count on or count back. So, some of the counting strategies where they learn, ‘Gosh, I don't want to make all the quantities in this problem.' It becomes too difficult, too cumbersome. And they learn that they could count on from one of the quantities or count back. So, in that cookie example, maybe there are seven cookies on a plate, and I have two of them for dessert, right? ( makes eating sounds) They go away. So, in direct modeling, they're going to show the seven cookies. They're going to remove those two cookies that get eaten, and then count how many are left. Where in counting on—so they have had lots of experiences of direct modeling—they can say, ‘Gosh, I don't really want to draw that seven. I'm going to imagine the seven … ‘ Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: ‘ … And I can maybe count backwards from there.' Mike: So, like, 7, 6, 5. Kendra: Yeah. Right. So, I don't have to make the seven. I can just imagine it. And I keep track of those two that I'm counting back. Mike: That totally makes sense. And as a former kindergarten and first-grade teacher, it's an amazing thing to actually see that shift happen. Kendra: Right? And it's really specialized knowledge that teachers develop to pay attention to that shift. It's easy for everybody else to kind of miss it. But for teachers, it's a really important shift to pay attention to. Mike: I used to say to parents, when I would try to describe this, it's something that we almost aren't conscious of being able to do. But it's a gigantic step to go from imagining a quantity as a set of ones to imagining a quantity that is a number that you can count back from or count forward from. It's a gigantic leap. Even though to us, we've forgotten what big of a leap that was because it's been so long since we took it. Kendra: Yeah. That's one thing I love about studying children's mathematics, is, like, you get to experience that wonderment all over again … Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: … in the things that we kind of, as adults, take for granted in how we think about the world. Mike: Yeah. I think you really clearly articulated the shift that kids make when they move from direct modeling, the action and the quantities, to that kind of shift in their thinking and also their efficiency of being able to count on or count back. Is there more to, kind of, the trajectory that kids are on from there? Kendra: There is, yeah. So, after children have had lots of experiences to direct model, and then learn to become more efficient with that, and counting on or counting back, then they might start inventing. We call them invented algorithms, which is a fancy way to say that they think about the relationship between quantities and start putting them together and taking them apart in more efficient ways. So, they might use their understanding of groups of 10, right? So, in that example, with the cookies—seven cookies and eating two of them—I might know something about the relationship with fives … Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: … Five and two make a seven. So, they start to develop some sense of how numbers go together, and how the operations really behave. So, in addition, I can kind of add them in any order that I want to, right? So, we see these called in the Common Core standards, Strategies Based on Place Value, Properties of Operation, and the relationship between addition, subtraction, or multiplication, division. Mike: That's super helpful to actually connect that language in Common Core to what you might see, and how that translates into, kind of, what one might read about in some of the CGI research. Kendra: Right. It'd be lovely if we all had the exact same ( laughs ) names, wouldn't it? Mike: Definitely. One of the questions that I suspect people who might be new to this conversation are asking is, what are the conditions that I can put in place? Or what are the things that I might, as a teacher, be able to influence that would help kids move and make some of these shifts. Knowing that the answer isn't direct instruction. I could get a kid to mimic counting on, but if they're still really thinking about numbers in the sense of a direct modeler, they haven't really shifted, right? So, my wondering is, how would you describe some of the ways that teachers can help nudge children, or kind of set up situations that are there to help kids make the shift without telling, or … Kendra: ( chuckles) Mike: … like, giving away the game? Kendra: Totally. Yeah. That's one takeaway that I'm always on the lookout for when people hear about CGI and this trajectory that's somewhat predictable. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Let's just teach them the next strategy then, right? Mike: Right. Kendra: And what's important to remember is that these are called invented algorithms for a reason. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Because children are actually inventing mathematics. It's amazing. Kindergartners are inventing mathematics. And so, our role is really to create the right opportunities for them to do that important work. And like you're saying, when they're ready for the next ideas that they're building on their existing knowledge, rather than us kind of coming in and trying to create that artificially. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: So, again, like, Liz and Tom really kind of taught us to be students of our students as well as students of teachers. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: So, what we've learned over time … some of the things that teachers have found really productive for supporting students to kind of move through this trajectory, to create increasingly efficient strategies, is really about thinking about carefully choosing the problems that we've put in front of students. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: So, paying attention to the context. Is it familiar to them? Is it reasonable for the real world? Are we helping kids see that mathematics is all around them. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Paying attention to the quantities that we select. So, if we want them to start thinking about those relationships with five and 10, or as they get older with hundreds and thousands, that we're intentional about the quantities that we choose for those problems. Mike: Right. Kendra: And then, of course we know that students learn a lot from not just us, but their relationships and their discussions with their classmates. So, really orchestrating classroom discussions, thinking about choosing students to work together so that they can both learn from one another, and really just finding ways to help students connect their current thinking with the new ideas that we know are on the horizon for them. Mike: I would love for you to say a little bit more about number choice. That is such a powerful strategy that I think is underutilized. So, I'm wondering if you could just talk about being strategic around the number choices that you offer to kids. Can you say more about that? Kendra: Sure! It's going to depend on grade level, of course, right? Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Because they're going to be working with very different quantities early in elementary and then later on … One thing I would say, across all of the grade levels, is to not limit students whenever possible. So, sometimes we want to give problems that kids are really comfortable with, and we know they're going to be successful. But if I'm thinking of how they develop more efficient strategies, sometimes the growth comes in making it a little tricky. So, giving quantities that are just a little bit beyond where they're counting as young children, so they develop the need to learn that counting sequence. Or, as we're working with older students, if we know that particular multiplication facts are less familiar to students. Giving them that nudge by creating story context, where they can really make sense of the action of the relationship that's happening in it, but maybe choosing that times seven that we know has been tricky for kids, right? Mike: Yep. Kendra: So, I would just encourage people to not shy away from problems that we know pose some challenge to students. That's actually where a lot of the meat and the rigor happens. And, but then we also want to provide support inside of those, right? So, working with a partner. Mike: Definitely. Kendra: Or making sure they have access to those counting charts. That's one thing I would say across grade levels. Mike: Yeah. So, you made me think of something else. It's fascinating to have this conversation, Kendra, 'cause it reminds me of all the things that I had to learn over time. And I think one of the things that I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about is, the types of problems and how the problem that you choose for a given group of students might influence whether they're direct modeling or they're counting on or whether they're using invented algorithms. Because I think, for me, one of the things that it took a while to make sense, is that the progression isn't necessarily linear, right? Like, if I'm counting on in a certain context, that doesn't mean I'm counting on in all contexts or direct modeling or what have you. So, I'm curious if you could talk a little bit about problem types and now how those influence what things students sometimes show us. Kendra: Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up. When we describe, kind of, that trajectory of strategies, it sounds really nice and tidy and organized and like it is predictable in some ways. But like you're saying, it also depends on the kind of problem and the number size that we're putting in front of children. So that trajectory kind of iterates again and again throughout elementary school. So, as we pose more complex problem types … so, for example, the cookies problem where I have seven cookies, I eat two of them and the result is what's at the end of the story, right? The cookies left over. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: If I now make that problem, I have some cookies on a plate. I ate two of them, and I have five left over. All the kindergarten teachers, actually all the elementary school teachers … Mike: ( laughs ) Yes. Kendra: … can automatically recognize that's going to be a more tricky problem, right? Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Where do I start!? Especially if I'm direct modeling, right? We know they start and follow the exact action of the story. Mike: Absolutely ( chuckles ). Kendra: So, as we pose more complex problem types, you're right. You're going to see that they might use less efficient strategies because they're really making sense. They're like, ‘Wait, what's the relationship that's happening in this story? Where do I begin? Where are the cookies at the beginning, middle, and end of this story?' So, we see that happen throughout elementary school. So, it's not that direct modeling is for kindergartners. And that invented algorithms are for fifth grade. It's that as new ideas get introduced, as we make problems more complex, maybe increasing the number size or now we're working with fractions and decimals … Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: We see this happen all over again. Kids begin with direct modeling to make sense of the situation. Then they build on that and get a little bit more efficient with some counting kinds of strategies. And then over time with lots of practice with that new problem type, those new numbers, um, they develop those invented algorithms again. Mike: So, this makes me think of something else, Kendra. How would you describe the role of representation in this process? That could mean manipulatives that students choose to use. It could mean things that they choose to draw, visual models. How does representation play in the process? Kendra: Yeah. So, oftentimes I hear people say, ‘This student used cubes. That was their strategy.' Or ‘This student used a drawing. That was their strategy.' And that's really not enough information to know the mathematical work that that child is doing. Did they use cubes as a way to count on? Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Are they keeping track of only one of the quantities but using cubes to do so? Are they doing a drawing that actually represents groups of 10? And they're using ideas about place value inside of it, which is different than if they're just drawing by ones, right? So, there's lots of detail inside of those representations that's important to pay attention to. Mike: Yeah. I'm thinking about one of my former kindergartners. I remember that I had some work that she had done in the fall, and then I had another bit of work that she had done in the spring. And the fall was this ( chuckles ) very detailed drawing of, like, a hundred circles. And then in the spring, she was unitizing, right? She had a bunch of circles and then within [them] had labeled that each of those were 10. And it just struck me, like, ‘Wow, that is a really tangible vision of how she was drawing in both cases.' But her representation told a really different story about what she understood about math, about numbers, about the base 10 system. Kendra: Right. And those might be very different starting points. As you, the teacher, you walk over and you see those two different kinds of drawings … Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: … your conversation or your prompt for them … your next step for them might be pretty different. Mike: Absolutely. Kendra: Even though they're both drawing. Mike: Yeah. Well, let me ask you this, 'cause I think I struggled with this a little bit when I first started really thinking about CGI. I had gone to a training and left incredibly inspired and was excited. And one of the things that I was trying to reconcile at that time is, like, I do have a curriculum resource that I'm using, and I wonder how many teachers sometimes struggle with that? I've learned these ideas about how children think, how to listen … what are some of the teacher moves I can make? And I'm also trying to integrate that with a tool that I'm using as a part of my school or my district. So, what are your thoughts about that? Kendra: That makes a lot of sense. And I think that happens a lot of time in professional learning, where we learn a new set of ideas and then we're wrestling with how do they connect with the things I'm already doing? How do I use them in my own classroom? So, I really appreciate that challenge. I guess one way I like to think about it is that the trajectory that CGI helps us know about how children develop ideas over time is a little bit like a roadmap that I can use regardless of the curricular materials that I have in front of me. And it helps me understand what is on the horizon for that child. What's next for them and their learning? Depending on the kind of strategies that they're using and the kinds of problems that we're hoping to be giving them access to in that grade level, I can look at my curricular materials in front of me and use that roadmap to help me navigate it. So, we were talking about number selection. So, I might take that lens as I look at the curriculum in front of me and think about, ‘Are these the right numbers to be using? What will my students do with the problem … Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: … that is suggested in my curricular materials?' To anticipate how my discussion is going to go and what kinds of strategies I might want to highlight in my discussion. So, I really like to think of it as the professional knowledge that teachers need in order to make sense of their curriculum materials and make informed decisions about how to use those really purposefully. Mike: Yeah. The other thing that strikes me, that I'm connecting to what you said earlier, is that I could also look at the problem and think about, ‘Does the context actually connect with what I know about my children? Can I somehow shift the context in a way that makes it more accessible to them while still maintaining the structure, the problem, the mathematics, and such?' Kendra: Right. Yeah. Are there small revisions I can make? Because, uh, I don't envy curriculum writers ( chuckles ) at all because there's no way you can write the exact right problem for every day, for every child across the country. So, as teachers, we have to make really smart decisions and make those really manageable. Because teachers are very busy people. Mike: Sure. Kendra: But those manageable, kind of, tweaks or revisions to make it really connected to our students lives. Mike: Yeah. I think the other thing that's hitting me is that, when you've started to make sense of the progression that children go through, it's a little bit like putting on a pair of glasses that allow you to see things slightly differently and understand that skill of noticing. That's universal. It doesn't necessarily come and go with a curriculum. It's something that's important. Knowing your students is always going to be something that's important for teachers, regardless of the curriculum materials they've got. Kendra: Yep. That's right. Mike: So, here's my, I think my last question. And it's really, it's a resource one. So, if I'm a listener who's interested in learning more about CGI, if this is really my first go at understanding the ideas, what would you recommend for someone who's just getting started thinking about this and maybe is walking away thinking, ‘Gosh, I'd like to learn more.' Kendra: Sure. Well, I mentioned the whole laundry list of great texts that you can dig into more. So, ‘Children's Mathematics' being the one on whole-number operation across grade levels. I find that, like, preschool through first- or second-grade teachers have found ‘Young Children's Mathematics' incredibly impactful. It helps connect ideas about counting in quantity with these ideas about problem-solving and operation. And then kind of connects them and helps us think about how to support students to develop those really important early ideas. Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: Anybody who I have talked to that has read ‘Extending Children's Mathematics: Fractions and Decimals' has found it incredibly impactful. Mike: I will add myself to that list, Kendra. It blew my mind. Kendra: Yeah, us, too! Everybody who read it was like, ‘Ohhh, I see now.' It points out a lot of really practical ways for us to pay attention. It offers a trajectory much like whole-number about how children develop ideas and also kind of suggests some problems that will help us support students as they're developing those ideas. So, [I] definitely recommend those. And then, ‘Thinking Mathematically' is another great text that helps us connect arithmetic and algebra, as we're thinking about how to make sure that students are set up for success as they start thinking more algebraically. And [it] digs into a little bit of—I talked about young children inventing mathematics—I think even further describes the ways that they invent important properties of operation that can be really interesting to read about. Mike: That's fantastic. Kendra, thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking to you today. Kendra: Thanks for having me. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

university children kids education washington giving practice turning operation depending cgi mathematics properties big ideas young children common core lomax nick johnson kindergartners cognitively decimals mike yeah tom carpenter mike so mike right mike yep cognitively guided instruction

Learning Targets - Guest: Dr. Rachel Harrington

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 17, 2022 27:04

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 5 – Learning Targets Guest: Dr. Rachel Harrington Mike Wallus: As a 17-year-veteran classroom teacher, I can't even begin to count the number of learning targets that I've written over the years. Whether it's writing ‘I can' statements or developing success criteria, there's no denying that writing learning targets is an important part of teacher practice. That said, the thinking about what makes a strong learning target continues to evolve and the language that we select for those targets has implications for instructional practice. Today on the podcast, we're talking with Dr. Rachel Harrington from Western Oregon University about creating powerful and productive learning targets. Welcome to the podcast. Rachel Harrington: Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here. Mike: Sure. So I'd love to just start our conversation by having you talk a little bit about how the ideas around learning targets have evolved, even just in the course of your own teaching career. Rachel: I started out as a pre-service teacher in the late '90s and got a lot of practice in undergrad teacher education, thinking about writing those objectives. And we were always told to start with, ‘The student will be able to … ,' and then we needed to have some skill and then it needed to end with a percentage of performance. So we need percent of accuracy. And so I got a lot of practice writing things that way, and we always were very strategic with our percentages. We might say 80 percent because we planned to give them five questions at the end and we wanted four out of five to be correct. And then we could check the box that the students had done what we wanted. And I felt like it was really critical. We always were kind of drilled into us that it must be measurable. You have to be able to measure that objective. And so that percentage was really important. Rachel: In my experience though, as a teacher, that, that didn't feel as helpful. And it wasn't something that I did as a classroom teacher very often. As I transitioned into working in teacher preparation, now we have shifted the way we talk about things. Instead of saying a learning objective, we talk more about learning targets. And we talk about using active verbs that, when we phrase the learning target or the learning goal, it's using a verb that is more active and not so much ‘Student will be able to … .' And so we might use verbs like compare, explain, classify, analyze, thinking more about that. And then, rather than thinking about an assessment at the end, with five questions where they get four correct, we want to think about multiple times throughout the lesson where the teacher is assessing that learning goal and the progress towards that goal. Sometimes those assessments might be more classroom-based. Other times you might be looking more at an individual student and collecting data on their progress as well. But it's more progress towards a goal rather than something that's met at the end of the lesson with a certain percentage of accuracy. Mike: You named the thing that I think stood out for me, which is you're moving from a process where you're thinking about an outcome versus what's the action, be that cognitive or in the way that students are solving. The focus is really on what's happening and how it's happening as opposed to just an outcome. Rachel: Uh-hm. And I feel like when I started in teacher preparation, the standards were a little more siloed by grade level. It was sort of like, this is what we do in fourth grade and it starts and ends in fourth grade. Whereas with the Common Core State Standards, we see these learning progressions that stretch across the child's whole math experience. And so I think that's shifted a little bit the way we think about targets as well and learning goals and whatever title you've given them. Now, we don't think so much as, ‘What are you accomplishing at the end of today?' but sort of your progress across a learning progression and, and what progress are you making towards a longer-term goal? Mike: I think that's a really profound shift though. There are two things that come to mind: One is really thinking about how that impacts my practice as a teacher. If I'm just thinking about what happens at the end of today, in all of these little discreet iterations, versus what's the pathway that the child is on, right? I'm really interested in, how is their thinking shifting? And that the end of the day is not the end of that shift. It's really something that happens over time. Does that make sense to you? Rachel: Definitely. And I think it's really critical when we're teaching in a mixed-ability classroom, and we're thinking about children making progress at their own pace and not expecting every child to learn the same thing every single day, but we can have individual goals for our kids. We can have ideas about, as long as they are making progress in their math journey, then we're going to be OK with that. And we're helping them in that progress. And I think it's also more evidence as to why curriculum needs to cycle back to previously taught concepts because those concepts may or may not be mastered by all the children or understood by all the children at the end of the lesson. We're going to keep revisiting it. And children get multiple opportunities to think about this idea, and they will make progress on their own at their pace. Mike: Well, that's in stark contrast to my own childhood math experiences. You got through your unit on fractions in fourth grade, and… Rachel: Yep. Mike: ... if you didn't get it, well … Rachel: So sad. Mike: ... good, good luck in fifth grade! Rachel: ( laughs ) Mike: ( laughs ) Um, but it's really an entirely different way of thinking about the child's development of ideas. Rachel: Yep. I remember teaching multiplication of fractions on a Monday followed by a division of fractions on a Tuesday. It was really just like, you know, when we moved past this idea that multiplication of fractions is a procedure that, that students will master. Then we need to start thinking about it as happening more than just on Monday. Mike: We've already started to address the second question I had, which is: What are some of the pitfalls that schools and teachers might fall into or might encounter when they're thinking about learning targets? Rachel: I think some folks have put pressure on teachers to take the idea of a learning target and phrase it into an ‘I can' statement or a student-friendly language—which, I am not at all opposed to the idea of making things into student-friendly language. I think that's actually really critical in math class. Mike: Uh-hm. Rachel: But I think it can be problematic. When we start the lesson with an ‘I can' statement, are we giving away the ending of the lesson right at the beginning? Mike: Yeah. Rachel: Are we taking away their joy of that discovery and that excitement of finding out this, understanding this new concept? I don't want to remove that magic out of math class by just saying, ‘Hey, I'm going to tell you the ending right before we get started.' And I also worry a little bit that sometimes those ‘I can' statements and those things that we put up on the board at the beginning of class are done under the guise of ‘holding teachers accountable,' which I think is a phrase that is very ( chuckles ) problematic. Rachel: I tend to err on the side of trusting teachers; that they can be trusted to know what they're doing in the classroom and that they have a goal in mind. And I assume that they are planning for teaching without telling me exactly and explicitly on the whiteboard that they are doing that. But I also recognize that the presence of that learning target or that ‘I can' statement on the board at the beginning is an easy thing to check off. All of the different things that are happening in math class are really complex and really hard to understand and notice. And it can take years and tons of experience before we're able to notice all the things that are happening. And so as an administrator that maybe has limited experience teaching mathematics, I could see where it would be difficult coming into the classroom and really being able to recognize what is happening. You might look around the room and be like, ‘Is this some kind of birthday party? What's going on? All these kids are cutting things out and gluing things. This doesn't look like math class.' Rachel: But if I can see that statement written up on the board, that's something that's kind of concrete and measurable. I also just think this idea of capturing learning as a daily objective can be problematic, especially when we're thinking about building really complex ideas in mathematics. You know, that's not going to happen in one lesson, in one session of curriculum. It might build over multiple days. It might cycle back into multiple units. And so we need to make sure that students are developing alongside their peers and, but maybe not out at the same pace. And I think that's OK. Mike: Yeah. You made me think about a couple different things, Rachel. One is the idea that the way that learning targets have been kind of introduced into classrooms really feels more like compliance as opposed to something that has value in terms of your instructional practice. And I, I've lived that world, too, as a classroom teacher. I think the other thing that really hits me from what you said is, I started thinking about whole-number multiplication, right? If I'm just thinking about the end product—meaning students being able to perform multiplication—there's so much richness that has been missed ( chuckles ) in that process. Rachel: ( chuckles ) Mike: I mean, we're trying to help children move from thinking additively to thinking multiplicatively. You're going to move along that kind of continuum of understanding over time. Honestly, I would say it shouldn't happen in one day. Rachel: Yeah. What can you really learn in just one lesson? And learn, not, I wouldn't say just perform a skill. Mike: Yeah. Rachel: I think skills, performing a skill and memorizing an algorithm, that is something that can be taught in a really concrete chunk of time, potentially. But the real conceptual understanding of what's happening with multiplication—how it's connected to addition, how it's connected to geometric concepts and things like that—that all comes and builds. And I feel like it also builds in fits and spurts. Some kids are going to make a big leap at one point and then make some smaller steps before they make another big leap. It's not a linear progression that … Mike: Right. Rachel: … they're going through. And so we have to allow that to happen and give room for that to happen. And if we say everyone in the class will do this by the end of the lesson with this amount of accuracy, we don't make room for that to happen. Mike: Yeah. I think what you're highlighting is the difference between what I would call like a learning goal and a performance goal. And I'm wondering if you could help unpack that. Because for me, when I started thinking about learning targets in that framework, it really opened my eyes to some of the places where I'd gotten it right in the classroom and some of the places where, boy, I wish I had a do-over. Rachel: Yeah. I think the language that the National Council of Teachers in Mathematics has brought to us, is this idea of contrasting performance goals with learning goals. And I find myself turning to the ‘Taking Action' series of books. Specifically, K–5 when we're thinking about elementary. There's a chapter of that book I have found to be really powerful. Sadly, I think it's one that we can sometimes gloss over a little bit in our reading. Because for some folks, they look at that and they say, ‘Well, I don't choose the learning goal. My curriculum chooses the learning goal or my school district tells me what the learning goal is.' But when you really look at what a learning goal is, as opposed to a performance goal, that's really not what's dictated by your curriculum or by your school district. And so in the 'Taking Action' book, I think they do a really nice job of contrasting the difference between a learning goal and a performance goal. And I would say a performance goal is sort of what I described earlier when I was talking about ‘The student will be able to … ' Mike: Uh-hm. Yeah. Rachel: … at a certain amount of accuracy. So, an example. If you do have access to the book, it talks about ‘Students will solve a variety of multiplication word problems and write the related multiplication equations.' And (given) that, I could see that as the type of thing I would've written maybe with a certain amount of accuracy ( laughs ) at the end of it. And I would've given them maybe five word problems and then assessed if they could get at least four out of the five correct equations. And so that's a really good example of a performance goal. And, and they talk about this idea of a performance is, what is the student doing? What's something that we can look and observe and measure and count. Mike: That's so hard though! Because what's missing in that goal is ‘how'! Rachel: Right. Mike: You know ( laughs ), like … Rachel: Or ‘why'! ( laughs ) Mike: ( laughs) Or ‘why'! Right? Rachel: Yep, yep. Mike: Like when you actually look at the student's work, what does that tell you about how they arrived there? And then what does that tell you about what that child needs to continue making sense of mathematics? You gave an example of a performance goal around multiplication and word problems. What might that sound like as a learning goal instead? Rachel: So an example of that same—probably aligned to the exact same standard and the Common Core State Standards—would be that students will understand the structure of multiplication as comprising equal groups, within visual or physical representations, understand numbers and multiplication equations, and connect those representations to equations. So that learning goal really describes what you're hoping the students learn. Not just what they do, but what do they carry forward with them as they move into more and more complex mathematics? I think you'll also recognize the verbs in there are much more complex. In the previous performance goal, we talked about students solving and writing. They're solving, and they're writing. But in the learning goal, we're looking at understanding, connecting, and representing those different ways of thinking about it and bringing them together. Putting those pieces together. And again, that might be something that develops over a long period of time. They might be working on one piece of it, which is looking at an array and connecting that to an equation. But maybe later on, they're connecting the context of the task to the equation. Or they're taking a context and recognizing, ‘Wouldn't an array model be a great way to solve this? And wouldn't an equation model be a great way to solve this?' Mike: Uh-hm. Rachel: And that's really developing over time. Mike: Yeah. I was just going to say, you mentioned ‘Taking Action.' The, the chapter on learning goals is actually my most dogeared, uh, chapter in the book. I want to read you something that I think is really powerful though. Very first chapter on learning goals, the way that they describe it is: ‘Identifying what students will come to understand about mathematics rather than focusing on what students will do.' I've read that, underlined it, highlighted it. And I've got a Post-It note on that page because I think it just fundamentally changes what I think my role is as a teacher in preparing and also in a moment with children. Rachel: Yep. It's not so much about, they're going to be able to cut this out and do this thing and perform this action. But it's really, what's the purpose? Why are we doing this? Why would they cut that out? Why would they do this action? What is that contributing to their long-term understanding? I do appreciate NCTM's guidance on this. I think they're leading the pack. And this is really cutting-edge … Mike: Yeah. Rachel: … thinking about how we set goals for our classroom. It's not commonly held in the field or applied in the field yet. Mike: Uh-hm. Rachel: But I think folks are really starting to understand its importance. That if, as we change the way we teach mathematics and the outcomes we expect for students, we have to start thinking differently about how we set up learning goals. We can't keep having these performance goals and expecting what's happening in the classroom to change. If we're really going to go towards the type of instruction we want to see in a classroom, we've got to think about learning goals instead of focus so much on just performance. Mike: I actually had a chance to talk to DeAnn Huinker, who's one of the co-writers of ‘Taking Action,' and she used the phrase, ‘What are the mathematical conversations you want children to have?' And I was really struck by, like, that's a really interesting question for me to think about if I'm thinking about my learning goals. But even if I'm just thinking about planning and preparing for a lesson or a unit of study. Rachel: Definitely. I don't think that's something that's thought a lot about. I mean, I might see for my students and their lesson plan: ‘Turn and talk to your neighbor.' But if you don't really think carefully about what kind of conversation you want to happen during that turn and talk … . Or I'll see in their lesson plan that ‘We will have a discussion about students' various solutions.' And what does that mean? You know, what's going to happen in that time? What's the point … Mike: Uh-hm. Rachel: … of that time? I can't remember who, I think it was Elham Kazemi that said something once about, ‘In math class folks will present,' and it's like that old football cheer, you know, ‘stand up, sit down, clap, clap, clap.' That's what we do in math class. Mike: Yeah. Rachel: We have kids stand up, we sit down, we all politely listen, and then we clap. And that's it. We move on. But if you really focus on those conversations that you want kids to have, what are the interesting things that you want them to be thinking about? That's a complete shift in how we've taught math. Mike: Yeah, it really is. It makes me think about, on a practical level, if I'm a person who's listening to this podcast, what I might be starting to think about is, ‘How do I take action'—no pun intended—'on this idea of thinking deeply about learning goals, integrating them into my practice?' And, for me at least, the first place I went when I read this was to think about shifting what I did in my preparation and my planning. Rachel: Uh-hm. But I think when it comes to planning, we need to be thinking, first of all, kind of the three parts that ‘Taking Action' talks about, is setting a goal that's clear. It should be clear in your mind what the children are learning. And so that can take some reading, right? It can take reading through the session, reading through the overviews, thinking about the learning progressions, always keeping your eye on that mathematical horizon, making those learning goals clear. But then also thinking about the fact that I am situating those learning goals into a learning progression. And I'm thinking about what this lesson that I'm doing on Tuesday, where does it fit in the math journey? So that makes me think about two things. First, what is this lesson building on? What foundation do these students come with that I can build on? But then also, what is it leading toward? Rachel: Where are we going from here? And what is the important role that this idea we're looking at today plays in the whole mathematical journey? And then using that as your foundation for your instruction. So if you're finding that the activity that you had planned isn't meeting that learning goal. So it isn't helping you with this clear understanding of what you want them to know. If it isn't helping build toward something that you want them to be able to understand, then what are the changes you need to make? Mike: Uh-hm. Rachel: What are some things you want to adjust? Where do you want to spend more time? How do you add those conversations? Things like that. Mike: Uh-hm. I think you led back to the thing that I wanted to unpack, which is: I worried that at different points in this conversation, people might think, ‘Well, they're just suggesting that learning goals or learning targets don't really have a role.' We're not saying that. We're saying that they really stretch over time. And I think your description was really elegant in thinking about, what does this session contribute to that larger goal of understanding the meaning of multiplication? What is the intent of this session in helping that development proceed? Rachel: Yeah. What is the big idea? What is this leading towards? Because if you don't see it, then that's when you, as a teacher, need to make some decisions. Do I need to do more reading? Do I need to do more understanding about this particular content area? Do I need to adjust the lesson itself? Is there something that I need to change or add or incorporate so that it does play a stronger role? Plus, you know your students. So if we're thinking about this session being a part of a learning progression, and it's building on something they already have, if you feel like maybe they don't have what they need to engage with today's lesson—now I'm going to think about some ways to reengage them with this content. I think especially over the next few years, that's going to be critical. But yeah, I definitely agree with you, Mike. Cause I think NCTM, the authors would say the first thing about a learning target or a learning goal is that it has to be clear, and it has to guide and be the foundation for instruction. And so, they're really important. It's just maybe the way that we've talked about them in the past hasn't been helpful. Mike: Yeah. The other place you bring me to, Rachel, is the idea that if I'm really clear on my learning goal, what is it that children will come to understand? And where is this lesson situated in that journey? That actually has a lot of value because I can think about, ‘What are some of the questions that I want to ask to try to either assess where kids are at or advance their thinking?' Or when I think about what children might do, ‘Which kids do I want to strategically highlight at a closure?' So I think understanding that learning goal really does have value for folks. It's just a different way of constructing them. And then also thinking, what do you do next? Rachel: And I also think, again, I'll take this back to the idea of assessing those learning goals. 'Cause I do think assessment and goals cannot be separated. You're going to always be thinking about that, right? Why set a goal if you don't have any way of knowing whether students are making progress towards that goal? When you establish them in that way and you think about them as less of something that's going to be accomplished by the end of this session, we allow room for students to progress at different ways and learn different things in the class. And then that's when we can have those rich conversations at the end, when we're drawing things together. If every child's going to do everything the exact same way in my classroom, then there's no opportunity for interesting conversations. The interesting conversations happen when kids are doing things differently and making progress in different ways, and heading in different directions towards the same goal. Rachel: Then we start learning from each other. We can see what our partner is doing and try to understand what they're doing. That's when interesting math happens. And I want to encourage teachers to feel confident in thinking about these as the idea of a learning goal. And even starting to incorporate this into student-friendly language. You know, a learning goal doesn't have to be written as an ‘I can' statement for kids to be able to understand it. And I also want teachers to feel confident in their abilities for advocating. Um, when they see learning goals being used in a problematic way, when we see pitfalls and things that we talked about at the beginning happening in their classroom—be confident in your abilities and your knowledge and what you know is best for students. You know your students better than anyone else does. The teacher does. And you know how to think about those individual needs and the individual growth of each child in your classroom. Rachel: So rest assured in that confidence. But go to the resources that are available to you as well. When you're struggling with the idea of where these lessons or these concepts or these ideas you're teaching fit, go to the learning progressions, go to the ‘Taking Action' book, go to the NCTM resources. Um, read your session overviews in your curriculum. Have conversations with your colleagues. Have conversations with the colleagues that teach grades above you and grades below you. That's really critical if we're think about taking away this silo idea of teaching mathematics, we need to start thinking about have these conversations across grade levels. And, and knowing, you know, if you're struggling with where this idea is going, talk to the teacher who comes next. And even just ask them, ‘What reason do you think a child would need to learn this?' Mike: Yeah. Rachel: You know, and then they might be able to help you see where it fits in the progression. Mike: Well, and I was going to say, look at the scope and sequence and notice, where do the ideas come back? How are they coming back? How are they being developed? And then the icing on the cake would be to do what you said. Let's take a look at how this manifests itself in the next grade or perhaps in the grade prior. Rachel: I think that's also a role for math leaders in elementary and in the building instructional coaches, that's a vision that they can help teachers with 'cause they get the opportunity to be in multiple grades in multiple classrooms. And they also have more space to read through the progressions, and they might have more time for those sorts of things. And so I want to push math leaders to be doing that as well. Not just the classroom teachers, help your teachers to see where these ideas carry across into future grades and how they build on previous content and facilitate those conversations. Mike: Yeah. You know, I'm so glad that you brought that up. Because it makes me think about, there are some things about the way that we've organized education that just, are givens, right? We have primarily grade-level classrooms, right? And so, I taught first grade for eight years. I intimately knew my first-grade standards. I did not clearly have a vision of necessarily how that was going to play out in second grade and third grade and fourth grade and so on. And I think that's one of the inadvertent problems that we're stuck with is, if we don't have a vertical understanding of: How are these ideas going to support children over time? It might be easy to say, ‘Well, I just need them to be able to do X by the time they get out of third grade.' Not really understanding that, actually I need to have them understand X, so then they can, in fact, understand all these other concepts that are coming. Rachel: I've just seen this year, so much, what is happening in fifth grade is dictating how you understand algebra. You know, it's like … Mike: Yes! Rachel: … what we see in the fifth-grade standards. If you are not really understanding those concepts, you might be OK for a little while. And then once you're into your algebra classes, you're realizing that all of that foundational knowledge came from what you learned in fifth grade and what you understand about rational numbers. And so, I totally agree. I don't think we've done a good job in education in general of those cross grade-level conversations. But I think we're getting better with this idea of having instructional leaders, instructional coaches that are really there to support the instruction … Mike: Yeah. Rachel: … that's happening. So I know I work with math leaders and that's one of the things I really encourage them, is not only should they know the entire curriculum or continuum, but how are they helping their classroom teachers understand that? 'Cause I think there's a lot of power in having a teacher spend eight years in first grade and really knowing those standards intimately. But there's also some value in, in once you've taught third grade going back to first grade and realizing, ‘Wow, this is where it was all going.' Mike: Absolutely. Yeah. I had a role at one point where I was a K–12 curriculum director for math. Rachel: Oh, yeah. Mike: And it was the most eye-opening experience because, as you said, you recognize how, if kids walk out of elementary school without a deep foundational understanding—and if it's just really a surface set of performance skills ... wow—that catches up with kids when they get into sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. Rachel: Yep. For sure. And those concepts become more abstract when we start this idea of variables and thinking about things algebraically. That if you didn't have that foundation in the concrete, the abstract is too much. It's too much to ask of kids. And so then we find ourselves reteaching and wondering, ‘What happened?' And yeah, I just, I wish more conversations were happening across those grade levels. Mike: Absolutely. Well, thank you again, Rachel. Rachel: Yeah! Mike: It was lovely to have you. I think a lot of folks are going to find this really helpful, and maybe validating in the experience they've had. And also a vision for what they might do in the future. And hopefully we'll have you back at some point. Rachel: I'm always here for you. ( laughs ) Mike: Thank you so much. All right, bye bye. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

How To Effectively Manage Your Co-Founder with Mike Julian

Screaming in the Cloud

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 3, 2022 31:34

About MikeBesides his duties as The Duckbill Group's CEO, Mike is the author of O'Reilly's Practical Monitoring, and previously wrote the Monitoring Weekly newsletter and hosted the Real World DevOps podcast. He was previously a DevOps Engineer for companies such as Taos Consulting, Peak Hosting, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and many more. Mike is originally from Knoxville, TN (Go Vols!) and currently resides in Portland, OR.Links Referenced: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Mike_Julian mikejulian.com: https://mikejulian.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is brought to us in part by our friends at Datadog. Datadog is a SaaS monitoring and security platform that enables full-stack observability for modern infrastructure and applications at every scale. Datadog enables teams to see everything: dashboarding, alerting, application performance monitoring, infrastructure monitoring, UX monitoring, security monitoring, dog logos, and log management, in one tightly integrated platform. With 600-plus out-of-the-box integrations with technologies including all major cloud providers, databases, and web servers, Datadog allows you to aggregate all your data into one platform for seamless correlation, allowing teams to troubleshoot and collaborate together in one place, preventing downtime and enhancing performance and reliability. Get started with a free 14-day trial by visiting datadoghq.com/screaminginthecloud, and get a free t-shirt after installing the agent.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built in key rotation permissions is code connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. tail scales. Completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud, I'm Corey Quinn and I'm having something of a crisis of faith based upon a recent conversation I've had with my returning yet again guest, Mike Julian, my business partner and CEO of The Duckbill Group. Welcome back, Mike.Mike: Hi, everyone.Corey: So, the revelation that had surfaced unexpectedly was, based upon a repeated talking point where I am a terrible employee slash expensive to manage, et cetera, et cetera, and you pointed out that you've been managing me for four years or so now, at which point I did a spit take, made all the more impressive by the fact that I wasn't drinking anything at the time, and realized, “Oh, my God, you're right, but I haven't had any of the usual problems slash friction with you that I have with basically every boss I've ever had in my entire career.” So, I'm spiraling. Let's talk about that.Mike: My recollection of that conversation is slightly different than yours. Mine is that you called me and said, “Mike, I just realized that you're my boss.” And I'm like, “How do you feel about that?” He's like, “I'm not really sure.”Corey: And I'm still not entirely sure how I feel if I'm being fully honest with you. Just because it's such a weird thing to have to deal with. Because historically, I always view a managerial relationship as starting from a place of a power imbalance. And that is the one element that is missing from our relationship. We each own half the company, we can fire each other, but it takes the form of tearing the company apart, and that isn't something that we're really set up to entertain.Mike: And you know, I actually think it's deeper than that because you owning the other half of the company is not really… it's not really power in itself. Like, yeah, it is, but you could easily own half the company and have no power. Because, like, really when we talk about power, we're talking about political power, influence, and I think the reason that there is no power imbalance is because each of us does something in the company that is just as important as the other. And they're both equally valuable to the company and we both recognize the other's contributions, as that, as being equally valuable to the company. It's less to do about how much we own and more about the work that we do.Corey: Oh, of course. The ownership starts and stops entirely with the fact that neither one of us can force the other out. So it's, as opposed to well, I own 51% of the company, so when I'm tired of your bullshit, you're leaving. And that is a dynamic that's never entered into it. I'm also going to add one more thing onto what you just said, which is, both of us would sooner tear off our own skin than do the other's job.Mike: Yeah. God, I would hate to do your job, but I know you'd hate to do mine.Corey: You look at my calendar on a busy meeting day and you have a minor panic attack just looking at it where, “Oh, my God, talking to that many people.” And you are going away for a while and you come back with a whole analytical model where your first love language feels like it's spreadsheets on some days, and I look at this and it's like, “Yeah, I know what some of those numbers mean.” And it just drives me up a wall, the idea of building out a plan and an execution thing and then delegating a lot of it to other people, it does not work for my worldview in so many different ways. It's the reason I think that you and I get along. That and our shared values.Mike: I remember the first time that you and I did a consulting engagement together. We went on a multi-day trip. And at the end of, like, three days of nonstop conversations, you made a comment, it was like, “Cool. So, what are we going to do that again?” Like, you were excited by it. I can tell you're energized. And I was just thinking, “Please for love of God, I want to die right now.”Corey: One of the weirdest parts about all of it, though, is neither one of us is in a scenario where what we do for a living and how we go about it works without the other.Mike: Right. Yeah, like, this is one of the interesting things about the company we have built is that it would not work with just you or just me; it's us being co-founders is what makes it successful.Corey: The thing that I do not understand and I don't think I ever will is the idea of co-founder speed dating, where you basically go to some big networking mixer event, pick some rando off the street, and congratulations, that's your business partner. Have fun. It is not that much of an exaggeration to say that co-founding a company with someone else is like a marriage. You are creating a legal entity that without very specific controls and guidelines, you are opening yourself up to massive liability issues if the other person decides to screw you over. That is part of the reason that the values match was so important for us.Mike: Yeah, it is surprising to me how similar being co-founders and business partners is to being married. I did not expect how close those two things were. You and I spend an incredible amount of time just on the relationship for each of us, which I never expected, but makes sense in hindsight.Corey: That's I think part of it makes the whole you managing me type of relationship work is because not only can you not, “Fire me,” quote-unquote, but I can't quit without—Mike: [laugh].Corey: Leaving behind a giant pile of effort with nothing to show for it over the last four years. So, it's one of those conversation styles where we go into the conversation knowing, regardless of how heated it gets or how annoyed we are with each other, that we are not going to blow the company up because one of us is salty that week.Mike: Right. Yeah, I remember from the legal perspective, when we put together a partnership agreement, our attorneys were telling us that we really needed to have someone at the 51% owner, and we were both adamant that no, that doesn't work for us. And finally, the way that we handled it is if you and I could not handle a dispute, then the only remedy left was to shut the entire thing down. And that would be an automatic trigger. We've never ever, ever even got close to that point.But like, I like that's the structure because it really means that if you and I can't agree on something and it's a substantial thing, then there's no business, which really kind of sets the stage for how important the conversations that we have are. And of course, you and I, we're close, we have a great relationship, so that's never come up. But I do like that it's still there.Corey: I like the fact that there's always going to be an option to get out. It's not a suicide pact, for lack of a better term. But it's also something that neither one of us would ever entertain lightly. And credit where due, there have been countless conversations where you and I were diametrically opposed; we each talk through it, and one or the other of us will just do a complete one-eighty our position where, “Okay, you convinced me,” and that's it. What's so odd about that is because we don't have too many examples of that in public society, it just seems like there's now this entire focus on, “Oh, if you make an observation or a point, that's wrong, you've got to double down on it.” Why would you do that? That makes zero sense. When you've considered something of a different angle and change your mind, why waste more time on it?Mike: I think there's other interesting ones, too, where you and I have come at something from a different angle and one of us will realize that we just actually don't care as much as we thought we did. And we'll just back down because it's not the hill we want to die on.Corey: Which brings us to a good point. What hill do we want to die on?Mike: Hmm. I think we've only got a handful. I mean, as it should; like, there should not be there should not be many of them.Corey: No, no because most things can change, in the fullness of time. Just because it's not something we believe is right for the business right now does not mean it never will be.Mike: Yeah. I think all of them really come down to questions of values, which is why you and I worked so well together, in that we don't have a lot of common interests, we're at completely different stages in our lives, but we have very tightly aligned values. Which means that when we go into a discussion about something, we know where the other stands right away, like, we could generally make a pretty good guess about it. And there's often very little question about how some values discussion is going to go. Like, do we take on a certain client that is, I don't know, they build landmines? Is that a thing that we're going to do? Of course not. Like—Corey: I should clarify, we're talking here about physical landmines; not whatever disastrous failure mode your SaaS application has.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah.Corey: We know what those are.Mike: Yeah, and like, that sort of thing, you and I would never even pose the question to each other. We would just make the decision. And maybe we tell each other later because and, like, “Hey, haha, look what happened,” but there will never be a discussion around it because it just—our values are so tightly aligned that it wouldn't be necessary.Corey: Whenever we're talking to someone that's in a new sector or a company that has a different expression, we always like to throw it past each other just to double-check, you don't have a problem with—insert any random thing here; the breadth of our customer base just astounds me—and very rarely as either one of us thrown a flag on something just because we do have this affinity for saying[ yes and making money.Mike: Yeah. But you actually wanted to talk about the terribleness of managing you.Corey: Yeah. I am very curious as to what your experience has been.Mike: [laugh].Corey: And before we dive into it, I want to call out a couple of things that make me a little atypical for your typical problem employee. I am ADHD personified. My particular expression of that means that my energy level is very different at different times of day, there are times where I will get nothing done for a day or two, and then in four hours, get three weeks of work done. It is hard to predict and it's hard to schedule around and it's never clear exactly what that energy level is going to be at any given point in time. That's the starting point of this nonsense. Now, take it away.Mike: Yeah. What most people know about Corey is what everyone sees on Twitter, which is what I would call the high highs. Everyone sees you as your most energetic, or at least perceived as the most energetic. If they see you in person at a conference, it's the same sort of thing. What people don't see are your lows, which are really, really low lows.And it's not a matter of, like, you don't get anything done. Like, you know, we can handle that; it's that you disappear. And it may be for a couple hours, it may be for a couple of days, and we just don't really know what's going on. That's really hard. But then, in your high highs, they're really high, but they're also really unpredictable.So, what that means is that because you have ADHD, like, the way that your brain thinks, the way your brain works, is that you don't control what you're going to focus on, and you never know what you're going to focus on. It may be exactly what you should be focusing on, which is a huge win for everyone involved, but sometimes you focus on stuff that doesn't matter to anyone except you. Sometimes really interesting stuff comes out of that, but oftentimes it doesn't. So, helping build a structure to work around those sorts of things and to also support those sorts of things, has been one of the biggest challenges that I've had. And most of my job is really about building a support structure for you and enabling you to do your best work.So, that's been really interesting and really challenging because I do not think that way. Like, if I need to focus on something, I just say, “Great. I'm just going to focus on this thing,” and I'll focus on it until I'm done. But you don't work that way, and you couldn't conceivably work that way, ever. So, it's always been hard because I say things like, “Hey, Corey, I need you to go write this series of emails.” And you'll write them when your brain decides that wants to write them, which might be never.Corey: That's part of the problem. I've also found that if I have an idea floating around too long, it'll linger for years and I'll never write anything about it, whereas there are times when I have—the inspiration strikes, I write a one- to 2000-word blog post every week that goes out, and there are times it takes me hours and there are times I bust out the entire thing in first draft form in 20 minutes or less. Like, if it's Domino's, like, there's not going to be a refund on it. So, it's kind of wild and I wish I could harness that somehow I don't know how, but… that's one of the biggest challenges.Mike: I wish I could too, but it's one of the things that you learn to get used to. And with that, because we've worked together for so long, I've gotten to be able to tell in what state of mind you are. Like, are you in a state where if I put something in front of you, you're going to go after it hard, and like, great things are going to happen, or are you more likely to ignore that I said anything? And I can generally tell within the first sentence or so of bringing something up. But that also means that I have other—I have to be careful with how I structure requests that I have for you.In some cases, I come with a punch list of, like, here's six things I need to get through and I'm going to sit on this call while we go through them. In other cases, I have to drip them out one at a time over the span of a week just because that's how your mind is those days. That makes it really difficult because that's not how most people are managed and it's not how most people expect to manage. So, coming up with different ways to do that has been one of the trickiest things I've done.Corey: Let's move on a little bit other than managing my energy levels because that does not sound like a particularly difficult employee to manage. “Okay, great. We've got to build some buffer room into the schedule in case he winds up not delivering for a few days. Okay, we can live with that.” But oh, working with me gets so much worse.Mike: [laugh]. It absolutely does.Corey: This is my performance review. Please hit me with it.Mike: Yeah. The other major concern that has been challenging to work through that makes you really frustrating to work with, is you hate conflict. Actually, I don't actually—let me clarify that further. You avoid conflict, except your definition of conflict is more broad than most. Because when most people think of conflicts, like, “Oh, I have to go have this really hard conversation, it's going to be uncomfortable, and, like—”Corey: “Time to go fire Steven.”Mike: Right, or things like, “I have to have our performance conversation with someone.” Like, everyone hates those, but, like, there's good ways and bad ways to them, like, it's uncomfortable even at the best of times. But with you, it's more than that, it's much more broad. You avoid giving direction because you perceive giving direction as potential for conflict, and because you're so conflict-avoidant, you don't give direction to people.Which means that if someone does something you don't like, you don't say anything and then it leaves everyone on the team to say, like, “I really wish Corey would be more explicit about what he wants. I wish he was more vocal about the direction he wanted to go.” Like, “Please tell us something more.” But you're so conflict-avoidant that you don't, and no amount of begging or we're asking for it has really changed that, so we end up with these two things where you're doing most of the work yourself because you don't want to direct other people to do it.Corey: I will push back slightly on one element of that, which is when I have a strong opinion about something, I am not at all hesitant about articulating that. I mean, this is not—like, my Twitter is not performance art; it's very much what I believe. The challenge is that for so much of what we talk about internally on a day-to-day basis, I don't really have a strong opinion. And what I've always shied away from is the idea of telling people how to do their jobs. So, I want to be very clear that I'm not doing that, except when it's important.Because we've all been in environments in the corporate world where the president of the company wanders past or your grand-boss walks into the room and asks an idle question, or, “Maybe we should do this,” and it never feels like it's really just idle pondering. It's, “Welp, new strategic priority just dropped from on high.”Mike: Right.Corey: And every senior manager has a story about screwing that one up. And I have led us down that path once or twice previously. So—Mike: That's true.Corey: When I don't have a strong opinion, I think what I need to get better at is saying, “I don't give a shit,” but when I frame it like that it causes different problems.Mike: Yeah. Yeah, that's very true. I still don't completely agree with your disagreement there, but I understand your perspective. [laugh].Corey: Oh, he's not like you can fire me, so it doesn't really matter. I kid. I kid.Mike: Right. Yeah. So, I think those are the two major areas that make you a real challenge to manage and a challenge to direct. But one of the reasons why I think we've been successful at it, or at least I'll say I've been successful at managing you, is I do so with such a gentle touch that you don't realize that I'm doing anything, and I have all these different—Corey: Well, it did take me four years to realize what was going on.Mike: Yeah, like, I have all these different ways of getting you to do things, and you don't realize I'm doing them. And, like, I've shared many of them here for you for the first time. And that's really is what has worked out well. Like, a lot of the ways that I manage you, you don't realize are management.Corey: Managing shards. Maintenance windows. Overprovisioning. ElastiCache bills. I know, I know. It's a spooky season and you're already shaking. It's time for caching to be simpler. Momento Serverless Cache lets you forget the backend to focus on good code and great user experiences. With true autoscaling and a pay-per-use pricing model, it makes caching easy. No matter your cloud provider, get going for free at gomomento.co/screaming That's GO M-O-M-E-N-T-O dot co slash screamingCorey: What advice would you have for someone for whom a lot of these stories are resonating? Because, “Hey, I have a direct report is driving me to distraction and a lot sounds like what you're describing.” What do you wish you'd known sooner about how to coax performance out of me, for lack of a better phrasing?Mike: When we first started really working together, I knew what ADHD was, but I knew it from a high school paper that I did on ADHD, and it's um—oh, what was it—“The Overdiagnosis of ADHD,” which was a thing when you and I were at high school. That's all I knew is just that ADHD was suspected to be grossly overdiagnosed and that most people didn't have it. What I have learned is that yeah, that might have been true—maybe; I don't know—but for people that do have any ADHD, it's a real thing. Like, it does have some pretty substantial impact.And I wish I had known more about how that manifests, and particularly how it manifests in different people. And I wish I'd known more earlier on about the coping mechanisms that different people create for themselves and how they manage and how they—[sigh], I'm struggling to come up with the right word here, but many people who are neurodivergent in some way create coping mechanisms and ways to shift themselves to appear more neurotypical. And I wish I had understood that better. Particularly, I wish I had understood that better for you when we first started because I've kind of learned about it over time. And I spent so much time trying to get you to work the way that I work rather than understand that you work different. Had I spent more time to understand how you work and what your coping mechanisms were, the earlier years of Duckbill would have been so much smoother.Corey: And again, having this conversation has been extraordinarily helpful. On my side of it, one of the things that was absolutely transformative and caused a massive reduction in our interpersonal conflict was the very simple tool of, it's not necessarily a problem when I drop something on the floor and don't get to it, as long as I throw a hand up and say, “I'm dropping this thing,” and so someone else can catch it as we go. I don't know how much of this is ADHD speaking versus how much of it is just my own brokenness in some ways, but I feel like everyone has this neverending list of backlog tasks that they'll get to someday that generally doesn't ever seem to happen. More often than not, I wind up every few months, just looking at my ever-growing list, reset to zero and we'll start over. And every once in a while, I'll be really industrious and knock a thing or two off the list. But so many that don't necessarily matter or need to be me doing them, but it drives people to distraction when something hits my email inbox, it just dies there, for example.Mike: Yeah. One of the systems that we set up here is that if there's something that Corey does not immediately want to do, I have you send it to someone else. And generally it's to me and then I become a router for you. But making that more explicit and making that easier for you—I'm just like, “If this is not something that you're going to immediately take care of yourself, forward it to me.” And that was huge. But then other things, like when you take time off, no one knows you're taking time off. And it's an—the easiest thing is no one cares that you're taking time off; just, you know, tell us you're doing it.Corey: Yeah, there's a difference between, “I'm taking three days off,” and your case, the answer is generally, “Oh, thank God. He's finally using some of that vacation.”Mike: [laugh].Corey: The problem is there's a world of difference between, “Oh, I'm going to take these three days off,” and just not showing up that day. That tends to cause problems for people.Mike: Yeah. They're just waving a hand in the air and saying, “Hey, this is happening,” that's great. But not waving it, not saying anything at all, that's where the pain really comes from.Corey: When you take a look across your experience managing people, which to my understanding your first outing with it was at this company—Mike: Yeah.Corey: What about managing me is the least surprising and the most surprising that you've picked up during that pattern? Because again, the story has always been, “Oh, yeah, you're a terrible manager because you've never done it before,” but I look back and you're clearly the best manager I've ever had, if for no other reason than neither one of us can rage-quit. But there's a lot of artistry to how you've handled a lot of challenges that I present to you.Mike: I'm the best manager you've had because I haven't fired you. [laugh].Corey: And also, some of the best ones I have had fired me. That doesn't necessarily disqualify someone.Mike: Yeah. I want to say, I am by no means experienced as a manager. As you mentioned, this is my first outing into doing management. As my coach tells me, I'm getting better every day. I am not terrible [laugh].The—let's see—most surprising; least surprising. I don't think I have anything for least surprising. I think most surprising is how easy it is for you to accept feedback and how quickly you do something about it, how quickly you take action on that feedback. I did not expect that, given all your other proclivities for not liking managers, not liking to be managed, for someone to give feedback to you and you say, “Yep, that sounds good,” and then do it, like, that was incredibly surprising.Corey: It's one of those areas where if you're not embracing or at least paying significant attention to how you are being perceived, maybe that's a problem, maybe it's not, let's be very clear. However, there's also a lot of propensity there to just assume, “Oh, I'm right and screw everyone else.” You can do an awful lot of harm that way. And that is something I've had to become incredibly aware of, especially during the pandemic, as the size of my audience at this point more than quadrupled from the start of the pandemic. These are a bunch of people now who have never met me in person, they have no context on what I do.And I tend to view the world the way you might expect a dog to behave, who caught a car that he has absolutely no idea how to drive, and he's sort of winging it as he goes. Like, step one, let's not kill people. Step two, eh, we'll figure that out later. Like, step one is the most important.Mike: Mm-hm. Yeah.Corey: And feedback is hard to get, past a certain point. I often lament from time to time that it's become more challenging for me to weed out who the jerks are because when you're perceived to have a large platform and more or less have no problem calling large companies and powerful folk to account, everyone's nice to you. And well, “Really? He's terrible and shitty to women. That's odd. He's always been super nice to me.” Is not the glowing defense that so many people seem to think that it is. It's I have learned to listen a lot more clearly the more I speak.Mike: That's a challenge for me as well because, as we've mentioned, my first foray into management. As we've had more people in the company, that has gotten more of a challenge of I have to watch what I say because my word carries weight on its own, by virtue of my position. And you have the same problem, except yours is much more about your weight in public, rather than your weight internally.Corey: I see it as different sides of the same coin. I take it as a personal bit of a badge of honor that almost every person I meet, including the people who've worked here, have come away, very surprised by just how true to life my personality on Twitter is to how actually am when I interact with humans. You're right, they don't see the low sides, but I also try not to take that out on the staff either.Mike: [laugh]. Right.Corey: We do the best of what we have, I think, and it's gratifying to know that I can still learn new tricks.Mike: Yeah. And I'm not firing anytime soon.Corey: That's right. Thank you again for giving me the shotgun performance review. It's always appreciated. If people want to learn more, where can they find you, to get their own performance preview, perhaps?Mike: Yeah, you can find me on Twitter at @Mike_Julian. Or you can sign up for our newsletter, where I'm talking about my upcoming book on consulting at mikejulian.com.Corey: And we will put links to that into the show notes. Thanks again, sir.Mike: Thank you.Corey: Mike Julian, CEO of The Duckbill Group, my business partner, and apparently my boss. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry comment that demonstrates the absolute worst way to respond to a negative performance evaluation.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

god ceo amazon co founders fire portland built adhd manage mine cloud saas maintenance ux domino screaming knoxville aws welp vpn devops ssh datadog oak ridge national laboratory pki devops engineer overdiagnosis corey quinn tailscale mike yeah mike thank duckbill group mike julian mike right elasticache chief cloud economist last week in aws humblepod monitoring weekly

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 20: Castrate Them

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 29, 2022 51:20

Mike Isaacson: Reproductive rights are inmates' rights apparently. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. I'm joined today by Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean of Undergraduate Studies at Michigan State University, Mark Largent, who is with us today to talk about his book Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States. This slim volume tells the story of the historical enthusiasm for depriving certain classes of people the ability to reproduce and the efforts towards making that a reality. Really happy to get to read this book a second time for this podcast. Welcome to the show Dr. Largent. Mark Largent: Thank you for the invitation and for your kind words. Mike: So I want to start today by talking about what you start the book talking about, which is a discussion of your historical method of storytelling, your historiography. So you make a very deliberate choice of vocabulary that really does have a powerful effect in exposing, kind of, the grittiness of the whole issue. Can you talk about that and what effect you intended to have? Mark: So I was trying very hard to work in an anti-presentist mode. Presentist mode is most commonly what's used in exploring issues like eugenics, things that have become recognized as problematic for a variety of reasons. What often happens when you take a presentistic view like that is you fail to understand how something that seems so obviously problematic to you could have been acceptable to large numbers of people in the past. The danger, of course, is that you fall into the trap of becoming an apologist. So it's a fine line to walk between being a presentist and being an apologist when you're dealing with issues like this. You don't want to explain away past people's beliefs and assumptions and actions as merely products of their time because that doesn't treat them fairly; it doesn't treat them as equals; it sort of lets them off merely because they lived before you. On the other hand, you need to understand the world as it was understood by them. So I think in graduate school is where I first heard the term “doing violence to the historical subject”. That is if you view them through your own eyes, you are doing violence to them. If you view them in such a way as to not hold them to any real standards simply because they came before you and therefore operated in a space of naivete relative to what you think you know, you're doing violence to them. You're treating them as somehow less than you and your present day colleagues. So to walk that line really requires that you use their language and you try to understand and discuss the world the way that they may have understood and discussed it. Now, the problem, of course, when you're dealing with something like this is that many of the things that they held true, many of the assumptions on which their work is based, are deeply problematic to us today, or we at least on the surface claim that they're deeply problematic. Because one of the real dangers of presentism is that it allows you to imagine that you're somehow better than the historical subjects were, that you're above whatever it was that they were dealing with, when in fact, you may simply rationalize some of the very same problematic assumptions that they held differently, holding them in a different way. So as a historian, I feel like it's my responsibility to treat the historical subjects fairly, and that means holding them to the same standards that I hold present-day people to, but also respecting the fact that their contexts were different in some ways. Mike: Right. So one of the interesting things that you do is you also use the terminology that they were using at the time, and I think it gives a really good sense, not only of, I guess, how distasteful it is today, but also it gives a good sense of the logic that they're working with. Mark: Yeah, their language matters. I mean, I really do think words matter, and unpacking words so that you understand what is within them is critically important. And one of the big ones, I address it right from the very start, is the concept of eugenics itself. Eugenics to us is by and large a slur, that if you call a person a eugenicist, you are by and large disparaging them in some way. And that was not held to be true by the subjects that I look at, which the story runs from about 1850 to about 1950, with the most intense period being in the first 25 years of the 20th century or about 1900 to about 1925. And the idea here is that they didn't have a slur in mind when they said eugenics. In fact, eugenics as a slur didn't really even emerge until about the 1960s, I tried to show in the book. Mike: Okay. So let's get a little into the terminology and the procedures involved. What kind of sterilizing interventions were physicians making, and what were they called at the time? Mark: So at the beginning of the story, so from about 1850 to about the 1880s, they were what they would've called “desexing.” They were performing castrations or orchidectomies [Mike's note: they're actually called orchiectomies] as they came to be called. For men, a complete removal of the scrotum and testicles. So, neutering would be the closest concept that we have. These were not widespread, it wasn't common. It was sufficiently brutal that it was considered problematic. But by the time you get into the 1880s and 1890s, a progressive new surgery, the vasectomy, had emerged. Vasectomization had first developed as a rejuvenating activity, a notion that you could rejuvenate a person by eliminating the pathways for sperm to leave the body, so by tying off or cutting the vas deferens. But it was seen from its original holders, and these were by and large the heads of psychiatric hospitals, as a way of managing a couple of complex problems. One of them was what they called chronic masturbation. They thought that the vasectomy would somehow reduce the urge of the men in their charge to masturbate. There was also the notion that it would somehow calm them and be a management tactic. But there'd been a broader effort both before the vasectomy and after it to cut off the inherited characteristics from one generation to another so as not to pass along what were largely seen as problematic traits that followed family lines. So all the way back to the 1850s, you have physicians, the first one that I can identify is in the 1850s Gideon Lincecum in Texas, who brings out in public conversation something that he said physicians widely discussed. And that was that there were families that were just no good, and that they produced children who themselves were no good who would grow up and have children who were no good. And so this notion of good breeding was well aligned with notions of artificial selection and plant and animal breeding. So this is pre-Darwin or pre-Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is published in 1859–this notion that you could artificially select for different traits in plants and animals being applied to the reproduction of human beings. And so what Gideon Lincecum, and other physicians like him, began talking openly about first castration and then by the end of the century vasectomies was intended to sort of stop these problematic lines of parenthood and then eliminate the problematic social behaviors and poverty that they believed were somehow rooted in the very biology of who procreates. At near about the same time near the end of the 19th century in the 1880s, the operation of hysterectomy came into being and then vogue. The idea is that you could, by removing a woman's ovaries or fallopian tube or uterus or all of it, control reproduction with potentially a positive therapeutic effect to women themselves by removing these usually described as diseased organs, the women themselves would be healthier, happier for it. But more importantly or at least equally importantly, you could prevent the passage of these deleterious social traits from parent to child, they believed, by preventing the parent from having children. So you're sort of removing from a community whatever deleterious social traits they believed were associated with the very biology of the parents who would otherwise have children. Mike: Okay. So I tried to get Daniel Kevles to talk about this a bit when we had him on, but he didn't seem familiar too much with the pre-eugenic history. So your story of coerced sterilization doesn't start with the eugenics movement, and you briefly mentioned that. So talk a bit about the origins of the movement for sterilization in the United States. Mark: Well, it really was focused on this analogy to plant and animal breeding which really did preceed both Darwin in 1859 and the emergence of the eugenics movement, which is a progressive era movement shortly after the turn of the 20th century. People generally associate coerced sterilization with the eugenics movement, and they certainly were closely aligned. The eugenics movement began in the very late 19th or early 20th century depending upon which historians you're looking at. But the movement for coerced sterilization had begun much earlier. And in fact, there were even common calls to it being pressed all the way back to Aristotle and his discussion about how certain traits seem to follow in family lines. And so by the mid-19th century when there was widespread interest in artificial plant and animal breeding, the application of it to human traits became an interesting element. And there were advocates for sterilization to prevent the passage of these deleterious traits that even preceded the invention of the word eugenics by Francis Galton in the 1860s. But this pressure had really been focused around thinking about therapy for deleterious traits, that you could avoid them if you could somehow prevent the people who would possess them from coming into existence or from them being passed from a parent to a child. There also was no really hard line to biology proper. And in fact, there was a lot of discussion all the way through the end of the 19th and 20th century about not just eugenics, but also a thing called euthenics, which was the study of the effect of the environment on the development of certain kinds of traits. And so in the same way that you could have a biological transfer of traits, you could have a social transfer of traits. And the thing is you can't separate. We talk about nature and nurture, you can't separate. You can't have nature without nurture and nurture without nature. The widespread analogy that was given was that seeds grow in the soil, and you can have a plant only if you have both seeds and soil. You can't have a seed that grows without soil, and you can't have a plant that grows without a seed. So these two, nature and nurture or eugenics and euthenics, were entwined in most of the conversation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We tend to really focus on the latter, the eugenic issues, but euthenics was an important part of it. And that's the same way, if you prevent a parent from having a child who they might pass along either biologically or socially some deleterious trait. You prevent them from becoming a parent, you prevent the passage of that trait. It's really only the eugenics movement and a real narrow focus on the biological transfer of these traits that you lose that nature-nurture symbiosis. But in the 19th century, they were talked about both really hand in hand, there wasn't this sort of hard line of nature over nurture. The place that it started to fall apart was when they began discovering genetic diseases. So Huntington's was the first genetic disease to be identified, and it was Charles Davenport himself who did some of the work to help identify that. And then you realize that that's a purely genetic trait that a parent passes along to a child, and if you prevent a parent from having a child, then you prevent the passage of that trait. So you could actually get rid of diseases if you prevented everyone who's a carrier for that disease from passing along from parent to child. And so there was a kind of either curative or preventative medicine notion in play in this early part. But the idea of genetic disease really helped create some distance in between the people who were thinking about eugenics and euthenics as hand in hand and those who began to think primarily about just eugenics. Mike: I do want to deviate here. So one of the things that you mentioned in the book was that even at the time they recognized that there was a flaw in the eugenic program insofar as, because they didn't have access to genetic testing, when you try to eliminate bad traits, you don't eliminate all the carriers, you only eliminate those that have dominant expressions. So they said it would take about a hundred generations to actually eliminate any of these traits, right? Mark: Yeah, and of course mathematical geneticists came to help us understand why it was that as traits became less and less frequent it became harder and harder to reduce their frequency because they showed up so infrequently. So I think from being fair to the historical subject's point of view, I think there's sort of two responses to it. One is, “Well, if we can substantially reduce the amount of disease by reducing the number of carriers that we know of who carry genetic disease, that's progress. So if you go from some number to a smaller number from one generation to the next of people who are likely or probable to have a genetic disease, that's progress. So you can't say, ‘Because we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything,' that's a foolish position to take.” So that's one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is that, “While you're correct that lacking genetic testing we can't see the genome in an individual, we can infer a great deal about a person's genome if we have elaborate family histories.” So that's why the real burst of activity in and around eugenics is with Davenport's and Laughlin's Eugenic Record Office and the establishment of this elaborate effort to build very sophisticated family trees, because that was the way that you could infer a genome with some accuracy. Mike: Okay. So one thing that you point out about the early physicians that were sterilizing people was that their reasons for sterilization were not necessarily eugenic, and early on they often weren't. So what were the other motivations of these physicians in sterilizing their patients? Mark: Yeah, they run a gamut, and I'll start with the darkest motives: clearly punitive. There's a significant punitive aspect to it, especially when you're doing something as brutal as castration or as invasive as a hysterectomy. I mean, you have to keep in mind the relatively crude state of surgery in the late 19th and early 20th century. So these are pretty significant things. There was one person in the state of Washington who had argued that a vasectomy was really not much worse than having a tooth pulled. And to imagine that without anything like sophisticated anesthetics makes you realize that having a tooth pulled is probably a pretty miserable experience in the early 20th century. So you're not comparing it to something that's not that big of a deal, but you were probably comparing it to something that was relatively common in an era before fluoride and dental health. So they were trying to sort of normalize it as something that could happen. The use of castration continued well into the 20th century for decades after the vasectomy was invented. So when I looked really closely at the state of Oregon, for example, they were using both castrations and vasectomies. And when we looked at why they were using one rather than the other, what we found was that when people were convicted of offenses that were associated with what we would today consider homosexuality, they were more likely to be castrated. But for men who were in prison for crimes of rape against women, those men would be more likely to receive vasectomy. And so you see this interesting difference in the application of which surgery is used, and it clearly has a punitive aspect of it in the use of castration. When you get later into the 20th century, you'll see this applied increasingly to women. And there's some very ugly stuff that happens in the 1960s and 1970s around women in poverty in which they are coerced to either have their tubes tied or to receive hysterectomies. There's a great book Fit to Be Tied by Rebecca Kluchin that is really the complement to my book. She takes it to the next set of decades, to the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties, and looks really closely at the ways in which there's punitive aspects of it all the way through the 20th century. But it's not just punitive, there were also therapeutic measures that were in place. There were clearly people involved who sought access to control of their own reproduction because they didn't want to pass something along or because they didn't want to have children. So keep in mind, especially with the more recent decisions around abortion and privacy rights that we're dealing with right now, until you get to the late 1960s, the guaranteed access to birth control is not a fundamental right in the United States. And so how do you control your own fertility without access to reliable birth control? There are cases, and Christine Manganaro has written about one such case with a physician in Washington State who was using eugenic arguments to justify and get through the bureaucracy necessary to sterilize women, and the women themselves wanted that sterilization and were collaborating with him to do the things necessary to get access to be sterilized. And so in control of your own fertility, there was some of that that you can find examples of. You also find examples of where it has therapeutic uses for people who are suffering from mental or emotional trauma. And again, Christine Manganaro does a nice job in this with looking at women who suffered severe postpartum depression. If you suffer from postpartum depression, what is the only real way in a relatively crude medical environment, what's the only really effective way to avoid postpartum depression? Well, avoid postpartum. Don't get pregnant and have a child. And so that same physician was using sterilization as a way of preventing the postpartum depression that would then follow birth being given by women who had suffered from this previously. Now, I will tell you those cases are relatively rare. By and large, the history of coerced sterilization in the United States is one of either eugenic justification or punitive measures or it's in order to allow for easier control over people, that there's a manipulative aspect of it. So it might be if you sterilize them you can release them because you believe that they will no longer commit the crimes or no longer perpetuate whatever genetic shortcomings those people are believed to have, or a notion that if you sterilize them you can release them because they have paid for their crime, that it's cheaper to sterilize them and release them than it is to keep them incarcerated. But what I think is important to understand here is that it's not a single simple answer to this. It's a pretty complex set of things that are all based on a pretty simplistic notion, and that is that somehow located in the testicles and ovaries of these citizens is a problem that you could surgically remove, that it could be excised from society by taking it out of these people's bodies. And lots of different people were using that to promote lots of different notions. Mike: Right. To me, it was interesting that it wasn't just about like doing things to prevent them from reproducing, but it was also sometimes used as a behavioral control method, they thought sterilizing people would actually change their behavior. Mark: Yeah, I mean, Harry Sharp, the guy who invented the vasectomy, firmly believed that he would reduce the problems of the young men in his mental hospital and their masturbation, what you call chronic masturbation problems. Mike: Right, okay. So now obviously a major factor of the movement for sterilization of the so-called unfit was the eugenics movement. So, like I said, we had Kevles on, so my listeners are familiar with the general history of the eugenics movement as far as its kind of intellectual development. So talk about some of the ways that the eugenicists were instrumental in turning sterilization practice into sterilization policy. Mark: Well, the biggest was what now is pretty normal in American politics, and that is what the founders referred to as states as the laboratories for democracy. The idea that the founders had all the way back to the Federalists was a notion that you had a federal government, but then you also had originally 13 grown to 50 states, each of which was a kind of individual laboratory for democracy. So an individual state could come up with new legislation and enact it, and the other states could see how it went. They could see what value there might be in that legislation. And then you'd have all of these different little experiments going on, and the good ones would spread to other states. And the early proponents of eugenics in the United States seized on this structure of governance that we have to individually, state by state, go to the legislatures with model legislation. And that model legislation came out of the Eugenic Records Office, and this is really Harry Laughlin's push to get states to adopt very similar eugenic laws. And you could state by state use these sort of models for it, so that legislators wouldn't even have to do the work of writing these things. Rather, the bills could be handed to them as a model bill that could be debated and put into place. And the promise on all of them is that if you adopted this legislation, you would have a healthier body of citizens. You would have a safer community of people who live there, that the state would save money because it wouldn't have to put so many people in prison or mental health facilities, and that by and large the public good would be advanced. And it was all leveraged on a set of prejudices against people who were not seen as sufficiently fit, that they didn't meet whatever kinds of standards that there were for human goodness. Mike: Okay. So on the subject of model legislation, so you talked about that and you also talked a bit about how court arguments were replicated across state lines as well. So how early was the eugenics movement to this game of pre-fabricated policy? Mark: Well, I can't find anybody who is earlier. I mean, this really seems like one of the real novel contributions of the proponents of this. And it's because it leverages certain characteristics of the way in which federalism works in the United States with the very nature of eugenics itself which is operating at this intersection of human biology and education and public health and medicine and the punitive aspects of mental health facilities or of prisons, and all of these things are under control of the state, individual states. They are powers that either explicitly or implied in the US Constitution are of state import. And it really only is until you get Buck v. Bell in the mid-twenties that you have any kind of federal sanctification of this. But prior to that, it had been going on at lower and lower courts, the big advance being made in the Michigan case two years before Buck v. Bell. And that Michigan case, everything that ultimately would be tested in the Buck v. Bell case was all sort of laid out and sorted in a much more complex case. But Buck v. Bell was the Supreme Court's sanctification of it. Mike: Okay. So one of the things I liked about your book was that it's rich with data, but it's not bogged down with it. So what are some of the key statistics about sterilization in the US that people should know? Mark: Well, I think one of the biggest is that it peaks in the 1930s and begins to fade prior to World War II. Another one is who is it that's advancing it at any given time? So what you see are really interesting lineage of professions who are advancing first sterilization and then eugenic sterilization in the 20th century. And one of the things that I find most fascinating is one of the last groups to get on board and one of the last groups to get off of this train are American biologists, and that American biologists really used this as a way to help professionalize them in the early 20th century because it allowed them to demonstrate the public value of basic scientific research. And then really are among the last ones off. You don't see biologists turn against eugenics until the late sixties and early seventies, which is really late relative to other professional groups. I mean, the psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists, many of the other social scientists, they are beginning to turn against it in the thirties. But American biologists sort of continue replicating a set of base assumptions that were first made in biology textbooks in the teens and twenties. They continue restating those assumptions all the way through the sixties. Mike: So for a while, the eugenics movement was largely unopposed in it's crusade to sterilize the so-called unfit. I mean, there were parts of the Catholic Church that were opposed and individuals here there, but there wasn't any sort of organized resistance. Now you claim that all changed with Buck v. Bell, so talk about that ruling and the reactions to it. Mark: Yeah. And again, it's funny to talk about this, funny in a like slow down and look at the car accident funny, funny weird and a little scary funny, it's funny to look at this right now in the context of, again, recent Supreme Court decisions about abortion because I do say in the book and I have said elsewhere that there really is no pro-life movement in the United States until Roe v. Wade. And in that same way, there really was no organized opposition to eugenics in United States until Buck v. Bell, that these court cases represent pivotal moments in the emergence of opposition because they crystallized something that until then really didn't have full state sanctification. And so in both the case of eugenics in Buck v. Bell in the twenties and Roe in the seventies, you have the crystallization of something to push against. And Buck creates for an increasingly large number of professionals and social commentators something very specific against which they can push and they can begin leveraging their sets of arguments. What I always find interesting is that the original arguments against eugenics in the 20s are very different than what are made later. That is, they often are rife with many of the same prejudiced assumptions that proponents of eugenics had. The issue for many though becomes the notion of whether or not the state has the power to do it and has the authority or is smart enough to know how to do it well.n ot really addressing the underlying civil liberties issues, which I think by the late 20th century are much more prominent in our minds. Mike: Okay. So eugenics began to decline starting in the 30s, as you said. The Pope came out against it, there was organized resistance to it, and advances in biology were beginning to unwind some of its core claims. But according to your book, eugenics took quite a while to finally lose public respect. So talk a bit about the decline of eugenics and what sort of documentation you used in the book to gauge support for the theory. Mark: Yeah, so that's actually my favorite part of the book, was the part that I found most interesting. For years, I had collected biology textbooks, hunting bookstores for them and libraries. And in every time I would find one, I would record if it talked about eugenics and how it talked about eugenics. And the thing that we see very clearly is that there's no systematic turn against eugenics in biology textbooks until you get into the 1970s, and then you start seeing this sort of shift in the discussion of it. First you see a decline in any discussion, you start seeing in the fifties eugenics falls out of the textbooks. And then as you get into the sixties, seventies, and really into the eighties, you start seeing some criticism of it emerge. But up until the 1960s, there's almost no textbook published that doesn't include eugenics, and there's almost none of the ones that do talk about it are critical. You don't see the real explosion of criticism until you get into the early and mid-sixties, and then by the time you get between the mid-seventies and 1980, it's overwhelmingly critical and overwhelmingly common to talk in negative ways about eugenics. So I used the textbooks as a marker for the state-of-the-art sort of received wisdom. And until the sixties, the received wisdom that every college kid is taught is that eugenics is good and possible, and biology can tell us how to do it right and well. Mike: Okay. So sterilization laws did start to also be repealed or overturned at the state level in the latter half of the 20th century with the decline of eugenics. Can you talk a bit about the decline of sterilization policy? Mark: Yeah. So a couple of things happened, and again, I point you to Rebecca Kluchin's work which I think is very good in this regard. So my story is mostly a story about white people and disproportionately a story about men. And so from the late 19th century through the first third of the 20th century, the majority of people who were targeted for sterilization were white men. And my argument was that this was a very racist activity because these men were being sterilized because they did not meet the ideals of white masculinity. That is, they were involved in activities that we associate with homosexuality; they were developmentally delayed; they stole or were violent. These are all unacceptable expressions or unacceptable activities of white masculinity. Violence or thievery or lower intelligence are acceptable for other races, but they're not acceptable for the white race. And so these people had to be cleaned up, they had to clean up the white race. And I talk explicitly about how racist it was and how it focused almost entirely on white men. That began to shift first with an increasing emphasis on women, and then by the mid-20th century, an increasing emphasis on people of color. And that shift happens at the same time that eugenics itself becomes increasingly problematic. And again, Kluchin does a much better and more thorough job of looking at that latter period. But my earlier work or my work in the earlier period makes clear that it's no less racist, that is, that targeting white men because they weren't upholding the expectations of white masculinity is a racist activity. And the latter work looks at what happens to minoritized communities and women, especially minority women, which by the time you get to 1970s, the vast majority of people who were being targeted for compulsory sterilization or coerced sterilization are minoritized women. Mike: Okay. Now despite the general revulsion of the public to eugenics programs, the ghosts of the movement for sterilization still linger in many ways reflecting the origins of the movement. In particular, you point to legislation that was passed in four states authorizing the sterilization of certain classes of criminals in exchange for more lenient sentences as well as sort of vigilante judges who attempted to implement these sort of schemes in their own rulings. So where is sterilization still policy? Mark: You see interesting popping up in interesting and problematic ways in certain either court cases or legislation that seems to get at the same underlying assumptions. And I guess if you were to ask simply, “What do you see as an overall historiographic trend to which you want to contribute?” One of the things that I want to argue, because I try to work very hard to not be either an apologist or a presentist, is that many of the same assumptions that led to things that we would consider deeply problematic are still present in our public discourse or our underlying assumptions today. And so making the people in the past make more sense to us isn't an effort to apologize for them. It's an effort rather to show that today we still have some deeply problematic underlying assumptions in how we look at people and we think about issues like equity or equality that future historians will look back on and perhaps point out our own shortcomings. So ways in which you may look at how it is that, for example, we would be much more inclined to be motivated to invest in sex ed or in birth control opportunities for people of poorer means, making investments in communities where we would allow for greater access because of a recognition that poor people should be encouraged to use birth control in ways that wealthier people don't need to be encouraged to use birth control. And I think as you're challenging some of those assumptions, you start confronting awkward concerns about what we think is happening in poorer communities, why they have larger numbers of children, and why that might be bad or problematic for us. You certainly see it now in an increasing set of conversations about pedophilia and about how you might need to have some biological intervention in men especially who are convicted of pedophilia, and that's in some strange segment of our popular discourse right now out there. But I think the biggest place for it is in the way in which we can very easily dismiss people in the past as merely eugenicists and oversimplify their views. Well, we would say when we are challenged for our own views that, "Oh, well, it's complicated actually," and you try to unpack it in more ways. Mike: Right, okay. So one interesting thing you pointed to was the involvement of these private sector non-profit activist organizations in kind of a new movement for sterilization. In particular, you point to this organization called CRACK, so tell us what CRACK was doing. Mark: Well, CRACK, and there's been others that have emerged like them that are philanthropic organizations or privately funded organizations that seek to provide access to sterilization in poor communities. Now, on the surface, there is undoubtedly both inequity in access to medical care between wealthier and poorer communities and a greater capacity for a person to have control over their own fertility if they have greater access to medical care. So you really can't deny the benefits of it. CRACK is interesting because not only are they providing access to medical care, but they're providing stipends to people. They were offering economic payments to people in order to be sterilized in addition to the sterilization procedure. And an economic incentive like a hundred dollars means something radically different to a poor person than it does to a wealthy person. So it would've a disproportionate impact on swaying a person's decision to be vasectomized or to receive a tubal ligation if the hundred bucks mattered to them in ways that it didn't matter to a wealthier person. But this is part of a larger movement away from state-sponsoredred eugenics to what Diane Paul talks about as a neoliberal approach to thinking about human reproduction. And this moves away from state coercion to social coercion or away from state coercion to economic coercion. The issue here is if you sort of turn this over to the marketplace and you're allowing for social coercion or economic coercion to take the place of government coercion, are you any less coercive? That's why when I use the language in the book, I talk about coerced sterilization, not just compulsory sterilization or eugenic sterilization, but coerced sterilization, the idea that a person could be offered a shorter prison sentence or offered money or offered access to something if they were willing to be sterilized. And that coercion, whether it's in the hands of the state or in the hands of a philanthropic organization, is equally coercive and is equally problematic and is based on some of the very same underlying assumptions that there are good people who have good genes and there are bad people who have bad genes and we can figure out which are which and that we are somehow morally empowered to encourage the good people to have more children and discourage the bad people from having children. And so that commonality, whether you're on the philanthropic side of this coercion or the legal side of this coercion, shares too many similarities for me to be comfortable. Mike: Okay. So somewhere in the book you state that while it hasn't been directly overturned, Buck versus Bell was essentially overruled by other rulings such as Griswold versus Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. So now your book was published in 2008, since then a lot of has happened in the courts. So how do things look now that we have rulings like Dobbs versus Jackson's Women's Health Organization on the books? Mark: Well, I tell you, I'm extraordinarily happy that people understand that the recent abortion decision undermines the foundation for things like Griswold and all the way up through gay marriage. And recognizing that the legal foundations on which Roe was decided while weak–undoubtedly weak, I think any careful scholar on this is going to tell you that simply a privacy argument for Roe was liable for being overturned–but not only does the overturning of Roe on the basis of privacy threaten Roe, but it threatens all of these other things that we take absolutely for granted right now like access to birth control, like interracial marriage, like gay marriage. This is deeply problematic. But it also tells us that we were relying on something that was not sufficient and perhaps not trustworthy. That is, there was work to be done to more carefully explicate why it is that in progressive modern society access to birth control, access to the legal recognition to marry the person you love regardless of their sex, gender, race, or ethnicity, and access to control of your own reproduction, those are all critical to a modern progressive society. And we had founded it on too tenuous a basis with Roe, and so we have good work to do, critical and important work to do to really further solidify these rights. I think the fact that these appear so important to the election of 2022 and to the election of legislators suggests that we're no longer willing to rely on just the court to preserve and protect these rights, but that we want a deeper and more binding commitment of legislation. Mike: All right. So finally, one thing that you say in the book which I liked is that history exists to teach us about ourselves. So what can we learn about ourselves through reading this book? Mark: So I'm a rather pessimistic historian. I like a quote attributed to Mark Twain, almost every witty thing is attributed to Mark Twain. There's a quote from Mark Twain that says, "History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme." And I've always really liked that because I think people who study history know that to a certain degree we are doomed to repeat the past, that there's a certain similarity with things that seem to happen over and over and over again. But like that movie Groundhog Day, the act of learning over and over and over again does change you. And we know that reading history and reading fiction generates in a person a sense of both empathy and a broader sense of why and how people do things. And so I think these kinds of histories are critical for us to look back at the ugliest, most challenging aspects of our own society's histories so that we can do a little bit better as we confront the same sorts of things generation after generation after generation. Mike: All right. Well, Dr. Largent, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about coerced sterilization in the United States. The book again is Breeding Contempt, out from Rutgers University Press. Thanks again. Mark: Thank you, Mike, I appreciate the opportunity. Mike: You missed Breeding Contempt with us in The Nazi Lies Book Club. Join us weekly on Discord as we discuss the books of upcoming guests of the show. Sign up on Patreon or shoot us a DM. Thanks for listening. [Theme song]

Consulting the Aspiring Consultant with Mike Julian

Screaming in the Cloud

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 20, 2022 30:33

About MikeBeside his duties as The Duckbill Group's CEO, Mike is the author of O'Reilly's Practical Monitoring, and previously wrote the Monitoring Weekly newsletter and hosted the Real World DevOps podcast. He was previously a DevOps Engineer for companies such as Taos Consulting, Peak Hosting, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and many more. Mike is originally from Knoxville, TN (Go Vols!) and currently resides in Portland, OR.Links Referenced: @Mike_Julian: https://twitter.com/Mike_Julian mikejulian.com: https://mikejulian.com duckbillgroup.com: https://duckbillgroup.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at AWS AppConfig. Engineers love to solve, and occasionally create, problems. But not when it's an on-call fire-drill at 4 in the morning. Software problems should drive innovation and collaboration, NOT stress, and sleeplessness, and threats of violence. That's why so many developers are realizing the value of AWS AppConfig Feature Flags. Feature Flags let developers push code to production, but hide that that feature from customers so that the developers can release their feature when it's ready. This practice allows for safe, fast, and convenient software development. You can seamlessly incorporate AppConfig Feature Flags into your AWS or cloud environment and ship your Features with excitement, not trepidation and fear. To get started, go to snark.cloud/appconfig. That's snark.cloud/appconfig.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built in key rotation, permissions is code, connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. Tailscale is completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and my guest is a returning guest on this show, my business partner and CEO of The Duckbill Group, Mike Julian. Mike, thanks for making the time.Mike: Lucky number three, I believe?Corey: Something like that, but numbers are hard. I have databases for that of varying quality and appropriateness for the task, but it works out. Anything's a database. If you're brave enough.Mike: With you inviting me this many times, I'm starting to think you'd like me or something.Corey: I know, I know. So, let's talk about something that is going to put that rumor to rest.Mike: [laugh].Corey: Clearly, you have made some poor choices in the course of your career, like being my business partner being the obvious one. But what's really in a dead heat for which is the worst decision is you've written a book previously. And now you are starting the process of writing another book because, I don't know, we don't keep you busy enough or something. What are you doing?Mike: Making very bad decisions. When I finished writing Practical Monitoring—O'Reilly, and by the way, you should go buy a copy if interested in monitoring—I finished the book and said, “Wow, that was awful. I'm never doing it again.” And about a month later, I started thinking of new books to write. So, that was 2017, and Corey and I started Duckbill and kind of stopped thinking about writing books because small companies are basically small children. But now I'm going to write a book about consulting.Corey: Oh, thank God. I thought you're going to go down the observability path a second time.Mike: You know, I'm actually dreading the day that O'Reilly asks me to do a second edition because I don't really want to.Corey: Yeah. Effectively turn it into an entire story where the only monitoring tool you really need is the AWS bill. That'll go well.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah. So yeah, like, basically, I've been doing consulting for such a long time, and most of my career is consulting in some form or fashion, and I head up all the consulting at Duckbill. I've learned a lot about consulting. And I've found that people have a lot of questions about consulting, particularly at the higher-end levels. Once you start getting into advisory sort of stuff, there's not a lot of great information out there aimed at engineering.Corey: There's a bunch of different views on what consulting is. You have independent contractors billing by the hour as staff replacement who call what they do consulting; you have the big consultancies, like Bain or BCG; you've got what we do in an advisory sense, and of course, you have a bunch of MBA new grads going to a lot of the big consultancies who are going to see a book on consulting and think that it's potentially for them. I don't know that you necessarily have a lot of advice for the new grad type, so who is this for? What is your target customer for this book?Mike: If you're interested in joining McKinsey out of college, I don't have a lot to add; I don't have a lot to tell you. The reason for that is kind of twofold. One is that shops like McKinsey and Deloitte and Accenture and BCG and Bain, all those, are playing very different games than what most of us think about when we think consulting. Their entire model revolves around running a process. And it's the same process for every client they work with. But, like, you're buying them because of their process.And that process is nothing new or novel. You don't go to those firms because you want the best advice possible. You go to those firms because it's the most defensible advice. It's sort of those things like, “No one gets fired for buying Cisco,” no one got fired for buying IBM, like, that sort of thing, it's a very defensible choice. But you're not going to get great results from it.But because of that, their entire model revolves around throwing dozens, in some cases, hundreds of new grads at a problem and saying, “Run this process. Have fun. Let us know if you need help.” That's not consulting I have any experience with. It's honestly not consulting that most of us want to do.Most of that is staffed by MBAs and accountants. When I think consulting, I think about specialized advice and providing that specialized advice to people. And I wager that most of us think about that in the same way, too. In some cases, it might just be, “I'm going to write code for you as a freelancer,” or I'm just going to tell you like, “Hey, put the nail in here instead of over here because it's going to be better for you.” Like, paying for advice is good.But with that, I also have a… one of the first things I say in the beginning of the book, which [laugh] I've already started writing because I'm a glutton for punishment, is I don't think junior people should be consultants. I actually think it's really bad idea because to be a consultant, you have to have expertise in some area, and junior staff don't. They haven't been in their careers long enough to develop that yet. So, they're just going to flounder. So, my advice is generally aimed at people that have been in their careers for quite some time, generally, people that are 10, 15, 20 years into their career, looking to do something.Corey: One of the problems that we see when whenever we talk about these things on Twitter is that we get an awful lot of people telling us that we're wrong, that it can't be made to work, et cetera, et cetera. But following this model, I've been independent for—well, I was independent and then we became The Duckbill Group; add them together because figuring out exactly where that divide happened is always a mental leap for me, but it's been six years at this point. We've definitely proven our ability to not go out of business every month. It's kind of amazing. Without even an exception case of, “That one time.”Mike: [laugh]. Yeah, we are living proof that it does work, but you don't really have to take just our word for it because there are a lot of other firms that exist entirely on an advisory-only, high-expertise model. And it works out really well. We've worked with several of them, so it does work; it just isn't very common inside of tech and particularly inside of engineering.Corey: So, one of the things that I find is what differentiates an expert from an enthusiastic amateur is, among other things, the number of mistakes that they've made. So, I guess a different way of asking this is what qualifies you to write this book, but instead, I'm going to frame it in a very negative way. What have you screwed up on that puts you in a position of, “Ah, I'm going to write a book so that someone else can make better choices.”Mike: One of my favorite stories to tell—and Corey, I actually think you might not have heard this story before—Corey: That seems unlikely, but give it a shot.Mike: Yeah. So, early in my career, I was working for a consulting firm that did ERP implementations. We worked with mainly large, old-school manufacturing firms. So, my job there was to do the engineering side of the implementation. So, a lot of rack-and-stack, a lot of Windows Server configuration, a lot of pulling cables, that sort of thing. So, I thought I was pretty good at this. I quickly learned that I was actually not nearly as good as I thought I was.Corey: A common affliction among many different people.Mike: A common affliction. But I did not realize that until this one particular incident. So, me and my boss are both on site at this large manufacturing facility, and the CFO pulls my boss aside and I can hear them talking and, like, she's pretty upset. She points at me and says, “I never want this asshole in my office ever again.” So, he and I have a long drive back to our office, like an hour and a half.And we had a long chat about what that meant for me. I was not there for very long after that, as you might imagine, but the thing is, I still have no idea to this day what I did to upset her. I know that she was pissed and he knows that she was pissed. And he never told me exactly what it was, only that's you take care of your client. And the client believes that I screwed up so massively that she wanted me fired.Him not wanting to argue—he didn't; he just kind of went with it—and put me on other clients. But as a result of that, it really got me thinking that I screwed something up so badly to make this person hate me so much and I still have no idea what it was that I did. Which tells me that even at the time, I did not understand what was going on around me. I did not understand how to manage clients well, and to really take care of them. That was probably the first really massive mistake that I've made my career—or, like, the first time I came to the realization that there's a whole lot I don't know and it's really costing me.Corey: From where I sit, there have been a number of things that we have done as we've built our consultancy, and I'm curious—you know, let's get this even more personal—in the past, well, we'll call it four years that we have been The Duckbill Group—which I think is right—what have we gotten right and what have we gotten wrong? You are the expert; you're writing a book on this for God's sake.Mike: So, what I think we've gotten right is one of my core beliefs is never bill hourly. Shout out to Jonathan Stark. He wrote I really good book that is a much better explanation of that than I've ever been able to come up with. But I've always had the belief that billing hourly is just a bad idea, so we've never done that and that's worked out really well for us. We've turned down work because that's the model they wanted and it's like, “Sorry, that's not what we do. You're going to have to go work for someone else—or hire someone else.”Other things that I think we've gotten right is a focus on staying on the advisory side and not doing any implementation. That's allowed us to get really good at what we do very quickly because we don't get mired in long-term implementation detail-level projects. So, that's been great. Where we went a little wrong, I think—or what we have gotten wrong, lessons that we've learned. I had this idea that we could build out a junior and mid-level staff and have them overseen by very senior people.And, as it turns out, that didn't work for us, entirely because it didn't work for me. That was really my failure. I went from being an IC to being the leader of a company in one single step. I've never been a manager before Duckbill. So, that particular mistake was really about my lack of abilities in being a good manager and being a good leader.So, building that out, that did not work for us because it didn't work for me and I didn't know how to do it. So, I made way too many mistakes that were kind of amateur-level stuff in terms of management. So, that didn't work. And the other major mistake that I think we've made is not putting enough effort into marketing. So, we get most of our leads by inbound or referral, as is common with boutique consulting firms, but a lot of the income that we get comes through Last Week in AWS, which is really awesome.But we don't put a whole lot of effort into content or any marketing stuff related to the thing that we do, like cost management. I think a lot of that is just that we don't really know how, aside from just creating content and publishing it. We don't really understand how to market ourselves very well on that side of things. I think that's a mistake we've made.Corey: It's an effective strategy against what's a very complicated problem because unlike most things, if—let's go back to your old life—if we have an observability problem, we will talk about that very publicly on Twitter and people will come over and get—“Hey, hey, have you tried to buy my company's product?” Or they'll offer consulting services, or they'll point us in the right direction, all of which is sometimes appreciated. Whereas when you have a big AWS bill, you generally don't talk about it in public, especially if you're a serious company because that's going to, uh, I think the phrase is, “Shake investor confidence,” when you're actually live tweeting slash shitposting about your own AWS bill. And our initial thesis was therefore, since we can't wind up reaching out to these people when they're having the pain because there's no external indication of it, instead what we have to do is be loud enough and notable in this space, where they find us where it shouldn't take more than them asking one or two of their friends before they get pointed to us. What's always fun as the stories we hear is, “Okay, so I asked some other people because I wanted a second opinion, and they told us to go to you, too.” Word of mouth is where our customers come from. But how do you bootstrap that? I don't know. I'm lucky that I got it right the first time.Mike: Yeah, and as I mentioned a minute ago, that a lot of that really comes through your content, which is not really cost management-related. It's much more AWS broad. We don't put out a lot of cost management specific content. And honestly, I think that's to our detriment. We should and we absolutely can. We just haven't. I think that's one of the really big things that we've missed on doing.Corey: There's an argument that the people who come to us do not spend their entire day thinking about AWS bills. I mean, I can't imagine what that would be like, but they don't for whatever reason; they're trying to do something ridiculous, like you know, run a profitable company. So, getting in front of them when they're not thinking about the bills means, on some level, that they're going to reach out to us when the bill strikes. At least that's been my operating theory.Mike: Yeah, I mean, this really just comes down to content strategy and broader marketing strategy. Because one of the things you have to think about with marketing is how do you meet a customer at the time that they have the problem that you solve? And what most marketing people talk about here is what's called the triggering event. Something causes someone to take an action. What is that something? Who is that someone, and what is that action?And for us, one of the things that we thought early on is that well, the bill comes out the first week of the month, every month, so people are going to opened the bill freak out, and a big influx of leads are going to come our way and that's going to happen every single month. The reality is that never happened. That turns out was not a triggering event for anyone.Corey: And early on, when we didn't have that many leads coming in, it was a statistical aberration that I thought I saw, like, “Oh, out of the three leads this month, two of them showed up in the same day. Clearly, it's an AWS billing day thing.” No. It turns out that every company's internal cadence is radically different.Mike: Right. And I wish I could say that we have found what our triggering events are, but I actually don't think we have. We know who the people are and we know what they reach out for, but we haven't really uncovered that triggering event. And it could also be there, there isn't a one. Or at least, if there is one, it's not one that we could see externally, which is kind of fine.Corey: Well, for the half of our consulting that does contract negotiation for large-scale commitments with AWS, it comes up for renewal or the initial discount contract gets offered, those are very clear triggering events but the challenge is that we don't—Mike: You can't see them externally.Corey: —really see that from the outside. Yeah.Mike: Right. And this is one of those things where there are triggering events for basically everything and it's probably going to be pretty consistent once you get down to specific services. Like we provide cost optimization services and contract negotiation services. I'm willing to bet that I can predict exactly what the trigger events for both of those will be pretty well. The problem is, you can never see those externally, which is kind of fine.Ideally, you would be able to see it externally, but you can't, so we roll with it, which means our entire strategy has revolved around always being top-of-mind because at the time where it happens, we're already there. And that's a much more difficult strategy to employ, but it does work.Corey: All it takes is time and being really lucky and being really prolific, and, and, and. It's one of those things where if I were to set out to replicate it, I don't even know how I'd go about doing it.Mike: People have been asking me. They say, “I want to create The Duckbill Group for X. What do I do?” And I say, “First step, get yourself a Corey Quinn.” And they're like, “Well, I can't do that. There's only one.” I'm like, “Yep. Sucks to be you.” [laugh].Corey: Yeah, we called the Jerk Store. They're running out of him. Yeah, it's a problem. And I don't think the world needs a whole lot more of my type of humor, to be honest, because the failure mode that I have experienced brutally and firsthand is not that people don't find me funny; it's that it really hurts people's feelings. I have put significant effort into correcting those mistakes and not repeating them, but it sucks every time I get it wrong.Mike: Yeah.Corey: Another question I have for you around the book targeting, are you aiming this at individual independent consultants or are you looking to advise people who are building agencies?Mike: Explicitly not the latter. My framing around this is that there are a number of people who are doing consulting right now and they've kind of fell into it. Often, they'll leave one job and do a little consulting while they're waiting on their next thing. And in some cases, that might be a month or two. In some cases, it might go on years, but that whole time, they're just like, “Oh, yeah, I'm doing consulting in between things.”But at some point, some of those think, “You know what? I want this to be my thing. I don't want there to be a next thing. This is my thing. So therefore, how do I get serious about doing consulting? How do I get serious about being a consultant?”And that's where I think I can add a lot of value because casually consulting of, like, taking whatever work just kind of falls your way is interesting for a while, but once you get serious about it, and you have to start thinking, well, how do I actually deliver engagements? How do I do that consistently? How do I do it repeatedly? How to do it profitably? How do I price my stuff? How do I package it? How do I attract the leads that I want? How do I work with the customers I want?And turning that whole thing from a casual, “Yeah, whatever,” into, “This is my business,” is a very different way of thinking. And most people don't think that way because they didn't really set out to build a business. They set out to just pass time and earn a little bit of money before they went off to the next job. So, the framing that I have here is that I'm aiming to help people that are wanting to get serious about doing consulting. But they generally have experience doing it already.Corey: Managing shards. Maintenance windows. Overprovisioning. ElastiCache bills. I know, I know. It's a spooky season and you're already shaking. It's time for caching to be simpler. Momento Serverless Cache lets you forget the backend to focus on good code and great user experiences. With true autoscaling and a pay-per-use pricing model, it makes caching easy. No matter your cloud provider, get going for free at gomemento.co/screaming That's GO M-O-M-E-N-T-O dot co slash screamingCorey: We went from effectively being the two of us on the consulting delivery side, two scaling up to, I believe, at one point we were six of us, and now we have scaled back down to largely the two of us, aided by very specific external folk, when it makes sense.Mike: And don't forget April.Corey: And of course. I'm talking delivery.Mike: [laugh].Corey: There's a reason I—Mike: Delivery. Yes.Corey: —prefaced it that way. There's a lot of support structure here, let's not get ourselves, and they make this entire place work. But why did we scale up? And then why did we scale down? Because I don't believe we've ever really talked about that publicly.Mike: No, not publicly. In fact, most people probably don't even notice that it happened. We got pretty big for—I mean, not big. So, we hit, I think, six full-time people at one point. And that was quite a bit.Corey: On the delivery side. Let's be clear.Mike: Yeah. No, I think actually with support structure, too. Like, if you add in everyone that we had with the sales and marketing as well, we were like 11 people. And that was a pretty sizable company. But then in July this year, it kind of hit a point where I found that I just wasn't enjoying my job anymore.And I looked around and noticed that a lot of other people was kind of feeling the same way, is just things had gotten harder. And the business wasn't suffering at all, it was just everything felt more difficult. And I finally realized that, for me personally at least, I started Duckbill because I love working with clients, I love doing consulting. And what I have found is that as the company grew larger and larger, I spent most of my time keeping the trains running and taking care of the staff. Which is exactly what I should be doing when we're that size, like, that is my job at that size, but I didn't actually enjoy it.I went into management as, like, this job going from having never done it before. So, I didn't have anything to compare it to. I didn't know if I would like it or not. And once I got here, I realized I actually don't. And I spent a lot of efforts to get better at it and I think I did. I've been working with a leadership coach for years now.But it finally came to a point where I just realized that I wasn't actually enjoying it anymore. I wasn't enjoying the job that I had created. And I think that really panned out to you as well. So, we decided, we had kind of an opportune time where one of our team decided that they were also wanting to go back to do independent consulting. I'm like, “Well, this is actually pretty good time. Why don't we just start scaling things back?” And like, maybe we'll scale it up again in the future; maybe we won't. But like, let's just buy ourselves some breathing room.Corey: One of the things that I think we didn't spend quite enough time really asking ourselves was what kind of place do we want to work at. Because we've explicitly stated that you and I both view this as the last job either of us is ever going to have, which means that we're not trying to do the get big quickly to get acquired, or we want to raise a whole bunch of other people's money to scale massively. Those aren't things either of us enjoy. And it turns out that handling the challenges of a business with as many people working here as we had wasn't what either one of us really wanted to do.Mike: Yeah. You know what—[laugh] it's funny because a lot of our advisors kept asking the same thing. Like, “So, what kind of company do you want?” And like, we had some pretty good answers for that, in that we didn't want to build a VC-backed company, we didn't ever want to be hyperscale. But there's a wide gulf of things between two-person company and hyperscale and we didn't really think too much about that.In fact, being a ten-person company is very different than being a three-person company, and we didn't really think about that either. We should have really put a lot more thought into that of what does it mean to be a ten-person company, and is that what we want? Or is three, four, or five-person more our style? But then again, I don't know that we could have predicted that as a concern had we not tried it first.Corey: Yeah, that was very much something that, for better or worse, we pay advisors for their advice—that's kind of definitionally how it works—and then we ignored it, on some level, though we thought we were doing something different at the time because there's some lessons you've just got to learn by making the mistake yourself.Mike: Yeah, we definitely made a few of those. [laugh].Corey: And it's been an interesting ride and I've got zero problem with how things have shaken out. I like what we do quite a bit. And honestly, the biggest fear I've got going forward is that my jackass business partner is about to distract the hell out of himself by writing a book, which is never as easy as even the most pessimistic estimates would be. So, that's going to be awesome and fun.Mike: Yeah, just wait until you see the dedication page.Corey: Yeah, I wasn't mentioned at all in the last book that you wrote, which I found personally offensive. So, if I'm not mentioned this time, you're fired.Mike: Oh, no, you are. It's just I'm also adding an anti-dedication page, which just has a photo of you.Corey: Oh, wonderful, wonderful. This is going to be one of those stories of the good consultant and the bad consultant, and I'm going to be the Goofus to your Gallant, aren't I?Mike: [laugh]. Yes, yes. You are.Corey: “Goofus wants to bill by the hour.”Mike: It's going to have a page of, like, “Here's this [unintelligible 00:25:05] book is dedicated to. Here's my acknowledgments. And [BLEEP] this guy.”Corey: I love it. I absolutely love it. I think that there is definitely a bright future for telling other people how to consult properly. May just suggest as a subtitle for the book is Consulting—subtitle—You Have Problems and Money. We'll Take Both.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah. My working title for this is Practical Consulting, but only because my previous book was Practical Monitoring. Pretty sure O'Reilly would have a fit if I did that. I actually have no idea what I'm going to call the book, still.Corey: Naming things is super hard. I would suggest asking people at AWS who name services and then doing the exact opposite of whatever they suggest. Like, take their list of recommendations and sort by reverse order and that'll get you started.Mike: Yeah. [laugh].Corey: I want to thank you for giving us an update on what you're working on and why you have less hair every time I see you because you're mostly ripping it out due to self-inflicted pain. If people want to follow your adventures, where's the best place to keep updated on this ridiculous, ridiculous nonsense that I cannot talk you out of?Mike: Two places. You can follow me on Twitter, @Mike_Julian, or you can sign up for the newsletter on my site at mikejulian.com where I'll be posting all the updates.Corey: Excellent. And I look forward to skewering the living hell out of them.Mike: I look forward to ignoring them.Corey: Thank you, Mike. It is always a pleasure.Mike: Thank you, Corey.Corey: Mike Julian, CEO at The Duckbill Group, and my unwilling best friend. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry, annoying comment in which you tell us exactly what our problem is, and then charge us a fixed fee to fix that problem.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

god ceo amazon money portland mba built run software cloud consultants consulting engineers sucks ibm cfo shake vc maintenance deloitte mckinsey cisco last week screaming knoxville accenture aws aspiring vpn bain devops ic erp bcg gallant ssh windows server oak ridge national laboratory jonathan stark pki devops engineer corey quinn tailscale goofus feature flags mike it mike you mike no mike yeah mike so mike thank duckbill group jerk store mike oh mike one mike julian mike right elasticache chief cloud economist last week in aws mike two humblepod monitoring weekly

Recording Student Thinking During a Mathematics Discussion - Guest: Dr. Nicole Garcia

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 29, 2022 30:05

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 3 – Recording Student Thinking During a Mathematics Discussion Guest: Dr. Nicole Garcia Mike Wallus: If you're anything like me, learning to record students' mathematical thinking might best be described as on-the-job training, which meant trial and error, and a lot of practice. Our guest on today's podcast is Nicole Garcia, the co-author of an article, published in Mathematics Teacher, that explores the practice of recording student thinking, and offers insights and some principles for making them as productive as possible. Welcome to the podcast, Nicole. Nicole Garcia: Thank you for having me. Mike: So you and your co-authors start the article by acknowledging that representing and recording student thinking—when you're in the moment, in a public space, with students—it's challenging, even for veteran teachers. And I suspect that most teachers would agree and appreciate the recognition that this is a skill that takes time and it takes practice. What makes this work challenging and why is it worth investing time to get better at it? Nicole: Well, so I think you said a lot in your question that points to why this is really difficult work, right? First of all, it's in the moment. We can't predict what students are going to say. We can do some anticipatory work. We might have guesses. And as we move along in our careers, we might have gathered some really good guesses about what students might have to say, but you never can tell in the moment. So unexpected things come up. Students' phrasing can be really different from time to time, even if we're familiar with an idea. And we're also standing in front of a room full of children, and we're trying to manage a lot in the moment—while we're listening, while we're interpreting those ideas. And then we're trying to figure out: What do we even write down from this mass of ideas that was shared with us? So that's a lot to coordinate, to manage, to think about in the moment. But it's really critical work because part of our goal as mathematics teachers is to build collective knowledge, to support children in being able to listen to, make sense of, interpret one another's ideas, to learn from each other, and to build on one another. And so if we want to make that happen, we need to support making students' ideas accessible to everyone in the room. Mike: Hmm. Nicole: And listening is only one part of that, right? If you think about what it takes to make sense of ideas, it takes multiple representations—those are things that we're working on in math. So we need the kids in classrooms to have access to the words that children are speaking. We need them to have access to visual representations of the ideas that are being shared. We need them to have access to the ways that we typically record those things in mathematics—the symbolic notation that we typically use. And we need that to happen all at once if we want kids to be able to unpack, make sense of, and work with others' ideas. So it's really important work. And I think it's worth investing the time in to get better at this because of the power of having children learn from one another and feel the value of their mathematical ideas. Mike: You know, as you were speaking, part of what I was doing is making a mental checklist from principles to actions. And I felt like, check one: asking purposeful questions. Check two: connecting mathematical representations. I mean, as you describe this, so much of what we see as really productive practice is wrapped up in this event that takes place when teachers get together and listen to students and try to capture those ideas. Nicole: And that capturing is really important if we want those ideas to stay with us, right? Like, I think about the number of times that I've been in a discussion with a group of people—it may have been in a class, it may have been in another space—and the whole thing happens. And when I leave, sometimes I wonder, ‘What just happened? What did we think about together? What ideas did we engage in?' And I can't hold onto them. And recording on the board in the public space offers an opportunity for those ideas to stay with us, for us to hold onto them, for us to revisit and come back to them. So it's critical for continued learning and mathematical growth. Mike: Absolutely. So this particular part of the article that you wrote—as I was reading it, and you were describing the challenge of recording student thinking during a discussion—this particular statement really struck me, and I'm just going to read it as it was in the article. ‘The thinking being recorded is not the teacher's own, requiring the teacher to set aside their own strategies and interpretations of the math work, to focus on representing student thinking.' I would love if you could talk about why you felt like it was so important to explicitly call this out in the article. Nicole: Yeah. So I think that there are a couple of things here that are important. One is that, as a teacher, you're thinking always about the trajectory of your lesson, the trajectory of student learning, where you want to be and steer. And so a lot of times, when we're listening, we're listening for something in particular, right? We have a plan in mind, we have an idea, we know where we want go, and we're listening really carefully for a catchphrase, a vocabulary word—something that we recognize, that we can pick up and pull into the discussion and move forward, right?…and march on, and accomplish our lesson. And a lot of times that kind of natural way of listening is not aligned with what students are actually trying to communicate, because the ways that children express themselves—in particular around mathematics—are really different than the ways that adults, who know math well, express their ideas about mathematics. So there's a lot to hear in the language that they're using, in the trajectory of their talk, that's both difficult to follow and difficult to figure out what the big idea is that they're communicating. And when we're listening for our own understanding, our own ways of working, our own strategies, we often miss what children are actually bringing to the discussion, to the conversation. We miss their thinking. I think about the number of times where I've been a student in class and I've said something and the teacher rephrases it in the way that they really wish that I would have said the thing. Mike: Yes. Nicole: And it's not, like, it's not even my idea anymore, but you kind of nod and you go along with it. And so I think, you know, as a teacher, you get those cues that, yes, you did just rephrase what the kid said. They just said, ‘OK.' And you record that thing and you move on. And so I think reflection—checking back in with children about whether or not you heard their idea, whether or not the representation that you're putting on the board actually matches what they were thinking about—is really, really critical. Because it isn't your thinking. It's the child's thinking and we want to make sure that that's what we're representing. Mike: Yeah. I read this and I will confess that a part of me thought back to the points in time when I was teaching kindergarten and first grade. And I suspect anyone who's taught and tried to record students' thinking has been in a spot where you have kind of a pathway that you're thinking the learning will follow. You have an idea of how the big ideas might roll themselves out. Nicole: Um-hm. Mike: And I think what I found myself thinking is, there are certainly many, many times where I felt like I was true to student's ideas, but I was really conscious that there were definitely points where, what I heard and what I represented differed, probably because I was thinking to myself, ‘Gosh, I really want this model to kind of come forward.' And the truth was, the kids weren't taking me there and I was trying to force it. I guess what I'm saying is, it really caused me to think back on my own practice and really kind of reconsider—even when I'm doing professional learning with other adults and children—the need to listen, as opposed to kind of have the path sketched out in my own mind. Nicole: Well, it's really difficult to do, because sometimes as a teacher, you really do need the lesson to go in a particular direction. There are all kinds of constraints around teaching. And I think what's important is knowing that you've made that decision. ( laughs ) Right? Because sometimes you might. You might… Mike: Yes! Nicole: …rephrase it a particular way because that's the move that you need to make in that moment. And I think that sometimes that can be OK. We need to give ourselves permission as teachers to make the best choices for our whole class and the students whose ideas are being shared in the moment. But I think knowing that that's what you're doing is really important, Mike: Right. Like, it's a conscious decision to say, ‘I've heard that. I'm going to take this in a different direction.' Rather than just imagining, ‘I've heard that. I'm going to represent it.' And not kind of questioning whether what's being represented is the student's thinking or your own thinking. Nicole: Right. Or even better, making the decision that, ‘I heard, what that child said. And I'm going to say back to them,' for example, ‘so I think what I heard you say is…bop, bop, bop. Can I try an idea out?', and actually sharing the idea that you have on tap. Or saying something like, ‘You know, I've heard some of my students in the past say something really similar. Can I share that idea with you? And let's see what's similar or different.' So thinking about how can you get that idea out there, that you really wanted to record, that the student didn't say, in a way that isn't totally disingenuous—pretending you heard something that you didn't hear. Mike: Right. You're kind of acknowledging that they said something and you're…. It's powerful; the language you used is really subtle. But it's essentially saying, ‘I've got something that I'd like to contribute that your idea made me think about,' or… Nicole: Um-hm. Mike: …that you want to also put out there. And I think that subtlety is important. Because as you were describing that feeling of, ‘I said something. Teacher revoiced it in a way that was totally different,' and kind of the bad aftertaste that that left. Nicole: Yeah. Mike: You know, that subtle ask—of the child—for permission, really kind of shifts that dynamic. Nicole: It's saying, ‘I value your idea and let's consider this other idea.' It's OK for teachers to put ideas out in the space. Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: But acknowledging that that isn't what you heard and you're going to record this other thing, or maybe you record both of them… Mike: Right! Nicole: …and talk about the similarities and differences. Mike: So I'd love to shift just a little bit and talk about the role that recording can play in developing students' mathematical vocabulary. And I'm wondering if you could talk about the ways that recording can help students make connections between their informal language and the more formal mathematical vocabulary that we want them to start to be able to use. Can you talk a little bit about what that might look like? Nicole: Yeah. So I think that there are a couple of ideas to be thinking about. One is that we actually know a lot about how children develop vocabulary. We know that that's a progression and that students need opportunities to play around with ideas, to have something to hang that vocabulary word on. Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: Once they have the kind of core idea and they have some informal language—some way to describe that idea—that's the prime place to be able to introduce the formal mathematical vocabulary. They're able to make connections to that big picture, that core idea that they've come up with. They have some informal language to go around with it. And now they have a real name for it—the formal mathematical name for it. We also know that one of the ways that students remember and are able to recall—and use appropriately—vocabulary is by having a visual representation that goes along with that mathematical vocabulary. Mike: Hmm. Nicole: So one way that representations and recordings can support students in learning that vocabulary is first, by having them build some representations that go with that vocabulary word, but then also having those labels on the representations that make their way onto our boards. Mike: Ah, yep. Nicole: In addition, you know, when we do things like dual labeling, um, where maybe in our classroom space, we've named something with someone's name, right? As we're beginning to talk about an idea, we might call it Diego's idea, Diego's strategy. Then when it makes our way onto the board, we can label it with ‘Diego's strategy' and the formal mathematical name for it so students are able to connect the of things. But even if it's not a student's name as the name of the strategy, there's lots of informal language that students bring to mathematical ideas. They have to have a way to talk about things. And so we can dual label those ideas on our board to help students make that connection and to let them walk between using their informal language and using that formal mathematical language, and being OK with that. Mike: So just to go back… Describe dual labeling again, because I think I've got an idea of it, but I want to make sure in my own mind I've captured that correctly. How does that work? Nicole: Let's imagine that we have a strategy—a student has shared a subtraction strategy in our discussion, and I've represented that strategy on the board, say, using a number line. Mike: Okay. Nicole: And, say, the kids are calling it scooting—they're scooting the numbers to make this subtraction problem. So I might actually write on my board, like, on the left hand side of the strategy ‘scooting,'… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …and then on the right hand side, label it ‘shifting the numbers' or whatever our formal mathematical language is going to be for our classroom. So we have both of those things labeled on top of the strategy. And I might even draw a double sided arrow between the two to help… Mike: Oh! OK. Nicole: …[undecipherable] that the strategy that's there has these two names and I can use those names interchangeably. But over time, we get to a place where we're calling it by its formal name. And kids also have the idea that, ‘oh, that's the one that's the scooting strategy.' They have their own name that they gave that idea. Mike: That is really helpful. And I think the example you shared really kind of shows how dual labeling kind of progresses and there's almost kind of a fade out at a certain point. Not that you're purposely not permitting kids to use ‘scooting,' but that a certain point you're kind of fading and you're starting to use the more formal name. They can use it,… Nicole: Um-hm. Mike: …but that you're really kind of trying to help them make a transition to the formal vocabulary. Nicole: Um-hm. And if you think about, you know, kids are really used to using multiple names for things. Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: They have nicknames that they use at home,… Mike: Yep. Nicole: …they have their home name, they have their school name, they have their friend name. There are lots of different labels on the same kind of thing. So that's a natural progression of language for them. And it doesn't cause complications to have, like, these multiple names for this idea. And we can shift toward using the formal language once everybody has that tied up. Mike: Yep. So as I was preparing for this interview, and even as I was reading the article, I found myself thinking about my life as an elementary school teacher. And I think what I found myself thinking was, is that I learned how to facilitate and record math discussions—like a lot of folks—trial and error and a heck of a lot of practice. And I think what I really appreciated about what you and your co-authors put together is that you actually laid out some principles for recording that support mathematical understanding. And I'm wondering if you could just unpack some of the principles that you think are important, Nicole. Nicole: Yeah. So as we… as we were working on these principles, we were trying to think about, like, what are the big ideas of what gets recorded, right?, and how we record in a classroom. What are the big things that we want to make sure get attention in that work? And so we kind of organized under three big umbrellas of principles, one being around advancing mathematical ideas. Because the goal of discussion in mathematics is to build ideas together and to move the mathematics forward using student ideas. So when we think about what gets recorded, we want to record in ways that are helping us build those mathematical ideas together. So in that area, we'd really be thinking about recording the core ideas, deciding, like: What's important enough to get on the board? What do I want to make sure gets up there that's going to help push people's thinking forward? And then at the same time, thinking about: What's the right level of detail? Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: Sometimes you look at a board recording… If you walked out of the room and you came back in and you looked at it, you would have no idea what happened… Mike: ( laughs ) Nicole: …what had gone on, right? Mike: Yes! Nicole: Like, there's not enough there to really, like, get a sense of what happened. But sometimes there's so much there that it's a jumble and you can't discern, like: What's important here? So that ‘just right' space of managing the detail—so there's enough that you can make sense of it when you come back the next day, you get what happened; it's enough to prompt your memory, but it's not overwhelming—um, is really important because we want kids to be building on those ideas over time. So we want those recordings to be in that kind of level of detail. And then thinking about that arrangement. Where am I going to put things so that I can help students make connections between the ideas that have been shared? Right? Do I want kids' strategies to be next to each other? Are there particular strategies that, if I stack them on top of each other, kids are going to be able to see different kinds of connections,… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …similarities, or differences? Like, where they are in relation to each other, if you think about how we make sense of space, matters. Mike: Yes. Nicole: So that was… that's one kind of bucket. A second bucket is really respecting students as sense makers. And this comes back to what we were talking about earlier, with really paying attention to: What were students trying to communicate? So, ‘Did I actually record what the student said it or did I write down what I wish they had said?' But trying to stay true to: What was the core of that student's idea? And am I representing that correctly? But then also adding enough detail so that the other students in the class can figure out what that student's idea was about. And we can do that through questioning, but part of that has to come out in the recording as well, because we want that record to be like the full representation of the ideas that students are communicating. And then labeling those ideas so that we're able to talk about them easier, right?… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …that we're not just like pointing to a general space, but we have some language, we have some vocabulary, we have some kind of label to be able to talk easily across those ideas. Mike: I had a follow up that I wanted to ask you. So, again, I'm paraphrasing, but one of the things that really stood out for me in the way that you unpacked the principles was: Our recording should show the thinking behind the idea rather than the steps in the solution alone. I would love for you to expand on that a bit. Nicole: Yeah. So the thing that we're trying to get out when students are sharing strategies in class, when they're sharing the ideas in class, is in some ways the generalizability—to use my big math vocabulary. We want to get to what is the core of the idea that they're sharing that can be used across multiple kinds of problems in lots of different ways. And so recording just the steps that get followed, may show—or it may not—the steps that somebody followed for that particular problem, but doesn't show the thinking that could be used to solve other similar or different kinds of problems. Right? So we will want to be able to record in a way that gets to the heart of the thinking. So if you think about a student, for example, using counting up to solve a subtraction problem,… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …then I might think about what's important are the steps that a student is taking to count up. So they're either thinking about it on a number line and they're hopping along the number line to count from one number to another. And so on the board, I would actually want to record those hops because that's the underlying idea—is that we're looking at the repeated unit distance between those two numbers. Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: OK? If a student is counting up using their fingers,… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …then I might want to actually record a hand on the board and the count that the student is doing, so that other students in the class are able to try out that strategy, use that strategy, and think about when it's useful. But if all I've recorded on the board, are the words ‘counting up' and then the problem that they solved, that doesn't necessarily support other people in being able to try out that strategy or that idea, or even think about when would it be useful or not. Mike: That's super helpful. I love the idea of generalizability. If I've done recording well, allows other kids to have access to the strategy that's being highlighted, rather than simply putting together the steps that showed how a person came to this individual answer, at this particular task, at this particular time. That's a really helpful clarification, I think—in my mind. Nicole: If you even think about things like annotation and the power that annotation on a recording can have. And we think about the U.S. standard algorithm for addition,… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …where students are… they're adding and when they get a number that's greater than nine, they're making groups and carrying that group, right?, to the next place value. If we're actually annotating that process with what each of the numbers means as we're doing that work together, that can really support students in continuing to make meaning. I think that one of the things that often happens is, we make meaning when we're introducing the algorithm, we do some work together. Students are really in a place where they're understanding place value, they're understanding making groups, they get what that recording means. And then we kind of say, ‘Great, then we're just going to record this way from now moving forward.' And we continue to do that recording without the kind of reinforcement about, again, what are… what are we saying these numbers mean? What are we actually doing here? And so we move from meaning toward this recording without meaning? Mike: Sure. That absolutely makes sense. Nicole: Very quickly for children. And then, you know, too… I know that, for example, my fifth grade teachers would say that oftentimes their kids come to them and… and can't explain what's happening when kids do that addition. They do the work—they know how to do the work—but they can't say what it is that they're doing. Right? And so annotation can really support that, that remembering of what have we…? What kind of collective understanding have we come to? Mike: Sure. That totally makes sense. So I wanted to ask you a bit about guidance that you'd offer to teachers. I suspect there's a fair number of people who are listening, who are really thinking about their own practice and are wondering: What steps might I take as a teacher—or maybe within the team of folks that I work with—to really try to attend to the principals and the practices that we've talked about? What's your sense of how teachers can support one another in, kind of, practicing the principles that that we've unpacked today? Nicole: So I think there are lots of options for what it might look like to focus on and practice this work together in a teaching community. I think one way that we talked about in the article—and it's not the only way—is using video. There are lots of videos that are available on YouTube, on TeacherTube, etc., of classrooms where people are leading discussions, are recording student thinking. There are lots of videos of student thinking out there where—in a pretty short amount of time—I could, with my peers, watch this video and practice recording—either on a board, on a chart paper, on paper in front of me—recording what I'm hearing from students. And then afterwards comparing our recordings together and talking across them. What are the features that each of us has picked up on? In what ways were we in line with what the student was sharing? Where are there differences in how we interpreted what a student was sharing? And that's a pretty quick activity. I can find a five minute video. We can do that work together, talk about it in, like, tops 20 minutes, really, to do that kind of activity together. We can also do work where we're visiting each other's classrooms. Mike: That's what you had me thinking, Nicole. Nicole: Yeah Mike: Yeah, absolutely! Nicole: I can go to somebody's classroom. I can—on my lap—have my piece of paper where I'm trying to record as students are talking. And after that lesson, debrief with a teacher that I'm observing, about, ‘What was it that you decided to record? How did you make that decision? Here's what I had.' And really talk across those ideas because it's small changes in practice over time. This is an overwhelming set of work, this recording work. And it's going to get better by increments, but it's going to take practice, talking with colleagues, and really coming back to these principles and thinking about: Am I adhering to these things? Where is it that I really want to work and I improve my practice? Because I would encourage people to pick one—to start with—that you really want to get better at and focus on that one. Mike: Yeah. I think what's powerful about this too, is that I would imagine you could certainly do some of the things that you described if you were the only teacher at a grade level. Nicole: Yeah. Mike: But gosh, when you put other people together and think about the ability to help one another raise your consciousness about why you made a particular decision or why you chose to go in a certain direction with a representation… That's kind of that intricacy where teachers can really help one another. I mean, we are keen observers of behavior. That's… ( laughs ) that's kind of the bread and butter of a lot of what we're doing when we're talking about differentiation. It's really powerful to think that teachers could help one another build their craft around this. Nicole: Um-hm. Well, and it's… it's a really interesting practice, I think, in that there isn't one right way. ( laughs ) Right? There isn't a right way to represent a particular idea. Um, there are lots of really good features of different kinds of recordings, and so there's lots to discuss and… and a lot to learn from each other. And your… your comment about the being alone had me thinking about the work that you can do just by studying student work… Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …and thinking about: How are students inclined to represent their particular ideas and how might I translate that into how I represent things for the class on the board? Because students do a lot of their own translation of their thinking into representations on their homework. We can pull student work sets. You know, if we look at Inside Mathematics, there are lots of student work site, sets up there on that site that you can pull and study and look at how children are inclined to show their thinking. Mike: So I'm going to back up and just ask if you can identify and source that resource that you just shared about Inside Mathematics. Would you… would you mind—for people who might not be familiar—just unpacking what that is and where folks can find it? Nicole: Yeah. So, Inside Mathematics is a really great resource for teachers. It came out of a project funded by the Noyce Foundation. The website is insidemathematics.org, and it's currently housed at the Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin. Mike: Gotcha. Nicole: Great resources for teachers. There are videos of lessons. There are problems. There are assessments. There are lots of resources up there, but one of my favorite resources is that, with each of the problems, they have student work samples. And so you can really see a lot of student thinking inside of those. Mike: That's fantastic. You really answered my last question, which was going to be: For folks who, again, are listening to this conversation and thinking about steps, they might take… resources that you would recommend to someone who's really wanting to think more deeply about representation and the practice of representing student thinking. Nicole: So I think the big three are ones that we've covered and that would be visiting your colleagues classrooms— Mike: Um-hm. Nicole: …whether in person or via video—depending on what the setup of your school is; visiting sites of video, right?, so going to YouTube, TeacherTube—seeing how people are representing that work and then comparing how you might choose to represent that work; and really digging into student representations of their own thinking. Mike: That's fantastic. Nicole, thank you so much for joining us today. It has absolutely been a pleasure to talk to you. Nicole: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really fun. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

university texas education thinking teacher students student recording mathematics nicole garcia mike you mike yeah mike so mike oh mike right teachertube nicole so mike yep

Culturally Relevant Practices in the Elementary Math Classroom - Guest: Dr. Corey Drake

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 26, 2022 15:40

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 1 – Culturally Relevant Practices in the Elementary Math Classroom Guest: Dr. Corey Drake Mike Wallus: There's a persistent myth in the world of education, that mathematics is abstract and its teaching is not influenced by cultural contexts. This, despite the fact that research and scholarship indicate when students see how math applies to a world that they recognize, they perform better. Today on the podcast, we'll talk with Dr. Corey Drake, senior director of academic programs at The Math Learning Center, about what it means to provide a culturally inclusive and relevant mathematics experience in the elementary classroom. This is a topic on everybody's mind, and we're excited to address it head on. Mike: All right. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the podcast. We are excited today to have Dr. Corey Drake with us. And the topic of the day is culturally relevant practices in an elementary classroom. So, Corey, welcome. It's great to have you on the podcast. Corey Drake: Thanks. Great to be here. Mike: Fantastic. So I want to start this conversation and zoom way out as a beginning place. So one of the things that I'm thinking about is that lately it seems like you hear terms—like equity, culturally inclusive, culturally relevant—and those are being used across the education space almost as like kind of a catchall, to the point where it seems like in some cases they've almost lost their meaning. So I'm wondering if to begin the conversation, and really give these ideas the depth of discussion that they deserve, If you'd be willing to unpack … When you think about culturally inclusive and culturally relevant practices, help paint a picture of that for someone who's a listener. Corey: Yeah. I think those terms do get used all the time in all kinds of different ways. And so I've been trying to think a lot about sorting them out and trying to think about a framework that makes sense for me, recognizing though that actually whatever the term is, I think the goals are the same, right? And so the goals of whether it be culturally inclusive, culturally relevant, culturally sustaining education, or to provide better experiences and more access to all students to high-level mathematics. So that's the underlying goal. And so I don't want to get too lost in the terms. Mike: Thank you. Corey: Having said that though, I think there are some important differences. I think if we think about things like culturally inclusive, we think about context representations that include all students so that every student can see themselves in curriculum so that students aren't excluded by the examples and representations they see in curriculum. Corey: So I would think about that as more along the lines of culturally inclusive. When we start to get to culturally relevant, and then culturally responsive, culturally sustaining work, now we're really starting to think about who our students are, what their experiences have been, what their interests are, the kinds of activities our families and communities participate in, and how all of that can provide access and bridges into mathematics. And then if we would get all the way, kind of on what I think of as the far end of the continuum, we really would get to terms like anti-racist education. We're really there. We're talking about systemic racism, systemic oppression and privilege, and ways in which mathematics can disrupt those systemic issues of, not only who has access, but the kinds of outcomes and opportunities that students have based on various characteristics. Mike: So let's unpack these a little bit. Corey: Yeah. Mike: I think one of the things that's really interesting is this idea of relevance and responsiveness … Corey: Uh-hm. Mike: … so, particularly because it made me think about the kids in my classroom when I was a classroom teacher, so it strikes me that a part of this work is like, as you said, like really getting to know your students. So paint a picture of what that might look like if I'm a classroom teacher, and I'm teaching fourth grade, what kind of process might I engage in? What does that look like as I'm getting ready to perhaps start a unit of study, or even as I'm just getting ready to start the year? Like, what might that actually look like for a person who's out in the field? Corey: Yeah, that's a great question. And it brings up a really important point, which is that cultural responsiveness cannot sit just in a set of materials. And it can't sit just in the teacher's actions, right? Cultural responsiveness happens at that interaction of curriculum materials and the mathematics and the teacher and the students. And it's in those interactions that cultural responsiveness happens. And so for the teacher, what that means is really getting to know their students. But also—perhaps even more and importantly, and as a way to get to know their students—opening up those spaces for student voice in a classroom, right? Where do students have opportunities to share their ideas, to make sense of ideas, to bring in the connections that they're making? To the extent that it's all about the teacher, we're never going to get to that cultural responsiveness, where the students are allowed to bring themselves and bring their cultures into the classroom, and then be able to make sense of the math. With that in mind though, teachers can be thinking about looking at, say, a new unit of study or a task they're going to work on and think about, ‘How do I open up the space within this task, within this unit, for that student voice to come in, for students to be able to make those connections?' So the teacher is really opening the space versus making the connections, right? They're opening the space so that the students can be making those connections. Mike: So I love this idea of opening space. And I think I want to unpack this idea and just try it on. Is it fair to say that opening space, to some degree, is about two things? Part one is: How do I allow space for my students' lived experiences and their cultural background, and those pieces to kind of come into the, the work? And then part two is: How do I open space in a task that may actually funnel student thinking or constrict the opportunity for kids to share their thinking? Am I thinking about that appropriately, Corey? Corey: Yeah, I think that's right. I think you open space for student voice. But you open space in ways … a main way that you would open space is by not overly directing, not overly restricting what that space is. So if I'm going to pose a task, I'm going to look for opportunities to bring in student voice and opportunities for students sense-making throughout that task. So I'm going to launch that task by asking students, ‘What is this context about? What does this make you think about? Can you connect this to other things you know?' And then we're going to launch the task and we're going to get into the mathematics. And again, and I, as a teacher, am not going to be directing a particular way to solve a problem, a particular way to think about it. But again, opening up the space for students to make those connections, for students to make sense of the mathematics, and then providing opportunities for them to share and learn from each other. It's not a free for all though, right? It's not just bring in whatever you're thinking about, right? My goal as the teacher is to open that space and then facilitate those connections so that they really lead to the kind of sense-making that all students need. Mike: Thanks for that. You know, I actually want to shift gears a little bit because it was interesting as you described the continuum … you also were kind of talking about the idea that we could consider, like, a series of steps that we deemed—or you deemed—anti-racist. And you talked about those in, in relation to, kind of, systems that exist. Can you say more about that? Just talk a little bit more about the types of systems that we might be talking about when we're talking about taking an anti-racist stance. Corey: Yeah, absolutely. I think the two that come to mind right away are two that you mentioned, right? One is our around curriculum, and one is around assessment. And those are really tightly intertwined, right? So we have a curriculum that not only provides a set of standards, but provides a particular order and a particular path through which we think all students should reach the set of ideas that are represented in the standards. And in order to provide opportunities for all students, we need to think more broadly about that. We need to really think about, ‘What are the big ideas? What are those goals? And how do we provide opportunities for all students to reach those goals?' … recognizing that what we know about student progressions and the way students get there have mostly been built on the progressions, honestly, of white, middle-class children. Mike: Hm. Corey: And so there's a lot we don't know, and it requires us to open up spaces. And I think assessment is probably the biggest. Mike: Yeah. Talk about that please. Corey: Yeah. So assessments are set up to label and categorize students, which is kind of inherently problematic. And I think even more problematic is that assessments and the assessment systems we have built tend to focus our attention on what students don't know, on what students can't do, right? So if we think about the various labels and categories we have for children, they're often around, ‘Well, they can't do this yet' or ‘They haven't learned that yet,' versus what is it that students can do? What do they understand? What are they bringing to the classroom? You know, I always tell pre-service teachers, like, something we know about learning is that new learning is connected to prior understandings. You don't learn new things in a vacuum. So if we don't know what students already understand, what they already can do, how are we going to help them learn new things? What are we going to connect it to? I can't connect new learning to the fact that you don't know X, Y, or Z. I can connect it to the idea that you do know this set of things, and I can help you build on that and learn the next set. And to me, that is a critical shift that we would need to make to really have a less racist, less oppressive education system. Mike: Mm. Yeah. Can you just expand on that vision a little bit, Corey? I'm still really resonating with two things. One, we learn new things when we connect it to prior knowledge. And two, the whole design of the system—and really kind of the intent, for lack of a better word—this is really to kind of categorize what don't you know. And to label that very, very specifically. Corey: Yeah. Mike: As opposed to a different kind of intent, which is: What do you, in fact, understand? Corey: Yes. And it starts with, we think about math tests we may have taken in the past, right? The focus was always on was the answer right or wrong? And when the answer was wrong, there was an assumption: ‘You don't know this. You don't understand this.' And that's how you got grouped or labeled or categorized. And we still do that to students. Versus looking at a piece of student work. You don't want to forget whether the answer in the end is quote, unquote ‘right' or ‘wrong.' But what I really want to look at is how is a student thinking about a problem? How is a student making sense of this problem? What are the ideas and understandings they're bringing to this work so that I know what to build on next. Mike: Absolutely. Corey: And so focusing much less on right or wrong. And here's where I think curriculum and assessment are intertwined. Because when we set things up as here's the endpoint, here's the standard we're trying to reach, right, that leads us to saying, ‘Yes, they got it' or ‘No, they did not.' Versus what's the path, what's the pathway they're taking? What are the understandings they're building along the way? Mike: So I'm imagining either a single teacher looking at their students' work, or perhaps a team of teachers who are looking at it … it's an entirely different kind of conversation, right? Like it's almost an entirely different process of, I've got—I'm thinking old school—I've got students' paper work in front of me … Corey: Sure. Mike: … I'm looking at it. I'm almost kind of thinking to myself, ‘For someone who's new to this idea, what might that look like if you and I, and a couple colleagues were sitting together, looking at our students work?' What does that conversation sound like? Corey: And how great would that be, right? Mike: It'd be amazing. Corey: We have these kind of data meetings and things like this in schools. But so often we're looking at printouts from standardized tests. Mike: Right. Corey: … that don't really to give us insight into the thing we would pay attention to if we sat around a table, looking at student work, is ‘What do you think this student was thinking about? Oh, and where did they get that 10 from? Oh, I see they broke this number up this way. So that shows me they understand some things about place value. They understand something about the structure of numbers. I can see that here, they had a really interesting strategy, but they just miscounted at the end.' So I'm thinking, ‘This show's really rich understanding.' And so we could have those kinds of conversations. Mike: And those things are actionable, too, right? Corey: Absolutely. Mike: I, I mean, that's the challenge of having sat in so many data meetings is, like, what's actionable about what you're looking at? Corey: Exactly. Mike: It's really hard when you're actually trying to get into students' heads and think about their thinking. You, as a teacher, you have some agency, you can do something. So it's, it's like, wow, that's really powerful. Corey: Yeah. It just lends itself to this next idea. OK, if I know that this is what this student is thinking about, and maybe this group of students is thinking about it this way, and this group is thinking that way, it supports also this idea of, like, teaching is inquiry, right? Because what we always want to do, we don't have the magic next step. But we could look at a piece of student work and say, ‘Huh, I wonder what would happen if I posed this problem next? Or what if I changed the numbers in this problem? Would I still see this kind of thinking?' And that's what we want teachers to be doing to support student learning. To say, ‘Here's what I see happening. Let me try this problem next and see what happens' And building that pathway for a student over time. Mike: Which to me, actually, the connection I think I'm making is, that's actually almost like a generative path, right? In some ways that leads us right back to what you said at the beginning, which is, ‘What's the role of the teacher when they're trying to provide a culturally relevant experience?' Corey: Absolutely. Mike: It's like, this is the pathway to get there. Corey: Yes. Mike: Yeah. That makes a ton of sense. Um, well, before we leave things, Corey, I guess the last question I wanted to ask is: If I'm a teacher who's new to this conversation or new to thinking about these ideas, do you have any references that you might share with folks? Things that would help them kind of continue to think about this, continue to think about how it shows up in their classroom? Is there anything you'd recommend? Corey: Yeah, absolutely. There are so many great resources out there right now. I think the main problem is making sure we have time and space to be able to, to learn from the great work that's happening out there. I would say a book that's been really influential for me recently is actually in English language arts. But it's by Gholdy E. Muhammad and is called ‘Cultivating Genius.' And she talks about what it would look like to build a historically and culturally relevant curriculum in ELA. And I think there are a lot of parallels with math. We've also been reading lately, ‘Choosing to See,' by, um, Pam Seda and Kyndall Brown. And I think that has very actionable steps. It's really written in a way that teachers, either on their own or in a small group, could take it up and really think about some of these ideas shifting. It's these small shifts in curriculum and assessment, and just our orientation to children, that really makes such a big difference for the experiences of students. Mike: Totally agreed. I read that and just felt like, ‘If I'm a teacher, I can do something with this tomorrow.' Corey: Yes, yes, absolutely. Mike: Absolutely. Definitely. The other one that jumps out for me, and I'm wondering if you add some commentary, is just, ‘Smarter Together,' which has been around for a while. Corey: Yeah. Mike: But has got some really powerful work inside it as well. Corey: Absolutely. So ‘Smarter Together' really helps us think about—within groups of students— thinking about status and privilege and how teachers can really bring to the forefront and, and hold up the different ways in which students are smart in mathematics. And I think that's a really important shift, which is that all students are brilliant, right? And it's taking that as a fundamental tenant and saying, ‘The ways we've tended to think about what it means to be smart in math have been so narrow. They've been about being fast with your facts. Or being able to memorize things.' When really, the range of ways in which you can be and need to be smart in math are so much broader than that. And so, ‘Smarter Together' really helps us think about, ‘What are the range of skills and knowledge and interests that students would need to bring to really do well in mathematics?' Mike: Sounds like we have another podcast on our hands. Corey: Love it. Mike: ( laughs ) Thanks so much, Corey. Corey: Yep. Mike: It was great to have you on the podcast. Corey: Thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

english talk cultural practices classroom ela versus culturally relevant mike it mike yeah mike so mike thank elementary math mike thanks mike right mike all

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 18: Human Biodiversity

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 6, 2022 26:37

Mike Isaacson: Encouraging inbreeding won't get you very far. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by Uppsala University professor of animal conservation biology, Jacob Höglund. He is literally the perfect person to talk to about today's Nazi lie: human biodiversity. He has a book from Oxford University Press called Evolutionary Conservation Genetics, which is the thing that Nazis obsess about. The book is great because it doesn't get lost in the weeds with too much theory, it has tons of examples, and totally unintentionally, it absolutely demolishes the Nazi case for racial segregation and ethnic cleansing. I'm sure this is not at all where you expected to be interviewed for this book. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Höglund. Jacob Höglund: Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here. Mike: All right. So obviously, you were not intending to write a book to dispel Nazi lies writing a book about the genetics of extinction and conservation. So talk a little about what inspired you to write this book and what you learned along the way. Jacob: Yeah, you're right. It's a completely different context, but the background is basically that the earth is facing a major biodiversity crisis. Biodiversity is defined as three basic levels; ecosystems, species, and genes. And I focus on genetic diversity. I'm concerned about loss of genetic diversity, and that's why I wrote the book. Mike: Alright. By page two, you're already undermining the core of Nazi racial theory by asserting that diversity, both genetic and demographic, is important for avoiding extinction. Before we get into why that is, talk a little about what diversity means in this context, because the human biodiversity crowd might be like, “Well, I believe we need diversity too.” But what they mean is a humanity segregated by race. So, what do we mean by that diversity here? Jacob: Actually, in biology it means completely opposite. It's a bit complicated, but fragmentation-- So basically biodiversity loss or habitat loss, leads to smaller populations that become separated in a sense. Imagine that you have a large population which is connected, and then human action causes land loss and changing land use and all that sort of stuff. So populations that once were big and connected now become small and fragmented. And these small and fragmented populations tend to lose genetic variation through a process called genetic drift. Genetic drift is basically the random loss of genetic variants. This is what conservation genetics is trying to understand and to counteract. Mike: Okay. You talk a bit about segregation and its evolutionary consequences in your book. Obviously, you don't mean to refer to race here, but for practical purposes the effect of segregation would be genetically the same for humans. Talk about what happens to species with segregated populations. Jacob: Yeah. We biologists don't talk about segregated populations; we talk about fragmented populations. So it's a small distinction, right? But as I tried to explain before, when you have fragmentation because of this process called genetic drift, you lose genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is sometimes also called heterozygosity when geneticists talk to one another. Mike: What does heterozygosity mean exactly? How is it defined? Jacob: It's again, a bit technical and complicated. But many organisms like plants and animals, the ones we are most familiar with, they are what we call diploid. And what a diploid is, it means that basically, these organisms have one genome from mom and one genome from dad. So it means that on every position in the genome, there would be one variant inherited from mom and one from dad. And when they are different, the two positions are different. That's called an heterozygous site. And when they're the same, so when Mom and Dad had the same variant, that's called a homozygous site. And the more sites that are heterozygous, the more diverse the genome is. Mike: Right. So it's kind of like having enough genes in the gene pool to make sure that– Okay, so now let's talk about why genetic diversity is important. Why do we want heterozygosity? Jacob: We want diversity in the populations because if we have– One way I can explain this is that, you know, in our homes many people keep good-to-have boxes; you save nuts and bolts and nails and whatever-- you put them in this box that you find is good to have in the future. Because if you face a problem in your home and you want to repair something, it's good to have different kinds of nuts and bolts and nails and whatever tools. And the more tools you have, the more problems in the future you can solve. So it's the same with a biological population, if there are lots of variants in the population it means that this population will be able to adapt to future changes in the environment. And if the population has lost most of genetic variation, it means that they're sort of stuck to the circumstances that they're facing right now. Do you follow the analogy? Diversity is good because then you have more options to change when the circumstances change. And one thing that we know for sure is that life on earth is always evolving, it's always changing. Nothing stays the same. So having a lot of variance means that a species or population can adapt to future changes. Mike: Alright. So now, one thing that I think is pertinent in this discussion is the notion of inbreeding, which you talk about in your book. First, how is inbreeding defined by evolutionary biologists? Jacob: Inbreeding is caused by something that we call the non-random mating, for example between close relatives. Mating between close relatives leads to increased homozygosity, that is the loss of genetic diversity. That's why in this context that it's good to have lots of genetic variation, inbreeding is bad because it leads to exaggerated loss of genetic variation and genetic variants. That's why we want to avoid inbreeding. But there's also another problem and that is that inbreeding might also lead to fixation of bad genetic variants. Because we had this diploid thing that, you know, you had genetic variants inherited from mom and dad. And if you have inbreeding, it might be that both mom and dad have a bad variant at the zygous site. And such site might become fixed in offspring, so the offspring ends up with a bad variant at the zygous site. And that leads to something called inbreeding depression. I think, Mike, that's your next question. That's what you're leading to. Mike: Yeah let's talk about inbreeding depression. Jacob: Yeah. So, inbreeding depression is the loss of fitness or what we call viability due to expression of these deleterious variants. That might lead to the organism being less able to cope. It might lead to disease, genetic diseases might be expressed, or it might lead to other malfunctions in the organism. Mike: And how does genetic mutation play a role in this story? Jacob: It's because most mutations, the vast majority of mutations, mutations induce changes to the genome, and a set of new variants that pops up because of the biochemical changes in the DNA structure, basically. And most of these variants, the vast majority of them are actually bad for the organism. There are a few that are what we call neutral, they don't make a change so they might stay in the population. And a small minority might actually even be good, and they are sort of favored in the population. But most mutations are selected against and lost from the population. But they might-- because we have this fact that most organisms are diploid–some of these bad mutations might linger in the population because they are masked by a good variant at the zygous site. Mike: How does that mutation story fit into the inbreeding story? Jacob: If you have bad mutations, both inherited from both mom and dad, then these bad mutations may become expressed at the phenotypic level. If you're heterozygous at such site, it might suffice to have one good unit variant that would mask the phenotypic effects of the bad one. But if you have inbreeding, these bad mutations become expressed because there's no masking effect. Do you follow? Mike: Yeah. Basically, the idea is that because you're breeding with the same small pool, basically those variants don't end up breeding themselves out through evolutionary adaptation. Right? Jacob: Yeah. Yeah. It's sort of related to what we've discussed previously that, in small populations, these bad alleles might become fixed. And that leads to poor effects. That's why conservation biologists are concerned about inbreeding and the inbreeding depression. Mike: One thing you include at the tail end of the inbreeding chapter is a short section on rescue effects, so measures taken to rescue subpopulations on the path to extinction due to inbreeding depression. So, what do those measures look like? And how effective are they? Jacob: Yeah, what conservation biologists are aiming at is to try to counteract this fragmentation process that I talked about by creating corridors between fragmented populations to increase gene flow between populations. And in some cases when making corridors and promoting natural dispersal, it might actually be-- well, I shouldn't say possible, but sometimes it might be necessary to translocate individuals between populations to increase the gene flow over the migration between populations to keep up the genetic variation in these fragmented populations. Mike: Okay. So basically the idea is that if you can find populations elsewhere, you can hopefully repopulate an area by basically connecting those areas with these corridors. Jacob: Exactly. Mike: Okay. So besides executing plans to racially segregate the population, how else does human action bear upon genetic diversity in the ecosystem? Jacob: The big problem with human action is that we are too many, basically. And the fact that we are so many means that we use up the Earth's resources at the expense of other organisms. And we're transforming, we're changing the land use, so we're making agricultural land, and we're cutting down forests, and we're polluting lakes and streams and whatever. We're basically taking over the life space of the other organisms for the benefit of our own species. This might actually bite us in the end after a while because when we have transformed all natural habitats, it's going to be a very difficult Earth to live on. Mike: Let's talk about invasive species, because I'm sure Nazis are VERY interested in applying this logic to immigration. So, what makes a species invasive? How would you define invasive species? Jacob: A species may become invasive if it's translocated or accidentally being moved to an environment where it does not face any natural enemies, and the population might grow unchecked because there is no predators, there's no disease keeping the population numbers under control. That's why it's called invasive. It grows unchecked, basically. Mike: Okay. I guess, let's dive more into that. What's the problem with unchecked growth? Jacob: It might be that an invasive species might knock out species that are native to an area, and may disturb ecosystems by changing the food webs and a lot of other problems. Mike: Okay. Can we talk about some examples of that? Do you have any? Jacob: Of invasive species? Mike: Yeah. Jacob: Oh, yeah. It depends on where you are, but in my country here in Sweden, there are lots of plants that have been brought in because of agriculture that takes over and might suppress the growth of the native species. There are also organisms that come with shipping. You know, when the ballast water is released– So there might be a ship from Japan and they have loaded ballast water in Japan, they have accidentally brought Japanese oysters, which is a different species for European oysters, to the coastal areas of Sweden. And then they release these Japanese oysters and these Japanese oysters grow a bit faster and become a bit bigger than European oysters, and they sort of take over the living space of the European oysters. In these contexts there are lots of sort of accidents that might happen, and it's very much depending on the context of what happens. Most of these accidental removals of organisms from one area to another, they don't become invasive. It's only a few translocated species that do become invasive. Under what circumstances they become invasive or not is a bit hard to understand still, we don't really know what makes a species invasive. Mike: With this idea of invasion, this logic or this-- I don't know what to call it. I don't want to make it sound minimal by calling it a theory, but I mean, it's basically a theory-- it works only at the species level, it's not something that works intraspecies, right? It's not something that works with different phenotypes or anything like that. Jacob: No, no, no. As you say, it's at the level of species, not on replacing populations. I mean, first of all species, might come as a surprise, but it's a concept which is not– There are lots of different– Biologists differ in what they call a species. We, biologists, are not at all– we don't all agree on what we think is a species. And when it comes to other biological entities like subspecies, we have an even lesser agreement on what we mean as subspecies. And when it comes to concepts like race, race is not at all defined by biologists at all. It's a social construct thing, basically. So it matters what we mean by a species or not, but invasiveness when you sort of talk about a particular role with this like humans, it's out of context completely. It doesn't have any bearing at all. Mike: Now in certain instances, conservation geneticists are interested in preserving specific genotypes. What do these programs of genetic conservation typically look like? Because these are not the selective breeding programs imagined by Nazis, right? Jacob: Yeah. But it's not at all. I mean, preserving certain genotypes comes in the context of something that we call local adaptation. Local adaptation means that certain populations might be adapted to the local circumstances. In such cases, it means that by introducing something which is adapted to something else might actually lead to problems of the population that is aimed to be rescued. So this is called outbreeding depression: that we might introduce alien or not-so-well-adapted genetic variants into a population that may jeopardize that population's ability to work. The local variants may become swamped by something that comes from another population. Mike: Right. And this idea of outbreeding depression is this idea that if you bring this genetic material in without concern for the history of local adaptation, right? Then you basically undo evolution, basically. Jacob: In some cases, that may lead to the undesirable effects that we lose these local variants. So this continuum of inbreeding and outbreeding, in most cases most people think that what the big problem is loss of genetic diversity and that we should increase genetic diversity by aiding translocations and counteract biodiversity or habitat loss. But in very special circumstances, we might need to think about how we should perform these translocations. Mike: Okay. You talk a great deal about MHC genes (and a little bit of a few other categories of genes) and their interest to conservation geneticists. Why are MHC genes and these other genes you list, why are they of interest to conservation geneticists but probably not the genetic markers that are subject to ancestry tests? Jacob: Yeah. So this, again, goes back to this thing that I said. Most mutations are bad and there are some that are neutral, so there are some genetic variants that doesn't really matter whether or not we have different variants or not. But in some cases, there are genetic variants that are beneficial to the organism. And MHC genes especially in this circumstance, because MHC genes are involved in disease resistance. So they are involved in the immune defense of vertebrates, basically. And because of their link to disease resistance, they are an obvious target for conservation biologists because we want populations that are able to resist diseases. That's why there has been a lot of focus on MHC genes. Another reason is that because of this link to disaster resistance, MHC loci or MHC genes are known to be the part of the genomes of vertebrates that are the most diverse. So there has been a natural selection for diversity in MHC genes. So it's the part of the genome that is the most diverse part of the genome, which also makes it interesting to understand. It's a bit complicated to study, but it makes it interesting to understand how diversity is related to disease resistance and so on. It goes back to this analogy of the toolbox like I said. The more disease-resistant genes you have, the more viruses and bacteria and other disease agents you're able to combat basically. Mike: Okay. So, I guess, bringing this back to kind of where I think you were hoping to go with the book, what can people who are not biologists do to help with environmental conservation efforts? Jacob: Yeah. I think it's a really, really important area to understand and it's a big problem for humanity, the biodiversity losses. So what I encourage people to do is engage, read, educate yourselves, partake in citizen science, and in the end promote biodiversity. So that's more education and counteract habitat destruction and the fact that we are sometimes for greedy reasons, just destroying our nature. We should cherish and try to keep natural habitats as much as possible. Mike: Okay. Well, Dr. Höglund, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to undermine the theory of human biodiversity. The book, again, is Evolutionary Conservation Genetics out from Oxford University Press. Thanks again. Jacob: Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Hope my contribution makes a difference. Mike: You missed reading Evolutionary Conservation Genetics with us in The Nazi Lies Book Club but there are still plenty more books to read by our upcoming guests. Join the Discord server where we host the book club meetings by subscribing on Patreon at patreon.com/Nazilies. For show updates and general mayhem, follow us on Twitter @NaziLies and Facebook at facebook.com/TheNSLiesPod. [Theme song]

earth japan talk race european japanese diversity dna local army lies dad mom nazis jews sweden discord iq genetic hollow biodiversity biologists oxford university press mating uppsala university mhc mike you jacob h mike yeah mike how mike let mike one mike right mike all jacob it

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 14: Women Aren't Funny

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 19, 2022 21:09

Mike Isaacson: That's it! That's the joke! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Join our book club on Discord by subscribing to our Patreon. If you weren't on the Discord at the beginning of the month, you missed our next guest giving standup comedy lessons. Elsa Eli Waithe is a stand up comedian and educator living in Brooklyn. She's been in the New York comedy scene for ten years and was recently featured on BET's new show On the Ropes. She is the founder of the GOLD Comedy School for Girls which teaches primarily teenage girls the craft of comedy. Elsa's here for Women's History Month to talk about women in comedy. Welcome to the podcast, Elsa. Elsa Eli Waithe: Hello, thank you for having me Mike. It's good to talk to you. Mike: Hey, how are you doing? Elsa: Doing good. Oh man, comedy's coming back. There's a little thing like a pandemic or something that happened? Little something-something like that threw everybody off, but I think we're turning the corner, and comedy is coming back. I'm ready to be funny again. Mike: Good. So before we get into the craft of comedy, how did you come to stand-up comedy? Elsa: How did I come to stand-up comedy? Oh, my God. So many things in my life, I think, were pointing itself already to stand-up comedy. Of course, I grew up in school as the class clown or whatever. In fact, by the time I started doing stand-up comedy, folks were like, "Oh, wow. I didn't know you weren't already doing that. You were always so funny in school or whatever." And then also, a lot of my jobs were sales jobs, and sales is kind of like a presentation, you know? And it helps to be funny and have a couple of lines that you say all the time. Everything was sort of just pointing towards comedy and stage and the things like that and I just sort of did it a bit on a dare almost. Somebody was just like, "You gotta want to do something else with your life, you should try comedy." And I just sort of tried it and I was just sort of naturally good at it. I did an open mic and I didn't quite know what I was doing, it's just like, "I'm just gonna go talk to this microphone." And then like people laughed. So I was like, "Okay, let's just keep doing it." And then here we go fast forward 10 plus years later, and I'm still doing it. Mike: Right on. So give us a little behind the scenes. What's the comedy scene like in New York City? How does an aspiring comedian get started, and what should they watch out for? Elsa: Oh! The comedy scene in New York City is a zoo. But it's my zoo. It's a fun zoo, and you're gonna learn a lot more doing comedy here in one month than you would like a year pretty much anywhere else because there's so many different venues. There's so many different avenues for comedy-- stand-up, sketch, improv, experimental, alt-style comedy-- that you could literally be in three places in one night in New York City. Do stand-up three times in one day. I think one of the early bits of information or advice I would give somebody starting off comedy in New York is get as much of it as you can without overdosing, right? Like, you get here and you want to do it all because you can do it all and there's all these opportunities and avenues and things. Do as much as you can, but also don't burn yourself out. Because it's easy to spread yourself too thin. So, don't spread yourself too thin. And then when you find your niche, you kind of find your spot, dig into it. Of course, don't be afraid to spread out, but really dig into the thing that really is grabbing you. It's really easy to spread yourself really thin in New York. I think that's what I'm trying to say is try it all but don't spread yourself thin. Mike: Now you are a woman in comedy. How has the scene treated you and other women compared to men? Elsa: Oh. Well, we live in a patriarchal society so experiences are going to be different for men and women in every area. It's no different in comedy. I mean, I'm a queer, Black woman, so I got those two things too. But, you know, when I first started doing comedy I was in the South. I was in Virginia. And very frequently I'd be the only woman, the only Black person, or the only queer, or damn, the only combination. Like, "Hey, you're the diversity hire. You check three boxes, get out there." And then I'd be on the line with all White men, all straight White men or all White men or whatever. It didn't bother me too much down in the South but when I came to New York for that sometimes to still be the case here, I was just like, "Oh, wow!" That was very interesting to see that comedy shows can still be booked in that way, even in the melting pot. So for me, the whole trick was to just be undeniably funny. That like, "Yes, I want your show to be booked diverse or whatever." But men, the gatekeepers or so in comedy, are often hiring you because you check a diversity box. They're booking you because you check a diversity box. I want to check that diversity box, but I also want to be really funny as well. And just be undeniably funny. I think that's like the extra mission, right? You hear it from Black folks or for women, you know, for gay people, "We got to be two or three times as funny as the next." You know? I want to be just regular as funny as the next and you hire me because that's just the right fucking thing to do. But also, I'm hilarious. [laughs] Mike: Okay. So regardless of the scene, the craft of stand-up comedy itself is pretty equal opportunity. And as part of your GOLD Comedy school curriculum, you've actually broken comedy down into sort of a science almost. I was definitely taking notes during the book club sessions you gave. Elsa: Thank you. Mike: So, what are elements of a good joke? Elsa: The elements of a good joke? Yeah, when I tell people, when they take my class, it's like I'm gonna break comedy down in a boring way for a second, right? And break it down into some like formulas, and then we'll build it back up, and it'll be funny again. But yeah, I think the elements of a good joke is premise, setup, punch. Right? You need the-- what is this joke about? Which direction are you about to take me in? And then the punch, the twist. What direction do we wind up in? Right? There's sort of like a little formula for that. So the elements of a good joke I think it's got to have– rooted in realism. This could be a real thing. Even if it's not a real thing, this could be a real thing, it's rooted in something real. And then the exaggeration and the surprise, then we take it to zany heights, you know? Things like that. So it's got to be rooted in something real. You got to show me where we're going and then you got to surprise me and take me in an unexpected direction. So yeah, that's really what I think are the elements of a good joke. Mike: Now doing standup is more than just having well-crafted jokes. Unless you're like Mitch Hedberg, you need a routine to tie the jokes together. How do you build a good standup set? Elsa: You know, for me, there's lots of different ways people do it. Of course, obviously, comedy is an art form so everyone's got their way. My way, for me, is over the years over time I've written what I like to call a stack of jokes for different topics. I got weed jokes. I got gay jokes. I got going-to-the-beach jokes, or whatever. And what I typically do is when I'm building a set, before I go on stage, earlier that day or the day before, what three things do I want to talk about? Do I want to talk about this pop culture thing that's currently happening? I'm gonna talk about this pop culture thing that's currently happening, I want to do some weed material, and then I want to end with this thing my mom did, you know? How I sort of weave or blend those things together sometimes just sort of comes across while I'm on stage. But I just sort of go in my head with the couple of topics I want to talk about, and will then pick out the couple of jokes I really want to try out on those topics. And then if I got five minutes/ten minutes, I talk until I feel like I'm done joking about this one thing and then we move on. I just sort of feel it out on stage as best I can. But I go in with a little bit of a game plan, you know? Do I know everything exactly down to the letter what I'm going to say? No. But I go in with a little bit of a blueprint or a little bit of a game plan and allow spontaneity. You don't know what the audience is going to do, you don't know what is going to happen in the room, so I go in with my game plan and leave room to be spontaneous or to see what the audience is giving me. Mike: Alright, so with your experience and the framework you've built, I'm sure you've witnessed some comedy that's made you cringe. What do comedians need to stop doing in their sets? Elsa: One pet peeve I have– This is like a new comic pet peeve, so if I see you doing this, I can almost guarantee you haven't been doing comedy a full year yet. When you take the mic out of the mic stand, move the mic stand. Move the mic stand away from the front of the– Take the mic out of the mic stand and then place the mic stand off to the side or behind you. Oh dear God, why would you take the mic off the mic stand, and then leave the mic stand right there, and then like walk around it? Oh that's one thing that it's a tiny little pet peeve that makes all the difference. It's a rookie move, I don't like that. Um, I don't like when– I think sometimes people write comedy to be edgy or to be controversial. If the topic you're talking about is edgy or controversial, that's one thing. But, you know, you ever see like a little kid and they're just learning how to curse, so then they just sprinkle curse words into everything, and it doesn't work? Like, "Stop. Stop. Stop." I think some comics want to be edgy or controversial so they'll just jump right to certain topics without any nuance. You know? Like, "Hey, we're gonna do this abortion ate a baby joke, and then we're gonna do this Holocaust joke, and then we're gonna do this racist Asian trope. I'm gonna ching chong pretend to be Asian nang nang nang whatever" And then it's just like, "Oh wow, maybe that could have been funny if you were talking about something, but you're just rushing to be edgy or controversial." My thing is always, everything is funny or nothing is. So I would never say you can't say something, but in the rush to be edgy, in the rush to say the clickbaity thing or whatever, we often just skip right past what funny is, you know? It's okay to be edgy or controversial, but people are people often like, "Comedy is the last bastion of free speech! We're speech and wisdom tellers!" And I'm like, "Eh, our job is to tell jokes." Our job primarily first and foremost is to make people laugh. Mike: Yeah, I feel like some people just mix up funny and mean, and they just think that they're the same thing. You know? Elsa: Oh, yeah. There's a lot of the 'mean girl' mentality in comedy, right? Guys try to say they don't get involved in that, but yeah, no, there's a lot of rushing past what's funny to be to be mean, or to be edgy, or whatever. And a lot of people think that that's what's funny. People who speak their mind, you know what I'm saying, they often thought about what they say before they say it. A lot of times comedy is undervalued because it does look like I'm just getting on stage and just talking. Right? But I did plan this out. I did craft this. I did work it out. So a lot of people just think you just go up there, and I just say whatever comes to my mind. Maybe, sort of, but not really. Mike: Yeah. No, you definitely have a list of jokes that I've heard several times. Elsa: Yeah, I got my stable. I like to say I got my stable of jokes, or I call it my tool belt. I got my tried and true jokes. I got things I know work. I got things that sometimes I go back and I'm like, "Oh, wow, I haven't said this or done this joke in years. Let's try this one again." Just like when you find an old toy or something– Mike: It's funny. Sometimes when you're on stage, you'll actually announce that. You'll be like, "This is an old joke." Elsa: [laughs] Yeah, it's for me. That's for me. Mike: Okay, I know you probably don't want to be playing favorites, but I want to make sure people leave this episode listening to women comedians, so who are the up-and-coming women comedians you want to shout out? Elsa: Oh, I can shout folks out at all sorts of different levels. Okay, so at our national superstar level, please put some Leslie Jones in your face. That's just good, happy fun, crazy comedy. I love me some Leslie Jones. Put Leslie Jones in your face. And then up-and-coming, definitely up-and-coming, making waves, making a name for herself, a friend of mine, somebody who I really admire, shout out Chanel Ali. Chanel Ali is really funny. We also are going to appear on the BET show together. Yeah, I want to give a big shout out to Chanel Ali. I think she's down to earth, really funny, great energy in her comedy. Shout out to Joanna Briley. Joanna Briley is kind of the auntie matriarch of stand-up comedy here in New York City. Creator of the Black Women In Comedy Festival, which I think is in its second or third year coming up. She's originator, creator of Black Women In Comedy Festival. And I want to just shout out GOLD Comedy and Lynn Harris. Lynn Harris, not a current comedian anymore, but the creator, innovator, and big brain of GOLD Comedy where I teach, and I'm the founding teacher. Lots of talent, lots of good women and non-binary folks coming out of GOLD Comedy. Who else? What else? I don't like playing favorites but there are just some folks who are really making waves. Yamaneika Saunders, also the host of the BET show. Yamaneika Saunders, hilarious. Yeah, that's what comes to mind right now. Oh, Glo! Mike: Glo? Elsa: Glo. Glo is hilarious. Check out Glo here in Brooklyn. She is also very funny. Yeah. Veronica Garza! I want to shout out Veronica Garza. Garza is really funny. You're gonna have to Google these folks, you ain't seen them on TV yet. But it's coming up. Yeah, that's it. Mike: Well Elsa, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about women in comedy. You can catch Elsa on BET's On the Ropes, and send your daughters to GOLD Comedy School! Are you gonna bring back Affirmative Laughter? Elsa: Affirmative Laughter is coming back! Check for Affirmative Laughter late March or mid-April. I haven't quite pinned down the date, but we do Affirmative Laughter at The Bureau of General Services—Queer Division, that's inside of The LGBTQ Center at 13th Street in Manhattan. Show is gonna be coming back. Affirmative Laughter is my monthly comedy show where- It's a diversity show as they say, and every month we hire just one straight white man. Just one. Just to show you guys how it feels. Ain't that awkward? That's weird. [laughs] So keep an eye out for Affirmative Laughter. It is coming back soon. Mike: Very good. All right. Okay, check out Elsa on Twitter @elsajustelsa. Thanks again, Elsa. Elsa: Yay, thank you! Mike: If you want to discuss upcoming topics and books with me, join The Nazi Lies Book Club. We hold weekly meetings on Discord where we discuss the books of upcoming guests and every so often we get to talk with the guest themselves. You already missed Elsa's comedy lessons; don't miss out on the next exclusive. Sign up on Patreon. [Theme Song]

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 11: Eugenics

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 25, 2021 55:07

Mike Isaacson: I assure you World War II had little to do with it. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. You can join our Discord and get fun show merch by subscribing to our Patreon. Get access to our book club, calendar, advance episodes, and show notes, all at tiers starting as low as $2. Today we are lucky enough to have Daniel Kevles, Stanley Woodward Professor Emeritus of History, History of Medicine & American Studies at Yale University. For those who don't know, Dr. Kevles literally wrote the book on eugenics. His highly influential 1985 book, In the Name of Eugenics, remains a central point of reference for anyone studying the history or present of the eugenics movement. Thank you so much for joining us Dr. Kevles. Daniel Kevles: It's a pleasure to be with you, Michael. Mike: So before we talk about the eugenics movement proper, there were a lot of early scientific and medical research areas that influenced eugenics. Can you talk a bit about what biological and social science looked like in the Victorian era that led to the emergence of the eugenics movement? Daniel: Sure. The dominant trend or scientific movement, or knock off of science, was social Darwinism. It was a derivative of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which he advanced in his famous and influential Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. As your listeners will know, Darwin argued that evolutionary success selected the most fit organisms for survival. And the social Darwinist, in a perverse fashion which I'll explain in a moment, borrowed or extracted from his theory the idea that social evolution put the most fit people at the top of society, both economically and socially, and relegated the least fit to the bottom. I say that it was a perversion of Darwinism in many ways, but not least because what Darwin meant by fitness was fitness for reproduction. That meant that the more offspring you reproduced, the more fit you were. And the fewer you reproduce, the less fit you are. The social Darwinists turned this idea on its head because they noticed that people at the top of society like themselves tended to have smaller families and people at the bottom of society had larger families. But that was a major impetus. Social Darwinism was a major impetus to the eugenics movement. In addition, there were also widespread theories of racial differences, where race meant not just what we understand it to be today, say principally black-white, or yellow-white or brown-white, but ace meant differences between groups that we understand to be nowadays just ethnic groups or national groups like Poles or Italians, or Hungarians, and Jews. There are theories around that characterized these different groups and attributed to them various characteristics, many of them socially deleterious. And then finally, there were studies of different people that were quantitative as in the case of craniometry, the measurement of the size of the head or of facial types in the 19th century, that attributed differences in character and intelligence to people of different, say, head sizes. So that's a Victorian background, but we shouldn't forget that right at the very end of the Victorian era, the rediscovery of Mendel's papers on heredity in peas which gave rise to the new discipline of genetics. And genetics had its roots in 19th century. Mendel did his work and then published in the mid-1860s, and was buried for a long time but then rediscovered in 1900 in three different places, and then burst upon the scene of science and was appropriated by eugenicists along with social Darwinism, racism, and the study of intelligence. Mike: One other thing that was kind of floating around there too was the the kind of enthusiasm for the sterilization of what they call the feeble minded, right? Daniel: Well, we're getting ahead of the story. It's not floating around very much at all. In the later 19th century, people did– physicians did sterilize, but they had some weird theories about sexual drive and so on, arising from over-development of the gonads especially in males. And of course there was also always the issue of prostitution, or prostitutes and easy women. But there was no movement for sterilization at all in the Victorian era, that came with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Mike: Okay. Now we can actually get into the actual eugenics movement then. First of all, let's talk about its founder, Francis Galton. Who is Galton and what kind of things did he believe? Daniel: Well, Galton was a remarkable man. He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He was influenced by the Origin of Species. And he was curious about lots of things. He had gone to Cambridge, he was a failed medical student. He couldn't stand blood. Then he went to Cambridge where he studied mathematics and didn't do very well. And he was at sixes and sevens but very well to do, and so he took himself in the 1840s and 50s to the Middle East and then to Africa where he established a reputation of considerable authority as a geographer. And he came back to London and became a figure in geographical circles. But then in the mid-1860s, he got interested in following the publication of his cousin Charlie's book in differences in the quality of human beings. And he started with analysis of heredity and talent and did some biographical analyses connecting the genealogies of people who succeeded in Victorian society. His notions of success did not extend to the business very much at all, or indeed even much to, the arts. His notion of success was fundamentally scholastic and scientific, and to a certain degree, in the practices of state; that is politics and government. And so he mapped the relationship between people in different generations who succeeded in these areas and were prominent in British life and found that there was a very strong hereditary connection. They were all in some small cluster of families. And so he came to believe that there were powerful hereditary forces that shaped human beings and their ability to succeed at least in the areas that he studied. He decided that he wanted to figure out the laws of heredity because he convinced himself that heredity in human beings is very important for qualities of not only physical characteristics like blue eyes but also of talent and character. And so he couldn't experiment with human beings, but he did figure out that he could experiment with peas. And he was devoted to quantifying everything. He said, "Whenever you can, count!" While he was in Africa, for example, he was interested in the size of the female bodies and their shapes among the African natives, especially their tendency to have large back sides. And so he couldn't go and ask them to allow him to measure them, so he measured them at a distance through a telescope, and quantified and analyzed the results. He applied the same quantitative techniques to peas and discovered what we call now the law of regression, and then he wanted to see if law of regression worked in human beings. And I say he couldn't experiment with human beings, but he could take their measurements. He invited human beings, people in London, to an exhibition in 1884 where he measured the, say, height and the distance between the nose and the fingertips of parents and children, you know, such things. And he found that there were correlations, mathematically, in how they grouped themselves. They were not one-to-one correlations, but there were correlations in the sense that there was a strong statistical propensity for children to be like their parents, and so he devised from this the law of statistical correlation. And regression and correlation have proved to be ever since two of the most profoundly important statistical tools for analyzing a whole bunch of different things. The point I want to make here is that he was not only eccentric in his interest and devoted to the study of heredity of a certain kind, but also that he established a research programme as part of eugenics. And right all the way through the heyday of the eugenics movement, we have eugenics as a social movement and also as a research programme. For example, one more thing about Galton is that in his later years, he wanted to institutionalize the study of heredity for eugenic purposes, and he gave University College London a lot of money to establish the Galton Eugenics Laboratory, which became a major center for research in eugenics and then ultimately, in human heredity. And then today, it's one of the leading centers of research in human heredity and human genetics that we have. Mike: So let's talk a little about what eugenics says. When most people think of eugenics they think of selective breeding or maybe the Holocaust, but that really discounts kind of the breadth of the theory and its popularity and influence. What kind of people became eugenicists and what kinds of things did they say? Daniel: Well first, it's important to recognise that eugenics was a worldwide movement. It wasn't confined to England or to the United States or to Germany. It expressed itself in all of the major countries of Europe and had corollary movements in Latin America and in Asia, and to some degree in the Middle East. It's a kind of universal phenomenon among people who were of a certain class. We would recognise them as middle to upper middle class and also people who were educated and scholastically interested. They also tended to be, in this country and in England, to be White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. They were, how shall I put it? They were distressed in this country by the negative sides of urbanizing and industrializing society, with its sharp distinctions and deep distinctions of class and economic standing. They were apprehensive that the lower income groups were out-reproducing upper income groups and thus leading to the degeneration of the population, they thought. And they responded to this with a eugenics movement, drawing on the new biology of genetics and the cultural context of social Darwinism. So what they did was to invent two different kinds of eugenics, one which they called positive eugenics, and the other was negative eugenics. And the positive eugenics was aimed at people over the middle and upper classes, mainly white Anglo Saxon Protestants, with the idea that they should reproduce more. And they devised various means to incentivize that reproduction. Then they invented negative eugenics, which was to discourage lower income groups from reproducing as much as they were. That's basically how it all started and what the outlines of their commitments and programmes were. Mike: And there were kind of some camps of eugenicists, right? I mean, there was like socialists, there was conservative people who were eugenicists... Daniel: Right. There were– Eugenics was not by any means a uniform movement. For example, here in the United States there were African-American eugenicists; there were Jewish eugenicists; there were no Catholic eugenicists of any standing to speak up because the church, the Roman Catholic Church, strongly opposed any kind of interference with human reproduction, ranging on one side to contraception and abortion, and on the other side to sterilisation. So, you have disparate groups. And eugenics was embraced by a number of people on the left, socialists in England and the United States, and what they shared with people on the right was the tantalizing faith that the new science of genetics could be deployed to improve the human race. Now, they were encouraged in this regard because in the early 20th century, late 19 to early 20th century, science commanded enormous authority. It was changing the world manifestly every day in ways that people experienced, in telephones, in movies, in automobiles, in aircraft, and in radio. These were forms of physical technologies, and so people thought, "Well, now that we have genetics, why can't we do this in biology as well?" And people were doing it on the farm by improving a corn or pigs or what have you, farm animals and farm plants. And so the idea that you could extend it to a human being was seemed perfectly natural. The socialists and the conservatives, however, had much different attitudes towards one particular element in the eugenics movement, and that was the role and rights of women. Conservatives wanted to devote women to the reproduction of– You know, the “good women” to the reproduction of more children, and only in the context of marriage. Whereas the Socialists were much more inclined to embrace free love and new ways of women taking their place in society. So they were at loggerheads on those two things, and for that reason they also disagreed about birth control at least for some years. So, it was a coalition of ideologically different groups and religiously different groups. Mike: Now eugenics is kind of unique among scientific theories in that it was popularized largely outside of the academy. In a way, it also kind of pioneered modern grant funding. Talk about how eugenics became popular. Daniel: Well, it became popular in the way that lots of things were becoming popular in the early 20th century. There are mass circulation magazines, for example, by the 1920s–magazines like Collier's and The Saturday Evening Post. There were many books published on eugenics, many articles and magazines by popular lectures. There were some films on eugenics. There were also lectures and exhibitions. We have, for example, many state fairs, agricultural fairs in the South and Midwest, and in these places the American Eugenics Society mounted exhibits. And also things that were called the Fitter family contest where people could enter as individuals or families, and they would be judged. And these contests occurred in what were called the human stock section that is distinct from the agricultural stock. And many families entered these contests. If you entered as an individual you could win a Capper medal in the state of Kansas. It's hard to tell exactly what made these families fitter, but one indicator is that they all had to take the Wassermann test for syphilis. So there's a certain middle class morality that suffused the eugenics movement as well. What also made it popular was that the eugenics literature allowed you, or the eugenics ideal allowed people, in middle classes to discuss issues that were not comfortably discussed publicly for the most part. And I have in mind issues of sex, of pregnancy, and of child rearing, but especially sex and pregnancy. Since if you're interested in the improvement of the race biologically, inevitably, you have to talk about sex; who's having sex with whom? And talk about contraception and so on. Eugenics enabled people to talk about those things publicly or attend lectures on them publicly. Mike: Okay. Let's talk about what the eugenicists were advocating for. What was their agenda politically? Daniel: Well as I said, in this country and in England, eugenicists were mainly White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They were distressed by the increasing number of lower-income poor people in the cities. They were also even more distressed by the behavioural characteristics that they attributed to these people, notably alcoholism, criminality, poverty, and prostitution. They attributed these characteristics to bad biology. They were also, in an overlapping way with what I just said, disturbed by the enormous wave of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe that flooded into the United States from the 1880s to the late teens or the early 20s. They thought that these people were biologically inferior and disproportionately responsible for the social sins that I've mentioned, such as alcoholism, etc. So what they wanted to do then– And in addition, they also began to have access to quantitative demonstrations or evidence, allegedly, that these people were mentally inferior, that they had lower intelligence. And where that came from was World War I and the administration of an IQ tests to the 1.7 million American men who were drafted into the US Army. The tests were developed and so widely administered in the army because the army had the unprecedented task of trying to place all these people in suitable tasks, whether they were going to be in infantry or drive jeeps--not jeeps, that's an anachronism--but drive cars or be in the medical service or whatever; Quartermaster Corps, Signal Corps, etc. They had to find out if they were mentally capable– what task they were mentally suited for. So way after the war the results of the IQ tests were published by the National Research Council, and differentiated in terms of country of national origin, region of the United States, and so on, and also by race-- black or white, etc. And it didn't take too much of a high intelligence to figure out--that is, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist--to take this data and conclude that the recent immigrants had lower IQs as compared with native Whites, and to conclude even further that Blacks were simply inferior to everybody. So all of these trends together--the social behaviors, the disproportionate representation of lower income groups especially recent immigrants among the impoverished and the imprisoned, and the IQ tests that reinforced the idea that they were really not very smart–led to a series of legislative proposals. Nationally, eugenicists provided a scientific rationale for the immigration restriction movement that culminated in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which grossly discriminated against immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Secondly, at the State level, the eugenicists deploying their data were strong advocates of eugenic sterilization laws, and they were passed in several dozen-- well, not several dozen-- but a dozen or more states before World War I. They were declared unconstitutional by state courts and appeals courts in the States on grounds that they were cruel and unusual punishment because some of these laws required castration, or that they provided unequal protection of the laws. I mean, they didn't conform to equal protection because the only people eligible for eugenic sterilization were those who were incarcerated in homes with the so called feeble-minded, and an unequal protection of the laws, and that they violated the 14th Amendment due process. So in the early 1920s these laws were revised, and a model sterilization law was developed by a guy named Harry Laughlin at the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office and taken up in the state of Virginia as a model law. It provided for due process with a hearing, it did not provide for castration, and so on. And they proposed to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck under this new law in the early 1920s, and they intended this as a model case–a test of the law and its constitutionality. And eventually it made its way through the state courts, appeals courts and into the Supreme Court. Mike: Can you talk a bit about who Carrie Buck was and kind of what her situation was? Daniel: Sure. Carrie Buck was not an immigrant, she was a native Virginian. She was lower income, not well educated, and she was living in a foster home when she was a high teenager, I forget her exact age. The later research showed that she was raped by the son in the house. The authorities at the time didn't know that, but it was sufficient for them that she became pregnant with an illegitimate child. So she had this child and–I'm blocking on the name, I'll come to it. It'll pop up in my head in a minute–and she was consigned, because she had an illegitimate child, to the Virginia Colony for the Feebleminded. Illegitimacy was enough to tag a woman as feeble minded. She was put in the institution, her mother was there as well, and they were given IQ tests, and they scored in the feebleminded range. Oh, Vivian. Vivian was the name of the little girl, Carrie's child. And a nurse was assigned to test her at the age of eight months and came back, of course she couldn't give her an IQ test, but she came back and said she had a "odd look" about her and therefore cataloged her as feebleminded as well. So there you had it, you see, with Carrie's mother Emma, and Carrie, and then Vivian, all of them found to be feebleminded in the Virginia colony. And so their feeblemindedness was putatively taken to be strongly hereditary in character. And this was introduced as evidence in the Supreme court hearing in the case of the Buck v. Bell in 1927. So the court-- have I told you enough about Carrie Buck? Mike: Yeah, yeah. Sure. Daniel: I mean, and she was characterized as quote "poor White trash" by this same fellow Laughlin, who didn't go to Virginia to examine her, but was given a case record about her, and he characterized her that way. So his evidence was introduced, and the evidence of three generations of imbeciles, in Carrie Buck and her mother and Vivian, were all introduced as evidence. And the Court ruled by a majority of eight to one to uphold the constitutionality of the Eugenic Sterilization Law in Virginia. The majority decision was delivered by a very progressive jurist, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. And the decision was in a perverse way, a progressive decision. What do I mean by that? Well, the courts before the 1920s, were involved in litigation concerning the legitimacy or the constitutionality of laws passed to regulate business. Businesses, corporations, claim that they were individuals and that these laws were unconstitutional because they were being deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. Well, they had due process in this procedural sense, but they were claiming due process in what came to be called a substantive sense. That is, the substance and the right that was being taken away. Their substantive claim was that they had a right to do with their corporations as they saw fit, to charge whatever prices, for example, they wanted. And Holmes was in the school of progressive jurists who said that substantive due process can also be limited, and the substantive right is not absolute and you can take away a substantive right for the public good–the public good being a more economically equitable society. So he applied that same kind of reasoning and Buck v. Bell. The claim was that the Carrie Bucks of the world threatened the public good by reproducing because they were biologically degenerate in character. And so it was legitimate, according to Holmes, to sterilize Carrie even though it took away her substantive right to reproduce. And what trumped her substantive right to reproduce was precisely the service of the public good trumping that right produced. Which is to say that by sterilizing the the Carrie Bucks of the world, the United States would be safeguarded from the degeneration of its population. So it's a progressive decision in that that Holmes, in character of his beliefs, said that the public good dominates Carrie's right to reproduce. It puts Carrie in the same substantive relationship to the public good as a corporation, and they were claiming that they had the right to charge whatever prices they want, for example. And Holmes took for granted the evidence introduced by people like Harry Laughlin that feeblemindedness was hereditary in the Buck line, and a dictum that as part of Holmes' decision, is rung infamously down the annals of courts jurisprudence, Holmes wrote that, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," meaning Emma, Carrie and her daughter Vivian. Mike: And so– Daniel: By the way, that decision has never been flatly repudiated, Buck v. Bell. It has been undermined enormously by later jurisprudence on the 14th Amendment and so on, so that you cannot forcibly sterilize a woman nowadays legally by invoking some kind of eugenic law. But it might interest your listeners to know that Buck v. Bell was invoked by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in service of the following point: does the state have a right to interfere with the human reproductive process? And as we know now, as a matter of high public interest, the Court in Roe v Wade says the State has no right to interfere with reproduction to the point of quickening. But then once quickening occurs, and the fetus acquires the ability to live outside the womb, then it does have the right to interfere, and the Court invoked Buck v. Bell in saying that. Mike: So between the Immigration Control Act and the sterilization laws, how long are these policies in effect? Daniel: Well, the Immigration Restriction Act was in place until the mid 1960s. It was then revised, and the national origins criteria that discriminated against people from Eastern and Southern Europe was abolished. That produced the wave of immigration that we've known heavily from the Middle East and Asia and Latin America since the mid '60s. The sterilization laws, as I say, were never frontally struck down, but they have been undermined since the expansion of the reach of the 14th Amendment beginning in the 1940s and since. But this is not to say that eugenic sterilization did not persist after World War II. It did until probably the very early 1970s. The reasons for it were different, you know, state sterilization were different after World War II. For example, North Carolina which had hardly done any eugenic sterilization before the War, got into it in a big way after the War because the people who were winding up in the hospital, which is where the sterilizations were conducted, tended to be lower income African American women. And it's not a state policy, but it was sort of on the initiative of the doctors in the hospitals. But there is a kind of sympathetic support of it on the part of the State because the New Deal measure of Aid to Families with Dependent Children gave rise to so-called welfare mothers who were in North Carolina disproportionately Black. And so, North Carolina sterilized a lot of Black women in the hospitals, not by state law but by apprehension on the cost of welfare. I should add, though, that there's an excellent study of North Carolina sterilization, which reminds us once again that it is all kind of complicated insofar as women in the relationship to eugenics are concerned.A number of the women who wound up as a candidate for sterilization in North Carolina, as I say, were Black. They were also already the mothers of multiple children. And they did not have access to birth control, and they asked to be sterilized. They volunteered for it because it was the only way open to them of limiting their births after having a number of children. So it was liberating for some fraction of the African-American women who were sterilized in North Carolina. But anyway, the process of sterilization continued until the early 70s when it was widely exposed and condemned. And it's pretty much ceased since then. Mike: You also discuss in the book a distinction between mainline and reform eugenics. Was this terminology used among eugenicists themselves? Daniel: Not at all. I invented the terms in the book– Mike: Okay. Can you explain the distinction then? Daniel: –to distinguish between the early eugenicists, whom I called mainline, and the eugenicists, or the people who embraced the idea of eugenics, that is improving the human race and improving the human family as well beginning in the 1930s. They were reformers in the sense that they wanted to use biological knowledge to improve the race on the whole, but also they were much more focused on the family than were the earlier eugenicists. What mainly differentiated them also from the so called mainline eugenicists was that they recognised the degree of racism that pervaded the American Eugenics Movement, and they were staunchly opposed to any kind of racist eugenics. They just wanted a eugenics that was based purely on human talents and character, including medical features of human beings with regard to, say, deleterious diseases like Huntington's and Tay–Sachs and so on, and wanted to deploy human genetics to good familial and social ends. And so part of their programme was not only to try to get rid of racism in American eugenics, but also to establish eugenics on a sound scientific basis. Their efforts played a significant role in emancipating the study of human heredity from eugenics, and setting and establishing it as a field that we call human genetics rather than eugenics. Mike: Okay. Now, neo-eugenicists, nazis, and people who don't know better like to say that eugenics declined because the end of the Second World War made it unpopular because of the Nazis, but that isn't quite true. How did eugenics really die? Daniel: Well, the idea of eugenics, I should add, hasn't fully died. Mike: Right. Daniel: People are still eager, even more so than ever, to have healthy children. Now that is taken by some to be a kind of neo-eugenics. I disagree with that point of view. If you just want to have a healthy child, or don't want to have a child that is doomed to die at the age of three as Tay-Sachs children are, then that seems to me a legitimate reason for a) developing knowledge of human genetics, and b) deploying it in reproduction, conception, and pregnancy. And millions of people make use of that kind of knowledge nowadays through prenatal diagnosis and abortion. So it's not eugenics in the sense that it's trying to make a better society or a better human race, but it's simply a means of having a healthy, happy family. In that sense, the ideal of controlling human reproduction in a genetic way for improvement is about the family rather than the human race. But eugenics as a social movement did die off. First, a key feature, a central feature of what I call mainline eugenics was precisely that the State was invoked in its advancement. You can't have it, you know, immigration restriction without the US government. And you can't have state eugenic sterilization laws without state governments. What died away was the willingness of people to invoke the state, deploy the state, enlist it if you will, in the control of human reproduction in a eugenic fashion. The reason for that was partly because of the response to the Holocaust and the Nazis, because there was the invocation of the state for these nefarious purposes in human reproduction to an extreme degree. Secondly, there were all these extensions of the 14th Amendment that made it dicey, or in many respects, impossible for the state to interfere in human reproduction in the way of the mainline eugenicists. But then also, there was a whole congerie of scientific developments in social sciences and in genetics itself that undercut the scientific doctrine of mainline eugenics. So the recognition, for example, that human characteristics are shaped to a significant degree by environment as well as by genes, that is by nurture as well as by nature. Secondly, the idea that the characteristics that people admire so much, like ability to do well in a scholastic test or get good grades or be a doctor or lawyer or what have you, that those are not genetically simple to a degree that they are genetic at all. They are undoubtedly, to some degree genetic, but they involve clusters of many genes. And no one to this day knows how to figure out what goes into the human characteristics and behaviors that we admire as well as deplore. I say deplore by criminality, the quest for genetic accounts of criminality go on, but they rise up and then they are slapped down by further research repeatedly. Then there are the characteristics that we admire and willing to pay a lot for such as the ability to put a basketball through a hoop at 30 feet. Nobody knows what role genes play in that either, and it's gonna be a long time if ever before they figure it out. So, the complexity of the human organism, if you will, has also helped to undercut either both positive eugenics and negative eugenics, each in its own somewhat different way but in very similar ways. So those certainly helped undercut eugenics and basically destroy it as a social movement. Then there's also the rise to power and advancement in society of precisely the groups who were the targets of eugenicists in the early 20th century, that is the then new immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe–Italians, Poles, Hungary, Hungarian and so on. They have done very well in American society, in all branches of it. And so that in and of itself, they are kind of a living repudiation of the early doctrines of eugenics, and they provide a kind of strong caution for us in embracing the temptation of any kind of new eugenics of social nature. So all of those things together had a lot to do with corroding the foundations of eugenics and removing it basically as a social movement. I go back to in the contemporary scene in these kinds of analyses and say that, when we talk about the new reproductive technologies or CRISPR or what have you, and say that they're giving rise, or can give rise, to a new eugenics, I just think that's counterproductive and it doesn't get us anywhere. And for my money, I think we should–[laughs] What I'm saying is putting myself out of business, if you will-- just get rid of the idea of eugenics in discussing what goes on in contemporary molecular biology and reproductive technologies, and talk about them in and of themselves, rather than try to tie them to any kind of eugenics. Mike: Yeah, I'd actually kind of agree with that. Because looking at what eugenicists who are still around do now, none of them are doing genetic or molecular biological research, right? They're all psychologists doing twin studies– Daniel: Well, I can't say. I can't say. I mean, there are some biologists who are neo-eugenicists, but I just don't see any widespread support for them in the scientific community or elsewhere. Mike: Okay so I asked this same question to my last guest when we were talking about the science of sex differences in the brain, but I think it works equally well here. So what can we learn from the story of eugenics both as scientists and as people who listen to scientists? Daniel: Well, that's a very good question Michael. It's hard to provide any kind of blanket answer. And any answer might lead to counter examples that are not very attractive. So let me illustrate what I just said. I think what we need to do in responding to these things, or these kind of dreams, is to be cautious when claims are made in the name of science, especially those of long term consequence that border on the utopian, for example that we can engineer human beings, etc. I just don't think that's in the offing. But even when more modest claims are made, I think we just have to be cautious. It's good idea to raise an eyebrow whenever you hear them and whenever people are asked to turn them into social, economic political movements. An advantageous way of threading this needle is to encourage people to be as scientifically literate as possible. That itself is a utopian quest. But I think that it behooves us all to do that. Now we also need to pay attention as to whether any scientific claims, as in the case of sex differences between men and women, need to be treated with particular caution when they imply anything about human rights. And that is, you know, that we ought to curtail human rights of any kind or in any group because of alleged biological claims, or privilege others because of biological claims. I think we need to be very cautious about that. I say this can be hazardous and cut more than one way, one of these points I'm making, because I automatically right away think about the the claims of the anti-vaxxers nowadays. They say we shouldn't pay attention to scientific authority, that they're interfering with human rights and liberty etc. So you have to be judicious in the way you think about this degree of skepticism. Skepticism of the kind I'm talking about does not extend to the anti-vaxxers because virtually the entire scientific community is of one voice and one mind in saying that vaccines work, and that they're socially important, and medically important, etc. Whereas, I think in other claims about sex differences between men and women, you will find sharp divisions in the scientific community. So we need to pay attention to how the scientific community is thinking about these things as well. Mike: Okay well, Dr. Kevles, it has been an honor to have you on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about eugenics. Again, the book is In the Name of Eugenics out from Harvard University Press, an absolute classic in the history of science. Thanks again for coming on the podcast. Daniel: Thank you, Michael. Pleasure to chat with you. Mike: If you liked this episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast and want more, consider subscribing to our Patreon. Patrons get exclusive access to early episodes, even earlier access to show notes, access to the calendar, and a membership slot in our book club on Discord. Come join us weekly as we read and discuss the books of our upcoming guests. Go to patreon.com/nazilies to sign up. [Theme song]

united states american history black europe england talk state british germany race war africa north carolina italian army lies south jewish african americans african world war ii middle east court supreme court nazis jews families states kansas businesses catholic discord midwest roe v wade origin pleasure cambridge conservatives latin america holocaust buck holmes iq supreme victorian hungary us army amendment yale university eastern europe blacks species hollow hungarian protestant new deal socialists aid skepticism crispr nationally university college london charles darwin huntington whites collier poles eugenics roman catholic church anglo saxons darwinism mendel virginians laughlin fitter harvard university press southern europe iqs saturday evening post capper national research council wassermann galton social darwinism darwinists francis galton tay sachs mike you illegitimacy signal corps carrie buck mike yeah mike so dependent children mike one mike right daniel well

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 10: The Gendered Brain

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2021 46:30

Mike Isaacson: I don't know if my brain is gay, but it definitely fucks. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome back to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Subscribe to our Patreon to get on The Nazi Lies Podcast Discord where we host our new book club. More at the end of the show. Anyway. with us today is Dr. Rebecca Jordan-Young, a science studies scholar and professor at Barnard College. Her book, Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, is a critical exploration of brain organization theory and its conclusions about the differences in so-called male and female brains. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Jordan-Young. Rebecca Jordan-Young: Thanks for having me. Mike: So, I want to begin with the question you ask at the end of your book to kind of foreground our conversation. So at the end of your book you ask, “What good is a science that doesn't tell us anything new?” So before we get into the science of brain gender, how should science be conducted and why? Rebecca: That's a great question. I believe that the best science comes out of curiosity. An example of what that does for you- I mean, scientific curiosity means that you're studying things that are– you're genuinely pursuing questions that you don't already think that you understand. You want to know more and understand it. You're not just trying to prove a point that you already knew, because that's a whole different form of, you know, argumentation and evidence. So I was certainly taught, and I think all scientists are taught this, not everybody follows it, but I was taught that you have to test a specific hypothesis – what you think is true about the world. But every time you have your hypothesis, you have to have something called the null hypothesis. And a null hypothesis is the direct contradiction of your hypothesis. And when you set up a scientific experiment, you need to give both your hypothesis and the null hypothesis an equal chance of being supported by the evidence that you collect. What that means is, you have to be very clear. Ahead of time, you have to actually say, "Okay, here's my null hypothesis. When I'm collecting my data, am I already loading the dice in a way that there's no way I could collect the evidence that that might be true?" So you're obligated to not set yourself up to just already be right all the time, you have to build in the possibility of real surprise and even disappointment. And that's really tricky. You know, there's a lot riding on being correct with your hunches and moving forward. But you have to– Good science means that you build in an equal chance that you're going to get disappointed. I'll just also say that, you know, if everybody doing work in an area shares many of the same assumptions, it can be very hard to come up with a good null hypothesis, and that's something that I think you see in brain organisation theory. So sometimes it takes people coming from outside the usual crowd. It might mean people that aren't all trained by the same people or at the same institutions; it might mean somebody who has some different training than what everybody who's been doing the work does, so you bring in the influence of a different discipline. And that's one reason why diversifying science can be so useful by shaking up assumptions, and then there's a better chance that that's going to happen. Mike: Yeah, and Patricia Hill Collins talks about that in “Learning from the Outsider Within,” I think. Right? Rebecca: Exactly. Mike: So, most of our listeners, and probably most people in general, have never heard of brain organization theory, but in all likelihood they take its conclusions as Science with a capital S. So before we get into the myths of sex differences, what is brain organization theory? Rebecca: Brain organisation theory is an idea that got traction in the middle of the 20th century. And the idea is very simply that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain and that, in fact, not just that there is but (and here's the clue to why the science has been problematic) that the theory says there must be such thing as a male brain and a female brain because we're a species that reproduces heterosexually. And if you have male genitalia and female genitalia, you have to have a male brain and a female brain to know how to use them properly to reproduce, and by 'know how to use them properly', that begins to, you know, like mushrooms into this huge explosive set of even quite abstract social behaviours. So the idea, generally, is that this must be the case. And then a lot of the studies are like, "Okay, how is that the case? What specifically is different? How do we know that?" The theory supports some very, very common stereotypes and assumptions, like “women are more oriented to people and not very good with technical systems or mechanics,” that “men are naturally risk takers and women are more cautious,” that “men don't do domestic work because they're naturally less interested in it than women are,” instead of, because of a combination of gender socialisation, gender expectations, and social power. I mean, typically, the people that do repetitive grunt work are the people with less social power. So a lot of the broad patterns that we see in male and female behaviour, brain organisation theory says that is because of something innate and inherent inside of people, inside the different brains of men and women, and not because of history and social power and the great force of multiple cultures over millennia. Mike: Right. The big point I that I took away from the book was that it had to do a lot with prenatal hormones, right? Rebecca: Oh, so sorry. [laughs] I'm sorry. It's been so long since I was like thinking in the nitty-gritty, absolutely. So the way it's supposed to work mechanistically is this. With brain organisation theory, the idea is that same process of hormone exposures that shapes that genitalia, also shapes brains so that they go in two binary, you know, incommensurable directions. So in particular, the idea is that testosterone, if a developing fetus is exposed at key periods in growth to a certain level of testosterone, that they're going to develop a male-typical brain, and they're going to have this whole range of male typical traits. Whereas the idea is that the female or feminine direction of brain development is just the default. It's literally described as the passive development, which from a strictly biological point of view, is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as passive development. So that's the idea. Early hormone exposures make concrete, physical structural changes in the brain and those changes in the brain create permanent patterns of behaviour, of desires, of skills, that either properly belong to males or to females. Mike: Okay. And like I said before, it's kind of treated as just science, there's this not really any-- when it comes to pop culture, there's not really much in the way of questioning its conclusions. So what kind of brain organisation theory do people generally believe? Rebecca: Some of the conclusions are, you know, I said some of this earlier; the notion that-- here's some really big ones that I didn't mention. The idea that women have greater verbal abilities and facility. That the ability to use words and communicate is going to be naturally more developed in women, whereas mathematical and mechanical skills are going to be better in men and boys. The idea that being oriented towards physical prowess is a masculine thing. Even some things that are maybe not held as such broad stereotypes, things like the idea that men are more visual or the idea of sex being something that men and boys naturally want much more whereas women and girls are less driven by our own desires, but are much more receptive and that that's just natural and normal to be less autonomous in our sexuality. Another very clear and deep assumption that's really at the heart of all of this is that heterosexuality is the natural normal proper channel of sexual desire and that if somebody isn't both completely gender typical, fitting expectations and norms of gender, and strictly heterosexual, that something went awry at some point. There was something unusual in brain development. And you can say 'unusual' now, some years ago they would have said 'pathological', but the idea that heterosexuality is the normal path is also very much at the heart of this. Mike: I want to actually get into more of that with the kind of the assumptions that are built into it. What are some of the other assumptions that are kind of peeking around the corner? Rebecca: The assumptions, first of all, I hinted at this when we started and I said that the theory came out of really a conclusion that male and female brains must be different, there must be these two types of brains. And that is attached also to an assumption that gender norms and patterns are both binary, that it's kind of a package deal of sex, meaning the body, gender, meaning the ways that people fit into masculinity and femininity, and sexuality, who people want as partners, how they partner, what their sexual and reproductive lives look like. So this idea also that gender norms and patterns, what counts as masculine or feminine behaviour or traits are universal. They're roughly similar across place and time. So, you know, this flies very much in the face of actual historical evidence, which we could talk about if you want, but that's the assumption. Another assumption is that brains are more or less dimorphic, there's a male type, a female type. If you know somebody's gender, you can predict a lot about their skills, their aptitudes, their preferences. That's also absolutely contrary to the data that we have, but that's one of the big assumptions. A third one, you know, this is not just a theory, it's like a whole area of assumptions. Some of the assumptions are about deep history, like early human evolution. The idea that at the dawn of human history, the typical core social form was a heterosexual nuclear family with a division of labour that looks like Victorian England or 1950s US. You know? [Mike laughs] Again, it's not just fantastical, it's contrary to so much of the always-emerging evidence from the archaeological record about how humans actually lived. So there you go, it's not just a gender binary, but it's heterosexual at its core. And those assumptions are, you know, it's kind of like putting the blinders on and not allowing in evidence from other fields. And by other fields, I mean history, archaeology... so even, as I'm saying, even other fields of science. Mike: Okay, so you've studied all of the over 300 brain organization theory articles spanning the first four decades of its existence before it exploded into popularity and then a sizeable chunk of the studies since then. Rebecca: Right. Mike: Can you tell us what a typical brain organization theory-driven study looks like? Rebecca: Yeah, there are a couple of different forms. The most common forms include, they're kind of two groupings. One is studies that start with some group of people that are known to have unusual hormone exposures during their early development. These are people typically with a range of clinical conditions. Earlier, some of those studies tended to be of people whose mothers were given synthetic steroids during pregnancy before some of the risks of giving steroids during pregnancy were understood, so they had these unusual hormone exposures. But others are people who let's say they have an adrenal condition that causes them to make very high levels of so-called androgens, hormones that create physically masculinizing traits as one example. And so if there is a genetic or chromosomal female, so an XX fetus, that gets very high levels of testosterone in early development with a condition, there's a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, those women and girls with that have been studied just over and over and over again as one group. So again, it's like one whole group. Another subset of those are girls and women whose mothers took Diethylstilbestrol, which is actually a synthetic estrogen, but because hormones in fact are not binary, this synthetic oestrogen has some properties in animal studies where they've decided that actually it's what they would call masculinizing. There have been studies to look at people with early Diethylstilbestrol exposures. A second whole group of study, instead of looking at people who were known to have unusual hormone exposures, there are people who are, we could say atypical-- not fitting stereotypes of sex, gender, sexuality in their adult life-- and looking backwards in time to say, "Can we figure out any way that there's other evidence that these people with unusual gender or unusual sexuality also had unusual prenatal hormone exposures?" So those studies typically take, let's say, gay men and compare to straight men and look at the length of their fingers, you know, to say, "Okay, there is some evidence from animals that suggests that the relative length of one finger versus another is affected by steroids in development. Do these two groups that are different on sexuality also have these physical patterns?" I mean, they've looked at so many different aspects of the body. [laughs] There are brain organization studies that compared straight men and gay men on genital size and development. There have been lots of studies that look at lesbians and straight women and, for example, test them to see, "Do they have a difference in spatial ability across the two groups?" So what you can probably pick up immediately if you're listening to this is that all of these studies, you couldn't really control the variables a whole lot. These are studies that are not tightly controlled experiments, because you can't actually do tightly controlled experiments on this theory in human beings. I hope that gives you some sense. I mean, the studies are kind of all over the place, but I've given you a sense of the two main kinds. Mike: Yeah, I know. There was the case control studies and the– Rebecca: Right. Right. Just to be clear, the case control, those are the studies that basically look at the groups that have what these people would call an unusual outcome. So gay people versus straight people, or trans people versus cisgender people. Those would be case control, where you have this outcome and you look backwards in time to see is there any evidence that they had a different, you know, input early in development? And the other kind of study, we would call a cohort study, where you know that there's one group that has an atypical input, different hormones than is typical early in development, and then you follow them over time and compare them to people who presumably had typical hormones? Mike: Before we continue, you kind of mentioned this. You've been calling what we typically call sex hormones, “steroids.” Can you talk about a little why you don't call them sex hormones? Rebecca: Yeah, thank you for asking that. This is something I've worked on a lot, and I want to give a little, you know, hat tip to a couple of other people. I'm want to give a hat tip to, certainly, Anne Fausto-Sterling and also to Nelly Oudshoorn, who's a Dutch historian. The reason I don't call them sex hormones is that that idea of sex hormones actually was out there way before we knew anything at all about the actual substances, and that idea of sex hormones has really kind of deformed the knowledge that we have about what steroids are and how they operate in the body. So this idea that there's such a thing as male hormones and female hormones, there's so much inaccuracy connected to that. First of all, all of us have the same exact hormones. We have them in different typical ratios, so there are very substantial average differences in what are typically thought of as sex hormones. Average females and average males have different ratios. But it's a real mistake to think, for example, that "Well, estrogen is the female sex hormone." In fact, estrogen is crucial for so many male typical functions as well as for functions that are just human and that have nothing to do with sex and reproduction. The same thing is true of testosterone. Testosterone is crucial for bone density and muscle development. And testosterone and estrogen work together in both of those things. It doesn't make any sense to think of muscle tone as a male typical trait because without functional muscle tone, nobody could stand up, nobody could walk, we couldn't use our hands and arms or legs. So it's like these are species-typical traits that we need these steroids for. And there's a lot of individual variation, a lot of variation within and among males and females on all of them. When we think of them as sex hormones, I think it distorts what we can know about them. I'm going to give you a really good example. One of my favourite examples is in the 1970s, this group at Rockefeller University led by a scientist named Bruce McEwen was studying rats, and they were studying what they thought of as male typical reproductive behaviour. So you know, mounting and so on. But they were also studying physical development, like the development of male genital and reproductive tract. And around that time, they were understanding the way that steroids actually chemically transform in the body. So there's a process called steroidogenesis, where one steroid meets an enzyme and it turns into something else. And they understood that estrogen is produced when testosterone meets this enzyme, aromatase. So you can say that estrogen is a product of testosterone. Well, they wondered what would happen if you blocked that conversion of testosterone to estrogen? How would that affect the physical development and behaviour in these rats? And what they found out was, if they blocked the testosterone from turning into estrogen, many of the male typical traits never appeared. What that means is that many so-called male typical traits actually develop under the direct influence of estrogen. That's just one tiny tip of the iceberg but once you start down that path, then you begin to realise that calling estrogen the female sex hormone, makes no sense whatsoever because they just don't divide in that way. Likewise, I'll stop with this one, but another one of my favourite facts to undermine the idea of sex hormones is when you ask people, "What's the most abundant steroid hormone in women's bodies?" What do you think the usual answer is? Mike: Probably estrogen, right? Rebecca: Right. Do you know what the real answer is? Mike: Not sure, actually. Rebecca: Testosterone. Mike: Really? Rebecca: This confuses people. It throws them for a loop. They think I can't be right, but in fact, it is the truth. It is also true that men on average have way more testosterone than women do. But women actually have more circulating testosterone than we have estrogen. So by what logic would you call estrogen the female sex hormone, right? It's because you already decided ahead of time that the whole thing must be split into some kind of binary system, and it must be understood through the logic of everything getting assigned to male/female. It actually just doesn't work that way. Testosterone and oestrogen are really crucial for all of us. There are big average differences, but it's not helpful to split it up by male and female. So the reason I don't use that language is that it actually actively blocks curiosity. It blocks that thing that I said is crucial for good science, and there are many cases where not being able to absorb that evidence has actually slowed us down in scientific progress. Mike: So back to the book, you talk about symmetry as a necessary condition for scientific veracity. And when we say symmetry, we're talking about the correspondence between what these studies claim and various other things. And so you talk about symmetry at three levels: symmetry between a given study's measurements and the abstract thing it's describing; symmetry between a given study and other studies that are similar; and then symmetry between a given study's use of terminology and how terms are commonly understood. We'll talk about how the studies you researched measured up, but first why are these kinds of symmetries important? Rebecca: Well, think about it this way. I mean, it's really about making sure that you're comparing apples to apples when you're building up the whole scientific field. So let's say that I'm doing a study, and I say that I'm interested in sexual orientation. But then what I do is I go out and I observe all the people on a city street over the course of a week, and I write down the people that look gay to me versus the people that don't. And I watch, you know, what stores they go into. And then I draw assumptions about where the gay people shop and when straight people shop. Anybody could come along and say, "Hey, wait a minute. How do I know that you actually know who's gay and who's not? And on what basis are you judging who's gay or who's not?" Obviously, how I look at people is a very poor measure of something like sexual orientation. That's a really good blunt description of how some of the studies go off the rails on the first measure. And they're not quite that bad, but some of them come pretty darn close when it comes to not really measuring what they say they're measuring. For example, I might say that we're looking at, you know, we're comparing gay men to straight men, but we actually never asked the people that we called straight what their sexual orientation was. All we did was gathered one group of men who we didn't ask but we thought that they looked and seemed "normal" based on some reason-- quote, normal in air quotes there-- and then we compared them to this group of men who we decided were gay. Well, that's a terrible measure. That's why that matters. Another, when I say the studies "the same thing" should be looking at the same kind of outcomes, one of the best examples of that is how studies that make conclusions about how female typical or more stereotypically feminine sexuality develops, really made an incredible flip flop in the middle of when these studies were done on what counted as typical feminine forms of sexuality. One of the most amazing examples is that in the early studies, if a woman reported that she masturbated literally ever, she would be coded as having masculinized sexuality. Or if a woman said, like in an interview– These studies, a lot of them did clinical interviews and then they coded them after the fact. So in a clinical interview if somebody asked about a woman's sexual arousal, and she actually described the way her own body, the way her own genitals felt and responded, that would be coded as masculine. Because the idea at that point was that women's sexuality was much more about romance and love and it was much less directed towards, you know, genital contact and activity. Well fast forward to 20 years later, and if a woman said that she didn't have genital arousal, she would be coded as having undeveloped feminine response. And so she would be taken out of that group. You can't put those studies together and then say they're all measuring the same thing and feminine sexuality. And with the last symmetry principle, a good example of that where the question is: if I say that I'm studying sexual orientation, or I'm studying homosexuality and heterosexuality and how they develop, what I'm looking at should bear some relationship to the way we understand those terms out in common parlance in the world. But some of the studies use these very strange, very selective, very narrow measures of who gets in those groups in a way that just is misleading in the long run. So people might read about a study that says, you know, that gay men have this feminised digit ratio. But then when you go in, and you figure out who they said was gay in those studies, you're like, "Oh, actually, that's really not who we think of when we're talking about that and when people are, you know, say organising for their rights in the world, they're just trying to go about their lives." So there's a lot of responsibility when you're doing this kind of work to make sure that, among other things, to make sure that if you're studying something where the categories have enormous social importance, you should be defining that in a way that has some relevance to the real world. Mike: Yeah. And just like kind of where to draw the line too. I mean, you gave a diagram in your book where you had the Kinsey scale and showed a study basically dividing between straight and gay at every point on the scale. Rebecca: Yeah, exactly. One of the things I say in the book is, you know, Kinsey scale is actually not an answer. It doesn't give you a set of answers. It's a series of questions about, you know, like on a scale of zero to seven or zero to six, how much you are attracted to or have sexual contact or relationships with people of your same sex versus the other sex. And there's no– Kinsey– Kinsey was against the idea of dividing people into binary groups. So he didn't give some kind of cut point where over here, you're gay, over here, you're straight. And different people doing this research have chosen every single place along that line. So in some studies, you have to be 100%, attracted only to people of your own gender or sex and only ever had sex with people of your own gender or sex, or otherwise you don't count as gay. And in some other studies, it's completely the opposite. As long as you've ever had sex or thought about even fantasised about someone of your same sex one time, you will not be counted as straight. You might be counted, even in some of those studies, as homosexual or gay instead of being bisexual. So there's just no standard in there and obviously, if you put all those studies into the same mix, it's incoherent. You can't do that. Mike: Right. And so generally, how do the studies measure up in terms of symmetry? Rebecca: Well, [laughs] from what I've said so far, you should have a pretty good idea. It's a pretty big hot mess. One of the things that I thought of, at one point when writing the book, is people are right, there is a ton of data out there. And there are a ton of so-called positive findings, like they're all these correlations. But if you were to try to actually build a structure out of it, where everything solidly built on something that was a proper foundation to the next thing, you couldn't possibly build a structure, what you get is a giant pile of rubble. You get this big meaningless data pile that actually contradicts itself as much as it supports itself. Mike: So back to those common brain organization theory conclusions people believe, why are those conclusions at least questionable if not flatly wrong? Rebecca: Well, for one thing, they're contradicted by more consistent data that we have from other places. So for example, the idea that girls and women naturally, because of deep evolutionary pressures that have shaped our early hormone exposures and therefore shape our brains in a certain way, that we naturally have poorer mathematic ability than males cannot hold up when you look at the actual mathematical ability of males and females and you look in particular at cross cultural studies that show there are plenty of places or plenty of subgroups where girls and women outperform boys and men on quite a few mathematic measures. If you look at the way that the typical American sex difference in mathematics performance has shrunk basically to nothing over the past 40 years, where it was pretty substantial, but it's changed a lot. Some people still talk about, you know, things like there are certain forms of spatial relations, like this skill called 3D mental rotation and how that's still very different between males and females. Actually, again, that depends on what group you're testing. There are some subgroups where that's absolutely not the case, but there's no reason to think that subgroups of men and women have these different inputs. Another thing is that with like 3D mental rotation, very, very short training on something like a target video game can actually eliminate the sex difference. And if that is the case, then you can't really claim that there is this permanent, underlying, innate sex difference. It's much more plausible that the observed differences that we see come from different experiences in postnatal development. So things like the way young children are handled and touched and the way they're encouraged to move in the world. Things like sports involvement. Things like encouraging games that involve throwing the ball, for example, with boys. There is a lot of evidence both from neuroscience and from cross cultural research that has stronger and more consistent findings than the brain organization findings do. And I could go on with many, many other examples. The second category of data and reason why I would say, aside from just the fact that studies look really messy and they don't actually point in the same direction, we kind of shouldn't expect them to point in the same direction. If you look, as I mentioned before, about history and archaeology, with brain organization theory the idea is like, the sexual drive is innately a masculine thing, and girls and women are receptive to that, but they're not driven by sexual desire, they're driven by a desire for offspring. So this has been a very common Western assumption for a long time. But if you actually back away from that assumption as being just true, and you think, who is that supposed to apply to? And you look at the way norms and belief, whether it's showing up in science or in literature and poetry, for one thing, you'll see that that's always only been the norm for bourgeois white women, you know upper middle class white men. That's the expectation of being asexual, and the idea that somehow working class women, women of color, etc, were sexual in a way that upper class white women weren't. That should clue you in [laughs] that there is something wrong with that theory that it's not about some kind of evolutionary-driven innate process. Then if you just want to stick with like, European mythology, you go back to the early modern period. And the idea was that women were sexually insatiable and that men had a much greater ability to control themselves because of greater rationality. And so it was like the sexually voracious appetite of women was something to look out for. So the point here is, if you actually pay attention to history, pay attention to cross cultural analysis, or just class analysis or look at scientific racism and typical just cultural racism to see where the norms are, how they're limited, who they attached to, who they don't, both the science falls apart and the story falls apart. [laughs] And that's a lot to fall apart. Mike: So returning again to the question you ask at the end of your book, “What good is a science that doesn't teach us anything new?” What direction has research on these topics–prenatal hormones, sex and gender differences, studies of queer populations– What directions has this research gone, and where do you think it still can go? Rebecca: Well, to be honest, there are other people that could answer this question better because I got bored with brain organization theory. And it just it keeps on churning out. There's a lot of reason for that. I think there's a lot of investment in the theory, quite literally monetary investment. People's whole careers, their labs, they've trained people in it, you know? There's a lot of reason to keep doing this. But there's also a lot of social investment in the idea of binary indifference. There's a way in which studies that are moving on in this track haven't kept my close attention. Plus it generates at such a rate, you know, I would have to spend my entire life and career if I wanted to stay on top of that. So all of that's kind of a caveat. At the same time, I do know a few trends. One trend is to try to kind of salvage the theory by complicating it and saying, "Okay, well, maybe it's not just testosterone exposure per se that creates this trait, but it's testosterone exposure under this condition with also either high cortisol or low cortisol or something." I mean, that's often true of other forms of studies that look at the effect of steroid hormones on adult behaviour. And that's kind of where a lot of this research has gone, there isn't as much focus on the prenatal hormone stuff as there used to be for a lot of reasons. But there is still a kind of relentlessness to this. At the same time, there are a lot of really interesting young scientists coming up who are saying, "Okay, brain organization theory is not where it's at. Let's instead start thinking about, you know, what do we actually know?" One more promising direction where some research on hormones and behaviour has gone is-- A great example is the researcher Sarah van Anders, a psychologist up in Canada, who has a really interesting project that is genuinely not binary. She is actually interested in doing a few things. One of the most interesting things is to not assume that traits or people should be all just split up into male and female all the time. She is coming up with more interesting measures of how people describe themselves, how they describe the actions that they do. And then, she's also looking at hormones in a way that is more accurate in terms of what we empirically have seen specific hormones' effects to be. As an example, she is working very hard at breaking down the assumption that testosterone is a masculine molecule. And she's looking at the kinds of effects that testosterone has been associated with, in a way that doesn't attach them to maleness or masculinity at the outset. And one example is, you know, forms of aggression and protection. So if you think about the idea, one of the constant underlying ideas, that males are more aggressive and males across the animal kingdom is this idea: males are more aggressive. But there's also this other piece of empirical evidence that one of the most consistent, if not the most consistent, situation in which you're going to see a strong physical aggressive response, is when the offspring of a female animal is threatened. So in fact, there is this really, really strong pattern of physical aggressive response. And so she's trying to, for example, think about the idea that aggression is all one thing, break it instead into defence and attack. And also that nurturing or parenting is all one thing, like in those cases, at this point, you can't take nurturing or take parenting behaviour and oppose it to aggression, because here they're deeply coupled. So she's doing this really interesting theoretical work that's driving the way that she is, in my opinion, a lot careful with the actual measures that she uses. So that, to me, is one of the most promising directions out there. There are other promising directions but I think that's probably enough. Mike: Well, Dr. Jordan-Young, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk to us about the science of sex differences. The book again is Brain Storm out from Harvard University Press. Thanks again. Rebecca: Thank you so much. Mike: If you liked what you heard and want to support The Nazi Lies Podcast, consider becoming a Patreon subscriber. Patrons get access to early episodes, access to our Discord, and a shipment of Nazi Lies merch. Join us on Discord for our weekly book club where we read the books of our upcoming guests. Get access to the show's calendar, updates on the topics we're looking to cover, and I dunno, what else do you do on Discord? Come hang out, and who knows? I may even ask your question on the show. [Theme song]

Issue 18: Horror Comics & Terror, Inc.

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 28, 2021 95:44

Happy Halloween! We're joined by comics scribe Daniel "D.G." Chichester to talk about the history of horror comics, Marvel's return to the genre in the early 1990s, and the macabre anti-hero Terror (whom Chichester co-created). ----more---- Issue 18 Transcript Mike: [00:00:00] It's small, but feisty, Mike: Welcome to Tencent Takes, the podcast where we dig up comic book characters' graves and misappropriate the bodies, one issue at a time. My name is Mike Thompson, and I am joined by my cohost, the Titan of terror herself, Jessika Frazer. Jessika: It is I. Mike: Today, we are extremely fortunate to have comics writer, Daniel, DG Chichester. Dan: Nice to see you both. Mike: Thank you so much for taking the time. You're actually our first official guest on the podcast. Dan: Wow. Okay. I'm going to take that as a good thing. That's great. Mike: Yeah. Well, if you're new to the show, the purpose of our [00:01:00] podcast as always is to look at the weirdest, silliest, coolest moments of comic books, and talk about them in ways that are fun and informative. In this case, we looking at also the spookiest moments, and how they're woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today, we're going to be talking about horror comics. We're looking at their overall history as well as their resurrection at Marvel in the early 1990s, and how it helped give birth to one of my favorite comic characters, an undead anti-hero who went by the name of Terror. Dan, before we started going down this road, could you tell us a little bit about your history in the comic book industry, and also where people can find you if they want to learn more about you and your work? Dan: Absolutely. At this point, people may not even know I had a history in comic books, but that's not true. Uh, I began at Marvel as an assistant in the mid-eighties while I was still going to film school and, semi quickly kind of graduated up, to a more official, [00:02:00] assistant editor position. Worked my way up through editorial, and then, segued into freelance writing primarily for, but also for DC and Dark Horse and worked on a lot of, semi-permanent titles, Daredevil's probably the best known of them. But I think I was right in the thick of a lot of what you're going to be talking about today in terms of horror comics, especially at Marvel, where I was fiercely interested in kind of getting that going. And I think pushed for certain things, and certainly pushed to be involved in those such as the Hellraiser and Nightbreed Clive Barker projects and Night Stalkers and, uh, and Terror Incorporated, which we're going to talk about. And wherever else I could get some spooky stuff going. And I continued on in that, heavily until about 96 / 97, when the big crash kind of happened, continued on through about 99 and then have not really been that actively involved since then. But folks can find out what I'm doing now, if they go to story maze.substack.com, where I have a weekly newsletter, which features [00:03:00] new fiction and some things that I think are pretty cool that are going on in storytelling, and also a bit of a retrospective of looking back at a lot of the work that I did. Mike: Awesome. Before we actually get started talking about horror comics, normally we talk about one cool thing that we have read or watched recently, but because this episode is going to be dropping right before Halloween, what is your favorite Halloween movie or comic book? Dan: I mean, movies are just terrific. And there's so many when I saw that question, especially in terms of horror and a lot of things immediately jumped to mind. The movie It Follows, the recent It movie, The Mist, Reanimator, are all big favorites. I like horror movies that really kind of get under your skin and horrify you, not just rack up a body count. But what I finally settled on as a favorite is probably John Carpenter's the Thing, which I just think is one of the gruesomest what is going to happen next? What the fuck is going to happen next?[00:04:00] And just utter dread. I mean, there's just so many things that combined for me on that one. And I think in terms of comics, I've recently become just a huge fan of, and I'm probably going to slaughter the name, but Junji Ito's work, the Japanese manga artist. And, Uzumaki, which is this manga, which is about just the bizarreness of this town, overwhelmed with spirals of all things. And if you have not read that, it is, it is the trippiest most unsettling thing I've read in, in a great long time. So happy Halloween with that one. Mike: So that would be mango, right? Dan: Yeah. Yeah. So you'd make sure you read it in the right order, or otherwise it's very confusing, so. Mike: Yeah, we actually, haven't talked a lot about manga on this. We probably should do a deep dive on it at some point. But, Jessika, how about you? Jessika: Well, I'm going to bring it down a little bit more silly because I've always been a fan of horror and the macabre and supernatural. So always grew up seeking creepy media as [00:05:00] a rule, but I also loves me some silliness. So the last three or so years, I've had a tradition of watching Hocus Pocus with my friend, Rob around Halloween time. And it's silly and it's not very heavy on the actual horror aspect, but it's fun. And it holds up surprisingly well. Mike: Yeah, we have all the Funkos of the Sanderson sisters in our house. Jessika: It's amazing watching it in HD, their costumes are so intricate and that really doesn't come across on, you know, old VHS or watching it on television back in the day. And it's just, it's so fun. How much, just time and effort it looks like they put into it, even though some of those details really weren't going to translate. Dan: How very cool. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Yeah. So, but I also really like actual horror, so I'm also in the next couple of days is going to be a visiting the 1963 Haunting of Hill House because that's one of my favorites. Yeah. It's so good. And used to own the book that the movie was based on also. And seen all the [00:06:00] iterations and it's the same storyline the recent Haunting of Hill house is based on, which is great. That plot line has been reworked so many times, but it's such a great story, I'm just not shocked in the least that it would run through so many iterations and still be accepted by the public in each of its forms. Mike: Yeah. I really liked that Netflix interpretation of it, it was really good. Dan: They really creeped everything out. Mike: Yeah. There's a YouTuber called Lady Night, The Brave, and she does a really great summary breakdown explaining a lot of the themes and it's like almost two hours I think, of YouTube video, but she does these really lovely retrospectives. So, highly recommend you check that out. If you want to just think about that the Haunting of Hill House more. Jessika: Oh, I do. Yes. Mike: I'm going to split the difference between you two. When I was growing up, I was this very timid kid and the idea of horror just creeped me out. And so I avoided it like the plague. And then when I was in high [00:07:00] school, I had some friends show me some movies and I was like, these are great, why was I afraid of this stuff? And so I kind of dove all the way in. But my preferred genre is horror comedy. That is the one that you can always get me in on. And, I really love this movie from the mid-nineties called the Frighteners, which is a horror comedy starring Michael J. Fox, and it's directed by Peter Jackson. And it was written by Peter Jackson and his partner, Fran Walsh. And it was a few years before they, you know, went on to make a couple of movies based on this little known franchise called Lord of the Rings. But it's really wild. It's weird, and it's funny, and it has some genuine jump scare moments. And there's this really great ghost story at the core of it. And the special effects at the time were considered amazing and groundbreaking, but now they're kind of, you look at, and you're like, oh, that's, high-end CG, high-end in the mid-nineties. Okay. But [00:08:00] yeah, like I said, or comedies are my absolute favorite things to watch. That's why Cabin in the Woods always shows up in our horror rotation as well. Same with Tucker and Dale vs Evil. That's my bread and butter. With comic books, I go a little bit creepier. I think I talked about the Nice House on the Lake, that's the current series that I'm reading from DC that's genuinely creepy and really thoughtful and fun. And it's by James Tynion who also wrote Something That's Killing the Children. So those are excellent things to read if you're in the mood for a good horror comic. Dan: Great choice on the Frighteners. That's I think an unsung classic, that I'm going to think probably came out 10 years too early. Mike: Yeah. Dan: It's such a mashup of different, weird vibes, that it would probably do really, really well today. But at that point in time, it was just, what is this? You know? Cause it's, it's just cause the horrifying thing in it are really horrifying. And, uh, Gary Busey's son, right, plays the evil ghost and he is just trippy, off the wall, you know, horrifying. [00:09:00] Mike: Yeah. And it starts so silly, and then it kind of just continues to go creepier and creepier, and by the time that they do some of the twists revealing his, you know, his agent in the real world, it's a genuine twist. Like, I was really surprised the first time I saw it and I - Dan: Yeah. Mike: was so creeped out, but yeah. Dan: Plus it's got R. Lee Ermey as the army ghost, which is just incredible. So, Mike: Yeah. And, Chi McBride is in it, and, Jeffrey Combs. Dan: Oh, oh that's right, right. right. Mike: Yeah. So yeah, it's a lot of fun. Mike: All right. So, I suppose we should saunter into the graveyard, as it were, and start talking about the history of horror comics. So, Dan, obviously I know that you're familiar with horror comics, Dan: A little bit. Mike: Yeah. What about you, Jess? You familiar with horror comics other than what we've talked about in the show? Jessika: I started getting into it once you and I started, you know, talking more on the [00:10:00] show. And so I grabbed a few things. I haven't looked through all of them yet, but I picked up some older ones. I did just recently pick up, it'll be more of a, kind of a funny horror one, but they did a recent Elvira and Vincent Price. So, yeah, so I picked that up, but issue one of that. So it's sitting on my counter ready for me to read right now. Mike: Well, and that's funny, cause Elvira actually has a really long, storied history in comic books. Like she first appeared in kind of like the revival of House of Mystery that DC did. And then she had an eighties series that had over a hundred issues that had a bunch of now major names involved. And she's continued to have series like, you can go to our website and get autographed copies of her recent series from, I think Dynamite. Jessika: That's cool. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Nice. Mike: Speaking of horror comedy Elvira is great. Jessika: Yes. Mike: I recently showed Sarah the Elvira Mistress of the Dark movie and she was, I think really sad that I hadn't showed it to her sooner. Jessika: [00:11:00] That's another one I need to go watch this week. Wow. Don't- nobody call me. I'm just watching movies all week. Dan: Exactly. Mike: It's on a bunch of different streaming services, I think right now. Well it turns out that horror comics, have pretty much been a part of the industry since it really became a proven medium. You know, it wasn't long after comics became a legit medium in their own, right that horror elements started showing up in superhero books, which like, I mean, it isn't too surprising. Like the 1930's was when we got the Universal classic movie monsters, so it makes a lot of sense that those kinds of characters would start crossing over into comic books, just to take advantage of that popularity. Jerry Siegel and Joel Schuster, the guys who created Superman, actually created the supernatural investigator called Dr. Occult in New Fun Comics three years before they brought Superman to life. And Dr. Occult still shows up in DC books. Like, he was a major character in the Books of Magic with Neil Gaiman. I think he may show up in Sandman later on. I can't remember. Jessika: Oh, okay. Dan: I wouldn't be surprised. Neil would find ways to mine that. [00:12:00] Mike: Yeah. I mean, that was a lot of what the Sandman was about, was taking advantage of kind of long forgotten characters that DC had had and weaving them into his narratives. And, if you're interested in that, we talk about that in our book club episodes, which we're currently going through every other episode. So the next episode after this is going to be the third episode of our book club, where we cover volumes five and six. So, horror comics though really started to pick up in the 1940s. There's multiple comic historians who say that the first ongoing horror series was Prized Comics, New Adventures of Frankenstein, which featured this updated take on the original story by Mary Shelley. It took place in America. The monster was named Frankenstein. He was immediately a terror. It's not great, but it's acknowledged as being really kind of the first ongoing horror story. And it's really not even that much of a horror story other than it featured Frankenstein's monster. But after that, a number of publishers started to put out adaptations of classic horror stories for awhile. So you had [00:13:00] Avon Publications making it official in 1946 with the comic Erie, which is based on the first real dedicated horror comic. Yeah. This is the original cover to Erie Comics. Number one, if you could paint us a word picture. Dan: Wow. This is high end stuff as it's coming through. Well it looks a lot like a Zine or something, you know it's got a very, Mac paint logo from 1990, you know, it's, it's your, your typical sort of like, ooh, I'm shaky kind of logo. That's Eerie Comics. There's a Nosferatu looking character. Who's coming down some stairs with the pale moon behind him. It, he's got a knife in his hand, so, you know, he's up to no good. And there is a femme fatale at the base of the stairs. She may have moved off of some train tracks to get here. And, uh, she's got a, uh, a low, cut dress, a lot of leg and the arms and the wrists are bound, but all this for only 10. cents. So, I think there's a, there's a bargain there.[00:14:00] Mike: That is an excellent description. Thank you. So, what's funny is that Erie at the time was the first, you know, official horror comic, really, but it only had one issue that came out and then it sort of vanished from sight. It came back with a new series that started with a new number one in the 1950s, but this was the proverbial, the shot that started the war. You know, we started seeing a ton of anthology series focusing on horror, like Adventures into the Unknown, which ran into the 1960s and then Amazing Mysteries and Marvel Tales were repurposed series for Marvel that they basically changed the name of existing series into these. And they started doing kind of macabre, weird stories. And then, we hit the 1950s. And the early part of the 1950s was when horror comics really seemed to take off and experienced this insane success. We've talked about how in the post-WWII America, superhero comics were kind of declining in [00:15:00] popularity. By the mid 1950s, only three heroes actually had their own books and that was Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Which, I didn't realize that until I was doing research. I didn't, I just assumed that there were other superhero comics at the time. But we started seeing comics about horror and crime and romance really starting to get larger shares of the market. And then EC Comics was one of those doing gangbuster business during this whole era. Like, this was when we saw those iconic series, the Haunt of Fear, the Vault of Horror, the Crypt of Terror, which was eventually rebranded to Tales from the Crypt. Those all launched and they found major success. And then the bigger publishers were also getting in on this boom. During the first half of the 1950s Atlas, which eventually became Marvel, released almost 400 issues across 18 horror titles. And then American Comics Group released almost 125 issues between five different horror titles. Ace comics did almost a hundred issues between five titles. I'm curious. I'm gonna ask both of you, what [00:16:00] do you think the market share of horror comics was at the time? Dan: In terms of comics or in terms of just like newsstand, magazine, distribution. Mike: I'm going to say in terms of distribution. Dan: I mean, I know they were phenomenally successful. I would, be surprised if it was over 60%. Mike: Okay. How about. Jessika: Oh, goodness. Let's throw a number out. I'm going to say 65 just because I want to get close enough, but maybe bump it up just a little bit. This is a contest now. Dan: The precision now, like the 65. Jessika: Yes. Mike: Okay. Well, obviously we don't have like a hard definite number, but there was a 2009 article from reason magazine saying that horror books made up a quarter of all comics by 1953. So, so you guys were overestimating it, but it was still pretty substantial. At the same time, we were also seeing a surge in horror films. Like, the 1950s are known as the atomic age and media reflected [00:17:00] societal anxiety, at the possibility of nuclear war and to a lesser extent, white anxiety about societal changes. So this was the decade that gave us Invasion of the Body Snatchers The Thing from Another World, which led to John Carpenter's The Thing eventually. Um, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Hammer horror films also started to get really huge during this time. So we saw the beginning of stuff like Christopher Lee's, Dracula series of films. So the fifties were like a really good decade for horror, I feel. But at the same time, violent crime in America started to pick up around this period. And people really started focusing on juvenile criminals and what was driving them. So, there were a lot of theories about why this was going on and no one's ever really come up with a definite answer, but there was the psychiatrist named Frederick Wortham who Dan, I yeah. Dan: Oh yeah, psychiatrist in big air quotes, yeah. Mike: In quotes. Yeah. [00:18:00] Yeah. And he was convinced that the rise in crime was due to comics, and he spent years writing and speaking against them. He almost turned it into a cottage industry for himself. And this culminated in 1954, when he published a book called Seduction of the Innocent, that blamed comic books for the rise in juvenile delinquency, and his arguments are laughable. Like, I mean, there's just no way around it. Like you read this stuff and you can't help, but roll your eyes and chuckle. But, at the time comics were a relatively new medium, you know, and people really only associated them with kids. And his arguments were saying, oh, well, Wonder Woman was a lesbian because of her strength and independence, which these days, I feel like that actually has a little bit of credibility, but, like, I don't know. But I don't really feel like that's contributing to the delinquency of the youth. You know, and then he also said that Batman and Robin were in a homosexual relationship. And then my favorite was that Superman comics were [00:19:00] un-American and fascist. Dan: Well. Mike: All right. Dan: There's people who would argue that today. Mike: I mean, but yeah, and then he actually, he got attention because there were televised hearings with the Senate subcommittee on juvenile delinquency. I mean, honestly, every time I think about Seduction of the Innocent and how it led to the Comics Code Authority. I see the parallels with Tipper Gore's Parent Music Resource Center, and how they got the Parental Advisory sticker on certain music albums, or Joe Lieberman's hearings on video games in the 1990's and how that led to the Electronic Systems Reading Board system, you know, where you provide almost like movie ratings to video games. And Wortham also reminds me a lot of this guy named Jack Thompson, who was a lawyer in the nineties and aughts. And he was hell bent on proving a link between violent video games and school shootings. And he got a lot of media attention at the time until he was finally disbarred for his antics. But there was this [00:20:00] definite period where people were trying to link video games and violence. And, even though the statistics didn't back that up. And, I mean, I think about this a lot because I used to work in video games. I spent almost a decade working in the industry, but you know, it's that parallel of anytime there is a new form of media that is aimed at kids, it feels like there is a moral panic. Dan: Well, I think it goes back to what you were saying before about, you know, even as, as things change in society, you know, when people in society get at-risk, you know, you went to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Right. Which is classically thought to be a response to communism, you know, and the feelings of communist oppression and you know, the different, you know, the other, and it's the same thing. I think every single one of these is just a proof point of if you want to become, suddenly well-known like Lieberman or Wortham or anything, you know, pick the other that the older generation doesn't really understand, right? Maybe now there are more adults playing video games, but it's probably still perceived as a more juvenile [00:21:00] thing or comics or juvenile thing, or certain types of movies are a juvenile thing, you know, pick the other pick on it, hold it up as the weaponized, you know, piece, and suddenly you're popular. And you've got a great flashpoint that other people can rally around and blame, as if one single thing is almost ever the cause of everything. And I always think it's interesting, you know, the EC Comics, you know, issues in terms of, um, Wortham's witch hunt, you know, the interesting thing about those is yet they were gruesome and they are gruesome in there, but they're also by and large, I don't know the other ones as well, but I know the EC Comics by and large are basically morality plays, you know, they're straight up morality plays in the sense that the bad guys get it in the end, almost every time, like they do something, they do some horrific thing, but then the corpse comes back to life and gets them, you know, so there's, there's always a comeuppance where the scales balance. But that was of course never going to be [00:22:00] an argument when somebody can hold up a picture of, you know, a skull, you know, lurching around, you know, chewing on the end trails of something. And then that became all that was talked about. Mike: Yeah, exactly. Well, I mean, spring boarding off of that, you know, worth them and the subcommittee hearings and all that, they led to the comics magazine association of America creating the Comics Code Authority. And this was basically in order to avoid government regulation. They said, no, no, no, we'll police ourselves so that you don't have to worry about this stuff. Which, I mean, again, that's what we did with the SRB. It was a response to that. We could avoid government censorship. So the code had a ton of requirements that each book had to meet in order to receive the Comics Code Seal of Approval on the cover. And one of the things you couldn't do was have quote, scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead or torture, which I mean,[00:23:00] okay. So the latter half of the 1950's saw a lot of these dedicated horror series, you know, basically being shut down or they drastically changed. This is, you know, the major publishers really freaked out. So Marvel and DC rebranded their major horror titles. They were more focused on suspense or mystery or Sci-Fi or superheroes in a couple of cases, independent publishers, didn't really have to worry about the seal for different reasons. Like, some of them were able to rely on the rep for publishing wholesome stuff like Dell or Gold Key. I think Gold Key at the time was doing a lot of the Disney books. So they just, they were like, whatever. Dan: Right, then EC, but, but EC had to shut down the whole line and then just became mad. Right? I mean, that's that was the transition at which William, you know, Gains - Mike: Yeah. Dan: basically couldn't contest what was going on. Couldn't survive the spotlight. You know, he testified famously at that hearing. But had to give up all of [00:24:00] that work that was phenomenally profitable for them. And then had to fall back to Mad Magazine, which of course worked out pretty well. Mike: Yeah, exactly. By the end of the 1960s, though, publishers started to kind of gently push back a little bit like, Warren publishing, and Erie publications, like really, they didn't give a shit. Like Warren launched a number of horror titles in the sixties, including Vampirilla, which is like, kind of, I feel it's sort of extreme in terms of both sex and horror, because I mean, we, we all know what Vampirilla his costume is. It hasn't changed in the 50, approximately 50 years that it's been out like. Dan: It's like, what can you do with dental floss, Right. When you were a vampire? I mean, that's basically like, she doesn't wear much. Mike: No, I mean, she never has. And then by the end of the sixties, Marvel and DC started to like kind of steer some of their books back towards the horror genre. Like how some Mystery was one of them where it, I think with issue 1 75, that was when they [00:25:00] took away, took it away from John Jones and dial H for Hero. And they were like, no, no, no, no. We're going to, we're going to bring, Cain back as the host and start telling horror morality plays again, which is what they were always doing. And this meant that the Comics Code Authority needed to update their code. So in 1971, they revised it to be a little bit more horror friendly. Jessika: Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with, walking dead or torture shall not be used. Vampires, ghouls and werewolves shall be permitted to be used when handled in the classic traditions, such as Frankenstein, Dracula, and other high caliber literary works written by Edgar Allen Poe, Saki, Conan Doyle, and other respected authors whose works are read in schools around the world. Mike: But at this point, Marvel and DC really jumped back into the horror genre. This was when we started getting books, like the tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, where will finite and son of Satan, and then DC had a [00:26:00] bunch of their series like they had, what was it? So it was originally The Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love, and then it eventually got retitled to Forbidden Tales of the Dark Mansion. Like, just chef's kiss on that title. Dan: You can take that old Erie comic and throw, you know, the Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love as the title on that. And it would work, you know. Mike: I know. Right. So Dan, I'm curious, what is your favorite horror comic or comic character from this era? Dan: I would say, it was son of Satan, because it felt so trippy and forbidden, and I think comics have always, especially mainstream comics you know, I've always responded also to what's out there. Right. I don't think it's just a loosening the restrictions at that point, but in that error, what's going on, you're getting a lot of, I think the films of Race with the Devil and you're getting the Exorcist and you're getting, uh, the Omen, you know, Rosemary's baby. right. Satanism, [00:27:00] the devil, right. It's, it's high in pop culture. So true to form. You know, I think Son of Satan is in some ways, like a response of Marvel, you know, to that saying, let's glom onto this. And for a kid brought up in the Catholic church, there was a certain eeriness to this, ooh, we're reading about this. It's like, is it really going to be Satanism? And cause I was very nervous that we were not allowed even watch the Exorcist in our home, ever. You know, I didn't see the Exorcist until I was like out of high school. And I think also the character as he looks is just this really trippy look, right. At that point, if you're not familiar with the character, he's this buff dude, his hair flares up into horns, he just wears a Cape and he carries a giant trident, he's got a massive pentacle, I think a flaming pentacle, you know, etched in his chest. Um, he's ready to do business, ya know, in some strange form there. So for me, he was the one I glommed on to the most. [00:28:00] Mike: Yeah. Well, I mean, it was that whole era, it was just, it was Gothic horror brought back and Satanism and witchcraft is definitely a part of that genre. Dan: Sure. Mike: So, that said, kind of like any trend horror comics, you know, they have their rise and then they started to kind of fall out of popularity by the end of the seventies or the early eighties. I feel like it was a definite end of the era when both House of Mystery and Ghost Writer ended in 1983. But you know, there were still some individual books that were having success, but it just, it doesn't feel like Marvel did a lot with horror comics during the eighties. DC definitely had some luck with Alan Moore's run of the Swamp Thing. And then there was stuff like Hellblazer and Sandman. Which, as I mentioned, we're doing our book club episodes for, but also gave rise to Vertigo Comics, you know, in the early nineties. Not to say that horror comics still weren't a thing during this time, but it seems like the majority of them were coming from indie publishers. Off the top of my head, one example I think of still is Dead World, which basically created a zombie apocalypse [00:29:00] universe. And it started with Aero comics. It was created in the late eighties, and it's still going today. I think it's coming out from IDW now. But at the same time, it's not like American stopped enjoying horror stuff. Like this was the decade where we got Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm street, Evil Dead, Hellraiser, Poltergeist, Child's Play, just to name a few of the franchises that we were introduced to. And, I mentioned Hellraiser. I love Hellraiser, and Dan, I know that you have a pretty special connection to that brand. Dan: I do. I put pins in my face every night just to kind of keep my complexion, you know? Mike: So, let's transition over to the nineties and Marvel and let's start that off with Epic Comics. Epic started in the eighties, and it was basically a label that would print, create our own comics. And they eventually started to use label to produce, you know, in quotes, mature comics. So Wikipedia says that this was your first editorial job at Marvel was with the [00:30:00] Epic Line. Is that correct? Dan: Well, I'll go back and maybe do just a little correction on Epic's mission if you don't mind. Mike: Yeah, yeah. Dan: You know, first, which is it was always creator owned, and it did start as crude. And, but I don't think that ever then transitioned into more mature comics, sometimes that just was what creator-owned comics were. Right. That was just part of the mission. And so as a creator-owned imprint, it could be anything, it could be the silliest thing, it could be the most mature thing. So it was always, you know, part of what it was doing, and part of the mission of doing creator-owned comics, and Archie Goodwin was the editor in chief of that line, was really to give creators and in to Marvel. If we gave them a nice place to play with their properties, maybe they would want to go play in the mainstream Marvel. So you might get a creator who would never want to work for Marvel, for whatever reason, they would have a great Epic experience doing a range of things, and then they would go into this. So there was always levels of maturity and we always looked at it as very eclectic and challenging, you know, sometimes in a good [00:31:00] way. So I'll have to go back to Wikipedia and maybe correct them. My first job was actually, I was on the Marvel side and it was as the assistant to the assistant, to the editor in chief. So I would do all of the grunt work and the running around that the assistant to the editor in chief didn't want to do. And she would turn to me and say, Dan, you're going to go run around the city and find this thing for Jim Shooter. Now, then I did that for about five or six months, I was still in film school, and then left, which everyone was aghast, you don't leave Marvel comics, by choice. And, but I had, I was still in school. I had a summer job already sort of set up, and I left to go take that exciting summer job. And then I was called over the summer because there was an opening in the Epic line. And they want to know if I'd be interested in taking on this assistant editor's job. And I said, it would have to be part-time cause I still had a semester to finish in school, but they were intrigued and I was figuring, oh, well this is just kind of guaranteed job. [00:32:00] Never knowing it was going to become career-like, and so that was then sort of my second job. Mike: Awesome. So this is going to bring us to the character of Terror. So he was introduced as a character in the Shadow Line Saga, which was one of those mature comics, it was like a mature superhero universe. That took place in a few different series under the Epic imprint. There was Dr. Zero, there was St. George, and then there was Power Line. Right. Dan: That's correct, yep. Mike: And so the Shadow Line Saga took his name from the idea that there were these beings called Shadows, they were basically super powered immortal beings. And then Terror himself first appeared as Shrek. He's this weird looking enforcer for a crime family in St. George. And he becomes kind of a recurring nemesis for the main character. He's kind of like the street-level boss while it's hinting that there's going to be a eventual confrontation between the main character of St. George and Dr. Zero, who is kind of [00:33:00] a Superman character, but it turns out he has been manipulating humanity for, you know, millennia at this point. Dan: I think you've encapsulated it quite well. Mike: Well, thank you. So the Shadow Line Saga, that only lasted for about what a year or two? Dan: Probably a couple of years, maybe a little over. There was about, I believe, eight to nine issues of each of the, the main comics, the ones you just cited. And then we segued those over to, sort of, uh, an omni series we call Critical Mass, which brought together all three characters or storylines. And then try to tell this, excuse the pun, epic, you know story, which will advance them all. And so wrapped up a lot of loose ends and, um, you know, became quite involved now. Mike: Okay. Dan: It ran about seven or eight issues. Mike: Okay. Now a couple of years after Terror was introduced under the Epic label, Marvel introduced a new Ghost Rider series in 1990 that hit that sweet spot of like nineties extreme with a capital X and, and, you know, [00:34:00] it also gave us a spooky anti heroes like that Venn diagram, where it was like spooky and extreme and rides a motorcycle and right in the middle, you had Ghost Rider, but from what I understand the series did really well, commercially for Marvel. Comichron, which is the, the comic sales tracking site, notes that early issues were often in the top 10 books sold each month for 91. Like there are eight issues of Ghost Rider, books that are in the top 100 books for that year. So it's not really surprising that Marvel decided to go in really hard with supernatural characters. And in 1992, we had this whole batch of horror hero books launch. We had Spirits of Vengeance, which was a spinoff from Ghost Rider, which saw a Ghost Rider teaming up with Johnny Blaze, and it was the original Ghost Writer. And he didn't have a hellfire motorcycle this time, but he had a shotgun that would fire hell fire, you know, and he had a ponytail, it was magnificent. And then there was also the Night Stalkers, [00:35:00] which was a trio of supernatural investigators. There was Hannibal King and Blade and oh, I'm blanking on the third one. Dan: Frank Drake. Mike: Yeah. And Frank Drake was a vampire, right? Dan: And he was a descendant of Dracula, but also was a vampire who had sort of been cured. Um, he didn't have a hunger for human blood, but he still had a necessity for some type of blood and possessed all the attributes, you know, of a vampire, you know, you could do all the powers, couldn't go out in the daylight, that sort of thing. So, the best and worst of both worlds. Mike: Right. And then on top of that, we had the Dark Hold, which it's kind of like the Marvel equivalent of the Necronomicon is the best way I can describe it. Dan: Absolutely. Yup. Mike: And that's showed up in Agents of Shield since then. And they just recently brought it into the MCU. That was a thing that showed up in Wanda Vision towards the end. So that's gonna clearly reappear. And then we also got Morbius who is the living vampire from [00:36:00] Spider-Man and it's great. He shows up in this series and he's got this very goth rock outfit, is just it's great. Dan: Which looked a lot like how Len Kaminsky dressed in those days in all honesty. Mike: Yeah, okay. Dan: So Len will now kill me for that, but. Mike: Oh, well, but yeah, so these guys were all introduced via a crossover event called Rise of the Midnight Sons, which saw all of these heroes, you know, getting their own books. And then they also teamed up with Dr. Strange to fight against Lilith the mother of demons. And she was basically trying to unleash her monstrous spawn across the world. And this was at the same time the Terror wound up invading the Marvel Universe. So if you were going to give an elevator pitch for Terror in the Marvel Universe, how would you describe him? Dan: I actually wrote one down, I'll read it to you, cause you, you know, you put that there and was like, oh gosh, I got to like now pitch this. A mythic manifestation of fear exists in our times, a top dollar mercenary for hire using a supernatural [00:37:00] ability to attach stolen body parts to himself in order to activate the inherit ability of the original owner. A locksmith's hand or a marksman, his eye or a kickboxer his legs, his gruesome talent gives him the edge to take on the jobs no one else can, he accomplishes with Savage, restyle, scorn, snark, and impeccable business acumen. So. Mike: That's so good. It's so good. I just, I have to tell you the twelve-year-old Mike is like giddy to be able to talk to you about this. Dan: I was pretty giddy when I was writing this stuff. So that's good. Mike: So how did Terror wind up crossing into the Marvel Universe? Like, because he just showed shows up in a couple of cameos in some Daredevil issues that you also wrote. I believe. Dan: Yeah, I don't know if he'd showed up before the book itself launched that might've, I mean, the timing was all around the same time. But everybody who was involved with Terror, love that Terror and Terror Incorporated, which was really actual title. Love the hell out of [00:38:00] the book, right. And myself, the editors, Carl Potts, who was the editor in chief, we all knew it was weird and unique. And, at one point when I, you know, said to Carl afterwards, well I'm just gonna take this whole concept and go somewhere else with it, he said, you can't, you made up something that, you know, can't really be replicated without people knowing exactly what you're doing. It's not just another guy with claws or a big muscle guy. How many people grab other people's body parts? So I said, you know, fie on me, but we all loved it. So when, the Shadowline stuff kind of went away, uh, and he was sort of kicking out there is still, uh, Carl came to me one day and, and said, listen, we love this character. We're thinking of doing something with horror in Marvel. This was before the Rise of the Midnight Sons. So it kind of came a little bit ahead of that. I think this eventually would become exactly the Rise of the Midnight Sons, but we want to bring together a lot of these unused horror characters, like Werewolf by Night, Man Thing, or whatever, but we want a central kind of [00:39:00] character who, navigates them or maybe introduces them. Wasn't quite clear what, and they thought Terror, or Shrek as he still was at that point, could be that character. He could almost be a Crypt Keeper, maybe, it wasn't quite fully baked. And, so we started to bounce this around a little bit, and then I got a call from Carl and said, yeah, that's off. We're going to do something else with these horror characters, which again would eventually become probably the Midnight Sons stuff. But he said, but we still want to do something with it. You know? So my disappointment went to, oh, what do you mean? How could we do anything? He said, what if you just bring him into the Marvel Universe? We won't say anything about what he did before, and just use him as a character and start over with him operating as this high-end mercenary, you know, what's he going to do? What is Terror Incorporated, and how does he do business within the Marvel world? And so I said, yes, of course, I'm not going to say that, you know, any quicker and just jumped into [00:40:00] it. And I didn't really worry about the transition, you know, I wasn't thinking too much about, okay. How does he get from Shadow Line world, to earth 616 or whatever, Marcus McLaurin, who was the editor. God bless him, for years would resist any discussion or no, no, it's not the same character. Marcus, it's the same character I'm using the same lines. I'm having him referenced the same fact that he's had different versions of the word terrors, his name at one point, he makes a joke about the Saint George complex. I mean, it's the same character. Mike: Yeah. Dan: But , you know, Marcus was a very good soldier to the Marvel hierarchy. So we just really brought him over and we just went all in on him in terms of, okay, what could a character like this play in the Marvel world? And he played really well in certain instances, but he certainly was very different than probably anything else that was going on at the time. Mike: Yeah. I mean, there certainly wasn't a character like him before. So all the Wikias, like [00:41:00] Wikipedia, all the Marvel fan sites, they all list Daredevil 305 as Terror's first official appearance in. Dan: Could be. Mike: Yeah, but I want to talk about that for a second, because that is, I think the greatest villain that I've ever seen in a Marvel comic, which was the Surgeon General, who is this woman who is commanding an army of like, I mean, basically it's like a full-scale operation of that urban myth of - Dan: Yeah. Mike: -the dude goes home with an attractive woman that he meets at the club. And then he wakes up in a bathtub full of ice and he's missing organs. Dan: Yeah. You know, sometimes, you know, that was certainly urban myth territory, and I was a big student of urban myths and that was the sort of thing that I think would show up in the headlines every three to six months, but always one of those probably friend of a friend stories that. Mike: Oh yeah. Dan: Like a razor an apple or something like that, that never actually sort of tracks back. Mike: Well, I mean, the thing now is it's all edibles in candy and they're like, all the news outlets are showing officially [00:42:00] branded edibles. Which, what daddy Warbucks mother fucker. Jessika: Mike knows my stand on this. Like, no, no, nobody is buying expensive edibles. And then putting them in your child's candy. Like, No, no, that's stupid. Dan: No, it's the, it's the, easier version of putting the LSD tab or wasting your pins on children in Snickers bars. Jessika: Right. Dan: Um, but but I think, that, that storyline is interesting, Mike, cause it's the, it's one of the few times I had a plotline utterly just completely rejected by an editor because I think I was doing so much horror stuff at the time. Cause I was also concurrently doing the Hellraiser work, the Night Breed work. It would have been the beginning of the Night Stalkers work, cause I was heavily involved with the whole Midnight Sons work. And I went so far on the first plot and it was so grizzly and so gruesome that, Ralph Macchio who was the editor, called me up and said, yeah, this title is Daredevil. It's not Hellraiser. So I had to kind of back off [00:43:00] and realize, uh, yeah, I put a little too much emphasis on the grisliness there. So. Mike: That's amazing. Dan: She was an interesting, exploration of a character type. Mike: I'm really sad that she hasn't showed back up, especially cause it feels like it'd be kind of relevant these days with, you know, how broken the medical system is here in America. Dan: Yeah. It's, it's funny. And I never played with her again, which is, I think one of my many Achilles heels, you know, as I would sometimes introduce characters and then I would just not go back to them for some reason, I was always trying to kind of go forward onto something new. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Is there anything about Terror's character that you related to at the time, or now even. Dan: Um, probably being very imperious, very complicated, having a thing for long coats. Uh, I think all of those probably, you know, work then and now, I've kind of become convinced weirdly enough over time, that Terror was a character who [00:44:00] and I, you know, I co-created him with Margaret Clark and, and Klaus Janson, but I probably did the most work with him over the years, you know? So I feel maybe a little bit more ownership, but I've sort of become convinced that he was just his own thing, and he just existed out there in the ether, and all I was ultimately was a conduit that I was, I was just channeling this thing into our existence because he came so fully formed and whenever I would write him, he would just kind of take over the page and take over the instance. That's always how I've viewed him, which is different than many of the other things that I've written. Mike: He's certainly a larger than life personality, and in every sense of that expression. Jessika: Yes. Mike: I'm sorry for the terrible pun. Okay. So we've actually talked a bit about Terror, but I [00:45:00] feel like we need to have Jessika provide us with an overall summary of his brief series. Jessika: So the series is based on the titular character, of course, Terror, who is unable to die and has the ability to replace body parts and gains the skill and memory of that limb. So he might use the eye of a sharpshooter to improve his aim or the arm of an artist for a correct rendering. And because of the inability for his body to die, the dude looks gnarly. His face is a sick green color. He has spike whiskers coming out of the sides of his face, and he mostly lacks lips, sometimes he has lips, but he mostly lacks lips. So we always has this grim smile to his face. And he also has a metal arm, which is awesome. I love that. And he interchanges all of the rest of his body parts constantly. So in one scene he'll have a female arm and in another one it'll sport, an other worldly tentacle. [00:46:00] He states that his business is fear, but he is basically a paid mercenary, very much a dirty deeds, although not dirt cheap; Terror charges, quite a hefty sum for his services, but he is willing to do almost anything to get the job done. His first job is ending someone who has likewise immortal, air quotes, which involves finding an activating a half demon in order to open a portal and then trick a demon daddy to hand over the contract of immortality, you know, casual. He also has run-ins with Wolverine, Dr. Strange Punisher, Silver Sable, and Luke Cage. It's action packed, and you legitimately have no idea what new body part he is going to lose or gain in the moment, or what memory is going to pop up for him from the donor. And it keeps the reader guessing because Terror has no limitations. Mike: Yeah. Dan: was, I was so looking forward to hearing what your recap was going to be. I love that, so I just [00:47:00] want to say that. Jessika: Thank you. I had a lot of fun reading this. Not only was the plot and just the narrative itself, just rolling, but the art was fantastic. I mean, the things you can do with a character like that, there truly aren't any limits. And so it was really interesting to see how everything fell together and what he was doing each moment to kind of get out of whatever wacky situation he was in at the time.So. And his, and his quips, I just, the quips were just, they give me life. Mike: They're so good. Like there was one moment where he was sitting there and playing with the Lament Configuration, and the first issue, which I, I never noticed that before, as long as we ready this time and I was like, oh, that's great. And then he also made a St. George reference towards the end of the series where he was talking about, oh, I knew another guy who had a St. George complex. Dan: Right, right. Right, Mike: Like I love those little Easter eggs. Speaking of Easter eggs, there are a lot of Clive Barker Easter eggs throughout that whole series. Dan: [00:48:00] Well, That's it. That was so parallel at the time, you know. Mike: So around that time was when you were editing and then writing for the HellRaiser series and the Night Breed series, right? Dan: Yes. Certainly writing for them. Yeah. I mean, I did some consulting editing on the HellRaiser and other Barker books, after our lift staff, but, primarily writing at that point. Mike: Okay. Cause I have Hellraiser number one, and I think you're listed as an editor on it. Dan: I was, I started the whole Hellraiser anthology with other folks, you know, but I was the main driver, and I think that was one of the early instigators of kind of the rebirth of horror at that time. And, you know, going back to something you said earlier, you know, for many years, I was always, pressing Archie Goodwin, who worked at Warren, and worked on Erie, and worked on all those titles. You know, why can't we do a new horror anthology and he was quite sage like and saying, yeah. It'd be great to do it, but it's not going to sell there's no hook, right? There's no connection, you know, just horror for her sake. And it was when Clive Barker [00:49:00] came into our offices, and so I want to do something with Archie Goodwin. And then the two of them said, Hellraiser can be the hook. Right. Hellraiser can be the way in to sort of create an anthology series, have an identifiable icon, and then we developed out from there with Clive, with a couple of other folks Erik Saltzgaber, Phil Nutman, myself, Archie Goodwin, like what would be the world? And then the Bible that would actually give you enough, breadth and width to play with these characters that wouldn't just always be puzzle box, pinhead, puzzle box, pinhead, you know? And so we developed a fairly large set of rules and mythologies allowed for that. Mike: That's so cool. I mean, there really wasn't anything at all, like Hellraiser when it came out. Like, and there's still not a lot like it, but I - Jessika: Yeah, I was going to say, wait, what else? Mike: I mean, I feel like I've read other books since then, where there's that blending of sexuality and [00:50:00] horror and morality, because at the, at the core of it, Hellraiser often feels like a larger morality play. Dan: Now, you know, I'm going to disagree with you on that one. I mean, I think sometimes we let it slip in a morality and we played that out. But I think Hellraiser is sort of find what you want out of it. Right. You go back to the first film and it's, you know, what's your pleasure, sir? You know, it was when the guy hands up the book and the Centobites, you know, or angels to some demons, to others. So I think the book was at its best and the movies are at their best when it's not so much about the comeuppance as it is about find your place in here. Right? And that can be that sort of weird exploration of many different things. Mike: That's cool. So going back to Terror. Because we've talked about like how much we enjoyed the character and everything, I want to take a moment to talk about each of our favorite Terror moments. Dan: Okay. Mike: So Dan, why don't you start? What was your favorite moment for Terror [00:51:00] to write or going back to read? Dan: It's a great question, one of the toughest, because again, I had such delight in the character and felt such a connection, you know, in sort of channeling him in a way I could probably find you five, ten moments per issue, but, I actually think it was the it's in the first issue. And was probably the first line that sort of came to me. And then I wrote backwards from it, which was this, got your nose bit. And you know, it's the old gag of like when a parent's playing with a child and, you know, grabs at the nose and uses the thumb to represent the nose and says, got your nose. And there's a moment in that issue where I think he's just plummeted out of a skyscraper. He's, you know, fallen down into a police car. He's basically shattered. And this cop or security guard is kind of coming over to him and, and he just reaches out and grabs the guy's nose, you know, rips his arm off or something or legs to start to replace himself and, and just says, got your nose, but it's, but it's all a [00:52:00] build from this inner monologue that he's been doing. And so he's not responding to anything. He's not doing a quip to anything. He's just basically telling us a story and ending it with this, you know, delivery that basically says the guy has a complete condescending attitude and just signals that we're in his space. Like he doesn't need to kind of like do an Arnold response to something it's just, he's in his own little world moments I always just kind of go back to that got your nose moment, which is just creepy and crazy and strange. Mike: As soon as you mentioned that I was thinking of the panel that that was from, because it was such a great moment. I think it was the mob enforcers that had shot him up and he had jumped out of the skyscraper four and then they came down to finish him off and he wound up just ripping them apart so that he could rebuild himself. All right, Jessika, how about you? Jessika: I really enjoyed the part where Terror fights with sharks in order to free Silver Sable and Luke Cage. [00:53:00] It was so cool. There was just absolutely no fear as he went at the first shark head-on and, and then there were like five huge bloodthirsty sharks in the small tank. And Terror's just like, what an inconvenience. Oh, well. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Like followed by a quippy remark, like in his head, of course. And I feel like he's such a solitary character that it makes sense that he would have such an active internal monologue. I find myself doing that. Like, you know, I mean, I have a dog, so he usually gets the brunt of it, but he, you know, it's, it is that you start to form like, sort of an internal conversation if you don't have that outside interaction. Dan: Right. Jessika: And I think a lot of us probably relate to that though this pandemic. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: But the one-liner thoughts, like, again, they make those scenes in my opinion, and it gave pause for levity. We don't have to be serious about this because really isn't life or death for Terror. We know that, and he just reminds us that constantly by just he's always so damn nonchalant. [00:54:00] Dan: Yeah. He does have a very, I'm not going to say suave, but it's, uh, you know, that sort of very, I've got this, you know, sort of attitude to it. Mike: I would, say that he's suave when he wants to be, I mean, like the last issue he's got his whiskers tied back and kind of a ponytail. Dan: Oh yeah. Jessika: Oh yeah. Dan: Richard Pace did a great job with that. Mike: Where he's dancing with his assistant in the restaurant and it's that final scene where he's got that really elegant tuxedo. Like. Dan: Yeah. It's very beautiful. Mike: I say that he can be suave and he wants to be. So I got to say like my favorite one, it was a visual gag that you guys did, and it's in issue six when he's fighting with the Punisher and he's got this, long guns sniper. And he shoots the Punisher point blank, and Terror's, like at this point he's lost his legs for like the sixth time. Like he seems to lose his legs, like once an issue where he's just a torso waddling around on his hands. And so he shoots him the force skids him back. [00:55:00] And I legit could not stop laughing for a good minute. Like I was just cackling when I read that. So I think all of us agree that it's those moments of weird levity that really made the series feel like something special. Dan: I'm not quite sure we're going to see that moment reenacted at the Disney Pavilion, you know, anytime soon. But, that would be pretty awesome if they ever went that route. Mike: Well, yeah, so, I mean, like, let's talk about that for a minute, because one of the main ways that I consume Marvel comics these days is through Marvel unlimited, and Terror is a pretty limited presence there. There's a few issues of various Deadpool series. There's the Marvel team up that I think Robert Kirkman did, where Terror shows up and he has some pretty cool moments in there. And then there's a couple of random issues of the 1990s Luke Cage series Cage, but like the core series, the Marvel max stuff, his appearance in books like Daredevil and Wolverine, they just don't seem to be available for consumption via the. App Like I had to go through my personal [00:56:00] collection to find all this stuff. And like, are the rights just more complicated because it was published under the Epic imprint and that was create her own stuff, like do you know? Dan: No, I mean, it wouldn't be it's choice, right. He's probably perceived as a, if people within the editorial group even know about him, right. I was reading something recently where some of the current editorial staff had to be schooled on who Jack Kirby was. So, I'm not sure how much exposure or, you know, interest there would be, you know, to that. I mean, I don't know why everything would be on Marvin unlimited. It doesn't seem like it requires anything except scanning the stuff and putting it up there. But there wouldn't be any rights issues. Marvel owned the Shadow Line, Marvel owns the Terror Incorporated title, it would have been there. So I'm not really sure why it wouldn't be. And maybe at some point it will, but, that's just an odd emission. I mean, for years, which I always felt like, well, what did I do wrong? I [00:57:00] mean, you can find very little of the Daredevil work I did, which was probably very well known and very well received in, in reprints. It would be like, there'd be reprints of almost every other storyline and then there'd be a gap around some of those things. And now they started to reappear as they've done these omnibus editions. Mike: Well, yeah, I mean, you know, and going back the awareness of the character, anytime I talk about Terror to people, it's probably a three out of four chance that they won't have heard of them before. I don't know if you're a part of the comic book historians group on Facebook? Dan: I'm not. No. Mike: So there's a lot of people who are really passionate about comic book history, and they talk about various things. And so when I was doing research for this episode originally, I was asking about kind of the revamp of supernatural heroes. And I said, you know, this was around the same time as Terror. And several people sat there and said, we haven't heard of Terror before. And I was like, he's great. He's amazing. You have to look them up. But yeah, it seems like, you know, to echo what you stated, it seems like there's just a lack of awareness about the character, which I feel is a genuine shame. And that's part of the [00:58:00] reason that I wanted to talk about him in this episode. Dan: Well, thank you. I mean, I love the spotlight and I think anytime I've talked to somebody about it who knew it, I've never heard somebody who read the book said, yeah, that sucks. Right. I've heard that about other things, but not about this one, invariably, if they read it, they loved it. And they were twisted and kind of got into it. But did have a limited run, right? It was only 13 issues. It didn't get the spotlight, it was sort of promised it kind of, it came out with a grouping of other mercenary titles at the time. There was a new Punisher title. There was a Silver Sable. There was a few other titles in this grouping. Everyone was promised a certain amount of additional PR, which they got; when it got to Terror. It didn't get that it like, they pulled the boost at the last minute that might not have made a difference. And I also think maybe it was a little bit ahead of its time in certain attitudes crossing the line between horror and [00:59:00] humor and overtness of certain things, at least for Marvel, like where do you fit this? I think the readers are fine. Readers are great about picking up on stuff and embracing things. For Marvel, it was kind of probably, and I'm not dissing them. I never got like any negative, you know, we're gonna launch this title, what we're going to dismiss it. But I just also think, unless it's somebody like me driving it or the editor driving it, or Carl Potts, who was the editor in chief of that division at that point, you know, unless they're pushing it, there's plenty of other characters Right. For, things to get behind. But I think again, anytime it kind of comes up, it is definitely the one that I hear about probably the most and the most passionately so that's cool in its own way. Mike: Yeah, I think I remember reading an interview that you did, where you were talking about how there was originally going to be like a gimmick cover or a trading card or something like that. Dan: Yeah. Mike: So what was the, what was the gimmick going to be for Terror number one? Dan: What was the gimmick going to be? I don't know, actually, I if I knew I [01:00:00] can't remember anymore. But it was going to be totally gimmicky, as all those titles and covers were at the time. So I hope not scratch and sniff like a, uh, rotting bodies odor, although that would have been kind of in-character and cool. Mike: I mean, this was the era of the gimmick cover. Dan: Oh, absolutely. Mike: Like,that was when that was when we had Bloodstrike come out and it was like the thermographic printing, so you could rub the blood and it would disappear. Force Works is my favorite one, you literally unfold the cover and it's like a pop-up book. Dan: Somebody actually keyed me in. There actually was like a Terror trading card at one point. Mike: Yeah. Dan: Like after the fact, which I was like, shocked. Mike: I have that, that's from Marvel Universe series four. Dan: Yeah. we did a pretty good job with it actually. And then even as we got to the end of the run, you know, we, and you can sort of see us where we're trying to shift certain aspects of the book, you know, more into the mainstream Marvel, because they said, well, we'll give you another seven issues or something, you know, to kind of get the numbers up. Mike: Right. Dan: And they pulled the plug, you know, even before that. So, uh, that's why [01:01:00] the end kind of comes a bit abruptly and we get that final coda scene, you know, that Richard Pace did such a nice job with. Mike: Yeah. I mean, it felt like it wrapped it up, you know, and they gave you that opportunity, which I was really kind of grateful for, to be honest. Dan: Yeah. and subsequently, I don't know what's going on. I know there was that David Lapham, you know, series, you did a couple of those, which I glanced at, I know I kind of got in the way of it a little bit too, not in the way, but I just said, remember to give us a little created by credits in that, but I didn't read those. And then, I know he was in the League of Losers at one point, which just didn't sound right to me. And, uh. Mike: It's actually. Okay. So I'm going to, I'm going to say this cause, it's basically a bunch of, kind of like the B to C listers for the most part. And. So they're called the Legal Losers. I think it's a really good story, and I actually really like what they do with Terror. He gets, she's now Spider Woman, I think it's, Anya Corazon, but it was her original incarnation of, Arana. And she's got that spider armor that like comes out of her arm. And so she [01:02:00] dies really on and he gets her arm. And then, Dan: That's cool. Mike: What happens is he makes a point of using the armor that she has. And so he becomes this weird amalgamation of Terror and Arana's armored form, which is great. Dan: Was that the Kirkman series? Is that the one that he did or. Mike: yeah. That was part of Marvel Team-Up. Dan: Okay. Mike: it was written by Robert Kirkman. Dan: Well, then I will, I will look it up. Mike: Yeah. And that one's on Marvel unlimited and genuinely a really fun story as I remembered. It's been a couple of years since I read it, but yeah. Dan: Very cool. Mike: So we've talked about this a little bit, but, so

america god love american spotify fear netflix money halloween black children hollywood disney bible house pr future magic books child speaking race marvel mystery japanese devil batman dc evil lgbtq hero tale satan night tales horror adventures strange spider man league epic dark ocean killing superman terror vampires catholic lgbt universal mac senate shadows unknown lake mcu kickstarter brave wikipedia happy halloween spirits lord of the rings sci fi wonder woman invasion thor losers diamond xmen senators steam deadpool hammer savage wolverines frankenstein haunting dracula gamestop creatures substack venom wandavision vhs blade vengeance mist cage vault worked daredevil lsd penguin cabin accessibility hashtags exorcist john carpenter approval innocent readers werewolf shrek evil dead sandman punisher nightmare on elm street dynamite hocus pocus poltergeist occult morbius cape neil gaiman peter jackson gothic nosferatu barker omen dark horse hellraiser seduction mothman oscar wilde crypt handmaid haunt marvel universe mary shelley clive luke cage alan moore hill house satanism surgeon general swamp thing ghost rider ec cg pdfs another world tbd sanderson venn snickers sweet tooth suez canal vincent price new adventures erie christopher lee clive barker random house ns agents of shield body snatchers edgar allen poe soapbox babadook michael j gary busey idw re animator jack kirby lieberman aero paul ryan robert kirkman black lagoon zine arthurian spider woman theseus galactus raimi comixology junji ito ralph macchio necronomicon critical mass mad magazine petaluma saki frighteners parental advisory uzumaki chichester kirkman jason aaron man thing harkness nightbreed crypt keeper hellblazer jeffrey combs powerline arana forbidden love saint george conan doyle joe lieberman elvira mistress john jones daniel d power pack mike thompson gothic horror jack thompson danas ec comics buti mercs lee ermey jim shooter tipper gore horror comics purple planet music bernie wrightson marvel team up johnny blaze midnight sons funkos jerry siegel mike awesome vertigo comics nice house nightstalkers dwayne mcduffie archie goodwin premiumbeat wortham comics code authority srb silver sable klaus janson jr jr comics code new guardians fran walsh bob layton gold key lament configuration boss monster mike it brigman force works dead world ron garney james tynion green lantern green arrow robbie reyes warbucks lee weeks mike no david lapham apocalypse soon mike yeah dan it mike well bloodstrike chi mcbride wwii america mike so dan you mike thank marvel tales carl potts mike oh dan well dan there marvel max dan how dan so hannibal king epic comics mike right mike all terror inc dan oh captain universe comichron mike they dan they shadowline mike stay

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 9: Race Realism

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2021 25:44

Mike Isaacson: Race horses don't even live in a society! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Thanks for joining us for another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. You can get merch and access to early episodes by subscribing to our Patreon. Throw us a donation on our PayPal or CashApp, and we'll toss you some merch as well. Today, we're trashing race realism–the idea that race is biologically real and bears upon behavior and intelligence. With me is Dr. Robert Anemone, who has his PhD from the University of Washington and is professor of biological anthropology and paleoanthropology at UNC Greensboro. His book, Race and Human Diversity: A Biocultural Approach, explores the intersections of race and biology, surveying anthropological and biological knowledge across history up to the present day. Thanks for joining us Dr. Anemone. Robert Anemone: You're very welcome, Mike. Looking forward to it. Mike: So one thing I liked about your book is that at the end of every chapter it has helpful discussion questions to explore the concepts further. So I decided that it wouldn't make much sense for me to write my own questions when yours are right there. Is it okay if I ask you some questions from the book? Robert: Sounds great. Mike: Okay great! So the first one relates to the subtitle of your book. What do anthropologists mean when they talk about using a biocultural approach to some questions like the meaning of race? Robert: Sure. Well, I've found in the literature on race in anthropology, sociology, that a lot of people approach it from one or the other of these sort of paradigms. And yet I really think that to understand race, you have to understand and look at the interaction between these two different paradigms; the biological, evolutionary, and the cultural or social. The biological or the evolutionary perspective recognises that human variation is a result of evolution, you know, that natural selection and the other forces of evolution like mutation and genetic drift have played a role in creating the diversity we see in Homo sapiens. However, that's not the whole story, because the cultural approach is really necessary. We recognise that racial classifications vary over time and space. Societies or cultures create the meanings and stereotypes that they associate with racial groups. So in my book, I really tried to do two things. I explore the biological nature of human diversity from an explicitly evolutionary perspective. For example I try to talk about things like why tropical populations tend to be darker skin than those living in the temperate zones. Or why genetic diseases like, for example, sickle cell anaemia are more common among some human populations than others. But in addition to that sort of biological approach, I examine the historical, the economic, and the political ways in which societies sort of decide that, for example, differences in skin colour reflect deeper, innate inequalities between human populations or individuals. So for me and for many anthropologists, really being able to bring together biological and social or cultural approaches is a more complete way to look at this very complex phenomenon that we call race or racial variation today. Mike: This next one is a good one. In what ways does arbitrariness creep into any attempted racial classification, and how does this help clarify the difficulty that anthropologists have had in answering the question: How many races exist? Robert: Well, it's very interesting that anthropology, which is a field that began in the 19th century with the stated goal of understanding human race and human variation, has never agreed-- We've never agreed on a simple question, how many races exist? Why is that sort of weird? Well, I think the reason is that it's basically impossible to create an objective and scientific classification of human races that everyone will agree on, because there's some really significant arbitrariness that creeps in at several different levels of the analysis. The first place that arbitrary decisions come in is when we decide which trait we're going to base our racial classification on. I mean, skin colour is the obvious one, many people use that. But there are other ways to do it too. There's other variable traits, like, for example, another one that's been used a lot is, you know, blood group genetics. Some people use a combination of skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, body build.... There's all these different traits to choose, and there's no real rules for which one you should use. So people just sort of arbitrarily choose one and ignore the others. Importantly, these different variables are not concordant. They don't evolve similarly. For example, Australian Aboriginals and African populations resemble each other in skin colour, but they're completely different with blood types. So, since the different traits that one might choose are discordant, any classification based on a different trait will end up looking very different. So that's the first level, deciding which trait to base your classification on. The second level where arbitrariness rears its ugly head is that when we realise that most of these traits we're looking at are continuously variable. They vary along a normal distribution or bell curve. And we should know, if we know the most basic statistics, that you cannot really divide a continuously variable trade into a finite group of categories or groups. You can do it, but you can do it in any number of ways. You can do it arbitrarily. For example, skin colour varies continuously across different populations and within populations. Sicilians tend to be darker skin than Irish. But are they different enough to call them a different race or not? Well, it's kind of a judgement call, you know? It's arbitrary. I use the analogy a lot in the book between skin colour and stature to show how impossible it is to really reach objective answers to a question like this, how many races are there? The basic skin colour classifications try to divide the world into light and dark skinned populations. Similar problems though, if you wanted to divide the world into tall and short races. How do you do that? I mean, height is continuously variable, where do you draw the distinctions? You know, how tall is tall? How tall do you have to be to be in this race or that race? In the book, I use the example; being tall is very different in the NBA than it is in the race track. Right? A tall jockey might be 5'7", and 5'7" in the NBA would be quite short. All these things are completely arbitrary. The simple answer is that when you have a continuously variable trait like skin colour, or gene frequencies or stature, you cannot objectively really divide that variation into finite groups in any one way. You can do it in a million different ways, but they're all equally arbitrary. Hence, I think, the 150 years of disagreement among anthropologists in deciding how many human races there are, it's just the wrong question to ask. It can't really be answered based on the continuously varied in nature the traits we're looking at. Mike: I think your book asks a lot of the right questions, right? I guess this next one a lot of Nazis love to misunderstand. Which is, what does it mean to say that race in America is a social construction? Robert: Yeah. I mean, it's a simple fact or statement that basically race means different things at different times in different places. And that the meanings that we associate with race are determined by social groups, typically by those in power, you know? So if we compare the contemporary United States and contemporary Brazil, completely different racial classifications, different terminology, different number of groups, very, very different. Or if we compare race in the United States of 1850 and the United States today. If race was some objective thing, you wouldn't expect it to vary over time and space. But in fact, it completely varies over time and space. In each of these places or times, there live different experiences of people are very different. Right? The ideas that people carry around in their heads with them about what, for example, black people or Latin people are like, are different. The very names we use in classifying different races are different in all these settings. So we're just saying that basically, what we think about race is sort of decided by groups in power in different societies. Now, this doesn't mean that race is not real, or that there are no biological differences between individuals, between groups, or that race is not important. It really just means that we, society's cultures, create the meanings associated with race. And again, I find a useful analogy here between race and kinship. What does it mean to be a brother or a cousin or an uncle? And this varies in different societies, both race and kinship are based on biological differences and similarities, right? And kinship is sort of based on the percentage of genes you share with people, right? A cousin shares a certain amount of genes with an individual. But the meanings that we associate with a cousin or an uncle, how you relate to a cousin or an uncle, can be very different in different societies. You know, my students always groan when I tell them that Charles Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, but I then tell them that first cousins were considered ideal marriage partners for upper class Victorian Englishmen. Not so much for contemporary Americans. So, kinship in the sense of who we marry and in general, how we relate to and behave towards our relatives, is also a cultural construction. Very similar to race, I think. There's some biology there, but then there's a lot of cultural notions, cultural ideas, stereotypes that go along with it, that sort of structure our behaviour and what we think about these people. Mike: This next one you kind of alluded to earlier, and this is when I have difficulty explaining to people when I argue that race isn't biology. Describe the clinal variation seen in the skin colour in the old world, and discuss how vitamin D skin cancer rickets and foley play a role in explaining this cline. Robert: This is really one of the classic and one of the best documented stories of how natural selection has shaped human evolution. We've known really since 1960s that if we look at the map of sort of where Aboriginal traditional living peoples have lived in the old world, we see this gradual geographic variation in skin colour that when you're at the Equator or close to the equator, people who've lived there traditionally tend to be very dark skin, lots of melanin, right? That's the pigment in our skin, in our eyes, and our hair. And as you move closer to the poles, skin colour tends to lighten up. People have known this for a long time. And the traditional idea has always been that well, melanin protects against the harmful effects of, of solar radiation, protects against like skin cancer, and things of that sort. So therefore, it's adaptive to have dark skin in the tropics because there's so much ultraviolet radiation. But when overall populations spread from the tropics to the temperate zones–of course, we evolved in the tropics with almost certainly evolved with dark skin colour, the first humans certainly had dark skin colour–but when their descendants moved to Northern and Southern climes away from the from the tropics and the equator, all of a sudden, the lower levels of ultraviolet radiation led to lightning and skin colour because they do have to worry about skin cancer and things of that sort. But if you had really dark skin and you live in like Scotland, it's hard to create enough vitamin D in your skin to avoid rickets and sort of soft bones, you know? Because the calcified tissues, you know, the bones and teeth require vitamin D. And we only really get vitamin D through solar radiation in our skin. There are very few things that humans eat other than oily fish that have too much vitamin D in them. Mike: And you mentioned the exception, generally, with Inuit peoples and the skin colour changes. Robert: Yeah. It's not a perfect thing, and people have moved around the world quite a bit. You know the Inuit are darker, but It's not a perfect correlation. I'm not sure if there's a great answer for some particular populations. But there's been a recent sort of addition to this whole thing, because the weak point in this whole theory was that; well, skin cancer tends to kill you when you're old, long after you've been able to reproduce. Natural selection doesn't work very well with things that kill you in your 50s or 60s or 70s, right? But my colleague, Nina Jablonski, some years ago, looked at another piece of this puzzle and it's fully one of the B vitamins which is in our bloodstream. And it turns out that foley is damaged by high ultraviolet radiation in light skin. So, dark skin protects against skin cancer but also protects against the destruction of folate. And we also know now that low levels of folate in pregnant women lead to increased incidents of neural tube defects like spina bifida. And natural selection would work brilliantly against this. So if you have really light skin colour and you're living in the tropics, you would be at a serious disadvantage because you would have low levels of folate and your offspring would tend to be born at high frequencies with these very serious problems. So natural selection seems to have really, you know, been the cause of the variation that we see in skin colour. And it's again, final variation just means it's variation over geographic space. So it gradually lightens as you move away from the equators towards the poles. It's kind of an interesting combination of things like vitamin D and its effect on bone growth and bone calcification, skin cancer, folate, and all these things leading to this variation of skin colour. Which then sort of becomes the basis of racial classifications. But the interesting story about skin colour, of course, is not whether people with dark skin or light skin are superior, but how each of these two skin colours have kind of evolved in particular environments. And it's really a great example, one of our best examples, of how natural selection has shaped some of the variation that we see in modern humans. It's an evolutionary story, right? The cultural stuff sort of comes in later but originally, skin colour variation is all about natural selection. It's all about biological variation and how natural selection sort of shapes that in different environments. Mike: Right. Going back to the classification question, one of the conceits of race realists and racists in general, is taken for granted that race is natural. But race has a history. So again, another question from the book. When, where, and under what circumstances did the concept of human races first appear in the Western world? Robert: Race definitely has a history, and it is a relatively brief one at that. Historians have demonstrated that the notion of deep innate significant differences between human populations was not something that was present in the ancient world, say the Greeks and Romans. Certainly, they had slavery, but skin colour played no role in determining who was slave and who was master. Right?Slaves were not considered deeply inferior by nature. Slaves could purchase their freedom, they could be freed, and they could become Roman citizens. Slavery was typically the fate of those defeated in warfare. It wasn't until really the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries in Europe, that the notion of deep and innate inequalities between global populations was created, followed quickly by the notion of chattel slavery-- lifetime slavery in which people were not even considered humans based simply on skin colour. At the time, the Europeans were heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian notion that's called the Great chain of being. This idea that God's creation ranges from the simplest living things to the most complex, sort of on a chain, or a scale or a ladder. And then at the top, of course of the angels and God up above at the top. So the notion of hierarchy was really built into the European worldview at the time. And when Europeans met for the first time, the new African, Asian, Pacific Islander, American populations, they immediately try to fit them into their notion of the great chain of being Where did these new populations fit? Where did the dark skinned people fit in the great chain? And, you know, anthropologists talk a lot about ethnocentrism, this notion that, you know, one's own culture is somehow superior to others. It was clearly ethnocentrism that led European Caucasians to put themselves at the top of the great chain just below the angels, and put these new dark skinned populations lower closer to the apes-- lower on the great chain and therefore less than deserving of fully human or even humane treatment. So we see that colonialism and imperialism are really closely tied to the origins of their racial worldview as they still are today. It's a definite history. It's a recent history, it's not something that's been with us forever, and it doesn't have to be with us forever. We can change these things, these ideas are, are not written in stone. They can be changed. Mike: Yeah, that notion of the great chain of being. It still has echoes in fascist thought, too. It reflects not just a theory of kind of biological variation among different species, and races by extension, according to these people, but also between various classes of people. I mean, it kind of explains the the class structure of society or intends to Robert: Sure. I think the common idea here is hierarchy. Certain classes, certain races, certain genders are higher, better, more worthwhile than others. Absolutely similar. Mike: Okay, here's a thorny one to wrap up with. Why are many anthropologists skeptical of the proposition that IQ scores provide a reasonable measure of the innate intelligence of individuals and populations? Robert: This is a very thorny issue, isn't it? It's probably one that is highly influenced by the political leanings of individuals who talk about it. But it certainly is true that anthropologists are skeptical of what IQ tests can tell us about innate differences in human intelligence. And I think there are many reasons for this, some historical. I mean, if we started historically, if we look at the history of IQ testing, we see that the early IQ tests that were developed in the first half of the 20th century, in the First World War and the Second, they were seriously flawed. Stephen Jay Gould has really best documented the cultural biases and the methodological problems in much of this research. So while I'm no expert in intelligence testing, I'm certain that modern tests are not crudely biassed against minorities like these early ones were. But I still remain a skeptic of whether a single test can array individuals along the linear dimension of intelligence. The idea that an IQ score, a simple number, can be independent of their background, their privilege, and their schooling is is tough for me to swallow. Any psychologist today following Howard Gardner advocate the notion of multiple intelligences that a single IQ score doesn't tell us much. We can learn much more by studying people's spatial intelligence, their mathematical intelligence, their social intelligence, kinesthetic, spatial... all these multiple intelligences. So I think intelligence is a very complex thing. It's tough to reduce it to a single number on a single scale. And finally, there's a sort of a methodological reason that, or maybe a philosophical reason that many anthropologists are skeptical of this notion. And that is that most anthropologists probably consider themselves to be interactionists. We are opposed to pure genetic determinism and opposed to pure environmental determinism, right? So when we consider the development of complex human traits like intelligence, it makes great sense to us that both genes and environment play a serious role. I mean, there's much evidence that environment does play an enormous role on adult intelligence. And while genetics certainly plays some role also, I think many anthropologists are convinced that the best interpretation is that adult intelligence is a multifaceted thing that is probably not reducible to a single IQ score, and that it is strongly influenced by both genetics and environment. And intelligence itself, I mean, finally, a very difficult thing to define and a very difficult thing to measure. So I think the story is complex, the simple idea that everybody's intelligence is simply encoded in our genes is almost certainly incorrect. No one has found a gene for intelligence. Clearly, you can mess with genes and lead to mental problems. So genes play a role. But there's no simple story that there's a gene for intelligence and some populations have more copies of the good gene than others. Mike: Yeah. The claims of eugenicists, ultimately, is that these genes are concordant with race, right? That somehow there is a co-determination genetically between race and IQ. And we don't have evidence for a genetic causation, well, a direct genetic traceable causation for either one, much less a co-determination. Right? Robert: Yeah, absolutely not. Those eugenic notions come from a really outdated, sort of very simplistic Mendelian model–that there's a gene for skin colour, and there's a gene for intelligence. We know intelligence as a very complex genetic thing or probably hundreds of genes that influence one's adult intelligence, one's ability to learn... It's clearly not a simple Mendelian thing like, you know, pea plants with either the gene for tall plants or short plants. Those kinds of notions are just genetically very naive and really outdated. Mike: All right. Well, Dr. Anemone, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast and helping me trash race realism. Again, the book is Race and Human Diversity out from Routledge. You could follow Dr. Anemone on Twitter @paleobob. Thanks again. Robert: Thank you very much, Mike. It was fun. Mike: If you enjoyed this episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast, consider becoming a Patreon subscriber. Patrons get exclusive access to early episodes and a shipment of stickers and even zines depending on how much you give. Don't want to commit to monthly donations? No problem. Make a one-time donation to our CashApp or PayPal with your name and address, and I'll send you some merch. [Theme song]

Assault on Philadelphia's Earth (In the Style of an Alien Invasion Movie like Independence Day, War of the Worlds, or Skyline)

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 28, 2021 69:03

In this episode, we pay homage to the fantastic genre of alien invasion movies. Movies like Independence Day, Skyline, War of the Worlds, etc. Aliens arrive, and though their intentions are unclear at first, we quickly learn that they are not here to be peaceful and make friends. It's up to a military leader and her scientist ex to figure out how to stop the invasion and save the world. This episode has love, drama, and port-a-potties (yes, port-a-potties)! Links Independence Day movie on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film) War of the Worlds on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Worlds_(2005_film) Skyline on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(2010_film) Time Codes Segment 1 - Discussion the Genre Tropes: 03:30 Segment 2 - Creating the Movie Outline: 09:47 Segment 3 - Picking the Improv Comedy Games: 16:36 Start of show: 24:55 Improv Game - Movie Trailer: 25:17 Improv Game - Best of Times Worst of Times: 26:53 Improv Game - One Word at a Time Typewriter: 34:30 Improv Game - Blind Line: 46:15 Improv Game - Cutting Room: 56:23 End of show, into announcements: 1:07:17 More Information About the Show, Mike, and Avish Subscribe to the podcast: Our Website: www.AvishAndMike.com Our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/143183833647812 Avish's site: www.AvishParashar.com Mike's site: www.MikeWorthMusic.com/ Transcription of the “Discussing the Genre Tropes” Segment (Unedited and Un-Cleaned up) Avish: What do you think when you think of a big budget alien invasion movie. Mike: Oh boy well so to start with um there's always the ominous foreshadowing right so it's always like. Mike: You know they find some alien tech like buried in like in guardians all over the world or look there's an establishing shot, so they let you know, right from the get go that something bad's going on. Mike: that's because the establishing act one usually act one is all about the impending dread of the arrival of the Aliens in a mysterious fashion and the US in various countries trying to establish contact with it it's almost always like that right. Avish: yeah they figured out that they're not sure, a lot of time is. Avish: Are they friendly are they dangerous in the first act it's a lot of. Avish: there's like usually there's like a military character or group that knows the Aliens are there knows the Aliens are coming, but then there's like the general populace, that is, like just discovering the aliens and not sure what's going on with them. Mike: Right right right and. Mike: You know act one usually ends with the first blast of aggression that's that's the crossing of the threshold right where it's. Avish: Like a big I mean independent they certainly. Avish: Had big aggression, but a lot. Mike: yeah. Mike: And then they did you know what they did, which was really cool and this is, if we can try and boy, this is a bridge too far, maybe, but we should try it. Mike: Independence Day nail it because they had three crossing of the threshold at the same time, so the chopper was destroyed. Mike: At the same time that the scientists will, at that time there was a doomsday timer at the same time that all the ships start opening up their lights on top of New York City. Mike: So it was like every every every feeler from our planet, that was out was getting was getting. Avish: Like a lot of shifts we're hitting a lot of fans all. Mike: The shifts in the fans yeah. Avish: that's right, then we get into the um there's a lot of scrambling like there's a total overwhelm right like the Aliens are always just. Mike: completely outside yeah absolutely dominant right then act two is the regroup and usually the counter attack and the best part is well I. Avish: Think, part two, is like the over like act one is where we're learning we're not sure Act two is where the Aliens just dominate. Avish: X three I feel is when you get kind of we're getting more proactive we're going to fight back, but it usually is relatively ineffective. Mike: mate right. Avish: You know okay we're going to drop the nuke and Independence Day, and that does nothing. Mike: yep or in or in Independence Day, though the knockoff them like virtus scored they may mount a couple of offenses in the early, just like wipe them out like just because they're just. Mike: underground and stuff like that now they're usually has to be a macguffin that changes the tide something involving human ingenuity and usually involving like the little rogue science team to kind of figure something out right. Avish: Well it's always yeah it's it's the the other civilian version like there was, like the civilian in the military yeah the civilian figure something out Independence Day, with the virus in war of the worlds, it was a real virus. Mike: yeah but we're the world's this is kind of funny like it's one of the few movies, where the humans had nothing to do with just defeated the. Avish: retrospective terrible storytelling. Mike: yeah yeah so it's a great. Avish: ultimate deus ex machina it's like. Avish: Oh yeah yeah yeah you're. Avish: gonna wipe you out, but the common cold cold. Mike: Because he's angel these aliens all this advanced technology that hungered for our world didn't research, the common virus and bacteria. Avish: Like insides where they didn't research, the planet was covered in water. Mike: yeah so 1% water yes. Avish: We, for our story we'd like a more proactive, but it could also be the author trope that comes up a lot, which I don't know we're gonna do is the hive mind alien queen trope where it's like. Avish: yeah discovered to fight back you know we don't need to destroy the entire alien race which is dominant we. Avish: got killed. Mike: queen yeah the board the board idea that you know. Avish: The Board mind or yeah a lot of. Avish: Like rain of fire which is dragons not aliens but it's like hey we killed. Avish: The Queen dragon and all the dragons die, so I. Mike: Actually, never saw that it looks good and cool. Avish: I saw it in the theater I don't remember very much about it, which should tell you something. Avish: it's yeah my recollection is I wouldn't call it a good movie, but it may have been a fun movie. Mike: you've already reminded me that there will be, because any trope there will be a Matthew mcconaughey character in our in our. Avish: character. Mike: yeah and he's gonna be in our show. Mike: Because now. Avish: Oh there's almost always um. Some. Avish: relationship in peril you know there's like the estranged. Avish: husband and wife back to each other or the father trying to save the sound of the mother trying to say or in shark NATO, where it was the guy from beverly hills. Mike: No, I know from American pie, I engineering and Terry fantastic some kind of like. Avish: To the main characters will be connected. Avish: Yes, some kind of romance or love. Mike: There is usually a general slash military leader who is initially at odds with the heroes and heroin, but then has kind of a come to Jesus thing and at three and four. Avish: yeah they're not like evil they're just. Avish: opinionated damien's yeah. Avish: yeah yeah and that's our five minutes, I think the final thing i'll throw in there is. Avish: Most of these don't have a real villain like the entire alien race is like the villain does not like a head alien. Avish: Even if it's a queen it's not like. Avish: Being a character. Mike: and much of the conflict actually allies, with a disaster movie it's like they're trying to escape a building as it's getting nuked by laser bolts or. Mike: You know the the Aliens blow up a dam and obviously it's a way it's a cheap way for people to get like a little disaster movie in there it's like Oh, they start a forest fire and you have to flee and now you have to be you have to fight, you have to defeat. Avish: Yes, I like a lot of times yeah when they are blowing stuff up the Aliens are the disaster like Independence Day, the first half of that movie is like pure just disaster movie. Mike: Exactly so that's yeah that's your thing we got to think of it's like there's a healthy component to disaster before that it's not like Star Wars or star trek where it's like SCI fi space flights and stuff. Avish: All right. Mike: we're good place we're in a good spot. Transcription of the “Creating the Outline” Segment (Unedited and Un-Cleaned up) Avish: For this movie it's going to be rough in a high level and because we're going to be using improv games to play this we may end up veering from the outline in minor ways, or even a major ways, but this is kind of our starting point. Mike: yeah we reserve the right to change anything and everything exactly. Avish: But this is what we're going to kind of roughly stick to you, so our five minute timer starts now alright so for this one you're thinking prologue well, so we always start your first time listening, where we start with a prologue or a movie trailer. Avish: We want a prologue of the Aliens arriving and all that or do you want just the movie trailer. Avish: of you. Mike: can see it either way man, you make the call today. Mike: I like them both. Avish: The movie trailer, for we last couple times we don't a prologue so let's do a trailer. Mike: yeah yeah yeah. Avish: alright. Avish: So now for outline what happens in act one. Avish: Of the Aliens need to arrive and people need to find out the military and the civilian need to find out. Mike: Right military finds out first. Mike: And they have to find out, first because they need to start mobilizing their stuff to be ahead of the civilian population. Mike: yeah realizing response alright a. Avish: Civilian a the civilians to find out, we also need to establish the relationship for the civilian right like. Mike: yeah and and let's keep it simple let's let's go with the. Mike: main hero. Mike: Love interest. Avish: I mean, if you want it, and this can come out of the improv you want to keep it simple also one thing there's like the coincidence right so it's like. Avish: It could be the military person and the civilian main character are like husband wife or access or boyfriend girlfriend or you know, instead of having an extra character which sometimes when we're doing improv can get a little confusing. Mike: Man all right, our accents are only so good. Mike: We only have I only have so many American deal with you know that, should we can do that a main character mean here leverages military commander, we have to establish. Mike: Now now do we want the main hero to have agency in terms of like there's a reason he wants to defeat the Aliens or is he just caught up in it and just happens to be heroic. Avish: Well, I think the military one wants to defeat the aliens and the civilian one just kind of gets caught up maybe because they're connected to the military person or there. Mike: huh yeah. Avish: It just happened to be. Mike: I haven't read yet tell me this is like look look getting too granular but, like the Aliens had some tech they're using the setup the assault and the main hero gets a hold of the tech or translates the tech or somehow is able to use it against the aliens. Avish: yeah I think that's good that's kind of like how Jeff goldblum figured out the countdown codependent thing. Avish: yeah all right, and then at the end of by the end of act one the Aliens will have attacked like. Mike: yeah and then there's this just mass destruction that. Avish: yeah maybe attempt contact. Avish: And then attack yep. Mike: And it bleeds out the attacks bleed over into active, because at the end of Act two is going to be a bunch of disaster scenes you know what I mean like you know that i'm trying to get through. Avish: And that's it's gonna be a lot of like yeah vignettes of disaster scrambling attacks. Mike: yeah. Mike: Military getting pummeled. Mike: Civilians fleeing right. Avish: And at this point if they haven't connected in Act two, I think, is when our main characters we'll all meet up like if we've got a military and civilian and maybe a third one they'll all kind of connected this point. Mike: All parties unify and a location yeah. Mike: See, I would, I would say I don't always like oh man, I wonder what they didn't like escape from La or whatever it is battlefield la but and watch those movies were like apparently horrible like battleship was horrible. Avish: battles a battle Los Angeles was. Avish: Okay, it was mildly entertaining. Avish: So I think at the end of Act two is when kind of everyone gets together. Mike: yeah and then, and then the yeah and then at three is usually the prep retaliatory strike. Avish: yeah and real quick if you're listening and you're familiar with story and act structure of most use a three act structure we use a four were basically divide out to into. Avish: Act two and three, because actually longer now, we have had the first half of us the reactive, the second half is proactive so. Mike: Right games, you want to talk about the end of the big act to block so. Avish: Act three right. Mike: good guys do retaliatory strike yeah. Avish: They formulate a plan and retaliate work. Mike: Usually the strike is ineffective to mildly effective, you know we'll give them the BAT you know it did it doesn't But then what usually happens is. Mike: Civilian main characters. Mike: discover macguffin right. Avish: yeah or though I think I will have like the end of act three like that's kind of how it they kind of figured out so. Mike: yeah I. Avish: figured out at the end, I think, in addition to the. Avish: I think this is where you get the big disagreement, you know you're saying how the middle of like the there's usually a more veteran military leader, I think this is where the disagreement kind of comes to a head. Mike: yeah we're the leader. Avish: In effect, tool and then they kind of have to turn to the civilian solution. Mike: mm hmm exactly and then act for is usually mounting the the assault yeah. Avish: And i'll plan and usually there's a heightened sense of danger, like the the Aliens figure out where the good guys are hiding or they have captured you know the someone important to the the main characters. Mike: yep and and yeah and the heightened sense of danger, this is the last chance, where I know we're a little over but it's all right, usually a split narrative usually there's like. Mike: When you're looking at the military side of it used to be epic battle and usually there's a smaller commando team is doing something else. Mike: You know, to mean like again yeah. Avish: This is very independent and if we're going, I mean may get too confusing for our forum, but if we had a third, to be like the third will be like. Avish: The by standards civilians like trying to stay safe there's like counter attack small desperate strike force and then everyone else just trying to survive. Mike: Right exactly. Avish: And Randy quaid flying a plane. Mike: Wait wait with the new version one with a. Avish: A biplane and like a crop missing. Mike: So, by the way, because you guys are listening, and this is how funny love this stuff that apparently that scene was in the original test screening of Independence Day Randy quaid character. Avish: or SCI fi on like YouTube the original. Mike: Like and apparently the audience just. Mike: They were like yeah X that. Avish: Terrible. Avish: I don't know and he, like. Avish: It missile like strapped in the backseat of his plane. Mike: yeah yeah like. Mike: Worst armory gunnery sergeant ever like you just let's go walk off with the sidewinder. Mike: Alright, so so. Mike: Cheap.

Blossoming Necromancer (In the Style of Mythica and a Dungeons and Dragons Movie or Game)

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 9, 2021 81:04

About this episode In this episode, we pay homage to fantasy movies in general (like the fun Mythica series) and Dungeons and Dragons movies and games. Yes, there is a scene in a tavern... We both love these types of movies and games, so we were really looking forward to the chance to play around in this genre. Links: Dungeons and Dragons on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons The Dungeons and Dragons Movie on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_(2000_film) Mythica on Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/Mythica-Quest-Heroes-Robert-Jayne/dp/B00ZN31MK6 Time codes Segment 1: 04:38 Segment 2: 09:55 Segment 3: 16:25 Start of show: 25:18 Improv Game - Ding: 25:24 Improv Game - Emotional Lists: 30:58 Improv Game - Superheroes: 39:43 Improv Game - Best of Times, Worst of Times: 48:02 Improv Game - Cutting Room: 58:30 End of show, into announcements: 1:18:55 More Information about the show, Mike, and Avish Subscribe to the podcast: Our Website: www.AvishAndMike.com Our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/143183833647812 Avish's site: www.AvishParashar.com Mike's site: www.MikeWorthMusic.com/ Transcription of the “Discussing the Genre Tropes” Segment (Unedited and un-cleaned up) Avish: Alright, so segment one - Discussing the genre tropes alright, Avish: So now we're going to spend five minutes just talking about the commonalities cliches tropes of the genre and it's something we're well versed in so Mike. Avish: When you think of a fantasy dungeons and dragons style movie what comes to mind. Mike: Well, first it's almost always a party based a party based system, even though there is usually one major well in the film there's usually one major protagonist but this protagonist always has to be supported by. Mike: The various specialist right there's always going to be the tank or the fighter the wizard the crafty rogue you know I mean like we don't even need. To be in there. Avish: yeah very in thief and. Mike: And acrobat. Mike: Right, so all that you know clerical that stuff as a matter of fact, the mythic I think we had cleric wizard fighter in thief I think was the was the Holy quadruple. Avish: Another thief is over the fighter user client on the magic user and yeah. Avish: I would say the hero is often not always but often some kind of a chosen one or you know. Mike: or gifted uniquely or something like that yeah. Avish: yeah it's like they're special. Avish: it's not random. Avish: it's not just Frodo you know carrying a ring it's like. Avish: yeah oh my God you're able to do that, and no one can do that cool. Mike: yeah yeah totally the magic in the the part of job is that magic does exist it's not like one of these conan ones where. Mike: magic is kind of like it's like low fantasy or magic kind of reviled no no there's there's magic and there's you know. Avish: it's around knows about it, it exists and it's a big part of the story. Mike: yeah exactly uh. Avish: So we're gonna there's monsters usually often a dragon or. Avish: Yes, troll like some kind of big bad monster. Mike: yep there's gonna be there's gonna be. Mike: The monster scale up through the movie so the initial attacks are with little things like orcs and knowles and all that stuff and then they usually encounter a couple of like sub bosses right like Trolls or like a minute or something like that. Mike: And you know that it culminates in like usually an epic battle when they go up against the head bad guy was good to second there's one epic battle against a large evil monster, where the party has to use their resources and come together. Mike: Oh that's The other thing the party kind of has to learn to trust each other and there's like you know some act one, I want to say bickering but like posturing and kind of things like. Avish: That I don't know for my sake of time, a lot of times in these the party is formed over the course of the movie that may take too much time for our improv format, you know, but a lot of times like Oh, they meet the thief Oh, then they meet the fighter Oh, then they meet the cleric. I mean may or may not have that. Mike: yeah it's kind of in Bremen time musicians, you know there's always a single had bad guy even if he's the member of a larger cult or a larger government there's always a head bad guy which they have to take down at the end of the movie. Avish: That is always. Either a wizard or hazmat. Mike: Yes, yes, exactly so let's just for the sake of this just make sure the BAT let's just had a bad guy be a wizard or spell a spell caster yeah. Avish: Oh, he may or may not also be the monster or the monster, maybe a secondary. Mike: Right his lieutenant um let me think what else, what else what are some other okay that's the setup the tropes the adventures they go through their i'm. Avish: busy yes here's the like quests or or obstacles there's there's almost always a journey right there trying to get from point A to Point B. Mike: Yes, um it depends upon how deep you want to get we actually refer back to even crawl for this. Mike: there's two there's two reasons you do the quests in the shows or other information quests trying to find out where the guy lives or they're stockpiling quests it's like I gotta get the magic scroll or I got to get the destiny hammer. Avish: Right, I think it's yeah I think it's a, I think it's much more cliche to say we have to go find the weapon to use to defeat the whatever. Mike: yeah the glade. If the glue well, what do you think um there's all you know all the characters are all the secondary characters that show up our character chores and or pastiche is there's like very little like. There's very little thought going into depth with these characters that's half the fun is that you're like. Avish: Oh it's a toy J. Mike: One knows a drunken fighter right he's here's a here's a half length okay he's going to be a nimble tongue, you know sneaky little TV kind of guy right. Avish: yeah yeah there's not a lot of not game of thrones or each character is like very complex yeah. Mike: or like ever on the whole point of the DVD Rom was like oh yeah you can have like a good cobalt and an evil Elf. Avish: You know kind of thing yeah that's gonna give us wisecracking your fighters off your cleric has overly pious like it's. Mike: yeah it's got no money we break it up this way this, this is an astonishingly like simplistic set of tropes we've we've broken down movies, that have been a lot more nuanced than this. Avish: yeah this just gets complicated because when you got a party got and then like it's like a lot can be a lot of plot can be a lot of characters none of those things are particularly deep or complex. Avish: New Right, and that is the end of our five minute timer. Mike: sounds good to me. Transcription of the “Creating the Outline” Segment (Unedited and un-cleaned up) Avish: Alright, so now, this is where we spend five minutes hashing out creating an outline for the movie we're going to do we're going to do we're going to use a four act structure which is similar three but we take the big actor and break it into two halves so we have for X. We're going to cover the outline now but because this is improv and improv comedy with games and we're things we may veer from this, but this is our kind of our kind of lifeline will use so let's reset the timer. Mike: yep one resume to change any and everything. Avish: Exactly alright so to discuss the outline we usually start with a trailer or prologue I feel when you're talking epic fantasy slash dungeon dragons the almost it's almost always a prologue. Mike: I think, so too, if you want to set the stage. Avish: yeah that prologue is usually something involving either the bad guy or the history or the object. Mike: Yes, yes, the pro level you either be showing the bad guy and why is evil as nefarious plan right or a scene with the macguffin object. Avish: mode this it's like the bad guy you see him being nefarious like he's trying to implement his big world ending plan, but it fails, and then you realize it fails because Oh, we don't have the macguffin. Mike: Right. Avish: He realized Oh, you know where is the macguffin and then. Mike: yeah now the only thing is in in fantasy oftentimes the macguffin device it's a subtle difference does actually have some useful powers like. Avish: yeah real macguffin like has no actual impact. Mike: Right, the Maltese falcon right it's everybody wants it know or or the The case of golden the tarantino film. Avish: Pulp Fiction right yeah this is yeah it actually does something but yeah you'll kind of learn about it, and maybe the bad guy. Mike: yep alright so act one. Avish: Act one we obviously meet the hero almost always some kind of a simple villager. Mike: yeah this is hero's journey 101 right it's like the everyday you know i'm, then you know let's play the hero's journey card like they get a call to adventure somebody helped me obi wan kenobi you're my only hope so i'm like that. Avish: they're usually yeah either they they stumble across either the either the objects or the bad guys, you know, like um you know they're out in the world, and you know they see someone being attacked, so they intervene or they kind of fall in a cave and they find this object like Oh, what is it so. Mike: yeah yeah i'm. Avish: accidentals how they get. Avish: Initially embroiled in the. Mike: Right and then you know what here's what's gonna happen, I think the hero needs to go out to fix the evil, but as woefully unequipped and must recruit help that's how the party's gonna kind of right. Avish: yeah so at the end of act one is when he kind of sets out probably on his own, and I was actually kind of start gathering up the party. Mike: yeah exactly so it says how to stop the body. But is it under prepared needs help. Avish: Yes, busy, and act one something bad will happen, it will be kind of thrust out to. Mike: who's literally is like reading like Star Wars it's like. it's like Jesus is like. Avish: How to gather his pilot and is wiki and. Active active. Mike: gathers his party and then a series now for the impromptu we just want to be like a couple of requests. Avish: And I know you like one question act by one question each. You know act like act act to me will be the quest to find out where the object is And then act three will be them questing to get the object. Mike: yeah. Avish: back to the quest to learn act threes the quest to get but then at three is going to end in some kind of a encounter disaster where they. You know, lose to the bad guy or they lose the object like they get it, but then they lose it like a bad guy gets it, and so the kind of all is lost moment. Mike: yeah yeah yeah What did you these happens, they lose either either lose the macguffin. or bad guy captures some of the party. Avish: or both. Mike: or all your all right, you know, are all the party right, you know and then what happens in act for is the ingenious rescue of party. Requiring. Avish: And then the final confrontation. Mike: Or the macguffin yep and then final confrontation. Which is almost always one of two things it's a big. Big bad monster fight. Right or a stop the big bad evil guy plans. timed it's almost always like the rituals happening and. Avish: As yeah there's urgency and usually there's some kind of twist on how to beat the bad guy it's not just like oh I killed him with my sword it's usually like oh I realized that if I you know kill his cat that will force him and i'll be his familiar so he'll be dead, then. Mike: This factory, because the. Avish: last thing i'll say runs out of time here is that X. X to certainly and even in act three you know the hero is often like. ineffectual insecure lacking confidence and act, the kind of the finale is where he steps into his or her accepts his role and confidence and realizes, the key to his power. Mike: Yes, and and the and the last other one to that is a party has trouble in the beginning kind of finding its groove. But the PowerPoint have asked for, is that the parties working together smoothly as a team they figured out each other's strengths in the way to support each other that's a really important part for good. fantasy right it's okay if they're if they're screwing up in the afternoon at three and they're like fighting against that fighting, but like they're not. Avish: optimizing but they're optimized by at for. Alright awesome all right good, that is the end of our outlining days. Mike: so simple when you put it. In a fantasy novel.

Issue 14: The New Guardians

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 2, 2021 57:08

This week, we're taking a look at The New Guardians! DC's short-lived attempt at a topical superhero comic is... look. Just strap in. This is one of the wildest comic rides you'll ever go on. ----more---- Episode 14 Transcript Mike: [00:00:00] Y'all need Satan. Mike: Welcome to Ten Cent Takes, the podcast where we cringe at cursed comics, one issue at a time. My name is Mike Thompson, and I am joined by my cohost, the taskmaster of trivia herself, Jessika Frazer. Jessika: Ooh, it is I. Mike: How are you doing tonight? Jessika: Oh, pretty good. How are you? Mike: Uh, you know, I, I can't complain the week is coming to an end, so it's, something I'm looking forward to is this weekend and just chillin' out. Jessika: Thank goodness. Yes, my BFF is in town, so that's, I'm very excited. She lives in Maine, so it's like very, very exciting that she is here. She's from around here, but just like visiting right now. So yes, I'm excited. Mike: That's rad. If you're [00:01:00] new to the show, the purpose of this podcast is to study comic books in ways that are both fun and informative, hopefully. What we like to do is we like to look at some of the weirdest, strangest, silliest, or coolest moments in comic books, and then talk about how they are woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today, we are going to be looking at the New Guardians, one of DC's stranger and more interesting maxi series that they produced from the 1980s. All right. Jessika: I'm vigorously shaking my head, as you were saying. And I'm just like, here we go. Mike: That was not a face that said my body is ready. Jessika: No, it's, it's not ready. Like, I mean, there's no lie. Mike: I, I don't know. I, I don't know if anybody can truly be ready to talk about the New Guardians.[00:02:00] Jessika: Are we going to have to put some sort of a warning? We're absolutely gonna have to put a warning on this episode. Like if you have little ears, please, I don't care what other episode, like we throw the F bomb around if that's your thing. That's fine. Most episodes are probably okay for that. But this one, please put the little ears away. Because I'm not holding back. Mike: We're going to have to do an extra swearing warning is what you're saying. Jessika: Yeah. Like we'll have almost a content warning. I mean, we're getting into some, some heavy content this episode. Mike: All right. Before we do that, though, we should talk about one cool thing that we've read or watched recently. So why don't you take it? Jessika: So knowing full well that I'm very behind in my media consumption. I watched the first episode of Star Wars' the Bad Batch. Mike: Oh, nice. Yeah, that looks like a really cool show. Jessika: It's really good. Yes. I [00:03:00] really, really liked it. The first episode was legit, almost movie length. It's 70 minutes long. Mike: Wow. Jessika: And I wasn't really expecting that. So I was, as I was watching it I'm like how long if I've been watching this show? Like, I mean, it was really good. I was involved and everything, but at one point I was just like, how long has this been? And I did the little button and I was like, oh, that makes sense. So it just was kind of. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: I love how the show is recreating the bits that we don't get to see about the rise of the empire and what that looked like from the inside of like the empire itself, which is so fascinating. And the computer animation is really neat. The 3d appearance gives it like some realism and depth. Mike: Yeah. And from what I've seen is that animation style that they kind of started with 15 years ago with the clone wars series. That's kind of continued on, right? Yeah. I've only [00:04:00] watched a little of that, but that stuff has gotten so cool with all the different things that they've done with it. Jessika: It really has. So yeah, I'm excited. I'm gonna watch some more of that one. And what about you? What are you checking out? Mike: Well, Sarah and I watched the Suicide Squad last weekend and we really enjoyed it, but I want to talk about that later on. I started reading a new comic series that I picked up at Brian's Comics in Petaluma over the weekend, it's called Nocterra, and it's from Image comics. It's written by it's written by Scott Snyder and it's illustrated by Tony S Daniel. And it, it gives me similar vibes to Undiscovered Country, which is another series from Image and Snyder himself. I'm only one issue in, but the core concept is that it's this post-apocalyptic world a couple of decades after something called the big PM. Basically that is permanent night's settled over everything and all of these spooky monsters that they, they spiritually feel a little bit like the xenomorphs from Aliens, but they don't look like them.[00:05:00] They reside in the darkness and they can only be kept at bay with bright lights. The comic is following Val, who was a young girl when the big PM hit as she has since become a ferryman, which is, she's basically a big rig trucker, but she's transporting cargo and that can be people, or it can be other things between the different outposts of humanity. And the first issue sees her getting hired by this mysterious guy who is all of a sudden he shows her that he is sporting a fresh sunburn. And, and that's kind of where it's going from there. It's interesting. I'm really curious to see where it goes. So, yeah, I'm gonna head back up to the shop and pick up the other issues that they have. Jessika: Very fun. Mike: Yeah. Mike: All right. Are you ready to actually do this? Jessika: Uh, yeah. Mike: All right. Jessika: There was pain in my voice, but we're here. [00:06:00] You gave me an out earlier to be totally, to be totally fair. Mike: I did. Okay. So, this episode is happening because you were the one who sent me a TikTok from Nikhil Clayton, who, first of all, he is absolutely delightful and he has a series called What the Fuck Comics, and this particular video was focused on a character called Hemogoblin, who is literally a white supremacist AIDS vampire. And then if you want to do a. I feel like we need to play this so that our listeners can hear the delightful summary of how batshit this character was. Jessika: Oh my gosh. Yeah. Goodness gracious. Hello, and welcome back to What the Fuck Comics, the show where we discuss old plot lines and characters, and ask the ever important question. What the fuck? So good news, person, right now. This little monstrosity behind me is the Hemogoblin. He [00:07:00] was a doozy character from the 1980s, and if his name gives you a bad feeling about where we're going with this, you're probably right. He was the creation of a white supremacist group with the ultimate goal of getting rid of all non white people. How? The same way Reagan was going to do it, with the fucking thing AIDS epidemic. Yeah, this guy is an AIDS vampire. He's got all this classic vampire powers, but with the slight exception that when he bites you, you don't become a vampire, you just get AIDS. And I stress again, the he debuted in the 1980s. This was DC's attempt at being topical. Now, thankfully he was only in a handful of issues, so he didn't have a very big effect on anything, but wait, what's that? Sorry. Nevermind. He killed someone. Specifically this guy, Extrano. Extrano was a wizard superhero whose name may or may not have translated directly to strange. Who also just happened to be openly gay. And yes, after a fight with the Hemogoblin, he contracted AIDS and eventually died. And what happened to everyone's favorite personification of mocking tragedy? He also died. Of AIDS [00:08:00] Because what else was going to happen? DC, what the fuck? Yeah. Mike: Yeah. So, uh, you sent me that video, Jessika: Yeah, I did. Mike: What was your initial reaction to it when you first saw it?I'm curious. Jessika: At first I thought, okay, in no way, can this be real? But we all know how awful people are. I was mouth agape in shock, honestly, and I did, I did immediately think of you. I sent it to you within a minute of seeing it because I was like, fuck, do you know about this? Mike: This is, this is the, the pinnacle of our friendship is that, that you saw something that terrible and you send it to me. Jessika: Oh, [00:09:00] Mike: But yeah, because as soon as you sent this to me, I was like, fuck, do I know about this? I wrote about it! And I got really excited to tell you all about the New Guardians and Hemogoblin and everything else terrible about comics. Jessika: So yes, every one I did, I opened this can of worms. So either, I'm sorry, or you're welcome, however, you're taking this. Mike: It's a little bit of both. I mean, I'm not going to lie. I was so excited at the idea of talking about how completely bad shit this entire thing is. So. Jessika: Oh, well let's, let's plow on. This is something. Mike: Yeah. Hemoglobin appeared in a comic series from the late eighties called the New Guardians, but in order to talk about the New Guardians, we needed to actually take a step back and talk about Millennium, which was this giant DC crossover comic event that the team spun out of. So, Millennium took place [00:10:00] in early 1988, and it was the company's third crossover. Before that they had Crisis on Infinite Earths and Legends. And you, and I've talked about Crisis briefly in the past. We noted about how it was this giant crossover thing that streamlined DC's, rather convoluted comics time. And it created something coherent that wove together, not only classic comic characters, like the Justice Society and the Charleston comic characters that DC had recently acquired like Blue Beetle and the Question and Peacemaker, who is now in the DCEU as part of the Suicide Squad. But it also made, it made all those characters, a coherent part of the timeline with the modern DC characters, like the Justice League and Superman and Batman, et cetera, et cetera. Crisis is still this like widely acclaimed storyline, a lot of critics and readers still feel that it is [00:11:00] arguably the best crossover ever. I've read it. I like it a lot. I think it's groundbreaking for what it did, and as a result, I think it deserves a special place in comics history. Legends in term was Legends was fine. It's passable I've re-read it several times., and I always forget the main story except for a couple of random plot points, including that, that was what introduced us to the Suicide Squad. And then after that we got Millennium. Millennium was written by Steve Engelhart and he's this pretty prolific comics writer who has been in the industry for a while. I think he might be retired at this point, from the seventies through the nineties, he was pretty prolific. He bounced back and forth a lot between Marvel and DC during the seventies and eighties, but the seventies is arguably when he did his best work. He wrote a really well-known run on Dr.Strange for a couple of years from 74 to 76. And then he also co-created Shang-Chi with [00:12:00] Jim Starlin in 1973, which we're about to get a movie of. It also sounds like he did a lot of drugs during the same period. , and he's talked about it pretty openly. There's this collection of interviews and essays from across the industry called Comics Between the Panels, and he gave us this amazing quote. Jessika: Oh, goodness. We'd rampage around New York City. There was one night when a bunch of us, including Jim Starlin went out on the town. We partied all day, then did some more acid than roamed around town until dawn, and saw all sorts of amazing things, most of which ended up in Master of Kung Fu, which Jim and I were doing at the time. Mike: Yeah. And master of Kung Fu is what Shang-Chi's original series was called. Jessika: Got it. Oh, wow. Mike: This little quote has absolutely nothing to do with our overall discussion, but it's such a wonderful, weird little detail about the [00:13:00] guy that I felt we had to include it. Jessika: It gives me a really good idea of why this was as drug-addled as it was. Well, there were other reasons. Mike: I'm gonna show you the cover of Millennium's first issue. And I'd like for you to paint us a word picture. Jessika: All right. So in red with yellow behind it, it says Millennium week one, Millennium, DC. 75 cents. And then it has all of the DC superheroes, kind of like that portrait in the Shining, like they're all kind of stacked up, back there and they're looking at something, it's called The Arrival at the bottom. So my guess is they're looking at aliens, which is such a hot topic, every DC superhero that I can recall is in this picture. Mike: It is a veritable who's who? Of DC characters, Jessika: Yeah. Mike: But I mean, they all look [00:14:00] horrified. Jessika: They do, they look horrified. It's all in gray tone with a little bit of green splashed on it. Mike: Yeah. It promises something that it doesn't really deliver on. Millennium was, it was interesting because they basically were dropping every issue of the core series, I believe every week, so that's how you were getting week one, week, two, week three. Because the core series ran for two months. But it also features this really complicated plot. So, the arrival that is advertised on the cover basically occurs when a Guardian of the Universe, the guys who run the Green Lanterns named, and I'm not making this up, Herupa, Hando Hu, all H's, starting. And then the female equivalent of the Guardians, which I believe they are responsible for the Star Sapphires, which are the pink color, the pink equivalent, and they're all about love. Because the Green Lanterns, at this point they've established that [00:15:00] there are different rings for each color of the emotional spectrum. The Zamoran girlfriend is Nadia Safir. Herupa and Nadia are on this quest to unlock the super potential of 10 people on earth, who they deem the Chosen, they say that these people will become immortal and they're going to guide humanity into its next stage of evolution. But they're really vague about all of that. Essentially these people are destined to become the next group of the Guardians and kind of take over running the universe, since the Guardians and their girlfriends have decided to kind of peace out to another part of the universe and then enjoy some debatably well-earned retirement after a few billion years of running things. Jessika: This is your problem now. Mike: Yeah, exactly. Herupa and Nadia show up to all these superheroes and then announce their mission, and then they do it in a way that's not even remotely dramatic. Basically they show up, they tell the heroes what's going on, and then the heroes agreed to help find and protect the Chosen [00:16:00] and everyone starts making plans to do so. And then meanwhile, this plan is opposed by a group of robots that are known as the Man Hunters. The Man Hunters were the original version of the Green Lantern Corps. They were the beta test. They basically doled out justice for about half a billion years, and then they went insane. And then the Guardians replaced them with the Green Lantern Core. I think part of the established insanity honestly just involves nursing a grudge for 3 billion years, because that's how long they've been around. And they like to hang out and just basically sulk on their hidden planet, which is apparently undetectable, and then ruin the Guardian's plans whenever they can. Obviously they decide to wreck Herupa's plans because they're still pissed off and they have a bunch of double agents on earth who are androids, or mind-controlled people, or traitors, who help attack the heroes and basically try to kill the Chosen. Jessika: Wow. That's like a new level. Like, that's next [00:17:00] level petty. Mike: I mean, they're, they're an entire robot race of that shitty dude who can't get over the fact that his ex has moved on and is dating somebody else. Jessika: Oh no, we've all met that guy. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Ugh. If you haven't met that guy, you are that guy. I hate to tell you. Mike: Yeah, right? So the Guardians shitty robot exes wind up being a little successful. There were originally going to be 10 Chosen, but by the end of the series, only six are actually still around to receive their powers because it takes a while before they're granted their specialness. One of them was senile when the series began. There's another guy named Janwilheim kroef. I think that's how you say his name, it's Afrikaans, so I'm sure I'm butchering it. He gets kicked out because he's such a racist asshole from Apartheid, South Africa that nobody wants anything to do with him. [00:18:00] And then I think two of them are murdered over the course of the story, but we don't see it in the core series. Cause there's like 30 tie-in issues and I haven't read them all because I have shit to do. But yeah, the final roster of the New Guardians includes Jet, who is a Jamaican woman who, when we meet her is living in fascist Britain, which I think is just Margaret Thatcher's England, I've never heard it referred to as fascist England, that was a new one. Also she has a written accent that I'm going to call comically offensive. Jessika: It is so, it is, I, yes, that is a great description of what that is. That's how I felt about it as well. Mike: We also get Ram, who is a Japanese businessman who then becomes a walking computer and can talk to electronics. Gloss is this woman from the People's Republic of China. Who can suddenly command dragon lines while showing this insane amount of cleavage. And she keeps on flirting with Ram too. It's really weird and creepy.[00:19:00] Betty Clawman. She was an Aborigine who eventually wound up living in the dream time. She's not really a presence in the New Guardians, but she's still officially a member. There's Extrano, who was noted in that TikTok video, who was a Peruvian gay man who develops magical abilities. Extrano's an interesting case, because at this point in time, the Comics Code Authority would not actually allow publishers to acknowledge his sexuality. But this dude is so flamboyant, he insists on being called auntie, and when the Guardian first shows up to announce that he is one of the chosen, he kind of flirts with him? Jessika: There's also that part where they're talking about sex and God, I don't know why they would be having such an overt conversation about sex, but Harbinger says something about, oh, would you want to go have sex? [00:20:00] He's like, not with you, honey, or something like that. Mike: Something to that effect. Yeah. Jessika: To that effect, yeah. And it was like, okay. Mike: Yeah. No, he's very flamboyant. Like there is, I mean, come on guys. You're not fooling anyone. Jessika: He like points his toe out in a lot of the comics, like in a, in a way that they only draw females doing like a lot of the way they have him standing is very feminine, which is interesting. Not always. Mike: His outfit originally, it's almost like a unisex series of magical robes, where you could see it on either a male or female character. And then his hair is very flamboyant too. He has in a lot of ways, very effeminate features, which then changes later on when they give him that costume change. And we'll talk about that later on but you know, he's this kind of nebbish little guy and he's very flamboyant, and, if you grew up in the Bay Area, you knew a lot of people like that. So, the final, one of the Chosen, [00:21:00] if I remember right, is Tom Kalmaku, he's one of Hal Jordan, the Green Lantern's friends, he's a mechanic for Ferris air. He's been around since the sixties. And eventually it's revealed that he has the power to “bring out the best in people”, but, it's really vaguely defined and we don't really know what it means. And then he winds up declining to go with the team, cause he doesn't want to put his family at risk, but he's still a part of the New Guardians storyline overall. And then after that, they were joined by a longtime villain called the Fluoronic Man, who he's got a bunch of powers over nature. And then Harbinger, who was one of the main characters during Crisis on Infinite Earths, and she's been kicking around the DC universe afterwards, but she wound up being another main character during the Millennium storyline. So that is the TLDR summary, which is already too long, but whatever, but now we can actually talk about the New Guardian series. Like how would you describe [00:22:00] this series? If you had to sell it to someone with an elevator pitch, like, what would you say. Jessika: Overall the New Guardians have been chosen to be Earth's protectors. They are from around the world with the obvious idea that there is a global participation and representation, their main arc is against a white supremacist who is causing all of the destruction, seen in the comics due to his desire to rid the world of all other races. They are basically world social justice warriors who take a very active role in change. Mike: First of all, that's a very succinct summary of that comic. The series was originally written by Englehart, he was continuing on, and it was drawn by veteran artists, Joe Staton. Cary Bates took over writing duties with issue two and pat Broderick, who is the guy who created Tim Drake, AK Robyn, number three, eventually finished out the series as its penciler. Here's the funny thing, the series isn't [00:23:00] really all that well known or remembered by the general public, but it's kind of notorious within the comics industry and among certain collectors because its villains were so fucking bonkers. Like in the first two issues, we get Hemogoblin who is a vampire that he's sort of a vampire. He looks like count Orloff from Nosferatu he's got the same face and everything, but he was created in a lab by Janwilheim Kroef's scientists like Janwilheim Kroef has apparently just, I don't know exactly how he has access to all the super doomsday science, but somehow he does. So the vampire winds up coming to the United States ends up attacking the group in a dance club. If I remember right or no, right outside a dance club, that's what happened. And then he bites Jet, who is, I have to state this one of the [00:24:00] first black, super heroines in DC comics history, and also attacks Extrano. And I don't think he bites him, but he scratches him, but he gives both of those characters HIV. Jessika: Mmhm. Mike: And then he winds up dying because this system burns itself out. Thanks to his accelerated form of aids that he has. And Harbinger it's weird. They don't quite explain how, but she's almost like cosmically sympathetic to Jet's being. And so she winds up developing the same wound as Jed and then also developing HIV. But that goes away. Jessika: Yeah, they had some symbiotic link. It was very strange. Mike: Yeah. Symbiotic. That's the word I was looking for. It's very weird. Um, and it's, it's not really explained for a comic, for a comic series with so much exposition, there's a lot that is not well explained or defined. Jessika: There's one point where they're obviously making [00:25:00] fun of their own exposition and they're like, hey, I know this is a lot to listen to. I appreciate you being. I was like, oh gosh. Yeah. Don't you know it. Mike: Yeah. Hemoglobin winds up dying from AIDS because of course he fucking does. And, and then the next issue, whisks is off to Columbia where we get to meet Snowflake, who I love Snowflake. How, how would you describe him? I'm curious. Jessika: Oh, man. Just your way. Cause I have so heavy. He's basically just a really coked up weightlifter. Mike: Fair. Jessika: Yeah. Apparently it has something to do with the power of cocaine, heavy quotes, coursing through him that gives him his powers question, mark. I have to read this description of himself because it is just something. And he says this at one [00:26:00] point during the comic. Mike: Yeah. And he is also a pyrokinetic, we should note, so this quote has like extra weight to it. Jessika: Exactly. Every cell of my being burns with the white hot ecstasy. Cocaine is my god, and I am the instrument of its will. And he has all these coked up people that are basically just zombies doing his way. But like nowhere, does it say why he's the instrument of drugs and not his fellows? Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Maybe he was the only one that could afford to buy a fancy spandex suit and spend all of his time getting yoked. Maybe that's it. They're like, oh yeah, this guy, this guy with privilege. Pick him. Mike: Well, and he, like, he like really beats the shit out of the New Guardians too. And then he gets randomly thrown into a shed with a bunch of chemicals and then it explodes and that's how you get them. It. Jessika: Yeah. He died in [00:27:00] what was basically a drug shed explosive. Mike: Yeah, I'm okay. I'm sorry. But if this was a horror movie and the monster died that way, it would just be like, okay. So we're obviously going to have the guy come back in the next movie and I was waiting for that, but we never get him back again. Jessika: I was waiting for that, also. I was waiting for that like Ninja Turtles, like here comes Shredder with his hand out of like the rubble. Mike: Nope. Jessika: Oh my gosh. So what did you think of that guy's like Fabio white hair. That was like a point of pride, but you know, it had to take some constant maintenance, so. Mike: Well, I mean, he had that much cocaine, what if he just sat there and used that as his like dry shampoo? Jessika: Oh, oh that's, that's awful because the, I, yeah, that's awful. That's awful. It's really funny too. Cause it's like they're mixing up their drugs, if they think that coke is going to cause super strengthened agility. [00:28:00] Like, what they should have had was a coked up guy that just talked really fast and wanted to party and have a bunch of sex. And like, that was his super power. Mike: Right. Jessika: Like that's, that's what I've always seen portrayed in the movies and shit. People don't get really strong. That's PCP, when somebody is really crazy on like PCP or something, that's always been what I've heard, but like, that's always in very rare instances when somebody goes off the handle or something and you hear about that, but it was so ridiculous. I mean, you could literally smell the war on drugs, undertones. They were palpable. Mike: Oh yeah. Jessika: I could taste them. Mike: Reagan? Papa Reagan, is that you? Jessika: Are you listening? I am. Oh, I mean, all it all, he was certainly memorable. I mean, maybe not for the right reasons. Mike: All right? [00:29:00] Well, I'm going to break this to you. Snowflame has actually like infamous in comic book history. Like I, I was looking up his first appearance today just to see what stores are selling that issue for. Jessika: I'm sorry is for you mean like in this issue, was he in more than just this? Mike: No, as far as I know, that's his only issue. Jessika: Oh God, you scared me. I was like. Mike: No. So, but yeah, like it's funny because people still talk about that one villain. They don't talk about the New Guardians, but they will talk about Snowflame because they, I think they find it charming, basically the, you know, just how ridiculous the villain is. But his first appearance, like is going for 50 to 75 bucks at a lot of stores these days. Jessika: Oh. Wow. Mike: Yeah. Yeah. I think, I think the fact that his powers are fueled by cocaine is just, it's kind of charming, honestly, like people just sit there and like, oh, that's cute. If only we knew then what we know now. Jessika: Right. [00:30:00] Mike: Like, I don't know if you got told this growing up, but, but I was part of that DARE generation. Jessika: Oh, Absolutely. Cops in the classroom and everything, which no, don't do that. Mike: Yeah. And I remember every time the cops came to DARE and they were telling us about all the drugs, they would tell us cocaine is the worst drug out there. Jessika: Which, lol. Mike: Yeah. Like I could not help, but think of that when I was reading this issue. And I mean, I guess it makes sense. Cocaine was pretty prevalent during the eighties and crack cocaine was really starting to become this huge epidemic in cities across the country by the end of the decade. But, you know, cocaine was the drug that white people knew better. So it got focused on a lot in media, like, you know, in TV shows and comics and movies, all that stuff. And then even though Snowflame died and never came back, apparently, the issue after also deals with [00:31:00] cocaine, because like the villains are, they're like a gang of child soldiers in LA and there. Jessika: I'm throwing my hands up because I don't even know. Mike: Yeah. Cause they're referred to as kids at one point, but like some of them have a lot of facial hair and it's very weird. And they stage, an attack on the New Guardians' bungalow hotel that they're staying at. Because I guess being the Chosen if humanity doesn't pay enough to afford an Avenger's tower, but this gang is also paid in cocaine by Snowflame's people. Jessika: It is implied that they're children, But it's like, come on. You're not going to be overtaken by like a gang of children, like this is, this is not the Newsies. Like, you're fine. Mike: No, but the other thing is like, you know, in the eighties, that was really, again, part of the whole gang panic was the eighties and nineties. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Like, you know, that was a huge thing where, news [00:32:00] media at the time was just painting teenage gangs out to be the scourge of the country. Jessika: Yeah, well, and they've got both the gang aspect and the drug aspect that they're like, oh, watch out every one don't want your kids involved in this. Mike: Fuck, yeah, they were really beaten that horse well past the point of being dead. Jessika: God. It was. So it was so obvious. My cheeks hurt a little bit, cause it really smacked me. Mike: Yeah. Well, those first three issues are really kind of the most fun, I felt because after that, the series just kind of limps along. And Jet keeps getting weaker and weaker due to the virus, progressing from HIV to AIDS, because I don't know Hemogoblin had some accelerated form of it or something. And then she eventually dies when she sacrifices herself, helping fight off an alien invasion. She sacrifices herself because she ran out of energy because she had AIDS. Jessika: [00:33:00] Yeah. Yeah. And then it's not lost on me that they choose the one woman of color and the gay dude to both get AIDS out of everyone or HIV at the very least. Mike: Yeah, it is. We'll, we'll talk about that later on, but it's not great. After this point, Janwilheim Kroef becomes more and more of the central villain as the story progresses. Eventually he has his plan revealed and it's kind of weird, it's like to make white supremacy go global, which, I mean, first of all, it was already global, but he's basically trying to turn it up to 11. The comic is not at all subtle for drawing parallels between him and Nazis. And then, I mean, it's just, it's so over the top that you almost hit that point where you feel like you're disconnecting from it, because it's just beating you over the head with this message. For the last few issues he's running around and he's got a military uniform with a black arm band and he's [00:34:00] throwing up his hand while he's talking. And, you know, speaking about the inferior races and how he's going to unite the world under his banner of hatred. It's uh. Jessika: Oh, yeah. he does a whole, like, you know, leader, speech, propaganda situation. I mean, it's, it was really heavy handed. Mike: Yeah. And then he does the thing where he kidnaps Tom Kalmaku's girlfriend, and then she's pregnant. And he wants to surgically experiment on her unborn child. But it's very nonsense and nothing really comes from it other than eventually he gets a hold of Tom, and then thinks that he killed him by throwing him into a pit of minorities that he's surgically experimented on or something and turned them all into cannibal mutants. Jessika: Get a but like, can we talk about how fucking macabre that whole fucking situation was them? [00:35:00] The fucking, like they were talking about dissecting fetuses and stuff. It was fucking wild. I mean, they had a fetus that was hooked up to stuff, like in a thing when he was in like having a dream. And it was just like, it was insane. It was a lot. Mike: It was really a lot, but at the same time, it was kind of boring. Like it was really gruesome and horrifying in concept, but then when they put it on the page, it was, it was all delivered with so much exposition and it wasn't actually. Moving in any way, like I was just bored. Jessika: No, it wasn't, it wasn't, but I guess it was just, it was shocking to me that that was where they were going with it. You know what I mean? That, that, it just was a lot. And for me, I could kind of tell that it was written by men. Mike: Oh yeah. Totally. Jessika: It's just, that was just something that I wasn't really expecting, to be honest with you. Mike: Yeah. And I had forgotten about it up until the point where I was rereading these issues. I don't have the sales data on the series. [00:36:00] I get the impression that this was a series that was not doing well, sales wise, and the writers were just trying to do what they could to get people, to pay attention to it. And I don't know if that's the case. It's a feeling that I get in my gut, I could be way off. Jessika: The vibe, I hear. Mike: The other thing is like, aside from being really kind of gross and horrifying, this whole plot about Kroef and what he's trying to do, it just, it's kinda nonsense. It doesn't make sense. That's the only way I can describe it. Like, I dunno, he wanted to figure out how Tom got powers or something like that, and so he was going to experiment on the baby, but then the baby was totally normal. And so he just decided to blow up his mountain base and then throw Tom into a pit to get eaten by mutants. But then Tom developed his own super powers at the same time that Kroef was developing his and Kroef is all about. Jessika: Latent fucking super powers. Jesus. Mike: Oh it's dumb.Yeah. And [00:37:00] Kroef finds up developing the superpowers to basically bring out hatred and other people and also make them serve him while Tom becomes. Jessika: Which, also, unexplained? Mike: Yeah. And then Tom is basically Jesus and Buddha combined. He has that aforementioned like “bring out the best ability”, where he just kind of sits and meditates and then appears to people in visions and can literally hand wave away anything that he wants to it's. You know, viewing this through a modern lens. I'm like, oh, so he was that be best campaign by Melania Trump just made manifest. Jessika: Yes. Yes. Yes. Mike: It sounds simultaneously wholesome and absolutely incomprehensible. I don't know how else to describe it, but yeah. And basically Tom saves the day at the very end of the series. He rescues the New Guardians from Kroef who is like mind controlling them or something. And then halfway through, they also gave Extrano a much more masculine costume [00:38:00] and he was suddenly jacked and he ran around with a crystal skull, which he would use for magic again, not well explained, whatever. Jessika: Yep. I was what I, it felt like he got more jacked. And I was wondering about that. Mike: Oh no. He, 100% started to hit the gym and take his creatine. Jessika: I was like, did the skull contain protein powder? I. Mike: Right. Jessika: He was actually at a GNC this whole time. Mike: Well, you know, you had a side hustle. Cause superhero-ing doesn't pay the bills. Jessika: Oh, no. Has he gotten involved in a multi-level marketing scheme? Do we need to save him from that now? Mike: Yeah. Probably Beach Body. Jessika: It worked for me. Mike: Ugh. If you become my downline, I can get you shredded and castin' spells too. [00:39:00] Yeah. And you know, it's, it's funny because all of the New Guardian's powers are really vague and, you know. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: It's funny because, Extrano, when he was first announced, he's like, I'm a witch. Cause that's, that was his thing. And I'm like, okay, cool. So you're a magic user. His magic is really, it's not well explained what he can and can't do. It seems like half the time he's just casting illusions. And then, you know, suddenly he's able to generate a force field and levitate everybody around and whatever. Okay. Jessika: He's basically the plug for the leaks in the team. Mike: Yes. Yeah. Whatever they might be. Jessika: Filling that void. Yep. Mike: What was your overall impression of this series? Jessika: It went from goofy to intense to, it just was like, you know, we already talked about the fetus dissection conversations. Obviously I got stuck on that because holy shit, that was [00:40:00] extreme. Okay. So I did like that there were a balanced amount of women and that there was a global representation, which was definitely something I had been whining about in our last episode. So thank you. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: But the women just had absolutely nothing on, you know, Gloss' outfit literally cut down to her pelvic bone. I mean, there was literally like two, it was two inches from her couch. Mike: Do you remember that dress that J-Lo wore to the Oscars like 25 years ago? That was super scandalous at the time? Jessika: I know the one. Yes. Mike: Yeah. No. It's the superhero equivalent of that Oscar's dress. Jessika: It sure is. Yeah. Like how are you even supposed to fight when you think you're going to slip a nip or sneak a cheek, like really how? This is a prime example of those types of comics where they look like they were drawn by a 12 year old boy. Mike: Oh, yeah. A hundred percent. And it's funny [00:41:00] because, if I remember right, in Millennium, because she's part of the People's Republic, they're all wearing like the same kind of like very nondescript kind of burlap sack style clothing that, I mean also problematic in its own way, but it's just, it was really interesting to see her go from a very kind of almost asexual character to being this horned up Asian woman stereotype. Jessika: Yeah. It was really intense. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there were at the very beginning, a few times where I was like, oh, what's going to happen next issue, but it did like, it dwindled. You know, like you said, towards the end and it just got really manic and crazy and just like, felt like a drug-induced fever dream. Mike: Yeah. It, I found myself comparing it to US 1, the series that we did a couple of episodes ago. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Where that was another batshit shit series, but it was fun, and [00:42:00] I never found myself really getting frustrated with it because it never felt boring. And this one, I got bored a lot. Jessika: It was a little bit of a slog. Mike: But I mean, especially when characters, either the villains or the heroes were sitting there and recapping their backstory for like the 10th time, you know, it, I just don't care. Like, come on guys. You've already got me. You really think that the person reading issue number nine is not going to know what's going on. Come on. Jessika: Yeah, exactly. Mike: Yeah. And I got to agree with you, you know, you have to give the series a little bit of credit because the New Guardians was a diverse team and they had some interesting abilities, but everything about it just felt really cringey, for lack of a better word. It's like somebody took a list of the current social issues at the time, and then just like focus grouped the hell out of them. And then they created a superhero comic around it. [00:43:00] And I don't know, you can tell it's hard as in the right place, but everything about the comic itself just gets more and more painful. It's kind of akin watching someone trying to be especially woke, but you're sitting there really hoping that they're going to reign in their efforts by about 50%, by the end of it. Like, I mean, even the villains are topical. Like, the three that we talked about, we've got Janwilheim Kroef, who was part of the Apartheid government in South Africa. And this was in 1988, which is right when the apartheid was really getting put under the international media's microscope. Basically, the series was running right before Nelson Mandela got released from jail. And then we already talked about Snowflame and how he was relevant to the time. And then Hemogoblin it was topical because the AIDS crisis was really starting to take off in America at this point in time as well.[00:44:00] But yeah, it's a. It's a cringey read. Jessika: Yeah. I've just been shaking my head this whole time. The listeners can't hear that, but just know it was happening. Mike: Yeah.Yeah. You know, and it's funny cause DC doesn't really talk about the New Guardians, or the crossover they originated from, that much. Like, they acknowledge Millennium happened. They actually collected it into a graphic novel a few years ago, but it's only those core eight issues, and it really doesn't make a lot of sense because in between each issue, there is all this very crucial stuff that happens. And so those core eight issues are almost like the recaps and the setup for what's going to happen next. So it's, you know, it's still technically canon in terms of DC lore, but it's not really discussed in polite company. And I mean, case in point, Tom Kalmaku is I think still around in the [00:45:00] DC universe, Jessika: Really. Mike: He's a long time cast member of the Green Lantern comics. I know, I read a couple of issues that had him show up in, I want to say 2010. It might've been a little bit earlier than that. But I know that his character was even in that Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie. Jessika: Oh, you know what? No, you're right. You are right. Mike: But his powers, as far as I know, are never mentioned again, like they just kind of were like, no, that didn't really happen. Or we don't, we don't talk about that. And then, you know, it's the same with the New Guardians. They occasionally pop up individually, but they never really get the band together. I think they were still a team in Green Lantern comics, but then there was a villain named Entropy who wound up attacking the headquarters that they were operating out of. Cause they were hanging out in the Green Lantern headquarters on earth. And then it was assumed that they all died. So that TikTok video was saying that, Extrano died from HIV. [00:46:00] He might have, but as far as I know, what happened was everybody assumes that he died during that attack, and he still had HIV. But I don't know at that point, I'm not as familiar with the Green Lantern and storylines from that era. Jet somehow reappeared as the leader of the Global Guardians, Extrano had a recent cameo in Midnighter, and he was a supporting character, and he actually was like much more normcore this time around. But he was actually openly gay this time around, which was kinda cool. Jessika: Oh, good. Mike: Yeah. And then other than that, like most of the New Guardians spend a lot of time dying. So, yeah, as I mentioned, the entire team was absorbed and presumably killed by the super villain Entropy before Flash point rebooted the DC Universe, gloss was hanging out with Jet for a short while, but then she got killed by the villain, Prometheus, like, she got to decapitated. There's like, yeah, it is not subtle. And then Ram [00:47:00] was, again, it was one of those cameo things, but he was shown in passing as a victim of this villains' superpower death matches where it was like a super power fight club kind of thing, and it was shown that he had died, I think. But yeah, so yeah, that is the New Guardians and their, their wild ride across the DC Universe. Jessika: Wow. I'm going to, I'm going to put on a face mask after this. I'm gonna soak my feet, gonna decompress. Mike: And as far as I know, there is no collected version of this maxi series, like, so, you know, basically you have to buy the individual issues, at least what I've seen, which I mean, somehow I own, I think I found the entire series as like a bundle. You know, at one of the local comic shops and they were just like, whatever, like 12 bucks get out.[00:48:00] Jessika: Please take these and leave. Mike: We will pay you to take it out. Jessika: Oh God. It's like when stores want you to take cursed items home, they're like, we just don't want this in our possession any longer. Mike: Yeah. But I mean, like that said, you can find some really fun stuff in those bundle boxes. Like that's how I actually came across the whole series of US 1was at Flying Colors Comics the last time I was there. I found the first issue of Brian's, but then they had the complete collection at Flying Colors. So that was exciting. Jessika: Nice. Mike: I recently found the, I think it was the complete series of Ren and Stimpy, you know, for 30 bucks, which was fun. Jessika: Nice. And in the bundle boxes, they do like a full series? So whatever you pull it's like the whole thing? Mike: Or, they'll, do a full run of like a certain like, you know, set of issues. Jessika: Nice. Oh, that's cool. Mike: That's why I always liked to collect for, as I like to collect for the things where it's like the fun stories or the weird moments in comic history, or just, kind of cool, interesting moments. [00:49:00] And so you can find that stuff. If you're looking for just fun stuff to read, look at the, they used to call them like the quarter bins. I think they're now like dollar bins where, you know, they're the issues themselves are kind of ratty or they're worthless, but you can find a lot of really fun stuff, no, it's a great way to just enjoy comics if you're not collecting them to basically appreciate like your stock portfolio. Jessika: Very cool. Mike: Yeah. Mike: All right. Well, I believe it is time or Brain Wrinkles, which is that one thing that has comics or comics adjacent that we just can't kick out of our noggin. What is stuck in your gray matter this week? Jessika: Well, we've got another addition to the letter mafia. Mike: Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. Jessika: Ooh. So per DC cannon Tim Drake, our current Robin has. A whole mission where he gets to go save a [00:50:00] longtime friend, Bernard from the villain du jour, and during which point, Bernard confesses his feelings for Drake, whom he does not know his Robin. So he's like confessing his love and hoping that he has a chance for love. And then it ends with them going on a date. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: I love it. Mike: Yeah. It's really interesting. Jessika: He's bisexual, canonically, everyone. Mike: Yup. I'm very curious to see how this is going to play out in the future. I know a lot of right-wing shit heal comic sites and prevalent voices across the web are mad about this. And so I'm automatically overjoyed just to hear that this ruined their day. Jessika: Yeah. Yeah. Mike: Overall, the sentiment seems pretty positive to it as well, which I think speaks volumes about where we are now compared to when I started reading comics. Jessika: Agreed. Mike: Yeah. I'm pretty jazzed about it. I'm curious to see where they go with it [00:51:00] and the one thing that's been really interesting is I saw the BBC was asking what this meant for movies, and I was kind of sitting there. It doesn't fucking matter. Like they're not going to put it in a movie. Because here's the thing that a lot of people don't quite get, is that inclusivity for the LGBTQ plus community and movies is very fleeting because major movie studios, these days have recognized the power of the international box office and they thus need to put in stuff that they can edit out for the Chinese and Russian, and a handful of other smaller markets. So it was a big deal that in the last Star Wars movie, we get to see two guys kissing, it's a second and, you know, whatever that's going to get edited out in certain regions because they want to be able to make their millions. Jessika: Yeah, arguably edited out in the places that matter [00:52:00] most. Mike: Yeah, exactly. But I am glad to see that we're getting more representation and especially bi people in particular are getting more representation in meaningful, thoughtful ways. Jessika: Yes, well, and bi men. There's always been that boring trope of like how amazing it is that women can be bisexual, but it's often looked upon with disgust or completely disregarded when it comes to men. And I, quite frankly, there's no difference people, like. Mike: Yup. Jessika: It's just, it's just people hating. And it's the toxic masculinity of, you know, if you're a man, you do certain things and it's just like, come on guys, you need to back the fuck off. This is why you're as, as harmed as you are in your lives, because you had all these stupid us standards you had to stick with, and couldn't fucking talk about your feelings. And now you're just a ragey asshole. So here we are. Here we are. How do you feel? Oh, you won't tell me. [00:53:00] You don't even know. Mike: Yeah. God. Jessika: Let's see how mucho of that I cut out. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: So what about you? Um, what's wrinklin' and around in there. Mike: Yeah. You know, I can't believe how much I enjoyed The Suicide Squad. I keep on thinking about it. And I mean, I knew I was going to like it because I have yet to see anything by James Gunn that I haven't liked. I've been a fan of his since he did the movie Slither back in 2005 ish, which also had Nathan Fillion and Michael Rooker in it. Jessika: Ooh. Mike: Yeah, you know, he makes entertaining movies and I was not prepared for some of the things that happen in The Suicide Squad. It is absolutely wild what a [00:54:00] course correction that movie is, especially when you compare it to the first one. It kind of reminded me of Shizam and Birds of Prey. It was just this absolutely delightful blast of chaos. And, you know, it was fun. It was refreshing. And if this is where we're going with the DCEU, as opposed to the fucking Snyder cut, then I'm fully on board with this, like, sign me up for 10 more movies. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Just no more Jokers, please. Jessika: I'll actually watch this one with a gusto, you know. Mike: No. Jessika: Probably sooner rather than later. Mike: Sarah wants to watch it again. Jessika: Oh, okay. Now that's a shining review then. Yes. Mike: Yeah. I'm really excited to talk with you about how batshit it is, and like the stuff that they do with it, which is really in a lot of ways, it's really brave, like what they did. They also, they kill off a lot of characters. Jessika: Ooh. Mike: I was not prepared for how many characters they were going to kill off. I knew they were gonna kill off a couple, but like. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: It's, it is astounding. [00:55:00] The choices that they made. Jessika: Damn. Maybe, I don't know everyone. What's up, y'all, we might need to do an episode about this one. Mike: I think that that would actually be pretty cool. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Especially we could talk about how they got started, how they appeared in comics and then also how this movie in certain ways reminded me of their DC animated universe appearance. Jessika: Yes. Okay. I, if, if it compares to that, which, you know, I love that. Mike: Yeah. There's a, there's an episode of Justice League Unlimited called Taskforce X, which is a really great Suicide Squad story. Like I, yeah, that'd be kind of fun. We should, we should talk about that. But next time, our next episode, we are going to be starting something new. We're going to do, well, I guess it's like a book club. Jessika: I would say it's a book club. Yeah. Mike: Yeah. So we're going to read through and talk about the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman, the core [00:56:00] Sandman series, ahead of the Netflix TV show, which is coming out supposedly sometime this year, but I'm really excited about it. And we may actually have a couple of guests as guest hosts or maybe just one who knows we'll find out. Jessika: To be decided. Mike: But yeah, we'll be back in two weeks and until then, we'll see you in the stacks. Jessika: Thanks for listening to Ten Cent Takes accessibility is important to us. So text transcriptions of each of our published episodes can be found on our website. Mike: This episode was hosted by Jessika Frazer and Mike Thompson written by Mike Thompson and edited by Jessika Frazer. Our intro theme was written and performed by Jared Emerson Johnson of Bay Area Sound. Our credits and transition music is Pursuit of Life by Evan MacDonald and was purchased with a standard license from Premium Beat. Our banner graphics were designed by Sarah Frank, who you can find on Instagram as @lookmomdraws. Jessika: If you'd like to get in touch with us, [00:57:00] ask us questions, or tell us about how we got something wrong, please head over to tencenttakes.com or shoot an email to tencenttakes@gmail.com. You can also find us on Twitter, the official podcast account is tencenttakes. Jessika is @jessikawitha, and Jessika is spelled with a K. And Mike is @vansau, V A N S A U. Mike: If you'd like to support us, be sure to download, rate and review wherever you listen. Jessika: Stay safe out there. Mike: And support your local comic shop.

united states america god tv jesus christ tiktok new york city earth china master england moving crisis star wars chinese marvel japanese russian batman dc lgbtq universe satan south africa oscars bbc strange aliens asian nazis britain superman birds legends cops pursuit guardian maine flash columbia comics dare chosen goodness republic bay area hiv shining aids justice league guardians ram suicide squad jennifer lopez arrival peacemakers prey charleston buddha cocaine snyder james gunn jamaican shang chi nelson mandela sandman bff war on drugs fabio kung fu jet dceu neil gaiman millennium snowflakes nosferatu prometheus peruvian nevermind dc universe green lantern avenger apartheid bad batch ninja turtles margaret thatcher ferris melania trump jed blue beetle panels entropy jokers crisis on infinite earths shredder pcp harbinger broderick tldr newsies nathan fillion scott snyder slither afrikaans petaluma gloss michael rooker gnc undiscovered country justice society hal jordan netflix tv symbiotic green lantern corps ren and stimpy aborigines tim drake jim starlin green lanterns justice league unlimited mike thompson orloff hemoglobin midnighter premiumbeat comics code authority flying colors new guardians englehart mike it nocterra joe staton mike no mike yeah mike well tony s daniel mike reagan mike oh cary bates extrano mike right mike all snowflame jared emerson johnson ryan reynolds green lantern ten cent takes tom kalmaku

Summer of Decay (In the Style of a Slasher Horror Movie...)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 30, 2021 59:41

About this episode In this episode, we pay homage to slasher movies, specifically Friday the 13th. At least that's where we start. This being improv comedy, things take on a direction of their own and we end up with something that's a horror movie more along the lines of Jeepers Creepers, or something more supernatural and monster based. Still, we have a lake, and a cabin, and final girl, so that's all good. And at some point someone stumbles... Links: Friday the 13th on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th_(franchise) Jeepers Creepers on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeepers_Creepers_(2001_film) Time codes Segment 1 - Discussion the Genre Tropes: 03:30 Segment 2 - Creating the Movie Outline: 08:56 Segment 3 - Picking the Improv Comedy Games: 15:54 Start of show: 22:25 Improv Game - Ding: 23:42 Improv Game - What Happens Next: 25:50 Improv Game - Spoon River: 33:26 Improv Game - Timed Styles: 40:27 Improv Game - Cutting Room: 47:00 End of show, into announcements: 58:13 More Information About the Show, Mike, and Avish Subscribe to the podcast: Our Website: www.AvishAndMike.com Our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/143183833647812 Avish's site: www.AvishParashar.com Mike's site: www.MikeWorthMusic.com/ Transcription of the “Discussing the Genre Tropes” Segment (Unedited and Un-Cleaned up) Avish: Alright So yes, here's what we're going to talk about in general, we may or may not use any of these tropes we're talking about the tropes of the slasher genre yes so Mike, what do you think of when you think of slasher movies. Mike: Alright So the first thing I think of is is that the protagonists are going to be usually teenagers yeah so we're going to be dealing with that now there's some ways, you can play around that but, by and large, even like the remakes like screaming final destination it's like teenagers and stuff like that. Avish: And there's always a group and they always. Other than one maybe to get picked off over the course the movie. Mike: Right so right so there's basically a war of attrition there's usually a single bad guy. Although you don't have to mean you could have like a cult or something like that, but. Avish: yeah but usually, when you're talking slasher movie it's it's it's. One bad guy unless you're turning us on his head like screen, but one bad guy usually well my you think. They always have some kind of aspects. Whether it's a mask. Mike: unique weapon yeah yeah right a weapon or a mask or. yeah Now the question is, do the This is one trip that happens, usually the kids disturb something that unleashes the villain you know, like if we're going for like supernatural day like disturbed Indian burial ground or if it's just normal they like I don't know. Avish: I think along those lines, what I was thinking is that almost every slasher movie is based around some kind of event or anniversary so like Halloween Halloween Friday 13th around summer camp prominence around the prom like there's always something and usually that ties into the you know Halloween Michael myers first killed on Halloween Friday 13th at the camp where he died prom night someone got something happen to the prom. Mike: dude this is this Memorial Day weekend this art we're gonna send this Roman morial day it's good. Avish: Right well consider that I feel like memorial day's already all about like soldiers dying so that's it all right yeah there'll be around some anniversaries some holiday some event and then the killer ties into that. Mike: yeah yeah. Alright cool so there's. Avish: The final girl it's almost 99% of time, the females, the main character will survive to the end. Mike: She in the early slasher flicks there's not a lot about her except of two things she's always she's usually virginal but in the later slasher flicks there's usually something special about her that ties her directly to the killer you know. Avish: yeah so we can add that in yeah a lot of slasher movies, are just random killings, but then they started making it more personal even Halloween the first Halloween was totally random, but then, and how into the right content so it's a sister. Mike: Right right so there's usually relationship there now speaking of deaths, the deaths are flamboyant and over the top. Right and and and silly glory you don't mean like. Avish: Really gory dad's a variety of deaths. Mike: variety of deaths now are we playing the trope where they're usually contrived to be trapped somewhere where the cut off from civilization in a cabin in the woods underneath under in a cave. Mike: That kind of stuff. Avish: yeah I feel like they need to be, well, I guess, they don't need to be, but I feel like yeah there's always that thing about why don't these people just get the police which you know somebody in the later Friday 13th they did, and then the police would die but yeah yeah they're usually someplace a little bit remote so it's can just get help or run away. Mike: yeah yeah exactly and there's obviously a lot of, everyone's trying to get in bed with everyone else. Avish: there's lots of like yeah there's like six capades and yeah yeah and. Mike: there's also a note in terms of the teenagers or their trips for the teenagers do we have the bullying jock do we have the. Avish: Center usually stereotyped yeah there's like the handsome jock the the slot the Virgin. Yeah friend the best friend nerdy wants to be the boyfriend you know that's. Mike: Stereotypes galore also a the villain, even though he may have an effect oftentimes uses interesting found weapons and objects to to kill that kind of ties in with the extravagant types of death, like, yeah he's afraid you very, very silly things in you know and i'm doing Freddie. Avish: kind of use the environment yeah yeah revise their improvise they're murderers and also, number one they're sort of well three whether they're supernatural or not, they all a um are relatively impervious to harm until they die. Yyeah number two they all have kind of magical speed slash teleportation abilities. Mike: that's true right there was a suddenly appear and and usually and i'm only going for this unnaturally strong. Avish: Like naturally strong, yeah and they also i'm almost always a false death almost always die ones may not actually be dead and come back. Mike: that's true false death all right, and then. Natural speed and natural strength. Avish: Alright cool alright, so our five minutes I feel like we. Mike: yeah we got we have we have a good list of trumps there. Transcription of the “Creating the Outline” Segment (Unedited and Un-Cleaned up) Avish: step to creating the outline all right now that we're talking about our troops we're gonna spend about five minutes talking about our outline from a high level now just full disclaimer because it's improvisation Our actual story may end up deviating from the outline but we spend five minutes coming up with a rough outline and we usually use a for an instructor, which is something it's like a three act structure just divides Act two into two parts. To this call story engineering. Mike: And I think it worked well for our show as. Avish: Okay, so five minutes, our first thing is. We always start with either a movie trailer or a prologue. What do you think for this one? Mike: If we do a promo we can do a setup of the tragedy that happened that that drafted the villain you know. Avish: yeah I feel the probably one of two ways, it could be the tragedy that created the villain or it could be like a random kill the kind of sets the stage, but we can do a profile, we know a fast prologue that kind of well I guess it'll come out of the improv will do a prologue. Mike: yeah it's gonna be one of two ways either yeah I look at it either random killing the cold open or it's it's the killer up with the with the settings and then. Avish: A lot of times it is like in the past and then it's like you know. 27 years ago and then it's like present day. Okay, so then act one act one is usually we meet the cat obviously we meet the characters they all arrive. Mike: yeah right well the teams location introduce the characters. Avish: We started getting there may be a death or two in here but it's more general general sense of creepiness and you're being watched. You know, and sometimes like. One of the non core people die here like in the early it's like the guy who owns a gas station gets killed or. You know, someone or the group main group of teens gets killed. Mike: Secondary car, not with main group yeah also a events conspire. To strand them at this location, the car runs at a gas or you know. There yeah there's a there's a hailstorm or something right a. Avish: concert bar and, Often up if it is about like if there's an event going on this is usually like the prep for the event right it's like. yeah people can dial prom night they're like getting ready during the day to go to the prom and if it's like Halloween at the daytime and they're like at school and getting their costumes and so. Mike: yeah yeah. Avish: gotten to the the Big shebang yet. Mike: Right right uh yeah. Avish: I will have a death or two yet in there. Mike: Alright cool. Okay. Avish: So at to I gotta get a slasher movie actor is often where people are dying, but like the main characters the main character doesn't know it yet. So it's like you know, like in the in the in the camp, like the main characters doing their thing. And then around the camp, like the other kids are dying, but the people who are still in the cabin don't realize it so you're. Getting the deaths in the stocking in the terror, but it's not to like the middle of the second act that people realize that oh crap there's something going on here. Mike: yeah i'm right right so so actors, when that when the first suite of deaths occur. But it doesn't. Get get back to the main party. Avish: yeah the main don't know yet really they kind of like they're wondering like they think everything's kind of okay or someone's goofing around they're like oh where's Johnny oh. Mike: yeah. Oh it's cars gone, you must have must have gone into town to like. Avish: yeah you're all those who prides went off to have sex, you know, then blah blah blah. Mike: yeah yeah right right first few deaths occur Okay, so that actually might just be Act two is just like a couple of really good. Avish: Well, the thing about the slasher movie they're not very complex in their. Mike: plot it's like oh my God takes the kids off one, at a time until it's just him and the final girl and then. yep uh so act so, then what I would say at three or four Block three is they discover the bodies. Avish: yeah they discover the bodies. They try to get away or get help, but they can't, for whatever reason. Mike: yep oftentimes this point in time is someone will uncover. The history of this place uncover critical cultural lore. That explains who the person is. Avish: yeah they're like find the room, or the book or the. Mike: Or the news article right what. Avish: The person that all local who like stumbles and. Mike: yeah yeah yeah i'm. Avish: A lucky position. Mike: And at this point now let me ask this question there's one or two ways it goes either they go predator, and they start like trying to like build traps for the for the bad guy or they're just trying to get away and it just took him picking them him or her picking them off. Avish: I think we're talking like at slasher movie yeah they're just trying to get away and getting killed. Mike: yeah yeah so uh. Avish: there's very little proactive missing from. Mike: yeah the business is hard to know what does he have to plan the two. Work on escaping. You know and yeah maybe it's something like like getting gasoline for the car so i'm like that, but like real primitive stuff they're not like oh yeah, we would like. Avish: To the guy yeah if there are if they are being proactive it's to get away, not to like. Try to fight Jason. Mike: yeah now, then. Avish: We got to get across the lake where the fuel tank is and. Mike: um yeah. Avish: And, by the end of act three I think everyone is dead, except the last the final girl. Mike: I was going to push them into act for were like at four is going to be where like the the bad and goes back and just like kills off the last chunk of the characters in the. Avish: movie to me act for the final bid is almost always like the extended chase and but. Mike: Definitely, I said we're gonna skip it, but you, you and I are in agreement that either nap foolish and after what you said, which is a bad guy comes back. And one by one quickly rips through. yeah everyone except main car and maybe one other. Avish: Maybe one of the. Mike: That one other if they if they live to throughout three they're dying and X for their diet. Really they're dying in okay we're gonna do this ready act for let's let's assume one other Okay, because here's what happens two cars extended chase fleeing monster. come up with a an environmentally cool way to kill the monster false death they think they're out of it, typically gruesome death for that second character and then the final. Avish: The final final death. Mike: Okay, that makes sense. yeah just like, just like in aliens right where they claim they blow up it's just Bishop. And and ripley ambitious like. Oh we're all saving Brian right. All right. Avish: All right, perfect alright, so we got our basic act structure, so we have five sets with prologue X one X two X three x four.

Mystical Sphere of Destiny (In the Style of a Mystical Martial Arts Movie like Shang Chi and Wu Assassins...)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 26, 2021 84:51

About this episode In this episode, we pay homage to martial arts movies. Specifically, “modern mystical martial arts movies” like the recently released Shang Chi movie. Also, TV shows like Wu Assassins and Iron Fist. We are both big fans (and practitioners) of the martial arts, and we love these types of movies. Hopefully that love shines through in this fun and action packed episode! Links: The Shang Chi Movie on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang-Chi_and_the_Legend_of_the_Ten_Rings About the comic Shang Chi on the Marvel Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang-Chi Wu Assassins on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Assassins The Iron Fist TV show on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(TV_series) About the comic Iron Fist on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(character) Time codes Segment 1 - Discussion the Genre Tropes: 04:43 Segment 2 - Creating the Movie Outline: 10:20 Segment 3 - Picking the Improv Comedy Games: 19:52 Start of show: 28:00 Improv Game - 4-Letter Word: 28:20 Improv Game - Emotional Lists: 33:50 Improv Game - He Said, She Said: 43:57 Improv Game - Blind Line: 53:36 Improv Game - Cutting Room: 1:08:22 End of show, into announcements: 1:23:31 More Information about the show, Mike, and Avish Subscribe to the podcast: Our Website: www.AvishAndMike.com Our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/143183833647812 Avish's site: www.AvishParashar.com Mike's site: www.MikeWorthMusic.com/ Transcription of the “Discussing the Genre Tropes” Segment (Unedited and Un-Cleaned up) Avish: We're now going to spend five minutes chatting about the genre tropes and cliches and things so I got my timer and away we go yet maybe I might kill me again kick us off when you think of this modern martial arts mystical movie. Some things that come to mind. Mike: So what comes to mind right off the BAT we've got one main character and the main character. Usually, has no knowledge of his hidden potential let's there's a couple ways, you can do it, but I like that one he's like you know kind of a chosen one. And so it's the main character, no knowledge of his hidden potential and he is kind of call to adventure usually by a mentor figure right shows up and it's like turns out, you have this power, and you know you have to rise to the challenge and blah blah blah kind of thing um the. Avish: End true hero's journey fashion, he always refuses that call first like he doesn't believe the person or even if he realizes it then he doesn't want it, so we kind of tried to walk away. Mike: yeah yeah exactly now. Avish: And where you were saying he which, for us it probably will be, but it could be a. It could be a female as well, like buffy or whatever yeah. Mike: yeah yeah exactly um okay there's a couple of ways to go with it a lot with can be fun and we can play this one is it's it could be someone from the West. That That then is like trained by like an Eastern mentor kind of thing um or you could just go the traditional like if it's done in China or Hong Kong everything's you know oh they're all native to that region, there is a bad guy the bad guy is. off he yeah he's often also a martial arts dude wizard. Avish: Oh, I think the bad guy yeah it's always a martial arts, you have the big martial arts fight, and I would say the bad guy is either. Either has a similar power um you know, like the yin Yang type thing or once the heroes power, you know, like like oh you've got the iron fist with the bag I wants iron fist So if I kill you i'll get the iron fist. Mike: yeah. Avish: Exactly so they are also mystical. Mike: Now the question is um, here's there's two tropes to this one is there's a training element where this guy has to learn to guide or whatever has learned to harness the power and there's kind of. A rocky esque moment you know, usually as much philosophical, as it is physical or it's like his power emerges from him completely ready to go as like the ancestral energies course through him, you know I mean almost like he. inherits the skill of his 10,000 warrior ancestors and stuff you know i'm saying. Avish: yeah yeah and and a lot of times the person may already be a martial artists just not a mystical martial arts they've already got a lot of like the training and stuff in place. Mike: yeah. Avish: But then, all of a sudden, the the chosen one this comes out and then they become ultra badass Rom. From a from a storytelling standpoint, we can decide, depending on the improv game and stuff I think storytelling wise it's us little easier to not have the training sequence, because that doesn't really ever progress, the story it just sort of right development, but we can kind of decide, we got to be online. Mike: You know it's funny do you do it technically is a mystical martial arts movie highlander. Avish: yeah I guess that is it's like. The chosen one yeah. Mike: So this ties in with this trope there's almost always an earthly detective element to this like this there's This is like this battle is happening in our world like beneath it so there's almost always like. Avish: there's always yeah a cop or someone who. Mike: is investigating these mysterious things you know. Avish: yeah the highlander that, had it in in blue assassins there's one I think in. iron I haven't seen it yet, but i'm assuming there'll be some. yeah but every man yep. Mike: yep I mean a highlander they had what's your face Brenda the. Avish: yeah the gator person. Mike: um let me think what is the ultimate quest to the bad guys either trying to get the power wouldn't get my highlighter or iron fist or it's a quest from a gun. Avish: it's a. Mike: gun, a lot of times the hero is the protector of the macguffin. Avish: yeah the heroes, the protector of the macguffin but without even knowing it, like the macguffin is like part of their spirit or soul inside of them or it's like this medallion they have they don't realize that medallia and that was passed down from to their parents. Mike: Is yeah. Avish: But golfing. But yeah I can combine it too I feel like. I feel like the bad guys and a lot of these their their ultimate goal is power slash Ascension it's like Oh well, if I can kill you and take your soul or get your medallia and macguffin you know, then I can, because the God of blah blah blah, you know I can rise that level of power, I can become the chosen the highlander right like. Mike: big trouble little China, except that didn't have the mystical assassin dude oh my God he man is this as well. Just like everything in. Avish: big trouble little China is barely is I mean it didn't have the Marsh offices all mystical had like that the Asian friend was like them that's very much a mystical martial arts. Mike: geez man. Avish: And same thing right and one of the growth, the green eyes are getting more like a mortality is a big one. Mike: yep yep is there a love interest in this, there can be it's not a central. Avish: are usually is for our movies, that may or may not be necessary, but I feel like there's usually a romantic interest in there. Mike: In private romance is always interesting. Avish: So that's our five minute time, the only other thing i'd add is obviously there's a there's there's fights and henchmen and martial arts. Mike: Oh yeah like he's got a when he gets into act to which will go the next one he's going to be chewing through bad guys that's half the fun, you know is him, just like. Avish: yeah which is going to be interesting to convey in an improv audio format, but you know. Mike: I think I have an idea for a game. Transcription of the “Creating the Outline” Segment (Unedited and Un-Cleaned up) Avish: Right now we're gonna spend about five minutes hashing out our outline for this movie we are going to. We use a four X structure which is like a three act structure we just split act to into first half and second half, it flows, a little better it's because we're engineering which eventually will have a link and affiliate link to buy from our website. Mike: Oh yeah that's a great oh my God yeah. Avish: And and disclaimer here is we're going to come up with the outline for our story here. The because it's improv is short from improv things that wacky and crazy, we may veer from it, but this is our kind of starting point and lifeline so for five minutes begins now. Alright, so we always begin with either a prologue or movie trailer. Mike: What do you feel, and I know what i'm feeling. Avish: For this kind of mystical thing a prologue often works. Mike: Yes, Sir studio dog has arrived he's he votes for the prologue as well. Avish: Alright, so we'll do a prologue and that will usually not involve the hero at all, usually it's like the bad guy can you meet the bad guy and you learn a little bit on what they're after. Mike: yep and you learn if there's a macguffin usually see the macguffin right. Avish: That yeah. Mike: You know the stage is set in Shakespearean context. Avish: yeah okay so that's prologue alright so in act one we obviously meet the hero. Mike: yep pro I just I just deleted it from our thing meet the hero, and we are let's follow the hero's journey and he is truly ordinary meaning he might be martial arts, music it's a normal dude. Avish: dude yeah. Mike: yeah he has a department, a little. Avish: yeah he's got a its got apartment he is a musician and he does Brazilian jujitsu he just he just boxing on the side of. Avish: dogs. Mike: Fantastic person that was never really a. Call to adventure uh. Avish: I think, and this, especially if you want to romance interest, I feel like in act one. Somehow he gets involved there's like a fight scene, where he does something your mystical without realizing it or he's like what the hell happened the mentor comes. And oftentimes not for us fighting the romance injuries they're like he rescued her from bad guys or whatnot because we want managers sometimes as an outside observer or the COP and sometimes it's like it's like the damsel in distress like oh they're after the Princess or you know. And then let's go he refuses, the call and then something happens at forces into. Mike: it's really easy to stick surveys, because guess what he refused to call that guess what that guy shows up trying to get him. Avish: yeah. Mike: Now the hero, maybe the mentor shows up and gets the hero away now we've entered the Special World you know this takes raised bad guy shows up, I mean i'm i'm typing it in here where i'm drilling a little bit in but it's kind of follow the hero's journey pretty. Avish: Pretty easily the free yeah then he has to the turning point, we have to accept the call yep. Mike: bad guy shows up and makes trouble put inputs here in danger cool so I act one ends with blue that crossing the threshold he in the mentor of the fleet temporarily defeat the bad guy. Avish: Except for he's gonna lose, but the mentor comes and saves them and then. Which is another another two movies, that are in this genre are both mortal kombat and the new mortal kombat. Mike: Right right very much so yeah. Avish: that's what happens in mortal kombat like rating comes and saves them. That before soon to be. Mike: referenced several movies, with Christopher. Lead bear this is fantastic. Avish: We do need a whole Chris Orlando genres are. Mike: Very job. Avish: All right, alright, so we got the prologue so in act one so an act to um, so this is like the reactive where they're kind of learning. about what. What the bad guys want they're investigating they're probably on the run a little bit. Mike: In hiding. Avish: yeah. Mike: Just like teenage mutant ninja turtles oh my God. Avish: Man they're all there. Mike: He says this is great i've fallen in love with the genre uh and then of course this is when the hero has learned to develop his powers. Avish: yeah there's going to be training it's going to be here. And devotes his powers Okay, you probably loses something here like he, like if I beat henchmen but maybe loses a fight to the main bad guy. Mike: yeah. Avish: Like managed to get away. Mike: yeah. Avish: If he's like Oh, I think, maybe in Act two even though he's accepted the call he hasn't like fully embraced his destiny so he's like trying to do things his own way, but then he gets in a fight and realizes like oh crap my way is not going to work yeah. Mike: You know, you know what could happen here uh. The again there's there's some sort of macguffin thing there's maybe an early conflict where the hero tries to stop an element of the bad guys plans beats the hedge fund, but the bad guy. achieves the plan it defeats the hero, but the bad guys goal wasn't to like defeat the hero, you know let's hit the bad guy like I don't know how to get a gym from. he's trying to build a spell my name is Jim the hero goes in like defends the gym against the henchmen but losing to the big bad guy. Avish: Right and i'd say usually hero is kind of like cocky or arrogant and then like, just like the humbling moment where he's like he thought he did good be Benjamin but it's like oh no and then he's like all right, I got to really listen to you know master rate in and do it right. Mike: So that's act to a at this point in time, also usually the the the investigative comes into because whatever he's doing or has done an act one or two is gets the the attention of the police and stuff like that yeah that all right, so that was pretty passive act in terms of he's just growing as a hero and stuff like that. Avish: yeah and there's like a little bit of action scenes there so act three is finished up yeah. After our show damn it we're. going to offer five minutes here care um so in act three. This is more proactive so he's actively trying to stop the bad guy here right. Mike: This is where the bad guy will do two things, he will up the stakes in dissuading the hero from interfering and that will cause the hero to even more intently wanted to feed him this is usually where the love interest gets kidnapped. Avish: yeah that's like how the act and a lot of times it's like yeah. Mike: Because what the what the bad guys doing is basically said dude stay away i've got your girlfriend and that of course makes the hero want to get them even more right. Avish: yeah nothing on this i'm like it kind of succeeds, and doing what it needs to to stop the bad guy but then the bad guy kind of one ups him by yeah kidnapping or threatening something so we have to like. You know they like get the gym first, but then the bad guy shows up like oh you don't give me the gentleman kill all these people and then they're like. Mike: 40 exactly. And then usually This point is when the mentor if he died, the mentor sacrificed himself here, but the mentor doesn't always doesn't. Avish: always happen, but if they don't die they disappear like they get captured or or like another modern martial arts mystical remote Williams know. Mike: Right. Avish: wing chun sort of dies, but then he comes in and it turns out he's alive, at the end because you know he's done all right. yeah the the hero, the hero loses his like safety net, the mentors guy Ben kenobi is now dead yeah. Mike: Exactly Oh yes, safety nets gone. Avish: And then act for is the kind of final confrontation and resolution. Mike: This is a final like loads of fight this is a good old fashioned loads of fighting this is literally like the the old game, the dented it ended it ended the karate game. yeah the five levels of the temple this is game of death, but he doesn't he just sending. Avish: yeah don't do bad guys. Mike: chewing through the henchmen. Avish: And usually if depending how we establish the characters the and sometimes the romantic interest and the investigative copper of the same person sometimes they're different. But if we're going to have multiple threads running, then you know the love interest was kidnapped can so agency and escape and do her thing and the COP can be working the angle from his or her side and then you know everything kind of coalesce is, at the end. Mike: there's often a time danger fight at the end when you fight in the head bad guy you know, like there's a doomsday clock going. Avish: Oh yeah but if he doesn't stop it by by the time the moon rises that. Mike: Right right right or left with a conjunction happens the hero seems the final form and defeats the villains, you know he comes into his true power. Avish: And then oh that's good that's the kind of final trope flash in the outline. there's usually some mental block the some reason there's something stopping the hero from embracing their full. Their full oneness and you know. Usually it's like insecurity, which I think is kind of lame but usually it's some mental block or something they don't realize is preventing them from totally. Mike: And so they assume the final form and defeat the villain and then the hero, you know becomes the new protector of the macguffin. Or you know because he's there's some sort of protecting element, or like this isn't more like he's becoming a crime fighter he really is like supposed to be like a protector, or something. yeah so. Avish: Or, in theory, until the sequel you know he saved the world and he's like free to live his life he's like I have yeah. Mike: yeah. Avish: The highlander until you realize that there are aliens and right side just I show up because, because we can always improve a movie but not that one. I think we've got a nice little outline.

Issue 13: Superboy 109 & 110

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 19, 2021 62:33

Today we're checking out a couple of Jessika's latest estate sale finds: Superboy 109 & 110. Are these swingin' sixties stories about the Boy of Steel any good? Well, no. Not really. But they certainly gave us something to talk about! ----more---- Episode 13 Transcript Jessika: [00:00:00] Dude. It's always fucking Florida, Mike: I can't think of anything that comes out of Florida that's good. Jessika: Hello. Welcome to Ten Cent Takes, the podcast where we traverse tumultuous time continuities, one issue at a time. My name is Jessika Frazier and I am joined by my cohost, the dastardly dog dad, Mike Thompson. Mike: That's a fair description. Jessika: That was a segue. We need to talk about your newest acquisition. Mike: What, Mo? Jessika: No. We've talked about Mo. What was your newest acquisition in relation to the squad? Mike: Oh, right. We bought a dog wagon over the weekend. Jessika: Yeah, you did! Mike: And then, uh, already busted it out and taking them all over the neighborhood [00:01:00] and to the beach. I think it was proven to be a wise investment when this neighbor who we'd never seen before stopped his car in the middle of the road and yelled at us about how cute he thought it was. He was like, “that's the cutest thing I've ever seen!” He was this big old dude. I'm like, alright, I'm on board with this. All right. Success. Jessika: Amazing. Mike: It was very wholesome. Jessika: Well, I think Mike'll have to post at least one or two pictures of the dogs in this week's transcript. Mike: Yeah, no, we can absolutely post photos of the dogs in this episode's transcript. Jessika: Yes. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Well, the purpose of this podcast is to study comic books in ways that are both fun and informative. We want to look at their coolest, weirdest and silliest moments, as well as examine how they're woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today we'll be discussing the boy of steel, Superboy. While there are many variations of this character, we are going to be focusing on the OG [00:02:00] comics from 1944 to 69 as the ones that we talk about, but we will also just briefly touch upon the other comics, TV shows, and movies sporting the same character, as well as touch upon the absolute nightmare that is the timeline continuity, or lack thereof, that is Superman's life story. But before we do that, what is one cool thing that you've read or watched lately? Mike: Sarah and I have been watching a show called Motherland: Fort Salem. Have you heard of this? Jessika: I have, I was interested. Should I start it? Mike: Yeah, we really dig it. It's on FreeForm, but it's streaming on Hulu. It takes place in this world where the United States stopped hunting witches 300 years ago and there was something called the Salem Accords signed. So now we have a world that's dominated by the USA and witches make up, as far as I can tell, the entirety of its armed forces. Jessika: [00:03:00] Oh, snap. Mike: It's really cool. And the whole thing is magic is based on sound and resonance. And it's really a unique spin on things, but the show follows these three young witches who are recruited into the army and then start navigating their way through it. And the larger society, that's a part of the military and it's very comic book-y in terms of its plotting and character development and then the meta narrative as well. It's really cool. And it's really diverse in terms of casting. The storylines are really thoughtful in a lot of ways, and it's very queer. Like, extremely queer. Jessika: Yes. Mike: And the shows in the middle of its second season. And it's gotten much better. Like, I mean, it was already, it was already very good, but it feels like the second season, they really got the kick things up and they've really upped the creep factor. There's a whole thing about witch hunters re-emerging in kind of striking back at witches and riling up public sentiment. It feels very topical. [00:04:00] And then the whole thing is that because which is get their powers from the sound of their voice, what these witch hunters are doing is they're actually like cutting out witches' voice boxes and then weaponizing them. It's really cool and really creepy. And I really like it. Jessika: Oh, damn. That is like horrific. And like wow, that's an interesting concept. Mike: Yeah. Sarah and I have been really, really enjoying it. And it's definitely something that we put on when the kids aren't around obviously, but, Jessika: Oh, yeah. Mike: but it's really solid. So yeah, not a comic book this time. But certainly something that I think a lot of comic book fans would enjoy. How about you? Jessika: Well, once again, Lauren from Outer Planes in Santa Rosa comes through on the recommendations. Because she suggested the Image series, Man Eaters: The Cursed. Mike: Hm. Jessika: It's so fun. It starts off with 15 year old Maude being forced to go to summer camps. So her parents can go on this romantic vacation by themselves without her. Mike: [00:05:00] Relatable. Relatable, mom and dad. Jessika: Absolutely. Well, and it's so funny because they put these fun little, like. It's almost like little artifacts in there , for you. So they have the registration card where they're registering her. And so it's like, will you be on vacation while your child is at camp? And it's like, YES. Like it literally asked that as a question like it's expected. Mike: Good. Jessika: It's pretty funny. Another thing I found that's really funny is they have the campers have these buttons. They're like warning buttons for insurance purposes. And they say things like sleepwalker or lice, or like Gemini. Which like big Gemini myself, like absolutely issue some warnings. Mike: I love it. Jessika: And I love that there is one male character so far in this, and he's the least prepared for everything and Maude totally [00:06:00] roasts him a couple of times. Mike: Again, relatable. Because the one who does all the home repairs around here, it ain't me. Jessika: Oh my gosh. So yeah, no, I added that to my pull list. Mike: Yeah, that sounds great. Jessika: All right. Well, welcome to another episode of Jessika's estate sale fines. This week we'll be looking at Superboy, the comics, and I'm going to run us through the timeline of the comics as they came out, along with the TV shows and movies that were associated with those. So a lot of this is going to be like informational about when the comic came about and the character, Superboy as Kal-El Mike: I'm super excited. Jessika: there was a lot to it. And actually there was a lot of different weirded consistencies that we're definitely gonna get into. As I've already hinted at that, I think you'll find very [00:07:00] funny, Mike: I'm so excited. Jessika: Okay. before I get too deep into this topic, I want to give a shout out to the resources that I use to compile my information today: An article from DC on DC comics.com fan news blog by Megan Downey, titled “Reign of the Superboys: The strange history of the Boy of Steel,” the Wikipedia article on Superboy, a blog post on captaincomics.ning.com in a forum called the comics round table by username commander Benson titled “deck log entry, number 176 Superboy: the time of his life,” and IMDB. for those of you who are. For those of you who are somehow unfamiliar with the basic storyline of Superboy's origins. not to be confused with Superman's origins, which he swoops in a little bit differently initially in the comics than this. but Kal-El in this instance was sent to earth by his parents before their home planet of Krypton [00:08:00] was destroyed. He was discovered in the crater left by his arrival by locals Martha and Jonathan Kent, who adopted him, raising him as their own son and naming him Clark. At age eight, Clark is told how he was found and finds out more about his origins from Krypton. Martha makes him an indestructible suit out of a blanket that he was found with one that came from Krypton and is imbued with the same powers that he himself holds. And it's basically just like Superman fucking around and not being in school. Mike: Yeah, it almost entirely takes place in Smallville, which… it's kind of like the DC universe version of Cabbot Cove from Murder, She Wrote, where you're just like, how many fucking people die in this town? You know, in Smallville, it's, it's more along the lines of how many fucking supervillains hang out in this town in the middle of nowhere, Kansas, Jessika: That's just it. What is it? A convention? Mike: I guess. Jessika: Oh, so Superboy as a character was created by Joe Schuster and [00:09:00] Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel in 1938, but was rejected twice by Detective Comics before the growing popularity of the comic Robin, the Boy Wonder, finally convinced them to change their stance and they then decided to use it to try to relate to a younger readership with a younger character, which makes sense. Thus, Superboy made his comic debut in 1945, but just as a feature in the anthology, More Fun Comics issue 101. Now, of course, it wouldn't be comics without a little bit of drama. Schuster had assistance from Don Cameron instead of Siegel, as Siegel was serving in World War II and stationed in Hawaii. And he actually had to hear about Superboy's and inaugural publication through a letter from Schuster. DC didn't send them any notification nor was he able to actively participate in the trajectory of the plot line since he was serving. It [00:10:00] was kind of a fuck you. Mike: considering how heavily Superman was a part of propaganda. There is literally a cover of Superman running a printing press that says, I think it says, like, “help slap a Jap.” Jessika: Oh, that hurt me. Mike: Yeah. Like, I mean, Superman was very much part of World War II propaganda, and that's insane that they wouldn't let one of his creators participate in the storylines because he was serving in the, uh, okay. Whatever. Jessika: Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty, it's pretty rough. So apparently there was already a rift in Siegel and Schuster's relationship. And so this just increased that strain. After that first issue, Superboy appeared in More Fun Comics, bimonthly issues through number [00:11:00] 107, but was picked up by Adventure Comics debuting in April of 1946. So he was bouncing around, that was issue number 103. And he was the lead feature for the anthology on this one Mike: Hm Jessika: and remained the headlining feature for over 200 issues and continued being featured in Adventure Comics until 1969. Mike: That's such a huge, just, that's an incredible run. Jessika: Yeah. It's a ton of time. And especially considering like he had, this was just like a side gig for Superboy. Really. He had other stuff going that he was doing. Mike: Yeah, I do know that at one point in the sixties, Superboy was I believe the number two comic in America and the only one that was doing more than that was Superman. Jessika: It's like you were reading ahead. No, seriously. That's in my notes. Mike: Oh, really? Okay, cool. Jessika: Yeah, Yeah, yeah, no. And actually was frequently number two. We'll just get to it now. It was frequently number two for a lot of it's run.[00:12:00] So notable storylines that we got from Adventure Comics were intro to Krypto, the super dog, the origin story of his rivalry with Lex Luther, which that continues pretty far. So it's interesting that they, like, created the origin story. Mike: Yeah. They had like teenage Lex Luther show up in Smallville, right? Jessika: Yeah, yes, yes. Correct. Mike: I think he had hair Jessika: Back when he had hair, yeah. Mike: Yeah. And that's something that's continued up until modern times as well. Mark Waid's Birthright, I know, did that… where it basically revealed that Clark Kent had been for a short time friends with Lex. Jessika: Oh, wow. Of course. They had to be friends before they were enemies. Frenemies. There was also the the debut of the 30th century superhero team, the Legion of superheroes. As Superboy, continue to frequent the pages of anthology comics in April of 1949, he became the sixth superhero to get his own comic book. and was the first new superhero [00:13:00] title to succeed after World War II. Mike: Oh, wow. That's crazy. Jessika: Right? Mike: I had no idea that there were only six superhero comics back then. Jessika: Yeah. Not with our own titles. Mike: I mean, that's wild. Jessika: Totally. I didn't realize that either. Mike: yeah Jessika: notable storylines from this namesake comic were intro to Ilana Lang and Pete Ross, the storyline of the first Bizarro and first appearances of Legion of superheroes characters, Mon-El and Ultra Boy. He also appeared in Legion of superheroes volume. One, which was printed as an anthology. Superboy itself continued until 1976 when the comic was renamed Superboy and the Legion of superheroes. Superboy was involved in the storyline until issue number 2 59. When he leaves after learning new information regarding the death of his parents.[00:14:00] Dramatics. Mike: Yeah, I haven't read a lot of those, but the idea is that he's displaced through time and he winds up hanging out with the Legion for a while. And then if I remember right, Supergirl winds up joining the Legion after a while, too. Basically, so they can have kind of a headliner. Jessika: I smell them trying to fix a time continuum. But that's maybe I'm biased. Based on the research I've been doing, The series was then retitled Legion of superheroes volume two, and ended with issue number 354 and 1979. There was also a three-part mini series called Secrets of the Legion of Superheroes that was published in 1981. And despite the general decline of superhero readership, Superboys' popularity continued to grow and adventure comics and Superboy frequently sold over a million copies combined. Mike: That's an insane amount of comics these days. You know, back then that [00:15:00] was wild. Jessika: I mean, it definitely groundbreaking for its time. I would say it was, it sounded like it was huge. The popularity may also have been due to the fact that Superboy was found on more than just comic book stands. He was also on the TV and in the movies, he appeared in a 26 minute movie called the Adventures of Superboy and multiple six-minute episodes airing with the New Adventures of Superman, which aired for 1966 to 70, the Superman Aquaman Hour of Adventure from 67 to 68 and the Batman Superman Hour 68 to 69. All of which were just continuations are within that same world as the initial comic book. Mike: Right. And those were all animated series too, I think, right? Jessika: they were. They were. And here's something fun for you to watch if you wanted to click on that link. Mike: Okay. [Superboy INTRO AUDIO PLAYS] I love the image of like infant CBRE, boy, just lifting a piano. All right. Jessika: Very patriotic. Mike: Yeah. I love the fact that they have Krypto in there. Like I've always had a soft spot for Krypto. I am a little offended that his cowlick isn't in the shape of an S though. Come on guys. You know, this is an amateur hour. Jessika: Missed opportunity. Mike: Right. But yeah, that was super cute. Jessika: Wasn't that fun? Yeah. So I can, I could see kids get getting really excited about seeing that. And then they walk by the newsstand and they go, I just saw that on TV. Mike: yeah, exactly. Jessika: [00:17:00] So I think they had a good thing going with that at that point. Mike: Oh, a hundred percent. So that was in the sixties, you said, right? Jessika: Yes. Mike: So that was right when television was becoming the dominant form of entertainment in the United States. I think by 1959 or 1960, it was something like 90% of households in America had televisions. And Saturday morning cartoons were starting to become a thing, which by the way, you guys should go back and listen to that episode about Saturday morning cartoons. It's our first episode. And we talk all about the evolution of that and how it connected with Comics. Jessika: It was a fun one. So pretty much right after the Legion of Superheroes volume two ended, the New Adventures of Superboy was published in 1984. That had 54 published issues, Mike: Okay. That's a respectable run. Jessika: Yeah. It's not anything too wild. Yeah. In 1985, DC tried to tie up some of those pesky plot holes that we're going to discuss later [00:18:00] on, for sure, by creating a comic that told the story of Clark Kent's transitional years in college at Metropolis University, going from Superboy effectively to Superman. And while this was supposed to last for 12 installments, they only ended up publishing six, mostly due to the fact that Crisis on Infinite Earths was published Mike: I was about to ask. Yeah. Jessika: Yep. That actually featured the eraser of Superboy and yet another attempt to correct a timeline. Mike: Well, Crisis on Infinite Earths was the first real attempt by DC to sit there and stream everything into a coherent timeline. And at the same time they had John Byrne's The Man of Steel, which came out I think right after. Crisis on infinite earths. And that also streamlined Superman's very convoluted history. The problem is is that by that point in time, you had almost 50 years of continuity, which made no fucking [00:19:00] sense. Jessika: And we'll discuss it later, but there wasn't necessarily a need for continuity back in the day. I mean, they didn't have to have it. They were just there for like, we're doing this adventure. This is fun. They're going to enjoy it. And there wasn't a feeling that you had to necessarily link it with what came before it or what was going, coming after it in the same way that we want now as readers and as fans, we want everything to make sense because we want more of the story in that way. Mike: We want that overarching meta plot. Jessika: Exactly. Exactly. So despite DC's attempt to write Superboy out of the universe completely, he appeared once again in Legion of Superheroes Volume Three, which ran from 86, 87 and while Crisis on Infinite Earths had erased Superboy. To some extent in other time, continuations, they now needed to recreate him in order to have a cohesive storyline for [00:20:00] Legion of Superheroes. Mike: God. Jessika: So they were like, what are we going to do? Oh, I know pocket universe. Mike: Why not? Jessika: Why not? So in this version, it's set in a pocket universe created by the villain Time Trapper. Mike: I think the Time Trapper… so the Time Trapper is like a villain who has had multiple identities. It's the same villain ultimately, but it's different people wind up becoming the Time Trapper. And I think, Superboy became the time trapper point. Jessika: This doesn't surprise me at all. What the hell? Mike: Yeah, don't, don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure that it happened, uh, during one of their big, crossovers, Jessika: Oh, no, Mike: Comic books are dumb and I love them. Jessika: I do, too. This is actually part of the reason I really do like them. Because I like seeing all of these little differences. It doesn't make me mad. I just find it very funny. Mike: Yeah. so the Time Trapper created a pocket [00:21:00] universe and then they used him to bring Superboy back. Jessika: Yeah, exactly. And so he, but here's the funny part. He was really just like a sideline character in this. He came in and issued 24 and he was killed off in 38. Mike: Superboy was going. Okay. I'm not going to ask question. Jessika: Yeah. Cause he had to like sacrifice himself to save the world. I mean, that's, you know, common trend in these, right. Mike: Of course. Jessika: Yeah. It was convenient. If not obvious. Mike: Okay. Jessika: Superboy apparently would not, could not be stopped. As was apparent in 1988 with not only a comic publication, but also a TV appearance. Once again, this time live action. Mike: I remember that show. Jessika: Yeah, it was here and that was gone. Mike: It lasted for a couple of seasons, but I think they had a couple of different actors play Superboy. Jessika: They did. Yeah. So it was four seasons and it started out starring John Hames Newton for season one [00:22:00] and then recast replaced for the remainder of the four seasons. So the rest of the three by Gerard Christopher. Mike: Oops. Jessika: So that was a 22 minute runtime, pretty normal for that time. but there again, it went along with the same year that the Superboy volume two hit shelves. You know, they did another one of those timing things thinking, Hey, it worked what? 30 years ago. Let's do it again. Mike: Yeah. It's that whole transmedia thing. Jessika: Yeah, exactly. the show ultimately lasted until 1992, the same year a one-shot comic called the last Superboy was published. But that seemed to be the last dying ember from the fire that is Superboy, as we've talked about up until this point, except one thing. And I know that we want to talk about it a little bit, which is Smallville. And I know we've mentioned it, but I didn't watch that. Did you watch that show? Mike: Oh, yeah. Are you kidding me? I, I was all over that show for the first few seasons. Jessika: Okay. I [00:23:00] just really, it was just cause I had a crush on Kristin Kruek, but unfortunately she got involved with that horrific NXIVM cult. Mike: I thought It wasn't her. It was the… Jessika: It was Alison Mack, but like, but she was involved for a few years, unfortunately. Big. Yikes. Mike: I don't know too much about it. I just know that Alison Mack was one of the big ringleaders for it and it was wild. Jessika: She was, yeah. Mike: Like she, I think she left Smallville to like devote herself full-time to that cult. Jessika: That sounds right. Yeah, she was, she was definitely a big part of it. yeah, it was rough. I've been following it. Mike: I really liked Smallville when it first came out. I remember getting so excited when they had a little teaser ad for it where I think it's Krystin Kreuk is wandering through the darkness and she hears something and turns and then you see Tom Welling step out of the shadows and he says something along the lines “Oh, Hey, it's just me. It's it's Clark.” and then it just says Smallville, and I was like, oh mother fucker. That's amazing. [00:24:00] And yeah, it was, it was fine. It was very teen angsty, but they had a lot of deep cuts for comic fans. And, I think I stopped watching around season four because it just started to, it felt like it really sort of jumped the shark, Jessika: Oh, okay. Yeah. I was going to, ask if it's something I should rewatch. I don't know. Stuff from that. Timeframe is so cringey these days. Mike: A lot of it's cringey. I remember a whole thing with his heat vision was tied to like him being horny. Jessika: No. Why do you have to do that? It's so unnecessary. Mike: But you know, what's funny is they actually brought Tom Welling back in the whole DC Arrowverse recently where they have a version of Lex Luther. Who's traveling the multi-verse and he shows up at, he shows up at the Kent farm and Tom welling is there. I thought it was just, it was great. It was, it was just, it was a really cute little nod. Jessika: That is pretty cute. I do like that. Mike: And then he got all mad because he was trying to suck Superman's powers [00:25:00] away. And then it turns out Superman gave up his power so that he can have a family and a normal life. And then the now powerless Superman pops him in the nose. It was kind of good. Jessika: That is cute. Mike: I was fine with this. It was very, it was very wholesome. Jessika: So there are other iterations of Superboy, but they're not necessarily Clark Kent and some of them are, but they kind of stray off into different timeline. And I could have gone down that rabbit hole, but Mike: Yeah. Jessika: you know, I didn't. Here we are. Mike: that's fine. Jessika: So I also know that I, more than hinted, we've talked about a little bit, uh, the continuity troubles that plagued Superboy. Mike: Right, Jessika: I, I gotta say some of these transgressions are just capital B A D bad. But they get a bit of a pass again, you know, like I said, because Comics at that point [00:26:00] really didn't hinge on a time continuum. Mike: Right. That wasn't a thing. Jessika: No, it wasn't. So, we got to give them a little bit of credit except when they actually started figuring it out and they still did absolutely nothing about it, which is what we're going to talk about. Mike: Okay. Jessika: Because after Superman, they kind of figured out, oh, people are wanting more of a storyline and we've already given Superman kind of a timeframe. And now this has to be Superboy. So it needs to be earlier. So they were like, Okay. Superboy is from the 30s. Mike: Right. Jessika: But Superman at that time, I think was supposed to be set in the 60s or the 50s. And the math did not add Mike: Right. Jessika: at all to get to that point. So right off the bat. You've just you're wrong about the dates. what's even more funny to me is that in the first iterations of the Superman comic, the origin story is always [00:27:00] that the first time he came to earth was when he came to metropolis, like as a full ass adult. Mike: Right. Jessika: So what's, what's up, you know, so that's where it's like, all Right. this is already… Mike: This is convoluted. Yeah. Jessika: exactly. So you and I read a couple of comics from the time period of those original comics, and we read them from specifically from 1963. What I love about these is you could actually, at that, I don't, maybe they still do this. I haven't seen it yet in my Comics. You could write in and they would publish the comments and the editor … Mike: they still do this. Jessika: Okay, cool. So the editor writes a comment back, Mike: Yeah. Jessika: So we have a few of these. Mike: Okay. Jessika: And I would love for you to read them for us. Mike: Okay. So we have a few of these here. the first one says dear editor, since Superman was a Superboy before World War II and television sets, weren't perfected and [00:28:00] sold to the public until after World War II. How come you show TV roof antennas, and Superboy stories. Kevin Herron, Tiffin, Ohio. And the editor responded with you're right, Kevin, we're wrong. We made a booboo. Editor. Jessika: Okay. Mike: The next one is dear editor. How come in Superboy comics. You illustrate such modern inventions as a bombs, atomic subs, jet planes, television, et cetera, all devices, which weren't invented until 1945 for later. And which certainly weren't around when Superman was born, Ken parent Wheaton, Illinois. The response is historians refer to such inconsistency as anachronisms. They are a necessary form of literary license required to achieve dramatic effects. Movies exercise this option very often. For example, the first umbrella was invented in 1740 yet numerous period films devoted to the life in the middle ages have shown heroines protecting themselves from the sun with a parasol. Editor Jessika: I love how he's getting like a little salt here with his answers. Mike: Just a little bit. [00:29:00] Jessika: He's like, but Webster's dictionary says… Mike: God. Yeah. I don't miss those days. These days. Usually when you see the letters section of a comic, it's usually people talking about how much something meant to them, or at least in the ones that I read it. It's always really nice. So. Jessika: That's sweet. Mike: All right. So the last one: dear editor in the recent story, the amazing bizarro you had Superboy dropping an atomic bomb on bizarro. How is this possible, as Superboys adventures. They're supposed to have happened before 1945 and scientists had not perfected the H-bomb until 1945. Steve Spangler, Sonoma, California, Jessika: Boom representation. That's right down the road from us. Mike: the response is “we goofed! From now on no more a bombs in Superboy. Editor.” Jessika: Well, that's easy. Mike: Oh, that's great. At some point it's like, come on guys, it's a comic book. Jessika: Yeah, Mike: I think it's, are you [00:30:00] really expecting the science fiction comic, starring an alien who just happens to look exactly like a human, but has more super powers than God is going to be historically and scientifically accurate all the time. Okay. Whatever. I don't… Jessika: I know. I know. I know. I hear you. I do well. And what's funny too, is at one point, Lana Lang is in a beauty competition and it says 1952. Mike: Well, it's reassuring to know that nerds were always this nitpicky. Jessika: Absolutely. That really is. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: So the time in consistencies didn't end there. As I mentioned, there have been multiple timelines that have been created and destroyed to ensure some kind of consistency in the Superman universe. But whether or not that was actually a success is really anybody's opinion. It's up to the listener. [00:31:00] But if you're interested in finding out more about this travesty of a timeline, go check out that blog post I mentioned at the top of the episode, I'm on Captain Comics Presents, it's got a lot more examples of the inconsistencies from those OG comics. Mike: Yeah. Well, okay. One thing I will note is that DC kind of figured this out recently where they, ran a series called doomsday clock, and it's Dr. Manhattan from the Watchman universe with Superman. And the very end of it is revealing that there is now a “metaverse” in DC. Where it's like, oh yeah. So Superman arrived in the 30s and started being a superhero, you know? And then also he also arrived in the 60s and then he also arrived in the 80s and so on and so forth. And so it, it sort of makes sense of that for those people who care. Jessika: Well, and it's like the same kind of Marvel multi-verse that we have going on with that, with the Spider-Man is pointing to each other. Mike: Yeah. It [00:32:00] basically, it takes the concept of a multi-verse and then it adds another layer and it does it in a way that feels, hm, I'm not going to say plausible, but it just, it kind of works and, you know, I actually liked it, but that's just me. Jessika: Yeah. you know what, and what's funny about Superman is I don't like Superman, so it's funny that we're doing this whole episode. I just thought it, was interesting. These Superboy comics when I saw them, well and I picked them up because like, honestly, like the titles were horrific and I will have some very liberal things to say about them, but yes, I, you know, but honestly, what's very funny, even though I hate Superman, I don't know what it was about the Superman symbol that I used to love. And I didn't read the comics. I'd watch the show from the eighties. And I'd seen the Christopher Reeves movies. We loved those. But other than that, I wasn't like huge in the Superman, but if I had gotten a tattoo, when I was 18 years old, it would have been a Superman symbol. So I'm very glad my mom never, she never [00:33:00] listens to this. So she will never know that I'm confessing that, she talked me out of making a very bad tattoo decision because she doesn't need any more gloating rights, Mike: Yeah. I don't know. I kind of viewed him like Captain America, where I thought he was really boring. And then I realized that if you find the right writer, Superman really, really works. I've come to really enjoy a lot of Superman stories, but you know, it depends. Jessika: And I think you're right. That I, I probably just haven't found the right writer or the right style. And I did recently start do I start birthright? I started something recently. Mike: I think it was Birthright, based on our conversations. Jessika: yeah. So I will get back into that at some point in time. I just have such a stack now will obsessed. Oh no. Mike: Oh no, Jessika: Oh, no. more Comics. So Mike, you and I read a couple of these issues that I found at that estate sale. That was Superboy boys. Numbers, 109 [00:34:00] and 110. So do you want to recap 109 us? Mike: Yeah. Okay. You've mentioned that these are anthology comics and so Superboy at this point in time, apparently was having two or three storylines per issue. based on the two that we read, each one had two different stories in it. Superboy 109 has the first story is the Super Youth of Brozz. The title story about the rival super dogs doesn't show up until later, which that always surprises me, when the cover action isn't the first story and everything else is in a backup, but whatever. Jessika: It's a little confusing. Mike: the Super Youth of Brozz is about how a young Clark Kent winds up sort of becoming friends with another teenage orphan in Smallville named Fred who's, quote, timid that's his like defining character trait. That's all that anybody used to describe him. And he gets picked on by the towns in crowd of teenagers. It's revealed that he lives in the [00:35:00] Smallville orphanage, which okay. He literally walks back to the orphanage and then Superboys spies on him and he's crying because he overheard people talking about how they didn't want to adopt him because he was too much of a wimp I'm just like, oh, okay. Jessika: Thanks for being super toxic Superboy. That's so great. Mike: Superboy winds up deciding to give him confidence. And so he takes him to a planet called Brozz where Fred gains super powers from the atmosphere. And then Superboy actually loses his overtime for reasons that are not really well explained because you know, Superboy, he gets his powers from the yellow sun. And then later on, he gets his powers back sort of from the little spacecraft that they brought Fred over in, because it had some remnants of Earth's atmosphere, which that's not how science works. I was a history major and even I can tell you that. Superboy has this whole convoluted plot about how if he can get Fred to have super power's he'll gain confidence, which Fred sort of does. He eventually saves Superboy's life and then decides to stay on the planet and be a superhero. And he gets offered to be adopted, but he declines the offer for some bizarre reason, something about like, you know, basically he doesn't want to put his, foster parents at risk. And Superboy heads home to earth and has a final thought about how he wouldn't be the person he was, if it hadn't been for the Kents. The end. Jessika: Yeah. Yup. Mike: Yep. But the title story, which is the Super Dog That Replaced Krypto is basically at some point, Superboy rescues a dog named Swifty, which looks like a Greyhound. Swifty winds up months later, tracking down Superboy in Smallville, which means that Superboy didn't [00:37:00] even drop this dog off at a shelter. Apparently he just got him out of harm's way and then just left him. So strike one, Supes. Jessika: Yeah. It's not. Mike: Then Superboy winds up temporarily granting Swifty the same powers that Krypto has. And then it seems like he's testing them out, but it doesn't quite work out that way. Swifty loses his powers and then he's, again, I guess, left alone. He's just as far as I can tell, he's a homeless dog in Smallville. Jessika: Yeah. There's a lot of orphans in the story. Mike: after his powers fade some villains who were trapped in the Phantom zone, but crossover and are sort of the Phantom zone wind up trying to take mental control of Superboy and Krypto, they don't have any luck. They are able to influence Swifty. And then they guide him through a process that grants him super powers. And then I think it also makes them evil, but it's not really well explained. Jessika: Oh, it's because the Phantoms were influencing him. [00:38:00] And so their intentions were like his intention. So because they had negative vibes against Superboy. That's what I got out of it, but it's, it's really vague. Mike: Super vague. Superboy decides to randomly hold a series of tests for Swifty and Krypto to be the new super dog. And like, he does this as opposed to like, just like letting them both help him out. Jessika: that's what I'm saying. Like, it wasn't even to like, be the next super dog. It was like to go be the ambassador on this trip Mike: Oh, is that it? Okay. Jessika: yeah. And then , why wouldn't you want like an entourage of fucking, like super dogs with you? Why would you two super dogs is way better than one super dog. Like, I don't know what the fuck his problem was Mike: 100%. So anyway, the Phantom zone criminals helps Swifty, win the contest, Swifty becomes the super [00:39:00] dog for at least this instance. And then he leads both Krypto and Superboy into a kryptonite death trap. Like there's literally a spring that like hurls kryptonite at them. And then at the last second Krypto manages to blast Swifty with the duplicate Ray, which creates a bizarro Swifty, who's good as opposed to the original version. Superboy comes up with a potion or, sorry, the Bizarro Swifty saves them. And then Superboy comes up with a potion that strip Swifty's powers and restores his good nature. And then he creates a collar that repels the Phantom zone ghosts so they can't control the dog again. And that's it like, Swifty's apparently the sad homeless dog in Smallville who just gets sad every time that he sees Superboy and Krypto fly by. And he thinks about how he wants to be Superboys' dog again. Jessika: It's really depressing. And I would never do that to Carl for the record. I would never. Okay. Mike: I mean, [00:40:00] yeah, this, this issue definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Just for that, where I'm like, God, Superboy. it couldn't even find a home for the dog who tracked you down across the country and just wanted to be your friend. Jessika: You're fucking Superboy have two fucking dogs. Like, I don't know how difficult this is. Like, well, where Martha. Martha is like, no, we've already gotten one super dog in the house. Mike: Yeah, right. Jessika: No, this one's just normal, now! I swear. Mike: between the two of us, we have four dogs. So, I mean, we're definitely the wrong audience for this, Jessika: for sure. And I bought this comic for the fact that there were like super dogs on there. I got very excited. Mike: yeah. And the thing is, is that there's a whole menagerie, a super pets like you eventually get like Comet the super horse. Like it's no, there, there was a monkey. There was, I think, I think it was Streaky the super cat too. Jessika: Oh, no. Mike: It's not like, you know, [00:41:00] there wasn't a whole collection of super pets. But whatever. Jessika: Yeah. What did you think of this since you haven't told, since you haven't started telling me already. Mike: It reminded me that Superman and Superboy stories from this era just a lot of times don't make any sense. I have a collection from the late eighties called the Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told, and It's got stories from the forties to the eighties and even those early great stories, in quotes, they're pretty out there. And neither of these stories are anywhere close to what's contained in that book. I don't know. My biggest complaint is how Superboys' logic is always terrible. Like why does Fred need to be made into another version of the Superboy in order to gain confidence? Why not just help them with the core issue, which is that nobody wants to adopt them from the Smallville orphanage, which again, lawl. Jessika: Yeah. Like what does it have two orphans in there? Mike: It just, it seems like helping them find a [00:42:00] family would do a lot more good. And likewise, why not just adopt Swifty too? Like it's shitty and it's dumb, but all of this reminded me of the site called Super Dickery, which I showed you. Jessika: Yes. Mike: It was the site that's originally focused on the absolute insanity of Superman comic covers. So many of these comics would feature things like Superman, just fucking over his friends. That was a repeated theme for years. There's one where he has Lois lane strapped to the grill of a truck and he's flying out after he drove it off a cliff. And just saying something to the effect “I'll see you later, Lois.” Jessika: Holy shit. Mike: And there's another one where Aquaman, Jimmy Olsen are dying of thirst in the desert and Superman's just lording over them with this pitcher of water. the site was around at least in 2005, which is when I first came across it. It's kind of defunct. Now. I don't think has been updated for a couple of years, but you can go back on archive.org and just scroll through all these things. The [00:43:00] tagline was Superman's a Dick and here's the evidence and it's great. Like that is a way to kill an afternoon. Let me tell ya. Jessika: Oh, I definitely checked out a few of those today and I was rolling. Rolling. He definitely came off as an asshole in this comic. Like, no question, no question. You know, what makes me the most mad is that he has the ability to give Swifty super powers. He has the ability to make both dogs talk. Mike: Oh my God. Yeah. Jessika: What the fuck are you doing? Mike: there was a cover on Super Dickery where it's young Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, and they've created a computer that lets them see the future and like, Hey, we're going to grow up to be crime fighters and superheroes. So we're going to be best friends. It's like cool. You know, what also would be useful? I don't know. Maybe telling Bruce Wayne that his parents are going to get murdered and it can be avoided. Jessika: Seriously. Holy shit. Oh my God. Yeah. But then he wouldn't have his [00:44:00] homie. Superboy's just all in it for himself. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And like, why does he just have something lying around the has fandoms as I can get out? Why does he have that? Doesn't make any sense. Mike: We don't have another two hours to discuss the Phantom Zone. Jessika: Kal-El you silly boy. So let's, let's move on to the other comic we read, which, uh, we're just be just as angry about, by the way. Spoiler case you were wondering. So what happened in issue? Number 110? Cause I did get sequential ones, which is great, kind of. Mike: Right. Okay. So again, we have two stores. We have the Surrender of Superboy and the runt of steel, the surrender of supervise story is the one that we actually get on the cover. It's Superboy in Krypto losing a tug of war match to some old man. And we're basically told, well, you won't believe who the old man is. In the Surrender of Superboy, Clark [00:45:00] Kent, and Lana Lang traveled to South America to accompany her, I guess he's a college professor, dad on an archeological dig. One of the flowers recovered is this legendary hate flower, which causes any living, being that smells it to hate the first human they see after smelling it. They're like very specific that it's, you will hate the first human. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: When they get back to Smallville, Lana smells the hate flower by accident. She sees Superboy flying outside and then dun, dun dunnnn winds up developing an intense hatred for the boy of steel. She grabs. I think it's like, it's… do we ever get a name for this thing? It's like a devil's mask? Jessika: I think she just calls it devil's mask. Cause it's a devil's witch mask or something like that on the wall. It's very vague again. Mike: So she's in this museum, she grabs this thing off the wall because there's no fucking security anywhere. And it specifically says what it does, where it's says the person who wears this can summon souls , or spirits from the past and have them obey them for an hour. And then she [00:46:00] starts using it to cause trouble. Sir Lancelot and then George Washington are her first minions, but they refuse to help because they claim that they've heard about Superboy's heroic deeds and even in the past, which Jessika: No, no, no, It's not a thing. No. Mike: I just, I can't, man, it's so dumb. Jessika: When I read that, I was like, what, what is actually going on right now? I literally stopped reading for a few minutes. Mike: Everything about the story it feels like monkeys at a typewriter. Jessika: Yes, Mike: So then she summons Merlin to humiliate Superboy at this super strength exhibition that he's doing in order to benefit the old folks home and Merlin, it turns out is the old man who beats him in the tug of war on the cover. Which by the way, this is like three panels in the comic. And it's not that big a deal. Jessika: it's really not. Mike: yeah, after that she summons Edgar Allen Poe and [00:47:00] Sherlock Holmes. She says they're the two greatest detective minds of the past. So they help her solve a jewel highs that Superboy can't and then she framed Superboy by having Hercules, Samson, and Atlas tear apart the Smallville Scientific Institute. Um, let's see, she summons Venus, Helen of Troy, and Juliet to basically seduce Superboy. And then she spurns him at a dance. And also I'm sorry, but really? JULIET? Like, come on. Jessika: Juliet was a child who fell into a situation and was a tragic figure. Mike: Juliet was a stupid teenager. Like, I can't, I can't even, I'm sorry. Jessika: She probably had acne and Superboy definitely had that hair where it was brushed forward and then spiked up in the front. Mike: Yep. Jessika: Absolutely. Yep. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Fuckin' assholes. All of them, Mike: So she [00:48:00] spurns them at this dance and her dad gets mad at her. He's like, I heard you were very rude to Superboy. Jessika: Which by the way, the fact that he wears that fucking suit to every occasion, like, come on, dude. Mike: I just love that idea. Jessika: Can you have like a literal suit, like, a super suit. That actually looks nice? Mike: Just get something, like, get a nice Navy blue, kind of slim fitting suits have an Ascot popping out with your Superman logo. All the girls would be all over you. It'd be great. Jessika: Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine the Kent's first trip to a fancy restaurant where they have to like, get the borrow jacket, like the loaner jacket from the restaurant, because he's wearing his stupid ass suit and they're like, Oh, Sir, excuse me. Mike: He's just walking around with his Cape, sticking out from under the jacket. I would read that comic. Jessika: I would too. [00:49:00] Mike: Anyway. So finally Lana decides to pull Jor-El, Superboy's dad from the past, in order to help her discover Superboys' secret identity. Instead of, I don't know, reuniting Jor-El with his son who he never got to see, but whatever. Okay. Jor-El gives you this device that's supposed to detect Kryptonians. It leads her to a closet where Krypto the Superdawg is Krypto shakes himself, and basically gives off a bunch of dust. Actually counteracts the flowers' hate pollen. And it turns out that Superboy and Lana's dad switched the mask with a dummy, once they realized what was going on and then her dad disguised himself as GRL and then everything just goes back to normal and nothing matters. Jessika: Yeah, we're again, they have access to these devices that are like powerful and they like have instructions on the wall, but don't use them. Like he literally says to his daughter at one point like, oh, well stay away from the superstition side of things. It's quite dangerous. And she's like, oh, what's that?[00:50:00] Let me check out this mask. So fricking ridiculous. Mike: So then we get the second story, which is the Super Runt of Steel, which is about a criminal named Peewee Reagan, who we don't know who this dude is, but he shows up at this dilapidated house, he pays some amoral super scientist to grant him super powers. Peewee goes on a crime spree that even Superboy can't stop because Superboys' powers are weirdly fading for no real reason. Peewee flies away to a distant planet because he spotted treasure inside it. He gets to the planet, he wrecks a bunch of the alien robots that are there and then goes inside this vault that's full of space gems and minerals, and he winds up screaming in pain. Superboy finds out the scientist it turns out leached his powers and transfer them over to Peewee. And he's able to track the criminal to the aforementioned planet. And it turns out Peewee died because the vault also contained kryptonite and then Superboy [00:51:00] buries Peewee and flies away the end. Jessika: Because he somehow gets his powers back by just being around him. It was weird. Mike: Everything about this issue just made me roll my eyes. And a lot of the stories from this era, if you go back and read a lot of these things, they had those kinds of surprise endings. That just feel so dumb these days. Like it was that weird, ironic twist. They're not really ironic because they don't really make a lot of sense. Jessika: Yeah, they're just kind of like a left field thought. Mike: Yeah, there's a lot that just doesn't work. And it's like if you go down this very specific logic train that these writers force you along, it's like, you know, the whole thing. Having Lana's dad disguise himself as Jor-El, like Superboy, just, knew that this was going to be the next step. You're like, all right. Well, I don't know, and then also, I'm sorry. But she's supposed to be calling all of these characters from history, all these spirits or people from history and then it's gods and fictitious characters like [00:52:00] Lancelot and Juliet and uh, whatever. Jessika: No, they were really contrived figures. I mean, even when they had real people in there, they weren't used to their purpose. Mike: No, and it's one of those things where you read it and you're like, this is just, this is so dumb. Oh, it's Samson and Hercules. Okay. Whatever, why not? Random characters from the Bible and Greek mythology. Why not? Jessika: Dude, where do I even start on this issue though? They had so many problems. The beginning, when the scientists negate the word of the locals as superstition, even though it actually did have dangerous poisonous properties to it. They're like, oh, it's just a myth. Mike: Because there's a whole thing where one of the boroughs winds up attacking a guide and then when they sit there and say, oh, it must have like gotten near the hade flower and they're like, oh no, it just got bit by a fly. All right. Jessika: Yeah. And the scientists are like, I mean, gosh, darn. How big of a [00:53:00] supremacist asshole do you have to be to not trust the people who live there to know anything about the plants that they have been living with their whole lives. I truly don't understand that. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Then the scientists were like, oh, woopsie, Daisy. I guess they were right. Chuckle, chuckle. Mike: This was also still a period in time where anyone who was not white, especially native populations were viewed with a healthy degree of just kind of, well, like you said, it like supremacy. Like if you go back and read those old Tintin books, woof. Jessika: Oh, yeah. I've read someof those in the original French and they're... Yeah. Mike: Yeah. And if you go back and read those and then like up until really, I want to say the 70s or 80s was one thing started to get a little bit better, but even mainstream in the 60s were still pretty awful when it came to depicting people who weren't [00:54:00] white. Jessika: Yeah. There was that whole segregation thing. You know, just that. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Yeah, I, it was really gross when the quote unquote historical women came to give her beauty advice so that she could do seduce Superboy, like that was so contrived and odd and sexist and strange, Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Or the part where Superboy is not only supposed to be earning money for an old person's home. He's also making agist jokes about the quote unquote old man that ends up beating him. Both him and his dog, a tug of war. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: But then the comic itself is so obviously like they so obviously made it agistly clear that this man only be Superboy because he was Merlin, the wizard, which yikes guys, I know people way older than me that could kick my ass at most anything. So that's pretty [00:55:00] ridiculous. Mike: yeah. Jessika: Oh. Or the fact that the little guys or men that are like smaller and stature or timid, they are constantly the ones that need quote, unquote saving by Superboy in these really odd, like vague ways. Like they need to get physical strength to be appreciated. And it's super toxic. Mike: Yeah. And I mean, that kind of hinges on the old ideas of masculinity as well. Jessika: Oh, and I'm sorry, why Lana's dad keeping again, keeping legit magic items where people can access them. It just, I can not get past that because they just have all this shit sitting around where people are like, oh, let me touch it. Mike: look, here's the thing, like gun control, wasn't a thing back then you think they're going to seriously guard supernatural weapons of destruction. Jessika: that is a valid point. That is so valid. at least he wasn't mistreating his dog in this issue, I guess. Mike: I guess. I don't know. He locked him in the closet for a few hours. Jessika: Shit. That's right. [00:56:00] Nevermind. Fuck. So that wraps up our Superboy conversation. Let's move on to our brain wrinkles. And this is the one thing comics are comics adjacent that's just been rattling around in your brain. Since the last time we talked. Mike: Yeah. So I was going to talk about free comic book day and how I was originally pretty excited about it. But now, we're recording this a couple of weeks before free comic book day is going to happen. And we are still in the middle of a pandemic when we record this, the Delta strain has started to rear its ugly head and lead to cases spiking all over the place, including here in the Bay Area. So, As someone who has immunocompromised kids who are too young to get the vaccine still, we're not going to be able to participate. Um, so yeah, I don't know. I think I'm instead going to talk about The Suicide Squad and actually how I'm really [00:57:00] excited about that movie. And it's getting rave reviews and it's opening this week on HBO max and in theaters. And then, because people can't leave shit well, enough alone, David Ayer, the director of the original Suicide Squad movie talked about how this one is great, but then he proceeded to shit all over Warner Brothers and talked about how the version of just Suicide Squad that got released back in 2016, was not his version of the film and how it's terrible. And he wants, vindication now. And I just, I can't go through another Snyder Cut. I just, I don't have… Jessika: Alright like, you know, at least, okay. At least it's not the Justice League. At least it's Suicide Squad, Mike: But like the Snyder Cut almost broke me. Jessika: No, I hear you. I already don't like, I already wasn't like on board and I had to watch like so much Justice League that weekend. Mike: I remember. Jessika: Then I had prequel films I had to [00:58:00] watch. No, I don't want to do this again. I don't. Mike: I can't. I am happy to talk about Suicide Squad. And I'm pretty sure there'll be jazzed up to talk about it after this movie. But I just, I can't bring myself to care about these auteur directors who are just… when I was working in the video games industry, we had this term that we used for certain people who were on the development side, who were all about their vision and how, they wouldn't compromise anything. And we, we just refer to them as the genius babies, because they would have these ungodly meltdowns. I can't bring myself to just, I can't bring myself to care about another genius baby throwing a temper tantrum. Jessika: I don't want it. Mike: How about you? What is, uh, what is sitting in your head these days? Jessika: I've been thinking a lot about representation in the media, including comic books. [00:59:00] And that's partially because we've been reading all these old comics where we don't see a lot of different representation. Versus the comics that I'm drawn to, which are full of representation, because that's what I prefer to read. I want to see everyone and it's been really nice to read destiny, New York and some of these other recent comics that actually show different types of bodies, different skin tones, different sexualities and genders. But I think there's so much more that we need to do, and that can be done to add and continue to build upon that representation. Like just in general, it's 2021. And we're still shaming people for being a certain size and, you know, airbrushing people who are already considered to be the epitome of beauty in our society. Like what is it going to take for us to allow people to just exist as we are. I mean, you know, besides the whole capitalist bullshit [01:00:00] game, telling women, they need more and more products to achieve beauty. But aside from that, but it's giving me, it's definitely making me feel better to see all of the representation, but there, again, it just reminds me that we need more. Mike: I was gonna say, it's that reminder of we've come a long way, but we need to go further. Jessika: Yep. It is. It is. You had mentioned, your inability to go to free comics day. and I feel like there are probably a lot of people who had a really difficult time getting anywhere. To go to something like that, you know? And so thinking about accessibility in that way of, what about those readers? Like what are we doing about them? So you know, it's just something I think about I've worked at social services too. I mean, I'm just, I'm a bleeding heart, but we need people like me or else, I don't know, get rid of that. We don't need people like me. So that's, that's, what's been rattling for me. [01:01:00] It's just more of a continuous disappointed buzz in my brain that we don't respect all people. Mike: Yeah. Well, we do on this podcast. Jessika: So on that uplifting note, that's it for today, but stay tuned for another episode in two weeks and until then we'll see it in the stacks. Mike: Thanks for listening to Ten Cent Takes. Accessibility is important to us. So text transcriptions of each of our published episodes can be found on our website. Jessika: This episode was hosted by Jessika Frazier and Mike Thompson, written by Jessika Frazier and edited by Mike Thompson. Our intro theme was written and performed by Jared Emerson Johnson of Bay Area Sound, our credits and transition music is Pursuit of Life by Evan McDonald and was purchased with a standard license from premium beat. Our banner graphics were designed by Sarah Frank, who goes by. Look, mom draws on Instagram.[01:02:00] Mike: If you'd like to get in touch with us, ask us questions or tell us about how we got something wrong. Please head over to Tencent takes.com or shoot an email to Tencent akes@gmail.com. You can also find us on Twitter. The official podcast account is Tencenttakes. Jessika is Jessika with us, and Jessika is spelled with a K and I am Vansau: V A N S A U Jessika: If you'd like to support us, be sure to download, rate and review wherever you listen. Mike: Stay safe out there. Jessika: And support your local comic shop .

united states america god tv new york california success movies earth bible spoilers french secrets marvel ohio murder dc holy hawaii numbers illinois greek hbo adventure adventures spider man world war ii kansas superman manhattan navy pursuit surrender hulu boy comics south america wikipedia delta fuck bay area kent justice league steel rolling phantom suicide squad captain america legion superheroes correct gemini imdb aquaman jap accessibility sherlock holmes george washington snyder cut webster hercules sir warner brothers man of steel cape schuster merlin supergirl lex comet nevermind siegel birthright bruce wayne greyhound versus relatable tencent watchman pee wee smallville sonoma frenemies santa rosa new adventures tintin freeform edgar allen poe clark kent phantoms nxivm krypto krypton christopher reeve crisis on infinite earths wheaton bizarro cbre detective comics david ayer mark waid chuckles timeframe swifty john byrne superboy lancelot boy wonder ascot jimmy olsen kal el supes jor el tom welling mike thompson tiffin phantom zone dramatics kents jerry siegel jonathan kent lana lang lex luther sir lancelot streaky adventure comics kryptonians mon el mike it mike no mike yeah pete ross mike well grl mike how mike so alison mack mike good more fun comics mike oh steve spangler don cameron superboys mike thanks mike right mike all ultra boy jared emerson johnson joe schuster time trapper dc arrowverse ten cent takes evan mcdonald mike yep mike stay

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 6: Irish Slavery

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2021 36:38

Mike Isaacson: I'm sorry, but there's really no comparison between Irish indentured servitude and African chattel slavery. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Thanks for joining us for episode six of The Nazi Lies Podcast. We've talked about Hitler survival rumors, neo-Nazis denialism, the Jewish Talmud, critical race theory and even lizard people. Today we are going to tackle the myth of Irish slavery. We are joined by Miki Garcia, author of The Caribbean Irish: How the Slave Myth Was Made. Garcia is a 20-year veteran in the media and consulting industry. She has a master's in journalism from the City University of London and is currently working on her PhD at the University of Westminster. Thanks for joining us, Miki. Miki: Thank you for having me. Mike: Before we get into the Irish slavery myth, I want to talk to you about how you came to this research. What sparked your interest in the transatlantic trade of Irish indentured servants? Miki: When I was a student in the 1990s, I did some volunteer work for street workers in the Kings Cross area. It was a rundown area of London in those days and all the people sleeping rough in the 1990s in this specific area were Irish. It was the time when the IRA were bombing across England and the British media was very biased and had a hostile attitude towards Irish people. We didn't have a St. Patrick's Day festival in London. It's hard to believe, but Irish history is not in the school curriculum in England or continental European countries either. So, I asked around, but no one knew what was going on. To clear so many why, I immersed myself in Irish history and language and I play the Irish music instruments as well, and turned out those homeless people were the 1950s immigrant workers. So the decade was the height of Irish immigration. During the post war years, Britain used a substantial number of immigrant workers and many of them were youngsters, teenagers, and I got to know them personally. It was heartbreaking. When Irish people left home, they took a boat and they arrived at Holyhead which is in Wales and they took the train to come to London and the last stop in London was called Euston. And Kings Cross and Euston are basically side by side so there were so many Irish people there newly arrived and settled and so many Irish businesses like Irish pubs, restaurants, hostels, Catholic funeral parlors, barbers and so on. It was a very, very Irish area. I'm basically interested in the Irish diaspora, how the Irish people were influenced by the British policies. There are quite a few people who are interested in their status within the British system. For example, Marx and Engels, German immigrants in England, they were very interested in the Irish people as workers, and they wrote a lot about them. Irish history is most part a history of struggle against England and British imperialism since 1169, the Anglo-Norman invasion. So it's been going on for such a long time, more than 800 years. 852 years. The Irish in the Caribbean have been at the back of my mind for a while and this topic contains so many issues and it's also contentious. I wanted to write about them, but I didn't know where to start. It was the Black Lives Matter movement a few years ago. I saw many discussions on the internet, and there are so many innocent questions like, were Irish people slaves or Black? Or to more aggressive ones like “get over it” and so on. I've written some books on the Irish diaspora before so I wanted to write something very easy, simple, and informative. I think a myth is created because quite often people don't know the facts or the truth, so this is how it started. Mike: Let's start by discussing what Irish indentured servitude was not namely chattel slavery. What were the major differences in how Irish indentured servants and enslaved Africans were treated and dealt with? Miki: By definition, slaves are for life, so they were basically property, and they were owned, no human rights or civil rights. But indentured servants, they work for a time for a few years and they will be free, so they had human rights and civil rights in theory. But the Irish people were not homogenous. The majority of them who went to the Caribbean were forced, but many were born into service. Some of them were colonizers. They were colonial officers, administrators, traders, merchants, skilled workers, soldiers, sailors, and so on. But during the 17th century, forced people didn't exchange a legal contract. There are many types of indentured servants as well, and many wanted to go there. At the end of the servitude, they received land or sugar or whatever raw materials. They bought property, land and they settled just like mainland America, Virginia, Georgia, and so on. So that was their purpose. In the Caribbean, quite a few Irish people went there to have a better life. But it was after Cromwell's invasion, England captured too many people so they didn't know what to do with them, the local prisons were packed so that's why a large-scale systematic transportation policy was set. This produced many forced indentured servants. They were basically so-called political prisoners and criminals, wandering women, spirited children, and orphans, and so on. But within the context of the Caribbean, they were independent Irish settlers. For example, St. Christopher (St. Kitts) became the first English colony in the Caribbean in 1623 and then Barbados, Nevis, Montserrat, Antigua, and Jamaica and so on. So, African people and Irish people are very, very different, legally different as well. Mike: I want to get into the Cromwell stuff. Cromwell, basically, effectively made it illegal to be Irish in the UK. Am I correct in saying that? That's what I got from reading the book. Miki: Yeah. Because basically what England wanted to do is to wipe out the whole population. They wanted to control the whole island. So yeah, that's what's been happening all those years, centuries. Mike: Yeah, because thinking about reading the book, one of the things that you mentioned was that there were technically people that went voluntarily into indentured servitude, but it seemed like their choices were basically either go into indentured servitude to avoid being arrested for vagrancy or get arrested for vagrancy and go into indentured servitude anyway. Miki: Right after Cromwell's invasion, there were a lot of people who were shipped basically, transported. They had no choice. But at the same time, they are always volunteer settlers as well because they had no choice, you know? England sent a lot of soldiers, so they didn't have a life. They wanted to have a better life in general. But majority of them right after Cromwell's invasion, they were basically transported. They didn't have a choice. Mike: Okay. So, now getting back to the neo-Nazis, particularly those of Irish descent, they've drawn parallels between Irish indentured servitude and African slavery usually to downplay the latter while bemoaning the former. You'd think it would be to motivate them, to show solidarity with people of African descent, but they're Nazis, so.. Every myth starts off as a misinterpreted fact as you kind of said, and there were parallels between these two instances of forced labor mainly because they were both industrial processes of the British Empire. What were the similarities between Irish indentured servitude and African slavery? Miki: Irish people were basically the major workforce before Africans were transported. So at the beginning, they were growing tobacco, indigo, cotton and provisions and these can be grown in a relatively small space and sugarcane. The sugarcane production was extremely labor and capital intensive, so it needed unskilled workers. This speeded up with the arrival of Africans. But it's not very simple to pinpoint servants working and living conditions as each locality or planter was different. Some planters were very nice, sympathetic, but some were not so. But generally speaking, Irish servants received better foods and clothing and better living and working conditions than African workers. But in some plantations, because they worked only for a few years, they were treated like temporary slaves, in some cases worse than the slave workers. One of the unique aspects is that some forced indentured servants in the Caribbean, they did very well later in life. Irish workers finished their indenture and left the region or stayed as wage workers, became overseers, foremen, plantation slave owners, traders and so on. Basically, they moved up the social ladder. I saw many documents at the local archives. It is hard to find the information when they arrived, but their wills and inventory of death are easier to find. So this indicates that they have become wealthy plantation owners and more British by the time they died. But this was the purpose of the English. They wanted to make them English. And servants and slaves, they didn't mingle too much when they worked together in the same plantation because they had different tasks and responsibilities, but they cooperated on many occasions. For example, servants joined with slaves in plots of revolts and sea escapes. And these are very well documented in Barbados. When they were caught, slaves got heavier punishment and often tortured and executed. But servants, they were typically sent to other places, for example, from Barbados to Jamaica. Jamaica is huge, so it needed to be settled. And another example is in Jamaica, runaway slaves and servants went to the mountains and they formed independent communities on the mountains and they were called the Maroons. In the early 19th century, the movement for Catholic emancipation in Ireland and Britain and African slave emancipation developed at the same time. In the 1960s, it was the decade of the civil rights movement. There is the similarity of the civil rights struggle in Northern Ireland and with the struggle of the African-American civil rights movement. In the modern-day context, the status of Irish and African people as a major labor force at the bottom of the hierarchy is so visible because they belong to the most powerful nations, Britain and the US. So there are some similarities because they're both a part of American and British imperialism. Mike: Right. And one thing that you didn't mention just now was also the mortality rate, it seemed like there was a pretty high mortality rate not only in the trip over to the Caribbean but also during one's time as an indentured servant. Miki: Yes, because Irish people were not used to the climate, hot and humid climate, so it took time for them to get used to that climate. And also, they were not immune to tropical diseases. There were so many insects because of the climate. But African people were quicker to adjust with the local climate. That's why the Irish people the scorching sun burned their legs so they were called redlegs, and so they really struggled with the climate and tropical diseases as well. And also some early planters were very brutal as well, and they really couldn't survive. Mike: Okay. Now in the book, you talk a bit about the various attitudes and actions that the Caribbean Irish and Irish people in general took towards enslavement of the Africans and those of African descent. Can you talk a bit about that? Miki: The relationship between the colonizer and the colonized can be viewed a bit as like between the superior and inferior group. Thel colonizers, all colonizers, British or European colonizers, they typically felt superior to the colonized. So within the context of the British Empire in the Caribbean, I think Irish and African because they both belong to the working class at the bottom of the hierarchy. So basically, they were treated as second class citizens. And so, Ireland is basically England's oldest colony, the last colony, the southern part is independent, but the north eastern part is not. This means Britain have not been trading Irish people with respect for such a long time. And I think discrimination, prejudice, or stereotypes don't go away immediately because it's in their culture, language, and society, everyday life accumulated over the years, centuries in fact, and I think Irish and British children they know these facts long before they start reading history books. There was a survey in early 1980s in Nottingham, England, primary school children were asked which group was least favorable, Irish, Germans, West Indians, and Asians. Asians means Commonwealth immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. They answered Irish. I don't know which area of Nottingham the survey was conducted, but they probably have never really interacted or talked to new immigrants. But the issue is quite deep rooted because they didn't probably know what to think of new immigrants. And Irish children also they know what England did to their country and to them long before they start going to school. So the issue is quite deep rooted. For example, in England, our grandfathers' and fathers' generation fought against the Germans, so they still have bitter feelings so you've got to be careful when you mention the G-word. But the children and grandchildren, they are not angry at the Germans because this was a one-time event in history. So Irish and Africans, they have been within the British or American system for such a long time, so the issue is so deep rooted. What I think is that the things we do, say or feel every day are habitual, so our habitual thinking patterns are passed down through generations. I think you've got to be aware of your stereotypical views or negative thinking patterns too and reframe them with historical facts or healthier views on a conscious level, otherwise it's hard to break the cycle. But I think younger generations, especially the generation Y and Z, because of the internet they are more global and borderless, and they're more relaxed and less competitive. Yeah, I think they are more educated. I think. I don't know, but that's the impression I've got. Mike: One of the things that I was thinking about was towards the end of the book you talk about the Irish that got involved in the abolition movement. Could you talk a bit about that? Miki: There are a lot of people who are against the slavery, but before Atlantic slavery trade started, Irish people have been really oppressed by England. Daniel O'Connell and all the rest, there are quite a few people who are against the oppressive regime, England or wherever. These two, Catholic emancipation and African slave emancipation, they went hand in hand. The argument they were making were basically the same. It started at the end of the 18th century and at the beginning of 19th century. They acquired Catholic emancipation first and then African slave emancipation, but England couldn't really give up the Atlantic slave trade because it was just too lucrative. And so they created this new system called apprentice system. It didn't end immediately but gradually, it wasn't very lucrative anymore because it was highly dangerous and morally wrong as well. So yeah, gradually, things developed and ended. Mike: Could you talk a bit about the apprentice system real quick? Miki: Apprentice system, it was basically English people trying to justify themselves. African slave workers, they are not used to being independent because when they were working, religion was banned, religion was highly dangerous. That's what they thought. Education, religion, and none of those empowering activities were possible, so they believed that African people need to go through stages to be independent. So basically, it's more like indentured servitude. They sort of changed the title apprentice, but what they did exactly was exactly the same. They just changed the title. But it was a gradual development. Mike: And there were Irish people at the time that came out against the apprentice system too, right? Miki: Some people, yeah, but not all of them. As I said earlier, Irish people are not homogenous. And a lot of people who are still in the Caribbean in the late 17th and early 18th century,and became quite wealthy as well. Yeah, a lot of people were against. But in reality, it was very difficult to have an opposing opinion because it was also very dangerous because a lot of people are very, very directly, indirectly involved with the business. It was all over, not just the Caribbean. They were in America as well that they are established trades, you know? There were so many people benefiting from the trade in not just the Caribbean but in mainland America and British Isles as well. So a lot of people were pretty much part of the British Empire in those days. Mike: Okay. So next, I want to talk about sources, which is my favorite thing to talk about with historians and journalists. What sources were you using to tell the story of the Caribbean Irish and how did you navigate the bias of these authors? Miki: I think there are quite a few history books out there and probably more academic than general books. This is another reason why I wanted to write something broad and sort of an overview of the Irish people who went there. I've read a lot, but I've visited local archives throughout the Caribbean and London of course and the Netherlands and Portugal as well. I used primary sources, witness accounts and diaries when I could to navigate the biases, especially when you are writing something Irish history, Irish affairs, I think you need to read widely from different sources, writers. Catholic and Protestant writers, for example, have their own perspective to explain the same historical events. The books written by revisionists, historians and third-party writers are also very important to us. So just read as much as I can and that's what I do so that you can form your own opinion writing voice, I think. Mike: Yeah, your use of sources really comes through in the book. Just the amount of names that you have in the book to start with. It's incredible how many people's stories you're able to tell. Miki: Yeah, it's interesting, you know? The local archives were absolutely brilliant because imagine it's so humid and hot, and you get to see century old documents, papers. It's just amazing. A lot of them are so unreadable, and paper changes color but still, it's just so amazing they still survive those heat and humidity. Yeah, I was amazed. Mike: It's my firm conviction that the purpose of studying history is to provide instructive lessons for the present. What historical lessons does the story of the Caribbean Irish have to teach us? Miki: Some people think this event occurred in a faraway land many, many years ago, but I think we are all connected. I'm not going into an esoteric spiritual argument here, but we can learn a lot from the Irish diaspora because the Irish diaspora is so unique because it was not a one-time event in history, but it occurred across centuries and continents involving diverse individuals, so that's why it's used as a screening device or a massive database. You can integrate a wide range of subjects such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, and social inequality and all the rest of it. For example, I visited Bucharest, the capital of Romania, and Sofia, Bulgaria a few years ago. These countries are the weakest economies within the EU, and what I noticed first was that these countries have few youngsters as many of them are gone to Germany or France, the UK where they can make more money, so it's kind of normal. But at the same time, I spotted cracks on the streets, derelict buildings in the city centers and graffiti on the wall, but no workers are left in the countries to fix those infrastructure and buildings, and the crime rate is getting higher. My initial thought was that this was a bit like Dublin in the 1950s when the Irish government wants to build their country and infrastructure. All their capable workers were in England. In the late 1950s, the Irish government had to ask the workers to come home, officially ask them to come home. They said that the economy is better. It was getting better, but not significantly. It was more like a gradual improvement. But anyway, the EU definitely needs to reform. They were talking about it because of Brexit but the COVID pandemic disrupted. So anyway, as long as these European countries belong to bigger and powerful economies, there'll be not only economic but also cultural and social consequences as well. There is a case study. We can learn a lot from the Irish experience. Mike: So, you're currently enrolled in a PhD program. What research are you working on now? Miki: I'm looking at the Irish diaspora newspaper, Irish immigrant newspaper in London that functioned as the voice of the working-class movement in England during the mid-20th century. The purpose of this newspaper was to unite two Irelands and protect Irish people's rights in Britain. What they did was they tried to bring the Irish question and working-class people together. The working-class movement means they operated with the general left wing and anti-fascist movement, Rhodes' base. They worked with left wing organs, trade unions, communist parties, labor parties, mainly with the London headquarters but in the three jurisdictions, London, Belfast, and Dublin. So this newspaper was basically a political campaign tool. This newspaper's office was also in the Kings Cross area. Right after the war, first war years, this was the only support system for Irish people in England so they helped a lot of Irish immigrants as well. Yeah, so it's a very exciting project. Mike: Miki Garcia, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about the Irish slavery myth. The book again is The Caribbean Irish: How the Slavery Myth Was Made out from Chronos Books, which provides a great introductory account of Irish indentured servitude. She also has two other books on the Irish diaspora, Rebuilding London Irish migrants in Post-War Britain and The Irish Diaspora in a Nutshell both out from The History Press. You can follow Miki Garcia on twitter @mikigarcia. Thanks once again for coming on the podcast. Miki: Thank you! Mike: If you enjoyed what you heard and want to support The Nazi Lies Podcast, consider subscribing to our Patreon or making a one-time donation via Cash App or PayPal, both username Nazi Lies. [Theme song]

covid-19 america american university black english uk education france england british germany phd race european german european union ireland army lies black lives matter irish african americans african portugal nazis jews britain atlantic catholic netherlands caribbean adolf hitler brexit paypal wales pakistan jamaica dublin garcia slavery iq romania northern ireland bangladesh commonwealth belfast rhodes bulgaria marx hollow nottingham westminster protestant asians barbados british empire antigua nutshell engels miki british isles bucharest cromwell montserrat kings cross nevis maroons kitts history press euston holyhead mike it city university of london west indians thel mike yeah anglo norman mike so christopher st mike let jewish talmud mike one mike thanks mike right

Episode 11: The Ninja Turtles' Comic Evolution

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2021 57:29

Hey, there, fellow heroes in a half-shell! This week, we're examining how the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles evolved across approximately 30 years and four comic book series. In this episode, we're looking at: The original Mirage series TMNT Adventures from Archie Comics The short-lived Image Comics series from the 90s IDW's 2011 series ----more---- Episode 11 Transcript [00:00:00] Jessika: You're going to cut all this bullshit, Mike: Oh yeah, of course. Jessika: Okay. Hello? Hello. Welcome to Ten Cent Takes, the podcast where we share hot and delicious slices of comic-flavored facts, one issue at a time. My name is Jessika Frazer and I am joined by my co-host, the man of mystery himself, Mike Thompson. Mike: Ooh. I like that. Jessika: You're mysterious. Mike: I'm really not. Jessika: You're just a voice to these people. Mike: That is true. Jessika: Let this parasocial relationship happen for them. Mike: Fine. Jessika: So, Mike, do you want to tell our listeners what this here podcast is about? Mike: This is payback for last week, isn't it? Jessika: Certainly is. Mike: Yeah, [00:01:00] fine. So here at Ten Cent Takes, we like to talk about comics and we like to talk about how they are interwoven with history and pop culture. Sometimes our conversations are weird, sometimes they're funny, but hopefully they are always interesting. Come for the deep dives, stay for the swearing. Jessika: Fuck yes. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Well, today we're going to be taking a deep dive into the comics of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, how they got their start, the people and the publishers involved, and some information and opinions about the different iterations of this beloved comic. But before we go any further, we have corrections and announcements. Mike, you want to start us off? Mike: Yeah, sorry. So I realized after the episode about the ninja turtles movies that I said, Howard the Duck was done by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, but it was George Lucas. Spielberg and Lucas worked together on some other major projects in the eighties, but not Howard the [00:02:00] Duck. You will be pleased to know that I was correct about Corey Feldman being a generally terrible human being. So, no apologies there. Also, we are going to continue our giveaway raffle in exchange for sending us a screenshot of a review that you leave for us on Apple podcasts. It doesn't matter what the rating is, we love five stars, but we'll take anything. We will enter you into a drawing for a $25 gift certificate to NewKadia. If you can get your review in before August 5th, that will be roughly a month from when we first announced the giveaway, that would be great. And then we will contact the winner directly. just take a screenshot of your review, email it to tencenttakes@gmail.com, and that's all you have to do. Jessika: Go get you some prizes. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: All right. So good news, everyone. We now have both an Instagram and a Facebook account, so we will be posting episode updates and potentially bonus posts related to the [00:03:00] episode. So feel free to follow us. We're at Ten Cent Takes at both of those places. All right. So, Mike, do you want to mosey along to one cool thing that you have read or watched lately? Mike: Yeah, I guess I can be tempted to go that route. so I've been actually reading a lot of cool stuff lately. I actually just did a big run to Brian's Comics in Petaluma, and, and had a huge haul of stuff on my pull list, cause it had been about a month since I was there and I'd added some stuff to it. But, something I picked up just this week from Brian's is this new book called the Nice House on the Lake. It's published by DC under its mature Black Label imprint. And it's written by James Tynion IV who he's also writing Something is Killing the Children, which I've at least told you about in the past. I don't know if I've talked about it here. Jessika: I've started reading it. Mike: Yeah. I mean it's - Something is Killing the Children is also excellent. And this is his new [00:04:00] series and he's doing it with Alvaro Martinez Bueno, who has recently been doing art for Detective Comics. And it's hard to describe without spoiling it, but the gist is that there is a group of people who are invited for a nice weekend at this mutual friends, insanely luxurious lake house. And it feels like we're kind of getting set up for a murder mystery, and then things take a turn for the terrifying in a really unexpected way. And I'm really excited to see where the series is gonna to go. But if you haven't read it, pick it up. It's great. Jessika: You always tell me about the best horror comics, which is really cool. Mike: I mean, a lot of them come from Brian, to be honest. Jessika: Thanks, Brian. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Absolutely friend of the podcast, Brian. Mike: Yeah, no. Brian is fantastic. If you were in the North Bay, highly recommend going to check out Brian's Comics in Petaluma, it's an awesome little shop. And Brian is one of the friendliest people you could ever hope to meet. Jessika: it's so cute. You have to go underground [00:05:00] kind of you like walk downstairs. It's not really underground, but it feels like it. Mike: Also, he has a really sweet dog who hangs out in the shop too. Jessika: Yes. Mike: So that's what I've been consuming lately. What about you? Jessika: I myself have been on quite the half-shell recently and just deep diving into turtles. And I have found the- I can barely contain my excitement. I have found the absolute best thing. Listen up turtle fans! There's a 24-hour Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle network that plays nothing but the animated into turtle series. Like, all of the animated series, even the old school ones. it's called Totally Turtles. I found it free with ads through Pluto TV on my fire stick. This is not an advertisement, I'm just really excited and I wanted to share it with everyone. And I'm hoping that they're turtle enthusiasts listening. It's such a blast. And despite the obnoxious children's commercials, which are horrendous and on repeat by the way, I feel so sorry for all of you parents. Mike: So wait, so is this, can you select the episodes you want to watch or is it like [00:06:00] an actual TV channel? Jessika: No, it's like an actual TV channel. I know. So it is streaming. They kind of do this weird marathon thing where they play back like a block of one show. So I haven't seen the OG comic come up yet, but I've seen like all of the other ones, so it's pretty neat. Mike: I mean, there've been so many shows over the years. I can only imagine how much content there is for them to broadcast. Jessika: Yeah. They have like a whole like montage in there of all the different ones. And I was like, oh, oh, look at all these shows, all these turtle shows. Mike: Yeah. I'll have to check that out. I, I keep meaning to rewatch the original animated movie mini series, whatever it was that they did for that led into the cartoon. Jessika: Yeah, we used to have some movie that was probably some merchandising schwag from some company, but it was like a pizza monster that they were fighting. Mike: That sounds really familiar, but I'm not sure. Jessika: And on VHS Mike: Why. [00:07:00] Yeah. All right. Jessika: It's like a yellow case. Yeah. I'm just saying I can see it. So. So today we're going to be discussing the four main volumes of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Comics. But before we get into it, I want to call out my resources, cause I had quite a few again for this episode, I'm sure you're sensing a theme here with me and research. So we have the Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle documentary, turtlepediafandom.com, which is my best friend, Kevin Eastman's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Artobiography. See what he did there. Mike: Yeah. I dig it. Jessika: Which that book, by the way, if you're a fan, Tom told me about this book, Tom Belland told me about this book and it is so good. And it goes through the first eight issues of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and it's by Kevin Eastman, so it talks about the process of it and this. Mockups sketches that they [00:08:00] did, like actual sketches from the comic. It's just, it's really neat and lots of little details about how they were making it and stuff. So, back to my resource, I just got so excited about that. I read an article from Indiana University Bloomington's E. Lingle Craig Preservation Lab Blog, and a couple episodes of the Ninja Turtle Power Hour podcast, which is really fun. Mike: Yeah, that show's great. Jessika: Yeah. Got a couple of tidbits from them. So, yeah, thanks guys. Mike: Friend of the podcast as well. They are, they have been very supportive of us in our early days. Jessika: Yeah. So that's, that's really fun. Now we've previously talked about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on this show. In episode one, Mike ran us briefly through the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles history, like the startup, and mention a couple of the iterations of the characters. And in episode nine, I covered the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles live action films from the nineties. If you haven't already, I highly recommend checking out those episodes for more [00:09:00] turtle-y goodness. During this episode, we'll be going further down the rabbit hole, looking at the history of the start of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Comics, more in depth and how they evolved over the years. As another little tease, we won't be covering the rest of the merchandising television or other related media in this episode, but stay tuned because I fully plan on doing an additional episode about the Turtles. While we'll be touching on the main volumes of comics from the overarching storyline, just know that there are micro issues and single character adventures along with a whole slew of other comics, crossovers, and pot lines that I simply don't have time to get into today, but just know that they are out there. And, if enough of you ask really, really nicely, maybe I'll cover some of those issues in a future episode. You won't have to ask very hard. Mike: You really won't. Jessika: You won't. Mike: I don't think you guys understand how [00:10:00] excited Jessika was about this episode. Jessika: excited. Like it will, he, it will show in my voice. My face is bright red, by the way, I am Scotch-Irish, my face is showing it. All right. before we get too solidly into our main. Mike, which of the Ninja Turtles is your favorite. And has that favorite changed at all over the years as you grew up? Mike: I think that all six year olds identify with Michelangelo when they first get into the Turtles, and I certainly was no exception. I've bounced around since. I think I'm probably closest to Rafael these days, mainly because I nurse a grudge like nobody's business. Jessika: Oh, is Raphael petty? Mike: I'd like to think he is, He strikes me as the guy who would absolutely go and troll white supremacists on Facebook these days. Jessika: I don't know anyone like that. Mike: No. [00:11:00] No. Jessika: Oh, my goodness. Mike: Well, how about you? Which one did you identify with? Jessika: Well, I also really liked Michelangelo. I mean, he was the party dude after all, and he's still pretty solidly my favorite is I can absolutely relate to being a huge ham. Hi, everyone. But I have such a greater appreciation for Donatello these days, because he really is the brains of the operation. And should he be sorted into a Hogwarts house, he would definitely be with me and Ravenclaw. Mike: Which turtle would be sorted into Hufflepuff. Do you think? Jessika: Hufflepuff. I want to say that Michelangelo would be a Hufflepuff, cause he just he's just like so accepting of everyone. Mike: Yeah, I guess, Yeah. I guess Michelangelo would be a Hufflepuff. Leo would be a Griffindor. I don't think any of them would be Slytherin, so I think Raphael would also be Griffindor. Jessika: Not any of them probably, unless he was like, [00:12:00] Hmm, what if he was a little evil? He might be a Slytherin. Mike: Maybe. I don't know. Jessika: Because Slytherins don't have to be evil. I think they get a bad rap. Mike: It's like ambitious or something like that. Jessika: Yeah. I don't know. Raphael, Raphael might be ambitious. Mike: I mean, the first time that you met me and Sarah, Sarah had on a Slotherin t-shirt and I had on my Hufflepunk jacket. Jessika: I had huge appreciation for both of those things. So. And I have to say too, that some of the more recent TV series have portrayed him in an even nerdier way, like Donatello, I mean. That I connect with even more, which is really fun. And, that's what I like best about these characters is that they really do have different relatable characteristics that makes their storylines just that much more compelling to a diverse audience, in my opinion. Mike: Yeah. 100%. Jessika: So, as Mike mentioned, in our first episode, the series was started by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. Throughout high school, Eastman had been trying somewhat unsuccessfully to [00:13:00] break into the indie comics market, and had had several of his proposals turned down before being picked up by a small publishing company, Clay Geerd's Comix Wave while he was still in high school. While he was still in high school, let me reiterate. After graduating, he moved to Portland, Maine to go to art school and founded a comic magazine called Scat with another person. After having more of his art rejected by local publishing company. One of the people at the company told him about Peter Laird with the belief that they had a lot in common. And indeed they did. They had very similar interests, shared a love of creating and of comic artist, Jack Kirby, and immediately started doing short stories together, each bringing different strengths and new ideas to their collective works. In fact, Jack Kirby would also be a future style inspiration for the turtles Comics. Interesting, huh? Mike: Yeah. That actually checks out based on how bombastic the [00:14:00] turtles series became because Kirby's art, I mean, Kirby was such an iconic artists that there's this whole style of. It's like an energy explosion, it's called the Kirby crackle, And it's those, those circles within energy beams that now it's just kind of a thing that you see in comics a lot of the time. Jessika: Oh, that's interesting. Mike: And he also had that very, very sharp edged geometric shape to all of his drawings as well. Jessika: Yeah. Oh wow. Mike: So yeah. Jessika: So this friendship and interest in the creation of comics led them to form MiragevStudios, which was named after the idea that their quote unquote studio was just Laird's living room. So it was really a play on their lack of having a physical studio space. Their goal was to be able to make their living doing the thing that they loved best, because at this point, making comics was still very much a side hobby while they both still worked full-time, Eastman stating that he had been cooking lobsters in Amherst to get by. One of their earliest comic [00:15:00] characters was Fugitoid, whom they would fold into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles storyline later down the line. Mike: That was the time-traveling robot, right? Jessika: Yes. Mike: I remember him. I had his action figure. Jessika: That's cool. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were conceived during what is described as a casual night of brainstorming Eastman drew a ninja turtle, finding the idea of such a clunky and notoriously slow creature being a ninja, really fun. He thought to himself: Okay. So what if Bruce Lee was an animal? What's the stupidest animal Bruce Lee could be? And he's like, a turtle. Mike: Yeah, that checks out. So this was what, like the mid-eighties? Jessika: Yeah, they drew this in '83. Mike: I mean, martial arts and ninjas were such a thing in pop culture back then, too. Jessika: They were. Mike: I just, I remember Chuck Norris had a really terrible ninja movie or two around then as well. And I just remember the eighties [00:16:00] and the early nineties still having this fascination. Jessika: that was actually part of why they drew the turtles. Mike: Ah. Jessika: Was, it was a play on the fact that it was, it was a parody. It was a parody on the fact that so many people were doing ninja movies and a few other aspects were also parody, but we'll, we'll get into those later. Very astute, Mike. So, Laird drew up his own rendition after Eastman first drew up that first stupid looking turtle. Right. It wasn't even super looking, it was really cool. And with Eastman then drawing four turtles, all with different weapons and he wrote Ninja Turtles over the top. And Laird was like, you know what? Nah. And he added Teenage Mutant to the top of the ninja turtles. So they each had a hand in making the whole collective thing. Mike: That's great. Jessika: Yeah. And the sketches together. You can see where both of their ideas formed the larger idea, which is super neat. Mike: Mhmm, [00:17:00] Jessika: So Mike, can you read this next section for me? It's an excerpt from Eastman's Artobiography regarding the sales of the first issue of the teenage mutant ninja turtles. Mike: Absolutely. Tired of rejection letters and inspired by the newest self-publishing movement, especially Davidson Cerberus comic, we pooled our money and borrowed some more from my uncle Quintin to come up with enough to print 3000 black and white comics we were sure would never sell. May 5th, 1984 we premiered the first issue at a local comic book convention. It was incredibly exciting, but I was back cooking lobsters in June. In early 1985, the sales for book two exceeded 15,000 copies. And by mid 1986, Turtles book number eight shipped more than 125,000 copies. I was drawing comics all day and supporting myself, the dream had come true. Jessika: That's so cool. Mike: That's awesome. Jessika: One of the things that they budgeted for were special drawing boards, which would update the black and white [00:18:00] comic to include shades of gray. This board is called Duoshade by Graphix. And because I'm a little Donny in my approach to, well, everything, I had to know how this worked. So I did a little digging. The artists would do the initial drawing and pen out the lines on a special pretreated board, then would go in with a paint brush and brush over the areas with a special developer that would reveal either a light or a darker tone hatching or pixelated pattern, depending on the developer used. This added an extra pop of shadowing without the effort of physically cross-hatching everything by hand. And because it was hatching instead of solid color, like paint, this fit the style of many different types of hands. The way this worked is through of course, science! You see the hatch lines or pixels are preprinted onto the special board using a chemical like silver nitrate that was subsequently blanched with a substance like mercuric chloride [00:19:00] to make it invisible to the naked eye. And two other chemicals are used to either reveal hatch or crosshatch marks, basically. One of the chemicals reveals one hatch causing the lighter shade, and the other revealed the crosshatching that was darker. And there are other chemicals that could be used in place of the ones I mentioned, and they don't seem to advertise the specific recipe ingredients for the updated formula, unsurprisingly. But this technique was invented in 1929 and was in use until 2009 when it was considered obsolete in the face of digital art and technology. Mike: That's so cool. I had no idea that this was a thing. Jessika: It's so neat. So, whenever you see like the pixelated comics and stuff, that's all that kind of board, I'm sure. Mike: That's a really slick, I mean it makes sense that it would be obsolete now because you can sit there and just do, you know, brushes and layer masks and things like that with comics, it's not that hard, but yeah, that's, wow. Jessika: Science! Mike: That must've been such a time-saver for them. Jessika: Oh yeah, [00:20:00] that definitely. They said literally it just took the stroke of a brush and you could give more depth and just shadowing to everything. Will you do me a favor and read this quote about this process that I found on the Indiana University Bloomington's E. Lingle Craig Preservation Lab Blog? Mike: Sure. This process is very far from magic, though it surely seem that way for artists. After dipping their brushes and clear liquid, the path of their brushstrokes immediately turned dark as it traveled across paper. The phenomenon was easy to overdo, leading to images with many toned areas that, when reproduced into small comics and magazine ads, turned out cluttered and unclear artists, commended peers who knew when to stop. Jessika: Yes. Gentle hand. And here, I'm going to send you a comparison. So, the top half of this, and we will post this on Instagram, the top half is just in inked, and the bottom half is the same couple of [00:21:00] frames that are also shaded with the Duoshade graphics. Mike: Oh, wow. This is really slick. Is this from the Artobiography? Jessika: Yeah, exactly. It's from the Artobiography. Mike: Okay. oh, okay. Yeah. So I recognize this, this is from the first issue of the original Mirage series. Jessika: Sure is. Mike: And it's when they're in their rooftop battle with the Foot. And the original, like just kind of sketch or line art. It shows Donatello, and the rest of the turtles and a couple of panels getting into these battles and it's, it's fine. It's black and white. And then you look at the difference in terms of shading underneath this. And it's insane how much depth there is. Like they added entire skyline with this. It's crazy. It's also, I feel like it's a little bit over done on the bottom. Like with the shading like this, very clearly like the early days of the turtles, but it looks really cool, especially when you do the comparison. Jessika: Yeah. Yeah. And I almost wonder how much, since they hadn't been producing very much, I wonder how much they were using these boards, [00:22:00] know, beforehand. I wonder if this has maybe, like you said, the early days. Mike: I would be willing to bet that they were pretty new to this and, we're learning when to stop. Jessika: Yeah. So, the turtles and their storyline were initially created as a parody, like we were talking about to some of the popular Comics of the time, especially Daredevil, with similarities and characters names, such as the Foot clan when Daredevil included the Hand. Mike: Right. Jessika: And in some of the situations, such as the highly unlikely way that the canister containing a radioactive solution flew out of the back of a truck, striking someone in the head hitting and subsequently breaking a glass aquarium containing four baby turtles who fall directly into a manhole where they're then covered in the radioactive liquid that leaked out of the container that broke upon hitting on the ground. This situation highlighted the unlikely way that Matt Murdoch got his powers to become Daredevil. When a radioactive substance fell out of a moving truck and blinded him as a child. So, very [00:23:00] much a play on that. There's also the funny correlation between Daredevil's mentor Stick and the turtles mentor being named Splinter. Mike: I never even thought about that before, but that's really funny. This is all stuff out of the Frank Miller, eighties run of Daredevil too, which he almost fetishized Asian cultures in certain ways and was very into ninjas and martial arts and noir, and you can see that later on in his other books like Sin City, but Daredevil, I feel was like, where that really got stuck. Jessika: Yeah. And definitely with, the parody, that's exactly what they were going for. They were making fun of that whole aesthetic. Mike: Well, yeah, because, everything about the Miller books of Daredevil are so grim and gritty and wrought. I can't read them with a straight face, but that's just me. Jessika: So, Eastman and Laird, like you read in that quote, didn't necessarily think that the comic was going to go anywhere. So much so that they actually killed off their main villain, the [00:24:00] shredder in the first issue. Mike: I was going to talk about that. Jessika: They killed him off. They just really didn't think that there was going to be an issue two. I find it really interesting that a comic that was initially thought to be a one-off has turned into such a world-renowned and beloved franchise. Mike: Mmhm. Jessika: Fun fact for all of you out there. The first volumes of the teenage mutant ninja turtles were in black and white with all of the turtles, sporting red bandanas when the covers were finally colorized after the boom in popularity of the series. The only way to really tell them apart where their respective weapons. Mike: That was the same case with the original Ninja Turtles video game on Nintendo. I remember getting this when I was a kid and I was sitting there going, oh, they, they have the same color bandanas, but we know who they all are because they all have different weapons, but they were all sporting red bandanas. Jessika: Yeah, I think I might remember that because we had the Nintendo games, too. Mike: Yeah. Uh, they sucked, They were [00:25:00] really hard and I hated them. I felt like I was a really bad gamer because I couldn't beat it. Jessika: No, honestly, in that, of course we're, unsurprisingly, we're in a Facebook group about the Ninja Turtles. Everybody that I've read talking about the games. It's like, oh, I never beat that game, I couldn't be that game. It was way too hard. It's, it's not just, you don't feel bad. So, we read the first few issues of the Mirage comics, the OG comics, which tell the origin story of the turtles and Splinter and their quest for vengeance, for the death of Splinters, former master and their ongoing rivalry with Shredder and his gang, the Foot Clan. What did you think about these first few issues? Mike: You know, I had never really read them all the way through before now, and it's really interesting when you're basically reading the first content ever created, when you're here at the point where you're 40 years later. It's kind of charming because there's so much exposition where they're setting everything up. [00:26:00] It's overly earnest. It's silly. it's also much more bloody and violent than you would expect. And the funny thing is, so I was reading this digitally via Hoopla and so they actually have the colorized versions now where, it's all been remastered and everything, but I remember, the giant two page spread where they're fighting the Foot on the rooftop and it's like real bloody. It's so strange to sit there and read all of this and have the knowledge of where they have gone with it since then. But at the same time, I can also understand why nobody in the eighties thought this was going to go anywhere. It's just, it's, for lack of a better term, it's just, it's silly. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: And, It is a parody, but at the same time, it doesn't entirely feel like a parody, it feels a little bit overly earnest. I never would have sat there and said, this is going to be the thing that every kid under the age of 10 is going to be interested in because, it's really violent. Like, they sit there and they straight up murder, some street punks who are, I think mugging someone. Was that what happened? [00:27:00] Like at the very end when the cops drive up and you see the bloody hands leftover and. Jessika: Yeah, they were just street toughs. I agree. Mike: Yeah. And also, it was weird to see recurring acts of basically domestic violence, because Hamata Yoshi's girlfriend is first beat up by Shredders older brother, and then Shredder vows vengeance after Yoshi kills Shredder's brother. And then Shredder shows up in New York and basically murders first Hamata Yoshi, and then his girlfriend or wife at that point. It's more than I would have expected. Jessika: Yeah, well, and I love the convoluted storyline, cause I think they were having a laugh with that too. Everyone's on a quest for vengeance. Which is such a theme for the turtles. They're always going for some sort of vengeance because you know, of course that's their whole game. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: After this. So that's yeah, Mike: And then, like you said, shredder, when I read the first issue, he basically has a [00:28:00] thermite grenade, and gets knocked off the roof while holding it, and then they sit there and make a comment on, oh, well, I guess the shredder got shredded where they just find bits of his armor left. I was like, oh, that was a surprise. Jessika: Yeah, exactly. And then they turned around and went, oh shit. Oh shit. We have to make an issue two. Mike: Yeah. Ups. Jessika: Which, if you're playing it as a parody, it must be even funnier to have the person you just killed off, come back mysteriously. I found it really interesting that April started off as an assistant to a robotic engineer when she's most often portrayed as a reporter. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And she gave it, it comes back around, you know, she's she and other iterations. She becomes , a lab assistant again, or, something having to do with STEM. I also really, really liked the rough style of the comic and how the frames are very obviously hand drawn and hand lettered. Mike: Yeah. I like how, in some of the speech bubbles, you can [00:29:00] see the letters are squeezed a little bit more together at the end cause they just ran out of room. Jessika: Well, and Eastman even said he was so glad to have somebody when they finally got big enough to have somebody come in and let her, because he's like, I'm so bad at spelling. It's like, I was never this person who spelled, and so there's one place because I'm just a Donatello. Hi, here I am. It's like, I saw the little, like, they meant to put “were”, but they put the little apostrophe in there and I was like. Mike: Oops, Jessika: Eastman, that's adorable, but it's almost like having like a finger print or a thumb print on some, like something handmade, like a handmade mug or something like that. That's the artists' imprint. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And again, now that I know that this was written as a parody, I have a much better appreciation for the over-the-top twists and coincidences that led to the turtles' predicaments. Also, can we please address the insult, slime puppy, that April shouts of bags? Mike: It. [00:30:00] So it reminds me a lot of, in the X-Men animated series, Wolverine keeps on busting out, I think it's like, piece of gutter trash, or something like that. And you're like, oh, that's, that's cute. Mike: You're, you're trying guys. You're trying. Jessika: At what point was that, the thing? That's the thing you're going to write down right now. Okay. Right. So, after the success of the 1987 animated TV series, the comic was getting a little too hot for just Eastman and Laird to handle on their own. And after a few issues, they hired freelance artists to help with creating the series while they took on more of a business side of things. It was really important for Eastman and layered that the artists involved had ownership and received royalties for their work. So, there ended up being a lot of issues, not only with continuity, but also with rights and the use of the comics and the storylines created. To this day, it's difficult, if not impossible, to find copies of [00:31:00] some of the comics created by these other artists, especially since some of the artists refused to sell the rights to their storylines or characters back to Mirage, and therefore those issues were unable to be reprinted. So bye, bye. One of the interesting partnerships of that time was with Archie, and that's how Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures was born. The first issue was on shelves and emblazoned with the Comics Code emblem, finally, in March of 1989. Wow, that was a big sigh. Mike: Anytime someone mentions the Comics Code Authority, I just, I feel like I need a good rainstorm to just stare at sadly. Jessika: While I agree with you, you have to admit that it was a rite of passage. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: For, like getting into mainstream and having your your shit recognized, you know? So that must've been huge. Mike: I mean, the comic [00:32:00] stores that I went to when I was a kid, they wouldn't put stuff out on the shelves. If it didn't have the comics code seal of approval. And then by the time I was like 11 or 12, because you started having more and more independent publishers that didn't adhere to it. Jessika: Exactly. No. I mean that's yeah, absolutely. Mike: Would you consider Teenager Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures? Would, would that be like, volume 1.5 almost? Jessika: Yes. Yes I would. So, now that the turtles were officially, family-friendly. Written and illustrated by Eastman layered and Steve Levine. These differed greatly to the original comics. In fact, they had the same style color, and kid-friendly vibe as the TV show, which makes a lot of sense because, well, Archie. Will you give us a rundown of these comics that we read and share your opinion with us? Mike: Yeah. So these seem to pick up immediately after that initial TV movie animated series thing, where [00:33:00] the turtles defeated Shredder and Krang, and then trapped them in Dimension X. Shredder gets sent back to earth by crying in the first issue and has to basically start from the ground up to get his revenge. There's a whole scene where he winds up in a park in town and some guys tried to mug him and then he basically intimidates them into giving him their money, and then he goes and takes over some, what was it Slash for Cash dojo, I think was the name of it. Jessika: Yeah. It was like a name nobody would have had, which I have to say about those, those street toughs, Shredder's, like, oh, I must be a New York because I just got mugged. Mike: That was great. And then he takes the dojo over from the leader whose name is Smash, which I thought was great. And then he basically starts going about getting his revenge against the turtles, which is, he has these toughs from the gym dress up as the [00:34:00] turtles, and very obviously bad turtle costumes, and then commit robberies. And then there's a media smear campaign where everyone is like, well, we thought we, uh, we thought that we liked the turtles. We thought they were good guys, but I, I guess they're actually criminals. It's so simple and kind of charming. I couldn't even get mad, it was ridiculous, but I, I couldn't believe what a flashback this was. It was nostalgia, personified, ya know. It's very silly and very innocent and the jokes are corny and the art's pretty simple, but I really got a kick reading through it. I haven't watched the cartoon in a couple of decades, but I immediately knew where the comic's story was picking up. The turtles, rely on slapstick gags rather than actual ninjitsu to defeat the criminals that they're encountering. Shredder and his crew are blundering morons, and there's this overall wholesome quality to the comic. It's very kid-friendly, but I [00:35:00] didn't feel like I was being patronized while I read it, even though I'm almost 40 at this point. Jessika: Yeah. It was, like you said, it was so nostalgia, like nostalgia alley, for sure. These are the turtles and April from my childhood. You know? Mike: Yeah, 100%. Jessika: These are the ones, the main characters were pretty closely based on the animated series while having the rest of the miscellaneous folks being like these goofy Archie type characters. Also, I really liked the way that they framed the TV shots to be shaped like the TVs. Like the frames of the comics were shaped, like the shape of a TV. Mike: Yeah, that 4:3 ratio and all that. Jessika: I really liked that. Yeah. With the rounded edges and everything. Mike: Yeah, it was cute. Jessika: You immediately understood that you were supposed to be seeing something on a screen. And it was light and it was frivolous, without the threat of any real danger.I call it a really decent kids comic. Mike: I've read worse. Jessika: So volume two, moving right along, was written and illustrated by Jim Lawson and was introduced in 1993, amidst the [00:36:00] fan success of the first two Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle live action films. This was also after a falling out between Eastman and Laird caused the duo to stop working together until just recently. Mike: Which you can actually see them come back together in the Netflix series, the Toys That Made Us. Jessika: Yes. Yeah. Which I'm sure is going to play a large role in my next episode of this show. With this change came another: the comic was fully colored. In this series, the turtles part ways as they have no shared purpose after the defeat of the Foot Clan, they battle and defeat Baxter Stockman, who has placed his brain in a robotic body and deal with Triceratons, which are by far my favorite villains in the turtle verse. But despite the turtles as popularity, the series only lasted 13 issues. And a couple of years. Volume two ended with sad sales numbers, [00:37:00] and a literal flood in Mirage Studios, womp womp. In 1996, Image Comics published Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles volume three, which was written by Gary Carlson and illustrated by Frank Foscoe. They published a total of 23 monthly issues and return the turtles back to their black and white roots, but did not include the duo-shading, which I found confusing. Mike: Mmhm, same. Jessika: This volume was kind of a trip. It was more intense and action packed, with even more plot twists. Also, they made the turtles much more battle-worn, with turtles missing appendages or in Donatello's case being forced to become a cyborg. And, because it was now being produced by Image, it allowed the turtles to do crossover issues with characters from the Savage Dragon series. Mike: I had those issues. I don't think I still have them anymore, but I remember, it was a big thing where the Savage Dragon basically [00:38:00] stood up his girlfriend, because he was, involved in some shenanigans with the turtles. I think she almost broke up with him at one point, because of that, in that one is. Jessika: I almost said good for her, but then you said almost. Mike: Almost. Jessika: Now, the drama with this issue is that it's no longer considered canon in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle universe, mostly because Peter Laird hadn't been directly involved in making the storyline. So, another situation where they got a little precious about the material. We also read the first few issues of this comic. What are your thoughts on the comic? What I just said? Anything. Mike: I gotta be honest if I were Peter Laird, I probably would have disowned this too. Cause it's really not that great. The art is just generally confusing because there is no sense of depth or shading. It starts you off right in the middle of a big battle. The turtles are getting shot, Splinter is kidnapped, they're being attacked by cyborgs for no real reason [00:39:00] that you can understand, Raphael if I remember, right, is disfigured pretty badly, there's a female ninja who shows up and she is nothing but T&A. And, if you look at the cover for the second issue, it's very male-gazey, where you see the back of a woman and it's really just her ass and legs while the turtles are facing the camera. And it's, everything about this feels like nineties extreme with a capital X. in all the worst ways. And it's funny because I was wondering if Eric Larson, who did the Savage Dragon was drawing this because the art style is very reminiscent of him, and he was also doing the covers. Tom Belland, our friend, I remember him telling me a story about how, at one point he was at Image Comics, and they were criticizing his art style, and he told them that they all draw women late 12 year old boys, because they're. Jessika: Because they do. Mike: They're all boobs and legs and not much else. Jessika: I mean, I don't see a lie. Mike: Yeah, [00:40:00] no lies detected my friend. It's I don't know. I, I really didn't want to read any more past the first issue either. It just, it felt very forgettable and dumb and shocking for the sake of being shocking, not for actually trying to do anything good storytelling-wise. Jessika: Yeah, these were just, they were like, we were talking about, they were difficult to read, they were super frenzied. I didn't know where to look. And it took me a lot longer to read them because I was trying to hash out what was happening. Mike: It was visually confusing, which is kind of the kiss of death in a comic, like the fact that it lasted 23 issues is just mind numbing to me. Jessika: Yeah. you know, you look at comics a lot of the time, the ones that I really connect with are the ones where you look at it and you can see the intended motion. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: I didn't get that at all here. I just felt like I was looking for the motion. It just wasn't there. Mike: Yeah, and even without that duo tone shading, they [00:41:00] didn't do anything, really in its place. Jessika: Yeah, it wasn't. Wasn't great. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And you had mentioned the outfits, it just felt like it was set in a futuristic BDSM party. Mike: A hundred percent. I mean, the first thing that we see is, uh, what's her name? Isn't Kimiko is that her Jessika: Kimiko. Yeah. Mike: Yeah. And she shows up and basically, she looks like she is wearing a leather bondage version of Leelou's outfit from the Fifth Element. It is straps and spikes and it makes no sense whatsoever. Jessika: And like, let's be real. Her boobs are too big for that. Like there's no way that that's containing anything, logistically. Mike: No. I mean it her outfit is body paint, basically. Jessika: Yeah, really is. Mike: So Image Comics in the nineties, they were kind of leading this artistic charge of just heinously unrealistic women. And as much as I [00:42:00] enjoyed the Savage Dragon and Eric Larson's various books, Tom, wasn't wrong, they drew women like 12 year olds did. Jessika: Mmhmm. Mike: We can talk about this at some future point, but I'm sure there's an entire generation of kids who grew up reading comics in that era who developed body dysmorphia or just heinously unrealistic expectations for what people were supposed to look like in general. Jessika: Yeah. Agreed. Well, what do you say we, uh, move on to volume four? Mike: Sure. Jessika: Volume four was first published in 2001, and was created by Peter Laird and Jim Lawson. There was a couple year hiatus in 2006 when Peter Laird stopped to work on the TMNT movie. Aliens have landed and are taking up what they say is temporary residence on earth, which brings with it the added side-effect of normalizing weirdos on the street. So, the turtles are able to come out of hiding and enter more freely into society and other shenanigans with aliens that [00:43:00] may or may not be trustworthy, of course happen. Oh, and apparently the turtles are in their thirties. Same, bro, same. What say ye about the IDW comics we read? Mike: I kind of dug them. It's one of those things where it feels like they are starting with the foundation that we all knew, and then they were growing it out in a different way. It's not bad, it felt kind of like a weird reboot, while also continuing a story that I wasn't overly familiar with. We opened with a rumble between the turtles and a gang that was led by another mutant animal. Jessika: It was a cat. Mike: Yeah. Did he have a name? I can't remember. Jessika: It was Old Hob. Mike: Ah. Jessika: He had an eye patch, Old Hob. Mike: Yeah. And, and he's clearly got history with Splinter, and after they defeat them, it's revealed that Raphael is split from the turtles and he's out wandering around and he ends up rescuing pretty randomly, he ends up busting into Casey [00:44:00] Jones' house to rescue a very young Casey from his abusive dad. We get back to April's original roots of her being a scientist, where she's working for Baxter Stockman's lab. And then also we find out that Krang is around, but he's shown only in shadow. I seriously got some Dr. Claw vibes from the way that they first introduced crane where he's only shown from the back. You only see the silhouette of his chair and then his hand on the phone. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: From the first issue on, you get the impression that they're taking familiar elements and then trying to. In a new way. And that was fine. I mean, my basic familiarity felt like the right starting point for where to go with it, but it, felt pretty cool and it felt like there was actually some pretty decent plot stuff that they were working with and they weren't trying to make it just all action. And also, I really appreciated that the women did not look like Playboy centerfolds. Jessika: Yeah, that was helpful. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: It's hard to be a woman and read comics, I'm just like, [00:45:00] man, this isn't for me at all. Is it? Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Well, I'm pansexual, it's kinda for me, but yeah, I thought the series was fun. The illustration is great as well as the coloring. And the action sequences is really fly off the page and make the reader feel like the pictures really could have been moving. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Again. Like you said, I'm loving that April gets to be a scientist again. And I like that in this one, she was the one who actually named the turtles. Mike: That was really cute. Jessika: Yeah. She was like, I'm in art history. Mike: Yeah. Cause she was like, she was like an intern at the lab basically. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Or work study or whatever it is. Yeah. Jessika: And I think it's really cute that their personalities were already showing when they were baby turtles. Like Raphael was already agro. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: He's the feisty one. Further into it, Raphael gets carried away after the whole, like breaking of the canister thing. And he starts getting [00:46:00] carried away by a cat. And that's why they there's this mutant cat, but Splinter had had some psychotropics. And so he was a little bit more with it, went and fought the cat, but he got swept up into the bag with the other stuff and got carried off by the bad guys, the baddies, and Raphael was just on his own. So he didn't have the development that the other turtles did. Mike: That's actually a really nice touch. Jessika: Yeah, it was super interesting. It's also interesting to me that the mutation and the growth was a lot quicker in this series. They really didn't turn into true teenagers because they haven't been alive for that long, they've only been alive for like, 15 months or something. So finally, I just wanted to touch on the current series that is happening right now. And one that Mike mentioned in episode one, which is the Last Ronin. Mike: Yes. Jessika: Yes. And I'm very excited about this one, and it's absolutely one of the [00:47:00] items on my pull list with another one of our local shops, the Outer Planes in Santa Rosa, the first three issues are available now. And if you have Hoopla Mike and I have had luck finding it to borrow for free, they also have a director's cut for issue one, which has some extra fun sketchies with back, everyone. So just saying that's the one I read, cause I actually own issue one, but I did borrow it on Hoopla too, to see what the little bonuses were. Mike: Yeah. And we've mentioned this before, but Hoopla is an app that, basically they work with libraries across the country and will just let you check out digital content. They limit it to a certain number of items per month. How many do you get. Jessika: I think it's like six or something. Mike: Yeah, I get eight. It's pretty low, but like insane. But in San Francisco it's like 21. Jessika: Ah, okay. Mike: But it's still a really great way to scope out contents legally, you're not pirating it, which is great. And you know, you're also, supporting the libraries because they're working with it, but it's free to you. So, it makes me feel good whenever I can read [00:48:00] content that way. And they've got a truly amazing selection of comics and graphic novels and a huge catalog of Ninja Turtles content. Jessika: Yeah. For those of you who are watching Netflix's is Sweet Tooth, that actually was a comic and that is on Hoopla as well. I checked it out and haven't started it yet. And then it checked itself back in, cause I waited too long. Whoops. Mike: If you get around to reading it, I would love to just hear your thoughts on it because. Jessika: Absolutely. Mike: I read the first volume and I thought it was very good, but I couldn't bring myself to read anymore because I don't like reading about people being mean to kids. And. Jessika: Oh no. Mike: And that's very much what it is, where , it's a guy who is kind of like a young teenager and he's very trusting and people keep abusing his trust or terrorizing him. Jessika: No. Mike: And I'm like, I think I don't want to read that. Jessika: That's why I had to stop reading Lemony Snicket. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Yeah. I like read the first book and I was like, oh, sorry. This is really mean to children and I, my little empathetic heart is just crying. Mike: Yeah. I don't like cruelty to kids., I don't like [00:49:00] cruelty to animals, and I don't like cruelty to old people. Jessika: Do you want to remind the listeners what the series is about and what you think so far? Mike: Sure. This is actually the comic that I'm most familiar with since I've been reading. As I said on Hoopla as the issues have been coming out. This is being billed as the final in quotes, Ninja Turtle story, which takes place in this dystopian, cyberpunk New York. That's now controlled by the Foot Clan. At some point in the past, the turtles were exterminated and only one of them survived. And now he's come back to town with kind of a bucket list of revenge. His identity is originally kept mystery, though it's really not that hard to figure out before the first issue reveals it on the final page. And the subsequent issues spin out both the world and the backstory. I've really been digging it so far. I'm sure that I am missing a lot of little details, because I'm not the most diehard fan of the Ninja Turtles. But, that said, I've been having a [00:50:00] lot of fun with it and I love the new character designs, and also I'm a sucker for anything cyberpunk. Jessika: Yeah, I'm really, really enjoying this comic. The illustrations. Absolutely beautiful and colorful, even though it's set in dystopian society. They didn't go with the whole like grunge, everything is dark, which I really liked. Mike: Yeah. It's really cool. Jessika: And I like the idea that the sole turtle is still being guided by this spirit or memory of his brothers, and that he still draws from the skills and strengths by, in a way, imagining what they would do or what advice they would give. So I thought that was really sweet and they did bring back elements of the original turtles. Like you said, like Stockman's robot mousers that have been upgraded, the Fugitoid and professor Honeycutt. You know, it was just like they're bringing in all of these other things. It's yeah. It's, it's super interesting. Oh, and, did you notice, there's an Eastman and layered cameo Mike: What? Jessika: In issue two. Mike: No, I totally missed this. Where is it? [00:51:00] Jessika: So it's an issue two, and they're eating pizza and they're like, what was that? Could it have been…? Nah. Like when like a turtle is going by and they're like, that didn't happen. Mike: That's great, I love it. Jessika: Yeah. It was like younger Eastman and Laird, so super fun. It's really sweet. So far. It's got a lot of depth to it. They have a lot of really meaningful conversations about mental health too, which I think is really. Mike: Yeah. they've handled PTSD and. Trauma and everything in. I'm not sure I want to use the word realistic, but in believable ways. Jessika: Yeah. I would agree with that description. Yeah. Now onto our Brain Wrinkles. Which is that one thing comics are comics-related that is currently captured within the crevices of our cerebra. Mike, why don't you start us off? Mike: Put me on the spot. [00:52:00] Yeah. So, there's been a bit of news the past couple of weeks about bisexuality being addressed and acknowledged in comics and comics related-media. So, last week on Loki, we had it revealed that Loki is canonically bisexual, which was, that was really nice. Jessika: Pew pew pew pew pew! Mike: As someone who is bi, it's always really nice to see it acknowledged because you know, bi-erasure is a thing and it sucks. But this week, in fact, I think it was yesterday or Tuesday, Al Ewing, the writer that I talked about in, I believe the last episode or the episode before that he's the writer for We Only Find Them When They're Dead, he officially came out as being bisexual. He acknowledged that like he hasn't really been quiet about it, but he he's never exactly aade a formal statement or anything like that. And so he wrote a really, a really thoughtful blog post about all this and talking about how [00:53:00] often people that are within this group have to deal with imposter syndrome and, he put it really well where he said I've always looked at myself through a lens of self-hatred and self-loathing, and that's affected this. I wasn't enough in this category because I wasn't enough in any category. My not being bi enough was just one more metric that I could hate myself on. And it really resonated with me becauseI spent a long time, not really sure how to feel about my sexuality. And then the other thing is that the queer community is not always the most welcoming of us. Jessika: Yeah. I've had those situations as well, where, I'll be on an online dating site and I'm, I'm pansexual. I will, I will date anyone. Gender is not a thing to me. And it's not that it's not a thing, but you know what I mean? That's not a, that's not a metric by which I choose my partners. Mike: Right. Jessika: But there were a lot of times where I would go onto somebody's profile. And when it would say no bi girls or [00:54:00] no bis or something like that. And it's just like, and actually I stopped listening to a podcast cause they started talking about the idea that women get nervous, that you're just going to cheat on them with a guy. Which is like, if I'm in a relationship with you and we're in a relationship, we're in a relationship, it doesn't matter what my orientation is. If I'm a cheater, I'm going to cheat on you, regardless of whether I'm like, you know, but I'm not, that's the thing you have to trust the person you're in a relationship with, and it doesn't have anything to do with their orientation. Mike: Yeah. I've dated a few people who felt they couldn't trust me because I had dated the other gender and, those relationships didn't last. Jessika: Nope. Mike: But yeah, that is what has been rattling around my noggin for the past couple of days. So, what about you? Jessika: So, I wanted to circle back about the Corey Feldman concert I attended a few years back. And [00:55:00] as I had been previously speculating on whether it was the very same weird winged and lingerie-clad, ladies, Corey's Angels. And, friends, I am so sorry to report that I have some unfortunate news that it was in fact Corey's Angels. I will post pics, they're very blurry picks from this concert on Instagram. Also again, my apologies for being complicit in this bad cult situation. Mike: You know, I will say that after our episode and I was reliving how terrible Corey Feldman was. I found myself rewatching a couple of his music videos, and there's such trash, but I am a little ashamed that I gave him the one 10th of a half penny on YouTube. Jessika: I know. Right. And then you sent it to me. So you gave him two, technically. Mike: I know. I I, mean, it is pretty funny though. When you read the Vice articles that make fun of his parties, [00:56:00] though. Jessika: Well, folks, that's it for this episode, be sure to join us again in two weeks for another riveting comic adventure. Mike: Thanks For listening to Ten Cent Takes. Accessibility is important to us, so text transcriptions of each of our published episodes can be found on our website. Jessika: This episode was hosted by Jessika Frazer and Mike Thompson written by Jessika Frazer and edited by Mike Thompson. Our intro theme was written and performed by Jared Emerson Johnson of Bay Area Sound, our credits and transition music is Pursuit of Life by Evan McDonald and was purchased with a standard license from Premium Beat. Our banner graphics were designed by Sarah Frank, who is on Instagram as @lookmomdraws. Mike: If you'd like to get in touch with us, ask us questions or tell us about how we got something wrong, please head over to tencenttakes.com, [00:57:00] or shoot an email to tencenttakes@gmail.com. You can also find us on Twitter, the official podcast is tencenttakes, Jessika is Jessikawitha, and Jessika has a K, not a C, and I am vansau, V A N S A U. Jessika: If you'd like to support us, be sure to subscribe, download, rate, and review wherever you listen. Mike: Stay safe out there. Jessika: And support your local comic shop.

tv new york netflix children apple san francisco evolution trauma dc angels dead portland ptsd gender asian killing tired pursuit nintendo maine stem lake comics vice foot xmen comic wolverines smash loki turtles steven spielberg duck gentle ups playboy daredevil accessibility nah bdsm george lucas teenage mutant ninja turtles spielberg bruce lee hogwarts tvs tmnt slash sin city mirage michelangelo claw chuck norris ninja turtles sweet tooth amherst santa rosa frank miller corey feldman image comics fifth element eastman laird idw shredder splinter jack kirby donatello detective comics pluto tv hufflepuff hoopla slytherin petaluma scat black label quintin north bay kevin eastman ravenclaw lemony snicket toys that made us indiana university bloomington splinters last ronin stockman honeycutt james tynion iv krang mike thompson shredders al ewing dimension x kimiko savage dragon foot clan peter laird nice house teenage mutant eric larson premiumbeat comics code authority mockups steve levine comics code mike it mike you jim lawson mike no baxter stockman mike yeah mike well mirage studios mike so scotch irish graphix matt murdoch mike oh griffindor we only find them when they're dead mike right gary carlson fugitoid jared emerson johnson mike they old hob ten cent takes evan mcdonald mike stay

Issue 10: Judge Dredd in Film

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2021 81:07

Freeze, creep! This week, we're checking out the 1995 and 2012 attempts to bring Judge Dredd to American movie audiences. Spoiler alert: It didn't work out like the studios hoped. ----more---- [00:00:00] Mike: That's a little too thirsty, I think. Welcome to Tencent takes the podcast where we violate Mega City One's judicial codes, one issue at a time. Coming at you live from the hot box of my closet; I have not showered in 24-hours, and I smell fantastic. I'm Mike Thompson and I am joined by my co-host, the princess of pain, Jessika Frazer. Jessika: Yaar! I'm also - Mike: How are you smelling? Jessika: God, I'm in a hotbox of pain at the very least, I had to go to work like physically into the office today. So I actually, you know, had to be decent enough to be around people that are masked, so the deodorant had to at least be applied, but. Mike: No hard pass. I work out of my bedroom now, you're lucky if you get pants. Jessika: Well, that's nice. [00:01:00] Mike: Would you like to explain why we are here? Jessika: You know, we're here because we love comics. Mike, Mike: True. Jessika: We love comics. We want to talk about all the comics. We want to do deep dives about our favorite comics and their heroes, and where they came from. And wild little stories that we find out about them and bringing in nefarious characters like Eric Estrada. He's not a nefarious. Mike: He's a little nefarious. He was involved in a really weird kind of scammy land sale thing. He did also endorse Trump on Twitter. Remember that where he was like - Jessika: Oh God. He is nefarious. Gosh, darn I, why do I always want to give Eric Estrada so much credit? I'm like way too nice to the guy. I don't even know him. I do follow him on Twitter now, but. Mike: No. He literally told Donald Trump on Twitter that he should run for president because he tells it like it is. So thanks, Eric. Thanks. Appreciate that. Jessika: No. That was a bad idea. Like, for [00:02:00] the record, I don't know if anyone else knows that. Everyone else knows that, every other country knows that. Mike: They do now. Jessika: Oh man, we're going to get into some hot topics today, too. This is already a good start. Mike: Yeah. So before I interrupted you, is there anything else that we'd like to cover or talk about or look at? Jessika: Oh, their video games, all the related media movies. Everything, everything comics related, we want to talk about it. Mike: Fair. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Well, today we are going to hop on our Law Masters and cruise the Cursed Earth as we check out both the cinematic adaptations of Judge Dredd. But, before we do that, before we dive into this episode, we'd like to acknowledge a small milestone because this is our 10th episode and we've received over 500 downloads. So, you know, that may not sound like anything major compared to a lot of podcasts out there, but we're incredibly proud of what we've been able to achieve and how far we've gotten so far. And if you're listening to us, we're super [00:03:00] grateful that you've just given us your time. We really appreciate it. So to celebrate, we're going to do a giveaway. If you go to our page on Apple Podcast and leave a rating, and then email us a screenshot of said rating and a review, but that's only if you're inclined, really, we just care about the rating. We'll enter you to win a $25 gift card from NewKadia. NewKadia actually offers international shipping too. So, even listeners outside of the continental us are eligible. Jessika: That's super exciting! Mike: Yeah. Jessika: So Yeah. Rate us, review us. We appreciate you all. Mike: Even you. Yeah. So I'm talking to you right through your car stereo right now. Jessika: We're there with you driving along. Hey, watch the road. Mike: All right. We're at the point of the episode where we like to start off with one cool thing that we've read or watched lately, do you want to start off? Jessika: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So I needed a little bit of a palate cleanser after watching the [00:04:00] 2012 dread film so much gore. So I ended up watching Guardians of the Galaxy 2, which I hadn't seen before, and it was super fun. Loved the music as always characters had a really good chance to further develop. Okay. But I have to say, dude, I like still Stalloned myself. I did not know he was in that movie. And then he just shows up and I was like, what the fuck? Cause I literally had just watched them both in a row. And so I literally had just seen Stallone like the movie before that. And then he shows up again and I was like, good lord. Mike: Well, and you know that his crew is like the original Guardians of the Galaxy from the comic books. Jessika: I do. Yeah.I do. Now. I know I looked that up afterwards and I was like, oh, okay. All right. Mike: Yeah. And it was like Michael Rosenbalm, who did the voice of Superman and was Lex Luther in Smallville and the Michelle Yeoh and Ving Rhames. I was totally here for that cameo. That was great. [00:05:00] Jessika: Yeah. It was, once I looked that up, I was like, oh, that makes more sense. Cause I wasn't aware of that. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: it was super fun, but then I Stalloned myself again because I today a guest hosting of trivia for North Bay Trivia in Santa Rosa, at Shady Oak Barrel. And they have like a little arcade game. That's Stallone on the front. And I can't remember, I sent it to you, I think, cause I frickin' Stalloned myself again, secondary Stallone. Mike: I feel like you did. And I can't remember what it was. Jessika: I'd have to look it up, but I'm too lazy to look through my phone. So we'll just leave it. Anyone knows I don't, I don't care anymore. Mike: Fair. Jessika: So, back to the Guardians of the Galaxy after that Stallone detour, I really, really liked the evolution of Gomorrah, Nebula's relationship. Mike: I love that. I thought it was fantastic. Like I thought honestly, Almost all the characters had really nice [00:06:00] development, except really, I mean, I don't know. I feel like Peter didn't actually develop that much as an actual character. Jessika: No, he was just taken on some Shamaylan twists and turns. Mike: Yeah. But yeah, the whole bit where, Yondu is yelling at Rocket about, you say that I don't know you, but like you're me. And it was oh, oh. Jessika: Gosh. I definitely cried during that movie. I'm not going to lie, but I'm a crier. Mike: There's a lot of feels. There's a lot of feels in that movie. Jessika: Yeah. Oh, it was so good. So overall two thumbs up. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: What about you? What have you been reading? Watching? Mike: Yeah. So, Sarah and I started watching Loki because that just began airing last week, and ahead of that I wound up reading a couple of old issues of Thor, specifically Thor 371 and 372, which are the issues that actually introduced the Time Variance Authority. And the funny thing is that these issues also introduced a character who [00:07:00] may look a little familiar to you, especially as we've been prepping a bit for this particular episode. So check out the cover and tell me if he reminds you of anyone Jessika: Okay. That looks like a, that's so funny. That looks like Captain America, but it also looks like one of those those Doctor Who, like, what are those things called? Mike: The Daleks. So if you take a closer look at that guy that is so his character, his name is Justice Peace. And if you look at the shape of his helmet and he's actually on a sky cycle. Jessika: Oh shit. Mike: But, yeah, it's a pastiche of Judge Dredd. Jessika: He does look like Judge Dredd. You know what threw me was the bright colors, because Judge Dredd has darker tones. So I kinda got drawn more to that kind of vibe, but you're right. He's got the helmet across his face. You can see one of his eyes and the other one looks like it's probably bionic. And it's kind of like a samurai helmet, it looks like. It's, I think it's supposed to be shaped like more of a samurai style. If I'm not mistaken. Mike: Kind [00:08:00] of which - Jessika: It's big. Mike: Like actually the, Jessika: I don't. Mike: The old school Judge Dredd helmets, actually, like some of them have actually taken on that look too. Like they've kind of played with the shapes, but anyway, I thought it was just kind of a funny, a funny, a full circle moment. Jessika: He's got some arm bandoliers too. Mike: Yeah, man. Those were big in the eighties. Jessika: I guess. So, dang dude, I'm loving this. Mike: Yeah. It's a lot of fun. We are going to be talking about Judge Dredd in general. We're not going to do a deep dive on the comics, but we're going to talk a bit about the background. And so before we actually do that, I felt like we should take a minute and talk about how of us have grown up with pretty close connections to law enforcement. Do you want to go first? Jessika: No. Sure, sure, sure, sure. So my dad was a police officer for, I think, close to 30 years. And for a lot of it he worked in public safety, which is really like policing and [00:09:00] firefighting and they rotate duties. So you have to know both, you go through both academies. It's supposed to be that you're a little bit more well-rounded and involved, and I don't know, it was. At the time the community was a lot smaller and it probably made more sense, but it's getting bigger. And, I don't know how much sense it makes, but I'm also not an expert. And I haven't lived there for a while, so I don't know what the politics there are these days surrounding that as much as I used to. As far as police officers go, I do know a few really decent people who are police officers and, you know, growing up, I had mostly good experiences. However, that hasn't been the case for everyone. And my privilege of being raised white and a child of a law enforcement officer has absolutely shielded me from so many of the issues and policing that plagues our country. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And I have to say like, unironically, my dad was a decent cop. He's still alive. But when he was still in law enforcement, he was a decent cop and [00:10:00] he definitely let his ethics guide him, and he left positions based on his moral compass. And I'm really proud of him for leaving organizations that were more on the corrupt side or that weren't doing things that he thought they should be doing and abiding by their own rules. However, he's also the one who taught me about profiling, which is a conversation I remember having with him around 9 or 10 years old, maybe earlier than that. And that's just such a racist tactic that has never really sat right with me. And that I adamantly oppose now that I'm older and I have a better understanding of how we as a society, villainize people of color just for existing. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: So without getting too far into what is a really, really massive conversation and discussion, the judicial system in this country is absolutely broken, and we statistically arrest convict and give longer incarceration timeframes to people of color. Mike: Yeah. I mean, there's, [00:11:00] that's just a fact. Jessika: It's a fact. There, there are numbers, you can look it up, you know, it's yeah. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: So, I know, on that fun note, whatever, I'm such a downer. Mike: That's okay. I should have known better than to start us off on this, you know, really positive note for the episode. Jessika: I already got fired up. I'm already going to have to edit out my mumbling. Mike: That's all right. You know, it's funny because I have to wonder if my uncle actually knew your dad because my uncle was in the same area and works in public safety as well. So, he always did the firefighting and police work as well. My uncle is the guy that I grew up idolizing when I was a kid. He was the cool uncle to me. He taught me the basics of photography. And I worked as a freelance photographer for awhile. He was a forensic specialist dealing with fingerprinting. So you and I [00:12:00] grew up in the 90's in the Bay Area. So Polly Klaas is a name that any, anyone who was here during that time knows, and she was a girl who was kidnapped out of her home, basically just taken while she was having a sleep over with some friends out of her home in Petaluma. And the FBI apparently came in and did a Palm print, but they use some fluorescent powder that the local PD couldn't read, but my uncle had the training and I guess the equipment, I don't quite know all the details, but so he worked the Polly Klaas case. He and my aunt are both retired police and they were both so incredibly cool to me when I was growing up. And I've since had to reckon with the fact that, you know, not all cops are good, and I'd hope that they were great. I hope that they were the bar that other cops were measured against, but who can say it, this. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: So we, we both have connections to law enforcement, and I think it's safe [00:13:00] to say that we're approaching Judge Dredd from a perspective that is influenced both by our backgrounds, as well as the current environment that's going on because we're recording this in June of 2021 when things are still real bad in a lot of ways. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: So now that we've got that highlight out of the way. I'm curious, what was your awareness of Judge Dredd prior to this. Jessika: You know, besides name recognition, I didn't know much about the plot line, other than some vague notion that it was futuristic or post-apocalyptic. So, I came into this super fresh, and I'm super excited to learn more now. Mike: Yeah. So, I definitely have a lot more familiarity with the character. I read some of his stuff in the 90's and 2000's. I would just kind of randomly find things and I thought he was pretty cool. When I was in roller derby, my roller derby name actually wound up being Judge Dreadful. [00:14:00] And so I've since then bought a number of collections. I've read most of the big storylines that they did from the 70's up until the mid-90's. And then I also read one of the more recent American series as well. I've seen all the movies. Dred is still one of my favorite movies of all time, even though we'll talk about that later on, it's got its own issues through today's lens. I guess the best way I can describe myself is: I'm more than a casual fan, but I'm not a diehard fan. Part of it is just because there's so much lore at this point. So, I have an unfair advantage in terms of familiarity, I guess. Sorry. Jessika: No, that's okay. That's why you're hosting this episode. Not me. Mike: Yeah. So, we're going to do some basic background. Dredd was originally created in 1977 for this newly launched comics anthology called 2000 AD. There was this guy, he was an editor named Pat Mills and he brought on a writer that he'd worked with named John Wagner to create new content for this magazine. [00:15:00] And, basically comics, anthology magazines, they were printed on like newspaper stock. They were magazine format. And what it was very kind of, you know, old school pulp magazine, like where it was serial stories usually, or a little one-offs. So it'd be four to five pages, usually of content per story. And then a lot of times they would end on a cliffhanger so that, you know, the readers would come back the next week. And that's generally how British comics have worked. At least that's my understanding of it. That's how a lot of them are. And actually when they were trying to do US style sized comics, supposedly they didn't do as well because they would get covered up basically and overshadowed by the sheer size of these magazines, which were much bigger and flashier. So Wagner came into 2000 AD. He'd had a lot of success writing this Dirty Harry kind of character called One-Eyed Jack for another anthology series called Valiant, and both he and Mills realized that 2000 AD needed [00:16:00] a quote unquote, a hardcore cop character as part of the magazine's content. So, Wagner has since then described, dread as a psycho cop with no feelings. And then he worked with this artist named Carlos Escuera to create the character and then Escuera wound up designing a character who reflected that kind of hardcore, no feelings ideal. He actually died a couple of years ago and the Guardian ran a really, it was really nice ,tribute talking about his accomplishments and his style, but there's this really great quote, which I think you should actually read out. And it gives us a lot of background in a nutshell of Dredd and who he is. Jessika: Escuera started his career drawing war comics in Barcelona before moving to the UK and working for the anthology 2000 AD and others, He brought the iconography of fascist Spain to Dredd's extremely weird and [00:17:00] vivid design and combined it with his experiences of living in Croydon through the 70's and 80's, the punk movement on his doorstep and TV images of policemen, charging striking miners. The Eagle motif and helmet were drawn from fascism, the permanently drawn truncheon from police on the picket line. The zips chains and knee pads from punk. I was living in Franco, Spain, he told an interviewer last year, but also I was living in Mrs. Thatcher's England. Mike: I think that kinda tells us all we need to know about what they're going for with the vibe of Judge Dredd. Jessika: Yeah. No, that, that definitely showed. I was thinking that about the Eagle. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: When they were showing the big building and it was super, everything was just cement and. Mike: Yeah. It's got that brutalist kind of architecture. Yeah. Jessika: Yes. Mike: Yeah. So Dred exists in this world. That's left standing after World War III, and [00:18:00] most of the planet's just been devastated. America is largely uninhabitable, say for a couple of what are called Mega Cities, which are these autonomous city states that housed hundreds of millions of people. At one point in the comics, I think it's up to 800 million and they've had different events where they've kind of knocked it down repeatedly, Jessika: Yikes. Mike: And at one point it got as low as like 120 million or so I think that was kind of after I stopped reading though. But anyway, mega city one was originally going to be a future version of New York City. But that was quickly retconned to that specific part, being some sort of capital area for this urban sprawl that covers most of the Eastern seaboard. And from the get-go, Dredd stories were kind of this extreme form of satire. It was presenting the society where democracy basically failed, and the office of the president of the United States has been retired, and society now runs under this, to be honest, terrifying gaze of the Judges. How would you sum up the [00:19:00] Judges based on what we saw in the movies? Jessika: As a whole, they were pretty robotic and unfeeling. They were doling out the letter of the law as it happened and per their protocol, and their justice is swift and immediate, which is really terrifying. Like you said to imagine. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And what's even scarier is that all crimes were treated the same. You are either sent to a prison called an isopod, or killed right then and there. There was, there were no middle grounds between those points. It was like, you're hauled off then, you serve a sentence, or you're just killed. Mike: Yeah. I mean, that's really not that different from the comics. Jessika: And then, as far as their appearance, as with most uniforms, they dress the same with helmets and body armor and they are just armed to the gills and they look just as scary as they act. Mike: Yeah. And, I think a safe way to describe the system of Mega City [00:20:00] one is to call it authoritarian, but it's just a little bit different than what we normally associate with that term. Jessika: Yeah. I wonder if there's some sort of like a law-tarian like judiciatarion. I don't know, somebody is going to @ me and tell me how stupid I am, but that's fine. I already know. Mike: I like, I like, I liked judicialtarion. I think that's, uh, if that's not a word we should make it one. Jessika: Here we are, TM TM. Mike: Yeah, we're just going to sit back and let the royalties roll in after this. Yeah, but in spite of all this, there's this very weird, dry, British humor that kind of makes the whole narrative a little more palatable. So like one of the early stories is focusing on how robots were doing most of society's work and that's resulted in rampant, unemployment and boredom, so citizens of the mega blocks start engaging in what they call block wars, where neighboring blocks basically just start opening fire on each other because they want something to do. There's another story where the Dark Judges, who [00:21:00] are, they're effectively movie monster versions of the Judges as we know them crossover into Dredd's reality. And then they start slaughtering people, indiscriminately, because all crime is committed by the living. And, thus the sentence for life is death. Jessika: Yikes. Mike: Or, there's also the idea that recycled food is, what they call it, is how they eat these days. But recycled food is actually made from people you know, it's Soylent Green Jessika: Oh, How Soylent Green. Yeah. Mike: Yeah. The Dredd comics always have this kind of underlying tone of absurdity. It's that slight bit of levity that makes this really brutal comic actually pretty enjoyable because it becomes ridiculous. It's a comic of extremes. Over time, the comics gone on to deal with things like Dredd having to resolve how the system that he represents is actually problematic, and it needs some kind of reform. The ramifications of how the push to move back to democracy fails and, [00:22:00] you know, actually fleshing him out as a character who occasionally has feelings, not all the time, but just sometimes. He goes from being kind of a lawful neutral character to a lawful kind of good alignment, like sort of good, kind of, some of the time. There's only so long that you can have a character be a robot for justice, if nothing else before, you know, people are going to sour on them. Jessika: You mean a veritable killing machine? Mike: Yeah. The other thing is that the core Dredd stories haven't really been reset. They're still going from 2000 AD, so at this point we have nearly 50 years of stories that are all canon. And the other thing is that they keep on aging Dredd in realtime. So, at this point he's absurdly old and they hand wave it away by he spends time in the Rejuva-pods or whatever they are. But as a result, he's the same guy who has seen everything that has gone on in the comics. [00:23:00] And as a result, he's matured and changed a bit. And it's kinda neat. So in the UK Dredd's a pretty big deal, but his presence in America isn't quite the same. Like UK comic magazines back then were very different from comics here in the states. So, when they decided to bring them over here across the pond, 2000 AD wound up working with this guy named Nick Landau, who a couple of years earlier had created tightened books to publish comic collections of Judge Dredd in the UK, and then was publishing more collections of other things. Landau had just created Eagle Comics to collect and publish Dredd stories and other 2000 AD stuff. Uh, here in the States in 1983, the Eagle series lasted for about three-ish-is years, and then it moved on to another publisher. And this is pretty much how Dredd existed in the states in the 80's and 90's; a publisher would pick up the rights, and then try to make them click with American readers, and then the [00:24:00] series would get canceled, and then someone else would pick them up and try to do it again. And arguably his most quote unquote mainstream moment was when DC comics published an 18 issue series from 94 to 96. I've only gotten through a couple of these issues and they don't quite bite like the originals. They feel more like an action sci-fi series. Some weird kind of sarcastic humor, but it doesn't quite translate the same way. It feels like a knockoff product, to be honest. I mean, honestly the best American adaptation I've seen is from the 2012 series that IDW did. And that condensed several of the iconic Dredd storylines from the original British run. So they were a little bit more palatable for American audiences, but basically American awareness of the characters generally stayed that level of, oh yeah, that sounds kind of familiar. And then he's never really been a household name, which was what the 1995 movie was trying to change. [00:25:00] Jessika: Yeah, well, it didn't change it for me, but I was also, you know, I was also nine in 1995. So. Mike: *Sigh* I was 14. Jessika: You're only a few years older - you say that like you're 90 now, by the way, every one for the record, Mike is 90. Mike: I am. Jessika: Since he's making a huge deal out of it. Mike: I'm waiting on my Rascal. Scooter Just gonna, just gonna drive through downtown Petaluma with my dogs in my side car. We're all gonna be wearing goggles and flight helmets. And you'll see me go by and just gol “RASCAL!” Jessika: My dude, you can do that now. Mike: Sarah has told me I can't do that yet. We've had this discussion. Jessika: Oh, that's too bad. Mike: Now that we've got the background out of the way, why don't we actually talk about what we're here to talk about? Which is the 1995 Judge Dredd movie. [00:26:00] Jessika: Here we are. Mike: Yeah. Do you remember those TV schedules that used to be in the back of the newspaper, they would show you like A) what was on the air that night and B) provide one sentence summaries of what the movies were? Do you remember those? Jessika: I do because I loved reading those. Mike: I know I did too. How would you summarize Stallone's Judge Dredd, if you were writing it up in that format? Jessika: Oh, need a throat clear for that. In a world where chaos reigns, one man stands between justice and lawlessness. But what happens when the Judge becomes the judged? Find out this Wednesday at 6:00 PM Pacific standard time, 9:00 PM Eastern on Spike TV. I just assume Spike TV would play that. Mike: Spike TV would be all over this. Are you kidding? Jessika: Yeah, no, exactly. That was the first television channel that I thought of that was like, yeah, they would [00:27:00] absolutely have this on like they'd have a Dredd marathon. Mike: God, what an absolute time capsule of a TV channel - is, Spike TV isn't around still, is it? I don't know. Jessika: I have no idea. I was my, my 90's brain just woke up and was like, this is what you say. Mike: God. I remember that was such a mid to late aughts TV channel. It was basically toxic masculinity, the TV channel. Jessika: Yeah. It was, it was either super masculine movies like this, or it was just a game show about people falling all over each other and just laughing at people. Mike: Oh yeah. Was it Most Extreme Challenge? Jessika: Most Extreme Elimination Challenge Yep. As I sit here and I know exactly what it, cause I didn't watch a million episodes of that. Mike: No I'm, that was the only reason that I would turn that fucking channel on. Jessika: Yeah. It's true. My brother and I would roll. Mike: No, so, okay. I just looked it up and we don't need to [00:28:00] actually record the sorry, uh, Paramount Network, formerly Spike, which is still used for the Dutch in Australian feed as an American, but you know, whatever, fuck Jessika: The Australians don't even listen to us. I'm leaving all of this in, and the Australians don't listen to us, yet. Oh God. They're going to listen to us now. And they're going to be like, oy yes we do. I can't, I'm not even going to try, not even to try to do some like, incredibly offensive Australian accent. Mike: No, no, don't do it. Jessika: No, no, I know about it. Mike: Okay. Let's go for an actual movie summary now. Jessika: Sure set in a, oh, sorry. Regular voice, Jessika. Set in a dystopian future complete with a densely populated metropolis and flying cars, order is dictated and carried out by people called Judges, whose job is to convict, judge, and punish those moving outside of the law. The punishments [00:29:00] are severe, being jailed or even killed for their transgressions. Stallone, who plays Judge Joseph dread is seemingly one of the most feared and respected judges until he is framed by a maniacal and presumed to be dead ex-judge Rico. Dredd has to prove his innocence in order to continue providing his particular brand of justice. Oh, and how can I forget about Rob Schneider? Whose main role in this film was to say Dredd's named really loudly. So they would get caught when they were trying to be covert. I mean, at least that's how it felt. Mike: Yeah, whenever I talk about this movie, I always sit there and reference how Robert Schneider is the worst choice to provide, you know, it's not even comic relief. It's like air quotes, comic relief. Schneider was really big at that time. Like, he had just come out of SNL and I never found them really to be all that funny. But, this was like at the [00:30:00] start of his whole 90's. I don't know. What would you call that movement? Jessika: God, it was like the stupid humor movement. Mike: Yeah, it was that Adam Sandler. Jessika: I talk like I'm a baby. Adam Sandler. I can deal with, to a certain extent. There are some movies, I'm just like, whatever, but I've liked him in some things even, but I feel like Will Ferrell is a result of Adam Sandler. I feel like Adam Sandler, birthed will Ferrell and I'm not happy about it. I do not like Will Farrell Mike: Man, I. Jessika: @ me Will Ferrell. I do not like you. Mike: Just watch, he's going to like angrily tweet and then we're going to get a bunch of, you know, I guess, angry gen X-ers I'll all up in our DMS. Jessika: OPress? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that bad press wasn't just good press also, because it is. Mike: Yeah. And I mean, this was before Schneider was given starring [00:31:00] roles in movies like Deuce Bigalow, which I have yet to see a Rob Schneider movie that I don't find absolutely abhorrent for a number of reasons. Yeah. Jessika: Especially in retrospect. Mike: Yeah. I mean, he's not offensive in this movie, he's just not very funny and kind of useless, even though he's supposed to be the plucky comic sidekick, which, I mean, this was part of that era of buddy action cop movies, except just in a different setting. Jessika: Yeah. I don't know. It was just very grating. The humor Mike: Yeah. , Jessika: And forced. Mike: Yeah. So, your summary is spot on. There's also detours into the Cursed Earth where Dredd is wrongfully convicted. And then, this is something where they diverged from the comic lore, but they're traveling to the penal colony in Aspen, when actually the penal colonies are all off-world. So it's, you basically get sent there for hard labor, off-planet and it's not exactly described what, and then he has to come back from the Cursed Earth, after dealing with the [00:32:00] cannibalistic Angel Gang. And then there's the reveal that he's a clone, which at this point in time is not really a big deal. Like, everybody knows it in the lore and yeah, we get a climactic battle at the statue of Liberty. Also, Joan Chen shows up for no real reason other than to be a woman for Diane Lane to fight. Jessika: Yeah, exactly. Mike: But yeah, it's not a great movie. Jessika: No, no. Mike: But there are parts of it that I still really enjoy. Sarah and I wound up watching it together and all of the practical, special effects that they did are still so good and they look so good. And, and honestly the action scenes are pretty decent for, you know, a mid 90's movie, even where there's that bit with the flying motorcycles, where they're being chased and they knock off one of the Judges chasing them that bit, where he's falling into the bottomless abyss of Mega City looked [00:33:00] really good and I couldn't help, but think of Ninja Turtles 3, where on the other hand, the bad guy getting knocked off into the ocean looks like garbage. Jessika: Yeah, no, that, I was really impressed by that. Especially considering the timeframe it was in. Mike: Yeah. So this movie really tried to smash together a lot of those classic Dredd moments from the comic book. And it was trying to basically create something new while giving fans a lot of nods that they would appreciate. The funny thing is that it was really focusing on the story of Rico Dredd after he comes back from serving his prison time, but in the comic, he only shows up for a one-shot serial story. If I remember right where he comes back from serving prison time in a colony on Saturn's moon of Titan. So if I remember this, right, he's just this kind of one-off character who shows up pretty early in the Dredd stories. Like, I, [00:34:00] I don't think the Dredd stories had even been published for a year by that point. It's like the 30th issue or so, and then he's shot down by Dredd in a duel and the whole, the logic behind it is that he tries to get the drop on Dredd, but his reactions are slower because he's been operating in lower gravity for a while. Jessika: Interesting, but he's still supposed to be a clone, right? Mike: Yeah, he's he, it's originally noted that he's Dredd's brother. And then there's the whole club thing that, that shows up later on and all that, but he also looks way different from Armand Assante in the movie, I'm sending you an image, you can take a quick look and see what Rico Dredd looks like after his prison time in the comic. Jessika: Oh, you would not get those two confused. Mike: Yeah. It's um. Jessika: This guy's got this, guy's like a metal face. Now he's got a nice little head band with probably a laser coming out the top. And then he's got like, no nose any longer. He's just got metal over his nose. There's metal stuff going into his mouth. And like [00:35:00] half of his face just doesn't have skin anymore. And you can tell one of his eyes is blind. It's pretty wild. His hair is all crazy. He's not having a good hair day. It's a look. Mike: It's a look. Yeah. So the whole idea is that when you get shipped off to these colonies, you are basically surgically modified to survive in the environment. Jessika: Oh. Mike: Yeah. So, definitely not what we got in the movie. Jessika: No. You had a guy that actually looked a lot like Stallone. They did a pretty good job of that, if they were going for lookalikes. Mike: Yeah. They were both very fit dudes who had those very strong chin lines. And then they also gave them cosmetic contact lenses so that they would actually have blue eyes, which is why. Jessika: That's what I thought. Mike: When you look at Stallone, you're like, mm, pretty sure God didn't make those eyes. That color. Jessika: Yeah. It's not so bad from certain angles, but other ones you're like, wow, Snowpiercer what's up. Mike: Yeah, it looks [00:36:00] very weird when you're, especially when you're watching it in high-def these days, it looks unnatural. I'm not sure how it would look on a TV or in a movie theater in 1995. I'm a little curious because I didn't get to see it. I was too young to go see an R-rated movie back then, womp womp. But yeah, so likewise, the character of Hershey, who is Diane Lane's character, she first appeared in a 1980 story called the Judge Child, which is this it's this cool thing where it starts off as a road trip across the Cursed Earth, and the Angel Gang who we see in the movie shows up, and then it becomes this weird space opera as Dredd winds up chasing after the Angel Gang and the kidnapped Judge Child across multiple star systems, which again, talking about the weird absurdity of Judge Dredd. So, it's weird to see her in this movie because I always associate Diane Lane with Under the Tuscan Sun. I mean, I've never even seen that movie, but that's just always what I [00:37:00] think of when I see her. Jessika: Oh, same. I definitely see her in an Italian villa and I have not seen that either. Mike: Yeah. Although she did play Superman's mom in the DCEU. Jessika: Oh yeah. Mike: So there was that, her finest role, you know, when she gets sad about Superman with Lois Lane, and then it turns out to be a Martian green dude. Jessika: We're going to have so many movie stars, not happy with us. Mike: I know. Jessika: They'll just be crying in all of their money. It's fine. Mike: Oh, no two lame nerds on the internet were mean to me. I just, uh. Jessika: My nightmare. Mike: They made vaguely negative remarks about me. All right. Jessika: Oh, let me use this 50 to dry my tears. Mike: Anyway. Yeah, so [00:38:00] Diane Lane shows up in Judge Dredd, and she's like way more of a damsel in distress and then weirdly a romantic interest for Dredd than anything else. And that was really bizarre to see, because with the hindsight of the comics, that character in Dredd A) Hershey is like a bad-ass cop. She is a hardcore street Judge. But she and Dredd actually have often had kind of an antagonistic relationship based on differing perspectives about how the justice system should operate. Jessika: Oh, interesting. Mike: Yeah. And eventually, she goes on to be the Chief Judge. Jessika: Oh, good for her. Mike: Yeah, you know, she busted through that glass ceiling. Jessika: Man. It just took, you know, going through a third world war, ladies, this is what we have to look forward to. Just wait for the flying motorcycles. We'll be there. Mike: Well, you know, you don't have to cook because we're just recycling people at that point. So, you know, frees up a lot of time. [00:39:00] Jessika: Oh, perfect. Mike: You don't have to, don't have to stand in the kitchen and make all of us men folk roasts all day. Jessika: Oh, perfect. Well, dang. What will I do? Mike: Okay. overthrow the patriarchy, I guess. Jessika: Let's do it. Mike: Yeah. And then additionally, you know, Dredd himself was pretty different from what we had in the comics. The movie violated this key component of the character by spending a lot of time focused on Dredd out of uniform, which means that we got to see his face. And it's such a known thing that this is not something that Dredd does, but it's actually one of the first points in Dreads, Wikipedia article, if you would be so kind. Jessika: Sure. Dredd's entire face is never shown in the strip. This began and is an unofficial guideline, but soon became a rule. As John Wagner explained, it sums up the facelessness of justice. [00:40:00] Justice has no soul, so it isn't necessary for readers to see Dredd's face. And I don't want you to. Mike: Which I mean, I think that's actually a really cool defining aspect of the character. Jessika: And it's always scarier if you can't see what you're fighting. Mike: Yeah. Agreed. Jessika: I mean, that's basic horror film rule, you know, it's always scarier if you can't see what's chasing you. Mike: Yeah. I kind of equate it to the recent Alien movie that they did. Alien Isolation, where they explained the origin for the alien species. And I was sitting there and going, there is nothing that you could tell me that would be worse than what I come up with in my mind when you've got a really nebulous origin. Jessika: Exactly. Mike: And then I watched the movie and I was like, that's dumb. I'm going back to my original design. I like that better. Jessika: Yeah. It's like Signs was really scary until they brought that stupid alien life being in. And then I was like, well, there it goes. Mike: Yeah. [00:41:00] Curse you, Shamaylan! Judge Dredd is one of those movies where when you watch it, it feels like the people that were involved with making it really had a lot of fun, and were really passionate about what they were doing. Like I've got the making-of book, and you can actually see the set that they built basically on a patch of farmland that became the street for Mega City One. And it's crazy. It wound up having hundreds of neon signs after they built it. It looked like a living, breathing street from this strange city in the future. It was really cool. And likewise, there's that ABC warrior robot that we get to see a couple of times who looks absolutely incredible. And the costume designs are really cool. They don't quite work because you know, it's spandex, but it's very faithful to the comic. And, even the final scenes in the Statue of Liberty where you're in the lab and you've got all those clones being grown, I don't quite understand why the clones are [00:42:00] mostly grown, but we can still see their intestines, but they look really cool. Jessika: I agree. Yeah. Mike: That said, the movie had a lot of production problems. And in fact, it actually had to get re-cut and submitted to the NPAA five times in order to get just an R rating down from an NC 17. Jessika: Dang. Mike: And by the way, we need to talk about the fact that this movie is rated R and if you watch it, it does not feel like an R rated movie. It feels like maybe a PG 13 movie at this point, maybe. Jessika: Maybe, I mean, and that would just be for the violence, Mike: I mean, yeah, but, compared to what gets rated PG 13 these days? Jessika: Yes. Mike: I think if I remember right, one of the Aliens vs Predator movies, maybe both of them are rated PG 13 and they're way more violent and gory. Jessika: Really? Wow. Mike: I mean, I could be completely wrong. Jessika: Who rates these movies? I mean, not a real question. We don't need to get into that, but that's wild to me. Mike: We'll go on a very tiny side tangent, but. Highly recommend you watch the movie. This [00:43:00] film is not yet rated, which talks about the NPAA and the ratings board and how weird and secretive it is. And just a how dumb and arbitrary their system is. Jessika: I might watch that tonight. Mike: It's great. I highly recommend it. So there was an interview with Steven D'Souza, who was the guy who actually wrote the script for Judge Dredd. e was talking to Den of Geek, he shed some light on how the movies, problematic production wound up leading to this mess that we wound up receiving, if you would be so kind. Jessika: Why sure. Judge Dredd was actually supposed to be a PG 13 movie, the production company at the time, Synergy, they were having some financial troubles, so they didn't have any UK executives on location in England. And in their absence, the director, Danny Cannon, wanting to make it true to the comic book, was making everything more and more and [00:44:00] more violent. So when the movie was delivered to be cut, it was rated X and it was rated X four times. They say you can't appeal after four, four is all you get. Somehow the producer, Ed Pressman, managed one more time to get it rated R which actually wasn't a victory because this was supposed to be PG 13. They had made a deal with Burger King, oop. I think, and a toy company. And you can't advertise toys for an R-rated movie and no hamburger plays, wants toys for an R-rated movie. So they hamburger people and the toy people turned around and sued Disney, the distributor whoop. Mike: Hmm. Oops. Jessika: Well, Disney then said, we'll take this out of the director's hide because he signed a piece of paper saying he would deliver a PG 13, but Synergy who was releasing it through Disney at that point had never done [00:45:00] anything, but an R-rated movie, nobody in the entire company had ever had the experience of putting that piece of paper in front of a director. So they had to pay him. They couldn't withhold his salary for violating a legal promise they never asked him to make. Mike: I kind of love that. Jessika: Blunders. Mike: Yeah. That interview also notes that the scene where the reporter gets killed by Rico and he's framing Dredd. It was way more violent and gory, and it looked like something out of Robocop. And then additionally, there was the bit where Rico tells his robot to tear off the arms and legs of the council of five Judge that he's been working with. And he says, rip off his arms and legs and then save his head for last. And so it was originally supposed to be a scene where basically it cuts away to Rico walking away or something like that or shadows or something, and then you just hear the screams and that's it. But [00:46:00] apparently they made a full animatronic robot that had the arms and legs actually getting ripped off and like spewing blood. Jessika: Yikes, no. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Guys. Mike: Yeah. So this was clearly one of those things desires were not clearly communicated. So Stallone gave an interview to Uncut Magazine in 2008. And he talked about a bunch of the things that, that went wrong with that movie, including this weird story about Danny Cannon, where he said, I knew we were in for a long shoot when for no explainable reason, Danny Cannon, who's rather diminutive, jumped down from his director's chair and yelled to everyone within earshot. Fear me, everyone should fear me. Then jumped back up to his chair as if nothing happened. The British crew was taking bets on his life expectancy. Jessika: Yikes. Yeah, the guy's going to give himself a coronary. Holy moly. Mike: It reminds [00:47:00] me a little bit of the stories that were coming out of the Suicide Squad set. Jessika: Oh. Yeah, I'm hearing more and more stories of just things that actors are being put through on set, and it's just, I don't care who you are, you shouldn't have to deal with this bullshit while you're working. Mike: I don't envy them. Jessika: Yeah, I don't either. I mean, there has to be ways that doesn't hurt people to entertain us. Mike: Yeah. Back onto this topic of Judge Dredd itself, it was this movie that costs $95 million and that's in 1995. So adjusting for inflation, that's roughly $190 million in 2021 dollars. Jessika: Whew. Mike: For reference there's a bunch of MCU flicks that when adjusting for that inflation costs less than Judge Dredd did. The R rating in turn, and kind of the lackluster end product, resulted in $113 million at the box office worldwide. And that was a lot less than Stallone, and really everyone else, was hoping for, [00:48:00] they were legit hoping that this was going to be just a blowout success story, and they could make a franchise out of it. So we've already talked about how they were trying to make this into something that they can market to kids. And we still got some products that show that was the plan. There were a couple of associated products, like a junior novelization, and a comic adaptation of the movie from DC comics itself. And then a video game that's actually, it's not bad. It's like a side scroller and the movie story ends about, I think, halfway through. And then you go on to a bunch of different worlds and end up fighting those Dark Judges that I was talking about earlier, which is kinda cool. Yeah. It's fine. But anyway, none of these tie-in products really seemed to land. How did you feel about this film overall? I'm curious. Jessika: Is it bad to say a came across as a little cheesy? Mike: No, not at all. [00:49:00] Jessika: Like a nice wholly Swiss cheese. There were some mega plot holes that were very apparent. That kind of took me out of the experience saying that a lot this episode, but way to go guys. And it made me really overthink aspects of the storyline. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Like the whole, how did you not know where were clones? Did you not accidentally ever pick up the other person's gone and we're like, why can't I use this? If you have the DNA testing, it just, it didn't make a lot of sense. And how can you sequence two different guns if you only have one sequence of DNA? I don't get that either. Mike: Yeah. Part of that is just because it was 1995. DNA was still like a really hot topic for plots. It was new science. It was really exciting. I mean. Jessika: That's fair. Mike: We were in the throws of the OJ Simpson trial, and so DNA evidence was a really big thing there, but yeah. Jessika: Hot button item. You're right, I think, buzzword. Mike: And so that kind of goes into the whole [00:50:00] idea of clones as well, but that's an established plot line of Dredd itself. But I mean, like I remember, there's a bit where they focus on the flying Law Master motorcycle and they say, well, if you can ever get it to work, it will be yours. And they bust out and then there's several other flying Law Masters chasing after them. Jessika: Well, when they're talking about those motorcycles, I think they're trying to liken them to really bad quality, government issue, like these things are a piece of shit, but you can probably get em into the air, and have the worst model sitting there for the newbies to fuck around with. But I don't know, that's that was my takeaway from it just because I also remember, not that the cars are bad necessarily, the police cars, but it's like, they're stripped down to nothing, they're just like a car. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: None of the fancy shit. Mike: Yeah. Those, those good old Crown Vics. Jessika: Oh Yeah. And I think that part of it for me was the serious scenes, like the courtroom scene, especially mix in Rob Schneider in any of [00:51:00] those situations. And it was just a little much. Mike: Yeah, absolutely. Stallone played it really straight and really intense and it doesn't quite work. It feels almost like a high school drama production where you're watching those kids onstage, they're acting too hard. They've turned their acting dials up to 11 and you're like, okay buddy, we needed it like a seven. Jessika: I'm just imagining a man, like a child on stage, shaking. His arm is shaky. He's got a skull in his head and he was just screaming out lines from Hamlet. You're like, ooh, buddy, calm down. Mike: Yeah. Yurick can't hear you Hamlet. He's already dead. I think it's okay. Jessika: Womp womp. Mike: Yeah. My take on it, aside from the fact that it's a little bit too faithful and too earnest is that this reminds me of that situation where you take a bunch of different ingredients that you think are going to taste amazing and you've slapped them together into a sandwich. And then you realize the combination doesn't work, but yet you end up eating it anyway. [00:52:00] Jessika: Been there. Mike: Like, we talked about the sets, the makeup, the costumes, even the special effects, those are all great, but the script and then Stallone's performance really kind of do it a disservice, and even Sly has acknowledged that the movie missed the mark. So that earlier interview that I mentioned with Uncut Magazine, he had a really great point where he talks about how it didn't work. Jessika: I loved that property when I read it, because it took a genre that I love what you could term the action morality film, and made it a bit more sophisticated. It had political overtones. It showed how, if we don't curb the way we run our judicial system, the police may end up running our lives. It dealt with archaic governments. It dealt with cloning and all kinds of things that could happen in the future. It was also bigger than any film I've done in its physical stature and the way it was designed, all the people were dwarfed by the system and the architecture. It shows how insignificant [00:53:00] human beings could be in the future. There's a lot of action in the movie and some great acting, too. It just wasn't balls to the wall. But I do look back on Judge Dredd as a real missed opportunity. It seemed that lots of fans had a problem with Dredd removing his helmet because he never does in the comic books. But for me, it is more about wasting such great potential there was in that idea, just think of all the opportunities there were to do interesting stuff with the Cursed Earth scenes. It didn't live up to what it could have been. It probably should have been much more comic, really humorous and fun. What I learned out of that experience was that we shouldn't have tried to make it Hamlet. It's more Hamlet and eggs. That's so funny that I brought up Hamlet! I didn't read ahead. Mike: I was laughing about that actually. Yeah. And I mean, he's not wrong. I think he played it too straight and too serious. And they also tried to make it an action buddy comedy [00:54:00] movie, which it just, it doesn't quite work. Like the, the tone with Dredd is you have to walk a really fine line. They didn't stick to it this time. Yeah. I feel like it was trying to be extremely faithful to the source material, which always walked this very fine line tonally, and then it blew past it to create something that's just it's way too earnest. And over the top, it kind of reminded me of Jupiter Ascending. If you remember that movie. Jessika: I do. Mike: Yeah. It's this movie that has crazy high production values, a pretty great cast actually, and a really big story. And then it all combines into something that's honestly kind of underwhelming. Jessika: And forgettable, cause I kind of forget what that whole plot line of that movie is. And I think I've seen it twice cause I was like, I don't think I've seen this before. And I sat through the whole thing again. It's one of those movies. Mike: I just remember a lot of shirtless Channing Tatum and. Jessika: Oh, yeah, he wasn't at sea. I don't even know. Mike: Yeah. Do you have any more thoughts before we move on to [00:55:00] the 2012 remake kind of, it's not really a remake. It's just the 2012 movie. Jessika: No let's Rob Schneider, our way out of this. Mike: I'm not sure I liked that verb. Jessika: I was using it as: do something really stupid to get out of a situation. And I think I did it just by saying that. Mike: All right. How would you describe this movie? Give it, give another quick summary. Jessika: Mega City One. The future. There are still flying cars, but less of them. In a packed city rife with violence, Judge Joseph Dredd is assessing a new potential recruit to the force. This recruit isn't like the others. However, she is psychic; a mutant! In answering their first call, they inadvertently get themselves involved in a large scale drug operation and have to kill or be killed in order to survive. This film has no sympathy for innocent bystanders, who are killed by the dozens each [00:56:00] scene. And the Judges are swift to kill any who might oppose them. They finally escape using their wits and these psychic's ability, all while taking down a drug ring. Ta-da, all in a day's work. Mike: Dread came out right around the same time, I think a little bit after, as this movie out of, I think Thailand called The Raid. Which it's about a police force. That's basically working their way up through a skyscraper. And it's another really intense action movie. It's got really kick-ass action scenes. It's really good. And the sad thing is it's just that and Dredd have a similar plot based on that, but it's also very different. So there were a lot of unfair comparisons to that at the time. Jessika: I see. Mike: How do you feel this movie compares with the Stallone one? Jessika: It was definitely more serious and more bloody, for sure. It really leaned into the death and carnage aspect [00:57:00] becoming more and more creative and destructive as the film progressed. Like was it strictly necessary to aim towards and blow up an entire floor of a densely inhabited building? I dunno. It was kind of hard to watch some times, it was pretty graphic. I did like that it took on a more serious tone though. And I think the reason that it's so hard to watch for me is more for the social implications. Like, when the film made it clear that vagrancy could carry a similar sentence to other more serious crimes. Mike: Right? Jessika: Which was really wild. Mike: Yeah, it's interesting because I feel like it did a lot more subtle world-building with moments like that, or when they're describing the Mega Block that they're investigating and it's noted that there's only a 3% employment rate. It's weird because it's such a violent movie and don't get me wrong, I think the action scenes are just incredible. They look great. But at the same time, it's a more [00:58:00] subtle movie in a lot of ways than the Stallone one was. Jessika: Yeah. Definitely it's scarier. Like the idea of it is more, it seems more real and in your face, and for me, it definitely put a spotlight on how scary policing can be to targeted groups. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And this might be an extreme example, but how extreme is it really? Mike: Yeah. And it's interesting because you and I talked about this before, this is a movie that is very, it's very binary with its morals. Like there's only the good guys and the bad guys. This isn't this, isn't one of those movies where you sit there and you watch it and are really given a lot of moral things to consider. There's not a lot of philosophy here, but it doesn't sit there and say that Dredd and the Judges themselves are in the right. It's basically showing that there is a force who is basically the gang that is running the apartment block that they are in, which is headed up by a fucking terrifying Lena Headey and A), [00:59:00] they really uglied her up. Which, I was actually really impressed. I didn't recognize her because this came out right after game of Thrones had just had its first season. I think maybe its second season had hit, but I mean what a stark contrast between her in the mama role and then Cersei Lannister. Jessika: Stark. I like what you did there. Mike: Hey, was totally intentional. Or that was totally, that was totally intentional. I totally did that on purpose. Jessika: Okay. Mike: Like I said, there is no wiggle room. They sit there and they basically say no, this woman is a monster, and she does need to be taken down. You know, to the movies credit, the judges, don't really mow down innocent bystanders, it's all the thing of, no, they're going up against bad guys who have guns and are trying to kill them. But at the same time, it does also acknowledge how they aren't completely in the right either. Like there's a scene where they take shelter in an apartment. And Olivia Thirlby's character reads the mind of this woman who they're basically holding up to give them shelter for a few minutes. [01:00:00] And she realizes that, oh, this woman's baby daddy is one of the gang members that they just killed a few minutes ago. Jessika: She herself had killed that guy. Mike: Yeah. And I appreciated that. There are those moments where it takes a more mature look at, maybe everything that's going on isn't great. And then there's that moment at the end where Anderson sits there and talks about how, when she lets the hacker character go, because she realizes that he is just as much of a victim as a lot of the other people in the block are, even though he's been aiding Ma Ma. Jessika: Yeah. And then I like how Dread tries to call her on it. She's like, I've made the judgment. He's a victim. Mike: Yeah. And I thought that was great. Also, that actor is the guy who played General Hux in the Star Wars movies that we got recently. Jessika: I thought I recognized him and I could not place him, and I was too lazy to go on IMDB. Mike: But yeah, thought it was a much more, it's weird to call that movie subtle, but I felt like there were a lot of nice little subtle moments in it. [01:01:00] And I really liked how A) Ma Ma was a genuinely frightening villain, especially because you never see her flying off the handle or being over the top or anything like that. She delivers everything with this really kind of scary, calm, in which we see in the first few minutes, when she tells her officer to skin, some guys who were selling drugs on her territory without her permission. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: And then the order is given after they've been skinned, to be given hits of slow-mo, which is the drug throughout the movie that slows down perceptions of time. So they were thrown off the top story of this apartment block. And basically they have this long, awful, painful plummet into the courtyard below. Jessika: God, that's gotta be so terrifying. Mike: And that really set the tone for who we were dealing with, which I thought was incredibly effective. Jessika: I thought they did such a nice job on the cinematography on that, by the way, when they did those scenes with the slow-mo and they [01:02:00] had it kind of shimmery and they put you in the mindset of the person having used the slow-mo, and I thought that was such a good technique. Mike: So yeah, and the whole thing was that they released this movie in 3D. So, you can tell that those scenes were filmed specifically for 3D cinematography. Jessika: That makes so much sense. Mike: I actually saw this movie opening night in the theaters and A) I remember tweeting about it and saying that movie was way too good for the theater to be that empty on a Friday night. But I remember that was the first, and really that's the only time, I've ever enjoyed a movie in 3D because I felt the 3d actually added something as opposed to just being a cheap gimmick to ring an extra couple of bucks out of my wallet. Jessika: That's usually how I feel about it. Mike: Yeah. But I liked how Olivia Thirlby's character Judge Anderson was actually way less of a damsel in distress than Diane Lane's character Judge Hersey. And then on top of that, a lot of the [01:03:00] superhero movies rely on that whole female heroes have to fight female villains trope that it always feels like they don't get to participate in the end boss battle. And I thought it was really cool how Anderson wound up using her powers to A) escape, her captors, B) actually rescue Dredd, and then C) really be a giant aid to him throughout the movie. She felt like a viable, real character as opposed to just kind of, window trim. Jessika: Yeah. Agreed. I was nodding vigorously when you were talking about that, because I am an absolute agreement. I was a little worried when she first got captured, cause I was like, oh, here we go, so fucking typical. But then when she was actually using her powers and she was getting out of the situation herself, it was like, okay, fine. You got this. You're fine. Mike: Yeah. On top of that, the intro to the movie we get is so tight and efficient. And aside from the intro where we get a chase scene, where we see slow-mo and effect, we see how brutal Dredd is himself. We also get [01:04:00] the intro to Anderson, where she's demonstrating her powers by basically reading the mind of Dredd from behind a two way mirror. And there's that great line about like, oh, well, you know, there's another Judge with you. He's male. I sense control and anger and then something, something more something. And then the judge cuts her off just like, that's enough, that's fine. And I'm like, cool. So we've got a really good summary of who Dredd himself is. Okay. We get it now. This is all we need. Jessika: Yeah. It was a really good narrative tool. I did like that. Mike: Yeah. And then, in the comics, Anderson actually won is a pretty big ally of dread himself. And she's also never romantic interest, but she winds up being key to defeat those monster movie versions of the Judges. And actually, it's been a little while since I read this, but if I remember right when she first confronts Judge Death, who is the leader of the Dark Judges, she winds up, trapping him inside her own mind because he's this psychic entity. And so I was really happy that they took a strong character and [01:05:00] kept her really strong. Jessika: It's good to hear that she also had a really strong role within the comics. Mike: And then the other thing is that I kind of liked how they had Dredd himself be a little bit more subtle. Like, Hey, we never haven't take off his helmet, which I thought was great. And I thought Karl urban, I mean, how did you feel about Karl Urban as Dredd compared to him? Jessika: I thought he was great. And I think I, it would've made less sense if he had taken off his helmet just as far as the character goes. And honestly, I think in this situation, there wasn't much room for him as a character to have his helmet off because they were pretty in a battle mode. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: The whole movie, truly, except for the introductory first few minutes. Mike: Yeah. And I liked the bit where, so Anderson loses her helmet pretty early on and Dredd actually calls her out on it. And he says, you're not wearing your helmet. And she goes, oh, well, the helmet interferes with my psychic abilities and you just go solo bullet and then that's it. That's Jessika: Yup. Mike: I thought that was great. Jessika: Yup. He'll give her the advice he will give, but he's not going to [01:06:00] tell her to do it, which I thought was good. Mike: Yeah. I'm curious. We're going to get to this in a minute about like how it is through the 2021 line. But did you enjoy the movie? Jessika: I think for me, because I'm such an empath, it was a little bit too much innocent blood death. Mike: Okay. Jessika: Even just like, they didn't need to kill the vagrant, it, that was a very like, oh, the gates closed. And the Vagrant just happened to be sitting there and he got squashed and they both kind of looked at it like, well, guess we don't have to deal with that. And I was like, well, fucking hell guys, come on. Mike: Yeah. And I mean, at the same time, from my perspective, and I understand where you were coming from with this, but from my perspective, it was kind of the embodiment of that weird absurdist, gallows humor that is often prese

united states america god tv american fear new york city donald trump uk disney rock england spoilers future film british star wars russia pride australian signs batman dc dna lgbtq italian holy spain judge abc 3d fbi aliens game of thrones watching states barcelona curse mama loved superman alien thailand pursuit mine lgbt guardian amazon prime mobile dutch dvd saturday night live mcu apple podcast comics wikipedia ipads judges geeks thor regular bay area rebellions rico bronx diary predator dms swiss loki wagner guardians of the galaxy suicide squad injustice captain america eagle pg variety rocket adam sandler fast and furious imdb burger king warner spike saturn accessibility raid mills statue schneider freeze jacques d d robocop oj simpson palm martian hamlet dceu prime video harley quinn will ferrell blu pd dread synergy dwayne johnson world war iii hershey catwoman stallone highlander bruce wayne ninja turtles channing tatum tencent sly gomorrah snowpiercer smallville nebula valiant santa rosa ferrell michelle yeoh oh god idw poison ivy dredd lois lane judge dredd rob schneider comicon riddick karl urban dirty harry alien isolation landau spike tv croydon rascal jupiter ascending petaluma ars technica diane lane ving rhames vagrant chief judge megacities dreads lena headey paramount network mike thompson cersei lannister yondu john wagner time variance authority tuscan sun one eyed jack dred armand assante polly klaas adi shankar lex luther joan chen premiumbeat mega city one pat mills general hux dc warner robert schneider mike it olivia thirlby mike you deuce bigalow justin halpern mike no mike yeah justice peace cursed earth eric estrada mike well danny cannon mike how mike so mike there mike oh mike right mike all judge death judge anderson mike for jared emerson johnson crown vics npaa mike they

The Shifting Foundation of Ecommerce

Up Next In Commerce

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2021 55:42

The future of commerce is being built all around us, and while so much of the industry changes on a daily basis, there are still some fundamental truths that anchor brands and allow them to find success in the digital and retail worlds. On this roundtable episode of Up Next in Commerce, I got to dig into exactly what those foundational elements are with Mike Black, the CMO of Profitero, and Diana Haussling, the VP and General Manager of Digital Commerce at Colgate-Palmolive.This was such a great discussion that touched on so many different topics that brands big and small should be paying attention to. For example, what are the three key levers that influence ecommerce sales? How should you be developing KPIs that will actually mean something and lead to more profitability and growth? Why is omnichannel the way of the future and what channels should companies be investing in? Mike and Diana have the answers, which they have gathered through long and impressive histories in the ecommerce world — Mike worked at Staples and Nielsen, and Diana has held roles at places like Campbell's, General Mills, and Hersheys. These two really know their stuff and they were so much fun to talk to. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did! Main Takeaways:Pulling the Right Levers: There are three basic levers that influence ecommerce sales: availability, findability, and conversion tactics. If you can't ensure that you reliably have products to offer people, that those people have an easy way to find the products, and that they are given reasons to actually make a purchase, you won't be able to grow or increase profits. You Reap What You Sow: Being a first-mover on any platform is one of the investments that has the highest potential payoffs. Companies that took Amazon and Instacart seriously from the get-go have created a huge advantage for themselves in the ecommerce space. By having a head start in one place, you also free yourself up to explore elsewhere while your competition tries to keep up in the first spot you've already dominated.You Want Them to Want You: As a brand, you have to firmly establish a value proposition to present to customers, especially when you are trying to extract information or gather data about them. Give customers concrete reasons to want to engage with your brand and earn their trust so that they are more likely to keep coming back. Then use the data they give you to provide even better experiences and products over and over.For an in-depth look at this episode, check out the full transcript below. Quotes have been edited for clarity and length.---Up Next in Commerce is brought to you by Salesforce Commerce Cloud. Respond quickly to changing customer needs with flexible Ecommerce connected to marketing, sales, and service. Deliver intelligent commerce experiences your customers can trust, across every channel. Together, we're ready for what's next in commerce. Learn more at salesforce.com/commerce---Transcript:Stephanie:Hello, everyone. And welcome back to Up Next in Commerce. I'm your host, Stephanie Postles, CEO at mission.org. Today, we are back with an awesome round table with some amazing folks. First up, we have Diana Haussling, who currently serves as the VP and General Manager of Digital Commerce at Colgate-Palmolive. Welcome.Diana:Thank you so much for having me. I'm super excited for this conversation.Stephanie:Me too. And next we have Mike Black, who's the CMO of Profitero. Mike, welcome to the show.Mike:Thank you very much. Also, very excited.Stephanie:Yeah. This is going to be a good one. I can just feel it. I can see the energy between you guys. I can see you got a lot to say. So, it's going to be a good one. So, I would love to start as I always do with a bit of background so people know who we're chatting with. So, Diana, maybe if you could start with… I see you have a long history in the world of CPG work for… I mean the most well-known brands that I can think of, and I was hoping if you can kind of go through that journey a bit?Diana:Yeah. So, I've been lucky enough to work at four major CPG organizations. I cut my teeth with Hershey in sales and really was able to understand, not only retail, but direct customer selling. Moved over to General Mills where I stiffed my toe in the water in marketing. Loved working on those brands and getting a taste of a larger organization. And then I shifted to Campbell's where I spent the bulk of my time. Campbell's will always have a special place in my heart.Diana:I spent a lot of times there, ping-pong back and forth between marketing and sales. I created a couple of roles for myself. One of which was the lead of e-commerce, where I established the e-commerce organization there before leaving and coming to my new love, Colgate-Palmolive. Super excited to be part of the Colgate family. I lead a digital commerce team called the Hive. It had that name before I got there. But I'm attributing it to the Beyonce now that I'm there.Stephanie:I love that.Diana:I'm so super excited to be at Colgate. There's just a ton of energy and growth around e-commerce and our primary focus is on digital transformation which is a perfect segue for this conversation.Stephanie:Yes. I can't wait to get into that. All right, Mike, a bit about you.Mike:Yeah. So, I started my career in retail. I started my first real job was at Staples, the office products company. And I was responsible for public relations there. Opening new stores in different markets, and really got a firsthand look at how retailers, traditional retailers were being disrupted by e-commerce. The time that I was at Staples was right at the time that Amazon started to make its ways. And I could see the impact of that just in the way that Staples was going to market, and they started to really dial up their own e-commerce efforts to combat.Mike:So, it was really interesting to see that pivotal moment inside from a retailer, classic brick and mortar retailer go through that transformation. So, I started my career there, then I started working in startups. And I eventually found my way to Nielsen. So, I worked in the part of Nielsen where we tested new product innovations for CPGs and worked in their measurement and analytics. And while I was at Nielsen, that's my first exposure to e-commerce and first exposure to this new emerging space of analytics.Mike:And I knew this was the place I wanted to be. It was in the e-commerce space, the intersection of e-commerce and data analytics, and that led me to Profitero where I am now. And we're getting to work with smart people like Diana who is someone I listen to her speak, and then I take notes. And then I sort of borrow some of her wisdom, and she's someone I'm always learning a lot from.Diana:Right back at you, Mike. And if you don't follow him on LinkedIn, you should, because he leads all social for Profitero, which isn't in his CMO title.Stephanie:Wow. I like this. Diana's like your hype woman. So, this is a good match we have here.Mike:The feeling is mutual.Stephanie:Yeah. That's awesome. So, Diana, I mean I'm thinking about you starting an e-commerce team at Campbell's. And then coming to Colgate where they already kind of have one set up, and I'd love to hear a bit about what is it like now versus then? Because I can just imagine you being like, “This is important everyone and I need some budget for it and this is going to be a thing.” Whereas now, it's like obvious. Like, “Yeah. Jump in. Let's go deep and spread the word.”Diana:Yeah. I think, and I'm sure this will ring true to a lot of my fellow CPGers and the struggle on the e-commerce business. If you're at an organization, and this is a completely new space, but you have leadership that definitely sees the potential and the opportunity, it really becomes on you to not only operationalize, but really help leaders understand how to translate e-commerce, how to translate digital to a P&L, to growth projectors, to a strat plan. All those things CPG people are really comfortable with.Diana:And then also to really think about not only what your org needs to be like to get things off the ground, but where it needs to go in the next three years. And typically, you're not in the position where the organization truly understands how to make that work. So, there is a kind of this hybrid role that digital commerce folks have to play in emerging organizations where they're really helping folks navigate, what IT support do I need? What supply chain support do I need? Where should everything sit?Diana:And you can do it on your own, but you can also partner. So, there's a number of groups you can partner with. I happen to know that Profitero has done a lot in this space, and they have, basically, a journey for organizations that you can leverage. But it really is like starting from scratch and building a case for growth. I think the biggest question that you get when it comes to just starting up in an organization is how is this incremental to the business?Diana:And my pushback to that always is, it's not about incrementality. Incrementality is a bonus. It really is all about protecting your base business, going where consumers are going, and ensuring that you future proof your organization for the reality of what our new world is, which is omni. It's slightly different when you come into an organization like Colgate who already has a established e-commerce team or Center of Excellence.Diana:I definitely feel like I came to the land of the willing. Everyone, from the top down, is really excited and energized by the space. And that it's energizing, but it also means you have to redirect all of those good intentions and positive energy to the right focus and the right goal. So, some of the work when you're in a more established organization is really, how do I harness all of those resources when they are abundant? And make sure they're spent in the right places and they deliver. Because there's going to come a time where leadership is going to look back on that cash that they threw in e-commerce, and they're going to say, "What did I get for it?" And you better have delivered on it.Diana:I think the other piece is making sure you understand how to integrate across the organization. It's important to have a strong center, but it's even more important to make sure everybody understands the role that they play in digital, in e-commerce regardless of if they're on the badass teams like the Hives of the world.Stephanie:Yeah. I mean the one thing I hear a lot of brands struggling with though are around metrics. I mean from working at bigger companies in the past, I've seen people kind of come up with KPIs in a way that, it's kind of made up. Stephanie:So, when thinking about big and small brands thinking through like KPIs and metrics, feels like kind of a messy world where when you get to the bigger organizations, some of them can start to feel like they're just kind of being forced. Like, "Oh, see, we have it. And if you look in three years, maybe it's like not even relevant. And then the smaller companies are like, "Well, how do we even start?"Stephanie:And so, I'm wondering, how do you go about even thinking about developing KPIs, thinking about brand building, thinking about conversions. Is there some kind of allocation you had going into it of like, "Here's what should be spent on just holding down the fort, and here's what should be spent on acquiring new customers and thinking through the LTV and everything."Diana:For me, that's a marriage between two points. It's the external data and viewpoint. So, where do you have an actual right to win? Where are the white space opportunities? And where are their growth that you're not getting your fair share of? Really understanding that industry landscape is really critical to forming your strategy.Diana:What you want to avoid is just forming a strategy that's based off of internal goals and objectives, because you may not be able to deliver against that. It's a marriage between the two. Then, it's getting really clear internally on what winning looks like. There is a high cost to acquisition, but there also is a huge penalty if you don't ride the momentum and the wave of growth while it's happening.Diana:I use Skype and Zoom during the pandemic as an example of that. Skype had a foothold on the industry. Zoom came in out of nowhere and won the pandemic. You don't want to be Skype. So, how do you ensure that you position yourself and your brands, so you not only understand what the CEO and the board wants you to deliver, but also you're pushing on what are the right levers in order to get there? Because your brick and mortar business is not going to mirror your e-commerce business. It's going to be slightly different.Diana:And then you have to understand those points where there's intersection. So, right now, we're seeing growth across all modalities or modes of shopping. So, there is this real digital impact on the physical brick and mortar footprint. And the onus is on the digital commerce team to make sure they understand what that impact can do, and they're not only influencing the KPIs that drive e-commerce, but they're helping the brick and mortar business understand the KPIs they need to maintain competitive edge. But also to hold their shelf space, their promo space, and their capacity within the total retailer environment.Mike:Yeah. Just to build on what Diana said. I've noticed a shift just in vocabulary and positioning in the last probably three months with e-commerce leaders. They used to really talk about e-commerce as e-commerce, and it was really about winning in that channel. And I've noticed this language shift towards now repositioning around this idea of digitally influenced sale, and taking credit for all the work that you do online that drive sales.Mike:And you think about it, most, and it's true. Most shopping experiences are happening much… Even if you go in a store, you're researching online, you're looking at content. You're doing a search to see if it's even available at your local Target. And what comes up in that digital experience is going to dictate whether you go to that store or not. So, it's just so much more impact that I think goes into your e-commerce that I don't think e-commerce leaders were really fairly taken credit for. But I noticed this, Diana, you probably… And it sounds like you're starting to speak this languages.Mike:It's like almost every sale is digitally influenced now. And so, that investment, I think it breaks down the barriers between the brick and mortar teams when they start to realize that their success isn't independent. It isn't just e-commerce and I don't have to care about it. Actually, will have a full cycle, and you see some retailers, really, I believe the sticking point comes when you have a retailer like Walmart who starts to say, "Hey, you have to talk to me in the language of omnichannel."Mike:And now, when they set that tone and being as influential as you are, I see them starting to drive this different consensus. So, I think the metrics have changed in some ways, the language has changed and I think we're starting to reframe that it isn't just e-commerce, but just commerce now. And I think that's going a long way.Stephanie:Yeah. That is why we label the podcast, Up Next in Commerce, because we knew, we saw the writing on the wall, so just several notes, we were first. So, how are you going about even thinking about that tracking? I mean if you're saying a sale is digitally influenced, in my head I'm like, "How? How would you even know that?" So, what are some ways, either Mike that you see brands kind of attacking that problem or Diana, how's Colgate thinking about that?Diana:Mike, you got this one. This is your [crosstalk].Mike:Yeah. I'd say like basically, I mean the way that we think about your metrics really goes down to the levers, right? The levers that influence your sales in e-commerce, really comes down to like three basics. And there's some, the one is the first lever. Most important is that you're available. So, that your product is even listed and it's not out of stock. That was a major issue last year, and a lot of brands are still feeling that repercussion, and that has a lot of impact.Mike:So, if you go to Amazon, and you're looking for a particular product, it's not there. You better believe consumers are going to switch, and we saw that switching, and that switching is very painful online, because the loyalty can go, and then you don't have that repeat. So, first and foremost you think about, "Okay, we got to be available." It's just like being in store. You got to have the product there on the shelf.Mike:Then, the next big lever is being findable. And that's what's really interesting, when you're in a traditional store, you walk into a store, you knew that your product, you sold it in at the beginning of the year, the planogram. That, yeah, your product was going to be on the shelf, and they're just going to replace it. But in the digital store that changes every day, and we've done like 24-hour video views of search results on Amazon, and the products are just changing constantly shifting.Mike:And so, findability is really being keen to what terms your customers going to search for, and then being there all the time in the top of the results, and we have seen that if you're not on page one, and sometimes not even in page, in the first five spots, you might as well not even be there, because you're not findable. So, that's like your second lever.Mike:And then your third is really about your conversion levers. Having that content and having those reviews, and that's probably one of the most transferable things between the online and the offline experience, because there's so much discovery and learning and research is being done, and that's one of the things that Amazon has done a great job and recognized, they've given consumers so much real estate, so much space. Places for videos, place for content.Mike:And I think most of us, if we're going to look for a new product, we're going to start on Amazon. We're going to soak in that information and make informed decisions. So, if you look at it, it's all right. Well, my end game has got to be available. I got to be findable, showing them a search. I have to have good content. And then if those things are true, you start to gather metrics, and that's actually what Profitero is doing is we're able to help brands understand across all the sites you're selling. Are they available? Are they findable? Are they converting? And ultimately what we know is if you pull those levers, and you optimize those levers, your sales are going to grow, and you're going to outpace the competition.Mike:And to Diana's point, the very, very important thing that grounds all this is having a sense of your competitive growth, because you need to be able to define, like Diana said, not define success in your own terms. But you have to be able to see how your competitors are growing in that category, and if you look at 2020, everybody grew, pat yourself on the back. But if you knew that your competitor grew at like 2x or 3x, that's a wake-up call, there's something you're not doing that they're doing. And so, it's really important that you balance those tactical levers of the shelf with just this overall having sales metrics and not just looking at your own. And these are all data points that are now available through technology and Diana can speak about how they're actioned.Diana:Yeah. I would say the digital commerce starter kit is definitely, first and foremost, digital shelf health and discipline. That's a game changer. If you're not winning there, and you're not going to win, we spend so much time as marketers really focusing on our packaging and understanding the importance and the value of packaging.Diana:Well, in this new world, the digital shelf is your new packaging. It's your new end cap. It's your new aisle. So, how do you think about digital shelf and the discipline there really is going to translate into your competitive set, because now consumers can define what that competitor set is. It's going to really define your conversion rates. Does your content help consumers really understand how to use your product?Diana:And it's also going to impact your ratings and reviews. Does your content enable your consumers to have the experience that they're expecting when they see you online? So, it really does fuel all of the potential for your growth. And I said once you have that starter kit up and running, then you really have to take a step back, and think about, what are the other KPIs? We tend to really focus on marketing and sales when it comes to digital commerce. But this game is won and lost with supply chain, IT, and finance.Diana:So, starting back with supply chain, IT, and finance and setting yourself up to be profitable, to be deliverable, and to be flexible is really how you can break away from the pack.Stephanie:Yeah. I love that. What are some surprises? And maybe Mike this is a question for you. What are some surprising platforms or channels when you're talking about, everyone did well, but some brands maybe did double or triple compared to other ones? What are some surprises there that you're seeing or things that are happening right now, you're like, "This platform's kind of popping up or people are pulling off of this one?"Mike:Yeah. Well, just specifically in terms of platforms, I think, well, in terms of like retail platforms, I think part of it is I think last year was really about the relevance of certain platforms jumped up. So, I think most brands that took e-commerce seriously, took Amazon very seriously from the get-go, I think last year Instacart became the platform that everyone's, especially in CPG space said, "Okay, this is serious now." People were going there first and foremost, it was a lifeline in terms of getting delivery.Mike:And suddenly now, what that creates is an opportunity to be first in market. And I think there's an advantage with any platform to be the first mover, and there's reasons why. Amazon's a good example of a platform that favors brands that have good sales history. So, if you excelled, really, if you were like the first let's say pet brand a couple years ago to rock Amazon, what happened is that you were excelling at all your execution, your sales are going up, and you start to organically just get higher placement, because Amazon favors brands that are relevant.Mike:And so, if you're really selling, they're going to give you that top space. And you see that same dynamic in Instacart, and in grocery too, because what happens is on a grocery site, people usually buy groceries off a list. And so, the first time they place orders on an Instacart or grocery, they're building their list. And then the next time it's a reordered list. So, there's a huge advantage to be a first mover on a platform and to build that purchase history, because it drives your repeat rates.Mike:And so, what we saw last year was just a lot of brands stepping up, and saying, "You know what? We're going to capitalize this. We're going to be early. We're going to invest in ads. You were going to get it, get that top of mind share." And I think they're going to reap the rewards now for the rest of year. So, you can look at it from a platform perspective, sometimes being first to market on these platforms, taking e-commerce seriously can give you a long-term sustainable advantage.Stephanie:I wonder if consumers are changing because of this past year or two, it seems like consumers are looking for the newer thing, the D2C company that's kind of like just saw it on Instagram. I feel like even myself, I go to Amazon, I see a lot of brands that I know. I'm kind of like, "Ah, keep scrolling." I've known of these brands for 10 years. Of course, they're number one. They've been around a long time. Let me find this deodorant that just popped up. Oh, cool. It's natural. It has all the things that I want, but it might be pretty far down or I'm even getting to a place where I'm kind of skeptical that Amazon might not even have it. And I might just need to go to the website or maybe go to, I don't know, Target and browse through and try and find it. What are you guys thinking around that?Diana:I love everything that you're saying there, but the insights background in me is super excited around the fact that we all went through a life change at the same time. So, if you think about that, typically, when you have a baby, your consideration set changes, your lifestyle changes, which are open too. New households with second babies tend to buy a washing machine within that first week that they bring that baby home, because they're like, "Crap, I'm not dealing with all this laundry on my own."Diana:But we all went through that change, collectively had a baby at once and changed how we operate, how we think, what we're open to, what our consideration set is. So, insights teams out there should be real hype right now, because it's an opportunity for them to really take a deep dive in and rethink brand positioning and audiences. So, exactly what you're talking about, people are more open or more exposed or they realize how connected they are to certain brands, and then they were willing to go direct to that brand to purchase those items to ensure that they were getting, and they're going to sign up for subscription because they're not going to be out of that brand like they were, toilet paper, those first few weeks of the pandemic.Diana:So, I think it's a huge opportunity for brands to really think through, really around who your audience is, your target audience is? Are you capturing them? So, this is your defense strategy. Am I getting them? They're switching from platform to platform. I was getting them when they were going in the brick and mortar store, am I getting them when they're going into Instacart? Is my item showing up? So, making sure you're getting that first basket because the first basket is everything.Diana:Then, there should be a real acquisition strategy. Who do I have the right to go after because now they're open to me, they're open to my brand or they're open to new things and ideas? And that's where brands can really leverage their suite of their portfolio to really drive that cross shop. So, I think this is a huge opportunity if brands jump on it to really connect with consumers. I never used to work out before the pandemic, but then when I was stuck at home, in the same room that I sleep in, and then working in. I was like, "Well, I need to do something."Diana:Peloton got me. I don't like working out. I like the community. I like the gamification. I want to pretend that I'm one of their instructors with the jewelry on and super cool. And I'm not, so they totally got me. And now I'm working out three days a week. That's a whole habit that I never had before, and so it's just ripe for opportunities for brands to not only grow within their traditional channels, but to acquire new consumers in new channels.Stephanie:Yeah.Mike:Yeah. Just to build on that. There's no single consumer anymore, and there's no single retailer. I think there's, me personally in my own house, takes… We shop at eight different retailers to stock our house now online. There's certain things that Target does well, there's certain things Amazon does well. There's certain missions, when I'm in discovery mode like you described, yeah. When I want to go find something and be inspired, I might look at Amazon.Mike:When I have a mission where I just need to stock up, I might go to Walmart. I might go to BJ's or Costco. So, what's really interesting and what's really challenging is you can't just… The brands that are going to win are the ones that can do this well at scale effectively. They recognize that their consumer is everywhere, that they're shopping for different, in different occasions. Convenience, different factors, and they realize like you have to be everywhere, you want to be available and you want to show up.Mike:And I think that's the next play, and that's what makes omnichannel really exciting is you have those brands that maybe nailed Amazon, and they're comfortable, but the next level of this game is, all right, now we have to operationalize this at scale across all our retailers teams, and those brands that are on top of that in making those driving that change, internally to be there everywhere. Those are going to be the ones are going to pick up that market share in the next year, and next two years.Stephanie:Yeah. I mean how do you think about for brands needing to be everywhere? I mean I'm thinking about like you said, the shopper, when I'm at Costco, I'm in a different mindset. And I might want to see a slightly different version of a product whereas when I'm on Amazon or when I'm in Target which feels higher end maybe than a Walmart. How would you think about a brand should handle that now that they have to be everywhere, but also have very different consumers everywhere in a different mindset depending on where they're shopping?Diana:I mean that's where portfolio roles and retailers segmentations really come into play. It's not the sexy work, but it's the work that has to be done. And it can't just be done at a very high level anymore, it really has to be done at the SKU level, because there are some multi-packs they're going to pop in certain modalities at certain retailers, there's some SKUs that just have a better fit. The brand teams that are able to really get that portfolio role and customer segmentation right are going to be able to invest to win, because as retail media costs grow, the cost of service grow, dollars, that bucket of dollars hasn't gotten any bigger. So, it's about being smarter about how and where you invest and really thinking thoroughly through how what you're expecting to get from that dollar.Diana:So, sometimes it's going to be a ROAS, sometimes it's going to be data, sometimes it's going to be something else. But really having clear business objectives for every dollar that's spent.Stephanie:Yeah. I love that. Mike, anything to add?Mike:Yeah. No. I think, Diana, like portfolio strategy is it's funny like there's been this like sea change I think when early stages of e-commerce or at least my observation, there's so much excitement that you get the marketing teams are just spending dollars, right? It's about growth. We're just going to buy some ads. And then all of a sudden, you see this diminishing returns. All of a sudden the things you were spending ads on, oh, they're always out of stock or they're getting de-listed.Mike:And that's a symptom and really it's like this idea, and you mentioned Diana, it's like marketing and supply chain are the best friends in the e-commerce. It's a weird thing because I'm a marketer, and you think, but it has to be because unless… You almost have to flip the funnel. And I thought it's like you got traffic, you get conversion. And then you get to like profitability. You have to flip it. And I think that's the flip now is thinking about your portfolio from consumer dimension, profitability dimension across your retailers. If you don't set those clear lines up, you don't set that definition up, this has a downstream effect.Mike:And you see this a lot on retailers where it's like, "Okay. Well, I have the same products everywhere, so what happens?" Well, if Walmart drops the price, Amazon drops prices and suddenly that thing that you're spending ad dollars on, you can't even, it's not even there. So, I think this is like the next generation is like almost like, "All right, let's break it back. Let's work backwards now. Let's start fresh, and let's build that from the portfolio."Mike:And then, once we make that clean, we're just going to see this uplift and our cost to serve, our cost of marketing is going to be super-efficient versus just throwing dollars at it without a strategy.Diana:That's not just for the manufacturers. I also feel really strongly that that benefits the retailers. They don't want to comp prices back and forth. They want a unique value proposition for their consumers. So, how can you help the retailers achieve their objectives? If Kroger's going after young households, and young families, what's your solution to help them go after them? If Target's going after the black consumer, how are you helping them capture as many black guests as possible? How are you really thinking about not only the strategy, so it benefits you, so it also really does align with your retailer strategy?Diana:That's how you create a win-win scenario, and you avoid the competitive pricing pressures that we're all experiencing right now.Stephanie:Yeah. How do you find a good partnership with these retailers? Because I'm sure when they have so many brands they're working with and everyone probably wants to talk with them a little bit differently, and they have different ways that they want to help them or work with them, how do you think a successful partnership looks like or what does that structure look like?Diana:I think this is why the digital commerce space has to exist in this kind of hybrid world, because I feel like marketers take a really consumer human first mindset. Sales people tend to be very like sales for sales focus. In the middle you have to be this hybrid. I do take a customer first approach to an extent because you have to understand your customer strategies. Target's earnings call just came out this week or last week, and they talked about how 90% of all their sale is digital or physical are coming from stores.Diana:That's an insight for me to strategy. So, if I want to win at Target, I've got to understand how they tick, how they operate, and how I can help support their strategies, and their executions. So, it's really that intersection between, what our brand teams are trying to accomplish? Our sales teams targets, and our retailer strategies, and where we can actually play.Diana:From a Colgate-Palmolive perspective, I'm not going to be able to help them win in every single element of their strategy. But there are areas that I am going to be able to help them lead or give them a perspective that can influence other sections. And I think the more and more we play those roles, the more valuable that you show up to a retailer, the more inclined they are to partner with you.Stephanie:Yeah. I mean I feel like that's a life principle. You just did your research on the brand, the company, you looked at their investor reports, you look into the background of the people, and instantly they're like, "Oh, you kind of already know that I don't have to bring you up to here, you're already here." So, now we can get going, which is awesome.Diana:Basically all can be boiled down to the same dynamics of the dating relationship. Sometimes you go to the sporting event because your significant other likes it, and then sometimes they go to the thing that you want because you like it. And then if you have a mixture of alcohol and sports, you got me. So, there you go.Stephanie:I love that. I love that. Cool. Well, the one thing I want to kind of touch on too is around the world of marketing right now. So, I've talked with some brands that have had to kind of always work in a scrappy mindset. One of them was Anheuser-Busch where they're like, "Yeah. We can't ever have this one-to-one relationship. We always have to do other things to be able to reach our customers because we actually can't directly talk to them."Stephanie:And it makes me think brands like that might be pretty far ahead with all these changes to ads and privacy and retargeting and all that. What are you guys thinking is kind of like what are brands missing right now? What should they be doing to continue to have a close relationship with their customers and not lose out when they lose access to a big ad pull that maybe they're not going to have anymore?Diana:For me, I think it's a balance. I think you have to think about your consumer touch points across the board. Everyone's talking about the cookieless environment that's looming. We're all hoarding data. But I don't know how actionable everyone's making it. So, I think it's really around taking a step back and what's your learning agenda.Diana:You want to connect with consumers, but what's the value proposition for them? What's the benefit? And I think brands really have to think about and understand, if I'm connecting with consumers, what value am I providing them? And why should they give me their information? Why should they want to connect and engage with me? And if you haven't established that, then you haven't earned the right to have their information or their contact, because it really is all around creating a delightful experience for them.Diana:I think understanding all of the data inputs that you have and really thinking hard around, how do you leverage them to feed strategies, not with just within the silos of the space? But how do you integrate them so you're feeding your traditional media strategy with your D2 insights? You're feeding your supply chain strategy with some of the ratings and reviews that you found, even your R&D innovation.Diana:So, it's really around being mindful and thoughtful about all the touch points that you have and being able to action against them. But I think for most retailers and manufacturers, if you don't have a strategy to think about how you're going to leverage your data, and you haven't, you're going to miss the boat, because everybody's gearing up, and it's what's happening now if you want to stay ahead going forward.Mike:Yeah. And just to build on that. I think totally it depends on the consumer and what's relevant. But I mean generally, I think what I'm seeing from some brands a little bit of higher level thinking in terms of how they're engaging with consumers, even on social media. I noticed there was a time period where I would go on Instagram and I saw these ads. They're very tactical. There's just like these product ads like, "Okay, buy this widget, buy this thing."Mike:And you still see these display ads, but then I've seen a lot more ads are just more, they're helpful, their content. I'm a pet owner and I wasn't going through my feed and I saw those, it was an ad, but it was from a pet company, and it was really supposed to be like how do you, what are the attributes of a healthy pet? It was kind of an interesting, intrigued me. I have an aging pet, so I just think there's a lot more creativity, you can't… I think it's easy in e-commerce to get very operational, but you can't underestimate the power of creative and how important creative is.Mike:And I think there's a lot of brands that I've seen challenger brands that are leveraging humorous videos. They're really doing things viral on YouTube, they're building a personality around their brand. They're getting up on TikTok. They're leveraging every touch point they can at the top of the funnel to build, to be creative, to stand out. And now what that's doing for them is now they're training consumers to go to Amazon and type their branded, not type a general category keyword.Mike:So, I think what's happening is the mediums are changing, maybe it's not television maybe it's not that, but there's so many more tools for marketers and very agile to still tell stories. And so, I think storytelling is going to be, has always been important. And I think that brands that are going to invest in that and make sure that they're using all these other new platforms these video platforms are going to really be well positioned for the long term.Diana:Yeah. And I think what I heard from you too is this authenticity. And what consumers are really looking for because I feel like now especially within Instagram, people want to be sold to, to an extent, but they want to be sold to for me. I want you to understand who I am, what I want to see and deliver it to me the way that I want to." But I think people are also really looking for real content. So, a lot of the slick and shiny campaigns that work on TV, are not going to work in social. So, really understanding who your consumer is and how to speak to them in an authentic way. But also be able to convert them in three seconds or less.Diana:So, how do you make that from something content, how do you really think about making it real? Especially if you're talking to Gen Z, how do you talk to them so it feels like they're talking to their peer group in a very authentic way? Is really critical. And then, how do you make it every single touch point the opportunity for consumers to buy? Because the funnel as we know it, has really collapsed in a lot of places and consumers are coming in and out as they choose, and if you're not able to make your social shoppable. Then, you're really going to miss a lot of opportunities to drive conversion and acquire new audiences.Stephanie:Yeah. And I love the idea around storytelling. I mean that's kind of what our whole company's been built around is like this is what humans look for. And I think there's this really big opportunity in companies that have been around for a long time, like Colgate-Palmolive. I think since 1806, the story behind that maybe has not really been around of like, how was it founded?Stephanie:I mean we had on UPS the other day, and we were kind of going through the history of UPS. I'm like, "Whoa. They need to talk about this more." I mean founded by like a 19-year-old guy, and here's how like it even started with this bike delivery. They were on their bikes delivering things, and what it is today and all the pivots they've had to go through. And I think kind of getting back to those storytelling routes, especially for the more historical brands not only will kind of… I mean people want to hear those stories. I just don't think big brands tell it enough in a way that connects with people now.Mike:Colgate was the original startup.Stephanie:See?Mike:Right?Stephanie:This is what I want. This is the connection I need.Mike:1800 startup brand, right? That's a challenging brand.Diana:Well, you talk about purpose driven brands. I do think a lot of these more established CPTs don't really know how to tell that story. I think there was a time period and several years ago when like it was just something you didn't do, and if I look back on all the organizations I worked at that do a lot of good for the communities in which they serve, that wasn't the story that you told. It wasn't like the thing. But now people are expecting brands to have a purpose, and they are using their dollars to determine if that purpose is worthy or not.Diana:So, if you're not talking about it, then you're not going to get those dollars. And Gen Z is not having it at all. They expect you to stand up and not just talk the talk, they want to see you walk the walk and they also want to see what your executive leadership team looks like.Diana:And I think consumers are also expecting the role of big corporations has shifted. How are you making this world better? How are you involved in social justice? What is your role? I'm super proud of Colgate for launching a recyclable toothpaste tube that then they gave the technology to everybody in the industry, so now everyone can do it. Those are the type of we're here for the good of the planet, we're here for the good of society, and we're going to be good corporate citizens and contribute to that. That's what the consumers want, and those are the stories that larger CPGs have to start telling.Stephanie:Yeah. I love that. So, when thinking about, earlier we're mentioning like you kind of have to be everywhere. And one thing that I also wanted to get into was all around agencies. We've had on amazing companies, one, was this company avocados from Mexico, and they talked about we've been like the number two or three commercial in the Super Bowl, and we have all these crazy things that we do that really drive, not only conversions, but awareness of our brand and they're selling avocados.Stephanie:They said our agencies are the ones that really, we vet them. They're amazing. They helped us get here, and I'd love to hear your take on, in a world where you have to be everywhere, how do you find agencies to work with that'll help get you there?Diana:For me, I've worked with so many great agencies along the way. And what I found is for me agencies are always an extension of my team. I'm expecting them to push us to make us better. I also really want to empower them to bring us awesome, creative, and make us feel really uncomfortable, because that's when you know you're onto something, especially when your boardroom feels really uncomfortable. That's when you know you're really onto something.Diana:But I think in this new digital commerce age, it's important to have an integrated agency model, because there are different agencies that are good and serve a purpose for different things. You do need those major creative campaigns, and yes, the Super Bowl is still important to some brands, but there's kind of the day-to-day operations, and also the ability to really think about digital commerce and the integration with shopper marketing and understanding how different retailer dynamics works, and how to leverage the data that's critical.Diana:So, agencies that not only know media, but know performance marketing but also understand retailers are really going to rise to the top right now, especially as more and more media dollars are shifting to retail media. Now those agencies that can work together, so from the big campaign to the Super Bowl ad and bring it all the way back to the Kroger, the Walmart, or the Target. Now that is just perfect.Mike:Yeah. I mean agencies from my point of view are, they are an extension and what they're often doing is they're acting on the data and insights that maybe a e-commerce team isn't equipped to act on yet. And so, I think the best agencies are the ones that make data their differentiation. So, for example, you could have a handful of agencies are all really good at spending your ad dollars. But there will be a select few agencies that know how to get that extra edge from some data, maybe it's incorporating some out of stock data or competitive search data, and you want to find those agencies are always pushing the boundary for you.Mike:They're not just managing on the basic models of ROAS, but they're actually looking at, what are these new things we could do? A test and learn, how do we advanced your ROI? Actually show that the ads are growing market share. How can they use data? And I think that's going to be a big differentiator, especially since digital shelf data, e-commerce data, it's still new for a lot. But I think you're going to see the separation where you find these agencies that are data-led, data centric, and I think there's a huge opportunity. To Diana's point, where first wave of digital agencies were very Amazon focused. There's such a huge gap in skill set right now in like the traditional shopper marketing for digital commerce that I think agency are perfect position to start becoming your extension of your Walmart, your Walmart digital operators, your Target.Mike:I think that's where you're going to see a lot of agencies flourish is where the maturity to actually pull those levers still isn't there. They can come in and be leaders. So, I look at agency on two dimensions who is really driving digital data driven decisions, who are ones that I can really scale with beyond just the Amazons but into that next tier flywheel that I want to go. Who's going to lead me there, lead my thinking, and help me be the market share leader on that next platform?Stephanie:Yeah. I love that. Are there any tests that you do when hiring agencies that you're like, "This will let me know if you're what I need, if you're well-rounded, if you can kind of plug in with other agencies and cover everything?"Mike:Well, we work with a lot of agencies. We don't hire them but we partner with them. So, one of the things that we do when we… We've tried to build an ecosystem at Profitero of like-minded agencies that are data-led. And one of the things that we're trying to do is make our data accessible to all these agencies to be able to do things. So, what I've seen is agencies that are really going to, that show the most promise is the ability to be willing to do some test and learn stuff, to pick up some data points from the digital shelf and say, "Hey, we're going to try this."Mike:We're going to say instead of just putting our ad dollars across every product spread it evenly on Amazon, we're going to actually shift and we're going to stop spending on the products that aren't converting well, and we're going to shift it to these products that are converting well. We're just going to shift it up and we're going to try to see what happens. So, for me, for my perspective the agencies that we've been vetting and really partnering with and saying that these are best of class are the ones that are showing that competency and that ability just to try some different things and experiment and find a model that they can repeat.Diana:Yeah. I would say when I think about it from a digital commerce perspective, especially from retail media. I'm really looking for an agency that not only understands media, but they also understand the impact on sales. So, if you think about Amazon and getting the flywheel going, if you're pushing ROAS, if you're pushing certain levers that impacts your profitability, it impacts a lot of your negotiation power with Amazon. So, you need to be able to keep your ROAS to where it needs to be in your other traditional media KPIs while keeping top line going, which can be expensive.Diana:So, that's very critical. So, having somebody that understands that. Also, someone that understands the nuances and the inner workings of Walmart from a media perspective but also that my sales team then needs to go to a buyer or a DMM and sell this program in, to not only get more, whether it's more displays or get them engaged and excited about it. But it's not just a pure media place. So, an agency that understands that from a digital commerce perspective is really critical.Diana:Then, when it comes to more of our traditional content and execution, I like to do what I call media to shelf. So, regardless of who the partner is and most agencies can do this. It's how you can integrate and work with other agencies. So, the idea can come from either side, either the traditional creative agency, the digital commerce agency, the shopper agency. But how do you take the lane that you play in and make the concept work across all? So, how do you take that idea and make it so much bigger? Because our funding models are not changing, our buckets are not getting any bigger. So, we have to make every dollar work harder.Diana:So, I need a traditional media plan that not only drives awareness, but also can pull through to the digital or physical shelf. And I would say a measure of good traditional agency, for me, it's make or break by the creative director. They really do enable the work to either deliver on the brief or exceed our expectations and deliver on our business objective.Stephanie:Yeah. Love that. All really good points. All right, with a couple minutes left, I want to shift over to the lightning round. The lightning round is brought to you by Salesforce commerce cloud. This is where I have a question, and you have one minute or less to answer. Are you ready? And I'll just kind of go back. Both have to answer the same question, so.Diana:Oh, boy.Stephanie:All right. Diana, you first. What's one thing you don't understand today that you wish you did?Diana:I don't understand why sales and marketing are so separate. I wish I could understand why each side didn't understand the other, but hopefully one day, we will be able to create, take the healthy tension and build a stronger digital commerce organization as a result.Stephanie:I love that. You and a lot of other companies, so. All right, Mike.Mike:Bitcoin.Stephanie:All right. You haven't even looked into it yet? I feel like now's the time to get in.Mike:I've tried and I get so confused, but I just have this fear. I have this waving fear of missing out, but then I realized that people are losing a lot of money too. I just don't understand how it works.Diana:I want to do over.Stephanie:I liked yours. What? You want to do over, Diana?Diana:I want a do over. You know what I don't understand? Why can't we have side parts anymore? I don't understand that. I like the side part. It fits my face frame. Why is that not cool anymore?Stephanie:Man, I feel like we can have more. Let's just stay on this question, so many things. All right. Next one. Something wise my elders taught me. Mike, you first.Mike:Something wise my elders taught me. Man, sorry. I totally blanked on that one. So, can you ask that question again?Stephanie:Yeah. Something wise my elders taught me.Mike:Yeah. I'd say that really it was hard work. That just sounds kind of lame. But I learned pretty early that no one's going to give you anything in this world, and you have to work really hard, and my dad was one of the hardest working people I know. He was an auto body worker and put in a lot of hours and really kind of like taught me this blue collar approach that I try to bring to my work. I love working. I've always learned to work hard and I try to always ground myself in that work ethic whatever I do. So, that's something that my elders taught me.Stephanie:I love that. All right. Diana, you're up.Diana:So, for me, I'm a black woman in America and a first generation from Caribbean parents, so it's really about using my voice and my power to have the courage to make space for people who look like me or people who don't have their voices heard. So, I'm really grateful for having parents, but also ancestors that taught me and showed me how to do that. YStephanie:Yeah. I love that. All right. If you were to have a podcast, what would it be about and who would your first guest be? Diana, you're up.Diana:Oh, shoes.Stephanie:A podcast on shoes?Diana:Yeah. My podcast would be on shoes and it would be Sarah Jessica Parker.Stephanie:My space right-Diana:It would really just be for me and a way to get new shoes.Stephanie:I'm so confused.Diana:Literally the whole angle of the podcast would be to get free shoes.Stephanie:Just need shoes. [crosstalk]. Okay. Who would your first guest be?Diana:Sarah Jessica Parker.Stephanie:Okay. I love it. All right. Mike, you can't top that one, but if you want to try, what would your podcast be about and who would your first guest be?Mike:Cannabis.Stephanie:Okay.Mike:And it would be probably, I don't know, Willie Nelson.Stephanie:What would you guys be talking about or would you [crosstalk]-Mike:I'm fascinated by the business of cannabis. So, it's something that I've studied for a while. I started to do a little bit of research on it back in Nielsen, and this was like way ahead. But I'm fascinated by how an industry can just go so mainstream. How can one part be so regulated, then all of a sudden go mainstream? And I'm fascinated by brand building in that space and how brands are building, and even like huge bevel companies are getting in this space now. So, we're like fascinated about the entrepreneurs in that space, the ecosystem of that space, and if I had a separate podcast that was totally unrelated to anything I did, it would be about that, because I think that's like, that and Bitcoin, those are two booming things right now.Stephanie:You could just blend them all together.Mike:Yeah. Right.Stephanie:I thought you would say you would be in it for the free weed. Yeah. Give me free weed.Mike:Samples, yeah.Stephanie:Diana's shoes.Diana:Yeah.Stephanie:Lobby sitting pretty.Mike:Right.Stephanie:So, I'll send you Bitcoin for the first time, and then you'll have to go deep into the wormhole.Mike:Yeah. I'm really opening my heart on this podcast.Stephanie:That is why you're here. That's why you're here. All right. And then, the last one. I want to know how you guys stay on top of your industry. So, maybe, Mike, you first. What are you reading? Newsletters? Is it books, podcasts? What do you do?Mike:LinkedIn. I basically follow a set of people. On LinkedIn there's a group of about 15 to 20 people that I just trust that curate. They curate on a regular basis all the breaking news that I could just go to LinkedIn and I know that at any given moment, I'm going to find something that's really interesting on a different perspective. Yeah. That's my go-to. I wake up in the morning and look at LinkedIn. And then I think about, "Okay, what could I do to add value to LinkedIn that day?"Mike:And LinkedIn has become one of these like platforms that I managed my life around. I never thought it would be like that. But it's become like a valuable news source for me.Stephanie:That's awesome. All right. Diana, how about you? How do you stay on top of everything?Diana:For me, I'm fueled by curiosity. So, similar to Mike, I'm on LinkedIn. He's in my top 20 list of people that I follow that I get content from. I listen to a ton of podcasts, this one also. I am an avid reader of papers and research. So, whether it's from Kantar, Profitero, [inaudible], Edge, you name it, you've got to stay on top of it.Diana:And then it's really about networking. So, I have this mantra like I'll say yes. So, if somebody invites me to a round table, I'm going to go. If it's a bad experience I don't go back. But like I found this small community of e-commerce and digital commerce folks that I can just call or text or get information from. And a really cool thing that a bunch of women in e-com started is basically women of e-commerce, and it's a group of 25 of us, and we connect on a regular basis. But we also bought, each brought in a mentee. So, it's just ripe for learning, and Sarah Hofstetter, the president of Profitero is one of the members as well. But it's just such a great place to feed my curiosity.Stephanie:I love that. I see only more of that happening, these micro groups popping up. I know that that was something that I started experiencing here which is like women all being part of like a group text, which I was like, "Is this going to be too much?" And now, I'm like, "This is the best text thread I've ever been in." And it probably wouldn't have happened prior to this past year or two. That's amazing.Stephanie:Well, Mike, Diana, this has been such a fun round table. We'll definitely have to have you back for round two, because I'm sure a lot will change quick in a matter of months. But where can people find out more about you? Mike, maybe let's start with you.Mike:LinkedIn.Stephanie:Of course. And then, you just go to Diana [crosstalk]Mike:Yes. If you want to find me, you want to talk to me, that's the place to go. I'll be pretty responsive.Stephanie:Yes. All right. Diana.Diana:You can find me on LinkedIn as well.Stephanie:Cool. All right. Well, thank you guys so much for joining. It's been a pleasure having you.Diana:Thank you so much for having me.Mike:Thank you.

america tv love ceo amazon tiktok business man growth mexico super bowl zoom digital foundation sales search target bitcoin beyonce gen z walmart companies loved jump excellence shifting scale crypto caribbean products commerce places pl roi respond skype general managers brands ecommerce campbell bj conversion deliver moved cmo costco quotes salesforce ups kpis crap nielsen channels convenience hive willie nelson hershey kroger staples r d cpg instacart up next general mills newsletters sarah jessica parker d2 omnichannel anheuser busch colgate ltv d2c hives roas sku skus kantar colgate palmolive digital commerce dmm cpgs mike black mike it mike yeah mike well cpts mike so mike thank and gen z salesforce commerce cloud mike right stephanie you diana oh stephanie yeah stephanie well mike they stephanie they

Issue 09: The (original) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2021 70:09

Join us as Jessika takes us on a behind-the-scenes tour of the 1990s Ninja Turtle movies. Come for the stories about Jim Henson, stay for the ragging on Corey Feldman. We will not be discussing the Michael Bay abominations. ----more---- Episode 9 Transcription [00:00:00] Jessika: God, am I wheezy on my microphone right now? Hello. Welcome to Ten Cent Takes the podcast where we serve comics knowledge on the half shell, one issue at a time. My name is Jessika Frazier and I'm joined by my cohost, the righteous reader, Mike Thompson. Hello? Mike: Hello. Jessika: Well, the purpose of our podcast is to study comic books in ways that are both fun and informative. We want to look at their coolest, weirdest and silliest moments, as well as examine how they're woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today, we're going to be discussing movies from a genre that is very near and dear to my heart, the Teenage Mutant Ninja [00:01:00] Turtles.Now we won't be doing a deep dive into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, but stay tuned for a future episode. We are going to be talking about the live action, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle films from the nineties, the drama leading up to the making of the films, the ingenuity, and detailed involved in the filming itself, along with the casting crew and some of their recollections and anecdotes.But before we do Mike, what is a one cool thing you've read or watched lately? Mike: well, I know what we have both been watching actually. And I feel like, uh, maybe you need to start off this conversation. Jessika: So, yeah, cause I, I see that you have written the same thing as I, as we do have a shared file here. Well, I watched the first few episodes of MODOK, which just came out this year and it is witty and wonderful. Mike: I think it came out like a week ago. Jessika: Oh, sweet. Mike: Yeah, like it's real [00:02:00] fresh. Jessika: Well, thank you to my friend who was like, we need to watch this because you'll really enjoy it. And in fact I did. So, and now that I have my head sort of out of turtle world, I'll be able to watch a little bit more. But for those of you who haven't seen it yet, it follows a blundering Marvel villain with a big head and a super tiny body named MODOK. He flies around on this little hover in this little hover situation. It's very funny. And it follows his evil ventures and how they bleed into his family life in the suburbs, and it is produced by a variety of people. One of whom is Seth green and the show does have a very, a robot chicken vibe to it. It's done in Claymation and can get pretty violent and graphic, in a Claymation kind of way. But I wouldn't say it's a kid show. I also got a star-studded cast Patton Oswalt is in it. Amy Garcia, Ben Schwartz -whom I loved in Parks and Rec- John Hamm, Nathan Fillion, Whoopie shows up. There's a ton of people.I'm only four episodes in out [00:03:00] of the ten, that comprise season one, but I'm super looking forward to laughing my way through the remaining six potentially tonight. Mike: I'm not going to spoil it for you, but Alan Tudyk shows up in a role where he sounds almost exactly like Joker from Harley Quinn. It's great. Jessika: Oh, I'm so excited. So what did you think about it? Mike: We loved it. So Sarah and I wound up bingeing it last Friday when we didn't have the kids, because we knew it was not a friendly show, as you get the warning at the very beginning, talking about how this is a mature show and it is not, not for small children. I think we binged all of it in one night because you know, it was only 10 episodes and they're half hour. So we didn't know much about it. Other than I'd seen a promo image for it. I had seen a bunch of nerds getting mad about it online, but I also knew that Patton Oswalt was involved. So I was already sold because anything that man touches I will consume. We wound up just being blown out of the water. And it's so funny while also [00:04:00] being weirdly faithful to Marvel Comics lore and in a weird twist, we wound up adopting a dog two days later. And, it was very unexpected. It was a very spur of the moment thing where we saw this dog online and then decided to apply for him. And we got him and I didn't think this was actually going to fly, but Sarah agreed to it, much to her chagrin I'm sure later on, but we named him MODOG. So MODOG stands for Miniature Organism Designed Only for Gnawing because he's a puppy and he's chewing on everything as puppies do. We call him Mo for short, there's a graphic designer at my company who immediately whipped up an image of him MODOK's doomsday chair. So it's his face, but then MODOK's body. It's great. And I've shared it everywhere. And now I have a new life goal where I want to have Patton Oswalt meet my dog and then sign a printing of that graphic.So. Patton Oswalt, future friend of the podcast, please hit us up. Jessika: That was a really cute picture. [00:05:00] I literally LOL'd when I saw it. Mike:It was very good. It's also been turned into a Slack emoji in our work slack. And as a result, it's just getting spammed by everybody on my team. Jessika: Deservedly so. Nowonto our main topic, which is the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle films. First, I want to give a shout out to the resources I used in my research of these films. IMDB.com, movie web.com. There was a whole interview with the cast and crew of the making of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle films from the Hollywood reporter.com. Turtlepediafandom.com, which is very well organized and has tons of information with resources cited and the film, The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which is basically the history told through compiled interviews of [00:06:00] those involved in making this amazing franchise. So these live action films, I don't know about you. I absolutely remember watching these as a kid, although I didn't realize that until I started watching them again and was immediately able to recall every scene from the first film. And we were also very much, and I've said this before on the podcast, we were very much a teenage mutant ninja turtle household.So it makes total sense that we would have watched that at some point, probably numerous times. I presume you also watched them as a kid. What was your experience with the films? Mike: I mean, I was born in the early eighties, I was very much that target demographic for the Turtles. My mom actually took me to see the first movie, I think four times. Jessika: Oh, wow. Mike: I think I mentioned in that Saturday Morning Cartoon episode, that the last time she just sat in the lobby and read a book Jessika: I still love that story. Mike: Yeah, which, f you ever meet my mom, that, that checks out. She's like, meh, he'll be fine. He'll be [00:07:00] fine. What's the worst that could happen. Letting my eight-year-old go into a movie theater alone. But yeah, I saw both sequels in the theater too. I think I saw The Secret of the Ooze twice. And then the third one was fine. I mean, we got it on video and I remember watching it a bunch of times with my siblings because they were pretty young and we would just pop it on because it was something that could entertain all of us, but it wasn't one of those things that we needed to see over and over again in the movie theater, as opposed to the other ones.I had so many of the action figures when I was a kid and I was just addicted to the cartoon for like longer than it was cool. Jessika: Hard same. Very much so. Mike: But I weirdly wasn't really into the comics. The Ninja Turtle comics were just never something that I was all that curious about. I was already into Marvel and DC and Image and all that stuff. Jessika: Yeah. Very nice. I'm going to get into production, actors and success of each of the films along with some other fun facts. [00:08:00] But first, can you please give me a brief overview of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle film? Mike: Sure. So Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is the proverbial superhero origin movie. It's set in a New York that's still rocking the grit of the eighties, and it's also showing a bit more urban decay than we're used to. This New York is in the throes of a crime wave due to the Foot Clan, which has been recruiting wayward teens, and eventually training them to be ninjas of all things. I don't quite understand how you go from recruiting teens to just commit petty burglaries and then rewarding them with a giant warehouse full of video arcade cabinets and skateboarding ramps and graffiti walls. And regular or menthol cigarettes as was demonstrated in the scene that we get to see a very young Sam Rockwell selling the Foot Clan to teenagers.The movie introduces us to the Ninja Turtles, their leaders Splinter, the vigilante Casey Jones, [00:09:00] and TV reporter April O'Neil, as they all deal with the crime wave in their own ways. But then they eventually work together to defeat Shredder and his army. Jessika: Yeah. That totally sums it up. What did you think of the film overall on the rewatch? Mike: Honestly, I was surprised by how well it's aged. it's not like the current crop of superhero movies where those are clearly meant to be watched by adults who are fans of the franchise. And then also make it accessible to kids. This was clearly meant to be a kids movie that was tolerable for their parents who got dragged to the theater. It's a lot darker and grittier than I remembered. And a lot of those elements really went over my head as a kid. The Turtles and Splinter themselves, I also think are really impressive, which isn't surprising since the costumes and puppetry were handled by the Jim Henson company. I mean, when you hire the best you get the best. But yeah, most kids during this era had really only been exposed [00:10:00] to the cartoon. So it's a little weird at how serious they went with the overall tone and storyline. My only real complaint was how kind of janky Shredder's costume was, but he actually doesn't show up that much. It's like he's wearing, do you remember those like weird sequined , evening dresses that were all the rage in the late eighties, early nineties? Jessika: Oh, yes. The ones with the shoulder pads? Mike: Yeah, it kind of looks like someone took the fabric from that and then attached Shredder's blades and shoulder pads. And it's also the wrong color. It's red. They really needed to give him a cape and a belt and I would have been way more okay with that. But it's fine. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: What about you? How do you feel about it? Jessika: I think it held up pretty well on the rewatch. Like you said, it was super fun. As fun as I remember it. And I really liked April's role in the film, which was kind of, I would say edgy for like the nineties. She's independent. She lives alone, although her boss has absolutely [00:11:00] no boundaries. He just fucking shows up there with his kid and the kid's fucking stealing things from her. Like screw that, don't bring your kid here. Mike: She lives in this weird shithole of an apartment, too. Which doesn't make sense to me because she's apparently a really well-respected and popular TV journalist. Jessika: Mike we're women. We can't both have success and nice things Mike: I'm sorry. Jessika: That would be really threatening to the patriarchy. I really dig that she follows stories regardless of what others may advise her she should do. Like, she's not about doing fluff pieces. She's just like, no, let's do this thing. And at, one point she's almost mugged and she doesn't tell her boss because why, why, why, why should she, like, nothing happened really? And when he asks her about it, she has this like “for what” attitude, which I'm like, yeah, exactly. For what? Like, why should I, I'm not going to call my boss and be like, “I tripped on the [00:12:00] sidewalk and sprained my ankle.” I don't know. It didn't make any sense. So Mike: That producer really was, he was really there as an excuse to introduce the character of his son. That was really the only purpose that he was there for. Jessika: Yeah, he popped in and out. He wasn't doing much with that. Yeah. Also the animatronics were surprisingly great. I know it's Jim Henson, but like the nineties were a really good decade for, good animatronics between like that and Jurassic Park.You know, very, very good. So their movements were just really convincing. And we'll get into, part of why that is, in just a couple of minutes when I talk about the animatronics and the costumes. Mike: Yeah. I'm really excited to talk about that actually. Jessika: So picture this: It's 1989 and comic book movies were not wildly popular after a couple of recent superhero flops. Their turtles were initially [00:13:00] discovered by Gary Proper, who was a road manager for the comic Gallagher. He had previously worked with Kim Dawson and got her on board as producer. And they signed on Bobby Herbeck as the writer. This was kind of cool because during the writing process, there was a lot of back and forth between Herbeck and the original writers, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird to ensure that the movie was staying true to the comic and, per an interview I read, it was definitely a longer process than Herbeck had initially thought it would be. Mike: That makes sense because to be completely honest, the movie feels like a pretty faithful adaptation of the tone of the original comic, which was very over the top and gritty and violent. Jessika: Yeah, absolutely. And I, I do like that. They went back and checked instead of just said, okay, well we have the rights and we're going to run and do what we want to do with this. So now that they had a script, they had to find funding and a studio and a way to make the Turtles come to [00:14:00] life. So they pitched the idea all around Hollywood. All three of them were incredibly enthusiastic, but the studios were super wary after the recent comic book related box office failures. Mike: So out of curiosity, which movies were those that failed? Jessika: Howard the Duck? Mike: Oh yeah. Jessika: Yeah. And so it didn't do well. And there was another one before that, too, although it doesn't say on here, but Howard the Duck was the big one that people were like, yikes, we're going to go ahead and back off. Mike: That was George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. And they thought they had like the next star wars and ET their hands. Jessika: I've never even heard of it. Mike: Oh, oh, we should totally do a retrospective on it at some point. It's based on a Marvel comics character who is a anthropomorphic duck. They had a full animatronic suit. It's like, you know, Ninja Turtle-quality animatronics, and puppetry. It had all sorts of talent involved with it. And it was one of the biggest box office bombs. So that makes a lot of sense actually, because that'd be the closest [00:15:00] thing where you're talking about anthropomorphic comic characters. Jessika: I'm getting flashes of like a big duck costume. So I may have even seen flashes of it in my life, Mike: It's a weird movie. It's real weird. Leah Thompson, you know, the mom from Back to the Future is in it and this was like at the height of her popularity too. Jessika: Oh no poor Leah. Mike: It's real uncomfortable. There's a whole scene where she's in bed with Howard in lingerie. Jessika: Ew, with the duck?. Mike: It's, very weird Jessika: I don't like it. Mike: And very uncomfortable. Jessika: It's weird enough having these teenage, like teenage, they are supposed to be fun. Fact, they're supposed to be 15 during this, that they're all like over April. It's like, Ooh. Like she is definitely a full adult, a full adult, like you are 15 years old and you're, a turtle! Like… Mike: And that's unfortunately, [00:16:00] something that's carried on. I feel like the one thing that they don't actually ever do a very good job of adapting is the teenage aspect. I have hope for what we have coming in the future. We'll talk about that later. Jessika: Yeah, yeah. Mike: But yeah. Jessika: Ugh. So they pitched the idea all around Hollywood. After those comic book related box office failures, after months of persistent nudging, they finally wore down Tom Gray, who was the head of production for Golden Harvest and got approval to light the project with a $3 million budget. And apparently they already had another couple of million already floating around, like, yeah, no problem. Just, but we need more. Mike: They were already huge, and the funny thing is this is very much like how they actually got their first pitch for getting the action figures made where their agent was driving around with this giant turtle. I think Playmates was the last toy manufacturer that was actually willing to talk to them and they agreed to it, but they had been making pitches right and left [00:17:00] and no one had picked them up. Jessika: it was just, it sounded like such a whole thing that they were just like, Fox! How about you? How about blah, blah, blah. And everybody was like, whoa, whoa, you need to leave like exit through where you came from, because we don't want anything you have to tell us. Mike: Don't even take the main exit, go out the servant's exit. Jessika: Yeah, we don't want to see you leave. Just do it. can teleport. That'd be great. Mike: We don't want any association with you or your trash. Get out . Jessika: Oh no. So they hired Steve Barron as director. Mike: Right. Jessika: Barron wanted to make sure that the teenage mutant ninja turtles were a hybrid of the lighter animated series, along with the darker vibe of the comics, which is why there is that kind of middle point. It is a little darker, but it's maybe not as dark as the comics and that's intentional. They did want to make it family friendly because the comics really aren't, they're very violent. They're very graphic. You can put a dark spin on things and still make it [00:18:00] family friendly. Barron had also worked with Jim Henson on a previous project and knew Henson's Creature Shop would make the Turtles more fully believable on screen. Now, the issue was that this was 1990. Jim Henson was arguably the biggest name in the animatronics game, which of course meant his services were not going to be cheap. This edition would be $6 million, which of course was far over their budget. They also had to convince Henson to actually take part in the film because he was concerned that it was too violent for what his puppets should portray and might be a risky move due to his younger fanbase. Took some sweet talking from Barron -which seems to be kind of the name of the game for the Turtles- but Henson finally agreed to assist. And this was the first and what is thought to be the last time that Henson lent out the name to use in this way? Yeah. They [00:19:00] had to get another studio involved because they just simply did not have enough money. Mike: Right. Jessika: And finally signed on with Fox for a larger budget. Which also fell through. I read an interview that said within 10 days of when they were supposed to start filming, they still didn't have the funding. Mike: Wow. Jessika: So they were cutting it incredibly close. I mean, it had literally everything else. Mike: Come to think of it. I mean, yeah, that's wild. And then also - given the time that this came out- this has gotta be one of the last films that Jim Henson was personally involved with before he died. Jessika: Yeah. Actually we'll get into that. We will. Yeah. And not even on this, this part of it, but we'll we'll we'll we'll get there. We'll get there. Yeah. New Line Cinema eventually came through and signed on to produce. But offered significantly less money than the 6 million that had been proposed. Golden Harvest owner, Raymond Chow, agreed to fund the remainder of the expenses, whatever those were. Mike: Okay. I mean, that was a great bet for him. [00:20:00] Jessika: Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Shoot. So this is wild. We were talking about Jim Henson. Let's talk about the costumes because those things were awesome. There were actually two sets of costumes for each turtle, one for the animatronics, s

Data Center War Stories with Mike Julian

Screaming in the Cloud

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2021 32:36

About MikeBeside his duties as The Duckbill Group's CEO, Mike is the author of O'Reilly's Practical Monitoring, and previously wrote the Monitoring Weekly newsletter and hosted the Real World DevOps podcast. He was previously a DevOps Engineer for companies such as Taos Consulting, Peak Hosting, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and many more. Mike is originally from Knoxville, TN (Go Vols!) and currently resides in Portland, OR.Links: Software Engineering Daily podcast: https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/category/all-episodes/exclusive-content/Podcast/ Duckbillgroup.com: https://duckbillgroup.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by Thinkst. This is going to take a minute to explain, so bear with me. I linked against an early version of their tool, canarytokens.org in the very early days of my newsletter, and what it does is relatively simple and straightforward. It winds up embedding credentials, files, that sort of thing in various parts of your environment, wherever you want to; it gives you fake AWS API credentials, for example. And the only thing that these things do is alert you whenever someone attempts to use those things. It's an awesome approach. I've used something similar for years. Check them out. But wait, there's more. They also have an enterprise option that you should be very much aware of canary.tools. You can take a look at this, but what it does is it provides an enterprise approach to drive these things throughout your entire environment. You can get a physical device that hangs out on your network and impersonates whatever you want to. When it gets Nmap scanned, or someone attempts to log into it, or access files on it, you get instant alerts. It's awesome. If you don't do something like this, you're likely to find out that you've gotten breached, the hard way. Take a look at this. It's one of those few things that I look at and say, “Wow, that is an amazing idea. I love it.” That's canarytokens.org and canary.tools. The first one is free. The second one is enterprise-y. Take a look. I'm a big fan of this. More from them in the coming weeks.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Lumigo. If you've built anything from serverless, you know that if there's one thing that can be said universally about these applications, it's that it turns every outage into a murder mystery. Lumigo helps make sense of all of the various functions that wind up tying together to build applications. It offers one-click distributed tracing so you can effortlessly find and fix issues in your serverless and microservices environment. You've created more problems for yourself; make one of them go away. To learn more, visit lumigo.io.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by ChaosSearch. As basically everyone knows, trying to do log analytics at scale with an ELK stack is expensive, unstable, time-sucking, demeaning, and just basically all-around horrible. So why are you still doing it—or even thinking about it—when there's ChaosSearch? ChaosSearch is a fully managed scalable log analysis service that lets you add new workloads in minutes, and easily retain weeks, months, or years of data. With ChaosSearch you store, connect, and analyze and you're done. The data lives and stays within your S3 buckets, which means no managing servers, no data movement, and you can save up to 80 percent versus running an ELK stack the old-fashioned way. It's why companies like Equifax, HubSpot, Klarna, Alert Logic, and many more have all turned to ChaosSearch. So if you're tired of your ELK stacks falling over before it suffers, or of having your log analytics data retention squeezed by the cost, then try ChaosSearch today and tell them I sent you. To learn more, visit chaossearch.io.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. I spent the past week guest hosting the Software Engineering Daily podcast, taking listeners over there on a tour of the clouds. Each day, I picked a different cloud and had a guest talk to me about their experiences with that cloud.Now, there was one that we didn't talk about, and we're finishing up that tour here today on Screaming in the Cloud. That cloud is the obvious one, and that is your own crappy data center. And my guest is Duckbill Group's CEO and my business partner, Mike Julian. Mike, thanks for joining me.Mike: Hi, Corey. Thanks for having me back.Corey: So, I frequently say that I started my career as a grumpy Unix sysadmin. Because it isn't like there's a second kind of Unix sysadmin you're going to see. And you were in that same boat. You and I both have extensive experience working in data centers. And it's easy sitting here on the tech coast of the United States—we're each in tech hubs cities—and we look around and yeah, the customers we talked to have massive cloud presences; everything we do is in cloud, it's easy to fall into the trap of believing that data centers are a thing of yesteryear. Are they?Mike: [laugh]. Absolutely not. I mean, our own customers have tons of stuff in data centers. There are still companies out there like Equinix, and CoreSite, and DRC—is that them? I forget the name of them.Corey: DRT. Digital Realty [unintelligible 00:01:54].Mike: Digital Realty. Yeah. These are companies still making money hand over fist. People are still putting new workloads into data centers, so yeah, we're kind of stuck with him for a while.Corey: What's fun is when I talked to my friends over in the data center sales part of the world, I have to admit, I went into those conversations early on with more than my own fair share of arrogance. And it was, “[laugh]. So, who are you selling to these days?” And the answer was, “Everyone, fool.” Because they are.People at large companies with existing data center footprints are not generally doing fire sales of their data centers, and one thing that we learned about cloud bills here at The Duckbill Group is that they only ever tend to go up with time. That's going to be the case when we start talking about data centers as well. The difference there is that it's not just an API call away to lease more space, put in some racks, buy some servers, get them racked. So, my question for you is, if we sit here and do the Hacker News—also known as the worst website on the internet—and take their first principles approach to everything, does that mean the people who are building out data centers are somehow doing it wrong? Did they miss a transformation somewhere?Mike: No, I don't think they're doing it wrong. I think there's still a lot of value in having data centers and having that sort of skill set. I do think the future is in cloud infrastructure, though. And whether that's a public cloud, or private cloud, or something like that, I think we're getting increasingly away from building on top of bare metal, just because it's so inefficient to do. So yeah, I think at some point—and I feel like we've been saying this for years that, “Oh, no, everyone's missed the boat,” and here we are saying it yet again, like, “Oh, no. Everyone's missing the boat.” You know, at some point, the boat's going to frickin' leave.Corey: From my perspective, there are advantages to data centers. And we can go through those to some degree, but let's start at the beginning. Origin stories are always useful. What's your experience working in data centers?Mike: [laugh]. Oh, boy. Most of my career has been in data centers. And in fact, one interesting tidbit is that, despite running a company that is built on AWS consulting, I didn't start using AWS myself until 2015. So, as of this recording, it's 2021 now, so that means six years ago is when I first started AWS.And before that, it was all in data centers. So, some of my most interesting stuff in the data center world was from Oak Ridge National Lab where we had hundreds of thousands of square feet of data center floor space across, like, three floors. And it was insane, just the amount of data center stuff going on there. A whole bunch of HPC, a whole bunch of just random racks of bullshit. So, it's pretty interesting stuff.I think probably the most really interesting bit I've worked on was when I was at a now-defunct company, Peak Hosting, where we had to figure out how to spin up a data center without having anyone at the data center, as in, there was no one there to do the spin up. And that led into interesting problems, like you have multiple racks of equipment, like, thousands of servers just showed up on the loading dock. Someone's got to rack them, but from that point, it all has to be automatic. So, how do you bootstrap entire racks of systems from nothing with no one physically there to start a bootstrap process? And that led us to build some just truly horrific stuff. And thank God that's someone else's problem, now. [laugh].Corey: It makes you wonder if under the hood at all these cloud providers if they have something that's a lot cleaner, and more efficient, and perfect, or if it's a whole bunch of Perl tied together with bash and hope, like we always built.Mike: You know what? I have to imagine that even at AWS at a—I know if this is true at Facebook, where they have a massive data center footprint as well—there is a lot of work that goes into the bootstrap process, and a lot of these companies are building their own hardware to facilitate making that bootstrap process easier. When you're trying to bootstrap, say, like, Dell or HP servers, the management cards only take you so far. And a lot of the stuff that we had to do was working around bugs in the HP management cards, or the Dell DRACs.Corey: Or you can wind up going with some budget whitebox service. I mean, Supermicro is popular, not that they're ultra-low budget. But yeah, you can effectively build your own. And that leads down interesting paths, too. I feel like there's a sweet spot where working on a data center and doing a build-out makes sense for certain companies.If you're trying to build out some proof of concept, yeah, do it in the cloud; you don't have to wait eight weeks and spend thousands of dollars; you can prove it out right now and spend a total of something like 17 cents to figure out if it's going to work or not. And if it does, then proceed from there, if not shut it down, and here's a quarter; keep the change. With data centers, a lot more planning winds up being involved. And is there a cutover at which point it makes sense to evacuate from a public cloud into a physical data center?Mike: You know, I don't really think so. This came up on a recent Twitter Spaces that you and I did around, at what point does it really make sense to be hybrid, or to be all-in on data center? I made the argument that a large-scale HPC does not fit cloud workloads, and someone made a comment that, like, “What is large-scale?” And to me, large-scale was always, like—so Oak Ridge was—or is famous—for having supercomputing, and they have largely been in the top five supercomputers in the world for quite some time. A supercomputer of that size is tens of thousands of cores. And they're running pretty much constant because of how expensive that stuff is to get time on. And that sort of thing would be just astronomically expensive in a cloud. But how many of those are there really?Corey: Yeah, if you're an AWS account manager listening to this and reaching out with, “No, that's not true. After committed spend, we'll wind up giving you significant discounts, and a whole bunch of credits, and jump through all these hoops.” And, yeah, I know, you'll give me a bunch of short-term contractual stuff that's bounded for a number of years, but there's no guarantee that stuff gets renewed at that rate. And let's face it. If you're running those kinds of workloads today, and already have the staff and tooling and processes that embrace that, maybe ripping all that out in a cloud migration where there's no clear business value derived isn't the best plan.Mike: Right. So, while there is a lot of large-scale HPC infrastructure that I don't think particularly fits well on the cloud, there's not a lot of that. There's just not that many massive HPC deployments out there. Which means that pretty much everything below that threshold could be a candidate for cloud workloads, and probably would be much better. One of the things that I noticed at Oak Ridge was that we had a whole bunch of SGI HPC systems laying around, and 90% of the time they were idle.And those things were not cheap when they were bought, and at the time, they're basically worth nothing. But they were idle most of the time, but when they were needed, they're there, and they do a great job of it. With AWS and GCP and Azure HPC offerings, that's a pretty good fit. Just migrate that whole thing over because it'll cost you less than buying a new one. But if I'm going to migrate Titan or Gaia from Oak Ridge over to there, yeah, some AWS rep is about to have a very nice field day. That'd just be too much money.Corey: Well, I'd be remiss as a cloud economist if I didn't point out that you can do this stuff super efficiently in someone else's AWS account.Mike: [laugh]. Yes.Corey: There's also the staffing question where if you're a large blue-chip company, you've been around for enough decades that you tend to have some revenue to risk, where you have existing processes and everything is existing in an on-prem environment, as much as we love to tell stories about the cloud being awesome, and the capability increase and the rest, yadda, yadda, yadda, there has to be a business case behind moving to the cloud, and it will knock some nebulous percentage off of your TCO—because lies, damned lies, and TCO analyses are sort of the way of the world—great. That's not exciting to most strategic-level execs. At least as I see the world. Given you are one of those strategic level execs, do you agree? Am I lacking nuance here?Mike: No, I pretty much agree. Doing a data center migration, you got to have a reason to do it. We have a lot of clients that are still running in data centers as well, and they don't move because the math doesn't make sense. And even when you start factoring in all the gains from productivity that they might get—and I stress the word might here—even when you factor those in, even when you factor in all the support and credits that Amazon might give them, it still doesn't make enough sense. So, they're still in data centers because that's where they should be for the time because that's what the finances say. And I'm kind of hard-pressed to disagree with them.Corey: While we're here playing ‘ask an exec,' I'm going to go for another one here. It's my belief that any cloud provider that charges a penny for professional services, or managed services, or any form of migration tooling or offering at all to their customers is missing the plot. Clearly, since they all tend to do this, I'm wrong somewhere. But I don't see how am I wrong or are they?Mike: Yeah, I don't know. I'd have to think about that one some more.Corey: It's an interesting point because it's—Mike: It is.Corey: —it's easy to think of this as, “Oh, yeah. You should absolutely pay people to migrate in because the whole point of cloud is that it's kind of sticky.” The biggest indicator of a big cloud bill this month is a slightly smaller one last month. And once people wind up migrating into a cloud, they tend not to leave despite all of their protestations to the contrary about multi-cloud, hybrid, et cetera, et cetera. And that becomes an interesting problem.It becomes an area—there's a whole bunch of vendors that are very deeply niched into that. It's clear that the industry as a whole thinks that migrating from data centers to cloud is going to be a boom industry for the next three decades. I don't think they're wrong.Mike: Yeah, I don't think they're wrong either. I think there's a very long tail of companies with massive footprint staying in a data center that at some point is going to get out of a data center.Corey: For those listeners who are fortunate enough not to have to come up the way that we did. Can you describe what a data center is like inside?Mike: Oh, God.Corey: What is a data center? People have these mythic ideas from television and movies, and I don't know, maybe some Backstreet Boys music video; I don't know where it all comes from. What is a data center like? What does it do?Mike: I've been in many of these over my life, and I think they really fall into two groups. One is the one managed by a professional data center manager. And those tend to be sterile environments. Like, that's the best way to describe it. They are white, filled with black racks. Everything is absolutely immaculate. There is no trash or other debris on the floor. Everything is just perfect. And it is freezingly cold.Corey: Oh, yeah. So, you're in a data center for any length of time, bring a jacket. And the soulless part of it, too, is that it's well-lit with fluorescent lights everywhere—Mike: Oh yeah.Corey: —and it's never blinking, never changing. There are no windows. Time loses all meaning. And it's strange to think about this because you don't walk in and think, “What is that racket?” But there's 10,000, 100,000 however many fans spinning all the time. It is super loud. It can clear 120 decibels in there, but it's a white noise so you don't necessarily hear it. Hearing protection is important there.Mike: When I was at Oak Ridge, we had—all of our data centers, we had a professional data center manager, so everything was absolutely pristine. And to get into any of the data centers, you had to go through a training; it was very simple training, but just, like, “These are things you do and don't do in the data center.” And when you walked in, you had to put in earplugs immediately before you walked in the door. And it's so loud just because of that, and you don't really notice it because you can walk in without earplugs and, like, “Oh, it's loud, but it's fine.” And then you leave a couple hours later and your ears are ringing. So, it's a weird experience.Corey: It's awful. I started wearing earplugs every time I went in, just because it's not just the pain because hearing loss doesn't always manifest that way. It's, I would get tired much more quickly.Mike: Oh, yeah.Corey: I would not be as sharp. It was, “What is this? Why am I so fatigued?” It's noise.Mike: Yeah. And having to remember to grab your jacket when you head down to the data center, even though it's 95 degrees outside.Corey: At some point, if you're there enough—which you probably shouldn't be—you start looking at ways to wind up storing one locally. I feel like there could be some company that makes an absolute killing by renting out parkas at data centers.Mike: Yeah, totally. The other group of data center stuff that I generally run into is the exact opposite of that. And it's basically someone has shoved a couple racks in somewhere and they just kind of hope for the best.Corey: The basement. The closet. The hold of a boat, with one particular client we work with.Mike: Yeah. That was an interesting one. So, we had a—Corey and I had a client where they had all their infrastructure in the basement of a boat. And we're [laugh] not even kidding. It's literally in the basement of a boat.Corey: Below the waterline.Mike: Yeah below the waterline. So, there was a lot of planning around, like, what if the hold gets breached? And like, who has to plan for that sort of thing? [laugh]. It was a weird experience.Corey: It turns out that was—was hilarious about that was while they were doing their cloud migration into AWS, their account manager wasn't the most senior account manager because, at that point, it was a small account, but they still stuck to their standard talking points about TCO, and better durability, and the rest, and it didn't really occur to them to come back with a, what if the boat sinks? Which is the obvious reason to move out of that quote-unquote, “data center?”Mike: Yeah. It was a wild experience. So, that latter group of just everything's an absolute wreck, like, everything—it's just so much of a pain to work with, and you find yourself wanting to clean it up. Like, install new racks, do new cabling, put in a totally new floor so you're not standing on concrete. You want to do all this work to it, and then you realize that you're just putting lipstick on a pig; it's still going to be a dirty old data center at the end of the day, no matter how much work you do to it. And you're still running on the same crappy hardware you had, you're still running on the same frustrating deployment process you've been working on, and everything still sucks, despite it looking good.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by ChaosSearch. As basically everyone knows, trying to do log analytics at scale with an ELK stack is expensive, unstable, time-sucking, demeaning, and just basically all-around horrible. So why are you still doing it—or even thinking about it—when there's ChaosSearch? ChaosSearch is a fully managed scalable log analysis service that lets you add new workloads in minutes, and easily retain weeks, months, or years of data. With ChaosSearch you store, connect, and analyze and you're done. The data lives and stays within your S3 buckets, which means no managing servers, no data movement, and you can save up to 80 percent versus running an ELK stack the old-fashioned way. It's why companies like Equifax, HubSpot, Klarna, Alert Logic, and many more have all turned to ChaosSearch. So if you're tired of your ELK stacks falling over before it suffers, or of having your log analytics data retention squeezed by the cost, then try ChaosSearch today and tell them I sent you. To learn more, visit chaossearch.io.Corey: The worst part is playing the ‘what is different here?' Game. You rack twelve servers: eleven come up fine and the twelfth doesn't.Mike: [laugh].Corey: It sounds like, okay, how hard could it be? Days. It can take days. In a cloud environment, you have one weird instance. Cool, you terminate it and start a new one and life goes on whereas, in a data center, you generally can't send back a $5,000 piece of hardware willy nilly, and you certainly can't do it same-day, so let's figure out what the problem is.Is that some sub-component in the system? Is it a dodgy cable? Is it, potentially, a dodgy switch port? Is there something going on with that node? Was there something weird about the way the install was done if you reimage the thing? Et cetera, et cetera. And it leads down rabbit holes super quickly.Mike: People that grew up in the era of computing that Corey and I did, you start learning tips and tricks, and they sound kind of silly these days, but things like, you never create your own cables. Even though both of us still remember how to wire a Cat 5 cable, we don't.Corey: My fingers started throbbing when you said that because some memories never fade.Mike: Right. You don't. Like, if you're working in a data center, you're buying premade cables because they've been tested professionally by high-end machines.Corey: And you still don't trust it. You have a relatively inexpensive cable tester in the data center, and when—I learned this when I was racking stuff the second time, it adds a bit of time, but every cable that we took out of the packaging before we plugged it in, and we tested on the cable tester just to remove that problem. And it still doesn't catch everything because, welcome to the world of intermittent cables that are marginal that, when you bend a certain way, stop working, and then when you look at them, start working again properly. Yes, it's as maddening as it sounds.Mike: Yeah. And then things like rack nuts. My fingers hurt just thinking about it.Corey: Think of them as nuts that bolts wind up screwing into but they're square and they have clips on them so they clip into the standard rack cabinets, so you can screw equipment into them. There are different sizes of them, and of course, they're not compatible with one another. And you have—they always pinch your finger and make you bleed because they're incredibly annoying to put in and out. Some vendors have quick rails, which are way nicer, but networking equipment is still stuck in the ‘90s in that context, and there's always something that winds up causing problems.Mike: If you were particularly lucky, the rack nuts that you had were pliable enough that you could pinch them and pull them out with your fingers, and hopefully didn't do too much damage. If you were particularly unlucky, you had to reach for a screwdriver to try to pry it out, and inevitably stab yourself.Corey: Or sometimes pulling it out with your fingers, it'll—like, those edges are sharp. It's not the most high-quality steel in some cases, and it's just you wind up having these problems. Oh, one other thing you learn super quickly, is first, always have a set of tools there because the one you need is the one you don't have, and the most valuable tool you'll have is a pair of wire cutters. And what you do when you find a bad cable is you cut it before throwing it away.Mike: Yep.Corey: Because otherwise someone who is very well-meaning but you will think of them as the freaking devil, will, “Oh, there's a perfectly good cable sitting here in the trash. I'll put it back with the spares.” So you think you have a failed cable you grab another one from the pile of spares—remember, this is two in the morning, invariably, and you're not thinking on all cylinders—and the problem is still there. Cut the cable when you throw it away.Mike: So, there are entire books that were written about these sorts of tips and tricks that everyone working [with 00:19:34] data center just remembers. They learned it all. And most of the stuff is completely moot now. Like, no one really thinks about it anymore. Some people are brought up in computing in such a way that they never even learned these things, which I think it's fantastic.Corey: Oh, I don't wish this on anyone. This used to be a prerequisite skill for anyone who called themselves a systems administrator, but I am astonished when I talk to my AWS friends, the remarkably senior engineers I talk to who have never been inside of an AWS data center.Mike: Yeah, absolutely.Corey: That's really cool. It also means you're completely divorced from the thing you're doing with code and the rest, and the thing that winds up keeping the hardware going. It also leads to a bit of a dichotomy where the people racking the hardware, in many cases, don't understand the workloads that are on there because if you have the programming insight, and ability, and can make those applications work effectively, you're probably going to go find a role that compensates far better than working in the data center.Mike: I [laugh] want to talk about supply chains. So, when you build a data center, you start planning about—let's say, I'm not Amazon. I'm just, like, any random company—and I want to put my stuff into a data center. If I'm going to lease someone else's data center—which you absolutely should—we're looking at about a 180-day lead time. And it's like, why? Like, that's a long time. What's—Corey: It takes that long to sign a real estate lease?Mike: Yeah.Corey: No. It takes that long to sign a real estate lease, wind up talking to your upstream provider, getting them to go ahead and run the thing—effectively—getting the hardware ordered and shipped in the right time window, doing the actual build-out once everything is in place, and I'm sure a few other things I'm missing.Mike: Yeah, absolutely. So yeah, you have all these things that have to happen, and all of them pay for-freaking-ever. Getting Windstream on the phone to begin with, to even take your call, can often take weeks at a time. And then to get them to actually put an order for you, and then do the turnup. The turnup alone might be 90 days, where I'm just, “Hey, I've bought bandwidth from you, and I just need you to come out and connect the [BLEEP] cables,” might be 90 days for them to do it.And that's ridiculous. But then you also have the hardware vendors. If you're ordering hardware from Dell, and you're like, “Hey, I need a couple servers.” Like, “Great. They'll be there next week.” Instead, if you're saying, “Hey, I need 500 servers,” they're like, “Ooh, uh, next year, maybe.” And this is even pre-pandemic sort of thing because they don't have all these sitting around.So, for you to get a large number of servers quickly, it's just not a thing that's possible. So, a lot of companies would have to buy well ahead of what they thought their needs would be, so they'd have massive amounts of unused capacity. Just racks upon racks of systems sitting there turned off, waiting for when they're needed, just because of the ordering lead time.Corey: That's what auto-scaling looks like in those environments because you need to have that stuff ready to go. If you have a sudden inrush of demand, you have to be able to scale up with things that are already racked, provisioned, and good to go. Sometimes you can have them halfway provisioned because you don't know what kind of system they're going to need to be in many cases, but that's some up-the-stack level thinking. And again, finding failed hard drives and swapping those out, make sure you pull the right or you just destroyed an array. And all these things that I just make Amazon's problem.It's kind of fun to look back at this and realize that we would get annoyed then with support tickets that took three weeks to get resolved in hardware, whereas now three hours in you and I are complaining about the slow responsiveness of the cloud vendor.Mike: Yeah, the amount of quick turnaround that we can have these days on cloud infrastructure that was just unthinkable, running in data centers. We don't run out of bandwidth now. Like, that's just not a concern that anyone has. But when you're running in a data center, and, “Oh, yeah. I've got an OC-3 line connected here. That's only going to get me”—Corey: Which is something like—what is an OC-3? That's something like, what, 20 gigabit, or—Mike: Yeah, something like that. It's—Corey: Don't quote me on that.Mike: Yeah. So, we're going to have to look that up. So, it's equivalent to a T-3, so I think that's a 45 megabit?Corey: Yeah, that sounds about reasonable, yeah.Mike: So, you've got a T-3 line sitting here in your data center. Like that's not terrible. And if you start maxing that out, well, you're maxed out. You need more? Again, we're back to the 90 to 180 day lead time to get new bandwidth.So, sucks to be you, which means you'd have to start planning your bandwidth ahead of time. And this is why we had issues like companies getting Slashdotted back in the day because when you capped the bandwidth out, well, you're capped out. That's it. That's the game.Corey: Now, you've made the front page of Slashdot, a bunch of people visited your site, and the site fell over. That was sort of the way of the world. CDNs weren't really a thing. Cloud wasn't a thing. And that was just, okay, you'd bookmark the thing and try and remember to check it later.We talked about bandwidth constraints. One thing that I think the cloud providers do—at least the tier ones—that are just basically magic is full line rate between any two instances almost always. Well, remember, you have a bunch of different racks, and at the top of every rack, there's usually a switch called—because we're bad at naming things—top-of-rack switches. And just because everything that you have plugged in can get one gigabit to that switch—or 10 gigabit or whatever it happens to be—there is a constraint in that top-of-rack switch. So yeah, one server can talk to another one in a different rack at one gigabit, but then you have 20 different servers in each rack all trying to do something like that and you start hitting constraints.You do not see that in the public cloud environments; it is subsumed away, you don't have to think about that level of nonsense. You just complain about what feels like the egregious data transfer charge.Mike: Right. Yeah. It was always frustrating when you had to order nice high-end switching gear from Cisco, or Arista, or take your pick of provider, and you got 48 ports in the top-of-rack, you got 48 servers all wired up to them—or 24 because we want redundancy on that—and that should be a gigabit for each connection, except when you start maxing it out, no, it's nowhere even near that because the switch can't handle it. And it's absolutely magical, that the cloud provider's like, “Oh, yeah. Of course, we handle that.”Corey: And you don't have to think about it at all. One other use case that I did want to hit because I know we'll get letters if we don't, where it does make sense to build out a data center, even today, is if you have regulatory requirements around data residency. And there's no cloud vendor in an area that suits. This generally does not apply to the United States, but there are a lot of countries that have data residency laws that do not yet have a cloud provider of their choice region, located in-country.Mike: Yeah, I'll agree with that, but I think that's a short-lived problem.Corey: In the fullness of time, there'll be regions everywhere. Every build—a chicken in every pot and an AWS availability zone on every corner.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah, I think it's going to be a fairly short-lived problem, which actually reminds me of even our clients that have data centers are often treating the data center as a cloud. So, a lot of them are using your favorite technology, Corey, Kubernetes, and they're treating Kubernetes as a cloud, running Kube in AWS, as well, and moving workloads between the two Kube clusters. And to them, a data center is actually not really data center; it's just a private cloud. I think that pattern works really well if you have a need to have a physical data center.Corey: And then they start doing a hybrid environment where they start expanding to a public cloud, but then they treat that cloud like just a place to run a bunch of VMs, which is expensive, and it solves a whole host of problems that we've already talked about. Like, we're bad at replacing hard drives, or our data center is located on a corner where people love to get drunk on the weekends and smash into the power pole and take out half of the racks here. Things like that great, yeah, cloud can solve that, but cloud could do a lot more. You're effectively worsening your cloud experience to improve your data center experience.Mike: Right. So, even when you have that approach, the piece of feedback that we give the client was, you have built such a thing where you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, which is the constraints that you have in the data center, which means you're not able to use AWS the way that you should be able to use it so it's just as expensive to run as a data center was. If they were to get rid of the data center, then the cloud would actually become cheaper for them and they would get more benefits from using it. So, that's kind of a business decision for how they've structured it, and I can't really fault them for it, but there are definitely some downsides to the approach.Corey: Mike, thank you so much for joining me here. If people want to learn more about what you're up to, where can they find you?Mike: You know, you can find me at duckbillgroup.com, and actually, you can also find Corey at duckbillgroup.com. We help companies lower their AWS bills. So, if you have a horrifying bill, you should chat.Corey: Mike, thank you so much for taking the time to join me here.Mike: Thanks for having me.Corey: Mike Julian, CEO of The Duckbill Group and my business partner. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice and then challenge me to a cable-making competition.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

united states god ceo amazon time game portland hearing cloud cat origin oc hp api cisco screaming knoxville gaia aws hubspot backstreet boys devops elk data centers s3 equifax war stories kubernetes bleep klarna drc unix gcp vms oak ridge hpc arista tco hacker news equinix supermicro kube oak ridge national laboratory cdns devops engineer corey quinn mike it nmap mike you slashdot digital realty mike no mike yeah software engineering daily mike so alert logic duckbill group mike oh oak ridge national lab thinkst mike thanks mike julian mike right chief cloud economist last week in aws mike yep humblepod monitoring weekly

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 3: The Jewish Talmud Exposed

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2021 52:33

Mike Isaacson: Da j00z! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: At the core of nazi lies is antisemitism. Since the Second World War it has disguised itself in many guises–Rothschilds, Soros, Bildebergs, lizard people. At its core is an all-powerful entity controlling the masses and aiming to destroy the nation through the corruption of culture and politics, which remains at the heart of fascist conspiracy theory. One of the ur-texts of Jew hatred in the 21st century is David Duke's book “Jewish Supremacism,” which makes the claim that not only do Jews control the world, but that our religion teaches us to do so. Today, we're joined by Ben Siegel who has his master's in Religion, the Hebrew Bible, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies from the Claremont School of Theology. (Wow, that's a mouthful.) Welcome to The Nazi Lies Podcast, Ben. Ben Siegel: Thanks for having me Mike. I'm grateful for the opportunity to trash a Jew hater's biblical scholarship. Mike: [laughs] Very good. Okay, so before we get into Duke's book, let's talk a bit about how Judaism works, because it's very unlike Christianity. Can you give us a rundown of how Jewish law and Jewish morality works? Ben: Sure. I'll do my best. Now the Jewish legal system, known in Hebrew as halakha, is a comprehensive framework that informs the behaviors of religious, and also frequently secular, Jews. It takes as its starting point the written text, the Torah, the biblical books of Genesis through Deuteronomy, from which it derives 613 mitzvot, meaning laws or commandments, as authoritative God-given instruction on how to live an observant Jewish life. So from those texts, considered the written Torah, what's called the oral Torah is derived. This comprises successive centuries worth of interpretation of the written Torah by rabbis. The earliest of these is the Mishnah, which was compiled early in the second century of the common era, and the Gemara, rabbinical commentary on the Mishnah that was put together between the second and fifth centuries CE. These commentaries were collected to produce the Talmud. Now one in the Galilee region of Israel between 300 and 350 CE, known as the Jerusalem Talmud, and the second far more extensive Talmud compiled in Babylon in about 450 to 500 CE. This is the Babylonian Talmud. This is the one that people tend to cite most. It's really these long, extensive discourses weighing legal arguments on virtually every topic that was relevant to Jews during these periods, from personal and communal religious devotion to economic regulations to laws concerning marriage, dietary restrictions, relations with non-Jews; you name it. Now the Talmud is upheld to this day by most Jewish communities across the world as the basis for living an appropriate Jewish life in accordance with halakha and in accordance with God's will and vision for the world. Halakha informs Jewish ethics to a great deal as much as it undergirds legal and political concerns–a concern for ethical treatment of one's community and one's neighbors, stemming from the collective memory of slavery in Egypt, an ethics of solidarity, really, righteousness, compassion, and justice, in effect. Mike: Okay, so Duke takes aim at our self-description as the chosen people. This is commonly misinterpreted. What does it mean when the Jews say we are the chosen people? Ben: As the old saying goes, “How odd of God to choose the Jews.” So there's this notion that God selected the Israelites for a particular theological mission, to live according to His laws, and to be a light unto nations, inspiring other people through their example. But there's also this idea that the Jews chose God. That Abraham and his descendents embraced monotheism through a special and unique relationship with the deity. Chosenness in this sense isn't indicative of inherent ethnic or racial superiority, as Duke argues. I'd feel safe saying he's projecting his own white supremacist views onto the Jews here. Mike: You don't say. Ben: [laughs] Yeah, I do. Mike: Okay, so another thing that David Duke derides is our holidays. Specifically, he describes Purim and Pesach as a celebration of the slaughter of gentiles, which I find absolutely laughable. Do you want to clear that one up? Ben: This would absolutely be hilarious if it weren't so malicious. Pesach celebrates the liberation of the Israelite people from slavery and oppression in Egypt. Recalling the ten plagues during the seder does recognize the suffering inflicted upon the Egyptians to make this happen. But this isn't a joyful moment. It's typically somber. The recitation of each plague is followed by dripping a drop of wine from our cups onto our plates to signify how we ourselves are diminished by the Egyptians' suffering. There's also a similarly warped misinterpretation of Purim going on here, where we celebrate the prevention of genocide against us. So in the Purim story, Haman had ordered the Jews put to death. The Megillah Esther makes it clear that the 70,000+ Persians killed at the end of the book are those sent by Haman to slaughter the Jews. And the Jews were only able to defend themselves because king Ahasuerus gives them permission to pick up swords. And to be frank, Mike, defense against genocide seems to a pretty legitimate cause for merrymaking. Mike: Yeah, no, for sure. It's a really fun holiday if you've ever celebrated it, you know. It's a lot of dress up… I've heard it described as basically a combination of Halloween and New Years all wrapped into one. It's really fun. Ben: Sure, if you like to drink and scream, Purim is the holiday for you. Mike: There you go. [laughs] Okay, so now let's get into the nitty gritty. So, David Duke cites a whole bunch of scriptures to make the Jews out to be haters of all things goyishe, or non-Jewish, with scriptural references that appear to justify unscrupulous behavior towards them. First of all, before we get into that, what does the word “goy” mean? Ben: Well it would be prudent to acknowledge that the term “goy” changes meaning slightly over time. In the biblical text, it means nation or people, not nation in the modern sense of Westphalian nation-states, but more as a homogenous ethnic identity. The Israelites were recognized as a goy here. Most notably, Exodus 19 where God promises Abraham that he will make his people “goy gadol,” a great people, Exodus 19:6. As we enter into the rabbinic period, where the Jews in the diaspora are negotiating Jewish identity as a minority population, goy predominantly takes on the meaning of non-Jew as a distinguishing marker. This interpretation of “goy” has persisted to this day, and is perhaps the most commonly recognized usage of the term. I have seen discussions among antisemites who misinterpret it as meaning “cattle,” based on connotations in Talmudic texts. But these texts offer a strict binary worldview where “Jew” is seen as akin to human, whereas non-Jews are aligned with animals. I think it's important to make the distinction that this framework is a legal one not necessarily a political one. Post exilic diaspora Jews did not have the kind of social power needed to foster political programs that affected the disenfranchisement of other groups typically associated with rhetorics of dehumanization. Mike: Okay, so kind of on that point, Duke points to a number of decontextualized passages from Jewish scripture which describe gentiles in various negative ways: barbarians, animals, animal-fuckers. And I've got a few passages here which I've provided to you in advance. So there's Gemara Kiddushin 68a, Yebamoth (and correct me on any of these pronunciations) Yebamoth 98a, Baba Mezia 114a-b, Abodah Zarah 22a-b, and Baba Mezia 108b. Can you give us a little exegesis? Ben: I'd be happy to, but first I want to talk about how Duke sourced these texts. There's been some commentary on him plagiarizing Kevin McDonald who is an evolutionary psychologist working out of Cal State University-Long Beach. He uses the same arguments and the citations. But it also appears that Duke took many of the translations of these texts from a book by Elizabeth Dilling, who was a far-right political activist in the 1930s, noted antisemite, who went to Nazi Germany and spoke very highly of what she saw there. So with these translations that he's using, I think it's important that we take it with an enormous grain of salt, first of all. Mike: Right. Ben: But also the thing I've noticed most about non-Jews who rage against the Talmud is that they haven't read the damn thing. And frankly, I haven't read all of it either. It's an enormous body of text. And in that body of text there are, you know, rabbis disagreeing with each other. So one view may be held, and the exact opposite view is going to be upheld a line down. Just worth noting for when we're looking at these texts that are obviously cherry-picked. Mike: Right. Ben: The first one you mentioned, Kiddushin 68a, it's from a tractate that deals with rules pertaining to marriage and engagement laws. Now what Duke says about this is the Talmud denotes gentiles as animals. So here it's forbidding the betrothal of an Israelite to a Canaanite maidservant. One thing, there's no Canaanites in third century Persia at this time, so this is purely a hypothetical situation. But it's really this legal justification for not marrying non-Jews because of the potential for them to influence a Jew's worship in a negative way, so that they won't follow halakha. And there's definitely a discussion here of identifying them as like an animal, but it's not a similar dehumanization that we see in typical nazi rhetoric of like “Jews are cockroaches” or “Jews are vermin.” It's like, here is this category of thing that is not us, and we cannot mix with that. Does that make sense? Mike Yeah, I guess. Does the issue of her being a maidservant matter in a subordinate position to the person? Ben: Some rabbis argue yes; some rabbis argue no. But really it's more that who she is, based on this identity, is making the betrothal ineffective. It's not considered valid. Mike: Okay, so like– Ben: Yeah. Mike: Go ahead. Ben: No, go right ahead. Mike: Okay, yeah continuing right along, let's go to Yebamoth 98a? Ben: Yeah, Yebamoth deals with rules of yibbum. This is what's commonly known as levarite marriage, where the brother of a man who died without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. What Duke has this translated as is that all gentile children are animals. It doesn't say anything of the sort here. It's saying that the children of gentiles don't have a father. They don't have a patrilege. Like the offspring of a male gentile is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys or horses. It's just a way of saying that the rabbis don't care who the kid's dad is. It's like, they couldn't be bothered. Mike: I see. Ben: They're not interested in the patrilege of non-Jews. They're really more concerned with Jewish family ties. Mike: Okay, so moving along, there's two passages from Baba Metzia, one is 114a-b and one is 108b. Ben: Mmhmm. Baba Metzia discusses civil matters. That is property, law of usury, other issues such as lost property and damages done to it. So the issue here is again, categorizing– Duke takes issue with the categorizing of goyim as non-human. And again, it comes down to the same thing. It's less that they are not recognized as human, and more that it is an issue of ritual purity because they don't adhere to the same religious standards. Therefore, they necessarily can't contaminate certain Jewish sacred spaces. Mike: That's probably– Ben: And– Mike: Go ahead. Ben: Yeah, sorry go ahead. Mike: I was gonna say, it's probably also worth noting that like many Jews, I would venture even to say most Jews, probably don't follow a lot of these laws. [laughs] Ben: Yeah, many of them aren't even aware of them. You know, you can spend your entire life studying these texts and maybe come across it once. You know, there are thousands of these tractates. Mike: And last in this category was Abodah Zarah 22a-b. Ben: Mmhmm. [laughs] This one's funny. Duke says gentiles prefer sex with cows. What the text is actually saying is that the animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives. [laughs] So, I don't know if this intentionally, you know, throwing some shade gentiles and their own marriage relations, but it seems more in keeping with a concern that's held by the Talmudic sages of how do you ensure that an animal that you are sacrificing is ritually pure. That means it has no blemishes; it is handicapped in any way; but very importantly, that it has not had any sexual relations with anybody. So Abodah Zarah, literally meaning “foreign worship” or “strange service,” it deals with how to live with people who don't adhere to the same religious convictions. And the concern of beastiality is kind of a big, overarching theme in this text to the point that there are many discussions of concern about whether or not you can purchase a sacrificial animal from a goy. Some rabbis say no; some say yes. Interestingly enough, there is one narrative in the text, where a goy named Dama– The rabbis go to him, and purchase a red heifer which is like a really big omen in the bible. It's like huge. That's like primo sacrifice. And he is upheld as a righteous goy and as someone who would never shtup his cow. So what's really interesting here is that you've got these two different voices in the text that are both preserved as authoritative. One, there is the concern that the goy will engage in beastiality. The other is this one goy Dama who is upheld as an example of righteousness in regards to being able to buy, you know, a sacrificial animal for him. Of course, Duke isn't going to look at this text because it doesn't serve his overall purpose as vilifying the Jewish people as anti-goy. Mike: And before we continue, I want to inform our listeners that shtup is a Yiddish word for “having sex with.” Ben: Yeah, literally it means “push,” but yeah, it means sex. Mike: Alright so, Duke also makes the claim that there are different laws that Jews follow when it comes to dealing with the goyim. So he specifically points to Gittin 57a, Abadoh Zarah 67b, Sanhendrin 52b, Sanhedrin 105a-b and 106a-b. Can you explain what's going on in those passages? Ben: Sure, so my understanding of his gripe with Gittin 57a is what is the punishment for Jesus in the next world, saying that he will be boiled in excrement. He's going to be punished in boiling poop, and that anyone who mocks the word of the sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. This was his sin, as he mocked the words of the sages. And the Gemara comments come and see the difference between these sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world as Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their wellbeing. So there is this, kind of– There's some antagonism towards Jesus in the text because of its function as– Jesus's function and Christianity's function as a counter-claim to the inheritance of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob. So there's some theological competition going on here. Mike: And what about Abodah Zarah 67b? Ben: Mmhmm. “The halakha from the case of gentiles that require purging. Vessels that gentiles used for cooking that the Torah requires that one purge through fire and ritually purify before they may be used by Jews.” You know, he seems to be indicating that– Duke seems to be indicating that the text is saying that goyim are dirty. But this isn't an argument for, like, hygienic cleaning. The ancient Israelites and Talmudic sages didn't have a germ theory of disease. What they're talking about is purifying these vessels for religious purposes, specifically. They have to be rededicated for their sacred use because they may have come in contact with forbidden food, with non-kosher food. Mike: Right, so this is about the laws of kashrut, right? Ben: Yeah, precisely. And again this is Abodah Zarah which is all about how do we do our religion properly with all of these other influences around us. Mike: Right, okay so Sanhendrin 52b. Ben: Yeah, this is another Jesus one. So Duke says that the person being punished in this text is Jesus, and he sees this as an anti-Jesus text. But the text doesn't mention Jesus whatsoever. It's a general rule for capital punishment by strangulation which is outlined in Leviticus. So this is one of your big nazi lies. He doesn't mention– They don't mention Jesus here. Mike: Is this one of the ones where he mentions Balaam or something? Ben: I believe so. Mike: Okay, can you talk about who Balaam is, because Duke misidentifies him as Jesus. Ben: Yeah he does that a lot. So in the book of Numbers, Balaam is a prophetic figure, identified in the text as a false prophet, who goes to send a curse against the Israelite people, and he is himself cursed for it and put to death. So he's kind of like this figure of those who would seek the destruction the Jewish people. He's a big bad. Mike: Right, and since he's in the book of Numbers which is the Torah, right? Ben: Yeah. Mike: Yeah, I mean, that would mean that this is, like, well before Jesus's time, right? Ben: Absolutely. Mike: Like there's no way this would have been Jesus. Ben: For sure. Granted, there are certain Christian interpreters of the text who see Hebrew bible references to Jesus throughout. Mike: Right. Ben: So they kind of see Jesus as foreshadowed in so much. Mike: Alright so, moving on, Sanhendrin 105a-b? Ben: So this one's interesting because it says that Balaam was a diviner by using his penis. [both laugh] And he's one who engaged in beastiality with his donkey. So what Duke takes to be a condemnation of Jesus, because he's misidentified Jesus with Balaam, is really kind of like textbook Talmudic condemnation of a big bad goy. Now here's a guy who sought the destruction of the Jewish people. In the book of Numbers he's got this talking donkey who prevents him– who tries to stop him from going forward with his mission. And we know that he was bad because, according to the Talmud, he had sex with his donkey. There's this major preoccupation with bestiality in the Talmud, and it is weird as hell. But it's there, and we've got to deal with it. [laughs] Mike: Okay, and Sanhendrin 106a-b. Ben: Again, this one's not about Jesus, but rather about Balaam who has been misidentified with Jesus. I think this is– this kind of misidentification is just indicative of Duke not doing his homework. My understanding is that he took these from Dilling, and he never fact-checked to see if, you know, this is what the text says or this is what the text identifies. You know, this is bad scholarship on his part which is probably to be expected from this guy who defrauded his own his own white supremacist organization and has a fake degree. Mike: Right, and he even says in the book that he's not doing anything original, that it's just collected from other sources. Ben: Right. Mike: Well, since we're on the subject of Jesus, we may as well go with the rest of the passages that I have here. So Sanhendrin 90a. I'm kind of skipping around here. Ben: Yeah this one's all about prohibition against idol worship. And you said this one is Jesus-related? Mike: That's what he said, yeah. About Christianity and Jesus, yeah. Ben: I don't find much to do with Jesus in this text. Jesus isn't mentioned in this one. It's primarily about idol worship and people who prophesize with regards to it. Maybe he's trying to say that, like, the preoccupation with idol worship is a condemnation of Christianity, but I'm just not seeing where he's getting Jesus out of this. Mike: Okay then, on that same subject Shabbat 116a. Ben: Yeah, holy books in Babylonian temples. Now is this the one where he says a goy can't read the text? Mike: It might be, yeah. Or a Christian can't read the text. Ben: Yeah, oh no, this is a really particular one. Again this one is just– There's a lot of rhetorical violence against those who do the religion improperly or don't treat the sacred texts as they should. You know, these are practices and artifacts that are very important to the Jewish people, so they hold them in very high regard. Mike: So I guess moving along, Duke refers to a number of passages in the Bible that he takes to mean that Jews are preoccupied with racial integrity. (Projection much?) He points specifically to Sanhendrin 59a, Deuteronomy 7:2-6, Ezra 9:1-2 and 9:12, Leviticus 20:24, and Nehemiah 13:3. So what do these passages say and what do they actually mean? Ben: With Sanhedrin 59a, which Sanhedrin primarily deals with criminal law, it says that “A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty. As it is stated: ‘Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.'” This is from Deuteronomy 33:4. “Indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.” So there is one sage, a rabbi Yokhanon who is arguing that goyim who study Torah, you know, they're liable to be put to death. You know, they expose themselves to capital punishment. He's arguing this because they view the Torah with such high esteem; it is their most sacred text. They want to preserve it. Now this text is followed a line or two down by a counterargument. It says, “You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages Torah study is considered like a high priest.” So you've got one argument saying that a goy who studies Torah is liable to be put to death, and another that says that they have an incredible status, that studying Torah gives them very high regard. But this again is one of those instances where Duke does not consider that might undermine his central thesis that Jews are bad, are always bad, and will always be bad. Mike: Okay, so what about the Deuteronomy passages? Ben: Deuteronomy is fascinating. We could do a whole discussion of that book in and of itself because it is–Deuteronomy in Greek means “second law”–but it is kind of a later law code that is arguably the result of a very kind of reactionary sect of Israelite theology that does not see coexistence with people who don't worship YHWH as possible. And rhetorically, what they are saying is when the Israelites get to the promised land, they are to commit genocide against the peoples of the land. Don't intermarry with them because that could lead to apostasy, that could lead to illicit worship. You know, their daughters will lead you to serve other gods. The sense here is that Israel is a holy people, God has chosen them to be special unto him, and if they allow this foreign influence to affect them, that will be undermined. Mike: Okay, and what about the Ezra text? Ezra 9:1-2 and 9:12. Ben: Yeah, there's some scholarship to indicate that Ezra and Nehemiah represent one scholarly tradition. So after the Babylonian empire was defeated by the Persian empire, the Persians allowed the community of Israelites that had been taken into exile, the golah community, to return to the land, to rebuild the temple, and to reestablish rule. So one of the concerns of the returning community is this very specific idea that the reason they were exiled in the first place is because God is punishing them for worshipping other gods. And that sense also undergirds the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. So their solution is that, to prevent that from ever happening again, they have to divorce from the non-Israelite wives that they had married that might lead them into temptation. Now this is the view of the returning community, not the community that had stayed in the land of Israel during that time. So these would have been the intelligentsia, the priestly class, the aristocracy, skilled laborers, so it's not a normative view, but it kind of becomes normative because it becomes the dominant voice of the text, if that makes any sense. But they are saying that for the sake not just of religious purity but also to establish power for themselves, you know, the returning community has a claim to power in the land, not just because they have, you know, they have a connection to it where they are before the exile, but they are supported by the Persian imperial power. They're making this new claim of identity and religiosity to assert that power. Mike: Okay and what about Leviticus 20:24? Ben: “You shall inherit their land” (“Them” being the Canaanites.) “that I will give unto you to possess it, a land that flows with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God that separated you from other people.” So this is God telling the Israelites that they will be given the promised land because God has chosen them, has separated them. The word “kodesh,” to be holy, also means separate. So it's really a theological category, not an ethnic one. You know, the Israelites are separate from these people and are given the land because of their adherence to the covenant at Sinai, not because they are of a particular ethnic or racial background. Mike: Okay, so we talked a little bit about kind of the somewhat genocidal tendencies I guess. And so David Duke talks about massacres perpetrated by Jews in the bible. He points to Deuteronomy 20:10-18, Isaiah 34:2-3. and Joshua 6:21 and 10:28-41. And when I mentioned Joshua to you, you kind of rolled your eyes at it. Ben: Yeah. Mike: So I guess let's start with Joshua then. Ben: Yeah, I do. Good. Joshua's a fascinating text. Scholars pretty much agree that it has no, or little to no, basis in historical fact. You know, one of these is that, these texts Joshua 6:21, is the destruction of the city of Jericho which according to archeological records happened several hundred years prior to when this narrative is supposed to have taken place. But what's being discussed here in 21 is the devotion of the city to the Lord, the destruction of every living thing in it. So, you know, this is absolutely a genocidal text. It's a purification of the land by the sword and by flame. So typically in war in the ancient near east, you could take slaves, you could take cattle as war booty. But what is being done here is the destruction of all of that, saying that everything belongs to God, and as such it must be destroyed and sacrificed unto him. But it's also seen as a kind of justice because here are these, for lack of a better word, pagans who stand in the way of the Israelite mission, and who may also tempt the Israelites to turn away from the path of God. So it's absolutely this violent, theologically motivated holy war, genocidal slaughter, maintained in the text. And I do think it's important to wrestle with these notions. You know, whether or not it actually happened, it's still– It's there, and it informs a great deal of thinking. It informed the colonization of the New World, whereby settlers from Europe saw themselves as Israelites and the indigenous people here as Canaanites. Robert Allen Warrior is an indigenous scholar who's done a lot of work on this. But then, the Joshua narrative also informed many of the early Zionists, and they saw themselves as, as Rachel Haverlock called the Joshua generation. Like, Ben Gurion assembled a number of different people to do bible studies on the book of Joshua. It is a text of settler colonialism and can be used to justify that kind of political programme. Mike: Okay so back to Deutero– Ben: If that's what you're trying to do, Joshua is a good place to pull from. Mike: Okay so back to Deuteronomy, 20:10-18. What's being said in there? Ben: “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open its gates, all the people shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage in battle, lay siege to the city.” And the ban, or kherem, is in effect there. So destroy, destroy, destroy, and leave nothing because everything is for God. It's the same scenario– In this instance, the people in the land are given the opportunity to surrender, otherwise they are subject to the sword. It's very similar to the kind of warfare described in other texts from the ancient near east, whether they're Assyrian or Babylonian. So it's not uncommon to see this kind of siege warfare described, and it's not necessarily unique to the Israelite people. Mike: Right, I mean, yeah, I mean that was one of the things that happened to the Israelite people, at least in engaging the Romans, right? Ben: Yeah, precisely. Mike: Okay, what about Isaiah 34:2-3? Ben: This one's interesting because it's not actually a narrative of slaughter. It's a prophetic oracle delivered against the people of Edom, the Edomites, for betraying the Israelites to the Babylonians and assisting in their imperial endeavors. It's saying that, you know, you will be destroyed. You know, the corpses of your people will lay in the street. So it's not an actual thing that happened. It's part of a type of prophetic literature called oracles against the nations where the prophet of a particular book will condemn a specific people on God's behalf. Keep in mind that the prophets aren't really seen as their own agents. They're the agents of God; they speak God's word. So God through Isaiah is saying, here's what's going to happen to you because of your betrayal. Mike: Okay, so this next part is probably going to need a trigger warning or something. So there's some really strange passages that he cites about rape and virginity that I honestly haven't looked at because by the time I got to these passages I was just tired of him being wrong every time I checked the passages he cited. So he cites Kethuboth 11b, Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-b, Yebamoth 57b, 58a, and 60b. So let's start with Kethuboth. Ben: Right, yeah, so here he's– The issue is Bath Sheeba, when she gave birth to Solomon, whether or not she was six years old, or whether or not she was an earlier age. It's not saying that six-year-olds are appropriate– or that six is an appropriate age for sexual relations with a girl. It's arguing at what age a child can conceive. Like when is conception possible? And it's saying that because Bath Sheeba gave birth to Solomon when she was six, it's somewhere around that time. Yeah, this whole discourse is really gnarly. Mike: Okay, so what about Sanhendrin 55b? Ben: So here it's about a girl who is three years and one day whose father has arranged for her to be married, and betrothal is through intercourse. It's concerning the legal status of the intercourse with her, if it's like full-fledged sex. Really here the text is examining forbidden sexual acts that cause ritual impurity and calamity. And prior to this specific quotation is a broader context of unwitting beastiality, like beastiality that you didn't know you did. It's not justifying sex with minors; it says that the act renders the man ritually impure and liable to be put to death. Lucky for the child, I guess lucky, is that they're exempt from execution because they're a minor. Small condolence I guess. Mike: Okay so it's basically saying the opposite of what David Duke said. Ben: Yeah. Mike: Okay, what about 69a-b? Ben: I mean, this is probably a discussion of the legal ramifications of this act. Mike: Yeah this is actually, this says exactly what you were talking about earlier. So “A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabitated with her, she becomes his.” Blah blah blah. Ben: Yeah, because it's Yebamoth– It's Yebamoth, right? Mike: No this is Sanhendrin. Ben: Oh Sanhendrin. So this is, yeah, criminal law. So this is the liability of criminal punishment, but also these rabbis debated everything. What is the likelihood that a three-year-old is going to be married to someone who then dies and then has to be– Again they have the option to be married to their brother so that the dead brother's lineage doesn't end. They're really negotiating, like, every possible eventuality that might happen just in case. You know, all of these are hypothetical situations. And, you know, they're gross. Some of them are just really fucked up. Mike: [laughs] Yeah Jews like to talk about a lot of weird hypotheticals. Alright so now onto the Yebamoth one. So 57b. Ben: Yeah, Yebamoth 57b. This one I've got, “A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired by marriage in coition.” So yeah, the sex act is technically allowed. It's not condoning it. But because three-year-old girls cannot become pregnant, it's still technically forbidden because it's a waste of seed in non-procreative sex. So it's saying that she can't conceive via sexual intercourse, so it's really forbidden because sex in this worldview is not for pleasure; it's purely for procreation. So if you are wasting sperm engaging in this sex act, it's a bad thing. Not going to lie, this one's fucked up. Mike: Yeah, what about 58a? Ben: Um, doesn't say anything about minors. Mike: Really? Ben: Just, yeah, I didn't see anything about minors in this one. Mike: What about rape? Ben: Most likely. Let me just take a closer look. Mike: Or virginity or something? Ben: Yeah, do you have a quote on this one? Mike: Not sure. I mean, I don't have quotes on any of these because again I stopped looking at them. Ben: Yeah, and a lot of it is just like– It's kind of he said, she said. I don't know. I don't take David Duke's reading of these in good faith, and I don't think we can. Mike: This is a weird passage. There's something about “Through betrothal alone a woman is not entitled to eat.” This is so strange. Ben: I mean I would lie if I said that I understood the majority of Talmudic literature. Mike: Right. Ben: You know, people can spend seven years reading this entire work all the way through. The law of tamurah. Mike: Yeah, and, I mean, even– David Duke doesn't even necessarily quote these passages. He just references them. And I guess, like you said, he probably pulls them from other sources without reading them. Ben: Yeah, I– With this, I can't even tell, like, what he's arguing. Like, what is the– What issue is he taking here? Mike: Yeah, I would suggest that our listeners read this passage and try to figure out what the fuck David Duke has a problem with. Ben: Yeah exactly. Yeah [sarcastically] read David Duke's book. You'll have fun. Mike: Yeah, no don't read David Duke's book, but you can read the Talmud, that's pretty good. Ben: Spend seven years reading the whole thing. You can do it, a daf a day. Mike: Alright, do you have any notes on Yebamoth 60b? Ben: So this is where the Gemara cites another ruling related to who is considered a virgin. And it's not condoning sex with a three-year-old. It says that in the event of that happening, she remains a virgin because her hymen grows back. Like if it's through a sex act with an adult man or if her hymen is ruptured by wood. You know, she's still considered a virgin because it grows back. I don't know if that's medically true. Mike: Yeah, I was– Ben: Sounds like bullshit, but the issue here is virginity as it relates to being able to determine paternity in the long run. Mike: Okay, alright, so Judaism has changed a lot since these texts were written. So what can we say about the ethos of Judaism now as it relates to these texts? Ben: Right, obviously most Jews aren't concerned with the majority of the issues we've addressed here today. You know, they don't spend a lot of time thinking about beastiality, thank goodness. But I think if there is a single Jewish ethos, it's an affirmation of being the people of Israel, literally meaning “to wrestle with God,” Yis-ra-el. Engagement in argument over Torah are so central to our people's identity that even secular atheist Jews still contend with these issues. So as many different types of Jews as there are and how many different ways they approach the text, there still profoundly, proudly participating in a longstanding tradition that's engaging with and arguing with the tradition. I think that's the modern Jewish ethos, and it's much the same as the ancient but adapted to the current context: How do we live a good life? Mike: Word, well Ben Siegel, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast and taking the time to do the tedious work of debunking David fucking Duke. [both laugh] You can catch Ben on Twitter and Facebook at Anarcho-Judaism. Ben: Mike it has been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for having me. [Theme song]

god jesus christ halloween lord europe israel bible race religion christianity romans army lies jewish numbers greek world war ii exodus nazis jews engagement new years theology babylon egyptian deuteronomy hebrew exposed israelites new world iq judaism leviticus projections galilee granted torah persian hollow persia sinai scholars nazi germany george soros babylonians sanhedrin canaanites purim balaam vessels shabbat rothschild haman zionists talmud yiddish edom hebrew bible pesach recalling dama nazarene yhwh persians assyrian talmudic mishnah edomites david duke gemara kevin mcdonald ahasuerus ben gurion indicating gittin kiddushin claremont school babylonian talmud halakha bensounds mike it mike you westphalian mike no mike yeah mike well mike there ben siegel benas dilling ben you jewish talmud mike is mike go yis cal state university long beach ben mike mike right ben so ben well ben right

Issue 08: Marvel's Christian Comics (Part 2)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2021 58:00

Picking up where we last left off, it's time to learn about Marvel's second attempt at comics for Christian audiences. Highlights include comic adaptations of "classic" Christian stories and the creation of an evangelical superhero, but the results were decidedly less impressive than the "Saint Series" from the early 80s. ----more---- Episode 8 Transcription [00:00:00] Jessika: Good, I can see, perfect. No sneaking up on me, Jesus. Mike: Welcome to Ten Cent Takes, the podcast where we partake in comics' forbidden fruit, one issue at a time. My name is Mike Thompson and I'm joined by my cohost, the muffin of mayhem herself, Jessika Frazer. Jessika: Hello. Mike: How's it going? Jessika: Oh, pretty good. Even better, now that you're calling me a muffin. I love it. Mike: I mean, it was either that or the scone of scorn and I liked muffin of mayhem better. Jessika: Oh, either way. I mean, it's very close. I do have a cupcake on my shoulder as you know. Mike: Yes. [00:01:00] Well, as always, the purpose of this podcast is to perform deep dives on comic books in ways that are both fun and informative. We want to look at their coolest, weirdest and silliest moments, as well as examine how they're woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today, we're picking up where we left off with our last episode and concluding our look at Marvel's short-lived run of Christian comics. Are you ready? Jessika: Yeehaw. Mike: Well, I'm going to give you a quick break before we actually get into that. What is one cool thing that you have read or watched since we last recorded? Jessika: I started reading the Princeless series by Jeremy Whitley. Mike: Nice. Jessika: Yeah. The art for the first book was by M Goodwin, but there are other artists involved, including Emily Martin, who is local to our area, which is super neat. Mike: Yeah. I met her at Luma [00:02:00] Con a couple of years ago. Jessika: Oh, that's rad as heck. Nice, nice. So, the story follows a princess, Adrienne, who from a young age, is not at all on board with the conventional helpless role she's expected to take as a princess, and is not happy about being locked in a tower alone. So she decides that she doesn't need to continue this path that has been chosen for her and escapes to help others. She's also a person of color and her hair care routines and style reflect that, which is wonderful. And I'm only one issue into the first book, but I'm so excited to see what destiny Adrienne writes for herself. Mike: I think I read the first volume a couple of years ago and I really enjoyed it. It was a really fresh feeling story. Jessika: That's how I felt about it, it was very refreshing. Well, what about [00:03:00] you? Whatcha been reading? Mike: So, one of the series that I have on my pull list at Brian's comics up in Petaluma is We Only Find Them When They're Dead from Boom. It's about six issues. And now it's this really cool sci-fi fantasy sort of series by Al Ewing who has really gotten big while he's been writing the Immortal Hulk, which I also highly recommend because that takes the incredible Hulk storyline and turns it into pretty much a horror story. Jessika: Oh, cool. Mike: It's really neat. And it's really unnerving and, he's been writing it for over 30 issues now, I think, but it's really solid. And the whole idea is that the Hulk is effectively an immortal being and he can't die. But how that comes into play is genuinely terrifying at times. But Al Ewing did this new series called We Only Find Them When They're Dead. The series is just incredible. And it's set in this weird dystopian future where [00:04:00] the bodies of these giant space gods, for lack of a better term appear out of nowhere. And then humanity is so stretched thin for resources that, that what they've started doing is they have these spaceships that will harvest the bodies for parts. And nobody knows where these gods come from until the crew of one of these harvesting ships decides to solve the mystery. It's this really tight kind of small scale story so far, but it's set against this really insane, massive cosmic backdrop. And it's also very queer, so, I think you would probably enjoy it more so than usual. Jessika: Very nice. Very nice. Mike: All right. Let's turn back to Marvel's Christian Comics. Would you be so kind as to give us a quick recap of where we left off after the last episode? Jessika: Sure. Last week we went [00:05:00] through the first years of the Marvel Catholic comics, how it got its start printing religious material, cue the power of asking that we keep discussing on this show, and who was involved in making these particular Comics. Our focal comics were the Saint series, comprised of the stories of St. Francis in Francis Brother of the Universe, Pope John Paul. I can't not do it that way. Mike: It's so good. Jessika: Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa. Oh man. Do we want to take a quick second and talk about the recent news? It was so timely about Mother Teresa. You wanna? You want to talk a little bit about that, Mike? I just had to talk about it. It was so freaking timely. Mike: Oh, absolutely. I think this happened a day or two after we recorded the article. So over the past couple of days there's been a number of stories that have come out, basically highlighting that [00:06:00] Mother Teresa was running a cult and I think the headline that I sent you was, “Are there still people who didn't know Mother Teresa was running an alleged cult?” And. Jessika: Cue. Mike: I think. Jessika: Cue me raising my hand. Mike: Yeah, I think this was a day or two after, after you and I had recorded and it just felt ridiculously timely. It was really funny. Jessika: Oh, serendipitous. Mike: No, she was not a good person by the increasingly numerous accounts that I've been seeing. She was quote unquote good by a very narrow definition that unfortunately it was kind of like what the media presented her as back then in the eighties. And since then, I mean, if she was operating today, there's no way that she would have received the Nobel Peace Prize. But. Jessika: Oh, no, absolutely not. Mike: But you know, we're talking, she received that 40 years [00:07:00] ago, so. Jessika: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Oh gosh. Well, back to what we were talking about last week. After the St. series, after all of that wrapped up, Marvel seemed to decide to walk away from religious content after these winning Comics, we did however, land on a bit of a cliffhanger because Mike, you teased that they took another swing at religious comics in 1992. Mike: That is correct. So, to set the stage, the late eighties and early nineties were a massive boom for the comic book market. There was this huge speculation bubble that was going on, and as a result, Marvel and DC and other imprints were just seeing an unprecedented amount of success. On average, a lot of major books were seeing over a million issues in circulation, which, even today, they don't see. I think in 1991, X-Men number one, the new series that was [00:08:00] drawn by Jim Lee and written by Chris Claremont had something like 12 million issues move for the. Jessika: Oh. Mike: For - yeah. It's bonkers. And then shortly thereafter, the rug basically got pulled out from under Marvel's feet. So the early nineties really went from being awesome to really rough in almost no time flat. And that was because the company's top artists were freelancers and they weren't happy with Marvel's compensation plan. So they left and they founded Image Comics back in early '92. And that was essentially the top artists from really well-performing comics, like X-Men, Spiderman, Guardians of the Galaxy, and X-Force just to name a few, became Marvel's competition overnight. And DC was having some major commercial successes at the same time with events like the death of Superman, and Batman Knightfall, which is when he got his back broken. [00:09:00] So Marvel was suddenly scrambling to keep their share of the market in that light Christian book, publisher, Thomas Nelson, reaching out to former commercial partnership must have seemed like a, uh, well, for lack of a better term, a godsend. And up until that point, Evangelical Christian audiences were a largely untapped demographic outside of their specialty markets. Now that said, I haven't been able to find any old press releases from when this deal was announced. It honestly seems like both. Marvel and Thomas Nelson, would just like to have everyone forget about this whole venture since neither company mentions the partnerships on their sites. I can't even find them on archive or anything like that. Jessika: Oh, wow. Mike: That said - Yeah. It's, it's like buried pretty deep, but that said, I did find an article from Christianity Today, of all places, that fills in some of the details. So, it's kind of a long-winded meandering puff [00:10:00] piece, but there are a couple of relevant details. Would you do me a favor and read the first bit explaining why this deal came to be? Jessika: Sure. Some Thomas Nelson staff, whose young children were drawn to comics noticed there was little available from a Christian viewpoint. Realizing they did not have the resources in house, the publisher struck a deal with Marvel comics to produce a series of comics under Nelson's editorial direction. Using Marvel artists and writers that resulting comics would be marketed in Christian markets by Thomas Nelson and in comic bookstores by Marvel. Mike: Yeah, so, honestly, it sounds more like Thomas Nelson hired Marvel rather than the two were in a legit partnership. Thomas Nelson was even setting the price point for the books, which wasn't cheap. For reference the average Marvel comic cost $1.25 in 1993. The least expensive [00:11:00] Nelson comic, for its single issue Life Christ books, that we'll talk about a little bit, and each of those was going for $2.99, a pop. So that's almost $6 in today's money. Illuminator, which we're really going to talk about for a bit, was going for $4.99 a book, which means Thomas Nelson was expecting kids to shell out the equivalent of $10 bucks per issue for a comic with like zero name recognition. Jessika: Right. Mike: Yeah, and that's actually called out in the same article. Like Christianity today couldn't even give them a complete puff piece, they actually called out how maybe Thomas Nelson was a little bit high on their own fumes. If you'd be so kind to read that section as well. Jessika: The primary difficulty in selling the Illuminator to the secular comic book market is not the subject matter, but the price. As a book publisher, Thomas Nelson wants the comics to look as high quality and [00:12:00] book-like as possible. They have more pages than standard comics, carrying no advertising, and are printed using higher quality paper and ink than standard comics. Thomas Nelson likes to call them illustrated novels, a variation of the comic industry term graphic novel. Because of this, the 48-page Illuminator sells for $4.99. As one comic store owner put it, “that's a pretty stiff price for a comic with no well-known characters, artists or writers”. Yikes. Mike: When you can't even get to pull its punches for an article like this, that kinda says a lot. I feel, yeah, so I don't know what kind of marketing was done, but I haven't been able to find any ads for the Nelson comics in any of my Marvel issues from 1992 to 94, nor have I been able to track down [00:13:00] anything on the web. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it certainly seems like the partnership got rolling and then nobody really wanted to draw the attention to the end results. Which, based on what we've seen of the end result of the product, uh, maybe, maybe that's kind of understandable. Jessika: Big sigh. Mike: Yeah, that said, I do have the Illuminator comics in my collection and they are definitely higher quality in terms of production. Like, you know, the colors still pop they're definitely thicker. But, if I had seen this in the comic store, I would have blown right past it when I was kid. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: So speaking of Illuminator, do you want to give us an elevator pitch for that comic? Jessika: Oh my, well, if you insist. I mean, other than calling it a hot mess? Mike: Other than calling it a hot mess. Jessika: Okay. So this high school-aged [00:14:00] kid named Andy Prentiss goes to summer camp, is bullied a lot, and gets tricked into going into the forest in the middle of the night where he is abducted? Mike: It's pretty vague. Jessika: By a beam of light? Yeah. Mike: It's super vague. Like, they don't ever actually, we'll get into that. Okay. Jessika: It's very strange. And he, he somehow becomes the light? And has powers for no explicable reason? I know there are a lot of question marks behind my, my sentences, because that's how it feels. He gets semi-brainwashed by a local reverend and convinced that his powers are from God himself. Mike: Was he actually a reverend was, I thought that dude was just like a… Jessika: I don't know. Or maybe he was just a janitor. I don't know what he was. Mike: It's never really explained. Like. Jessika: I'm giving him a lot of credit. Mike: Yeah. Sorry. I derailed it. Jessika: That's okay. Well, he [00:15:00] convinced him that his power, whoever this dude was who worked at this church. He was always sweeping, he was probably a janitor you're right. Convince him that his powers are from God himself and that he is acting because God directed him to. But like slippery slope my dude. Thus, the Illuminator was created after that all of the villains are supposed to represent really obvious, evil being demon-like creatures, trying, and being mostly successful at tempting the public into acting sinfully. There isn't a great explanation as to why any of this happened, like we said, or is being aimed at Prentiss himself, who didn't seem to be very religious in the first place when this thing started? Mike: No, he was just kind of like an earnest, sort of naive teenager. Jessika: Yeah. But I'll tell you what there is, there is a healthy amount of [00:16:00] slut-shaming. So that's certainly exciting for me because, you know, I hate that bullshit. So. Mike: Yeah. It's definitely uncomfortable to read. Also, I wanna note that his superhero design for the Illuminator persona feels like a rip off of Long Shot, who was this popular character in the eighties who palled around with the X-Men for awhile. Like, here's what he looked like. Take a look, tell me what you think. Jessika: Oh, he even has the little star. Okay. This does look really similar to the other comic we read. He's wearing like a black kind of jumpsuit, but it could, it really could be a motorcycle jacket and pants. He's got boots on. He has a little bullet necklace or a bullet sash? Mike: I believe the term is a bandolier. Jessika: A bandolier, thank you. He has a bandolier, I'm cutting all of that bullshit out. He has a bandolier [00:17:00] and he's throwing, like, I don't know, a little, are those knives? Mike: Knives. Jessika: Oh, okay. Mike: He, like that's Long Shot's thing, is that his power is he's super lucky. He has slightly enhanced strength and hollow bones, which makes him a better acrobat. Jessika: Got it. Mike: And then his weapon of choice is he throws knives that basically he just can hit anything with. Jessika: The problem is they kind of look like sharp popsicles. Mike: Kind of yeah. Jessika: So. Mike: But yeah, I mean like Long Shot is one of my favorite characters. Jessika: Nice. Mike: And I was reading this book again and I was just going, oh my God, they added a helmet and then kind of removed the bandolier and added some extra padding and called it a day. He's even got the mullet. It's just a different color. Andy's a dirty blonde and. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: And Long Shot is platinum. Jessika: It's like three shades off, real close. Mike: So you gave a pretty solid summary of the comic itself. I gotta say [00:18:00] the comic series felt very unfocused. It doesn't feel like it really conveys much of a Christian message. Andy's powers are so vaguely delivered, as you called out, and there's no real specific link to Jesus or Christianity at that point. He only becomes the Christian super hero when he retreats into a church to escape, apparently a demonic opponent? Bu, the only reason that we know that he's demonic is because he doesn't want to go in the church. And then he gets a pep talk from this one-armed wise man who lives there, apparently. I feel like he still approached things in a very standard superhero way: punch first ask questions later. Did you notice that there was no trying to solve problems in a way that would result in anything other than a fist fight with powers? Jessika: Oh, no, it was just like, oh, there's a problem, I need to go beat someone up. That was absolutely the vibe. Mike: Yeah, I was genuinely surprised by that. I would have expected a little [00:19:00] more Jesus-inspired approaches such as turning the other cheek, or lifting people up who are suffering, things like that. But no, it was just a superhero fights with people or things that were designated as evil from an evangelical point of view. And I mean, we should talk about that. Like, each of the comics comes across a super victim-blamey. Like, there's that party where Nightfire, the first demonic entity, shows up and starts draining victims, and it shows they're all drinking or doing drugs or being slutty. Jessika: Yeah. They're at a party and there are girls on guys' laps and apparently, that's not good. Mike: Apparently, but then they all become Nightfire's sort of undead army. So it's that implication that sinful behavior leads to damnation later on. Um. Jessika: Okay. Mike: And then [00:20:00] in the second issue, the story paints college campuses out as godless places, full of temptation and being devoid of morality. So, they're susceptible to this mad scientist, who's splicing together weird animal human hybrids, which, I mean, that felt like something that was written by someone who has never actually been on a college campus. Jessika: Yes. Mike: And then the third issue was absolutely trying to link Satanism and Wiccan beliefs. I'm not crazy, right? Like that actually, that's how it felt. Like, Satanism and crystals, that they're just hand in hand. Jessika: Yeah, it was super gross. Mike: Yeah, it was really bad. I mean, the book only had three issues or illustrated novels or whatever they want to call it before it was canceled. So, I personally think that the probable lack of marketing that we discussed really hurt it, but it also seems like there were some production problems that caused it to be [00:21:00] delayed because the third volume has a cover date of August, 1993, but it turns out it didn't actually hit the shelves until February of 1994. I could not find sales figures for the months that the first two volumes came out, but the third issue doesn't even crack the top 100 issues being sold in the market when it actually hit the shelves. You brought up the slut-shamey aspect to it. And in the end of the third issue, it really felt uncomfortable where Andy was, these days it would be incel kind of logic, where he's really mad that the girl he saved didn't go to him. Jessika: That is so how it felt. I was just like pointing at you viciously right now, like, really aggressively. Mike: Yeah. When you were doing that, I was like, what did I do wrong? Jessika: Ya know that's exactly how it felt. It felt like he's like, well, I saved her and I'm the better guy. So she should just be with me. Mike: Yeah. And then. Jessika: He just expected it. It was gross. Mike: And then they kind of have a teaching moment where they're like, well, you know, that's not always how it works, [00:22:00] blah, blah, blah. And then she shows up to be another disciple of Christ or whatever, and blah. Jessika: Yeah. She's like, I broke up with that other guy. Mike: Oh yeah. That. Jessika: She's wearing a knee length skirt and like. Mike: Yeah. And before that she'd been wearing kind of form-fitting jeans and tank tops and. Well, the other guy, I can't even remember his name, but he was at the party. That's the only time we saw him. And he was basically trying to make it okay that everyone was drinking. So, you know. Jessika: Yeah. And then he was in the mall scene and he was like, trying to convince her like something stupid, something else stupid. Mike: Yeah. That was after they got returned to their bodies. That's right. I, I actually thought that she was the mom of one of the other characters originally because she had such a mom haircut and it was like, oh, it's kind of the sexy mom. And then oops. It was, the ages of those characters was very [00:23:00] ill-defined. Jessika: Agreed. Mike: And then, like I said, like this was clearly written by someone who had not experienced really anything of the real world, it felt. Nightfire is a drug dealer who just hangs out outside of high schools and tries to randomly sell drugs to kids? Like, my dude. Do you not understand how drug dealing works? Jessika: That's not how that works. Yeah. Your kids don't have enough money for drug dealers to be interested in them. And they're definitely not giving your kids free drugs. Like I know I say that a lot, but it's because I believe it a lot. They're not just going to get rid of their revenue. Mike: It was the same thing with that college campus, with the mad scientist professor who was, he was in a wheelchair for no really defined reason, he just was. And then apparently he's just creating an army of [00:24:00] man-animal hybrids. Which, again, I was sitting there and I'm like, man, I took biology classes in college and they were never this cool, like, are you creating an army of mutant supermen at your college? Yeah, sign me up. I'll pay that tuition. I'll take out a loan. Jessika: Well, and it was happening in this way that wasn't really logical, to where they were kind of meshing into this larger, like alligator with massive arms and walks around like a human, but then I don't know. It was strange. He was making them come apart with his, God-light. Like they could become two separate things. Again, it wasn't like he was chopping things up and sticking them back together or making a new creature. I don't really understand how this was supposed to be happening, from a scientific aspect. Mike: His powers were really, ill-defined like he, he could fly and he could shoot light. And then I guess, theoretically add super strength, but. Yeah, that whole, like God-light separating the things out, but then it turned out it killed them because they'd been bonded too long to get, I don't know, whatever [00:25:00] it was, it was fucking dumb. Yeah. So that was the thing was Trisha goes to a crystal store where it's apparently a front for a demon cult. And again, I'm like, I don't know, man, if I went to a crystal store and they told me that I could traffic with demons, I'd be much more likely to buy one of their ridiculously expensive geodes. Because I've been taken on a date to a crystal shop, because I was sick and my date wanted to buy me a healing crystal and I was. Oh, God, Jessika: That's, that is very sweet. Mike: I did not respond well to this. Jessika: I'm sure you did not. Mike: Which. I'm sure does not surprise you, but. Jessika: No. Mike: I'm just saying if he'd instead offered to induct me into a cult where they hung out with demons, I might've actually gone out for a second date with him. Hmm. [00:26:00] Do you have any more thoughts on Illuminator before we move on to our next entry? Jessika: I mean, I didn't care for this comic. Other than the first one that was establishing his origin story, it felt like the same story in each of the three issues. It was some demon character sucking the life out of people that were making bad choices. It was literally the same story each time, not even well masked. Mike: Yeah, exactly. Jessika: And, it was hard to follow and it was hard to figure out the incredibly vague, read not there, ties to Christianity that this character and his actions and powers were supposed to have, like we were talking about. It felt like a stretch at best. Mike: Yeah. They were just trying to shoehorn it in at the end where he would go talk to, the guy's name was George, I think, where he would go and talk to his mentor at the church. It felt like a very kind of vague, well, if you look at it this way, this could be your lesson from Jesus. [00:27:00] Jessika: Yeah, exactly. And you were bringing up another point that I also didn't like, they were just making fun of other religions, for example, naming someone Chakra, and mocking other spiritual practices with crystals, it was really disrespectful and in poor taste. Mike: Which, I mean, I can't say I'm really surprised given how evangelical culture typically goes these days. Jessika: Christianity, isn't the only religion and I'm tired of mainstream society being okay with Jesus-washing everything, and then being offended when any other religion is given any space. It's deplorable. Mike: Yeah. And then also, these stories just felt very lazy and dumb. The big one that I keep on thinking about is, again, that second issue where he's at a college campus and there's the mad scientist and it's revealed the mad scientist kidnapped a football player, like the star football player from the university's team, and then [00:28:00] turned him into, I think, the alligator hybrid that we were talking about. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: I was sitting there going my dude. You're mad that they pulled your funding. What do you think they're going to do to you when you remove their giant cash cow of college football from the campus? Jessika: Yeah, exactly. And like, do you not know the cardinal rule of picking people who don't have people looking for them? Mike: Right? Jessika: But, like, I'm not planning on doing anything bad and even I know that. Yeah. So, yeah. And other than just the audacity that Andy has making assumptions that he and Trisha are gonna get together based on the fact that he saves her from what he perceives as a bad situation. Mike: He's a nice guy. He is that proverbial nice guy trope. Jessika: Hint to everyone out there: Don't you ever slide into my DMS and say you're a nice guy, because you will be [00:29:00] blocked so quickly. Mike: On that note, what do you say? We move on to the next books in our discussion. Jessika: Let's mosey. Mike: So, I mentioned the Life of Christ comics that were single issues. These are the two issues that were put out to retail; the Christmas and Easter stories. They were both written by Louise Simonson and illustrated by Mary Wilshire, as well as Eisner award winner Coleen Doran, she apparently helped with the Easter issue. Simonson is a major name in comics alongside her husband, Walt. She co-created the character, Cable, from the X-Men; she helped launch the long running series, Superman, the Man of Steel; and she was one of the major stakeholders in the death of Superman storyline. And she also helped out, if I remember right, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that she was a major [00:30:00] part of Walt Simonson's really acclaimed run on Thor, to the point where both of them appear in cameos in the original Thor movie. Like I think, I think they're both featured at the end when they're celebrating at the hall of heroes, or whatever it is. But it was a nice little nod because they created a lot of stuff like Thor: Frog of Thunder, and, Beta Ray bill, if I remember right. Likewise, Mary Wilshire did a ton of stuff for Marvel in the eighties and nineties. She was best known for her work on Red Sonja and Firestar. And then Colleen Doran, goddamn, she's this incredible illustrator who's worked on a ton of properties. I always associate her with Neil Gaiman's Sandman. So. Jessika: I just started reading that. Mike: Yeah, like all three of these women are Legit Big Deals, like capital letters at the start of each of those words. And that's why it's so weird to see their names in these issues. I can't believe how bland and [00:31:00] boring everything about them felt. Like, is that mean? Am I going out of line? Jessika: No. No. I'm surprised to hear about the acclaim that these illustrators have, because it felt very elementary. Am I supposed to have received this as a coloring book? Mike: Yeah, it's really flat, like, okay. So for comparison, here is a painting that Colleen Duran did for Sandman. Check it out. Jessika: Oh, wow. This is cool. Mike: Right? Jessika: Wow. Okay. There's a lot going on. So I'll just describe this really quick. There's a ton going on. So at the very top, there's a Swan couple swans, a swan and a, some sort of a harp, maybe a harpsichord thing. And you've got some planets and moons and a dude gargling some blood, it looks like. Mike: I [00:32:00] think that's supposed to be Orpheus. Cause he, if I remember right, he was Dream's son and then Orpheus is eventually ripped apart by the Bach the Bachinal. I dunno, whatever there. Jessika: And then there is a legit goth lady who has this amazing, I'm not too far into it, obviously, as you can tell. Mike: Right. So that is death. That is Dreams sister. I mean, Jessika: That's great. Mike: Yeah. If, if you're not too familiar with it, I don't want to spoil all the elements for this, but this painting features a ton of major characters from throughout the Sandman series, which she provided a lot of illustration for. And it's a beautiful piece of work. Jessika: It's a feast for the eyes, honestly. I mean, there's so many different elements, I mean, part of it looks like it's supposed to look like stained glass and other parts of it, don't look that same way. It's very interesting. Mike: Yeah. So it's very [00:33:00] much not what we got. Likewise, I want you to look at some of Mary Wiltshire's art, here. Jessika: Oh, wow. See, that's fun. Mike: Right? Jessika: Red Sonia. See, I want to read some Red Sonia. Mike: Yeah. The 80's series is fun. I think Marvel might have the rights back, because it's part of the Conan properties. Oh no, wait, I think Dynamite has Red Sonia. I don't know. You can probably find some books on Hoopla if nothing else. Jessika: This is great. I mean, the color vibe is great. There's all this shading, which there really wasn't in that other one at all. Mike: Yeah, I noticed that, too. It was just flat color, other than they used some crosshatching within the illustration, but that was kind of all they did, except for Jesus's hair. That was such a, like, it was a choice, I guess, they just, the only thing that had any sort of shading was, like, Jesus's hair looked like it was a tie dye masterpiece, so, [00:34:00] oh, wow. Mike: Both of these books feel very, for lack of a better term, very paint by numbers. Jessika: Yes, very much. So. Mike: I mean, we've all heard these stories before, too. There wasn't really anything new. The most exciting artwork for both of these books was on the cover. And, the one weird thing that really stood out to me, was that the Easter book felt kind of anti-Semitic, I don't know if I was just reading a little too much into that. Jessika: No, you you're. I've I read that too. Yes. Mike: I feel like there was an abnormal focus on making Pontius Pilate into not being the bad guy. And instead of keeping the blame on the Jewish elders, it felt very weird and very gross. Jessika: It did. Mike: And it's, I know that is an argument that is somewhat popular with certain extreme right-wing sectors of evangelical Christianity, too, is that the Jews killed Jesus, [00:35:00] which, I don't know how to respond to that. Like it, it just, just. Jessika: It felt very much like they were saying, yes, we know the Romans did it, but it's your fault, Jews. And it's like, what? No, no, no, no. Mike: Yeah. It was very uncomfortable to read. Jessika: Absolutely. Yeah. I agree. A hundred percent. The other thing that bothered me from the birth issue was the angels. Like, I've read what angels are supposed to look like. If it's not some beautiful human woman with wings floating down gracefully from the clouds. It is a terrifying multi-eyed creature that shows up in some really jarring way. The whole situation seemed way too peaceful for what I've read from the actual Bible. Like, I have read the Bible in its entirety. I was bored at [00:36:00] 13, don't ask, but yeah. So, but that's not the vibe. Like, people are always really terrified when angels come down and there is a reason. Mike: Yeah. And that's something that I remember is that when I was growing up, you know, I was presented with the very, kind of Renaissance style angels. And so I never understood when I was reading as a kid or having the stories read to me, why are people scared of the angels? Because you know, they're just glowing people with wings. And then later on it was, oh, oh, they're fucking monsters. They are, they are straight out of HP Lovecraft. Okay. I get it now. Jessika: Yeah. Because technically the humans are supposed to be the ones that are like, what? In God's image. There's nothing about angels being so. Mike: Nope. We're the, we're the mud people. Jessika: Yes. Mike: Well, moving on from that, aside from those aforementioned single issues, Nelson Comics published, [00:37:00] what was dubbed the Christian Classic Series, which are comic adaptations of kind of big name Christian literature. I was able to track down digital copies of the Pilgrim's Progress and In His Steps; What Would Jesus Do? Let's talk about that one first. I had actually heard of iIn His Steps before this, because it took that titular phrase and it kind of brought it into the popular culture. It was originally written in the late 19th century. It's basically about a reverend who is moved to challenge his congregation to use the question when making life decisions. It's a dry book and the comic was super dry as well. It just, it felt like a lot of expository dialogue set in late 19th century settings with a bunch of very prim and proper white people who, for the most part feel pretty monied and pretty privileged. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: There's occasionally some sort of [00:38:00] over-the-top situations where our Christian heroes are facing persecution, but it's like, it's made up persecution. It's that idea where Christians are like, we're the victims, people don't like us. And I think maybe because you're assholes, I don't know how to respond to that otherwise. Jessika: Yeah. Maybe it's not about your religion. Maybe it's just you. Mike: Yeah. If everyone's telling you you're an asshole, maybe it's not anything else, maybe it's just you. I agree. But yeah, it's just, it's a boring slog and it took me way longer than it should've to get through this. Jessika: They were awful. I'm not gonna lie. I read them, but I skimmed them because I couldn't sit there and like, let that infest my brain. Mike: No. There's also a sequel novel that they didn't adapt. Jessika: No. Mike: But basically, I think if I remember right, the sequel novel has Jesus actually showing up, like, it's like the second coming of Jesus. If I remember right. I Jessika: Man, they already got so close to that in this one, because they had that one [00:39:00] dude show up who is a scraggly stranger. And then the reverend has a dream that Jesus is actually lying in the bed and he's like, oh my God, it was Jesus all along. Mike: Yeah. Oh God, that was. Jessika: So heavy handed. Smacked me across the face with that message. Jeez. Mike: Oh, and what is it? The tramp has a daughter who the reverend and his wife take in to raise as their own. Jessika: Oh yeah. Mike: On what planet…? Jessika: Because apparently. Mike: Ugh. Jessika: No, it's awful. No, we all know that Christians don't care about the children once they're born. Mike: We, there are so many signs around my town, at least in our area because we live right near a Catholic church where it's the pregnancy crisis centers. And I keep on, resisting the urge to go spray, paint them or something, they're so gross. Jessika: Oh, we have the ones up that have a picture of a baby that say my eyes are formed after blah, [00:40:00] blah, blah days or whatever. Mike: Gross. Jessika: Yeah, I know they're awful. And every once in a while they do get spray painted. Mike: Good. Jessika: Obviously I have nothing to do with that, but I walk past and I go, okay. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Mike: Side tangent, completely unrelated to comics, but there was a Reddit post within the last year, I think, from some guy who was really upset about how his girlfriend would go and deface, the local pro-life billboards that would go up near their house. She would add things like citation needed for some of the claims, or just cross them out, or whatever. And he was saying, would I be justified in breaking up with her? Because I feel like, she's putting herself at legal risk doing all this. And literally every response was yo dude, you should break up with her and then give her my number because she sounds fucking rad. Jessika: Seriously. Oh my gosh. That's great. Mike: Anyway. Jessika: Hero of heroes. Mike: Yeah, the hero we need. [00:41:00] So, turning to the Pilgrim's Progress. This is a Christian allegory novel from the 1600's that's extremely surreal. I'd actually never heard of this book before now, and I had to do some basic research just to see how close they mirrored the plot. And I'm really bummed that actually, the comic is a pretty faithful adaptation of the source material. Which means there is a giant prose novel that is just this dumb and insane, but without at least the somewhat arresting visuals that we got. Jessika: It's basically Pinocchio. Mike: Yeah, I mean, it's not far off, except there's a second act where the dude's sinful family follows him, which. Jessika: Oh my God. They just kind of get abducted into the nether though. They don't do anything. [00:42:00] He's the one that does everything and then they're suddenly just there. Mike: Before we get into this discussion. It's about a protagonist named Christian, on his pilgrimage across this metaphorical landscape, where he confronts temptation and he learns, I don't know, moral lessons, I guess. I wasn't entirely certain about a lot of those, but whatever. And then after he makes it to heaven, his wife and kids follow him, because he couldn't convince them to come with him originally. This was written in the late 1600's, originally it is updated and adapted to what's supposed to be modern day, New York. And there's a lot of like really thinly veiled criticism being leveled at environmentalists for some reason, which I did not understand. Jessika: It was really strange. I don't know where that came from. I read that, too. Mike: Yeah. And then in the novel, after he makes it to heaven, confronting all these challenges, [00:43:00] his wife and his kids follow him. And then they have a sort of angelic guardian, who helps protect them along the way, who she shows up in the comic book, it's whatever, the kids, and this was actually kind of a weird diversion from the novel in the novel. The kids become adults throughout the journey, cause it's a long journey and they get married and they have families of their own. And so at the very end, they don't go with the wife, but they stay behind. And, basically they're living Christian lifestyles. And in the comic book for some reason, and it's not really explained well, they're left behind with their aunt who was also on the journey with them. And then the mom was just like, okay, bye. I'm going to go off to heaven now with your dad. Jessika: Yeah, he just like sticky handed her up there or something, like you earn the right to snatch your wife from earth. Maybe that was the rapture. Mike: Yeah, maybe. Well, and then at the very end, his friend, who was like, oh no, [00:44:00] you know, we're, we're doing our part. We're recycling and taking care of the planet. He's denied access to heaven by St. Peter for some reason, that's not really explained. Jessika: Which was so strange. Like, yeah, please, don't recycle friends. What, what a strange takeaway from this whole thing. Mike: It just, it feels kind of like this religious acid trip with occasional detours into misogyny and racism. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jessika: Not at all. Very, very same page as you. Mike: The one piece of praise that I can offer these books is that they definitely have the best art of the Nelson comics line. Jessika: It was decent. Yeah. So I found for both of these comics, both In His Steps and the Pilgrim's Progress, unsurprisingly, they keep replaying the same messages that have been consistent with these comics: be faithful against these huge temptations that are supposed to bombard you every day. I would expect there to be women and men of loose morals [00:45:00] falling at my feet to tempt me constantly is all I'm saying, like, let's make it happen. Disappointment. Mike: I'm, I always see these things talking about like women have loose morals or, or ill-repute, I clearly was not hanging out in the right neighborhoods. Jessika: That's what I'm saying. Mike: Yeah. Bums me out, man. Jessika: There's always some messages about staying on the path of God, which is always very vague and sometimes literally a path, which come on. And Beelzebub constantly shows up, because the only real villains are the devil and your inability to resist temptation, apparently. Once again, though, didn't see any queer people, which is fine because the Bible really doesn't say anything about them anyway. And I guess God didn't really start hating us in mainstream media until later on then. Huh? Mike: Man, I don't know. I mean, [00:46:00] like, there's that whole thing about Sodom and Gomorrah, and how we're all sodomized or whatever, but I don't know when, when it became really okay for Christian people to hate on the gays. Jessika: Yeah. I don't know. They need to step back. Oh, did I say that out loud? Mike: Yeah. Jessika: They're right behind me, aren't they? Mike: Not yet, at least. Jessika: And also, why is it such a theme that these main characters, low key become cult leaders every single time Mike: Right? Jessika: It's like, yikes, Catholicism, have some awareness about what a cult-vibe you give off, just like, generally. All in all, the religion is so forced in there that the plot lines of these stories rarely made any sense. It felt like the comics were a game of tug of war, trying unsuccessfully to write a cohesive storyline while still shoehorning in religion, which ultimately caused the comics to feel frenzied and disorganized. Mike: Yeah. On top of that, these are just [00:47:00] so dry. They're so dry. I get the Thomas Nelson was trying to adapt, quote unquote, major works of Christian literature. But, I can't think of anyone who really reads these books, let alone kids. I'm not really familiar with the whole Christian allegory genre of fiction, but there's gotta be better stuff out there than these books. I know the Thomas Nelson for this line, they also had CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters turned into a comic, I couldn't find it to read, but I'm kind of wondering why they didn't try adapting some of his other work, like the Lion, the Witch, the Wardrobe, you know, Aslan is very much a Jesus' allegory and - Jessika: Yeah. Mike: It just, it doesn't make a lot of sense not to do something with more name recognition. I mean, hell, Thomas Nelson has an entire collection of fictional books in their catalog. I just scoped out their website today, and I don't understand why they didn't do a comic adaptation of something from there. But, [00:48:00] don't know, I guess that probably would have required extra effort involving research and the author's permission. And it seems - Jessika: Oh no. Mike: Like no, I mean, that, honestly, that seems like more work than the publisher really was interested in committing to this whole endeavor. Jessika: Fair. Mike: You know, and unsurprisingly, the Nelson comics imprint wasn't long for this world. And it was abandoned by 1994, reportedly due to low sales. Between the quality and the apparent lack of marketing and also the high price points, I can't say I'm surprised. I did find it really funny when I was looking at their website, they have some limited edition of Dracula on their website and Shakespeare, and I'm like, those things are not Catholic friendly, or evangelical friendly. Are these edited, are these just like, did he just decide to do like limited edition reprints? I don't know. Jessika: That's interesting. Mike: Weirdly though, Thomas Nelson's recently gotten [00:49:00] back into comic books with Bible Force, which was a comic or a graphic novel that went on sale this year. Here, take a look at this cover, just check it out and tell me and me what you think. Jessika: Yeah, let's see. Oh, oh, wow. Mike: Right? Jessika: Okay. So, who's supposed to be the dude in the middle? Mike: I don't know. I don't Jessika: Okay. So there's like some dude, there's some dude in the middle, he's got a sword, and it's thrusting out towards the viewer. There's. What is it? Joseph and his Technicolor coat, I'm assuming that's what that was. Um, Mike: That's what it looks like. Jessika: Uh, it's what it looks like. It's a color, her coat there's there's Noah's Ark. There's definitely Jesus with arms outstretched. Although, of course, white Jesus, because why be historically accurate? All of these people are Caucasian. I might add in this entire comic, all of these people were Caucasian, except for a very few in the Jesus [00:50:00] episodes. And those were just people from far away, quote unquote, everyone else was very, very light-skinned. Mike: Also, if you're going to give us white Jesus, can you at least give a shirtless white Jesus? I want to see some washboard abs. Jessika: That's what I'm saying. Mike: Right? Jessika: That's what I'm saying. So yes, this is just, it's very exciting. Says, Bible Force, the First Heroes Bible. I think that's Probably. Mary as well on the front. It's a woman also Caucasian, and she's got a head scarf of some sort on, it's pink, which they absolutely had magenta back in Bible days. I am sure, absolutely feasible. I'm there. Believe it. Isaac Mizrahi's in there like designing, designing Mary's outfit. Oh honey, you're going to look great in this. Mike: He is all about the [00:51:00] timeless looks, isn't he? Jessika: Yes. Mike: So, I mean, that's the Nelson comics. Short-lived imprint. Do you have any final thoughts? Jessika: Well, can't say I'm surprised that these didn't continue on. I can't imagine that they were really keeping kids' attention, or giving them any type of cohesive and thoughtful messages. Mike: No. I mean, probably not. I don't think many comic retailers were carrying them either because this was right at the height of my teenage collecting years, and I don't remember seeing any of this stuff in any of the shops that I frequented. Jessika: Yeah, it was pretty much like here: look at the colors. Oh, and have some antisemitism, enjoy. Mike: And some casual misogyny. It's fine. Jessika: Yes. Yes, exactly. Mike: If you could sum up the titles from this imprint [00:52:00] in one word, what would you use? Jessika: Confused. Mike: I was going to go soulless, but that's also good. Jessika: Oh, yours is better. Mike: Now is the time of the show where we discuss our Brain Wrinkles, which is the one thing comics or comics-adjacent that has been just stuck in our head for the last couple of days that we just want to talk about. I guess we should talk about the recent Highlander casting news. Would you like to take that away? Jessika: Oh, oh certainly. Certainly. Oh my goodness. So, during our Highlander episode, Mike, you mentioned that there has been a Highlander reboot in the works since 2008 Mike: Yep. Jessika: And we were speculating on who would be good to cast. Well, there is a reboot in the works, but we were both incorrect about casting, and sorry about that, Chris Pine and Channing Tatum, because either of you [00:53:00] would have been most fabulous in this role, but it landed and it turned out to be Henry Cavill who will be our new next Highlander. And I'm sure he'll have a new name because that's kind of how we trend with the Highlander series, which is good. Mike: Yeah, they haven't announced the actual role that he's playing yet, but it's assumed that he's going to be the MacLeod who's the main character. Jessika: I would think so. Wouldn't it be interesting if he was like the Kurgan or something that would be really funny. Mike: Yeah. I think I mentioned this, supposedly Bautista is going to be the Kurgan, but that he'd signed on, I think back in 2015. So it's been six years since then? Jessika: Well, I have to say though, I'm not all that upset about this turn of events. What about you, Mike? Mike: No, not at all. I just tore through the Witcher series on Netflix last week, over the course of a couple of days while I was working, I had it on in the background. And it was really nice to see Cavill in a role that wasn't [00:54:00] Superman, which is, you know, I use the term, unfortunately, he is just so associated with that role right now. And, honestly, I like him as Superman, I just wish they gave him better scripts and movies to work with. Jessika: Yeah. And it's hard to feel typecast as well. You don't, you know, you don't want to be Daniel Radcliffe, you know, playing Harry Potter for 20 years and then not being able to do anything else, although he's done very well. So I, can't say that. Mike: I was going to say I actually really - Jessika: You know, not a good example, I suppose. Mike: I love the choices that the Daniel Radcliffe has made since Harry Potter, Jessika: Yeah, me too. Mike: He has chosen so many insane roles. It's great. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Um, yeah, no, like, you know, honestly, Cavill. First of all, I just, I really like Henry Cavill, like, he's given the interviews where he's talked about how playing Superman makes him want to be a better person, because he is portraying this character who is a role model for so many, especially the little kids. And that just [00:55:00] makes me really fond of the dude. Jessika: That's so sweet. Mike: He seems like another Chris Evans, and I'm, fine with that. That said, he is fucking grumpy in the Witcher, and it's really fun. He basically just has this very surly charisma throughout the entire show. And he's still jacked, but he's not as yoked as he is for the Superman rules. Like he doesn't look like a bodybuilder, he just looks like an incredibly fit dude, and I'm fine with that. Also, he does action scenes really well. The guy who's handling the reboot is Chad Stahelski, who did the John Wick movies. Dude knows his way around an action scene. And if you ever want to see an example of Henry Cavill in good action scenes, watch the Witcher or the Mission Impossible movie that he was in, where he literally does that thing where he reloads his arms and then puts up his Dukes. I can watch that scene on repeat for hours. It's great. Jessika: Nice. I'll have to watch that. I haven't seen the Witcher [00:56:00] yet. Mike: Yeah. It's fun. We'll talk about that later on, but it's good. I really liked it even coming into it without having any real familiarity with the games or the books that it's based on. Also, I got to say that Highlander heart group that we were in, some of those people were grumpy at the casting. Jessika: Yes. Some people were very grumpy. It was, it was a mixed bag. Some people were very excited and some people were very, very, very grumpy. Mike: And even - Jessika: Okay. Mike: To their credit, even the people who were unhappy, weren't toxic, like in some other groups we've seen. Jessika: Oh, correct. Yes. That was very refreshing, cause, you know. Mike: Yeah. the backstory to your listeners is that we have been a part of other Facebook groups that are just heinously toxic nerd culture groups. And we swipe left pretty quick when we're in there. Jessika: Yeah, I don't want to feel like I can't like things or I don't want somebody telling me the amount of a fan. I am the type of fan I am. Mike: Exactly. Jessika: Gatekeeping is awful. Don't do it. Mike: Yeah, don't be a jerk, [00:57:00] I have to say the news that has been coming out about the reboot for Highlander sounds pretty promising. So fingers crossed that it doesn't suck but, we'll see. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: I believe that's it for this episode, so we'll be back in two weeks, and until then, we'll see y'all in the stacks. Thanks for listening to Ten Cent Takes. Accessibility is important to us; text transcriptions of each of our published episodes can be found on our website. This episode was hosted by Jessika Frazer and Mike Thompson, written by Mike Thompson and edited by Jessika Frazer. Our intro theme was written and performed by Jared Emerson-Johnson of Bay Area Sound. Our credits and transition music is Pursuit of Life by Evan MacDonald and it was purchased with a standard license from PremiumBeat. Our banner graphics were designed by Sarah Frank, who goes by cut_thistles on Instagram. Jessika: If you'd [00:58:00] like to get in touch with us, ask us questions or tell us about how we got something wrong, please head over to tencenttakes.com or shoot an email to tencenttakes@gmail.com. You can also find us on Twitter, the official podcast account is @tencenttakes. Jessika is @jessikawitha, and Jessika is spelled with a K, and Mike is @vansau V A N S A U. Mike: Stay safe out there. Jessika: And support your local comic shop.

christmas god jesus christ new york netflix bible dreams christians marvel christianity dc romans universe jewish progress dead spider man harry potter witches jews superman catholic boom lion reddit pursuit shakespeare thunder comics picking renaissance thor xmen disappointment dracula dms guardians of the galaxy hulk john wick ark pilgrims witcher correct bach mission impossible accessibility catholicism conan bu cable sandman sodom swan dynamite wardrobe pinocchio chris evans man of steel neil gaiman chakra henry cavill nobel peace prize dukes semitic highlander cs lewis mother teresa channing tatum gomorrah satanism chris pine bautista christianity today pontius pilate hp lovecraft daniel radcliffe caucasians long shot oh god transcription image comics whatcha orpheus wiccans eisner macleod aslan technicolor bums evangelical christians x force jim lee jeez hoopla luma petaluma chris claremont screwtape letters cavill smacked red sonja chad stahelski immortal hulk simonson thomas nelson mike thompson al ewing what would jesus do prentiss firestar pope john paul walt simonson kurgan illuminator premiumbeat emily martin louise simonson jeremy whitley mike it batman knightfall nightfire princeless mike no in his steps mike yeah mike well colleen doran mike there we only find them when they're dead mike right mike for jared emerson johnson ten cent takes

Issue 07: Marvel's Christian Comics (Part 1 of 2)

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2021 46:12

Alright, everybody. Gather round. It's time we talked about how Marvel tried to get right with Jesus. Twice. ----more---- Episode 7 Transcription [00:00:00] Mike: is there anything more offensive than lazy comic books? Welcome to Tencent takes the podcast where we apologize for comic books ends one issue at a time. My name is Mike Thompson and I am joined as always by my co-host, the celebrated comedian, Jessika Frazer. Jessika: Hello. Hello. Mike: How are you doing? Jessika: Oh, I'm pretty good, wild week, but I mean, we have comics to go with. Mike: Comics make everything better. Jessika: It's true. Mike: If you're new to the show, the purpose of this podcast is to look at comics in ways that are both fun and informative. We want to look at their coolest, weirdest and silliest moments, as well as examine how they're [00:01:00] woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today, we’re venturing out of our fool's paradise and checking out how Marvel tried to get right with Jesus through not one, but two runs of Christian comics. Jessika: Gawd, you almost wished they had stopped. Mike: It’s a ride. Jessika: It's such a ride. Mike: Before we get started though, Jess, what is one cool thing that you've read or watched lately? Jessika: Well, I am very excited about what I'm about to share. And I was recently at my local comic shop and grabbed the first copy and started a subscription for the comic Alice in Leatherland by Iolanda Zanfardino and Elisa Romboli and published through Black Mask Entertainment. Mike: Oh, Black Mask is awesome. They're a smaller imprint, but they were super supportive of local shops when the lockdown happened. Jessika: Oh, that's lovely. I'm really glad I supported them then. Mike: Yeah. I, if I remember right, Brian’s, our [00:02:00] local shop in Petaluma, they did a deal where Brian's was talking about it, and basically they had, if you did a direct order from them, they would split the revenue 50, 50, as long as you provided the name of the local shop. Jessika: Oh, that's so nice. Mike: Yeah, they're rad. I really liked them a lot. Jessika: I already really liked this comic. I mean, I'm one issue in. Mike: Yeah. I haven't heard of it. Jessika: Oh, it's amazing. It's queer. You know, I love me some queer content. It's emotional. The animation style right now is monochromatic and detailed. So I'm interested to see if the color vibe continues that way, or if it goes in another direction, kind of, as the story continues. Mike: Okay. Jessika: The storyline seems like it's going to take us on a really fun sex and kink positive adventure, and I'm excited to see what the next issue brings us. Mike: That sounds really cool. Jessika: Yeah. What about you? Mike: Well, I have not been reading new comics, it’s kind of the opposite of [00:03:00] that. I finally got my old comic collection from my parents' house and I've been digging through it for the past couple of days. Jessika: Nice. Mike: Yeah, it's, it's a time capsule. And it's also, it's, it's a lot of fun to see what I was reading and also cringe a little bit, but also see that in some cases I had really good taste and that collection is appreciated better than some people's stock portfolios, I’m sure. So that was kind of cool to find the first appearance of Bain in the middle of the box. Jessika: Oh, that's cool. So you curated that collection, it wasn't like things that were kind of given to you or was it a combination? Mike: It was a little bit of both. But I mean, I started, I started really collecting comics when I was about nine or 10, and so it was, it was several long boxes. So, you know, the first appearance of He-Man was in there as well. And then, one of the things that I actively collected was a comic series called X, and it was from Dark Horse in the early 1990s. So. [00:04:00] Dark Horse was using this in a couple of other books to launch their shared superhero universe. And X was this really interesting take on a Batman kind of figure. He was this character who would mark criminals with an X. If you crossed him, you'd receive a slash across your face as a warning, or you'd be marked for death with a full X. So. Jessika: Damn. Mike: Yeah. A large part part of the character is the mystery around him and his abilities and the writers weren't afraid to let it stay a mystery for the most part. It's very much one of those, you know, grim and gritty nineties books, but it's also pretty good on the reread. It doesn't quite age as well as, as I would hope it would. But for the most part, it's really fun. Jessika: That's great. It's always nice. When things meet your expectations, most of the way. Mike: Most of the way. Jessika: On the reread. Mike: I'm not embarrassed to like 80% of what came across. Jessika: I dig that. [00:05:00] Mike: Well, after our last episode, I found myself thinking of weird Christian comics that I've come across and I realized I actually have some in my collection. So I started digging, and then I wound up digging some more, and it turns out Marvel had two different runs of very different comics for Christian audiences. And this is a first for us, we’re going to do this as a two-part episode. So we're going to talk about the first run tonight, but we're also going to talk around some of the background with Marvel and religion. Jessika: I'm so excited for this. You have no idea. I've been thinking about it all week as I've been reading these again, bananagrams comics, but like bananagrams in a totally different way than the last ones we read. Mike: It's a very mixed bag this time around. Jessika: Ooh, scary mixed. Mike: Yeah, Marvel and the Bible never really had a strong relationship, although ,they've done some flirtation every now and then. Back [00:06:00] in 1953 Atlas, which is the publisher that would become Marvel eventually, they had a short-lived series called Bible Tales for Young Folk, which adapted iconic stories from the Bible for younger readers, but it only ran for five issues. So I'm gonna put that in a little bit of perspective: comics circulation in the 1950s was still incredibly high, partially due to the fact that televisions weren't as commonplace as they would be by the end of the decade. Do you remember when our first episode I mentioned, that only 9% of us households had TVs at the start of the decade versus 90% by the end? Jessika: Yes. Yeah, I do remember that. Mike: Yeah. So I came across an article that actually talks about the average comic sales per month in 1959. What do you think that number was like what the average circulation of comic books, the entire market. Jessika: 1959. Well, gosh, they had comics that they were sending through the army and everything. Gawd, it had to have been in the millions. Mike: Yeah, 26 million. [00:07:00] Jessika: Wow, wow wow wow. Mike: So it was, it was pretty substantial, and the fact that a comic series based on the Bible only sold well enough to last five issues during that insane circulation period is pretty telling about what kids were and weren't interested in reading. But anyway, overt at Christian iconography and characters generally haven't appeared in Marvel's books too often. Certain characters like Daredevil and Nightcrawler are strongly defined by their respective Christianities, but it's generally just treated as faith. It's not identified as the quote true religion. And Marvel's actually made a good point in recent years of setting up a complex Pantheon of gods, so it makes it seem like there's no wrong religion to follow. Side note though, one of my favorite comic details is that Dr. Doom had a recent confrontation with Dracula and he revealed he had splinters of the true cross in his armor as a vampire deterrent. I thought that was just chef's [00:08:00] kiss. Jessika: Oh, wow. Mike: It was great. Jesus himself never really appeared in mainstream Marvel books though. There's been occasional messages or sometimes you'll see the iconography or occasionally there'll be cameos as well. But honestly, the most notable appearance that I'm aware of was in the 1970s with Ghost Rider. In the 1970s Ghost Rider comic, when a mysterious character only identified as a friend shows up to save Ghost Rider on occasion. It was very clearly meant to be Jesus, but this character was eventually retconned to be an illusion created by the demon Maphisto. This is one of those things that's just, it's so weird, I want to take a moment to focus on it. So writer, Tony Isabella, who is actually the guy who created Black Lightning, which I know you've been reading a bit of lately. Jessika: Yeah! Mike: So he explained how this character came to be in an interview a while [00:09:00] ago with Comics Buyer's Guide. Would you like to read what he said out loud for our audience? Jessika: Certainly Mike: Alright. Jessika: Getting prior approval from editor, Roy Thomas, as I would from later editors, Len Wein and Marv Wolfman. I introduced “the Friend” into the series. It looked sort of like a hippie Jesus Christ. And that's exactly who He was, though I never actually called Him that. It allowed me to address the disparity that had long bothered me about the Marvel Universe. So we had no end of Hells and Satan surrogates in our comics, we had nothing of heaven. After two years, I had written a story wherein, couched in mildly settled term, Blaze accepted Jesus as his savior and freed himself from Satan's power forever. Had I remained on Ghost Rider which was my intent at the time the titles [00:10:00] religious elements would have faded into the background. Blaze would be a Christian, but he'd express this in a way you led his life. Unfortunately, an assistant editor took offense at my story. The issue was ready to go and the printer, when he pulled it back and ripped it to pieces, he had some of the art redrawn and a lot of the copy rewritten to change the ending of a story two years in the making. The friend was revealed to be not Jesus, but a demon in disguise. To this day, I consider what he did to my story one of the three most arrogant and wrongheaded actions I've ever seen from an editor. Mike: Someone's still got feelings about this. Jessika: Feelings, Mike: All capitals. Jessika: Salty. Mike: That assistant editor that he's talking about has been later identified as Jim Shooter, who eventually became Marvel's Editor-In-Chief in 1978. Shooter's kind of an interesting guy. He's [00:11:00] hailed as the person who really righted Marvel’s ship after a lot of prolonged instability. So during his tenure, there were a lot of acclaimed runs and storylines, like all those Saturday morning cartoons we talked about in our first episode, those all happened under his watch. So, you know, you can't say that he didn't do a good job, but a number of major industry figures have also gone on record to state that he forced a lot of editorial decisions on people working for him. Interestingly, though, Shooter actually gave a video interview last year where he actually addressed Isabella's description. He said he was concerned about the Jesus' storyline, because it would have quote, basically established the Marvel universe as a Christian universe and that all of the religions were false and he felt that would have alienated other readers. Jessika: That's kinda how I feel about it. Mike: Aye. I can't say I disagree with them, but I can also see Isabella’s [00:12:00] point. Um, I don't know what the right answer would have been, but it's an interesting moment of comic history. Jessika: Yeah, absolutely. Mike: Now the funny thing is that the first comics that we're going to talk about actually were published by Marvel when it was running under shooter's guidance. So two of these were co-written by Roy Gasnick. Gasnick himself is also a pretty fascinating guy. He basically spent the entirety of his adult life in the Franciscan order. He wound up serving as the Director of Communications for the Franciscan Province of the East Coast Holy Name Province, which was headquartered in New York. And he worked there for 18 years and he dealt a lot with the media. He was also a big believer in civil rights, and apparently he marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Not what I would have expected. Jessika: No, like the whole end of that, I was like, oh, oh, oh, okay. All right. Mike: Yeah. And granted I'm reading largely obituaries about them. And so they're going to [00:13:00] paint them in a good light, but to recap, his public image is that he was a dude who devoted himself to the church for basically his entire life. He wrote best-selling comic books and he fought for others' rights. So kind of interesting. It sounds like the proverbial cool priest that everybody wants to be. Jessika: it's that priest you call uncle? No, don't do that. Mike: No. Jessika: There were one of the comics that did that. Mike: Yeah. Yep. Jessika: I didn't like it. It was, it was really creepy. I was like, no, you took it too far. Mike: Yeah, it was the Pope Mike: Yeah, it's, it's really awkward because it's the Pope and you're just like, oh, oh, I don't know a Catholic priest who wants young men to call him uncle, I don't know how I feel about that. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: okay. So Gasnick wrote the first comic that we're going to talk about, which is Francis Brother of the Universe. This is a book that came out in [00:14:00] 1980 and it was actually published in order to celebrate the saint’s 800th birthday. It would have been 1981 or 82. His actual birthday has been lost to history, they just know it was really late in one year or really early in the other year, Jessika: Hmm. Mike: But effectively, it tells the life story of Saint Francis, which has definitely taken on a mythological quality since he reformed the church about 800 years ago. Jessika, would you do me a favor and describe the cover of this comic? Because it is a trip. Jessika: It is a trip. Okay. So it is first of all, at the very top in the box that would usually have the comics code, the little emblem, it actually has Francis himself with like a Wolf. It says 75 cent one first issue, Marvel Comics Group Francis, [00:15:00] Brother of the Universe, his complete life story, and okay guys, this is exciting. It is an exciting cover. So first you see a guy on horseback, medieval guy on horseback and it's white horse, and he's got a sword in the air and it's cutting through the text at the top and there's fighting behind him in a big cloud. And then there, then you see bald Francis. We're going to talk about why is he bald? Okay. It's like, why do you have to do that? Like, just get rid of the whole thing. I dunno. Anyway, so bald Francis, and then you've got, you know, another guy, I think it was also Francis. I think this is all Francis. Mike: That, that, is young Francis. Jessika: Young Francis on a table with a cup he's like screaming into, you know, a crowd. Mike: Hosting a party at a Tavern like you do. Jessika: That's right. Yeah. Hosting a, yeah he was a big [00:16:00] party hoster that's right. And then you've gone him with the Pope when he's the monk or he's with some other type of religious leader of some sort. And then he's got his back to the viewer and his arms are outstretched and there's light coming down onto him. It looks like he's about to be beamed up into heaven. There's doves behind him. Mike: It should be noted that this is a wraparound cover, too. Jessika: It is a wraparound. I'm sorry. I, yeah, I'm describing the back now. Oh, and then there’s. Mike: It is a work of art man. Jessika: It is a work of art. It's really pretty, it's very colorful. It's all very eye catching. There's more fighting. There's, a sultan or a king and then there's Francis singing at the bottom is he is just singing his little merry heart out. It is, it's a fun cover. Mike: Yeah. And it, it does a really nice job of being very visually attractive, and it also showcases a lot of the big moments from the comic itself. [00:17:00] Jessika: Yeah. Agreed. Mike: Yeah. So the book’s origin is another one of those examples of the power in asking that we talked about during the Highlander episode. So the way this happened was Jean Pelc, who was Marvel's representative in Japan in the seventies, he was a devoted Catholic and he was regularly attending mass at the Franciscan Chapel center. And according to the forward in the comic. He was having coffee with two friars who asked him, why don't you do a book on St. Francis and reportedly Pelc thought about it for about a minute and then said, yeah, sure. Why not? Jessika: I thought that was funny. Mike: I thought it was great. So as I mentioned, the comic story was overseen by Gasnick. He basically kind of oversaw the dialogue and the general story, but he didn't write the script. The comic script was written by Mary Jo Duffy, who had recently been reading Marvel Star Wars series in the seventies. [00:18:00] And then it was illustrated by Eisner Hall of Fame member, John Buscema, who is a legend in the industry, but he's one of those pencilers who basically became a patron Saint for other comic professionals. So, Buschema’s involvement feels especially relevant in this case, because this is a medieval comic. And one of the comics that he really worked on a lot was Conant the Barbarian. So he was really very much in his element. And you can tell because the art in this book is great. Jessika: Oh, it's amazing. Mike: Yeah. Marvel clearly believed in this book and they put some serious talent behind it. What was your overall reaction or impression of the comic? I'm curious. Jessika: I feel like this is the type of religious comic that kids won't get embarrassed over liking. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: It's got adventure, it's colorful, and those cheeks could cut glass. I was im, I was [00:19:00] impressed. Mike: Yeah, Jessika: There were, of course the subversive, like white supremacists tones when they were talking about the good people and all the floating heads were Caucasian. So thanks for that, everyone. Mike: Yeah. Which I mean, Not great, but also it was the seventies. And also they're talking about medieval Europe, which was not the most racially sensitive environments. Jessika: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, that is true. But also loving that a lot of these guys low-key operated, like co-leaders like St. Francis even got a whole acapella group together to hang out with his cult. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Sounds pretty rad until the leader gets the incurable stigmata. That seems like it would be a real bummer. Mike: Yeah. He and he clearly has untreated PTSD, like, you know, from his time where he was held in the dungeon for a couple of years. Um, you know, and like that's the whole thing is that he's, he's a prisoner of [00:20:00] war. And then he starts hearing voices. Jessika: Mm, mm, Mike: Like, you know, and granted it's, you know, this is Catholic propaganda, so it's presenting it as, oh no, he heard the divine call and he answered and he gave up everything and blah, blah, blah. I'm with you. I personally, I really dug it. So the funny thing is that when I was 11, I came across a copy of this and the kid's school room for Sunday school. And I really fell in love with it. Like, I basically just didn't want to actually pay attention to Sunday school and they were doing all the actual religious study activities. And so I would just sit in the corner and read this, and they couldn't really get mad at me because I was reading about a religious leader who the church was named after. So. Hmm. But you know, it felt like a fantasy comic more than anything else. And when I re-read it, this week, I was struck by both the art and the storytelling being as good as they were like, yes, it’s, as I said, it's [00:21:00] Catholic propaganda, but it's good propaganda. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: So. According to Gasnick's obituary, this comic was actually the best-selling single issue in Marvel history at the time. And, you know, clearly that record has been shattered a few times since then. It apparently moved more than a million issues, which in 1980 was like, unheard of. I couldn't find a resource to fact check this though, because all the sites that track comic sales numbers don't seem to go that far back, or at least they don't yet, but it was clearly popular enough to spawn a couple of other related comics that I've seen referred to on the web as the Saint series. That's where we're going to go next. Following the success of Francis brother of the Universe, Marvel launched Pope John Paul II's biographical comic, which it's a thing. Jessika: It happened. Mike: Yeah. So this was, again, one of those books where Marvel really put some talent behind it. They had art [00:22:00] by John, I’m going to butcher his last name, Tartaglione, I believe. But he was known for doing historically accurate work with his art. And then the book was written by Steven Grant who went on to write the first Punisher series for Marvel in the eighties. Jessika: Hmm. Mike: And then he would go on to write Dark Horse’s 1990 series, X. Full circle, baby. Jessika: Here we are. Mike: Yeah. Would you be willing to provide a quick summary of the book? Jessika: Oh, certainly. I like the evil laugh too, that’s just perfect. So this follows the life and spiritual journey of Pope John Paul II. And, it does this very Tarantino's thing where it starts with the assassination attempt against his life. And it goes back to earlier in his life to tell the story of how he got to that point, [00:23:00] which oddly enough, involves a lot of hiding theater from Nazis. True, true. It then discusses how he gained interest in the church, how he rose through the ranks of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and eventually was selected as Pope, which leads us back to his assassination attempt from which he recovers. Mike: And then that's where the book ends because his assassination attempt had only happened a year or two prior. But the funny thing is that it doesn't start with the assassination attempt. I thought it did, too, until I was reading up on it. So that's where it's weird. So the comic opens at his 1979 visits to Yankee stadium. And it spends so much time there. When we're not being shown his life. That it feels like the assassination attempt also took place there, Jessika: Oh, I that's. I did think that you're right. Mike: Yeah, but like, that's the thing is he wasn't actually shot until two years later in ’81 when he was back at the Vatican and it's very vaguely shown [00:24:00] and that's only one page after everyone is leaving the stadium. So the first time I read it, I thought he basically got shot at the stadium as well, because it's super vague. They only show you that one kind of like small frame where you see a gun being held high. You don't even, it's just a hand holding a gun and that's it. And I mean, I get it. You don't want to show the Pope getting shot in a Pope propaganda comic, but it was one of the things that was actually pretty brutal, in real life. Like, he got shot multiple times and lost a lot of blood and they didn't know if he was gonna make it. Jessika: Oh yeah. Mike: And then later on, he went on to basically forgive and become friends with his would-be assassin. Jessika: Oh, wow. Mike: It's very strange, but it, but it feels like a very Catholic turn the other cheek kind of story. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Honestly, as I was writing all my notes on this episode, I thought that he had been shot at Yankee stadium. And then I had to go back and [00:25:00] reread that section specifically. And it’s not obvious unless you pay very close attention to the dialogue. Jessika: There, this has to be spring, like a whole generation’s worth of kids thinking that the Pope was shot in America. Mike: Well, especially now because we're so like gun fetish oriented or what is it? Ammo-sexual. That's the word that I keep on hearing. We're we're a nation of ammo-sexuals. Jessika: I am tickled by that. Mike: Yeah. You can thank Sarah for that one. Jessika: Oh, she's amazing. Mike: Yeah. I don't know why she's with me, but I'm not complaining. Um, so how did you feel about this comic? Jessika: I think they did a good job making a continually captivating storyline, especially as biographies go, all things considered. It was funny because I was picking up some super queer vibes from him. The whole, like, not just the whole [00:26:00] theater thing, cause that's, that's a generalization I don't follow necessarily, but it's just, it was that whole, like having his actor friend move in with him so they could continue practicing their craft, as it was. I'm just like, man, I've heard that before. And yes, we hear you loud and clear. Mike: Well, and I mean, you know, like it portrays his younger life and he is shown as a, being an alter boy and very devoted to the church. And then, and this is for anyone who is not familiar with the life of Pope John Paul, he became really interested in theater after his brother died. And he went and visited his brother's friends who were a theater troupe. And so he got super into theater and there's a note about how a priest really wanted him to join the priesthood, and they were like, oh no, he's like, he, yeah, he's a great orator and all that, and he's got a wonderful presence, but he's going to be an actor. And the priest was apparently heartbroken, but yeah, like, anyway, sorry. So side tangent over. [00:27:00] Jessika: No, that's okay. I was also irritated. So at the end of the comic, they made a big deal about how a woman was also shot when he was, and that he was going to go visit her before he went back. He even said, when I, before we go back to Rome, that's what it said in the thing. So I don't know what happened. I don't know what the whole thing was with that, because I specifically wrote back to Rome, but they never said her name nor did they actually show him going to see her, and that, definitely rude. Mike: yeah. And I mean that whole, for something that got billing on the cover, it's featured very little in the comic, so. Jessika: What about, how did, how did this rub you? Mike: I dug it. I didn't dig it as much as Francis Brother of the Universe, to be honest but overall, if you're going to do a biography as a comic, you could definitely have a worst subject. It felt pretty exciting. [00:28:00] He lived a pretty interesting life, growing up between two world wars and in Poland. Parts of it, like the bit where he joined the secret seminary in Poland during World War II felt almost like something out of a spy story, more than anything else. And it also felt like the comic wasn't afraid to poke a little fun at him, like when he volunteered to clean out the toilets that the Nazis had ruined. So, I kind of appreciated that it wasn't taking him as seriously as I felt it could have. A lot of biographies would be like, no, you can't show him in any way that makes him seem less than saintly, which we'll get to, we'll get to that in our next comic. But, I, I, appreciated the moments of levity as well. The book itself, though, it does a pretty good job of making him seem like a good guy who just happened to be called to greatness, I felt. The only parts where I really got bored [00:29:00] were the bits with the unnamed journalist who provides the framing narration while he's waiting for the Pope to speak at Yankee stadium. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: First of all, this is the first guy we see, he's the one who's the narrator and he doesn't even get a name. And then, I kind of laughed at how he opens the comic, stating the Pope is my beat, and then later on states that the Yankee stadium speaking event is the only time he sees the Pope in person. Jessika: Yeah. I noticed that too. I thought that was weird. Mike: It was really weird. And I mean, Jessika: It was inconsistent. Mike: It felt like the editor should have given it one more pass and they could have sat there and it, I mean, honestly, if they just said this was the last time I saw him in person or something like that, it would have been fine. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: And then, like I said, I was a little surprised at how little the assassination attempt was featured since it's literally called out on the cover, like whatever. Oh, fine. [00:30:00] Jessika: Yeah, I you're visibly watching your face. You're visibly mad about it. Mike: I'm sorry, if you're going to promise me in assassination attempt, I want to see an assassination attempt. Don't tease me. Jessika: Oh my gosh. How will you ever get over this? Mike: Uh God. It was a solid B, B+ equal to what I feel was kind of an A-, A comic book, or spiritual sequel, if you will see what I did there. So the last of these Marvel Saint series comics is mother Teresa, and that's another official biography of a major Catholic figure. This one obviously focuses on mother Theresa, who was enjoying a huge amount of publicity in the 1980s. I grew up, throughout the eighties and I often heard her [00:31:00] and Gandhi mentioned together as people who made the world a better place. And I'm not sure, honestly, if that was because they both operated out of India and they both won the Nobel peace prize, but I feel like that sums up how the Western world perceived or , what was your awareness of her when you were growing up? Jessika: Pretty much the same level of you'd always see her in these kind of photo-ops of helping children out of cars and stuff. Mike: Yeah. The other thing is that we grew up, like, I, I feel like she's one of those people who was always old in terms of her media appearances. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: You know? So the book came out in 1984 and that was just five years after she'd received the Nobel peace prize, and this was when she was really, really big. Like these days, this is viewed as an incredibly problematic figure based on things she said about poverty and suffering. And then there were some serious ethical and financial weirdness that [00:32:00] went on with her missions. But the public just wasn't aware of that stuff back then, and so given her amount of celebrity, it makes sense that they would have turned to her because she was a really relevant figure in the world back then. And then again, because they'd had so much success with Francis and Pope John Paul, they committed some serious talent to this comic. So Gasnick actually came back and he wrote the overall story for this, but the script was done by David Michelinie. So miscellaneous had earned a lot of acclaim for his runs on Ironman and he co-created characters like venom and carnage and Scott Lang, who's also known as ant man. Yeah, so legit people. And then the art was once again handled by, John Tartaglione. So they committed some serious stuff to it, but, I feel like you're on the same wavelength as me where you weren't as impressed this time around. Jessika: No, no. I was like [00:33:00] snooze Fest, Mother Teresa. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: She didn't have any facet. She's like Superman. She was just a good person, all the way around. It's not like she had any trouble with that, I guess. Not like the normal folk. Mike: I felt like she was more of a prop than a character in the story. Jessika: I see that. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Yeah. I had a hard time paying attention to it, to be honest with you. Mike: no, that's fair. It took me about three times as long to read this book. Jessika: It's true. And the other thing that was, of course this is going to bother me. I was of course getting some serious pro-colonialism vibes from the whole Jesus and the white men know best, here I go on a mission trip. Aye. You don’t need to convert everyone. Not everyone has to believe the same thing as you, it's just not necessary. And I'm really bothered by the mindset that we all need to be on the same page about these [00:34:00] spiritual and philosophical questions, because we just never will be. Mike: Right. And that was actually a huge thing. That was one of the big controversies about Mother Teresa is that she would do these kinds of deathbed conversions. And it seems like they weren't always to be honest, consensual. Like you, I wasn't all that amazed. The biography of the Pope was really interesting and exciting, but this book story was a framed by some mediocre white journalists who are just going around the world and interviewing people who know her because she won't give them the time of day at the beginning of the book, which I actually kind of enjoyed. Jessika: I did like that, actually. Mike: But that's the thing is you're seeing the memories of other people. And like you said, it feels very much like Superman where there's no flaws whatsoever and it's just, oh, she's always been selfless. Oh, she grew up in hardship. Oh, she's always wanted to make the world a better place, but you keep on hearing that story over and over again. And there's no real action. It's also a lot of really dull exposition where [00:35:00] you know, where people are telling her about all the good things she's doing and then how they're going to help her out. And the impact that she had on the world. It's undeniable. I'm just not sure that her life makes for an interesting comic book. Maybe it's just the way the book was done since she doesn't really feel like a main character in her own story. Also the fact that they're basically using the same framing device that they did in the last one, and Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Those narrators play a much bigger role in the Mother Theresa comic, because they're clearly trying to make it interesting and hold the reader's attention. I did learn that this book won the Catholic press associations award for best book of the year in the youth category in 1984, which yeah. Jessika: What? Who was judging that? Mike: I feel like that kind of says more about the availability of Catholic kid-friendly books at the time. Jessika: Yeah. And the youths weren't judging that contest. Mike: No, like, no. I mentioned earlier, I'm [00:36:00] not sure how well these other comic books sold, but there is an obituary for Tartaglione that claimed the Pope John Paul biography actually sold millions of copies. And it's the same thing with the Francis Brother of the Universe one, because it clearly did well enough that they wanted to make this Pope John Paul comic. And then there's an online archive for Gasnick that's hosted by a Catholic organization and they actually show all the different languages that the comic was printed into. Now. I really want to get a copy of the Japanese one now, because it came with a really beautiful book cover. It's lovely. And plus, it's just kind of a cool artifact, you know. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: But, I don't know how well the Mother Theresa books sold, because , there are numerous articles providing circumstantial evidence, talking about how well Francis and Pope John Paul sold. And then they'll say, oh, and then there was also this Mother Teresa comic. There's no further information. So, I [00:37:00] get the impression it maybe didn't do as well as everybody wanted it to. Jessika: Oh, big dreams, Mother Teresa. Mike: I know, to be honest though, my impression is that the Catholic church didn't really have any other figures with this much name recognition, like St. Francis is a pretty major character, even outside of Catholicism. My parents' church was named after Saint Francis and they were Episcopalian, and Pope John Paul and Mother Teresa had that kind of international rockstar, celebrity, that few others could even dream about in an age when viral fame wasn't really a thing. Jessika: Agreed. Mike: So yeah, it seems like everyone kind of looked at these books overall its wins and then they decided to walk away from the table while they were still ahead, which, is kind of the opposite of what happened in 1992, but we're going to talk about that next episode. [00:38:00] Jessika: Ooh. Mike: I'm going to leave it on a cliffhanger moment, but, what are your final thoughts? How do you feel about these eighties Catholic comics? Jessika: I mean, so far it's kind of a mixed bag. The Francis Brother of the Universe, I thought that was, it was fun. I enjoyed reading that one. You know, I, I even enjoyed reading the majority of the Pope John Paul II. And then we got to mother Teresa and literally I fell asleep and like, yeah, I do a lot of my reading in the evening, Mike: Yeah. Jessika: I'm a night owl it's it was not the time. Mike: Yeah. Comic books shouldn't want you to sleep. Jessika: No, it was the content. So. Mike: Yeah. I think I've got that nostalgia factor a little bit too with the Francis book. So there's one of these books that I still absolutely love. And it's got this [00:39:00] very soft spot in my soul, if you will. And the Pope John Paul comic, I agree. It's mostly fun. It's not flawlessly there's no part of the Frances book that I sat there and really skipped through. It was all interesting. And then Mother Teresa, I. I'm not exactly thrilled that it's part of my collection now. But at the same time, I feel like I can't get rid of it because it's, you know, part of that trilogy, that holy Trinity of Saints comics, if you will, sorry, all the religious puns keep on coming out tonight. Jessika: Well, I was just thinking about the fact that I don't even think it's that I think . You're worried about throwing away Mother Theresa don't lie to me. Mike: Yeah. I feel like I, what happens when you piss off a Catholic Saint? I don't know. Jessika: She's going to be staring at you from the trash can. Like, why did you do this to me? Mike: Oh, she already looks like a goblin. That'll be scary enough. [00:40:00] So now is the part of the episode where we discuss our brain wrinkles, which are the one thing comics or comics adjacent that has been on our mind lately. I've been talking for a spell. So why don't you go first. Jessika: Okay. So I've actually been really irritated about something comics related. Mike: Ooh. Jessika: Aye. You're shocked. I'm sure I've never heard about irritated about anything in this world. Mike: What you, no, go on. Jessika: What, what? So, I collect this six inch Marvel Avengers action figures by Hasbro. They're just the really simple ones, really only the arms and the head kind of moves and the arms kind of move one way. They're cheap. They're just like what, five, six bucks at the checkouts stand. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And I collect them because I action pose them in my hanging plant garden in all my macrame. So they're just in all my plants, just flying around, but [00:41:00] what irritates me, I'm convinced that they just don't make the female characters in their widespread kids toys series. Mike: Oh, they don’t. That's. Jessika: It pisses me off and they make some of the antagonists even. I have Thantos and I can't get the Scarlet Witch or Black Widow? It just bothers me so much. It's hard enough to get the female characters in any kind of movie of their own or any kind of thing of their own. I was really happy the Scarlet Witch, getting a spotlight. And I'm glad that Black Widow is getting one too, but it's just you could say leaving the best for last, but you just kind of forgot didn't you? Mike: Yeah, that actually reminds me a little bit of the cartoon Young Justice. So they had two seasons of that show and then it got canceled and apparently it got canceled because the core audience for it wound up being [00:42:00] young women. And as a result, they weren't buying the action figure toys that were being marketed because they were all male action figures. Eventually they wound up bringing it back for DC Universe and then HBO Max, it's a great cartoon, but I just remember getting so irritated where I was like, really, instead of actually trying to make toys that would appeal to the audience, you just canceled this fucking show. All right. Jessika: That's so annoying and it, you know, it really bothers me that we always assume that boys won't play with action figures of girls. Mike: Yeah. It's dumb. Jessika: And yeah. And we absolutely need to quit. Assuming the girls won't play with action figures at all. Because they will. Mike: I'm actually, I'm really surprised that they're not making female character action figures now. Like it's like the last couple of years, I feel like that's been flipped, but I guess it's still a [00:43:00] thing. Jessika: Yeah. It's it's just. *sad noises* Mike: I'm sorry. Jessika: No, it's okay. It's okay. It just makes me want to write like angry letters and, you know, cause I want action figures too, goddammit. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Well, what about you? What's sticking deep in your brain? Mike: It's going back to that collection that I got from my parents' house. So part of that collection, one of the other cool things that was included is the 2002 Taskmaster mini series from Marvel, which sent me down a rabbit hole of Marvel Unlimited because you know, they've got all the back issues on there. Taskmaster is a villain who's also become a bit of an antihero. He's been around Marvel for a while. He's this mercenary who usually uses his power of photographic reflexes to mimic the moves of other heroes. And he's had three dedicated mini series so far and they're all really good. Like they're really fun, and [00:44:00] each one tells a very different story and they all explore his character in really interesting ways. And the last two series have been really funny, which means I'm kind of bummed about how generic he looks and all the promo stuff that they've put out for Black Widow the movie. Like he's a dude who wears a cape with a hood and has pirate boots and is just bristling with weapons. And that is not what we're getting. Jessika: I love that though. Mike: Oh yeah. It's super over the top and theatrical. His whole thing is that he has a mask that looks like a realistic skull, as opposed to that helmet, that's got kind of a vague skull motif. Jessika: Yeah, that's way scarier. Mike: It is, but at the same time, he hangs out a lot with Deadpool. And so there's that zaniness to him as well. And instead we're getting this kind of, I don't know, mute generic [00:45:00] bad-ass character and all the trailers who looks like he has some cool flashy moves, but it doesn't really seem to go much beyond that. I don't know, like it might surprise us, but who knows, but it's also made me realize how forgettable most of the villains in the MCU are. And I wish Marvel would just give us more characters, like Loki who make repeated appearances and then develop some real depth and then evolve into something more than what they are when they first appear. Jessika: Yeah, it'd be nice to see. Mike: Yeah. Well with that, I think it's time to wrap things up. We'll be back in two weeks, where we will continue the story of Marvel's foray into Christian comics, and until then we'll see you in the stacks. Jessika: Thanks for listening to Ten Cent Takes. Accessibility is important to us; text transcriptions of each of our published episodes [00:46:00] can be found on our website. Mike: This episode was hosted by Jessika Frazer and Mike Thompson written by Mike Thompson and edited by Jessika Frazer. Our intro theme was written and performed by Jared Emerson Johnson of Bay Area Sound, while our credits and transition music is Pursuit of Life by Evan McDonald and was purchased with a standard license from PremiumBeat. Our banner graphics were designed by Sarah Frank, who goes on Instagram by cut_thistles. Jessika: If you'd like to get in touch with us, ask us questions or tell us about how we got something wrong, please head over to tencenttakes.com or shoot an email to tencenttakes@gmail.com. You can also find us on Twitter, the official podcast account is tencenttakes. Jessika is Jessikawitha, and Jessika is spelled with a K. And Mike is Vansau. V A [00:47:00] N S A U. Mike: Stay safe out there. Jessika: And support your local comic shop.

america jesus christ new york director europe bible guide japan friend brothers marvel christianity japanese batman western universe satan rome ptsd world war ii saints nazis wolf superman catholic martin luther king jr pursuit iron man doom poland mcu comics fest pope hbo max deadpool quentin tarantino comic dracula loki hosting black widow nobel vatican daredevil shooters accessibility catholicism gandhi punisher barbarian tvs assuming hasbro yankee dark horse he man bain dc universe tavern marvel universe highlander roman catholic mother teresa tencent ghost rider nightcrawlers caucasians pantheon transcription ammo scarlet witch taskmaster black lightning pope john paul ii aye young justice franciscan mother theresa saint francis gawd hells petaluma episcopalian marvel avengers scott lang black mask marvel star wars marvel unlimited marv wolfman len wein conant roy thomas mike thompson steven grant jim shooter pope john paul young folks john buscema premiumbeat david michelinie mike it mike you mike no pelc tony isabella mike yeah mike well mike how mike so mike oh mike right mike all jared emerson johnson ten cent takes evan mcdonald mike stay

Mike "C-Roc" Ciorrocco

The Joe Costello Show

Play Episode Listen Later May 26, 2021 48:57

Mike C-Roc Ciorrocco is the CEO of People Building, Inc., and the powerhouse behind the "What Are You Made Of?" movement. He is a performance coach, author, dynamic public speaker, visionary, and thought leader. He has been featured by Yahoo! Finance as one of the Top Business Leaders to Follow in 2020 and is on a mission to build people. He is driven to inspire others and he measures his success on how he is able to help others achieve greatness. C-Roc had a fire lit in him at an early age. That fire has ignited him with a fierce desire to compel people to see the greatness inside themselves using past life events to fuel their fire. Past hardships can be a powerful gravitational force that keeps you down and forces you to think small. To get out of orbit you need Rocket Fuel. Mike "C-Roc" Ciorrocco shows you how to convert past adversity into ROCKET FUEL to break free from the negative pull of pain and despair. In his new book, C-Roc offers life-changing lessons in personal transformation by asking yourself What Are You Made Of? This powerful question will ignite within you a thrust to greatness! Learn how to overcome painful past obstacles and achieve a fulfilling life where you're in command of your future. If you're ready to shoot for the stars, C-Roc says, "Thrust is a must!" Strap in and get ready for the ride of your life. Mike's latest book: https://amzn.to/3wwkTX5 CEO - People Building, Inc. C-Roc's Website: https://www.mikecroc.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mikeycroc/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mikeciorrocco YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGWHuKojqZfcXmvGCAi_t1Q LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-ciorrocco/ Email: info@peoplebuildinginc.com Podcast Music By: Andy Galore, Album: "Out and About", Song: "Chicken & Scotch" 2014 Andy's Links: http://andygalore.com/ https://www.facebook.com/andygalorebass If you enjoy the podcast, would you please consider leaving a short review on Apple Podcasts/iTunes? It takes less than 60 seconds, and it really makes a difference in helping to convince hard-to-get guests. For show notes and past guests, please visit: https://joecostelloglobal.libsyn.com Subscribe, Rate & Review: I would love if you could subscribe to the podcast and leave an honest rating & review. This will encourage other people to listen and allow us to grow as a community. The bigger we get as a community, the bigger the impact we can have on the world. Sign up for Joe's email newsletter at: https://joecostelloglobal.com/#signup For transcripts of episodes, go to: https://joecostelloglobal.lybsyn.com Follow Joe: https://linktr.ee/joecostello Transcript Joe: Ok, welcome, everybody. Today, my guest is Mike "C-Roc" Ciorrocco. I'm really excited to have this talk with him and I know you're going to enjoy this. Mike, thanks so much for coming on. I appreciate it. Mike: Thank you, Joe. I'd like to start every interview that I go on with gratitude and just really express that to you for allowing me to come on and share with you. And thank you to your audience for listening and showing up. Joe: Absolutely, man, I love that gratitudes a huge thing in my life, so I'm right there with you. I appreciate it. I think it's important that everyone has their back story makes up sort of what they've become in life. You know, it doesn't define who they become. But there is something about what has happened throughout your life leading up to where you are now that has molded this person that you've become. And I Mike: Right. Joe: Am interested in that. And and I always start with this, just like you always start. What is it? What are you made of? Right. That's what you Mike: They Joe: Start Mike: Had to turn your head sideways, I love Joe: perfect! Mike: It, you know, now, you know, I came from a broken home. I don't remember my parents together, Joe. I grew up around a lot of broken people, alcoholics, drug addicts, people suffering from anxiety, depression. My grandmother committed suicide after taking too much anti anxiety or depression medication. You know, a lot of things I went through as a kid just watching just destruction. And, you know, I think that decisions we make and Focus's that we have either go towards living and surviving or destruction. And I was seeing the destruction part and I wasn't OK with that. And I didn't want to accept that. So I would always try to help people switch around even from a young age. I was just not OK with what I was seeing. And, you know, my mom when I was three or four years old, I just remember her always telling me that I inspired her and I was going to be a leader. And I think subconsciously, subconsciously, she was doing that because she knew what was going on in the family and knew that I was gonna have to deal with some things. And so I had that programmed into me. So I was always just looking for people to help, looking for people to show them a better way and not buying into what they were telling themselves. And so, you know, that's just something I experienced at a young age. And really when it came down, what lit my fire and what I made of, I would say, is rocket fuel. Because when I was eight, my mom was moving on to her third marriage and I wasn't really up for going into another man's house and learned another man's rules Joe: Hmm. Mike: And but decided to give my dad a try who was moving on to his second marriage. And at that time, you know. I broke my mom's heart by doing that. I didn't know that at the time, but she told me later on that, you know, she cried herself to sleep at night when I left and I was our first child, you know, and when I moved to my dad's, everything seemed fine at first. But after three years, you know, during that three years, there was a lot of conflict. You know, there's a when you had step parents into the mix, any time that stuff happens. The kid is the only link between the past relationship and so a lot gets taken out on the children and anybody that's been in a broken home that dealt with child support, custody battles every other weekend, things that parents jealous, things like just everybody that's been through that knows what I'm talking about. And so a lot of that time they're in from eight to 11 hours, experience a lot of emotional, psychological abuse threats, things like that that were really probably not directed towards me, but came my way. And at nine years old, I would sleep with my baseball bat a lot of nights Joe: Wow. Mike: Because I was scared. And no kid should have to go through that, through that, of course. But that's what went into making me look. I went through these things. I went through court, child psychologists, to see if I was mature enough that at a young age to figure out who I wanted to live with, like all that kind of stuff Joe: Make Mike: And. Joe: Your own decisions, all of that, that crazy. Mike: Yeah, Joe: Yeah, yeah, Mike: Yeah, Joe: Yeah, Mike: And seeing parents fight Joe: Yeah. Mike: And, you know, just just not not happy environment, and so that's what went into me. But the thing is, is that I was always on the right side of the track. Thank God. I was always looking at how can I be better not being accepting of it. Let me look at the bright side of things. Let me look at, OK, what is this doing and how can I take advantage of using this to a better life? So one weekend I was coming home from my mom's house Joe: And Mike: And Joe: So Mike: I Joe: I don't mean to interrupt. Was this Mike: Noticed Joe: All Mike: For. Joe: In Maryland or all back on the East Coast or. Mike: This is in Pennsylvania, outside of Philly. Joe: Ok, cool. Mike: Yeah, Joe: Ok. Mike: So so my mom was living in Maryland, and you know what, I got to about 10, some 10 years old, give or take. I was coming home from my mom's house one day, one weekend after being there and my stomach was in knots. I was anxious. I don't want to go back. And my mom was saying something was wrong. She questioned me and I told her, you know, when you go through abuse, anybody that's been through abuse, you can probably relate to this. That one you don't just like to share because you're afraid that people won't believe you, too. You kind of you're so accustomed to going through it, you're not sure how bad it really is. Somebody on the outside would be like, holy cow, you're dealing with that really. Joe: Yeah. Mike: But as you're going through it, you just think it's ordinary. Another thing, maybe you're embarrassed that you let it go on for that long. And then the weirdest thing is that you're actually concerned with your abuser. You're like, what will happen if I share this to them? Joe: At. Mike: You know, just a weird thing. So I finally came came to the realization that I need to share that my mom said, you know, I'm going to get you out of there. I'm going to file court papers. You don't need to be going through that. That's not ordinary. You need to, you know, in a better situation, she said. But if you do if I do this, you need to stick to your guns. You've got to be like really, really firm because they're going to try to talk you out of it. And in life, when you believe in something, you've got to stick to your guns, man, because people will have agendas and they're going to try to talk you out of it, move one way or the other. And at the end of the day. If you do that, you're not going to live the life you want to live, so she reminded me that, you know, 10 years old, you know, filling my head with great stuff, you know, and I went back home that day and waited and waited weeks went by and waited for those court papers to be delivered. You know, I just knew it was going to happen. And I didn't tell my dad about it, of course. And then finally, one day I come home from school and the tension in the house, you could feel it like it was something was up. And I knew what the deal Joe: Mm Mike: Was. Joe: Hmm. Mike: I had to feel the first. I thought I did something wrong. You know, I'm looking around like, what did I do today? He had his papers in his hand. My dad did. And I knew, like, oh, here we go. And he told me to go to my room. Now, my dad was my hero. He had a successful masonry business, very hard worker, big forearms, rough hands. Joe: Yeah. Mike: You know, you tell he's a hard worker and he always cared a wad of hundred dollar bills in his pocket. And I thought that was the coolest thing and had a rubber band around Joe: So Mike: It Joe: Did Mike: And. Joe: My partner, it's so buddy. Mike: Yeah, yeah, it must be the last thing Joe: Yeah, and. Mike: He would always show me the money, and I thought it was a cool hundred dollar bills, Joe: Yeah. Mike: You know, so he came back in front of me and I didn't get into the discussion with him because my mom said, stick to your guns. So he proceeded to tell me how my mom would have guys coming in and out. Why would you want to go there? You have it made here. You have everything you need. They're poor. They don't have anything. You know, my mom was I mean, we look at the houses. Twenty five, thirty thousand. Our house broken down cars in the driveway. You know, we went on vacation to the Jersey Shore. Joe: Yeah. Mike: But we stayed in a rundown motel, one room for kids, two adults, and we were I just remember just the other day, we were actually able to bring some friends with us sometimes, which just makes it like just I don't even remember how that worked. And we would take black trash bags as a suitcase. So, you know, share my story. By the way, back in the day, I was kind of embarrassed by that. I just didn't like to share that, you know. Joe: Yep. Mike: But I started to realize that the more you share your story, the more impact you can have and the more people that can relate to it and maybe change your life for two Joe: Yep, Mike: Or millions, Joe: Yep. Mike: You know. So I started sharing that. But just to wrap it up real quick, so when I did confirm that my dad took that wad of hundred dollar bills out of his pocket, peeled one off, crumpled it up and threw it at me and said, if that's the case and you want to move there, you're going to need this when you're living on the street with your mother one day. And I remember that 30 some years I lived off that spark that was lit right there because I'm stubborn, my shirt that I think is, say, Joe: And. Mike: Stubborn, perversely unyielding, it's a good thing when it's on the right thing. But, you know, I was like, I'm not going to let that happen. And so 30 some years, I was driving off that spark until two years ago. I really subconsciously I was doing that. I really realized two years ago, wait a minute here, there's something magical that's going on. My life keeps going on its upward trajectory. No matter what happens, no matter screw ups, let downs, disappointments, what is happening here and what I found, which I wrote in my book that's coming out Monday, May 3rd on Amazon Rocket Fuel, I was taken everything that would stop normal human beings or slow them down, store it in my fuel tank instead of my truck, would weigh you down and converted it into rocket fuel for my future to become unstoppable. And I found that and I realized, wait a minute, this is not just a concept. This is an this is a law. If you do this, you really are unstoppable to live in the life of your dreams until you're plucked from this planet. So that's why I decided to write this book that Grant Carter wrote the foreword because it was so powerful. I got to get this message out to people. So that's a little bit about the story. There's you know, that's the short version, actually. Joe: No, that's all good. That's exactly what I wanted, the only piece that I still need to figure out is what did you do? How did you figure out what you wanted to do in life in that middle section of where people go to college or they get a job? Or what Mike: Yeah. Joe: Did you do during that time? Mike: Well, I played football and I didn't drink any alcohol or party all through high school, I played football, baseball wrestled, but football was my love Joe: Mm hmm. Mike: And I just I always thought about I want to go to Ohio State, play football, because I just love their team. I watched them play Michigan all the time growing up. And I never grew tall enough, never grew fast enough Joe: I feel your pain. Mike: That. Yeah. So five, six and three quarters, you got to be really, really fast if you're five, six Joe: Yeah. Mike: And three quarters. So I decided to go to Division three. I played football in college study business. But when I got to college, Joe, I lost my focus and I started chasing girls and party in which I never did before. And it was like Disney World first, you Joe: Yeah, Mike: Know what I mean? Joe: Yeah. Mike: And I just lost, man, I four, five, six, seven years in that range. I was just it's all I cared about was parties where the girls at and I need to be around people. And so that's that's the lead up to that. And then eventually I met my wife, who just the commitment to my wife straighten me up. And I was off to the races. I think that my thing with my wife right now, I joke with her all the time, is I have to outsource. I have to earn her spending on Amazon and deliveries to the house. So it's constantly like this. The other day she's like, I look I go up in the kitchen and there's a piece of decking, like the composite decking. Joe: Oh, you know Mike: We Joe: That Mike: Have Joe: That's Mike: A wood Joe: Going Mike: Deck. Joe: To be redone. Mike: And I'm like, I already told you, oh, not right now. It seems like I already had somebody come over measured Joe: Oh, Mike: On my car and drive back down into the cave. Joe: That's Mike: I call this my studio, my cave. I got to go make some money now. Joe: That's so Mike: A Joe: Funny. Mike: Great motivator. Joe: That is awesome. All right. Well, that's where and was college. Mike: Salisbury University in Maryland. Joe: Ok, and then ever since you've stayed in Maryland, Mike: Yeah, Joe: But Mike: I Joe: Now Mike: Moved Joe: You're Mike: To Joe: In Mike: Connecticut Joe: Ocean City, Mike: For a period of time, Joe: Yep, Mike: But we moved to Ocean City Joe: Yep. Mike: Now. Yep. Joe: Which is beautiful. I love it there. OK, cool. Yeah. And I'm Mike: Thank Joe: On the East Mike: You. Joe: Coast. I'm originally from New Mike: A Joe: York. Mike: Cool, Joe: So. Mike: Cool. Joe: So this leads right into the question that since you're going to do the decking, are you still doing. Are you still in the mortgage business because that's your. Mike: Yeah, Joe: Yeah, Mike: Yeah, Joe: Ok. OK. Mike: Yeah, we have a have a division that I run with three best friends, they take care of the day to day operations Joe: Yep. Mike: And it's a large division under our nation's lending. And we run it like our own business. And it's great people, great culture. It's just phenomenal. Joe: And Mike: So. Joe: You've been doing that quite a long time, right? I've saw Mike: Yet. Joe: You've gotten rated as number number one in Yahoo! Finance are right. I mean, you have. Mike: Yeah, so 2006, I got into it and started as a loan officer and just went from two employees and started a branch and vision and two employees up to 40. Joe: Wow, that's incredible. OK, cool. So when did you make this shift of and you talk about this in one of your videos about sharing your story and you share. You also mentioned it when you were giving your story, how important that is. And when did you make this when did you allow yourself to say, OK, I have this business and I have great partners and people to run this business? When did you decide to at least start your company now with what you're doing with your podcast, in your book and everything? What was the trigger for that? Mike: Yes, so early, twenty, nineteen, my stepfather, George, she took over from my dad when I was 11. He was a great guy and he passed away in twenty eighteen and a heart attack suddenly. And I wrote about this in the book, the story about how he found out and everything. It's it's you know, but but at the end of the day, he had a passion when he was passionate about something like football, baseball, hunting, fishing. He would get up and just go nuts, like deep voice, like everybody couldn't, like, really understand him. He was like so passionate, like they would be taken aback by him. And when he passed away, you know, a couple of weeks after he passed away, I had this passion or energy, something spirit come inside of me. Like, I just felt different. And I realized that I wasn't playing a big enough game in life. You know, I was doing well in the business and the mortgages and all that. But it just that's not the game that I was designed for. I was playing small and I started to realize, wait a minute, I need to open myself up to other opportunities, because if I just focus here, this is where I'm going to stay. And I was having truths that I was telling myself and beliefs that I was telling myself is that this is it for me. This is I'm stuck, you know, Joe: Mm Mike: And Joe: Hmm. Mike: I don't necessarily love the mortgage business. It's great and all that. But the end of the day, I just had a bigger, bigger calling. And so I started trying to figure out, OK, how can I get known in this calling of building people? Because that's what I actually do at the mortgage business. It wasn't the mortgage business. It was I was building people. I was helping develop people. And so I said, how can I get known more in a bigger, bigger scale mystate instead of just my town? Then I was like, that's not big enough. I'll come up short. How about the country and then the globe? And then I was like, you know, what? If I start really expanding my mind, I'm like, if there's aliens, which I've never seen one, but if there is, let me see if I can get aliens to know who I am and really go for that and then come up a little short and I'll be all right. And that's the way I started thinking about things and started trying to impact and share my story with tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions of people. How can I do that? And I started to obsess about that. And that's when the podcast came. The book idea came and and I just started networking like an animal and going on. You know, I've done three hundred interviews in the last year. Joe: Oh, that's crazy. Mike: So just really lean into it and that's how it all started, and then now I'm into tech, into the tech world where I'm developing a tech product. I co-founded the company. And also we have other we're creating a tech portfolio of other co-founders, non tech entrepreneurs that have ideas that think that they can never do it. They usually go to the grave with those Joe: Mm Mike: Things. Joe: Hmm. Mike: We're bringing them into the world and giving them the resources they need to actually co-found their companies and creating unstoppable people. Because my mission, Joe, is all people are unstoppable to live in the life of their dreams. And so everything I do, I filter through that mission. Joe: It's so cool, man, and it's so funny because you hit it right on the head with with the same thing with me, it's like you don't have a successful business. But I know it's not my calling. It's not what I was put here to do. And and everything that I do should be so much more impactful and so much bigger. And I've had this I had the conversation with David Meltzer. And at the same Mike: Yeah. Joe: Time, he brings you back in focus and he's like, yeah, but you should know that you you have everything you need. You just got to get out of your own way. It's not a matter that you should focus on wanting more. You have it all. You're just Mike: Yep. Joe: You're literally getting in your own way of getting it done. Mike: Yeah, and that's the thing, it's the truths that we tell ourselves we're living an illusion, we let the illusions that we have based on our beliefs and past experiences, and we let that affect us and limit us and block us. And really, at the end of the day, you know, we'd rather explain our life instead of actually intervening in it. We'd like to explain with excuses, you know, and justify things and, you know, at the end of the day, man, we just tell ourselves what we can tell ourselves that helps us survive. And to me, that's not good enough, because you're going to always come up a little short, so why not thrive and really go after it? And, you know, there's not everybody that's going to be able to do what we do. So why don't we take it up a notch and get get really abundance, like go after abundance so that we can help other people and distribute this information to other people. So that's the kind of things that I started thinking. I started hanging around people that coach and mentor me the right way, thinking big, you know, also, you know, still like Dave Meltzer talks about, you've got to be happy now. It's not like later, Joe: Yeah, Mike: So. Joe: Yeah, so I don't want to go down the current path, I follow him, I love the stuff that he does. I know that it fits the mold for a lot of people that are in the real estate world. And but Mike: Yeah. Joe: I also know that he's doing a lot of other things. But how he wrote the foreword to your book, which is amazing, how how much did he influence you making this jump to doing what you're doing now? Mike: So when George died, my stepfather, my brother was read in the next room and he said, Mike, you've got to read this book, this guy sounds just like you. I'll take a look at it. I started I saw Grant before and like pictures, but I thought he was like a real estate. Joe: Yep, Mike: I thought he trained realtors, Joe: Yep, Mike: I wasn't even sure, Joe: Yep. Mike: Right, so I read the book and I'm like, holy cow, this guy speaking to me, he's going through similar situations that I've been Joe: Yeah. Mike: Through. Like, I can totally relate. And I but but the big thing was about it was I've always had this big think, but I got cocooned for a while by people that I surround myself with that were broken thinkers, broken mindset, people, people that didn't fit my culture, but they produce. So I kept them around and people that quit on me. And I let that affect me personally. And I got into this situation where I was invalidated, me myself. I felt invalidated on being the animal that I actually am. And so when I was reading that book, I'm like, wait a minute, this this shows me something. I'm not the crazy one. Those people are the crazy ones. I have an animal. So I did unleash it. So I was able to unleash the beast and that's what it did for me. And then I just immersed myself in this content, hung around with all these people, build relationships inside his company, because I just want to be around those types of people. Joe: Yep. Mike: Great, great friendships. Like I said, Jerry Glantz, a friend of mine, I just you know, I'm proud to have them in my in my circle. And so when when I wrote the book, the book actually came from an idea that I got while I was interviewing grad on my podcast about I asked him the question, what would it take to get into outer space? Not like literally, but figuratively speaking, getting away from all the gravity and negative suppressors of people and things that can mess with you. When can you get that amount of money or that amount of whatever it is? And he said people aren't ready for that discussion. He said that's just something the answer doesn't people don't like the answer to that question and I'm like, well, what would it take? You know? And I started thinking about rocket fuel. Rocket fuel is what it would take. Take it all that stuff, converting it and fuel your way up there. And then once you do that, you remove all that stuff out of your way. There's nothing to stop you and you become unstoppable and indestructible. And that's the thought that started going through my head and I started obsessing about it. I'm like, I got to write this. So when I did that, I'm like the only person that would make sense to be writing the forward for this book is Grant. I don't know if he does afterwards. I don't know if he charged me. I don't know anything. I'm going to make it happen, though. And that's what I started thinking all the time. I just dwelled on it, wrote it down and. Book is almost done, and I made a phone call and there are some details that went into doing that and I just got done and his name is on the cover of the book is for Written Joe: Yeah, Mike: By Grant. Joe: Yeah. Mike: So that adds to credibility that I may not have had before, but the content in the book is just so powerful, man. It's just I actually can be honest with you about something like like I'm always honest, but like just totally transparent. I read that book over and over again during the editing process. Right. And I got so sick of it and because I've read it so much, but then I haven't read it in a while and I went back and my team, we go through in the morning and we'll pick a passage to read out of it just to see what what we come upon. And I don't even remember writing some of the stuff. I'm just like, wow, this is like this is really good stuff. Joe: That's cool, Mike: So it's a weird Joe: Yeah. Mike: It's a weird mind game when you're writing a book and then to see the actual finished product. It's a good time. Joe: That's really cool, yeah, I look forward to reading it, I it's, you know, just talking with you, I can tell we're in sync on a lot of this stuff. You're ahead of me because you wrote a book and I haven't done it yet, but I know that it's a good process to go through. Where did you figure out where you wanted to start in the book in regards to your life? Mike: So, you know, I started share my story that I share with you and I have other parts of my life in there, too, that are just crazy, blew people's minds. But I really what I did was I started writing in my phone while I was on airplanes and I would just write ideas in my phone and and I would write stories that happen in my life. And then my podcast, we transcribe the podcast episodes, the first few that were a monologue style, and we just created a framework. And then it doesn't look anything like it started. That's how I got started with it and just started, you know, what kind of what went into me, what am I made of? And I just went into that and started sharing it. And then the lessons that broke off from each of those things, because, you know, a lot of people have been through there's people that have been through a lot more than I have. But my story is pretty crazy. Like there's some stuff that happened to me that nobody could imagine going through. But I'm still here, brother, and I'm still going hard. Joe: I hear you. I see that and you brought up a good point and one of the videos that I watch where you said people discount their story, right? They don't think, why would anybody care? It's not that Mike: Yeah. Joe: Special. Well, when were you able to actually take your own thoughts as part of your own story and make that switch where you said, wait a second, you know, what I've gone through is important. If it can help one person in the world, that's value enough. I mean, when did you or did you not ever doubt that your story was powerful? Mike: No, so I would I never shared it and I saw Pete Vargas share his story on the 10x growth conference stage in twenty nineteen, I'm sitting there watching and this is the first big stage, I think, that Pete was on. He was nervous and scared and his face, you could tell, is sweating and he would tell you this. I'm friends with Joe: Mm Mike: Him, so Joe: Hmm. Mike: It's not something I'm talking about. Joe: Yeah, no, no. Mike: But I thought to myself, I'm watching that. I don't know who he was at that time, but he was telling a story about his father and he was like really connecting with me and the relationship and how he grew up in a rough spot. And then they came back together and how it all worked out. And I'm like, wow, this is just like powerful. I felt like everybody else disappeared in the place and it was just him talking to me. And I'm like, I need to learn how to do that. And if he can do it, I know I could do it. That's what went through my head. And I told the guys I was with when we got in the car afterwards, I'm like, I'm going to be on that stage. I'm going to share my story one day and I know I can do it. And so then I started sharing the story of one person, two people, five people. And they were like, that's all. I really can relate to that. Then I said, Well, shit, I need to go to ten million people Joe: Mm hmm. Mike: If I could do it and how can I do that? And that's when I started obsessing about getting known and sharing that story. And, you know, I was able to talk to Pete after that and actually learn from him how to share your story. And but I shared that that that story about seeing him in the audience and how everybody just disappeared and how he connected with me. And so it's pretty powerful stuff, Joe: Yeah, Mike: Man. Joe: That's really powerful, but that's got to be a little eerie to just be sitting there Mike: The. Joe: And all of a sudden it's just like a movie where everything around you blurs out and it's just Mike: Yeah. Joe: The two of you. Yeah, Mike: Yeah. Joe: That's incredible. Something real light like question I have for you. The logo is it is a logo. And I'm going to take a guess and I'm probably going to be wrong. And you're going to say, well, nice try, Joe, but does it have anything to do with the Lynch? Mike: So the sirocco, the blue. Joe: Yeah. Mike: Yeah, so it's just upside down, see, and in two hours that are, you know, for Cerak and then it just has a little dude in there holding up the world, if you can see him. That's what it has now. It doesn't. I Joe: Ok, Mike: Didn't see that. So linchpin, Joe: Only because Mike: Huh? Joe: When I read some stuff from you talking about, you know, in some of the verbiage that I read about you and on your website, you mention Mike: Yeah. Joe: The word linchpin. I can't remember the context, but it was. Mike: Yeah, no, you know what, I. Joe: And then when I looked at a picture of a lynchpin, I was like, wait, it is Mike: I Joe: Round. Mike: Got to Joe: And Mike: See what a picture of a linchpin Joe: You Mike: Looks like Joe: See Mike: Because Joe: Now Mike: Because, Joe: I have Mike: You know, Joe: You thinking. Mike: Like that's. Yeah, I got to look at this because maybe maybe, yeah, maybe it does, Joe: The. Mike: So I didn't design the logo myself I had professionally done, and maybe he had that in mind as well. Joe: Only because it's mean you could kind of say it a little bit. I don't know. Mike: Yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying, Joe: Right, Mike: Yeah, Joe: It's Mike: No, Joe: Round Mike: I didn't Joe: With Mike: Have Joe: The Mike: That. Joe: With the thing through it, and I'm thinking, OK, well, maybe it's kind Mike: Yeah. Joe: Of hinting towards it and and I Mike: Now, Joe: Said, Mike: It was really just the sea Joe: Yeah. Mike: And the two hour and holding up the world and helping lift up the Joe: That's Mike: World, Joe: Cool, Mike: That's what Joe: That's even cooler, so you can Mike: The. Joe: Throw my idea right out the window, Mike: Now, Joe: But Mike: I Joe: I Mike: Like that, I like that. Joe: Do I do some upfront investigation of the person I'm talking to in the life and all of that stuff. And I saw that, you know, because you're doing your mortgages. And I saw that Jennifer is in real estate and I don't Mike: Yeah. Joe: Know if she still is, but. Mike: Yes, yes. Joe: So that's a really cool synergy between the two of you, first of all, I think that probably works really well. But just for the people in the audience who had a great relationship with their significant other, how important has that been in the balance of your life, especially what you went through as a young, you know, a young man being able to have that support in and you found the love of your life and it's you know, there's that whole synergy there between you. Mike: Yeah, I mean, it's it's everything, I mean, like I said, I made a joke about trying to earn her spending with that, but then on the day she does a great job, she did she was a stay at home mom for a while until our youngest was in school. And then I said, you know what? I'm going to try to you know, we've got to figure out something because I'm giving deals away Joe: Uh huh, Mike: To people. Joe: Yep. Mike: And, you know, it would be great if you get a license and she ended up doing it. And she's just the type that if she gets into something, she goes hard with it. And she did great the first two years, just fantastic. I didn't even realize how much money she made last year until I saw ten ninety nine. I'm like, wow, you did great. But she's just phenomenal and aligns well with our business. Obviously I don't do mortgages much anymore. Joe: Yeah. Mike: I don't do it all. I just I work on the business maybe an hour a day. My team runs the day to day. They do a fantastic job. And so but it aligns well, obviously in a lot of our people, their spouse got their real estate license, too, because it aligns so well. Joe: Mm hmm. Yeah. Mike: So, yeah, but but at the end of the day, we are you know, I'm very clear with what I'm trying to do, my dreams. And she is clear on the fact of her dreams and the fact that she's willing to support me and run through fire for me. And Joe: Yeah. Mike: It's just a great feeling because I can't do it without her, obviously. Joe: Yep, yep, I just wanted to sort of bring that up, because I think it's important I have the same sort of relationship with Joel Mike: And Joe: And Mike: It's Joe: My significant Mike: Awesome. Joe: Other. So it's Mike: Yeah. Joe: To me, it's super important. And with what happened with covid, you know, a lot of things just stopped. Right. And Mike: Mm hmm. Joe: Changes were made. And so she got furloughed from doing her day to day job and has not been brought back. But she's always had this dream of doing photography. And so now I basically have said to her, you are not going back and you are going to from this point forward until whenever the world ends for you, you're going to follow your dream. So I Mike: Awesome. Joe: Think it's important. Right. And to Mike: Yeah. Joe: Support each other and it's nice to see that you have that same relationship. Mike: Yeah, so, so, so important that it aligns I mean, so much conflict comes from just not being aligned with the mission, Joe: Yep, Mike: You know, Joe: Yep. Mike: And I think that people need to realize that their personal dream, their mission, I call it their purpose, their mission. It's it's more important than anything when it comes down to it really is. Joe: Yeah. Mike: And that's why it's so important to share that with your partner, to make sure that they're on the same page with you. Joe: So let's talk about that. I'm sure I'm probably older than you at this point, but we're Mike: Yeah, Joe: At Mike: Definitely, definitely. Now Joe: The. Mike: I'm 40, I'm 40 for some, I'm Joe: Oh, Mike: A Joe: My gosh, I'm so Mike: Young Joe: Old, Mike: Pup, Joe: I can't. Mike: But I am going on 18 years of marriage. This May so. Joe: Congratulations, that's awesome, yeah, Mike: Thank Joe: Joel Mike: You. Joe: And Mike: Thank Joe: I Mike: You. Joe: Are 20, I think, at this point. Mike: Ok, cool, congrats. Joe: Yeah, I turned fifty nine this past February, so, Mike: Oh, man, I Joe: You know. Mike: Can't tell. I really can't Joe: Yeah, Mike: Tell. Joe: Well thank Mike: Maybe Joe: You. Mike: That's why that's why you shave your head, because that way you can't see any Joe: That's Mike: Gray hairs. Joe: Exactly, exactly right. They got my eyebrows Mike: Hey, Joe: Are still dark, Mike: Look, I'm with you the way the. Joe: So do you ever look at where you are now and you look back and go? I mean, and I think we've talked about this with some of the great people, like, you know, we can bring up David Meltzer again because he's just he's like one of my mentors. I love the guy at the Mike: Is Joe: Death. Mike: Awesome. Joe: You know, what is what's the saying? Something like the the teacher. The teacher appears when the student is ready, Mike: Yeah. Joe: Right? Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah, teachers. Joe: Yep. Mike: Yep, exactly. Joe: And it's the same thing with life. Like things come when the time is right. And some people would argue against that. Some people would say whatever. But you just started on this path now, right. Something flipped when you're 40, when your stepfather passed away, it said there's you know, and you might have felt that your whole life because you people like you and I always were pulled towards something. Right. We're entrepreneurs. We've always worked towards a greater goal of whatever. Do you ever look back and go, God, I wish I had started this sooner? Or is it like, no, it's this is the time. This is the right time. It's happening now. You know, I'm interested in what your thought process is on that. Mike: Well, I'm curious, asking the question, you must have felt some kind of feeling about that in the past, maybe. Joe: I constantly go like I had, I chased another dream up until this point, and that Mike: Yeah. Joe: Dream didn't happen for me and I openly admit all the time that I didn't put in the work to make that dream happen. I'm Mike: The. Joe: I'm a trained you know, I went to college for music. So my whole life has been surrounded by music. And one day I was going to tour the world and be this famous drummer for and I always use the example because I love his music. John Mayer. Mike: Yeah. Joe: That never happened for me because I know now I can look myself in the mirror and go, You didn't put in the work. You didn't put in the Mike: Yeah, Joe: Tent. Mike: The commitment, Joe: Yeah. You Mike: Yeah. Joe: Didn't do the ten thousand hours. You Mike: Yeah. Joe: You would rather had gone down to the college campus bar and had a bunch of beers and chicken wings with your buddies Mike: Yep. Joe: Instead of going back into the practice room and spending another four hours at night. So I am fine with I get it now, but now Mike: Yeah. Joe: I'm trying to take like the rest of my life and make it amazing and live much Mike: Yeah. Joe: Bigger. And so I am at the stage right now doing that change, shifting Mike: Mm hmm. Joe: My my frame of mind. I know the world is abundant. I know that everything you know, I just have to look towards the good of everything. And the more I focus on the good and the abundance and the gratitude, more of it just keeps coming in. In the last two months, it's been incredible for me. And so and it's I always was the oh, woe is me. Like I work my ass off. Why am I not getting that? Why am I not Mike: Yep, Joe: Doing that? So Mike: Yeah. Joe: That's why I asked you this question Mike: Yeah, Joe: When that, Mike: Yeah. Joe: You know, was the shift with your with Mike: Yeah. Joe: Your father, your stepfather passing away and you just saying when you said you felt it in your heart, you were like, I need to do something bigger. Was that the pivotal point for this? Mike: Yes, it was, and I did look back and be like, man, I cannot believe when I started finding out things and becoming aware of things, I cannot believe I didn't start this sooner. I didn't know that. Like, I just felt like I had wasted I went through a period of time where I felt like I wasted time and time is so valuable. And I said, you know what? I don't know how much longer I have on this planet, but you know what, at this point, the window keeps shrinking. I got to pick up my urgency. I got to move faster. I got to demand more and be louder and be more impactful and be just more intense than I would have had to if I started a long time ago, that's all. And so at first I did look back and with some regret. But then I quickly got out of that and said, OK, what have we got to do to get this done in the window that I do have left? So, yeah, I definitely and that was the pivotal, pivotal point, of course, working towards it my whole life, not knowing it. Joe: Yeah. Mike: You know, there's a story in the Bible and they made a movie about it with Steve Carell about Noah's Ark. You know, it was told over some years he took to build this big arc and he didn't really know why he was doing it, he was just being told to do it by God. If you believe in God, Joe: Hmm. Mike: Which I do, or if it's intuition or whatever. And he got these animals and people were laughing at him and discouraging them and he just kept doing it anyway and building a ship in a place where there's never rain. Joe: All right. Mike: And did it make sense, it didn't seem to make sense at the moment, but he kept doing it and he kept being committed and doing it and doing it and doing it before you know it. The rain came, washed everybody away, and he survived with all the animals that he had and his family. And so I look at that lesson and I started to see this now. I started to see that the things when I'm committed and obeyed to my purpose, my mission, and I filter things through that, whether it's the people I hang out with, my actions, my words, my thoughts, my environment, when I start to filter through that mission. I'm obeying what I'm supposed to be doing and things just magically work out and I start to see opportunities everywhere, but when I don't do that, they're missing. And so you don't need to know what the end game is necessarily. You should be shooting for something, but just be looking for the opportunities. As long as you're obeying your mission and filtering everything through your purpose or mission or whatever you want to call it. Joe: Yeah. All right, well, that makes me feel good that I'm not the only one that had some regrets, so thank Mike: The. Joe: You for being vulnerable and saying that because I definitely have gone through it and I have like I said, I'm older than you. So I think, you know, think, Mike: None of us are alone, Joe. None of us are, you Joe: Ok. Mike: Know, I've anything that you go through, there's somebody else out there experiencing it for sure. Joe: Right, and I think that's what you're a lot of what you talk about is it's so important to share your story because it literally could help one person, which would be a huge help. You never know where they are in their state of mind. And if it lifts them, that's awesome. But imagine being able to help tens of thousands of millions of billions of people. Right. So I understand that's what the goal is for people like us who want to do that. So I I wish you the best of luck in doing that. And and same Mike: Thanks. Joe: With myself. Mike: Yeah, Joe: They've Mike: You, Joe: Got Mike: Too. Joe: To get it done. Mike: That's right, Joe: Ok, Mike: That's right. Joe: So you said something earlier about the book, which is the name of the book is Rocket Fuel. And you said it's May, May 3rd. Mike: Yeah, May 3rd, Monday, May 3rd, it's coming out on Amazon, and, you know, it should be a best seller based on we have we presold it. So I'm thinking that it's not going to have a problem being a best seller, number one best seller. Joe: Yep. Mike: What we shall see. But I'm going to do a bunch of lives that day, Instagram and Facebook lives, and just have some fun with it Joe: Cool. Mike: And celebrate. Joe: Ok, cool, so let's talk about it a little bit. Mike: Sure. Joe: You said something earlier that I thought was really cool, which was taking you said something about taking whatever comes in and not putting in it in the trunk, but putting it in the fuel tank and making rocket fuel. So explain Mike: Yep, Joe: That again Mike: Very Joe: To me, because Mike: Good. Joe: I I loved Mike: Yeah. Joe: It when you said I was like and I didn't even write it down. Mike: Yeah. Joe: I was like, no, that's got to go up here in my brain. So I would love to Mike: Well, Joe: Hear that again. Mike: Well, when you want something in life and things come your way to stop it or slow you down, if you remove a one thing, obviously that's going to help. But removing is not good enough for me. So I take all that stuff. Haters, people that discourage me laughed at me. What I'm trying to do, screw ups of my own people trying to screw me, all that stuff I just stored in my fuel tank. And usually people put it in their trunk and that weighs them down. You know, most people quit on their dreams because other people are talking Joe: Mm hmm. Mike: About them and saying, no, you're not the same. Why are you doing that? In all kinds of different things? I take all that and say, you know what, like here's an example, by the way, I stored in my tank, my fuel tank, to convert it into rocket fuel rather than my trunk, where it weighs me down. And some of the people closest to me, you know, like some of my business partners and friends and they know who they are. I talk to them about it. And I said, you know what? You keep saying the stuff like, hey, why don't you go do your podcast? Hey, you know, just this stupid digs like that, right? At the end of the day, they're trying to get at me, but they're really just talking about themselves, reflecting upon themselves and the fact that they should be doing that and they're not. And so I know that. And I tell people, you know, you want to say that, great, you're not going to achieve what you think you're going to achieve because all you're doing is giving me more fuel and I'm going to push it even harder. So when somebody says that to me, I'll do it on purpose, where I'll push harder and then I'll show it up in their face a little bit more to about. They're seeing so many posts on Instagram, I'll make sure I send it to them in a direct message, because that way it shuts them Joe: Yeah, Mike: Up Joe: Yeah, Mike: For Joe: It's weird, I don't Mike: Not Joe: Understand, Mike: Being. Joe: I don't understand, like people want to bring you down to their level, right? We deal with that all the time. And and social media has done so much to expose those people. And I just don't understand why they can't be happy for you. But they. Mike: Well, they can't because so I've already realized this in my mind now I know this, it's not them personally, it's their mind. And what it's happening is they just the subconscious mind just justifies where you are. It's trying to justify the truths that you told yourself and when something comes in to threaten that. You have to basically there there things fire off to protect their subconscious beliefs, and so it's not really them personally that's doing it and that's why you can't take it personal. You need to understand it. And then when they're doing it, you need to lay it out to them and let them know, hey, listen, I know what's going on here. I get it. You're where you are and you're trying to justify where you are. And you're saying this stuff to me. I don't take it personal, by the way. I use it as fuel. So thank you. And if you want to say more, continue to give me fuel. Great. But I would rather be able to help you. On break the like, just open up your truths and change them, change your beliefs. And expand your mind and see what you can achieve instead of worrying about what I'm doing and that's the way I handle it, I don't really get fired up or angry or take it personal. It's just a situation where they're going through it. And I think we've all been through it Zoom. I think I'm more understanding of it, Joe: Yeah. Mike: But I will not. But if they don't listen to me when I talk about that, I will not spend time with them because I'm not going to spend time with people that don't align with the mission. Joe: Totally agree. So the book Rocket Fuel coming out May 3rd on Amazon, who is this book for? Mike: Specifically, this is for people that have gone through things in life. And they feel like they keep getting held back or slowed down by things are stopped and they're just they're just done with it. They're they're at the point right now where they've had enough. They're getting sick of where they are and they want to do something about it. And they are looking for that breakthrough that that that superpower, because really it is it's like John Maxwell, House leadership, because this thing is so powerful. And I validated it so, so thoroughly that it's a law, it's the Rockefeller law. And so it's for people that are just sick and tired of being where they are. And they want to advance. They want to have a better life, life of their dreams. And I believe, like I said, my mission is all people are unstoppable to live in a life of their dreams. And so that's what's for. Joe: Yeah, and I saw that it seems like part of the focus is about past pains and obstacles and how you you basically help with the book to to change, take people and turn it around and say, you know, like you're saying, use those things as rocket fuel to get you to the next level. So don't lean on them. Don't have them in the trunk, don't have them as baggage, but instead take what you've learned, take what has happened and convert it to rocket fuel by doing whatever you talk about in the book. Mike: Yeah, Joe: Right. Mike: Yeah, the magic, the magic, here's the magic, right? The magic is when you have something happen and you get that feeling in your chest, that's where it hits me, by the way, like something Joe: Hmm. Mike: Bad happens and like this speed to which you can recognize that and convert it and look for opportunity. That's when you master the Rockefeller law. That's what it's all about, the longer time it takes, the more doubt creeps in, Joe: Yeah. Mike: A more negative energy creeps in, the more victimhood creeps in. And the missed opportunities happened during that period. So you want to shrink that window to as little as short as possible because we all feel it. We're all going to still feel it when something bad happens at first, but recognize it as fast as possible and start to look for the opportunity, not play the victim role, take responsibility for everything. Joe: Yeah, that's great. OK, I want to honor the time we have that we so we're going to do an hour or so. I want to just go through this real quick. So you have your own podcast, which is what are you made of? Which is on the wall behind you, where you interview. I assume, you know, other entrepreneurs and people that have amazing stories to tell and share. You release one week, twice a week with a human. Mike: Well, it started out once a week and then I had so many that I was doing, I had to do two weeks. Right now we're on a two week schedule. Joe: Ok. Mike: So, yeah, I just load up. I go hard, man. Like, if I see somebody I want to show, I go after him like an animal. I get them on the show and I don't care how many I've already had in the can. I just still just keep loading them up Joe: That's awesome. Mike: And uh. Yeah. So. Joe: Ok, cool. Besides that, you are you do some performance coaching, correct? You do some coaching in general, you Mike: Yeah. Joe: Are doing some speaking. You're going to continue to to build that Mike: Yeah. Joe: That part of your career. You're going to be on stage with Grant one of these days. Mike: Well, yeah, but so the coaching part, I want to do, the coaching part of switching that into, you know, I still have a couple of clients, but really focusing on the tech side of things and developing these entrepreneurs and young entrepreneurs into this tech world and using my specialty performance and business coaching and what have you into that, not getting paid directly for it. But but from the companies that I'm developing, Joe: Yeah. Mike: I'm really focused on that. And then I was on a 10x growth stage this past March. Joe: Oh, congratulations. Mike: Let me tell you, it took me two years to step on that stage. Joe: Hey, Mike: Thank you. Joe: That's awesome. The tech thing is it is there more that you can tell us about it or a way that people can find out about it or a. Mike: Yes, so the best thing to do, really, I mean, if you if you message me and follow me on Instagram, you're going to see all kinds of stuff coming out here very shortly on it. But I have a tech product called Blueprinted. It's being printed. This is my the one I co-founded. And this product basically, I looked at digital training and video training and I saw, like, how ineffective Joe: Mm Mike: It was Joe: Hmm. Mike: And the fact that only 20 percent of people actually complete the courses. So that means the people that are marketing these courses that are good at marketing are making money without concern for the Joe: Correct, Mike: Success Joe: Yeah. Mike: Of their student, their clients. And I thought that was an ethical problem. And I looked at why people get bored. They don't finish it, they get distracted, they don't retain the information. Or when they get done, they're like, what's the next step? Like, what am I supposed to do? Where do I put that Joe: Mm Mike: And Joe: Hmm. Mike: Where where do I take that and how long do I do that? And so I thought to myself, what if there's a way to have a project management based software technology that has a marketplace where people that have had success can come in and algorithmically step by step, put the success steps to what they've done, whatever vertical, Joe: Mm Mike: And Joe: Hmm. Mike: Build that blueprint in our platform and then sell it on the marketplace to to people that want to know how to be successful in that area. So it could be anything from a business to a podcast to digital marketing agency, whatever it is. Because if you look if you're going to build a house, you wouldn't want to watch a YouTube video. And on building that house, Joe: All Mike: You'd want the blueprints. Joe: Right. Mike: So this is a market disrupter, industry disrupter. And I can also see another industry being created from this, like there's web designers when websites came out. Well, there's going to be a lot of people that don't want to build their own blueprints. They want to take the content and give it to somebody and have them do the blueprint for Joe: Mm Mike: Them. Joe: Hmm. Mike: So there's going to be a whole industry just on blueprints. And so, yeah, this is a phenomenal thing. And it's coming out hopefully in the next 60 days, give or take. And I'm just fired up to get it in people's hands, man. Joe: That's great, man. You got a lot of irons in the fire. I like Mike: Yeah, Joe: It. Mike: But Joe: That's Mike: Thank Joe: Awesome. Mike: You. Joe: All right. So I want everybody to go and check out your podcast. The book is released on May 3rd called Rocket Fuel. Get in touch with you on on any of the social media. What's the best way to get in touch with you Mike: Instagram, Joe: On. Mike: Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, either one, but Instagram, it's Michy Cerak. Joe: Like you see rock on Instagram. Mike: Yep. Joe: Perfect. All right, man, this is a pleasure for me. I love talking Mike: Metohija. Joe: To another person Mike: Yeah, buddy. Joe: And it was great. And I really wish you a ton of luck with the book. I'll make sure when this episode gets released, I'll have a cover of the book. This will also go like you do on your podcast, will go to the YouTube channel so people will Mike: Thank you Joe: Be able to Mike: To. Joe: See it. I'll put the link to the Amazon in there. Anything else I can do to help? Let me know. But it was a real pleasure to speak with you. I appreciate Mike: Well, Joe: Your time Mike: Thank Joe: And. Mike: You. Thank you, Joe, I appreciate it was a great interview. Great questions and I really enjoyed it. Joe: Thank you, ma'am. You take care. Good luck with the book. Good luck with the podcast. Good luck with the tech software and Mike: Thank Joe: Everything Mike: You. Joe: Else. And just have an amazing year. Mike: Thank you, you, too, bye. Joe: Thank you.

god ceo amazon bible house zoom michigan focus pennsylvania finance maryland strap twenty east coast haters disney world yahoo ohio state rocket ark thank god lynch jersey shore john mayer john maxwell rockefeller steve carell croc david meltzer thrust rocket fuel dave meltzer joe cool mike c roc ciorrocco mike awesome top business leaders mike c roc pete vargas mike it mike you mike gray mike no mike yeah mike got joe it mike well joe you mike so mike good mike thank mike oh mike let joe yeah joe well joe so mike thanks joe support mike right mike for joe all mike on joe absolutely joe did mike to mike yep mike ok

Understanding Bitcoin From a Developer's Perspective

FounderQuest

Play Episode Listen Later May 21, 2021 50:53

Show notes:Links:Mike MondragonCRDTShip of TheseusExceptional CreaturesShiba Inu Full Transcript:Ben:I'm just gonna dive on in there. I'm so eager. I'm so excited. It's actually weird because Starr is the one that typically starts us off. Josh:Yeah. I thought we were just going to start with our just general banter, and then not introduce the guest until 30 minutes later.Ben:By the way.Josh:It is also our tradition.Ben:Yeah. Well we're getting better at this thing.Josh:Where we say, "Oh, by the way, if Starr doesn't sound like Starr..."Ben:Right, yes. Today Starr doesn't sound like Starr because today's star is Mike Mondragon instead. Welcome Mike.Josh:Hey Mike.Mike:Hey.Ben:Mike is a long time friend of the show, and friend of the founders. Actually, Mike, how long have we known each other? It's been at least 10, maybe 15 years?Mike:Probably 2007 Seattle RB.Ben:Okay.Josh:Yeah. I was going to say you two have known each other much longer than I've even known Ben.Ben:Yeah.Josh:So you go back.Ben:Way back.Mike:Yep.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah.Josh:Because I think Ben and I met in 2009.Ben:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Or something.Mike:Okay.Ben:Yeah, Mike and I have been hanging out for a long time.Mike:Yeah.Ben:We've known each other through many, many different jobs, and contracts, and so on. It's been awesome.Josh:Yeah, Mike, I feel like I've heard your name since... Yeah, for the last, at least, 10 years just working with Ben. You've always been in the background. And we've realized this is the first time we've actually met face to face, which is crazy. But it's great to... Yeah.Mike:Yeah.Josh:... have a face to put with the little... What is it, a cat avatar? Is a cat in your avatar? You've had that avatar for a really long time I feel like.Mike:Yeah, that's Wallace.Josh:Okay.Mike:So I'm Mond on GitHub and Twitter, and that cat avatar is our tuxedo cat, Wallace. And he is geriatric now. Hopefully he'll live another year. And if you remember in that era of Ruby, all of the Japanese Rubyists had cat icons. And so that was... I don't know. That's why Wallace is my icon.Josh:Yeah. Nice.Ben:So, so do Wallace and Goripav know each other?Mike:No, no, they don't. They're like best friends, right? They had to have met at Seattle RB.Ben:Yeah. Internet friends.Mike:Internet friends, yeah.Ben:Yeah. So, Mike is old school Ruby, way back, way back, yeah. But the other funny thing about the old Rubyists, all those Japanese Rubyists, I remember from RubyConf Denver... Was that 2007? Somewhere around there. I remember going to that and there were mats and a bunch of friends were sitting up at the front, and they all had these miniature laptops. I've never seen laptops so small. I don't know what they were, nine inch screens or something crazy.Mike:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:I was like, "How do you even type on that thing?" But it's a thing. So I guess... I don't know. I haven't been to Japan.Mike:There are laptops that you could only get in Japan and they flash them with some sort of Linux probably.Ben:Yeah. Yeah.Mike:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Okay. I wonder how long it took them to compile C on there.Mike:Yeah. So, about the orbit with the founders. So, I think I'd put it in my notes that I... And I consider myself a sliver of a Honeybadger in that I did have a conversation with Ben about joining the company. And then in 2017, I did do a little contracting with you guys, which is ironic in that... So we're probably going to talk about cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin. So the Bitcoin protocol is, essentially, on a four-year timer. And in 2017 was the last time that we were building up to, I guess, an explosive end to that cycle. And I had just been working at Salesforce at Desk.com, And I left because of Bitcoin. And then this year, four years later, I, again, just left Salesforce, but I just left from Heroku. And I didn't leave so much because of Bitcoin, I just got a better opportunity, and I'm a principal engineer at Okta, and I'm in the developer experience working on SDKs, primarily, the Golang SDK.Mike:So I think one of the things that they were happy about was that I had experience carrying the pager, and knowing what that's like, and they wanted to have an experienced engineer that would have empathy for the engineers to main the SDK. So I'm really excited to be here, because I'm not going to be carrying the pager, and it is the fun programming. What I imagine, listening to the founders, about the kind of fun programming that you guys get to do, working with different languages and whatnot. So, obviously right now, I'm starting out with Golang. We don't have a Ruby SDK, because OmniAuth provider is the thing that most people use. But, there's also PHP, and some Java, so I'm just looking forward to being able to do a bunch of different languages.Josh:Yeah. That's awesome. Yeah. We don't know anything about SDK teams, Honeybadger. But yeah, it sounds like we have very similar jobs at the moment. So that's cool. We'll have to trade tips at some point. Yeah.Ben:Yeah, I'm excited that you're there, because I'm definitely going to hit you up on the SAML stuff, because SAML's a pain in the tuchus yeah, I'm sure you'll have some insights from your time there.Mike:Well, that was how I was even open-minded to talking to Okta, was the recruiter had contacted me and I think actually it was the recruiter... I don't know the structure of how this works, but a lot of companies have a prospecting recruiter. And I think that a veteran oriented prospecting recruiter contacted me. And so being a veteran, I'll usually entertain those cold calls. And so then when I was at Desk, I wrote... So Desk was a big Rails monolith. I wrote a microservice to break some of the SSO off of the monolith itself. And in writing the API documentation that was on desk.com, I actually used Okta as one of the examples as a SSO identity provider using SAML. So yeah, I have had a little bit of experience from the outside of Okta with SAML. And so maybe I'll have more experience here to answer your questions.Ben:Yeah. We'll have to have you back and we can just do a whole hour on that. It's a fun world.Josh:After we do an hour on SDKs.Ben:Yeah, and your code that you wrote for us still lives on in Honeybadger.Josh:Yeah. Was it the webpack? That was some of the work, right?Ben:Some of it, yeah.Mike:Yep.Josh:Yeah.Ben:And some GitHub integration work.Josh:And the integrations, yeah.Mike:Yeah, well if I remember correctly with the GitHub integration, I did do some GitHub integration, and it tickled your enthusiasm, Ben, and then I think you went in and like refactored that a little bit.Ben:Well, if you have a monolith like Redo that's been around for as long as ours has, things don't... It's like, what was that Theseus' ship, it's goes around the world but you replace things as it goes, and it's never the same app, right?Mike:Yeah, that's the thing, we had discussed this in the prelude around just software engineering in general and how hard it is to maintain a monolith, especially as a company grows and as developers come rolling into a project, you get all of these... Over time you get engineers with different goals, different techniques, different styles of touching your code base, to the point that it becomes very hard to maintain a project. And I think, I don't know if we're going to talk about Heroku at all, but I think that Heroku suffers from a little bit of that, where there's very few original Heroku that are involved in the runtime at least. And I just came from being on the runtime in the control plane. And, definitely, the code base there is... There's maybe one or two people that are still around that have touched that code base from the beginning.Ben:Yeah, let's dive into that, because that's fascinating to me. I know that there's been chatter on Twitter recently that people feel that Heroku is stagnated. That they haven't really brought a lot of innovative stuff to market recently. I remember, actually a funny story, I'm going to tell it myself. I can't remember what year this was, it were way... I don't know, I don't know, early 2000s. I was sitting as part of a focus group, and I can't reveal a lot of information because secrecy and stuff. But anyway, I was part of this focus group and I was asked as part of this group, what as a developer working on Ruby applications and Rails applications, what I thought about this new thing called Heroku. And had it explained to me, "Oh, you just get push", and "Blah, blah, blah", and I poo-pooed the idea. I was like, "Nah, I'm not interested", because I already know how to deploy stuff. I've got Mongrel, I got a DVS.Josh:Say Mongrel.Ben:I know how to use SEP, why do I need this? Like Math, never going to catch on. And so don't follow me for investing advice.Mike:Yeah, totally.Josh:I got my Linodes.Mike:Yeah. Or even back then, I wrote all of my own chef, so I got my own recipes I can-Ben:Right, exactly.Mike:... bare metal at will.Ben:Exactly. So, what do you think, you've been at Heroku, you've seen this process of people having to maintain this code base over a long period of time. What are some tips for people who might be a little earlier on the process? Looking down the road, what do you suggest people think about for having a more maintainable application?Mike:That's interesting. I really think that there is not one size fits all, and actually some of the things that are specific to Heroku, and actually to desk.com when I was there previously, that some of the issues actually stem from Salesforce culture and the way that Salesforce manages its businesses. And so, I guess the thing that I've always liked about Rails, specifically, is that the conventions that are used in Rails, you can drop an experienced Rails developer pretty much into any Rails app and they're going to know the basic conventions. And that saves you so much time to ramping up and bringing your experience into a project. Whereas when you get into bespoke software, then you run into well what were the architectural design patterns 10 years ago compared to now? How much drift has there been in libraries and the language, depending.Mike:And so that is... I don't... That's a very hard question to nail down in a specific way. I would just say in spit balling this, conventions are very important, I would say. So as long as you have a conventions using a framework, then I think that you'll get to go a long ways. However, if you start to use a framework, then you get the everything is a nail and I'm going to use my hammer framework on that. Which is its own thing that I've seen in Ruby, where if you start a project with Rails, I don't think everybody realizes this, but you are essentially going to be doing a type of software development that is in the mindset of Basecamp, right? And if you have an app that is not quite like Basecamp, and then you start to try to extending Rails to do something different, then you're going to start running into issues. And I think that... It makes me sad when I hear people talk poorly about Rails, because oftentimes people are just pushing it into a direction that it's not built to do. Whether they're, like in the old days, like monkey-patching libraries, or whatnot.Ben:Yeah, I think we saw that with the rise of Elixir and Phoenix, right? José just got frustrated with wanting to do some real time stuff. And that really wasn't the wheelhouse for Rails, right? And so he went and built Elixir and Phoenix, and built on top of that. And that became a better hammer for that particular nail than Rails, right? So now if you come into a new project and you're like, "Well, I'm going to do a lot of highly concurrent stuff", well, okay, maybe Rails isn't the best solution. Maybe you should go look at Elixir and Phoenix instead.Mike:Yeah. Yeah. So, with Heroku, I just want to say that it was so awesome to work at Heroku, and the day that I got a job offer to work there, it was like... I still, if I'm having a bad day, I still think about that, and the... I've never used hard drugs, but I would think that somebody that was cocaine high, that's probably what I was feeling when I got the offer from Heroku. I started using Heroku in 2009, and it has a story within our community, it's highly respected. And so I just want to say that I still think very highly of Heroku, and if I was to be doing just a throwaway project, and I just want to write some code and do git push main, or git push Heroku main, then I would definitely do that.Mike:And we were... And I'm not very experienced with the other kinds of competitors right now. I think, like you pointed him out, is it Vercel and Render?Ben:Render. Mm-hmm (affirmative).Mike:Yeah. So I can't really speak to them. I can really just speak to Heroku and some of the very specific things that go on there. I think one of the issues that Heroku suffers from is not the technology itself, but just the Salesforce environment. Because at Salesforce, everything eventually has to be blue, right? And so, Heroku, I don't think they ever could really figure out the right thing to do with Heroku. As well as, the other thing about enterprise software is that if I'm selling Salesforce service cloud or whatever, I'm selling, essentially, I'm selling seats of software licenses. And there's no big margin in selling Compute, because if I'm buying Compute, I expect to be using that.Mike:And so, as a salesperson, I'm not incented to sell Heroku that much because there's just not margins for me in the incentive structure that they have at sales within Salesforce. So I think that's the biggest thing that Heroku has going against it, is that it's living in a Salesforce environment. And as, I guess, a owner of Salesforce being that I have Salesforce stock, I would hope that they would maximize their profits and actually sell Heroku. Who knows, maybe a bunch of developers get together and actually buy the brand and spin that off. That would be the best thing, because I think that Salesforce would probably realize a lot more value out of Heroku just by doing that, even if there's some sort of profit sharing, and then not have to deal with all the other things.Ben:Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. The thing about billing, and then selling per user, versus the compute- That's definitely a different world. It's a totally different mindset. And I think Josh that we have now been given a directive step. We should acquire Heroku as part of Honeybadger.Josh:I was going to say, maybe we can acquire it with all of our Doge profits in five or 10 years from now.Mike:Well, yeah. Somebody spin a Heroku coin, a ERC20 token on Ethereum and get everybody to dump their Ethereum into this token.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Mike:Get that pot of money together. And then that is the Heroku Foundation. Yeah, exactly.Josh:Okay, yeah.Mike:The Heroku Foundation that buys the Heroku brand. I know that we're laughing about it, but actually this is what is possible today. And, I was telling Ben... Well, let me just say a couple of things about the FounderQuest and how it relates to me, is I've been listening to FounderQuest from the first episode, and I'm an only child, and I like to listen to podcasts. So I'll be on my afternoon walk, and I'll be hearing you guys talk, and I'm having this conversation along with you guys listening to the podcasts.Mike:And so, I think, in January, you guys were talking about, or maybe Ben was talking about, $30,000 Bitcoin, and you guys just had your yucks and laughs about it. And it actually made me think critically about this, because I've been involved with Bitcoin since about 2012, and it's like, "Do I have a tinfoil hat on?" Or what do I think? And so, I'm not joking about this, listening to you guys actually has helped me concretely come up with how I feel about this. And first off, I think, I'm bullish on technology. And this is the first epiphany that I had, is all of us have had a career close to Linux, close to Ruby, building backend services, close to virtualization and orchestration. Fortunately, that's been my interest, and fortunately that's been where our industry has gone. And so, when Bitcoin came out, as technologists, all you ever hear, if you don't know anything about Bitcoin, you just hear currency. And you're thinking internet money, you're not thinking about this as a technologist.Mike:And so that was the thing. I wish that Bitcoin had been talked about as a platform, or a framework.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Mike:And not even called it coin. Because that confuses the issue-Josh:The whole coin thing, just... Yeah.Mike:Yeah, totally. And mining the metaphors-Josh:That alone.Mike:... just totally throws everything off. Because we are talking, we're laughing about it, but this is really possible today. We could come up with a Foundation to buy Heroku with a cryptocurrency, and it would... Yeah. So that's one thing that Ben helped me realize in my thinking around Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. And I think I'm just bullish on technology. And so to me, again, across our career, there's been so much change. And why would we look at Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies any differently than any other kind of technology? Even a hundred dollar bill with all the holograms on it, that is a kind of financial technology. And so we're just talking about a digital technology, we're not talking about coins I guess.Josh:That's the appeal, a lot of the Altcoins, right? They give everyone a way to invest in those companies, whereas before you would have to... Whatever, be an accredited investor or something to be able to get involved. Is that part of the appeal? I'm probably showing what I know about crypto, which is very little, but I'm excited to... Yeah, maybe you can...Mike:Yeah. Yeah, so I feel like these projects are... I'm not a VC, and I'm not an insider, but from what I can see from afar, in Silicon Valley there's a close group of people that have access to all of these ideas. And there's Angel clubs, and VC clubs, and whatnot, that are funding these startups. And to me, I feel like these crypto projects are the same kind of thing, except for they're just available to the public. And so, I think if I was speaking to another technologist that was interested in cryptocurrencies, is you probably need to get your hands on some of the technology in order to get experience with it.Mike:And so if that means you figure out how to maybe mine some coin on your laptop, or whatever, or you actually pay for it, you should at least have some in your possession, and at least learn about the custodial part of it. Also, there's different software libraries now to actually do programming against it, and platforms, I believe. So that'd be another way to at least tickle your curiosity, is by actually touching the technology and not thinking about the value. So yeah.Ben:Yeah. That, to me, that's one of the most interesting things about the whole coin thing. My younger son is really interested in the crypto space, in the coin and in the other parts of a distributed ledger, and what does that mean, and how does that work? And before I heard about NFTs, he was talking about NFTs. And so it's really interesting to me to see this coming from him. Just yesterday, we had a conversation about CRDTs, right? Because we're talking about how do you merge transactions that are happening in distributed fashion? Right? I was like, "Oh yeah", and it's so weird to have my teenage sons' world colliding with my world in this way.Josh:Yeah.Ben:But it's a lot of fun. And I've got to say, Mike, I got to give you back some credit, talking about the whole coin thing. As you've heard, we're pretty coin skeptical here at Honeybadger, the Founders, but you made a comment in our pre-show conversation. And maybe you didn't make this explicitly, but maybe it's just a way that I heard it. But I think... Well what I heard was, and maybe you actually said this, was basically think about this like an index fund, right? You put dollar cost to averaging, right? You put some money into coin, you put a little bit, it's not going to be your whole portfolio, right? But you don't treat it like a gamble, and you just treat it like an investment, like you would other things that may appreciate in value. And of course you may not.Ben:And so, as a result, I decided, "Okay, I can do that. I can put a little bit of my portfolio into coins". So just this week, and this is the funny part, just this week-Josh:I'm just finding this out now, by the way.Ben:Yeah, yeah. Josh is like... I told my wife about this last night and she was like, "What's Josh going to say?" "Like, I don't know". So anyway, just this week I put a little bit of money into Bitcoin and Ethereum. And that was... When did Elon do his thing about Bitcoin? Was that Thursday morning?Josh:Oh yeah.Ben:I bought, two hours before Elon did his thing, and Bitcoin lost 15% of its value.Mike:That's awesome.Ben:I'm like, "It's okay. It's okay, I'm just putting-Josh:Yeah, you don't sell, it doesn't matter.Mike:What was your emotion? What was your emotion?Ben:Yeah, totally. Yeah. In fact, my first buy, I used Coinbase. And Coinbase was like, "Oh, do you want to do this periodically?" I'm like, "Yes, I do. Every month". Boom.Mike:Oh.Ben:I went ahead and set that up like so, yeah.Mike:Oh, I did not know you could do that.Ben:I'm in it to win it, man.Mike:You should get a hardware wallet. That's the next thing, is you need to learn how to handle your own custody, so-Josh:Right, yeah. You got to... Yeah.Mike:Not leave it on the exchange. Interesting.Josh:Get those hard drives.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Yeah. Ben's a veteran indexer though. So you can handle some dips. Some volatility.Ben:Yeah. Yeah.Josh:I actually, I did make some money off of Bitcoin back in the day, and probably if I would've just held onto it, I would've made a lot more, of course.Mike:Same.Josh:So I accidentally... Back, I don't know when this was, it was maybe five years ago or something, when Bitcoin was going through one of its first early hype cycles, and I was like, "I'll check it". I was learning about it, of course. And so I went and bought some and I think I ran a blockchain Elixir app that someone made, to see how the transactions work and stuff. Read some books on Bitcoin. But I bought some Bitcoin, I can't remember how much, but just left it. I think this was after Coinbase had launched, I'm pretty sure I bought it through Coinbase. But yeah, I just left it, and then that was when it was in the first huge push of Bitcoin where it went up to 20,000 or something. And I remembered that I had it, and I went and looked and oh yeah, I made five grand or something. I put hardly anything into it initially. So I forget what I actually bought with that money. I just sold it and it's like cool, free money.Mike:So you just sold it this year? Or you sold it...Josh:No, I sold it back-Mike:In 17?Josh:I think I sold it at 20... Yeah, this would have been at 17 that I actually sold it, probably.Mike:Did you report it on your taxes, your capital gains?Josh:I did, yes. Yeah, I did.Ben:That's the benefit of having an accountant, because your accountant reminds you, "You know what? You did have some Bitcoin transactions, you should probably look at those".Josh:Can I say on here that I actually put some of it through a Bitcoin tumbler though, just to see how those work?Mike:Yeah, I mean...Josh:And that was a very small amount of money, but I didn't actually report that on my taxes. Because I think I actually forgot where it was or something.Ben:You'll have to explain what a Bitcoin tumbler is.Josh:So a Bitcoin tumbler... Well, I'll try, and then maybe Mike might explain it better, but a Bitcoin tumbler is basically how you anonymize your Bitcoin transaction. If you have some Bitcoin and you want to buy some drugs on the dark web or something, you go and you send your Bitcoin to this tumbler, and then it distributes it to a bunch of random Bitcoin addresses that it gives you. And then you have those addresses, and they're anonymized, because they've been sent through a bunch of peoples' wallets, or something like that.Mike:Yep. That's basically it.Ben:So it's basically money laundering.Josh:Yeah, it's laundering.Mike:Yeah. But if your privacy... I mean, okay-Josh:Yeah, no, I get it. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Because part of the appeal of Bitcoin is some people are just like, "Oh yeah, good money, credit card transactions are so... The governments are recording them and stuff, the NSA probably has a database of them". So Bitcoin is anonymous, but it's not. It's not anonymous. And yeah. So that's why people do this, right?Mike:Yeah. Well that, to me, that's if you want to... So the value of Bitcoin, if you want to get bullish on the value of Bitcoin, the traditional outlook is yeah, the silk road was going on and there's all this illegal stuff going on. Therefore it must be bad. But actually, to me, that's the thing, you know it's good if there's illicit stuff going on, because what's the number one currency that's used right now for illicit transactions? It's dirty US dollar bills. And if you're a drug dealer in central South America, you are collecting, dollar bills United States. You're paying some sort of transport probably at 10, 15% cost to get those dollars back to wherever you're going to hold them. And so, if you're using Bitcoin, you're probably not going to pay that fee. So, to me, it's like okay, that actually proves, at least in my mind, that there is value. That it's being used, right?Josh:Yeah. And you also, you don't want to see... Some people are fanatics about cash going away, even just because as more people move to digital transactions, whether it's just through, whatever, traditional networks, or through crypto. People are using less and less cash. And I feel like, whatever... Like Richard Stallman, he pays for everything in cash though, because he thinks that cash is going to go away someday. And that's a problem for privacy, because you do want a way to pay for things in private in some cases.Mike:Yep. I agree.Josh:Yeah.Ben:My only real beef with Bitcoin, well, aside from the whole requiring power plants just to do a transaction, is that there is Badger coin. This company that is named Honeybadger, it's all about Bitcoin. And they have these ATM's in Canada, and we constantly get support requests from people.Mike:Oh really?Josh:Is this the reason that we've been so down on cryptocurrencies in the past?Ben:I think so.Josh:Because ever since the beginning, since people started making coins, Badger coin came out and then it's been our primary exposure to be honest.Ben:It has been, yeah.Josh:Throughout the past... I don't know how many years it's been. Has it been six-Ben:Yeah, six-Josh:... to eight years?Ben:Yeah, something like that. It's been nuts.Josh:I'd say.Mike:You should send them an invoice, and they actually-Ben:Yeah, so what happens is they had these kiosks where you can buy Bitcoin, right? You put your real money in, and you get your fake money out, right? And the name on the top of the kiosk is Honeybadger. So, someone puts in some money, real money, and they don't get their fake money, then all of a sudden they're upset, right?Mike:Yeah.Ben:And so they... For whatever reason, it doesn't go through, right, I don't know how this works, I've never bought Bitcoin at a kiosk. But so, they're like, "Okay, Honeybadger". And so they Google Honeybadger, and the first result for Honeybadger is us. And so they're like, "Oh, here's a phone number I can call". And they call us. And they're like, "Where's my Bitcoin?" That's like, "Uh, I really can't help you with that".Josh:They do.Ben:"You stole my Bitcoin". It's like, "No, that's not us".Josh:Something just occurred to me. I wonder how many of them are just confused over the fact that Bitcoin transactions can take a while to arrive now, right? It's not always instantaneous, where it used to be a lot faster, but now I know that it can take a while to clear. So I wonder how many of those people are emailing us in the span... Maybe that's why they eventually always go away and we don't hear from them again. Maybe it's not that they're getting help, but it's just that their Bitcoins are arriving. Yeah. I have a feeling that there's some sort of... I'm guessing these are mostly regular normies using, and interacting with this very highly technical product and experience, and even if you're walking up to a kiosk, but there's still a highly technical aspect of it that, like you said Mike, people are thinking coin, they're thinking... The way this maps to their brain is it's like dollar bills. So they're looking at it like an ATM. Yep.Mike:Yeah. When it comes to cryptocurrency and the technology, I don't want to have to think about custody, or any of that other kinds of stuff. It'll be successful when it just is happening, I'm not thinking about it. They're already... In some... I don't know all of the different mobile devices, but I do carry out an iPhone. And so, the wallet on iPhone is pretty seamless now, right? And so I'm not thinking about how that technology is working. I had to associate an Amex with it originally, right? But once I've done that, then all I do is click my button to pay. And there you go. And so I do think that the cryptocurrency technology has a long way to go towards that, because if normal people, the non nerds, have to think about it, then it's not going to be useful. Because in the end-Josh:Yeah.Mike:... humans use tools, right? And so, whatever the tool is, they're going to use it especially if it's easy and it makes their life easier.Ben:So what I really want to know, Mike, is what are your feelings about Dogecoin? Are you bullish on Doge?Mike:Well, I'll answer that, but I wanted to come back to the bit about the NFT, and just talking about the possibilities with technology. And I think that you guys could profit from this.Ben:I like where it's going.Mike:You'll have to do some more research. But I think what you could do... See, I love the origin story of Honeybadger. And maybe not everybody knows about the Honeybadger meme from what is... When was this, two thousand...Ben:2012? 2011?Mike:Yeah, okay. So not everybody... Yeah, bot everybody knows about the meme. I guess, just go Google-Ben:I can link it in the show notes.Josh:It's long dead. This meme is long dead.Mike:Is it? Well it's still awesome. I still love it.Josh:It is.Mike:So, there's so many facets of this that I love. The first one is that... Can I name names on competitors-Ben:Of course.Mike:... in the origins? Okay. So the first one was is that Airbrake, an exception reporting service, was doing a poor job with their customer service. And you guys were like, "We're working on this project, we need exception reporting. It's not working". It's like, "Well, can we just take their library, and build our own backend?" Right? And to me, that is beautiful. And in thinking about this episode, in Heroku, the same opportunity lies for an aspiring developer out there where you could just take the Heroku CLI and point it at your own false backend until you figure out all of the API calls that happen. And I don't know, you have that backed by Kubernetes, or whatever orchestration framework is...Mike:There is the possibility that you could do the same Honeybadger story with Airbrake SDK, as there is with the Heroku CLI. So that's the first thing I love about the Honeybadger story, and the fact the name goes along with the fact that Airbrake had poor customer support, and you guys just were like, "F it, we're going to build our own exception reporting service". Now, in the modern context with NFTs is... I have old man experience with the NFTs in that GIFs, or GIFs, and JPEGs, this is BS that people are gouging for profit. However, the technology of the NFT... This is the thing that I think is beautiful, is that... And I'm not sure which of the NFTs does this, but there is the possibility that you could be the originator of a digital object, and then you sell that digital object. And then as that digital object is traded, then you, as the, I guess, the original creator, you can get a percentage of the sales for the lifetime of that digital asset.Ben:Yeah.Mike:And, I'm not sure which of the NFTs allows that, but that is one of the things, that's one of the value propositions in NFT. So what I was thinking is if you guys did an NFT on the shaw of the original Honeybadger Ruby SDK check-in, that this could be the thing that you guys have an experiment with, is you have real skin in the game, you're playing with the technology and see if that works. And, let me know if you do that, because I might try to buy it. So, we'll see.Josh:Well, we've already got a buyer, why wouldn't we?Mike:Yeah, so..Ben:Indeed, yeah.Josh:See I was thinking maybe you could own various errors or something in Honeybadger.Mike:Yeah, I mean... Whatever digital signature you want to... Whatever you want to sign, and then assign value to.Josh:Yeah, we could NFT our Exceptional Creatures.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Have you seen that, Mike? Have you seen that project?Mike:Yep, yep.Josh:Okay.Mike:I'm well aware of that. Yep.Ben:Yeah. I'm thinking what about open source maintainers, right? Let's say you have this project and someone really wants a particular feature, right? Or they're really happy about a particular feature that you've already done, right? You can sell them that shaw, that commit, that put it into name, right?Mike:Yeah, totally.Ben:You are the proud owner of this feature. Thank you.Mike:Yeah, totally. Yeah, I was hoping that I would come with some ideas. I hope someday in the future that I run into somebody and it's like, "Oh, we heard that podcasts were where ideas were free ideas that were worth a lot of money were thrown about. And I did this project, and now I'm retired. Thank you, Mike". Honeybadgers.Josh:Wait, so Ben are you saying that, so as a committer, so say I commit something to Rails, submit a PR, so then I own that PR once it's merged and it would be like I could sell that then to someone? Is that along the lines of what you're saying?Ben:No, I'm thinking the owner of the project. So, if you commit something to Rails, and you're really excited about it, and you for some reason want to have a trophy of that commit-Josh:Right.Ben:... on a plaque on the wall, right? Then the Rails core group could sell you that token.Josh:Okay. Gotcha.Ben:That trophy, that certificate, like, "Yep. This is your thing. Commissioned by..." It's like naming a star, right?Josh:Yeah.Ben:You buy the rights to a star, and it's fake stuff, right? We're naming stars. But that's the same idea.Josh:Yeah. So you could use that same idea to incentivize open-source contribution. So if you make the PR to Rails and it gets merged, you get this NFT for the PR merge, which you could then actually profit for if it was... Say it was, I don't know, turbo links or something, whatever. Years later, when it's a huge thing and everyone in Rails is using it, maybe Mike's going to come along and be like, "Hey, I'll buy... I want to own the PR for turbo links".Ben:Right.Josh:Yeah. And of course then, you, as the owner, would also profit from any sale between parties later on too. You'd get that little percentage.Mike:Yeah. Well, so when somebody comes up with committer coin, just remember me, I want to airdrop of some committer coin.Josh:We have a name. We've got a name for it. Commit coin.Ben:I've got a new weekend project ahead of me.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Cool. Well, that helps me understand NFTs.Ben:Yeah, I really like the idea of being able to sell ownership rights to a digital asset. That I think a good idea. I don't know that the current implementation that we see on the news is a great implementation of that idea. Buying the rights for a copy of a JPEG, it feels kind of sketchy to me. But maybe there's some sort of, I don't know, PDF document that has some sort of value for some reason. And you can give that, sell that to someone. And to me, it's not so much about the profit, or the transaction, it's the ownership. You can say I am the owner of this thing. Yeah, there can be copies all over the place, but I'm the person that has the ownership, quote unquote, of this thing.Josh:Yeah, yeah. But then you've got to define value Ben. What is value? Okay, so, what makes a PDF more valuable than a JPEG?Mike:Yeah. Yeah. Bring this back to Dogecoin, and value propositions, and whatnot. What is valuable? When you're talking about the value of a JPEG, this reminded me of a conversation I was having with my son. He's 10 years old and he wanted some money to buy, I don't know what it was, and old man voice came out of me and it's like, "That's BS. I don't think that's valuable". And he looked at me and he was like, "It's valuable to me". And it's like, "Oh, you just put a dagger in my heart. I'm killing your dream". And one person's value may not be another person's value. So, on the Dogecoin, that's interesting. Dogecoin is very interesting to me, because I feel like I'm in a quantum state with a Dogecoin where it is a joke, but at the same time it apparently it has value.Mike:And I don't know where I stand on that threshold. I know how to trade Dogecoin. And I know the behavior of Dogecoin, and the behaviors, from a trading standpoint, has changed substantially in the last six months. Before it was a pump and dump kind of thing. Well, actually, you know what? When Dogecoin was first created, its purpose was highlighted by the community. People in podcast land don't realize this, but I'm wearing a 2017 Dogecoin shirt from when the Dogecoin community sponsored the number 98 NASCAR. And the thing of the community was like, "Oh, we have all this money, and we're just being altruistic and we're giving it away". And so they were exercising their belief with this currency, right?Mike:And from then, till now, there was a bit of a cycle to Dogecoin where you could, if you acquired Dogecoin for say under a hundred Satoshis, this is the Dogecoin BTC pair, that was actually a good buy. Just wait for the next pump when somebody does something, and Dogecoin goes over 200, or 300 Satoshis, and then you dump it. And that's basically what I did on this in the last six months. I had a small bag of Dogecoin waiting for the next pump and dump. And I actually did that, but it kept on getting pumped, and then it would stabilize. And then now we're at the point where apparently Elon Musk and Mark Cuban are saying that there's value to it.Mike:And to me, I actually put a lot of credence to that, because these are two public persons that they cannot... If they're pumping things in the public domain, then they have risk, right? And so you can't be those two people, and be pumping, and not run the risk of the FTC of the United States government coming in and saying, "Hey, why were you doing this?" So there's the, I guess for me, a small bit of a guarantee that maybe there is something to Dogecoin.Josh:Yeah. See, the way I think, when you first started you were saying it is a joke, but you're in this dual state, and my initial or immediate thought was it is a joke, but this is the internet, and the internet loves to make silly things real.Mike:Yeah, yeah.Josh:Especially these days.Ben:Yeah. It's pretty funny for all those people that made a bunch of money on GameStop, right? Yeah.Mike:Yeah. Well that's the thing, is in Dogecoin, Doge is, of itself, from a meme from the same time period as Honeybadger, right? The Iba Shinu doggie, right? So, the other thing I don't understand, or the thing that I understand but I don't know how to quantify it for myself, is that, to me... So there's no pre-mine on Dogecoin. There's no one person that owns a lot of Dogecoin from the beginning. Whereas if we're talking about Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, the founder, or one of the founders of Ethereum, they pre-mined Ethereum, and there's a ton of Ethereum that's owned by the founders. Whereas you compare that to, say, Litecoin, Charlie Lee cloned Bitcoin and created Litecoin. He sold all of his Litecoin. I believed in him when he said he's sold it all. He's a software engineer, just like us. He was Director of Engineering at Coinbase.Mike:He doesn't seem like he's wearing tinfoil hat out there, doing conspiracies. So when he says that he sold his coin in 2017, all of his Litecoin, I totally believe that. Yet today, he is the chairperson of the Litecoin foundation. And so, to me... I actually do have, I placed some value in the benevolence of Litecoin and Dogecoin, because there's not any one person that actually controls it. I guess Charlie Lee, he probably has a stronger voice than most. But he doesn't control the levers.Josh:Not financially.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Yeah.Mike:Yeah. And so then with Dogecoin... So Dogecoin, it'll be awesome if it gets above a dollar, but the structure of Dogecoin will be such as they cannot maintain that.Josh:Right.Mike:Because it's an inflation-Josh:There's no cap, right?Mike:Right.Josh:Yeah.Mike:It's inflation. And so, I don't know the number, I think it's a million Dogecoin are minted every day. So, 10 years from now, if Dogecoin is worth a dollar still, then that means Bitcoin will be worth a lot more than that. So I guess that'd be awesome if Dogecoin stays a dollar. However, the point I'm trying to make is actually there is value in having an inflationary currency, especially if we're talking about living in the structure of our current financial... The way that our current financial markets work, where there is an inflation.Mike:And so if I want to be transacting with a digital currency, I don't want to have to be, say, like having an Argentina kind of moment where my one Dogecoin is worth $5 American today, and then maybe only $3 American a week from now. So to me, I think there is value in Dogecoin in that it's inflationary, and that it will not be as susceptible to speculation bubbles as other currencies. And so, I don't know if that answers your questions on the value of Dogecoin, but those are a couple of reasons why I think that Dogecoin is valuable. Now, am I going to be holding a big bag of Dogecoin in 2022? Probably not. Just to be honest.Ben:We're all about honesty at Honeybadger. I love the episodes where we have to have a disclaimer, this is not financial advice. Please consult competent professionals before investing, et cetera, et cetera. Mike, it has been a delight to have you with us. We appreciate your counterbalance to our coin pessimism that we have amongst the Honeybadger fan base.Josh:Yeah, I think we needed this.Ben:Yeah.Josh:We really needed this.Ben:We really did.Josh:So thank you.Ben:It's been good.Mike:Yeah. Oh, I got one more idea out there. Hopefully, somebody can run with this, is I've been trying to get motivated to do some experimentation with the Bitcoin lightning network. We didn't really talk about these a layer two solutions for scaling, but I think that there is a lot of potential in coming up with an interesting project that lays within the Litecoin* network, it has its value in and of itself, but there's a secondary value of being a note on the Litecoin* network where if there's transactions going through your node, let's say, I don't know how you'd instrument this, but let's say that Honeybadger actually was... That you guys were taking your payments across your own lightning node, then all of the transactions that are going across the lightning network, you're getting a small fee, right? So I think that there's the possibility of a micropayments kind of play there, like for instance, paying by the exception. I mean, literally-*Editor's note from Mike - "in my excitement talking about the Lighting Network I slipped and said Litecoin a couple of times between Lightning Network. Lightning Network is a layer 2 protocol that is primarily intended for scaling Bitcoin and that was what I meant. However, Lightning can be implemented to run on top of Litecoin and Ethereum."Josh:That has come up that has come up in the past, I think at one point.Mike:You can't do micro payments on a credit card.Josh:Yeah.Mike:Right? But you can do micropayments on lightening network. And I'm not selling you guys on this, but I'm saying that there's going to be some nerd out there that it's like, "Oh my God micropayments are here, I can do micropayments on lighting network". And then they're going to do well on that product, but then they're also going to do well on the commission that they're earning on payments going through their node.Josh:This could be used for usage base software as a service billing model.Ben:Totally. And then you get the skim off the top, just like a good affiliate does.Mike:Yes.Ben:I love it.Mike:Yes.Ben:I love it. All right. All right, Mike, we're going to have to do some scheming together. Well, any final words, any parting words besides go by all the Dogecoin that you can?Mike:Yeah. Don't put all your money into the cryptocurrencies. Yeah.Josh:Seems like good advice.Ben:Be smart

united states god american director founders canada internet pr japan foundation elon musk iphone startups argentina bitcoin nfts silicon valley bs boom engineering south america commit jos nascar saas lightning gamestop developers vc salesforce nah api ethereum mark cuban doge mm nsa ftc atm desk linux java github coinbase mond dogecoin rails badger basecamp render redo commissioned php elixir gifs amex kubernetes gotcha bootstrap sdks altcoins honey badger okta theseus litecoin jpeg compute lightning network vitalik buterin lifestyle business sso heroku software as a service dvs golang jpegs saml mongrel erc20 satoshis charlie lee mike it mike you mike no mike yeah mike well ben it mike so mike there crdts mike oh ben you josh it josh yeah mike is josh no ben mike mike right rubyists ben so josh get josh well josh oh ben well ben right josh so josh there micropreneur mike yep omniauth josh not josh cool

The Nazi Lies Podcast Ep. 2: No Fascist USA? The American Nazi Party

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 30, 2021 52:27

Mike: I assure you there are fascists in the US. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOs Lizards wearing human clothes Hinduism's secret codes These are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genes Warfare keeps the nation clean Whiteness is an AIDS vaccine These are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocide Muslim's rampant femicide Shooting suspects named Sam Hyde Hiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the cops Secret service, special ops They protect us, not sweatshops These are nazi lies Mike: One of the more pernicious lies I hear about US fascism is that it doesn't exist, particularly in the present day. So I'm here today with journalist and sociologist Dr. Spencer Sunshine, PhD from CUNY's Grad School. Spencer has written for Colorlines, Truthout, and The Daily Beast and has an organizing guide out through PopMob called 40 Ways to Fight Fascists: Street-Legal Tactics for Community Activists. Thanks for coming on the pod. Spencer Sunshine: Thanks for having me on the show, Mike. Mike: Of course! So Spencer's here to talk about the American Nazi Party; its successor, the National Socialist White People's Party; and its remnants today. So let's start with a brief history of US fascism before the American Nazi Party. Spencer: Sure, so fascism as an actual political current is about 100 years old in the United States. The first Nazi group, or Nazi cell, in the United States formed in 1922 by German expats in the Bronx. And there were probably earlier groups that were Italian Fascist groups. Like many radical political traditions that started in Europe, in the United States these were first brought to the country by immigrants from Europe. If we look further than that, if we use fascism as a broader term involving any organized white supremacist groups, of course we'd easily go back to the 1860s and the Ku Klux Klan and similarly styled far right groups go back in the United States well before that. So fascism is a longstanding political tradition in our country. It's a century old. The fact that people can't acknowledge this shows something interesting about the psyche of the United States where people just can't admit that there are radical political movements here, or that such a noxious political movement such as fascism could take fairly, what looks like permanent roots in our country. Mike: Okay, so let's talk about the American Nazi Party itself. How was it founded? What did it do? Spencer: So before the war there were two groups that were pro-Nazi. There was the German American Bund, who were tied to the Nazi Party in various ways; and an American group called the Silver Shirts. As you may imagine, during the war, nazism became taboo in the country. A lot of the leaders were arrested. After the war it took quite a while for, what then became neo-nazism, neo-nazi groups to establish themselves. There was a group called the National States Rights Party who mostly recruited from Klan members and were the core organizers for nazis, but they did not say on the– On the outside of the package it did not say that; although on the inside it was. So the American Nazi Party was sort of special because it was the first group to openly declare itself a nazi group and to, the phrase they used was, “raise the swastika,” to actually appear in public. You know, at the time they used the old stormtrooper uniforms, these brown uniforms with a swastika armband. You rarely see it these days, but this was pretty common through the early 90s for nazi groups to do this. So the American Nazi Party was founded in 1959. There was a precursor group in 1958 by George Lincoln Rockwell. He had done advertising; was very good. And came from a vaudeville family. This is a really crazy story, but Bob Hope was actually at his christening. He used these advertising techniques to form this group. It was designed to get media attention, and the idea was for him that conservatives could never become radical enough and could never really attract the people they needed. So by using this imagery, he could attract the kinds of people that he wanted, and he could use the presence of nazis– He used to say, “No one can ignore nazis marching in the streets.” –use this public image to gain media attention which he could then use as a recruiting tool. The party was never very big. It continued through the 60s. They did a lot of– It was almost an agitprop kind of project. The kind of murders that we associate with the nazi movement these days– They had punch ups at rallies and stuff. But the kind of violence and murders that we associate with neo-nazism these days did not come until later, which is an interesting thing. He was assassinated by a fellow party member in 1967. Right before then he had changed his organizing strategy. He had a very successful rally in Marquette Park, Chicago, which was actually against Martin Luther King's plan to desegregate. It was some of his late marches doing housing desegregation in Chicago. It was in an Eastern European neighborhood, a lot of Eastern European immigrants who were resisting Black Chicagoans from moving into their neighborhood. Thousands of people came to this rally. He then changed his tack a bit. He renamed the party the National Socialist White People's Party which is a mouthful, and we'll call it the NSWPP from now on. And he renamed the party newspaper to White Power which is the slogan we know today that he coined. So it was a move from being an antisemitic nazi party to kind of being an aggressive white nationalist party because it was the first time that he had drawn a lot of grassroots support. He was assassinated. He was replaced by his subordinate Matt Koehl. At first it was three people. It was Robert Lloyd, Koehl, and William Pierce (Who's important. He later formed his own party called the National Alliance. Mike: We'll talk about them in a bit. Spencer: And he wrote a very influential book called The Turner Diaries. These three that ran the party for a while, and then, what's a nazi party without a führer? Or tin pot führer at least? Kicks the other two out. And runs the party until his death a few years ago. In 1983 the party became called New Order and actually degenerated into a Hitler-worshipping, almost private Hitler-worshipping cult. It still exists. Koehl died a few years ago and was replaced by his subordinate Martin Kerr. Mike: So before we talk about the remnants today, I want to talk about some of the splinter groups that formed in the 70s. I'm thinking the second NSLF, the National Alliance that you mentioned, the NSPA, the NSWWP. Spencer: A mouthful of alphabet soup. Mike: Yes. Spencer: So the importance of Koehl taking control is that Rockwell was a very charismatic guy. A lot of his followers really adored him. They ended up fetishizing him almost as a god-like figure. The way they had– Some of them, you know, praised him the way they had Adolf Hitler before him. In the post-war period, people had started almost worshipping and sometimes literally worshipping Hitler and made altars to him and treated him as a kind of demigod. So Koehl did not have charisma and acted in ways that alienated most of his party membership. Over the years, especially between 1973 and 1974, a lot of the party members left; the active units, they called them units the chapters, left and formed their own groups. And this became very important because this is what laid the groundwork for there to be a decentralized neo-nazi movement in the United States, the kind of which we see today. So it laid the epistemological foundation for it because before there had been a single party, a single organization with chapters. Now there were all these separate groups that had different relationships with them and that could pursue different strategies. And they did pursue different strategies. So the first big split was in 1970 when William Pierce is kicked out. This takes a little while for the real splintering to happen. So the first group I'll talk about is the National Socialist Liberation Front because their influence can be felt today on the alt-right, on the terrorist wing of the neo-nazis today. It was originally the name was used in the late 60s as a college student group that William Pierce actually ran that was associated with the party. They were trying to take off the energy of the New Left. You know, there were a lot of liberation fronts was a popular name for armed new left groups. This was an attempt to recruit college students. It only got one good organizer which we can talk about later which was David Duke. It was never an independent entity. The name was revived in 1974 when, probably the best organizer in the United States, Joseph Tommasi, who was based in Los Angeles, was suspended by the party, and he founded his own group. They used the NSLF name. Mike: Can you talk about why he was suspended? Spencer: He was– There's a lot of discussion about this. Accusations that he was– Some of it was cultural clashes within the nazis. He was pulling off the counterculture. He had long hair. They didn't like to dress in uniform. They wore like fatigues and stuff. He was accused of bringing his girlfriends over to the party headquarters. Koehl was making all of the party members (They had bought their own headquarters. This was a time they still had physical headquarters was an emphasis.) sell their headquarters. They made all the chapters sell their headquarters buildings and give the proceeds to Koehl which angered a lot of people and caused a lot of these splits because the people themselves had bought them, and they just thought he was trying to enrich himself which he probably was. He was basically shutting the party down and making a cult around himself and taking all the money. But there was a very interesting– What probably really prompted it is– It's attached to the Watergate scandal. Someone in the C.R.E.E.P. (The group, the Nixon support group that got involved in Watergate, it was an acronym for them.) hired Tommasi's nazis to help get another far right, a little more moderate, party on the ballot in California to pull votes away from Republicans. This was the American Independent Party. It has a funny history. It comes out of the George Wallace campaigns earlier. Then later, I think Cliven Bundy from the Bundy ranch actually joined. Remnants of the party exist today and have attracted people from the militia movement. [Spencer's correction to this story: https://twitter.com/transform6789/status/1388206831630180362?s=19] Anyway, these nazis were hired by Republicans to get another far right party on the ballot to pull votes away in a certain election. I forget the details now. I'm sorry. The party– Koehl was angry that he had made this deal. This made the newspapers. It made the New York Times and stuff. This angered the party that he had done this without their permission. And they took money from it. So that may have been– A lot of more serious people think that was the actual reason for the initial suspension. And then there was a break when Tommasi formed his own group. The NSLF was important because they openly advocated armed resistance and bombings and such and did do a few of these, although rather moderate in Los Angeles. This was a break from the parent party which always stressed legality. While there had been violent currents in it, they were really kept kind of under the rug, and it was just a sort of wing of the party of certain people including William Pierce. And then Tommasi didn't last long, though. He was killed in a scuffle with members of the former party at his former headquarters. He accosted one and the guy had this kid, an 18-year-old, and he shot him. Tommasi again, another charismatic organizer, founded this group, but didn't last long. That group however did continue it had four different leaders and continued until 1986. James Mason, who we'll talk about later, joined that group after Tommasi's passing. Mike: Okay so that's the NSLF. What about the National Alliance? Spencer: The National Alliance is a group founded by William Pierce after he got kicked out of the NSWPP. He was flirting with Willis Carto, another major nazi leader who became, amongst other things, the main popularizer of Holocaust denial in America. They had a falling out. Carto had a falling out with everyone. Pierce founded– The group was originally the National Youth Alliance, then became the National Alliance. It was a membership based group. They tried to recruit professionals. Pierce had been an engineering professor out in Oregon before he joined the party. He was very articulate. He did not have the sort of crass approach, you know. He produced more sophisticated propaganda as well as sort of more interesting theoretical documents. So they continued. The remnants of the group exists today. They had up to a thousand members. They ended up having a huge group property out in West Virginia. It was the headquarters building. He lived there. He wrote a book in the 70s called The Turner Diaries which is a really badly written book. It's a fantasy novel about how some white supremacists will form a terrorist movement, and they will help promote a race war, through terrorism will promote a race war in America. And you know this will end up in the Day of the Rope where the white supremacists kill people of color and Jews and create a white ethnostate. It's a tremendously popular book around the world. It's sold up to a half a million copies. You can still get it today. It still inspires people today. So Pierce's group, they didn't do a lot of public actions especially till later in life. Although, their probably biggest rally was in 2002. It was a supposedly pro-Palestine rally in Washington, D.C., that blamed Israel for 9/11, and hundreds of people came to it. They tended to shy away from this stuff. But it was the biggest group, and the most serious group, in the United States for many years. After Pierce died, of course they tried to continue the group and everyone broke up into squabbling. One of the main organizers who's come out of it who's still active today is Billy Roper who's part of the Shield Wall project in Arkansas. I think there's one chapter left. The headquarters of the party still exists. There's been a bunch of legal fights with everyone engaged in lawsuits and various other physical conflicts with each other, and the group has sort of degenerated. So that's the second one, that's the National Alliance. Mike: Okay, so let's talk about–you actually mentioned this on Twitter kind of the other day–the NSPA. Spencer: The NSPA actually was another one of the early splinters that left in 1970. Led by a fellow named Michael Collin. [The name is actually Frank Collin -Mike] They were based in Chicago. They had seen or taken part in Rockwell's popular organizing in Marquette Park in the 60s, and they didn't understand why the party wouldn't follow up with that. And that's what they wanted to do. Again, there was a fighting over the headquarters building. They split off formed their own group. A very small group until they started having rallies in Marquette Park that were still resisting desegregation and attracted community support. Basically, no one wanted to side with this white community that did not want Black people to move in, and they became their champions. And part of the– The thing here is that people in the neighborhood, there were a lot of like Ukrainian immigrants, people who had been from countries that were occupied by the Nazis, who were pro-Nazi. A lot of the areas the Nazis occupied people, you know what I mean, supported them. There were a lot of people, basically, with collaborationist backgrounds, and they didn't have a problem with this. And the nazis championed their cause. And they would hold large rallies in Marquette Park. Some of them attracted thousands of people. They became most famous for the Skokie incident which apparently is being forgotten today by younger people. but was known to everybody in the United States of a certain age. The Chicago city tried to stop them from having their Marquette rallies by putting a bunch of legal barriers. They had to have a huge insurance– Had to take insurance out to do it that was unaffordable. So to get around this they threatened a march in Skokie, Illinois, which was a largely Jewish suburb, wealthy suburb. A lot of Holocaust survivors lived there. Skokie resisted them through legal means. Eventually the case went to the Supreme Court. It was in the national news for like a year or so. It started in 1977. Went to the Supreme Court. The ACLU championed it. The ACLU had been defending nazis before this but this became what they're famous for. Their most famous case. The Supreme Court upheld that local cities could not put unreasonable blocks such as insurance requirements on political groups from marching including nazis. They couldn't stop them from using particular symbols or something. They attempted to ban that. So everyone knew there were neo-nazis in America. It also made the NSPA briefly the most important nazi group, neo-nazi group in America, because at this point there was all these splinter factions from the NSWPP and were all vying to be the most important group or to set up, or attract other groups to them, or to lead coalitions of them. There were different formulations of this. They all had, you know, weird relationships with each other as they were doing this. So the NSPA, because of this lawsuit and the attention it got, became the most popular of these groups, and certainly the most well known of these groups briefly. It eclipsed even the parent party for a while. So that was probably the high point of attention of neo-nazism in America in the 70s. Although, throughout the decade, nazis would consistently make the newspapers. They were a very small movement; had maybe a thousand people in the movement in the US. It became, unlike in the 60s, newspapers, the media started to really love them. So there's tons of coverage of various nazi splinter groups in the various cities for all of their actions. There's a documentary film called California Reich. You can watch it on YouTube. We'll talk about it in a minute. It's about a group in California and such. There was lots of stuff like that. These two things weren't outliers. Mike: Okay, so– Spencer: So Collin– Oh there's a funny ending to it. Collin and his people, they started running for alderman and like city council in Chicago. Some of them did quite well, got like 16% of the vote. But quickly the party started to wane in popularity. Collin's subordinates wanted to get rid of him, so they rifled through his desk and found child porn of him with young teenage boys. They turn him in to the police. He was arrested for child molestation. It also came out his father was a Jewish man who had been in a concentration camp. So there was some real deep stuff going on here. Even though he was a successful organizer, right, against the odds. He went to jail. He was replaced by Harold Covington. We can talk about Covington if we want. He's important in the Greensboro Massacre and then died only a few years ago. Remained an organizer. And then Covington was replaced by someone else and the party frittered away. But yeah, there was a real plot twist in that one after Skokie. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the NSWWP? Spencer: Sure, so this was a group– This was the California leader Allen Vincent. He, like everyone else, broke off of the parent party. Founded– He was important cause he was– He wasn't a charismatic organizer, but he could attract followers, and he really liked to get in street fights just as a person. He was a good, stable organizer unlike a lot of these people. Did a lot of crazy rallies in San Francisco. So of course there were fights at his events. At one point he opened a bookstore I believe in the Sunset neighborhood of San Francisco on the same block as a synagogue that a bunch of survivors went to. His bookstore was quickly burned down. He worked with James Mason. Worked with him for a while between 1978 and 1980. Was the editor of his paper The Stormer. Briefly, after the NSPA star faded, his group became a national group. This lasted a few years and it faded away like many of these other groups. So he was well known for the documentary California Reich was filmed about his group while it was still a chapter of the NSWPP before he broke away and became the NSWWP, just to totally confuse anybody about these acronyms. Mike: The National Socialist White– Spencer: White Workers Party. The original group is the National Socialist White People's Party. His group is the National Socialist White Workers Party. Although you might think they're more of an anticapitalist group from the parent party that wasn't true. He lived quite a while through the late 90s. He popped back up in the late 90s, met Jeff Shoep who at the time was running the National Socialist Movement, and became his mentor for a brief period of time. Then he passed away. Mike: Now let's talk about the groups that exist today or the various remnants of it today. So I was going to start with Don Black and Stormfront. Spencer: So Don Black was originally in the National Socialist Youth Movement. It was sort of part of the parent party for people who were under eighteen. There were all these names of these other groups, so people didn't– Their membership card didn't say American Nazi Party or NSWPP. You know he left like many other people. Many neo-nazis, almost all neo-nazis from the 70s were in the party at least at first. That was everybody's entre into this world. So he had been involved in the Dominica debacle. This was in 1981. A group of white supremacists were hired to invade the Caribbean island of Dominica and overthrow the government. They'd made a deal with the– The leader had been deposed and they were going to allow the white supremacists to keep a base there. They were turned in, of course, by somebody, and they all went to jail including Don Black. Later however, he founded Stormfront. It was an early– It wasn't the first at all, but it became the first very popular neo-nazi website. The important thing, it had all these forums where people could have discussions. And it was publicly available, so it was easy for reporters, especially, to go look at the discussions and be able to quote from them which became very important for its visibility. And this was the biggest neo-nazi or white nationalist website really until The Daily Stormer I believe in 2016-2017. So now it's a bit– If you look at it, it's clearly a web 1.0 website and looks a little old school. But it's still the main popular site throughout the 90s and the 00s. And it's still I think for people who are probably gen X and older who are white supremacists, it's still the place that they hang out at. So it had a very important place in the– You know, nazis and other white nationalists have always had a hard time because they were locked out–especially before social media in the last few years even–they were locked out of mainstream platforms. And they need to have alternative platforms. Nazis are actually early adopters to the bbs. The first Nazi or white supremacist bbs opened in 1983. It was actually founded by a former member of Hitler Youth that moved to the United States. And so they were very early adapters to this technology because it was a way for them to get around the media block out. I mean even if they printed newspapers, they couldn't sell them at newsstands. You know even these weird tankie communist sects could sell their newspapers at least some newsstands. Mike: Right. Okay so next up, I guess his story intersects with Don Black's story. We'll talk about occasional political candidate, former Klan leader, former NSLF member David Duke. Spencer: So Duke was a member of the original college student NSLF. He essentially took it over. He was at a party conference in the early 70s, and at this conference, they said NSLF will be– The group itself is changing its name to the White Student Alliance and Duke will be the leader. And this is interesting because it shows Duke's evolution from an outright neo-nazi– He went to school in Louisiana and would go do these free speech– There was a free speech zone, and he would go sell the NSLF newspaper and give neo-nazi speeches. It was a big– You know, he was very well known on campus for this and attracted a lot of attention. There's pictures of him in a Nazi uniform demonstrating against one of the lefty Jewish lawyers Kunstler who had gone to speak at his school. He had a sign that said “Gas the Chicago Seven” who was this left leaning, it was this left leaning political trial in the late 60s. So he took over this new group, and the group kept evolving. So it's originally the National Socialist Liberation Front; then it's the White Student Alliance; then it's the White Youth Alliance; and then it's the Nationalist Party. And then he forms a Ku Klux Klan group or joins one, it's a little vague, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. And this is important because it shows his evolution from a nazi to a kind of white nationalist youth organizer– to a white nationalist student organizer to a white nationalist youth organizer to just a white nationalist organizer. So each time the pool is rippling out, and he's trying to find the right formula that attracts the most people, from very niche to much broader. He becomes– So he forms this newfangled Klan group that doesn't wear hoods, and he's very good with media. This was sort of a new thing to have somebody appear in media who was dressed nice and could talk well, wasn't trying to– You know, Rockwell had waved swastikas in people's faces and was trying to infuriate them, and Duke was doing exactly the opposite. Became very successful. Was very young. He was still in his twenties. He was running one of the more successful Klan groups. One of the things he's remembered for today, he started a Klan Border Watch on the California border to attempt to patrol for illegal immigrants. There he was working with Tom Metzger who later became popular for other things as well as Louis Beam. These were two white supremacist leaders in the 80's who promoted armed struggle. Were the most militant leaders. Started out in Duke's Klan. And as well as Don Black. And I believe Duke married Black's ex-wife. They were all entangled in these ways. So after the Klan stuff he starts running for office in Louisiana and does quite well. And at one point is elected state representative in Louisiana in 1989. This is sort of the high point of the wave of conservatism that goes along with Reagan's reign of power from 1980 to 88, which continues with Bush I to 92. There becomes a revival of popular mainstream American racism. And sort of white flight that had started is very ensconced. There's all these racial conflicts in the late 80s and early 90s like Howard Beach and the Hasidic Jewish and Black riots in Crown Heights. So there's an incredible amount of violent racial tension in the country at the time, and so he's sort of taking advantage of this. He runs for other offices, does quite well, but can't get elected again. And then he's mostly well known for this, and it's the slow burn for the next few decades. He was at Charlottesville which was an interesting moment. To me, this was a sort of handing of the torch from from him to Richard Spencer as the mainstream white nationalist leader. That's how I saw what went on. Although, you know, they didn't actually rally at Charlottesville. The rally itself was dispersed by the police before it began. There was no speeches or ceremony which he could do this, although there was some speeches in a park later. Mike: Let's talk about the National Socialist Movement. Spencer: Yes. The NSM was yet another splinter party. It was formed in 1975 by people who again had come out of the NSWPP. Robert Brannan was its leader. They were sort of going in different directions at the same time. Some of the elements, which included James Mason as well as a guy named Greg Hurls, wanted a more pro-armed struggle line. They were very close to the NSLF. Brannan wanted a more sort of traditional thing, what was called the “uniform and demonstrate” which meant that they would get people in nazi uniforms and hold a rally in public and attract a lot of media attention. People would come and protest and that would just spur that. One of the things they did–they were based in Ohio, southern Ohio–they used to hold a “Free Rudolph Hess” rally I think for over a dozen years in Cincinnati. He was a Nazi leader. He had parachuted to Britain with the intent of creating a peace deal with the British in the early 40s I believe, and then remained imprisoned until his death. I think he committed suicide in the– I think he died in the late 80s early 90s. He lived a long time in Spandau Prison. So this group had some popularity in the early-mid 70s. There was of course splintering of this as Mason left it and went to work with Allen Vincent's group. And it remained a tiny group with one or two units until the 90s when the then-leader, second leader Clifford Harrington, recruited a teenager named Jeff Shoep. Harrington wasn't a great organizer, but he did, unlike some people, understood there was a revival in neo-nazism in the 80s and 90s through the skinhead thing and wanted to recruit nazi skinheads. Got Shoep to take the party over for him, and then Shoep grew it into the leading neo-nazi party in the United States. It had dozens of chapters in the 00s in particular. I think around 2006 was its height which is a very unusual time for it to be successful. Partly they were pulling from the rest of the movement. The National Alliance collapsed, and other groups in the movement collapsed and they were able to sort of steal their local units and absorb them. But that group still exists today. They were at Charlottesville. They make the news. They just were in the news. There was a rally in Arizona. They're the main group, if you want a nazi group that's going to go and march in uniforms or use nazi symbols–instead of the old brownshirt uniforms, they use black uniforms–and put swastikas on a flag to get attention, that's the group that will do that. So they are on their fourth leader now, Burt Colucci I believe, who like many of them just got arrested. A number of the members have murdered people over the years. A lot of people who– They're sort of the least together group. Yeah they're the kind of group that if you have some sort of countercultural affiliation, if you're not interested in being a professional organizer that you might want to join, if you're a biker, if you're like a skinhead, and if its important for you to have a card saying you belong to a nazi party and you want to yell at people in public that you're a nazi and beat your chest about that and talk about how much you love Adolf Hitler, this is the group for you. It's not a sophisticated organizing project. Mike: Alright, so you have a book in the works about this next one. Let's talk about James Mason, Universal Order, and Siege. Spencer: So I've been working on this book for a while. One day it will be done. James Mason was a teenage member of the American Nazi Party in the 1960s although he never met Rockwell. His mentor in the party was William Pierce. So he met Pierce when he was I believe sixteen years old. Pierce let Mason, who was having a hard time at home, run away from home and stay with him at the party headquarters. Taught him how to– Or got him to learn how to use a printing press which was important before computers. A lot of groups would physically produce their own newspapers themselves with their own printing presses. This helped him out since it was very difficult for nazis to find a printer that would print their publications. So he was in the American Nazi Party. He was in it as it became the NSWPP. He hung around for a while and didn't leave until later. But then he ended up starting to join these other splinter groups while staying in the party. He left in 76. By that time he had already helped form the NSM, and he had also joined secretly the NSLF. This was after Tommasi died, so under the second leader. And he was a supporter of the National Alliance. So at one point, he's a super insider who's like a member of four different neo-nazi parties. And he's always wrangling in the mid 70s as the different groups try to create– try to become the lead group or create an alliance of different groups to overtake the NSWPP. What unites them is that they all hate Koehl who's that leader. They can't do it, as I said before. The NSPA become the leader for a moment because of the Skokie incident. Mason fought with everyone. He did this thing you see from some activists who are sort of sectarian, is they get more and more theoretically specific and crankier and crankier; they fall out with more and more people until they run a project that's really just them and whoever is helping them directly. So he has a falling out with the NSM, and he joins Allen Vincent's group. Runs his newspaper, but he doesn't really like Vincent because he's not radical enough. Mason is deciding more and more that it's hopeless to do public organizing. He comes up with some very strange ideas, not just that nazis should engage in guerilla warfare, but at the time there starts to be these nazi serial killers. Nazis start doing these multiple murders, like Joseph Paul Franklin are serial killers. He killed up to 22 people. He was another former NSWPP member. Roved around he country as a sniper killing mixed race and other couples– Mixed race couples and others, Black people, Jews. And other people just start butchering people, either just doing these random murders or doing workplace massacres. One of the first of them was in New Rochelle by Fred Cowan in New Rochelle, New York. It's just north of New York City in 1977. And there's a lot of serial killers at this time. It's the height for serial killers in America. And so Mason comes up with this theory that not just is guerilla warfare good but these racially based murders are good by nazis and by others. And that the nazis can use them as an attempt to destabilize the system–he starts calling it the system–because nazis can never work through legal means to build a party that will be able to take over the system. He's like every time we try to do this, we get shut down. We either get shut down in the streets, or the courts shut us down, or just shut out of the media. That had been Rockwell's strategy was to attract media attention and build an organization. He's like, “We can't do any of that. We really don't need organization. We need mass chaos to disrupt the system, and only after the system is disrupted will nazis have a chance to take power. He eventually later on starts to praise armed radical left and Black nationalist groups who are coming into conflict with the system, which he doesn't in the 70s but he starts doing it in the 80s. So he has a falling out with Vincent. The NSLF, this is revived under its third leader in 1980, becomes public again. It had actually been absorbed into Allen Vincent's group and then it comes back out as a separate group. He restarts Siege. It's originally the NSLF newspaper. It's sort of their theoretical paper. But it's just him running it, and he's developing these ideas about how murder can be used to forward the nazi cause. Then he comes into contact with Charles Manson. Starts to promote that Manson should be the new nazi guru, just like George Lincoln Rockwell had been, just like Adolf Hitler had been. Portrays him as this spiritual racist figure. Manson had carved a swastika in his head in prison and was sympathetic. He mentions– A lot of people don't know he was extremely racist and antisemitic. This creates yet another tiff between James Mason and the people he's working with. The leader of the party at that point, the fourth leader Karl Hand, who by the way is a big fan of yours. Can I tell a story on your podcast? Mike: Yeah. Spencer: So do you know about the interest of Karl Hand in you? Mike: No. Spencer: Oh you don't? So I actually wrote– As part of this book, I'm writing people who were involved in this movement. And Karl Hand lives upstate, runs a party called the Racial Nationalist Party of America, and he was based for a long time in upstate New York. He is obsessed with you, Mike. After your appearance on Tucker Carlson, he wanted to have a fight with you. Like some sort of, go into a boxing ring, and have a fight. He's an older man now, he's in his 70s. And so I wrote him, and he sent back a whole packet of literature and it included a flier about you with a description of his attempts to contact you and arrange a fist fight with you. Mike: Huh… Spencer: So you have a fan. You have a fan. I think he said he wrote to the school you were teaching at. Anyways you have a fan in this generation of neo-nazis. And so, anyway, Hand and Mason had a falling out. In what must have been unique in the anals of– the annals? I don't know. You can see I read a lot and don't know how to say certain words. In the history of American neo-nazism, they had an amicable split. Hand actually gave Mason some money to continue Siege. So after 1982 until 1986 Siege is just run by James Mason. It's a very small. It's like a newsletter. He printed it himself. It was six pages long. There was almost no graphics in it. It had a sort of red– It doesn't– Although Mason was a talented graphic designer, I think, it was very plain. It was mostly text. It had a red banner that was it. He ran it off on his own mimeograph machine. Made like 75 copies of it. So this small newsletter that was running 75 copies will become quite influential in retrospect. He ran this till 1986. After the split with the NSLF in 1982, Mason started saying it was published by the Universal Order which directly said that Charles Manson was their spiritual leader. Although, he didn't talk about Manson that much. He never describes what Manson's supposed to do other than, they're not just a neo-nazi group. It's neo-nazism and more. It was a kind of really spiritual national socialism. Although, he's never specific about what that means. But he clearly has been enchanted by Charles Manson and essentially become a follower of him. So this sort of peters out. He becomes more and more cynical. He even gives up that these random murders are going to do anything. He doesn't think that the system will be able to be destabilized, but he does advocate–and this is what's influential today– He says, “Either you can drop out and wait through the apocalypse,” you know that's coming. He becomes convinced that the whole system is going to crumble. And this sort of pessimism is very popular in the 80s across the political spectrum. Partly driven by the Cold War and the survivalist movement. But he says, “You can hide out and wait for the end to come, and then live through it, and we'll have our chance. Or if you're going to go be a terrorist, do it with style. Do it in a way– Don't just kill somebody and be killed. Do it in a way that has panache, and that will inspire people, and that's done well. Plan it well. Don't just freak out and shoot somebody and be killed by the police.” And this philosophy is what becomes popular with Atomwaffen remnants and others today. Like these are your two options. I think it was called “Total attack or total drop out.” By 1986, he's pretty burned out, and that's the end of it. Basically in short order, his book becomes– His newsletters become found by people in the industrial music scene, by Boyd Rice, who's this industrial musician, who's still alive today, and that denies all of this stuff that happened. He recruits several other people. He's in contact with Adam Parfrey, who founded Feral House Press which is still around today; [Michael] Moynihan, who was an industrial and then neo-folk musician; and Nicholas Schreck, a Satanist who's married to Anton LaVey's daughter Zeena. They all work to promote James Mason. They start publishing him in various things. Moynihan takes the newsletters and turns them into a book.which he publishes. It's an anthology of the newsletters. He publishes them himself called Siege in 1993. It becomes a cult classic. It's promoted by this network of people. Basically it's part of the punk rock and assorted underground music and cultural scene, there was a real right wing edge to it, part of which is a predecessor to the alt-right. People like Jim Goad who was the direct inspiration for people like Gavin McInnes of the Proud Boys. There's a lot of nazi imagery circulating, so actual nazis can function in the scene, and it's never clear who's using nazi imagery ironically, or with some interest in nazism but they're not an actual nazi, and who's an actual nazi. It's very unclear, and in this confusion, they can hide, circulate their things, and get some attention. And they do get attention with this book. It gets– There are interviews and it's covered in the alternative weekly newspapers, which were very popular at the time since the internet wasn't what it is now, many which had circulation in tens of thousands in different cities. So they were able to use this network to popularize James Mason's ideas. The book goes out of print. Gets reprinted in 2003 by a fellow in Montana. And he keeps it in circulation, and then it gets picked up with the alt-right, with the Iron March platform which is a discussion board that all these contemporary terrorists, alt-right terrorist groups, neo-nazi terrorist groups come out of, Atomwaffen and others come out of. And they reprint the book yet again. It continues to be circulated as a pro-terrorism cult classic. Mike: So do you think there are any other individuals or groups worth mentioning? Spencer: There are like scattered ones. There's a guy named Rocky Suhayda, I believe is his name who runs a group called the American Nazi Party. It used to get a lot of attention because he was good at using social media and various internet media. So people could always quote him and say the American Nazi Party says X or Y. Although, he was just a random NSWPP member. Art Jones came out of the party while he was in Chicago, and he's a sort of perennial candidate there. But in 2016, the Republicans failed to run someone against him in the primary. It was in a heavily Democratic district. And so in lieu of that he became the Republican candidate for– I forget what it was, US rep or something. And he's a nazi, a Holocaust denier. And so this was all in the news, you know “How is a Holocaust denier the Republican candidate?” This had been– This was a strategy that Nazis developed in the 70s. They would run for offices. Until the late 70s, it was a much more kind of benign movement in a way, not ideologically, but in their tactics, they had not moved into this murderous terrorism phase until a little later on. And so he continues that kind of– It's actually a toolbox of tactics that go back into the 60s: doing things that are kind of publicity stunts to get attention, one of which is running for office. So briefly Jones got in the press. He was in the press again. He tried to run again in 2020, but the Republicans finally like, they put somebody up. I mean, this is the problem, parties have limited resources. If you're putting someone up just to defeat somebody else in the primary even though you know you won't win in the general, that's a waste of your resources. It shows how nazis and other white supremacists can sort of drain resources from the mainstream in an attempt to just not let them get a foothold in the various places that they're trying to– In the various little cracks they're trying to stick their fingers in. Mike: And you mentioned Harold Covington. Do you want to talk about him too? Spencer: Sure. Covington died a couple years ago but had some influence even on the alt-right. He was again a member of the NSWPP. He had taken over the NSPA from Collin after he'd gotten Collin arrested for being a child molester and exposed him as of Jewish descent. Ran that party for a bit. He was also– Some members of his party–he was in North Carolina–took part in the Greensboro massacre in 1979 where a joint group of nazis and Klansmen had killed communists who unwisely held a “Death to the Klan” march but were not prepared for what they had prodded. He ran for attorney general around the same time in North Carolina, state attorney general, and got 40% of the vote. There are a few other instances like this where neo-nazis were able to get a huge amount of votes around this time period. This is around the period where Duke's– Well Duke's elected later, I guess. So he goes to this– He does all this crazy stuff. He goes to Africa to fight in Rhodesia. He was this contentious fellow. Had falling outs with everyone. Moves to the Pacific Northwest, and becomes the last of this old guard of people who are advocating the states in the Pacific Northwest, which are overwhelmingly white, break off from the rest of the country and form a white ethnostate. His last group was called the Northwest Front which I believe still exists today. And they would both advocate this idea, try to get involved in the various– There's a regionalist/independence movement called Cascadia that wants to break some of that area off, but it wants a kind of lefty leaning, ecological state or regionalist entity, and so he tried to give that a specifically racist cast. So this created, again, a lot of these groups in the Cascadian movement, whatever you think about it (There's a lot of kooks.) they had to move and take their resources just to fight the white nationalists within their ranks, to make sure the white na– Because it was popular. You go to Portland; you see people with Cascadian flags on their porches and stuff. There's a sort of intuitive popularity for it there. So they then had to redirect resources to fight against these people, to show that they weren't racist. It might have been good in a way because it forces groups to commit to an anti-racist stance. The presence of white nationalists sometimes does shape up these majority groups to affirm anti-racism. So maybe there is a silver lining to that. Mike: Dr. Sunshine, thank you again for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast. You can keep up to date with Dr. Sunshine's writings through his newsletter the Sonnenschein Update which you can find on his website. And you can donate to his Patreon. It's also on his website, spencersunshine.com. This has been real fun. Hope we can have you back again for a book release. Spencer: Yeah, it was great chatting with you as always, Mike. [Theme song]

united states america american new york california death black new york city chicago europe israel los angeles washington secret british san francisco new york times phd race africa arizona ohio german north carolina army oregon lies plan jewish illinois portland started supreme court starts nazis jews republicans britain louisiana muslims martin luther king jr caribbean arkansas montana adolf hitler cincinnati shooting taught democratic thousands ukrainian mixed west virginia aids holocaust led palestine runs bronx cold war gas pacific northwest iq knights sunsets warfare worked siege tucker carlson charlottesville kicks rope hollow watergate aclu accusations hinduism charles manson manson greensboro harrington fascists covington proud boys national alliance daily beast ran whiteness eastern europeans new order moves marquette ku klux klan bundy rockwell klan partly grad school cuny satanist bob hope remnants cascadia community activists george wallace crown heights new rochelle stormfront moynihan james mason new left atomwaffen richard spencer nazi party rhodesia david duke white power skokie anton lavey truthout gavin mcinnes brannan hitler youth chicago seven carto stormer klansmen cliven bundy colorlines zeena american nazis hasidic jewish nsm michael moynihan don black tommasi turner diaries cascadian kunstler joseph paul franklin mike no german american bund howard beach mike yeah greensboro massacre nationalist party mike so koehl robert lloyd mike let american nazi party national socialist movement spencer sunshine shield wall boyd rice black chicagoans italian fascist mike one jim goad mike right art jones george lincoln rockwell universal order adam parfrey martin kerr nspa harold covington northwest front

Issue 05: Highlander

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2021 96:50

There can be only one, but Highlander's had a surprising number of media adaptations and spin-offs over the years. We take a look at all of them and even get some behind-the-scenes gossip about the infamous comic book tie-in: Highlander 3030. ----more---- Episode Transcript Episode 05 [00:00:00] Mike: It's fine. It's fine. I'm not bitter. Mike: Welcome to Tencent Takes, the podcast where we make comics trivia rain like dollar bills on Magic Mike night. My name is Mike Thompson and I am joined by my cohost, the mistress of mayhem herself, Jessika Frazer. Jessika: Muahahaha! It is I hello, Mike. Mike: Hello. If you're new to the podcast, we like to look at comic books in ways that are both fun and informative. We want to check out their coolest, weirdest and silliest moments, as well as examine how they've been woven into the larger fabric of pop culture and history. Today, we are traveling through time and talking about the 35 year legacy of one of the strongest cult franchises around, Highlander. But [00:01:00] before we do that, Jessika, what is one cool thing that you've watched or read lately? Jessika: My brother has some copies of classic Peanuts Comics, and it's so much fun. It's good, wholesome, fun. And Snoopy- related media always makes me nostalgic. And Mike you've mentioned before that we're in California in the San Francisco Bay area, but fun fact, I live right near Santa Rosa, which is the home of the Peanuts creator Charles Schultz when he was alive. So there's a museum there and an ice skating rink. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Which is super awesome And Snoopy on ice was huge when I was a kid. And that is definitely the place I also learned to ice skate. By the way, they throw a mean birthday party, just saying, not right this second. Not this second. [00:02:00] We should do it is what I'm saying. Mike: We should do it for ourselves. Jessika: No, that's what I'm saying. Oh, I don't have children. Mike: But we do. Jessika: Yes, they can come with us, like they're invited. Mike: I mean, are they? Jessika: Look at you hesitating. Mike: We took the kids to the Peanuts museum right before the lockdowns happened. that really Jessika: That's really lovely that's nice got to do that. Mike: There’s a lot of cool stuff to do. It's really interactive. It's also just a really fascinating experience because there's so much about the Peanuts during their, what 50 year run give or take. It may not have been that long. It may have been 30 or 40, but it was a long time, and I really dug it, like there was a lot of cool stuff, so yeah . And also the cool thing about Santa Rosa is they've also got all those Snoopy statues all over town too. Jessika: They do. Yeah. All the [00:03:00] Peanuts characters actually. Cause they, the Charlie Browns and the Lucy's now and the Woodstocks. Yeah they're all over the place. But that used to be something fun we could do as a scavenger hunt, and actually that's something you guys could still do even with the lockdown. Cause most of them are outside is just find that list of where all the Snoopy's or whatever character is and go find them all. Cause we did that at one point, like as an adult, obviously. Well, what about you, Mike? Mike: The complete opposite of something wholesome. Jessika: Perfect. Mike: We didn't actually have the kids for a few days. They were with their dad and we couldn't find anything new to watch. So, we wound up bingeing the entire series of Harley Quinn on HBO Max. Jessika: Oh, you’re ahead of me then. Damn you. Mike: This is my third time going through the series. We've just gotten to the point where we turned it on when we want to watch something that's kind of soothing in a way, even though it is not a soothing TV show. But I still am [00:04:00] having these full on belly laughs where I'm breathless at the end and it's just, it's so smart and funny and absolutely filthy with the violence. And then there are these moments of sweetness or genuine reflection, and it's just so damn refreshing. I was never much of a Harley fan, but this show and then the Birds of Prey movie really made me fall in love with that character. Also side note, Michael Ironside who played General Katana and Highlander II. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: He shows up in Harley Quinn doing the voice of Darkseid, which is a character he's been voicing since the nineties when he first started doing it for the Superman animated series. Jessika: Oh, damn. Mike: So, just a little bit of symmetry there. Mike: All right. So before we begin, I have to say that this episode wound up being a rabbit hole full of other rabbit holes that I kept going down. So, I want to give a little credit where it's due for a ton of my research. I really wound up leaning on two books: John Mosby's Fearful Symmetry [00:05:00]; and A Kind of Magic: The Making of Highlander by Jonathan Melville. Likewise, there's a YouTube series called Highlander heart hosted by Grant Kempster and Joe Dilworthand, and an associated Facebook community with the same name that were just invaluable for my crash course. And finally, I want to give special, thanks to Clinton Rawls, who runs Comics Royale, and Matt Kelly for taking the time to chat with me because they didn't have to, and they provided me with some really useful information for this episode. Jessika: Yeah, I'm super excited about what lies in store. What's really funny is I've actually, I feel like a kid before it test. Mike: Right? Jessika: like I'm a little nervous because I've been cramming so hard for this Mike: We both have. Jessika: No, you, especially you, especially like you should be much more nervous than me, Mike. No, I’m just kidding, please don't take that on. Oh, but yeah, no I'm super excited and really ready to talk about all of this stuff and learn more because I've just been consuming the media and the [00:06:00] comic books. But, you’re going to give me some back knowledge that's gonna blow my brain and I'm excited. Mike: Oh, well, I'll try to live up to that high expectation. Let's assume that you didn't know what the topic of this episode was. And if someone asked you what cult property from the 1980s. Spawned five movies, two TV series, a Saturday morning cartoon, an anime film, several video games, multiple tabletop games, audio plays, roughly a dozen novels, and four okay, technically six different comic books. What would your first answer be? Jessika: Oh, goodness. What's funny is probably not Highlander. I'd probably I would say like Batman, honestly, Mike: Yeah I would've gone with something along the lines of G.I. Joe. Jessika: Oh, yeah. Mike: Or some weird Saturday morning cartoon, something like that. I never would have guessed Highlander. I never would have assumed that. but it's just, it's really surprising to see how [00:07:00] much has been generated out of this initial movie. Were you fan of the movies or the show before we started bingeing everything for this episode? Jessika: So I was actually a fan of the show via my dad who had it on hadn't watched the films before, because I was born in 1986 fun fact. Mike: Right. Jessika: I was born when this thing was sent into the world. We both were at the same time, apparently. I didn't have that exact experience of growing up watching it, but he definitely had the TV show on in the nineties Mike: Okay. Jessika: So that was what I was familiar with and I loved it and I would run around chopping things; I'd be at work, I was actually like when I got older I'd be like, there can only be one, and I’d like have to like swipe at someone. Mike: It’s such an iconic line. Jessika: iIt is! it transcends. Absolutely. Mike: Yeah. I was pretty young when the movie came out and the show was how I became aware of it. And then when the show was airing, I was in high school. And then I became [00:08:00] aware that there was a movie that had inspired it. And so I was able to rent that when I was old enough to be trusted, to go rent movies on my own by my parents. Back when we couldn’t stream everything. Jessika: Oh my gosh. Mike: And there were rewind fees, Jessika: Oh, my gosh. Be kind rewind. Mike: Speaking of things from the eighties: it’s funny we'll talk about it later on, but the show really brought in, I think a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't have been fans. Before we start talking about the comic books, I really want to take a few minutes to talk about all the media and content that spun out of Highlander because it's a lot. And it was honestly in a couple of cases, really surprising. I didn't know about half of this stuff before I began researching for the episode, and then. Like I said, it was just constant rabbit holes that kept on leading me down more and more research paths. And it was really fun. But I want to talk about all this now. Jessika: Perfect. This is exactly what we're here for, and I think that people want to hear it too. [00:09:00] Mike: I hope so. Okay. So why don't you summarize Highlander? If you had to give an elevator pitch, Jessika: The film follows the past and present of Connor MacLeod, an immortal who is just one of many vying to be the sole victor in an age old battle, where in the end, there can only be one. Like very simply a lot more to it, but like how much of an elevator pitch. Mike: I think that's pretty simple. It's about an immortal who basically keeps on fighting his way through history and there's these really wonderful catch phrases that get us hooked. The movies got actually a really interesting origin story of its own. It was written by this guy named Gregory Widen when he was in his early twenties. That was when he wrote the initial screenplay. But he had already had a really interesting life up until then. He was one of the youngest paramedics in Laguna Beach at that point in [00:10:00] time. And then he went on to become a firefighter while he was still a teenager. By 1981, he'd also worked as a DJ and a broadcast engineer. And then he signed up for a screenwriting course at UCLA and he wrote this feature length script called Shadow Clan. And it would go through a number of changes before it became Highlander. But the core theme of an immortal warrior named Connor MacLeod wandering across the centuries is there. He wound up getting introduced to producers Bill Panzer, and Peter Davis who decided to option the film. And then they hired the screenwriters, Larry Ferguson and Peter Bellwood to rework the script into what we eventually had wind up in theaters. And once the movie was green-lit, they brought in Russell Mulcahey to direct it. And I vaguely knew that Mulcahey had been doing music videos before this, for the most part, he had one other cult movie ahead of time. It was a horror movie, I think, called Razorback. But I didn't realize which music videos he'd been making until I started doing all [00:11:00] this research. So I'm going to give you a small sampling and you're going to tell me if you've heard of these. Jessika: Okay. Sure sure sure. Mike: Okay. The Vapors “Turning Japanese”. Jessika: Uh, yeah. Mike: Yeah, okay. The Buggles “Video Killed the Radio Star”. Jessika: Wow. Yes. Mike: Duran Duran Duran’s “Rio”. Jessika: Wow. Mike: And Elton John's “I'm Still Standing”. Jessika: Yeahwow. That's actually a variety of characters. Mike: Right? But also those all really iconic music videos. Like not only songs, but music, videos cause those were all in the very early days. And the dude's entire portfolio is just iconic. If you think about the music videos that really defined the genre Jessika: Yeah, sometimes you just got it, I guess. Huh? Mike: He has a lot of those music video elements. A lot of times in the movie, it feels like a music video, like when Brenda's being chased down the hall by the Kurgan and it's got all that dramatic lighting, or that opening shot where they're in the [00:12:00] wrestling match and you see the camera flying through everything. Jessika: Yes! Mike: That was wild. That was really unusual to see camera work like that back then. The movie was distributed by 20th century Fox. And I think at this point, We'd be more surprised of 20th century Fox did a good job of marketing weird and cool, because they really botched it. They wound up forcing cuts to the movie that created really weird plot holes because they didn't feel that audiences needed it or what would understand it, and they wanted to make it simpler, but it really made things more confusing. European audiences on the other hand, really embraced the film because they got a much better version. So case in point, I'm going to show you the two main posters for it. This is the American poster for the movie. Jessika: Mmhmm. Oh, wow, he’s scary. Wow wow wow, okay. Before I even say any of the words, what you first see is Connor [00:13:00] MacLeod, but it's this awful grainy picture of him. He looks like there's something wrong with his face, which he shouldn't necessarily. And he looks like he's about to murder someone. He's like glaring off into the distance. And at the top it says, Oh, it's in black and white, by the way. at the top it says, He fought his first battle on the Scottish Highlands in 1536, he will fight his greatest battle on the streets of New York city in 1986. His name is Connor MacLeod. He is immortal Highlander! Credits at the bottom, rated R, absolutely rated R. Mike: Also, I feel like featuring original songs by Queen does not get the billing that it should. Jessika: I agree. I jammed my way through that film and this just the whole series, [00:14:00] actually the whole franchise I jammed my way through. Mike: Yeah. And if you listen to the kind of Magic album that is basically the unofficial soundtrack to the movie, and it's so good I don't know how they got those perpetual rights to Princes of the Universe, did. Every time I hear that song, I get a little thrill up my spine. All right. So here's the poster though for the European release. Jessika: All right. So, Ooh, this is totally different. This is Whoa. This is way more exciting. Okay. First of all, it's full Color, my friends, right in the middle in red it says Highlander right under it “There can only be one” in yellow. Oh it's amazing. There's a little sticker at the bottom that says featuring original songs by queen. Look it, trying to sell it, I love it. And then there's Connor MacLeod in the center of the screen [00:15:00] dramatically head back eyes closed screaming his sword thrusts forward and behind him is the Kurgan, oh my gosh so good. It's so - Oh, and a backdrop of New York city. All in lights. It's beautiful. Mike: Yeah. It’s one of those things where basically, that documentary that we watched seduced by Argentina, they talk about that where they're just like 20th century Fox fucked us. Jessika: And I didn't realize how much until, because I did watch that as well. And I'm like how bad could it be? But I that's pretty bad. It's a pretty big difference. It's like watching, that'd be like going, expecting to see like psycho or something. Mike: Honestly, I keep on thinking of Firefly and Fox and how they just totally botched the marketing for that show and then the release, and issues with Joss Wheden aside. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: It’s one of those [00:16:00] things where again, it's a really beloved cult property with a really devoted fan base, even, 5 years after it was released, shit, almost 20. Jessika: And I do love Firefly, again, Whedon aside. Mike: I do too. Jessika: And it makes me a little sad think about it because it had so much potential. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Oh, it's so rough. It's rough to see. Mike: Yeah. What were your overall thoughts on the movie now that you've seen it because you hadn't seen it before this, correct? Jessika: No. I had only seen the TV show and probably rightfully so, because that was much less violent. I mean, much less graphically violent. They were still beheading motherfucker every episode, but, versus the film, which is like blood and like half a head and wow, there, it goes the head. But I actually really liked the movie. It was adventurous, it was thrilling and told a fairly cohesive and interesting storyline which unfortunately had an ending. But it still took us on an emotional journey. [00:17:00] Mike: Yeah, and I feel the same way. Jessika:: And how all the camp that I love from the 1980s and the special effects are just chefs, kiss love it. Mike: There is something so wonderful about the special effects from the 1980s, because they're so earnest all the time. And at the same time they look so cheesy by comparison now. Jessika: But you can tell they were trying so hard. It's almost like a little kid who's just learning to finger paint and they walk up and they're like, I did this thing. It's so good. You're like, it is really good. It's really good for where you're at. Mike: Yeah, exactly. Highlander is very much a quintessential eighties film to me, and there's both that nostalgia factor, but also it's a pretty tight little film. It doesn't really try to do anything too grandiose or too world-building because I don't think they expected to really make the sequels that they wound up doing. Which speaking of which we should discuss the sequels. [00:18:00] Mike: Like, I feel like you can’t discussion without talking about the sequels. And honestly the first time I ever heard of Highlander as a brand really was when I was visiting family in Texas And we were watching a Siskel & Ebert episode where they were thrashing Highlander II. Jessika: Dude, Siskel and Ebert I'm sure hated this. This does not surprise me in the least. Mike: I don't remember much about it, I just remember being like, oh Sean Connery's in a movie, well that's cool. Because my parents had raised me on all of the Sean Connery James Bond movies. Jessika: Yeah casting, come on. Why? Why? They had a French dude playing a Scottish guy and a Scottish guy playing a Spanish Egyptian guy. It's. Mike: I believe label was a Hispaniola Egyptian. They kinda darkened up Sean Connery a little bit too. I'm not sure. Jessika: It felt that way. I was just hoping he had just been under the tanning beds, but no, I think you're right. [00:19:00] Mike: Highlander II was definitely the most infamous of the sequels. And I mean a huge part of that is because it had such a batshit production and there’d been so many different versions of it. It was so bad that Russell Mulcahey reportedly walked out of the film premiere after only 15 minutes. There's this great documentary that you and I both watched on YouTube, it's split up into a bunch parts, but it was a documentary they made for the special edition of Highlander II. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: It was the third release of the movie that they put out because the first one was basically the bonding company for the films. Investors took over the production and assembly of the movie due to the fact that Argentina, where they were filming. And they had gone to Argentina because a, it was gorgeous, but B because it was supposedly going to be a third of the cost Jessika: Yeah. Mike: To make a movie there than it would elsewhere. Argentina’s economy collapsed and went through hyperinflation. And as a result, everything just went haywire. But they went back years later and they not only recut the [00:20:00] movie, but they refilled or added in certain scenes I think four or five years later. And then on top of that, they did the special edition a few years after that, where they redid the special effects. And I don't know it's kind of funny because it's not a bad movie now. It's not terrible. I feel it's an enjoyable film in its own way. But it's also funny where you watch that documentary and they're talking about the stuff that they're so proud of. Russell Mulcahey was talking about how proud he was of that love scene. I'm using this in quotes, love scene between Virginia Madsen and and Christopher Lambert where they just decided to do it up against the wall of an alley? Jessika: That’s always an interesting choice to me. Like you really cannot wait. Mike: Yeah. And then he was like, I thought that was a really hot scene. And I got to sit there and I'm like, I don't, I can't view this through the lens of, a 20 something guy in the 1990s. I don't know what my interpretation of it would have been then, [00:21:00] but watching it now watching it for the first time when I was in my twenties and the, in the early aughts, I just was like, this is weird and sorta dumb. And also they don't really have a lot of chemistry, but okay. Jessika: Yeah, it just kind of happens. They're just like, Oh, here you are. Mike: Yeah Right I don't know. At the same time it was cool to see they did all those really practical, special effects where they actually had them whipping around on the wires on like the weird flying skateboards and stuff. I thought that was cool. Jessika: I thought that was neat too. And how he was like, yeah, I actually got on top of the elevator and he was excited. Now he got on top of the elevator. Mike: And then they basically just dropped it down, like that's wild. So how about Highlander three? Jessika: Ahhh… Mike: Yeah, that’s kinda where I am Jessika: It’s very forgettable in my book. Mike: I feel like you could wipe it from the timeline and no one would care. Really, it felt like a retread of the first movie, but with the shittier villain in a way less interesting love story. honestly, it was a bummer because Mario [00:22:00] Van Peebles, the guy who plays that the illusionist I can't even remember his name. It was that forgettable. Jessika: Yeah, no, I can't either. Mike: Mario van Peebles is a really good actor and he's done a lot of really cool stuff. And it just, it felt like he was the NutraSweet version of the Kurgan Jessika: I like that. Yes. Yes. Mike: All of the mustache twirling, none of the substance. Jessika: It leaves a little bit of a weird taste in your mouth. Mike: Right. Splenda Kurgan! Moving on Highlander, Endgame. Jessika: What I do like about this film is that in both the TV series, as well as the film, there is the actual crossover. Connor shows up in Duncan's world and Duncan shows up in Connor's world and there is that continuity, which is good. And I do appreciate that because, before I got into this, I assumed that the character was interchangeable and we were just seeing different actors James [00:23:00] Bond situation. And when I went back and realized like, Oh no, he's his own character, they're blah, you know. Mike: I dunno I saw this in theaters I love the show and I appreciated that it felt like an attempt to merge the movies in the series and of the movies, I feel like this actually has the strongest action scenes. There's that bit where Adrian Paul faces off against Donnie Yen. And I was like, that's gotta be really cool to be able to sit there and show your kids much later in life: hey, I got to do a martial arts scene with Donnie Yen and he didn't kill me in the movie. that's pretty dope. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Again, it felt underwhelming. It just wasn't all that interesting. And also I spent years being mad at that movie because the trailer brought me into the theater expecting something way different than what we were going to get Jessika: Okay. And I don't know that I saw the trailer. Mike: It has, it has a bunch of scenes with Magic where Connor and Duncan jumped through a portal [00:24:00]. Jessika: What? Mike: And a sword gets thrown at Jacob Kell and he catches it midair. And then he does something else where he's holding a sphere where you see Connor's face screaming and then it shatters. Jessika: What’s with all this weird, extra scene stuff in these trailers. I don't understand. Mike: Yeah, it turns out that this hasn't, this has never really been officially confirmed, but reading between the lines yeah, it’s been confirmed. They basically filmed extra scenes just to make it more appealing for people. So they would show up to the theaters. Like they filmed scenes, effectively they filmed scenes just for the trailer the director when he was asked about it in Fearful Symmetry. He basically said, yeah, I know there was some stuff that they filmed for marketing afterwards, and I wasn't involved with that. And then I think it was Peter Davis that was asked about this for the book. And he basically said, Oh, this is a really standard practice. People, or accompanies [00:25:00] film stuff for for marketing purposes all the time. And that's where he left it. Jessika: Oh, okay. to know. Mike: I was really grumpy about that, but that said I've softened a little since then. Do we even want to talk about the Source? Cause I feel like that's something that we shouldn't talk about in polite company. Jessika: No pass. Mike: Okay. Jessika: It happened? Mike: It happened, it was a thing that happened that was going to be a trilogy. They were planning to make that into a trilogy of movies. Jessika: Ohh rough times. Mike: Oh it's real bad. I don't think you were able to watch this, but Highlander, the search for vengeance. It's the anime. Jessika: No, I couldn't find it. Mike: Yeah. It's not available for streaming and it really it's really a bummer because it's actually pretty good. I'm not quite sure how to qualify it because it's not a live action movie and it doesn't star Duncan or Connor, but it's a full length anime. It's a full length movie in its own right. It focuses on Colin MacLeod who he’s [00:26:00] an immortal, who's technically part of the MacLeod clan. He's born as a Roman Britain and then he's adopted into the MacLeod clan after he fights alongside them later on. They keep on doing this. They keep on going back to dystopian SciFutures, which I kinda like, Jessika: I love, bless their little hearts. Mike: Yeah. A lot of the story actually takes place in this post-apocalyptic 22nd century, New York. And I haven't seen this in about a decade because it's not available on streaming. I don't have the DVD anymore. I really should pick it up before it goes out of print. But the movie fucking slaps. It was directed by Yoshiaki Kawajiri, he was really big in the nineties. He did Ninja Scroll and Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust. He's known for really cool looking movies that are also really violent at the same time. Like you look at his characters and you're like, Oh yeah, no, they all look interchangeable because they're also similar one movie to another, Jessika: Oh, I see. Mike: But they're really cool. And the movie was written by David Abramowitz, who was the head writer [00:27:00] for the TV show. So it felt like a pretty legit Highlander story. Honestly, if we had to talk about this and ask which of these movies or the sequels were our favorites, I would probably say the Search for Vengeance. Because I loved it so much, but since that wasn't a theatrical release, we'll exclude that and you didn't get to watch it. Of the sequels, which did you enjoy most? Jessika: Mike, why don’t you go first. Mike: Okay. I'm a little torn, I guess I enjoyed Endgame mainly because it feels like part of he in quotes, real Highlander story, I guess it's the least terrible of the sequels. And it brought in my favorite characters. The final version of Highlander II, is I don't know. I don't hate it. It honestly feels like a cool dystopian cyberpunk story with some bizarre Highlander lore shoehorned in, but at the same time, it's not the worst thing I've ever watched. How about you? Jessika: Funny [00:28:00] enough, I was going to say Highlander II, but maybe just a bit more so if it were its own standalone movie and not try to be a part of the Highlander franchise. The idea of the shield is super interesting and I think they could have elaborated more on the lead-up and the resolution of that issue rather than having to also make it about the Immortals in their forever game. Mike: Yeah, I agree. How do you feel about moving onto the TV series? Jessika: Oh, I am pro. Mike: Okay. I personally feel like this is the property that sucks all the air out of the room when you're talking about Highlander. Jessika: Oh no. Mike: Yeah, I mentioned that this is how I really got introduced to the brand. I started watching it in high school, around season three, which was when it was really starting to get good. The first two seasons I feel were kind of when they were ironing out all the rough spots. But I wound up watching it through the end. So if you're listening to this podcast and you have never seen the [00:29:00] show Highlander, the series ran for six seasons, which is a good length of time for any TV show. And it followed the adventures of Duncan, who was another member of the MacLeod clan. He was a distant cousin of Connor. And the show bounced between Seacouver, which is a fictionalized version of Vancouver in Paris. And it basically retcon things so that the original movie didn't end with The Quickening, but that the battle between the Kurgan and Connor was it's implied, it was the start of The Gathering. That's my interpretation of it. Jessika: That was what I got too. Mike: Yeah. And Christopher Lambert, he shows up in the pilot to help set things up and get them moving. But I think that's the only time we ever really seen him on the show. Jessika: Correct. He's really just an intro. He's in that first episode only. Mike: You have rewatched it as a have I . We haven't watched the entire series all the way through, but we've watched a lot of episodes. Jessika: Correct. Mike: How do you feel [00:30:00] it measures up today? compared to that nostalgic view that we had before, Jessika: I had a lot of fun watching it, actually. definitely super cheesy. I don't love all of the characters I watched a lot of the first season, then I bounced around I think I did the top, like 25 on a list that you sent me. But Duncan’s just so codependent sometimes with his characters and it's like the one time the Tessa goes on a hike by herself, she gets kidnapped by an, a mortal and it’s like, oh my God, she can't even go on a fucking hike, are you joking me? And the one time he goes to the store by himself, he gets kidnapped and it's like, oh, come the fuck on you guys. Mike: Yeah, I feel like it generally holds up pretty well. It's a little uneven, but when it hits , it really hits. And it's a lot of fun. And considering that it was a relatively low budget show on basic cable in the early to mid-nineties, there's a lot of stuff that has aged way worse. [00:31:00] Jessika:: Absolutely. It exceeded my expectations on the rewatch, for sure. Mike: Yeah, and I have to say that one really cool thing about Highlander is it's got a really large female fan base. And I suspect that the show is really responsible for that. Jessika: I would agree. There's a few reasons. Mike: Are six of those reasons. Duncan's abs? Jessika: Like 10 of those reasons are all the times he gets surprised in a bathtub. I know I messaged you while I was watching them, because I was like Duncan got surprised in a bathtub again. Mike: I don't remember which episode it was, but there's one where he is surprised while he's in a bathrobe and he's got, it's not even tighty whities, it’s like a bikini brief, and watching that, I was just sitting there going, thank you for this gift. Thank you. Thank you for this visual treat that you have given us in the middle of my very boring work day. Jessika: It’s [00:32:00] also that there are such a wide variety of female characters. I would say, Iit’s not just the other female person he seeing or whatever, the love interest, there are other female Immortals and they a lot more frequently than they do in the films. I can't recall if they have any female immortals in the films. Mike: They do in Endgame. Jessika: Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I thought there was, there were some in there, but that’s tailing into, I mean yeah. Mike: Yeah. And the Source had them too, but meh. Jessika: Oh yeah. Mike: I will say that the show was pretty good about writing pretty strong female characters, I felt. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: And we'll talk about Amanda in a little bit, but I have to say that I really liked how she was written and how Elizabeth Grayson played her through the original series and then her own afterwards. I dunno. I, what do you think is the sexiest thing about Duncan MacLeod? I'm curious. Jessika: He seems [00:33:00] really like trustworthy, but like and sexy trustworthy. It's like, he'd be the dude. I called if some guys were fucking with me. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: I kept on thinking about how there's this Tumblr post that's been going around the internet, regularly, and it's this discussion about which Disney men women find the sexiest guys always thinks it's Gaston. Jessika: Oh lord, why? Mike: It’s that male power fantasy thing where they're just like, oh no, like he's like really charming. And he's really muscly. And the counterargument from women is usually A no Gaston sucks and B we all like Roger from 101 Dalmatians. Jessika: Oh yeah. Roger. Mike: Which, Roger is very much my personal role model. The dude's a talented musician, he loves animals and he's got that great, a snark where he literally is trolling the villain when she comes to his house with a motherfucking trombone from upstairs [00:34:00]. And I think Duncan's a little like that. Like he's cultured and he's worldly and he's got this wicked sense of humor. And he's also the type of dude who has no problem reciting poetry in public or making his partner breakfast in bed. Jessika: Yeah, absolutely. Mike: So it just it was something that came to mind while I was rewatching all this stuff. Jessika: Yeah. just as like a wholesome guy. Mike: Right? Jessika: He always has good intentions. So that's actually what it feels like. He's always coming at things with good intentions. Mike: Yeah, and he's not perfect, but he's always trying to do the right thing, which I really appreciate. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: What was your favorite episode? Jessika: I went back and forth. I really like the Homeland episode, and like I said, I've really only watched a good chunk of most of season what I would say, and then so kind of bounced around, but season four, episode one. It was really sweet to see [00:35:00] Duncan take the obligatory trip back to his Homeland to pay respects. And it also had a good lesson in not judging a book by its cover as the main character assumes that Duncan is just an ancestry tourist, which was super interesting. She was super hating on it but I was like this is interesting instead of visiting what once was literally his home during formative years. So it was just such a wild thing to see her be like, what are you doing near those graves? And he can't really be like, they were my parents because you cannot even read them. They are so old. Mike: The funny thing is I didn't rewatch that episode during our refresher, but I remember watching that episode when I was about 15 or so. Because it's stuck out to me. Jessika: It’s really good. And of course, Duncan, he always has a good intention. The whole reason he went back was because he figured out that somebody had been [00:36:00] pilfering graves Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And he had to return what was in this grave. Mike: I know he's making the rest of us look bad. So mine is, it's unusual suspects. It's from season six, which I feel is actually pretty weak season overall. And it's this really silly one-off episode, starring Roger Daltry of the Who fame. He plays Hugh Fitzcairn, which is a character that he shows up in plays a couple of times throughout the series. And at this point in time in the story, he was dead, but it's a flashback to the 19 teens or 1920s. 1920s, because it ends with the stock market crash, but it's a take on the British country, house murder, mystery genre, and it's really fun. And it was just this really refreshing moment of levity after what I felt our run of really heavy, and in my opinion, not very good episodes. The end of season five and the beginning of season [00:37:00] six are all about Duncan confronting this demon named Aramon and it's weird and it's not very good. And I really don't enjoy it. This is all my opinion. I'm sure that I'm insulting some Highlander fan who absolutely loves this, but it's a fun episode in its own. And then it's a good moment after one that I didn't really enjoy. And so it's got that extra refreshing bonus. I just, I want to note, it's really funny to me how intertwined Highlander has always been with rock and roll and music in general, because they had Mulcahey who do it, doing all these music videos and stuff. And then they kept on having musicians show up as guest stars. I think it was there's a character named Xavier St. Cloud, I think who was played by one of the guys from, again, I think, Fine Young Cannibals? Jessika: Yeah, I think I actually watched that episode. Mike: I think he was using nerve gas to kill people. Jessika: Yes I did watch that episode. That was a wild one. Yeah. Mike: Yeah, and I think he shows up later on too. [00:38:00] I can't remember but anyway, I really appreciate that they gave Roger Daltry of all people, this character, and he just really had fun with it and they kept bringing him back. Jessika: Yeah. He was a good character every episode he was in my other favorites was the one where they had Mary Shelley and he was in that one too. I believe. Mike: I think so. Yeah. No, it was, the series was really fun, and I liked that we can sit there and pull all these episodes just from memory that we really liked. Jessika: Absolutely. Mike: So season six , they were trying to find a new actress who could carry her own Highlander show. And so they tested out a bunch of different actresses in season six and gave them either really strong guest appearances, or they were basically the main character for episodes. But they wound up not going with any of them. They went with Elizabeth Grayson and gave her the Raven where she reprised her roles Amanda. Did you watch any of that? Did you get a chance to? Jessika: I watched the [00:39:00] first and the last episode of season one, I can only find the first season. Is there only one? Mike: There’s only one season, it didn’t get picked up again. Jessika: Oh then there you go. Then I could have only, I know I was scratching my head. Worried about where else do I find this? Mike: Well, and it ends on a cliff-hanger. Jessika: Yeah, exactly. That's where I was like, let's go. Mike: It ends with Nick becoming immortal. Jessika: Oh, see, I didn't quite finish it. Cause I was hurriedly setting it up in the background. Mike: Yeah it was fine. I thought Elizabeth Grayson is really charming in that role, but at the same time, there wasn't a lot of chemistry initially between Amanda and Nick, I felt at the very beginning. Jessika: I agree, not in the first episode. Mike: By the end of the season, it was there, and I think they were also, as is the case with most shows first seasons, they were trying really hard to figure out what they wanted to do. And so originally it was a cop show with an immortal, which there are certainly worse pitches that I've heard. Jessika: Yeah. No, I agree. Mike: But yeah. sad that it didn't get to go further [00:40:00] Jessika: I'm tempted to go back and watch all of these things. I may have to do a pallet cleanse of something different. I may have to go back to my Marvel watching. Mike: On top of this, there was a Saturday morning cartoon called Highlander, the series or Highlander, the animated series, and it was set in the future. It's in a weird alternate timeline. It stars another MacLeod. It's fine It's a Saturday morning cartoon. I didn't even care enough to really go back and watch it because being that great. They did some interesting stuff. Like they brought Ramirez back if I remember, right. And then they also had a thing where instead of beheading other Immortals, the main character had an ability where he could be voluntarily given their power. Jessika: Oh. Mike: So he had all of their knowledge and power. And again, it’s again in a dystopian future where another immortal has taken over the world. Jessika: Wow. They just love their dystopian future. Mike: They really do. But yeah, it's fine. I think it's streaming on Amazon prime. I was just so focused on everything else that I didn't get a chance to go and [00:41:00] rewatch it. Jessika: Huh, good to know. Mike: We're going to go over all the other various pieces of media real quick. and then we've got one side tangent and then we're going to go through comic books, but. Jessika: I'm so excited. Mike: Books, Highlander wound up having a pretty substantial literary footprint. The original movie had the official novelization. There wasn't really anything after that until the show came out and then the show had 10 novels and an anthology and an official behind the scenes kind of book called the Watchers Guide and it's full of essays and interviews and photos. And since then, there've been a couple of non-fiction books, like Fearful Symmetry, which is about everything Highlander related. And it's almost like a textbook, but it's pretty good. And then there's also A Kind of Magic, which is more focused on making of the original movie. And those are both actually really good. I liked them a lot. They were really easy to read. [00:42:00] There were audio plays, which I keep on forgetting audio plays are a thing at this point, but it's by this company called Big Finish in the UK. They do tie-in audio dramas for television properties. Most famously they do Dr Who. They wound up doing two seasons of audio plays. The first had Adrian Paul reprise his role as Duncan and they take place after the series ended. And then also after the events of Endgame, you can't really find them anymore. Because they just, the license expired so they aren't selling them as far as I'm aware. Jessika: That's super interesting though. Dang. Mike: Yeah. And then the second season focuses on the four horsemen Immortals, remember Jessika: Okay. Mike: Do you remember them? Jessika: I sure do. Mike: Because we were talking about this a little bit, but it was all about Methos and the other guys that he hung out with when he was effectively, a comic book villain who would've if he’d had a mustache to twirl, he would have done it. Jessika: So quickly. Yes. Mike: I thought that was really interesting. There were a couple of people in the Highlander Heart [00:43:00] group who talked about it and they seem to really like them. I can't comment, but it was really neat. Games, this is the one that's really interesting. Highlander actually has been turned into a number of games over the years. There's a couple of tabletop games we're going to breeze through. So there was two different card games in a board game. One of the card games was released back in the nineties, it was a collectible card game. And this was right when Magic: The Gathering was really hot and everybody was trying to get in on that action. And then recently there's a new one called Highlander: The Duel. And it's a deck-building game where you play as Connor or the Kurgan going up against each other. And just a couple of years ago, there was a board game that got kick-started, it was in 2018 and it's this fast paced game for two to six players. The reviews across the web were pretty positive. And again, it's one of those things where it's Immortals battling for that mysterious prize. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: But it's cool. Jessika: Nice. Mike: I’m actually pretty surprised [00:44:00] we never got like a tabletop RPG because they are not precious about applying the license for Highlander to stuff. I'm amazed that nobody went to them and said, Hey, we can make this cool historical RPG where we sorta start having players wake up and then they have flashbacks or whatever. And Jessika: Yeah Oh that would have been cool Yeah Mike: Right? But yeah we never got anything like that which I was really I actually that was the one thing I expected and was surprised to see that we never got. Okay. So we're going to go into mini tangent with video games even though they aren't technically related to comics. The first game for Highlander was a 1986 tie-in release for home computers. It was a really simple fighting title. It wasn't well received. It was apparently pretty bad. So after that the animated series had a tie in called Highlander: Last of the MacLeods. It was released on the Atari Jaguar CD console. If you remember that. Do you remember the Atari Jaguar? Jessika: Oh my god, no. I don't. [00:45:00] Mike: It kinda got lost in the shuffle in the early to mid nineties of all the different consoles that were coming out. But you can find footage of this on YouTube and it's one of those early 3d games. And so it got a lot of praise for his exploration elements and animated video sequences, but it also got a lot of criticism for its controls in combat. After that there was actually going to be an MMO called Highlander, The Gathering. And it was in development by a French studio called Kalisto entertainment, which was honestly weird because Kalisto's catalog up until now were mostly middling single-player games. They'd gotten famous for a series called Nightmare Creatures, but they also did a Fifth Element racing game on PS2 that I had and was actually pretty fun. Anyway, Kalisto went bankrupt before the MMO could come out. Jessika: Oh! Mike: And none of the folks who, yeah, that's video games. Jessika: Fair enough. Mike: So they went bankrupt. The MMO hadn't come out yet. And the folks who wound up with the rights afterwards just decided to kill the project. There's [00:46:00] one other game. That's become the source of a lot of speculation. And it's only known as Highlander: The Game it basically came about because Davis Panzer productions that's, the guys who own the rights to Highlander, and SCI, which was this holding company that owned a bunch of video game groups. They decided to ink a deal, to make a Highlander game. They announced that they basically had done a partnership back in like 2004, 2005. And at the time SCI owned Eidos who was the publisher that gave us Tomb Raider. So they were a pretty big name. The game itself was formally announced by Eidos in 2008 and the development was being handled by another French developer called Widescreen Games. It was going to be an action role-playing game. It would star a new Immortal named Owen MacLeod. The story was going to be written again by David Abramowitz and that added some [00:47:00] serious legitimacy to the project for fans. Actually, why don’t you read the summary. Jessika: Would love to my pleasure. Summary: Owen is captured and enslaved by Romans who force him to compete as a gladiator. During this time, Owen dies only to come back to life. Methos, the oldest living immortal approaches Owen to be his mentor. He teaches Owen about the game and how he and other Immortals can only be slain by beheading. As with other immortal MacLeods Owen is pursued throughout his life by a nemesis. This enemy proves to be extremely powerful. One that Owen is unable to defeat Owen learns of a magical stone, fragments of which are scattered all over the world. Throughout the game, Owen embarks upon a quest to recover these fragments and restore the stone in an attempt to gain the power to overcome his foe. [00:48:00] So dramatic. I love it. Mike: What's Highlander without any drama? But that sounds rad right? Jessika: Oh, it sounds amazing. Mike: The game was announced with a trailer in 2008 that really only showed some of the environments from different eras and then it ended with an image of Owen, but it looked promising. And then there wasn't much else after a couple of years of pretty much nothing but radio silence, Eidos wound up canceling the game and that's where a lot of the speculation has started. There's not a lot of information on Highlander: The Game. I keep waiting for one of those gaming history YouTubers to get ahold of an old dev kit and then do a video with a build, but that hasn't happened yet. So really it's all kind of speculation and wishful thinking about what could have been. And it also seems like some of the details are getting muddied as time goes on. Like Fearful Symmetry talks about the game of it but they [00:49:00] have the segment. And again I want you to read this. Jessika: Sure sure. The gam was so far along in its development stages that segments including backdrops and some of the gameplay options were presented at a Highlander Worldwide event in Los Angeles 2006 and got a very positive reaction. The beautifully rendered backdrops were almost movie quality and included the likes of Pompei, a dark forest in the Highlands, New York, and Japan as gameplay locations and introduced us to another MacLeod, Owen, the same surname but a much earlier vintage. Mike: Yeah, so, I think Mosby is a little overly enthusiastic about all of this, and this is because I think Mosby doesn't have much familiarity with how game development works. It sounds like they had concept art on display and were discussing gameplay [00:50:00] rather than showcasing a build of the game. Concept art and design discussions are things that happen very early in game development. But if you're an outsider, looking in this stuff could easily be interpreted as things being much further along than they were. Jessika: Ah. Mike: Yeah. Now that said, I did work in video games for almost a decade, and a few of my coworkers were actually involved with Highlander the game. Jessika: What? Mike: Every one of them over the years has told me the cancellation was a mercy killing. And again, this is from multiple sources, so I'm not going to name or identify because, I don't want to make things awkward for them. But basically the game was garbage . It's not really surprising to hear cause widescreen never really made a good game, the best reception that any of their titles got was just kinda mixed. But earlier this week, I actually called one of my friends. Who'd been [00:51:00] attached to the project because I wanted to get more information about this game before we recorded. Jessika: We need to get you a new shovel, you dug so deep for this. Mike: With both hands. But, they confirmed what I've been hearing from other people the gameplay itself wasn't just bad. It was boring. The biggest problem was it didn't know what kind of a game it wanted to be. Basically, it was trying to do everything all at once. There were a bunch of traversal elements, which didn't really make a lot of sense. Like why would you climb a Manhattan skyscraper when you're a roided out dude with a sword? Couldn't you just take the elevator? Or I don't know the stairs? There was going to be a bunch of Magic elements in the gameplay, which, isn't really, that's not really a thing in Highlander. There's that fantasy element because we're talking about Immortals who can't die unless you cut off their heads, but generally Magic isn't a part of the accepted Canon. And then the combat, what they were aiming to do something like [00:52:00] God of war, which was really big at the time. But, it wasn't great. My friend also pointed out that Owen looked like a bodybuilder, but his fashion sense was from that industrial metal scene of the late nineties, which neither of those things really fits with the Highlander aesthetic because Adrian Paul was arguably the most in shape of the Highlander actors. But even that was, he was a dude who was like, yeah, I could achieve that if I was really good about my diet and then just worked out aggressively but not like Hugh Jackman does for his Wolverine roles. Jessika: Yeah, yeah. Mike: So I'm going to send you a screenshot of what Owen looked like in the key art the initial title it does. Jessika: What? It looks like Criss Angel. Mike: Right. And they're trying to recreate that iconic pose of The Quickening from the first movie that Connor does at the very end where he's getting raised up and, by the rails of Lightning, or the wires [00:53:00] of lightning. Jessika: Yeah, I get what they were trying to do. Mike: Yeah,I wanna know, what the fuck is up with those weird straps with rings that are going down his legs. Jessika: I don't really know, I was trying to figure that out myself. So just so that everyone can really get the picture that we're getting here and you'll, you might understand why it's taken me so long to describe it. I had to take it all in first. Mike: Yeah, it’s a ride. Jessika: It’s all very monochromatic. And the background is of course, a cut of the statue of Liberty, the backdrop of parts of New York that I'm sure aren't even next to each other, which is always funny. And then what is this? Is this the new guy, or is this supposed to be Duncan? Mike: Yeah, this is the new guy, Jessika: It’s Owen. Mike: Yeah. It's Owen. And then Connor and Duncan were supposed to appear, supposedly. I know Peter Wingfield was recording his lines for Methos. Jessika: Well, if they haven't killed off Methos that makes sense. And I don't know in the series if they have, and maybe Duncan makes [00:54:00] sense if he hasn't died yet, but. Mike: Yeah they can't kill off Methos, Methos was my first gay crush. Jessika: Yeah. He's. Slightly problematic in a couple episodes, but he's a great character overall. But he's very Chriss Angel, he's wearing like a trench coat and that has to be some sort of a lace undershirt or something. Mike: lAnd he’s got like a weird really, like baggy leather pants. Jessika: Yes. Which cannot be comfortable. It's doing this weird pooching thing in the front. Mike: Yeah, and then I think I saw another screenshot where it looks like he's wearing skater shoes tennis shoes as well. Jessika: Oh, Vans Off the Wall, man. Mike: Just once I want to see a MacLeod in the movies with a good fashion sense. Jessika: Yeah, I mentioned that I wanted to cosplay as Duncan, which overall would be a great idea. But then I was looking through his outfits and I'm like, what do I wear? Do I wear this weird white tank top with these like acid wash jeans [00:55:00] and a belt? Or is this the one where I'm wearing like five shirts and a long jacket? Is it that day? Mike: You know who he looks like that guy, Canus. Jessika: Yes! Yes, does. He has the lace shirt and everything. Mike: And the dog collar. Jessika: Oh my god, it was so funny. I told you, I think it was trying to be edgy. Mike: Yeah, and instead it comes off as really queer-coded. Jessika: It really does though. I know, my little queer brain was like bling. Mike: Yeah, It feels like they weren't really getting the essence of what Highlander actually was and who these guys were, because usually the Highlander characters are a little bit more believable and ordinary because that's the whole idea is that they're walking among us and we have no idea unless they tell us. Okay. On top of all this. So remember how I mentioned that trailer was just showcasing environments for the [00:56:00] game. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: There was a reason for that. The reason was that they couldn’t get the character models to work. Jessika: Oh! Mike: So the shot of Owen at the end it's actually just animated key art it's the same it's the same art that you just saw. It's that image. It was just slightly animated. And then they released a couple of screenshots for the game, but apparently they were really heavily photo-shopped well, beyond industry standards. So, it was one of those things where, this was a turd and it needed to be flushed. And it finally did. But Widescreen went under about a year after the game was formally announced. They were working on another big project and apparently that got taken away, and as a result, it just caused the studio to implode. By this point in time Square Enix the guys do all the final fantasy games had bought Eidos and they formally canceled it. We're not sure why exactly, my guess is that it was probably, they just looked at cost it would take to finish this game and then the [00:57:00] amount that it would need to sell in order to be profitable or to meet their sales expectations for it and they just thought it wasn't worth it. But yeah, my friend actually said they were embarrassed to work on it and they would have been fine even if it had been an average game, but it was just bad. Even one of those kind of middling average games, I think that would have been fine, that would have lived up to the Highlander bar. Finally, there's that Highlander game that spark unlimited was working on. I never even heard a whisper about this until. We watched that episode of Highlander Heart focusing on video games, and they brought Craig Allen on to talk about the project. Based on what we know now, I think this might be why Square Enix was holding onto the rights for another year after they shut down Highlander, the game, just because they had this other title, theoretically in development or very early development. Based on the footage that they have, it looks like they had at least done enough development work to put together a vertical slice that they could show for pitch [00:58:00] purposes and at conventions. But I thought it was really promising looking overall. What did you think? Jessika: I thought it did look really interesting the game play itself I did like the idea of having a female Highlander. That being said, they had this whole concept about what Craig Allen was calling beautiful damage. Mike: Yeah. Jessika: And it was this whole thing about, oh it was the first female Highlander and her looks go when she gets damaged, and that's her whole motivation is to stay pretty. And I just, that gave me a huge headache, and it of course was super male-gazey I mean, the game itself seemed that way. Mike: It was weird because I would love to see women and Highlander being built a little bit more like warriors, like a little bit more muscly, which would be in keeping with people who battle across the centuries. [00:59:00] They don't need to be super jacked like the Amazons in Wonder Woman, but making them look like stick thin suicide girl, punk rock chick from the late aughts. Didn't quite gel with me. I understood what he was talking about though, because that was the thing where they were starting to do permanent cosmetic damage in video games. That was something that was really big in the Batman Arkham games. Every time that you got knocked out, you'd come back and you'd have a little bit more of your outfit chipped apart. So, after a while Batman's looking pretty ragged and you realize maybe I'm not as good at this game as I think I am. Jessika: Yeah And the concept itself is really interesting It just I guess was the way it was phrased by this person. And it very much was he was so proud of the fact that it was the first Highlander female in a video game. And then everything was just like so incredibly sexist. I was excited that I wasn't Mike: We're also viewing it, with the lens of 2021 at this point. At that time, [01:00:00] that was before they had relaunched Tomb Raider, in 2013, 2014, where they made her much more realistic. She was still very fit, but she wasn't the Lara Croft that had generated a lot of criticism. I think possibly, I don't know, but I hope that it would have been marketed a bit differently if it had been done today. That said we also don't know exactly what it would look like as a final product. Jessika: Oh absolutely, yeah. Mike: It’s, I agree. It's a little bit problematic viewed through the current lens. At the same time, like a lot of the Highlander properties when it was being done, I think it was kind of just par for the course. Jessika: Yeah, fair enough. But, I did like the idea of having a female Highlander and having her have a whole story regardless of whether it's the first one to be completely [01:01:00] tragedy laden which was the other comment like her experience a ton of loss because she's female and experiences empathy unlike the male characters. Mike: I really didn't like that. Actually. I thought that was. I mean the, the whole thing where they were saying we wanted to focus on lifetimes of tragedy as opposed to enjoying multiple lives. And I'm like, that's the whole purpose of Highlander. That's what I really like is when you sit there and you watch them having fun and doing all this interesting stuff. Jessika: Women aren't allowed to have fun, Mike. Mike: Apparently. Jessika: We just have to have lives full of tragedy and pining for people that we've lost in our lives. Mike: Well, yeah. And we all know that the dudes don't have feelings, so we just, you know, go on and enjoy things. Jessika: That does suck that Hugh they don't give men the ability to have that capacity or give them the the credit to have that capacity. Mike: I will say, I am sorry that this one didn't get further along the development [01:02:00] stages, because it certainly seemed like it had a lot more promise than the title that was canceled right before it. Jessika: Yes, the gameplay itself looked more interesting, it looks more complex, it easier to navigate. What they were showing us was really intense. Mike: I really liked that whole idea of being able to view the environments in two different eras. It reminded me a lot of another Eidos game called legacy of Cain soul river, where there was a spiritual world and then a physical world. And you could flip back and forth between them, which was kind of cool. Jessika: Oh, that’s neat Mike: Yeah. I dug that. I liked the idea of exploring the same environment in two different areas. I thought that was really neat. Jessika: Yeah. Mike: Let's move on to Comics. Jessika: Sounds great. Mike: Okay, so, I’m curious. When do you think that Highlander got big enough to get a comic book? Jessika: I don't know maybe late nineties Mike: 2006. Jessika: Wow [01:03:00] That's later than I had expected. Mike: Yeah. There wasn't a comic adaptation of the movie when it came out, which is weird, there wasn't one here in the States. Highlander Heart, in their YouTube podcast, noted there was a series of five newspaper comic strips that were published as part marketing promotion. The hosts weren't entirely certain if they're exclusive to Europe or not. I don't know. I haven't been able to really find much reference to it. After the movie came out, though there was a two-part comic adaptation in Argentina. It was published through El Tony Todo Color and El Tony Supercolor they were sibling comic anthology magazines, and here's the weird twist. It looks like this was an unlicensed adaptation. Jessika: Mmhm, interesting. Mike: So now we're going to take another side tangent. The important thing that you need to know is that Argentina had just come out of a brutal military dictatorship that came about as part of Operation Condor, which is this horrific program the United States was involved in. And it isn't really taught about in high school history, at least it [01:04:00] wasn't when I was going through high school and I went to a pretty good one. did you ever learn about that? I'm curious. Jessika: No, I did not. Mike: Okay I'm giving you an extremely TLDR read of this, but basically this was a program in the seventies and eighties when the US backed military dictatorships across South America. So our country helped these groups, kidnap, torture, rape murder, thousands of political opponents, like Argentina was especially brutal. There were literally death squads, hunting down political distance across the country. It was a really horrific time. I want you to read this summary of what was going on during that time, actually. Jessika: Give me the really fun stuff I see. Mike: Sorry. Jessika: No you're good. It is estimated that between - 9,000 and 30,000 that's a huge span. Mike: I know, it’s such a margin of error I don't understand. Jessika: Lack of record taking will get you there quick, I think. I'm going to start over, but we’ll leave that in. It is estimated that between [01:05:00] 9,000 and 30,000 people were killed or disappeared, many of whom were impossible to formally report due to the nature of state terrorism. The primary target, like in many other South American countries participating in Operation Condor, were communist guerrillas and sympathizers, but the target of Operation Condor also included students, militants trade, unionists, writers, journalists, I don't love this, artists, and any other citizens suspected of being left-wing activists - well take me the goddamn way away. Mike: Right. Jessika: Including Peronist guerillas. I don't love that. Mike: No it's really awful. And based on that list of targets, it's not surprising that there was a lot of media suppression during this time. Democracy returned to the country in ’83, and there was this explosion of art across the mediums. Argentine Comics [01:06:00] saw this Renaissance period. A lot of them though, weren't really licensed and let's be honest. It's not like there's an internet where IP owners could monitor stuff like this and shut it down when they learned about it. There was also this drastic comics increase in the area due to create or publishing Zines because the eighties was the decade where personal computers suddenly became commonplace and all of a sudden pe

united states god tv love american new york amazon california europe hollywood uk disney los angeles voice moving japan magic british french games dj russia european marvel batman dc search italian romans army universe argentina oklahoma wall color fall in love states superman alien birds manhattan investors pursuit vancouver cloud civil war bond ucla dvd democracy rio comics honestly scottish south america sword renaissance concept wonder woman rock and roll hbo max ip endgame wolverines clinton lightning personally worried rpg captain america folks prey vengeance john wick paramount canon warner accessibility woodstock tumblr god of war ramirez hugh jackman rambo dynamite tomb raider sean connery south american credits harley quinn alba firefly immortal magic the gathering slightly bleeding dang peanuts pine square enix dc universe charlie brown homeland metropolis highlander mary shelley emerald gi joe channing tatum princes battlestar galactica highlands lionsgate mmo gaston ps2 magic mike santa rosa immortals san francisco bay lara croft snoopy fifth element idw laguna beach macleod still standing panzer black lightning tldr drax scottish highlands whedon darkseid dalmatians radio stars quickening petaluma donnie yen razorback siskel zines big finish batman arkham peebles christopher lambert michael ironside pompei chad stahelski criss angel virginia madsen mosby mike thompson wingfield matt kelly eidos spawned ninja scroll fine young cannibals david morrell dc black label roman britain rambo iii kalisto kurgan charles schultz atari jaguar premiumbeat vampire hunter d bloodlust peter davis craig allen roger daltry fearful symmetry operation condor mike it adrian paul mike you yoshiaki kawajiri connor macleod diamond distributors siskel ebert jefferson pierce mike no mike yeah mike well jessia mike how mike so nightmare creatures mike there highlander ii van peebles gregory widen nutrasweet mike oh mike connor mike chris larry ferguson mike let matt so duncan macleod matt no robert norton sean connery james bond mike thanks mike right jonathan melville mike all jared emerson johnson scifutures john mosby mike they mike on drivethrucomics mike to evan mcdonald

Issue 04: Professor Marston and the Wonder Women/Wonder Woman (animated)