Events happening today
-
ALL
DAY
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
CENTO Series episode 121
and i'm not terrified, i'm just a puddle
down where the sadness accumulates
and gray endless clouds
that runs in the family and lacks a proper diagnosis
https://www.deviantart.com/pineliquor/art/it-rains-on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-1041047198
If you sit too long and stew
Getting cussed out by imaginary rabbits
Take your rave, and the heck ou
Otherwise, I won't get anywhere
Please stop, make it stop
Call the church, set up the cross
https://www.deviantart.com/psto1464/art/Dust-Bunnies-1040791098
IN AMENDMENT
Cento List - enjoy the poetry
https://aalbc.com/tc/search/?q=cento&quick=1&type=calendar_event&nodes=5&updated_after=any&sortby=newest
Enjoy the 2023 Centos
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/richard-murray-centos-2023
Epub link
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/poetry-or-more-1
Epub series
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/series/richard-murray-short-story-collection
Audiobook link
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/the-last-flail
Audiobook series
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/series/richard-murray-tip-jar-audios
If you really want to follow what I am doing please subscribe to my calendars. I wish I would had used the calendar tool with all my work from the beginning. Like alot of the internet I didn't really think on it when I started, like with many I just started using. Why do we create linearly when a lot of times, what I have to say is repeats from yesteryear.
Richard Murray's Work Calendar
webcal://aalbc.com/tc/events/5-rmworkcalendar/download/?member=6477&key=9b0dbd4939faea9d5408174d9601d576
or
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/5-rmworkcalendar/download/?member=6477&key=9b0dbd4939faea9d5408174d9601d576
Richard Murray's Community Calendar
webcal://aalbc.com/tc/events/7-rmcommunitycalendar/download/?member=6477&key=9b0dbd4939faea9d5408174d9601d576
or
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/7-rmcommunitycalendar/download/?member=6477&key=9b0dbd4939faea9d5408174d9601d576
RMWorkCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
Vixen cosplay by Nita Roze Nitatherebel
Nita Roze Nitatherebel
on tiktok
https://www.tiktok.com/@nittaroze.com
on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/@nittaroze
on instagram
https://www.instagram.com/nittaroze/
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
I repeat, Bernie Sanders is a fiscal capitalistic opportunist... who masquerades as a socialist or green or some extreme devout liberal when he functionally appears as a chaos agent no other than SChrumpft in effectiveness.
from PBS
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/nobody-likes-him-hillary-clinton-says-of-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton says “nobody likes” her former presidential rival Bernie Sanders, even as the Vermont senator remains entrenched among the front-runners in the Democratic race, with the Iowa caucus beginning in less than two weeks. In an interview with “The Hollywood Reporter” published Tuesday, Clinton was asked about a comment she makes in an upcoming documentary where she says Sanders was “in Congress for years” but, “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done.” Clinton replied that the criticism still holds and refused to say she’d endorse him this cycle if he wins the party’s nomination, adding: “It’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters.” Sanders’ campaign said Tuesday it didn’t have a comment about Clinton’s remarks. Her comments may ultimately energize Sanders loyalists who believed the Democratic establishment rigged the 2016 primary in her favor. That could be especially helpful with this cycle’s Iowa caucuses looming on Feb. 3. Many polls show Sanders among the leaders with former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. But Clinton also blamed Sanders’ supporters for fostering a culture of sexism in politics — a charge that is especially sensitive now, given that Sanders’ top progressive rival in the 2020 race, Warren, has accused him of suggesting a woman couldn’t win the White House during a private meeting between the two in 2018. Sanders has denied that, but Warren refused to shake his outstretched hand after a debate last week in Iowa and both candidates accused the other of calling them “a liar.” Warren has steadfastly denied to comment further, but the 78-year-old Sanders said Sunday that while sexism was a problem for candidates, so were other factors, like advanced age — touching off another online firestorm. In the interview, Clinton attacked a cadre of online Sanders supporters known generally as the “Bernie Bros,” many of whom were sharply critical of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for their “relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture.” Clinton further suggested that Sanders was “very much supporting it” and said, “I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink.” “I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions,” Clinton said. His feud with Warren has overshadowed a series of clashes between Sanders and another 2020 rival, Biden, for an op-ed penned by one of the senator’s supporters suggesting that the former vice president was corrupt. “It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I’m sorry that that op-ed appeared,” Sanders told CBS. The op-ed, published in “The Guardian” newspaper by Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout, claims Biden “has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans.”
It is a sad truth from Robert f Kennedy jr, an excerpt
"Mitch McConnell & Bernie Sanders built careers in DC while America got sicker, fatter, and more dependent on Big Pharma.
The longest-serving senators are also the biggest failures. "
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJc/status/1965156222979784823
IN AMENDMENT
I repeat what I said elsewhere about Mandela... Bernie Sanders talks a good talk to the masses of fiscally poor people who have time or are angry enough to listen. But, his results are not good, and when I look at Mamdani , Ocasio Cortez... so many legislators are simply not good at leading or improving legislative bodies. That on the reverse side said legislatures only seem to really hurt the executive branch. No one may want to hear it but Bernie Sanders cost Hillary CLinton the election and I can't see how he thought he would beat her. At the end of the day, Sanders has nothing to show for his time in Congress except being the far left rant guy. It is Mr. Smith lives in Washington. Every session, for the past fifty years, he makes a sweaty tear eyed speech but it never leads to any legislation.
IN AMENDMENT
https://x.com/FranksBlueHot/status/1965050848633053363 referring to a trveor jackson article
I remember when Obama ran and won and I thought , if he won, he would have to succeed, get results, because if he didn't no one after him could play the hope card and that is all the donkeys[party of Andrew Jackson ] have done since Obama. Biden was a hope president. Old PApa Joe, remember. Biden didn't offer a plan. Biden offered the hope that he damage of the past, some spurred by Schrumpt would begone. Instead it got worse. Schrumpts presidencies were made by Obama + Biden, and it is funny how both in various ways, alongside Bernie Sanders blocked Hillary Clinton, who tried twice and never got the chance I think she should had. I still think what I said in the past was true. Clinton president, Obama vice president , gets eight years and then Obama , maybe biden vice president, gets eight years. The donkeys gambled Obama first and messed it up.
Trevor Jackson article
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/09/25/how-to-blow-up-a-planet-abundance-klein-thompson/
excerpt
What happened to the future? When did we lose it, and what has taken its place? Political scientists have found a continual decline in visions of a shared transformative future since the early 1980s. Around the world, in party manifestos, inaugural speeches, and programmatic policy documents, principled statements about an open-ended future have given way to numerical targets like GDP growth achieved, emissions reduced, or people deported. The political right has been more interested in returning to an imaginary glorious past; consequently, the change has been most pronounced on the left, where the politics of an alternative liberatory future have ceded to the policies of technocratic governance and market discipline. This story fits the interregnum of the 1990s and 2000s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the slide of social democratic parties into neoliberalism. When Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history,” he was looking ahead to a melancholy time when we would be “jaded by the experience of history.” The conflict over the best way to organize human society had ended, and liberal capitalist democracy would remain triumphant, but the future appeared to be an empty stretch, without passion, without struggle. The financial crisis of 2008 did not recover the future so much as reveal that its absence was an ideological project. Writing in the aftermath of the crash, the radical cultural critic Mark Fisher diagnosed a phenomenon he called “capitalist realism,” meaning “the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.” Elsewhere he wrote that the future had been “foreclosed,” and the metaphor was apt: we had been evicted from it, and now it belonged to the banks. But nothing has depleted the future quite like climate change. As target after target has been passed and promise after promise broken, the time remaining to avert global catastrophe has been squandered. There is no noncatastrophic future left, and in fact it’s already here. How, in conditions of runaway climatic disaster, can the future be recovered? What visions of a shared transformative future are possible, and what happens to emancipatory politics, and to democracy itself, without them? Abundance, by two American journalists, provides one answer. American liberals in positions of governance should commit to deregulation, which the authors believe will unleash the power of the market and of technology to provide cheap and plentiful housing, energy, and medicine. They define the “abundance” they seek as a “state in which there is enough of what we need to create lives better than what we have had,” and they believe it is “important to imagine a just—even a delightful—future and work backward to the technological advances that would hasten its arrival.”
...
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
Captian Marvel truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMYj9R8YDY
my comment
You could had excerpted the "They Live" sunglasses realization scene:)
What can MArvel do to get the people who are angry about the lack, and it is a lack of female characters? Or is the answer the Xmen female characters are coming?
What are your thoughts on Sylvie from the Loki show?
I oppose your position on the people behind the scenes. Did Chris Claremont have passion for Ms. Marvel when he was writing her? she wasn't Wonder Woman from an age perspective or media clout. I think writers simply failed, and that is ok. Writers have the right to fail. I think the writers (most of whom are women) for she hulk/ms marvel/Wonder woman in film or streaming in the last ten years, or similar female comic book characters, simply failed.
to your question, are we, we meaning a "united humanity" or comic book fandom, going to avoid tokenism?
What is the parallel to tokenism? It is admitting + embracing a majority. tokenism in media is when a character has an aspect rarely viewed in a certain way. Black Lightning for example. The first character described as black in a non black owned comic [black owned comic books had black headliner characters pre milestone] book firm to headline a comic. That is tokenism. What is the parallel? DC comics admitting to the growing number of potential black comic book buyers they simply don't have a black comic book headliner and will not.
There are going to be women who say they want more female superheroes, to be as various as the male superheroes, and various not just in success but failure. DC+ Marvel can simply say, we don't have the female headliner characters for that.
IN AMENDMENT
Her words in the video show the problem. The producers, people with the money, are giving their money to people who can convince them of market trends. Black panther could had been made in the 1960s / without question 1970s but it was till now because the statistics show the average wealth and purchasing power of blacks in the movie going market alongside their viewing habits warrants a black panther. The studios thought women would go all in for women, especially after DC , to be blunt, botched wonder woman. Linda Carter is only a few years difference from Christopher Reeves and Wonder Woman unlike superman had a 1970s hit show. Superman one was made in the late 1970s. So, DC was able to make the superman movies with christopher reeves, make a supergirl movie, make the batman movies with keaton though never gave adam west's batman anything , and Linda Carter with a successful wonder woman show before the first superman movie with christopher reeves, who she is extremely near in age too, was given nothing. So, Marvel felt women moviegoers wanted superheroes. Captain MArvel made over a billion dollars from a 175 million dollar budge. The Green Lantern movie made 200 million , it broke even. No one hates green lantern for that really bad film. Was the writing the best? no. but, male superhero films that were poor and I argue far worse than Captain Marvel movie didn't lead to their characters being hated or the actors in the roles being deemed unpleasant.
So to avoid tokenism, I think an admittance of bias [both positive or negative] + truth have to occur.
Marvel + DC were started at a time where negative biases existed which meant most superhero comics are males, it is that simple. So today, making movies on popular characters will be mostly male characters. Milestone comics whom I love more than DC or Marvel, never had a female character be the headliner of a comic. So, I think comic book firms just have to be honest and say, we don't have too many female characters that we can headline for movies. Cause the reality is, the modern audience is popularity driven. yeah, Kpop demon hunters, but here is the problem using them as a yardstick. They never went to theaters. they were in the netflix ecosystem only, which has a particular membership demographic. Millions of people , though it may shock folks, do not have netflix. Now you can argue, Marvel + DC need to learn from Netflix and work through their streaming services, which all the companies want to do or are trying to do I think, but that is a whole other argument, because streaming services don't have to deal with the customer base of movie theaters.
I think the industrial change is coming where firms will work through their streaming services and then when things click take them to streaming and sell blue ray and all of that. Which will allow for affordable testing to occur.
IN AMENDMENT 2
The rape of ms marvel from carol strickland
https://carolastrickland.wordpress.com/ms-marvel/
FULL TEXT
So I was reading this issue of Avengers, #200 to be precise. Ms. Marvel had suddenly become pregnant — how she didn’t know — and the pregnancy had lasted only three days, but apparently this was full-term. In issue #200 we had the grand birth and the revelation of Marcus (the grown baby-no-more) who said he’d wooed Ms. Marvel and won her over and impregnated her with him and la-de-da, wasn’t it romantic. All the Avengers said, “Ah!” and Ms. Marvel left with Marcus to a happily-ever-after ending. But I didn’t get it. Here Ms. Marvel had been kidnapped, held for “weeks,” according to the narrative provided by Marcus himself, and not been won over even though Marcus had done the A-B-C of stereotypical male-mindset romance: given her nice clothes, serenaded her with history’s best musicians. Why, I bet he even gave her candy and flowers. At no time is love or respect — not even “like” — mentioned. But apparently she hadn’t been won over because he says, “with a boost from Immortus’ [mind] machines” (which he had access to), Ms. Marvel finally became his (and we may think of this being the truly possessive use of the word). At which point he impregnated her using non-technical techniques without her knowledge of what he was truly doing. Okay, class, anyone see anything wrong with this? Apparently the guy wanted foreplay before he raped her. I don’t know why he couldn’t have artificially impregnated her if he just had to use her body. Maybe in some sick way he thought he was in love with Ms. M. But the point is, it was rape and obvious rape at that. The writer had to go an extra, knowing step to add that line about mind control. If he’d just left that off, it would have merely been a fanboy romance, where the blonde and buxom heroine is swept off her feet by flowers and candy (no need for romance or love), and readily agrees to anything and everything the hero (or fanboy in clever disguise) wants. But time went by and NO ONE said anything about the rape! Not one word besides how some readers were so happy that Ms. M had finally found a good man. I wanted to barf. Granted, I don’t presently condone the very vehement tone of the article — really, I don’t know how many Cokes I’d had before writing this, but I bet you money I’d been reading a lot of feminist literature that had me all fired up — but besides the tone I have to agree still with my sentiments of that January in 1980 within the pages of LoC #1… The Rape of Ms. Marvel by Carol A. Strickland Am I just overly sensitive, or what? I know that I have a tendency to shoot my mouth off about the role of women in comics, but shouldn’t everyone be concerned when a comic displays a struttingly macho, misogynist storyline that shreds the female image apart with a smirk — and rewards the one who did the shredding? I should think that such a story would create an uproar in fandom — but where is there even a whisper of discontent? I realize that females are only a small part of comics readers and fandom, but it should not just be the women who raise the roof over such a story. It should be everyone. Isn’t everyone entitled to respect as a human being? Shouldn’t they be against somthing that so self-consciously seeks to destroy that respect and degrade women in general by destroying the symbol of womankind? Could it be that the great masses of fandom actually approved of a travesty like Avengers#200: “The Child is Father To…”? In that issue, an all-male Marvel staff, presided by Jim Shooter and watched by the Comics Code, slaughtered Marvel’s symbol of modern women, Ms. Marvel. They presented her as a victim of rape who enjoyed the process, and even wound up swooning over her rapist and joining him of her “free” will. Such a storyline might have fit into the 1950s, when people actually believed such a thing was possible — I mean, they thought that women invited and enjoyed rape back then — but to present such a storyline today shows a collection of medieval minds at work. Or at vicious play. For such a storyline to pass throug the echelons of editor, editor-in-chief, and Comics Code can only be a crime. For those not familiar with Ms. Marvel, or only familiar with her from her unsatisfying stint with the Avengers, let me explain who she is relative to circumstance and character: Most people know, if they don’t truly understand, that women have been stomped on by the comics industry ever since there were comics. From the sniveling Lois Lane of Action#1 right through today’s so-called “liberated” heroines (you can tell who they are by their low-cut or see-through costumes and stolen dialogue from the outdated Feminine Mystique), the male-dominated comics industry has gone out of its way to preserve the macho male and weak (or vicious) female image, ensuring the small percentage of females in their reading audience. You’d think that in the comics of the 1980s there would be zillions of characters who were themselves first, women second, and adventurers always. But look closer; where are they? Wonder Woman is a preaching man-hater with a memory that has more holes in it than her lover has lives, if that’s possible. She is a symbol of modern womanhood, supposedly, and that makes her an interesting character. Now think — name a male comics character who is a symbol of manhood: there is none! That’s because a male comics writer realizes that a symbol cannot be of real interest to a reader. But becauase women are all aliens from another planet, it’s all right to make them symbols, especialy if they are misshapen cliches drawn from maligners of the women’s movement, the people who designate females who want to be themselves as “bra-burners,” an archaic and never-correct term. Black Canary is less than a shadow of her man, the ultra-macho Green Arrow. The Invisible “Girl” whimpers and complains from the nearest corner while her menfolk do the fighting. The Wasp dreams of new costumes and new hunks to pester. Supergirl cries over a broken date. These are the stalwarts of comicdom’s females. The truly liberated women, those Tigras and Elasti-Girls and Black Widows, are resigned to limbo or just prolonged neglect. As of this moment in the comics industry, only Chris Claremont is portraying a modern woman — and he manages to do it with every one of them entrusted to his care. People may not agree with all that he is doing, but they must agree that he is lightyears beyond the other writers (even Jo Duffy, who is next in line to him), and that is a very sad picture of comics. This is the Nineteen-Eighties, folks. But who would believe it, to look at the state of comics? Back in ’72 Marvel had created a trio of books designed to hook the female audience: the insipid Night Nurse, the violent and poorly-written Shanna the She-Devil, and the interesting Claws of the Cat, written by Linda Fite and drawn (in its first issue) by Marie Severin and Wally Wood. The Cat was a fascinating character, even if she was a bit heavy-handed in places. But like many a TV series, the book was given only a few shots to make it. Cat #4 was the last issue. The concept was later reincarnated as the vapid Hellcat, whose costume-derived powers were never explained. The original Cat’s powers came from scientific treatment and training, but the Hellcat merely put on her emblemless costume to be super. I suppose women can’t really be expected to train at anything, but must rely on chance to give them the skills they need to make it in the real world. In 1974 the Cat was revamped in a different fashion: she was mutated into a horror-genre Cat creature named Tigra. When given a solo shot in Marvel Chillers a year later, she surprised everyone by becoming a stylish, snappy-pattered heroine whose future could have been bright. But she was bogged down in a five-issue continued story, and if anything will lose a reader’s interest faster than a multiple-issue tryout story, I don’t know what it is. Tigra and the Cat-People have been forgotten by Marvel except in two team-up stories since then. Surely such a sparkling, weird hero should be popular in today’s menagerie of sought-after non-humans like the X-Men, Hulk, et al. 1976. Marvel decided to try to cash in on the “liberation craze” yet again with a new spin-off from the popular Captain Marvel to be called Ms. Marvel. She would, like the Cat, be a symbol of the liberated woman. They plastered the words “This Female Fights Back!” on the cover and bared a lovely blonde woman’s navel — thus began Ms. Marvel. For the same number of beginning issues, both the Cat and Tigra had Ms. M beat hands down. But for some reason Ms. Marvel stuck with it. There was a shuffle of writers; Chris Claremont admits that he didn’t give Ms. Marvel his entire attention at first. Thus it was that Marvel’s own origin remained a jumbled mess until almost her twentieth isuse. Once Mr. Claremont settled into his job, though, Ms. Marvel began to do things. Things few, if any, women characters (or men, for that matter!) had done before. While her first adventures had been composed of the obligatory fight scenes upon more fight scenes, now her stories began to have plots, now her life as a hero was being tied into her life as a civilian. By the time Carol covered her navel in a Cockrumized costume, the comic had hit new heights of interest in plotline and artwork. Notice I didn’t add “for a heroine” there. That’s because Chris Claremont and Dave Cockrum were both looking at Ms. Marvel as a person — a beautiful, female person, yes, but a super-hero above all! There is only one drawback to this duo of issues: that existing artwork was changed from showing Carol Danvers (Ms. Marvel’s alter-ego) in sensible desert-exploring wear to having her in a midriff-exposing blouse. The Word was to make her more sexy, attract more male readers not so they’d get hooked on Ms. Marvel’s electric characterization, but so the comic could become a Code-approved girlie mag. Ms. Marvel was mature, powerful, intense and sure of herself. And two issues later she was cancelled. Now she started to pal around with the Avengers as a fighting companion, and later, as a replacement for the Scarlet Witch. Under the writing of Jim Shooter, Ms. Marvel suddenly developed a pushy, intimidating quirk to her nature. Mr. Shooter, whose portrayal of females has not changed one iota since his writing as a fourteen-year-old in the mid-1960s, has a Gerry Conway-ish quality to his work. No, no, Mr. Conway is not the only or worst writer to do this; he is simply the most consistent, when it comes to portraying any female who does not cower in the corner or behind her man when things get rough, to categorize her as 1) pushy — and usually hypocritical, 2) over-sexed, and/or 3) a castrating manhater. Ms. Marvel was granted the character trait of oversexed pushiness as she proclaimed Wonder Man a “hunk” and that she’d really like to get to know him better — heh, heh. With Shooter giving up the writer’s role in order to edit The Avengers, David Michelinie stepped in and Ms. Marvel became one of the super-gang; a normal super-hero, although one to stop action with an “important” message about liberation. Many writers do this for some reason. I suppose they don’t realize that example has always been a better teacher than preaching. Most comics females today do a lot of preaching. This is why most female characters today are uninteresting and frail. With a landmark issue coming, big number 200, staff wondered: what to do for the occasion? It was decided that Ms. Marvel would have a baby. Michelinie said that it would be the Supreme Intelligence’s kid, since the Supremor has always wanted a Kree-Terran hybrid. This would natually lead to an intriguing adventure, a climax to the years of scheming through countless comics for the Supremor, and a probable end to the Supremor himself, once Ms. Marvel beat him up for what he did to her — and her child. Ah — but Jim Shooter said no! What If #20: “What if the Avengers Fought the Kree-Skull War without Rick Jones?” had ended its tale with the imaginary/parallel world Supremor merging his intelligence with the inert form of Mr. Jones to become himself his precious hybrid. Jim Shooter, editor-in-chief of the Marvel Multiverse, proclaimed that the story would be too much alike and too soon after the What If? story. He didn’t bother to look at the many times in which the Supremor’s plans have infiltrated a half-dozen titles within as many months in years past, with no complaint from readers. Instead Mr. Shooter came up with a wonderful plan of his own for Ms. Marvel’s anticipated Happy Event. He would make magic number 200 a landmark in bad taste. He would portray a rape that would be applauded and rewarded by all who had news of it. To my way of thinking, this shows questionable judgment on Mr. Shooter’s part. But let the finished product help you decide. For those of you who either missed it or chose to forget it as quickly as possible, the plot went something like this: Ms. Marvel is three days pregnant at the start of the the issue, and is about to give birth to a full-term baby. For some reason the Avengers do not call in an obstetrician, but leave their most powerful member in the unspecialized hands of mentor Tony Stark’s good buddy, Dr. Don Blake. I suppose Blake won’t bill them the way an obstetrician would. In a male-fairytale version of birth, Ms. Marvel delivers in a non-birthing sort of way (I don’t understand it either. Let’s look at the physical processes involved–!) There is no pain, no labor, no logic… All the while Ms. Marvel is exposed to the other Avengers without shred number one of privacy during the non-birth birth. Varying scenes show us that the story is well-written. It is merely the plot that is the blot of blots on this work. The Wasp, not knowing that the baby’s father is unknown even to Ms. Marvel, congratulates her on the delivery and baby. We see its mother: exhuasted, humiliated: “I’ve been used!” she snarls. “That isn’t my baby!” Later she refers to it as “that thing.” There is no trace of maternal instinct that any other conventional heroine would have been oozing, even at such an inauspicious time. It is a scene well done. Yet compare the concept of this, the rejecting, angry, raped mother with the final image of Ms. Marvel. The change is heinous. It and the plotline spoil everything in their wake. The story goes on: the child, a boy who names himself Marcus, develops at an ever-increasing rate, passing quickly through childhood to become a young adult. He explains his origin, starting with his real father, a man Ms. Marvel never coupled with: Immortus. The mere use of such a character is controvertible in itself, for in well-known previous Avengers plotlines, Immortus killed Kang, his earlier self. Mark Gruenwald has explained that the Immortus who killed Kang was clearly a parallel Immortus, for if Kang were killed, there would be no Immortus around to kill him. Yet Marcus (and an editorial note) clearly remembers his father as the Immortus who killed off his earlier self. I’ll pass the Bayer as I continue… Anyway, before this Immortus-who-could-not-have-existed popped into existence, he had become anxious for a “mate.” Not a lover, not a wife, just a “mate” from good old Terra. Knowing that mortals can’t exist in his home of Limbo, he created a sort-of semi-Limbo, rescued a victim of a Terran sea disaster — a woman who could be Carol Danvers’ twin — and, in Marcus’ words, “through a combination of gratitude and the subtle manipulation of my father’s ingenious machines, the woman fell in love with him.” Subtle manipulations. Equals brainwashing. Equals brain control. Immortus couldn’t get this unnamed woman into bed with him, so he changed her personality and took her against her will. Equals rape. It seems mortals can’t spend too much time in semi-Limbo, although Marcus has been there all his life. His unnamed mother vanished when he was a boy to go to her death in the real world. Marcus was left with only his father, a wonderful role model, being a rapist and such. Daddy vanished (when he killed himself off a few millenia before), and Marcus was left alone. Not particularly liking semi-Limbo, he decided to go to Earth. He concocted a scheme by which he could be unnaturally born on Earth, speeded up in growth, and thus be able to prevent the destruction his presence in normal space would eventually create. He coldly chose the mother of the thing that would be himself: “The powerful combination of Kree and human strengths, would be the perfect vessel,” he decided, and chose the perfect double of the only human woman he had ever known and loved: his unnamed mother. Of course, his old-fashioned father and mother taught him you can’t reach a woman on a level as a human being; he couldn’t explain his plight and let her decide if she wanted to go through with his crazy idea or not; he wouldn’t even consider that she might have a better idea for getting him to Earth. Instead he went about wooing her: poetry, clothes and music he furnished, thinking that those are the only things women are interested in. When Ms. Marvel didn’t respond, as he explains to her in the present, “…Finally, after relative weeks of such efforts — and admittedly, with a subtle boost from Immortus’ machines — you became mine.” This is not hidden between the lines. Little kids can read the obvious fact: he raped Ms. Marvel. The artwork goes to great lengths — two close-up panels — to show Ms. Marvel’s ecstacy during the pseudo-mating. Ah ha. Another lesson to be learned from comics. It’s okay to rape. Women enjoy rape. Immediately after implanting himself in some sort of pseudo-scientific fashion into Ms. Marvel’s womb, machinery teleported her to her jet, seconds after the time she had been abducted by Marcus. The machinery also wiped out her recent memory — better to leave these females ignorant, right? Marcus couldn’t care less about the feelings of a woman who suddenly found herself pregnant — and giving birth — for no apparent reason. This is not Marcus’ fault. He is ignorant of human feelings, being brought up by the equally unfeeling Immortus. The explanation of Ms. Marvel’s rape is made to Carol, Thor, Iron Man and Hawkeye. It is obvious that Immortus’ machines have renewed their effect upon Ms. Marvel. Remember the angry rape victim at the beginning of the story? Now with a glisten in her eye and sob in her heart, she tenderly strokes the rapist’s cheek and tells him that she will return with him to his home. She even adopts his Oedipal way of speaking. Of all the times Marcus refers to her directly, it is as “Carol” three times, “my love” once, and “mother” three times. From Marcus being “that thing,” he is now “my child” to Carol. And she’s going home to play a different kind of house with him. Aren’t the kids eating this up?! One should think that the other Avengers who have heard this story and see Ms. Marvel’s sudden reversal in attitude toward Marcus would stop her from going back, knock some sense into her… anything. But look at this carefully-chosen audience: Hawkeye — Marvel’s answer to the neanderthal Green Arrow, a psychological sickie (catch his last act with Death Bird). He probably gets a kick out of Ms. Marvel’s Getting Her Due. Iron Man — aka “playboy” Tony Stark. In keeping with his public image, Tony chooses to avoid the implications of this event. And Thor — if anyone can match Jim Shooter’s medieval thinking, it is he. The story ends with Ms. Marvel and Marcus teleporting to semi-Limbo. Iron Man begins to have second thoughts: “We’ve just got to believe that everything worked out for the best,” he temporizes. He isn’t convinced, but he won’t make a scene. Mr. Macho, Hawkeye, turns sloppy John Wayne sentimental: “That’s all we can do,” he says. “Believe… and hope that Ms. Marvel lives happily ever after.” It is a fitting end to this male fantasy. A desirable woman/mother figure is raped and then chooses to be the lover of her rapist/son. Raping is manly. Women love to be raped. Perversion is wonderful for kids and other people of taste to read. The story would be almost laughable if it weren’t written in such earnest. Someone really believes this tripe, maybe. Or someone just wants to have some fun. May I ask a stupid question? Where is the Comics Code during all this? There’s their stamp on the cover, covering the “S” in AVENGERS — but where are they? This dirty joke that someone at Marvel dreamed up is all out in the open — not a bit of it is between the lines to be hidden from the innocents who make up such a large proportion of the audience. And the entire plot is a deadly insult to every woman. The bottom line to Avengers #200 is blatant irresponsibility, with every nuance of immaturity that that word provides. “Misogynist” is also a very applicable word. But instead of either, we’ll probably see the words “collector’s item: rape issue” next to the number 200 in the Avengers column in next year’s Price Guide, with an inflated price to match it. If it takes a second round of witch hunts to rid four-color standard comics of trash like this — count me in! The Aftermath Okay, we can all agree that the issue depicted rape, and that it was deliberately thrown in, probably to get back at a “liberated” woman. And that there was no negative reaction to it except, seemingly, mine. I never saw the next issue of LoC, but it seems to me that someone did loan me issue #3, and I remember reading reactions to my article that, summed up, told me that I needed to get laid to get my head on straight. So I continued to think that I was the only one who had recognized this as rape, had recognized the fact that rape is a bad thing, and that Marvel was the personification of the Anti-Christ. Well, that they needed to improve, let’s put it that way. And then came Avengers Annual #10, 1981, written by Chris Claremont. In the story, Spider-Woman rescues Carol Danvers, who has been mind-wiped by Rogue (this was back in the days when Rogue was a middle-aged hick maniac instead of a sweet young Southern waif). The X-Men get called in (it was an Annual, after all) and Carol winds up recuperating at Professor Xavier’s, where the Avengers pay her a visit. To my extremely pleasant surprise, Carol berates them for leaving her in the lurch. Although the word “rape” is never used, the story did concentrate on that “subtle boost from Immortus’ machines” line to heavily imply it. It actually seems to sink in to some of the Avengers’ minds that rape might not be good. That a woman might be injured in many ways by it. It was great to know that others had seen Ms. Marvel’s plight and had apparently been as pissed off as I had about it. Then one day in a fit of X-Men frenzy, I bought and actually read The X-Men Companion II (of course I had volume 1 as well), copyright Fantagraphics Books, Inc. 1982, and dropped the book in shock when I got to page 23 of the Chris Claremont interview. He’s talking about the portrayal of women in comics: Avengers #199, where Carol Danvers is introduced to the Avengers, and they’re told that in two days she has become eight months pregnant by an unknown father, or by force of persons unknown, and the reaction of the entire crowd, men and women both, is to the effect of: “Can I babysit?” “Can we knit booties?” “Can I make cookies for the baby?” “Oh you must be so happy?” and my reaction was, “What an insensitive crowd of boors.” Actually, my reaction was a lot stronger than that. But how callous! How cruel! How unfeeling! Considering that these people must have seen Ms. Marvel only a couple of days before, or even a couple of months before. She wasn’t pregnant then. How could she be eight months pregnant now? Now, if that had been the point David [Michelinie] was trying to make, that these other Avengers are callous boors, okay then, I may disagree with the point, but if he followed through on it, it would have made sense. But it seemed to me, looking at the story, looking at the following story, that he was going for: “This is how you respond to a pregnancy.” As Carol [Strickland] pointed out in her article in LOC [#1], women tend to get very short shrift in comics. They are either portrayed as wallflowers or as supermacho insensitive men with different body forms, who almost invariably feel guilty about their lack of femininity. And it’s always seemed to me that, why does this have to be exclusive? Can you not have a woman who is ruthless and capable and courageous and articulate and intelligent and all the other buzz-words – heroic when the need arises, and yet feminine and gentle and compassionate, at others? That was what I tried to do with Ms. Marvel. I tried to create a character who had all the attributes that made her a top-secret agent yet at the same time was a compassionate, warm, humorous, witty, intelligent, attractive woman. Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation did a story where they Ms. Marveled Deanna Troi, giving her an instant pregnancy. But this time the entity that did it wasn’t human, didn’t know anything about humans, and so it was forgiveable, although she seemed entirely too calm, too accepting of the whole ordeal to me. But then I never really did understand Troi much anyway. She was so wishy-washy until the very final seasons. (Oh, how I wished she could be more like her mother!) And of course, DC Comics had its own liberated female super-heroine, the equivalent of Ms. Marvel: Power Girl. So what did they do? Impregnated her without her knowing who the father was. Oh, they left off the rape bit (though it was entirely involuntary on her part) but they added incest – weren’t they cute? You win some, you lose some. But most of the time you just hope that some people will grow up. Apparently some comics writers still don’t know (1) that women are human and (2) which century we’re living in.
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
King of Fantasy weapons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvcCIDJj-NQ
my comment
Are you going to do a king of fantasy bows?
What about King of Fantasy Bos? I imagine Monkey Kings Bo that can extend is the winner.
What about King of Fantasy Chakrams? I imagine Xena's wins, though her Chakram that can split into two "brass knucle" esque I thought was the coolest chakram she had.
What about King of Fantasy spears?
What about king of fantasy armor, split between chain mail and plate?
In Amendment
Why Aragon fights like that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcjohYgAQQw
The Lord of the Rings SWORD you've Probably NEVER Seen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO0zmB9ai1Y
restricting weapons will not deny opportunity to get dangerous weapons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgtX4NgU8OA
my comment
I am glad you guys mentioned that a piece of thick wood is dangerous, for some reason people don't realize a metal pipe or a thick piece of rectangular wood can kill someone. Can you imagine a piece of wood , like a baseball or cricket bat with nails driven in, then it becomes like the Macuahuitl . and thanks for still finding the time in comparisons to give weapons history.
comment referral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgtX4NgU8OA&lc=UgwFW7xGXWtTmzHmsel4AaABAg&pp=0gcJCSMANpG00pGi
TOPIC: double blade sword
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1xk04EoUE0
my comment
Tyranth said what if the double blade was curved, i hope you try that one day. But what about a double bladed knife or even really short sword, where the distance between blades was really small.It wouldn't be needed to kill anyone but since a knife is for cutting, thrusting, not necessarily blade on blade action or getting through armor, maybe the multiblades add an extra level of danger.
comment referral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1xk04EoUE0&lc=UgylOfRTFzHg2F0fcGZ4AaABAg
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
I have been there Stallone, I rarely write fantasy , with enough fantasy
https://youtu.be/KONu5mxxPZA?t=3498
56:53 and it kills me because that's why I like up endings because life usually doesn't end that way so why do you have 56:59 to go out and spend money and see it and feel bad because I feel bad enough walking in here I don't need you to make 57:05 it worse that's my simple philosophy it doesn't exactly go along with true art 57:11 but I never said I was going to make true art yeah and it's ironic that with that period of not working and being in 57:18 the you know the movie theater for so many hours you came back by writing Rocky baloa right which was basically 57:24 the thing that started you in the first place so you went back to the first thing that you got you to the top and 57:30 when you're at the bottom again you brought Rocky back into the picture and you said it was your most proud work by 57:36 far because uh nobody wanted to do it I I felt so worthless and I was so embarrassed to be 57:44 your father tell you the truth because you didn't even know what I did basically for a living we saw your Spy 57:51 Kids Toy Maker what does my father do for a living just wanders around looking 57:57 depressed and I realized you you people that you thought were your friends and 58:04 not your friends when the good times go away that's when you find out your 58:10 family is so important cuz I'm telling you the ship sailed on me it was pretty 58:15 bad it was pretty bad but I took all that in and I thought you 58:21 know if this is if I'm done and I thought I was it was definitely done phone wasn't ringing it was done and I 58:28 was so embarrassed because people did not understand Rocky 5 Rocky five was 58:34 about one of the more real situations that you're so desperate to not be a 58:42 failure for your family that Rocky basically gave up his family because he wanted to get Glory again even if it was 58:49 through another man that he for you know his son he gave up wife he was this and 58:56 that and I wasn't I was not smart enough to realize that's not what people wanted 59:02 to see because that's what happens right you know that's a little too real right 59:10 and I said if I can just go back and do one more because I never thought I'd 59:15 ever do another movie again but in my fantasy I want to do Rocky B Bo which is 59:21 about loss about grief which is is the hardest thing in the world to live with 59:26 girls I swear to you oh [ __ ] it it's it's 59:38 hard I think anyway yeah I don't know why all of a sudden get traumatic like 59:44 that you know some [ __ ] just comes up and you I said how can I write a story 59:51 that I portray that kind of sad you know what I mean and but in the end it's you 59:58 purge yourself of it and that's what Rocky Balo is about he loses his wife he loses everything and people have they 1:00:06 you know they they that's what they experience but in the end he purges himself with what he says I want to get 1:00:13 rid of this old pain and put in some new pain I don't want that those memories 1:00:18 anymore and it worked it really worked well and uh that's my proudest moment 1:00:24 because nobody wanted to do it and they actually said you're done Ro's done I'm going 1:00:31 these are people that represented me that were like I paid lots of money to 1:00:38 and I went wow you really are yeah on your own and I want your girls to know that your best friend has got to be you 1:00:47 I'm serious it's great to have best friends and parents or whatever but you then I got and I did that thing I told 1:00:53 you about in the mirror and I sh you come back you fight you get off your knees you stop feeling sorry for 1:00:59 yourself and you write the best words you've ever written and I think it is by 1:01:04 far Rocky one I think has the element of surprise but Rocky 6 is the best I I I I
Full Video
First Interview
https://youtu.be/666OF8M-cJQ?si=J-i7bY34P8jhzp-a
Second Interview
https://youtu.be/KONu5mxxPZA?si=WP6z3915mjHgerOg
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
13 September 2025
This event began 09/13/2025 and repeats every year forever
I saw a post about a white person named Pasterski and it was an ugly lie about the role of money with merit in modern humanity
MY COMPLETE THOUGHT
Marty Steinberg your assertion is correct, but I want to go deeper, the original post doesn't mention money at all. Why? The post is suggesting something very ugly, and untrue, that a simple penniless homeless child in nyc, hungry most of the year, if they simply, focus on engineering and physics and have determination will be able to have a plane right on the sidewalk. I don't know where they will get the metal from or the ability to mold the metal, or the rubber , or the glass or any of the tools to cut and mold any of these things, let alone the paper needed to make a draft cause they are Explicitve homeless and on the expletive street they can't have a computer because they are on the street, and a child needs to be in a warm loving home first... I have been fortunate to have parents as a child who not only believed in me but were able to support me. But I am not going to suggest to anyone that mere belief is enough. that is a lie. And I find it sad that so many people in the usa love to chime this belief bullshit. Money is crucial. Her father since the original post didn't want to say it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Gonzalez_Pasterski is an attorney + electrical engineer. I wasn't able to find out his law firm or the firm he engineered for but it seems he lives at Oxford Ave, Chicago Ridge, IL 60415 and that is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worth_Township,_Cook_County,_Illinois Not homeless, not penniless.
MY COMMENT IN THE REFERRAL
Marty Steinberg your assertion is correct, but I want to go deeper, the original post doesn't mention money at all. Why? why is money not warranting any mention at all in this post? no justification exist to not mention money. Cause don't tell me that the homeless children I have seen in NYC who are hungry and sleep outside can simply mirror sabrina pasterski by picking up a book they don't even have or can afford or should choose over something to eat.
THE POST CONTENT
Pasterski’s interest in engineering and physics emerged early, demonstrated by her decision to construct a working airplane while still in her teens. The project required not only technical knowledge but also persistence and discipline, qualities that would characterize her later academic career. Flying the plane she had built herself at 16 made her the youngest American to achieve such a milestone, gaining early recognition for her abilities. Her academic journey was equally remarkable. At MIT, Pasterski pursued physics, completing her degree in three years with the institution’s highest possible GPA. Her work there reflected a focus on theoretical physics and quantum field theory, subjects that would guide her into advanced research. After MIT, she entered Harvard University for doctoral studies, specializing in high-energy physics. Her research focused on topics such as black holes, particle physics, and fundamental symmetries of the universe. This field demands mastery of advanced mathematics and theoretical models, underscoring the depth of her academic contributions. Pasterski’s trajectory from teenage aircraft builder to physicist illustrates how early technical curiosity can lead to advanced scientific achievements. Her path highlights the interconnectedness of engineering skill, intellectual discipline, and scientific research in shaping careers that push the boundaries of knowledge.
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
