This week for DOOMSDAY MACHINES, I wrote about Margaret Atwood’s The Year of the Flood (2009) and what it might represent as one model for thinking about what “feminist Survivalist” fiction might mean.

but I actually think you're not wrong that an app based around finding platonic friendships would be pretty popular

adult fiend finder would be unnecessary, however, as the issue with adult fiends and the internet is generally the opposite problem

Sure, I can see that argument.

This week for DOOMSDAY MACHINES, I wrote about Margaret Atwood’s The Year of the Flood (2009) and what it might represent as one model for thinking about what “feminist Survivalist” fiction might mean.

(races to takes out a patent on asbestos vape cartridges)

I love provocative typos. Here's one that I wrote just now: "landscraping." Another favorite of mine, back when I was writing my thesis in college, was typing "writhing" when I meant "writing."

I guess the question I keep coming back to is: is climate change just more difficult to "do" in this way than nuclear weapons were in 1964? I go back and forth. There's arguably something inherently absurd about nuclear weapons — so much effort bent towards making intentional suicide machines.

My hunch is that a) satire is really hard to do well, and b) serious engagement with issues is hard to do well (for Hollywood), and that doing both simultaneously is exponentially more difficult than doing either individually.

I haven't seen "Digger" (but probably will at some point), but your note twigged my interest in thinking about what Strangelove did that "worked" versus it and other recent "satires that are supposed to be deep but are neither deep nor funny" films (like "Don't Look Up").

Feeling more and more confident we should not hand these guys the keys to anything

JR: On what universe did anyone in your office think that was acceptable? DOJ: Your honor, we did our best -- JR: No, you did not do your best. You did your absolute worst.

"You know why I'm furious right now? I was hearing from everybody on plaintiffs' side that this was going to happen and I said repeatedly, no, I trust the government. I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done."

what Congresspeople look like when they "raise questions" about the destruction of democratic norms and rule of law

It's not just that it's *practically* much easier to break things than to fix and rebuild them, it's that they've created *politically impossible* circumstances for fixing them. It's political sabotage of the highest order. And they are quite clear that it is intentional.

All of which will cost ENORMOUS amounts of money, money that "fiscal conservatives" will reframe around how impossible they are given the now even more impressively ballooned deficit. Which will be treated as an earnest and serious objection by your major media outlets and pundits.

I’m in DC scheduled to give this talk today. But the organizers flagged slides in my deck that mention racism, structural gaslighting, New Jim Code and other themes that are off limits in the Land of the Free.

All of this asymmetrical framing is germane to my original point. The notion that we should be thinking about this in terms of hierarchies of atrocities (or, in this case, victimhood) is exactly what I find so unsettling about the original quote.