Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Dark and grainy and inaudible at times, but cool, if you dig this sort of thing.
The movie seems to continue the a-bit-to-the-left-now-a-bit-to-the-right minor muddled politics of the first one. (Which I think is smart in terms of getting audience and probably the best the right can hope for anyway.)
Here, there's a small right-y moment as a Senate committee demands Stark turn over his suit to the government. He refuses, on simple grounds: "Because it's my property!" And that doing so would reduce him to the level of "indentured servitude and/or prostitution, depending on what state you live in."
That's my political excuse for posting this. The real reason is that I'm a huge comic book geek. (Well, I don't read comic books, but I'm a big fan of superhero movies.)
The Senate hearing seems to be a inspired by the interrogations Howard Hughes was subjected to (and Stark is modeled after Howard Hughes, at least earlier in life, before he went off his trolley).
Stealth Objectivism? I don't know much about Objectivism but I know "A is A" is some kind of first principle. Stark here disputes that the suit is a "weapon," and insists upon "defining it as what it is." Stretching, probably.