John Oliver's Last Week Tonight

If we can get a more progressive candidate willing to push back harder against Republicans, and who can beat out a Trump in decline, then that would certainly be better, I think.

Right now it's looking like Democrats are going to win by default because Republicans are murdering all their most ardent followers and all their serious contenders are Trump cultists. But, you know, a lot of people thought Trump getting the nomination was a Democratic win by default, so.

And even if that does happen, our choices should not be "mildly conservative masquerading as progressive but at least you can actually hold a discussion with them" or "gods-damned Nazi cultists."

But it's three years away, so really too early to say anything at all.

Yes, but using that optimism to avoid abolishing the filibuster is clearly not a good thing.

Duck stamps, which is totes Serious Business for the artists and the contest. Which, naturally, LWT entered.

The Trump administration was ruining duck stamps?

Talk about the banality of evil.

Here is the bidding website, though the link does not seem to work.

Edited by Redmess on Oct 2nd 2021 at 1:02:34 PM

I remember reading about the stamp thing. Even hunters didn't like the mandate; it usually meant nature pictures with shells or duck calls thrown in, which messed up the view and made the hunters look like litterbugs.

Really, though? LWT submitted two pictures that couldn't even pass the basic rules? They should've done more research than that. At least the ducks judging ducks painting came out well.

I think that was more Rule of Funny than ignorance. I'm sure they read the rules.

They were well-aware of the rules; hell, John explains some of them earlier in the video. It was clear they were just fucking around with their entries.

A few of them were actually pretty good. If abstract ducks can win, then why not a parody of a famous painting?

Edited by windleopard on Oct 4th 2021 at 3:24:00 AM

Oh, yay. Yet another consumer health situation that is almost completely out of my control thanks to the prevalence of the products in question.

There seem to be a lot of those.

Also, two videos this week, apparently.

...so, reverse osmosis filters, huh?

So, on the recap of the week we had John Oliver talking about HBO's business daddy (AT&T) and HBO's step-sibling- but not in a hot way- OAN, and, can I just say that he didn't disappoint?

Edited by djoki996 on Oct 11th 2021 at 11:16:13 AM

...I have to say, it does occur to me... "please do not fill petrol to the maximum limit; it may cause explosion."

...isn't this pretty much identical to "FIRE HAZARD: DO NOT TOP OFF"? Granted, I doubt there were five fires attributed to it in one week, but it seems weird to demonize a warning on every self-service gas station in the US.

I'm not entirely sure why that would be a fire hazard. Topping off a nearly empty tank seems like a perfectly normal thing to do.

Gas pumps are designed to shut off automatically when they detect that the tank is full. "Topping off" risks overflow and spillage with the accompanying fire risk.

What exactly do they mean by topping off then?

Generally means keeping the pump in after the automatic shutoff and then holding it down for... reasons?

Which isn't really relevant since that's A: filling past maximum amount and B: Not implicitly a risk for explosion since it would still need a spark (honestly the bigger risk is fumes) which would still be dangerous during normal fueling and C: Isn't something that would be a change since ever so it's clearly not what the message is talking about.

Edited by Larkmarn on Oct 13th 2021 at 10:59:33 AM

You can keep squeezing the handle after automatic shutoff. The pump will dispense small amounts of fuel each time. Spillage is not catastrophic but risks both health hazards and fire.

He's off this week so here's an update from the car commercial thing months ago.

The Taiwan thing is a mess. Obviously I would prefer them to have sovereignty and independent recognition as a matter of moral principles, but that might mean severing all economic and political ties with China, which would in turn likely lead to a war. Is that a price we're willing to pay?

I mean, if we're talking happy fantasies, I'd like China to not be ruled by imperialistic racist nationalists, in which case they'd be more willing to grant Taiwan independence while maintaining trade relations (or at least respect their culture and history even if they're still part of the country).

How would Chinese government reforms even work, anyway?