* So, we're all in agreement that Manchester Black is impersonating J'onn, right? He has the holographic technology of the Fortress of Solitude and the disintegration device. I don't think Jonn is dead but Manchester Black was the one speaking his "I am not a man of peace" speech.
Hadn't occurred to me, but I guess it's possible.
* I called Tessmacher being evil when she suddenly revealed she was a scientist. I'm also sure she was the one to shoot Jimmy.
I did think it was odd when Eve turned out to be secretly a genius, but I figured it was just a clumsy plot device to enlarge the role of a popular supporting player at a time when the show was spending less time at CatCo. I am a little disappointed that she's evil, though, because it's just going the obvious route based on her name.
By the way, it's spelled Teschmacher.
* So is the cure also something that gives Superpowers? I don't think so but it annoys me because Jimmy really could have used a super soldier serum upgrade.
According to Lena's dialogue, the superpowers were what made it lethal (because the human body couldn't take the power surge, though tell that to all the metahumans in Central City), so she had to separate out the powers from the healing to make it work. So presumably no Super-James or Super-Lex.
* I love how Lex and Lena can bond over how much they hate their mother. Even if Lex is way way too old to be Lilian's daughter (we can blame the Kryptonite cancer I guess).
The flashbacks in an earlier season showed Lex as a teenager maybe 10-12 years older than Lena when she came to live with the Luthors. So yeah, Lex should be younger than he looks.
I think it's a strange thing to bring up because the whole thing about Birtherism is that Obama was NOT guilty of it and the only reason anyone accused him of such was because the people making the accusation were racist idiots. It's a very serious pair of crimes, perjury and fraud, that Marsden was guilty of.
I explained that days ago, but you refuse to listen. It's not about whether it's objectively true or false, it's about whether you treat someone's place of birth as something that
matters in the first place.
Some laws are arbitrary. Some laws encode prejudice and perpetuate inbuilt injustices. So not every act of lawbreaking is equally worthy of condemnation. I would get angry if someone broke the law against murder or sexual assault, but I would not get angry if they broke a law against smoking weed or engaging consensually in sex work, say. Whether they broke the law is not the question. Whether breaking that law makes them a bad person is the question.
There used to be laws against homosexuality. There still are in many countries. If a gay man lied about his orientation in order to get a job that no openly gay man could legally hold, which is more worthy of condemnation: The man who broke the law, or the system that made his identity illegal in the first place?