#I elect to ignore it and determine what it has to be based on what we see in canon

[coochiequeens]

Doctors and nurses who are not willing to listen to their patients should be replaced

BY VICTORIA SMITH

The third time I went into labour, I was determined to avoid getting told off. With both of my previous births, I had somehow managed to get things wrong. My errors the first time: going to hospital too early, then, when I returned three hours later, “leaving it so late”. The second time: ignoring assurances that I didn’t need to come in yet, then giving birth in the car park — an event I later discovered was being used in antenatal classes as an example of women “not planning ahead”.

“My previous births have been fast,” I said, when I went into labour with my third, “so I’d like to come in now.” I was speaking to the woman at the midwife-led unit that is the only option where I live. (If you need a caesarean section, you have to be transferred to next town.) “Third babies are notoriously difficult,” was her response.

What an odd thing to say to a woman already in labour. The “notoriously” suggested it wasn’t based on any actual evidence, but rather a kind of folk wisdom. It felt as though I was being warned not to tempt fate, not to assume that this baby would just pop out. I saw myself being categorised as one of those arrogant women who presumes to know her own body, only to be taught a harsh yet much-deserved lesson. “Third babies are notoriously difficult” sounded not unlike “third-time mothers shouldn’t get above themselves”.

In fact, I have never been particularly cocky about childbirth. When I was pregnant with my first child, back in the days when the Right-wing press were still obsessed with famous women being “too posh to push”, I wondered if I might be able to get an elective caesarean myself. I did not particularly care about childbirth being a wonderful experience, or about “doing it well”. I didn’t care if the Daily Mail thought I was a joke.

What I cared about was not having a child who would face the same difficulties as my brother, who was starved of oxygen at birth. This has had serious consequences for him, and for the rest of my family. Just how serious is hard to gauge. He was born traumatised; there has never been a before to compare the after with. What there has been instead is the hazy outline of an alternative life, one that runs parallel to the one he has now. It’s a life that began with the problem being identified sooner, with him being delivered quickly, perhaps by emergency caesarean. The difference between this and his actual life comes down to something small: mere moments, mere breaths.

I was born three years after my brother, in a larger hospital, where my mother was induced and monitored carefully. There is something very strange about being the sibling who had the safe birth. It feels as though I stole it. There is a constant sense of guilt, as if my life — my independence, my choices — constitutes a form of gloating. “This is what you could have had.” Everything I do feels like something owed to my brother (do it, because he can’t) but also something taken from him (you shouldn’t have done that, because he should have done it first).

Still, my family were fortunate, insofar as my brother didn’t die. Current reports on the Nottingham maternity scandal reference 1,700 cases, with an estimated 201 mothers and babies who might have survived had they received better care. What strikes me, reading them, is the enormous gulf between the cost of a disastrous birth and the trivial, opportunistic way in which childbirth is so often politicised — with mothers themselves viewed as morally, if not practically, to blame if anything goes wrong.

As a feminist who concerns herself with how the female body is demonised, my interest in debates about birthing choices is more than personal. I have read books railing against the over-medicalisation of childbirth, aligning it with a patriarchal need to appropriate female reproductive power. I have also read books protesting the fetishisation of “natural” birth, suggesting that it infantilises women, that it implies women deserve pain. To be honest, I find both arguments persuasive and dismaying. Both are right about the way in which misogyny and professional arrogance can shift the focus away from meeting the needs of women and babies. I feel a kind of rage that we are told to pick a side.

Representations of the labouring woman are so often negative: the naïve idealist, the “birthzilla“, the birth-plan obsessive, the woman who is “too posh to push”. This latter stereotype has gone hand-in-hand with a veneration of vaginal births, and stigmatisation of caesareans, that has had sometimes disastrous consequences. Midwives at the centre of the Furness General Hospital scandal were reported to have “pursued natural birth ‘at any cost’”, referring to one another as “the musketeers”; at least 11 babies and one mother died. But their approach was sanctioned by their employer: the 2006 NHS document “Pathways to Success: a self-improvement toolkit” explicitly suggested that “maternity units applying best practice to the management of pregnancy, labour and birth will achieve a [caesarean section] rate consistently below 20% and will have aspirations to reduce that rate to 15%”. Proposed benefits to this included “a sense of pride in units”.

Responses to maternity scandals now express horror that such an anti-intervention culture ever arose — responses in the same press that denigrated women such as Victoria Beckham and Kate Winslet for not giving birth vaginally. Instead, newspapers now stoke outrage over “natural” treatments during NHS births, such as burning herbs. Women have been shamed for having caesareans, but they have also been shamed for wanting births with minimum intervention — as though they are selfish and spoilt for seeking control over such an extreme situation.

In his memoir This Is Going To Hurt, former doctor Adam Kay writes disparagingly of women who arrive at the delivery suite with birth plans:

“‘Having a birth plan’ always strikes me as akin to having a ‘what I want the weather to be’ plan or a ‘winning the lottery’ plan. Two centuries of obstetricians have found no way of predicting the course of a labour, but a certain denomination of floaty-dressed mother seems to think she can manage it easily.”

Wanting to have some control over your experience of labour — which will hurt you and could kill you or your baby — is not akin to some messianic aspiration to control the weather. And in his mockery of the woman who wants whale song and aromatherapy oils, ironically, Kay deploys the same silencing techniques that might intimidate a woman out of seeking the very interventions he so prizes. What he and others do not seem to grasp is that their arrogance is a problem, regardless of which course of action they champion. It makes women feel they can’t speak, for fear of inviting hostility at their most vulnerable moments. It’s true that none of us knows our body well enough to know how we will give birth. But, looking back, I find it utterly insane, not least given my own family history, that one of my biggest worries during labour was “please don’t let anyone get cross with me”. Then again, I don’t think that fear is unrelated to the desire to remain safe.

Birth is not a joke. It is not a place for professional dick-swinging or political one-upmanship. I cannot describe — and, as I am not my mother, cannot fully understand — the shame of feeling that you “let down” your child before they drew their first breath, that they will forever suffer because of it. You watch an entire life unfolding and that feeling is there, every single day. This is the fear of the women in labour who are characterised as either idiots mesmerised by fantasy homebirths or cold-hearted posh ladies who can’t take the pain. If things go wrong, they are the ones who will bear the consequences, reflecting every day on what might have been, if they’d only done more.

When people discuss their siblings, my mind does wander to the one I don’t have, the one who was born safely. Perhaps he would have a job he loved, or one he hated, but in any case a job. Perhaps he would have a partner. Perhaps he would have children, and I would be their aunt. Perhaps we wouldn’t get on, wouldn’t even speak, but he’d have a life of his own. I know he thinks about this too. I wonder if the professionals who presided over his birth have thought about him since.

My third labour was not, by the way, “notoriously difficult”. My third son arrived into the world safe and well. No one can say why him or me, and not my brother. Mothers may long for control over birth, for which we are mocked; but we do not have it, for which we are blamed. Politics still takes precedence over our needs, and the needs of our babies.

[banana-with-a-bow-tie]

I have a friend who is a Christian who has started accepting LGBT lifestyles and claiming they are not actually sinful. Me and my friends have had meetings with them and given scripture but they refute it every single time and call us unloving. They don’t believe God actually said it’s a sin to be gay/trans and encourage other Christians to embrace the lifestyle to get closer to God. We aren’t even sure they read their Bible anymore, and if they do we aren’t sure how they can possibly ignore what it says. We have tried so many times to lovingly correct and they continue to tell people to go and sin because Gods word is outdated. What should we do now?

I’m so sorry to hear you’re going through that. Be encouraged that you were able to stand firm on the truth and loved your friend enough to offer correction.

As a random guy on the internet, I don’t have answers for what steps you should take in your situation or what your friend needs. I can only speak generally from the Scriptures. This is why the local church is important. Your pastor/mature Christian friend or leader can offer you much better wisdom and possess much better understanding of your situation up close than I can from a distance.

Ultimately “What you should do now” can only be determined through prayer and walking by faith in what you believe God has called you to do based on His Word. Here are few things I believe His Word says that would be helpful for situations like these.

Most importantly, only God can change a person’s heart. We can bring all the sound biblical arguments that we want, but our faith must be in God (1 Cor 2:4-5). It’s not our job to convince anyone, only lovingly present them with truth and action the way Jesus would and surrender them into His care. If there is a professing Christian who is falling for Satan’s lies, the Spirit weeps over that (Isaiah 63:10; Heb 10:29). God loves sinners and calls us to believe He has the power and desire to rescue those blinded by lies and imprisoned by sin (Isaiah 61:1).

If we believe that God wants to save people and is the only one who can save people, then before we do anything we must pray, pray, pray, and pray some more. Then when we are done praying, go and get some more believers and pray with them.

Ephesians 6:19

praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints

Phil 4:6

do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

Luke 18:7

And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?

Matthew 18:19-20

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

That last one is really important because in context Jesus is commanding us to pray together for the restoration of a sinning brother. When we pray together seeking God's will for helping those in need of His grace, we can be sure that He will respond and help us know what we need to do with confidence that it is right.

As we pray together with fellow believers for God's grace to work in the lives of those we love, we will find God working in our hearts to shape us into the image of Christ so that we can be used by Him the way He wants. Then we can act in faith to share what the sinning believer needs to know.

Matthew 18 also tells us that if the sinning believer refuses to repent, even after going to him/her with two or three witnesses and elders and even the whole church, then we surrender them to their choices and put them out of the church. If they don't want to follow God's ways, then they don't need to be in God's church. Let them live like the world and trust that God will do what is right.

I will be praying for you and for your friend as well.

[healingheartdogs]

I honestly expected this outcome from the presidential election and was not at all surprised by it, given that Kamala Harris ran the worst most aggressively conservative campaign we have ever seen from a "progressive" candidate in our lives, ignored entire important voting populations of swing states because she decided they didn't matter to her, and the people determined to support her no matter what online largely became abusive and resorted to harassment about voting for her to everyone around them that had any criticisms of her at all, which was obviously going to ostracize large parts of the Dem voter base even if they weren't protesting against genocide and hurt voter turn out in her favor.

What I was NOT expecting to read today about voting results (and yet somehow am still not at all surprised given the way they've been treating homeless and mentally ill people lately) was that California voted AGAINST a minimum wage increase, voted to INCREASE the severity of charges for certain drug cases and for repeat minor theft to a felony, and voted TO KEEP SLAVERY. And the way I've seen Californians online defending it?????? "Well just don't be a criminal then, if you don't do crime then you don't have to worry about indentured servitude (SLAVERY) in prison".

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CRIMES THE AVERAGE PERSON REGULARLY COMMITS WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT???? IT'S NOT ZERO. Estimates range between an average of three federal crimes/violations a day (honestly an exaggeration by the Harvard author who claimed it to show just how much life in the US is technically but selectively criminalized) to a more realistic three felonies or federal crimes a month (probably more minor crimes than that though LBR) for the average American because of how much random BS has been criminalized over the course of the existence of our country as a way to target certain groups and manufacture crime and how much average people are comfortable committing crimes they are reasonably sure they can get away with (especially if they're white or wealthy). Commonly committed crimes that average people may often participate in without considering themselves criminals includes things like:

Marijuana consumption, growing, and possession, which while legal at a state level in some places (like Cali) is still technically a federal crime that could be selectively enforced against those who participate even within the laws of their state. Is it likely you'll be federally charged in a legal state? No, but it's still technically a federal crime and the feds have sometimes used it as an excuse to raid people, state-legal grow operations, and dispensaries, seize their goods and possessions, and temporarily hold people under criminal investigation. (Drug charges are the most common reason for imprisonment in the USA btw so if you don't think smoking weed deserves slavery as punishment maybe think about that)((You can also replace marijuana in this scenario with psilocybin or even other "harder" drugs that have been decriminalized in some places and that many people still secretly are willing to do while in places where they aren't decriminalized as well))

Regularly and casually committing actually seriously dangerous vehicular crimes like speeding and/or driving under the influence (being high or under the effects of certain legal meds while driving is not better than being drunk and can still catch you a charge or get someone injured or killed), especially when those two things are committed at the same time, especially if the car has passengers and especially if any of those passengers are minors, especially if you get into any kind of accident, and especially if that accident harms or kills someone else, which all increase the severity of the charges

Illegally handling, possessing, or disposing of drugs belonging to a family member or friend (or anyone, really) instead of following legal protocol to turn them over to authorities

"Tampering" with mail that is not addressed to you. Yes, including mail for people who live in your household that you have a close relationship with. Yes, knowingly opening that letter or package addressed to your adult child or significant other and NOT to you just to see what it is before you give it to them is a federal crime, but nobody considers themselves a criminal for doing it, do they?

Digital media and software piracy, and copyright infringement (very normalized crimes that tons of people knowingly commit all the time without caring because of how selectively the laws about these crimes are enforced)

Violating the service and licensing agreements of streaming services like Netflix by sharing your password with people who aren't part of your household and/or family (confirmed to be a federal crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, just not enforced.)((The CFAA is wiiiiild BTW, if you want to read about federal law that is intentionally vague and wide reaching but that is very selectively applied that one definitely fits the bill))

Theft. It's very commonly committed both knowingly and unknowingly by tons of people in different forms, whether they admit to it or not. Ever shoplifted in your life? Even just accidentally done so by just forgetting to scan an item in your cart at self checkout and leaving with it? Lots of people have, and definitely not always unintentionally, especially as people get more desperate to obtain necessities in a failing economy with unlivable wages. Most people just don't expect to get caught, and if they do they don't expect to face serious charges for it, so it's a crime they're okay with committing while still not considering themselves criminals despite theft being the 4th most commonly convicted crime of prisoners in our prison system (categorized under burglary, larceny, and property offenses).

Being socially labeled a criminal, charged with a crime (whether you actually committed it or not, intentionally or otherwise), and imprisoned after being charged with a crime all often has a lot less to do with being guilty of committing a crime and a lot more to do with race, class, housing status, disability, and stigmatized mental illness. When slavery that the state and the corporations who lobby and bribe the state profit off of is considered to be a valid punishment for crime then that actually incentivizes the state to manufacture or make up crimes and artificially create criminals where there otherwise wouldn't be any or where nobody is actually harmed in a way to warrant something being considered a crime (i.e. "victimless crimes" like drug use, sex work, homelessness, trespassing without intent to cause harm or damage, etc). Usually these manufactured crimes and the label of criminal for being convicted (rightfully or not) of doing them are systemically intended to target the marginalized, oppressed, and "undesirable" or "unproductive" members of society. A perfect example relevant to California being that if a place criminalizes being homeless and has established slavery as a legal punishment for anyone who has been convicted of a crime, whether fairly or not (because we all know "justice" in the US is far from always fair) then you have just made homelessness and poverty -- something that is caused by lack of proper and accessible social supports, bad government policy around labor and regulation of housing and the economy, and is entirely out of the hands of people suffering from it -- into something that justifies potentially being enslaved.

Like... Oh, are you on the streets because you or a loved one that you take care of or provide for became ill, could no longer work, ended up overwhelmed by medical debt, couldn't afford to keep a place to live, and now are being told that certain supports for unhoused and underemployed people are only available if you're an addict looking for rehabilitation so you have to be currently using drugs to receive that aid? (That last part is not a made up unrealistic scenario, it is actually a very real problem that homeless people, social workers, and harm reduction aid supporters discuss all the time that legitimately prevents some people from getting help and creates addicts.) Congratulations, you are now a criminal, and if you do end up turning to drugs in order to qualify for help or even just to deal with the bleakness of your new reality as one of society's hated and abandoned you are possibly even a felon in California! That means most California voters think you should rightfully be enslaved for corporations and states to continue to profit off you as much as they still can, even though it was their own state's (and federal government's) fault that you and others like you ended up in that situation.

Because yes, in case you didn't know or haven't thought about it critically enough or been exposed to the reality of it enough to realize it, homelessness and poverty are actually government policy choices. They are issues overwhelmingly caused by a lack of policies in place to ensure affordable and accessible healthcare and disability support, regulations around accessible and affordable housing, fair livable wages for labor, reasonable limits to price gouging and inflation of costs of necessities for life, proper management and enforcement of reasonable public health precautions to protect the public from mass illness and post-viral infection related disability in widespread life threatening situations like the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and accessible support and aid systems for people who are already unhoused or at risk of becoming unhoused to get into and keep housing and get back to or be able to continue to work (or get on relevant benefits for their situation if they can't work)! Nobody wants to be homeless or living in poverty in a system that punishes those things with institutionalization, criminalization, abandonment, preventable but uncared about suffering, and even sometimes (also preventable) death.

See how that sort of stuff is actually extremely fucked up and designed to create and then exploit vulnerable people for profit while also creating an example out of those "bad" vulnerable people and their suffering to threaten the rest of less marginalized society with to make them fall in line with the system lest it decide to punish them by taking away their privileges and eating them too? (The exact fear-based tactic of our two party system in elections and governing that we've had to deal with in recent decades that facilitates and manufactures consent for our government's continued movement to the right into fascism, btw.) Yeah. This is why marginalized and oppressed people push back and try to tell y'all that "blue states" are still not safe places if you don't already have privilege and the ability to maintain that privilege, that Democrats are not necessarily safe for marginalized and oppressed people since they still serve the same fascist capitalist system. Two of the biggest blue states (NY and CA) have publicly known serious issues with police violence and police gangs, gross over policing of minorities, blatant law enforcement and justice system corruption, funneling of funds from other areas of government into law enforcement and the pockets of politicians, and lately pushing laws to further criminalize marginalized people for things like wearing masks in public during a pandemic to protect their health and lives or participating in legal protests against fascism, war and genocide, police violence, and worker exploitation that harms them and/or their loved ones at home and abroad or being homeless and/or visibly mentally ill.

Like I said, I'm not surprised given the way things in Cali have been lately, but I am still disappointed and pissed the fuck off about the audacity of privileged people when it comes to making political choices that they expect to never affect them either because they think they are part of a safe(r) social group or exist in a safe(r) place that will protect them, even when it doesn't protect others and sometimes goes out of its way to exploit and harm people instead.

[bookwyrminspiration]

Excuse me hi new anon sorry for all the discourse talk on your blog lately but you can’t seriously think that someone being pro life has more impact on others than someone posting possibly triggering art.

I’ve noticed that they put the proper tags on it now to make it blockable which is definitely good and makes it better

But also someone who is pro life and literally doesn’t even post about it is NOT HURTING ANYONE

that’s literally a thought. A belief. Thoughtcrime is not a thing 1984 is a dystopia btw

Whereas posting something is an action that will inevitably impact others—actually art is SUPPOSED to impact others—be that in a positive, negative, or nuanced neutral sort of way.

So posting art is objectively more impactful on other real life people than holding pro life beliefs and never even rlly posting about them

Again thoughtcrime is not a thing

Honestly my biggest issue with the art initially was that it was put in the main tag with no trigger warnings at all, meaning someone scrolling through the main tag who has things triggering to them blocked would have to see it……..

Anyway yeah the two situations definitely aren’t comparable, but NOT in the way that you seemed to think.

Sorry if this feels kinda confrontational but I’m also pro life, have never once posted about it ever, and am deeply disturbed by the idea that me holding a belief and never saying it ever is somehow considered a heinous crime that impacts others terribly, while posting possibly triggering art without trigger warnings totally impacts nobody

Alright, Nonsie, let's break this down.

I'm well aware thought crime isn't real and wholeheartedly agree

No one has said you're a criminal for being pro-life, nor that it's a crime

The impacts/harm I'm talking about extend beyond just posting/holding a belief

Being pro-life contributes to a community and environment that allows harm and control to be enacted against real and vulnerable people

Being pro-life/pro-choice is a belief centered on real people--what a person's body can be used for, if it's their own, and who gets to decide that. Very closely tied to beliefs on abortion, who gets to make choices about who's bodies, etc. You're right that simply holding a belief is passive, and your thoughts are not crimes.

However, the actions that accompany those beliefs/that are because of those beliefs (not necessarily yours, general population) are impactful. I apologize if I wasn't clear when I said "the people being debated about are real and harmed by it." The "it" is not your belief, but the societal and legal consequences that come from your belief.

Public opinion (such as people being pro-life, and public opinion is decided by numbers) decides who is in office, and who is in office dictates laws and legality, and that determines what's easily and readily available/how people will act.

A pro-life person acts based on that--perhaps votes for mayors/representatives/presidents/etc. who are against abortion. And then those authorities pro-life individuals elected at least in part because of their pro-life beliefs (an election won because of community, numbers, and environment), create a society where abortion is less accessible, where sex education is less thorough, where contraceptive/sexual health is expensive/hard to find, etc. We've seen this consistently across the US

Real people suffer from it and they do not have the simple choice to disengage. We've consistently said block and move on regarding online media--but you can't pick and chose which of your country's laws apply to you. You can chose to ignore them if possible and deal with the risk, but you don't get an opt out button. And moving to different cities/states/countries is not an easy solution.

I am considering all this in my discussions. Belief informs action, and pro-life beliefs have historically and continue to impact real people in harmful ways--and to be used as a foot in the door for further harm, such as anti-trans legislation.

I am not saying you are an awful criminal hurting people by being pro-life in your head--though you may lose friendships if people learn of it. I am saying media should not be restricted, and an untagged post does not change that. And I am saying the harm of seeing an uncomfortable image/fic (and being uncomfortable does not equal being hamred), even if untagged, is not comparable to the real life societal consequences of pro-life beliefs.

You may not be of the age or ability right now to vote or petition or otherwise, and as such the action part does not yet apply to you, but if you continue being pro-life then someday it will.

I'll also say this. I don't think being pro-life is evil. I think it can be well-intentioned, but is misguided and ineffective. Wanting fewer abortions is fine--I'd also love that. Getting an abortion isn't fun, and having to make that choice is excruciating for many. But banning and criminalizing abortions (which is the ideology associated with pro-life) does not achieve that and in fact makes it worse.

And, as with fiction, there is no moderation that can reliably dictate what is best for the individual/family/etc. in every situation. Someone will always be hurt when others are making choices about their lives and bodies for them. Including the children intended to be protected.

That, however, is its own can of worms.

I think you mean well, Nonsie, but may have reacted a bit quickly to what I said--you've argued against multiple points (thought crime, being a criminal) that I did not actually make. I own that there were parts I could've been more clear, but I stand by what I've said, and hopefully you better understand what I meant.

And just in case: like with that other poster, people are going to form opinions and see you in certain ways based on your beliefs. Including if you don't act on it, but just think that way. That's how it works for everyone.

Thanks :)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Marcia McNutt

Published: Nov 14, 2024

Long before the 5 November US presidential election, I had become ever more concerned that science has fallen victim to the same political divisiveness tearing at the seams of American society. This is a tragedy because science is the best—arguably the only—approach humankind has developed to peer into the future, to project the outcomes of various possible decisions using the known laws of the natural world. Since the founding of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) during the Civil War, the most divisive period in US history, science and the NAS (of which I am the current president) have consistently served the nation, regardless of the political party in power. As the scientific community continues to do so now, it must take a critical look at what responsibility it bears in science becoming politically contentious, and how scientists can rebuild public trust.

For starters, scientists need to better explain the norms and values of science to reinforce the notion—with the public and their elected representatives—that science, at its most basic, is apolitical. Careers of scientists advance when they improve upon, or show the errors in, the work of others, not by simply agreeing with prior work. Whether conservative or liberal, citizens ignore the nature of reality at their peril. A recent example is the increased death rate from COVID-19 (as much as 26% higher) in US regions where political leaders dismissed the science on the effectiveness of vaccines. Scientists should better explain the scientific process and what makes it so trustworthy, while more candidly acknowledging that science can only provide the best available evidence and cannot dictate what people should value. Science cannot say whether society should prioritize allocating river water for sustaining fish or for irrigating farms, but it can predict immediate and long-term outcomes of any allocation scheme. Science can also find solutions that avoid the zero-sum dilemma by finding conservation approaches to water management that benefit both fish and farms.

In addition, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine need to examine how scientists may have contributed to the polarization of the use of science. Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy. It is up to elected officials to determine policy based on the outcomes desired by their constituents. It is the role of science to inform these decision-makers as to whether those desired outcomes are likely to result from the policies being enacted.

The scientific community must also better recognize that it may not be helpful to emphasize consensus in policy reports’ recommendations when the underlying values are not universally shared. For example, although science can affirm that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, science can only predict the outcome of the various policies that might be enacted to address the problem. It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.

Last month the NAS Council issued a statement reaffirming its core principles of objectivity, independence, and excellence. This commitment requires including viewpoints far beyond just those of academia in National Academies’ advisory committees. Building trust will require more active listening to affected communities—for example, farmers, fishermen, and conservationists in the water example above. At the same time, the scientific community must fight scientific mis- and disinformation as though lives depended on truth and trust, because they do.

The public and policy-makers can discuss and debate how to respond to the myriad challenges that confront society, but these deliberations need to be informed by the objective, dispassionate evidence that only science can provide. To that end, the NAS stands ready, as it always has, to advise the incoming administration.

==

Note: Marcia McNutt is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

[love-is-patient]

Do you believe God answers prayer?

How do you think he chooses who to answer?

So many faithful people suffer and die while praying. Watch children suffer and die.

How does God choose?

Isn't it really just all election? Who God loves for his own whimsical reasons?

If he made us all, why does he ignore the prayers of the faithful so very very often?

What value is there in prayer? Hasn't God already made up his mind? If not, how does he? Why choose some prayers from faithful people over other possibly even more faithful people?

What role does free will play in a game where God decided before he made you if you are worthy of his grace? Based on HOW he made you?

How does he choose among the faithful who's prayers are worthy of his infinite power and what role does free will play in that? Isn't it really about election only?

Why would God pick and choose favorites from among his children, and why does it seem random and unrelated to faith entirely?

Have you read Romans 9:20-24? It's entirely about election. God decided in advance.

Hi Anon, thank you for your questions.

While I am grateful for the opportunity to answer them, I must make a disclaimer. I am not a theologian, I am not an authority on the Bible. I am only human, so I have a limited point of view and I do get stuff wrong. But I believe in the good character of God, and so hopefully my answers will be able to show his character. These are important questions. On the subject of belief, a faith untested is not a faith that can be trusted. The fact that you thought to ask is important, no matter what side of the fence you land on.

I would like to condense some of your questions to the root, and answer them out of order for better clarity, if that's alright. At the end I'll put a TL;DR, though I do hope you read through my longer answers. Lets start with the classics.

1. Free Will, or Election?

A lot of your questions hinge on the presupposition that God has determined how everything will play out, implying that our actions (and prayers) don't matter. This paints God as a liar, a narcissist, and a tyrant. Why would anyone want to worship someone like that?

Thankfully, this is not the truth of God's character.

So many people seem to think that Predestination and Free Will are antithetical to one another, without considering the possibility that they can coexist.

Its true, some are predestined to be saved. In Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:5, there are direct quotes saying some were elected to be saved. What it does not say is that everyone else is predestined to hell. 2 Peter 3:9 states " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. "

I can think of no better example than the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh, a proud and wicked city in Assyria. Nineveh was rotten to the core, worshipping evil gods, doing all kinds of abominable things, and generally scaring the hell out of their neighbors.

For context, during the Bronze Age, Egypt, Babylon, Jerusalem, and all their surrounding cities and kingdoms were terrified of what was going on in Assyria. Nobody wanted to fight them.

Jonah certainly didn't want to go, but God was going to destroy Nineveh, and told him to warn the people.

If God was just going to destroy the city, why would he send a warning? Because he's malicious and gets off on scaring people? That doesn't sound right.

I argue that it's the good character of God to give people chances, and that's exactly what he did.

Long story short, Jonah ran away, God brought him back in the belly of a fish that spat him on the shore. Jonah gave a middling warning, he wanted nothing to do with these people. But the people of Nineveh heard the message loud and clear.

Quote Jonah 3:5  "The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth."

Fast forward to Jonah 10: " When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. "

The Ninevites were predetermined to destruction, but through their decision to repent, they were spared.

They had the free will to change! God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. Throughout the entire Bible God is repeatedly, patiently staying his hand when people ask to be spared, and extending it when people ask for help.

This goes into your next set of questions. 2. Why does God answer some prayers, but not others? And: Why does God let bad things happen, especially to his faithful?

These are questions that have been debated since before Christians were even a thing. In fact, there are 3 books that stick out to me in that regard.

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job.

Each of these books debates a different point of view. To offer a condensed synopsis:

Proverbs says that the world is ordered in a way to be fair, and that following the wisdom of God is the key to a good life.

Ecclesiastes argues that you can do everything right and still suffer, but that ultimately doing the right thing is still important even if it doesn't bring you riches.

Job takes bits of the first two, then explains it by way of the story of a man who loves God, does everything right, loses everything, and demands God explain himself.

I have some great little videos I'll link at the end of this post that goes into these books a bit more.

But back to the main point.

God hears every prayer. He knows the most intimate desires of everyone's hearts.

Going back again to 2 Peter 3:9 " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. "

Sometimes, he doesn't answer our prayers immediately. Sometimes he does, but the answer is no. I argue that every time the answer is no, it's because he has something better in mind.

That can be hard to hear, especially from a place of suffering.

But that's why faith is important.

Faith isn't just "there is a God, I believe in him", but trusting that he has our best interests at heart.

That's a massive concept.

He asks us to assume the best in him. That's why our free will is important. He asks us to read the Bible, to look at history, and decide for ourselves if he is good, and if he has made good on his promises.

He has, every single time.

Faith is trusting that, even though you can do everything right and still suffer, God will see us through to the end. God has something better in store, whether in this life or the next.

This world is flawed, wild. Imperfect. I think about all the people that have been killed and eaten by wild animals, or were murder victims, or people who die from freak accidents. I think of the people who suffer with cancer, or children orphaned by war.

I think of all the pain and suffering I went through and yeah, sometimes it felt like God was just letting me suffer.

But that's not the case.

John 14:27 - "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

Isaiah 41:10 - "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."

Deuteronomy 31:6 - "Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you; he will not leave you or forsake you."

God was with me the whole time.

I don't think enough people realize that the God of the Bible is the only god in any religion, mythology, or legend that can rightfully claim to fully understand what its like to be human and god in one.

Imagine an all powerful being willingly being born human.

Imagine him subjecting himself to the same pains we go through.

As Jesus he experienced hunger, fear, grief, pain. He felt the anger of injustice, and the hopelessness of loss. He even experienced feeling abandoned by God.

His own people turned him in to be killed. Think of the betrayal. He went through the whole gamut of the human experience, from the good to the ugly.

He saw the hideous greed and injustice of the Pharisees and the Romans face to face.

And God did that for you. For me. For the worst person you know.

We don't suffer alone. This God is the only god who can suffer with us, who can truly sympathize with what it feels like to be human.

He understands our perspective.

Jesus is more than the fulfillment of prophesy, the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. Jesus is God demonstrating the lengths he would go to to be with us again.

He knows the pain, he experienced it firsthand.

He knows the feeling of starving. He knows what it feels like to be murdered.

And he knows that there is something better coming for anyone who asks.

So, to sum up your questions.

God is good. He does not predestine anyone to hell, rather elects some as people to lead others away from hell.

2. The world is flawed, God is not. God knows firsthand every pain anyone has ever suffered. God does not want people to suffer, but rather take comfort knowing that better things are around the corner, even after death.

3. God answers every prayer. Sometimes the answer is no and we have to trust him.

As for the how questions. I cannot tell you how God thinks or why he decides the things he does. But I have seen his character, and I trust that he is good, wise, and above all kind. I trust him to make the right decisions.

Thank you again Anon for the opportunity to answer these questions. I apologize for the lateness, I am rarely ever on desktop and got no notifications.

God bless you.

[polarized-here]

no but actually youre so based for that [referring to those tags]

Grahhh SANKU Pookie. I just needed to scream about it and yeah. Hmmnfjdjb just ignore my small ramble under the cut sjshskdhndn

Having took apush & currently taking ap gov.

I wish I can articulate how much I hate voting for the lesser of the two evils. And how our system directly works slower to never allow one sort of group any sort of rampant control of the entire system (checks & balances) & how the average voter doesn’t even have that much power on an individual scale (esp since we don’t even elect presidents based on our like. Popular vote. There’s been numerous examples where that didn’t occur!!!!)

But how voting is still so important, especially if you’re in a flip flop state—where your decision impacts the decision of the electoral college (The Electoral College is not a physical place. It is a process which includes the: Selection of electors, Meeting of electors who cast votes for the president and vice president, Counting of the electors’ votes by Congress—people that determine the state’s decisions, etc etc etc. it’s from a huge compromise and it’s a small hassle to explain).

and no matter what, whatever party you have & whatever candidate you pick, they will support Israel (it’s US policy to do so) but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discuss the problems with whatever candidates.

Kamala, for example, hasn’t discussed shit about her policies and is trying to form an image for herself (based on recent news reports) which is more likely to attract the average American voter, unfortunately, but. Still. Like, she’s made mistakes and has the whole colonialism mindset of ‘listen to me, I’m smarter and know what’s best for you, and going against me means you’re wrong.’ Or her comments ensuing ‘if you question my policies in the Middle East you’re wrong or should vote for trump.’ LIKE??? Goodness. Gosh dang…

Goodness. It’s tiring. But we have to keep going. We have to keep trying, we have to keep pushing forward. To give up or let whomever we want move forward. We ‘lose’ (loosing is subjective in cases like politics and I’d rather not get some asshat swarming my inbox)

But still. Don’t ask me for political advice, or for anything of that sort. I’m just a random guy learning about the shitty game that is American politics and trying to grasp it. I’m not even pursuing political sciences/government (I’m not altruistic enough & the mere idea of trying to pursue something where I’m in charge of others is inherently sus on me. Why I’m always so sus of any candidate, but I digress. There are nice people out there.)

Anyways. Have a lovely day. And thank you for the comment about my notes <3333 I love yapping and having conversations. I love even learning from my friends and mistakes (so long as it isn’t a thinly veiled excuse to call me stupid lmfaoo) so yeah!!! <333 love ya Pookie <333

I need to work on ap gov hmwk rn and stop procrastinating,,,,

[aeoki]

Atlantis - Divine Bridge: Chapter 8

Location: Seisou Hall Theatre Room Characters: Touri, Yuzuru, Eichi & Wataru Season: Winter

Eichi: This is all my guess.

Maybe Lady Z. K. has really come to love idols and simply wants to pursue an earnest education in that aspect.

But it’s dangerous to act based on that optimistic assumption.

We need to be prepared for an external attack. That naturally applies to me, but it does for you as well, as our families are on close terms with one another.

Touri: …………

Eichi: The Z. K. Zaibatsu will most likely not stop until they achieve their goal. I’ll have to negotiate with her and come to an agreement at some point in time.

They’re far too big to ignore.

What will they be given and in exchange, what will we gain? An enjoyable card game where we hide our cards while trying to find out what the other is thinking is about to begin.

Touri: W–Wha…

So this Hashidate person wants to be the student council president as bargaining material?

It’s just one of her strategies to get you to give in?

S–She doesn’t even know what sort of feelings I have as I’m aiming for student council president…

Eichi: Results are everything in this world. You should have understood that a long time ago, right, Touri?

No one will listen to the excuses of a non-achiever.

If she wins the election, then the genuine and earnest wishes you carried in your heart would all have been for naught.

No. That would only be in self-interest, and you would have been nothing but a dull pebble at her feet.

The value of a jewel is only determined with victory. Only the victor can change the pebble that was once a mere mineral into a shiny and high-priced jewel.

At the very least, that’s the conclusion the world has come to. The ones who write history will always be the victors, and they are the ones who are commended as legitimate, virtuous and beautiful.

Touri: I… I don’t want that.

I don’t want to lose to someone like that.

Eichi: Right. So win, Touri.

Use whatever you need to win.

Similar obstacles will appear in front of you time and time again.

No one can remove them from your path – not even I, Yuzuru, nor your parents.

It’s up to you whether you demolish the rock, jump over it, take a detour or hire someone to remove it…

But you must be the one to make that judgement.

If you’ll act like a child and complain, saying that it’s impossible for you to accomplish, then…

It’s unfortunate, but that would mean you don’t have the right to work with me.

Touri: …………

ㅤㅤㅤㅤ< The next day. The shopping district near Yumenosaki Academy – after school. >

Yuzuru: (There must have been better ways of phrasing that.)

(The poor Young Master. He left, utterly disheartened.)

(After all, it was Eichi-sama, the one he depended on the most, who hit it where it ultimately hurt.)

(He frantically mustered the courage to walk on the tightrope only to discover the rope had been cut by the one he loves. That’s what it felt like.)

(It truly is depressing.)

(But Yuzuru believes in you, Young Master.)

(I believe you can surely overcome this obstacle.)

(If he were to be defeated with something of this calibre, then he would have never made it this far.)

(He truly appears rather pathetic at the moment, disheartened and all, but he’s a child that’s strong-willed at heart – he will surely be back on his feet in no time…)

(No. It is my role as one who serves him to help him face his obstacle, provide support and teach him how to break through it.)

(To do that, I should first look into our enemy, Z. K. Amano Hashidate. Know your enemy and you shall not fear a hundred battles, after all.)

(They are still a zaibatsu despite having moved overseas, so my parents who have served noble dignitaries from long ago should know something.)

(Servants have always loved rumours surrounding their “masters” since times of old.)

(If the Z. K. Zaibatsu is making a move, then perhaps either my parents or the other servants may have heard something…)

…Oh, please give me a bottle of that so-called oxygenated drinking water.

No, they’re gifts for my parents. Yes, please wrap them if you’re able to.

Pardon? Something nicer like snacks would make a much better gift, you say?

I suppose the general public would agree, but my family is a bit different…

They prefer health products, which only god knows are actually effective or not, as opposed to things that give off a smell or sweets that can have adverse effects on the body.

Yes. Thanks to them, I am now quite the healthy child. I have grown to be quite fit and sturdy – enough to survive a military facility if I were ever thrown into one with ease. Hehehe.

Oh, would you be able to wrap up the snacks as well?

With a gorgeous set of wrapping paper, please. Yes, I thought I should bring a gift out of respect to the master of my household.

Yes. It would be lovely if you could wrap it up nicely… Hm?

Wataru: ………♪

Yuzuru: (......? I just saw a flutter of silver hair in the corner of my eye. Was that Hibiki-sama?)

(He’s walking around while erasing his presence – how rare. He usually stands out like a sore thumb…)

(Hmm? He graduated some time ago so what is he doing near Yumenosaki Academy?)

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ← Previous Chapter ᠂ ⚘ ˚⊹˚ ⚘ ᠂  Next Chapter →

[shaanks]

listen, I'm not inherently bothered by the fact that people from other countries don't have a good understanding of our politics or what causes the resulting atrocities they have to see on the news all the time. tbh it makes sense that they don't, bc no matter how much anyone attributes "not having a great grasp of what happens in other places" as a solely American trait, that's actually mostly just how people are.

political systems are complicated. the further away from your language and your country's version a political system is, the less intuitive it becomes to understand, and most people are just trying to survive in this world and don't have time for it. i get that.

what bothers me, really, IS the fact that people pretend this is an inherently American behavior, and that everyone else on the planet tooooooootally gets everyone else's politics at an intuitive level, like. two seconds before spouting the most insanely ignorant, insensitive, nonsensical take physically possible.

so lemme clear some stuff up. not that I'm sure it will matter bc mindlessly dunking on the people that live here for the actions of our genocidal government is what runs the best numbers on tiktok or whatever but like. here we go.

our voting system is complicated, has two separate layers that do not usually agree with each other, and has been stacked basically since the country was founded to purposefully minimize, diffuse, and disenfranchise anyone who isn't part of the ruling class (read: landed white men of a certain income and education, if you wanna go back and look).

there is a popular vote, then there is the electoral college. the popular vote sort of gives an idea of what the country's preferences are between (usually pretty monstrous) candidates, but it's filtered through a ton of weirdly shaped and purposefully obfuscated voting districts, and read based on percentages.

then there is a separate group of voters, called Electors, and those people make up the body of the electoral college. each state gets a certain number of electoral college votes, and the candidate who makes it to 270 of those votes becomes the President. the number each state gets is calculated as 2 votes for their senators and then a number of votes based on their congressional districts. are you following, is this fun?

they watch to see what the percentage of votes is from each congressional district. once it looks like there's a majority, they "call" that state in favor of a candidate, and cast their votes accordingly. (sometimes. there is a phenomenon called 'faithless electors' in which they cast the vote opposing the popular vote, but that's a story for another time.) also, since some states have relatively few congressional districts, and some have tons, certain entire states worth of votes "don't matter," and every election cycle the election basically comes down to the voting behaviors of a few key district-heavy states, called "swing states."

so, irrespective of how intense the support might be one way or the other for certain candidates, unless the votes are coming from a swing state, they mostly just kind of get. written off. they're counted! but very much treated as superfluous.

THEN, we get into the ways that presidential candidates are chosen to begin with. there are actually more than two parties in the US! Several, in fact! but due to the way campaign finance works, only the most well-funded ones end up having any say, and since corporations and their lobbying firms can basically pour money into our political system unchecked, that means that what we get are the Republicans and the Democrats. these two parties use their national conventions (the RNC and the DNC, respectively) to determine who will be the candidate representing them in the race.

usually, if there is an incumbent (a sitting president) eligible for re-election, that person will end up being their party's pick. either way, though, every candidate wanting to run for that RNC/DNC seat has to go through a number of debates and campaigning events to try to get enough traction to be voted for at their conventions.

sounds pretty straight forward, right? the problem is, you have to have money and more money and more money to be able to be competitive. for example, in 2012, it cost Obama and his campaign $2.9 million USD per day to fund his bid for the presidency. between his own money, campaign contributions, and the DNC money, in total, it cost more than $1 billion USD for him to become president.

does that sound like the type of money grassroots orgs have laying around? or that a normal person might be able to drum up? or that someone who is, say, an enemy of corporate America might be able to come up with on their own? probably not, huh.

also, since the majority of the money it takes to run ads, gain traction, and get elected DOES come from corporations, foreign direct investment (which ends up in the soft-money slush fund so it doesn't have to be reported as such), and wealthy private donors, who can shut the cashflow off at any time if they're unsatisfied with the way their candidate behaves, who do you think said candidates are more likely to be loyal to? or to vote or legislate in favor of?

the poor people (and most of the country IS poor, the studies consistently show that most of the US population is 1-2 missed paychecks away from homelessness) who already barely have a half-filtered say in how our government runs and where the power goes? or the people who are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into superPACs for them to play with?

before you even get to that step tho, remember that the RNC and the DNC are both in this for the money too. they might let an actually popular candidate play on stage for a while (Bernie Sanders is a good example), but anyone who might actually interrupt their stream of income is never getting the nomination.

we, as a collective, aren't picking monsters on purpose. our government and the rich people that own it have spent decades and generations setting up the system so that the only people who get to approach the seats of power are people willing to play the game, who are beholden to the highest bidder, and who don't care what happens to the actual country they're trying to run one way or the other.

gerrymandering is rampant, racism and sexism and corporate greed are the cornerstones of the government, and the only little bit of power we DO have doesn't even actually come from the raw power we hold as a population, but from the fact that the only thing that allows the us government to maintain political and military hegemony is the illusion of moral and ideological purity displayed by being a "democratic" society.

that's why no one has pulled the trigger on true mask-off authoritarianism yet. that's also why ANY attempt to band together and vote in our collective self-interest gets squelched. why do you think these bastards are so fucking scared of labor unions?

but I digress. First and foremost, the majority of the US wants an immediate end to the funding and militarization and support for Israel. Most Americans want a free Palestine, and the genocide to stop. y'all have phones and eyes and since everyone's constantly whining about how much of what happens here they have to see, I'm sure you've seen the protests and the mass mobilization of a hyper-militarized police force against those students, and anyone else who tries to substantively protest and push back against what's happening.

Most Americans want gun control. most Americans want nationalized health care. a good portion of the country wants UBI. most Americans want student debt forgiveness and free/affordable higher education. most Americans want high speed rail and cities that are pedestrian friendly and infrastructure that isn't crumbling and fucking rent control. most Americans want actual livable wages and an end to the necessity for tipping. most Americans want clean water and clean air and food that isn't killing us and a REAL response to climate change. most Americans want an end to the violence against and destruction of marginalized communities. most Americans want reproductive rights, they want access to reproductive care, they WANT all of the things that it appalls y'all that we don't have.

but, like many of the types of people y'all are so keen to make fun of, you've fallen prey to the fallacy that the actions of the government are the same as the will of the governed. that under-educated, sickly, poor people are at fault for the behaviors of global super powers. which is hysterical given how fucking cartoonishly evil and monstrous a ton of other world leaders are, and how easily you're able to distinguish between the actions of those governments and the will of the people involved in those cases.

the literal only thing we have, the only button left to us to press, is voting, and a lot of people don't even want to do that anymore bc of how little it seems to impact. we NEED to. bc if we really truly just roll over and give up the whole world is in for a fucking lot more pain. but it's understandable how people get to feeling that way. the government violently and effectively suppresses votes and protests where they can, and everyone else seems to feel justified in using dead children and homeless people and students who will never climb out of debt and people suffering from addiction who die condemned and in misery and the marginalized remnants of our government's past genocides as punchlines for your "hahahurrrhrurrr fat stupid fatty fat dumb ugly stupid FAT Americans hurrrhahahahaha" jokes.

you don't have to care. that's your business. but it feels like, if you're going to claim ongoing moral and intellectual superiority, maybe you ought to at least try to understand.

hope this helps.

[areyougonnabe]

I have a follow up question which is What's Going On With Kathleen?

lol oh man. the real question is what ISN'T going on with kathleen

she was......... A Real Character that's for sure. interpreted in all sorts of bonkers ways by posterity because she refuses to fit into any sort of neat historical categorization as far as "wives of famous heroes" go. she was a strident anti-suffragist, loud in her universal hatred of other women, obsessive about maintaining her virginity amongst swarms of admirers in fin-de-siecle paris, determined to find a worthy father for her destined son, despite her occasional wishes she could have a son without marrying at all...

back to spufford, who wrote really wonderfully about kathleen:

She does not mind the election to muse and taskmistress; but she did not choose it, and again Scott has perhaps slightly misread her. The Woman One Must Strive For is a cartoon out of the male mind, and only approximates Kathleen. It is true that she plays up to it. It is true that she has something of the presenter of white feathers about her, blithely demanding bravery in circumstances her gender prevents her from experiencing. But her vicarious involvement in his polar life is more generous than that, and her emotions more detached from the public failure or success of the expedition than Scott imagines. Their marriage would not be ruined (as he sometimes fears) if he returned having failed to reach the pole, or (now his fears have coalesced into a Norwegian) having failed to beat Amundsen. The self-invented code she lives by has an eccentric stoicism as a main tenet. Nothing will be allowed to hurt enough to take the joy out of her life. When Scott moped once about the future, she had replied, in italics, 'I shall be happy whatever things happen and that is true!' She would contrive to be happy if he came home defeated; she would manage somehow to make it not matter; though whether he would be able to endure that particular demonstration of her self-sufficiency is another question.

in terms of the polycule chart, her connection to nansen comes from a set of historical letters between him and her that demonstrate certainly that he was in love with her, and that she felt something for him in return—but whether they actually consummated an affair is disputed. roland huntford, rolanding away, claims that clearly they obviously did, but wayland young (kathleen's son from her second marriage) was able to dispute that fairly easily based on evidence from the letters which huntford actively ignored.

but it's clear she had certain qualities which caused everything from obsession to revulsion to confusion in the people that she encountered. when she had to suffer the company of Hilda Evans and Oriana Wilson during the terra nova's time in new zealand it ended in violent fighting, with oates comparing the scene to a "Chicago slaughterhouse" with blood and hair flying everywhere. her overbearing presence during the loading of cargo annoyed the hell out of bowers. later, when cherry published Worst Journey, she took issue with Scott being described at times unflatteringly—despite Cherry's clear affection for him elsewhere in the book. this caused a fatal rupture in their friendship, which up until then had seen kathleen bringing her young son and many admirers (including nansen lol) to cherry's country estate.

anyway, that's about all i got, but there is a biography by her granddaughter louisa young which i have not read but is based partially on her diaries/autobiography, so if you want to know more about her you could start there!

[mariacallous]

By Lucian Kim, a global fellow with the Wilson Center in Washington and NPR’s former Moscow bureau chief.

When I saw the first images of armed men in ragtag uniforms taking over the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don on Saturday morning, I was immediately reminded of the “little green men” who began showing up in cities in Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014. Like the Russian troops and soldiers-of-fortune who began the Kremlin’s covert invasion of Ukraine, the fighters in Rostov displayed no insignia as they seized key buildings, including the headquarters of Russia’s Southern Military District. Just as in Ukraine nine years ago, there was no resistance from local law enforcement officers, who chose life over a fight with determined gunmen.

This weekend’s lightning takeover of Rostov by the Wagner mercenary group was the first step in an armed mutiny led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the ex-con who rose to become Russia’s most infamous battlefield commander. From there, the Wagner forces began a march on Moscow until Prigozhin abruptly ordered his men to turn around and return to their bases. In the space of 24 hours, the full madness of Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship was on display. The blowback of his attack on Ukraine was symbolized by a Wagner tank, marked with the letter “Z,” which stands for the Kremlin’s war effort, pointing not at Ukrainians but other Russians.

Prigozhin said his beef was with the military leadership, which he accused of trying to destroy the Wagner Group. He has a history of publicly insulting Russia’s defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, and the chief of the general staff, Valery Gerasimov, and getting away with it. But Prigozhin’s open show of arms on Russian soil sent a challenge to the Kremlin that Putin could no longer ignore. In a televised address, the Russian president called Wagner’s mutiny a “stab in the back” and warned of civil war. Putin even invoked the violent collapse of the Russian Empire in World War I, though he did not mention Tsar Nicholas II, the disgraced ruler murdered by Russian revolutionaries.

There is another similarity to World War I that Putin did not mention: corruption and incompetence in the Russian military, as well as the inhumane treatment of its own soldiers. Anger with Russia’s top brass has not been limited to Wagner, and Prigozhin’s rage may well extend to the ranks of the Russian military. At the very least, that Prigozhin’s army was able to travel hundreds of miles unhindered shows that the Kremlin lacks the wherewithal to put down a domestic rebellion, especially when its best troops are fighting in Ukraine.

Despite the drama of the situation, a mutiny by Russia’s scariest people should not come as a surprise. The Kremlin allowed Prigozhin to recruit in prisons, which filled Wagner’s fighting force with desperate convicts. Prigozhin has long been the Kremlin’s man for dirty deeds, from interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with his so-called troll farm to fighting undercover in Ukraine, Syria, and the Central African Republic. The Kremlin could deny any connection to Prigozhin, and Prigozhin, of course, denied hiring trolls and warriors. When an unknown number of Wagner contractors in Syria were killed by U.S. forces in 2018, the Kremlin response was muted, since officially they were not members of Russia’s armed forces.

It’s likely that Putin originally imagined Wagner as a Russian version of Blackwater, the U.S. private military contractor that came to prominence in the Iraq War. Wagner mercenaries in Syria and Africa played the part, wearing baseball caps and wraparound sunglasses while toting serious guns. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year, Prigozhin stepped out of the shadows to claim ownership of Wagner—and credit for its costly victories. A sledgehammer became the unofficial symbol of the Wagner Group after Prigozhin said one of his fighters had been executed with the tool as punishment for switching to the Ukrainian side.

For Putin, the Wagner mutiny is a self-inflicted wound, the result of his suicidal war against Ukraine. Putin could have chosen to stay on the track of a middle-income economy, with oil and gas exports to Europe guaranteeing enough money to sate his cronies, repress his enemies, and keep the rest of the country quiet, if not happy. Yet the longer he stayed in power, the less interested Putin became in being remembered simply as the leader who stabilized Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was not enough. Putin wanted the legacy of restoring an empire, beginning with Ukraine.

At first, the mission of the “little green men” he sent into eastern Ukraine was to turn the country into a failed state by embroiling it in a perpetual, low-level war. But Ukrainians defied Russia, and even after the 2022 invasion, they rallied to their country’s defense and did not let it collapse. Though battered and bloodied, Ukraine is unified and clear about its purpose. Now Russia looks like the failed state. Nobody in Russia understands what the war in Ukraine is about. And after Prigozhin’s rebellion, nobody knows if that war might not still come to Russia. Who will defend Putin? And who will go for Prigozhin?

Under an agreement brokered by Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, charges against Prigozhin will be dropped, and he will be allowed safe passage to Belarus. But the deal hardly eliminates the threat that Prigozhin—or someone like him—poses to the Kremlin in the future. It is unclear if we are witnessing the beginning, middle, or end of Putin’s end. What is certain is that it is the final chapter of his rule.

[riearchivistfornow]

Law and Sin

Teens Xcite 2015.09.19

Law and Sin

The Moral Laws: The moral laws of God does not change. They are the reflection of God's character. An example is the ten commandments.

Ceremonial Laws: They are given to the people of Israel, so that they can be distinguished from the other people. They are related to the temple of God and how they are to conduct various things. Many of them are given to them as a symbol of Jesus Christ who was to come in history. One example is the passover and it points them to the Lamb, Jesus Christ. We are christians are no longer under the ceremonial laws, as it does not save us from sin. Ceremonial laws are given at a specific time for a specific reason.

Civil Laws: They are based on the principles of God's moral laws, despite it being mostly made by humans. Example: if you your handphone gets stolen, the civil laws will help you to get your phone back and to punish the person who steals. The civil laws are there to protect you.

God's moral laws are unchanging. Ceremonial laws are historical. Civil laws, we need them.

Shall we obey God's law or Human law?

We need to obey earthly authority

Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

We do know that not all authorities are God fearing, some are not good and some are even evil. However, the bible states that the authorities are established by God.

In the day of Moses, the Pharoh was evil. Many of them who faced evil authorities, still gave them respect.

1 Peter 2:13-17 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

God wants us to honour established authorities. In Singapore, this means the elected government in Singapore.

It has to do with the attitude and the heart on how you do it.

Do not allow yourself to participate with people that mock and dishonour the established authority.

Obey man because God tells us to do so.

Then do I obey a corrupt government? Do I obey an authority that tells us to dishonour God?

Obey God.

Acts 5:27-29 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

Christians are to obey human law, except where the human law violates God's law.

When human laws come in conflict with God's laws, obey God.

God hold's earthly authorities in high regard, and he tells us to obey them. However if they come in conflict with God's law, then obey the Lord.

Obey God.

Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Our attitude to the laws, reflect what is in our hearts. When we see ourselves cursing or mocking authorities, it really reveals what is in our hearts. Often it is because we do not have the Love of God in our hearts. When we have that, we will then be able to love the laws and to honour them. We will then show love, justice and peace, and we will always want to uphold these laws.

The real root reason why we are against authority is because we are against God. Hence we think that the laws are to make us miserable, but it's true reason is that it is to protect us.

Sin is transgression of the Law of God.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

While the laws are good and acurate, they have no way to set us free from the penalty of sin.

The only way out was that God the judge had came in the form of Jesus Christ, the judge came down and took the place as the sinful one.

Psalms 19:7-9 The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.

[a-really-big-cat]

I genuinely don't understand the various extreme reactions to the SCOTUS ruling. Least of all is why Trump is celebrating. From what I gather, they didn't give him immunity; they just said that if presidential immunity is a thing, then it only can apply to official presidential business, not to personal actions, but they leave it to the lower courts to determine what qualifies as "official presidential business". SCOTUS didn't even say which actions, if any, that Trump committed would fall under this distinction (although as someone I asked about it estimated, saying the election was rigged and recommending followers come to the capital building would probably not be presidential, whereas telling the National Guard to not break up the demonstration would be presidential). The result being that the case goes back to the lower courts to decide which acts that Trump committed were unofficial and illegal. This is hardly a victory for Trump. The whole thing insofar as it applies to Trump seems like a nontroversy to me; he hasn't gotten away scot-free with anything. All in all I think the widespread reactions to this decision, as it applies to Trump, has been out of touch.

As for the decision generally, I haven't fully read about the intricacies of what constitutional precedent SCOTUS felt was present that allowed them to develop this distinction, but I'm reminded of a comment an old history prof said (this was back in 2019), that according to some constitutional scholars, Trump's argument that he can pardon himself for any misdeeds (a similar but not wholly identical argument) would seem to hold some water, which sounds crazy but apparently is just an oversight of the constitution as written. If that's the case, then the idea of a president having legal immunity for actions taken in that role may be related to that. This would then be a case of firmly constitutionalist judges looking at the law as written, and interpreting it as written, even if the law as written seems contrary to reason. If one ignores the constitution in this case and just delivers a ruling based on what seems to make more sense personally, then the argument is that that just opens Pandora's box to every judge just ignoring the Constitution as written when it's inconvenient. It's not up to the judges to decide that the constitution needs fixing (and it shouldn't be, according to the principles of the separation of powers); that's supposed to be left up to the people's elected representatives (good luck with that).

[myastrouniverse]

June/2024🌘♉️I wasn’t raised to be fascist.

♃︎ < 🚑 Overturn Supreme Ct ruling Citizens United. It can be done IMMEDIATELY on several premises. First, it had ALREADY been ruled in the lower courts that political commercials are considered electioneering because we don’t CHOOSE to be exposed to their propaganda. Documentaries are different than political commercials, because we CHOOSE to and even pay to receive the information. Everyone seemed to understand this but Hitlery Clinton and the Clinton mafia, which brought the decision to the Supreme Ct. The Supreme Ct essentially determined that they could NOT understand the difference between being forcibly exposed to political propaganda via ads/commercials and choosing or even paying to be exposed to political information thru various channels of information. Since the Supreme Ct could not understand the nuance, or rather, overlooked the logic of the argument from the lower courts; they made an ACTIVIST decision to expand the rights and privileges of corporations, which in effect, deliberately violated the rights and freedoms of the individual. In particular, they defined money as speech. Meaning that those whom have the most money, determine what is true and what is false, if they can get the general population to believe their LIES. The Supreme Ct also went out of their way to define a group of corporate shareholders as an individual. Again, by defining money as speech and corporations as individuals, we have given billionaires in this country a free pass to do whatever the fuck shit they want to do to workers, without any consequences. UNDERSTAND? The Supreme Ct has used the CITIZENS UNITED (2010) ruling, as way of unraveling ALL our freedoms and protections as individuals, in their subsequent rulings for the past FOURTEEN YEARS. THIS IS HOW WE GOT HERE. Okay? America is NOW, on paper, considered a corporation and yes, Obama made himself CEO. This what most of you do not understand. Obama made himself CEO under the irrevocable 24 chapters and provisions he set up for himself and his corporate buddies in TPP. The DNC is considered a corporate organization and its shareholders determine the outcome of elections now. That is why we haven’t had a REAL primary since Hitlery sabotaged Bernie in ‘16. Many local chapters of the Democratic Party took the DNC to court, which ruled that under Citizens United, the DNC had the legal right to steal the election from Bernie, because the shareholders wanted Hitlery to basically murder us all. Corporations have been murdering their workers and getting away with it. My coworkers were murdered at Spectrum in December of 2019. I was attacked in my home but survived. The PEOPLE of the USA, must DEMAND our political leaders REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, by overturning Citizens United. By doing so, again, all subsequent rulings based off Citizens United would also be reversed. The Supreme Ct justices and their allies must be charged with HIGH TREASON for participating in this charade. This is the ONLY logical way to save and preserve democracy. Otherwise, we are ALL going to die at the hands of deranged fascist billionaires and their herd of animal sycophants.

🌘 < ♆︎ If you think AOC is going to be able to charge our Supreme Ct justices, without overturning Citizens United than YOU are an idiot. The ONLY reason she is speaking out against the Supreme Ct right now is to feign like she cares, but again, that mexi-scum cunt bar whore, won’t do a fucking thing.

🌘 ☌ ♂️If you want to make liberals racist, keep promoting ignorant unqualified women of color into high positions of power, in order to protect fascists with dementia; for their personal benefit. It’s dangerous when you consider how unstable people are at this time. Maybe the REAL racists are the people hiring and using ignorant whores, to shield old fascist politicians.

🌘 ☸︎ ♄︎ If you cannot find a solution, you don’t understand the problem. People need to start fucking doing their own homework.

🌘 ☍ 🎸 Yes, every time I see Kamala Harris or AOC, I think, these women are a bad example and should be in jail.

♀️ ☸︎ 🦚 I got a few early birthday presents today. I haven’t had a birthday party in nine years. It was nice. Any kindness comes at a shock to me, because I am almost never treated like a human being.

🌞 < ♅︎ I don’t have to participate with this corrupt corporation we are pretending is our government. Understand? No one has any authority over me, because our laws are made without the pursuit of justice. Understand?

Amy Denio - National Holidays

Jasper Johns, Flag, from Lead Reliefs, 1969

[pendragonsclotpole]

okay i just have to interject here to point out that the problem isn’t just project 2025 or trump, but the conservative interpretation of the constitution.

if the constitution implies that a single man can be held above the law by virtue of the powerful position he holds, the problem is not in the man (though he often is his own host of problems), the problem is in the document and institution which allows the man to obtain such power.

all of the information that op provided? that should be just as terrifying and worrying if it were biden mentioned instead of trump. and you know what? the supreme court passed this while in a biden presidency! we should not take for granted the political convention that has ruled our nation for the last few centuries and be content to never have it written in law just because everyone prior has followed it as if it were.

our entire government is fucked and being held hostage by a complacent congress, an inactive voter base, and a group of 6 individuals determined to interpret a document as it was written centuries ago, completely ignoring the drastic historical changes that have occurred since the men who wrote the document lived and breathed and died.

but you know what? we’re doing that too. and so are our representatives. the constitution is a living and breathing document. this shouldn’t just be a political ideology or interpretation that people use to stretch the bounds of the constitution in the name of the spirit of the principles it espouses as they are applied in a contemporary sense.

this should mean that congress, as representatives of the people, should be capable of rallying together and passing a constitutional amendment.

this should mean that people look to the constitution and see it for all its flaws and imperfections as much as for its symbolic progress, and decide to do something to change it so the document can reach a more perfect version of itself which does not give a single man the authority to put himself above the law, fuck if he’s named joe biden or donald trump.

and actually this is such a perfect point!

when the constitution was written, the office of the president was nowhere near as powerful as it is now. this is for a lot of reasons, namely how fresh the nation was, the lack of infrastructure, the debt of the federal government, the negative perception of a single figure in charge, etc. the legislature had immense power as representatives of a select population of each of the states, it’s how the south held this nation hostage on the backs of the enslaved for so long. so if the constitution does imply one man can be held above the law, i’d wager it was once put there or left open to prevent a legislature from ousting a political rival. is that the case now?

no!

but what does that mean for us then?

we need a regulation. we need a law. we need a fucking constitutional amendment.

i do not mean we should make the process of these easier. some things need to be hard to make sure we are making the right choices and not following popular whims. but if a law can change the power a president has, then for god’s sakes vote for your representatives. VOTE. i don’t care if you think your vote in the presidential election won’t matter, it does matter even if it feels like you’re just choosing between two horrible presidents, it changes things just slightly. it matters and your congressman matters and your senator matters and if you vote for people you believe in and they don’t do something vote again and vote them out. and get them to strip lifetime scotus appointments or add more justices, and if your federal government is useless?

“an amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. the amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification”

vote for your state reps. or maybe you’ve already voted for them. vote for your mayor and councilmen, call them if they don’t listen and demand a change. demand a change for how reps are allocated and districts are drawn up. force them to represent you and where you live and who you are and expand congress so that one person isnt representing hundreds of thousands of people in one state and tens of thousands in another. because at the end of the day, you are their boss.

i feel like if everyone who surfs on this website could do that, we would be so much better off.

but what do i know about american politics. don’t listen to me, look it up yourself, make your own judgments, not just about a single man, but about the entire fucking system

Putting this as a meme so maybe y'all will actually read it.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

And this is why we cannot let Trump win another term: he now has complete immunity for any acts he "officially" performs as president. You thought he was bad before? Now he will have zero fear. He will do whatever he wants. And what he wants is outlined in Project 2025.

[dankusner]

The Dallas Morning News may have a bias problem, a look at its past endorsements reveals

The Dallas Morning News may have a bias problem when it comes to endorsements, at least according to some outside observers.

In 2016, the news outlet endorsed Hillary Clinton, arguing that Trump’s temperament makes him an “unreliable” candidate.

“Our determination is that, frankly, there is only one serious candidate on the ballot in November — and that is Hillary Clinton,” Keven Ann Willey, the DMN editorial page editor, said in an interview with the Texas Standard.

In 2018, DMN endorsed Beto O’Rourke over Ted Cruz, with the opinion piece citing the need for gun control and green energy as reasons for endorsing the Democrat over the Republican.

It also noted how he demonstrated the “inclusive and hopeful tone” of a formidable political leader.

“In this respect, O’Rourke is the stronger candidate,” DMN stated. “In conducting his campaign, he has displayed a demeanor that offers respect for each person and a humbleness that will allow him to open the door to working with those who hold political views different from his.

We believe O’Rourke is right in calling for rejoining the Paris climate accord, supporting the vast potential of renewable energy in Texas, and calling for universal background checks on guns.”

DMN’s apparent bias doesn’t stop there:

According to the outlet’s general election endorsement list in 2022, the majority of those endorsed were Democrats.

When writing about why it supported Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s opponent, Mike Collier, DMN stated: “Collier, a Democrat, is an appealing alternative to GOP incumbent Dan Patrick, whose abrasive style of politics is focused on winning culture wars rather than on solving everyday problems. Collier can talk policy ideas in detail, but he’s not a doctrinaire.”

Notable Democrats on the list include Tarrant County Judge candidate Deborah Peoples, U.S. House District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett, and U.S. House District 33 incumbent Marc Veasey.

As previously reported by The Dallas Express, local leaders are criticizing DMN for its alleged left-leaning bias.

“The news should be based on facts, not opinions. When media is clearly driven by political activism, most people are distrusting of it,” Texas Coalition for Kids President Kelly Neidert previously told The Dallas Express.

The Dallas Express reached out to DMN for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

LETTERS

Conservatives miss the point

Re: “Good to see your remorse,” by Larry Pivnick, and “Views and background matter,” by Tom Youngblood, Tuesday Letters.

The reaction to your “Bias to a degree” column has been entertaining.

The conservative faithful responded with righteous indignity as soon as they saw the word “bias.”

One writer said that this paper was a shill for “woke,” progressive causes and that almost every story is slanted left.

Another said that this newspaper has a blatant bias against our governor.

I’m not sure what newspaper these folks are reading.

This paper reports facts and the truth.

If “woke” means informed, isn’t that the purpose of the media?

And I’ve never seen any story in the news section that disparages the governor.

His own actions are, at times, offensive to many Texans.

Those actions should be reported; they are facts.

I believe that these reactionaries missed the point of Stephen Buckley’s column.

He said that at times the stories miss the conservative viewpoint because their leaders don’t want to be quoted or answer questions.

No response means that they want to keep the electorate in a state of willful ignorance.

If you want news that tells the truth, read this paper.

If you want something to just confirm your opinions, follow the news outlets that are awash in lawsuits for their misinformation.

Ted Felinski, Dallas

No bias, just reporting

Yes, The Dallas Morning News is biased — toward the truth.

Because oxygen is not given to lies and misinformation does not mean focus is given only to the other side.

It means there is no backing for falsehoods.

That is not bias. That is accurate reporting.

Gary Tutt, McKinney

Waiting for solutions to bias

Pivnick’s letter indicates that the exposure of The Dallas Morning News ’ biased journalism by ombudsman Stephen Buckley has opened up a hornet’s nest.

Will The News apply a healing ointment of fairness and respect for conservative and traditional values to its stings or will it just endure the pain?

It would be positive for good journalism if the editors would address how it will resolve its biased journalism, or will it stay in a denial mode?

Don Skaggs, Garland