#Trade Show Display Systems

[serpentface]

A pair of Czekl drakes readying at a flower duel.

The one stretching and yawning is dressed in full dueling/dancing attire, which shows off material wealth via fine clothing and feathers while also exposing the sexiest part of his breeding plumage (in this culture it's the head and neck) and his flushed blue skin.

The other is his pair bonded partner, whose drab full body covering and clipped quills establishes that he is not available for reproduction this year, and meets expected modesty standards for a seasonally celibate drake. His presence makes his reproductively available partner more attractive to prospective hens, as it indicates that the celibate drake will have no offspring of his own this year and his full investment will be in his partner's young (and thus that of any hens who choose him).

---

[Key for the typical sex assignments across qilik sexual variation:

Hen: Lays eggs, has duller coloration year-round, largest average body mass.

Drake: Produces sperm, has brighter coloration that molts into very colorful breeding plumage, skin seasonally flushes blue, smaller average body mass.

Faeder: Produces sperm and is usually physically indistinguishable from hens in average size and coloration. Can be anywhere between 1-25% of the sperm producing population.]

---

Qilik species-wide descend from an ancestral mating system in which hens did not form pair bonds with drakes and played no role in raising subadult offspring, and rather would mate with chosen drake(s) and leave their eggs with the most favored suitor. Drakes would form long term pair bonds with other (usually related) drakes and cooperatively brood and raise young together. Faeder would wander through lekking grounds and opportunistically mate with hens (without having to directly compete with drakes) and play no further role in hatching/rearing their offspring.

They have brief windows of seasonal fertility triggered by the springtime increase of daylight hours (with some equatorial populations having their cycles triggered by seasonal rains instead). Most drakes experience a significant surge of testosterone which causes their springtime molt producing very bright new feathers and their skin to flush blue (if they are well-nourished).

Modern qilik have full behavioral plasticity that subjects this baseline mating system to tremendous cultural variation. There are some broad commonalities- drakes perform the majority of child rearing across most cultures, forms of drake sexual display (whether directly involved in reproduction or not) are nearly ubiquitous in the form of various cultural practices (dances, songs, mock or real combat, etc), and seasonal fertility is a purely biological trait and a universal.

The nomadic culture and heavily dispersed population of the Czekl people means reproductive arrangements are rarely made in advance. Rather, regional populations assemble in established locations during mid spring for a month-long event where the usually separated hen/faeder clans and drake clans can mingle. This is a time for trade, for drake parents to find suitable clans for any of their young adult hen/faeder children, and for individuals looking to reproduce to find a suitable (and highly temporary) partner.

In this culture, hens usually play no direct part whatsoever in their children's lives and may very well never see them hatched. Hens are believed to be the mechanism that supplies spiritual ancestral guardianship to their young, but their material responsibility begins and ends with finding a drake who can show himself to be strong, handsome, healthy, tied to a good clan, and economically secure enough to take good care of their offspring. This process is sometimes accomplished with simple meeting and talking, but the flashiest ways for drakes to advertise themselves is the flower duel.

This is a combination of a dance and a fight, in which available drakes congregate on a dueling ground, match up against the best looking rival they can find, and attempt to pin them to the ground while also dancing to chanted music and showing off their finest clothing and sexy feathers. Hens will watch these proceedings (usually aided by other members of their clan), and can approach anyone that catches their eye after the fact to converse and ensure that they have found a good father for their children. This also functionally provides a mechanism for drakes who do not have a pair-bonded male partner to attract a co-parent, and this culture's equivalents of romance stories lavish attention to narratives of flower duel rivals becoming enamored in the process of their mock battle.

Czekl culture places very little expectation on even temporary fidelity, and hens will often mate with multiple drakes per season and only provide their single egg (often of indeterminate siring) to the one they deem best. It's up to an individual drake to not only prove that he's extremely sexy and excellent father material, but that he can be good company for the week or so between the first (of usually many) acts of breeding and his reproductive partner(s) laying their eggs. While hens and drakes rarely form any sort of permanent bond in this culture (and aren't likely to see each other whatsoever for the rest of the year), these temporary friendships can be meaningful and enjoyable. There's plenty of things to do at this gathering besides just showing off and fucking, and temporary mates that actually hit it off will often bring their respective clans together to socialize and trade.

---

The modesty standards of qilik cultures trend towards regulating attire of drakes more intensely than hens/faeder, especially when in breeding plumage and skin condition. Czekl society has fairly limited modesty standards, with the cloaca being the only part of the body expected to remain publicly covered in most contexts regardless of gender. The only major exception is that drakes who are choosing to remain celibate for the breeding season (or who have secured as many partners as they can handle) are expected to demonstrate this with full body covering. The exposure of seasonally blue tinted skin and breeding plumage is treated as an advertisement of full sexual availability, and uncovered drakes who refuse any mating are often subject to aggression and treatment as sexually deviant.

Czekl drake pairs typically take turns playing the reproductive role, hence the routine presence of seasonally celibate males at this event. A drake being able to display that he not only has a bonded partner but one who will remain nonreproductive for this season increases his chances of reproductive hookups. It tends to be assumed that partnered drakes will disproportionately invest in their own offspring, so having sex with a drake who has a celibate male partner is seen by most hens as guaranteeing a better future for the one and only egg they can lay each year.

This perception is a cultural bias rather than a response to behavioral drives, as partnered drakes do not actually show instinctive preference for their own young over that of their pair-bonded partner's. The evolutionary background for this is rooted in pre-behaviorally modern qilik male partners very frequently being biological brothers, and thus reaping selective benefits in mutual care for their related young. This is not as ubiquitously the case for behaviorally modern qilik, though incest taboos are rarely applied to bonded drake relationships. In the Czekl sphere, up to a quarter of these nonreproductive pair bonds are between male siblings.

It is exceptionally rare for qilik cultures to form taboos surrounding homosexual behavior between drakes, and when extent they tend to regulate actual sex acts rather than the forming of these pair bonds in of themselves. Less rare is acceptance of drake celibacy (outside of various religious contexts that dictate it), referring to complete/attemptedly lifelong abstinence from mating with hens. Czekl (and most central plains qilik groups) do not police the sexuality of drakes as aggressively as more intensely hen-matriarchal cultures do, but it’s still an expectation that all drakes will participate in bringing offspring to their clans over the course of their lives. Those who remain Serially (rather than seasonally) celibate are often subject to discrimination and sometimes even ousting from their own clans. The clan is the central unit of Czekl society and drake clans (treated as bloodlines) are sustained by their members providing offspring, so choosing never to do so is treated as imperilment of a clan's future.

Czekl drakes forming permanent pair bonds with hens is considered unnatural and deviant (though not aggressively policed, and very rare in practice), and forming these with faeder is HIGHLY stigmatized (faeder themselves are treated as barren hens in spite of their actual fertility, and are discouraged both from mating with hens and from forming bonds with drakes/joining drake clans). The practice of seasonally celibate drakes appearing in this public setting with full body covering has (culturally unintentional) functions in enabling these stigmatized drake/faeder pair bonds to fly under the radar (by giving an avenue for a faeder to hide her dull coloration and therefore sex assignment, under the guise of being a celibate drake), and allowing them to obtain offspring for themselves.

[carionto]

Humans really like space wildlife

As Humanity integrates itself within the Galactic Coalition ever further, trade and travel between Sol and neighboring member systems is growing at exponential rates. In particular, their interest in the native wildlife of other planets is the most widely expanding sector for tourism and commerce.

Even though it is also the most heavily regulated and restricted one, Humans, who typically display a desire to subvert the normal procedures to expedite any process they can, for this they are surprisingly willing and eager to fill in all the necessary paperwork and spend hours upon days making sure they follow and adhere to all the requirements to import some of these creatures.

While such level of determination is not uncommon for new member species who discover a certain non-native creature or something that to the respective natives is commonplace but for them is the pinnacle of exotic, the variety of requests made by Humans is nearly as great as the entire list of known fauna species. And the reasons listed on the forms are even more diverse:

"That's a unicorn! I've always dreamed of having a unicorn and you're telling me there's a dozen subspecies?! Yes, please!!!"

"After reviewing their behavior, this bear-sized fluff-ball is the perfect cat I've always wanted, but couldn't because of allergies. I'll treat them with love and care, my life is incomplete without this fella."

"Tiny. Elephant-duck. Want."

"Our company was looking for a mascot, and these six-legged spindly beaver-crabs are perfect. Here's our mission statement and prepared accommodations for a flock."

"They all said I hallucinated the lizard sasquatch when I was on that acid trip, but now I'll show 'em. It's real. I knew it all along!"

"Aww, these baby puppies are so adorable (referring to the four meter, 800kg Fanged Widowmaker of Abyss Valley predator). My kids were looking through your alien picture books and instantly fell in love with these ones."

And so on. At first we had to reject quite a few, mainly because half of them were deadly beasts from Deathworlds that are almost impossible to capture in the first place. Then the Human officials informed us that, while they will try to stop it from happening, if we don't make importing and adopting even the most dangerous animals in the known Galaxy reasonably possible for them with Human help and expertise in the field, some Humans will set up illegal smuggling rings to "fill the market gap" as they said. Historically, they explained, that causes more problems and expenses than just handling it through official channels.

Reluctantly we were persuaded and have set up a new organization to quell this, apparently, unquenchable Human pack bonding condition. Even if said pet can kill them. We think, as horrible as it may be, that for some that is part of the appeal. Even the ones that breathe out literal poison.

"We'll wear a mask around them. This wendigo-like one is too cute to not get belly rubs."

Said the OFFICIAL Human Representative of a monstrosity that can only be described as the living incarnation of countless teeth, fangs, claws, vivid seizure inducing iridescent feathers, and a body that extends from a inconspicuous ambush pose to a fully 8 meter tall six limbed nightmare machine of Death!

[niqhtlord01]

Humans are weird: The Folly of Gel’vana

( Please come see me on my new patreon and support me for early access to stories and personal story requests :D https://www.patreon.com/NiqhtLord Every bit helps)

The Terminus class warship “Gel’vana”, named after her captain of the same name, was the largest warship the Mogabi had ever constructed.

Outfitted with the latest technology, coupled with enough armaments to equal any single fleet, the ship was unlike anything the galaxy had seen set to sail amongst the void sea. The batteries of void cannons alone were capable of cracking tectonic plates like gingerbread.  

It didn’t take long for the intentions of such a ship to be made obvious as no sooner had it been launched from the orbital dockyards above the Mogabi homeworld did they declare war upon their galactic neighbor the Techno Autocracy.

The sentient machines held control over numerous mineral rich worlds that the Mogabi long since craved and so they dispatched the Gel’vana to drive the Autocracy out. Swarms of drones and carries were dispatched outnumbering the lone warship a ten thousand to one, yet the Gel’vana carved through them like a hot knife through butter. None of their weapons could pierce the warships shields as it unleashed devastating barrages against the mechanical adversaries.

By the conclusion of the Battle of Raxsus III the Autocracy had been crippled militarily and ceded control of the planets in question.

Emboldened by their victory, three months later the Mogabi declared war on their northern neighbors of the Tumani and Yulnucks. The pair had been locked in an ongoing border dispute for three years and the resulting conflicts had caused waves of disruption within the Mogabi trade network.

The pair was swiftly conquered by the Mogabi fleet with the Gel’vana leading the effort. Both fleets were swatted aside and their homeworlds conquered and instated as new vassal clients of the growing Mogabi empire.

This sad display of power played out again and again for the next ten years until to Mogabi controlled some twenty star systems, fifty worlds, and a dozen different client species serving their needs with resources and manpower. Their hubris was matched only by the fear they instilled when their enemies learned the Mogabi had dispatched the Gel’vana to their system. It was a sentiment that Mogabi felt with their soon to be latest acquisition.

A small empire of planets controlled by a species called “Humans”.

In short order the Gel’vana arrived in the human sol system and expected a fight. To their surprise they were met by a lone warship and a message of surrender.

To say the Mogabi were surprised would be an understatement. They had heard of the prowess of the human war machine and their spirit for conquest. Even with their previous victories the Mogabi were expecting a protracted war that could last decades and cost thousands if not millions of lives.

Human diplomats contacted the Gel’vana and expressed that they had no wish to see their people devastated by a long war. They were willing to negotiate with the Mogabi and give them favorable terms, even the possibility of limited subjugation, conditional on two terms.

1st: No human world would be subject to excessive occupation.

2nd: The human diplomats wished to sign the agreements onboard the Gel’vana as a sign of respect to both of powers.

The first the Mogabi could understand, but the second confused them.

Humans explained that while they were surrendering they still had a measure of pride to take into account. By signing the treaties onboard the Gel’vana they would show that it took the universes mightiest warship to bring them to heel.

Even with the explanation some of the Mogabi were still skeptical, but so drunk on their own supposed power the command staff ignored their suspicions and agreed to the terms.

Slowly the human ship approached the Gel’vana; the shadow of the Mogabi warship swallowing up the entire vessel like the maw of a great sea beast of old. A long lone docking tube extended outwards and latched on to the human ship and pulled it close as the Mogabi delegation gathered at the entry point ready in full military uniform.

As the tube finally stopped moving and the lights turned green, the entry door began sliding open slowly. When it finally slid fully open the Mogabi had just moment to register the tip of the Nova Warhead pointing right at them.

Before any of them could react the ignition triggered and the missile flew the length of the docking tube into the waiting Mogabi delegation, splattering several before colliding into the wall and detonating in a violent explosion.

While it was true that the Gel’vana was nearly impervious to exterior attacks, it was not designed to handle internal explosions. The detonation of the Nova warhead set off a series of secondary explosions in nearby ammo storage chambers which further added to the detonations until finally reaching the main reactor and setting off a critical overload.

In a single moment the deadliest warship the solar seas had ever seen was reduced to a momentary star of light and wreckage before being swallowed into the gravity well of Jupiter.

So assured in their own supremacy, the Mogabi failed to conduct even the most basic of scans of the human ship. Had they done so they would have seen that there was not a single soul on board, and quickly realized the ship was being remotely operated via a series of spy satellites floating throughout the Sol system. The destruction of the Gel’vana was recorded by one such satellite and then broadcast throughout the Mogabi Empire.

 Uprisings erupted throughout the entirety of their domain as their freshly conquered territories were all too eager to overthrow their oppressors; many of these rebellions aided by fresh contingents of human warships flooding in and engaging the scattered Mogabi forces.

Within six months the Mogabi Empire was no more and the human forces retreated back to their own domain. Many had expected the humans to become the new overlords, and it was a sentiment toyed with by some notable human leaders in flights of fancy; but that is all they were, flights of fancy. Their only interest had been in the complete and utter destruction of the Mogabi.

In their arrogance of sending a single warship to conquer humanity the Mogabi had done more harm to their cause then they could have ever imagined. They had wounded human pride at the insinuation that they were so frail and weak that they would cower beneath the gaze of one ship.

With their revenge carried out they were all too happy to leave the former vassals finish off what remained of the Mogabi; a vengeance they were all too happy to watch play out from afar.

[omegastation]

Lore topics I enjoy thinking about for Mass Effect Trilogy Week:

Biotics: I remember countless conversations about biotics that made me look at the wiki to check my information, replay parts of the game and in general pay attention to how it all works out. I still think there are many things about them that I don't understand right now, and that's why I love it. It makes you think! Each species will deal with it in a different way too, they have their own history with their biotics and how they use them. For humans, L2 biotics like Kaidan are always a source of wonder to me. Sure, you can picture a badass biotic like Aria and 100% she showed extreme power during the Omega DLC so that's really fascinating to me as well, but to have those implants and to be able to master Reave?! I also think the lore is not... as solid as it could be regarding how each species treats their biotics. It sometimes feels like a bit of a X-Men situation (they're different, others fear them, possible medical issues...) but it's like the writers don't want to deal with the full implications. And I really wish we could have seen a bit more artistic/cultural displays of biotics. Btw, my biotic sports headcanons are here

Lifespan: I love that each species has a different lifespan and that it really shows in how they live their lives. An asari will not look at their youth like a salarian. Honestly, I'm mad at myself because someone wrote about this in the tag and made a good commentary on it and I can't find the post again. It was about how salarians process thoughts and feelings compared to other species. I hope I can find it soon, and if so I'll reblog it. It's always a fascinating topic!

Artificial intelligence: Geth, EDI and other AIs like SAM are what I mean here. I really do think the topic of designing your own platform should come out more in this universe. I've said it a billion times before but I really want EDI to design her own platform. And I really have no answer, but I have found that all the meta about Legion was always thought-provoking. Was does individuality mean? Does Legion need individuality? Does he need to say "I" or was he better as a collective, as something "other" that was just fine as it was, but we humans just find more meaning in him becoming an individual? Even the words I use here, I'm fully aware I use "he" all the time when refering to Legion, and sometimes I wonder if that's good or not. I don't know. 

Justice system: I've made one big post about it (9 years ago haha), but I really find the Spectres fascinating, as well as each species' version of judges/soldiers/spies/agents/workers etc. And prisons.

The trade language: EVERYWHERE in the game and we have so little information compared to the Quarian's language???

And my favorite lore: everything related to the krogan. I really think it ties to what Bakara says about being her Shaman's initiation being a brutal one "But an illuminating one. You learn to appreciate the light by living in the dark."  I love that their species not because they're perfect but because they're imperfect in a way that speaks to me. They understand despair, the deepest kind. They understand anger. And they're constantly underestimated. But I find a lot of beauty, joy and humor in them. I also love that they're rarely lying or playing games, they will tell you the honest truth and you either take it or leave it.

Will be happy to know your favorite parts of the lore!!!

[poedays]

Some things I’ve noticed with icons:

—- —- —-

1. Hush and the general ‘Freelancer’

Hush’s symbol can be comparable to the freelancer symbol as it includes the same general lines, and has the ‘over’ lines in freelancer icon as the trail away thinner lines in Hush’s.

I think this has relevance for a few reason.

One, the freelancer symbol is a DNA sequence, whereas Hush’s can be seen as an extended infinity sign. This shows the unnatural nature of Hush’s existence - he is the embodiment of everything and nothing at all. Created from another’s life force, he only imitates humanity. Whereas, Freelancers are an abundance of magic - they have access to a multifaceted skill set of elemental and energetic control. They are the most distant from your regular human, but are the best display of empowered life. Hush is distant in the opposite way, he’s less human than a daemon.

Additionally, Hush’s icon can also be seen as two infinity signs cut off from completion. I believe this could show how Hush is theoretically immortal, if not for the fact that he is a purpose bound being. Once his purpose is fulfilled, he no longer has a reason for existence. Thus, cutting off his immortality.

Two, Doc is a Freelancer. In a way, it’s almost symbolic how the two ends of the spectrum come together. An abundance of magic in a socially acceptable way, and an abundance of magic in a way that disturbs. A jack of all trades, and a purpose bound being. Doc has a choice of how they use their magic, and in what form, whereas Hush has to learn choice - imitating human nature, but never able to actually be human.

—- —- —-

2. Darlin and Quinn

Now that Darlin has an ‘official’ icon, I payed a bit more attention to it. So the icon itself has a waning crescent moon within it (if we focus on the black portion), which symbolises rest and self-care. As this icon is also used as the general pack icon - i think it shows that since Darlin reconnected with the pack, they finally have a chance to regain their sense of self. If not directly taking care of themselves, then at least allowing others to care for them.

Which leads to my Quinn thing - I believe his icon symbolises both how he separated Darlin from the pack, but also how he fuelled their self-destructive nature. He was the reason Darlin felt the need to distance themselves, due to the fear of him harming the pack. Which is exactly what his icon displays. He cut them off from living a happy life, as well as from their support system.

Although, Darlin’s icon could also be seen as a waxing gibbous moon in the white portion, which symbolises reflection and growth. Once again, Quinn’s icon shows how he stops them from doing so. Quinn was a constant cycle of manipulation and abuse, he traps people and drags them down to his level. He ruins people instead of bettering them - his scratch through the icon just shows how he’s a direct opposite to the intended symbolism of the waxing moon.

—- —- —-

[serocco3]

I miss my friend. She got me back into One Piece. I lost contact with her on November 8, 2024.

We met over two years ago on Reddit. We became fast friends on discord. Her display name was RougeLiz; I forgot her username. Both of us lost our Reddit accounts back in 2023 or so. We didn't mind because we both had each other on Discord anyway.

We were so close, I not only showed Rouge my original stories as an amateur scriptwriter (my blog is named after one of my OCs), but I shared my home address with her, and she sent a card of Uta from One Piece Film Red for my birthday. I still have it to this day.

Rouge's love of One Piece reignited her passion for anime, and in turn, her love of One Piece got me not only back into reading the One Piece manga, but also follow and discuss spoilers for One Piece.

One of the last things we talked about was One Piece Fan Letter, which is one of the greatest piece of animation and storytelling I have ever seen. We even spoke about the 2024 election as it happened and during its immediate aftermath.

In hindsight, I should've told her to add my Steam (if she even had it; I never got the chance), or traded our email, or shared my phone number with her. I feel like an idiot for never asking after all this time.

I lost access to my discord because of a false report. Discord's moderation system is run by AI; it's shockingly common for people to lose their accounts for even being in a server that, for instance, got hacked and caused spam.

Each time I appeal, the Clyde bot responds to me instead of a normal living breathing human. It claims my suspension was temporary, and that it would end on November 11, but it didn't end. It's still ongoing.

I have a very strong feeling she's worried about me. I'm upset that I'm making her worry. This is my last-ditch attempt at maybe, hopefully, potentially getting back in touch with RougeLiz, hence why I have so many One Piece related tags here lol

Sorry for not talking about gum pirates and sun gods. I just needed to vent and I'm trying my best to get back in touch with one of my closest friends. I don't expect her to see this, but wish me luck.

[sweet-potato-42]

I ramble about the scientists and engineers on qsmp (mike, pac, tubbo, ramon and aypierre) and about what i think they specialize in:

Pac to me is a bio chemist/ pharmacist. He knows how to make antidotes as he did in the happy pills arc. He is the one in the tazercraft duo who learned medicine and chem. This man however does not know the meaning of "ethical practices". he picked up some physics and engineering knowledge from being with mike

Mike feels like a phycisist with some knowledge in other fields. It lfeels like he knows theory very well and has the problem solving skills for it. He knows some engineering stuff, some chem from pac and some computer science stuff. This is what helps him be a sort of jack of all trades and build things like the game arenas with pac.

Tubbo and ramon are very similar to me in that they are both just mechanical engineers who know some other stuff. They are create mod experts making them especially good at mechanical engineering but htey also know some electrical stuff and maybe some computer science. They are both well versed in physics though not professionals as they can do shit like time machines or build the radio reciever. Tubbo in particular is also a logistics nerd which is what pushes him to make large interconnected systems and factories.

Aypierre feels like a robotics and software expert. He might also be a create mod user but the way he does it and his factories give a much more modern fancy robot vibe. He certainly approaches the mod in a more 1 project at a time way which is closer to working on computer science. He also always makes displays that show what the factory is producing. Other evidence for this is the ayrobot shit.

Im convinved these 5 have had intense joke arguments over whihc science or field is the best. Theyve done it several times. By now pac has given up on fighting since hes the only biologist.

i need more scinecy art and shit frm them. Especially for pac. I need fitpac moments where pac is just rambling about some complicated chem stuff and fit is like :)

[trillscienceofficer]

I think Star Trek: Voyager is (as always) wishy-washy on assigning specific roles and competences to the engineering crew but it's interesting to consider the role of chief engineer specifically as a systems engineer, ie someone who has to make sure everything plays nice together, both on a human(oid) side and a technology side. Many systems engineers think of themselves as jacks of all trades, who know enough about every system in a project to be aware of how they communicate with each other and how they can be optimized, but who usually leave the actual process of optimization to the people who have the specific role and knowledge to do that. And as a result, you also have to be able to listen to, talk to, and direct people.

Thinking specifically about B'Elanna, I think "Parallax" makes the case that Chakotay pushed her forward for the role of chief engineer mainly because her technical knowledge and abilities. B'Elanna is absolutely a jack of all trades, sometimes even too good at everything to be believable, but honestly I don't begrudge this as the usual lazy Trek approach to anything regarding science and technology. There are people out there, even now, who can jump from disassembling and reassembling car engines to repairing delicate electronics to writing code from scratch for functional drones. Space travel is obviously much more intricate and complex than internal combustion engines or three-phase electric motors, with so many more systems that need to solve specific issues, but I can definitely suspend my disbelief enough to imagine a world where spaceships are as commonplace as electric cars are nowadays. Anyway, my point is: B'Elanna is that type of guy who can do everything and do it well, Chakotay obviously knew this because he'd seen it firsthand, so she is the obvious choice for THEE system engineer on the USS Voyager.

A systems engineer has to interact and guide people a lot too, though, and I don't think Chakotay would've imposed an ultimatum on Janeway if he'd had doubts on B'Elanna's people skills. Thinking about Chakotay knowing this about her, it makes me somewhat understand the tough attitude he has towards her sometimes (ie "I know you can be so much better than this and it's pissing me off that you're choosing to go low now"), though I don't necessarily love how often it happens. He must've known that with a bit of patience and understanding B'Elanna can fill in a leadership role and do it well, despite her not always displaying good judgment (eg with Dreadnought). He was right that Janeway just needed to give her a chance. I'm sure Chakotay had gone through a similar process of getting to understand how B'Elanna operates (and how to best utilize her skills) in the Maquis.

For all that the show forgets very often about the source of B'Elanna's prickliness, I think her "worst" interpersonal trait is that she can't suffer fools, and that makes her irrational and immature in the eyes of many, because of course women of color setting high standards is tantamount to anathema and cannot last. It's pattern that imho repeats in her relationship with Tom, where B'Elanna obvious affection for him and willingness to bridge any gaps to continue being with him erodes any standards she might've had, bit by bit. But this only shows that, again as a pattern that repeats in her personal life, she is actually very willing to sacrifice her ego in order for the boat to not rock too hard and keep sailing, and especially in order to keep people from leaving. So I've been wondering for a long time if also being a chief engineer on the USS Voyager, a systems engineer that has to make everything work together as smoothly as possible, also didn't mean for B'Elanna a slow erosion of her sense of self, subsumed entirely by the need to keep everything running or else everyone dies. Don't get me wrong, I still think Chakotay was right and this is a role that B'Elanna was meant to assume, and she fulfills it incredibly well. That being said, I think neither Chakotay nor B'Elanna realized the personal cost it would impose on her. Obviously being lost at sea is a particularly fraught condition in which to assume that much responsibility, but I think B'Elanna also has trouble separating her identity from any role she occupies, be it chief engineer or girlfriend etc. This is... I don't know, maybe something that's expected of (fictional) women, "nurturing" and all, but honestly it's not a trait that I would consider at all positive though the show seems to think that B'Elanna should be more like this for some fucking reason.

So I wonder, what is left of her obvious passion and enthusiasm for technology once back in the Alpha Quadrant? What would it mean for her to keep working for Starfleet afterwards, part of an even larger and much more impersonal (without any equivalent to Janeway's or Chakotay's approval) machine? I don't think that without either her former passion or a deeply personal component B'Elanna could be happy in such an environment, to be honest.

[literaticat]

How does Barnes & Noble allocate shelf space and choose books to put on display? Do publishers pay to have their books in Barnes & Noble stores? Do they pay to have their books displayed in prominent spots? What about independent bookstores? How do bookstores and libraries find out about upcoming books to order? Thanks!

Oy. This could be the topic of like, a nonfiction book (for a very niche audience), or a college seminar, rather than a TUMBLR POST, but hey.

First, a caveat: Please do bear in mind that, while I have 35 years of bookstore experience, I don't work for B&N or have any insider access to B&N; all my knowledge about B&N comes from easily available, non-paywalled reportage that can be found by anyone online. I have never worked for a library except as a board member, so I have zero insider library collections knowledge. I also was a bookstore buyer a decade ago at this point, so some things might have changed -- and I worked for an independent bookstore (key word is INDEPENDENT -- ie, different indies may have totally different ways of doing things!) -- So this is quite broad strokes info.

I'm going to take your questions out of order because it will make more sense.

How do bookstores and libraries find out about upcoming books to order?

The first and most obvious way bookstores and libraries find out about upcoming books to order is via the Publisher's Frontlist Catalogue. "Frontlist" is the term for BRAND NEW / FORTHCOMING BOOKS. Catalogue is exactly what it sounds like -- literally a big ol' catalogue that describes the books, has early reviews and blurbs and whatnot, is full of praise for the books, yadda yadda. Catalogues are divided into multiple "seasons" throughout the year. (Nowadays, catalogues are mostly digital via Edelweiss -- but the same concept applies!)

Generally speaking, publishers have Regional Sales Reps across the country. Those reps physically go to the bookstores in their region every season and present the future season's frontlist offerings (ie, the stuff in the catalogue!) to the buyer. (Very small or far-away stores might have a phone rep -- and nowadays some rep meetings are done via Zoom -- but you get the idea!) The reps have marketing material like ARCs or samples of the books to share, and be able to give more intel than the catalogue alone can do.

It's the sales rep's job to know the bookstore buyer well, know the audience who shops there, and make great recommendations to the buyer. The buyer makes decisions about what to stock based in part on the sales rep's recommendation, but also on whether or not they liked the book or think that their patrons will like it, and based on historical data, like how that author or genre usually does in their store, etc etc.

Sales reps visit about 6 months prior to the season being discussed -- so the Fall 2024 books that are in stock at stores now and in time for Christmas were certainly already ordered before Easter.

Independent Bookstores have their own sales reps; B&N and Target and Amazon and places like that have their own sales reps just for them. (I don't really know how it works for libraries -- very big library systems might also have their own sales reps, but I don't think very small systems would, but idk!)

Other ways they find out about books to order: Booksellers and librarians (and publishers) attend library conferences and trade shows every year, sometimes multiple per year both regional and national; the publisher's sales and marketing teams do presentations about books, have booths with all their upcoming books on display, etc etc.

Booksellers and librarians also are regular people in society, so sometimes they find out about new books sometimes the same way anyone does - through the media and social media! They read reviews, listen to the radio, watch Colbert, go on Instagram, or whatever -- so if they skipped it or only bought two copies when they saw it in the catalogue months and months ago, but then there's a huge media blitz about it, or some amazing reviews come through, the publisher will probably send them a note like "heyyyy just so you know, this is getting HUGE BUZZ, you should probably order extra!"

Basically: Publishers Sales, Marketing and Publicity departments are all doing things behind the scenes for months before a book ever hits a bookstore shelf. That's how books get on the shelf.

How does Barnes & Noble allocate shelf space and choose books to put on display? (What about indie bookstores?)

B&N now chooses books to be on display at the store level. (More on that in the next question). So I'll answer the Indie Bookstore part, and we can assume that a very similar calculus is going on at individual B&N locations!

As explained above, buyers order most of the frontlist books for any bookstore from their sales rep many months before they come out. For a chain bookstore like B&N or a very large independent with multiple locations, that frontlist buyer may be located in some central location -- for smaller stores, buyers are on-site at the bookstore. (A store might also have a "backlist" or "restock" buyer, either the same person or, for a bigger store, a totally different person, who places smaller orders from wholesalers during the week to fill special orders for books customers request and to replenish stock of books they are selling well).

On the backend, bookstores use "turn" to allocate how much shelf space a given section will have -- but that's a much more technical / granular answer that you can read more about here. But as for what comes in and what gets displayed, the new books get into the store in the first place because the buyers have ordered them months in advance, usually via the sales rep (as described above), and when they come in, booksellers use their brains and taste to display them.

Most bookstores have several tables or displays that are always the same (with rotating stock) -- something like New and Noteworthy in every section. So New Hardcover Fiction, New Paperback Fiction, New SF/F, New Nonfiction, etc. When large piles of new books come in every tuesday, the booksellers on the floor will put the piles of books on the New table appropriate for that book. If a pile is getting low, they will swap those ones out so that they table looks full. You get the picture!

Most bookstores also have temporary displays -- seasonal, for a holiday, or themed in some way. For example, it's late October as I type this, and my local bookstore currently has a Kids Halloween display, an adult "Spooky Season" display, a display about democracy/voting (because election day is around the corner), a display about autumn/cozy vibes, a display about fiber arts (because the town hosts a massive craft show), etc. The manager or the owner or one of the booksellers might decide "oh, isn't it funny that all these books have OWLS on them this season, let's make an OWL display" -- and they put whatever they want on it.

(Again, for B&N, many decisions probably also are made at Headquarters -- BUT, individual stores have leeway about how they display their books based on their location, etc etc.)

Do publishers pay to have their books in Barnes & Noble stores? Do they pay to have their books displayed in prominent spots? What about independent bookstores?

Yes and no? Kindaaa, but not really in the way you are thinking?

ETA: THIS IS INSANELY COMPLICATED AND THE EXPLAINER BELOW IS JUST BARELY SCRATCHING THE SURFACE. It's just the best I can do, in this forum, right now.

OK. There's something called "Co-Op" -- that stands for like, "co-operative marketing" or something like that. There's a world in which you could consider Co-Op "publishers paying to have books in stores" -- that's how it kind of was historically, anyway.

Basically, IN THE PAST (I really can't stress that enough), publishers and major bookstores like B&N would come to some sort of agreement about certain titles that would "get co-op" -- like, OK, we have a Spooky Season table in the front of the store, it will cost you X-hundreds/thousands (??) of dollars to have a pile of your new upcoming book SPOOKY GHOST STORY on the front table of every B&N store. Publishers paid it, the bookstore ordered all those books and put them on display. Here's an article about that from 2010 that gives the basics and some links.

This straight-up "paying for a display slot" MIGHT still be the case at stores like Target, I have no idea. But for B&N, it's not the case anymore. This article from 2022 explains how the revamp of B&N includes getting rid of "pay to play" displays:

"Although the chain’s stores carry similar titles, in a shift away from centralized buying, individual managers determine where the books are placed and order quantities. The focus better aligns assortments with local tastes. Mr. Daunt told Publishers Weekly last year his goal is to provide managers with tools and then “get out of the way.”

Co-op title placement practices have also been ended because unpopular titles were receiving prominent placement and driving excessive return rates."

FWIW, Indie bookstores didn't / don't usually do "co-op" in quite the same way -- a single independent bookstore simply doesn't have the money or clout for it to be worth it for a publisher to pay them for title placement. Like, if Grandma Sassy's Olde Bookery orders five copies of a new book, that's huge for them, the publisher doesn't care what Grandma does with her displays, it's not making a dent for Penguin Random House, you know? Much different deal than a chain.

HOWEVER, co-op isn't ONLY about "pay to play" title placement. For example, let's say the publisher has a huge new book they want to promote because it is hotly anticipated and they have nine bajillion copies. They might create a special display out of cardboard (called a "dump") that fits 15 copies of the book -- any bookstore who orders 15+ copies of the book gets this special cool display, and a special discount.

OR, maybe the publisher decides to do a "Summer Reading Special" where they create special paperbacks of 20 different titles that have "buy two get one free" stickers on them -- if a bookstore wants to participate, they will order however-many copies of those books, but they will get a much better discount, both as an incentive to participate and put these titles on display and push them, and to make up for the money they would be losing by giving some of them away.

OR, a bookstore is doing a special event for an author, and they pay for a bunch of special posters to be made -- they might be able to get reimbursed from the publisher for some or all of the money they spent.

Those things are (kinda) the publisher "paying" the bookstore, so they are also technically co-op marketing! But as you can see, it's not quite the same as publishers directly paying a bookstore for a certain title's placement.

Sorry for the length, but hey -- that was a lot of questions!

[rocket-enjoyer]

Judging by your setting's name, I'm assuming this is set somewhat far into the future? Did we (humans) make it?

Oh yes, this is a fantastic question!

The name 6203K actually refers to the boiling point of tungsten (the reasons for that are... difficult to explain for now, I may get into that with a later post)

The setting has a wide range - its history splits off from ours only a few years from now, somewhere in the late 2020s, but it keeps going until the late 2300s. So here is a "short" timeline of important events:

Development of moon bases happens throughout the 21st century, first beginning in the 2030s with Artemis and the chinese space program. (They later fuse together thanks to some international treaties trying to prevent space warfare but that's a story for another time)

Venus and Mars are next. Venus is colonized by Russia/Neo-USSR in a fascinating display of totalitarian idiocy in the 2060s and fascist billionaires follow it up with a similar show for Mars in the 2070s. This is one of the key turning points in the lore and has a large effect on the future of the solar system and how nations in space interact with one another. (Ask me about this later! This is something I have thought through a lot)

The Socialist Venetian People's Republic (SVPR for short) and whatever hypercapitalist slave-trading billionaire's wet dream is going on on Mars both collapse on the very same day in the 2130s. (The collapse of Venus is only heard of a lot later though due to how insanely isolationist they were.) Venus is in total chaos and has a planet-wide civil war for the better part of the next century (Now that I think of it further I think I'm just going to write a masterpost of the history of Venus later, it's fascinating) and Mars's billionaires, after realizing they have killed 80% of the workers they depend on for their money and livelihood, give in to some of the demands of the few left over and form an actual country, join the United Nations and give independence to the asteroid belt and Ceres who form the Asteroid Belt Federation (There's a bunch to talk about with them as well, ask about it later)

In the 2150s there was a new trend among companies and investors promising a new "revolutionary step for humankind" as there sometimes tends to be (currently with AI), this time taking the form of attempting to send probes to other star systems. This quickly faded and was forgotten about. Though perhaps it should not have...

Nobody really knows who originally colonized the Jupiter system or when. The more conspiratorially minded claim it was yet another forgotten OO program (OO are fascinating also. I love them), some say it was the SVPR considering nobody really knows what they were ever doing during their whole existence, most think it was some of the original independent asteroid mining colonies in the Jupiter Trojans. They may genuinely have been colonized by several states at once who simply were not documented. Whatever the case, nobody had really heard from Jupiter until the 2170s with the sudden realization that it had resources everybody wanted more of, mainly volatiles. As several space states sent colonizers there, they discovered that Callisto and Ganymede were already somewhat populated. With a few more colony constellations ("fleets" as some less autistic scifi writers would call them) sent, this time armed, the situation got a whole lot more interesting. Turns out people sitting on giant dull ships for years on end armed to the teeth tend to get some pretty revolutionary ideas. They all announce their mutual independence as they reach their destination and so the Jovian Moons' Republic is born. The colonizing states are baffled but understand that this was obvious in hindsight and, since they have not dealt with such a situation before and their military constellations and doctrine are not cut out for this, reluctantly accept JMR's independence.

Hmm, our space telescopes are detecting something odd around Barnard's Star...

The beginning half of the 2200s is pretty devoid of any major singular events. However here are some slower changes:

The Martian Republic (formed after that civil war in the 2130s, remember?) gets more corrupt and deregulated and starts looking more and more like the original colonies first set up there in the 21st century.

JMR gets stronger economically and militarily and becomes the leading power in the solar system. (Unless you count Earth, sort of?)

The many many factions of Venus who still hate each other are starting to do diplomacy rather than simply shooting each other to bits all the time.

Europa and Io are colonized by JMR.

Now, back to the big stuff:

In the 2260s the JMR, at the time led by the populist Jovian Might Party, decides to colonize the Saturn system. Why, you may ask?

...

Anyway, the colony revolts and becomes the Saturnian Demarchy because turns out space travel in the outer system is dreadfully boring and they're too far away for the JMR to really have any reasonable threats on the table.

The JMR reflexively declares war and (after a week or two of politicians yelling at the top commanders of the space force who are desperately trying to explain that this is a bad idea) a pretty hefty fleet of military ships and those same top commanders are sent to Saturn.

They revolt. Of course. However, instead of simply becoming part of the Demarchy, they decide to form their own faction, the Saturnian Militocracy. The name should be enough for you to tell that this is hardly a functioning country and is instead a military attempting to masquerade as one.

The Demarchy and Militocracy are locked in an endless war against each other and it's horrible. But at least the Militocracy made a cool ass helicopter. (Ask about that too)

Barnard's star is periodically dimming. Hmm.

The miners and engineers on Io strike and riot for better conditions at the very beginning of the 2300s. The JMR, whose military is still severely weakened and underexperienced due to the whole Saturn debacle, of course begins a long and painful military campaign to get them back to work by force. Eventua-

Immense aurorae are witnessed around every atmosphered body in the solar system.

Most of the old, young and sick die in under a week. Everybody else gets sudden health issues which get worse and worse until they die.

The great vengeance has been enacted.

Six tremendously bright lights appear at the edge of the Oort cloud, though few are alive to observe the data from the telescopes anymore. Two spacecraft of monumental size screech to a halt from near lightspeed and enter orbits around Neptune.

They search for any signs of humanity. Signals are being sent from somewhere around Io. Perhaps some were protected by Jupiter's magnetic field?

They cannot enter a close orbit around Jupiter. The radiation risks damage to their fleshy insides. They blast Io with what they have until the signals stop.

A new age in the solar system has begun.

[graylinesspam]

Dancing was an inalienable part of Shili's culture. Dancing was a focal point in all celebrations and ceremonies. It was a tool of social bonding.

Most infants learned to "dance" somewhere between crawling and walking.

But the wider galaxy didn't have the same views of it that the Togruta did.

For whatever reasons humans or near humans who had the audacity to shake their butts or display their bodies were seen as obscene. The farther from human you were the more you could get away with it but for species that were seen as sexually desirable there was a veil of sexuality draped over their cultures.

One that they'd been unable to remove.

So most Togruta, at least the free ones, refused to dance in public spaces or in front of certain demographics.

Any dancing that Ahsoka had participated in was either on Shili or in the company of other younglings who's cultures also had an emphasis on dancing.

So far she'd attended dancing festivals on her home planet almost every year. And several socials in the creche organized by other younglings. Even traded dance moves with other cultures like the MonCala or the Wookies.

That was before the war.

Because now Ahsoka was surrounded by nothing but human men. And human men were single demographic that no Togruta would casually dance in front of.

Wether her men were respectful or not it was just something that was totally ingrained into the culture of the galaxy. She'd personally seen several pinup posters of women with Lekku dressed in chiffon dancers outfits in several places across the GAR's facilities. She and her reputation alone couldn't wipe away centuries of sexualization.

So she abstained.

Ahsoka spent her time training and fighting. There wasn't a whole lot of time outside of the war, and whatever 'bonding' she did with her troops happened around the fires at night. With drinks and rehydrated rations in hand.

And she found that physical harmony in the little interactions instead. The way her troops moved in synch with her in training. The way they responded to her hand signals.

The way Obi-wan moved with her through morning katas.

The way Anakin poked, prodded, and elbowed her into familiar arguments. His hand darting out to annoy her and her instinctual dodge.

Each little gesture left her with a personal thrill, a feeling of fulfillment.

She tried not to linger too much on the feeling of longing that always accompanied the urge to dance. Contenting herself with little skips and head bops and jazz hands to work the urge to dance our of her system.

Sometimes unable to hold back the jittery body wiggles that overwhelmed her during times of celebration.

Some time into the war she was surprised to discover that the clones also had a ceremony that required dancing. Well, if you could call it that.

When Ahsoka thought of dancing she thought of swaying hips and light feet, of moving with the rhythm. What the clones were doing was closer to stomping.

Their boots slamming to the ground in unison, their hands slapping against the plates if their armor. The only beat was the one they created with the percussion of their bodies.

One step foreward, boots slamming to the ground. Fist colliding with their chest plates. Open palms slapping their upper arms. Deep-chested bellows accompany the cacophony.

To Ahsoka dancing had always felt like an invitation. A moment of vulnerability. And open hand.

This was the polar opposite. This was a warning, a threat. A show of power. A closed fist.

The hanger rang with the sound of them. Their bodies spread to take up as much room as possible. Their faces pulled down into snarls, tongues hanging from their open mouths. Plastoid knocking against itself.

But she could see it, in the lines of their formation. In the unity if their voices. The collective threat of them. This was their camaraderie. The sense of community that she'd craved.

It was strange to her but it was theirs and she had to respect that.

Battlefront to battlefront, she stood aside as they went through the routine. The ground shaking underneath her as she rocked on the balls of her feet. Battling with that familiar longing.

"Your face wouldn't scare a tooka." Jesse joked. Tup wadded up a wrapper and flicked it right into Jesse's face.

"Ladies, your all very intimidating," Echo said pushing against Jesse's shoulder in reprimand as he sat down beside the fire.

Ahsoka scoffs at the comment, foot hitting Echos ankle.

"Sorry commander, I know plenty of ladies of ladies that are intimidating." Echo apologized.

"You don't even know plenty of ladies." she snarked back.

"Ooooo" the others courused.

"Your right. I don't know any intimidating ladies, at all." he returned with a exaggerated sniff.

"whatever, I don't need you to tell me I'm intimidating."

"Maybe with that force stuff, sure, but you're kinda....small." Fives offered.

Ahsoka growled at him, her lip curling just slightly.

In return Five's mouth dropped open his tongue stretching far out of his mouth, eyes bulging.

Ahsoka's snarl deepened. Her fangs bared at him.

"Alright, you're plenty scary Commander." Rex interjected before this pissing contest could get out of control.

"Sure could have an intimidating haka face with fangs like those." Echo mused and several men agreed.

Ahsoka cocked her head, surprised, most sentiments didn't like seeing a Togruta's fangs. They found it rude.

Ahsoka curled her lips back letting her fangs glint in the fire light.

"With more tongue." Jesse urged.

She let if fall out of her mouth and down her chin like they did, tip pointed.

"And growl." Fives demanded.

Ahsoka's nose flared as her chest rattled with a growl.

"That's it. Definitely puts the shinys to shame. A few more lessons and you'll be ready for the Haka." Fives congratulated.

It might not have been exactly what she'd imagined but that was how Ahsoka found the harmony she craved with her troops, at the front of the formation her hands pounding against her chest. Their voices shake the air as their feet rattle the ground.

Ahsoka was more than an open hand. And maybe she needed to be. In a galaxy like this a closed fist found themselves in better company.

[niqhtlord01]

Humans are weird: Mandate of Heaven  

( Please come see me on my new patreon and support me for early access to stories and personal story requests :D https://www.patreon.com/NiqhtLord Every bit helps) The doors to the senate chamber slowly opened and the bustle of discussion gave way to the slow groaning of ancient doors. From the opening strode a small procession of figures making a calm pace to the center of the hall of government.

On the exterior of the group stood the Senate Guard; elite warriors handpicked for their loyalty to the Terran Ascendency and willingness to sacrifice themselves for any of the officials within the confines of the senate building. Each wore elaborate emerald armor capable of shrugging off a direct hit from a tank and had a variety of weapons mounted inside their gauntlets ready to be unleashed on a moment’s notice. They formed a defensive circle around the guests of honor; two ambassadors from the League of United Worlds.

Each stood easily two feet taller than the guards surrounding them. Their crimson skin standing in sharp contrast to their yellow robes interlaced with gems of an unknown quality. Compared to the gathered human senators they appeared vastly overdressed for such a meeting, but the human senators knew all too well the Jabens liked to show off their superiority and wealth.

As the procession reached the center of the chamber a human senator broke away from the group they were in to greet the aliens.

“Welcome.” Senator Marvin began as he gave a marginal bow towards the ambassadors. “It is an honor to host you once more within these hallowed walls.”

Traditionally speakers were meant to fully bow to Jabens, but in true human fashion Senator Marvin refused to grovel before any alien no matter how important they may seem. If this annoyed the Jabens they were clever enough not to openly show it.

The lead ambassador nodded a greeting in return as they came to a halt and the surrounding guards dispersed themselves.

“It gives me many pleasantries to see you again, senator.”

Ambassador Ju’nuk watched the human Marvin’s expression twitch for a moment at his improper word choice. He was well versed in several terran languages, yet he knew that coming off as incompetent to such things would give him a small advantage over his diplomatic rival. With terran’s, or humans as they sometimes called themselves, one could always use an extra card up your sleeve.

“To what do we owe this visit?”

With a nod from Ju’nuk, the second Jaben reached into his robe and pulled out a large scroll. With a dramatic unrolling it was revealed to be a holographic display.

“Respected members of the Terran Senate,” Ju’nuk began as he raised his voice to fill the entire chamber, “I stand before you today with tidings of great joy; for we are here to offer you membership into the League of United Worlds!”

The previous discussions died down immediately at this announcement as every senator turned their gaze towards Ju’nuk.

As far as galactic powers went, the LUW was one of the strongest governing bodies in the sector. IT comprised of over 150 different species and countless star systems ensuring its economic and military power ensuring security and stability for all its members. To be invited was not just a rarity, it was almost unheard of.

To become a member of the LUW a galactic power needed to meet certain criteria’s. Technological state, societal advancements, military strength, economic stability; all these factors were taken into account and must meet the strict requirements by the LUW or else the application would be rejected. No member had ever been invited into the governing system, until now it seemed.

A notion Senator Marvin was all too weary of.

“Ambassador, you do us a great kindness with this boon you have laid at our feet.” Senator Marvin began as he eyed several senators all but drooling at the prospect. Being part of the League would also open the Terran Ascendancy to entire new markets for trade and less tariff fees to be paid. “We will begin acquiring the standard information needed for-“

“That will not be necessary.” Ju’nuk cut in. “We have already gathered the data we need and have found it meets the desired requirements save for one.”

Every senator in the chamber listened with baited breath. Ju’nuk had them wrapped around his finger in suspense and internally gleeful with what came next. He eyed the lone golden chair at the center of the senate chamber before turning back to address the gathered senate.

“In order for the Terran Ascendancy to join, you must first abolish the position of Overlord and become a true democratic nation.”

 No one made a sound at this. It was not unexpected but Ju’nuk had counted on a few voices of support for the proposal. He pointed towards the lone golden chair and made his sales pitch.

“The idea of a single ruler holding near unlimited power in this age is a factor many within the League would consider childish, if not naïve in the extreme. Overlord Alix Kartov must relinquish his position, by his own will or by your decree, before integration can begin.”

“Childish, you say?”

The new voice was one every senator in the room knew by heart and their eyes went wide in fear as they turned from the alien ambassadors back to the front entrance to see a new figure standing in the doorway.

Overlord Alix Kartox gave the senators a disarming grin as he strode into the chamber. He wore a simple robe of pure white with gold trim along the edges, the ceremonial gown of the one bearing the title of Overlord when present in the senate chambers. He was escorted by but a single guard who clung to the Overlord’ shadow with every step; eyes as red as blood scanning the crowd for the smallest inclination of danger and was ready to react within a fraction of a second.

It was said that Alix had defeated the Damascus War Bots during the final days of the Sand Wars and had reprogrammed it himself to be his eternal protector. None knew if it was true, but what was true was that no hand had every touched the Overlord since then that he did not allow.

 Senator Marvin side stepped around the ambassadors and bowed deeply towards Alix as he approached; far lowered than he had given the respective delegates.

“My overlord,” he stammered as his head was kept bowed, “we did not know you would grace us this day.”

Alix smirked as he stopped in front of the senator and the loud footsteps of his mechanical guardian followed suit.

“I would recommend you get better spies then.” Alix spoke as if it was a gest and drew a rousing laughter from the other senators.

He looked passed the bowed senator towards the two ambassadors and held out his hand.

“May I?” he asked.

The ambassador holding the scroll did not hand the document over.

With a loud gush of air the Damascus War bot fixated on the ambassador. “Relinquish the document to Overlord.” It spoke with a voice that would make demons quake. “Repetition of command will result in disciplinary action.”

The unnamed ambassador looked back at Ju’nuk for direction and received a nod of approval. They then stepped forward and placed the scroll into Alix’s waiting hand.

“Thank you.” The Overlord said without sincerity before opening the scroll and quickly reading the document. It was written in a mixture of Jaben and English but it was all the same to the Overlord.

“I must congratulate you on the audaciousness of your coming here today.” The Overlord spoke with a grin as he closed the document and faced the ambassadors.

“We came with only truths.” Ju’nuk countered.

“And therein lays the monumental hubris I though was only found in children’s stories.” The Overlord laughed.

Several senators began to look nervous, some even going so far as to edge themselves closer to the exits. Marvin was not as lucky as his path was blocked by the overlord and his mechanical death machine.

“If I may-“ Marvin began before a heavy footfall of the War Bot crashed down just inches from him.

“No one may interrupt the Overlord.” It spoke; red eyes glaring down at the still bowing senator.

With the commotion dealt with the Overlord turn his attention back to the alien ambassadors.

“Did none of you consider the framing of this invitation?” he asked of Ju’nuk.

“What do you mean?” The question merely made the Overlord grin wider.  

“Tsk, tsk, tsk.” Alix shook his finger. “It would be best to save the games for when your life is not on the line.”

The brazen threat was not even hidden with innuendo or conjecture, but stated as fact.

“What do you think the Terran people would do if they saw the senate voting to oust their Overlord in favor of joining an alien collective?” Alix asked with honesty.

“They would see it as the next step towards true betterment.” The still yet unnamed ambassador spoke up.

This angered Alix who shot him a glaring look.

“The next time you speak it will be your last.” He replied calmly before turning his attention back to Ju’nuk.

“They would most likely see it as a scheme set forth by the senate as a means to achieve greater personal wealth and power.” Ju’nuk replied. “Gradual resentment would give way to open displays of disturbing the peace across one if not multiple worlds within the Terran Ascendancy.” Ju’nuk continued, “Which is why we would ask you to step down yourself and prevent such an outcome.”

Several senators gasped at the blatant admission of a political plot to trigger a civil war. The Overlord smiled and began pacing around the ambassadors.

“Go on then,” he said as he watched them, “make your case as to why I should relinquish my power.”

This was not what Ju’nuk had planned. He had expected to deliver the proposal to the Senate and then be back at the embassy. Nevertheless he rallied himself and began his case.

“From your own histories the fate of civilizations ruled through tyranny all result the same. Degradation of freedoms, restrictions to free speech and thinking, distortion of facts in favor of propaganda and the moral decay of society as it becomes warped by loyalty and corruption.”

Alix said nothing but nodded in agreement with the points so Ju’nuk continued.

“Eventually the civilization reached a critical point when the general population would rise up and forcefully remove their tyrant to be replaced with a body of elected officials.”

“I see you have studied our histories, yet I still see no point made for my retirement.” Alix remarked as he stopped in front of Ju’nuk.

The human Overlord had to tilt their head up to look at the ambassador yet it felt like he was the one being looked down on.

“It would be wise to save your people the strife of your final desperate struggles to hold on to power. Do what is best for your people and allow them to move forward.”

“You seem to have left out a critical point from our history.” Alix cut in. “What came before the rule of these tyrants of old?”

Ju’nuk said nothing. He had realized too quickly his mistake.

“Tyranny is the response to the desperate people rising up against a corrupt system. People who feel betrayed at every turn by those they chose to lead them and flock to one not associated with the current order who will guide them to a new golden age.”

“Before it is brought low by more corruption, “Ju’nuk interrupted, “corruption you now bring in with every move you make to secure your power.”

The war bot took a heavy step forward but the Overlord held up a hand to forestall it.

“If my death is to come this day then I shall meet it with eyes wide open,” Ju’nuk spoke as he faced down the Overlord, “but what I offer you today is no deception, no grand scheme to undermine humanity, nor a ploy to make your people slaves.”

The alien ambassador pointed to the document the Overlord still held in his hand.

“We offer you a chance to break free from this cycle and find a new path. Why must you carry the weight of history into the stars of your new age?”

Alix said nothing.

The chamber stood on the edge of the abyss as all waited for the Overlord’s response as the alien ambassadors stood their ground in the face of the terrifying war bot.

“The weight of history.” The Overlord repeated softly with a grin. “I like that; it’s very poetic.”

With a wave of his hand the war bot stood down and Alix handed the scroll back to Senator Marvin who took it quickly.

“Perhaps it is time for humanity to change the game, begin a true new beginning.”

He looked back at the ambassador who was now visibly more relaxed with his imminent demise no longer hanging over him then.

“Let’s get down to the technicalities and see where it goes.”

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.4.2 Won’t social struggle do more harm than good?

It is often argued that social struggle, resisting the powerful and the wealthy, will just do more harm than good. Employers often use this approach in anti-union propaganda, for example, arguing that creating a union will force the company to close and move to less “militant” areas.

There is some truth in this. Yes, social struggle can lead to bosses moving to more compliant workforces — but this also happens in periods lacking social struggle too! If we look at the down-sizing mania that gripped the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s, we see companies firing tens of thousands of people during a period when unions were weak, workers scared about losing their jobs and class struggle basically becoming mostly informal, atomised and “underground.” Moreover, this argument actually indicates the need for anarchism. It is a damning indictment of any social system that it requires people to kow-tow to their masters otherwise they will suffer economic hardship. It boils down to the argument “do what you are told, otherwise you will regret it.” Any system based on that maxim is an affront to human dignity!

It would, in a similar fashion, be easy to “prove” that slave rebellions are against the long term interests of the slaves. After all, by rebelling the slaves will face the anger of their masters. Only by submitting without question can they avoid this fate and, perhaps, be rewarded by better conditions. Of course, the evil of slavery would continue but by submitting to it they can ensure their life can become better. Needless to say, any thinking and feeling person would quickly dismiss this reasoning as missing the point and being little more than apologetics for an evil social system that treated human beings as things. The same can be said for the argument that social struggles within capitalism do more harm than good. It betrays a slave mentality unfitting for human beings (although fitting for those who desire to live of the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).

Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points.

Firstly, by resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or even improved. If the boss knows that their decisions will be resisted they may be less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer hours and so on. If, on the other hand, they know that their employees will agree to anything then there is every reason to expect them to impose all kinds of oppressions, just as a state will impose draconian laws if it knows that it can get away with it. History is full of examples of non-resistance producing greater evils in the long term and of resistance producing numerous important reforms and improvements (such as higher wages, shorter hours, the right to vote for working class people and women, freedom of speech, the end of slavery, trade union rights and so on).

So social struggle has been proven time and time again to gain successful reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement of 1886 in America most companies argued they could not introduce that reform without doing bust. However, after displaying a militant mood and conducting an extensive strike campaign, hundreds of thousands of workers discovered that their bosses had been lying and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of the labour movement shows what bosses say they can afford and the reforms workers can get via struggle are somewhat at odds. Given the asymmetry of information between workers and bosses, this is unsurprising as workers can only guess at what is available and bosses like to keep their actual finances hidden. Even the threat of labour struggle can be enough to gain improvements. For example, Henry Ford’s $5 day is often used as an example of capitalism rewarding good workers. However, this substantial pay increase was largely motivated by the unionisation drive by the Industrial Workers of the World among Ford workers in the summer of 1913. [Harry Braverman, Labour and Monopoly Capitalism, p. 144] More recently, it was the mass non-payment campaign against the poll-tax in Britain during the late 1980s and early 1990s which helped ensure its defeat. In the 1990s, France also saw the usefulness of direct action. Two successive prime ministers (Edouard Balladur and Alain Juppe) tried to impose large scale neo-liberal “reform” programmes that swiftly provoked mass demonstrations and general strikes amongst students, workers, farmers and others. Confronted by crippling disruptions, both governments gave in.

Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, the radicalising effect of social struggle can open new doors for those involved, liberate their minds, empower them and create the potential for deep social change. Without resistance to existing forms of authority a free society cannot be created as people adjust themselves to authoritarian structures and accept “what is” as the only possibility. By resisting, people transform and empower themselves as well as transforming society. New possibilities can be seen (possibilities before dismissed as “utopian”) and, via the organisation and action required to win reforms, the framework for these possibilities (i.e. of a new, libertarian, society) created. The transforming and empowering effect of social struggle is expressed well by the Nick DiGaetano, a one-time Wobbly who had joined during the 1912 Lawrence strike and then became a UAW-CIO shop floor militant:

“the workers of my generation from the early days up to now [1958] had what you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a plain, humble, submissive creature into a man. The union made a man out of him … I am not talking about the benefits … I am talking about the working conditions and how they affected the men in the plant … Before they were submissive. Today they are men.” [quoted by David Brody, “Workplace Contractualism in comparative perspective”, pp. 176–205, Helson Lichtenstein and Howell John Harris (eds.), Industrial Democracy in America, p. 204]

Other labour historians note the same radicalising process elsewhere (modern day activists could give more examples!):

“The contest [over wages and conditions] so pervaded social life that the ideology of acquisitive individualism, which explained and justified a society regulated by market mechanisms and propelled by the accumulation of capital, was challenged by an ideology of mutualism, rooted in working-class bondings and struggles … Contests over pennies on or off existing piece rates had ignited controversies over the nature and purpose of the American republic itself.” [David Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labour, p. 171]

This radicalising effect is far more dangerous to authoritarian structures than better pay, more liberal laws and so on as they need submissiveness to work. Little wonder that direct action is usually denounced as pointless or harmful by those in power or their spokespersons for direct action will, taken to its logical conclusion, put them out of a job! Struggle, therefore, holds the possibility of a free society as well as of improvements in the here and now. It also changes the perspectives of those involved, creating new ideas and values to replace the ones of capitalism.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that such arguments do not imply the end of social struggle and working class resistance and organisation, but rather its extension. If, for example, your boss argues that they will move to Mexico if you do not “shut up and put up” then the obvious solution is to make sure the workers in Mexico are also organised! Bakunin argued this basic point over one hundred years ago, and it is still true: “in the long run the relatively tolerable position of workers in one country can be maintained only on condition that it be more or less the same in other countries.” The “conditions of labour cannot get worse or better in any particular industry without immediately affecting the workers in other industries, and that workers of all trades are inter-linked with real and indissoluble ties of solidarity.” Ultimately, “in those countries the workers work longer hours for less pay; and the employers there can sell their products cheaper, successfully competing against conditions where workers working less earn more, and thus force the employers in the latter countries to cut wages and increase the hours of their workers.” [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 306–7] Bakunin’s solution was to organise internationally, to stop this undercutting of conditions by solidarity between workers. As history shows, his argument was correct. Thus it is not social struggle or militancy which perhaps could have negative results, just isolated militancy, struggle which ignores the ties of solidarity required to win, extend and keep reforms and improvements. In other words, our resistance must be as transnational as capitalism is.

The idea that social struggle and working class organisation are harmful was expressed constantly in the 1970s and 80s. With the post-war Keynesian consensus crumbling, the “New Right” argued that trade unions (and strikes) hampered growth and that wealth redistribution (i.e. welfare schemes which returned some of the surplus value workers produced back into our own hands) hindered “wealth creation” (i.e. economic growth). Do not struggle over income, they argued, let the market decide and everyone will be better off.

This argument was dressed up in populist clothes. Thus we find the right-wing guru F.A. von Hayek arguing that, in the case of Britain, the “legalised powers of the unions have become the biggest obstacle to raising the standards of the working class as a whole. They are the chief cause of the unnecessarily big differences between the best- and worse-paid workers.” He maintained that “the elite of the British working class … derive their relative advantages by keeping workers who are worse off from improving their position.” Moreover, he “predict[ed] that the average worker’s income would rise fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, and where the exploitation of workers by monopolistic trade union organisations of specialised workers are effectively outlawed.” [1980s Unemployment and the Unions, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 110]

Now, if von Hayek’s claims were true we could expect that in the aftermath of Thatcher government’s trade union reforms we would have seen: a rise in economic growth (usually considered as the means to improve living standards for workers by the right); that this growth would be more equally distributed; a decrease in the differences between high and low paid workers; a reduction in the percentage of low paid workers as they improved their positions when freed from union “exploitation”; and that wages rise fastest in countries with the highest wage flexibility. Unfortunately for von Hayek, the actual trajectory of the British economy exposed his claims as nonsense.

Looking at each of his claims in turn we discover that rather than “exploit” other workers, trade unions are an essential means to shift income from capital to labour (which is why capital fights labour organisers tooth and nail). And, equally important, labour militancy aids all workers by providing a floor under which wages cannot drop (non-unionised firms have to offer similar programs to prevent unionisation and be able to hire workers) and by maintaining aggregate demand. This positive role of unions in aiding all workers can be seen by comparing Britain before and after Thatcher’s von Hayek inspired trade union and labour market reforms.

There has been a steady fall in growth in the UK since the trade union “reforms”. In the “bad old days” of the 1970s, with its strikes and “militant unions” growth was 2.4% in Britain. It fell to 2% in the 1980s and fell again to 1.2% in the 1990s. A similar pattern of slowing growth as wage flexibility and market reform has increased can be seen in the US economy (it was 4.4% in the 1960s, 3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half of the 1990s). [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, The Age of Insecurity, p. 236] Given that the free-market right proclaims higher economic growth is the only way to make workers better off, growth rates have steadily fallen internationally since the domination of their ideology. Thus growth of output per head in the USA, Europe, Japan and the OECD countries between 1979 to 1990 was lower than in 1973–9, and 1990–2004 lower still. The deregulation, privatisation, anti-union laws and other neo-liberal policies have “failed to bring an increase in the growth rate.” [Andrew Glyn, Capitalism Unleashed, p. 131] What growth spurts there have been were associated with speculative bubbles (in the American economy, dot.com stocks in the late 1990s and housing in the 2000s) which burst with disastrous consequences.

So the rate of “wealth creation” (economic growth) has steadily fallen as unions were “reformed” in line with von Hayek’s ideology (and lower growth means that the living standards of the working class as a whole do not rise as fast as they did under the “exploitation” of the “monopolistic” trade unions).

If we look at the differences between the highest and lowest paid workers, we find that rather than decrease, they have in fact shown “a dramatic widening out of the distribution with the best-workers doing much better” since Thatcher was elected in 1979 [Andrew Glyn and David Miliband (eds.), Paying for Inequality, p. 100] This is important, as average figures can hide how badly those in the bottom (80%!) are doing. In an unequal society, the gains of growth are monopolised by the few and we would expect rising inequality over time alongside average growth. In America inequality has dramatically increased since the 1970s, with income and wealth growth in the 1980s going predominately to the top 20% (and, in fact, mostly to the top 1% of the population). The bottom 80% of the population saw their wealth grow by 1.2% and their income by 23.7% in the 1980s, while for the top 20% the respective figures were 98.2% and 66.3% (the figures for the top 1% were 61.6% and 38.9%, respectively). [Edward N. Wolff, “How the Pie is Sliced”, The American Prospect, no. 22, Summer 1995] There has been a “fanning out of the pay distribution” with the gap between the top 10% of wage-earners increasing compared to those in the middle and bottom 10%. Significantly, in the neo-liberal countries the rise in inequality is “considerably higher” than in European ones. In America, for example, “real wages at the top grew by 27.2% between 1979 and 2003 as compared to 10.2% in the middle” while real wages for the bottom 10% “did not grow at all between 1979 and 2003.” In fact, most of the gains in the top 10% “occurred amongst the top 5%, and two-thirds of it within the top 1%.” Unsurprising, the neo-liberal countries of the UK, USA and New Zealand saw the largest increases in inequality. [Glyn, Op. Cit., pp. 116–8 and p. 168]

Given that inequality has increased, the condition of the average worker must have suffered. For example, Ian Gilmore states that ”[i]n the 1980s, for the first time for fifty years … the poorer half of the population saw its share of total national income shirk.” [Dancing with Dogma, p. 113] According to Noam Chomsky, ”[d]uring the Thatcher decade, the income share of the bottom half of the population fell from one-third to one-fourth” and the between 1979 and 1992, the share of total income of the top 20% grew from 35% to 40% while that of the bottom 20% fell from 10% to 5%. In addition, the number of UK employees with weekly pay below the Council of Europe’s “decency threshold” increased from 28.3% in 1979 to 37% in 1994. [World Orders, Old and New, p. 144 and p. 145] Moreover, ”[b]ack in the early 1960s, the heaviest concentration of incomes fell at 80–90 per cent of the mean .. . But by the early 1990s there had been a dramatic change, with the peak of the distribution falling at just 40–50 per cent of the mean. One-quarter of the population had incomes below half the average by the early 1990s as against 7 per cent in 1977 and 11 per cent in 1961.” [Elliot and Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 235] “Overall,” notes Takis Fotopoulos, “average incomes increased by 36 per cent during this period [1979-1991/2], but 70 per cent of the population had a below average increase in their income.” [Towards an Inclusive Democracy, p. 113]

The reason for this rising inequality is not difficult to determine. When workers organise and strike, they can keep more of what they produce in their own hands. The benefits of productivity growth, therefore, can be spread. With unions weakened, such gains will accumulate in fewer hands and flood upwards. This is precisely what happened. Before (approximately) 1980 and the neo-liberal assault on unions, productivity and wages rose hand-in-hand in America, afterward productivity continued to rise while wages flattened. In fact, the value of the output of an average worker “has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we’re not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising productivity.” Rather than “trickle down” “the lion’s share of economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority.” In short: “The big winners … have been members of a very narrow elite: the top 1 percent or less of the population.” [Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, p. 124, p. 244 and p. 8]

Looking at America, after the Second World War the real income of the typical family (“exploited” by “monopolistic” trade unions) grew by 2.7% per year, with “incomes all through the income distribution grew at about the same rate.” Since 1980 (i.e., after working people were freed from the tyranny of unions), “medium family income has risen only about 0.7 percent a year” Median household income “grew modestly” from 1973 to 2005, the total gain was about 16%. Yet this “modest gain” may “overstate” how well American families were doing, as it was achieved in part through longer working hours. For example, “a gain in family income that occurs because a spouse goes to work isn’t the same thing as a wage increase. In particular it may carry hidden costs that offset some of the gains in money.” This stagnation is, of course, being denied by the right. Yet, as Krugman memorably puts it: “Modern economists debate whether American median income has risen or fallen since the early 1970s. What’s really telling is the fact that we’re even having this debate.” So while the average values may have went up, because of “rising inequality, good performance in overall numbers like GDP hasn’t translated into gains for ordinary workers.” [Op. Cit., p. 55, pp. 126–7, p. 124 and p. 201]

Luckily for American capitalism a poll in 2000 found that 39% of Americans believe they are either in the wealthiest 1% or will be there “soon”! [Glyn, Op. Cit., p. 179] In fact, as we discussed in section B.7.2, social mobility has fallen under neo-liberalism — perhaps unsurprisingly as it is easier to climb a hill than a mountain. This is just as important as the explosion in inequality as the “free-market” right argue that dynamic social mobility makes up for wealth and income inequality. As Krugman notes, Americans “may believe that anyone can succeed through hard work and determination, but the facts say otherwise.” In reality, mobility is “highest in the Scandinavian countries, and most results suggest that mobility is lower in the United States than it is in France, Canada, and maybe even in Britain. Not only don’t Americans have equal opportunity, opportunity is less equal here than elsewhere in the West.” Without the blinkers of free market capitalist ideology this should be unsurprising: “A society with highly unequal results is, more or less inevitably, a society with highly unequal opportunity, too.” [Op. Cit., p. 247 and p. 249]

Looking at the claim that trade union members gained their “relative advantage by keeping workers who are worse off from improving their position” it would be fair to ask whether the percentage of workers in low-paid jobs decreased in Britain after the trade union reforms. In fact, the percentage of workers below the Low Pay Unit’s definition of low pay (namely two-thirds of men’s median earnings) increased — from 16.8% in 1984 to 26.2% in 1991 for men, 44.8% to 44.9% for women. For manual workers it rose by 15% to 38.4%, and for women by 7.7% to 80.7% (for non-manual workers the figures were 5.4% rise to 13.7% for men and a 0.5% rise to 36.6%). [Andrew Glyn and David Miliband (eds.), Op. Cit., p.102] If unions were gaining at the expense of the worse off, you would expect a decrease in the number in low pay, not an increase. An OECD study concluded that ”[t]ypically, countries with high rates of collective bargaining and trade unionisation tend to have low incidence of low paid employment.” [OECD Employment Outlook, 1996, p. 94] Within America, we also discover that higher union density is associated with fewer workers earning around the minimum wage and that “right-to-work” states (i.e., those that pass anti-union laws) “tend to have lower wages, lower standard of living, and more workers earning around the minimum wage.” It is hard not to conclude that states “passed laws aimed at making unionisation more difficult would imply that they sought to maintain the monopoly power of employers at the expense of workers.” [Oren M. Levin-Waldman, “The Minimum Wage and Regional Wage Structure: Implications for Income Distribution”, pp. 635–57, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3, p. 639 and p. 655]

As far as von Hayek’s prediction on wage flexibility leading to the “average worker’s income” rising fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, it has been proved totally wrong. Between 1967 and 1971, real wages grew (on average) by 2.95% per year in the UK (nominal wages grew by 8.94%) [P. Armstrong, A. Glyn and J. Harrison, Capitalism Since World War II, p. 272]. In comparison, real household disposable income grew by just 0.5 percent between June 2006 and 2007. Average weekly earnings rose 2.9% between April 2006 and 2007 while inflation rose by 3.6% (Retail Prices Index) and 2.8% (Consumer Prices Index). [Elliot and Atkinson, The Gods That Failed, p. 163] This is part of a general pattern, with UK Real Wages per employee being an average 3.17% per year between 1960 and 1974, falling to 1.8% between 1980 and 1999. In America, the equivalent figures are 2.37% and 1.02%. [Eckhard Hein and Thorsten Schulten, Unemployment, Wages and Collective Bargaining in the European Union, p. 9] Looking at the wider picture, during the early 1970s when strikes and union membership increased, “real wage increases rose steadily to reach over 4% per year” in the West. However, after von Hayek’s anti-union views were imposed, “real wages have grown very slowly.” In anti-union America, the median wage was $13.62 in 2003 compared to $12.36 in 1979 (reckoned in 2003 prices). In Europe and Japan “average wages have done only a little better, having grown around 1% per year.” [Glyn, Op. Cit., p. 5 and p. 116] It gets worse as these are average figures. Given that inequality soared during this period the limited gains of the neo-liberal era were not distributed as evenly as before (in the UK, for example, wage growth was concentrated at the top end of society. [Elliot and Atkinson, Fantasy Island, p. 99]).

Nor can it be said that breaking the unions and lower real wages translated into lower unemployment in the UK as the average unemployment rate between 1996 and 1997 was 7.1% compared to 4.5% between 1975 and 1979 (the year Thatcher took power). The average between 1960 and 1974 was 1.87% compared to 8.7% over the whole Thatcherite period of 1980 to 1999. Perhaps this is not too surprising, given that (capitalist economic theology aside) unemployment “systematically weakens the bargaining power of trade unions.” In short: “Neither on the theoretical nor empirical level can a strictly inverse relation between the real wage rate and the level of unemployment be derived.” [Hein and Schulten, Op. Cit., p. 9, p. 3 and p. 2] As we discussed in section C.1.5 this should come as no surprise to anyone with awareness of the real nature of unemployment and the labour market. So unemployment did not fall after the trade union reforms, quite the reverse: “By the time Blair came to power [in 1997], unemployment in Britain was falling, although it still remained higher than it had been when the [last Labour Government of] Callaghan left office in May 1979.” [Elliot and Atkinson, Age of Insecurity, p. 258] To be fair, von Hayek did argue that falls in unemployment would be “a slow process” but nearly 20 years of far higher unemployment is moving backwards!

So we have a stark contrast between the assertions of the right and the reality their ideology helped create. The reason for this difference is not hard to discover. As economist Paul Krugman correctly argues unions “raise average wages for their membership; they also, indirectly and to a lesser extent, raise wages for similar workers … as nonunionised employers try to diminish the appeal of union drives to their workers . .. unions tend to narrow income gaps among blue-collar workers, by negotiating bigger wage increases for their worse-paid members … And nonunion employers, seeking to forestall union organisers, tend to echo this effect.” He argues that “if there’s a single reason blue-collar workers did so much better in the fifties than they had in the twenties, it was the rise of unions” and that unions “were once an important factor limiting income inequality, both because of their direct effect in raising their members’ wages and because the union pattern of wage settlements … was … reflected in the labour market as a whole.” With the smashing of the unions came rising inequality, with the “sharpest increases in wage inequality in the Western world have taken place in the United States and in Britain, both of which experience sharp declines in union membership.” Unions restrict inequality because “they act as a countervailing force to management.” [Op. Cit., p. 51, p. 49, p. 149 and p. 263]

So under the neo-liberal regime instigated by Thatcher and Reagan the power, influence and size of the unions were reduced considerably and real wage growth fell considerably — which is the exact opposite of von Hayek’s predictions. Flexible wages and weaker unions have harmed the position of all workers (Proudhon: “Contrary to all expectation! It takes an economist not to expect these things” [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 203]). So comparing the claims of von Hayek to what actually happened after trade union “reform” and the reduction of class struggle suggests that claims that social struggle is self-defeating are false (and self-serving, considering it is usually bosses, employer supported parties and economists who make these claims). A lack of social struggle has been correlated with low economic growth and often stagnant (even declining) wages. So while social struggle may make capital flee and other problems, lack of it is no guarantee of prosperity (quite the reverse, if the last quarter of the 20th century is anything to go by). Indeed, a lack of social struggle will make bosses be more likely to cut wages, worsen working conditions and so on — after all, they feel they can get away with it! Which brings home the fact that to make reforms last it is necessary to destroy capitalism.

Of course, no one can know that struggle will make things better. It is a guess; no one can predict the future. Not all struggles are successful and many can be very difficult. If the “military is a role model for the business world” (in the words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations), and it is, then any struggle against it and other concentrations of power may, and often is, difficult and dangerous at times. [quoted by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!, p. 47] But, as Zapata once said, “better to die on your feet than live on your knees!” All we can say is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in terms of its successes and transforming effect on those involved, well worth the potential difficulties it can create. Moreover, without struggle there is little chance of creating a free society, dependent as it is on individuals who refuse to bow to authority and have the ability and desire to govern themselves. In addition, social struggle is always essential, not only to win improvements, but to keep them as well. In order to fully secure improvements you have to abolish capitalism and the state. Not to do so means that any reforms can and will be taken away (and if social struggle does not exist, they will be taken away sooner rather than later). Ultimately, most anarchists would argue that social struggle is not an option — we either do it or we put up with the all the petty (and not so petty) impositions of authority. If we do not say “no” then the powers that be will walk all over us.

As the history of neo-liberalism shows, a lack of social struggle is fully compatible with worsening conditions. Ultimately, if you want to be treated as a human being you have to stand up for your dignity — and that means thinking and rebelling. As Bakunin argued in God and the State, human freedom and development is based on these. Without rebellion, without social struggle, humanity would stagnate beneath authority forever and never be in a position to be free. So anarchists agree wholeheartedly with the Abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. “This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” [The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, vol. 2, p. 437]

Of course, being utterly wrong has not dented von Hayek’s reputation with the right nor stopped him being quoted in arguments in favour of flexibility and free market reforms (what can we expect? The right still quote Milton Friedman whose track-record was equally impressive). Still, why let the actual development of the economies influenced by von Hayek’s ideology get in the way? Perhaps it is fortunate that he once argued that economic theories can “never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case.” [Individualism and Economic Order, p. 73] With such a position all is saved — the obvious problem is that capitalism is still not pure enough and the “reforms” must not only continue but be made deeper... As Kropotkin stressed, “economists who continue to consider economic forces alone … without taking into account the ideology of the State, or the forces that each State necessarily places at the service of the rich … remain completely outside the realities of the economic and social world.” [quoted by Ruth Kinna, “Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change”, pp. 67–86, SubStance, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 72–3]

And, needless to say, while three decades of successful capitalist class war goes without mention in polite circles, documenting its results gets you denounced as advocating “class war”! It is more than pass the time when working class people should make that a reality — particularly given the results of not doing so.

[pencil-peach]

G Witch Onscreen Text: Prologue

I'm going to try my best to transcribe all of the (relatively important) text that appears on monitors and screens throughout the show, and talk about what they mean. Because they put WAY too much work into them just for them to be completely ignored. And also because I can.

More Under the Cut awooo awooOOooooOOOooo

TEXT: CONFIRM THRALL >>> LP-03

Not very important, clarifying communication is active between THRALL (Control) and LP-03 (Lfrith Prototype 03)

TEXT: PMET LINK REGRESSION TEST. INTERCONNECT

Device and Program Supporting Selection for Control Test

STATUS: READY

Just a Pre-Test status screen to make clear it's ready for the Permet Link Test

TEXT: GUND FORMAT [DISCONNECT] ERROR PHASE

Here we see the error message that's displayed when the Layer 33 Callback Test fails.

TEXT: PRESS BRIEFING: MS INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OFFICIALS WARN ABOUT GUND FORMAT INTERPLANETRAY NEWS NETWORK

Here we see the news station (INN) reporting on the ongoing investigation by the Mobile Suit Investigation Committee into Ochs Earth and the Gund Format.

TEXT: (Top Left) SPACEFLIGHT OSTEOPENIA

(Bottom Left) MICROGRAVITY MUSCLE ATROPHY

(Top Right) SPACELIFE-ASSOCIATED NEURO-OCULAR SYNDROME

(Bottom Right) EQUILIBRIUM DISTURBANCE

(Middle) IMPAIRED SPATIAL ABILITY

(Bottom) HEALTH THREATS FROM COSMIC RAYS

This is a graph showing the various health risks humans suffer from prolonged exposure to cosmic rays in space, which is one of the issues the GUND Format was originally created to solve.

TEXT: BIOINFO INTERACTION SCORE per Second

DATA STORM OCCURENCE MAXIMUM: 4.89888 BACKFLOW: 187.69

WARNING: DATA STORM could damage GUND linker.

This graph is displayed when the reporter is speaking about the appearance of physical damage to GUND pilots emerging as a problem. It's difficult to tell exactly what this graph means, but I'll give my best deduction:

The graph is measuring the amount of interaction a pilot is currently having with a data storm, measured in seconds. The higher the Interaction Score, the greater a pilots exposure to the data storm. Thresholds of exposure are called "Stages" (as seen in the second image.) Based on the coloring, the higher the current stage of exposure, the more danger a pilot is in.

TEXT: WHAT ISSUE DO YOU WANT POLICY MAKERS TO SPEND TIME DISCUSSING?

(Left)

[Earthian Issue] Yes Poverty Reduction 95% Fair Trade 89% Educational Gap 89% Taxes 85% Employment 83% (Right)

[Spacian Issue] Yes Defense/Security 98% Free Competition 92% Infrastructure 90% Energy 87% Welfare 86%

I actually really really like this graph because of the stark difference between Earthian and Spacian issues. The issue of Gundams and defense doesn't even break the top 5 of what Earthians NEED policy makers to discuss. It's even more depressing when you realize the prologue is set 21 years before the main story, and not only have these problems not been addressed, they've actually gotten worse for the Earthians.

TEXT: HAPPY BIRTHDAY

It's Eri's BIrthday :3

There's zero way to deduce what the text on the whiteboard or the laptop in this picture could mean, but I really love this picture of Cardo and Elnora, so you should just look at it anyway.

TEXT: INSTALLATION COMPLETED C03_DISCONNECT TIMER

What this means is hard to pinpoint exactly, but presumably this person is working for Delling, and has uploaded a file into the main server of Folkvangr that will disconnect it from the network, so that there will be no way for anyone in the institute to call for help once the massacre begins.

TEXT: CONFIRM YOUR INTERNAL PMET SYSTEMS LINKED DEVICE AND PROGRAM FOR SUPPORTING SELECTION FOR CONTROL TEST

Just the screen that appears when Eri is linked to Lfrith. Presumably this screen appears for anyone who links to it.

TEXT: NO SIGNAL Code: CO4 CONNECTION IS LOST.

The Disconnect Timer we saw installed onto the Folkvangr server has just gone off.

TEXT: GUND FORMAT INTERCONNECT

ERICHT SAMAYA LAYER 34

The scene where Elnora sees that Ericht has not only gotten a callback from Layer 33, but has gone even further.

What I really like about this scene (and maybe I'm reading too much into it,) but look at the way the text is formatted on the screen. It's distinctly different than how it was when Elnora was trying to get a callback from Layer 33, specifically because, for some reason, it's displaying Eri's name. It didn't display Elnora's name earlier in the episode, and so the only way that makes sense is if, when Eri was talking to Lfrith and introduced herself by name,

It was listening.

(You can even see this during this shot. The display on screen is reacting to her voice)

Bonus: We can't see what the display on Nadim's Lfrith is saying when he goes permet score four cause he's currently having his brains melted out of his skull, but I'm gonna assume it says something along the lines of "You are currently having your brains melted out of your skull."

That's all for the prologue ! This will probably take me a long time to finish. But eh, I'll have fun with it.

Click here to move on to Episode 1! >>

Click here to go to the Masterpost!

[high-mackrels-musings]

Populism and Demagoguery in the Star Wars Prequels

Star Wars has always been a political film, from the beginning the original trilogy was influenced by the political situation of the time, George Lucas has stated that he was influenced by the Vietnam War which was happening at the time. Lucas has stated the following regarding Palpatine in 1981 showing that Lucas was taking influence from some real-world events happening at the time.

he was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy, and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a nice guy.”

Indeed, many who saw the Star Wars prequels when they were first released saw parallels and criticisms against the Bush administration at the time, Lucas himself came out to say the following about that:

"We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction. We didn't think of him as an enemy at that time. We were going after Iran and using him as our surrogate, just as we were doing in Vietnam. … The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable."

As such, one can reason that Lucas always wanted there to be a message against war, against empire building, against autocrats. But there is an underlying message that I think warrants some thinking as I feel it often gets overlooked. That is Lucas’ forewarning against populism and demagoguery as seen in the Star Wars prequels. Lucas forewarning in the prequels is about the fall of democracy, and how easy it is for people to replace a system for promises.

First of all populism itself can have multiple meanings by multiple people, and the term has been in use since at least the 19^(th) century, to avoid squabbling over terms and definitions for the purposes of this piece, I shall use it in its description from the Encyclopedia Britannica that is:

A political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment

But Populism also often comes with the accompaniment and is indeed often conflated with demagoguery, following the definition from Merriam-Webster, a demagogue is a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises to gain power. Both tend to go together and in recent days they have been used together, either way I shall try to examine the Star War’s prequels and how they examine both.

I should also note that I am not a political scientist nor am I a scholar on the subject, so should certain inaccuracies present themselves it is through my own ignorance of the subject.

Using this definition though, we first see the elites in the form of the corporations, the Trade Federation in The Phantom Meance is the elite, a powerful force with a seat in the senate that has successfully blocked Naboo, a mid-rim planet with much less influence than perhaps some core worlds. The Republic is hopeless in ending this through public debate painting it as ineffective, the opening crawl tells us the Supreme Chancellor must secretly dispatch Jedi to hope to resolve the incident.

While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict.

Of course, we the audience know the Sith are secretly pulling the strings to make the republic weaker, slowly weaking key institutions that could have otherwise resolved such incidents.

A populist and indeed a demagogue, will often point to the failings of institutions and systems to show that the will of the people is being ignored. Queen Amidala herself is young, and we often hear of the people of Naboo. Which leads us to our next display of Lucas’ warning against populism, Palpatine’s whispering into the ear of Padme. His influence on her is clear, especially as he rails against the Republic.

The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good. I must be frank, Your Majesty, there is little chance the Senate will act on the invasion.

Key words being used here by Palpatine such as the interest of the common good, and while Padme has faith in Valroum, Palpatine’s words quickly dissolve this trust with this as seen in the scene in the senate chamber:

Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic. And on the payroll of the Trade Federation, I might add. This is where Chancellor Valorum's strength will disappear … Now they will elect a new Chancellor, a strong Chancellor. One who will not let this tragedy continue.

Palpatine himself might have a point, the Republic is stagnant and rife with corruption, but the usage of half-truths, the promises of a stronger leader, and of course he is positioned as the replacement for a new chancellor himself. Lucas shows us the dangers of such leaders who will use real dangers and problems to gain power for themselves.

Of course, the problems of the Republic don’t come to an end because of Palpatine’s rise, by the time of Attack of the Clones the separatist movement has grown to include attempted murder of Padme, who’s first intent is to blame Count Dooku. Dooku himself might be seen as an example of a populist, his desire to reform the Republic was born out of a genuine place of concern, but it is easily manipulated by Palpatine evolving him into something much worse. Lucas foreshadows the dangers of political ideologies with populism by showing us how populists and demagogues might manipulate otherwise good meaning people.

Manipulation is something at the forefront of Attack of the Clones, Palpatine certainly has cultivated a sort of cult of personality that often comes with populist leaders as seen by real-life populists. Anakin shows signs of accepting the sort of populist message as well, as seen during the conversation with Padme at the lake. The two discuss democracy and when pressed on his beliefs on the subject answers:

 Padme: You really don't like politicians, do you?   Anakin: I like two or three, but I'm not really sure about one of them. (smiling) I don't think the system works.  Padme: How would you have it work?  Anakin:  We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.   Padme:  That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't wlways agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.   Anakin:  Then they should be made to.   Padme:  By whom? Who's going to make them?   Anakin:  I don't know. Someone.   Padme:  You?   Anakin:  Of course not me.   Padme:  But someone.  Anakin:  Someone wise.   Padme:  That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.  Anakin:  Well, if it works…

The slow acceptance that for change to be made a strong leader must emerge, that only a strong leader can make such changes, we see it with Palpatine’s manipulation of Jar Jar, in the discussion with senators regarding granting the chancellor emergency powers, Jar Jar told that someone brave like Padme would propose such measures is quick to action, his emotions played on just like many populists do. Palpatine of course accepts the powers, with the clear vocal approval of most of the senate, he has gotten this far by manipulating people into giving him even more power now.

When discussing democracy George Lucas had the following to say:

All democracies turn into dictatorships—but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea …

It should come as no surprise then that the third film continues this theme of this erosion of democracy, despite the continuing granting of powers to Palpatine he is still highly respected in the republic, this is further expanded in the novelization where Matthew Stover writes:

Palpatine of Naboo, the most admired man in the galaxy whose unmatched political skills have held the Republic together. Whose personal integrity and courage prove that the Seperatist propaganda of corruption in the senate is nothing but lies … Palpatine is more than respected. He is loved … Without Palpatine, The Republic will fall.

Revenge of the Sith has painted a picture for us of how well-beloved Palpatine is that he is essentially unopposed. Such is his power that only Palpatine can decide when the emergency is over and when he needs to give up the power, leading even the Jedi to worry about the state of the democracy, Ki-Adi to state:

If he does not give up his emergency powers after the destruction of Grievous, then he should be removed from office.

Of course, this is all part of Palpatine’s plans, as Lucas wants to show us the fall of democracies, Palpatine uses the Jedi’s attempt to arrest him to monger fear, he destroys his last opposition and gives a rousing speech to the senate:

In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society, which I assure you will last for 10,000 years. An Empire that will continue to be ruled by this august body and a sovereign ruler chosen for life. An Empire ruled by the majority, ruled by a new constitution.

Palpatine has now successfully stoked the fears of the galaxy and of the senate to grant himself more power than any other being in galactic history. Leading Padme to say the following:

So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.

The people and the government have accepted the stoking of fear by a demagogue and populist.

In a conversation with George Lucas, fellow director James Cameron discussed the aforementioned line about the fall of democracies and how George Lucas had contextualized the fall of democracies in a science fiction setting. Certainly, we see Lucas’ condemnation of populist messages.

I have stated before that the prequels are about greed, as opposed to the failure of the Jedi as is often believed by some. Lucas warns us of Anakin’s greed and of the greed of politicians, and corporations. But his condemnation of populism and the embrace of it by the masses might hint at a deeper greed, a greed for safety, a want to sacrifice liberty and democracy for the sake of safety, as Palpatine was always promising.

We perhaps never see Palpatine as a breathing fire branding populist, nor a conspiracy-laden demagogue, but the signs of a sly and well-spoken politician are something that Lucas wants the audience to be wary of and that is how easily such people may exploit the weaknesses of our democracies.

[allthingseddie]

Hayloft

Inspired by the song Hayloft by Mother Mother.

Note: I do not know a whole lot about the court system. This is written for entertainment so if I got something wrong forgive me lol!!

Warnings: Has mentions of violence and sexual assault.

The news had spread all over Indiana like wildfire. No one could believe the twisted so called love story that was being displayed all over the news, let alone the fact that it came out of a town as small as Hawkins. The media had been all over the case as soon as they caught wind of it. Not only did it involve the town freak (or criminal as others would call him) but it also involved the preacher and his daughter that had moved to town not even a year ago. The media never fully reported on the condition of the criminal, only that he had survived the attack of the preacher.

The preacher was telling everyone that he was merely protecting his daughter. He had walked into his home late at night to hear alarming noises coming from his daughters bedroom. He grabbed his gun and when he opened the door he saw the criminal assaulting his daughter. He did what he thought was best and aimed and fired. He was an intruder in his home. He gave him the warning to get out of his house, but he said that it was out of pure fatherly instinct that he had fired the gun at the criminal. It wouldn’t have been as interesting of a case if the preachers daughter didn’t spin a different tale from her own father.

Everyone was enthralled in the fact that the young girl of only 19 years old was testifying against her father in defense of the criminal. What could possibly make someone so young so stupid. The town was divided. Some say that her acts could only be out of pure love. There would be no other reason why she should go against her own father. Others were convinced that the criminal had turned her away from God. He himself was rumored of taking part in satanic rituals. The media would only report on certain parts of the trail after talking to each respective lawyer. The trial itself wasn’t even being televised, yet everyone thought that they knew the whole story. They all took sides and either rallied against the preacher or the criminal.

Today was a special day in the trial. Today would be the day that they would finish up their questioning and make their closing arguments. The jury would then be left to their verdict of who they saw was at fault. Everyone was on edge, especially those personally involved in the case. The criminal had family and friends rallied for him in the audience. The preacher had some of his supporters from his church sat on his side of the courtroom. There were glares being traded from each sides support team.

————————————————————————

“Mr. Adams, can you please tell the people of the jury what you saw when you walked into your daughters bedroom the night of June 10th?” His lawyer questioned.

“I saw that monster on top of my daughter sexually assaulting her,” He replied, pointing to Eddie Munson, who sat across the courtroom looking worse for wear. There were gasps and murmurs in the audience of the courtroom and people started staring at Eddie to see his reaction to the statement. He was clearly still weak from the attack from Mr. Adams and the surgery that followed. Getting shot in the chest can have that effect on a person.

“Was your daughter showing sings of discomfort when you found her with Mr. Munson?” His lawyer continued. Mr. Adams was quiet for a moment before he responded.

“She was making sounds as if she were in pain,” He responded, his eyes not leaving Eddie while he answered.

“What happened next Mr. Adams?”

“I warned him once, and when he didn’t listen, I protected my family.”

“That was when you fired the gun?”

“Yes, it was. I did it for the protection of my only child.”

“How did your daughter react to this?”

“She was crying. Probably from the trauma she had just experienced.”

“Objection your honor, speculation” Eddie’s lawyer piped up.

“Sustained.” The judge responded.

“No further questions your honor,” Mr. Adams lawyer responded. It was then time for everyone’s favorite part of the day. The part where Mr. Adams daughter would take the stand to tell her side of the story. She sat down in the stand after taking her oath to tell the truth and Eddie’s lawyer made his way over to talk to her.

“Good morning Ms. Adams. Can you please tell me the events that led up to your father shooting Mr. Munson.”

“I was at home by myself and I called Eddie and asked him if he wanted to come over. We have been seeing each other for a few months now.” She said looking over at her father ,” I took him into my bedroom and we had consensual sex. Then my dad got home, busted into my room and shot Eddie when he saw him. I started crying and I called 911. Now we’re here.”

“At any time, did your father say anything to Mr. Munson to indicate that he was going to use his firearm if he did not leave his home?”

“No he did not. He opened the door, Eddie and I jumped apart from the sudden intrusion and he shot Eddie in the chest.”

“Was there any indication that your father could have had to think that you might be under attack?”

“Only if he’s never heard a girl moan before, which doesn’t seem unreasonable”

“Let’s try to stay on topic, shall we folks,” The judge intervened.

“Ms. Adams, was there ever a time where you were in Mr. Munson’s presence where you felt threatened or worried for your safety?”

“Not a single time.”

“Did you ever get the impression from Mr. Munson that he would harm you in any way?”

“No.”

“Have there been any times where you felt threatened or in danger from your father?”

“Yes. When he found out I was friends with Eddie.”

“Has your father ever shown any malice towards Mr. Munson?”

“Yes he has.”

“Is your father a violent man?”

“Yes. He is.” Whispers could be heard in the courtroom. No one could believe that the new preacher in town could be violent. He did fire a gun and admit to it, but it was for good reason, right?

“No further questions” It was now Mr. Adams lawyers turn to interrogate his clients daughter.

“Ms. Adams, you say your father is a violent man. Why would you continue to live with someone dangerous after you’re a legal adult yourself? You could have easily moved out.”

“My father wouldn’t let me.”

“How could he stop you?”

“He won’t let me get a job. He says it’s a woman’s job to cook, clean and raise children. I can’t support myself if I don’t have a job, therefore I can’t afford to move out.”

“So you’re still currently living in the same house as a dangerous man?”

“I am actually in the process of moving my things to a friends house.”

“You said your father had shown previous distrust towards Mr. Munson. Why is that?”

“My father is a hypocrite. He preaches about loving thy neighbor yet he judges people harshly before getting to know them. That’s what he did with Eddie. He thought he was a delinquent just because of his looks and where he lives. He also believes rumors that are spread without fact checking them.”

“Surely he had a right when there is some truth in some of the rumors that are spread. Mr. Munson has been to juvenile detention and has gotten citations. I wouldn’t be too happy either if my only daughter was hanging out with a known criminal.”

“People make mistakes. Mistakes that can be forgiven if you put in the effort to prove that you are righting your wrongs. Shooting people in the chest isn’t a mistake.”

“Your father stated he wanted to protect you. That you were his only child. If he thought he was protecting his only child from someone he assumed was a criminal, couldn’t that be seen as forgivable?”

“Not to me.”

“Isn’t that a little harsh? He is your father. The man who raised you. Shouldn’t you feel some empathy towards him?”

“The only person I feel any empathy for in this situation is the only man I love. Which is not my father.”

“I do not have any further questions for Ms. Adams your honor. I would like to call Mr. Munson himself to the stand.” Ms. Adams joined Eddie’s uncle Wayne in the row of seats behind Eddie’s seat. Eddie himself then got up and made his way to the hot seat, using a cane to do so as he was still injured. The courtroom was completely silent as he moved and made his took the oath to speak the truth. He sat down and Mr. Adams’ lawyer wasted no time jumping down his throat.

“Mr. Munson, had you ever had the impression before that you were not welcome in Mr. Adams house?”

“From him, yes,” Eddie replied matter-o-factly.

“Why, then, would you return to it?”

“I was invited over by my girlfriend.”

“Did you have any reservations in coming to the house?”

“I did.”

“And yet you still came over when you knew you weren’t welcome by the houses rightful owner?”

“Again, I was invited over.”

“Mr. Munson, how long have you known Ms. Adams?”

“Around 8 months.”

“Did you know that Mr. Adams did not approve of you and his daughter associating with each other at any point during the time you’ve known her?”

“I did get that impression from him.”

“So you went against his wishes?”

“Seeing as Ms. Adams is an adult, I assumed that she could make her own decisions about who she keeps in her company.”

“Why not invite Ms. Adams to your house instead?”

“My uncle works 3rd shift and sleeps during the day. I didn’t want to disturb him.”

The snide lawyer had no more questions for Mr. Munson. It was then time for his own lawyer to ask him about the attack he had endured.

“Mr. Munson, did Ms. Adams at any time tell you that your sexual advances were not wanted or welcomed?”

“No she did not.”

“Who initiated the act?”

“Ms. Adams did.”

“When Mr. Adams entered the bedroom, what was his body language like?”

“He came into the room holding his gun and immediately pointed it at me. I would say his body language was intimidating and violent.”

“Have you ever felt threatened by Mr. Adams before the day of the attack?”

“Yes I did. He had told me to stay away from his daughter when he found out we were in a relationship.”

“Why did you continue the relationship if he had threatened you?”

“Because Ms. Adams and I are in love. I couldn’t imagine being away from her.”

“Was Mr. Adams aware of the feelings you and his daughter shared?”

“Yes, she told him. She tried to introduce us and he was not happy.”

“How do you know that he was not happy with the prospect of you and his daughter together?”

“He told me that I was a no good low life who didn’t deserve his daughter and that I would corrupt her.”

After questioning was over, both lawyers made their closing statements for their clients. Mr. Adams side talked about how Eddie was unwelcome in his house and he had made that clear yet still didn’t respect his wishes. They also talked about the fact that Mr. Adams was under the impression that his daughter was being attacked and he had to protect her. Mr Munson side talked about how the two were in a relationship and were both consenting adults. They talked about that fact the the couple had disclosed their relationship to Mr. Adams prior to June 10th when this all went down. They also discussed the extent of Mr. Munsons injuries and what he had to endure to even be in the courtroom when he did.

The jury exited the courtroom to deliberate what they had heard and come to a unanimous decision. While this happened, both clients were able to talk with their friends and family.

“Steve, I just want to thank you again for helping me get a lawyer to defend me. I couldn’t have done it without you,” Eddie exclaimed to his friend. He sat next to his girlfriend during the recess and held her hand.

“Hey man, don’t even worry about it. You’re innocent and my dads friend owed us a favor so I cashed in on it. I would do it again,” Steve replied.

“I really couldn’t have done this without any of you. I know they haven’t reached a verdict yet but I appreciate all of the words all of you guys spoke for me during your testimonies. I definitely have a better chance at winning this thing with you guys behind me,” Eddie replied to all of his friends and his uncle. He especially meant the sentiment towards his girlfriend who was testifying against her own father on his behalf. She rested her head on his shoulder in a quiet understanding.

It felt like forever before the jury had finally come back out and said they had reached a verdict. Everyone took their places back in the courtroom. There was tension in the air as one of the jurors stepped forward to make the announcement of their decision. Eddie held his breath as nerves washed over him. He knew that most people already thought he was a criminal just from the fact that he was his fathers son. They would have no trouble believing that he would be following in his fathers footsteps. He felt queasy at the thought as he patiently awaited for his fate from a stranger.

“The jury finds Mr. Adams guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also finds Mr. Munson not guilty of sexual assault,” The juror announced. Relief washed over Eddie and he felt like he could breath comfortably for the first time in weeks. After all was said and done, Mr. Adams was sentenced to 10 years in prison and received a $5000 fine. Eddie walked out of the courtroom with his girlfriend on his arm and his lawyer helping him avoid the reporters standing outside waiting for any chance they could to get the latest piece of gossip from him. He made his way home and he and his friends and family celebrated the justice that was served to Mr. Adams. For once he didn’t feel viewed as a criminal.