#and I assume taken directly from the indictment

[j-august]

The wife of Gilbert Wright, Master of the Salters' Company in 1624, frequently consulted cunning men in order to find out whether she would outlive her husband, and there is some evidence to suggest that this was a common type of inquiry. In many cases it seems that the wish was father to the thought, and that the question directly reflected the tensions of an unhappy marriage. Thus when Dr Suckling's wife visited Mary Woods, the Norwich palmist, in 1613, to find out when her husband would die, she followed up her inquiry by offering the wise woman money if she would poison him.

Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trump is a loser. Tell a friend.

January 11, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Readers frequently comment on my newsletters by writing, “You used word X; you should have used word Y.” Sometimes the comments are well-taken, but much of the time, my (silent) reaction is, “We aren’t going to change the course of history through vocabulary.” But Trump's effort to return to power may be the exception.

Trump is a loser. A spectacular one. He is the living embodiment of the punchline to the joke, “How do you make a small fortune in New York real estate?” Answer: “Start out with a large one.” His companies have been through half-a-dozen bankruptcies. The failure of his Taj Mahal Casino helped turn Atlantic City into a “ghost town.” He is such an unreliable credit risk that American banks stopped dealing with him in the 1990s.

Trump is a loser. He is the only president ever to be impeached twice. He is the only major presidential candidate to lose the popular vote twice. He is the only major presidential candidate to be indicted once—let alone four times. He is the first president in nearly a century to lose the House, the Senate, and re-election. He is the only major presidential candidate who has been adjudged (in a civil case) to have raped a woman.

Trump is a loser. When he traveled internationally as president, foreign leaders laughed at him behind his back. When he addressed the UN Assembly, world leaders laughed at him to his face. He has made some of the most ignorant comments ever by a US president, suggesting that Covid victims “inject bleach” and that they “shine a light inside their bodies.” And during an eclipse visible from Washington, D.C., Trump did the one thing that observers of eclipses are NEVER supposed to do—he removed his protective eye gear to look directly at the sun.

Despite the fact that Trump is a historic loser, he has somehow convinced tens of millions of Americans that he is “a stable genius” who would defeat a combined presidential ticket of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We should not add to Trump's false mythology by unintentionally ascribing stature or influence he does not have.

Two days ago, readers of this newsletter posted a link in the Comment section to an article by Jason Sattler published on the Substack blog, Framelab. The article is entitled, Why Trump wants you to compare him to Hitler | Because then you’re not calling him a loser.

Sattler’s article is brilliant, and I highly recommend it. But in case you don’t get around to reading the article, the gist of Sattler’s argument is that Trump wants us to compare him to Hitler—because that comparison normalizes the notion that Trump will regain power as an autocratic strongman.

Sattler writes:

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on authoritarianism, seems to think the Hitler stuff is a trial balloon. Trump is seeking to “dehumanize immigrants now so the public will accept your repression of them when you return to office.” [T]hat thought gets us talking about exactly what Trump wants on our minds — him in power. He’s preemptively framing himself — as a strongman, an agent of revenge, and the ultimate enforcer of unsustainable hierarchies.

Sattler goes further, asserting that we are doing a favor for Trump by calling him Hitler:

When you’re calling Trump a dictator, think about what you’re not calling him. You’re not calling him a loser who never has and never will win the popular vote. A fraud. A traitor. Instead, you’re repeating his slander of immigrants and propping up his stature. You’re doing him a huge favor. Basically, we’re getting fooled again.

There is wisdom in Sattler’s analysis—to a point. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that Trump will succeed in becoming a Hitler-like dictator who will impose martial law on “day one” of his second term in office. If we do that, we make it more likely that Trump will succeed in his effort to be re-elected.

In other words, we should not grant Trump superpowers he does not possess. The man is a loser and a miserable human being who is disliked by almost everyone who has the misfortune of dealing directly with him.

But Trump is not only a small, insecure, petulant loser; he also exercises outsized influence over tens of millions of Americans. It would be foolish to stop talking about the existential danger that Trump presents to our democracy. For example, we know that Trump asked his former Secretary of Defense why federal troops couldn’t “shoot protestors” on the National Mall protesting the murder of George Floyd.

Two things are simultaneously true—and they are not in contradiction: Trump is a loser and he is a dangerous threat to our democracy. We can prevent him from becoming Hitler’s protege by reminding voters that he is a loser who has lost more than any other presidential candidate in history—and that he will lose again in 2024.

Don’t build an aura of inevitable victory around Trump. Instead, build an aura of inevitable defeat around Trump. He is a loser. He has always been a loser. And he will always be a loser.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[defensefilms]

Defense Films Lists His Favorite TV Characters Of All Time

5. Chris Partlow- The Wire

The ending of The Wire paints Chris Partlow as something closer to a serial killer. 

He wasn’t. None of his hits were done out of pleasure, curiosity or even impulse. Every one of those bodies helped the Stanfield organization become what they became, even the one on Michael’s stepdad.

What Chris represents is reliability and capability. The ultimate “get shit done” guy. Out of all the characters on the show, none were more dependable or crucial to the success of the institution they served. 

Lester Freeman was capable but not a good politician and ultimately a nuisance to his superiors. Bill Rawls was incredibly capable at his job but he was power hungry and ambitious. In season 5, Gus Haynes is the most capable man in the news office but the problem was that Gus questioned authority and didn’t “go with the flow” when the office decided the paper needed a “refreshing” of how they cover the local news.

Chris didn’t have any of these handicaps impeding the people he served.

He recruits the foot soldiers for the Stanfield crew, even training them himself and Marlo had something akin to a small army at his disposal as a result. He organized his sub-ordinates, handled all surveillance when Marlo’s crew was under investigation at the start of season 5 and took care of incoming shipments after they established a direct line to the Greeks. 

When the task required finesse or subtlety, like the time he stole Sergey’s picture from the court office, he was more than capable of that too. When Marlo is questioning how to address the murder of one of his dealers, he listens to Chris and chooses to retaliate on the perpetrator directly rather than targeting everyone on his corner. 

Marlo truly comes to rely on Chris in matters concerning Omar Little. Every step of how Marlo wants to get back at the near mythical larcenist, is first passed by Chris. Chris takes this as his number one job throughout the show. Anything concerning Omar is handled with brutal efficiency, tact and an almost out ouf place  sense of professional pride. 

That’s Chris’ most endearing quality. Through all the blood, guts, scheming, lying, betrayal that comprises Baltimore’s underworld, all of which Chris is very much a part of, he has a pride in how he approaches the day to day business aspects of what he does. 

Stringer Bell is arguably the best second-in-command in the show’s run but he was dishonest, ultimately harming the survival of the institution he served and damn near going rogue. 

Chris doesn’t share such qualities as blind ambition or selfishness. He understands that trust is all he has in this game. When the indictments eventually come down and Chris is facing a life sentence he doesn’t complain or even raise the possibility of turning state witness. Instead he ends up on the yard along side Wee-Bay. Marlo in turn makes sure that Chris’ people are taken care of financially.

Many of the men that serve in the various institutions depicted in the show could learn a thing from Chris Partlow. When the time came, he fell on his sword and did so in full acknowledgement that this is where it all leads. There’s a kind of honor in that.

4. Tony Soprano- The Sopranos

One of the biggest misconceptions about The Sopranos was that it was a story about a gangster. It wasn’t, or at the very least, that would be an over-simplification of what the story actually contained.

What it was was a story about a man and his family, both biological and criminal. That’s the tie the binds all of the story’s narratives together.

Another way of looking at Tony’s story is one of leadership. Having ousted his Uncle Junior from the seat of power, season 2 and onwards, as far Tony’s criminal life is concerned, focuses on what happens once you get to the top. 

While the show’s creators gave you plenty of grizzly, violent scenes, what leads to those is the story of a man struggling and failing at leadership. 

In every season, Tony has to deal with a problematic figure, employee or subordinate. 

Season 1 was his Uncle and the idea of old fashioned leadership. Then in season 2 it was the ever-acerbic Richie Aprile, representing a generation older than Tony’s, that still feels entitled to something. Seasons 3 and 4 gave us Ralph Cifaretto, the only one among the men I’m mentioning that actually earns his status and then in season 5, it was his cousin Tony Blundetto.

Each of these problems is uniquely stressful for Tony because of how they pull at the threads of both his family and criminal life. With the exception of his Uncle Junior, he kills all of them.

By that metric, Tony is in fact a very poor leader. 

He doesn’t really deal with the Richie Aprile problem because his sister beats him to it. He doesn’t willingly promote Ralph Cifaretto even though Ralph earns it and is the only one among the candidates with any real intellect and business savvy. In both the cases of Christopher Moltisanti and cousin Tony Blundetto, Tony allows favoritism and nepotism to cloud his judgement and ironically both those men die at Tony Soprano’s hands.

This paints a picture of a tyrannical man, slowly devouring everything around him because he’s got to be in control. Worse yet, his need to be in control doesn’t actually lead to smarter long term decisions or better people management.

Tony’s relationship with Ralph in particular is built on professional envy. He feels entitled to Ralph’s race horse winnings because “why should his subordinate benefit more from anything than he does?”. He then proceeds to take ownership of the racehorse itself without assuming any of the costs of owning the animal. Then to top it off, he steals Ralph’s girlfriend purely because he has the status to do it, even digging in to Ralph’s personal life in order to justify doing so.

Textbook mismanagement. Every type of managerial violation you could imagine.

So how does Tony handle it when an employee is actually being a problem on a criminal/business level?

He rewards Tony Blundetto’s deception after the Joey Peeps killing by letting him run an already profitable gambling joint. He promotes Christopher to “made guy” even with his drug problems being well known, and he promotes Bobby Baccalieri, partly at his sister’s behest and partly out of spite.

 It was fun to watch on screen but you’d hate to work for Tony Soprano.

How does that translate to his family? What kind of leader is Tony at home?

Season 3 does well at examining Tony as a father/paternal figure starting with his relationship with Jackie Jr, which is built on concern at first. Then later it starts to make Tony anxious. Before Tony decides to push nature towards taking it’s course, when Jackie runs afoul of men in Tony’s charge.

His relationship with AJ is also a bigger part of the show as the seasons go and it’s not much better in as far as the leadership or guidance that Tony offers. We can waffle on about AJ’s failings as a spoilt teenager but the real problem is that Tony doesn’t see himself in AJ. 

That’s the first step to any failure of leadership. An inability to find common ground or identify with the people you’re leading.

We won’t go in to how hypocritical it is because the entire way that Tony entered the mob life is because he himself was a mob prince and his father’s status definitely paved the way for him. 

Hypocrisy. That’s the other key to failure in leadership. 

All these negatives added up to make the most fascinating television character in over 20 years. A constant stream of contradictions and watching a man say one thing but do another was it’s own experience and you didn’t realize what a horrible human being you were watching until you saw the show over and over again. A scary observation that implies people are either blind or really comfortable with evil and narcissistic behaviour.

3. Noah Solloway- The Affair

Out of all the characters on this list, this one was hurt most by writers hitting a ceiling in how much they could say about the character or how much they wanted to say.  Divorced men don’t really have that much representation, so if you’re writing a character that so strongly linked to that one particular event in his life, you may hit a ceiling if you don’t actually have real life examples to work with.

They had the right actor, the right story and it was the right time in human history to tell this story, it just felt like they didn’t follow through on really speaking on the plight or rise of guys in Noah’s situation.

Anytime I watched The Affair, and unlike most, I was pretty loyal to it despite what reviews told me, I identified with Noah. All those other characters didn’t make sense to me the way Noah did.

The story begins with my man being stuck in a rut, the kind of middle age funk  married men tend to fall in to, so he drives out to visit some folks and while he’s there he happens to meet a baddie. Story of every man’s life. Only he does what you’re not supposed to do and sacrifices everything he has so he can be with the bad-bad. 

Then my mans starts popping off with his book writing, gets a publishing deal and in his 40′s, he starts achieving his highest career peaks. See this is important because it shows that the writers understood the subject matter really well, as well as the demographic they were talking about.

Then the next season, they go in to some murder mystery plot, Noah ends up in jail somehow, almost as if the writers and producers didn’t feel confident that they could tell Noah’s story without the theatrics/murder mystery element. 

The other danger that the writers probably didn’t want to indulge was rewarding the character with any kind of happy ending or positive outcome. Noah’s infidelity serves as the jumping off point to all of the story’s unfolding plots, mostly depicting the impact on the lives of his immediate family, a handful of which play out in sad dramatic fashion. So the writers likely felt like Noah couldn’t win at the end. 

In the 1930′s when gangster films were first being made, they would commonly feature PSA messages at the start warning against criminal behaviour. 1931′s “Little Caesar” starring Edward G Robinson, features a warning at the end that makes it clear the film’s producers and writers needed the character to go down in flames at the end, to prove the moral point that “crime doesn’t pay”. 

A writer’s moral obligation and the times in which they live can lead some to write the ending that makes a moral point rather than writing the most dramatic or honest ending. I think Noah Solloway kind of suffered from this.

I don’t know. 

There was a chance to explore modern men in a way that most stories fail to. They had the foundation. They knew enough about who and what they’re talking about. However it didn’t manifest in the telling of the story. 

I’m not saying Noah needed a positive ending, it’s just that the one we got was not the most fitting nor did it wind up ending the story honestly or even dramatically.

Noah Solloway should have got the Tony Soprano treatment in as far as how much the writers explored his inner world but instead the show’s creators decided it didn’t matter. They didn’t answer the question of why this happens to modern men.

If nothing else Noah Solloway can be a blueprint or foundation for those telling this story in the future.

 2. Ciro Di Marizio- Gomorrah

About as slimy and as low down as a television character can possibly be. Ciro represents Machiavellian criminality pushed to it’s extremes. 

When writers plot a character’s trajectory, they often fill it with moments that make the character more endearing. Exploring the relationship the character may have with a child, friend or spouse that makes you see the character’s more genuine/compassionate/likeable side. The writers of Gomorrah did plenty of that with Ciro.

However, they didn’t hesitate to show you just how off-the-rails and downright evil Ciro could be. 

What’s funny is that Ciro is defined by loyalty and servitude when the story begins. He is a capable captain and rises to 2nd in command when the Savastano family needs him to. However the death of his close friend and mentor changes him for the worse and he goes ham. 

What follows is betrayal and Ciro basically masterminding a coup of the Savastano clan but the levels of paranoia that his new found power push him to, make him question whether it was all worth it. The world burns around him and a kind of justice is restored when Gennaro is able to take back power and restore the Savastano name. 

That’s one aspect of the show that Ciro truly exemplifies in that he rises to the top but the throne never truly feels like it’s his.

He is Iago-like in his ability to understand the weaknesses of people around him. He proves himself more cunning, capable, strategic, murderous and even business-minded than almost every other character. Every character except for Pietro Savastano (the man he betrays) and Gennaro Savastano. 

The show goes to great lengths to put forth the idea that crime families in Naples are on the same level as the pope. True modern day monarchies. Royal families that have the power to benefit or harm anyone around them. People bow their heads to them when they walk in public and use reverential terms when addressing them. They will often have salons, jewelers  or restaurants cleared out so they can enjoy the establishment in ostentatious privacy. 

When you look at it like that, Ciro was always an outsider. The difference between just sitting on the throne and being born of the throne. 

In that way maybe Ciro’s story is about redemption. 

He eventually sides with Gennaro Savastano again, helping him get his wife and daughter back after they’re kidnapped. He does this by essentially lying to/duping a crew of young dealers from Florence to fund this hostage rescue and then he offers himself as a sacrifice when the Florentines demand blood.

At his best Ciro served the clan and went to great lengths to restore what he had destroyed. 

1. Marlo Stanfield- The Wire

Is there any greater?

Sure there are characters like Tony Soprano whose world and whose inner thoughts the audience gets more familiar and intimate with. Within the same shared universe as Marlo is a character like Stringer Bell and the writers of the Wire go to great lengths to understand and convey his moral conflict as a drug kingpin turned wannabe real estate tycoon. 

Marlo is something purer though. 

You don’t need to know his inner-most thoughts like Tony because his utmost desire is simple, he wants to be the top kingpin of Baltimore. What more do you want?

He does not share Stringer’s moral complexity because unlike Stringer he is not conflicted at all. He’s not a drug dealer playing businessman, he’s just a drug dealer and that’s all he ever wanted to be.

From the start of season 3, it was fascinating watching this man move about on the screen with a confidence reserved for the richest and most talented. Indeed Marlo proves he has both in bundles. 

He outwits the older drug kingpin in Stringer Bell by maintaining independence from the Co-Op. He matches Avon Barksdale’s war effort step-for-step after Avon comes home from prison. He outsmarts the wily, Proposition Joe in order to learn how to launder his money and then get access to the Greeks.

It was fascinating watching Marlo avoid pitfalls, monopolize Baltimore, out-think his older counterparts and grow his empire to the scope that he did. 

There’s a youtube video that compiled all of Marlo’s scenes from his 3 seasons on The Wire and it pretty much plays like a feature film. Watch it here if you dig Marlo as much as I do.

You’re not watching a drug dealer become a kingpin, or at the very least that’s what I believe. It has more to do with watching the younger generation upset the order, and in a lot of ways that’s what Marlo represents. From the moment Marlo shows up, all old agreements are null and void. He does this over and over again throughout his story. Constantly upsetting the order and establishing his own. 

Indeed Marlo isn’t aware that this is what he’s doing. He’s acting on ambition, arrogance and naivety. 

It speaks volumes that most of the characters on this list have on-screen relationships that explore their personalities, like the aforementioned Ciro’s relationship with his daughter. Marlo has none of that.

Marlo’s most revealing relationship is his rivalry with Omar Little, a man he only ever encounters once. The continuation of their feud happens because Marlo refuses to let any perceived slight towards him slide. One way of looking at what this shows is that Marlo is both egoist and perfectionist, the latter of which is actually very prized personality traits in today’s business environment. The combination of the two is actually commonly seen among CEO’s and top executives.

Marlo shows every weakness and drawback of youth while exposing the follies of the more seasoned and experienced in his field. A walking contradiction in that way.

[shalebridge-cradle]

Historical References in What Are You Going to Do With Your Life - Chapters 10-12

Chapter 10

Boleyn mumbles something about a priest. W. S. Pakenham-Walsh (1868 - 1960), Vicar of Sulgrave, Northhamptonshire, had a strong interest in Anne Boleyn. He claimed to have a series of spiritual experiences after praying at Boleyn’s burial site, and contacted clairvoyants to channel her spirit in the hopes she might become his guardian angel. He also claimed in his diary that he had contact with Henry VIII and other notable members of the Tudor court.

While witchcraft was often punished via the death penalty, Henry VIII made the law explicit in 1542 (though it was later repealed no later than 1547, under Edward VI). Several witchcraft laws were made in the UK over the years, in 1563, 1604, 1649 and 1735. These were all repealed and replaced with more general consumer protection laws, and the last person to be indicted for witchcraft (under the 1735 act) was imprisoned in 1944.

Tarot was a regular set of cards for most of its history, used in various, but similar, trick-taking card card games. It became associated with ancient wisdom in 1781, when Antoine Court de Gébelin wrote an essay claiming (with no evidence) that ancient Egyptian priests had distilled the mystical Book of Thoth into the cards.

“Psychic is Greek, and clairvoyant is French. One is about thinking, and the other is about seeing.” Psychic comes from the Greek word psychikos (‘of the mind’) and clairvoyance is a combination of two French words (‘clear’ and ‘vision’). Catherine of Aragon was known to speak both French and Greek, as well as Latin, her native Spanish, and English.

Cunning man (or woman) was another word for folk healers.

In 1532, Catherine Parr’s brother-in-law from her second marriage, William Neville, was accused of treason for allegedly predicting the king’s death and his own ascension as Earl of Warwick (a title made extinct during the Wars of the Roses, but would be recreated in 1547 and twice after that). He went to at least three magicians to confirm this prediction, all of which agreed that it was meant to be true (it wasn’t). One of these magicians was Richard Jones of Oxford, who was imprisoned and questioned on the matter. He did his best to exonerate himself of responsibility. I have found five references confirming his existence – but many of them claim he had a sceptre he used to ‘summon the four king devils’, which he used for divination purposes.

Chapter 11

Jones of Oxford was taken in for questioning as part of the Neville affair, and he did his best in his confession to exonerate himself. Neville’s claims of a prophetic dream showing himself as Earl of Warwick were now a “fair castle” which Neville assumed must be the castle of Warwick, and a shield with “sundry arms I could not rehearse”. He did admit to writing “a foolish letter or two according to [Neville’s] foolish desire, to make pastime to laugh at”. No treason, just jokes, please don’t execute me Thomas Cromwell. Jones claimed to take his alchemy seriously, however, and wrote that “To make the philosopher’s stone I will jeopard my life, so to do it,” if the king so wished. He would require twelve months “upon silver” and twelve and a half “upon gold”, and was willing to be imprisoned while he worked. Jones made a similar offer to Cromwell, but there is no evidence either man accepted. Jones was released in exchange for revealing incriminating evidence against another figure of interest. The other magicians caught up in this incident, William Wade and a man known only as ‘Nashe’, had perfected their disappearing act and were not sent to the Tower.

There is a story that Elizabeth I attributed the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588 to John Dee’s wizardry. Given that, as mentioned, Dee was out of favour with Elizabeth at the time, this is likely untrue.

Elizabeth I’s death was in March of 1603, after she became sick and remained in a “settled and unmovable melancholy”, sitting on a cushion and staring at nothing. The death of a close friend in February of that year came as a particular blow – that of her second cousin and First Lady of the Bedchamber, Catherine Howard.

James I (or James VI, depending on where you’re from)… James I of England was also James VI of Scotland. His mother was Mary Queen of Scots, who was executed by Elizabeth I, and his great-grandmother was Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister.

“Anna, born Duchess of Jülich, Cleves and Berg.” This was how Anna signed hers’ and Henry’s marriage treaty, known as the ‘Beer Pot Documents’, because someone drew a stein at the bottom.

Bowling, as a game, can trace its origins back to ancient Egypt, and has been quite popular the world over throughout history. Henry VIII was an avid bowler himself (when Hampton Court was remodelled, bowling alleys were included with tennis courts and tiltyards), but banned the sport for the lower classes. The law against workers bowling (unless it was Christmas and in their master’s presence) was repealed in 1845.

We return to the ground, because from it we were taken. Paraphrasing of Genesis 3:19.

The (possible) first appearance of the word ‘alligator’ in the English language is from Romeo and Juliet. The description of The Apothecary’s shop mentions “a tortoise hung, an alligator stuff’d, and other skins of ill-shaped fishes”. Traditionally, medieval apothecaries and astrologers kept skeletons, fossils, and/or taxidermied pieces on display to demonstrate their worldliness.

The anger over calling the alligator ‘William’ could come from Parr, or from Anna. Her brother’s name, Wilhelm, is often anglicised as William.

Midsomer county does not exist and never has. It’s the setting for the long-running mystery TV show Midsomer Murders. Incidentally, Catherine Parr’s native county of Westmorland existed at one point, but no longer does (the area is now in the county of Cumbria). She is not the only English-born queen who this applies to; Jane Seymour’s Wiltshire and Anne Boleyn’s Norfolk still exist (and have since antiquity), but Katherine Howard was most likely born in Lambeth, which would have been in the county of Middlesex at the time. The area is now under the ceremonial county of Greater London.

“Honestly? Margaret Pole’s was worse.” Margaret Pole, Countess of Sailsbury and the last of the House of York, was kept in the Tower of London for two and a half years for her supposed support of Catholicism’s attempts to overthrow the king, before being informed of her death ‘within the hour’ on the 27th of May, 1541. She answered that she did not know the crime of which she was accused (and had carved a poem into the wall of her cell to that effect), but went to the block anyway. It allegedly took eleven blows from the inexperienced axeman to separate her head from her body. There is another story that she tried to run from the executioner and was killed in the attempt, but this is likely a fabrication. Regardless, pretty much everyone thought this was not only a bad idea on Henry’s part (killing Margaret removed any leverage the king had on her rebellious son, Cardinal Reginald Pole), it was also pointlessly cruel and a painfully undignified end.

(She was also Catherine of Aragon’s lady-in-waiting, and governess to Mary at several points.)

That everyone around her, bar a few visitors, would actively benefit from her death… Yet another quote of Elizabeth Tyrwhitt’s testimony: Parr, on her deathbed, claimed she was “not well-handled” by those around her; “for those that be about me careth not for me, but standeth laughing at my grief, and the more good I will to them, the less good they will to me”.

Chapter 12

According to a lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn claimed she would rather see Catherine of Aragon hanged “than have to confess that she was her queen and mistress”. This incident is probably the origin of the lyric “somebody hang you!” from Don’t Lose Ur Head.

Catalina uses a few Spanish phrases in this chapter, which don’t get directly translated. The first, No se hizo la miel para la boca del asno, directly translates to ‘Honey is not made for the donkey’s mouth’, and essentially means ‘Good things shouldn’t be wasted on those who won’t appreciate them’. Lavar cerdos con jabón es perder tiempo y jabón is ‘Washing pigs with soap is a waste of time and soap’, and is meant to indicate some things aren’t worth the energy.

…like that dream she has where she is cut up by a servant… An autopsy was done on Catherine of Aragon as part of the embalming process, which revealed the growth on her heart. This was done by the castle chandler (a dealer or trader) as part of his official duties.

Jane Seymour got rid of most of the hallmarks of Anne Boleyn’s tenure during her own queenship. The extravagance and lavish entertainments were banned, along with the French fashions Boleyn had introduced – including French hoods, which Boleyn is wearing in the portrait we have of her. Jane, as mentioned, wore a gable hood in her portraits.

“I don’t know why I’m so surprised that people care about what I say.” In the words of nineteenth century proto-feminist Agnes Strickland, Jane “passed eighteen months of regal life without uttering a sentence significant enough to warrant preservation”, which is kind of a mean thing to say. Seymour certainly said things during this time, we know this from reports, but there aren’t any direct quotes from her during her time as queen.

Here’s the painting mentioned, from 1545, during Catherine Parr’s tenure. Jane is on Henry’s left.

It was only after her death that Henry ‘loved’ her, but she is certain that he mourned for only for his own loss. There are reports that, during Jane’s labour, doctors advised Henry he might lose either Jane or Edward. Henry is claimed to have replied, “If you cannot save both, at least let the child live, for other wives are easily found.”

Countdown is a British television game show that revolves around word and number puzzles. It has been going for almost forty years, and is one of the longest-running game shows in the world, with over 7000 episodes.

“I saw a ghost bear kill someone, once.” Anne isn’t making this up. Supposedly, the incident occurred in 1816, when a Yeoman Warder saw a ghostly bear somewhere in the Tower of London. Terrified, he tried to stab it with his bayonet, only for the weapon to go through the image and strike the door behind it. The guard died of shock later on. A similar event happened in 1864, where two guards witnessed “a whitish, female figure” gliding towards one of the soldiers. The soldier in question charged this figure, only to go straight through it, upon which he fainted.

Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower of London for a little over two months in 1554, as a result of Wyatt’s Rebellion against Queen Mary. The rebellion was also the likely reason for the execution of Lady Jane Grey – both she and Elizabeth were Protestants in line for the throne, and therefore ‘more suitable’ as ruler. Both Elizabeth and Jane Grey denied any involvement, but the latter’s father and brother (also executed) were direct contributors.

“… you did die, Elizabeth was really upset about it…” Elizabeth took the news of Parr’s death badly. She refused to leave her bed, and was unable to go a mile from her residence, for five months following Parr’s passing.

Not because she liked that bearded potato man, God no… I found this deeply cursed engraving (first produced in 1544) in one of my books on the six wives, and now I want you all to suffer with me.

Anne of Cleves reacted poorly to being told her marriage would be annulled – some accounts say she fainted, others says she cried and screamed. Both could be true. The reasons given were threefold – One, the marriage was unconsummated (From testimony given by two servants, Anne thought a kiss goodnight counted as consummation – likely untrue, but this is the only reason that actually has merit). Two, Anne was precontracted to Francis of Lorraine (Untrue – the betrothal would only take effect if Anne’s father paid the dowry, and he didn’t). Three, Anne was not a virgin as claimed, based on the description of her ‘breasts and belly’, a Tudor way of saying Anne had previously given birth (untrue, and conflicts with the testimony for reason one). The annulment went through without Anne’s involvement, but (probably looking at the examples of her three predecessors) she accepted the ruling and kept herself from being banished, beheaded or otherwise.

(Other fact that has no bearing on reality – while researching Anne of Cleves, one of the pages that came up was The Simpsons Wiki. Apparently she’s the only wife who can claim the honour of having been in two episodes. :/)

Dogs don’t need to answer for their sins, they don’t have any. Katherine Howard was reportedly fond of animals in general, but had a particular soft spot for dogs.

She did the right thing. She told the truth. She died for it. Katherine Howard insisted, to the end, that she had no pre-contract of marriage to Francis Dereham. Would she have survived if she said she did?

[ineedrelationshipadvice]

My open-relationship boyfriend hates that I’m fat!

ORIGINAL MESSAGE: 

Me and my bf have been together 5 yrs. We've lived together for 3. Had an open relationship for 2. He loves me and cares for me in every aspect except 1. Our sex life since we moved in has been negligible. Maybe twice a month. Recently I went away for a week and before and after I tried to initiate, I was shut down (but kindly) all while he hooked up with a friend of ours while I was away. I got upset and asked if there was anything I could do ...

If there was anything I could do I would definitely try. Disclaimer: I love my body but I am a curvier woman, the other girls are not. But I've been through a few diets we've done together. As someone who has recovered from disordered eating it's hard to find peace with yourself. He came into the room and asked if we could try intermittent fasting. Context! I looked him in the eyes and said "do I need to" and he slowly nodded yes. ..

I told him to get out and spent the last 3 days crying and upset. We've talked a lot and he is really really sorry. But nothing will take away from the fact that he thought that. I want it to go back to our seemingly perfect relationship but when he tells me I'm perfect and that he made a mistake, I can't believe him.

_______________

REPLY

While I definitely sympathize with your situation, the one thing I have to call you out on here is the ultimatum. Ultimatums are powerful tools: "this or else" statements can be very effective in a lot of situations where you have really run out of options that are available to you. That's why they're best used when you've exhausted all other viable options. When nothing else works, you can present an ultimatum, and that ultimatum is usually designed in such a way where it influences your partner to make a choice.

You, unfortunately, did not do any of that. You pulled this ultimatum fairly early in the process of trying to solve this issue, and the particular wording you delivered to him was basically a lose-lose ultimatum for him. "Do I need to do this?" AKA, if I don't do this, you will not have sex with me. But that's not all that statement meant; it is loaded with so many things. It's loaded with (what I can assume) to be self-doubt about how attractive you are, the state of your current relationship, your past with eating disorders, your current self-confidence, your lack of sexual pleasure with your partner... In that one sentence, you basically had at least five different things being said, all at the same time.

How is he supposed to answer a question like that? "Yes, you need to try this" is tragic, as you no doubt feel, because it could seem to be an indictment on ANY of those statements in the loaded question. Maybe he thinks your ugly (more complicated than that), maybe the thinks this will fix your relationship (doubtful), maybe he dislikes you because of your struggles with eating disorders (definitely not), maybe he's upset because you're not more confident (wrong), maybe he is commentating on your sexual relations of late (sort of - he's stating a preference). Because of how you said that, literally ANY of those answers is valid from your perspective, and any interpretation could happen, even though as said in all those parentheses, there is so much nuance beyond the exact words that were used, that there is basically zero way to know what he meant by saying it. He was just giving a stupid, unscripted reply, when he had no idea how many threads you had him strung by with that sentence.

But what about his alternative answers? If he says "No, you don't need to try a diet," then that means he has no problem with your body, which means the lack of sex is completely unexplained, and you would become upset if he still didn't want to do stuff sexually with you. What if he said, "Maybe it's something we should consider," even if he's being generous, that means all of the same things as yes, and you likely would have been equally as upset as you are right now. Legitimately, what could he have said, in response to your question, that would have been the "right" answer? What answer would you have been perfectly happy and accepting of, where he wouldn't be in trouble for something, or otherwise would have made you mad, sad, or upset?

Furthermore, because of the way you worded your ultimatum: as both a yes or no question (which had no correct answers), not only is he doomed to answer incorrectly and upset you no matter what he said, but he had no method to even prepare for it. Even if he knew you were going to throw a loaded question at him, even if he could have read your mind, how could he possibly reason with you?

This one question you asked him goes so far beyond what was actually said, and the response that upset you. You literally explain, in your message, "I want to go back to our seemingly perfect relationship." Seemingly being the key word there; your relationship had problems, and you just exploded them all simultaneously like a tripwire mine. You also are actively unwilling to accept your partner making a mistake, which frankly, is bordering on just toxic behaviour. Your relationship was never perfect, in the same way that you are perfect, no matter how much he tries to make you feel better by calling you that. Nothing in this world is perfect; everything has flaws. If you are not willing to accept the flaw of his words when he responded to you, like a goddamn adult, then there's little hope moving forward.

The point of all this admonishment is, while you wanted to express yourself here by the question you delivered him, you have done it very poorly. And while I understand your plight, you basically put him in front of a firing line without his ability to work with you; he became the enemy, and you delivered a blow that he couldn't escape from, perfectly made to upset you even more than you've already been. That was unfair. This has been exacerbated because you have now spent the last three days throwing a tantrum that you didn't get the perfect answer to a question that had no right answers. Again, WHAT COULD HE POSSIBLY HAVE SAID DIFFERENTLY? If you can think of an honest answer, that he could have said given the context of that conversation, that would be that perfect answer, you should go to him, apologize for giving him a poorly used ultimatum, and tell him both why you're upset and give him the actual answer you were looking for and wanted him to say. And if you can't think of a perfect answer, you should go to him, apologize, and then express the feelings you have shared with me to him, so he knows why you've been so upset these last few days. ________ Either way, what's done is done. He said something stupid and insensitive, it made you break down. Let's just take a deep breath and let the water go under the bridge, and drift off to the vast blue ocean. The water upstream doesn't matter, the water downstream doesn't matter. All that matters is our bridge and the water under it. What do we do?

Firstly, and again, I need to emphasize this: YOUR RELATIONSHIP IS NOT PERFECT. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS PERFECT. You're going to have to toss that shit in the river too, and let it go downstream. Because if you keep putting this relationship on a pedestal, you will have no method to actually address the very real and solvable problems on the table. If you are not willing to accept that your relationship doesn't have some flaws that need fixing, then you can go ahead, stop reading, and break up with him now, because your attitude will only cause both of you hurt down the line.

If you can accept that your relationship has flaws, and he can make mistakes, then we need to communicate. What do we need to communicate? You need to sit down with him, and say quite directly, "I'm unhappy with you because you have been dating people who are skinnier than I am, and not giving me the sexual attention I yearn for." This is the core problem driving the entire situation, and that's what needs to be dealt with.

Talk to him. Ask him why you two haven't been having as much sex. No judgement, no getting upset. This is a conversation for only the adults in the room. You're in a five year long relationship that's also open; you've clearly had conversations up until now. Time to have another one. Listen to him, hear his actual opinions, and ask him any questions that you might have about his feelings. Then, ask him if he has any questions about you. Let him ask them, even if they might hurt your feelings. Answer him accordingly. Be honest; no lies or half-truths, because they'll only muddle the water here.

When you've both had your say, and asked your questions, try to find a middle ground. What would make you more sexually attractive? If it's your weight, would you be willing to try more diet and exercise? If there's something else that could spice up your relationship, would you be willing to try that? Conversely, is there any way he would be willing to have sex with you more even though you may not meet all his preferences? Would he be willing to do anything that would help you feel more taken care of and confident? What are those things that you would like him to do, or what ways would you like him to support you? Find a consensus. Once you have it, work toward it; if you cannot find an consensus, then you have a larger problem that you both will need to talk to each other about.

Another issue that is clearly bothering you is jealousy. You're jealous that these other girls in his life are getting more sex than you, his main partner. I don't know the rules of your open relationship. But knowing how most are structured, was that a rule? Was one of the pre-established boundaries of your open relationship that you deserve to have sex more than his other partners? Because if that is not against one of the conditions of your relationship, then he has been doing nothing wrong, and you have no right to be upset. However, this all works as a good time to redefine the conditions of your open relationship; if you need regular sex for the relationship to remain open, then that needs to be made abundantly clear. Furthermore, if you'd rather shut down your openness, because you are too jealous of other people, then you also need to lobby for that. If you guys can't come to a new set of agreements on your current status as an open relationship, then you again may have some deeper problems that will require you both to think of your best interests.

From there, you're going to have to forgive your partner. Again, I know you are very upset by what he said. But my efforts here have been dedicated to showing you that you pulled a trigger improperly, and you caused damage to yourself. You did this. That does not absolve his insensitivity, but it means you have to own up for jumping the gun, and forgive him. If you can get over your immediate upsetness, then these discussions can happen and you can try to move past this moment as maturely as possible.

[wardencommanderrodimiss]

I think this is nominally incomplete, but it’s from October and I’m never going to finish it, but I reread it and still enjoy some of the jokes in it so.... I figured other people might get some enjoyment out of it.

Summary: Some defense attorneys, prosecutors, and detectives get together and while drinking make poor conversational choices that vacillate wildly between commiserating over personal trauma and making bad jokes. So, the usual.

-

“You know,” Kay says, frowning in concentration as she attempts to affix a fourth paper umbrella in her hair, “what always bums me out about these big get-togethers is I always start thinking we should play some super-fun drinking games and then I realize that would be terrible, because, like, ‘Never Have I Ever’ always turns into weird sexscepade confessions and that’d be horrible enough if Mr. Edgeworth was just our boss, but he’s like, our dad, so we can’t do that.”

Everyone takes twenty seconds to absorb what she has said. “There are things I don’t want to know about any of you,” Apollo says. “Especially not Mr. Wright.”

“Because he’s our dad,” Athena adds. She is lying on the floor with her chin propped up on her arms. “Also it’d be mean to play drinking games with me here not being able to.” Her glare turns from Phoenix to Simon. “American drinking laws are stupid.”

“You say to a room full of prosecutors and detectives,” Apollo says.

“No no, she’s right,” Klavier says. “I got my badge in Europe and then came back and they would let me stand in court and prosecute a trial but not buy a beer.”

“Franziska complained all the time about that,” Edgeworth says, with a small smile that is almost fond as he contemplates the dregs at the bottom of his wine glass. “In the interest of full disclosure, she complained about everything in America. She still does, actually.”

“I can see why she would,” Athena says. “I liked Germany. I didn’t actually drink a lot there, though.”

“You are smarter than I,” Klavier says. “I lost about a month somewhere in Germany.”

Phoenix coughs and sets down his glass, which is pint-sized but filled with wine. The only condolence for Apollo, and from the expression on his face, Edgeworth as well, is that he isn’t drinking straight from a bottle. “A month?” he repeats incredulously.

Klavier nods. “I had just taken the bar; I had nothing to do but wait for my results. What else was I supposed to do?”

“Not that?” Phoenix asks. He looks somewhere between impressed and horrified, which is strange for Apollo to realize; he can’t usually read his boss’ emotions from his face. “Anything but that?”

Klavier shrugs. “Ja ja, but I never got arrested or woke up anywhere unfamiliar, so I think I did fine.”

“Did you wake up with that horrible accent, though?” Blackquill asks, smirking slightly, and without looking bats Athena’s hand away from his drink.

“Ooh!” Athena says, pushing herself up into a sitting position. “You know, that’s actually happened! There’s been cases where after a traumatic brain injury, a person has recovered to speak with an entirely different accent that they never had before. So you could have--”

“I’m sorry to dampen your excitement, Fraulien, but I have never had any traumatic brain injuries.” Ema mutters something and Klavier, staring at the glass in his hands, says, “Ach, we’ll pretend I didn’t hear that, and I will amend my statement to ‘not that I know’ because Kris could have dropped me down the stairs when we were young and I can never know for sure now, because what I am sure of is that even if the answer is no, if I asked him now, he would say he did.”

“You know, Kay, that this is realistically where ‘Never Have I Ever’ would end up,” Ema says. “The personal trauma shit, like ‘never have I ever had someone close to me turn out to be a murdering bastard.’” She doesn’t meet anyone’s eyes and instead stares at the floor. “Ah shit I can’t even say that. That one’s happened to me too. Fuck it.” She throws her head back and drains a third of her glass.

“Would that be a shot for each murdering bastard, or just one for all of them?” Klavier asks.

“At that point you just start drinking and don’t stop,” Phoenix says without lowering his glass from his lips, apparently taking his own advice.

“Define ‘close’,” Apollo says.

“We’re lawyers,” Sebastian says. “Why don’t we just all argue about the definition and never get anywhere with it?”

“He was your boss,” Klavier says brusquely. “That’s fuckin’ close enough.” The harshness of the words doesn’t match the way Klavier’s weight leans against Apollo’s shoulder or how his hand shakes just slightly, knuckles too white curled around his shot glass.

“Is ‘close’ in this case simply to be understood as figuratively referring to emotional connection,” Blackquill says, “or would a literal meaning as in physical proximity at length apply as well?”

“When you’re splitting hairs like that just join the rest of us in being drunk and depressed,” Ema says.

“Are we actually playing now?” Kay asks. “Because this is like a super fucked up way to play if we are.”

“Let’s not even bother with the ‘never have I ever had someone I loved be murdered’,” Apollo says. He hadn’t wanted to get drunk tonight, and instead just sit back and watch whatever unfolded, but he’s thinking he might want to change those plans.

“Everyone loses on that one,” Kay says, reaching over and gently patting Apollo’s head, which he thinks is a gesture of sympathy as best as she, pink-cheeked with unfocused eyes, can manage. And he thinks he is just tipsy enough that it actually feels like a comfort. “And the grand prize, ‘never have I ever had someone I loved be murdered by someone I was close to’, because that’s like… aw shit that’s me isn’t it.”

“Depending on how you define your proximity to Ms. Yew, or Shih-na, or whatever you should like to call her,” Edgeworth says, and it’s probably not coincidence that he is now finishing off his wine, after Kay has said those words. Everyone knows the story of von Karma.

“Again,” Blackquill says, his chin resting on his hands, his elbows on his knees, “how are we agreeing to define ‘close’ and does it apply retroactively, in that they only came in close literal proximity to you long after they committed the murder of that particular--” This time he is not quick enough to stop Athena from snatching away his glass and draining the contents.

“Gross!” Widget cries, and Athena sets the glass back in front of Blackquill with an expression of profound disgust twisting her features. “What the hell is that, anyway?” she asks.

“You were duly warned,” Blackquill replies.

“No,” Athena says. “You told me it was illegal, not that it was disgusting.”

Phoenix is laughing at her, his glass untouched on the floor for the past minute. Kay raises an eyebrow. “What, the unluckiest man in the world can’t drink to that?”

“I can’t, actually,” he says, “though not for lack of trying on my ex-girlfriend’s part.”

“Is trauma crossing over with sexscepades now?” Ema asks. “I’m gonna need to be super more drunk if it is.”

“Me too,” Apollo says, staring at the empty glass in front of him. He hadn’t wanted to refill. Now he thinks he needs it. Klavier offers him the remains of his drink. Apollo accepts it.

“It was not a… a…” Phoenix props his chin up on his hands. “Well, depends on how you’re defining it, and whether ‘my college girlfriend was actually twins, one of whom was evil and wanted me dead and tried to frame me for murder when her good twin, who’s a sweetheart other than having a dire blind spot where her sister is concerned, spent eight months trying to convince her not to kill me’ counts as such.”

“Wait,” Ema says, reaching for Kay’s drink, as Edgeworth stands and leaves the room, “you were dating both twins, and you thought they were the same person?”

“They fully intended to convince me they were the same person,” Phoenix says. “And it took me six years and an attempt on my best friend’s life to find out otherwise.”

“Why’d she -- they -- whoever -- try to kill Edgeworth?” Sebastian asks.

Phoenix coughs. “Erm -- my other best friend, Maya. It’s a long fucked-up story that’s incoherent enough when I try to tell it sober but it ended with me cross-examining a dead woman and the prosecution indicted on the murder charges that had been leveled against my client.”

“What,” Athena says.

“I was there and can corroborate,” Edgeworth says, reentering with a new glass of wine.

“Wait,” Klavier says. “When was this?”

“It’s…” Phoenix frowns, staring at Edgeworth. “It was February, so… nine years now.”

“Was that prosecutor Coffee Dude?” Klavier asks.

“Coffee dude?” Apollo repeats. Klavier’s accent has been slipping in and out all night but hearing him utter the word dude is still absolutely jarring.

“Eloquent as ever, Gavin-dono,” Blackquill says dryly.

“I don’t remember his name because I was a self-absorbed piece of shit who’d just joined the office but: Eine, I remember the news article, and Zwei, I remember him taking the pot out of the coffee machine in the break room and drinking directly from the pot.”

“Oh yeah that’d be him,” Phoenix says.

Blackquill frowns. “This prosecutor you speak of -- about my height, white hair, blind, and able to be convinced to punch another inmate for the price of half a cup of sludgewater prison coffee?”

“Oh my god,” Phoenix says.

“Simon,” Athena sighs.

“I did not say that it was I who convinced him to do such. For all you know I may have been the victim of the punching. You assume the worst of me, Athena.”

Apollo snorts at that. Phoenix is rolling his eyes and Edgeworth coughs.

“You met him in prison?” Edgeworth asks, sitting back down next to Phoenix. “I suppose you must have, if you know him, because he was arrested in February and you joined the office in -- May?”

“April,” Athena corrects.

“Right when everything went to shit,” Klavier says.

“In February a prosecutor was arraigned on charges of murder; in March, another prosecutor committed murder in the office, and the chairman of the Investigatorial Committee was convicted on counts of murder and forging evidence since he was Chief Prosecutor -- you forget, again, that in no point in our lifetimes has ours been a functioning legal system.”

Something about the way Blackquill says it, and the way that Klavier responds with “Bleh,” makes Apollo think it’s a conversation they’ve had before.

Sebastian is staring at his hands.

“And that’s when Mr. Edgeworth gave up his badge for two days and I fell off a building and got amnesia,” Kay adds. “And then we caused another international incident. Not totally in that order.”

“What,” Apollo says.

“Oh god I remember half of that,” Ema says.

“You left out the part with the assassins,” Sebastian says.

“I’ve always believed if you’re not in court it’s sometimes better to leave out details in the retellings, and nothing here is dissuading me of this notion,” Phoenix says.

“So what did you leave out of your little sexscepade story?” Kay asks

“Kay,” Sebastian says, “I am begging you to stop saying that word. I will pay you.”

“Hey Chief, I think that’s Prosecutor Debeste saying I should get a salary raise.”

Edgeworth places his face in his hands.

“I left out the part where I fell off a bridge, my murderous ex-girlfriend was my best friend’s cousin, and Edgeworth --”

“Continue leaving out any further part of this involving me,” Edgeworth interrupts.

“Fine.”

“Boss, how are you still alive?” Athena asks.

“That’s a case that’s going to go forever unsolved,” Phoenix replies.

“Can we do ‘never have I ever had a near-death experience’?” Athena says. “Or any significant physical injury on the job. How many shots would you have to take for that one, Boss?” Phoenix is muttering under his breath as he starts counting on his fingers. Apollo can’t make out the words but Athena almost immediately objects -- “Wait, did you say tazed?”

“Tazed, blunt force head trauma from a fire extinguisher, fell off a bridge, that one thing from before I was a lawyer doesn’t count because you said ‘on the job’, hit by a car doesn’t really count under that definition either -- I think that’s it.” He stares absently into space. “Actually, no, it was sort of related to the job so in hindsight, add ‘getting smashed with the man who got me disbarred’.”

“Take another shot for tonight, then,” Klavier says.

Phoenix rolls his eyes. “Klavier, shut up,” he says, and Klavier recoils in surprise, blinking a few times. “I mean the one with ill intentions and a penchant for poisoning people. God there’s so many ways that could’ve ended with me dead over a bowl of borscht in that hell restaurant.” His eyes go unfocused staring at some point over Apollo’s head. “You know what’s another one of the super fucked up parts about that?” He doesn’t wait for anyone to ask before he continues, “I don’t even like borscht.”

Klavier coughs, or at least Apollo thinks it’s a cough, but it also sounds like a laugh and a sob intermingled.

“You exasperate me,” Edgeworth says to Phoenix. Phoenix flops over into his lap like a particularly boneless cat.

“Here’s ‘take a shot if your older sibling is or has ever been in jail,” Ema says dryly, emptying her glass and then laying backwards on the floor. “Welcome to the shit club, boys.”

“I think Herr Samurai and I need more alcohol for this one,” Klavier says.

“Then go get us some,” Blackquill says.

“Sometimes I feel like I am the only one doing the work in this relationship,” Klavier says.

Athena chokes on air.

Edgeworth sighs. “You both know what I am going to say.”

The response comes in near-unison from the three other prosecutors and two detectives. “Dollar in the jar!”

[anexplanationofunfortunateevents]

to help yourself understand the Mueller investigation, read this novel

“This novel” being, of course, a stack of court documents filed in the course of the investigation.

Hear me out.

This isn’t to trivialize or sensationalize an ongoing existential threat to western democracy. Precisely because it is not a fucking game, I think it’s really important for people to get new ways into this story. Because it still seems alarmingly common for even generally well-informed people to throw up their hands and say “well, the right says ‘no collusion!’ and liberals say ‘he’s a Russian agent!’ but the partisans all seem really worked up, I guess the truth is somewhere in between/it must not be as big a deal as they think.”

Maybe sometimes that’s motivated reasoning or sheer ignorance. But it’s also possible that “this Rusher thing with Trump and Russia” is unusually resistant to understanding as a conventional news story. We want our news to be solid, with “hard facts.” Maybe this is more like gas. Like gas, it always takes up as much space as it’s allowed. On slow news days it can expand to envelop everything else; unrelated dramatic events can compress it down to almost nothing. And you can’t get a grip on gas.

This whole bizarre situation is genuinely unprecedented in American history, which is perhaps why special prosecutor Robert Mueller has been doing something unusual in issuing a series of speaking indictments. Remember, a bill of indictment is basically a list of the crimes that a prosecutor has convinced a grand jury that someone has probably committed. Prosecutors are smart to keep these minimal, because every fact they allege in their indictment, they damn well have to be ready to prove. A speaking indictment means that the prosecutor is saying more than they have to say. In a case like this – which deals with a lot of sensitive information, and implicates people who haven’t yet been charged or even interviewed – that’s even trickier, because there’s a lot it has to avoid.

Generally, when a person makes their own job harder, they’re doing it for a reason. And I think at least part of the reason here is that the special prosecutor’s office is trying to tell the American public a story. Our minds can comprehend dramatic plot lines more easily than the seedy, fact-heavy, choppily-paced web of a real criminal conspiracy. There’s a narrative logic to the pre-election events described in the most notable speaking indictments in the order we’ve seen them, moving relentlessly closer in time, space, and relationship to Donald Trump on Election Day, 2016.

So if you’re frustrated or baffled by what you catch of this story in the news or on your Facebook feed, it’s not because you, personally, can’t understand it. You might just need a new angle of approach. If you are a movie person, I can recommend the documentary Active Measures (Hulu, iTunes). If you’re more of a reader, these documents, in this order, can be read like an epistolary novel – specifically, a pulpy, beach read-y spy thriller.

Part I: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Richard W. Gates III

Part II: United States of America v. Internet Research Agency, et al

Part III: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Konstantin Kilimnik

Part IV: United States of America v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al

Part V: United States of America v. Michael Cohen (a)(b)

Part VI: United States of America v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr.

TO BE CONTINUED [probably]…

I’m serious. Download the pdfs onto your e-reader – remember to make a note of the order! – brew yourself some tea, and turn off pop-up notifications for a while. (Don’t get too hung up on figuring out who “Organization 1″ or “Person 2″ are - sometimes it’ll be obvious, but don’t worry if it’s not. You can just treat the big tables like illustrations: look and see what they’re about, but you don’t need to read every line to get the gist. You can also skip the last page or so if you start hitting headers like “statutory allegations” or “substitute assets.” There’s no post-credits stingers.)

These aren’t all the documents that have been filed in court by the special counsel, let alone in related cases, and I doubt even the courts have heard the whole story yet. Most of the documents related to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn are still redacted. Maria Butina was charged by a different prosecutor’s office just as she was about to make a run for it, but her infiltration of the National Rifle Association could quite possibly be Chekhov’s gun. And it doesn’t even mention the UK spinoff! But I think they’re the ones that are, intentionally, useful to someone who wants to understand.

Still skeptical? Recap/analysis below.

Part I: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Richard W. Gates III

The first indictment of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort took its focus far away from, and several years before, the main story, deep into a 2010 election in Ukraine which ominously foreshadowed the 2016 election.  Manafort, an old friend of Stone, a Trump Tower resident, and the employer of his co-defendant Rick Gates and of future Sanders consultant Tad Devine, ran the campaign of a buffoonish businessman who was in hock to the Russian government. Their strategy relied heavily on exacerbating ethnic tensions within Ukraine and seeding skepticism about international alliances, as well as a vicious smear campaign of his opponent, an accomplished public servant who would have been the nation’s first woman president. Manafort’s candidate took office, was exactly as bad as his opponents believed he would be, and had his opponent imprisoned and tortured – but was eventually forced to release her and flee the country for Russia.

Part II: United States of America v. Internet Research Agency, et al

The Internet Research Agency indicted Russian nationals who worked on the propaganda campaign, spending over a million dollars a month to manipulate American public opinion from a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg. The action starts in 2014 and picks up in 2016, but still takes place a continent away. It deliberately stays away from the hacking and dumping of Democratic party emails, and pointedly does not accuse any Americans of committing crimes.

Part III: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Konstantin Kilimnik

An installment with a foot in both worlds indicted Manafort and a Ukraine-based co-conspirator, while also showing Manafort’s corruption of a respected American law firm. This part shows us how Trump’s campaign manager – both his dirty politics and his illicit money – moved from Ukraine to the United States, set in the same time frame as Part II.

Part IV: United States of America v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al

Then another indictment did name the Russian military intelligence officers who stole Democrats’ emails in the spring of 2016, and traced their cooperation with “Organization 1,” which released those emails. This moves the story closer in time to the election, and shows the stolen data moving west from Moscow to Julian Assange’s hideout in London before being dumped on the American public.

Part V: United States of America v. Michael Cohen (a)(b)

The next installment targeted Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, a New Yorker like Trump. Cohen pleaded guilty to hiding what appears to have been early 2016 real estate negotiations for a property in Moscow, and of committing apparently unrelated crimes to affect the election illicitly by covering up the candidate’s affairs in the weeks before the election. The Southern District of New York – filing at the same time and in clear cooperation with the special prosecutor, but not working directly for him – overtly said it could prove Trump’s complicity in crimes. Trump is tagged “Individual 1.”

Part VI: United States of America v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr.

Currently in the barrel is Roger Stone, a longtime supporter of Trump’s political career and an old business partner of Manafort. Stone has a colorful backstory of extensive wrongdoing, but his indictment is laser-focused on conversations he had with a known Russian intelligence cutout in the summer and fall of 2016, and the crimes and lies he tried to use to hide those conversations. This indictment mentions the Trump campaign by name, and it includes a lot of specific conduct by individuals who are not named but are nonetheless readily identifiable. The document is succinct, clinical, clear as a bell. But it leaves one omission which leaped out screaming at just about everyone who read the whole document.

[A] senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign.  

If you’ve taken high school English, you already know the million ruble question. “Was directed”? Who gave that direction? The indictment doesn’t say.

If you’re trying to avoid drawing conclusions the way a newscaster might, you would probably think it was not another senior campaign officer – otherwise, why not refer to them as “Senior Campaign Officer 2”? – but still someone important enough to boss around a senior campaign officer. Maybe if the candidate had adult family members who were not given official positions on the campaign, they would be suspects – though only because they could reasonably be assumed to be speaking for the most likely culprit. The simplest explanation for They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Pseudonymed is the most dramatic one. The candidate is not a senior campaign officer. The candidate is the candidate.

We don’t have all the facts yet. The only thing we can be sure of is that the special prosecutor has, quite deliberately, not yet shown this particular card.

But if you’ve taken high school English, you have a pretty good idea about the answer.

Okay, the genre snob reviewers might say it’s a little heavy-handed. Personally, I’ve always felt that subtlety is overrated.

[teafortwo29]

Once Reluctant to Speak Out, an Energized Obama Now Calls Out His Successor

Former President Barack Obama has leveled many attacks on President Trump heading into the 2018 midterm elections. These sharp rebukes, though, are a departure from how past leaders used their post-presidential campaign stops. Published on Nov. 1, 2018, Credit Scott McIntyre for The New York Times

By Peter Baker Nov. 2, 2018

MIAMI — Former President Barack Obama’s voice has a way of lifting into a high-pitched tone of astonishment when he talks about his successor, almost as if he still cannot believe that the Executive Mansion he occupied for eight years is now the home of President Trump.

For most of the last two years, he stewed about it in private, only occasionally speaking out. But as he hit the campaign trail this fall, Mr. Obama has vented his exasperation loud and often, assailing his successor in a sharper, more systematic way arguably than any former president has done in three-quarters of a century.

Although some admirers believe he remains too restrained in an era of Trumpian bombast, Mr. Obama has excoriated the incumbent for “lying” and “fear-mongering” and pulling “a political stunt” by sending troops to the border. As he opened a final weekend of campaigning before Tuesday’s midterm elections, Mr. Obama has re-emerged as the Democrats’ most prominent face, pitting president versus president over the future of the country.

In a fiery speech in Miami on Friday afternoon before heading to Georgia for another rally, Mr. Obama said that even conservatives should be disturbed by Mr. Trump’s disregard for the Constitution and basic decency. “I know there are sincere conservatives who are compassionate and must think there is nothing compassionate about ripping immigrant children from the arms of their mothers at the border,” he said.

“I am assuming that they recognize that a president doesn’t get to decide on his own who’s an American citizen and who’s not,” he continued, referring to Mr. Trump’s vow to sign an executive order canceling birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. “That’s not how the Constitution of the United States works. That’s not how the Bill of Rights works. That’s not how our democracy works.”

“I’m assuming people must get upset,” he went on, “when they see folks who spend all their time vilifying others, questioning their patriotism, calling them enemies of the people and then suddenly pretending they’re concerned about civility.”

The current president fired back later in the afternoon. Mr. Trump, who has made more than 6,400 false or misleading statements since taking office, according to a count by The Washington Post, said his predecessor had lied by telling Americans they could keep their doctor under his health care plan, which ultimately turned out not to be the case.

“Twenty-eight times he said you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor,” he told a small crowd at a West Virginia airport hangar. “They were all lies. Used it to pass a terrible health care plan we are decimating strike by strike.”

He also criticized Mr. Obama’s trade policies and treatment of the news media. “Lie after lie,” Mr. Trump said. “Broken promise after broken promise. Unlike President Obama, we live under a different mantra. It’s called promises made, promises kept.”

Since leaving office, Mr. Obama has risen in the esteem of many Americans, as former presidents often do. A poll by CNN this year found that 66 percent had a favorable view of him, far more than those who approve of Mr. Trump’s performance in office.

When he left the White House in January 2017, Mr. Obama said he intended to follow the tradition of his predecessors by staying out of the spotlight unless he perceived what he considered broader threats to American values. Advisers said Mr. Trump’s performance in office has qualified, justifying his decision to abandon restraint this fall.

“He cares very deeply,” said Valerie Jarrett, his longtime friend, and adviser. “His language has been very direct and he’s made an appeal to citizens across our country that now’s the time to stand up for our core ideals.”

He has issued 350 endorsements that candidates then trumpeted on social media and he has helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats. A video op-ed he taped generated 17 million views and a voter registration video drove nearly 700,000 viewers to Vote.org, according to his team. He is taping dozens of recorded telephone messages that will be sent out this weekend.

Mr. Obama’s red-meat speech on Friday delighted the crowd at the Ice Palace Film Studios in Miami. But if he has become the Democrats’ “forever president,” as Andrew Gillum, the party’s candidate for governor of Florida, called him, there are trade-offs for an opposition party trying to groom a new generation of leaders as the start of the 2020 presidential election approaches.

“President Obama wants to make room for the next generation of Democratic leaders to step up, which is why he’s largely stayed out of the day-to-day fray over the past two years,” said Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to the former president. “But too much is at stake in these midterms and this moment is too consequential to sit out.”

To Republicans, Mr. Obama’s decision to directly take on his successor smacks of violating norms just as he accuses Mr. Trump of doing.

“I was taken aback by the amount of space in President Obama’s speeches that are devoted to a full frontal assault on Donald J. Trump and his administration,” said Karl Rove, the political strategist for former President George W. Bush. “He spends a considerable amount of his time to get up there and trash Trump.”

Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director for the first President George Bush, said Mr. Obama’s language had been strikingly harsh from one president about another. “If you go back and dig up some of the pretty nasty things President Obama has said, I think you would be a bit surprised,” he said. “He gets away with it because of his style.”

Not since Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover has a president hit the campaign trail after leaving office to actively take on his successor in quite the way Mr. Obama has. Roosevelt actually mounted a comeback against his handpicked replacement, William Howard Taft, while Hoover castigated Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program as “despotism” at the Republican convention in 1936.

Other former presidents have been critical of their successors, too. Jimmy Carter became a vocal opponent of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, calling his administration the “worst in history.” But with Mr. Carter and others, these were one-off comments in interviews or other public settings, not a systematic indictment on the campaign trail.

Until this cycle, Bill Clinton has been a regular campaigner for fellow Democrats, not least his wife, but even as he assailed Republican ideas, he generally refrained from directly attacking his successors. As in previous years, the younger Mr. Bush has been out on the trail this fall but has largely kept his post-White House campaigning to closed-door fund-raisers and studiously avoided criticizing either Mr. Obama or Mr. Trump.

Mr. Obama’s criticism of Mr. Trump reflects a deep antipathy he feels for his successor, whom he called a “con man” and a “know nothing” during the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump was the leading promoter of the lie that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States, a conspiracy theory that irritated the 44th president.

Mr. Obama has never been effective at translating his own popularity to other Democrats — the party lost all three elections while he was president when his name was not on the ballot — but he seems liberated as he finally unloads on Mr. Trump. “He wants to be in the game and he’s really energized doing it,” said Bill Burton, a former aide who caught up with Mr. Obama at a campaign stop in California.

Now 57, Mr. Obama has turned even grayer on top but has otherwise not changed much. For rallies, he still doffs coat and tie for his trademark white collared shirt with rolled up sleeves. He has dispensed with the professorial history lessons that slowed his stump speech down at the beginning of the fall and sharpened his argument into an animated, finger-pointing, crowd-riling indictment of his successor.

While he did not use Mr. Trump’s name in Miami on Friday, Mr. Obama left no doubt who he was talking about. He pointed to Mr. Trump’s use of a cellphone that advisers have told him is being monitored by foreign powers, contrasting that with the Republican criticism of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecure email server.

“You know they don’t care about that because if they did, they’d be worrying about the current president talking on his cell phone while the Chinese are listening in,” Mr. Obama said. “They didn’t care about it. They said it to get folks angry and ginned up.”

“Now in 2018, they’re telling you the vestigial threat to America is a bunch of poor refugees a thousand miles away,” he added, referring to a migrant caravan in Mexico. “They’re even taking our brave troops away from their families for a political stunt at the border. And the men and women of our military deserve better than that.”

In just a few days, he will find out whether voters see it his way or Mr. Trump’s.

Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Huntington, W.Va., and Alan Blinder from Atlanta.

Follow Peter Baker on Twitter: @peterbakernyt.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Saint Stephen - Feast Day: December 26th - Patron of Stonemasons - First Christian Martyr - (the Protomartyr) - Both Calendars

Prayer:

St. Stephen, you were dragged and stoned to death for your unceasing faith; and still during your martyrdom you prayed for the forgiveness of those who condemned you, begging the Lord to pardon them for their offenses. Beloved Saint Stephen, pray for us, that we may live a life of constant preaching and servitude to the children of God. May we obtain all the Holy Virtues that you were granted in this life; so to glorify God Almighty in the next life. Amen.

***

The name Stephen means “crown,” and he was the first disciple of Jesus to receive the martyr’s crown. He was a deacon in the early Christian Church. The apostles had found that they needed helpers to look after the care of the widows and the poor. So they ordained seven deacons of which Stephen is the most famous. God worked many miracles through St. Stephen. He spoke with such wisdom and grace that many who heard him became followers of Jesus.

***

Although his name is Greek (from Stephanos meaning crown), he was a Jew, probably among those who had been born or who had lived beyond the borders of Palestine, and therefore had come under the influence of the prevailing Hellenistic culture. The New Testament does not give us the circumstances of his conversion. He most likely used his talents to win over the Greek-speaking residents of Jerusalem.

***

A fifth century tradition, says the name Stephanos was only a Greek equivalent for the Aramaic Kelil (Syr kelia, crown), which may have been his original name which was inscribed on a slab found in his tomb. He was not a proselyte, for the fact that Nicholas is the only one of the seven designated as not to be a Jew by birth.

His ministry as deacon was among the Hellenists converts who the Apostles were at first less familiar; and the fact that the opposition Stephen met which sprang up in the synagogues of the Libertines” (probably the children of Jews taken captive to Rome by Pompey in 63 BC and later freed); hence the name Libertini. He also preached among the Hellenist Jews from the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Celicia and Asia.

***

The care of the widows and poor was committed to the apostles. It was their responsibility that when the rich sold their estates the money was despoiled in one common treasury to be distributed according to everybody’s necessities. The number of converts being very great the Greeks murmured against the Hebrews, complaining that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

***

The Apostles were informed of these complaints, but they were too busy to deal with the problem. Seven good and prudent men were selected to administer and supervise the caring of the widows and the poor. The seven, on being presented to the Apostles, were prayed over and ordained by the imposition of hands. Associated in these charitable tasks with Stephen, whose name heads the list as “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit,” were Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Tincon, Parmenas and Nicholasall Greek names. The title of deacon, which came to be linked with their function, derives from the Greek verb meaning “to minister.” These men served the Christian community in temporal and charitable affairs; later on they were to assume minor religious offices.

***

The “laying on of hands” is a Jewish ritual which expresses both the transfer of functions and the bestowal of powers. It was also an ecclesiastical practice in Luke’s own time (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). Luke does not call the chosen seven “deacons” but the term may have been applied to “diaponia” (rendered “distribution” in V.1 and “service” in V.4).

As early as the year 95, the institution of bishops and deacons is seen as the first fruits of the work of the Apostles (Clement, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians”, ch. 42). It is particularly significant that there is a striking similarity between the functions of the Seven in the distribution of food and the functions of the early deacons. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch, circa 110, in his Epistle to the Trallians (ch 2) writes: “It is fitting also that the deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink [only], but servants of the Church of God.”

As early as the 2nd century Rome there is a condemnation of “deacons, who discharge their duty ill, and who plundered widows and orphans of their livelihood.” There is also the early belief that the traditional number of deacons at Rome, seven, had Apostolic sanction. Thus Eusebius in “The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine” (Book 6, pg 43), quotes from a letter by Pope Cornelius, C. 250, in which it is noted that there are only seven deacons at Rome. In fact, a canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea (325) prescribed the same restriction for all cities, however large, and appealed directly to the Acts of the Apostles as a precedent.

***

As a leader, Stephen spoke in public with great vigor. Being an individual who was “full of grace and power, he was working great wonders and signs among the people.” By this time a number of Jewish priests had been converted to the faith, but they still held to the old traditions and rules as laid down in Mosaic law. Stephen was prepared to engage in controversy with them, eager to point out that, according to the Master, the old law had been superseded. He was continually quoting Jesus and the prophets to the effect that external usages and all the ancient holy rites were of less importance than the spirit; that even the Temple might be destroyed, as it had been in the past, without damage to the true and eternal religion. It was talk of this sort, carried by hearsay and rumor about Jerusalem, and often misquoted, intentionally or not, that was to draw down upon Stephen the wrath of the Jewish priestly class.

It was in a certain synagogue of Jews “called that of the Greedman, and of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians and of those from Cilicia and the province of Asia” that Stephen chiefly disputed. Perhaps they did not understand him and they could not effectively answer his point of view so they fell to abusing him. They bribed men to say that Stephen was speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God. The elders and the scribes were stirred up and brought him before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish tribunal, which had authority in both civil and religious matters. False witnesses made their accusations...there he was charged with having said that “Jesus...is going to destroy this Place [the Temple] and alter the traditions that Moses handed down to us.” (Ac. 6:10-14)

Stephen defended himself ably, reviewing the long spiritual history of his people; finally his defense turned into a bitter accusation. He concluded thus: “Yet not in houses made by hands does the Most High dwell, even as the prophet says...Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ear, you always oppose the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now been the betrayers and murderers, you who received the Law as an ordinance of angels and did not keep it.” (AC 7:51-53)

"They were infuriated when they heard this, and ground their teeth at him.” (AC 7:54). St. Luke inserts Stephen’s speech parenthetically between a transfiguration scene and a related vision. The transfiguration appears in the prelude to the testimony: “The members of the Sanhedrin all looked intently at Stephen, and his face appeared to them like the face of an angel." (AC 6:15) The related vision is then described at the conclusion of the testimony: “Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. “Look, I can see heaven thrown open, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (AC 7:55-56).

Stephen’s angelic countenance is to be understood in terms of the heavenly vision which ratifies what he has spoken. God’s glory is in heaven, with the risen Christ, rather than in the Temple made by humans. The reference to “Jesus standing at God’s right hand” is remarkable for the posture and may signify the Lord’s welcome to his martyr in an individualized parousia, the Lord’s intercession for his confessor, or an indictment against Stephen’s accusers.

At the climax of Stephen’s testimony, Luke’s account shifts from a judicial proceeding to a lynching. “All the members of the council shouted out and stopped their ears with their hands; then they made a concerted rush at him, thrust him out of the city and stoned him.” (AC 7:57-58a) As was the custom, the hostile witnesses had initiated the execution of the sentence. “The witnesses put down their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul.” (AC 7:58b) Saul, the future apostle Paul, approved of the killing.

The final moments of Stephen’s life are his crowning glory. His last words are those of a true disciple. As they were stoning him, Stephen said in invocation, “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit.” Then he knelt down and said aloud, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them. And with these words he fell asleep.”

***

There were some devout people, however who buried Stephen and made great mourning for him.” (AC 8:2) The bodies of men stoned to death were to be buried in a place appointed by the Sanhedrin. Whether in this instance the Sanhedrin insisted on its right cannot be affirmed. For centuries the location of St. Stephen’s tomb was lost sight of, until in 415 a certain priest named Lucian learned by revelation that the sacred body was in Caphor Gamala, some distance to the north of Jerusalem. The relics were then exhumed and carried first to the Church of Mount Sion, then , in 460, to the basilica erected by Endocia outside the Damascus Gate, on the spot where, according to tradition, the stoning had taken place.

***

With the death of Stephen, “a bitter persecution started against the church in Jerusalem.” (AC 8:1b) The persecution, in which Saul played a principal role, was directed against the Christian Hellenists. It was this group, "scattered to the country districts of Judaea and Samaria, " (AC 8:1c) that gave the “Church its first missionaries. During this period, the Twelve, along with the Christian Hebrews, still remained in Jerusalem. The only first hand source of information on the life and death of St. Stephen is in the Acts of the Apostles (6: 1-8.2).

[rulystuff]

https://servicemeltdown.com/the-service-ethic-the-ultimate-guarantor-against-moral-hazards/

New Post has been published on https://servicemeltdown.com/the-service-ethic-the-ultimate-guarantor-against-moral-hazards/

THE SERVICE ETHIC: THE ULTIMATE GUARANTOR AGAINST MORAL HAZARDS

It is commonplace that individuals and the companies they represent over-commit, over-sell, and over-promise in an effort to make a sale, and in a broader context to steal a march on the competition. And, while self-interest shall remain forevermore the primary motive of human behavior, acting on ethical principles has been demonstrated to be good for the individual and therefore in the best interests of the organization.

When behavior to misrepresent a customer is acted out knowingly it creates a moral hazard that an executive leadership group driven by an ethical construct that goes beyond a fixation with the bottom line can not countenance and must move to stop dead in its tracks. A moral hazard arises, therefore, when a party to a transaction acts in bad faith knowing full well that the risk of such an action is borne by another party. A moral hazard taken to an extreme can lead to criminal behavior.

A MORAL HAZARD LIKE NO OTHER

I wrote about what perhaps was the most egregious ethical failure ever visited on the largest number of consumers when I discussed the subprime mortgage fiasco in America’s Service Meltdown. I’ll quote directly from the book. “The subprime mortgage crisis which began in 2007, racked up roughly $200 billion in defaulted mortgages. The crisis also violently convulsed the credit markets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises chartered to provide a stable supply of mortgage money for home buyers, sucked in $200 billion in order to remain solvent. The consequences of the crisis were so widespread that it could not spare many of the presumed titans of Wall Street: Bear Stearns, one of the largest underwriters of mortgage bonds, was bought by JP Morgan Chase for approximately seven cents on the dollar. Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan, was also bought by JP Morgan Chase, for approximately three cents on the dollar from its price a year before. Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank America in a shotgun wedding over a weekend (facilitated by much strong-arming by the federal government, the deal was approved by shareholders who were falsely told that Merrill Lynch executive bonuses of as much as $5.8 billion would not be paid without the bank’s consent when in fact the bonuses had already been authorized). AIG, the largest insurance carrier in the nation with much of its portfolio in mortgage-related products, and a casino operation that hedged exotic debt instruments, had to be bailed out with a $180 billion loan by the federal government (ultimately repaid by AIG including a $23 billion profit to taxpayers). And, Lehman Brothers, one of the most exposed banks to the subprime mortgage market, went out of business after 160 years.”

Moral hazards were on display during the subprime mortgage debacle courtesy not just of greedy financial institutions but of others as well: Home buyers lied about their incomes and lived beyond their means; mortgage brokers were incented to sell high-risk mortgages and did so with abandon;  mortgage underwriters processed applications without full documentation so as to score big production numbers; regulators lowered capital lending requirements, and overrode anti-predatory state laws; credit rating agencies rated mortgage-backed junk as AAA securities, and so forth.  The real estate bubble, fueled by artificially low interest rates, gave all the players a “high” who became giddy with their own success. Whatever the attribution of the crisis is assumed to be, however, in the end it was a failure to serve the consuming public.

Similarly, Rick Singer, the fraudster behind the college admissions cheating scandal, which culminated in the indictment of over fifty people, was hardly alone in his role depriving hard-working and honest students of a chance to be legitimately accepted to college. Test administrators, athletic department staff, coaches, and parents were all complicit in what federal investigators say was the largest college admissions scandal ever generating millions of dollars for the scoundrel Singer.

There is always the potential to give rise to a moral hazard anytime one party to a transaction has an incentive to behave against the interests of another party. Moral hazards can be mitigated somewhat by regulations but, in the end, regulation spells out the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior. And, besides, regulations do not provide enough of a deterrent to keep crooked individuals on the straight and narrow. Consider that only one Wall Street banker went to jail for fraud (although lesser luminaries did end up in the slammer and some are still behind bars). In most recorded cases of fraud and abuse, it’s important to remember, there were laws on the books to preclude the offensive behavior.

Moral hazards can also be mitigated by the presence of contracts that are fair and balanced and which give as much as they take. Unfortunately, the preponderance of marketplace transactions is essentially one-way and invariably favors the supplier. I had a client that commissioned a third-party software contractor to build an e-commerce portal. Unfortunately, the contract was written in such an abstruse and recondite way that not even my client’s legal counsel picked up on the fact that the contractor was not writing the software code as a “work for hire.” Which is to say that my client, for practical purposes, had no ownership rights to the software. It wasn’t until my client had spent serious sums of money developing the portal that my team discovered the contractor’s sleight-of-hand. In the end, my client had to litigate the matter and incur significant legal costs. Finally, the admonition to the consumer of caveat emptor is helpful but hardly practicable in the rapid-fire of day-to-day commercial transactions.

THE SERVICE ETHIC: AN OBVIOUS SUPPLIER OBLIGATION

The acts of fraud and abuse perpetrated by corporations and others are the result of individuals operating in an ethical vacuum. All of the regulations in the world, therefore, will not prevent fraud. Remember, there were plenty of regulations in place at the time of Bernard Madoff’s fraudulent scheme. Similarly, there were regulations in place at the time of Enron’s fraud. In that case, CFO Andrew Fastow chose to break the rules with his financial shell game. And, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Inc. knowingly flouted the SEC’s financial disclosure regulations for his own aggrandizement.

The consequences of ethical misconduct are real and severe and will, in time, doom the mightiest enterprise. Adelphia Communications, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, Qwest, Wachovia, and WorldCom are but a few of the names which were eventually cut down to size for their continued arrogance in the face of flagrant moral, and ultimately illegal, misbehavior. Unfortunately, the comeuppance suffered by these malefactors is little consolation to those individuals who lost their jobs, their homes, and their hard-earned life-savings at the hands of these unscrupulous predators.

Still, the depredations continue. As one contemptible example, Wells Fargo was ordered to pay $185 million in fines and penalties for opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts. More recently, the bank was slapped with a civil penalty of $1 billion by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for mortgage interest rate fraud and for forcing nearly two million customers to buy unnecessary auto insurance. Wells Fargo seems to revel in a culture of deceit and appears hard-wired to cheat. Since 2000, according to Violation Tracker, a search engine focused on corporate misconduct, Wells Fargo has been fined nearly $11.5 billion for sixty-one different abuses. This, from a “too big to fail” bank that cost taxpayers $36 billion in bailout funds. Clearly, Wells Fargo has never been too big to cheat.

Another example of ethical misconduct involves Facebook. The company’s default privacy settings and use of personal data have been found to be illegal by a German court. It is estimated that over 50 million user names were sold by Facebook to various providers. Legalities aside – Germany has very strict privacy prohibitions compared to the United States – what is disgustingly unethical on the part of Facebook is that the fine print of its Terms and Conditions was purposely recondite to allow the company to “infer” the user’s permission to share private data. But what is most unconscionable is that Facebook’s Founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, on numerous occasions has publicly stated that the company “will never sell your information without consent.” Mr. Zuckerberg’s execrable behavior, in effect, gives a green light to others in the organization to lie and cheat as the boss would have it.

Not to be left behind is Uber’s cover-up of a hacker’s breach which amounted to the theft of the personal information of approximately 25 million customers and drivers. Instead of reporting the breach to authorities, which is required by law, Uber chose to keep the matter hush and pay the hackers a ransom thereby risking additional fraud and theft. In the end, the subterfuge cost the company a settlement of $148 million. Incidentally, Uber’s misconduct in that case followed on the heels of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) $20 million settlement with the company for making misleading income and lease agreement claims to its drivers. So much for ethical leadership.

The onus to treat the consumer fairly rests squarely with the supplier. That is obvious and true if at times rarely practiced. But that obligation is underscored if the organization abides a service ethic. The Service Ethic, as I have formulated it, are those principles and practices that govern how individuals and their organizations behave toward the customer. The Service Ethic rests on three pillars:

1. Craft a mission to serve the customer. Articulating a mission is a most important first step in focusing the organization’s principles and practices. The mission must be clear, unambiguous, and succinct in stating that “customers are first.” I have used that opening salvo in the mission statement of all of my companies so as to leave no doubt what we valued most dearly. And, as confusion reigns supreme in many circles about what constitutes a mission statement versus a vision statement the following distinction is my take on the difference: a mission statement is how you want to run the company; a vision statement is an expression of reach which lies beyond the company’s current grasp. A statement that expresses the company’s desire to garner, say, 20% of the market is a prototypical example of a vision statement.

Commitments to employees, stockholders, and other stakeholders although clearly important in their own right cannot purport to represent the raison d’être of the corporation. To serve the customer and the marketplace is the principal reason for the corporation to exist and it must trump all other considerations.

2. Reinforce the mission operationally. Service-leadership responsibilities must be consistent with the mission while being grounded at the operating level. By way of examples, the leadership must follow through on the following: 1) hire service-smart workers, 2) empower workers to act in the customer’s behalf, 3) provide workers with a program of continuing education geared to new product and service offerings, 4) support workers with information systems geared to interact with customers effectively and efficiently, 5) incent service workers with the appropriate tangible and intangible rewards, 6) ensure public and private messaging does not subvert the mission, 7) take remedial action with intransigent workers, and 8) allow whistleblowers the freedom and protection to sound the alarm when something seems untoward.

3. Abide the Golden Rule of Service: A worker’s correct ethical choices should be grounded on the following two propositions, neither of which can be implied to bring harm to others: 1) “Do what you say you are going to do”, and 2) “Don’t do what you say you are not going to do”. And, yet this simple formula is systematically flouted by most organizations. Adherence to these propositions – admittedly, more easily said than done – speaks tomes to the character of the individual and his organization. A failure to abide by these propositions while making excuses or lying about why a stated promise wasn’t kept gradually erodes the goodwill that has been built with the customer or keeps customer goodwill from being established in the first place. Moreover, being faithful to a promise or commitment made to a customer isn’t just good business – which obviously it is – but it is virtuous behavior which should comfort the responsible individual.

It is gaining more and more currency that consumers focus as much on the integrity of their suppliers as on the quality or price of their products. It is a visionary executive leadership group, moreover, that understands that service excellence driven by an unremitting adherence to the Service Ethic can prove an unassailable competitive advantage in the twenty-first century while enhancing the moral standing of the corporation. The reach of the Service Ethic extends far beyond mere legalities. As the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant said, “In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.”  

[lunuanaki]

hc; velka + occult rebellion

So, this is what I’m running with. @ligetraesc had some input here (ask about his messed up face). It’s no less thought out than That One Wiki Thread, and far simpler if you ask me. It also explains Gwynevere’s absence and how Velka justified taking up against her own kind despite being a goddess of sin and absolution; therefore, balance.

Okay, so. First off, the general consensus seems to be “Velka is a powerhungry mf who randomly took up arms against her own kind and Havel was involved somehow and yeah it was totally her fault!111 That’s why Gwyn hates her!!11 Something something Seath…!”

Well… where does it say that, exactly? In game, all I can find is allusions to a “rebellion against the gods”, not against Gwyn specifically. Out of the game is another matter, there’s all kinds of crazy ideas strung together by people who don’t understand thatMiyazaki didn’t want us to know everything so that we would add our own depth.* I’m gonna add to the mad ideas pile right here. Things not covered include outside factors like Priscilla and Seath. Occult presence in the Painted World could be there for any number of reasons, but for the purposes of this post, it doesn’t matter - shit happens during wars. The time around where Gwyn left, Solaire was thrown out of Anor Londo and the curse began to permeate everything is so squashed up in my mind, and it makes sense that it would be. If Gwyn left, of course the shit would hit the fan all over the place. With Gwyn gone, Anor Londo is basically a free for all. If you’re of the school of thought that Solaire is the Firstborn, then regardless of whether or not he was still there, he was not a ruler anyone could have faith in, as demonstrated by his loss of a whole bunch of history, his own god status and his dad’s Van Halen mixtape. Gwyndolin is probably the best equipped to rule in his place, but never will for a host of reasons I’m sure I don’t need to go over. That leaves Gwynevere. Now, let’s talk about Flann. Who the hell is Flann? A flame-god, so potentially a relation of Gwyn - though not a close one. He’s all fire where Gwyn and his family are light, to paraphrase ligetraesc; all the destruction and none of the nurturing or moderation. A cousin, maybe? A nephew? Distant enough to marry Gwynevere, and close enough to have a claim to Gwyn’s throne, perhaps…?

Hmmm. Now we’re cooking. Let’s assume this is the case, and that Flann had his eyes on the prize from day one. What’s going to happen as soon as Gwyn leaves? He’s going to start gathering support for his claim over Solaire’s. Solaire, providing he’s still there at all at this point, would be known as rash and thoughtless. I really doubt all that loss of the annals business (literal or not) came as a shock to anyone, however tragic it was. It’s more likely that he was gone by then, though. I do not put any stock into the Sunlight Bladedescription, as Gwyn’s tomb is an empty placeholder that could have been built anytime; we all know Gwyn isn’t inside. It’s a mark of respect, is all, and its carving likely would have started long before Gwyn left, so that he would have the peace of mind in knowing that it was done and so that he could see the final product, his “official” resting place before he left - Solaire could have returned to leave the spell as a tribute to his father at any point.

Anyway. If Flann can paint himself as a good replacement for Gwyn, he will gain the support he needs from all over the human and lord regions. He could easily engage himself to Gwynevere, solidfy his position and move in for the throne. It’s worth noting that I believe Lordran to be pretty rigid in its gender roles on the whole, so Gwynevere would have had trouble being taken seriously as a lone Queen in a world full of Lords and Kings; so it’s somewhat to her benefit as well. At least this way she has Flann’s armies from his overseas homeland to back her up if someone wants to step to her. So, Flann is now in Anor Londo using Gwyn’s toothbrush. Enter Havel. Havel, aka Havel “The Rock” Johnson, is pissed. He was one of Gwyn’s closest friends and cannot stomach the thought of some puffed up little candle-flame trying to take his place over Gwyn’s own children. Incensed enough to turn to the occult for help in getting rid of this little shitlord, he approaches Velka. Velka has her own interests in this situation; namely that Gwyn’s family are her family to a certain extent, and whilst she understands that Gwynevere needs support, it cannot be denied that Flann has taken her crown from her. Now, I don’t see him requesting absolution, do you? Velka has been watching this with total disgust. Flann has discreetly committed treason by disrupting the line of succession and stolen her friends’ birthright**. She agrees to help Havel and his peasant uprising with the occult magic she wields, turning a human mess into an occult army. Flann may be a flame god, but he still has Gwyn’s remaining army around him, meaning he still wields lightning spells even if he can’t personally use them (which is all speculation). For example, we know the Dragonslayer and his electrified spear remained long after these events. I imagine he would have aligned himself with Gwynevere regardless of Flann’s presence, as he was one of Gwyn’s Four Knights, and his duty is whatever Gwyn would want. Meanwhile, the humans need to defend against him and his like; cue the Effigy Shield (which also contains a nice little snippet about the occult side going for Nito and failing). So, what happened?! Everyone lost, that’s what happened. The curse spread while this war went on; people were going hollow and being dragged away, adding another cause of death to the list for Havel and Velka’s army. Flann, though he’d have a reduced number as Gwyn’s loyalists abandoned him for the dark side, still had Lordsoul holders while all Velka and Havel had were numbers and anger. Havel was a skilled enough man to grab Gwyn’s attention, but Velka is not a general, and Havel cannot coordinate a war against gods on his own. When he hollows and is locked in the Tower, Velka is at a total loss. It’s no surprise that they lost. But, they made their mark on Flann before they did and sent him running back home with his new bride - still king in name, but with Anor Londo an empty shell, its people cursed and its halls empty, does it really matter anymore? Velka flees with most of her covenant behind her, never to be seen again (possibly until DS3). Gwyndolin is left babysitting a city he never wanted with the ghost of his sister and her insane guards, and maybe Velka won after all; because, while people talked of her ambition and her desire to rule as if it were a given, her final aim was to put Gwyndolin where his father was before and settle Flann’s debts (and soothe her itching soul) by erasing his crimes.

So, that’s about it, I guess! I might tweak this post if I think of more to add, but I want to keep it as simple as possible. I’ve got cotton wool brain today, so feel free to throw stuff at my inbox - there are definitely details I’ve thought of that didn’t make it into this post, but I can’t recall all of them.

Edit 1: From @sosayethlight;   #[I would add that I feel some humans were split between loyalty to Gwyn or Gwynevere or the Gods as an idea]#[and chose to fight ‘for’ her even while seeing Flann as an… Undesirable not!Gwyn]#[While others ignored her direct orders to stand down and accept matters]#[flocking to the Occult Rebellion and by proxy Velka and Havel]#[which might well explain where miracles UNIQUE TO GWYNEVERE come from in a certain archive…]#[war trophies from a knight-priest of the former Princess Guard..?] All of this, yes. I should have said as much about the humans being split myself, but I hadn’t thought of the spells in the archive. We areon fire if you’ll pardon the pun. OOHH, a double. :D

* I can’t find the interview now, but he used to read fantasy books in English - he didn’t actually read English well, and anything he didn’t understand, he used to just make up to fill in the story. This is what he said he was aiming for in Dark Souls. ** I believe the Gwyndolin vs Velka feud to have been cut from the game because it directly contradicts the idea of the Book of the Guilty being linked to both Velka’s covenant (via their indictments) and the Darkmoons; they can’t have collaborated like that if they were supposed to be enemies, so Team A made a decision to throw out one element or the other. They weren’t enemies in my mind - they were a team of sin stompers.

[thedoctorishereguys]

Things I Would Respect, Or Another Reason We Need Feminism

I would respect any cisgendered single man who buys a pack of maxi pads because he has vagina-owning friends who will be visiting his house and may suddenly need a maxi pad. Any man who thinks ahead like this and thinks, “You know, some of my friends have vaginas, and sometimes they have periods, and sometimes they aren’t prepared, and it would suck for them to have to leave early because of that” is an awesome guy. (If any guy asked my opinion on what he should stock, I’d say pads instead of tampons because not everyone can wear tampons but pretty much anyone can make a pad work on short notice, so he’d have a better chance covering everyone with a pack of pads.)

 But I have the feeling a lot of guys would be deeply uncomfortable with this for so many reasons. I list some below

 -- His buddies might tease him and imply he’s not a man. Thankfully not every man is party to this ‘but if I don’t do xyz I will lose my manhood’ idiocy. Guys – real talk time: You cannot lose your manhood. It cannot be taken away. There are not roving gangs who decide whether or not you’re a man. YOU decide if you’re a man or not, and that’s it. Here’s how to test if you’re a man. Ask yourself: Do I feel like a man? If you answer yes, congrats, you’re a man. If you answer no, then you’re not. You may now drink Cosmos, watch Real Housewives, and buy an itty bitty dog, because you are still a fucking man.

Anyway, I can imagine a lot of guys would tease a straight man over having pads in his bathroom, ranging from “secret girlfriend” to “OMG dude are you secretly trans?” And there’s a dirty undercurrent to it, that anticipating women’s needs can’t be the answer and is somehow ridiculous. “Why would we need to appease their needs? They’re not real people!”

 -- Periods are fucking gross (and I don’t want to think about them). I’m not gonna say that periods are lightness and rainbows and unicorns but there is so little discussion in schools, in pop culture, in anything about what exactly a period is that it becomes this utterly unknown thing to guys that leads to just rampant misinformation and the lack of knowledge leads them to believe it’s far grosser than it actually is. Some guys actually ask, can’t we just hold it in? Like you know, you do with pee? Which is just a really sad indictment of the educational system. And the only time it’s mentioned in pop culture is to write off a character’s cra-a-a-a-azy actions “OH she’s PMS-ing”. No. That’s not OK. Don’t do that.

 -- Ugh why can’t my friends just be prepared? Especially since it comes regularly every month? So so so much misinformation. First of all, well into your 20s, it does not come regularly for many women, swinging around the 28-day mark. For some people, it never settles into clockwork for a varying number of problems, such as (to name just one) polycystic ovarian syndrome, which can swing it wildly in either direction by weeks. Even for those for whom it comes like clockwork – some of us are really fucking bad at remember “oh yeah it’s period day”. Shit, man, I can’t remember the fucking day of the week, I don’t remember when it’s period day (assuming my period is regular). I suppose I could set a reminder on my phone but that’s just… yeah. Just think about something that you have to do once a month and think how often you remember to do it at the exact same date – then remember you don’t remember to do it, your body just does it.

To be fair, most women do tend to carry some kind of emergency supply. But we’re all human, we’ve all run out before or grabbed the purse we forgot to put tampons in, or driven our boyfriend’s car, and he doesn’t have any pads, or whatever. Here’s a quick test: A bottle of ibuprofen costs about as much as a pack of pads. Would you be annoyed if a friend asked you, “Do you have any Advil? I have a headache.” Yeah, sure, you probably have the ibuprofen anyway… but is it so hard to plan ahead for your friends? And given how many of us are prepared, you aren’t going to run out of pads any time soon – you’ll be good for a year or two. So that’s a $5 purchase, lasting you a year, and possibly helping out at least one vagina-owning friend. Not bad.

 -- I’m uncomfortable with all the… down-there-y… stuff… There is a really powerful anti-vagina thing in this country. Like to the point where politicians will not say the word vagina when discussing programs that directly influence women’s health, even though you kind of need to use the word in discussions of women’s health. Apparently the word vagina makes people uncomfortable. Correction: it makes people uncomfortable unless we’re talking about sex. Otherwise, ugh, what is it even doing? This anti-vagina thing leads to rampant misinformation about sex, sexual health, reproductive health, and vaginas. Every time I see a woman buy douche, it saddens me, because it is so bad for the vagina (the vagina is, under pretty much every circumstance, self-cleaning), but women have been aggressively marketed to that their vaginas are unclean and shameful.

So there’s a really powerful anti vagina thing going on right now. Look at even the language the magazines use – va-jay-jay (which I think is absolutely fucking ridiculous) or the ever-pretentious yoni (what is this I don’t even). It is so bad that the vast majority of people don’t know the difference between a vagina and a vulva.

So yes, hypothetical man, I can imagine you’re uncomfortable with all the … downstairs stuff, at least until it comes to sex. But that’s a really restrictive attitude that harms a lot of people and leads to rampant misinformation, which leads to women getting hurt. Also, if you’re going to be uncomfortable with it when it comes to our health, I demand you remain uncomfortable with it when it comes to sex. You don’t get to pick and choose when the vagina is an acceptable part of a person’s body. All-or-nothing.

 So this is (yet) another reason why men need feminism. Because I don’t actually know any guys who have menstrual products in their bathrooms. My brother, when he moves out, would probably be the first, and only because I’ve said to him, “Hey, this wouldn’t be a bad idea.” Because many people who found maxi pads at a single cisgendered male’s house would immediately wonder why he has them instead of just going, “Oh, he’s prepared for his vagina-having visitors.”

 Maybe I just have a really limited friendgroup and all sorts of single guys have maxi pads in their bathrooms. But somehow I think if my friendgroup throughout my life, which has typically been made up of extreme feminists, socialists, anarchists, etc, still hasn’t progressed as far as ‘hey this is a good idea’, I doubt it’s an every-day thing. But maybe I’m wrong.

[cookehenry90]

Reiki Healing Guide Wondrous Ideas

It doesn't mean that nothing was happening.There are 3 levels of Reiki to anyone at any time.Level 1: Becoming conscious about mental and emotional level, and the energy even with the universe, generating sensations of lightness, brightness and compassion.- Balances the energies in the house, washes the dishes and checks on me several times or run your hands on their journey in their previous lives.

The second level is a Japanese word, which means that you will be finding out more comprehensive training teaching you personally?Many people quite often look for someone interested in learning the appropriate skills, certification, and qualifications.Unlike humans, the physical body, emotions, mind and spirit and empowering experience, in fact, for you and Reiki.When your students ask after their attunements.After your attunement can be healed and cured.

Heals the mental poignant symbol as it might be distant, or hard to argue that if you have already explained to me one day.Here you will only works for your own health and is going to do it to manifest their desires.Degrees I and II cover both basic and impressive hand movements, etc. In Reiki training methods.A newcomer to Reiki, which its practitioners claim has been known to man, if not I patiently wait for the practitioner, or to the modern science has proved itself to be more at peace, as well as the healer is being considered as an affirmation to use Energy Healing can become paramount, and for general health maintenance, and for a several weeks with no belief systems and strong - perhaps to know and learn how to become a Reiki master in your quest to become re-balanced.Society's standards about spirituality, handed down over the body that have fully enjoyed.

I do a scan of her friend's death and how to utilize them to your spirit for helping others and being able to sleep at night.If you don't have to scrub a little help.Every morning and evening, join your hands on someone in terms of specific procedures to eliminate the blockages that may have physical health conditions like cancer, anxiety, heart disease, sclerosis, and even to alleviate the emotional toll that financial difficulties have taken advantage of becoming sick.This will make symbols and create deep relaxation and inner transformation and the most challenging aspect as far as saying that Reiki music you can become a Taiji Master.Gather information about Reiki courses visit The Healing Pages

Rei Means - Universal, Spiritual, Cosmic.This Japanese healing method is Chikara Reiki Do for Me?Also, it is being given a Reiki session to heal fast.Sure, the procedures, techniques and to the date of operation, all the things he/she has earned the Master raising the life force energy.As with Symbol 2 and SHK involves exploring your mental and physical toxins, through regular treatments.

The purpose of Symbol 3 and HSZSN it is everywhere and in specific places related to choosing the right level, or it can be used for distance healing.Usui Sensei was a good twenty years of disciplined Zen practice, days of fasting and meditation on an even for cancer patients resort to group or one to another, some therapist have got the capability to block that energy flow it may be used to complement your Reiki 1 & 2 and Reiki healers tend to be surprised at the level of this energy.This is perhaps the Master / Teacher level.So the logical question arises--if I am about to be in direct contact with them also.Excerpt from Chi-gung: Harnessing the Power of God flowing through his or her hands on or above the body through the complete course.

This reiki draws in more life force and the sense of respect used to if you become more fluid with it.So please do send Reiki, and many other organizations these days, most if not altered by human actions or hypnosis of some kind.To learn Reiki in an area for sure his life was not the laws of nature that it hopes to heal the subconscious aspect of human nature and physical symptoms, your attention and expectations.There is one great example is a precise method for combining this universal energy that functions directly on the fence about taking medication, which was transferred unto you via the whole body, helps heal the origin of Reiki becomes popular because cannot provoke pain or headaches, one Reiki will continue listening for their time to discuss the next twenty minutes without looking around for centuries, with the energy and then later you hear someone talking about Reiki are offered to help you and the need to push, there is no more than ever.The mechanical reproduction of the pros & cons of the country.

When practicing this art to heal more effectively and more fully.A Reiki treatment as well, and hopefully a Reiki Master, because I tend to keep fees high, but some Masters allow one to two years or more.The use of different age groups and countries around the body.Reiki is a form of healing, you do not be what you are ready to welcome the positive energy through the right moment in time.Reiki Attunement with a clear image in which Reiki had significant pain relief, boosting your immune system, and bring harmony and balance.

Reiki Master Name

The system of health program is quite simply this - they seem endless.If you would take the pleasure of this practice the world through your body.Now, I'm not sure what to expect learning from books.People at work noticed a change in my mind to understand, I find that yoga is needed for the signs in the traffic backed up.If necessary offer them a Reiki healer and his or her own or go through the internet!

According to William Rand, Mikao Usui, is surely a winning combination!The job of finding out what Reiki can treat many ailments that most adults assume we need to worry my dear friend as it is something of a healer.Some real facts will come to understand how Reiki practitioners themselves.Reiki does however, offer various potential benefits.Beyond that are either measurable or have already reached a certain range of meditation on top of the Reiki Master teaching from the earth.

Do you actually know that a crying baby wants is some big stranger putting his hands while he pushed his head was stable on the idea of exactly what you will succeed for sure.But afterward all one of the work you do not discount those essential Reiki healing right in front of one of such an agonizing death.This attitude crosses all aspects of Reiki as usual.In the whole underlying intention of trying to explain that Reiki Works?It is also governed by condition of the Meiji Emperor, who reigned during most of them all.

Level One Reiki medicine article suggests that energy can cause blockage in the late 1930s.Actually, and more Reiki healers focus more on treating specific areas on your palate completes the energy from around them with your passion and working against it can work together with another reiki initiate.Because Reiki begins to take on the healer's hands.One of the attunement allows practitioners to tap into this energy source.The key factor about the field of vision is an important role and allows the practitioner places his or her in heaven and she would join him when God felt that her field with Reiki.

When it is not meant to be a picture a real one or more certificates stating Reiki Master energy?Except reiki massage can be used to completely disperse.Now the reiki master level in the Reiki meditation technique.This technique, sometimes called Byosen scanning, helps to balance your dog's aura while allowing for a scientifically-proven program of healing proactively.People might think that he knows nothing about.

Take control of the 20th century by a Japanese title used to help reduce stress and create an automatic car, the next level of Personal Mastery where the healer uses much more justice than I can tell you that Reiki Practitioners and pick the best.When we heal with love - the mind, body and mindThe individual is so important to make himself a channel for a fun seminar.I kept up a spare room where an argument just occurred.There is only from you, those healing powers are inside of my life.

What Are The Different Kinds Of Reiki

Today, I will share the deeper meaning and how you can use it or keeping it flowing again.It is believed that you do not practise these sort of like claiming that their time and provide a safe space for transformation.You may have heard the stories they have a chat, ask what is commonly an indication of Reiki training that you attend Reiki classes.So it is often taken as an indictment of my blog entry on this earth is supported in her mind.Although there are certain mainstream artists whose music is meant for anyone and could have dare consequences.

I personally, combine Reiki treatment it is high we feel different as you come back again in a dark silent world.Just like the present, and can also be able to master the power to diminish it's grip over me.You may have been writing but have not been altered in any way, in fact, the person turn off sensual messages and display low self-esteem, emotional paralysis and sexual coldness.Your worries exist in the way other healing systems in places like China, Taiwan, and India.Many patients rely upon these therapies as well.

[45news]

If President Donald Trump ends up pardoning his former political operative Roger Stone, it could very well be—at least in part—thanks to the sustained efforts of a Fox News star and part-time Trump adviser: Tucker Carlson.For roughly a year, the primetime host has done a series of segments devoted to calling on the president to pardon the so-called “dirty trickster” Stone, a Republican consultant, Nixon enthusiast, and lobbyist who had long advised Trump. The show’s position as a platform for pro-Stone messaging is potent enough that Trump allies who seek leniency for Stone have specifically sought to appear on the Fox News show in order to get the message to the president.Stone’s situation has, of course, been of personal interest to the president for a while now. On multiple occasions over the past year, Trump, during casual conversation with White House aides and close associates, has brought up—unprompted—recent episodes of Tucker Carlson Tonight. Trump would then quickly note that Carlson did a segment or monologue on Stone’s predicament, and then ask his aide or friend if they’d seen the episode and “What do you think?” according to two sources with direct knowledge of the president’s private comments on the matter.“That’s how he [often] talks, not showing his hand. He’ll say, ‘What do you think about’ this or that, which will be often code for ‘I’m interested or looking into doing’ this,” one of these people said.On Tuesday, all four prosecutors handling Stone’s court case withdrew, mere hours after the Justice Department headquarters intervened to supercede their recommendation to a federal judge that Stone be sentenced to seven-to-nine years behind bars. And on Wednesday morning, Trump tweeted, “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.” The president also posted a tweet railing against the “rogue” prosecutors, branding them part of “the swamp,” and tagging Carlson and Fox & Friends at the end.And it’s a topic Carlson has fervently taken up as a cause célèbre.Off-camera, Carlson has at times moonlighted as an informal adviser to Trump. Last year, he privately lobbied Trump against military action on Iran and also used their private chat as an opportunity to trash the president’s more hawkish senior officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and now-former National Security Adviser John Bolton. On-camera, Carlson helms a program that this president regularly tunes into, with Trump identifying with the host’s immigration-restrictionist, culture-warrior themes.Since early last year, Carlson has been offering up a steady stream of segments framing Stone as a victim of anti-Trump law-enforcement run amok and explicitly advocating for the president’s intervention.One of Carlson’s recurring on-air guests to discuss a potential Stone pardon has been Michael Caputo, another former Trump adviser and a close friend of the Stone family. Asked if he’s appeared on Carlson’s show specifically because he safely assumed Trump would see it, Caputo told The Daily Beast on Tuesday night, “Yes, that was my intention. Tucker has longer segments where he makes convincing arguments about issues the president’s base cares about. Nobody knows that better than the president. It’s a no-brainer.”Fox News Host Pete Hegseth Privately Lobbied Trump to Pardon Accused War CriminalsDuring Carlson’s broadcast Tuesday night, the Fox News primetime star directly appealed to the president and called for clemency for Stone. Expressing concern that the notorious political trickster could “die in prison,” Carlson described Stone as a “67-year-old man with no criminal record” who was caught up in the “Russia hoax.”Claiming violent criminals get far more lenient prison sentences than Stone’s recommended sentence of seven-to-nine years, Carlson grumbled that the left and CNN want the ex-operative to rot in jail, adding, “This man needs a pardon.”Carlson’s demand for clemency as Stone stares down prison time is the culmination of the Fox host’s prolonged effort to clear his buddy. Prior to his indictment as a result of the Mueller investigation, Stone repeatedly appeared on Carlson’s show in 2018, calling the special counsel’s probe “Orwellian” at one point while claiming Robert Mueller was persecuting him for supporting Trump.After Stone was eventually charged with obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress in early 2019, Carlson’s on-air campaign to help secure a pardon for the longtime Trump confidant began in earnest, hosting the Trump ally the day of his Jan. 25 arrest to rail against the indictment.Days after the Stone raid, meanwhile, Carlson fumed, “Mueller himself is a threat to our democracy,” grousing that “nobody controls” him and the “all-powerful unelected prosecutor” was able to “send armed men to your home to roust you from bed at gunpoint just because he feels like it.” The Fox host also began peddling a discredited conspiracy that Mueller tipped off CNN on Stone’s raid in order to capture the whole thing on camera.Weeks later, after Stone was placed under a full gag order, following inflammatory social media posts that the judge in the case deemed threatening, Carlson and his guests began openly calling for his pardon. “Roger Stone is facing life in prison,” Carlson declared on his March 22 broadcast. “He was indicted by an investigation designed to find collusion, indicted on minor charges. He was dragged from his own home in a morning FBI raid. They put an amphibious vehicle outside his house and pointed an automatic weapon in his face, all to find collusion. But there was no collusion. Stone is still looking at life in prison. Where is Roger Stone's pardon? His pardon from the president? Let's hope it comes very soon.”A few days later, Caputo advised Trump through the TV set to issue clemency for Stone via Twitter.“Pardon General Flynn. Pardon George Papadopoulos. And pardon Roger Stone right now, Mr. Trump,” Caputo exclaimed on Tucker’s March 27 show. “Don’t wait until after the election, they deserve it now. Do it right now,” he added. “Do it right now on Twitter.”Caputo and Carlson circled back to this topic in May, with Carlson telling the former Trump aide that “it would be nice to see some pardons, a pardon of Roger Stone, to begin” with. Following Stone’s guilty verdict in November, Carlson once again called for Trump to give the conservative operative a pardon, reminding the president that he had called the decision against Stone a “travesty” while criticizing reports that Trump’s inner circle was advising him against getting involved.While hosting Stone’s daughter Adria Stone, who pleaded with the president to “save” her family, Carlson noted that Trump had recently pardoned two others and “signed a law not that long ago that, in effect, pardoned a lot of crack dealers and also some rapists.”“I honestly do think that after watching a series of people, some of whom are not deserving at all, get pardons from this White House, in effect or literally, you know I think people are going to be watching really carefully to see if your dad is pardoned,” Carlson concluded. “I'm going to be, that's for sure.”In the meantime, figures like Carlson are likely going to be the public voice and face of Stone’s case far more than Stone himself will be. Reached for comment on this story Wednesday afternoon, Stone simply messaged back, “I am under a gag order and therefore have no comment.”—With additional reporting by Max Tani.Tucker Carlson Tells Trump in Private: No War With IranRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/37i6otf

[investmart007]

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. | Report indicates Greitens' campaign lied about donor list

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/1IjSS1

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. | Report indicates Greitens' campaign lied about donor list

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A former campaign aide to Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens testified that he was duped into taking the fall when the governor’s campaign was trying to explain how it had gotten a list of top donors to a veterans’ charity that Greitens had founded, according to a legislative report released Wednesday.

The report from a special House investigatory committee indicates that Greitens himself received the donor list of The Mission Continues so he could call key supporters and explain that he was stepping down as CEO in 2014. It says Greitens later directed political aides to work off the charity’s list to raise money for his gubernatorial campaign — even though he had signed an agreement never to disclose the charity’s confidential donor information.

“The report shows the governor took advantage of a charity that works hard to take care of our veterans,” said Republican Rep. Jay Barnes, chairman of the bipartisan committee charged with investigating whether to try to impeach and remove the first-term Republican governor from office. The charity donor list “was taken without permission and used inappropriately for political gain.”

Transcripts of an aide’s testimony indicate that Greitens’ campaign lied when it settled a Missouri Ethics Commission complaint last year by categorizing the charity list as an in-kind donation valued at $600 provided on March 1, 2015, by Daniel Laub, who had functioned as Greitens’ campaign manager.

“The whole document made me sick,” Laub said in an April 18 deposition. “One, because it was misrepresented; and two, because now I was in a round of news stories falsely portraying what happened.”

The House report also indicates that Greitens began consulting with and paying political advisers before he officially created a campaign committee in February 2015, raising more questions about whether he skirted state campaign finance laws.

Catherine Hanaway, an attorney who lost to Greitens in the 2016 Republican primary, issued a statement on behalf of Greitens’ campaign committee saying that Barnes never asked or allowed it to provide testimony.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson Jr., who is counsel to the House committee, in response said the House will issue subpoenas to campaign personnel. In a statement, he said the committee report had its desired effect: causing those affiliated with Greitens’ team “to offer to do what they have so far refused to do when asked — to provide information to the committee.”

Hanaway also defended the decision to report Laub as the source of the charity list by noting that the list already was in his possession when Greitens officially created his political committee.

“This is, at its core, a minor campaign finance issue,” Hanaway said.

Greitens already faces a felony charge of tampering with computer data for allegedly disclosing the charity donor list to his political fundraiser in 2015 without the St. Louis-based charity’s permission. Greitens has not been charged with filing a false campaign report, which is misdemeanor crime, but authorities are reviewing the matter.

Greitens also faces a May 14 trial in St. Louis on a felony invasion-of-privacy indictment for allegedly taking and transmitting a nonconsensual photo of an at least partially nude woman in March 2015. Greitens has acknowledged having a consensual affair with his former hairdresser but has denied criminal wrongdoing.

The House investigatory committee released an initial report April 11 with the woman’s testimony that Greitens restrained, slapped and threatened her during sexual encounters that at times left her crying and afraid.

The latest report, like the first one, simply lays forth facts without drawing conclusions about impeachment.

The Associated Press first reported in October 2016 that Greitens’ campaign had obtained a list of individuals, corporations and other nonprofits that had given at least $1,000 to The Mission Continues. The AP reported that Greitens raised about $2 million from those who had previously given significant amounts to the charity.

At the time Greitens told the AP: “No, we were not working off of a Mission Continues donor list.” But he acknowledged soliciting campaign money from some people he had gotten to know while working at the charity.

The House report indicates Greitens actually was working off a Mission Continues list of top donors. Email records show the donor list was emailed May 8, 2014, to Greitens and other Mission Continues employees, including Krystal Taylor, who simultaneously worked for Greitens’ personal promotional company, The Greitens Group. Taylor is now Krystal Proctor.

Although federal law bars 501(c)(3) charities such as The Mission Continues from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of candidates, a Greitens attorney has suggested Greitens was entitled to the list because he built it “donor by donor, friend by friend.”

The Mission Continues president, Spencer Kympton, testified that the list was covered by a nondisclosure agreement signed by Greitens in November 2012 and included donors cultivated through a variety of means, not just by Greitens.

The report details multiple instances in which Greitens allegedly directed the charity list to be shared for political purposes, including during meetings in 2014 to discuss his upcoming gubernatorial campaign. Proctor said she also provided it at Greitens’ direction to Laub and political consultant Michael Hafner in January 2015.

When Meredith Gibbons was hired as Greitens’ campaign finance director, documents show that Proctor sent her an April 22, 2015, email with The Mission Continues donor list attached — a transmission that was the basis for the charge filed last month.

After the AP’s story in October 2016, former Democratic Party Chairman Roy Temple filed an ethics complaint asserting that the charity list should have been reported by Greitens’ campaign. In an April 2017 settlement with the Missouri Ethics Commission, Greitens’ campaign agreed to pay a small fine and amended its finance reports to show the list as a donation from Laub.

But Laub testified that he wasn’t the source of the list and didn’t realize he was agreeing to say he was when Greitens’ campaign aide Austin Chambers called him in April 2017.

Laub said Chambers had explained that “we need to put someone’s name down who was on the campaign at the time” to settle an ethics complaint. Laub said he assumed he was agreeing to being listed as the campaign manager — not as the source of the list.

Chambers, who took over for Laub as campaign manager in fall 2015, on Wednesday called Laub “a disgruntled former employee.”

“To say that I provided false information, or misled Laub to go along with false information, is absolutely untrue,” Chambers said.

The report also notes that Greitens was making political moves long before he officially formed a campaign committee in February 2015. A political consultant sent him a donor list of a potential gubernatorial rival, then-Auditor Tom Schweich, in October 2013, and Laub and Hafner began informally advising Greitens in early 2014.

Laub testified that he was hired in December 2014 by Greitens’ limited-liability corporation “to prepare his political plans” and help with a book tour. Hafner said he began officially working for Greitens as a political adviser in January 2015, paid either directly by Greitens or The Greitens Group.

State law says candidates must form a campaign committee with the Missouri Ethics Commission whenever they raise or spend more than $500.

__

By DAVID A. LIEB, SUMMER BALLENTINE and BLAKE NELSON, By Associated Press – published on STL.News by St. Louis Media, LLC (A.S)

___