#and amends his texting style

[spring-lxcked]

what does william canonically text like in the SB au whenever he first gets access to a cell phone?

[ylangelegy]

lvr ♾️ minghao x reader.

“take me out, and take me home. you're my, my, my lover.” # day seven of (the)8 days of minghao.

˚ʚ♡ɞ˚ headcanons of minghao as your boyfriend.

❥ falling in love. minghao's feelings remind you of a flower blooming. it's a slow, gradual thing. he's not immune to physical attraction, but love for him is something much deeper. he knows better than to take things solely on the surface level. love would only be possible for him with time, with both the sunshine and the rain. when it comes, he's not surprised. he will know that his feelings for you have been blossoming, have been growing, and he is never one to deny himself of pure and simple truths.

❥ confessing. minghao has never been a man of overtly grand gestures. some might see this as a con, but there's also appeal in the way he makes sure things are always clear and uncomplicated. his confession may come in the form of an afternoon in a café, over the pastries he knows you like best— or an evening under the stars, while you two are seated side by side on a park bench. he tells you as it is. i like you. no i think, no maybe. "you don't have to respond or even reciprocate," he will tell you, and he means it. "i just wanted to let you know."

❥ pet names. a part of minghao withers at the like of 'babe' and 'baby'. he's more comfortable with 'darling', if any, because there's a dozen ways he can say it. when he's trying to coax you out of bed. "darling, your five minutes are up." when he's exasperated and you're squabbling. "that's not what i said, darling." when he's struck by the way you look. "look at you, darling; you're the prettiest thing i've seen." (on occasion, minghao will use 'petal' or 'angel'. all soft, reverent names.)

❥ dating (1). dates with minghao are like you'd imagine. he's big on museums, especially the contemporary/modern ones. he enjoys walking around with you aimlessly, reading the descriptions out loud to you, and asking what you think about certain pieces. he's also a fan of nature; you can expect visits to botanical gardens, treks through sun-soaked trails.

❥ dating (2). there's also a part of minghao that revels in shopping dates. it's his not-so guilty pleasure, having the chance to visit strip malls or boutiques with you. he has a keen eye for articles of clothing that suit you the best. it's a little harder for you to help dress him, so you're likely to be on the receiving end of his slight side-eye whenever you pick out something rather questionable. he'll indulge you all the same, but he draws pretty clear lines on what matches his style. "we are not getting that," he half-begs as you insist on what he considers the world's most atrocious jacket. "i love you, but please!"

❥ apology language. fights with minghao may be few and far between, but they still happen. he can be sarcastic and sharp-tongued, after all; honest, but not sentimental. when apologizing to you, he's the type to accept responsibility and make restitution. "i was wrong," he'll start. "what can i do to make things right?" he's able to take ownership of when he screwed up, and he believes in implementing change in making amends. he expects the same energy from you, though, because minghao is not about to be in a relationship where there's no growth.

❥ the little things, a.k.a minghao is... gossip excitedly shared the moment he gets home ("you said i shouldn't tell anyone, but that doesn't count my partner"). outings with his parents, where he glows with pride at the thought of it being a 'double date'. voice messages sent whenever he's away; groggy recordings of "just got to my hotel room. i'll text once i've gotten some sleep. good night… or is it morning there?… ugh, whatever."

❥ love language to receive. despite being a man who received compliments on the daily, minghao will be the first to admit that affirmation hits different when it comes from you. he may not actively seek your validation, but you can see it in a dozen little ways. how he turns to you first when he's trying on a new outfit. how he looks for you in the crowd whenever he's performing. there's a certain tension that eases from his shoulders when you acknowledge him. he will try not to look too pleased about it; you'll find it in the twinkle in his eye, the shine of his smile.

❥ love language to give. minghao is a man who lives and breathes acts of service. you need to do your groceries? he's more than happy to tag along. you can't pick up your laundry? he'll get it for you. minghao makes sure that you always have gas in your tank, that he has pocket versions of your vanity kit in every bag of his. a line from hafiz's it happens all the time in heaven best describes minghao's credo when it comes to loving you: "my dear, how can i be more loving to you? / how can i be more kind?"

[butchsophiewalten]

03/03/2024 Twitter Space Recap (1/2)

Martin & Kyle did a twitter space (with a late appearance of Eva) in the earliest hours of the day on the 3rd, here's a recap of what they talked about then:

-Kyle brings up that he wants to do a charity stream for the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund! He says Him, Martin, Coral, and Eva would be there playing Lethal Company. He says he plans to do this "sometime this month".

-Martin describes the 'Walten Dog Saga', saying that first the family got Carlitos, who was Sophie's dog, and everybody loved him, but then one day in 1968, they're playing and then Carlitos gets run over. And it's so tragic that they're like, 'no more dogs!', until one day in 1973 Jack runs into this homeless street dog and brings him home, and names him Jaimito, and they have him for a few months before he bites Edd's arm and "almost gives him rabies", so Jack just gives the dog to Susan, and the one week that she has this dog is like the worst week of her life. He pees everywhere, he tears up her furniture, and after a week of that he just peacefully dies while Susan is out of the house.

-Martin says that aspects of episode 5 are inspired by some of the leaked stuff he's seen from Joker 2. "It's a very fairy-tale, unreliable narrator kind of episode."

-Martin spitballs his "perfect idea for a Walten Files game", a PS1-style game where you work as a Bon's Burger's employee, "in the kitchen at 3am making burgers", fixing up orders to be delivered (by another employee, I'm assuming? He mentions 'a guy with a motorcycle', so I think this is what he means. Like pizza delivery.) He talks about how the supply closet would be on the other side of the restaurant, so whenever you run out of ingredients you'd have to walk all the way over there and back in the dark. He says it'd be really funny if there wasn't even anything supernatural in it.

-Martin talks about how it really bothers him when people say or imply that, because The Walten Files takes place in the time period it does, it would be more accurate or make more sense for his characters to be bigoted. He brings up a specific instance where someone asked him how the other BSI employees would treat Chris. "The point that this person was making is that it would make sense for the team to be racist, and I was like 'No, it doesn't make sense! That shouldn't happen, it shouldn't be a thing!'" He goes on to say... "And then it was shit like, [mockingly] 'Why are Sophie and Jenny a couple if it was the 1980s?' and it's like, gay people existed in the 1980s!"

"It's just like, just because something was the thing back then, doesn't mean the characters should do a very bad and harmful thing, y'know? It's a really stupid mindset, in my opinion."

-Kyle talks about this genuinely really funny Showstoppers Halloween special idea he had a long time ago, where the Showstoppers are really excited for the holiday, but for some reason Bon has never heard of Halloween before, and the other Showstoppers have to explain it to him, telling him about costumes and trick-or-treating and everything. And it culminates with them going up to somebody's doorstep to trick-or-treat, and all the Showstoppers are telling Bon that he should go first since he's the newbie, and when he knocks on the door some lady answers, going "Hello! How are-" and then she looks up in horror. And the shot reverses to show like a full, "hyper-realistic" Scary Animatronic Bon looming over to her, with a Text-To-Speech voice going "Trick.... Or.... Treat."

-Martin talks about his own funny showstoppers idea, where Bon, for some inexplicable reason, has the feeling that he is dying. and he spends the whole episode trying to make amends with people and be nice to his friends, like 'I don't hate you, Banny, I really care about you,' 'Boozoo, you can have Bon's Burgers when I'm gone, because you're my friend and I trust you,' etc. And at the end of the episode you find out he just had a tummy ache, and he was being really dramatic about it.

-After some related banter, Martin jokes that it'd be funny if Jack was at a table eating with the rest of the 'Bunny Smiles family', and out of the blue he goes, like, 'I've got a tummy ache! :(' in a really high-pitched voice. Eva, who had joined the space a while earlier, jokes that his normal voice is just him faking it, and the high-pitched voice is what he actually sounds like.

-They talk about various Godzilla movies for a while, and Martin brings up how he really enjoyed the way Minus One managed to connect the narrative between its human and its monster characters, and how that's something he thinks a lot of other monster movies and horror films fail to do.

"Y'know, it's funny, because when I wrote The Walten Files, I always had the idea that like, there are two parts of the story? Part one, which is like, the human drama, and Edd and Molly, and the crash. And then part two, which has more to do with the animatronics and the place itself. And you have this feeling where there's going to be a moment where those two parts connect and link to each other, and I think that's something you gotta have in, like, horror movies, where- it- you can't just like, make up characters, and just put them in the existing world and have them exist, and then just sit around waiting for the killer to appear, y'know?"

-Eva brings up an incident that's been happening in the Walten Files community on Twitter, where some people have been getting some flack over headcanoning members of The Showstoppers as Black. Martin gets really incensed talked about how much this bothers him, saying "I saw that, it's so fucking stupid. If you- It's just common sense! If you look at someone going 'Hey, I think this character would be Black, I headcanon this character as black,' and you go, like 'I'm not comfortable with that,' what the fuck do you mean? How? That's so weird! And that's what I'm saying, it's like, how does it effect the story in any way that would be negative to you? Like, the only way you would be against that, is if you were like, racist. And it's like, huh? And I think, a lot of people bring up the argument that, 'Ah, but this character is clearly intended to be White,' and it's like, who cares! Who gives a shit? Like, that's not, like a valid argument to go against someone for doing something like that. It would be very different if, for example, someone looked at Chris and went, like, 'What if he was White?', it's very different. The context of that is very different, than just headcanoning a character as Black, y'know? That's completely fine and normal. Why would you be against that, that's so weird."

"I find it even funnier, because, from what it looked like, it was because someone said they headcanon Sha as Black, and it's like, that makes so much sense! I mean, like, I think that if Sha had a human design, she'd definitely not- she wouldn't be white... again, if you're against headcanons like that, you- you're not welcome here."

-"We end this stream saying these few words: Headcanoning characters as people of color is great, supporting Palestine is great, uh, being a Zionist is Bad! Being a racist is bad! And if you like Godzilla: I will give you a kiss on the head. Muah!"

___ They ended up holding another Space much later the same day, which I've decided to cover in a separate post, because it's twice as long as this one, and a lot more of the conversation in it was Walten Files-Centric, so the recap will take way longer to write.

[schraubd]

Being Perpetually at the Mercy of the Arbitrary Negligence of the State is a Punishment

At the moment, we're seeing two somewhat orthogonal trends developing in conservative legal jurisprudence, both lawless, but in distinctive ways.

The first is an increasing indifference to textualism -- being perfectly happy to manipulate or flatly ignore statutory or constitutional language in order to achieve desired results. Yesterday's Clean Water Act ruling, where the Court held 5-4 that "adjacent" doesn't mean "adjacent" because, well, they don't want it to, is a prominent example. The "major questions" doctrine is another, including the invalidation of OSHA's COVID vaccine-or-test mandate despite the fact that it fell cleanly into the clear statutory language, is another. The Court's recent voting rights jurisprudence, featuring Shelby County's entirely-invented "equal sovereignty of the states" rule, is another. The Court's recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, which has functionally decided the first half of the Second Amendment's text may as well not exist, is a yet another.

The second, by contrast, is a sort of hyper-literal textualism that zooms in so tightly on individual words that it ends up blitzing past how people actually read texts. The opinion striking down mask mandates on planes is one example here; some of the opinions striking down the eviction moratorium fit as well. Though styled as "textualism", this sort of analysis really is a dangerous confluence of putative textualists being bad at reading texts.

Slotting into the latter category is a concurring opinion by 11th Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom in Wade v. McDade, arguing that the Eighth Amendment does not forbid any level of "negligent" treatment of prisoners by prison staff --  not negligent, not gross negligence, not even criminal recklessness.  Judge Newsom's argument is deceptively simple: the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments. But a punishment, he says, can by definition only be imposed intentionally. There's no such thing as a non-intentional punishment. And negligence, in all of its species, is something less than intentional. Hence:

The undeniable linguistic fact that the term “punishment” entails an intentionality element would seem to preclude any legal standard that imposes Eighth Amendment liability for unintentional conduct, no matter how negligent—whether it be only “mere[ly]” so or even “gross[ly]” so.... So on a plain reading, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applies only to penalties that are imposed intentionally and purposefully.

At one level, I appreciate Judge Newsom for saying the quiet part out loud here, because normally I'd spend time pointing out that Judge Newsom's position would warrant even the most grotesque acts of wanton disregard for the lives and wellbeing of prisoners. But Judge Newsom is quite happy to endorse (further) converting our prison system into a miniature gulag archipelago, so I guess I can skip that part and move to the textual question: is Judge Newsom's interpretation an "undeniable" inference from the term "punishment"?

And the answer, I think, is clearly "no".

At the outset of his opinion, Judge Newsom analogizes the negligent treatment of prisoners to that of parents and children: "Just as a parent can’t accidently punish his or her child, a prison official can’t accidentally—or even recklessly—'punish[]' an inmate." But in law, "accidental" and "intentional" are not an exhaustive binary. The whole purpose of the negligence and recklessness categories is to account for cases that lie between the pure accident and the specifically envisioned and desired consequence. And that makes sense, because while law contains different levels of "intent", legal fact patterns nearly always blend several of them together. 

Take a case where a speeding driver strikes a pedestrian with his car. Did the driver act "intentionally"? On one level, he was likely intentionally speeding (his foot wasn't literally glued to the gas pedal). On another level, he likely did not intend to hit the pedestrian (he did not seek to mow him down). Negligence captures the interstitial position where the driver intentionally acted in a fashion which foreseeably placed the pedestrian in danger (even if converting the danger into reality was not the driver's motivation). In this, negligence is very different from the pure accident not because it lacks intention, but precisely because of its intentionality.

Swap back to punishment. Imagine a more pre-modern society where we outsource punishment to private actors. I catch you stealing tools from my garage. As a consequence, I strip you of your clothes, take all the possessions you have on you (to make sure you have nothing you could attack me with), and drop you off in the middle of the woods without food or water which I can't be bothered to acquire for you, safely away from my house. You tell me "my pills are in my bag; if I don't take them each evening I might die!" I say "I don't care if you live or die. Oh, and watch out for the forest-dwellers -- they aren't always friendly." You do, in fact, have a seizure overnight and die. Are the actions I took "punishing" you?

Plainly, it seems the answer is yes. And this is so even if I genuinely was apathetic to whether you lived or died. Like the driver striking the pedestrian, my conduct is a mix of the purely intentional (I took your possessions, I dropped you off in the woods) and negligent/reckless (I do not care whether you have a stroke, I do not care if the forest-dwellers attack you). Being intentionally placed in a position where one's custodians do not care whether you live or die is obviously a punishment. Indeed, the fact that it's a "punishment" is the only thing that distinguishes it from pure sadism, abuse, or kidnapping. The fact that the seizure was not specifically intended doesn't change the fact that what happened to you in no way could be described as an "accident". It was the result of intentional actions, and the reason I acted in the way that I did -- with reckless disregard for your life or safety -- was very much tied to my desire to punish you.

In most prison litigation cases, there is similar "intent". The failure to, e.g., give a prisoner necessary medication isn't a wholly-accidental whoopsie-doodle (and if it is, then there isn't even negligence). It is an intentional choice. Indeed, a large part of what prison is, and what makes it such a terrifying prospect, is that it is a place the state sends you where the people who have control of your life do not and perhaps need not care if you live or die. Everything about that is intentional. Or put another way, the pervasive, heartless lack of intention is the intention -- being placed in such a situation is entirely the product of intentional choices at every step of the process.

There's a lot to dislike about the "deliberate indifference" standard which has taken over prison abuse litigation, but one thing it gets right is that indifference is absolutely a choice, not an accident. To fail to treat a person in your custody with requisite care is a choice, and it doesn't stop being a choice just because its foreseeable consequences were not expressly desired.

So what makes Judge Newsom go astray here? He seems to think we should chop up "punishment" into each potential negative experience one might have in prison. Being locked up, and being restricted from the yard, and being deprived of medication, and being placed in solitary, and being put into a cellblock with white supremacists liable to stab you -- each of these are separate (potential) "punishments" whose status as a "punishment" must be assessed atomistically. But this approach defies common sense. When someone is sentenced to prison for a crime, we don't think of it as a loose cluster of twenty or so discrete "punishments". It's one punishment. The punishment is being a prisoner and being subjected to the prison experience. Everything that happens in prison is part of the overall context of being punished. There is no need to parcel out individual moments and ask "but is this particular action a separate punishment", any more than we need to ask whether swinging bats in the on-deck circle or jogging out into the outfield is part of "playing a baseball game." It's all part of the game, and the hyper-zoomed-in focus on each discrete moment misses the forest for the trees.

In other words, while it may be true that something must be a "punishment" to fall under the auspices of the Eighth Amendment, all prisoners by definition are being punished. They pass that threshold categorically; none of them have been placed in jail by accident. At that point, the relevant question is whether the set of challenged actions or behaviors or what have you suffices to make that punishment into a "cruel and unusual" one. And certainly, being put in an Arkham City terrordome should qualify even (especially!) if the overseers assiduously do not care if you live or die. Perpetual, ongoing, systematic negligence (to say nothing of recklessness) towards persons who are helpless and in your care is one of the cruelest acts imaginable. Where that is part of the punishment, the punishment is cruel and unusual.

Judge Newsom concludes his opinion with the following:

Maybe it makes sense to hold prison officials liable for negligently or recklessly denying inmates appropriate medical care. Maybe not. But any such liability, should we choose to recognize it, must find a home somewhere other than the Eighth Amendment. We—by which I mean the courts generally—have been ignoring that provision’s text long enough. Whether we like it or not, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applies, as its moniker suggests, only to “punishments.” And whether we like it or not, “punishment[]” occurs only when a government official acts intentionally and with a specific purpose to discipline or deter.

This "whether we like or not" language is reminiscent of my Sadomasochistic Judging article. Judge Newsom seems to recognize the cruelty inherent in his position. But he leverages that cruelty into an argument for textual fidelity; the avoidance of cruelty is the hint that his colleagues have been led astray from the strictures of law. As I've demonstrated above, this isn't true; the text does not demand the cruelty Judge Newsom ascribes to it. But the pleasure of the pain of causing pain is too tempting to pass up. It's not good textualism that's motivating Judge Newsom. It's the ecstasy of bad textualism leading to bad results, whose badness is paradoxically metabolized as the purest and most faithful instantiation of textual loyalty.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/JxhXtDy

[hswriting]

The Moment I Knew - Part 8

[Image Alt ID: a four picture collage with a dark gray background. The first picture is of a pond surrounded by trees. A white bench sits in front of the water. The second picture is of a white wall with a black sign that says “backstage”. The third picture is of Harry Styles playing a guitar. The fourth picture is of a girl writing in a journal. End Alt ID]

- - -

Masterlist Series Part 7 Part 9

- - -

3.8k words

- - -

Millie and Harry work on making amends

I walk into the coffee shop which is fairly empty. I must have just missed the morning rush. I walk up to the counter and place my order. One coffee and a ham and cheese croissant. I doubt I’ll eat more than half, but it’s better than nothing.

It doesn’t take long to get my order called out. I pick a table in the corner by the bookshelves and reading area. I begin to eat my sandwich while watching the door. It doesn’t take a long time watching to spot Harry walking in. He is well dressed as always, but his face shows nothing but worry and anxiety. You can see the rings under his eyes from a lack of sleep.

He walks up to the counter and places his order. As he waits for it, he looks around the room until he spots me. He gives me a sad look. He tries to smile but it doesn’t really suit him. It’s not his real smile, and that breaks my heart.

His name is called and he quickly grabs his order and walks over to me. Just a coffee. He places it on the table and sits down.

“Morning Har.” I tell him before I take a sip.

“Morning Millie.” He says in return. “How are you?”

“I could be better. You?”

“I haven’t slept much the past few nights, which makes for long days.”

“I know. I’m sorry. I just needed some space to think.”

“I know. Did you get to think about what you needed to?” He asks nervously.

“Yeah I did.”

“And?” He asks me.

“The past few days I have done nothing but miss you. I wanted to talk to you, I was just so angry and upset. I feel awful about what happened, but I feel like I’m justified to be angry about it. It was awful that you lied to me.”

“I know and I’m so sorry.” He says, resting his hand on the table. “If you want me to, I can sit and tell you about it so you know what exactly happened. Or if you never want to talk about it again that’s fine with me too. Just know I’m really sorry I lied Millie. I never wanted to hurt you. I was just afraid of you being upset if I told you. But it was worse that I didn’t tell you, and I see that now. I’m sorry.”

“I accept your apology. I do want to know what happened. I didn’t really give you a chance to talk the other night.”

“Where should I start?” He asks me.

“From when she came into your work probably.”

“Well,” he began. “She came in like I said. She wanted to adopt a cat. She did end up taking one home that night. But as she was signing the adoption papers, she said she really wanted to apologize to me about how things ended. I said I didn’t really want to hear anything about it, but she insisted. She wanted to explain her side of things, and I caved. I shouldn’t have went with her after my shift, but I did. We went to dinner and she did apologize. She said she felt horrible about it all. I accepted her apology. Then she got to talking about her life and her boyfriend and things. I told her about you. She said she was happy for me. We just talked about what’s been going on recently. I told her about your concussion, me getting into a bigger venue to perform, and a bunch of other stuff I have done. And then she paid the bill and we both went to our houses. Yes she has been texting me, but I didn’t answer her. I got my closure. I was hoping she got hers. I don’t have any interest in talking to her anymore. That’s why I just left her on read. I really didn’t think she was going to call me. So I’m sorry. I will say it forever if I have to Millie. I truly am so sorry. I never wanted to hurt you, especially the way Kellen did.”

I take a moment before I respond to gather myself. Harry drinks his coffee as he waits for me to say something.

“You don’t have to say I’m sorry forever. I actually don’t want you to apologize again. I don’t want you to be afraid of telling me something. Would I have been happy? Probably not. But I would have known. I would have gotten over it. I’m hurt you didn’t trust me. I want to be trusted. I want to be told the truth. What did I do for you not to trust me anymore?”

“Nothing. I just knew how you felt about her because of what she’s done. She cheated on me. She had me burn my journal. She made me feel awful. I just felt like if you knew I was talking to her, you would be upset with me.”

“I really don’t like her Har. I need to be able to trust you. And if she’s the reason you chose to lie to me I don’t want you around her anymore. I’m not trying to control you or who you talk to, but if you really want this to work, if you want this relationship to have trust, she needs to go.”

“She’s gone Millie. I’m not entertaining her wants any longer.”

“Okay.” I say.

“Okay?”

“Let’s try this again.” I tell him. “I love you Har.”

“I love you too. So much.” He tells me. He gets up and I follow. We hug right there in the coffee shop. Harry is the last to let go. I throw away my empty coffee and the last of my sandwich I didn’t eat. We walk out to the parking lot. He is parked beside of me.

“What are your plans for the day?” He asks me.

“I don’t really have any. All I did the past few days is work. I’d like to relax.

“Can I show you something? I have a bit of a secret spot I’d like to show you.”

“Okay. Let me take my car home and we can go.”

“Okay.” He says. He gives me a small kiss on my cheek and gets into his car. I park my car and climb into his.

It’s not a long drive, but it’s a good distance away from my house. The radio has been playing lightly and not much has been said. There’s this awkward silence we never had before. There’s a bit of space now. A distance.

The car begins to slow as we enter an old parking lot. No buildings or anything that the lot would belong to. Harry gets out and opens my door and lets me out.

“You alright with a bit of a walk?” He asks and I nod. He takes my hand and we begin down a dirt trail into the woods.

After a short hike I see Harry’s spot. It’s a small pond with some benches around it, probably for fishing. It’s so beautiful here. The way the sunlight breaks through the trees and reflects in the water is beautiful.

“What is this place Har?” I ask him in awe.

“I used to come here a lot back in high school when things were rough. Since leaving high school I’ve been here a few times, but not as often. Ive been here the past few days. Just me and my journal. This is my space. My home away from home. This is where I wrote my first song. This is where I come to think. To calm myself.” He says to me and my heart feels a slight squeeze.

“This place is beautiful Har.” Is all I am able to say.

“It is. I wanted to be fully open with you. I want you to know about this place. It’s been my comfort for so long. I want you to be apart of it now.” He tells me so honestly. I stand and look around. I look at the water, small ripples from the fish swimming so close to the surface. “What do you think?” He asks. I bring my attention back to him.

“Of course. This is where you wrote your first song?” I ask, recalling his statement earlier. “I wrote a song a few days ago. I think you should read it over. Record it.”

“Yeah I’d love to. I also wanted to show you something else. Do you want to sit down?” He asks and I nod. We sit on a bench by the water. I opens his bag and pulls out the journal I bought for him.

“I want you to read this. As much or as little as you want to. It’s mostly about you. It’s got my songs in it too. You kind of know.”

“Harry I don’t have to read this. This is personal. I don’t want you to feel like you have to let me read it.”

���If you don’t want to, that’s fine. But I love you so much Millie. I want you to read it. I want you to know me, fully. I want you to know every detail. I trust you so fully that I want you to read it.”

“Harry this is yours. I don’t want you to give it to me because of what happened. We are -“

“This isn’t about what you said about me being able to trust you. I wanted to show you before, but then everything happened, and I was so scared I was going to lose you. I was scared you would never get to know all the things I haven’t said. I want you to know them. I want you to see the songs about you that I haven’t recorded yet. I want you to know how much I fucking love you Millie. I love you so much. I don’t want to know what my life would look like without you.” He says and tears prick my eyes.

I gently take the journal from his hands and open the cover. It has his name scribbled on the inside. I flip the page to see the first entry.

This is the best gift I have ever received. In part to the fact that I love to write, but also because the most amazing girl in the world has gifted it to me. This is probably going to be mostly about her, but hopefully one day I’ll get to call her mine, and she will read it and know how much she is loved. Here we go.

I flip to the next page and it has a song written on it. It’s called 18 . I read through. Tears fall down my cheeks as I flip through the pages to read it all. The journal is almost full. There are long passages about the time I agreed to date him, as well as some of the dates we have went on. One passage reads,

Today was a very scary day. Kellen was at her house when I pulled up. I ended up getting punched in the face, but that wasn’t the worst part. Millie was there and saw it all happen. She slipped on the ice and cracked her head open. Ended up needing stitches. She has a concussion. I hate to see her in pain, but I’m glad she trusts me enough to help her out. She vaguely remembers Kellen saying something about me liking her. I want her to know, but I’m so scared to tell her. It’s so soon after they broke up. I don’t want her to feel like I’m taking advantage of her and her situation, but at the same time it wouldn’t have been so bad if he told her because it’s been years that I’ve been trying to work up the courage. What am I talking about. I want her to hear it from me. I want to be able to use my own words to tell her. She asked me about my song that I posted. She asked who it was about. I didn’t tell her, but she has to know. There is no way she doesn’t. She also mentioned today she doesn’t have any family. I feel so bad for her because I love my mom and Gem. She says she will choose her own family. I hope one day I can be apart of that family. I know she’s been through so much. I’m surprised I didn’t know this a long time ago since we have been around each other forever, but I’m glad I get to know her. I love her. I want to know everything she is willing to tell me. I want to be part of her family.

Another passage reads,

… the fact that today went so well tells me all I need to know about her. Layla loves her. My mom adores how caring she is not only to me, but when Layla fell and hurt her knee, She didn’t hesitate to help her, hold her, and comfort her. Gem absolutely cannot get enough of her and has even text me to know when we can all have dinner again. She also text to tell me that Layla can’t stop talking about Queen Millie. She is absolutely the best thing in my life.

The next page has quotes written on it.

My heart is so full of you I can hardly call it my own.

Meeting you was like listening to a song for the first time and knowing it was going to be my favorite.

I love you more than I have ever found a way to say to you.

The rest of the page continues with similar quotes. There are a few passages about other things such as his family, but nearly every page is about me.

The last page that is written on has a song on it. It doesn’t have a title written at the top, but I read the words.

If I could fly, I’d be coming right back home to you. I think I might give up everything, just ask me to. Pay attention. I hope that you listen, cause I’ve let my guard down. Right now I’m completely defenseless. For your eyes only, I show you my heart. For when you’re lonely and forget who you are. I’m missing half of me when we’re apart. Now you know me, for your eyes only.

I don’t know how long I have sat here reading or what Harry has been doing since I began. I look up and him and his is facing the pond, jeans rolled up and feet in the water. He looks so peaceful. So calm. I can hear him humming a song, one I don’t recognize.

I am unsure of what to say to him after such a raw and emotional moment. I know how he really feels about me.

“Har?” I say. He stops humming and turns around. I wipe the tears from my face and stand up. I walk over to him as he stands up. I wrap my arms around him. “I love you. I know just saying that is no where near as eloquent and romantic as the stuff you wrote, but I really do love you.”

“I love you too Millie.” He says, squeezing me like he never wants to let go. I don’t want him to. We do eventually let go after what seems like forever. I give him back his journal and we start the hike to the car. Once we get in the car, his hand finds its resting place on my knee and we drive back. We go to my house so I can grab a few things and then go to his place.

When we get to his house we sit down in his living room. He brings out his guitar. He goes back to his room and grabs a keyboard and hooks it up.

“Do you have the song you wrote?”

“I do, but I don’t have sheet music or anything like that. I know how to play some guitar. I could give you bare bones and you work your magic. After all this song is for you. I don’t really have the dream to perform, but I love helping you write. That’s why I tried to do this one.” I tell him.

“Well, no matter what, you will always have credit for every song you write or help write.”

“Thank you.” I tell him. He hands me the guitar and I get a feel for it. I open my journal to the page. “I just want to let you know it’s a bit sad. I wrote it over the past few days. You don’t have to keep it like this. You can change it or if you don’t like it you don’t have to use it at all.” I ramble. I’m nervous. Harry has wanted to do a duet for a while now, but he has never heard me sing before. So this will be the first time he hears my voice before we record any songs together.

“I’m sure it’s great. I’m sure you’ll be amazing. Go ahead whenever you’re ready.” He tells me sweetly. I place my hands on the guitar.

We made a fire, went down in the flames. We sailed an ocean, and drowned in the wave. Built a cathedral, but we never prayed. We had it all, yeah, and we walked away. Point of no returning, now it’s just to late to turn around. I try to forgive you but I struggle 'cause I don't know how. We built it up so high and now I'm falling, it's a long way down. It's a long way down from here. We had a mountain, but took it for granted. We had a spaceship, but we couldn't land it. We found an island but we got stranded. We had it all, yeah. Who could've planned it? Point of no returning now it's just too late to turn around. I try to forgive you but I'm struggling 'cause I don't know how. We built it up so high and now I'm falling, It's a long way down from here. Such a long way down from here. It's a long way down. It's a long way down. Such a long way down. It's a long way down. It's a long way down.

Harry look at me with amazement. There is a moment of silence before he takes the guitar from me and sits beside me. I notice the bracelet I bought him a while back hang on his wrist.

“I think that was the most beautiful thing I have ever heard. You have such an amazing voice. I have no doubt that you could be a professional. Are you one in disguise?” He says, the last sentence jokingly. I laugh.

“No obviously. It wasn’t that good.”

“I want you to sing this with me. I want you to record with me and be a part of this. I want my fans to know your voice. It’s beautiful Millie. Absolutely stunning.” He tells me confidently. “I am going to work up the guitar parts and maybe add a beat to it, but this is absolutely amazing Millie.”

Harry and I play it again, and again, and again. He changes some of the guitar to better fit the song. He does eventually add a beat to it. And then he does a take without any changes. He sings it solo and it’s like angels in my ears. He suits this song.

“Please let me split this up and have you record it with me.” He begs.

“Harry I- I don’t know that I want my voice out there. I will sing it with you, but I don’t want to perform. I’ll gladly write your songs, just don’t put my voice out there. At least not yet.” I tell him. He seems disappointed, but agrees.

“Can I record a version of us singing it together as long as I don’t publish it?”

“Yeah that’s okay.” I tell him. He divides the lines up into parts. He pulls out his phone and presses record. We sing it, alternating lines and doing the chorus together.

He stops the recording and just looks at me for a moment.

“What?” I ask him.

“I love this song, I’m just really sorry I made you feel this way.” He tells me with a sorrow filled voice. The excitement from before is lost.

“Harry-“

“I know you said not to apologize again. This will be my last time. But I really am sorry.”

“Don’t be Har. It’s okay.”

“I hurt you. I lied to you. I betrayed your trust. I have to work to earn that again. But thank you for giving me another chance Millie.” He says. I place a kiss on his cheek. “Would you be mad at me if I bought you something?”

“Harry Styles.” I say half jokingly. “You and your gifts.”

“It’s how I show my love. Other than writing songs I guess.” He tells me. He places the guitar down and walks to his bedroom. He comes out with an envelope. He hands it over to me. I open it and slide the paper out. I unfold it and a lanyard falls on my lap. I pick it up.

Backstage Staff Pass

I read the letter attached.

Millie,

A while back I said I would have you a front row pass to my show at the new venue, but I have been caught up in the paperwork and scheduling for the place. Since then, I have contacted them and not only will you be able to sit directly in front of the stage, but you are now considered my personal staff since you are my songwriter. You can access anywhere in the building you need to go, including my backstage room. I hope you enjoy coming to my shows as much as I enjoy writing songs for you. I love you.

“Thank you Harry.” I tell him and he gives me a sweet smile.

“I won’t boss you around even though you are on my staff now.” He jokes. I chuckle at him.

We continue to play music for the next few hours until dinner. He ends up recording a song after dinner and posting it. Despite everything that has happened this week, I’m glad we were able to work everything out. He looks so genuinely happy making music and getting ready for his performance tomorrow. But sometimes his eyes light up when he isn’t even doing those things. He will just be looking at me while I’m doing something like checking my phone or cooking dinner. I always ask him what his deal is. And he just says he loves looking at me. I always say I’m not even doing anything special. He says he loves looking at me anyways.

I think Harry and I will be okay.

- - -

Masterlist Series Part 7 Part 9

[calicohyde]

@original-character-championship Eddie propaganda!

Fun Facts

[image description: a stats/trivia page drawn with markers in a bullet journal. along the left are d20s, in the middle is a list of proficiencies, and on the right is a character trope, a tarot card, and a three track playlist. /end ID]

I designed classes for witch types in the style of a D&D homebrew! Eddie's class is Clairvoyant and her sub-class (like Artificer for a Wizard) is Seer.

Clairvoyance is the ability to perceive things that are beyond the five senses. These abilities are almost always involuntary! Eddie has very little control over when she does or doesn't have a premonition or who it's about. Clairvoyants are the physically weakest witch type in the 'verse, with no attack type moves and low HP, but they have high intelligence, wisdom, insight, and perception.

Clairvoyants include Seers, Scryers, Mediums, and Oracles. Seers like Eddie have premonitions in their dreams. They dream an event as if it were happening to them. This event can be from the past, present, or future. Seers develop a "specialty" to their visions, influenced by a combination of nature and nurture. Eddie's specialty - like her tarot card - is Death.

Historically in-universe, Clairvoyants are unfairly maligned by both seculars (non-witches) and other classes of witch. They are believed to be functionally powerless, to taint or poison magic, and to attract malicious spirits. They are thought to be weak and inherently unstable. The word "sixer," as in a user of the sixth sense, is used as a slur against them.

Eddie's alignment is Neutral Good. She has 9 strength, 15 intelligence, 15 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 14 constitution, and 11 charisma. I got her stats from this personality quiz!

Her list of proficiencies on this page is out of date because I wrote this before I decided on the time period Curse The Messenger would take place in - which ended up being pre-world wide web. The updated Eddie is still fluent in English and a beginner at Spanish, and is an expert at trailing and amateur forensics. She also does the accounting for her and her sibling's private detective agency, Watchtower Investigations! Here's a snippet about that:

[image description in alt text]

Eddie fits the Hardboiled Detective trope, which TVTropes.com defines as "a tough [cynic] with a gun and a lot of street smarts, who solves mysteries with dogged persistence rather than astounding insight." Eddie doesn't have a gun, but she does have the taste for scotch and leggy women that Hardboiled Detectives also come equipped with. Here's a line particularly evocative of this trope and the genre it comes from:

[image description in alt text]

Three songs that give Eddie are:

Sincerity Is Scary by The 1975

Daredevil by Fiona Apple

S.O.B. by Nathaniel Rateliff and The Nightsweats

Eddie's favorite color is red. She's a Scorpio with a Halloween birthday. She's a butch-ish lesbian, but sometimes she "cross" dresses in her femme girlfriend's clothes (as a sex thing). She likes bodice ripper romance novels, but she's embarrassed about it. She's a little sister and she can't cook. She's also autistic, if you couldn't tell from that accounting quote, and she has chronic migraines!

She struggles with pretty severe alcohol addiction. During the first book, she hits her rock bottom. Then she decides to start getting sober and going to support meetings, where she meets her sponsor and her first friend outside of her family. It's difficult and she has relapses, but unlike a lot of other alcoholic characters she's allowed to stay in recovery! Her sponsor and friend also maintains sobriety and makes amends with his estranged family, helping Eddie to see the bright side of her Death specialty when she has a vision of his happy last moments far in the future.

VOTE FOR EDDIE HERE!

@girlfriendsofthegalaxy @haectemporasunt @jezifster @blackhannetandco @fearofahumanplanet @godsleftarmpit @littlehastyhoneydew @rainbowabomination @antihell @isherwoodj @marrowwife @ashen-crest @wildswrites @ceph-the-ghost-writer @garthcelyn @muddshadow @cohldhands @unrealistic-android @glam-pir @outpost51

[goldcranes]

Rereading ‘Sleeper Hit’ and wondering how you’d imagine Rooster telling Hangman/Phoenix that he and Amelia have taken that step into something more?

(Obviously no pressure to answer — I think you’ve mentioned some Bradley POV for the fic before so if this discussion is something that you’ve in mind for that, I’ll wait patiently! Just got to thinking about all those little things from rooster’s perspective 😊 love your writing!)

This is definitely something I want to include in the Bradley accompaniment, but it's going to be a while until I get to that and I've been really missing writing in this world for a while, so this ask prompted me to actually sit down and get this scene sorted! This probably will appear in the fic when I get around to it, but for now, here's how Phoenix finds out (Hangman will come later!):

--

Nat figures it out almost immediately. In his defence, he doesn’t make hard for her: his phone is right there on the tabletop between them as they eat under-seasoned lasagna in the belly of the carrier, and when a text from Amelia flashes up his face goes all soft before he can help himself. 

“Shit, Rooster,” she says wearily, and puts her fork down. “Are you serious?”

He flips his phone over like that’s going to do anything. “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

“Come on, man. Last time I saw you look like that was with Livvy.”

His shoulders lift defensively. It’s a low blow and she knows it – Livvy, possibly the first girl he ever really loved, who cheated on him with a guy in her Dungeons and Dragons group and was posting pictures of her new ring and baby less than a year after the break-up. Seven years ago now, but he still feels a glancing blow of embarrassment and resentment whenever her name comes up in conversation. 

“It’s nothing,” he insists, and makes himself meet her eyes. “I promised, remember?”

“Yeah, I fucking remember. It went something like: she’s the apple of Maverick’s eye and she’s eighteen and I’m never gonna be that guy. Jesus Christ. Who else knows?”

“Nobody,” he says fast, and then amends, “well, actually, Hangman guessed, I think. Surprised he didn’t say anything. I suppose he might not actually have known, could have just been being a dick.”

“Yeah, highly possible.” Nat’s hand drops to her belly like an afterthought. His eyes follow it. It’s still weirder than he has words for, knowing Hangman’s kid is growing in there. Some days it feels hopelessly unfair. Other days it’s exciting. Mostly it makes him wistful. 

He knows she doesn’t like talking about it, so he takes his eyes away as soon as he catches them there and stares instead at the back of his phone. He wants badly to open it and see what Amelia’s said – hopes for a picture of her going about her day, even though the ones from school always make the shame a little stronger. 

“I just,” he says at last, after the silence has stretched out for too long, “I really meant for it not to happen. Honestly I did. I meant it when I said it about Maverick, you know, it’s not just how young she is, it’s how much she means to him. I’ve only just got him back in my life and losing him again would just be— it’s not something I want. Plus it would be really fucking annoying to be the one at fault this time.”

Nat snorts. “Yeah, he’s the only person I’ve ever met who likes to say I told you so as much as you do.”

“He doesn’t even need to say it,” Bradley agrees morosely, “it’s that fucking face he makes—”

“Right? I don’t know how he doesn’t get punched more.”

“Same.” They share a smile, brief and long-suffering, before Nat’s face sharpens back into seriousness.

“I just need to know that you’re thinking this through. I know you like her – and don’t get me wrong, I like her too from what I know. But she’s so young. I mean, are you gonna – what, go to Harry Styles concerts with her? Visit her at college? Be out partying until three AM?”

He winces. “Jesus, no. I mean, you know, if she wants to do that she’s got friends to do it with. I don’t think she’d want to go, though. And she's definitely not going to college. It's just... none of it is really who she is.”

Nat thinks about that for a moment, chewing a mouthful of her dinner. 

“Well who is she, then? What about her makes you think this will work?”

“She’s…” he eats a bite of his own, giving himself a minute to consider it, “she’s figuring herself out, honestly. But not like I was at eighteen. It’s like she knows who she is already and she’s trying to work out how that fits in with the life she’s expected to lead. Her dad’s an asshole, I think he’s fucked her up more than she realises, but she isn’t angry about it like I was about my parents dying. He does piss her off, but it’s like she’s just… she just works with it, you know? I really admire that about her. Shit happens and she takes it and gets on with her life. Doesn’t let herself wallow in it.”

Nat frowns. “She’s always struck me as a pretty serious kid.”

“Yeah, she is. Wicked sense of humour when she lets it out, though. You should hear her with Hangman.”

“God, I’m not sure I want to. He likes her, then? Not sure what that says about her character.” 

Bradley laughs at that. “You let him knock you up, you are absolutely not one to talk.”

“Oh, fuck off,” she says, but she grins briefly too. It fades when she asks, “Is that – did you sleep with her, then? When she was staying with you?”

His shame is bright on his face. He has to look down, something inside him twisting. 

“I tried to put it off, but she insisted. And honestly I didn’t take all that much persuading.”

Nat is silent for a long time. When at last he can bear to look back up at her, she’s watching him with such a mixture of pity and worry on her face it’s almost too much to see. 

“Just promise me,” she says, her voice newly urgent, leaning forward across the table towards him, “promise me this isn’t going to come back badly on you. She’s not going to turn around in six months and say you pressured her into it, or—”

“I would never, Phoenix, Jesus—”

“No, but she could start to feel like that’s how it went down and it wouldn’t matter how you think it’s going now. When you’re that age, it’s all so in flux, how you feel about yourself and other people and relationships, and—”

“That’s not her.” 

Nat just keeps looking at him, dark brows furrowed. He looks back, asking without words for her to trust him. Haven’t they all mocked him for years about being too slow to make decisions, too cautious? He needs her to trust that he’s thought this through with the same – more – care than he’s ever made a choice in a bird. 

“Where is she now?” 

The question surprises him, but he figures it’s innocuous enough. He looks at his phone at last; opens up the message Amelia sent. It’s a picture of her and her friend May in long, slinky gowns at a store somewhere. May’s throwing up a peace sign. Amelia’s half-turning towards her, grinning or laughing, her face bare of make-up and her hair knotted messily on top of her head. He misses her deeply and absolutely. 

“Shopping,” he tells Nat, knowing the warmth in his voice is going to give him away more than anything else ever could. “Graduation dresses.”

“Graduation— fucking hell. High school graduation.”

It comes out of him weary: “Don’t. I know, okay? I know. It’s not what I would have chosen for myself. It’s not something I was looking for, and it’s not something I wanted. But I can’t let go of her, Phoenix. I just can’t.” 

Nat’s dark eyes are as solemn as he’s ever seen them. “She’s it?”

“Yeah. She’s it.”

She reaches across the table and squeezes his hand. Just once, quickly, like a benediction. “Then I’m behind you. All the way.” She pulls back, smiling just a bit, her mouth pulling up at one corner. “Still going to give you shit about it, though, fair warning. A fucking high school girlfriend. You absolute cradle-robber.”

“Yeah, well,” he says, feeling suddenly lighter, better than he has since he left Amelia in San Diego three weeks ago, “at least I didn’t drunkenly knock up my enemy-with-benefits, or whatever the fuck you and Hangman are.”

“Oh, he’s absolutely still a douchebag,” she says, grinning, but the softness in her eyes gives her away. “I hate him, obviously.”

“Obviously,” Bradley echoes, even though he knows Hangman has wheedled his way onto the flight coming to collect Phoenix and a few of the others when they dock in Cypress for no reason other than to see her a little sooner. Even though he knows she’s signed the lease on a shared apartment with only one bedroom and a nursery. 

She notices his expression and shakes her head, sounding suddenly much older and wiser than she has a right to. “None of it’s ever simple. In books and movies it’s always so linear, you know? So obvious in retrospect. But it’s always a goddamn mess and we’ve got to just figure out the best way through that we can.”

“Yeah,” he says, thinking of Amelia in her little sundress, of her saying it’ll be worth it, of the way she’d cried in his lap before he drove her home to Fightertown. “I guess that’s what it is, really. Just doing our best. All any of us can do in the end.” 

[jrhughes]

The Destruction of an Evil Society 

October 15th 2023 AD 

(Genesis 19:1-37) 

Golden Text:       Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7 

Today we will be learning about a people who exalted the sodomy life style. And they faced the judgment of God. They were much like the USA is becoming. 

In June 2015, the Supreme Court of the USA ruled in the erroneous same sex case of Obergefell v. Hodges in a close case 5-4 that same-sex couples could marry on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. They erroneously stated that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution both allowed such an outcome. 

But I challenge you to read the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment:

How many times do you see the word marriage in either?   None! Correct. 

But the Bible is not silent about the subject and has much to say about man with man relations: 

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; ... 

Romans 1:26-28   26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense (just payment) of their error which was meet (proper). 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 

9... Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV) 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 

We quoted from a version upon which we do not rely to show that this belief is not only held in the King James Bible, but in other paraphrases of the Bible. 

Message Text:    -   Genesis 19: 1-37 

1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 

There came two angels to Sodom at even The same angels in the form of men had come to Abraham. There was a third Person. That third Person was God the Son in the form of a man. These angels arrived at even. 

Lot sat in the gate of Sodom.  Lot sat in the gate. Lot felt quite at home with these sodomites. He was trying to fit in. Lot was not being salt or light. Lot sat  in a place of prominence. Lot was accepted by the leaders.  Lot was no threat to them. He was acting like a good old boy. 

Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself  Although immersed in the world, a little light still shone through enough to recognize these two beings (angels in the form of a man) were recognized by Lot as his superior, a greater one, he bowed to them. Lot also knew the men at the gate with him. They were homosexual sodomites. Lot decided these men needed protection. The men of Sodom were mean, nasty and wanted these two angels looking as if they were men to use them and abuse them. 

2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

Lot said Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house. But Lot warned them Behold (listen to me). Angels I beg you come stay in my house. Lot knew how evil these men could be. 

Tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways Listen I want you to stay at my house then get up early and go. That way there will be little chance these men will abuse you tonight  (John 3:19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.). Come with me, Lot said, I will feed you, then you go to bed and get up early and go. 

They said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. Wow he knows the danger but will he say what he believes will happen? This could be very dangerous for the angels.  Lot wants to protect them. 

3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 

And he pressed upon them greatly Lot knew the kind of men that these men were.  Lot feared for their safety, he could not let the angels stay the night in the town square, he had probably openly seen homosexual sodomy before. Lot may have been able to see the lust in the eyes of some of them toward these two angels. He urged (may have almost begged) them.  

And they turned in unto him, and entered into his house. They finally agreed to come into the house of Lot. Now they had some protection from these sodomites and from a gang sexual assault. 

He made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 

There were no fast food places, no carry outs. To make them a feast, Lot most likely had to also kill and prepare a calf or chicken for the main meal. The wife of Lot would have to make bread or rolls from raw ingredients. This preparation time and cooking was more than an hour. Then they all sat down Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and the angels. And then the meal was ended. 

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 

Suddenly Lot realized his greatest fear. These sodomite men began to come to the house of Lot. They surrounded the house of Lot like a pack of hungry wolves, seeking some prey. The crowd grew until it seemed as if all the men of Sodom stood outside of the house of Lot. They came from the rich section, and the poor and all in between. They were after flesh. They were full of lust and evil intention. 

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 

Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Maybe you do not understand what they wanted.  Allow me to help you understand. 

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. - Genesis 4:1 

Adam knew Eve and she conceived. These men wanted to pile on to these angels in a homosexual-sodomite manner and know them; have their way with them sexually, until they satisfied their perverse sexual desires. These men were poised to have homosexual gang assault with these two angels.  

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; ... 

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,  7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 

Brethren, do not so wickedly. Lot knew what the sodomite men wanted. So trying to protect the angels, Lot stepped out of his house and tried to reason with mad dog sodomites full of lust and driven by the devil. Notice Lot calls them brethren.  WHAT?  What has happened to Lot? Perhaps reasoning had worked before, but were these lustful men going to hear?   NO!   

It is interesting to note that these men he had called Brethren did not see him as one of them. What he said had no effect on them. He may have been a seeker friendly person. He did not tell them the truth: unless you repent, each one would die and go to a place of torment. Lot wanted their favor. He had built up no trust in them. They were going to take his stranger-guests and take advantage of them. 

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.  

What did you say Lot? Take my two virgin daughters (have not known man)  and you can use them and abuse them???  Did you say that?  Did you mean that?  Why would you give your two virgin daughters to be abused?  These are from you and your wife.  Were women that disregarded? This is not defensible. There is no sound explanation. Lot may have been scarcely saved, but he was not acting as a Christian.  

One more thing is distressing. When Lot came to Sodom, his people had all been under the strong, influence of Abraham of God.  Where are they? Would they have allowed this?  WHERE WERE THEY? Had they also adopted this perverseness of Sodom? Had this always been the way Lot saw women? Even his virgin daughters? 

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

STAND BACK. The Sodomites, yelled STAND BACK.  (Move further away!) Perhaps meaning I am going to do this!  Get out of my way! This is not a pleasant request.  We re Here; We re Queer; We ve come for your children. (They chanted these words in a parade in New York in 2023. So what is new?  Nothing.) Christian do not stand for PRIDE of sin, PRIDE to take your children. Stand Up. Stand Up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross! 

This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. This Lot came in to sojourn (stay for awhile). Yet he is presuming to be my judge. Sodomites say, Okay you are not my judge, I will now take care of you. After we are through with the two strangers, we will come as a gang assault against Lot. We will mistreat Lot much more harshly. We will be on him and in him. Lot will be sorry he tried to stop us. And if he dies while many, many of us have our way with him, so be it.    

And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. This mob of sodomite men, most likely pressed their bodies against Lot. There must have been fear and terror in the eyes of Lot. Lot knew what may happen next. He must have felt terrorized. 

10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.  

But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house But the angels in the form of two men with great strength pulled Lot inside and were able to get the door shut. This afforded some temporary protection from this devil possessed crowd of mad-dog men. How could two men stop them? They could not, but two angels? That is a different story. 

11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. 

And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness. The angels made these sodomites totally blind! All of them. They continued to try to find the way in, but they could not even find the door. NOW it was the sodomites turn to experience terror and fear. If Lot was not fully aware of who these men (angels) were before, Lot had now witnessed their supernatural powers. These were supernatural beings. 

12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 

And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides?  The angels asked have you any family members besides these here in your house? These angels did not know of them. But it is believed that we should have the concern of getting the lost delivered. Here the angels wanted them saved from the Wrath of GOD! 

Sons and daughters bring them out of this place.  If you have family of any kind, go get them to bring them out of this place.   

13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. 

For we will destroy this place.  The angels told Lot that they were here to destroy the city. God sent them for that purpose. This was to be the end of Sodom and Gomorrah!  But now the USA wants to give sodomites a place?  WHY? 

14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. 

Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law  Lot went out? Where is the mob of sodomites who want to know (have intercourse with) the two men? THEN the sodomites were to punish Lot more than these two angels. Did the sodomites run away?  Lot went out in that group of men, who were blind but continued to have evil in their minds. Something is missing from the account. But however the Bible tells us Lot went out to talk with his sons in law.   

But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.  The sons in law believed Lot was joking, making it all up. Lot went back to his home and time passed. 

Lot was to come out of this alive. Lot was to lose everything, all his stuff, but his life, it was given to him. 

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it. Matthew 10:39 

15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. 16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. 

Take thy wife, and  two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed. It was morning. The sun was rising, the two angels were urging a quick leaving of the city of Sodom. Take thy wife and thy two daughters. If you do not hurry you will be destroyed (you will be consumed) in the iniquity of this city. 

When they would not hurry the angels held his wife by the hand and the two daughters to lead them, almost pull them to safety. Having waited as long as they could the angels brought them out of Sodom. 

These angels were practicing evangelism on these soon to be lost and destroyed persons. The did not wait for them to come to church, they went and took them by the hand and led them out of sin to safety.  

15 And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16 

17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. 

Escape for thy life: look not behind thee ... escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. Lot is told to flee, run, or you will be consumed in the fiery judgment of God. And they are warned not to look (Strongs: H5027:  Pronounce: naw-bat'.  Orig: a primitive root; to scan, i.e. look intently at; by implication, to regard with pleasure, favor or care.  This is a severe warning. 

18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: 19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: 

FEAR: motivates Lot. You saved my life, but I am afraid to go to the mountains, lest some (unknown) evil take me, and I die. Lot who has just been delivered and  perhaps has seen the fiery judgment of God is full of fear. Lot fears to go to the mountains. (...fear hath torment) 

20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?)and my soul shall live.  21 And He said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.  22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.   

 Now Lot asks for the city of Zoar to be spared.   

ZOAR: In the Bible. Zoar, meaning "small" or "insignificance" in Hebrew (a "little one" as Lot called it), was a city east of Jordan in the vale of Siddim, near the Dead Sea. Along with Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, Zoar was one of the 5 cities slated for destruction by God; but Zoar was spared at Lot's plea as his place of refuge. 

Lot asked to spare one of the wicked cities scheduled for destruction, so obviously the city was evil and wicked, but Lot asks that the wicked city of Zoar be spared from the Judgment of God. God agrees to spare that wicked city.  

23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;  25 And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. 

About the time of the sun rising, Lot finally entered into wicked Zoar. Then God began to send forth destructive forces on Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities were leveled and all that live in them was destroyed by the fire and Judgment of God. Is the USA next?  Pray that we be not destroyed, as we deserve to be. 

26 But his wife(wife of Lot) looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. She looked back (i.e. look intently at; by implication, to regard with pleasure, favor or care:--). Then she became a pillar of salt. 

Abraham Sees from Afar Off. 

27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:  28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. 

We check back with Abraham. He looked early in the morning, and Sodom and Gomorrah were smoking from the fire and brimstone. But when God destroyed the wicked cities, we learn, that God spared Lot and family because God remembered Abraham. So Lot had a savior of sorts. Because of Abraham God spared Lot. 

What Happened to Lot and His Daughters? 

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.  31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:  32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.   

Having lived in Sodom the idea of having intercourse with your father may have happened on a regular basis. The life style in Sodom was an abomination to God. What do you suppose they learned? (if it feels good ...) 

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.  34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.   

“Get pop drunk and have sex” was an idea of the daughters who had never known man but lived in Sodom. They had been corrupted. Oh, and the wine tells us that: 1-Lot drank wine; 2-They had to purchase wine in or about Zoar; 3- The daughters would have known that Zoar had men and could not really believe Lot was the only one available with whom they could have children (as some Bible teachers teach.) 

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.  36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 

I do not believe that they knew the next day, but they may have believed them each to be pregnant and it eventually proved to be true. I wonder what Lot thought of it all when he learned of the pregnancy of his daughters. 

37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.  38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. 

And as you know from reading your Bible the Moabites and Ammonites were enemies of Israel for centuries. 

How far are is the USA away from the Judgment of God? 

PRAYER: Heavenly Father, I know You love me. I have disappointed You with sin being in my life. And I know that without You I cannot be pleasing to You. Please forgive me for my continual sin and other sins over which I do not have complete victory. Please forgive me. Please give me Your strength. Help me to believe and live in the victory You provide. You promised not to allow me to be tempted above that we are able to resist. Give me Your power to resist the temptation and to look for Your way out. Help me to not want sin in my life. Help me to live for You, every day. And since You left us to be Your witnesses, give us power. Come on to me, come into me God the Holy Ghost. Make me the person You know I can become. Then use me God, I pray in the Mighty, Matchless Name of Jesus The Christ, God the Son.  Amen and Amen. 

May God bless you in all that you do for Him, Brother J.R. Soul winner, Bible teacher, Defender of the Faith

[writer59january13]

The emotional, mental and spiritual fallout courtesy Colt Gray

Apalachee High School,

located in Winder, Georgia

witnessed an active shooter, whereby the alleged lone gunman (actually just a teenager of fourteen years) killed four people and injured nine more the latter hospitalized with injuries after a shooting Wednesday (June 4th, 2024) morning.

His (the lad who pulled the trigger on the firearm – an AR platform-style gun) father and mother must be held culpable,

and similar to the slain victims surviving kith and kin probably experience immense grief (at least I would hope). Yours truly (me), a married sexagenarian and proud papa, whose two grown daughters;

a twenty five old, lives in Bend, Oregon and eldest - almost twenty six months her kid sister's senior resides within bucolic Ithaca, New York, whereby he himself dwells at Highland Manor Apartments smack dab within the heart of

Perkiomen Valley, Pennsylvania nestled here within suburban southeastern Montgomery County

deeply affected by the tragedy

(as well as most previous occurring violent, nasty, and brutish bloody crimes.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The original text of the Second Amendment is:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The Second Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. Its origins can be traced back to ancient Roman and Florentine times, and to the late 16th century in England when Queen Elizabeth I required all classes of people to take part in a national militia. I (a slight baby boomer at approximately seventy inches tall from stem to stern

targeted as "scapegoat" during boyhood),

no longer a ticking time bomb harboring

rage against the machine,

would never buy nor use a weapon intended to fire rapidly loosing countless bullets, nevertheless writer of these words empathizes, sympathizes and telepathizes third-person singular simple present indicative forms of empathize, sympathize, and telepathize respectively

with the predictable cited suspect, who frequently trends toward being a quiet natured, nerdy lad at the receiving end of verbal and physical harassment.

Still back in the day mean kids indiscriminately name called me attendant with closed fists mere inches from my face - both boys and girls made a point to assail introspective severely shy Matthew Scott Harris

pleading with cruel, fiendish, imps - of the pervert please don't hurt me and repeated the following saying: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me (or so the playground adage wants us to believe). Words do hurt and the shame

those words can instill in us

have a way of instigating and perpetuating inferiority complex

in our minds and our bodies.

Easy access to high powered military grade sophisticated woud find blunderbuss quaint.

More often than not such brutal and nasty (short lived) nefarious schemes directed at humble lettered people (like those comprising my home town of Lake Woebegone) minding their own p's and q's, when out of the blue a sudden bitta bing bitta bang rings the terrorist catcall followed by red tide and river of blood. Thus occurs yet another staccato sinister sonic soundcloud boom across the pearl gray slate of some formerly anonymous place-name. which blitzkrieg of shells shattering (at shutterfly speed) the democratic rubric of society with senseless slaughter, whereat somber silence echoes the wails of agony.

This epidemic re: murderous love affair with gruesome morbid fixation allowing, enable and providing the terrifying trappings for angry person to maniacally gun down (in slo mo) a milling crowdsource (perhaps pathetic plan premeditated) employing coterie of odious loading incendiary fiery clips.

Suicide bombardier seeks to slake thirst to take aim with deadly precision, and spray with pump posse city, a congregated engaged group of people), with egregious fulfillment to mow down slew unsuspecting victims, which bring revulsion to this American citizen.

Death be not proud, nor ought airtime allocated to these heinous cavalier avengers. Foe tee eight hour special proffers especial easy access to sophisticated high caliber compact offspring of rapaciously lethal gimcrackery cutlasses. Sorrow soulful songs sung by the likes of death cab for cutie in tandem with foo fighting beastie boys pay homilies and homage to grateful dead. Fetishistic martyrs wannabe set sights of sister and brothers of their same simian species.

Once target(s) locked and stocked per skull and cross bones, the ammunition barrels at greased lightning speed dead set upon unaware persons. the final minutes/seconds of various lives instantaneously cut short, when instagram cross hairs seal the fate upon avast group of happy go lucky men and women. Instantaneous re: within the blink and/or flickr of and eye, the gallivanting live capital one progressive pinterest-ting human hulu hooping unwittingly accompany the grim reaper as riders to final resting place. Ribald exhortations and allegiance gifted from he/she who ushered in bereavement, where grief experiences a field day, whence pandora gorges philabundance like, as incalculable forsaken emptiness doles bleakness upon a grim outlook brought about per spilt blood, sweat and tears tallying the cost.

Mortal kombat rues unfathomable payless priceline, which induces adrenaline to course thru the melee, where survivors sprint non selfie ish lee to a safer outlook, where moments before the collective asylum seekers indulged in a joyus fancy feast per vanity fair, whence diehard fanatic (attired inconspicuously like some dishabille schlepper of an outlier) pulled the trigger releasing high powered voluminous ammunition loaded murderous mass homicidal instrument.

Netzero escape for those unfairly killed in ceaseless undeclared warfare, whereby killer (ofttimes a pissant punk) cooly unleashes fearsome fusillade from out the barrel per his/her lethal methodological munitions.

[noisycowboyglitter]

The Rise of Vintage USA Flag Ultra Maga Guns in Collecting Circles

This provocative design combines nostalgic Americana imagery with contemporary political messaging and Second Amendment themes. The centerpiece is a stylized vintage American flag, evoking a weathered, distressed look reminiscent of flags from the Revolutionary War era. Faded red and white stripes provide a backdrop for a field of muted blue with white stars.

Buy now:19.95$

Superimposed on the flag is the silhouette of a modern assault-style rifle, likely an AR-15 or similar model. The firearm's outline is rendered in bold black, creating a stark contrast against the muted flag colors. This juxtaposition of historical patriotic imagery with a modern weapon symbolizes a particular interpretation of American values and constitutional rights.

The phrase "Ultra MAGA" is prominently displayed, often in an imposing font designed to grab attention. This slogan, an intensified version of the "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan, signals strong support for former President Donald Trump and his political movement. The term "Ultra" implies an even more fervent embrace of this ideology.

Buy now

Additional text may include phrases like "2nd Amendment," "Don't Tread On Me," or "From My Cold, Dead Hands" - all common refrains among gun rights advocates. These slogans reinforce the design's pro-gun ownership stance.

The overall aesthetic aims to evoke a sense of rugged individualism, defiance against perceived government overreach, and a nostalgic view of American history and values. It's designed to resonate with individuals who strongly support gun rights, advocate for limited government, and align with the more ardent wing of the MAGA movement.

This type of imagery is often found on clothing items like t-shirts, hoodies, and hats, as well as on flags, bumper stickers, and other merchandise. It serves as a bold statement of political beliefs and cultural identity for those who embrace its message.

Buy now

This patriotic design combines traditional Independence Day imagery with political messaging supporting Donald Trump's potential 2024 presidential campaign. The centerpiece features classic American symbols such as the stars and stripes, bald eagles, and red, white, and blue color schemes.

Prominently displayed is the text "Trump 2024," signaling support for the former president's possible run for office. This may be accompanied by campaign slogans like "Make America Great Again" or "Keep America Great."

The design likely incorporates Fourth of July motifs such as fireworks, Liberty Bell imagery, or silhouettes of founding fathers. These elements aim to connect Trump's campaign with ideas of American independence and traditional values.

Buy now

Graphics might include a stylized portrait of Trump, perhaps wearing a signature red cap or waving an American flag. The overall aesthetic blends celebratory patriotism with political advocacy.

This imagery is typically found on various products including t-shirts, flags, banners, and other campaign merchandise. It's designed to appeal to Trump supporters who view his potential 2024 run as a continuation of American ideals and a reason for national celebration.

[king-of-men]

Correcting Macauley

As we all know, in classical Latin 'c' is pronounced hard, as a modern 'k' - hence "Kaiser" from "Caesar". In the nineteenth century this was no doubt less well known, and I therefore propose that Macaulay, in translating his lay of ancient Rome into English, made an error. I will attempt to correct this by providing an alternate reconstruction, with my amendations indicated by italics:

And now hath every kitty fluffed up her tail, a-men! The paws are forty thousand, the hisses, thousands ten.

Of course one cannot simply replace 'city' with 'kitty' and call it a day - what is the sense in which a kitty has a "tale of men"? No, no, we must reconstruct the rest of the stanza similarly. A kitty does very clearly have a tail, and once you allow the initial 'kitty/city' error then 'tail/tale' is a very natural further error for Macaulay to make, as is "of men/a-men". Then Macaulay has "the foot are fourscore", and this makes no sense - eighty thousand men (and that's not even counting the cavalry!) is a vast army for the time and place, entirely impractical to feed or coordinate. On the other hand "foot" is of course just another word for "paw", and if we assume ten thousand cats each with one hiss (not horse, pace Macaulay!) then indeed they have forty (not fourscore) thousand paws.

Now, an army of ten thousand kittens is no doubt easier to feed than one of ninety thousand men, some with horses; but it is still a rather absurd image. I therefore propose that the original, now-lost text that Macaulay translated as a heroic epic was actually nothing of the kind, but instead, a parodic, comic text in the style of the Batrachomyomachia - the "Battle of the Frogs and Mice". Alas, the critical approach of correcting plausible errors based on an obvious one does tend to break down the further one gets from the obvious error. Clearly we have Lars Pawsena of Clawsium", but otherwise even the cast of characters is not very easy to correct, much less the action. If Horatius is a cat, he cannot well jump in the Tiber, but this is not obvious - the kitties who fluff up their tails are the allies of Lars Pawsena, and Macaulay's "Romans" may well be some other animal entirely. Indeed this would explain why the Tiber (Tiger?) is so formidable an obstacle.

Still, while this is only a start, it suggests that searching for obscure feline puns in Latin may be a fruitful direction of research, and I would like to urge the grantmaking institutions to take up this fascinating field as soon as practical.

[jaijaicontextualstudies2001]

6: Reading Report 1

Jones, J.M. (1994) ‘Repackaging Rousseau: Femininity and Fashion in Old Regime France’, French historical studies, 18(4), pp. 939–967.

Repackaging Rousseau: Femininity and Fashion in Old Regime France (Jones: 1994) is a text surrounding gender politics and interpreting the role of gender through fashion from pre-French revolution to during the French revolution. In particular, focusing interpretation of gender, the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau condemning women (mostly from the aristocratic and bourgeois classes), and Jones - the author - challenging Rousseau's theories (Jones: 1994).

Rousseau's first hand accounts of gender politics and womanhood in France in the 1700s have been heavily relied on by scholar of 18th century construction of gender (Jones 1994: 940) which has lead his being known for having a savage (Jones 1994: 939, 940) and forthright in his opinions on women, which has lead other scholars to cast Rousseau as an extreme misogynist or a proto-feminist (Jones 1994: 940). For many scholars, his political theory on gender in the mid to late 18th century France is seen as writings of his time which conveyed the growing separations of the public realm of male virtue from the private realm of female domesticity (Jones 1994: 939). Jones stated how women's historians may need to reconsider relying on Rousseau's works (Jones 1994: 940) when exploring how womanhood was displayed through male eyes, especially through his obsessive worries about theatre, commerce, fashion and display (Jones 1994: 940). His worries on how women chose their lifestyle implies links between commerce and gender politics (Jones 1994: 940) to which did critiques was grounded on gendered conceptions of masculine work and male producers (Jones 1994: 940). Jones argued despite the importance of his writings in the cultural tension that concerned women for some readers, the readers would still need to consider how Rousseau was amended, interpreted and sidestepped by his contemporaries (Jones 1994: 941). The author engages in questions regarding the debate of womanhood in the 1700s: "What was the relationship of women to the public sphere as it has been defined by Jurgen Habermas? Did the public sphere offer possibilities for women to participate in reasoned critiques of the state? Or was the public sphere inherently masculinist?" (Jones 1994: 941). Jones suggested taking into account the argument of Habermas that has been neglected (Jones 1994: 941) and over-ridden by Rousseau's claims. Habermas emphasised on the economic developments that links the emergence of the public sphere to the expansion of commercial capitalism (Jones 1994: 941). His main point centred around the development of the bourgeois and the emerging capitalist society which developed the press to criticise the mercantilist and absolutist (Jones 1994: 942).

Jones suggested how important it is to look at the new representations of femininity and gendered political culture emerging from the French Revolution being linked to the commercial culture of France (Jones 1994: 942). Merchants such as fashion editors, retailers and distributors were within the emerging public sphere, and through fashion they played a key role in formulating the attitudes about womanhood in France (Jones 1994: 942). Between 1650 and the French revolution the commercial culture in Paris increased significantly in the consumption of clothing and the increase in fashion styles and trends - la mode (Jones 1994: 943). During 1650, dressing fashionably was only accessible to small group of elite women and men, who were able to have financial access to silks, ornate garments and gold or silver brocades (Jones 1994: 943). The financially restricted population had coarse, homemade clothing or castoffs of the upper class (Jones 1994: 943). By the late 1700s, a broader range of people with different incomes could afford more lavish fashion (Jones 1994: 943). With all Parisian classes, their wardrobe had increased in value, garments, and variety (Jones 1994: 943). For example, maids were able to afford cleaner and whiter blouses and cuffs, and calicoes with more colour that was not grey or brown (Jones 1994: 943).

However, the rise of more accessible, high-value fashion became the 'problem' of the relationship of women to the consumption and la mode (Jones 1994: 943). (Jones 1994: 943). Villermert, fashion editor and author during this time (Jones 1994: 943) was a self-styled "friend of women" yet accused women of frivolity for buying clothes (Jones 1994: 944). Yet, harsher critics accused women of destroying their families and undermining masculine virtue, which threatened the backbone of France's economy and prestige due to their spending on excessive and "tasteless" fashion (Jones 1994: 944). It was believed by some that women were enslaved to la mode, who would squander the family's income and starving their children in the name of up-to-date fashion (Jones 1994: 948). Rousseau denounced the fashion as artificial, and drew a distinction between cultivating one's beauty and pursuing les modes: "The love of fashion is in bad taste, because when one changes one's fashion, one's face and figure nevertheless remains the same, and that which suits one one time should suit one forever." (Jones 1994: 944, 945). Rousseau conveyed how commercial culture had corrupted women's taste, and could not see any positive roles for women as consumers, and viewed a world were women were satisfied with wearing simple garments (Jones 1994: 945).

On the eve of the French revolution, a formal dress were of elaborate fashion of ruffles, brocaded silks and ballooning paniers influenced by the rococo style (Jones 1994: 945). Despite this, a simpler style of dress appeared in the 1780s of graceful white muslin view with brocaded silks, accompanied with natural hair and straw hats (Jones 1994: 945, 946). The battle between these two styles increased debate of the proper relationship between women and consumerism which tensioned more when Marie Antionette, known for her excessive fashion, had a portrait painted of her in 1783 by Elizabeth Vigee-Lebrun showing the queen with the more modest and graceful taste (Jones 1994: 946). Due to this, the modest appearance was coined Sophie (Jones 1994: 946). Despite this strict Rousseauean style, clothing merchants were threatened that this would ruin their fashion empire, and accused the queen of "dressing like a chambermaid in order to humiliate France" and ruining the clothing industry deliberately (Jones 1994: 946). The different styles conveyed the different styles of femininity - different concepts of women's proper relationships to domesticity and consumption (Jones 1994: 947).

The consumption patterns between men and women began to diverge dramatically in the 1700s (Jones 1994: 948). The statistics highlighted that most women of all classes spent twice as much on clothes than their husbands, and after 1750 the relative value increased 5-10 times more rapidly than their husbands (Jones 1994: 948). Just before the French revolution, a typical Parisian man might possess 15 items of clothing - worth 38 livres - while his wife might possess up to 50 items of clothing - worth 346 livres (Jones 1994: 948). What did not help with the mass consumption of clothing was the increase in issues of fashion journals and articles. In the 17th century there was biannual issues regarding the 'latest' fashion, whereas by the time the French revolution of around the corner several journals were published in reporting the ever-changing styles (Jones 1994: 949). Within the multiple fashion journals the fashion press suggested that to keep up with the latest fashion, not only did you have to change clothes seasonally but change clothing multiple times in a day for different events (Jones 1994: 952). Another statistic between gender consumption conveyed that fashion journals were more targeted for a female dominant audience as women's clothing were more than half of the engravings, whereas male clothing only made up 11 percent (Jones 1994: 953). When a journal portrayed male fashion, it was directed at young men as it was seen as being a fashionable male was for courting purposes only; it was deemed shameful for a man to be into fashion (Jones 1994: 953, 954).

Before the French revolution, women possessed more than men in terms of clothing, and those women (mostly from the aristocrat and Bourgeois) possessed more than other women (Jones 1994: 958). The revolution tested the fashion journal's editors which offered evidence that a woman's interest in fashion is innate, rooted in their femininity, rather than in social identity and financial privilege (Jones 1994: 955). The French revolt may have 'banished' the artificial and moral corruption that prospered in high society, but it did not tamper the adornments women wore as the new regime saw women's love for fashion as part of their nature (Jones 1994: 955). However, during the revolt, the editor of the Journal de la mode et du gout explained that "the practice of decoration one's clothing with precious metals have been displaced along with the aristocracy" (Jones 1994: 960), and that taste was the sole reason to distinguish oneself rather than ostentation (Jones 1994: 960). Another way the revolution effected women's fashion was colour and pattern. Politics influenced colour whether it was cockades or dresses: dresses in lime green (with pink spots) were inspired by the state visit of the ambassadors if Tippoo-Saib, and the fall of Bastille (Jones 1994: 956, 957). The concept of la mode and fashion was associated with the turmoil of the French revolution, but it was not that harmful and should have been applauded and not feared as it was to appease a woman's innate pleasure (Jones 1994: 962) but got mixed up with the political aspects of the revolution. However, by the late 1700s only ostentatious fashions were condemned for being bad taste and being excessive luxury (Jones 1994: 964). The editor of Journal de la mode et du gout write in April 1791 "It is women who have lost the most with the Revolution. The names and imposing titles... shared with their husbands have been taken away from them... they have been relegated to the simple practice of domestic duties." (Jones 1994: 966).

Post-revolution, new fashioned were not deemed as threatening to family finances, but improved the compatibility with the consumption of fashion with the domesticity of caring for the family (Jones 1994: 965). Fashion went from conveying a "public woman" figure to a "private women", exiting the elitist pre-revolutionary lifestyle to a domestic life (Jones 1994: 967).

How does this tie in with my project? As I will be focusing on fashion during the French revolution, this text does seem a little outdated to the time of the revolution, but it was important to see the build up to the war of fashion that happened during the revolt. It may not directly link to my project, but it takes in historical context and first hand accounts, writings and theories of the late 1700's. I believe that it is important as it gave me more understanding of why fashion was controversial as a social identity.

[ufo-thetimesareripe]

References Made by Grusch on JRE (books, videos, etc)

As we patiently wait for Grusch to drop his op-ed, I rewatched the JRE episode and made note of articles, books, movies, etc that he mentioned or referenced to hold us over. Grusch’s testimony is partly what convinced me that this is real so there’s some things mentioned that were new to me. I might’ve missed a few things he mentioned but here’s what I gathered.

–Articles:

2017-Dec Article that mentions Lue Elizondo, which piqued his interest

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html)

2021-Jan Grusch mentions FOIA documents in which Harry Reid submitted a Special Access Request to William Lynn. Documents are linked within this NY Post article.

[https://nypost.com/2021/01/12/cia-releases-ufo-black-vault-documents-see-them-online/

](https://nypost.com/2021/01/12/cia-releases-ufo-black-vault-documents-see-them-online/)

2021-May Article written by Harry Reid

[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/special-series/harry-reid-ufo.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/special-series/harry-reid-ufo.html)

2023-July 10 Grusch doesn’t reference this article, but he says the information regarding the 1933 Magenta, Italy UFO crash is public and that the researchers may have direct witnesses. This article is in alignment with that.

[https://interestingengineering.com/culture/worlds-first-ufo-crash-happened-in-italy-claim ](https://interestingengineering.com/culture/worlds-first-ufo-crash-happened-in-italy-claim)

2021-March Dird Documents

[https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aviation-threat-identification-program-aatip-dird-report-research/](https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aviation-threat-identification-program-aatip-dird-report-research/)

–Books:

“Skinwalkers at the Pentagon: An Insiders’ Account of the Secret Government UFO Program” by James T. Lacatski, et al. (Oct 2021)

“Inside the US Government Covert UFO Program: Initial Revelations” by James T. Lacatski, et al. (Oct 2023)

“Proof of Heaven” by Eben Alexander

“Cosmos” by Carl Sagan

“A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking

“Passport to Magonia” by Jacques Vallee

–Bible Reference:

Wheels of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:1-48:22)

[https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/read/eng/KJV/Ezek/1/](https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/read/eng/KJV/Ezek/1/)

–Movies:

The Matrix

Interstellar (2014)

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

The Terminator (1984)

–YouTube:

Yes Theory – Grusch

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwsWAQ9sJZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwsWAQ9sJZE)

~Related article

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/of-interest/2023/10/05/ufo-david-grusch-uap-congress-yes-theory/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/of-interest/2023/10/05/ufo-david-grusch-uap-congress-yes-theory/)

Weaponized – Lacatski

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow7FqiegixQ&t=79s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow7FqiegixQ&t=79s)

–Government Docs:

Schumer Amendment

[https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/797/text](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/797/text)

Executive Order 13526

[https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html](https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html)

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 PDF

[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1630/pdf/COMPS-1630.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1630/pdf/COMPS-1630.pdf)

Stargate Program

[https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate)

–Terms Mentioned:

Mormon Theology

Von Neumann probes

[speedyposts]

How will Donald Trump’s criminal trials affect his re-election bid?

The odds that Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential candidate appear more likely by the day.

The former United States president has cemented his hold on the party nomination with convincing early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, and his field of Republican challengers has dwindled in response.

.adtnl6r-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 80%; max-width: 600px; margin: 20px auto; background-color: #FF3300; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); } .adtnl6r-banner { width: 100%; max-height: 250px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; } .adtnl6r-banner img { width: 100%; height: auto; max-height: 250px; } .adtnl6r-content { width: 100%; padding: 20px; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; } .adtnl6r-title { font-size: 1.8em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 10px; color: #fff; } .adtnl6r-description { font-size: 1.2em; color: #fff; margin-bottom: 15px; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button { display: inline-block; padding: 10px 20px; font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; background-color: #0066CC; color: #fff; border-radius: 50px; /* Pill style border-radius */ border-color: #0066CC; transition: background-color 0.3s; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button:hover { background-color: #45a049; color: #000; } .adtnl6r-marker { font-size: 0.8em; color: #fff; margin-top: 10px; }

Your Path to Online Virality! Reach people through websites, mobile apps, blogs, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.

Advertise Everywhere!

Take Action

Ads by Adtional

Yet, despite his strong frontrunner position, Trump faces four criminal trials that could complicate his re-election bid.

He has been accused of mishandling classified government files, falsifying business documents to conceal a hush-money payment, and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results in the state of Georgia.

He also faces a separate federal indictment accusing him of interference in the 2020 vote, which he lost to President Joe Biden. He has pleaded not guilty in all four cases.

But while the US Constitution allows Trump to seek the presidency even if he is convicted, a guilty verdict could affect his ability to campaign — and raise never-before-seen scenarios, experts say.

“That a major party candidate, somebody very competitive in the polls, could be facing criminal indictments, that’s unprecedented. [That he] could be going to trial during the primary season, that is unprecedented. If he were to be convicted, that would be unprecedented,” said Craig Green, a professor of law and government at Temple University.

“All of these things are really extraordinary.”

Could Trump be forced to campaign from a jail cell? Would a conviction push him to drop out? And will the criminal trials affect his electability? Here’s all you need to know.

Yes. The US Constitution says any “natural born citizen” aged 35 and up, who has been a US resident for at least 14 years, can run for president.

“There’s no language in the Constitution that prohibits someone who’s convicted of running for an office,” explained Aziz Huq, a professor of law at the University of Chicago.

Some civil rights groups, however, have sought to get Trump disqualified by pointing to a little-known clause of the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the so-called “disqualification clause” — bars people from holding US office, including the presidency, if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.

Critics say Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results would fall under the prohibition against insurrection.

Whether Trump’s candidacy can be barred under the 14th Amendment is currently an issue before the US Supreme Court. Its justices have been asked to weigh in after two states, Colorado and Maine, removed Trump’s name from their primary ballots, citing the insurrection clause.

Yes. In 1920, Socialist Party candidate Eugene V Debs campaigned for president from a federal prison in Georgia. Debs, who was jailed for sedition after challenging a wartime measure that curtailed the freedom of speech, garnered nearly one million votes.

Lyndon LaRouche Jr also ran for president in 1992 from federal prison, where he was serving out a sentence for conspiracy and mail fraud.

But Huq, the University of Chicago professor, said individuals with criminal convictions have historically “not been candidates who have been likely to win or who have been within reach of winning”.

“The Constitution is written on the assumption that the people who run for office will have been selected through some process that weeds out people who have committed alleged felonies in the past,” he told Al Jazeera.

The trials could create a scheduling headache for the former president, who will be required to appear in court.

But everything depends on when the proceedings get under way, as Trump’s legal team has filed multiple motions to delay the cases or dismiss the charges against him outright.

“We don’t know which — if any — of the criminal cases could go to trial before November because there are a number of appellate proceedings seeking to stop them, or stay them,” said Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law.

Appeals have already delayed at least one case. Last week, a US District Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed the start of Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, DC, which had been set for March 4. A new schedule has not been set.

The New York fraud case, meanwhile, is scheduled to begin on March 25 but could also get pushed back.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been holding their respective nomination contests — state votes to determine each party’s presidential candidate — since the beginning of the year.

Trump won comfortably in both Iowa and New Hampshire in January, heaping pressure on his last major Republican challenger, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, to drop out of the race.

The next contests are later this month in Nevada, South Carolina and Michigan. More than a dozen states will then hold their primaries in early March on what is known as Super Tuesday.

Republicans will officially choose their candidate at the party convention, set for mid-July in Wisconsin, while Democrats will confirm their nominee — who is almost guaranteed to be President Biden — at an August convention. The general election is on November 5.

“Aside from illness or death, I don’t think there’s anything that could keep Trump off of the ballot in November,” said Green at Temple University.

That’s because Republican Party rules currently don’t include a “mechanism for getting him off the ballot” if he is confirmed as the candidate at July’s convention, he explained.

Meanwhile, nearly all of the delegates who will pick the Republican nominee are what’s known as bound delegates — meaning they are required to vote for a candidate based on the results of their state’s primary and party rules.

“The Republican Party has become increasingly rigorous about getting pledged delegates — no flexibility, no messing around. You win the primary, you win the votes,” Green told Al Jazeera.

In other words, the majority of the Republican delegates at the party convention will be pledged to Trump if he wins most of the state primaries. Green added that it therefore is unlikely those same delegates would pass any rule changes to allow the party to break away from the ex-president should he be convicted.

While Trump could — in theory — drop out of the race after a conviction, he has pledged not to.

Geoff Kabaservice, vice president of political affairs at the Niskanen Center, a centre-right think tank in Washington, DC, said the Republican Party “has gone way too far with Trump at this point for there to be an off-ramp from his candidacy”.

“Absent some act of God, they are stuck with him as their presidential nominee,” Kabaservice said.

The chances are slim.

Even if he were convicted before November, “there’s always some period of time before sentencing”, explained Bowman at the University of Missouri.

Trump’s legal team also would almost certainly appeal any conviction and sentencing decision, thereby delaying the prospect of him spending time behind bars even further.

“Customarily, in white-collar cases, people remain free on bond pending appeal,” Bowman told Al Jazeera. “Would Trump appeal a conviction or a sentence? Of course he would. It seems unlikely a judge would remand him to custody immediately.”

That’s an important question.

A December poll from the New York Times and Siena College showed that 62 percent of Republican primary voters believed Trump should remain the party’s nominee if he wins the most primary votes — even if he is convicted of a crime.

Fifty-four percent of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire also said he would still be fit for the presidency if convicted of a crime, according to exit polling by the Washington Post. That figure jumped to 87 percent among voters who backed Trump in New Hampshire last month.

The former president’s base has overwhelmingly stayed in his corner despite the four criminal indictments, which Trump has denounced as politically motivated “witch hunts”. But that could change with a conviction, said Green.

“I think there would be a slice of people who would take things more seriously at that moment. He would be a convicted felon, and those words have some weight for some voters,” he said.

A January poll by Morning Consult and Bloomberg (PDF) showed that 53 percent of registered voters in key swing states would not vote for the ex-president if he were convicted. Fifty-five percent said they wouldn’t vote for Trump if he were sentenced to prison time.

Even just having to appear in court during the election campaign could affect Trump, said Kabaservice at the Niskanen Centre.

During the Republican primaries, Trump used his legal troubles to fire up his die-hard supporters. He has even appeared in court for civil cases where his presence is otherwise not required, leading some experts to question whether his presence is a campaign tactic.

Kabaservice noted that Trump has used the cases to accuse Democrats of doing “everything in their power to stop him from becoming president again” and reiterate claims that the justice system is rigged against him.

While this strategy may work for the former president’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) backers, it will fail to appeal to more moderate Republicans, independents or even Democrats who may consider voting for him, Kabaservice said.

“The basic problem here for Trump and the Republican Party is that what works for the MAGA faithful doesn’t really play all that well outside of the bubble,” he told Al Jazeera.

The criminal trials will, in effect, not keep him from being the GOP nominee or keep him off the ballot. But they will showcase “Trump’s worst qualities for the segment of the electorate to whom that matters”.

.adtnl6r-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 80%; max-width: 600px; margin: 20px auto; background-color: #FF3300; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); } .adtnl6r-banner { width: 100%; max-height: 250px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; } .adtnl6r-banner img { width: 100%; height: auto; max-height: 250px; } .adtnl6r-content { width: 100%; padding: 20px; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: center; } .adtnl6r-title { font-size: 1.8em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 10px; color: #fff; } .adtnl6r-description { font-size: 1.2em; color: #fff; margin-bottom: 15px; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button { display: inline-block; padding: 10px 20px; font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; background-color: #0066CC; color: #fff; border-radius: 50px; /* Pill style border-radius */ border-color: #0066CC; transition: background-color 0.3s; } .adtnl6r-learn-more-button:hover { background-color: #45a049; color: #000; } .adtnl6r-marker { font-size: 0.8em; color: #fff; margin-top: 10px; }

Your Path to Online Virality! Reach people through websites, mobile apps, blogs, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.

Advertise Everywhere!

Take Action

Ads by Adtional

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: Amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that former President Trump is disqualified to run for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

PDF Download: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf

Summary of the key points from the discussion:

The document is an amicus curiae brief submitted to the US Supreme Court in a case regarding Donald Trump's eligibility to run for president again.

It argues that state courts and the Supreme Court have judicial power over presidential qualification disputes based on constitutional text and that no amendment changed this.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be given its fair meaning rather than a narrow construction, and was widely understood to include the president as an "officer."

The January 6th attack constituted an "insurrection…against" the Constitution by seeking to deny the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause and amendments.

Trump "engaged in" the insurrection by inciting violence through his speech aimed at preventing the certification of Biden's election.

The brief makes persuasive legal and historical arguments supported by evidence and shows fidelity to constitutional text and principles of interpretation.

Stakeholders impacted include the Court, Trump, Biden, Congress, future candidates, and the American public.

The reasoning is intellectually rigorous and addresses counterarguments transparently based on original public meaning.

Ethically, it prioritizes democratic processes, rule of law, facts over claims, and impartial treatment of issues.

This document is an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief submitted to the US Supreme Court.

The key attributes that identify it as an amicus brief genre include:

It is submitted by parties not directly involved in the case (former government officials here) to provide legal arguments to the Court.

It discusses the legal issues in the case indepth and provides analysis of relevant constitutional provisions, precedents, and historical context to support a particular interpretation.

It is formally structured with sections laying out arguments, citations to authority, inclusion of an appendix, etc. following the expected format for legal briefs.

The language and writing style is formal and targeted at legal/judicial audiences, citing authorities and precedent.

It aims to assist the court rather than the direct parties, showing the issues have broader implications than just those directly involved in the case.

So in terms of both form and function, this document clearly falls within the established genre of an amicus curiae brief submitted for a Supreme Court case, a genre intended to help inform the Court's legal decisionmaking.

Summary of the amici brief:

The brief argues that state courts and the US Supreme Court have the judicial power to decide disputes over a presidential candidate's qualifications under the Constitution.

This power was originally allocated to the states under the Electors Clause, and ultimately to the Supreme Court via its appellate jurisdiction.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress additional enforcement power but did not eliminate the pre-existing judicial power of state courts and the Supreme Court.

No other constitutional amendment changes this allocation of judicial power or assigns such power to Congress.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment must be given its "fair meaning" rather than a narrow construction, especially since it emerged from the Civil War.

In 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the "President of the United States" was widely understood to be an "officer of the United States."

The January 6, 2021 attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the election results through force was an "insurrection…against" the Constitution.

The peaceful transfer of power is mandated by the Executive Vesting Clause, the 12th Amendment, and the 20th Amendment.

Trump "engaged in" the insurrection by inciting the violent mob through his speech, even if he did not personally commit violence.

Evaluation of how well the amicus brief engages with and relates to the supreme law of the affected country, the United States Constitution:

Centrality of constitutional text: The core focus is a close reading and application of the most directly relevant constitutional clauses to the issues at hand.

Originalist interpretation: An original public meaning approach is taken, grounded in founding-era context and sources to interpret clauses as ratified.

Holistic assessment: Relevant clauses are analyzed both individually and together as part of an interrelated whole (e.g. factoring in amendments together).

Precedent consideration: Both key founding intentions and relevant precedent rulings interpreting provisions are thoroughly discussed.

Consistency evaluation: Arguments are structured around demonstrating logical consistency with overarching constitutional structures/principles.

Engagement with counterarguments: Attempts are made to engage potential alternative textualist perspectives rather than just asserting one view.

Overall, the detailed emphasis on the specific wording of clauses both individually and systematically, due attention to original public meaning and precedent, and efforts to ensure consistency indicate the brief strongly prioritizes meaningful engagement with the text of the supreme law it is commenting upon. This lends it credibility in relation to the U.S. Constitution.

Evaluation of the key arguments:

Judicial power argument: This argument is well supported by careful textual analysis of relevant Constitutional clauses and founding-era context. It directly counters Trump's position.

Officer argument: Though a narrower point, it is effective that Trump concedes the key aspect (president is an officer) while the brief cites supportive context.

Insurrection argument: Defining insurrection as denial of peaceful transfer is a persuasive interpretation aligned with Constitutional mandates and historical precedent of 1861 secession attempts.

Incitement argument: The contention that causing threatened/actual violence through speech constitutes engagement is legally sound and contextual evidence cited for Trump's intent strengthens this claim.

Constitutional fidelity: Overall the brief exhibits strong constitutional textualism through principle-driven interpretation anchored in original public meaning - lending the analysis credibility.

The arguments presented appear well supported by both evidence and reason. While legal experts can reasonably disagree on interpretations, the brief's key positions seem well grounded and its analysis of the language and context is thoughtful. No obvious logical flaws or omissions were identified. The arguments effectively rebut the positions taken in Trump's brief.

Key stakeholders:

US Supreme Court - The intended audience, to inform the legal analysis and contribute sound legal/historical reasoning.

Donald Trump - Directly impacted by the outcome of the case and arguments made against his positions.

Joe Biden - As the duly elected incumbent president, his ability to serve is impacted.

American public - The stability of the democratic process and future elections could be influenced by the ruling.

Political parties - Depending on outcome, future nominations and contests may be affected.

Other future presidential candidates - Precedents set may influence qualifications and elections.

Congress - Division of powers between judiciary and legislature could be delineated.

Overall, while some stakeholders like Trump may be more directly affected as parties, the legal issues have broader public interest implications for how the US system of government functions now and in the future. The brief aims to assist the Court's consideration of these wider stakes through persuasive legal analysis.

Evaluation of the ethics involved in the situation described:

Democratic norms: The brief argues forcefully preventing a peaceful transfer of power fundamentally undermines democratic processes the Constitution aims to protect.

Rule of law: It contends adjudicating disputes through impartial courts, rather than unreviewable political power, upholds principles of an equitable legal system.

Constitutional integrity: Close analysis is offered to demonstrate how the arguments align with or diverge from upholding the supreme law of the land as ratified.

Truth & transparency: Reliance is placed on transparent discussion of evidence, rather than obfuscation or unfounded claims, to determine facts.

Impartiality: While advocating one conclusion, care is shown to addressing alternative views on their legal/historical merits impartially.

Civic duty: Former officials file to aid the Court based on non-partisan commitment to constitutional order, not selfish interests.

Overall, core ethical priorities of the brief appear to include safeguarding democratic and constitutional governance through commitment to facts/evidence, impartial reason, rule of law, and disinterested service - all hallmarks of principled legal/scholarly ethics. No overt unethical biases or tactics are apparent.

Quality of reasoning:

Textualism: The brief closely analyzes the specific wording and contextual meanings of relevant constitutional clauses, applying an original public meaning approach. This adheres to principles of textualist legal interpretation.

Logical coherence: The arguments flow logically from one point to the next, building a case based on interrelated evidentiary threads (e.g. starting with federalism foundations and moving clause-by-clause).

Use of evidence: Strong empirical support is provided through citations of founding-era sources, legal precedents, historical works, dictionaries, and the record established in lower court proceedings.

Addressing counterarguments: Attempts are made to directly rebut alternative views raised rather than just asserting one perspective. Relevant objections are substantively engaged.

Transparency: Assumptions and line of reasoning are clearly spelled out, leaving evidentiary trail open to scrutiny rather than relying on opacity.

Intellectual rigor: A high level of consistent analytical rigor is applied throughout in evaluating text and context without apparent lapses.

Overall, the reasoning exhibits qualities expected of rigorous legal/scholarly analysis through its focus on principle-driven interpretation of relevant sources and transparent engagement with alternative perspectives. While reasonable people can disagree on conclusions, the quality of reason itself appears solid.

Logical fallacies:

Appeal to Authority - The brief appeals to the expertise and credibility of the amici signatories. However, this is a standard and valid technique for amicus briefs to establish credibility. Not a clear fallacy.

Strawman - Nowhere does the brief clearly misrepresent Trump's arguments. It accurately repeats and rebuts the positions taken in his brief. No evident strawmanning.

Slippery Slope - The brief argues Congress having sole power could lead to abuse, but this is a reasonably argument rather than a blatant slippery slope fallacy.

False Dilemma - The brief does not frame the issues in an either-or way or ignore alternative possibilities. Multiple constitutional provisions are discussed working together.

Ad Hominem - The brief focuses on the legal and historical merits of the arguments rather than make personal attacks on Trump.

Post Hoc - The brief does not inappropriately claim historical events were caused by other events that occurred after. Causation is reasonably discussed.

In evaluation, I did not find any clear instances of logical fallacies that would meaningfully undermine the legal and historical arguments being made in the brief. At most, some techniques could be debated, but overall the reasoning appears logically sound and fallacy-free.

Common criteria for evaluating and assessment:

Credibility of Amici - The brief relies on perspectives from numerous high-ranking former officials and legal experts, lending credibility.

Clarity of Arguments - The legal arguments are clearly structured and explained in accessible language for legal audiences.

Persuasiveness - The brief compellingly applies constitutional text and history to dispute Trump's claims and support disqualification.

Relevance to Court - The brief focuses on relevant constitutional/legal issues before the court rather than simply reinforce one side.

Thoroughness - The brief thoroughly examines all key constitutional provisions and rebuts counterarguments.

Objectivity - While supporting one outcome, the brief remains evenly balanced and relies on facts/law rather than unsubstantiated claims.

Compliance with Guidelines - The brief follows standard guidelines for amicus briefs in terms of formatting, citation practices, etc.

Innovation - The brief introduces some novel historical evidence and analysis that could helpfully inform the Court's decision.

Overall, this brief excels in terms of the credibility and expertise it carries, the clarity and persuasiveness of its arguments, its thorough examination of key issues, compliance with genre guidelines, and potential to innovatively inform the Court's ruling. It achieves the intended purpose of an effective amicus brief.

[ramrodd]

Can a Pre Christian Version of the Book of Revelation Be Recovered?

COMMENTARY:

During the 60s on campus, student radical  dodgger like James Tabor held seminars and sit-ins and be0ins and what not like this video series. On the basis of Question Authority, hippy social life was what it was like. The only thing you need to complete the picture is Mr. Natural strolling through the class.

This is what it was like to hang around with Socrates if you were young and disruptive. To truly understand James Tabor, you need to see the movie Candy and everytime he begins one of these come-on Medicine Man performance art, imagine the intro to Magic Caroet Rude soiik yo ub tiyr nubd, This is part of the draft0avoidance life-style.

Revelation is high literature. Very high literature. In the current literary mix, it would be considered experimental. Much of my commentary is experimental: it's a lot of  loose ends that surface, from time to time, in my commentary as emerges from the 1st Amendment . Revelations is a very intense and near perfect version of thet.

I suspect that Revelation emerged from a divine experience like what Mohammad experienced with Gabril.  The difference is that John the REvelator wrote it all down immediately in the same manner as Cooldridge with the opeing of Kubla Chan: he came out of an opium drean and just kept it running in his head to the writen word. Every word is an intense and very uncomfortable experience. It is both irresistible  and awful. Every word. Think "Van Gogh". That's what was the experience John the Revelator had when he opened  that door., This is a "through the looking blass"  moment in Christian literature.

All that shit you are talking about is true, more or less, but it's archeology. It's like arriving at a Greek celebration when the sun is coming up and all that is left is broken pottery.

For example, Revelation 13. One way to look at it is from the perspective of the critical historic method of dialectical Marxism of  Tabor;ss school of inquiry, This became the conventional wisdom in 1968 when the SDS occupied Columbia and demanded that Hegel be abandoned for Marx and Kingsman Brewster said "Ok. What could it hurt?". In any event, the interpretation of Revelation 13 ends up at the Sign of the Beast that fits the Pro-Life Fascist of the Total Depravity Gospel of the Evangelical of Calvin. and the Gematria of 666. which I like. The Gematria. I believe that 616 was the original number, because it fits the 515 numerical gestalt throughtout the narrative of the  Bible.

In leterature, Number is a figure of speech. Particularly in the Bible. You see literature as broken pottery and I see it as a tapestry, like the veil that concealed the Holy of Holies in the Temple. In literature, Number is like Pi is to a  mathematician only more like a rail road track signals.

Revelation 13 is a Cubist portrait of the centurion in Mark 15:39.  Leviathan symbolizes Rome, which. like Britain, was a sea power. The River Beast symbioses  the Legions, who conquered Gaul by its rivers and the Marks of the Beast is the literal number of Jesus's Death warrant: DCLXVI .  The centurions were the fusion of the modern warrant officer and the modern NCO.  The Praetorian Guards and the Legions were., like Latin, were put together like LEGO blocks. The only difference between the Praetorian Guard and the Pentagon is that the Praetorian Guards were also running the Oval Office, by and large. Now,

In terms of the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the text, it is  useful to remember that the  13 and the textual organization didn't exist until 1525, So, if you are looking for the sacred in the Bible, pay attention to the actual  numbers of the chapters and verse and see what secretes of the Bible are  revealed to you like an Easter Egg hunt.

The numerology I uses is consistent with most of the systems I am familiar with west of Persia. Everything east of Persia is organized in a way unavailable to me. Reading L'ao Tsu and similar literature, I get a glimpse of something, but, first your see it Zen you don't.

As I say, DCLXVI was the number on the Roman death warrant. only it was probably DCXVI or 616, based on textual recovery. As an ideogram in Arabic symbology, it can be construed as a Butterfly, just emerging from his cocoon, and stretching His wings. In the context of Revelation 13, it is the Resurrection of the Risen Lord. As a numerologist, this is very satisfying and congruent with Biblical numerology, going back to Moses.

But the 666 is even more satisfying for nailing down the centurion portrait.  As ideograms, the 666 can be construed as the 3 nails that pinion Jesus. I like that literary touch.

But even better, the Gematria for DCLXVI works out to NERO and that sort of literary clue is consistent with other literary clues confirming Cornelius as the author of Mark and it's composition not later than 40, immediately after the debriefing about Jesus from Peter in Acts 10.

Pilate sent an immediate intelligence report with a euangelion delivery status up his chain of command. It was Roman SOP. Tiberius got it and introduced the term "Christian" to the Roman elite. It wouldn't get back to Antioch until 47 or so. Cornelius was Pilates Command Sergeant Major and Chief of Staff and was in the room with Pilate during his interrogation of Jesus. He probably prepared Pilate's intelligence report to Rome and was responsible fo r it delivery, and he told, or read, tp Peter the contents of that euangelion and that became the Gospel of Peter and is the euangelion Paul refers to 19 times in his Epistles, which he was told at the Jerusalem Council. A place where ith Holy SPirit is playing with the numbers of the chapters and verse is Acts 10: 34 - 43, which is an executive summary of Jesus's ministry. This becomes the structure of the narrative of the Gospel of Mark, which  is composed of elements from the intelligence of the 10 Legion and Peter's witness.

And the significance of the 666 as Nero sets the composition of Revelation as occurring right at the start of the Jewish Sar and Josephus's research. As I say, the Revelation was an intense and unpleasant experience that was transcribed immediately and was complete before 70 CE. Just like everything else, including The Gospel of John, Like Babe Ruth, Jesus called His shot in Mark 13 ad the connection between Mark 13 and Revelation 13 is not an accident.

And the only thing you are interested in is who broke the plates the night before. The war is over, You can't be drafted. You can give up the performance art and draw outside the lines you had to pretend represented Metaphysical necessity.