#and like the only reason we have this misconception is cause when the Americans showed up

[bywandandsword]

Since Hazbin Hotel popped off, I've seen a few times people asserting that there is something racist about Alastor's backstory, given that he is canonically a Creole from New Orleans, but his demon form does not have any overt indicators of his being a person of color

So here's a gentle reminder and clarification, as a Louisiana Creole myself;

"Louisiana Creoles (French: Créoles de la Louisiane, Louisiana Creole: Moun Kréyòl la Lwizyàn, Spanish: Criollos de Luisiana) are a Louisiana French ethnic group descended from the inhabitants of colonial Louisiana before it became a part of the United States during the period of both French and Spanish rule. They share cultural ties such as the traditional use of the French, Spanish, and Creole languages and predominant practice of Catholicism. Some mistakenly think the term is a racial designation, while in fact people of European, of African, and of mixed ancestry have all been termed "Creole" since the 18th century." (x, emphasis mine)

Please pay special attention to the last sentence. While many, probably most, Louisiana Creoles are of mixed-race ancestry, not all are. I'm not saying there aren't valid critiques of Alastor as a character, this just isn't one of them

[chazukekani]

SPOILER ALERT 

Here is the quick summary of the first 60 pages of Stormbringer that just revealed today. 

Special thanks to Nika, Amir, and my discord server members for proof-reading!

— That is, the 169th possibility

— ‘You are late, my brother.’

Content

Prologue

Code:01 A programme with 2383 lines, just an idea from a group of researchers

Code 02: Dead people do not possess any form of emotion

Code 03: I want to observe Chuuya’s suffer as a human

Code 04: Grantors of disgrace, you need not wake me again

Epilogue

Afterthought

Harukawa Sango ‘Stormbringer’ Character Setting Gallery

-

Pre-prologue

Fate whispers to warriors,

‘You cannot go against the storm.’

Warriors whisper back

‘I am the storm.’

— Cao Zhi ‘Luo Shen Fu’

-

Prologue

It began in a forest at midnight. It was supposed to be a peaceful night, but suddenly a beam appeared in the forest. It’s a huge fire. The forest was on fire. People who lived in the village nearby ran to the forest to see what happened. It was a wrecked airplane that just fell from the sky. People used hammers to dig the airplane to see whether there are any survivors.

Suddenly, a man walked out from the airplane. He seemed fine, but the crowd was shocked.

‘Apologies for my courtesy. In accordance with civil society, I should introduce myself,’ said the man. He pulled out a badge on his chest. The badge was black and words on it were engraved with silver. One of the teenagers from the village read off the words on it

‘I am a detective from Europole (Europe Detective and Police Organisation), which I am an office equipment. Category number 98F78195, made by ability technician Dr. Wollstonecraft. The first ever humanoid computer that serves for worldwide police facilities. Code name is Adam, Adam Frankenstein. It is my pleasure to meet you. I should carry out my mission now, see you.’

Before Adam left, he asked ‘Do you know a person called Nakahara Chuuya?’

-

Code:01 A programme with 2383 lines, just an idea from a group of researchers 

Chuuya couldn't see his dream. Everytime he woke up, he felt like he was in a swamp of mud. Today, Chuuya woke up in his apartment. Just like other’s morning routine, Chuuya took a shower, cleaned himself and left his home.

Chuuya was 16 years old. Since a year he had joined the mafia, Chuuya excelled in his job with the most outstanding performance, and was well recognised in the organisation.

However with all the money and status he got, Chuuya was not satisfied. The thing that he wanted the most was to know his past. Chuuya knew nothing about it. The earliest memory he had was being kidnapped to a military facility 8 years ago.

There was already a branded black car waiting for Chuuya outside his apartment with a group of men in suits and sunglasses. ‘Please go to the regular store,’ said Chuuya.

Chuuya was in charge of supervising the jewel/gemstone transaction within the Mafia and black market, which had been an important source of income for the mafia.

He arrived at the store. Before entering it, a gun was pointed on Chuuya’s head, while there was another gun pointed onto his chest. Bang! What a big sound. Yet there was no blood, but a bunch of colourful ribbons came off.

‘Congratulations to your 1st year since joining the mafia!’, said those men.

Today was the first anniversary for Chuuya joining the mafia, and his friends held a party for him. People who joined the party all belonged to the ‘young club’ of the mafia, which were all 25 years old or younger.

The party-planner was called ‘Piano Man’. He was called Piano Man not because of his black and white outfit, but his way of killing. He liked using the strings of piano keyboards and strangled people to death. Piano Man was very tall, his fingers were long and thin, and always put a smile on his face. He was by far the man who was closest to the position of the Port Mafia executive.

The second man who came to congratulate Chuuya was called Albatross, a man with golden hair. He was a teen that loved smiling and was very talkative. Albatross was in charge of the transportation aspect of the mafia, and was complimented as very efficient and speedy in completing the missions, and was currently living in the same neighbourhood as Chuuya in a high-ended area. He previously belonged to an organisation called ‘Wheelman’.

Albatross proposed a toasting, but Chuuya was not in a good mood. “Did you have a nightmare?” Albatross joked, but Chuuya turned furious after hearing the word ‘nightmare’. Everyone was horrified. ‘No I wasn’t!’ Chuuya shouted. When Chuuya was about to leave the shop, yet another man came in. He was holding a champagne glass, and on his other hand, he was holding a medical drip stand that had a drip injected into his arm. His name was Doc.

Different from other doctors in the gangster industry, Doc graduated in a Northern American university and was awarded with a Doctorate formally. Doctors were highly demanded within the mafia because members could not simply walk into regular hospitals with injuries that were caused by gunshots. Doctors in the PM were treated nicely and respected, thanks to the boss, Mori-san, who was also a former doctor. The reason why Doc became a doctor was because he wanted to get closer to God. ‘The more lives you save, the closer you get to God’ is the motto of Doc. The Bible once wrote that God saved two million lives, so Doc’s goal was to save a similar number of people, which was why he joined the Mafia.

Chuuya still wanted to leave.

“The first year was the toughest, so we need to celebrate that you got through it,’ a gentle voice said. It was a man who had an extraordinarily beautiful appearance. The first year of joining the Mafia was the so-called ‘Deadman Curve’, so a celebration is needed,” said Lippmann, the guy with a pretty face. The work of Lippmann was probably the most unique one out of all of them. He was in charge of the public relations of the Mafia, such as negotiating deals with enterprises, or having meetings with the government. It is more difficult to kill him than killing the Boss of the Mafia because Lippmann was also a famous actor, thus every single action he made would be reported by the media. Hence it was really difficult to get him.

Another man came in, and his name was Ice Man. Unlike Chuuya’s other friends, he was quiet, and wore a simple outfit. Ice Man did not show much emotion, and was low profile. His job was simple, to kill. He did not use an ability, guns or knives to kill. Instead, he used objects that were nearby to kill. Anything, regardless if it’s a pen, wine bottle or the wire of light bulbs could become a murdering tool, hence Ice Man could kill anywhere.

The gathering continued. Chuuya was gradually having a better mood, until Ice Man asked Chuuya ‘where were you born?’ Chuuya immediately grabbed Ice Man’s shirt, and there was such a tension among the guys. Piano Man then revealed that he knew why Chuuya was mad, because Mori told him about Chuuya’s past that he was just an artificial ability experiment that was created by the military. Hence Mori asked Piano Man to invite Chuuya into the younger’s club, in order to have a surveillance on Chuuya. Piano Man pointed out the reason why Chuuya was mad today because he was actually not able to dream. Suddenly, the tension was back. Everyone had their weapons already, but Piano Man took out a present for the 1st anniversary from his coat, and gave it to Chuuya.

It was a photograph, a picture of two people, and one of them was five year old Chuuya.

The picture was taken in an old village in the Western region, Piano Man said. The area was abandoned afterwards but Doc found this picture inside the medical record of the village. Lippmann then added that he had asked a woman to check all the military-related databases, in which she found out that the military once held a recruitment experiment in the Western region. Still, Chuuya’s friends were able to find the family tree of Chuuya, his school, his report card and his birth record. However, such an investigation must not be known to Mori because Mori thought that if Chuuya’s background remained a secret, Chuuya would not betray the Mafia.

Chuuya did not understand why his friends did this for him. Lippmann said because they were companions. He then proposed why not they name the younger’s club as ‘Flags’.

The Flags then went to a billiards bar. All of a sudden, apart from the six people playing the billiards, there was the seventh person who joined the game. He had long arms and legs, and of course very tall. Black hair with brown eyes, and was standing by the table seriously.

All of a sudden, Albatross used his Kulric knife and sliced on the seventh person's head, which produced an uncomfortable noise. Yet, that person escaped from the attack. A fight then broke out because the Flags thought this seventh person was an ability user, and suspected his intention for coming to the Mafia’s facility. However, Ice Man pointed out that this person was not an ability user, but the fight continued.

During the fight, Adam grabbed the legs of the table, and something grew from his hand. It was a small-scale dinosaur, that grew from Adam’s hands as if it were a plant. The battle was intense. Someone shouted Chuuya’s name out of nowhere, and Adam noticed something.

‘Chuuya-san’, Adam greeted Chuuya politely.

‘I am here to protect you,’ Adam replied. Adam introduced himself, and explained his mission. Adam was sent here to arrest an assassin called Paul Verlaine.

When Chuuya heard the name Verlaine, his facial expression changed.

‘Why do you know this name?’ asked Chuuya

‘Chuuya-san, you cannot defeat Verlaine on your own. That’s why I am here. Verlaine was not only an assassin. He is the king of assassins. He is your brother.’ said Adam.

The misconception was relieved, and the Flags, together with Adam, played billiards happily afterwards.

-

The story continues on 27th Feb

[smolbeandrabbles]

Director’s Cut 3: Danny Rayburn

* Well it’s more a focus on our Reader character, but, Danny.

“What was the inspiration behind Liliana and her family? Because they’re all so amazing 😭🙏 and how did you choose the name Devan?” 

Liv, bless you for asking the difficult questions! Now you get a look inside my crazy mind (as if you hadn’t all already with Andrew.)

So, If you thought Andrew was a long post you better grab your favourite drink and your Danny playlist and settle in!

The following specifically refers to our reader character and her family, and the events of Sway and it’s spin-offs, which I will obviously always encourage you to read! 😁 Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4 / Part 5 / Part 6  / Part 7 / Part 8 / Part 9 / Part 10

Sweet Spot  /  All I Want For Christmas / Good Woman

What was the inspiration behind Liliana and her family?

Before we go into too much detail I want you to imagine 1st January, 2019. And then a girl who had recently purchased Camila Cabello’s first album - late, after being super impressed by her performance opening for Taylor Swift - and watched the first episode of Bloodline AND Dirty Dancing 2 (the trade off for having your mum watch Rogue One with you) in one single day. Anyone who hasn’t listened to Camila’s album, this is essentially Danny’s dance playlist, I don’t make the rules

I had ideas for Danny before I even started to watch. Mostly because when you’re first immersed in the world of Ben Mendelsohn and trawl through blogs, you can’t help but notice Danny. Annnd found out a lot about the show, which caused me to have a BUNCH of misconceptions and create a story in my head that was just... not even remotely close to what Bloodline is.

So here’s the deal, I occasionally like thinking about some of Ben’s characters gender bent, and how that would make them different/similar and affect their stories. I did this with Andrew and Gerry before I did it with Danny (because can we just think about Animal Kingdom if they were female?). And then armed with my assumptions, I came up with a story for Bloodline. “Linzi, why are you telling me this-!?” I hear you cry, but don’t leave the post just yet! Just keep in mind that Jack Ervin was (female) Danny’s restaurant accountant and also will they / won’t they love affair, that uhm. Well they didn’t, because Danny dies.  For all intents and purposes a lot of Jack’s plot points became Lily’s (including bringing back the restaurant). Also I had a great character with a great name that I didn’t want to waste. Jack became Liliana’s dad - and therefore we got: Jack and Liliana Ervin. 

Back to Dirty Dancing 2 - set in Havana, complete with its ‘will they/won’t they’ love story (of different social classes!) and of course, Latin American dancing. To say I borrowed a lot of ideas from this is probably an understatement - but Danny is a Miami boy, and Miami has Little Havana. Quickly it all kinda fell together.  But in this case, Danny is the out of his element American and Liliana (given that her parents are both from Latin American backgrounds) is the dancer. Added to that in DD2 the girls parents are both dancers, I was happy to keep an element of that for our girl too. Jack remained Jack Ervin, with his name actually being Juan Ervin (American Father, Argentinian Mother) but changing his name to Jack to fit in with his Miami high-society persona. Maria (American Mother, Puerto Rican Father) basically has a super cliche Hispanic name, I know (well both of them do but Juan is the equiv. to Jack so that’s how we ended up there) but it worked for me. Liliana’s name... I don’t even know where I got it from - sometimes names just come to me, sometimes I spend hours finding a good one on all these naming sites! 😅 Lily just came to me, I certainly wanted something that could be shortened Liliana->Lily but also something that went with Danny’s name. Liliana Rayburn is a great name. (I know the irony of that, you don’t need to tell me twice!) I need a ship name for them.

Let’s take a little look at their character for a second though: Jack and Maria are meant to be parallel to Robert and Sally. But also the complete opposite. Jack is described as a ruthless businessman who doesn’t care to much about his reputation in business. He’ll just get the job done no matter what the cost. The catch being of course that really Jack is a lovely guy, he cares very much about his family (+ extended family!) and is a well respected member of Miami society. Ruthless yes - but Maria and Lily mean more than the world to him - and eventually Danny too. “No man is good enough for your daughter until one is. And he is.” and also “He would have given you the world, and I would have let him.” Just sayin’ he’s a good father and a good man.  Maria is mentioned a little less than Jack is but I think that’s because I basically want to compare Jack/Danny to Robert/Danny. I also think that Jack has more to do with the overall story; he’s the one with the well known construction company that everyone recognises Liliana’s last name from, the reason that everyone is all over Danny with the “You can’t get involved with Jack Ervin’s daughter!!” spiel. Maria is the quieter character, but spends a lot of time showering Danny with love when she is around. Lily’s parents were all about giving Danny family that loved him unconditionally. A real family. She’s... probably a little more on the ‘stereotypical’ side of Hispanic parents, but there’s a reason for that-! One of my very best friends is Peruvian, and every time I visit him it’s like visiting my second family. Like from the very first time I met them his parents were SO kind, like above and beyond... and so adorable... oh my gosh, I love them so much and they are 100% inspiration for Jack and Maria. Maria is basically his mum. 😁 But more than anything I wanted Jack and Maria that wanted nothing more for their daughter than for her to find someone who loves her. No matter who he is or his background or anything like that. Which was important to me, especially having been through a relationship myself where my family didn’t really approve of him because he wasn’t from the same social class. I’m certainly not about that.

As your tags put it - Jack and Maria are the biggest Danny/Liliana shippers! 😁 (With Javi and Jason a close second! And I won’t leave out Evie and Amanda either!)

Liliana Oh my gosh. My love for her can’t be overstated. I say it every time, but I’ll say it again. When I started her and Danny’s journey on that dancefloor in January 2019 I never would have dreamed I’d be still here now nearing fic number 200. I wasn’t even sure if anyone would have been interested in them enough for me to ever write more than just Sway 1. But, when you’re asked to write a second part then you know it’s got traction and you end up with 10, of course!  Inspiration for Liliana? Good question. A little like I said for Elaiyna with Andrew, I needed a S/O that fit with Danny and his story. I say at the start of part 10 that really it’s her story. And it is, Danny takes her from one night stands with men she meets on the dancefloor to mother of 2 kids in a loving relationship where it’s clear that she will never love anyone else. And it’s his character/personality, being as in character as possible, that leads her there. Liliana never runs out of chances, she forgives Danny for everything he does because she loves him so much. Because she can’t bear to think of life without him, nor what his life would be like if she left. Liliana is... a strong woman who doesn’t know how strong she is. She loves unconditionally and she doesn’t care that Danny is not on top of his game - he’s struggled his whole life, but he does not have to struggle with her. She’s meant to be the easiest thing about his life - home, a safe place, strength and stability.  Danny is her adventure - with all his secrets, and his past, and how much he suffers she’s presented with a problem that she can’t solve, she can’t save,but loves him anyway. Lily will never give up.  The contrast between the two worlds they are in when they meet, and then the one they build together as they grow which takes that contrast and just makes it work. Like they just work - sure I made it that way, but I tried to make it realistic. Love has no barriers, right? It shouldn’t. To quote my characters again: “There’s one fairytale here, and it’s yours.”

I wouldn’t give her a pushover title - sure she never runs out of chances for him (perhaps its arguable that she could walk away but it never occurred to me that that was her personality.) but like, screw his family. She won’t ever forgive them for what they’ve done to him, she won’t ever trust them.  So why does she forgive John? Because that’s her character. That’s what Danny made her. John and Danny’s relationship always fascinated me in the show and it just strikes me that Danny and John were close, even with all that happened. Danny would want Lily to forgive him - and maybe Lily only forgives him FOR Danny, but it’s in her character. She’s tired of all this conflict and all she wants is for John to confirm he did it so she knows for sure.  Liliana has elements of me in her, perhaps a little more than most of my other OCs, elements of my feelings towards characters in the show as I continued to watch, elements of other OC’s of mine (and physically too. Her Psalm tattoo I directly lifted from someone else. Hey, it be that way sometimes!) and elements of all these pieces that inspired me to write her in the first place. 

I mean I don’t know if that really explains it clearly. Because there’s not really one clear inspiration for them - but from a range of different sources and elements. I hope that it even helps explain it a little though! 😅

How did you chose the name Devan?

Oh my gosh, okay. Liv why did you have to ask this question!  So, oh god this is so stupid.  Basically, although I knew that they would have a son, because our characters didn’t know that they were going to have a son, I wanted to give the baby a unisex name. Because I ALSO knew I was going to follow Bloodline canon it was also important to me that Danny be the one to chose the name.  Added to that, like Nolan, I knew that Danny and Lily’s baby was going to keep that Rayburn last name.  Devan Rayburn and Devan Ervin both sound pretty great to me..!

Obviously, it should be Devin. And the only reason I think I chose Devan was because a) I actually thought that was how you spelled it... (I mean I guess so, there’s no other logical reason I can’t have called him Devin... unless I looked at Devin Ervin and thought... ‘that’s basically the same’ and so changed the spelling but it was definitely always written Devan in plans etc) and b) a singer called Devin Dawson.  When I was on my year long internship in the USA I was able to listen to country music radio - specifically the station a family friend worked on. And they were obsessed with a song called “All On Me” by Devin Dawson. (actually it’s a good one for this series, but that’s beside the point!) So I heard his name all the time, and I’m 99% sure that I got it from him. (Also fast forward and I’ve actually now seen the guy in concert and was like “Oh yeah I named a character after you.” so yeah it’s probably Devin Dawson’s fault. )  At the end of part 8 I left a note that says “Devan isn’t easily explainable but I hope you like it.” and honestly, if there’s a bigger story I can’t remember it. I know that ‘Evan’ was another character in my genderbent story but I don’t think I just added the ‘D’ to that... Maybe that was an element of it though?  

Also I’m a sucker for ‘weird’ names or weirdly spelled names - a lot of my OCs fall victim to this - sorry girls! 😅 So it’s unsurprising that he ended up Devan, not Devin. Also I’d pronounce it “Dev-an” with a soft ‘a’ sound... 

Interestingly it took me a little longer to decide on his middle name being Daniel. I guess I’m not sure how good “Devan Daniel Rayburn” sounds... But then I wasn’t about to resist it, and it seems like the kind of decision that Liliana would make.  

I hope that answered your questions Liv! 🙏💜💙 You’re always welcome to ask for further clarification! 😁

---

Thank you as always for being interested in my work! Just gonna remind you all that you can ask for a Fanfic directors cut ! I would love to answer any questions! 🥰😘 

I mean it, I’d beg. Don’t make me get that Danny gif.  

[mst3kproject]

The Manster

Who has two thumbs and is back on terra firma with working wifi?  This MSTie!

As for my chosen subject this week… I don’t think I have to justify this one.  It’s called The Manster, as in a portmanteau of man and monster.  It was directed by a guy who mostly made cheap-ass jungle movies, and stars a bunch of embarrassed actors who don’t know how they ended up here.  It’s old and it’s dumb and it’s often pretty funny though never on purpose, and the perfect stinger moment comes very early in the film… you’ll know it when you see it.

So we have Dr. Robert Suzuki, who lives on top of a volcano.  When people have ‘Dr’ in front of their names and live in isolation with a bunch of blinky light machines, that’s usually a pretty good clue that they’re mad scientists. Tragically our hero, Larry Stanford, is not that observant (Larry’s obliviousness would have been a constant target for Mike and the bots and he would have deserved all of it).  He’s a reporter who wants an interview about Suzuki’s theories on the causes of mutations, but too bad for him, he arrives just as the mad doctor has run out of family members to experiment on.  Under the influence of Suzuki’s injections he’s soon devolving into an animalistic frat-boy, drinking, carousing, and murdering… oh, and he’s growing a second head. Will that be a problem?

So basically this is a werewolf movie with a fake mustache on… or perhaps a Jekyll and Hyde movie of sorts, as discussed in the denouement.  It wants to explore the dichotomy of good and evil in every one of us, using the very silly device of a two-headed man.  I have to say, I understand the metaphor, but it wasn’t put to nearly good enough use.  The movie would have been ten times more fun if we’d gotten to see Larry and his second head arguing over whether or not they’re going to kill somebody.  Not better, mind you, just more fun.

As far as just being a movie goes, The Manster is better than a lot of things I’ve watched for this blog.  The characters have names and look different enough that you can tell them apart, the story makes sense on its own terms and everything that happens is relevant to the plot.  Photography is honestly pretty good and the actors are competent.  All this happens to be in the service of a really silly story with awful special effects (I love Larry’s rubbery second head bouncing as he runs) but it’s engaging enough that you want to keep watching.

What I really like about The Manster, however, is that it offers a lot to analyze.  I’m not sure much of it is intentional.  The Jekyll and Hyde side of the story is elucidated in an ending speech, as Larry’s friend Ian tries to reassure Mrs. Stanford.  He says there was good and evil in Larry, and they’ll just have to wait and see which side wins.  This is not a very satisfying ending, really.  We’ve just seen Larry’s evil side plummet to its death into a volcanic crater… and the surviving good side is under arrest as a serial killer.  Dr. Suzuki and his assistant, the only people who could testify that Larry was not responsible for his actions, are both dead.  This guy’s going to jail.

The really interesting thing in the movie, though, is one that comes up by accident.  Dr. Suzuki’s work is on evolution – his theory is that cosmic rays can induce mutations, producing new species more or less overnight (this is called ‘macromutation’ or ‘the hopeful monster theory’, and lurked on the edges of the mainstream in the 40’s and 50’s) and he hopes to induce the same effect chemically.  When he tries, however, his efforts invariably produce monsters.  Emiko, his wife and former research partner, turns into something resembling the closet monster from The Brain that Wouldn’t Die.  Kenji, his brother, turns into a yeti, and a similar fate awaits Larry.  These mutants cannot understand human speech, and their behaviour is irrational and violent.

This implies a couple of things.  We hear vague mentions of Dr. Suzuki experimenting on fungi, but his heart is mostly in his human experiments.  That tells us that his goal is to speed up the evolution of humanity, and one presumes that this is intended to improve us somehow. Of course, this is not how evolution works.  Evolution does not make things better – this is why biologists have mostly dropped the descriptions primitive and advanced in favour of the more neutral basal and derived.  Dr. Suzuki’s quest is therefore quite misguided, as illustrated by his monsters. In no way could they be considered ‘better’ than humans – in fact, they’re significantly worse at surviving and reproducing (the thing natural selection selects for) than ordinary people are.

There’s another layer here, though.  ‘Evolution makes things better’ is a misconception that’s been around since Darwin, and dates back to even earlier ways of organizing the natural world.  When Linnaeus created the classification system for living things that we’re still saddled with today, he did it under the believe in the Great Chain of Being – the idea that you can order everything that exists into a hierarchy with mold at the bottom and god at the top, and that after god and the angels humans are the best thing that exists (as proved by our being the only creatures able to create classification systems).  It’s an idea that appeals to human vanity and to our need to impose order on the natural world, and it isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

With that in mind, perhaps there’s another reason Suzuki’s experiments fail.  If you believe that humans are the best living thing around, particularly if you believe we are the image of god on earth, then maybe it’s not possible to improve on us.  Any change you make to people that takes them away from humanity will automatically make them worse.  This idea does appear to be manifest in the fates of Emiko, Kenji, and Larry, all of whom become more apelike, less ‘advanced’, as they change.

In that case, what does The Manster think makes for a good human?  We see a little of Larry before he starts to mutate, so we can compare that with what he becomes.  Rather surprisingly for a movie of this vintage, the fact that Larry is white seems to be pretty incidental.  He is a foreigner in a faraway place, but this serves mostly to drive a wedge between him and his wife Linda.  Except for a couple of rather troubling moments, the film does not present Japan in an exotifying light.  We do see things like a bathhouse and a geisha bar, but these represent Larry’s personal slide into debauchery, rather than the country as a whole.  We also meet normal working people among both the Japanese and the American expat community – reporters, police officers, and even priests.

There’s a very nice bit, actually, where Larry comes upon a Buddhist priest praying, and when he realizes this man doesn’t speak English, Larry takes the opportunity to unburden himself.  It makes him feel better to talk about his moral quandaries aloud, and the fact that the priest doesn’t understand him means he cannot judge him.  This is a very relatable and human moment, one of the best in the movie.

Unfortunately, it also segues into a couple of the most distasteful things in the film.  As I’m sure you’ve guessed, Larry does murder the priest, but before he does, he stares at a particular statue in the shrine – a representation of a three-eyed, fanged being that I am in no position to identify, although it looks a bit like Vajrapani.  Before Larry grows a full second head he sprouts an extra eye in his shoulder, and the implication is that the three-eyed statue draws his attention to the monster within himself. I don’t know much about Buddhism but I do not like the idea of casting another culture’s religious figures as symbols of monstrosity.  The west has done plenty enough of that.

But back to the question of acceptable humanity. We watch Larry get drunk, violent, antisocial, lazy, and promiscuous, which tells us that the ‘good’ man is the opposite of these things: sober, peaceful, friendly, hardworking, and chaste. The film pays particular attention to how Larry relates to women.  The fact that he’s been faithful to his distant wife is established early on, and one of the first symptoms of his devolution is his willingness to discard her.  First he makes out with a couple of girls at the geisha bar, and later he takes Dr. Suzuki’s assistant Terra (who has a tragic backstory but we frustratingly never find out what it entails) as his mistress. On the phone with his wife Linda at the beginning of the film, Larry tells her he loves her and promises to be home soon.  Later, when she comes to Japan searching for him, he shouts at her and makes a show of preferring Terra.

One conversation he has with Linda is particularly revealing.  He tells her he has no desire to settle down in one place and wile away his time drinking coffee and playing bridge when there’s a big wide world out there.  She asks him what about her plans, and he declares he will ‘put her in her place’ and ‘slap her down’.  Since this is when Larry is the opposite of what a good man should be, we can take from it that a good man respects his wife and takes her opinions and needs into account.  For the late fifties, this is actually kind of surprising – I’ve seen films from a decade or two later that were far more backward about this.  So hey, points for that.

All things considered, The Manster is a pretty well-made movie.  It’s dumb and full of clichés, such as the man scientist destroyed by his own creation, the femme fatale who sacrifices herself for the hero because she’s fallen in love with him, theremin music to represent the monster’s appearance, etc etc etc… but it’s competently put together and whether intentionally or no, contains a lot of interesting material. It’s the sort of movie I can watch repeatedly and always find something new in.  Definitely recommended viewing for the 50’s Monster Flick fan, although with the caveat that there is a scene in which one character urges another to commit suicide.

[reallyawesomecostumes]

Dean Winchester in his Coffin

A comparison between Queequeg’s coffin in Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick and Dean’s coffin in Supernatural

(screencap from Home of the Nutty)

In Supernatural 14x11 ‘Damaged Goods’, Dean Winchester builds his own coffin. 

It’s not really a coffin, it just looks like one. The box is a ma’lak box designed by Death herself to secure Dean and AU-Michael at the bottom of the Pacific for all eternity*. We as viewers of a long-running episodic television show are pretty sure the  Winchester boys will find a way out of this mess in the next couple episodes, but Dean built it, so we have to talk about it. 

There are closet metaphors inherent in this coffin-building (I recommend @drsilverfish here); there are show-internal parallels to Amara being locked away, Adam’s current fate in The Cage, the wall in Sam’s mind in season 6; the list goes on. I wanted to talk instead about how Dean’s coffin-building compares to some coffin-building in classic American literature: the story of Queequeg’s coffin in Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick; or, The Whale.” 

Moby-Dick, published 1851, is a book that many of us were forced to read in high school or college. I escaped this fate but had to read “The Scarlet Letter” and “Bartleby the Scrivener” instead. I did watch the Patrick Stewart TV miniseries version as a teenager, of course. For some dumb reason** I became a Moby-Dick reader because I was a Queequeg/Ishmael shipper, so know that I have a fairly biased perspective on the book as a whole.

In Moby-Dick, our narrator Ishmael (a depressed unemployed Yankee) meets Queequeg, a cannibal

(Queequeg as a character is a jumble of noble savage tropes, the author’s own knowledge of Pacific Islanders met during his whaling experience, and ideas pulled from other contemporary books both fiction and non-fiction), when they become accidental bedfellows at Peter Coffin’s inn (Coffin is a prominent name among the whalers of Nantucket, in real life and in the world of the story). Ishmael wants to go whaling, and Queequeg’s a guy who is very good at whaling. They have similar life goals, if not similar life experiences . They’re textually married***. 

Queequeg catches a chill crawling around belowdecks on the Pequod moving barrels to find a leak (the hold is described as an ice-box). While he’s dying Queequeg says he doesn’t want his body to be wrapped up in his hammock before being thrown overboard like an ordinary sailor, but put in a canoe-style coffin like the harpooneers from Nantucket use. He convinces the ship’s carpenter to make one for him. Queequeg kits the coffin out with food and water and his (most precious possessions) harpoon and paddle, and puts earth from the hold at the foot of it . He lays in it, and Pip the cabin boy sings nonsense briefly (a la the Fool in King Lear). Ishmael sort-of suggests that watching this guy die would make him start a religion. But then Queequeg decides not to die. He throws off the fever with his own will, and recovers (for plot reasons, but also so Melville could add more Noble Savage tropes). He uses the coffin as a clothes-chest. He starts carving the lid with the pattern of the tattoos on his body (these tattoos are religious in nature, but are unknown and unknowable, ‘a complete theory of the heavens and the earth’), making it into a sort-of body double for him.

Some time passes. A guy falls from the rigging, and the stern life-buoy is thrown to him, and both the man and the old, rotting cask that serves as a buoy sink and drown. It is suggested that the nice new well-built no longer needed coffin can be made into a new life-buoy. This re-purposing is lampshaded in text:

“Here now’s the very dreaded symbol of grim death, by a mere hap, made the expressive sign of the help and hope of most endangered life. A life-buoy of a coffin! Does it go further? Can it be that in some spiritual sense the coffin is, after all, but an immortality-preserver! I’ll think of that.”

-Captain Ahab, in a theatrical aside, Chapter 127: The Deck.

After the whale drags Captain Ahab down and sinks the Pequod, the very well-made coffin/life-buoy shoots to the surface, and the only surviving crewmember (Ishmael, our narrator) clings to it until another ship picks him up. 

While Queequeg’s coffin is intended for mundane use (to preserve his body from sharks after death) and is eventually used for mundane purpose (Ishmael’s life preserver), Dean’s pseudo-coffin-building serves a more esoteric purpose - to lock himself and his angel double away from the world said angel wants to destroy (“for all angel is not’ing more dan de shark well goberned” - Fleece the cook, Moby-Dick). The ma’lak box is Dean and Michael’s “immortality-preserver”. We have two pairs of characters, and two death-coded vessels that serve to preserve them.

Remember that time Ishmael and Queequeg got married? Some authors have characterized this wedding as "the first portrait of same-sex marriage in American literature". That it causes some readers 'uneasiness'. The line 'our heart's honeymoon', describing the time post-marriage, was censored in the original publication. Other readers have taken the marriage esoterically, relating Ishmael and Queequeg's earthly marriage to the internal marriage of the self to the Jungian shadow-self.

Shadows**** follow the two protagonists of Moby-Dick, Ishmael and Ahab. Ishmael accepts and marries his shadow, Queequeg the cannibal, and learns the customs of the whaling-ship from him. He admires the unknowableness of the ocean and sky as well as Queequeg's unknowable tattoos. He frees himself from his initial depression, and is literally saved at the novel's conclusion by Queequeg's pseudo-body. Ahab, conversely, pushes away Pip the cabin boy (who serves as Lear's fool through the story, and speaks unknowably) and turns towards Fedallah the Parsee (described as Ahab's shadow in the book) who speaks concrete but awful truths. Ahab rejects reality and stays on a path of revenge even though warned multiple times that he will fail. He eventually dies, and brings most of his crew down with him. His lack of acceptance of his good shadow and of his true place in the world brings about destruction. Self-actualization results in being saved.

The (current) protagonists of Supernatural have shadow selves as well. Again @drsilverfish has an excellent post about this. Castiel's shadow is The Shadow/The Empty, which has appeared in his own form, and wishes only for sleep and nothingness. Dean's shadow, AU!Michael, only wants to destroy the world that Dean keeps sacrificing himself to protect. Sam's shadow, Nick, went through the same dark experiences Sam did, but unlike Sam wound up horribly twisted and murderous. We haven't seen Jack's shadow-self yet, but I suspect current sweet and kind graceless!Jack will have a foil in future uncaring soulless!Jack. The idea of marrying oneself to one's shadow, in Supernatural, is nearly unthinkable: they are destructive, inhuman entities. However, in 14x11 Sam managed to accept the reality of his shadow self and release himself from responsibility for Nick.

At this point Dean's plan is to death-wed himself to Michael for eternity, sharing one body and one coffin-bed at the bottom of the Pacific. We know from Jung and from Melville that the only way to survive the confrontation with the shadow is to accept it - to 'Know Thyself', without misconceptions about your place in the world. 'Gain[ing] the perspective on [your] soul and the universe that will make balance possible.' The coffin will become a life-buoy.

I suspect the ma'lak box will be used to trap something other than Dean or Michael (soulless!Jack, probably) at the end of this season. Even if it's current purpose is untenable, it is a tool that can be used in the future.

Comparison between Moby-Dick and Supernatural can occur on a number of different levels. Ishmael and Dean (and Castiel whose human vessel, Jimmy Novak, is of the line of Biblical Ishmael) are the heroes of the bildungsroman part of the story and are hangers on to Ahab/John/Sam's Shakespearean revenge quest. Each story is a very American depiction of a masculine world. Each mirror the world in a smaller vessel, a ship and a car. Jung's concept of the shadow self, however, holds as the key to this season through all of these eleven episodes, and the shadow self is one of many keys that promote understanding of Melville's Moby-Dick. Self-actualization saves the day.

* Note that geologists cry whenever people suggest indestructible things sent to the bottom of the ocean will stay there for all eternity.

** It was Yuletide, and I’d just binge-read the entire Aubrey-Maturin series.

*** I wrote about this last year when Yockey dropped Led Zeppelin’s Moby Dick into the story. Moby Dick, song, has nothing to do with Moby-Dick, book, except their mutual length, but Supernatural and Moby-Dick share quite a few themes. 

**** yes, Melville does make the shadows of his white protagonists literally dark-skinned

References:

@drsilverfish, “A Fridge-Locker, An Enochian Puzzle Box, a Ma’lak Box… and the Closet (14x11 Damaged Goods)”, http://drsilverfish.tumblr.com/post/182296360214/a-fridge-locker-an-enochian-puzzle-box-a-malak 

@drsilverfish​, “The Shadow (14x08)”, http://drsilverfish.tumblr.com/post/180906003584/the-shadow-14x08

Brashers, H.C., 1962, "Ishmael's Tattoos": The Sewanee Review, v.70, n.1, p.137-154, http://wwww.jstor.org/stable/27540756

Halverson, John, 1963, "The Shadow in Moby-Dick": American Quarterly, v.15, n.3, p.436-446, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2711373

Horton, Margy Thomas, 2012, "Melville's Unfolding Selves: Identity Formation in Mardi, Moby-Dick, and Pierre": doctoral dissertation, Baylor University

Melville, Herman, “Moby-Dick; or, The Whale”, project Gutenberg ebook, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701-h/2701-h.htm

[deadinsidedressage]

do you think that ppl should not be ''taught'' to be scared of stallions? Sure you can't just think that they are like geldings and easy to train. Finnhorse breed for example is starting to little by little having more incest in it since there is not enough stallions and because ppl are taught that even slightest move means they are going to kill you, who would wanna buy a stallion. Then there is everything else like going through fences but those things should be ''easy'' to fix with training.

The sentiment that stallions are entirely dangerous and wildly different from geldings or mares is a fairly uniquely American sentiment. In Europe, you have children showing stallions and it’s a non-issue. (I say this is uniquely American based on the anecdotal evidence of any time in the past this notion running around on here has been met with a lot of Europeans being confused we treat stallions differently).

To relate this entirely not to horses but to something else I’ve researched a lot:

I think a lot of the misconceptions about stallion aggression stems from the same place as misconceptions about “roid rage”. The way the media portrays anabolic steroid use is in a way that suggests anyone and everyone who takes it is transformed into some Mr. Hyde freak-beast who can’t control their temper and breaks everything. Unfortunately that excuse has also been used in criminal defense of athletes who murdered people instead of addressing the fact that in autopsies it’s been proven these people had repeated brain trauma that would’ve mad them more aggressive, more depressive, and more impulsive. The reality is less than 2% of steroid users (and studies are showing that’s a 2% that either has brain trauma or history of mental illness) are impacted by a massive increase in aggressive behaviors or reactions; so while there are some people who go Dr. Jekyll /Mr. Hyde when they’re on or off cycle— that’s untrue of the overwhelming majority.

I’d wager the same is true of stallions or any domesticated animal we as humans have chosen to keep. Some stallions do exhibit hyper-aggression or hyper-reactiveness as a result of remaining intact. Just like some dogs do as well. Or cats who are intact. Let’s face it— if it was just the presence of testosterone that overwhelmingly created aggression in a population of animals; then wouldn’t every single human man with sex hormones (self-produced or store-bought) be extremely aggressive? Wouldn’t we want to “geld” every man for the safety of society? Wouldn’t it also stand to reason that Mr. Olympia competitors/winners like Kai Greene, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, or Dorian Yates would inevitably be uncontrollable monsters as a result of the amount of anabolic steroids they take? You’d think so, but all these men are regarded for being extremely soft-spoken in interviews, extremely intelligent in the way they present themselves, and overall not aggressive assholes. In fact, if it were steroids that automatically created aggressive monsters... it would be Arnold Schawrzenegger with an infamous history as a domestic abuser and not Sean Penn? Not that Arnie is a perfect beacon of human decency, but the former 7-time Mr. Olympia isn’t know for aggressive or abusive antics. Sean Penn is and Sean Penn isn’t someone with a verifiable history of steroid use.

The fact of the matter is that testosterone alone doesn’t create aggression. Will I acquiesce that there are certainly outliers? Yes. However, it’s more of an issue of how we’re interacting with them. Have you ever heard the old timer wisdom of “never let a big horse know it’s big”? The idea there is that by never allowing a horse who could easily physically overpower you know that that’s the case; it’s a non-issue. If you never give the horse an interaction where it learns that it has a size advantage to get its way, then you don’t have a horse who uses its size for intimidation. Well, same can be said for handling stallions.

If you interact with a stallion in a way that’s fundamentally different because you have any fear that it’ll act different because it’s a stallion… You’ll get a horse who acts different because it’s a stallion. This isn’t some “dominance theory” nonsense where you can’t “show fear” or the horse “wins”— this is more a case of conditioning. Again, using the big horse as an example; the “big horse who knows he’s big” doesn’t use his size to his advantage because he’s the “alpha” but he uses it because he understands a basic cause and effect: “If I stretch my neck high and act big people are too afraid to make me do something I’d rather not do.” Same can be said of a lot of stallion behavior. If a stallion learns that people will back off because he acts like a “stallion”, he’ll act like a “stallion”.So, do I think people should be taught not to treat stallions differently? Yes, absolutely. Stallions aren’t evil death machines.Stallions aren’t inherently different on some incomprehensible level, but stallion ownership is like owning an intact dog--- you have to be a lot more responsible than the average owner. Someone with an intact dog shouldn’t be allowing their dog off-leash. Someone with a stallion has to be more aware when out in the public and have different “rules” they need to adhere to when showing. Just like with owning an un-spayed or un-neutered dog--- it’s not your animals that’s the probably generally; it’s the negligence and incompetence of the other animal owners you’re going to have to interact with. Aside from all these incorrect notions about stallions that are perpetrated in media & “word of mouth” equine communities--- a lot of people are discouraged from stallion ownership because of the extra precautions they need to take and complexity involved in showing or just being able to ride in public spaces. In my region, we have several stallions that regularly compete at dressage shows of all sizes. They’re all also very well-behaved. The issues that arise with them at shows comes from people not recognizing a stallion in the warm-up and giving them space. You know that picture of the obedient pitbull not eating a steak because he’s following orders to not eat the steak? Stallions at shows are a lot like that pitbull, they’re not necessarily going to cause an issue if a steak walks by--- but unlike the pitbull and the steak... a stallion in warm-up with a mare in heat riding past isn’t the only one who needs to show obedience or restraint. The mare is just as likely to be the problem. When you then consider that stallions are almost exclusively owned and showed by professionals whereas mares are still overwhelmingly shown by amateurs... that’s the issue. It’s not the stallion or the way the stallion has been conditioned or trained much of the time. It’s the issue of how amateur owners and riders react to stallions.Another complexity of showing with a stallion is the stabling situation--- again, pitbull-steak/stallion-mare comparison... it’s not certainly going to be the stallion who is the issue. Whereas a mare or gelding owner you can get around stabling issues of a mare being listed as a gelding or a gelding listed as a mare in show paperwork (one of my mares was always incorrectly filed as a gelding at one showing facility); stallions owners can’t easily take on these mistakes. Even with greatly behaved stallions you can have issues being stabled next to a mare because as much as you can make a point that stallions aren’t aggressive or bad because they’re stallions, you also can’t ignore the fact that they’re stallions.As much as I want to hold-on to the pitbull-steak analogy... at the end of the day, the pitbull isn’t trying to have sex with the steak but a stallion is 100% biologically wired to have sex with a mare. There are instances when training doesn’t hold up against biologic impulses. That’s why animals will mate with their parents or siblings--- at the end of the day you can’t convey consequence for sexual response the way you can convey consequence for misbehavior. No stallion owner wants to deal with their stallion breaking down the stall because he’s too near a mare in heat because the show facility fucked up and listed him as a gelding. 

In order to own and compete (or own and keep at “home” without competing) a stallion, there’s a lot of work that has to go into place. For ownership you need a large facility to keep the stallion away from mares. For showing, you need to be extremely proactive and constantly be on top of keeping your stallion out of scenarios that could end badly. It’s a lot. 

So, no I don’t think it’s the belief in stallions being aggressive that prevents larger scale stallion ownership. I think it’s an issue with stallion ownership having more difficulties associated with it and those are difficulties that (again, focusing on America) most owners do not want to take on---even professionals. There are many breeding farms that only have mares. There are many professionals who only want to ride geldings or mares because they don’t want to deal with the associated difficulties of campaigning a stallion. 

Are the misconceptions about stallions or difficulties associated with stallions related to inbreeding and poor genetic variance? No. To assume this was the case would be to ignore the fact that every single animal isn’t breeding quality. The biggest reason out there why people don’t own and show stallions has nothing to do with misinformation or extra care--- it has everything to do with the fact there’s absolutely zero reason to keep a non-breeding animal intact. 

My cat isn’t neutered because I was afraid he’d be dangerous. My cat is neutered because there was absolutely no reason for him to not be neutered. He’s not a purebred with excellent conformation, so he’s not going to be producing babies. Keeping in him intact would’ve just meant I would have to deal with a lot more issues making sure he never tried to impregnate another cat. Keeping him intact would’ve meant I possibly wouldn’t be able to safely keep him with my spayed female and may never be able to bring another cat into our home until he’d passed. I absolutely wouldn’t be able to let him outside off-leash (which I don’t believe in outdoor cats anyway) and potentially never be able to have him outside on-leash. There would be far too many feral intact cats that would cause him to harm me with misplaced aggression if he went outside. 

It’s the same for horses. Unless that horse is determined to be of breeding quality conformation and performance... then you don’t keep it intact. Why risk a stallion breaking out to impregnate the neighbor’s mares when you’re just keeping the horse for your personal enjoyment and the horse isn’t of any genetic benefit to its breed? You don’t want to be responsible for anymore unwanted cats or dogs in the world--- that’s why you neuter. You don’t want to be responsible for anymore unwanted horses in the world either--- that’s part of why we geld. 

Breeds that are suffering from too small a genetic pool don’t benefit from allowing subpar genes. Gelded Finnhorses (or gelded any other breed) are gelded because they do not possess traits that should be passed down. If you breed low quality horses, you get lower and lower quality horses. The only way to salvage breeds that don’t have enough genetic variance is to allow in outside breeds. Which is hard to do with breeds that have closed books and aren’t open to the idea of losing “purity”--- which just leads to a continued degradation of the “pure” horses left. More people owning stallions can’t fix a small gene pool.The horses that are marked for breeding quality are marked for breeding quality (generally) before they ever hit the market. Are some horses that could be beneficial to the breeding pool that never get bred because they’re sold into the sport market by breeders without the resources to keep them? Yes, but generally horses that are actually going to be benefiting the breed stay within the breeding community.

[dropintomanga]

Do Call Out, But Call Out Responsibly

For a while now, I’ve been trying not to say anything regarding things that happened within the anime community over in my part of the world.

But there’s a few things I want to get off my chest. I was reading a new Otaku Journalist post that made me think about the rise of call out culture. We’ve made a lot of progress in enabling people who’ve gone through horrific experiences (i.e. sexual harassment) to speak out against the perpetrators of those experiences. I think it’s fine as I was a victim of physical harassment at an old workplace a few years ago. I now know what it’s like to have people at the top treat you like you don’t matter if you’re not making bank for them.

It’s just that there’s such a limit to being angry at things.

The post linked above goes into what it means to call someone out. It also says that while it’s noble to do so, the person who committed bad acts will still be around. Do we want them punished for life? When can we accept sincere apologies when the time comes? I left a long comment on the post, which I’ll display it here in full.

“I was reading about moral outrage recently (http://nautil.us/blog/the-c... and the case to to be skeptical of it at times because our biases/subjective morality can lead us to think more about the actions of the person, rather than the consequences. Because it's not like everyone is supposedly dying if the person being called out isn't in a place of power, right? 

Because while the person being called out is a bad person to a certain community, to others, they are good people. No one is truly one-sided. Everyone's both good and bad. I hate how there are forces that try to paint people as if one label defines everything about them (even though there are notable exceptions).

I'm not going to lie and say I'm a good, wholesome person. I've hurt other people in the past. I've said terrible things/comments to people intentionally and unintentionally. I'm just very human. I will admit that being stressed out from so many things in life leads to judgments that may or may not be warranted. But I've been able to be self-compassionate with myself and use that to take reasonable action towards improvement.

Are we calling someone out because we want to be right? Or are we calling them out because there's a greater harm to other people (not just ourselves)? I think about this because I know some people get angry just for the sake of getting angry.

I also feel this kind of debate should be better held offline than on social media. Social media is a nightmare for topics like this because it robs so much nuance & context when we need both more than ever. I think about a Vox article I read about that Asian lady (I apologize for forgetting her name) who writes/edits for NYT and her past making insensitive jokes on Twitter. People called NYT out for the hiring and the article mentions how Twitter only rewards snark more than anything else, which only serves to generate terrible conversations online.

The only thing I can suggest is just stay away from a lot of online noise because most of it is indeed noise that serves to harm users with misinformation. I think you're one of the very few good journalists I know I can trust.

Also, take a listen to this podcast about call-out culture because it has a very nuanced view: https://www.npr.org/2018/04...”

Earlier today, I was reading a Twitter thread from a figure who works in the American manga industry and talked about a moment in the past where they subtly called out a scanlator who wanted to work for them. They showed some moral disgust over the fact that the scanlator worked on stuff that was already licensed and listed it on their resume. 

The figure admitted that they had the sense of power to “whitelist/blacklist” them if they could. Thankfully, that didn’t happen. They realized that because of the inner desire to deliver Twitter snark, they ended up creating a unwelcoming feeling for a scanlator who really wanted to do legit work in an industry they both love.

While I really don’t approve of listing fan translated stuff on resumes for industries that disapprove of that, I know it’s often innocent on the part of those who do that. 

It’s just that I wish more people realized how social media platforms like Twitter aren’t anyone’s friends. They don’t care about you. All they want you to do is make snarky comments and make money from people fighting each other online due to those comments.  I think about what Ursula K. Le Guin said about anger once.

“I know that anger can’t be suppressed indefinitely without crippling or corroding the soul. But I don’t know how useful anger is in the long run. Is private anger to be encouraged?

Considered a virtue, given free expression at all times, as we wanted women’s anger against injustice to be, what would it do? Certainly an outburst of anger can cleanse the soul and clear the air. But anger nursed and nourished begins to act like anger suppressed: it begins to poison the air with vengefulness, spitefulness, distrust, breeding grudge and resentment, brooding endlessly over the causes of the grudge, the righteousness of the resentment. A brief, open expression of anger in the right moment, aimed at its true target, is effective — anger is a good weapon. But a weapon is appropriate to, justified only by, a situation of danger.”

If we become angry enough to become racists, harassers, and bullies ourselves by stooping to the level of those we dislike, then what exactly are we fighting for? If you call someone out, but feel that you don’t deserve to be called out if you’ve actually done something terrible (and the proof’s right then and there), you’re not better than those you called out.  That’s why I always say that I’m both a good and bad person. I think I’m right about most things, but I know I’m full of shit about some things. And you know what? That’s okay. Being aware of my own faults (without self-hatred) gives me the opportunity to learn and make much-needed changes.

Call out culture is going to be more prominent, whether anyone likes it or not. The only things I can tell anyone who feels compelled to call someone out are (with additional help from therapy or counseling).

1.) Forgive the person/people who hurt you. Here’s why - if you let them have a presence in your mind, it will be a big distraction in your life. You will be filled with nothing but hate. We all know hate does when you just keep reinforcing it. There’s also a big misconception in that forgiveness means letting that person off the hook. It doesn’t mean you forget what they did. Forgiveness means “You know what? You did some terrible things to me, but you’re a person like I am. I’m just not gonna let the thought of you ruin my state of mind and take over the joy I want to get in my life.”

2.) Slow down. Everyone wants to jump to conclusions ASAP. I wonder what happened to stopping and thinking about the actions of others and how they come about. There was a scene I remember from the game Persona 4, where the heroes were trying to deliver justice to a proposed suspect in a serial murder case (which was the major plot point). Everyone was acting on edge due to a close associate of theirs on the verge of death. The leader of the gang knew something seemed off, slowly voiced his concerns, and then yelled at his friends to calm down. One of my favorite lines from this sequence is something I’ll always remember.

“Failing to understand and failing to listen are rather different things.”

Listening with the sense of understanding is a soft skill that’s lacking these days. The thing is our minds are not built to handle the fast nature of culture. The rapid spread of ideas have outpaced our ability to process things. That’s a big reason why you see so much conflict.

If you still feel the need to call someone out, do it for anyone who’s been hurt by that person, not just you. Don’t be the only one who benefits. Share the wealth. Do not be tempted by profit over purpose.

I think that’s all I have to say other than if you’re angry about every single thing/person that’s hurt you, there’s nothing worth being angry about at all.

[multifandomaddictedfangirl]

Misconceptions about Breaking bad ~ my theory (Spoilers!)

So I’ve just finished watching Breaking Bad. All seasons. I really loved the show. It was well written, well directed, well thought in every details, very well played with such talented actors. It is a masterpiece. Clearly, it was a show that had been thought of and worked on for a while to be perfect (like no plot holes, no OOC actions, no wasted moments, no pointless moves, no useless lines, etc.). Besides, this show had everything: badass action, fighting scenes, tension, drama (big time), humor sometimes (not often) and emotions (a lot).

However, I think there is a HUGE misunderstanding to what this show is about and an ENORMOUS misconception of why it’s so good and really likeable.

A lot of people I have met IRL, or read online, really loved this show as well. That’s not a surprise. As I’ve said, this show was really good for a lot of reasons and I will never deny that.

But as I was reading them/talking to them IRL, I’ve realised something. They loved Breaking Bad because they loved the story and the character of Walter White. They loved the story of an american middle aged white man, with a normal life, a traditional family and a boring job, becoming this super extra badass who ends up building and controlling a meth empire. Usually, they particularly loved season 3-4 when Walt is supposedly at its greatest moments. They loved Walter White and what he has become: a badass, a smart ass meth dealer, a dominating boss, a good provider for his family... a real man. They loved him as a hero. They loved him as a protagonist who should succeed and get what he wants in the end. They loved him as a character that they were rooting for. They also loved the dream of a normal guy starting off nothing and ending up being the big boss in the game. They loved the idea of having this exciting/dangerous/ illegal/ outlawed/badass “dream life”. Like in an action movie. They loved the fantasy that Breaking Bad exposes.

So here’s the thing... Those people don’t like Breaking Bad. Because that’s not the show. That’s not its point. That’s not its essence. That’s not what it’s trying to show us. That’s not what it’s about. At all.

Obviously, there are multiple interpretations and levels of lecture in a piece of art. And I don’t think some are overall better than others. I think it’s pretty condescending and arrogant to believe there is a “good way” of consuming medias/arts, and a “bad way”. There are just different ways. And that’s great.

However, if you pay attention to the show, for like 10 minutes, it’s pretty clear what it is about.

Breaking Bad is a criticism of Walter White and of this fantasy of a badass action-movie lifestyle. The whole point of the show is basically to say: “Look at that kind of lifestyle society makes you fantasise about, and look how you really don’t want to have it cause it actually sucks. Look at how you DON’T and SHOULDN’T want to become Walter White.”

Walter White isn’t portrayed as a glorious badass mastermind hero by the show. He shouldn’t be read like that. Of course, he is the main protagonist and so, the audience is meant to follow his story. But Walt is first portrayed as a bad guy. Not only like a villain. But as a bad person. Someone you should despise for his personality. Someone who should disgust you. Someone you should hate for who he truly is. Someone you shouldn’t be rooting for. Someone you should quite quickly want dead.

When the show begins, yes, he is portrayed as a normal family man, working a basic job, providing for his family which he seems to care about. But the show already makes it clear that he is a very proud man, who thinks he deserves better than his current life, who thinks he can do better and have better just because. Just cause he is Walter White, a chemistry genius. His world, what he has, doesn’t seem to be enough for him.

(Btw some of my friends argued that Walter White wasn’t such a bad person in the beginning of the show, and that “the meth dealing turned him into an asshole”. While I would agree with that, I also wanna point out that in the beginning of the show, Walt isn’t the greatest person neither... His life is built around a very sexist scheme. He always expects Skyler to do breakfast for him and basically all the housework, because she is his housewife and that’s the way things are supposed to be. We never see him being grateful for what she does. If he’s the only one working, “providing for his family”, it’s more likely because he didn’t want Skyler to. Skyler is a competent woman, she could have found a job with a better income than high school teacher. But I don’t think Walt, fulled with pride, would have accepted to be taken care of by his wife. He wanted to be the alfa male since day one. Because he more likely already had internalised pride, sexism and toxic masculinity and fake virility. We never see him share his true feelings with Skyler. He doesn’t want to look vulnerable. Never. He’s never real with anybody. He refuses to admit that he feels bad about his life and prefers to hide behind a mask, which he will continue to do throughout the show. Because expressing your true feelings to someone who cares about you is not an alfa male move, so Walt rejects this idea. So no, I don’t believe Walter White was such a great person in the beginning. He already was an asshole. He just became waaaaaaaay worse.)

Anyway, then he got diagnosed with cancer. And the money issue appears. If the family pays for Walter’s chemotherapy, they will take a huge risk of bankrupt. They need more money. The family needs more money. But let’s note that Walt’s friends, Eliot and Gretchen, DO propose to pay for his therapy. But Walter refuses, again because of his pride. All the events that follow, all the murders, all the meth dealing, all the horrors, EVERYTHING could have been avoided if Walter White hadn’t decided to be an arrogant jerk and say “suck it” to genuine help.

The money and the (supposedly) rightful idea providing for his family will be Walter’s justifications for ALL his actions during the ENTIRE show (even when his cancer is cured and the family doesn’t necessarily needs this huge amount of money anymore).

The truth is Walt never just wanted the money for chemotherapy or to help his family. He wanted the money because money equals power and influence. And Walt dreamed of power and control over the others. He wanted to be the only one capable of providing, the one everyone else would praise, admire and thank for the rest of his life. He wanted to be a god. Before even cooking his first batch, he already was a narcissist self-centered and arrogant prick, only thinking about his own good.

When he starts to cook meth, it just becomes even worse. The show gets darker, bloodier, more violent. Everything breaks bad, as thev title of the show clearly explicits. Walt finds a new way to express his desire of control, his dream of being finally respected/feared, and the silent violence which he was hidding inside of him.

(I think Walt somehow wants to turn the symbolic violence he was victim of (not being manly enough, especially compared to his brother-in-law, Hank who kinda bullies him in the beginning of the show) into a physical violence he is now in control of).

He then becomes a monster, who is capable of the most cruel, creepy, insane actions to get what he wants. He completely looses sense of reality. If we sum up what he did: he started cooking meth, he missed his daughter’s birth because of the meth dealing, he lied to everybody who cared about him, he tricked his DEA agent brother-in-law Hank, he mentally abused and manipulated Jesse to make him his puppet, he provoked Hank’s accident paralysing him for a while, he turned Junior against Skyler, he abused Skyler and made her part of his business letting her no other choice, he killed Gus’s men, he disolved murdered bodies in acid, he let Jane died while he could have saved her, he made Jesse kill Gale, he blew up a old people’s house killing Gus and hurting multiple innocents, he told nazis where Andrea lived and therefore caused her death, he ordered killings in prison, he blackmailed Hank with a fake confession video, he kidnapped Holly, he caused Hank and Gomez’s deaths, he killed Krazy8, he killed Mike, and he poisoned a child.

And the show makes it pretty clear that it’s not sane, that NONE of this is cool/badass, that it’s just miserable actions provoked by a desperate man, that it will just bring him sadness, loneliness, loss, misery and disfurtune, that Walt slowly but surely goes down this path of destruction and cruelty and that he will never come back. That what he once had (a family who loved and respected him, friends who cared about him, friendly neighbors, a stable job which had always been enough to provide for the family, a beautiful house, a great life, really) will be gone forever. And he will never get all of that back. Even if Walt just realises that in the final episodes.

His problematic lack of trust (even towards Jesse who never betrayed him!), his egocentric paranoia (the fact that he always thinks he is the center of some sort of conspiracy in the meth empire, despite the fact that it is a huge business and he is just not alone in this), his insane quest of power (the fact that he is never happy with what he has and always wants to extend his market/to extend his influence) and his huge PRIDE will always and constantly lead him to making huge mistakes and screwing up everything, making everything way worse. Walt is often the cause of his own failures.

But rather than learning from his mistakes, grow up and adapt, those mistakes just reinforce his beliefs, his fears, his desires, and justifies somehow even more his further actions. Walt is stuck in a vicious circle that, you know already from season 1-2, will lead him towards his end.

Everytime Walt tries something, he fails. He is not a badass mastermind meth dealer. He takes a lot of stupid decisions because he is too impulsive and doesn’t know how things really work in the real life. There is plenty of things he doesn’t know, even if he never admits it. He always have more competent person around him to do the job. Sure he cooks meth better than anybody else (except maybe Jesse in season 5), but meth dealing isn’t just cooking. Without Jesse, without Gus, without Mike, Walt would have never been Heisenberg.

Relying on other isn’t a bad thing (on the contrary), but that’s not what Walt does. Walt USES people. He manipulates them, he mentally ABUSES them, destroys their self esteem, threatens them, makes them believe they have no other choices but to order him. He did that with Jesse (big time), and also with Skyler for instance. The truth is Walt sucks and he needs others but he always denies it because he doesn’t want to admit that he is vulnerable and lost and that he actually is not “the big boss in the game”.

And whenever he makes a decision by himself (usually to cross someone), he FAILS. Like dramatically. He always puts himself in a position that is worse, usually more dangerous, just because he couldn’t shut up and keep his pride. Yes, sometimes, he also succeeds but it’s then quickly shown that what he thought was a success will turn up against him.

Even when Walt does look badass, it’s during short moments taken apart from big story. Yes, if you take some scenes out of context, Walt looks cool. But if you just take some time to analyse the context, than the scenes loose all its power and Walt appears the way he is inside: powerless, weak, insecure, pathetic.

For instance, when Walter says to his wife “I’m the danger”, it’s not meant to be seen as a badass line (and it has, by many people). It’s pathetic because he has, at that point in the show, lost control in his professional life. So he’s trying to regain control and influence in his private life by terryfing someone who looks weaker than him. He cannot hurt or scare his actual enemies in the meth empire because they are more powerful than him. He is at this point lost, confused and vulnerable. He needs to regain his manhood, his position of power, his role of alfa male. So to do so, he decides to terrify his wife, who is just a normal person and doesn’t know the meth world (and so, who has to take anything Walt says for granted). He’s like a bully, in school, attacking the weakest because they are in quest of manhood and influence. And we know bullies are actually the most insecure kids.

Besides, when Walt fails, he doesn’t even admit he screwed up, says sorry and learns from his mistakes. He denies he made a mistake and takes the blame on others. That’s, again, profoundly PATHETIC. He lies to everyone. While he claims that he doesn’t want anybody’s pity, he keeps lying to make it look like he was just the victim of unfortunate events against him. That’s why Walt isn’t even a good likeable villain. He denies what he truly wants (money, power, control, sense of manhood...), he hides behind a fake justification, and he doesn’t realise or admit that his means are deeply cruel (murder, mental abuse, meth dealing, child poisoning, lying, bloodbath assassinations...). Even if he has convinced himself he’s doing all of this for a good reason (provide for his family), it’s like he is not aware of the monstrosity of his actions. He never admits he has become a merciless monster. Not to his family, not to his wife, not to his partners in crime. Most villains would say: “I believe what I do is fair and justified, but to do so, I have to become a monster and do unspeakable things and that’s what I’m gonna do”. But Walt doesn’t.

(Walt would probably say something like “I’m a good person, I want to help my family which totally explains all my actions which weren’t even THAT bad if you look at it a certain way and there was no other choice anyway, I’m just a victim, but I’m still powerful, but I had to, but I’m in control.” And honestly? UGH.)

Walt is a looser, who tries to hide the fact that he sucks. He is not a badass, or a mastermind. He’s mostly scared, pathetic and lost. Breaking Bad always show us that. Breaking Bad is about the fail and the path towards the end of Walter White. It’s about Walt becoming worse and worse, but not by doing things more and more illegal/horrible. He’s becoming worse and worse as a person. More pathetic as the show evolves. More miserable. More lost. More desperate. And he ends up with NOTHING.

Walter White looses everything. His friends are so terrified of him that they don’t want to have any contact with him. His wife completely despise him. His son is ashamed and disgusted of him. His daughter will grow up without a father. His former associates are mostly dead. His partner, Jesse, hates him and runs away from him. Walt dies alone, abandonned by everyone, knowing nobody will miss him and that he has failed to do what he first wanted (take care of his family), that the person he once was, who had a great life actually, is gone.

The show makes it very clear that following Walter’s path is not something cool. It’s not something you should want or dream about. Because in your fantasy, the meth business is badass and cool and fun. But in reality, it’s difficult, horrifying, dangerous and life-ruining. The point of the show is to stay: Walt got stuck in this because he was, and always had been, a proud, narcissist and pathetic person and he has LOST everything when he tried to be the badass he never was.

This fictional lifestyle, based on pride, toxic masculinity and badass action fantasy, that is nourished by a lot of fictions and medias that we consume, is BAD (hence the title). The show criticises it over and over again.

And in my opinion, that’s why it’s so good. The show doesn’t glorify what society already praises to be the dream. It questions it, it shows us its true nature, and criticises it. At the end, Breaking Bad isn’t just a badass exciting action-movie turned into a serie (it would have been quite boring if it was). It’s more than that. It tells a story about us as human, as people, and it deconstructs a fantasy we all have had at some point. And it does it perfectly. So I really loved this show, but it saddened me to see so many people having this misunderstanding about what the show was trying to say.

[beinglibertarian]

No, Vaccines Should Never Be Mandatory

As a libertarian, I often find it amusing when other fellow libertarians reveal their inconsistencies. For instance, many libertarians think that everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with the same right of others… except when it comes to vaccines.

Vaccination should be mandatory, they claim, because unvaccinated people harm everyone else.

This raises the question, “if vaccines worked, then why should vaccinated people be worried about unvaccinated people getting them sick”? Besides that head-scratcher, a case could be made that people who pass on communicable diseases should be charged with a crime, but not being vaccinated does not equate to being sick much less passing a disease on to someone.

As I explain in the below excerpt from Paleo Family, vaccines in general are a great medical achievement but there are risks to all of them and while there may be a benefit to society, mandating their consumption for certain government services makes for a shoddy medical and economic system:

Vaccination is an astonishing medical achievement, but granted its stunning success in the battle against communicable disease, the treatment is not risk free.

This is the most common misconception of vaccines and it is perpetuated by many officials in the industry who have either invented a vaccine such as Dr. Paul Offit (rotavirus vaccine) and Dr. Stanley Plotkin (rubella vaccine) or those who stand to profit from them.

They claim that the general population needs to trust the experts in the medical profession and that there are no significant adverse side effects from vaccines.

As Offit says, “Of course it’s reasonable the parents would argue that vaccines be held to the absolute highest standard of safety. These vaccines should cause virtually no severe side effects, and that’s really pretty much true. It’s extremely rare that they would cause any problem.”

But is it true?

With the first vaccine for smallpox, many people who received it became ill and 2- to 3-percent died.

The modern smallpox vaccine comes with its risks as well. Besides the typical fever, shivering, swollen lymph nodes, chest pains, hallucinations, skin rash and lesions, vomiting, and diarrhea, it has also been known to cause encephalitis, encephalomyelitis, encephalopathy, blindness, and, yes, death.

The smallpox vaccine hasn’t been recommended since eradication but if every adult in the US received the shot, we could expect upwards of 500 people to die from it the first year.

Of course, if there was an outbreak of the actual disease of smallpox, we’d be lucky to limit mortality to 500 persons. Smallpox is a very dangerous disease and if there was ever an outbreak, the risks would certainly be warranted.

But there are risks for all vaccines, even for vaccines that protect against relatively harmless diseases.

For most healthy children, chickenpox is a benign condition that lasts for about a week.

Although not common, high risk populations are more likely to experience complications from the varicella virus; such as, skin infections, encephalitis, and pneumonia. However, the vaccine that is being promoted to prevent chickenpox can also cause pneumonia, encephalitis, meningitis, or hepatitis in healthy children.

The measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been known to cause encephalitis, febrile seizures, and short-term joint pain.

Several vaccines including MMR, chickenpox, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, human papillomavirus (HPV), and tetanus-containing vaccines have been linked to anaphylaxis (severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction).

The flu vaccine is a known cause of Guillain-Barré Syndrome and it has also been shown that the HPV vaccine has led to death.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out billions of dollars to injured victims and their families for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Transverse Myelitis, Neuropathy, Brachial Neuritis, Bell’s Palsy, Neuromyelitis Optica, Optic Neuritis, Vision Loss, Parsonage Turner Syndrome, Encephalitis, Acute Hemorrhagic Leukoencephalomyelitis, and many more conditions caused by vaccines.

Vaccine Adjuvants (Aluminum)

Apart from the side effects listed on the safety inserts of each vaccine and those that warranted payouts by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, there is mounting evidence that some portion of the population may be susceptible to toxicity from vaccine adjuvants or preservatives such as aluminum.

Aluminum is used in several vaccines to increase the effectiveness and in some cases it is an essential ingredient that actually causes the immune response. Without it, the vaccine would not “work” as intended.

But as of the time of this writing, there have been no known studies to demonstrate the maximum level of aluminum safely injected through vaccines.

There was a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at aluminum in intravenous feeding solutions for premature babies.

That study found that 5 micrograms of aluminum per 5 kilograms of body weight per day was safe but much more of the metal led to neurological damage.

There have not been any studies done on IV feeding solutions or vaccines for healthy babies but the FDA did set a limit on injectables at 25 micrograms.

Despite this, the CDC vaccine schedule includes a shot of hepatitis B vaccine for babies in their first 24 hours.

There are two options for pediatric hepatitis B vaccine and both include 250 micrograms of aluminum—10 times the FDA limit for injectables. This is repeated a month later, and when the infant returns for her 2-month checkup, she could possibly be injected with an astounding 1,225 micrograms of aluminum, which is repeated for the 4- and 6-month shots.

A study published in 2008 from SUNY-Stony Brook compared children who received the triple Hepatitis B vaccine series to those who had not.

The results were published in Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry and were quite alarming: children who had received the full, recommended Hepatitis B vaccine series were nine times more likely to need special education than children who did not receive a single dose of the vaccine. Furthermore, the same researchers found that premature boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine had a threefold increase in autism diagnoses.

Again, (just to reiterate the point) there have been no documented scientific studies demonstrating the safety of the levels of aluminum found in vaccines, yet drug manufacturers and physicians plow through with more vaccines including the adjuvant. Why? How could safety regulators be so seemingly ambivalent toward an ingredient in vaccines when there is good evidence that high amounts can be dangerous to humans?

Medical authorities and government bureaucrats wouldn’t let this happen in any other medical product, much less any other industry. Why are vaccines different?

Well, as anyone familiar with the industry will know, vaccines have become a sort of third rail of American medical science.

It has been established by the authorities that vaccines are necessary to the safety of society and must be protected as a class of pharmaceutical.

FDA Screening

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by Congress in 1986 and signed into law by President Reagan, protects vaccine manufacturers from any liability for damage by their product.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in perhaps his worst decision, the law leaves, “judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries.”

A Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established and since that time, according to the government’s most recent report of the program, approximately 3.5 BILLION dollars have been paid out to vaccine injured persons, or their families in the case of death.

But if that system of manufacturer impunity doesn’t work with any other medical product, why should it work with a drug category that is injected in our most vulnerable citizens?

A brief overview of FDA-approved prescription drug history shows that we can’t trust the FDA to catch all harmful drugs.

Accutane was a popular anti-acne drug on the market for 27 years until the mounting legal fees were too much. The manufacturer Hoffman-La Roche defended over 7,000 lawsuits and paid out over $9 million for causing birth defects, premature birth, and miscarriages in pregnant women and inflammatory bowel disease and suicidal tendencies in others.

The FDA approved Bayer’s Baycol to reduce cholesterol, which was on the market for three years before being recalled for causing 52 deaths.

Darvon and Darvocet were on the market for 55 years relieving pain when it was recalled for causing toxicity to the heart and over 2,100 deaths.

Vioxx, Quaalude, Cylert, Lotrenox, and dozens of other slightly-Star Trek-sounding drugs were approved by the FDA for varying lengths of time only to be recalled because they were too dangerous.

It’s clear that the FDA’s screening process isn’t 100 percent effective and bad drugs get through. They’re only taken off the market after major litigation efforts from injured parties. But that’s not going to happen with vaccines due to the special legal status vaccine manufacturers enjoy.

Instead, they will remain on the market, potentially causing harm to children, and the US government will foot the bill for damages through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is funded through a tax placed on the vaccine manufacturers for each distributed dose.

CDC recommended vaccines are then made compulsory for all children and paid for by federal programs.

Anyone familiar with basic economics will spot the problem in which a party can enjoy all the financial benefits of mandated products with very little risk.

Market forces which usually would oblige a drug company to develop safer drugs no longer apply to vaccine manufacturers. That’s a great bargain for the pharmaceutical companies, but it is quite unfortunate for those of us on the other side.

This unique legal structure for vaccine manufacturers has created a suspect medical structure with two dangerous precedents:

Vaccines are not tested against inert placebo. Typically, drugs are tested against a completely inert substance in controlled studies (such as sugar pills or saline injections). For all other drugs, the FDA requires long-term, multi-year, double blind safety studies that compare the rate of adverse reactions of those who received the drug against those who received true inert placebo. That is the gold standard for evaluating the safety of pharmaceuticals, but is considered unethical in the case of childhood vaccines. Instead, new vaccines are tested only against other vaccines and/or shots of adjuvants. This assumes that other vaccines and the adjuvants are perfectly safe to begin with. For a vaccine to be considered safe, it needs only to be less harmful than other vaccines. The assumption of the safety of vaccine components is not intellectually or scientifically honest. Furthermore, the follow-up during vaccine trials to assess potential adverse reactions is not sufficiently long; vaccine drug trials follow babies for sometimes just days and then determine whether or not the vaccine could have had an adverse reaction, not taking into account potentially long-term effects such as developmental delays.

Vaccine responses are not monitored for potentially serious outcomes. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is available for when a vaccine is suspected for an adverse outcome, but this is voluntary. On more than one occasion the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has published its concern for better research into vaccine safety and adverse events based on VAERS. In its report, the IOM found some causal relationships between vaccines and poor health outcomes, including death. In another report, the IOM also voiced concerns for combining vaccines; saying that there exists, “little information pertaining to the risk of serious adverse events following administration of multiple vaccines simultaneously.” This is critical because the majority of childhood vaccines are now given in combination.

There is no other field of medicine that continues under these conditions. No one would allow it. And as a result of this dangerous medical double standard, the CDC vaccine schedule has ballooned in size.

Vaccine Dosage and Effect

Since 1986 when the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed, the number of required childhood vaccines has increased significantly.

In 1983, the CDC had 23 doses of vaccines on their schedule to be administered in 11 shots. Only one of these—DPT—contained aluminum.

By 1994, there were 33 doses on the schedule administered in 18 shots, including the Hep B vaccine given at birth with its 250 micrograms of aluminum given three times.

Fast forward to 2017; when the CDC recommended 69 doses in 16 shots before the age of 18, 50 of those doses before the age of six.

Some of the newest vaccines have questionable merit at best.

Chickenpox, for example, is typically a relatively harmless disease. Not to belittle the virus, it was responsible for anywhere from 40 to 140 deaths out of the millions of children infected per year. Mainly, it was an annoyance—having to stay out of school for a week or two. But people were not terrified of getting chickenpox.

In fact, when hearing of friends’ kids who had the disease, some would intentionally infect their kids and have a “chickenpox party” so as to get the infection out of the way.

While the varicella vaccine is not considered to be the most risky of vaccines with regard to side effects, there is another downside to vaccinating against diseases that are usually not serious for the average child.

People who get chickenpox have lifetime immunity and when they are repeatedly exposed to the disease (like a booster), they’re less likely to suffer from shingles later in life. Studies have shown that the recent shingles epidemic may be caused by widespread chickenpox vaccination, which removed the natural booster.

Furthermore, pregnant women who have had chickenpox transfer passive immunity to their neonates because the immunity is lifelong, whereas immunity from vaccines can wear off (more on this later) and provide no protection to vulnerable infants.

The HPV vaccine Gardasil is perhaps one of the most dubious of all the new vaccines. Fast-tracked by the FDA, the vaccine is designed to prevent the human papillomavirus and therefore prevent the subsequent onset of cervical cancer, which is believed to be caused by HPV.

There are over 4,000 cervical cancer deaths a year, but it’s not clear whether preventing HPV will lower that number as 90 percent of HPV cases clear up on their own within two years. And Gardasil is particularly risky when it comes to side effects, garnering tens of thousands of adverse effect reports on VAERS and over 110 deaths.

One of the doctors who helped develop the vaccine, Dr. Diane Harper, came out against it shortly after it was released to the public.

She said, “The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC’s Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. That rate of serious adverse events [is] on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year.”

What’s more troubling is that Gardasil may actually increase the risk of cancer in some women.

According to an FDA report, obtained by the Freedom of Information Act, girls who have already been exposed to HPV (girls who were seropositive) saw an increased risk of developing precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent after receiving the vaccine.

The report states, “It appeared that subjects in this subgroup of study 013 who received Gardasil

might have had enhanced risk factors for development of [cancer] or worse compared to placebo recipients.”

This is the exact opposite effect that vaccines are designed to produce, yet policymakers are still adamant that all girls and now boys receive the vaccine.

The use of aluminum adjuvants may make the HPV vaccine particularly dangerous as well.

One study found HPV L1 gene fragments in the blood and spleen of a girl who died unexpectedly after receiving three quadrivalent HPV vaccine shots. The thought is that while aluminum may make Gardasil more effective in preventing HPV, it may also make it more difficult for the body to expel. During drug testing for Gardasil, only aluminum containing placebos were used, not saline.

All of this is by no means conclusive, but with suspect efficacy in the first place it should at least make one question the rationale of mandating the vaccine for teenagers.

Recommendations

Given what we know about immunogenic response to vaccines, and that some children may be more vulnerable to vaccine injury, is a one-size-fits-all approach prudent?

Many reputable medical establishments think not.

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have made some sensible recommendations based on the literature:

Abandon a one-size- (and dose-) fits-all vaccine approach for all vaccines and all persons.

Predict the likelihood of a significant adverse event to a vaccine.

Decide the number of doses likely to be needed to induce a sufficient response to a vaccine.

Design and develop new vaccines and studies to prove their efficacy and safety in such a way as to begin to use them in an individualized manner.

Identify approaches to vaccination for individuals and groups (based on age, gender, race, other) based on genetic predilections to vaccine response and reactivity.

Naturally, we want to protect our children. What each Paleo Family should decide is what risks they are willing to take in order to keep their children as natural and healthy as possible while still protecting them from nature’s ugly side.

It can safely be said that the original vaccine that ended up helping to eradicate smallpox from the face of the earth was a miracle and a crowning achievement of medical science. But it’s also clear that miracles do not scale.

Smallpox was a scourge on humanity. Chickenpox is a nuisance. The smallpox vaccine saved lives; we don’t even know if some of the modern vaccines like HPV vaccine do what they are supposed to do.

As with any medication or pharmaceutical, there are health risks that come with the benefits of vaccines. It is irresponsible to suggest that all people should get all such pharmaceuticals and it is illegitimate use of governmental authority to require it in order to receive benefits or other privileges.

We have the right to accept or reject all medical treatment. It is up to us to make sure our representatives understand that.

The post No, Vaccines Should Never Be Mandatory appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2BYisnt via IFTTT

[houseofjoduk-blog]

Male Mental Health

"Would you miss me if I was gone tomorrow?"

That is a question many men in the United Kingdom are asking themselves this very moment. The biggest killer of adult males aged 50 and below is suicide. That upper age has increased from 40 to 50 over the past 5 years.

The question is simple...Why?

There seems to be...actually, forget that first bit. Let me start again.

THERE IS a long thought and expected way for adult males to act in British society as a whole. It is also a specific section of the adult male population as well. It has long been seen that straight white men are expected to be heads of the household, go out to work and provide for the family, and deal with all problems should they arise. They are also expected not to experience emotions as it is seen as a weakness. Add on to that the image projected on to all straight men of all skin colours and religions that they have to be strong and "man up" to all the bad in society.

This is not a blog making men out to be the vicitms. It is actually how things are in British society and how they have been for some time. Until recently, the only type of domestic violence was when a man beat his wife or girlfriend because society had this stereotype that women were weak and merely servant baby makers to the odious dominating man in the relationship. Think of the images portrayed in the recent TV Series "The Handmaid's Tale" and apparently to many people, that is what most men are like. Bastards. Evil. Violent misogynists.

But, in reality, there are many women out there who regularly beat and control their boyfriends and husbands. But due to the societal image of men having to be strong and domineering, so many men suffer in silence.

Yes, there are many women who have suffered in silence for decades and decades. But there have also been, and continue to be, many men who suffer in silence at the violent hands of women.

There has to be a change or the suicide rate amongst men in the United Kingdom will continue to climb year on year. Moment on moment.

There was a documentary on TV recently called "Stopping Male Suicide" and was presented by the long running BBC Horizon series. From the outside many people were shocked if you took 10 minutes to pop onto Twitter for starters. Eyes were opened. But that is simply one programme and there needs to be more. I see article after article, news piece after news piece, magazine feature after magazine feature and it focuses on either women or the males within the LGBT community.

I singled out the LGBT male community for the reason I know many will bring up about the suicide rate within the community due to hate crimes. These are regularly highlighted in the news and media in general. There is an official community so people can support each other. And rightly so.

I also singled out women for similar reasons. Again, there are many communities within the sisterhood. If we look at the hijacked #MeToo movement where the founder has commented how it has changed beyond recognition from how it started. I recently asked the #MeToo movement directly why they seemingly ignored Men in similar situations to women that they are seeking to highlight. I did not get a reply, but others asked the question and eventually the founder of #MeToo had to put out a statement when one of the female celebrity supporters of #MeToo (I use the word celebrity with tongue in cheek there as all actresses and actors and musicians etc are, are people having a career in the spotlight and being paid a lot of money for it. They are not idols. Not brilliant people. Look to the wonderful NHS Doctors and Nurses, the Police and Fire Brigade who put their lives on the line for us, the military who give their lives to protect us.) was accused of grooming and sexually abusing (technically rape under US law) an under age male actor. The founder said that #MeToo was there for males and females.

But it was a hollow statement.

Someone started a #MenToo hashtag, but Twitter ignored it and never gave it a little icon like the #MeToo hashtag has.

You see, that is the big problem that exists in British society (and American society), the straight man is seen as the big bad wolf. Every one of us. If you are a straight white adult male then it is even worse when you add in the #BlackLivesMatter community cause.

I have zero issues with people standing up for their beliefs. It is what I am doing right now. But what I have a problem with sections of society tarring other entire sections of society with the same brush instead of pointing out that not all men are bastards, not all women use men for their own benefit and then dispose of them when they become bored, that not all straight men see women as sex objects or not all black youths are going to rob you. There are many misconceptions in society that divide us when they should not.

So, where is this blog going?

Mental Health in adult males directly connected to male suicide.

That is where.

I am fast approaching 50 years old and it took me being tortured and raped in 2006 (12 year anniversary at 6.30pm on December 5th 2018 - not that I am counting...honest) to start asking questions of my mental health. The past 12 years have been a rollercoaster as the NHS has consistantly failed the mental health sector ever since it was created in the 1940s. Not one single government. Not one single political party. Not one single politician has taken the mental health sector seriously.

There is an advert backed by Lloyds Bank where people have post it notes on their foreheads which is a great to highlight how people worry how others will see them. And tonight (Friday 30/11/18) I am watching "I'm A Celebrity" with another incident where Anne Hegerty (The Governess on The Chase) backed out of a trial. Now, throughout the show so far there has been a combination of love and hate towards her. Those with compassion recognise that as someone who battles Aspergers she has gone into the jungle to challenge herself and raise awareness of Aspergers/Autism. Yes, she is being pad for it, but if you speak to people who deal with autism/aspergers you will see that Anne is typical of someone dealing with the condition on a daily basis. It is called sensory overload. There is no cure. You manage it. I see many traits of Aspergers in myself. Another one is no filter and that is evident from Anne in some of her responses. I do the same.

But people who choose to not understand it, or even ask questions about it, will always be out there and always sit behind a keyboard and slag off people who battle challenges on a daily basis. They simply cannot fathom how people with mental health challenges face each day. They see life with a clear mind and as soon as they are feeling a bit down or having a bad day at work, they say "I am so depressed"...NO YOU ARE NOT DEPRESSED as you are simply feeling a bit down because maybe your boss at work is making you do some work for once, or you have broken up with your boyfriend/girlfriend. It is not being depressed. Trust me on this one, if you were suffering from depression you would know it in a heart beat.

As you can see, this blog is going on a bit, but it needs to. This is just the start. There is so much to talk about as people need to wake up and see life is not a bed of roses. Most people who genuinely suffer from a mental health condition do not want your symptathy or special treatment. They just want people to recognise that they have some extra hurdles to navigate and not to judge them as inferior or wastes of space.

As the song lyrics from Rag N Bone Man's "Human" goes...

"I'm only human, after all. Don't put your blame on me."

Now, I have covered just a small bit of the topic of mental health challenges for both males and females. But I have also pinpointed that for adult males it is genuinely harder in British society (just for starters). This is in no way meant to belittle young males and all females (of all ages) who battle mental health, but to speak out about a section of British society that is ignored in the main. Why? No one really knows for sure. No one can say it is due to any of the reasons I have said above, but there is so much evidence to say that the things I have mentioned ALL add up to why people like me have either considered or attempted to take their own life. To be pushed to that edge and see no other way out. People call those who go down the suicide route selfish. They put out there that they are leaving people behind who will be impacted by it.

But remember this. People who are considering taking their own lives see no other way to go but suicide. They feel that the world, their family and loved ones would be better off without them.

Consider having that thought even once. Just once. Scared yet? Think how it is for those who have those thoughts on a regular basis.

Life is not kind. It is not meant to be easy. But if you can carry out one act of kindness each day, then life would be so much easier. Whether it is holding open the door for someone, saying thank you to someone who has served you in a shop or using the word please when asking someone for something. The little things add up, and if you think it makes a difference to the people who live life with a clear head then think how much it means to those of us with those extra mental health challenges to deal with.

Be human. Be kind. Be understanding. Do your bit.

And one last thing. If you see a man crying then ask him if he is okay. You may just save a life. Us men are not all big bad wolves. Some of us are fragile and need a little bit of kindness. But we don't tell you because we are scared of rejection.

Thankyou for reading this blog. My first blog. It took months to get to this point.

One final question...

"Would you miss me if I was gone tomorrow?"

Simon x

[grandintervention-blog]

The Grand Intervention

The Grand Intervention

As much as none of us would ever want to admit it, if you are an American, you are either currently an addict or you are an ex-addict. The likelihood is that you're the former. The common misconception is what a physical addiction even is. The immediate assumption is that a person is addicted to any given substance itself, such as a drug. Here's the scoop; it’s not that you are addicted to the substance itself, you’re addicted to the happiness neurotransmitters that are released in your brain as a result of the exposure to it. Modern humans ultimately have learned exactly how to manipulate their automatically built-in reward systems, by way of neurotransmitters. The problem here is people don't know what these are, and more importantly, they don't care. Just gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. 

There are four key neurotransmitters, and the way they are designed to work is for life to persist through reward. What does this mean? Well let's rewind. Forget about language and civilization. Forget about inventions and tools. By evolutionary standards, the human being is nearly unchanged for the past 250,000 years. Our knuckles don't drag now, and our knuckles didn't drag back then. Upright humans. However, there's no language back then, just grunts. We don't have grandma telling us we need to find a nice spouse and settle down and have babies. We don't have mom telling us to finish our dinner. What we DO have is a reward system in place by way of neurotransmitters. 

The first is clear cut; oxytocin. The only way to produce this chemical is through sex and love, and of course this neurotransmitter can indeed be manipulated through masturbation. If you need a minute, this blog will be here for you when you’re done. Simple enough, a couple hundred thousand years ago, if you had sex, you received a wave of oxytocin. This reward made you happy. If you were a mom with a newborn baby, whenever he or she suckled on your breast for sustenance, both you and baby received a wave of oxytocin. This is the transmission of love. No language needed for this. 

The next neurotransmitter is serotonin. This is sort of like the auto-pilot of neurotransmitters. Essentially, this is the chemical that makes a person happy to simply be alive. If you're physically healthy, you will maintain a steady level of serotonin. Basically, all of our caveman predecessors had nice constant serotonin levels, but modern day humans do not. Why is this? Simple, today's human has turned the remaining two neurotransmitters into an absolute abomination. When serotonin is scarce, which will certainly happen as a result of poor nutrition and habits, you wind up with pretty much every mental disease in the book to at least some degree, the main one being depression. You know, that sadness disease that almost everyone has these days and gets medicated for, but no one seems to know what causes it. Now you know.

Neurotransmitter number three; dopamine. Okay, now this one sounds familiar to many people. And this one is the absolute easiest one to manipulate. So much so, that this one particular neurotransmitter has turned into a complete wrecking ball for modern day health. This neurotransmitter was designed through evolution to reward humans for eating. That simple. But not so fast. For 95% of the entire existence of human beings, we ate nothing but meat, leafy greens, nuts, and berries. That's it. These foods generated a dopamine response to reward us for furthering our survival by way of food. Well as fate would have it, humans got cute. Humans learned how to farm. Grains entered into the picture. Simple carbs. Simple carbs convert to sugar and enter directly into the bloodstream. This newly discovered shortcut enabled humans to tap into extra energy on the spot, and enabled humans to go much longer times between feedings. This doesn't mean humans evolved to eat this way. This just means our first eating hack was established. What's the problem? The body wasn't designed to have this shortcut. When high sugars come into the body, cell walls are eaten into faster. Fat builds to higher levels than nature intended. This marked the beginning of disease. The reason the body craves this activity though is the immediate access to energy spurts. To put this into perspective, this is like a street racer with a high powered engine. Actual healthy food represents the engine. Sugars represent the NOS (nitrous oxide), short super-charged bursts of acceleration. Not sustainable. Present day, this reward system is completely out of wack. Instead of being rewarded for furthering our survival through food, we are now being rewarded for destroying our bodies through food. Dopamine, the neurotransmitter itself, has become a drug. This is by far the most popular drug on the planet. And in the same way that crack cocaine and crystal meth will burn through the human body and rip it to shreds, dopamine manipulation by way of sugar does the same thing, only slower, and today's human is hardwired to believe that it's not food that is killing them, but rather old age and all the diseases with fancy sounding names and medicines and doctors that are supposed to just come with the territory. 

Speaking of actual illegal drugs, this brings us to the last neurotransmitter. And it's only fitting that it's the last one to be discussed, because this chemical was meant to be reserved for our last moments alive. Endorphins. This is the neurotransmitter used to cope with death. The meaning of life is the ultimate question, and life itself is the most precious of all. Life is the opposite of death, so transitioning to death needed to somehow be embraced, since all life dies. Thanks to evolution, we have a neurotransmitter that tends to that. Upon death, endorphins are released (they are also released during exercise but to a lesser degree, as muscle tissue is being shredded to death and will heal even stronger). These chemicals have been perfected over the course of complex life itself, to the tune of a couple billion years. When the granddaddy of all neurotransmitters is released at high levels, these endorphins cause pure euphoria. Heaven on Earth. Uh-oh, humans got cute again. Humans figured out how to get these neurotransmitters that are reserved for death, to show up to the party early. How is this? Humans have approximately 100 billion brain cells, and each day about 8 to 10 thousand of these cells die. No replacement cell through mitosis. Just one life span, gone. Forever. This might seem like a dramatic loss, but over the course of an entire decade, a healthy human is only losing about 30 million brain cells, well under 1%. However, if you can kill a whole bunch of these little guys all at once, you can trick your brain for the moment to believe you are dying. Lo and behold, endorphins are released. A heaven on Earth high. How do you kill a bunch of brain cells all at once? Easy. Drugs. All the illegal drugs you’ve ever heard about, and even cigarettes and cigars; yes marijuana too. But wait a second, marijuana grows out of the ground, so it has to be good for you right? Poison ivy grows out of the ground. You're probably not rolling around in that stuff. So how does marijuana work? Well when you inhale every 4 seconds, oxygen is supposed to come in. It reaches your brain first and your lungs second. This oxygen is the key to life. Without oxygen, there is no life. So when you inhale marijuana, this isn't oxygen. With that breath, while the 100 billion brain cells are anticipating oxygen, they get marijuana instead. About 100 times the normal cell death occurs. With this degree of brain cell death, endorphins are released and there you have it. High as a kite. And that coughing? This may come as a shock but the body coughs when something is in it that doesn’t belong there. Who knew. Wait a second, the human brain has cannabinoid receptors. This has to mean that our brains want the cannabis and its good for us, right? Cannabinoid receptors are located throughout the entire body and are involved in a number of physiological processes including appetite, pain sensation, mood, and memory. Many cannabis addicts believe that these receptors were named after cannabis, but it's the other way around. Cannabis got its name because of its direct impact on the receptors themselves. Which is why marijuana smokers will experience bouts of increased appetite, the muting of pain, horrible mood swings, and memory problems. Hang on, pain relief is a good thing. It has to be. Actually, usually not. Pain is nature's indicator that there is a physical problem. The pain should subside because the problem was fixed, not because the pain sensation was manipulated. In fact, the more the pain is quieted through outside means, whatever is actually ailing the body will just get worse and worse. Hello big pharma, but that's another story all to itself. This is not to say that there are not legitimate medicinal uses for marijuana oil. But smoking it will definitely cause a high rate of brain cell death, which is where the endorphin high comes from. 

The ultimate problem is when dopamine and endorphins are manipulated long term or even life-long, the most valuable of all the neurotransmitters burns out like a candle. Serotonin being that neurotransmitter. Ever wonder why that super old relative always seems so cranky and miserable? No serotonin, no oxytocin, worn out dopamine that has been waning over the years, and endorphins that are running out. 

So let this serve as the grand intervention. Protect your serotonin and leave your endorphins alone. Be healthy by only consuming healthy things. Break the chains. There is true happiness out there waiting for all of us.

[rebolden]

Discover the health benefits of CBD with THV that you may not have known before

According to research, the earliest known usage of Cannabis was contained in the literature of Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in the year 2737 B.C. His literature stressed its effectiveness as a medication for inflammation of the joints which is a typical symptom of gout and rheumatism, and a source of amusement.

Cannabis became popular as a recreational drug between 1850 and 1930. As drug use grew over time, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 categorized it as a Planned 1 Drug in the United States and of course, there has been some debate over the medical usage of marijuana.

To make it more medically acceptable, the active component of cannabis -THC - was produced in 1966 and eventually authorized by the FDA or the US Food and Drug Administration in 1985. In 1999 research funded by the Institute of Medicine in the United States, it was shown that marijuana had therapeutic qualities in some medical diseases, such as nausea induced by chemotherapy and vomiting caused by AIDS.

Several research studies have been conducted since 1999 to demonstrate that smoking marijuana relieves pain and the medical benefit of CDB products, thereafter, has mostly been focused on the intoxicating effects until recently. California was the first state to authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal reasons in 1996, and about 24 states currently have medical marijuana law.

The purpose of this article is to highlight the CBD with THC benefits in a just few proven cases so that consumers can make an informed decision about its use.

Arthritis and autoimmune disease

According to a 2011 study, it was found that marijuana lowers pain and inflammation while also promoting sleep, which may help relieve pain and suffering in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis.

Sativex, a cannabinoid-based painkiller, was administered to patients by researchers from multiple hospitals' rheumatology departments. When compared to placebo users, individuals on Sativex showed a substantial reduction in pain and improved sleep quality after two weeks.

Today, medicinal marijuana is also being used successfully to treat other autoimmune disorders such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus - a condition in which the body attacks itself for unexplained reasons.

Multiple sclerosis

Marijuana has been shown to alleviate muscle spasms and the harmful neurological symptoms produced by multiple sclerosis. According to research published in the Canadian Medical Association, marijuana can help reduce the unpleasant symptoms of multiple sclerosis and this is because the THC in marijuana attaches to pain receptors in the nerves and muscles.

Anxiety reduction

Harvard University researchers in 2010 proposed that one of the drug's advantages might be to reduce stress and anxiety, which would enhance the user's mood and function as a sedative in low dosages. Nowadays, the advantages of CBD combined with THC are almost too many to list, and it is also accessible in a variety of oils, drops, rubs, creams, and gummies.

Improves lung function

Research findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January 2012. Mentioned that marijuana could also improve lung function and that it even increases lung capacity. Researchers who were searching for risk factors for heart disease evaluated around 20 young individuals over a lengthy period and discovered that only marijuana users exhibited an improvement in lung capacity, whereas the lung function of tobacco smokers decreased over time.

CBD with THC's benefits are wide and comprehensive and can as result, not be discussed in a single article. However, reputable online suppliers of CBD products are also eager to crack down on the myths and misconceptions about the use of CBD products, and therefore, they focus on educating consumers on the correct use of their CBD products, which information is usually contained in their websites.

About us

Rebolden was born from our passion for supporting people to live to their fullest potential. We create our products through our recognition that physical health is directly correlated with mental and emotional wellbeing. We know from personal experience what it takes to truly be bold, to live courageously, and to rise to our highest potential. We design our products to help you discover a new way to greatness. Our CBD products are formulated utilizing the most efficient and advanced CBD extraction methods in the industry for CBD that truly delivers maximum results. Please visit our website at https://www.rebolden.com/ to find out more.

[sarahjoneswww]

Final Reflection

Understanding Diverse Experiences to be a Transnational Feminist

I decided to dedicate my commonplace book project to transnational feminism. For a little background on myself and why I chose this topic, transnational feminism seemed to continuously connect through each week’s material. We listened and read of women’s experiences from around the world, such as Elif Shafak and violence upon women in Turkey or Dalia Mogahed and how it feels to be Muslim in America . These stories made the topic linger in my head and really cause me to read more into it and what it really means to help women around the world. Regarding feminism in general, before taking global women’s studies I didn’t necessarily label myself as one, of course I have and will always advocate for a women’s fight no matter their background, but this was partially due to a somewhat bad representation that some think being a feminist means. However, learning more about feminism through this classes material just made me realize how foolish it is for me not to call myself one and no one’s idea that may represent feminism as bad should matter to the name. Through everything this class has opened me up to, it has left me with a burning flame to continue to educate myself and others more.

For anyone living in the United states, there tends to be a westernized idea of feminism. This idea overemphasizes gender roles as the main and only factor to women’s oppression. What most people do not realize is that this idea greatly suppresses the differences in the global community of feminism. Understanding the differences are crucial for standing in solidarity with feminist from other countries and backgrounds. How can women be empowering others if we do not even know what they are fighting for? This also means understanding how globalization, colonialism and capitalism has a lasting impact on other countries and need to reconsider advocating and promoting power structures that let that happen. One way of educating oneself on these lasting impacts is by postcolonial study. It’s important to understand historical events that led to how the world is shaped today. Postcolonial study helps us to understand political, economic, socio-cultural and psychological oppression that can still affect women in other countries and their fights in modern times, such as colonization leading to loss of culture, language and heritage. There’s another issue also needs to be conquered if women really do want to help women of other countries. That is that women of third-world countries tend to be grouped as helpless and cannot fight for themselves. These women are nothing less than strong and it’s only doing damage to their fight if they are represented as this. This is because they have to not only fight for the issues they face, but also fight the stereotypical narrative others have about them. So, what does all of this sum up to? A transnational feminist needs to look at issues from a global perspective while also considering how they intersect with our own lived experiences.

I wanted to build my commonplace book project on transnational feminism through not only what it means, but also by including content that show the real-life issues women in other countries face. This not only informs others but helps myself by being educated on what feminism is in other countries, what walls they are trying to tear down and in what ways can one contribute. An issue of Muslim women we took a dive into was what the hijab really means to them. One of the posts I reblogged was a depiction of orientalism which influenced misconceptions of viewing it as a sign of oppression and that Muslim women cannot fight for themselves. This is exactly how western ideology contributes to misrepresenting these women, and if we want to be transnational feminists, we need to step away from the knowledge were told from media and listen to the women who are veiled themselves. Not only can a hijab represent a woman’s devotion to her faith, but also her social status and even more empowering as it contrasts the way commercial industry portrays women. It is important to mention, that yes, some women are forced to cover up and by possible means of violence, but by assuming that all veiled women are oppressed, we depreciate the women who choose to wear veils. Another post that is on my commonplace book page is an animation of a nun and a Muslim women. Both wear coverings and the nun is viewed as just being devoted to god, “but then if a Muslim girl does the same why is she oppressed?”. Why is there a stigma against their veil but not a nun’s? Once again, the only real answer is that westernized feminism ideology is not educated enough to acknowledge the real reasons a Muslim woman wears coverings.

This then leads into another point we learned in class, the issues that surround a single story or narrative that is told. I won’t lie and say I’ve never fallen for a single story as the media contributes to it more than we think. A single story can greatly shape how we view other people’s culture other than our own. For one of our assignments we listen to a TED talk by Chimamanda Adiche, a writer and storyteller from Nigeria. She explains how vulnerable we are to take one story and apply is to everything we know about a culture, especially as children. She herself had written in ways that mirrored what she read, mostly of Americans, as she was not exposed to African writers like herself. She wrote of stereotypical characters from these countries and things she could not personally identify with. As she loved these books, an unintended consequence of only reading and writing these single stories, was that she did not know people like herself could exist in stories. These single stories are not only found in literature, but what we hear from others. Single-stories are all around us and limit our knowledge about other cultures as we are to quick to assume we know everything about it. These single stories often lead us to have negative views about a culture, as most literature starts out with the damage a country has rather than their achievements. She ends her talk with a thought “That when we reject the single story, we realize that there is never a single story about any place”. This is exactly what is necessary to do, not only in the world of feminism but in general. If feminist fail to recognize the many stories that make up a culture or women’s fight, we fail to support them in the first place. Tracking back to Muslim women wearing coverings, I was one that failed to support them because of the single story I had known. In global studies in high school a question came up about hijabs; Should women who are veiled be forced to take if off for security purposes such as at the airport? Well, the story I had known was that in Iran, women are forced to be veiled by law and women were fighting back. So I took that one story of the hijab and applied it to every veiled women, which is wrong. I failed to recognize and be educated on the women veiled to feel empowered or to devote her faith. Taking a step to recognize the fault of accepting a single-story is taking a step towards transnational feminism. If women are wanting to support every other woman, shouldn’t we listen and learn about all of their stories before assuming what they want?

When I look back on what this class has taught me, the biggest take away for me was how to become a better ally, for not only women I have commonalities with but those who come from different cultures than me. It has taught me to be skeptical of that “single-story” construct and if I really want to help I need to listen to the many stories that come from each country. I have also grasped the importance of the art of storytelling is by itself. Not only can storytelling help us understand others, but ourselves too, like how Ijeoma from “Under the Udala Trees” shares her struggles and how she came to be herself, or like femLENS, a group that wants to publicize the everyday events of women near and far through photography. Stories convey the deep history, cultures and values that make us different but unite us at the same time. I learned how one nations choice can lead to the deconstruction of another’s, how historical happenings impact modern day and how that influences what people fight for around the world. These things lead back to the main elements one needs to be a transnational feminism, something more than only worrying about your own struggles and not feeling full until every other woman is full.

[piscespsyche]

C’mon Ladies...Keep it Real

I recently had a conversation with a woman and I had to shake my head and laugh at what I was hearing.  The reason for my reaction was because I had heard what she was saying many times before, from other women, and it didn’t equate to the actuality of my experiences on the subject.  So, I brought to her attention that, although what she said sounded good, it wasn’t true.  This was a perfect opportunity to explain misconceptions on a common subject...dating.  My goal when debating is not to convince someone to feel the same way I do about a certain topic but to provide a different viewpoint of how to look at that topic so that others can understand personal experiences can lead to different views.

It’s no secret that technology has changed and always changes the way we do things in life; dating is no exception.  Technology has moved the world of dating from offline to online.  Today, almost 40% of Americans use online dating.  The rapid rise to online dating and the increased potential to meet someone you would, otherwise, not come into contact with has changed the landscape of dating.  It’s up for debate whether the new dating landscape is for better or for worse.  

So, back to the lecture at hand.  I was asked by my lady friend what I thought/felt about bumble.  After I gave my opinion of the dating app I asked her for her opinion.  She didn’t hesitate to let it be known about her distaste for online dating.  But when she began to explain her preference in dating and the reasons why I could only laugh and shake my head.  Not because I didn’t respect her opinion and feelings on the matter but for another reason.  I had heard what she was saying many times by other women and I laughed those times as well.  In my many years of experience dating, I’ve realized that many women may say what they prefer when it comes to dating but their actions would say otherwise.  The reason I say their actions would say otherwise is due to explanations like the one I received from my lady friend; explanations that are contradictory. 

Points she argued included wanting to meet someone organically in real life.  She stated that she liked eye contact and to be approached and not have to do the approaching.  Apparently, in the world of many women, men don’t approach women anymore or try to strike up conversations organically.  Where she really got me though was when she said guys are creepy or do creepy things that turns her off from being responsive.  It was now time to break down my response to her.

Eye contact used to be a great way to show interest as well as respond to interest.  For some, this is still a useful identifier.  But in my experience, for many women, this is actually not the case.  In a world full of #MeToo stories many women simply avoid eye contact with men they don’t know at all times.  My efforts to make eye contact with women I may be interested in often go unnoticed, purposely.  If I happen to make eye contact with a woman it is usually extremely brief followed by the look of “fuck, I hope he doesn’t come over here now”.  I tend to oblige to that look.  So eye contact is out but what about striking up conversation?  How many of you guys out there have heard a woman say guys don’t approach them anymore and that they wish guys would talk to them if they see them out in public?  But the truth is, as a guy, 99% of women I don’t know that I approach to talk to will assume I want something.  That something usually being to take them home or some sort of sexual outcome.  Because of this dynamic, I’ve come across standoffish women who are reluctant to have a conversation or avoid it all together.  Believe it or not ladies, not every guy is trying to take your ass home! Not every guy is attracted to your ass either.  Some of you all need to remember that or learn it for the first time.  So, if no eye contact and approaching women with conversation leads to a potential date but I want to meet someone offline, what’s next?  Well, I have to put myself in places and positions to be noticed by women who wouldn’t have a problem approaching me.  That’s already a shorter list of women who feel comfortable being the aggressor in that situation.  But this also leads to the “creep factor” my lady friend mentioned as one of her issues.  My problem with the “creep factor” though is that it is extremely biased.  Often, it’s not what a person does that makes them a creep but how the person looks that is doing what he/she is doing that makes them a creep.  Basically, the guy is only a creep if the woman doesn’t find him attractive.  For example, a woman is at a bar with a group of friends and notices a guy by himself sitting in the corner with a drink and people watching.  She then turns to her friends and says “look at that creep in the corner by himself staring at everyone”.  But then, there happens to be another guy sitting at the bar by himself having a drink and watching a game and the same girl notices him and decides to strike up a conversation.  What was the difference?  The difference was how attracted the woman was to the two gentleman.  The creeper was not attractive to her so he was deemed a creep for being by himself and people watching.  The guy at the bar, however, she found attractive so being by hisself wasn’t deemed creepy. Do you need another example?  TLC made the popular song, No Scrubs.  One definition of a scrub was someone trying to “holla” at a woman from the passenger side of car.  Many women today would call a guy a creep for trying to get their attention from a car, whether it’s speeding up or honking the horn.  However, if they find the guy trying to “holla” out the back seat attractive then he is not deemed a creep or scrub.  

Ladies, it is because of the contradiction of your actions versus the words you state when it comes to dating that causes headaches for us men who are trying to be good old fashioned courters.  These days, I find it harder to want to make eye contact or approach a woman I see out in public because of how standoffish many women today are or because they assume I only want one thing.  I know men get the majority of the bad rap when it comes to dating and women have every right to be standoffish in this male dominated society.  But don’t sit up here and say you rather or want to meet someone organically when your standoffish actions say otherwise...just keep it real.

[bravagente]

hello dear mod, thank you for everything you do. i have a question i apologise if it's heavier than the tone on this blog. recently a popular italian blogger said that race in italy is racist&was a product of il ventennio. i am french&i understand that we in europe don't like to say the word 'race', but i just want to understand how the construct of racism in italy, especially with all the far right/macerata from an italian persepective. I did read amara lakhous. thanks for everything you do!

Hi! Sorry for the late answer, it’s just such a complex matter to talk about and I’m not entirely sure I have the right perspective to handle it properly both as a white woman and as someone who lives in a city where that’s still relatively not diverse. Plus I study languages so I’m not really in the area - I basically really wanted to do right by this and I hope I will.

Disclaimer: it is true that in Italy the very concept of race, at least the way we know and use it in English is racist and a product of the ventennio. Whichever its etimology and original denotation, the word race (razza) has been very clearly connotated since Fascism: if you say men have razze, you’re implying some men have a pure, superior razza and some don’t. Nowadays in Italian dogs and horses have razze, not people. So, usually, if someone uses ‘race’ in italian as opposed to, say, ethnicity (etnia, colore), you’ll be quite sure they’re racist. It’s not that just because people don’t use the word they can’t be racist, but it does say something about how hard it is for us to cope with the American concept of race and the discourse that follows. The paradox is Americans are rightly very sensitive and careful about what they call race, when from our pov they’re just seeing it all from an inherently racist perspective: there are whites and then there are “people of colour”, all of them. Basically, a white race and then all those other races. Again, all of them. We can’t quite wrap our head around it, especially since we don’t really have a concept of, say, “brown” people. Come over in August, we’ll all be brown. We like a tan. It’s just beyond us.

Moving on to racism. It is possibly the most divisive thing in Italy right now and any conversation about it will escalate quickly because a) no one ever admits to being racist b) not everyone necessarily knows they are, if they are. Like everywhere else, it’s not always glaring. It’s not always a “racist slurs” kind of thing. There are subtle forms of it even here and not just in the alt right: I believe many liberals are actually as racist as one gets, they just don’t show because they never deal with people of colour in the first place. I once interviewed an otherwise pretty decent man who told me immigrants today don’t actually come here willing to work and therefore should be sent back home, another one praised a city he visited because he saw no blacks selling stuff there. I think it speaks volumes on how complex this thing is getting: you can deal with assholes who are 100% assholes. You can ignore them and decide they’re not worth your time and energy. But when they’re half-decent it’s just disheartening and makes you wonder where we’re going. Another reason conversations about racism often won’t end well is they slip into politics and fascism is far from over. Even though more-or-less openly fascist parties didn’t do well at the latest elections, the winners (League and the Five Stars) are firmly anti-immigration, making it about law and order as any Trump of the world would.

Having said this, race as we discussed it might be rooted in Fascism, but is the same true for racism? It is and it isn’t. There’s evidence that sub-saharian Africans were of always discriminated against. We had our own slave markets we don’t learn much of in schools, and while it’d buy and sell people of any race black Africans were definitely amongst them. There’s recently been a lot of discourse about how (in)accurate Still Star-Crossed was, with someone arguing that Alessandro de’ Medici was just an example of a class of black nobles. I’m afraid that’s not true. If I’m referencing to this particular period of time it’s because Renaissance is a personal interest of mine: The Ugly Renaissance will offer information about racism against dark-skinned Africans in 15th-16th century Italy. While light skinned Africans were considered as white as any European, sub-Saharans were thought to be strong and valuable workers, but also “uncivilized simpletons who could never hope to occupy a position of parity with the white majority”. That was a long time ago, sure, but it was bound to remain embedded in people’s mindset. And it did in ways we’d think were behind us by now.

Now, subtle forms of racism aside, there are many racists of the in-your-face, insulting type, more and worse than I ever thought possible growing up. They’ve actually probably always been there, it’s just now they have the Internet so they feel somehow validated and it’s made them unashamed to be openly hateful and ignorant with the support of the right.

However I have to stress that there many, many many more, non-racists. When fascists parade in our streets, anti fascist marches will follow. There’s always a firm reaction, it’s just decency doesn’t make any noise and rarely makes it to the headlines. Anyway I’ll give a few pieces of news  encapsulating the two souls of Italy:  

Refugee drowns in Venice as people film on their phones and do nothing

Teenager saves black child from getting hit by a train in Milan

Mein Kumpf-owning man shoots black immigrants on sight

Italians protest against racism

Refugee killed in Fermo after defending his wife from slurs

1500 in march to commemorate him

Black man shot to death in Florence

Italians join black people in march to commemorate him

So there’s the bright side I guess, we are genuinely engaged and young people who actually read books know we’re a country with very diverse genes, owing much of our language and culture and even food to “others”. This matters deeply to me because I think othering is the root of most, if not all, issues in our societies. This is a cultural problem first and foremost and I actually believe that. We often speak of inclusiveness or tolerance, but these are all patronizing concepts to me. Who the hell do I think I am to include or “tolerate” someone? No, I have to know in my heart of hearts that “others” aren’t to fear.

Anyway, racism is definitely an issue that exists and that’s getting worse. I’ve personally come to conclude racist behaviours in Italy are caused  and fueled by three broader factors that often inform one another.

Ideology is the most glaring: most racists are unapologetic fascists and racism is mounting and growing together with a wave of nostalgia for Mussolini’s party. A lot of fascists obviously never lived under the Duce in the first place, but they have a misguided perception of the ventennio as a time of justice and order where trains would run in time and so on. Something you’ll hear from time to time is that the duce “ha fatto anche cose buone” (also did good things). To these people, the presence of black people or muslims goes hand-in-hand with crimes and chaos: they’ll rape women! They steal and murder! They’re drug dealers! The fact that these things are sometimes true because eventually a rapist or killer or drug dealer will statistically have to be black is irrelevant: if caught off guard they’ll admit to believing every racist stereotype out there.

Xenophobia is more nuanced. The reason I don’t necessarily associate xenophobia with racism is that, until just a few years ago, the most feared foreigners in Italy were the very white Romanians and even Albanians before them. The media are also to blame for the way headlines were worded and they still tend to, often unwillingly, magnify the one crime someone black commits as opposed to those commited by Italians. The Macerata episode was most probably “inspired” by the killing of a young girl cut into pieces by at least one Nigerian immigrant. What do you now, since the news spread every Nigerian person has become a public enemy. Another huge media-related problem is they’ve created an unjustified alarm on the refugee emergency, treating it as if more people than in the past were arriving in our country (they weren’t) and as if the situation was completely out of control (it isn’t, although it’s not easy either). Crime is just one thing, though: people are afraid because our times are scary and dangerous, there are no jobs and the welfare is dying. They are hoping the government will help them and fearing that we’re too many for it to be sustainable. There’s a common misconception for which every immigrant in Italy is being hosted in a hotel and given 30 euros per day while unemployed Italians don’t have any money to buy food: while you can argue that the immigrant will only get 3 of those 30 euros, Italians still live this as if those resources are being spent on foreigners as opposed to themselves because scapegoating is a human, if wrong, thing. Clearly this is turning into a war of the underprivilegeds that will only result in diffidence and hatred, and the staggering misinformation about black people being all but enslaved in some areas of out country isn’t helping.

Conservativism, finally, is a branch of ideology but it’s not necessarily related to actual racism (though it can be). There are some who are entirely cool with people of other ethnicities as long as they “don’t bother” them. They’re too culturally lazy to accept anything different than what they knew as children, they fear Christmas will be cancelled and they don’t want, say, mosques, because they hardly know what they even are. They’re usually the same people who are annoyed by vegans: probably harmless, but they certainly don’t help.

Again I hope this helps. I really tried to be clear and truthful and not offend anybody.

[fredstokes-blog1]

property damage liability

BEST ANSWER: Try this site where you can compare quotes from different companies :insurefinder.xyz

property damage liability

property damage liability coverage, and collision coverage on a vehicle, and a $60 liability limit $50,000 per accident for each individual and $100,000 $250,000 per accident for the bodily injury of multiple people and property damage liability $15,000 per accident for the injury of one property in one accident If you’re a high-risk driver, you might need collision and comprehensive coverage, which might cover damages to your car. However, comprehensive coverage costs more than collision coverage, and you’ll have to pay more for it than with comprehensive coverage. If you get in an accident that results in multiple injuries, damage to your car, and property damage, your property damage liability needs to cover the other party, not you, for an . If your property damage is deemed a total loss, for example, your car insurance premiums will go up because you have to pay for the repairs. This is why it’s good to have collision and. property damage liability. You can also get a quote for uninsured motorist coverage and . The state requires uninsured motorist coverage, but not all the same. If someone has both an “insured motorist policy” (which means they do not receive any money from your credit card) and a “uninsured motorist policy” (which means they do not receive anything), they can be considered to be in good standing with your credit card. A common misconception when it comes to insurance in general is, “you can be held financially responsible for injuries, property damage, and uninsured/underinsured motorists”. is a very useful tool that will help provide compensation in the event of damages caused by accidents. The basic premise of a “car insurance claim” is that the at-fault driver is held responsible for paying for bodily injuries incurred by other persons, and then they can file a claim by filing a claim with their insurance company for compensation that cannot be distributed to another. property damage liability is a major component of most commercial auto policies. If you are using your car for business purposes, or for personal business, you should look at your commercial auto insurance policy to make sure you are covered. Commercial auto insurance covers not only vehicles but also equipment and drivers inside or outside your car. Anytime your vehicle is out of use, commercial auto insurance can protect you and your drivers, and in most instances, you won t have to worry about any damage to your car during a covered accident. Your commercial auto insurance policy will cover: Commercial auto insurance doesn t cover liability, and in many cases, insurance would be your only protection. If you drive a car in an accident, like in the car in front of you, you should consider collision coverage, which covers injuries to both the driver and his/her insurance company. If you don t own a car or need to insure a vehicle, commercial auto insurance can be expensive. In reality, the cost per month (or less) for a.

How does auto liability insurance work?

How does auto liability insurance work? If you are a driver of any kind or have any sort of licenses that require it, it needs to be very comprehensive coverage. If you have a history of driving without insurance, the court will probably allow you to keep your car and pay its reasonable rates. If you don t have insurance, you do not have driving privilege, in which case, you may have to register your car and also carry any necessary proof of insurance so a court or state will determine if you are driving illegally. The state you live in affects how the insurer decides to handle a driver listed on the policy and that is probably just to determine the limits that the court/state mandates a. If you are a high-risk driver, and you do not have insurance, then it is likely that some sort of insurance will be required. If the policy was bought to avoid the requirement to have car insurance in the first place, then there may be an additional cost associated with having it. One of the biggest reasons to obtain a.

How much auto liability insurance do I need?

How much auto liability insurance do I need? The type of coverage you need should be determined by your state, your personal history, driving history and what sort of insurance coverage would be best for you. Many factors go into that will determine your auto insurance liability limits. Other factors that impact your liability coverage limits include: You can learn how your current auto insurance policy will affect your auto insurance policy in our . What are the factors that affect your auto insurance liability limits? Here are the factors include: What are the auto insurance laws in your state? What are the regulations in your state? What type of auto insurance should I carry? There are more ways you can get cheap car insurance in Minnesota than you might think. There are so many reasons that you might be interested in learning more about how the insurance market will work. If you have questions or would like more information about auto insurance in general, call us today! All Minnesota drivers should be able to insure their vehicles, both regular and temporary. The state has a car insurance policy for drivers.

Home & renters insurance deductibles explained

Home & renters insurance deductibles explained. The average American homeowner pays $1,173 per year for home insurance, but in Ohio, the average annual premium is $1,225, or $73 a month. With the constant AL and OH weather, why pay more? Here’s a breakdown of the  to find the best homeowners insurance in Ohio. Most companies offer discounts for bundling policies, having a cyber safety alert in network, having a claim-free discount, or a home security alarm system discount. Our top picks for the best homeowners insurance companies in Ohio are: American Family, Farmers, GEICO, Nationwide, Progressive and State Farm. We chose Nationwide since it offers the cheapest insurance policies—$825 per year—and the best coverage options (over $1,750 annually). The lowest quote for Ohio’s average annual premium is $1,084, which is $135 lower than Ohio’s average. The cheapest homeowners insurance companies in.

Renters insurance 101

Renters insurance 101 — a lot of things to get confused with (that are not necessarily clear). Most car insurance providers offer discounts for those with lower credit scores, in addition to a variety of other reasons, especially if you’ve ever been denied insurance. In some states, you can get away with buying insurance without making a (or something). However, if a situation arises that requires you to carry . In some situations, such as when you get in an accident (a violation of state law that can cause disqualification), your policy is even more likely to . This is because the company determines that you were at fault, not the driver. This can be devastating if there is a serious injury that requires you to go to other vehicles for transportation. An SR-22, also known as an SR-22, is your proof of insurance. This document proves that your car insurance is active, no matter what the situation. As long as your car shows up on the list of covered vehicles, you�.

What does auto liability insurance cover?

What does auto liability insurance cover? For one thing, liability insurance doesn’t pay to repair your vehicle for accident-related damage. Liability means that the driver who is at fault is responsible for the cost of any car repairs. For a more comprehensive coverage, the liability policy covers a range of car problems including accidents. Liability insurance does not cover damage caused by a property crime. For example, if you are involved in a car accident that results in a minor injury, that person’s liability insurance will not pay for any damages. Your liability insurance policy also doesn’t cover vehicle damage caused by wind, fire or natural disasters. Collision and comprehensive coverage help pay for damages suffered when you are at fault for an accident. They’re similar to auto-car insurance, although they’re only for car damage. Comprehensive coverage is a liability option that gives you options when it comes to how you drive. For example, if you get smashed by a falling tree and your car is destroyed,.

Do I need auto liability insurance?

Do I need auto liability insurance? The answer is yes but it’s not legally required. If you own a vehicle that is involved in an accident, you may still be able to get the proper auto insurance to protect you. You can contact the right insurance company and learn about their policy options. We make it easy to purchase the right auto insurance coverage for our clients at no cost to you. There are only two situations in which you have to buy . It’s very common for automobile owners to be involved in a lawsuit. If you are involved in these types of cases, you will need auto insurance in most cities where it is legal. If you get into an accident with one of these drivers, you can file a lawsuit against the other driver’s insurance company. The other reason you have to buy auto insurance on a non-commercial status in many cases is the costs resulting from a claim. In general, claims are highly cost-sensitive and a lawsuit with no monetary benefit is very expensive-wise..