#both fights end with mike sort of denying will's concerns only to end with them parting ways leaving mike feeling lost in his thoughts

[chirpsythismorning]

🎨📝☎️🛼🌈🚪⏪️💡🫀

Ever Fallen in Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've?) by Buzzcocks

previous ⏮️ now playing ⏭️ next back to playlist

[cosmicjoke]

Alright, and now I’ve reached the final chapter of “No Regrets”, so let’s just dive right in!

There really is so much more to unpack from this story than I think people realize.

Firstly, just a few, truly devastating observations I want to talk about.

The first one being how, even after Furlan gets swallowed by the Titan, Levi still believes he can save him. The fact that he cuts the Titan open from the chest down to his sternum, and free’s Furlan’s arm, and the panels which show Levi reaching out for his hand and ripping him from the Titan’s stomach is just… so heartbreaking.  The way too that he gently carry’s him back to the ground and lays him out, only to discover that his entire lower half is gone, and he’s dead, just the level of trauma you know this must be causing Levi is immense, and beyond tragic.  This is one of only two, true friends in his life, and he’s so desperate to have been able to save him, that he clings on to the possibility to the bitter end, until he’s forced to face the bleak reality. Levi’s devastation is really brilliantly depicted in how he wobbles, as if his knees are weak, when he stands back up.

And then of course comes Levi’s rage, and how he takes it out on the Titans, expressing his grief and pain in the only way he knows how, through violence.  

But maybe the most heartbreaking moment here comes once he’s through killing every Titan there, and he starts to stumble away, and his foot comes into contact with Isabel’s severed head. This is, once more, another area in which the manga improved hugely over the visual novel.  

Levi’s reaction here is just… the most heartbreaking thing ever.  The way he stares when he realizes he’s looking at Isabel’s head, and then falls to his knees, his overwhelming grief here is just so beautifully depicted in these panels, as he reaches out a hand to cover her eyes, and then slides them closed, in an attempt to give her some sort of dignity in death.  The way he can’t even look at her, just doubled over in his grief, just killed me to see.  It’s so unspeakably sad, and conveys to us readers the true depth of Levi’s despair, I think.

And then we move on from this horrific grief, to the climactic moment of the story, when Levi and Erwin again come together, and we see Levi’s overwhelming rage.  Again, this entire scene was a massive improvement over the visual novel.  Well, for starters, in the visual novel, they had Levi cut Erwin’s horse down to bring him to the ground, and again, that’s just so out of character.  Luckily, they fixed that here too, with Levi simply leaping up and dragging Erwin off his horse.

These panels really are amazing too is showing Levi’s intense rage, as he warns Mike to back the hell off, and brings his blade to Erwin’s neck.

What’s really interesting here is what Levi says.  

After the struggle of the choice he made, before Furlan and Isabel were killed, after giving so much consideration and choosing based largely on their own dreams and wishes, Levi tells Erwin here “I’m going to kill you, you bastard.  That’s why I’m here.”.  And Erwin responds, after studying Levi a moment, “So they… all died? I see.”.  Erwin gleans here, both from Levi’s words and expression, that his friends have died, and what he says indicates that he knows the only reason Levi hasn’t tried to kill him before now is because Furlan’s and Isabel’s own well being and their own dreams were the only thing holding Levi back.  Levi made no attempt on Erwin’s life before because he was placing Furlan’s and Isabel’s wishes above his own, but now that they’re gone, there’s nothing to keep Levi from acting out his revenge.  

This is also where we get Erwin’s full reveal of just how in control of this entire situation he’s been this whole time, and how he manipulated every player and outcome to his desires.

This really isn’t something I see get discussed a whole lot when talking about Levi’s relationship with Erwin, and how it started out.  But, unquestionably, Erwin used Levi and his friends against their consent, to achieve his own ends.  He set the whole thing up, from first spreading rumors about having some sort of evidence against Lovof’s embezzlement, to then spreading the information that he was looking to recruit Levi and his friends from the Underground, thereby giving Lovof the very idea of going to them to obtain his own proof of the evidence’s existence, while simultaneously leading Erwin to the definitive proof he sought by following the messenger Lovof sent and intercepting him.  At the same time, giving Erwin a means of throwing Lovof off by using Levi, Furlan and Isabel for cover.  It really is incredibly impressive, but also heartbreaking, the way Erwin used Levi and his friends to his own ends, but of course, perfectly in character for Erwin too, willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his goals. It begs certain questions though about the equality between Erwin and Levi, at least at the start of their relationship.  Erwin clearly had the control and power in this situation, and though clearly he never meant for Furlan and Isabel to die, still, his decision to rope Levi and them into his plans to catch Lovof and also to gain their strength and skill for the SC, did lead indirectly to their deaths.  Surely, if Erwin had never meddled in their lives, and used them as tools, they would have all still been alive in the Underground.  

But of course, this leads into a really interesting clash, then, between Levi and Erwin, and where we see Erwin win Levi over to his cause.  This is, as is becoming a redundant theme of my analysis here, a giant improvement over the visual novel.  There, it makes it seems as if Levi decides to follow Erwin only because Erwin has something Levi lacks, and until he can figure out what that something is, he won’t be able to “defeat him”, implying that Levi is still somehow obsessed with beating Erwin in some way.  Like he isn’t joining Erwin to fight for his dream of a better world, but because he wants to figure out what Erwin has that he doesn’t, so he can become superior, or whatever.  But here, in the manga, Levi’s reasons for deciding to follow Erwin are much more complex, and tied in with his own personal drive of wanting to help and save others, and into his relationship with Furlan and Isabel.  

Levi tells him “It wasn’t worth throwing away their lives!  They were nothing but pawns in your worthless game.  Well, you lose.”, right before he means to take Erwin’s head off.

What’s interesting here is Erwin’s response.  He doesn’t try to deny to Levi that he used Furlan and Isabel and Levi himself as pawns. He doesn’t argue, or try to defend himself on that front.  What he takes issue with is Levi calling the reasons for it a “worthless game”.

Erwin’s entire speech to Levi here really builds off of the feelings Levi had already started to develop, about feeling like he had maybe found a place to belong, where he could maximize the good he could do.  This wasn’t yet a fully formed idea in Levi’s head, up to this point, but the seeds of it had started to form.

Erwin asks Levi who’s responsible for killing his friends.  He asks if it was him, if it was Levi, and then he asks if he really thought that if they had come together to attack Erwin, that they would have made it out alive.  

This is what Levi is beating himself up over, of course.  The belief that he made the wrong decision, in leaving Furlan and Isabel behind, thinking to himself if they hadn’t split up, they would still be alive.  He blames himself for how he came to that decision, and starts to say as much to Erwin here, saying it was his conceit and his pride that was to blame, no doubt thinking of how it was his memory of Erwin and the humiliation he caused Levi that was the final tipping point which decided him in favor of going after Erwin himself, and also how he simply convinced himself that he would be able to shoulder all of the responsibility himself in such a dire situation, remembering how he told Furlan “I can do it by myself!” so insistently, asking him to trust him, to trust essentially in Levi’s strength.  To Levi, in this moment, his own strength must have seemed worthless suddenly, his belief in it leading to nothing but abject failure.   But then Erwin cuts him off and says, emphatically that, no, it was the Titans who killed them, before beginning to talk about how little they know about the Titans, and how if they continue to remain ignorant like that, they’ll never win against them.  He tells Levi to look around himself, and points out how, for as far as the eye can see, there are no walls, and then suggests that, in all that open space, there might be something they can find to free humanity from its despair and imprisonment.  And then he reminds Levi that there are people who want to stop this from this from happening, only concerned with their own profits and losses, content to stay where danger can’t reach them.  He shows sympathy, saying it’s understandable why they feel that way, because they’ve been blinded by the walls for a hundred years, and can’t see past their own survival.

And then he asks Levi if his eyes have remained clouded too.  He’s asking Levi here if he only knows how to live for himself, and if he’ll kill him and return to the Underground to continue to do so, after losing the two people he cared most about in this world.

But of course, Levi’s already learned how to live for people other than himself.  That was his whole reason for coming to the Surface in the first place.  In support and dedication to the hopes and dreams of his friends.  Levi’s eyes HAVEN’T been clouded, he’s already discovered and embraced what it means to give your life for others, already able to see past his own benefit.  

Erwin reminds Levi of that here, and tells him they won’t give up on going outside the walls, before asking Levi to fight with the Survey Corps, telling him “Humanity needs your skill!!”.  He reminds Levi, even after the loss of the two people whom he had been living for up to that point, that he can continue to live for others still, that he can still fight for the hopes and dreams of others, and that he doesn’t have to return to the life of isolation and loneliness and futility that he once lived, that he doesn’t have to return to simply surviving, or fighting only to survive. He’s reminding Levi that his life can mean more than that, just like he realized when he became friends with Isabel and Furlan.  That his life can have purpose, and that, if he lends his strength to the SC, he can do more even than help a few people.  He can, in fact, help all of humanity.  

The following panels show Levi coming to this realization.  He remembers Furlan and Isabel at his sides as they rode out into the open for the first time, into the first, true sense of freedom they had ever known, and their shared awe and wonder at the sight.  And Levi is realizing here, just as he had fought for his friends dreams of freedom, and of a better, more hopeful life, he can continue to fight for the same, only for everybody, for all people.  He can make the most of his abilities, and help the most people, by staying in the SC and fighting at Erwin’s side, fighting for Erwin’s vision of something beyond the walls, of a kind of salvation for humanity.

What Erwin gives Levi here, really, the thing Erwin gives Levi that he before lacked, is a sense of hope. A belief in his own ability to make a meaningful, positive impact on the lives of others.  It’s like Erwin’s own belief in that hope for humanity’s salvation is so strong, that Levi finds himself able to believe in it too, and he decides then and there that, for the sake of that hope, for the sake of the vision of something better, Levi will stay by Erwin’s side.  Because it’s what Levi’s always wanted to do, to fight for the hopes and dreams of others, to fight to make the lives of other people better, and Erwin has shown him the way to do so.  He shows Levi that Furlan and Isabel didn’t die for a “worthless game”, but for the sake of all human kind, and that’s why Levi is able to let go of his anger towards Erwin and follow him.  And that really feeds into Levi’s need, later on, for every soldier’s death to carry meaning.  If he can believe Furlan and Isabel died for a truly important reason, he can accept it and cope with his grief.  Like Isabel expressed herself before, these people genuinely believe their cause is worth dying for, and Erwin reminds Levi of this again.  

So he forgets his anger and pain, and chooses instead to follow Erwin, and dedicate himself to the cause of humanity’s salvation.  

The final panels of the manga are incredibly moving, with Levi slowing down behind Erwin and Mike, and glancing back one last time to where he lost his two, best friends, before looking away and riding on, as the sun shines through the clouds.  Like one, final acknowledgment of their lives together, and the sacrifice they made, before committing himself fully to his new life ahead.

 I’m going to be compiling all of these chapter analysis’ into a single, master post, which I’ll have up soon.  Anyway, I hope whoever took the time to read them found them worthwhile in some way, and thank you so much if you did!  And remember, if you have anything to contribute, or just want to make a comment of any sort, feel free!

[sarcastically-defensive17]

Hey, so I really like your work so I have a request 👀 maybe you could write Luke and reader being best friends but both having deeper feelings, they're roommates but they fight over Luke's gf bc he says that she needs to move out bc his girlfriend wants to move in and she doesn't like reader so she ends up leaving and running with Crystal but she asks to not tell anyone (except Mike for obvious reasons) that she's there and Luke is really worried but he and reader end up together, pretty please

I LOVE THIS REQUEST!! Sorry if I didn’t do it justice, but I hope you like it!

Also I’m so sorry that the layout went weird! I posted it from my computer and now it looks odd on the phone!

Original story by sarcastically-defensive17

Love? Love. - L. Hemmings

"If she gets those fake blonde extensions wrapped around my straightener one more time, Lucas, I will rip them out myself."

He simply sighed, focusing more of his attention on his phone rather than his best friend.

Y/N and Luke has been best friends since they were 17. They kindled their friendship on the very last day of year 12, such as she did with Calum and Michael.

Since that day, as they sat in the barren English Room and discussed everything and anything that came to mind, her and Luke had been inseparable.

She was the Bucky to his Steve, the Yang to his Yin, the regular sized human to his giant stature.

Well, until Suzanna stepped into the picture.

She is 5"7, coated in fake tan that was applied by somebody with the vision of Stevie Wonder and fake blonde extensions that accentuate how beautiful she would be, if she toned down the Geordie Shore look.

Y/N couldn't help but wonder if her personality would be able to shine brightly through the thick foundation, if she had one, that is.

"Thank you for pretending to listen to me, I appreciate it so much," she rolled her eyes.

For the past few weeks the air in the house had been incredibly tense.

"Y/N?" He asked, his voice hesitant. "Can I talk to you about something?"

She couldn't stop her eyes from lighting up. This was the calmest her and luke had been with each other in almost a week, and she would take any chance to talk to him in a civilized manner.

To be honest, the idea of talking to him did nothing to quell the overflowing feelings she had for the man.

"Is that even a question? You can always talk to me, Lu," she sat opposite to him on the lounge, pulling her legs up underneath her.

He was nervous. That was obvious in the way he raked his fingers through his blonde curls. Suzanna constantly hounded at him to cut his hair but Y/N knew how much he loved his hair.

She couldn't deny that she adored the ringlets that decorated his soft locks.

"I've been meaning to talk to you about this for a little bit," he rung his hands together, spinning rings on his fingers. "I, um, I'm gonna need you to move out."

He mumbled the last few words, sighing softly when she asked him to repeat it. It's safe to say, she was at a loss of words.

"You - you want me to move out? Why?" Her eyebrow was cocked, and she tilted her head to the side slightly.

Luke couldn't help but admire how much she resembled a puppy dog. He always found her to be a mix of adorable and purely beautiful. Which is part of the reason he forced himself to say yes when Suzanna asked to take a larger step in their relationship.

He had spent so much time fighting his feelings for Y/N. Suzanna helped, but he still needed to force himself to deny his feelings in favour of the smaller ones he had for his girlfriend.

He was cruel, he knew it.

"Suzanna and I were talking, and we’re ready to move in together. And she couldn't move in here because of-"

"Because of what? Because I can't stand the woman that has cheated on you multiple times?" Y/N was angry, that much she knew. She couldn't believe the audacity. "Why am I not surprised?"

"Well I would love nothing more than for my girlfriend and my best friend to get along but you make it so difficult for Suzanna to get to know you," he snapped pinching the bridge of his nose between his long fingers.

"I gave her a chance before she slept with one of your mates, Luke. As far as I'm concerned, you should have gotten rid of her months ago when she did it a second time."

"Why can't you just be happy for me?" His eyes were narrowed and the blue orbs held the same lack of patience she had seen a lot over the past week.

She opened her mouth to retort but couldn't find the words to say. Truthfully, she was shattered when Luke told her about his relationship, but she decided to be the bigger person and let go of the idea that Luke could be hers. Their friendship has lasted too long for that to be a possibility.

Luke's comment set her off.

"Oh so I am meant to happy for you, with the Geordie Barbie who fucks another guy regularly, but you couldn't be happy for me with Daniel?"

"Daniel was an asshole!"

"And so is Suzanna!"

They were both on their feet now, staring each other down with a ferocity they hadn't seen since an argument in their teenage years.

Sure, Daniel was a bit of an asshole, but Luke knew he was in the wrong for hating the man so fiercely. The moment he had finally worked up the nerve to ask Y/N on a date - a real date - Daniel swept in and the two were together for almost a year until he started getting more controlling.

The last straw was when Daniel flipped because of the close relationship Y/N and Luke shared and Luke threw a punch at him.

"You're jealous," Luke scoffed, his blue eyes aimed anywhere but at her for he knew his anger was unwarranted but he couldn't bare to face the truth about his relationship.

"Excuse me?" She cocked a brow again and he had to glance away quickly as his eyes fell on her for a second.

"You are jealous that I can keep somebody around and you haven't been able to keep anybody around for almost a year." His brows were pinched tight together and he squared his shoulders.

It was easy for Y/N to notice the slight hunch in his posture, a symbol that he was immediately guilt stricken by his words.

"Oh, I'm so sorry that I can't settle for somebody who doesn't deserve me," she barked out a sarcastic laugh, slamming her hand on the bench to grab her keys.

Luke opened his mouth to retort, but she fixed him with a glare so angry that he physically recoiled.

She slipped her vans on at the door, grabbing her bag off of the hook where she organized all of her daily belongings. She was meticulous and Luke had always admired how neat she was compared to his disorganized chaos.

"You wanted me gone? I'm going. Don't bother contacting me til you wake up to yourself," she stomped towards the door, pausing as she pulled the wood open. "I'll have my stuff gone by the end of the week. Tell Barbie to keep my straightener. God knows she fucked it anyways."

The door slammed behind her and the entire house instantly felt as if the warmth was gone.

She went straight to Crystal's house. The woman was packing for the impending move to a new house; one which her and Michael would share.

"So he wants you to move out so that thing can move in?" Her voice was laced with disgust.

All of them despise Suzanna. The woman had hurt Luke more times than they could count, she blatantly ignores or insults both Y/N and Crystal for fear of any sort of threat in her relationship, yet she regularly cheats on him.

Go figure.

Y/N made a noise of agreement around her glass of wine. The minute she had stepped in the door Crystal had phoned Micheal and ordered a Girls Night, to which Y/N profusely demanded that she would make it up to the couple whose date night she disturbed.

"He better hope I don't get my hands on him, Y/N."

"It's not worth it Crys," she sighed, swirling the contents of her glass in a circle. "I've been basically invisible in that house since the Barbie started coming around."

Crystal pulled the girl into a hug. Not many knew of her hidden feelings for Luke, but Crystal figured it out after a week of knowing the pair.

"I'll cut her extensions and glue them to Luke's eyebrows."

<><><><><><>

Exactly a month had passed. Y/N had ordered Crystal and Michael to not speak a word of where she was because she didn't want to see Luke. Instead, she found a small apartment to live in, while she gathered her wits to find a better place.

She knew it was petty, but she didn't have the care to feel guilty.

Luke on the other hand, was going insane and harbored so much regret surrounding his decision that he couldn't bare to think straight.

Moving in with Suzanna did nothing to make the home feel less empty. Y/N had made sure to collect the rest of her things while Luke was out.

She knew his schedule inside and out and used it to her advantage.

Luke wanted nothing more than to see her face. To hear her voice. The time apart made him realize just how deep his feelings went. The same feelings he had spent many years attempting to bury.

Now his only fear was that he would never get the chance to tell the woman how much he needs her in his life.

That, and how he would manage to get rid of the woman who he had caught sneaking out of their house at all hours of the night.

He didn't know what to expect when he entered his house to hear pornographic moans echoing from the bedroom.

He didn't feel angry. He didn't feel sad. He didn't even feel betrayed.

In fact, he couldn't contain his laughter. After all, catching her in the act of cheating on him simply opened the window for him to break up with her without the guilt.

He simply walked towards their bedroom door, which was ajar, and entered with no hesitation.

He was met with the sight of a bare assed male and a moaning Suzanna.

"I'm breaking up with you," he had a wide smile on his face, already planning his next actions with severe determination. He pulled his long curls into a small bun at the back of his head, “Please get out by tomorrow?"

He didn't leave room for her to argue, instead choosing to snatch his keys off of the bench and exit the house while Suzanna called him from behind.

The minute his backside hit the seat of his Jeep, he had the key turned in the ignition and he was dialing Crystal's phone number.

If anybody knew how to get in contact with Y/N, it would be the woman she had the closest bond to.

"What do you want, Luke?"

"Is Y/N at your house?" He asked quickly.

He was met with silence for a moment. He knew that Crystal knew where she was, but he also knew Crystal would most likely be reluctant.

"Why should I tell you? Want to go kick her out of her own house again?" He heard the malice in her voice.

It was obvious that after a month the pain would still linger. He deserved to be spoken to in such a way.

He knew he had a lot to make up for.

A deep sigh sounded through the receiver, and Crystal took another moment to reply.

"She is going to kill me for this, but I swear, you better be taking your breadstick ass over to apologise or I will kill you myself," she recited the address for an apartment not far from where Crystal and Michael now lived, and hung the phone up without another word.

He arrived at the apartment block soon after, and rushed up the stairs - not having the patience to wait for the elevator.

Number 304 shone brightly in his vision, and his heart tugged at the thought of seeing Y/N again.

He knocked with such urgency that caused the girl inside to jump out of her seat.

The door swung open and before she could close it in his face a converse covered foot was wedged between the door and the frame.

He cringed at the pain but refused to move it.

"What do you want?" Her voice was hard, and his stomach lurched at the sound. Even if she was mad, she still sounded more melodic that he ever could.

He chose to jump straight to the point, not wanting to leave room for her to reject him before he could confess.

"I have been in love with you since a few months after we met. I realised it when we were at your house, and you were doting over your baby cousin," His eyes were basically smiling, as he retrieved the fond memory. "Since that moment, I have done my best to push down how I feel about you, but I am sick of hiding it. I just broke up with Suzanna. I walked in on her with another guy, but I can't do this without you. I can't go back to that house for another minute without you there."

She was at a loss for words. He spoke so fast that it took a moment to piece his sentences together, and when she did, she couldn't help the confused look that coated her features.

"You- what?"

"I broke up with Suzanna," he had a wide smile on his face that she couldn't comprehend.

"Finally?"

"Yes. And, I have been in love with you since we were 18."

"Are you sure?" She cocked her head again.

The action made his stomach erupt in butterflies. He truly adored how she could look so cute through a simple gesture.

Y/N was genuinely confused. She knew how she felt about Luke. The month apart from him hadn't done anything to stop those feelings.

She truly had feelings stronger for him than she had for any of her past relationships. If she were to think about it, she would even say that she loved him.

"How could I not be sure?" He pinched his brows together in confusion. He grabbed both of her hands in his, leading her into the house and to the lounge where they both slumped down.

She stammered, "Where did this even come from? How?-"

He moved his hands to the side of her face, framing her confused expression.

She didn't know how to feel. For so long, Y/N had longed for Luke to notice her in such a way, and now that he is admitting that he has felt the same way about her that she had about him for so long, she was truly at a loss of words.

His eyes were full of pent up emotion. He didn't necessarily look sad, but he looked the most apologetic she had ever seen him, and she had been there through many emotions with the man,"Y/N, I'm sorry. Not just for what happened last month, but for everything I have done. I'm sorry I couldn't work up the courage to confess to you so many years ago, I'm sorry I let my jealousy ruin your relationship with Daniel, I am sorry I wasted time with other girls just to try and deny how much I truly adore you, and I am sorry that I ever thought I would be happy choosing anybody over you. I can't stand to live without you, and even if you have zero feelings for me in the same way I feel for you, would you please come back-"

She pulled his hands from her face and put her own on his before crushing her lips against his in an urgent moment of passion.

The contact was full of so much emotion, and it was the most loving kiss she had experienced from any of those who she had kissed.

It was intimate, but not rushed. Simply lips against lips; no pushing to move it deeper.

They pulled back after an unknown time, and she bumped her nose against his.

"I can't tell you how long I have wanted to do that for," she told him, feeling most of her anger melt away along with her confusion.

Instead, they both felt a love that they hadn't felt before.

"Come back, please?" He was ready to beg. Hell, he was ready to not go back to that house until she was ready to go with him.

"My name's still on the lease, you can bet your thick ass I'm coming back. But if I see one blonde hair extension, I will go on the warpath," she smirked at him, staring at his plump lips.

"I'll make sure it's spotless for your return," Luke beamed at her, feeling his nerves both escape his body and ignite at her touch.

"Good. Now get back over here and kiss me some more."

[johnwatsonblog-co-uk]

The Blind Banker

28th March

It all began with Sherlock and I visiting the bank. We'd been called in by an old school friend of his. The man was a banker and pretty much what you'd expect. Someone had broken into their offices and sprayed graffiti across a painting. 

Nothing too interesting about that, you might think. Except that whoever did it, they didn't show up on any CCTV. The bank's offices were like Fort Knox but there was nothing. No sign of who'd done it.

Sherlock worked out that we needed to speak to one of the bankers, ███████████████. So we went to his flat but he was already dead. It looked like suicide but of course it wasn't. The graffiti at the bank had been a warning. A death threat. The police still thought it was suicide and I have to admit... well, it was a locked room. A dead man. Gun in his hand. It did look like suicide.

But Sherlock, of course, had noticed from every little thing in the flat that ███████████ was left-handed and that the gun was in his right hand. He said he was 'amazed' that we hadn't noticed. Sad thing is, he genuinely was. That sort of thing comes so easy for him.

Then, almost as if to confirm that what Sherlock was saying was true, there was another murder. A journalist. He was also in a locked room. He'd also presumably thought he was safe from whoever it was that killed him. We needed to find out whatever it was that connected the two men. Sherlock worked out that the graffiti was like an ancient secret code. So we went to meet a 'friend' of his. I think the correct term is 'delinquent'. I called him much worse.

To cut a long story short, I found myself at the police station, reading ███████████'s diary. And that led me and Sherlock to a Chinese emporium on Shaftesbury Ave. It was a shop full of tat basically but we got what we wanted...the graffiti tags were numbers. Old Chinese numbers. Sherlock then noticed that nobody had been in the flat above the shop for a few days... but that the window was open. So, of course, he had to break in and leave me standing outside while he explored. It turned out the flat belonged to a woman who worked in a museum. By now, I have to admit, I was pretty confused. All these people and places that seemed to be linked randomly. Our visit to the bank seemed like a lifetime away.

The woman at the museum, Soo Lin, was really quite brilliant. She was hiding in the museum, fearing for her life. She was hiding there, though, so she could continue looking after some old Chinese teapots. It was both absurd but also strangely beautiful. I think even Sherlock was impressed by her. She told us about a huge smuggling operation and of an assassin sent to kill those who betrayed the organisation. Which is what had happened to the banker and the journalist.

And which is then what happened to her.

So we worked out that the smuggling ring was trading in Chinese antiquities. Both the banker and the journalist were able to bring them to the UK because they travelled a lot and the gang had contacted the woman because she was an expert in such things. We found out where they were selling what they'd stolen but we still needed to work out what the code meant. We realised that the numbers were references to books. Each bit of the code indicated a certain page in a certain book. The problem was working out which book. It needed to be something that anyone would have.

And, meanwhile, I went on a date. I'd met someone. She's called Sarah and she's great. Sherlock gave me tickets for the circus so I could take her. Only, of course, he invited himself along as well. Mine and Sarah's first date and I've got the madman detective there. I kind of figured that it wasn't going to go well. And sure enough, one minute Sherlock was standing next to us, the next he was on the stage fighting with a mad warlord assassin. Luckily, Sarah didn't seem to mind helping me to help him. We saved his life and then returned to the flat. And Sherlock was, of course, his usual rude and arrogant self, ignoring Sarah. Until she pointed out that Soo Lin had already translated part of the code. Sherlock rushed out to do God knows what, leaving me and Sarah to be kidnapped. The date really hadn't gone well.

We found ourselves being held at gunpoint by an opera singer and her assassins. My main concern was Sarah, of course. She hadn't agreed to this. She hadn't agreed to any of this. And, of course, the biggest irony was that they didn't even want me. They'd mistaken me for Sherlock. They were going to kill Sarah because they thought I was Sherlock Holmes!

Sherlock found us and we managed to escape and shut down the operation. It turned out that they'd been looking for a hairpin. All this madness and death was because of a hairpin! An Empress's hairpin apparently but still, a hairpin. Sherlock even knew where it was...he'd seen it before. And that was it. Case closed. Over a couple days we'd encountered Chinese assassins, killer opera singers, secret codes, secret messages in the A-Z, smugglers and god knows what else. I'd even met a beautiful lady. It was all very James Bond.

I can't deny that I prefer this kind of life. Being a civilian doesn't suit me. But the thing is, this life we've chosen isn't safe. Sherlock chooses to be this crusading consulting detective and I choose to be his colleague. But he's becoming known. People know of him. It's like that taxi driver said about how this Moriarty knew about him. Then the opera singer, she knew all about him. How long before someone else comes after him? And what happens to the people like Sarah or Mrs Hudson when that happens?

All these people he involves in his adventures... They're not safe. We're not safe. There are forces out there and they're coming for Sherlock Holmes.

21 Comments

Are you on drugs?!

Bill Murray 28 March 12:12

I don't understand a word of that!

Harry Watson 28 March 12:15

It was mad and confusing and brilliant. All these people and places across the city were linked by this smuggling ring and it makes you wonder what else is out there. Who's that person sitting next to you? What are they involved in?

John Watson 28 March 13:02

John, this is appalling. It's all 'and then we ran here! And then we ran there! And it was a code!' What about the analysis, John? The analysis! How did I work it out? How did I know where to go? And as for 'All these people he involves in his adventures... '. My what? I'm sorry, obviously I did't realise I was a character in a children's story.

Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:04

Well, you're pretty childish. So if the cap fits...

John Watson 28 March 13:07

Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.

Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Get a room!! Lol!!

Harry Watson 28 March 13:12

you shouldn't talk to sherlock holmes like that. he is a thousand times the man you will ever be

theimprobableone 28 March 13:17

Seriously, you're just weird!

Harry Watson 28 March 13:19

John, my new friend Jim says that we all make our own choices in life. I don't think you should worry about others so much. Did I tell you about my new friend Jim?

Molly Hooper 28 March 13:25

I've just read your blog. He sounds very...sweet.

John Watson 28 March 13:46

He is.

Molly Hooper 28 March 13:48

If he washes his own clothes rather than expecting his landlady to do them, then he's perfect.

Marie Turner 28 March 13:50

It's me, Mrs Hudson.

Marie Turner 28 March 13:51

Bravo again, John!

Mike Stamford 28 March 13:52

Oh yes. Bravo.

Anonymous 28 March 14:06

HOW DO I SPEAK TO THIS SHERLOCK BLOKE? I NEED HIS HELP

Barry Berwick 28 March 14:10

Contact him on his website The Science of Deduction

John Watson 28 March 14:14

Ooh! A new case!! So when do I get to come and visit?!?!

Harry Watson 28 March 15:02

Bit busy right now but I'm sure we'll do drinks soon.

John Watson 28 March 15:05

John! I need you to book me some aeroplane tickets! I'm going to Minsk!

Sherlock Holmes 28 March 15:55

[xtruss]

Voice

Trump Scapegoats China and WHO—and Americans Will Suffer

The White House’s official narrative about the pandemic is contradicted by the facts—and creates new obstacles to stopping the virus.

Trump’s decision to punish others for his own failings is no surprise at this point in his presidency—and still completely reprehensible, writes Laurie Garrett.

— By Laurie Garrett | May30, 2020 | Foreign Policy

President Donald Trump speaks during the daily briefing of the White House Coronavirus Task Force in the Rose Garden at the White House April 14, 2020 in Washington.

On Friday, President Donald Trump declared that the United States would be terminating its relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO). It was a decision both immoral and likely illegal. It also encapsulates the most questionable aspects of the president’s leadership style: his penchant to blame others for his mistakes, his refusal to share the global stage politely with other actors, his indulgence of blind self-interest, and his utter contempt of science.

Trump cited issues he formally raised on April 15 in a White House statement, in which he charged the Geneva-based United Nations agency with “mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic” and claimed that “WHO repeatedly parroted the Chinese government’s claims that the coronavirus was not spreading between humans … [and] praised the Chinese government’s response throughout January.” Two weeks later, Trump ordered the U.S. intelligence community to formally investigate WHO and its relationship with China, amid allegations from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that what he called “Wuhan virus” was either manufactured in or leaked from the Chinese city’s biosafety level 4 laboratory, equipped to handle the most dangerous pathogens. This claim, which Pompeo has repeated many times, had been largely rejected by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which said it “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”

Like a petulant child, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the deaths of more than 100,000 Americans to COVID-19 were somebody else’s fault: China or WHO. “We’re doing very serious investigations. … We are not happy with China,” Trump said during an April 27 White House news conference. “There are a lot of ways you can hold them accountable. … We believe it could have been stopped at the source. It could have been stopped quickly, and it wouldn’t have spread all over the world.” Three days later, Trump went deeper: “It’s a terrible thing that happened. Whether they made a mistake or whether it started off as a mistake and then they made another one, or did somebody do something on purpose,” China started the pandemic.

Top Republican leaders have told me that party polling consistently reveals that China-bashing is immensely popular among Trump supporters and that the “blame China” theme can help reelect the president in November, offsetting some of the disdain many Americans have for his handling of the country’s COVID-19 crisis. Recently published polls show party divides on these issues. For example, in a CBS News poll, 67 percent of Republicans said the new coronavirus was manmade, while only 30 percent of Democrats agreed. A Pew Research Center poll found that most Americans held negative views of the Chinese government and President Xi Jinping but Republican views were consistently more unfavorable. Another survey found 73 percent of Americans, from both parties, saying the Chinese government bears some responsibility for COVID-19 deaths in the United States.

Public opinion about WHO is more complicated. A Politico/Morning Consult poll in late May found 43 percent of Americans surveyed rating the agency’s performance poor or “just fair” versus 48 percent rating it good or excellent. Asked to assess the U.N. agency’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, 35 percent judged it insufficient, 40 percent thought it adequate, and 9 percent said WHO was doing “too much” to fight the virus.

That ambiguity hasn’t deterred the administration from targeting WHO. On May 18, at a virtual gathering of WHO’s World Health Assembly, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told representatives of 194 nations: “We must be frank about one of the primary reasons this outbreak spun out of control. There was a failure by this organization to obtain the information that the world needed, and that failure cost many lives.” Azar called for an independent review of WHO’s performance in the pandemic. Azar was followed by Chinese Health Minister Ma Xiaowei, who announced that China would give an additional $2 billion, above its annual dues, to WHO.

Xi told the same May gathering of the World Health Assembly that he would support an investigation of the early days of the Wuhan outbreak but not until the global crisis had calmed down worldwide. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his staff, for their part, have already delivered detailed accountings of the agency’s activities and statements in December and January. But some crucial context is needed to understand both the organization’s successes and failures. Under its 1948 constitution, WHO serves and deals with nation-states—not civil society, NGOs, private industry, or groups of physicians. Just as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rarely contradicts statements or data issued by any state, WHO cannot typically contradict a nation.

Chinese authorities most certainly did downplay the Wuhan epidemic in December and January, grossly understating case numbers in daily reports to WHO; insisting the virus was only spread from animals in a market, which they closed; and denying that human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 was possible. Physicians in Wuhan who tried to warn the medical world about the emergence of a SARS-like pneumonia virus were severely penalized, as were independent Chinese journalists. One key doctor sounding the alarm, Li Wenliang, died of COVID-19 in early February, and his colleague Ai Fen disappeared in April. Beijing authorities turned down January requests from WHO to send an independent scientific team to Wuhan, and nothing resembling accurate case numbers was officially reported until Jan. 19. Four days later, Wuhan was locked down.

That lockdown ultimately prevented a catastrophic epidemic that, according to a multinational team of independent researchers, would have likely infected more than 7.7 million Chinese, rather than the 114,325 estimated as of the end of February. On the other hand, if China had locked Wuhan down a week earlier, on Jan. 16, some 75,000 fewer people could have been infected. According to two epidemiologists, the United States, which started social distancing under White House guidelines on March 16, might have spared 90 percent of the nation’s deaths had it gone on lockdown two weeks earlier, on March 2. That’s a decidedly uncomfortable finding for the White House.

The central White House allegation, therefore, is that China’s coverup led to an underestimate in Washington of the scale of the COVID-19 outbreak and an inability to recognize the need to prepare the United States. Moreover, because WHO didn’t publicly contradict Beijing’s claims, and twice declined to declare an official public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) before finally doing so on Jan. 30, the Trump administration accuses the agency of colluding with Beijing—in essence, of being a co-conspirator.

But the president’s accusations come despite ample evidence that the U.S. intelligence community provided the White House with detailed, urgent assessments of the Chinese outbreak in December and January and that U.S. personnel assigned to WHO continually fed detailed reports from Geneva.

Implicit in Trump’s charges against WHO is that he acted decisively as soon as the organization provided information about the urgency of the situation. The president has repeatedly insisted that his administration took swift action in late January, when he ordered the cessation of travel from Wuhan and other parts of China. In March, Trump claimed that travel restrictions “saved a lot of lives” and that by late March the numbers saved grew to “probably tens of thousands.” And at a White House briefing on April 7, Trump said: “I was called all sorts of names when I closed it down to China. … If I didn’t do that, we would’ve had hundreds of thousands more people dying.”

But a recent stunning study executed by the evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona has thrown serious doubt on the travel restrictions hypothesis. By analyzing the genetic details of thousands of SARS-CoV-2 viruses, Worobey and his team discovered that the earliest case in the Seattle area, considered patient zero for the United States, did not actually spawn the American epidemic. That individual who arrived from Wuhan to Seattle on Jan. 15 did pass his virus on to a handful of other people, but then, the spread stopped. Though travel restrictions were in place in February, some 40,000 people—including U.S. citizens—entered the country afterward, and one of them arrived in the Seattle area between Feb. 13 and 19, spreading the virus and starting the West Coast epidemic.

Similarly, Worobey’s group showed that the earliest Wuhan-to-Europe cases identified in early February never sparked outbreaks, but a traveler from Hubei to Italy arriving sometime between Feb. 7 and 14 started the huge Lombardy epidemic. And viruses found in New York City are genetic descendants of that Italian outbreak, which arrived sometime around Feb. 20, weeks after travel restrictions went into place.

In other words, if the Worobey analysis holds up—and he is a scientist who has built his career on similar genetic mapping of HIV and influenza outbreaks—most hard-hit nations got slammed with the coronavirus after travel restrictions were instituted and after WHO issued its PHEIC. And that includes the United States.

Nevertheless, tensions and blame have only escalated between the Trump and Xi governments, exacerbated by the National People’s Congress vote this week to revoke crucial aspects of Hong Kong’s freedoms and democracy. Both Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington have strongly condemned Beijing’s effective revocation of the 1997 U.K.-China pact guaranteeing the territory of Hong Kong relative independence until the middle of this century. And Chinese leaders have counterattacked in a war of COVID-19 words.

On May 28, the Chinese state media outlet People’s Daily labeled Trump’s domestic response to COVID-19 “incompetent” and the American death toll “one of the darkest moments in U.S. history.” Mincing no words, the editorial denounced Trump personally: “While there are many factors at play, a key factor behind the high numbers was the Trump administration’s mishandling of the coronavirus crisis. … America, the most powerful country on the planet with the most sophisticated medical technologies, did not have to lose so many lives to coronavirus. The Trump administration squandered vital time as the coronavirus spread across the country. … [T]he grim milestone is a failure of epic proportions on the part of the Trump administration.” The next day, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from WHO.

In all likelihood, Trump can’t legally pull the United States out of WHO without giving the agency a large amount of money and can’t unilaterally do so without a vote of approval from Congress, according to the global health legal expert Alexandra Phelan of Georgetown University. Though the WHO constitution does spell out how a nation may withdraw, Phelan says, it is clear that a departing country must settle all its debts with the agency. And joining WHO required U.S. Senate ratification. Exiting would require Senate approval, payment of all debts, and a full year’s notice. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks such things, U.S. dues, which are assessed based on national GDPs, have ranged year by year between $107 million and $119 million over the last decade. In addition, the United States commits up to $400 million annually in voluntary support, making it the single largest donor to WHO. The 2020-2021 budget for WHO is $4.8 billion. The Trump administration has been a scofflaw, having never paid $81 million of its dues in 2019 and none of its $118 million for 2020. And $900 million in Obama administration commitments made for 2018-2019 have not been honored by the Trump White House.

If Trump can get over the congressional and financial hurdles, he still faces significant moral hazards. Most of the agency’s spending is on health programs for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. In addition to the loss of U.S. funds, WHO is facing a $1.3 billion shortfall in funds from other sources and cost overruns due to emergencies, including the Congolese Ebola epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immunization programs worldwide, including the polio eradication effort, have suffered thanks to lockdowns and diversion of public health and medical personnel to the COVID-19 fight. On May 22, a host of international organizations, including WHO, warned that 80 million children under the age of 1 were at risk of acquiring measles, diphtheria, polio, and other vaccine-preventable diseases. With the United States withdrawing its financial support from WHO, those vaccination efforts will likely suffer further setbacks.

The U.N. estimates that 130 million people could sink backward into extreme poverty due to the pandemic’s impact on the global economy, creating further health needs. Malaria programs worldwide have been disrupted by supply chain issues and lockdowns, which have interrupted the delivery of mosquito nets, drugs, and testing equipment.

In addition to imperiling the lives of the poorest of the world’s poor, the United States is, by quitting WHO, sending more signals to the world that the Trump administration intends to go its own “America First” way in the coronavirus fight. But the rest of the world is hurriedly forming trade and research alliances, committing to working together to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19. Some of these collective deals have been forced inside WHO; others are regional pacts—the Trump administration has joined none. While it is certainly possible the first effective vaccine is invented and developed by a U.S. company, it is at least equally likely the innovation will come out of China, Europe, Asia, or perhaps Latin America—and the American people might find themselves at the bottom of the list for access to the life-saving supplies because Trump opted out of all international agreements and cooperation.

“We need to be engaged with other countries for the benefit of people who spend their time in places like Detroit,” former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said this week. “This is not primarily a moral issue. This is a forward defense of our national security interests.”

Trump screwed up his tariff fight with China in 2019, forcing enormous subsidies for American farmers facing bankruptcy due to the loss of grain and livestock exports. When COVID-19 first appeared, Trump was trying to realign trade deals with China, so he confidently told a gathering of financial elites at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that China had the epidemic under control and that there was nothing to worry about. When it turned out that the epidemic was a pandemic, Trump issued the travel restrictions and assured Americans that there was nothing to worry about. As it became obvious that there most definitely was a great deal for Americans to worry about, amid national spread of the coronavirus and a wildly chaotic federal response, Trump blamed China. It didn’t take long for the U.S.-China blame game to grow toxic. Then the president added WHO onto his list of scapegoats.

The pain for this childish abhorrent behavior will now be felt on the COVID-19 battlefields and in every poor community that relies on U.N. agencies for emergency food, child immunizations, essential medicines, and guidance. Trump’s decision to punish others for his own failings is no surprise at this point in his presidency—and still completely reprehensible.

— Laurie Garrett is a former senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Pulitzer Prize winning science writer.

[therisingtithes]

The Reeducation of Rare Pepe

On The Transferrence of Communicative Abuse, and The Phases of The Moral Turn

I didn’t plan on writing this one. 

First of all, my fiction has been kicking me in the rear lately, so I haven’t been doing a lot of long-form blogging because I know I’ll get so intensely focused on its premises that it’ll take four hours or more to craft one piece and I could use that time literally finishing a short story right now. 

Second, even the thoughts I had about the last few PBS Idea Channel videos were overwhelmingly boiled down to ‘wow!’, even when I had questions to ask. Like, what do Bee Movie technical memes say about diligence? Doesn’t Westworld essentially include the premise that one doesn’t ‘find’ a self, but that the act of making one directly proceeds nihilism? Why does everyone automatically assume that artificial intelligence will be the future state of Rawls’ original position even though not only did Mike explicitly state that systems bear their designers’ biases but recent digital history has proven that those biases are literally self-maintained and self-replicating institutional kyriarchy with a side of mismanagement? (Okay, that last one is less of an interesting tangential discourse and more of a heavy frustration, but still.)

And then there was the fact that I didn’t really want to talk about something related to this for a while. 

(By this I don’t mean ‘Pepe’, but the looming threat of white nationalism in the wake of the Trump administration.) Because we’re going to talk about things like this a lot. And it will be tiring, and it will be valuable for all actors in this discourse to be well versed in pacing themselves. 

And because I already wrote one of the myriad pieces you’ll see online about punching Nazis. Hell, I have a Twitter bot, if anyone cares. 

And I want to be sure: I think it was a less than ideal way to engage with the discourse. 

I am not saying I don’t agree with punching Nazis. Or that the post did a bad job of illustrating why one should punch Nazis. 

I’m saying it because there is so much room to talk about why one should be willing to physically resist white nationalist speech, among other speech acts, 

namely the fact that there is a moral, philosophical, and legal framework that already exists to challenge violent speech acts, 

but in order to empower violent speech acts, it’s so underutilized by the existing power structure that people literally have said that they didn’t know it existed. 

So I want to talk about Pepe as backdrop to answer one of @mikerugnetta‘s final questions at the end of the latest PBSID video: 

... can you ignore those extremists, as the Rare Pepe Directory people suggest? 

But... I don’t care about Pepe. Or at least I don’t think I do? I care about the history of the swastika, a bit, but people have been split on how to proceed with that as well. So I’m not asking if we can ignore their treatment of Pepe. 

I’m asking if one can, or should, ignore extremist speech acts at all. 

a. There’s A Rule For This Sort Of Thing (And It’s Already Broken) 

It’s worth opening with the acknowledgment that it is perfectly politically possible for the United States, like other nations, to not be in the position of having to ask itself how white nationalist extremism and fascist sympathy came to fester in its space. 

In fact, legally, the United States has an antidote for just this kind of problem. It just hasn’t refined that antidote or bothered to adequately administer it in quite some time. 

That antidote is the fighting words doctrine. 

One of the things that I found most alarming in the growing discourse about the threat of white nationalism in the West is that many people seemed to look over the irony that there is a philosophy-of-language idea called hate speech but that it is legally unobserved for not being a solid enough concept to critique. That is, many people insisted that there is no hate speech legislation in the United States, and that the fact that there is none means not that the US is legally incapable of being critical enough to punish hateful speech acts, or that the US can become so legally incapable, but that hate speech is not a real speech act. 

You know. The speech act that has uniquely identifiable characteristics, like the intent to dehumanize, incite prejudicial action against, or threaten imminent violence upon a marginalized individual or group? 

Not real. 

Which means that when a man writes an article within which he argues that it may be a valuable question to ask how much better the world would be if the US eradicated Black people, it as a result is minimized to the status of merely ‘an idea’ - or worse, ‘just words’.

Part of that difficulty, of course, is directly related to Americans’ strict--and, resultingly, quite lax--understanding of harm. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Snyder v. Phelps both seem to lean toward the notion that what constitutes a violation of fighting words doctrine is whether those words actually lead to violence. That is, words are only fighting words if people do fight. 

But it’s because no one has ever had any more serious conversations about institutionalized violence against marginalized groups that very few have considered the impact of simply the threat of inciting discrimination can have. 

What’s interesting is how it proves the philosophical weakness of the present approach to freedom of speech in general--that the legal limitations that are observed regularly have such a privilege because we are clear about what kinds of things have consequences upon their uttering, but when those consequences affect the lives of others in long and harrowing ways, we are slow to actually engage. 

This is the crux: no idea is worth more than a life unless that idea values life. There are lots of ideas that constitute no value, and we have no problem challenging their value publicly. But when those ideas are fundamentally about the destruction of others, they are not merely of no merit--they are considered intensely unjust. Some statements are not ‘ideas worthy of debate’, they are threats to persons. Suffice it to say in comparison that if an agent of ISIS writes a blog post which says that they wish to destroy America, the intelligence community doesn’t head up their briefings by first going ‘Let’s hear them out first’. Treating ideas such as white nationalism as defensible speech on the merit of being speech means that it is defensible to commit any speech act on the merit of it being a speech act, which the law already doesn’t permit. But more deeply, to argue that a person’s dessert of dignity under the law is debatable as a result of their identity is already a lie--your Constitution says so--so is arguing that they shouldn’t have it any more legally or morally defensible? 

If a group says something to signal to marginalized people that they are viewed as lesser, as physically disposable, as people whose physical destruction is in fact a moral imperative to that group’s political ends, then as a rule their act is concerned with an incitement to violence. If it being imminent is the primary concern, then a threat would only be illegal if they acted on it immediately, and would only be punishable if the victim actually suffered. 

If it’s not true for small threats, why is it true for large ones? 

That is the thing which we are not ignoring: the threat of consistently looming violence, the threat of a widening conspiracy to commit violence and prejudice, a threat which is at the root of every related connection of violence which is born from it. 

In some US states, the crime of calling a bomb threat is penalized by twenty years in prison and a fine of $50,000. 

In the month of January 2017, there was an undeniably concerted increase in bomb threats made to Jewish centres across the United States. 

That spate is therefore punishable. But that spate is directly related to festering antisemitism. And that antisemitism can so fester precisely because it cannot be observed for what it is: an incitement to prejudice and violence against a marginalized group of people. 

b. The If/Then on Nazi Pugilism Theory And Praxis 

It should follow immediately, then, that discourse on punching Nazis should be equally punishable, no? 

That if talking about the destruction of socially marginalized groups is an offense to open communication and the dignity of all men, then talking about breaking the noses of those who talk about such aforementioned destruction is equally offensive? 

Because I’m inclined to insist that it is. Philosophically speaking, it should be equally criminal to punch, or discuss the right of punching, a Nazi. 

... hence the loop? Observe, as a result, that said loop is not closed! That if I should be punished for discussing the moral right to punch a Nazi, then the Nazis should already be in cells, already emptying their pockets of the same thousands that I don’t have! And if they’re not, and not going to be, then the moral bankruptcy of holding me accountable for challenging other people’s lack of moral accountability is visible in neon. 

(This loop also exists re: discussing white nationalist speech as hate speech. Inevitably someone will say that this means that saying that Nazis shouldn’t have the right to threaten people removes their free speech, which means I want to deny people rights, which has already been stated above as the reason we’re here--ignoring that there is already a philosophical, moral, and legal framework under which white supremacist speech is indefensible.) 

There is an antidote for widening abuse against marginalized groups for some time now, and it is visibly apparent that it will spread more rapidly and more violently in the coming periods. If you’re really going to tell people that it is more of a moral nonstarter to wish to physically resist violent ideology than it is that violent ideology can intimidate and prejudice and not be considered fighting words uttered in public, then the flaccidity of free speech ordinance makes its efficacy in protecting others moot. 

That is to say that, in order to avoid a chilling effect placed on actual racist speech and their speakers by punishing it as fighting words, you have instead enacted a chilling effect on Jews and Muslims, among so many other marginalized groups. Which signals less that you care about preventing chilling effects in general, and more that when pressed to choose the system is empowered by its biases to prioritize the prejudice of Jews and Muslims (among so many other marginalized groups) and delegitimize the imminence of threats of violence against them. 

If that system cannot rightly protect Jews and Muslims,  and if MLK’s words that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” can even be considered worthy of debate,  then it must reasonably follow that any law, or enactment of law, which delegitimizes the imminence of threats of violence against marginalized persons must be broken. 

And that means that one should be able to say that they want to punch a Nazi until and unless the law finally penalizes white nationalist hate speech. It means that one who is opposed to the political idea that destroying people of colour would be good for society should not stand for being punished for saying they’d punch a Nazi before white nationalists are punished for their hate speech. 

Not that they should never be punished. Only that if a system doesn’t punish a consistent trend of terrorism, then its decision to punish those who oppose it is nothing but another arm of terrorism. 

It also means, though, that in the wake of a threat of violence, one should be willing to physically resist aggressors precisely because the law is unjust, and as such will not defend marginalized people in such an instance. 

c. The Phases Of The Moral Turn 

A brief segue--not really a segue, because we get to the meat of engaging with unjust systems and their objects--into a critical tool I have become fond of applying. 

Think of every moral and political act that one takes as the turn of a game called Civic Activity. 

Your opponents are those whose moral and political decks--the ideologies which they value and stand for--are so at odds with your own and their goals that the act of their play puts them in a position for you to counter. (This is a moral principle in general; it is neither left nor right, neither moderate nor extreme. Political acts interact with opposing acts and their actors.) 

In a trading card game like Magic: The Gathering, considering the ideal moment, the proper layer, within which to play a card is the strategic foundation upon all the complexity of its play is based. At some moments it is a matter of whether the card can be legally played--sorceries are available only at particular points in one’s turn, for instance. At most others, though, it is a matter mostly of effectiveness--the awareness that if you do not pay close attention to the state of the field of play, do not know deeply the best moments to play certain cards, or forget to ideally act in those moments, your best shot will be lost, and it will cost you the progress required for victory. 

There are, then, phases of a moral turn. At its simplest, it is knowing not only what kinds of actions are played at what ‘speeds’--phone calls and social media awareness are cantrip instants, but some other acts cost more and must be played only upon their triggers, like the commitment to voting--but also knowing that one has a moral responsibility to play the best card for the best moment at any moment where victory is not assured. 

If the state of the field of play then threatens to disenfranchise and physically abuse marginalized people, and if the opponent has had a very good turn to establish their foothold on such a field, 

then one of your essential best plays is any play which counters the loss of marginalized lives long enough for you to remove the enchantments and equipments they have played to promise such losses. 

It means not only challenging and undoing the legal structures that threaten marginalized people. It means confronting enemy plays which threaten to imminently cause such harm. It means being willing to stand in front of the people who wish harm, and it also curiously means being willing to physically resist them. 

Now, in this analogy there is a clear difference. In Magic terms, there is a difference between ‘target creature cannot attack’ and ‘tap target creature; this creature doesn’t untap during its owner’s untap step’. There is also a difference between these two and ‘destroy target creature’. 

In the real world, people cannot be regenerated. 

So by the most basic assumptions of ideal play, any action which can tap people who wish to cause harm should be taken before they cause harm. It follows that, if you can assess such a threat early on in the turn, before they have even begun to cause harm, you should take that action if you can, so no harm can ever be done. 

The state of play encourages white nationalists to publicly preach tenets of their ideology which specifically delegitimize the concerns of people of colour, among other marginalized groups. 

What is your best play,  and when shall you deign to make it? 

d. End Step 

So, to close: we cannot let hateful speech continue to be played in a landscape if we want that landscape to value and protect marginalized people. A system which ignores obvious harm to others on the part of white nationalist fighting words possesses no power to then use that system as a defense from resistance without tacitly confessing to valuing white supremacist terrorism. 

... oh right I should mention Pepe, shouldn’t I? Argh. Okay, I’ll say this much: 

Much of the things Mike says about Pepe and polysemy are things I have thought for some time without finding words for, and I’m sure even smarter people than Mike have written reams about the transition of the swastika long before today. But I am not sure, to that final question, whether it is valuable to ignore their extremism precisely because others are not. Others are being rallied by such extremism, which is deliberate and well-crafted to a fearsome degree. 

I guess my question is that it is not enough to try to redeem Pepe, but to find ways to confront the Pepes that are simulacra of truly terrible people. Those people will continue to rally, after all. Unless those people and those Pepes can be rightly considered unjust speech actors and unjust speech acts respectively, we will continue to have this problem of what worth it has in pop culture discourse and how we should respond to it. 

This is not the same as countering their speech, of course, and I can see attempts to ‘reclaim the Pepe’ as potentially valid. But I’m also valid because while I care about the discourse, I don’t care about Pepe. I can’t talk to you about how to ‘separate’ what are simply multiple frames of one character, because I don’t care enough about that character or those frames to see them as such distinct creative objects; and seeing as I didn’t care for the meme at its inception, I can’t say I’d miss it if it died as a result of its present association. Neither of these things are true of my critical assessment of the swastika, something fundamental to some people’s understanding and practice of faith. 

I will say that I do think it’s just overwhelmingly hard to do. Its growth as a meme is directly related to its prevalence as a white supremacist symbol; if it weren’t Pepe, some other anthropomorphic memetic would have taken its place. Would you really want to imagine it? A parallel universe where we lost Doge instead? Nah, I’m good, fam. 

Which means that it would probably better, to preserve the purity of the character as designed, to... put it out of its misery. To acknowledge that the rot has spread, tell Pepe goodnight, and move on. Because as long as there is a Pepe, and as long as that Pepe is beloved, people will corrupt it knowing that it will remain visible in pop culture. They’ll do it for spite. And this conversation will live longer than we are. 

Either ideas mean things or they do not.  If they do, either they are stated with an intent toward action, or they are not.  If they are, any idea which is stated with an intent toward devaluing people of colour with an intent to guide imminent prejudice and violence is indefensible. 

But then citizens have to challenge so much more speech acts than just Pepe, and because history hasn’t been challenging these speech acts, this mess persists. 

[rowdywarrior85]

STRANGER THINGS PRESENTS: WHEELERS VS HARGROVES (PART 2)

TED: Uh, honey. This, uh, woman is here to speak with you. She says she’s, uh, Billy’s mother.

SUSAN: Uh, excuse me, it’s step-mother.

TED: Right, sorry.

KAREN: Oh, hi. So lovely to meet you. Karen.

(Karen and Susan shake hands.)

SUSAN: Susan. Pleased to finally meet you, can we talk, please?

KAREN: Of course. Nancy, can you get the lemonade, please? Ted?

TED: Yes, Karen?

(Karen urges him away.)

Girl talk? Gotcha. Oh, and Karen, I’m glad you didn’t go through with, you know.

(Karen mouths a “thank you”, then urges him out of the kitchen.)

(Ted throws his hands up.) OK.

(Nancy hands Susan a cold glass of lemonade.)

SUSAN: Thank you. I’m sorry to come in here like this.

KAREN: Oh, don’t be. I don’t know why we don’t ever meet Billy’s parents.

SUSAN: Oh, we have our reasons. Look, you can obviously guess why I’m here. I couldn’t help but chime in on your conversation. My husband and I know you’ve been talking with Billy.

KAREN: Well, we’ve had our moments.

SUSAN: Look, try to understand. I know Billy has this allure about him with girls AND mothers, of course, and he’s beautiful.

KAREN: Of course.

SUSAN: (sips her lemonade) But, nothing could be farther from the truth. He’s always angry, all the time, even before me and my daughter, Maxine became a part of his family. He and Maxine would always be at extreme odds with each other.

NANCY: Me and my brother, Mike, would be at odds with each other at times. But we would never be your definition of “bad”.

SUSAN: True. But, as bad as Billy can be, his father, Neil, is even worse.

KAREN: Oh, come on. He can’t be all that bad, can he?

NANCY: He actually is, Mom.

SUSAN: He is. He and Billy would get into fights almost everytime Billy stepped out of line in any way. Sometimes verbal, but mostly physical.

KAREN: Well, didn’t Billy’s actual mom having anything to say about this?

SUSAN: Neil never said a word about his first wife. One time at dinner, I unexpectedly brought it up, and Neil would stare at me for a second. Then turn and stare at Billy like he had something to do about her leaving them behind.

KAREN: He isn’t the same with you, is he?

(Susan sheds a tear and sniffles.)

Oh, honey.

SUSAN: You have no idea what it’s like; stepping on broken glass everyday, doing whatever means necessary to avoid confrontation.

KAREN: Honey, I’m so sorry, but… why would you ever marry yourself to such a…

NANCY: Shithead?

KAREN: (winks at Nancy) Right.

SUSAN: (sniffles) Before becoming Mrs. Hargrove, my first husband, Maxine’s father, was a lousy husband and provider, basically a slacker. But, despite all that, he was a good father to her. But I wanted responsibility in my spouse. I thought I’d gotten the perfect package with Neil.

(voice breaking, sips her lemonade) I was wrong both times. It’s stupid to you, I’m sure.

KAREN: No, I get it, Susan, I do. There are times in a housewife’s life, and I just realized this. Sometimes, you have to make due with what you have, even for the sake of your children. Never settle for more… or less.

(Both mothers share tearful smiles at each other. Just then, the phone starts ringing.)

Damn, hold that thought, I’ll be right back.

(Karen makes for the phone.)

SUSAN: Your mom is… quite insightful.

NANCY: I never knew how insightful.

KAREN: (picks up phone) Wheeler Residence. Oh, Liz, hey. How’s your pool day? What? Slow down, what’s wrong?

(On the other end, Liz and the Mom Squad are trying to warn their fellow Mothers-At-Arms about the approaching danger.)

LIZ: Karen, listen to me. Billy’s father was just here, starting some shit, and of course talking to Billy. He even asked about you, specifically. We think he’s on his way over to you, right now.

KAREN: Well, Billy’s step-mother is here with me right now.

(By saying that, Liz knows the Hargroves have already made it to the Wheeler residence.)

LIZ: Karen, listen to me. Hang up now, and call the police. Don��t answer the door til we or the cops get there. Do you understand?

(At that moment, Karen and Nancy hear a truck horn blaring out front. Susan starts sweating bullets.)

NANCY: What the Hell?

TED: What in the name of…

SUSAN: Oh, fuck.

KAREN: Liz, can I call you back?

LIZ: (over phone) No, Karen. Call the…

(Karen hangs up the phone.)

Hello, Karen!

(Hangs up phone.) SHIT!! Girls, grab our shit. I’ll get the car.

(Back at the Wheeler residence, Neil is still blasting his horn, informing Susan that her 5 minutes are up. In the house, the adults contemplate on what to do next.)

KAREN: Let me guess, the asshole father.

SUSAN: I’m afraid so.

KAREN: Ted, where’s Holly?

TED: Living room, watching cartoons.

KAREN: OK. Nancy, can you take Holly upstairs to her room, please?

NANCY: Mom…

KAREN: Nance, this has nothing with you whatsoever, so just take Holly upstairs, please.

(Nancy looks to her mom with concern, then looks to Susan. Susan nods in affirmation, then nods her upstairs.) Nancy then make her way to Holly.)

NANCY: (turns off TV) Holly, why don’t you go upstairs and play in your room, OK?

HOLLY: Why?

NANCY: Mom and Dad are about to have a very grown-up conversation.

(Nancy leads Holly upstairs, her and Karen nod at each other.)

KAREN: So, who wants to take the plunge?

SUSAN: Oh please, don’t jump out all at once.

TED: (deep inhale and exhale) You ladies stay inside…

(The moms look shocked at Ted.)

…I’ll handle this.

SUSAN: Sir, I rather you didn’t. Neil used to be in Vietnam, so he’s crazy. He’s really fuckin’ crazy.

TED: Ma’am, I negotiate with bankers after breakfast. I believe I can handle one loony Republican.

KAREN: Ted, listen to me. You really have nothing to prove to me, you don’t have to this.

TED: You’re right, Karen. I don’t have to.

(Ted touches Karen’s cheek.)

As your husband, I want to.

(Ted makes for the front door.)

KAREN: Susan, get behind the prep table.

(Both women get behind the prep table.)

SUSAN: Not to get your hopes up, but my husband is gonna destroy your husband.

KAREN: No shit.

(As Ted opens the front door to face off against Neil, Karen’s eyes the knife set on the prep table. Outside, Neil steps out of the truck to see Ted stepping outfront.)

NEIL: Do I have the privilege of addressing Mr. Wheeler?

TED: That you do, sir. Ted. You, uh, Mr. Hargrove?

NEIL: Neil, if you please.

(Neil walks right pass the lawn to the walkway, much to Ted’s dismay. Only the row of bushes stand between the two patriachs.)

TED: So, uh, what can I do for you, Neil?

NEIL: Actually, there is something YOU can do for ME, Ted?

TED: Really? And, uh, what would that be?

NEIL: I was wondering if my son has been by your residence.

TED: And your son would be…?

NEIL: Billy? Yea-tall? Long, curly blonde hair? Bit of a prick?

TED: Yeeah, I don’t think I’ve had the pleasure.

NEIL: (takes a swig) You see, Ted, I got this scenario in my head lately. It’s really scaring the shit out of me.

TED: Really, how so?

NEIL: Your beautiful, defiant wife who’s married to a bureaucratic dipshit like you, engaging in a lustful affair with my 18 year old son. And it’s very fucking disturbing.

(Upstairs, Nancy gets Holly into Holly’s room.)

NANCY: Now, Holly, I want you stay here in your room and play, no matter what you hear. I’ll tell you when it’s safe to come out, do you understand?

HOLLY: I understand.

NANCY: (kisses Holly’s forehead and smiles) I love you.

(Nancy then goes to the dresser in her room. She opens the dresser drawer to reveal her tape recorder she used to bring down the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY lab last year. She then pulls the drawer back more to reveal the Byers Family .45 Revolver and ammo she got from Jonathan the year prior. Nancy looks at herself in the mirror, contemplating what she’s prepare to do. Meanwhile, back out front…)

TED: So, um, let me see if I understand what you’re saying. You believe that Karen, my wife of 20 years, is having some sort of an affair with your 18 year old son. Is that what I’m hearing from you, Neil?

NEIL: I do believe that was the point I’m making here. Either you don’t know about it or don’t give a fuck.

(Ted starts laughing.)

Something funny, Ted?

TED: Obviously, Vietnam has not been very kind to you, sir.

(Neil starts raising his eyebrows.)

Look, Neil, I don’t know what else I have to say to make you understand. Your son… is not… here, and believe me if he was, I’d certainly know about it.

NEIL: Really? Well, how bout I ask your wife personally.

(Neil tries to pass Ted, but Ted puts his hand up, holding him back. BIG MISTAKE.)

TED: Yeah, I don’t think that’s such a good idea, being in your state of mind at all.

(Neil looks down at Ted’s hand, trying to stop him. Then he looks back at Ted.)

So, why don’t come on back next time when you’re so-beeeerrrr!

(Neil then proceeds to twist Ted’s arm, getting his back. He then forces Ted to the door.)

NEIL: How about to let me in, right now.

TED: (groaning) Alright, alright.

(Ted opens the door. The ladies look on in fear as Ted is helpless in Neil’s grip.)

KAREN: Oh my God. Ted!!

TED: Sorry, Karen. I tried.

(Neil tosses Ted roughly on the stairs.)

NEIL: Thank you for your cooperation, Ted.

(Neil then lands a swift kick in his nuts.)

TED: (strained voice) Anytime.

(Neil then walks to the kitchen, about to face Karen.)

NEIL: Well, well, well. (sniffs) Karen Wheeler, I presume. I’ve heard so many things about you.

KAREN: Oh, I deny everything.

NEIL: Oh, sure you do. Perhaps you can answer the question in which your inept husband was unable to answer.

(Nancy, carrying her purse across her torso, tries to creep past the conversation, but Karen’s eyes give her away to Neil.)

Oh, this must be your daughter?

(Neil turns back to Karen.)

Perhaps, she’ll want to join us.

KAREN: Mr. Hargrove, leave my daughter out of this. She has nothing to do with this.

NEIL: Nonsense, I want her to be here.

(Neil points at Nancy.)

You, come down here and join us. Perhaps you’ll like to know what kind of ungrateful shut your mother is. Stand over there with my wife and shut up.

KAREN: Do what he says, Nancy.

TED: Nancy, just be rational.

NANCY: Dad, just stay down and shut up.

(Nancy walks cautiously behind the prep table with Susan. Neil then focuses his attention back to Karen, inching up next to her.)

NEIL: Now, Mrs. Wheeler. I’m gonna ask you one simple question, and you better give me a solid answer. Has my son, Billy, been by your house? And if so, have you been fucking him?

KAREN: (puts hand on her hips) First off, he WAS here last year, looking for his step-sister. Secondly, that’s not exactly what a rational parent would ask, because, obviously you’re drunk.

(Nancy and Susan look on in anticipation.)

NEIL: Ma’am, I’ve been through 3 yours in ‘Nam. I can practically smell bullshit a mile away. Now tell me the truth, have you and Billy been fucking each other?

SUSAN: Neil, please.

KAREN: I’m not going to answer that, asshole, because nothing happened!

(Neil grabs Karen by her arms and throws her to the stair scaffolding . Then gives her a stiff hand across her left cheek, making her grunt softly. Ted cringes at the sound of the slap in Karen’s face.)

NANCY: YOU SON OF A BITCH!!

(Nancy tries to intervene, but Susan stops her to protect her.)

SUSAN: DON’T!

(Neil takes his left hand and holds Karen’s face steady so he can see her eyes. A bit of blood emanates from the left corner of her mouth.)

NEIL: I’m no idiot, Mrs. Wheeler, so I would suggest you don’t treat me as such.

(A single tear falls from Karen’s left eye.)

I see sluts like you everyday, from L.A. to here, young and old, and they all want a piece of my Billy. Needless to say, I can’t blame them.

(Nancy looks to the prep table. She notices a steak knife missing from the knife set. She looks to Susan, thinking she took the knife. Susan nods in denial, then both ladies look to Karen.)

You know, now that I think about it, you actually remind me of Billy’s mother, his REAL mother. She too, was ungrateful. Always encouraging him to do things I don’t want my son to be doing. She even actually cheated on me, and then I forced her out, all because she couldn’t go along with what I WANTED FOR MY FAMILY, MY SON!

(Nancy looks down to the middle drawer to the left side of the prep table, she opens it to reveal a wooden rolling pin. Susan motions her not to go for it, but Nancy shushes her as she switches the purse on the left shoulder.)

Now, I may not have caught you in the act this time, but I’m gonna warn you right now. Stay away from my son.

(Unbeknownst to Neil, Karen inches the missing steak knife out of her right shorts pocket.)

STAY… THE FUCK… AWAY… FROM MY… SON!!! Is that anyway unclear, Mrs. Wheeler?

(Karen gives a light chuckle.)

Oh, I’m sorry, is something funny, bitch?

KAREN: Oh, it’s nothing, really. It’s just…

(The steak knife is fully out, and ready to draw blood.)

…your son told me the same thing a few days ago. For a while, I wondered why.

(Then, Karen gives Neil a kick to his nuts.)

NEIL: AW, GODDAMMIT!

(She follows it up with a cut across his left cheek. Forcing him back to the prep table, hard. Nancy pulls out the rolling pin at that very moment, but keeps it down until the opportune moment. Neil holds his face in pain.)

FUCK!! GODDAMMIT!!!

KAREN: (holds knife close in stabbing formation) Until now, that is.

(Neil recovers with a big gash across his left cheek.)

NEIL: Oh, ho. You got some spunk in you, Wheeler.

(Nancy closes in behind his port side, one handle of the rolling pin in both hand.)

SUSAN: (tearfully) Neil, please don’t!

NEIL: I’m gonna enjoy this.

NANCY: Hey, shithead!

(Neil turns to a grand slam swing square on his nose by Nancy’s rolling pin, knocking him to the right side of the hallway. Neil is screming in pain, blood gushing out of his nose. Nancy rushes to her mom’s side, checking the minor injury. Karen wipes the blood off with her middle finger and licking it off. Nancy moves her mom behind her.)

NEIL: HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND, YOU LITTLE BITCH!!

NANCY: (points the rolling pin at Neil with one hand) Unless you a broken jaw, I suggest you BACK THE FUCK UP, ASSHOLE! Susan, do us a favor and check on my dad, please. Go through the living room.

SUSAN: Sure.

NANCY: Mom, I hope you’re ready to die today.

KAREN: Honey, I’ve been dying bit by bit everyday, and it’s not all that bad.

TED: People, please. Nobody needs to die in any way, we can be rational here.

KAREN & NANCY: SHUT THE FUCK UP!!

(Nancy continues to point the rolling pin at Neil.)

NANCY: As for your uptight ass. I’ve had a really, REALLY bad day already. I just got shit-canned from my summer job, trying to prove myself to overbearing dickheads like you.

KAREN: (eyes on Neil) Nice one.

NANCY: Thanks, Mom. And let me tell you something else. I don’t appreciate anyone who barges into my parents’ house, with your Army ‘tude. Assaulting my folks, talking them down, making a scene, being rude; and believe me, you’re exceptionally fuckin’ rude.

KAREN: Very exceptionally.

NANCY: So hears what’s gonna happen. You’re going to apologize to my dad. Then, you’re gonna apologize to my mom. Then you and your wife are gonna get back in your pickup, and peddle the fuck out of our neighborhood.

NEIL: HA! Oh,ho. That’s rich. And what if were to tell the both of you, to blow me?

NANCY: (scoffs with a smile, left hand on her purse) See, Mr. Hargrove, we like to think of ourselves as reasonable women. So, we’re gonna give you a choice.

KAREN: You can either leave peacefully…

(Neil tries to reach for Karen with his right hand. Nancy swats it down with the rolling pin, while at the same time, pulls out the Byers .45, fully loaded and in front of Neil’s surprised face.)

NANCY: …or you can consider your untimely demise…

(Nancy thumbs back the hammer with a cold look on her face.)

…self-defense.

TED: Ohhh, boy.

(Closeup on Ted’s eyes, then Susan’s, Neil’s, Karen’s and Nancy’s. Nancy fences Neil back with the rolling pin, then gives it to Karen so Nancy can gets both hands to steady that .45.)

SUSAN: Uh, Neil maybe we should take them up on their offer.

NEIL: Shut up, Susan, they’re bluffing. Besides, the bitch doesn’t even know how to use that damn gun.

(Nancy lets off a warning shot pass his left ear, scaring him a bit.)

JESUS! FUCK!!

KAREN: I say she knows how to handle it.

NANCY: Your move.

(Nancy thumbs back the hammer again.)

NEIL: Alright, ALRIGHT, GODDAMMIT! Mr. Wheeler, I wish to… apologize for early behavior.

TED: Quite all right.

NEIL: If you do see my son, you will let me know.

TED: Of course.

NEIL: You all can consider this a courtesy call.

(Neil then points to Karen.)

But let me tell you right now. If you ever come within 100 yards of my son again, he’ll rue the day he ever met you. Guaranteed.

(Neil then points to Nancy.)

And the same go to your little priss of a…

(Nancy lets off another warning shot at Neil’s feet, forcing him back.)

CHRIST!!

(She thumbs back the hammer again.)

NANCY: Get out.

NEIL: (deep huff) Ladies. Mr. Wheeler.

TED: Sir.

NEIL: (tosses Susan the keys) Susan, you drive.

(Neil walks to the truck in defeat, for now.)

SUSAN: I’m deeply sorry for this inconvenience, guys.

(Nancy nods in sympathy.)

By the way, you have a lovely home.

TED: Thanks.

KAREN: Thank you. Susan…

(Susan looks to Karen before leaving.)

My door’s always open if you want to walk.

(Susan tearfully mouths a “thank you”.)

NEIL: SUSAN!

SUSAN: I’m coming, dammit. Thanks again.

(Susan closes the door and walks away to the truck. Ted gets up and watches the truck drive away.)

TED: OK, they’re gone.

(Karen lowers her kitchen ware, while Nancy releases the hammer and lowers the .45. Mother and daughter share an deep, embracing hug. Nancy sighs in relief, while Karen lets out her tears of fear in relief.)

KAREN: Oh, my God. I’d ask where you got that gun…

NANCY: Holy shit. Be glad I had it.

KAREN: You weren’t kidding about Billy’s father.

NANCY: I told you.

KAREN: Billy does not deserve a father like that. His step-mom’s a sweetheart, but him…

TED: If that’s the father, I’d really hate to meet the son.

(Karen and Nancy look at Ted coldly. Suddenly, there’s a knock at the door. Fearing it might be Neil again, Karen raises her rolling pin and Nancy raises her .45.)

TED: (hesitantly) I’ll get it.

(Ted creeps to the door.)

[enginerumors]

In U.S. Places to eat, Bars And Food stuff Vans, 'Modern Slavery' Persists

Enlarge this imageA new report highlights victims of human trafficking while in the meals sector, from farm workers to cafe bus workers, cooks and wait around personnel. Some victims are exploited for both equally intercourse and labor.Juanmonino/Getty Imageshide captiontoggle captionJuanmonino/Getty ImagesA new report highlights victims of human trafficking within the foodstuff marketplace, from farm employees to cafe bus personnel, cooks and hold out workers. Some victims are exploited for each intercourse and labor.Juanmonino/Getty ImagesThey originate from destinations like Vietnam, China, Mexico and Guatemala, lured by claims of better-paying positions and lawful immigration. Rather, they're smuggled to the U.S., pre sured to operate round the clock as bu sers, wait team and cooks, and housed in cramped residing quarters. For this, they have to fork out exorbitant fees that turn into an insurmountable debt, whilst their spend is usually withheld, stolen or unfairly docked. In eating places, bars and foodstuff trucks throughout The us, several personnel are entrapped in the sort of fashionable slavery. That is based on a fresh report by Polaris, a corporation that fights human trafficking and a sists survivors. During the report the group delivers a detailed portrait of human trafficking as it occurs from the U.S., breaking it down into twenty five distinct small busine s models, from nail salons to resort function and domestic provider.The SaltWas Your Seafood Caught By Slaves? AP Uncovers Unsavory Trade "Because human trafficking is so varied ... you can't struggle all of it at once and there aren't any single, silver bullet remedies. You've got to ... battle it form by sort," Bradley Myles, CEO of Polaris, instructed reporters on a push get in touch with. "We Garrett Temple Jersey see this report being a significant breakthrough from the discipline." He called the report the biggest knowledge set on human trafficking within the U.S. ever compiled and publicly analyzed. The Polaris crew analyzed 32,208 stories of human trafficking, and ten,085 experiences of labor exploitation proce sed as a result of its hotlines for victims involving 2007 and 2016. The target: to identify profiles of traffickers and their victims along with the procedures they use to recruit and command them acro s industries, to be able to raised thwart them.Janet Drake, a senior a sistant attorney standard in Colorado that has prosecuted human trafficking situations, named the new report "a match changer." Only 16 per cent of cases discovered in the hotline phone calls concerned labor trafficking, Drake suggests, "but now we know in the function we have performed that labor trafficking might be no le s than as widespread, otherwise extra so, than intercourse trafficking. And that is https://www.grizzliesedge.com/Bruno-Caboclo-Jersey a true i sue we have experienced as prosecutors being able to determine and disrupt these labor trafficking networks." 3 of your twenty five cla ses the group tracked entail the food stuff industry: dining places, bars and agriculture.The SaltBeyond Brothels: Farms And Fisheries Are Frontier Of Human Trafficking From dairy farms to orange orchards, almost two,000 of the cases involved the agriculture sector. Employees generally adult men from Mexico and Central The us usually ended up enticed with a surances of an hourly fee, but once they confirmed up from the U.S., they were being paid out over a substantially le sen piece-rate basis. Quite a few documented being denied health care care and protective gear to perform their position, compelled to live in squalid situations, and threatened with deportation. Of your a lot more than one,seven hundred restaurant sector circumstances, the overwhelming majority of victims a sociated immigrants, recruited from Mexico, Central The usa and East and Southeast Asia. Virtually 1 in five was a insignificant. They provided cooks, hold out staff members and bu sers at eating places, foods vans, buffets and taquerias. Traffickers usually consider benefit "of language limitations concerning exploited workers and patrons and in some instances other employees in the identical cafe who're not becoming abused to help steer clear of detection," the report suggests.The SaltCheap Eats, Low-cost Labor: The Concealed Human Prices Of Individuals Lists Personnel who try and go away may perhaps facial area threats of deportation. Traffickers also could threaten to injure or perhaps get rid of the worker's relatives again property. A couple of third of your situations involved immigrants without having authorized status inside the U.S., but many other victims have been below on valid get the job done visas. Some victims were being forced to offer each sexual intercourse and labor. Ladies from Latin The us https://www.grizzliesedge.com/Mike-Conley-Jersey which includes several minors appear to The usa beguiled by guarantees of fine wages, harmle s migration or perhaps a pa sionate connection. They are put to operate marketing drinks, and intercourse, at bars and cantinas, states Jennifer Penrose, information examination director for Polaris and co-author with the report. Several moments they are "legitimate bars and eating places, wherever they're going to promote alcohol, usually at inflated charges," Penrose claims. But at the rear of the scenes, "forced busine s intercourse may perhaps manifest on-site or nearby in a resort or warehouse." With this design, she states, traffickers often be "part of much larger prison companies." Simply because the report was based entirely on phone calls and text me sages to Polaris' hotlines, Myles notes there are actually limits to what it might inform us. "Potentially, cafe trafficking might be a lot bigger than we are studying about, but we are just not obtaining adequate of people hotline phone calls to have the ability to describe that," he explained. Maria Godoy is really a senior editor with NPR and host of the Salt. She's on Twitter @mgodoyh.

Enlarge this imageA new report highlights victims of human trafficking while in the meals sector, from farm workers to cafe bus workers, cooks and wait around personnel. Some victims are exploited for both equally intercourse and labor.Juanmonino/Getty Imageshide captiontoggle captionJuanmonino/Getty ImagesA new report highlights victims of human trafficking within the foodstuff marketplace, from…

[thisdaynews]

Trump's deference to Saudi Arabia infuriates much of D.C.

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/trumps-deference-to-saudi-arabia-infuriates-much-of-d-c/

Trump's deference to Saudi Arabia infuriates much of D.C.

President Donald Trump. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Saudi Arabia is once again a radioactive political football in the U.S., and President Donald Trump can’t resist grabbing it.

In a series of tweets this weekend, Trump indicated that Iran is behind the recent attack on Saudi oil facilities and that the United States will respond after hearing from the Saudi government “under what terms we would proceed.”

Story Continued Below

His implication — that the royal family in Riyadh will dictate U.S. actions — prompted fury in Washington, where the Saudis have faced an increasingly hostile climate in recent years, especially in Congress and even among some of Trump’s fellow Republicans.

“Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not ‘America First,’” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, tweeted on Sunday night.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-independent, noted that Congress is the body empowered to “commence war.” “We don’t take orders from foreign powers,” he tweeted.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly blamed Iran for the strike on the oil facilities, which belong to Saudi Aramco, the state-owned petroleum giant. “Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” Pompeo tweeted within hours of Saturday’s attack.

Saudi officials were not willing to go as far as Trump aides and directly blame Tehran for the damage to their facilities, although they did say they believe Iranian weapons were used. “Investigations are still ongoing to determine the source of the attack,” the Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

On Monday afternoon, Trump said that while it is “looking” like Iran was behind the attack, he noted that an investigation is ongoing. He also said he’d like to avoid war with Iran, but that the U.S. is ready for such a conflict.

Asked if he had pledged to protect the Saudis, Trump said: “No, I haven’t promised the Saudis that … We have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out.”

Such equivocation is unlikely to deflate the controversy around Riyadh’s role in U.S. policy.

When Trump won the presidency in 2016, few countries were as happy as Saudi Arabia. The Saudis had felt neglected and dismissed under Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, who had prioritized reaching out to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional arch-rival.

They hoped Trump would be friendlier to their interests, and in many ways, he has delivered: signing off on weapons deals, abandoning the Iran nuclear deal and downplaying the Saudi state’s human rights abuses. Trump even made Saudi Arabia the first foreign country he visited, famously posing in front of a glowing orb with Saudi royals during a conference on fighting terrorism.

But Saudi Arabia’s reputation in Washington is arguably worse now than it has been in nearly two decades — almost as politically charged as in the years immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when it was revealed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

Under the de facto leadership of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Riyadh has pressed ahead with a four-year-old war against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which has had catastrophic humanitarian consequences that have been sharply criticized on Capitol Hill. U.S. lawmakers backed a measure that would have ended U.S. support for that war, but Trump vetoed it.

The killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi national who had been living in the U.S., also fueled a massive backlash against Riyadh, which was blamed for the murder by the U.S. intelligence community. Many U.S. lawmakers in both parties hold Bin Salman responsible for what happened to Khashoggi, who was assassinated inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

Trump has effectively said he doesn’t care if the Saudi crown prince played a role because Saudi Arabia is an important ally, one that buys a lot of U.S. weapons and is a key global oil producer. “It could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event — maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” Trump said in one lengthy statement on the matter.

Analysts said the latest crisis exposed a major conundrum in Trump’s foreign policy: The president and his aides have sent conflicting signals on what, if anything, the U.S. will do to defend its Arab allies in the Middle East when it comes to Iran.

That confusion was apparent earlier this year following a series of bomb attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf that U.S. officials blamed on Iran. Then-national security adviser John Bolton, for example, warned Iran that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

Trump almost launched a military strike on Iran as the crisis over the oil tankers heated up and Iran downed a U.S. drone; but he called it off at the last moment, saying it would have been a disproportionate response. The U.S. later downed an Iranian drone.

Left unclear has been what the Trump team considers a U.S. interest. And adding to the murkiness is Iran’s use of proxy forces and territory outside its borders to launch attacks, while its Islamist leaders in Tehran officially deny any role.

Does Trump consider “actions by Iran against American allies to be actions that either demand or require some sort of U.S. response?” asked Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. If he does, “you not only enmesh the U.S. in endless wars, but you reward the countries in the region for risky behavior because the U.S. comes in and acts.”

The Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the weekend attacks on the oil facilities, but Pompeo has said there’s no evidence the attack originated in Yemen, and the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials believe Iran itself may have been “the staging ground.”

There’s little love for Iran in Washington. The country has been a stalwart enemy of the United States since its Islamic Revolution 40 years ago. Iranian leaders have refused offers by Trump to hold talks, including possibly during the United Nations General Assembly later this month.

“Neither is such a plan on our agenda nor will such a thing happen. This meeting will not be held,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Abbas Mousavi said, Iran’s state-run Fars News outlet reported Monday.

Despite Iran’s hostility, critics argue that Iran’s latest alleged misbehavior is partly Trump’s fault because he quit the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed economic sanctions on Tehran.

“The administration’s response to a crisis it caused by walking away from the [Iran deal] has been completely incompetent,” Ilan Goldenberg, who served in the Obama administration, tweeted. “It has failed to build an [international] coalition, failed to make a credible public case, given Iran more flexibility to hit our partners & increased the risk of war.”

Under Bin Salman, Saudi Arabia repeatedly has been accused of risky behavior. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat trying to end the U.S. role in the war on Yemen, has blasted Riyadh for its all-too-frequent bombings of civilian targets, for instance.

And there are concerns that Bin Salman’s use of power in Riyadh, including his imprisonment of human rights activists and sidelining of other royals, signals that he will serve as a brutal dictator once he officially takes over from his father, King Salman. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican aligned with Trump, has called bin Salman a “wrecking ball.” Given that Bin Salman is in his 30s, he could rule for decades.

Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars on U.S. weaponry over the years, raising questions about why it would need U.S. support were it to decide to retaliate against Iran.

“Direct engagement by U.S. military in response to Iran’s attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure would be a grave mistake,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) tweeted on Monday. “The U.S. has continued arms sales so Saudi Arabia can defend itself. If S.A. responds against Iran attacks, the U.S. should be ready to support in a non-kinetic role.”

In its statement Monday, the Saudi Foreign Ministry called for an internationally supported investigation into the oil facility attacks. The kingdom also insisted that it “has the capability and resolve to defend its land and people, and to forcefully respond to these aggressions.”

A well-connected Saudi observer, however, said Riyadh’s hands are tied in part because U.S. forces are in the region.

Several hundred U.S. troops have been deployed to Saudi Arabia itself as part of a bigger build-up of the U.S. presence in the Middle East following the oil tanker attacks.

“Saudi cannot attack Iran without a U.S. ‘OK’ since the U.S. forces will be exposed to reprisals,” the observer said in a written message to POLITICO, adding that it’s “similar to [the] risk Israelis would have taken if they attacked Iran without coordinating with [the] U.S.

“So ultimately, [the] cards are in the hand of the U.S. and Trump.”

There’s one person who would have taken exception to that in the past.

“Saudi Arabia should fight their own wars, which they won’t, or pay us an absolute fortune to protect them and their great wealth-$ trillion!” Trump tweeted in 2014, a year before he announced he was running for president.

Read More

[zutsuitriot]

Genderbending Robin Hood Adventure Marian Flies True

While Robin Hood tales have run the gamut from swashbuckling adventure to serious romantic drama to winking parody to dancing foxes, a few constants remain as true as Robin’s shaft-splitting arrow: Robin Hood, master of both archery and disguise, leads his band of Merry Men to rob from the rich and give to the poor. But what if the real treasure that Robin loots from the privileged (that is, men) is opportunity and agency for everyone else (women and gender-nonconforming people)?

Oh, and Robin Hood was Maid Marian the entire time. It’s the kind of delightful twist that could have been the climax of another tale, but playwright Adam Szymkowicz makes it nearly the opening line of Marian, or the True Tale of Robin Hood. And suddenly, just like the anthropomorphic residents of Disney’s Sherwood Forest or the bellowing refrains of “Men in Tights” from Mel Brooks, a new lens is put into place, through which to reevaluate the familiar trappings of this archetypal tale.

Not that Flux Theatre Ensemble’s charming production disregards those familiar trappings: Will Lowry’s set places the audience in the middle of the action as if they had wandered into a Renaissance faire or made a reservation at Medieval Times; the pennants extending into the intimate seating at the New Ohio Theatre has a positively transporting effect. With Lowry having set the stage, Kelly O’Donnell’s excellent direction populates it with the players, their revolving door of entrances and exits the stuff of French farce.

Truth be told, the Robin Hood story is pretty formulaic: rob from the rich and give to the poor, win the archery contest, free the girl, humiliate Prince John. However, Marian brings new dimension to these beats: When lady archer Alanna Dale (Jessica Angleskahn) discovers Robin’s (Becky Byers) true identity as Marian, the rogue invites the lady to stuff her hair under a hat, dress in men’s clothes, and join the Merry Men hiding out in Sherwood Forest… where she promptly falls in love with Will Scarlett (T. Thompson) somewhere between their first sparring and first sentry shift.

Alanna’s initiation into the Merry Men is the tipping point to reveal that most of the Merry Men aren’t actually men, and that there are more than a few arrow-crossed lovers in the ranks. Maid Marian’s capture later in the play is almost secondary to all of the romantic dramas and identity conflicts unfolding; even the guards have affairs! With all of these secretive trysts and constant donning and doffing of disguises, Marian is less Robin Hood retelling than medieval sex farce, with couples snatching brief tête-à-têtes, on constant alert for a guard or Prince John or another Merry Man to walk in on them.

Which is not to say that makeouts are the only action: Marian boasts a number of balletic fight scenes (choreographed by Rocío Mendez) that highlight the bulk or grace of the respective fighters. In addition to these personal touches, there are some truly creative choices with regard to perspective, especially one sequence that involves scaling the castle wall. And I gasped every time an arrow came out of nowhere—that little detail really made me feel as if I were in a Robin Hood adventure.

An amusing aspect that this version retains is the famous romance between Robin and Marian, made even more hilarious by the fact that this “power couple” can never actually be seen in the same room together. Now that’s the kind of Noises Off shenanigans it would have been great to see. Though it’s worth pointing out that the double-casting of Mike Mihm as both Friar Tuck and the Sheriff of Nottingham achieves some of that winking humor: Both are lovers to lady-in-waiting Shirley (Nandita Shenoy), though it’s clear that she’s more smitten with the good Friar. The latter’s pillow talk is one of the play’s surprisingly deep moments, as they discuss the relative sinfulness of greed when it’s not coveting someone else’s possessions but simply wanting better for your own life.

It’s the kind of existential dilemma that Marian could weigh in on, but strangely, we never find out the why behind this genderbending plot twist: Did Marian dream up the Robin Hood persona, or was it bequeathed upon her, à la the Dread Pirate Roberts? How does she account for feminine inconveniences such as her period or the need for hair upkeep? Surely the Merry Men would notice if there were soiled sanitary napkins piling up around camp every month, or extra hairpins and chest bindings lying around. Did she decide to lead a double life because of shortcomings in her life as Marian; if so, why live half of her time as a noblewoman courting Prince John’s affections? Access, most likely, though we only get to see the tail end of one heist that she’s masterminded.

Perhaps my favorite facet of Marian’s character is her reverse-psychology utilization of “feminine wiles”: Whenever Prince John starts getting too handsy, she starts sweetly talking about her period, which has him twisting in revulsion even before she’s gotten into the nitty-gritty. All she has to do is remind this germaphobe prince about the not-so-fun parts of her genitals, and he’s lost any boner. As Prince John, Kevin R. Free is an absolute delight. Yes, he embodies the bumbling ruler through campy sashays and ridiculous cooing to a fake carrier pigeon. But for every shrill order there’s the converse, as he shifts into menacing by dropping an octave and pulling himself up to his full height, reminding you—oh shit, this is the man in charge, we’re in trouble.

Our own lack of access to Marian is somewhat mollified by Alanna frequently stepping outside of the narrative to deliver a running commentary on the action—a framing device that I found at times charming (“I don’t know this yet”) and other times excessive (considering the frequency with which she interrupted the action). As we’ve just learned that Robin isn’t who we thought he was, taking another step away from the archetypal character naturally loses some of the intimacy I was craving. Yet at the same time, it’s wonderful to see that Marian is the rule rather than the exception, to meet other women who possess the same pluck and spine. But Alanna is no mere audience insert; as a(nother!) slyly genderbent take on the minstrel Alan-a-Dale, who pops up in many a classic Robin Hood tale, she ably fulfills the duties of her predecessor.

Further, Alanna’s perspective—bookending moments with “This is my [concerned/in love/etc.] face”—taps into one of the play’s central themes: the duality of self. Prince John allows no one but concubines access to him in his most private moments. Shirley has the same “define the relationship” conversation with both of her paramours, down to the word, but the inflection couldn’t be more different. Just as he hides his sensitivity with brashness, Will Scarlett has a very specific persona he wants the world to see, genitals be damned. Little John (played to perfect sweet dumbness by Jack Horton Gilbert) reconciles his crush on Marian with his love and loyalty for his best friend Robin. Alanna knows that the face she turns toward the world is not reflective of what’s going on inside her head.

It’s a credit to Szymkowicz that Marian isn’t the only character struggling with two selves, but Becky Byers embodies that push-and-pull with aplomb. I’ve seen her age ten years in a day (in Mac Rogers’ The Honeycomb Trilogy), so I was delighted by the perfect casting. Though her chipper Robin, dressed in all green, sometimes leans more Peter Pan, further consideration has made me realize that it’s just a new take on the famous Robin Hood aloofness that makes him so inspiring but also so frustrating. Even when he’s giving so much in terms of riches, he gives away little of himself. Unfortunately, Marian is drawn less clearly; she invokes the same cheery deflection with Prince John, but we know little of her private self… except for one telling line, in a moment of somber self-analysis: “Some of us have to have less so all of us can have more.”

What Marian lacks in nuance, she makes up for as Robin Hood the figurehead, granting permission to everyone else to express their truest desires. The casting of mostly female and trans actors in the Merry Men brings to mind Jaclyn Backhaus’ Men On Boats, but in this case, the play explicitly addresses the queering of traditional notions of gender. The most touching example is that of Much the Miller’s Son (C. Bain), who confesses to the rest of the Merry Men that they don’t feel much like a man—or a woman, for that matter. They request that the name of the group be adjusted to account for not just cisgender men or women in drag (though, hilariously, no one actually knows about the women in their midst), and though no one actually understands why Much made this request, they don’t deny it. Bain’s part is small, but he imbues it with such gravity and earnestness that Much’s desires become intensely relatable.

With a 90-minute running time, Marian both moves too quickly in parts and drags in others, as the story seems designed to fit the timing instead of the other way around. We cover so much ground, with an ending that felt far too rushed in its attempts to both achieve closure but keep the myth going, that the overall effect of this particular story is lessened. In truth, Marian would make an amazing pilot of sorts, the first volume in an ongoing saga. I would love to see it live on as an ongoing series, like The Brick’s monthly soap opera It’s Getting Tired, Mildred or The Flea’s weekly #serials. That way, we could take on the role of Robin Hood’s audience night after night and week after week—right where he wants us.

Marian, or the True Tale of Robin Hood runs through Saturday, February 11 at the New Ohio Theatre. Click here to purchase a Living Ticket!

[thisdaynews]

Looming Kennedy-Markey dogfight rattles Massachusetts Dems

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/looming-kennedy-markey-dogfight-rattles-massachusetts-dems/

Looming Kennedy-Markey dogfight rattles Massachusetts Dems

Rep. Joe Kennedy and Sen. Ed Markey in 2017. | Michael Dwyer/AP Photo

elections

The party is holding its collective breath, awaiting a primary that stands to divide the state’s political class and reverberate up and down the ballot next year.

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — Home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be the headliner when Massachusetts Democrats gather for their annual state convention Saturday. But her rising presidential campaign fortunes won’t be the only thing delegates are buzzing about.

An impending primary election clash between Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Joe Kennedy III has the party holding its collective breath, awaiting a potentially epic and expensive race that stands to divide the state’s political class and reverberate across the ballot next year.

Story Continued Below

Already, incumbents up and down the ballot are wondering about the implications for voter turnout and media coverage of their own races. Some are wondering about the potential effect on Democratic fundraising both at home and nationally, since Boston is a key East Coast fundraising hub.

Kennedy has not yet confirmed that he will challenge the 73-year-old senator. He is expected to make a decision by the end of the month. But he is gearing up for a run just in case, and the prospect has heightened intrigue in a political election cycle that is already shaping up to have an unusually high number of primary challenges in Massachusetts.

“I have to say, it’s part of a trend. I am disappointed about this outbreak of primaries in which there are no issue differences. I told Congressman Kennedy I was disappointed he was doing this,” said former Congressman Barney Frank. “What it means is money and energy that Democrats should be spending on beating the Republicans, a lot of it is being diverted into these internal fights.”

Kennedy addressed that criticism late last month, after news broke that he was considering a Senate run.

“I hear the folks who say I should wait my turn, but with due respect — I’m not sure this is a moment for waiting. Our system has been letting down a lot of people for a long time, and we can’t fix it if we don’t challenge it,” Kennedy wrote in a Facebook post.

But donors are already expressing concerns that the race has the potential to suck up money, attention and resources in Massachusetts that some feel would be better deployed against President Donald Trump and in states where Democrats could flip Republican Senate seats.

“Ed is gonna fight, fight, fight, and Joe has got his reputation on the line,” said one Boston-based donor, who has not decided whether to support Kennedy or Markey. “Among the donor class, we’re like ‘Really? Really?’ We’ve got a lot of other fish to fry, and this is one that we’d prefer not to, but so be it.”

“Everybody I talk to says ‘I love Joe, I love Ed.’ You know, I think you’ll see the establishment-type people gravitate toward Ed, and the more non-establishment-type people gravitate toward Joe,” the donor added.

Markey and Kennedy have largely avoided each other since Kennedy‘s interest in his seat became known. When Markey addresses the convention Saturday, Kennedy won’t be in the hall: he scheduled office hours on the other side of the state. But the 38-year-old congressman will make an appearance at the convention later in the afternoon.

Early polling shows Kennedy with an edge. He has a 14-percentage-point lead over Markey in a head-to-head match-up, according to a Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll conducted just after Labor Day. Against Markey and his already-announced Senate challengers, Steve Pemberton and Shannon Liss-Riordan, Kennedy leads by 9.

Markey has announced endorsements from 116 Democratic state lawmakers and has the backing of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Warren and most of his Senate colleagues. On Friday, Markey nabbed a high-profile endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom he partnered with on the Green New Deal.

Although he has not declared his candidacy, Kennedy already has the backing of a union that supported Markey in his 2013 special Senate election victory.

The majority of the state’s all Democratic congressional delegation — rocked last year by Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s upset primary win over longtime incumbent Mike Capuano — is backing Markey.

Still, some are privately expressing relief over the prospect of a blockbuster Senate race that could soak up media attention and deny critical oxygen to their own primary challengers, according to an aide to a member of Congress who faces a primary this cycle.

A Kennedy-Markey race is likely to take attention off other primary challenges, and become the state’s dominant political story, the aide said.

But Frank cautioned that the contest could do the opposite, and actually deliver a boost to those who are taking on Massachusetts incumbents.

“I think it sort of legitimizes the notion of a challenge,” Frank said. “There will be the notion of ‘Why are you running against an incumbent?’ and they can say ‘Well, you agree with Joe Kennedy doing it.’ It legitimizes it for other people.”

Almost every member of the House delegation has a challenger this cycle, in a state where competitive congressional primaries were virtually unheard of until Rep. Seth Moulton trounced incumbent John Tierney in 2014. Tierney’s nonprofit, the Council for a Livable World, made a rare primary endorsement to back Markey.

“I have nothing bad to say about Joe, he’s a great member of the House,” Tierney said. “It’s unfortunate they could be running against each other.”

“I have my own opinion, for obvious reasons, why it doesn’t make sense to take on somebody making the right votes,” Tierney added. “We should be rewarding people in there who do hard work to continue on that path. Why would you knock them out just because they’ve been in Congress for X number of years?”

Tierney’s successor, Moulton, faces two announced primary challengers, and Tierney is considering a comeback himself. Veteran Reps. Richard Neal and Stephen Lynch are also facing primary challenges from the left. First-term Rep. Lori Trahan is raising money under the assumption that her 2018 primary rival Dan Koh will challenge her to a rematch.

One prominent lawmaker who has been conspicuously silent is Pressley — she’s hasn’t endorsed Markey or Kennedy. Asked whether a Senate primary would be an unwise use of resources when President Donald Trump is on the ballot, Pressley deferred and said she will “bet on the American people.”

“I’m betting on and believing in the American people to continue to organize so that we can take back the White House, and there are also opportunities in the Senate … to convert states from red to blue,” she said.

In Kennedy’s congressional district, which runs from the Boston suburbs to the state’s South Coast, a shadow primary to succeed him is already playing out. More than a dozen people have signaled their interest in running for his seat if he runs for Senate. One state lawmaker even issued a press release declaring her intention not to run for the seat, which is not open yet.

“So it’s not just the money that will be spent on the Kennedy-Markey race if it goes forward, but there will be millions of dollars spent by congressional candidates,” Frank said.

The list of would-be candidates is a mix of state lawmakers, activists and Democrats who were scared out of the race by Kennedy when Frank retired in 2012, and have been itching to run ever since.

State Treasurer Deborah Goldberg — who might have otherwise had modest interest in her scheduled convention speech Saturday — will find her words under especially close scrutiny: she, too, has been reaching out to donors and operatives since the beginning of August about a potential run for Kennedy’s seat.

“The 4th District is just gonna be a scrum,” said the undecided Boston donor. “And I think that’s the one which is probably going to create the real divisions.”

Read More